WFRP3e: Dice mechanics

[jgerman]

I said that the amount of bookkeeping was frustrating, not the actual bookkeeping itself — and, of course, by that I meant that I find it frustrating. Really, I don't need to justify that with examples.

And I asked what examples, which you failed to provide. Even when provided with specific examples to the contrary.

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to try and figure out where that opinion comes from or if it's completely unsupported.

You do not re-roll multiple times according to any information in the PDF or on the FFG site. This article and this PDF lay it out as I have, above.

*I assume that they mean further results of Success, as this roll follows a Success, but the PDF is not clear on this matter.

Are you really reading, or are you skimming to try and make the point that you've already got in your head is correct?

Each righteous success results in an additional die of that type rolled. Successes and failures on those dice must then be folded into the pool... and more importantly further righteous successes result in ANOTHER die. This ends when no more righteous successes are rolled and each time you need to fold in the results.

Now if you want to nit-pick my use of the word re-roll instead of saying roll an additional die to make yourself feel better that's fine. It doesn't change the multi-step process required to achieve a result in 3e.

No matter which way you slice it you do NOT just roll ONE time, except in the degenerate case where you roll no righteous successes and EVEN in that case you have to go through steps to build the pool and resolve it.

Edit: And I just checked my original post, there's nothing inaccurate with the way I described it.

 

[jdrakeh]

And I asked what examples, which you failed to provide. Even when provided with specific examples to the contrary.

Again, I said that the amount of bookkeeping is frustrating to me. I don't like tracking all of the things that I already mentioned I don't like tracking. Those were your examples. If you didn't understand them or find them specific enough for your tastes, that's not my problem.

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to try and figure out where that opinion comes from or if it's completely unsupported.

Right. So you're trying to say that my personal tastes are invalid. I'm not going to play this game, so you can give it a rest. If you like tracking minutiae on character sheets, more power to you. I don't. That should be the only explanation you need. If you think that I owe you more than that, you need a reality check.

Let's look at this a different way. If I had said that I disliked the color blue, would you ask me to provide examples of why I dislike the color blue and then suggest that I'm wrong for disliking the color blue when I don't write you a thesis about why I dislike the color blue? Because that's pretty much what you're doing here.

Each righteous success results in an additional die of that type rolled. Successes and failures on those dice must then be folded into the pool... and more importantly further righteous successes result in ANOTHER die. This ends when no more righteous successes are rolled and each time you need to fold in the results.

None of that is spelled out in the PDF. Let me quote it verbatim for you:

Righteous Success: This counts as a success, and has a small plus sign next to the hammer icon for identification. In addition to its function as a success, the player rolls an additional die of the same type that
generated the righteous success. Any results from the additional die are added to the results pool.

The PDF says only that the results of the additional dice rolled are added to the results already obtained (i.e., the result pool). It says nothing about re-rolling that pool, nor does it say anything about further Righteous Successes 'exploding' as it were. You're assuming a lot of things that are absolutely not present in the PDF.

 

[gribble]

The PDF says only that the results of the additional dice rolled are added to the results already obtained (i.e., the result pool). You're assuming a lot of things that are absolutely not present in the PDF.

That's my read on it too. The 3e mechanic just doesn't seem that complicated to me, and in fact in a lot of cases I think it will resolve things much more quickly and cleanly that other systems. Everything (by which I mean all randomness associated with a single action) appears to be resolved in a single roll. There's no separate parry roll or damage roll or anything like that. No resistance roll or saving throw, no opposed rolls, etc. Of course I'm using these as generic examples that most other systems have - some (or all) of them may not be present in 2e...

 

[jdrakeh]

that's my read on it too. The 3e mechanic just doesn't seem that complicated to me, and in fact in a lot of cases i think it will resolve things much more quickly and cleanly that other systems. Everything (by which i mean all randomness associated with a single action) appears to be resolved in a single roll. There's no separate parry roll or damage roll or anything like that. No resistance roll or saving throw, no opposed rolls, etc. Of course i'm using these as generic examples that most other systems have - some (or all) of them may not be present in 2e...

you are wrong for disliking the color blue!

 

[jgerman]

Right. So you're trying to say that my personal tastes are invalid. I'm not going to play this game, so you can give it a rest. If you like tracking minutiae on character sheets, more power to you. I don't. That should be the only explanation you need. If you think that I owe you more than that, you need a reality check.

Let's look at this a different way. If I had said that I disliked the color blue, would you ask me to provide examples of why I dislike the color blue and then suggest that I'm wrong for disliking the color blue when I don't write you a thesis about why I dislike the color blue? Because that's pretty much what you're doing here.

No, I would suggest that you had no basis for your opinion and dismiss it as not worth consideration. Everyone is welcome to an opinion, that doesn't mean all opinions have the same value.

So what you did was made a claim about bookkeeping involved in WHFRP. Then when called out and asked to support that claim you tried to retreat to calling it your opinion, as if somehow obviates the need to support the claim.

Admin here, pointing out another installment of our continuing series in "how NOT to post." In this episode, the pugnacious approach involves deliberately trying to pick a fight by calling another poster's opinion worthless. Folks, please don't do this. A good rule of thumb for posting at EN World is asking yourself "Am I coming across as a jerk?" If the answer is yes, best to reformulate your response.

Please PM me if this is in the least bit unclear. ~ Piratecat

Opinions don't have value just because they are opinions, they have value when they can be supported and communicated.

Telling you you're wrong because you like the color blue is NOTHING like what I'm doing here. If you can't grasp that difference there's little point in continuing but I'll point out your failure to understand the die mechanic in WHFRP3e one more time...

None of that is spelled out in the PDF. Let me quote it verbatim for you:



The PDF says only that the results of the additional dice rolled are added to the results already obtained (i.e., the result pool). It says nothing about re-rolling that pool, nor does it say anything about further Righteous Successes 'exploding' as it were. You're assuming a lot of things that are absolutely not present in the PDF.

I'm assuming nothing. You roll a number of dice any of those dice that show righteous successes generate ADDITIONAL dice of the same type. There, I'm right, you are rolling again JUST like I said. It's not one roll (except for the degenerate case).

But WAIT! THERE'S MORE!


What's on those additional dice... hey .. they have the potential for righteous successes too.

Let's take this slowly now, let's see... it's the same type that got the original righteous success.. that must mean.. YES! It can also roll a righteous success.

Now, I wonder where I can figure out how to handle a die that rolled a righteous success. Hmmm, I wonder where I could find that info? I'VE GOT IT! The PDF. *smacks forehead" I should have realized that... let me read it again and see what to do. Roll ANOTHER die of the same type. Gee, who'd have guessed reading the PDF and applying a little bit of analytic thinking would get you so far!

You're right about one thing though, we're done here. You made a value claim about the complexity of the old versions, I asked you to support it, you either couldn't or wouldn't.

I'm not going to go round and round pointing out the obvious or re-stating what can be gained from a simple reading of the material available.

 

[SteveC]

From what I saw in the article, the dice system is about the same complexity level as Descent. As someone who's played a lot of that game, it takes about 20 minutes for the rules to fade into the background and have gameplay be about the specifics of your character and the situation. It's really not that tough.

When I heard about Warhammer3 I thought it was going to create a huge stir in gaming, both from old Warhammer players and RPGers in general. It looks very different from previous Warhammer games, but it also looks different from any other RPG I've seen.

Think about that: something really new in an RPG. When was the last time we've seen that? I don't know if I'm going to end up playing the new Warhammer, but it's a big risk/big reward strategy, and I find that very interesting.

--Steve

 

[Andor]

So what you did was made a claim about bookkeeping involved in WHFRP. Then when called out and asked to support that claim you tried to retreat to calling it your opinion, as if somehow obviates the need to support the claim.

Opinions don't have value just because they are opinions, they have value when they can be supported and communicated.

Telling you you're wrong because you like the color blue is NOTHING like what I'm doing here. If you can't grasp that difference there's little point in continuing but I'll point out your failure to understand the die mechanic in WHFRP3e one more time...

Just... No. An expression of personal preference does not need to be supported by any damm thing barring outrageous social consequences. "I like to eat babies but not in a bad way" requires further explaination. "I dislike blue" does not. And a taste for or against a particular gaming system falls very much under the "I dislike blue" category.

A political/medical/scientific/engineering opinion must be informed and explicable to be valid and of value. A preference for or against blue/RPGs/cheese/kiwis is purely personal and is no buisiness of yours, mine or anyone but the fellow who holds the opinion.

 

[jgerman]

Just... No. An expression of personal preference does not need to be supported by any damm thing barring outrageous social consequences. "I like to eat babies but not in a bad way" requires further explaination. "I dislike blue" does not. And a taste for or against a particular gaming system falls very much under the "I dislike blue" category.

A political/medical/scientific/engineering opinion must be informed and explicable to be valid and of value. A preference for or against blue/RPGs/cheese/kiwis is purely personal and is no buisiness of yours, mine or anyone but the fellow who holds the opinion.

You mean just no in your OPINION right. Because in my opinion any claim that "X reduces the complexity in Y" (which is exactly what the original claim was) needs to be supported by some evidence to be considered worth taking into account. In fact anytime someone makes a quantitative relational claim about something it's perfectly valid to inquire about the reasons. Otherwise the claim in question is worthless other than a meaningless non sequitur... you might as well be saying "I like blue" in response to every query, or "I like turtles" take your pick.

And how can my OPINION be wrong right? I don't even need reasons to support it if we subscribe to your theory.

Gee... that was almost too easy.

 

[Andor]

Gee... that was almost too easy.

I'd address your arguments, but trolls regenerate and flame is not an allowed weapon on ENworld.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Think about that: something really new in an RPG. When was the last time we've seen that? I don't know if I'm going to end up playing the new Warhammer, but it's a big risk/big reward strategy, and I find that very interesting.

Exactly!