WFRP3e: Dice mechanics

[Jan van Leyden]

This seems not to have been discussed here, curiously:

Of Dice and Men.

An interesting, if rather complicated take on using dice to determine an action's success.

Rolling, reading and evaluating 8 dice to check whether a PC successfully climbs a tree? Ugh! For dramatic situations, on the other hand, it reads like being fun.

At first sight there is one big problem (for me): no fudging possible! All dice seem to be rolled in the open, so the net result is clear. As GM I can probably roll behind my screen and save a PC's sorry behind from the murderous attack of some unspeakable chaos creature, but the players seem to have to live with their rolls.

What do you think?

 

[delericho]

At first sight there is one big problem (for me): no fudging possible! All dice seem to be rolled in the open, so the net result is clear. As GM I can probably roll behind my screen and save a PC's sorry behind from the murderous attack of some unspeakable chaos creature, but the players seem to have to live with their rolls.

Isn't this standard?

At games I've been to, it has been accepted that the GM may fudge the odd roll here and there. However, a player who does so is cheating, and if caught out would promptly be ejected from the group.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Rolling, reading and evaluating 8 dice to check whether a PC successfully climbs a tree? Ugh! For dramatic situations, on the other hand, it reads like being fun.

Don't use the dice for non-dramatic stuff then.

Sounds interesting, but it's not that I would not share your concern. It might be a little tedious if something (combat?) requires a lot of rolls.

 

[delericho]

What do you think?

And having now read the article... I don't like it. In fact, the more I hear about this new version of WFRP, the less I like about it.

This system is just far too complex. In order to resolve a simple skill application, the player has to roll eight dice, of several different types, each of which has its own meaning and its own special set of symbols (each of which have their own meanings). And you do all this for a net result that is going to be no more exact or 'realistic' than could be had from "roll d% and get lower than your skill - oh, and apply this -10% penalty because it's difficult".

I may be wrong about the game, but I am at a loss as to how any of this can represent an improvement.

 

[kitsune9]

This seems not to have been discussed here, curiously:

Of Dice and Men.

Rolling, reading and evaluating 8 dice to check whether a PC successfully climbs a tree? Ugh! For dramatic situations, on the other hand, it reads like being fun.

What do you think?

Yeah, I would avoid using the dice to do non-dramatic stuff. I would hate to see a player pool up a lot of dice to just climb a tree, but from what I've seen of the videos, it looks like the combat will be cool. I really dig games that convey a lot of information through just rolling one set of dice.

 

[Maggan]

At first sight there is one big problem (for me): no fudging possible! All dice seem to be rolled in the open, so the net result is clear. As GM I can probably roll behind my screen and save a PC's sorry behind from the murderous attack of some unspeakable chaos creature, but the players seem to have to live with their rolls.

Mmmmm ... is that really a drawback?

The GM can roll behind his screen, the players live with their results. We played like that for 20 years, before moving on to the method we're using now: all rolls are open, even the GM rolls open.

Makes for a more tense game for us.

/M

 

[Korgoth]

My actual opinion is not fit for print, but let's just say "strongly negative".

 

[Wik]

...what the hell?

Why mess with a good thing? So many different dice, with symbols, means that I'll understand it (I'm usually the only guy that reads the rule book) but no one else will have any idea what's going on.

Is this system really necessary?

 

[frankthedm]

...what the hell?

My actual opinion is not fit for print, but let's just say "strongly negative".

And having now read the article... I don't like it. In fact, the more I hear about this new version of WFRP, the less I like about it.

Agree.

At first sight there is one big problem (for me): no fudging possible! All dice seem to be rolled in the open, so the net result is clear. As GM I can probably roll behind my screen and save a PC's sorry behind from the murderous attack of some unspeakable chaos creature...

Fate points were supposed to cover that to my understanding.

 

[gribble]

I seem to be in the minority, but I like it. A lot. I think it might even become my Fantasy system of choice once released.

I'm probably going to take some flak for this, but I see a stark contrast with 4e D&D. IMO, with 4e D&D rules have become more boardgame like, whereas with the new WFRP components have become more boardgame like but the rules seem more RP/story focussed than ever (with the possible exception of WFRP action cards...).

Every roll now tells a story and has context beyond just success/failure, player choice about how you approach a situation (cautious/reckless/neutral) has real consequences beyond just a +/-2 circumstance bonus, the career system is mostly intact (and I love the mechanic for changing careers) and the whole party sheet and party mechanics are really innovative (I can't remember another game which has anything similar rules-wise).

These previews have really changed my opinion from "cautious" to "optimistic and excited".