# Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay



## RyanD (Aug 14, 2005)

Following the thread of two weeks ago regarding "rules lite" RPGs, where the topic of the new Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game was discussed, I had a chance to examine the product in detail and write my review, which appears at www.gamingreport.com.

I suspect that many of you will find my thoughts interesting wrt how closely WFRP and D20 are related.  

Ryan


----------



## Ghostwind (Aug 15, 2005)

Very interesting reviews, Ryan. Well done.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2005)

Thanks for the reviews . Here are the direct links to the  Core Rulebook and to the Bestiary.

I agree that WFRP2 is relatively similar to d20. I don't see why it is special in this regard, though. The same may be said, to different extents, of Runequest/BRP, HARP, C&C or Palladium Fantasy. They have all the same roots, and the differences lie in the details. And how exactly does this fit in the rules light vs. rules heavy discussion?

One point where I found it a bit hard to understand where the special case can be made relates to the following:


_"It will also be very hard for a GM to scale a challenge for a group of characters who are widely dissimilar: One character may have focused all XP expenditures on min-maxing combat ability, while another may have dabbled in a wide range of character options - leaving him weak and defenseless vs. an opponent the first character would mow down without much effort.

WFRP is a game that will benefit greatly from integrated parties who are created together, adventure together, and who work to reinforce each other's weaknesses. It will not be a good game for people who want an ad hoc quickie one-shot adventure with a "bring your own PC" approach."_


Do you think it's easier if you tell a d20 group "You can make whatever character you want", and they show up with a fighter, a ranger, a wizard and a monk for the Tomb of Horrors? It's also tough in d20 games if certain roles, like rogue and cleric, are not filled in. That's why we see variants like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, I suppose.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

> They have all the same roots, and the differences lie in the details.




Actually, I'd say that while those game may share the same _conceptual framework_ none of them are as close to any version of D&D as WFRP is to D&D3e.  Those other games are in the same family tree as D&D.  D&D and WFRP are on the same branch.



> Do you think it's easier if you tell a d20 group "You can make whatever character you want", and they show up with a fighter, a ranger, a wizard and a monk for the Tomb of Horrors?




I think that most 15th level PCs in D&D, unless radically de-optimized on purpose, can face and overcome roughly the same level of challenges.

Due to the extremely flexible system in WFRP, the same could not be said for a group of PCs who were given nothing but a total XP to create a build with.


----------



## scourger (Aug 15, 2005)

Thanks for the good review.  I just bought this book today as a gift for a friend who has been out of our gaming group for the past year.  I think he needs a fresh start, and WFRP may be it.  D&D has too much baggage for him & others to really be a good option at present.  I think he would be happier if he ran WFRP with only him knowing the rules, especially for magic, so that the game could go on without all the fussiness of analyzing everything to death with the "established" rules that have been through several iterations and differ just slightly enough with each new version to ruffle someone's feathers.  

Okay, kinda ranty; but thanks for the review.  It would be great if if were posted here or rpg.net so it could be easily found by future gamers.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Actually, I'd say that while those game may share the same _conceptual framework_ none of them are as close to any version of D&D as WFRP is to D&D3e.  Those other games are in the same family tree as D&D.  D&D and WFRP are on the same branch.



Let's see, how the new Runequest next year will look like. I have the feeling, the d100 will just stay "because it's Runequest", whereas other elements will look, let's say, familar . Not too surprising, though, given some of the roots of d20.

Anyway, I think the big difference of WFRP2 and d20 lies, as you also said in your review, in the character generation and the power curve. This implies that even a 'first level' character can kill a 'high level' one, unlike in D&D.



> I think that most 15th level PCs in D&D, unless radically de-optimized on purpose, can face and overcome roughly the same level of challenges.
> 
> Due to the extremely flexible system in WFRP, the same could not be said for a group of PCs who were given nothing but a total XP to create a build with.



As I already said, I don't see the absolute differences between characters in WFRP2 as so high. It's a few percent up here and a few down there.

As far as the de facto equivalence of same level d20 characters goes, I think that's slightly exaggerated. I can see a party of 4 clerics doing fine. I'm not sure whether a party of 4 wizards can do fine. I'm pretty sure that a party of 4 bards won't do fine, although they are presumably suited for everything.


----------



## tarchon (Aug 15, 2005)

> The core game is set in "the Empire" (Germany), and it is bordered to the east by Russian and Nodic derivatives, and to the west by Bretonnia (Norman France).



I'm 99.9% sure that _Breton_nia is _Breton_ France.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Aug 15, 2005)

Well, I disagree with you on the Bestiary (except that the price is too high). It was _immensely_ fun to read, and if I ever get to GM WFRP I'm sure I'll get a lot of mileage out of it.

Other than that, nice review.

EDIT: Said nice, meant interesting.


----------



## tarchon (Aug 15, 2005)

Eh, not a very good review. This whole D20 derivative aspect is wrong (not too hard to see where that comes from though) and not especially helpful. WFRP obviously derived a lot from the original D&D, but its inheritance from 3E is paltry, no more than the level of derivation than many have seen in 3E from the 1st ed WFRP.

In the setting description, it also seems to have completely sailed over the author's head that "the Empire" is a reflection of the Holy Roman Empire, not "Germany."

The example demonstrating how the mechanics of the system are "identical" to D20's is highly questionable:



> Example:
> A WFRP character who wanted to try and hear a noise would roll 2d10, and try to roll under their relevant stat percentile value. A D20 character who wanted to attempt this task would roll 1d20 and add a bonus vs. a DC of 20. Assume the stat in question was 35% and no external modifiers apply. In WFRP a 2d10 roll of 34-01 would succeed. In D20, a 1d20 roll with a +7 modifier (35% divided by 5) vs. a DC of 20 would succeed on a roll of 20-13. The results are mechanically identical.




Yeah, *IF* the stat in question is 35%, then that's true, but do I have to point out the obvious, that in a percentile system, that only happens a fifth of the time? These are not mathematically identical mechanics. 
The example is also mistaken, in that WFRP skill tests don't always go off the raw ability stat - you do often add in a skill stat, in the above case Perception. 
If the author had understood the system better, the author would also have realized that one of the key differences between D20 and WFRP mechanics is the higher granularity and more limited dynamic range of WFRP stats. In d20, there's no limit to how high your skill check can get - in WFRP, a 35% Int stat  (which is VERY good) isn't ever going to get higher than 70 (fully advanced Wizard Lord). You could, with a great deal of effort, take the Perception skill 3 times to get that up to 100, and with the Excellent Hearing talent you could get to 120, which still gives you a 10% chance to fail on a Very Hard test. Almost no Warhammer character will ever even come close to that level. 
Additionally, what happens in practice with the percentile stat is that it usually creates at least a tiny little gap between the character and perfection, or between the character and absolute incompetence. Exactly because the bonuses, threshholds, and penalties are all on 5% intervals (for the most part, only the initial base abilities use the 1% steps), it very commonly ends up that the character will try something with a 97% chance of doing it (or a 7% chance). In D20, there's much more of an all-or-nothing effect, just because it doesn't have that little bit of odd slop in the WFRP percentiles. Of course, you wouldn't tend to appreciate this without playing the game for a while, but then if you haven't played the game, why are you writing a review of it?



> WFRP does not have stand-alone saving throws. Instead, effects that in D20 would require a save are explicitly bound to ability score checks. Bonuses or penalties may be applied by the effect or the GM depending on circumstances. This is similar to D20's system for ability-score linked saving throws.




This also displays the author's bias. WFRP does not have saving throws at all. Period. It is not a concept in the game, and yet he imposes the concept on the system merely to show us that if one *could* identify a saving throw equivalent it would be similar to the D20 system. So... the idea is that rolls based on abilities, potentially with GM imposed bonuses and penalties, is a similarity to D20. I guess pretty much all gaming systems are basically just D20 with cosmetic alterations, when you get right down to it.

The overall impression I get from this review is that it's mostly Ryan Dancey's soapbox to convince us that D20 is the font of all gaming. It's somewhat interesting just to see what a D20 designer thinks of game design, but on the subject of WFRP, it's neither especially insightful nor accurate. 

**OOO


----------



## tetsujin28 (Aug 15, 2005)

Ah, the hyperbole of Mr. Dancy strikes again...


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 15, 2005)

I must disagree with the author's attempt to hammer WFRP's square peg into D20's round hole.

Also with the remark about how "Treasure tables and guidelines for determining what can be looted from the bodies and lairs of the monsters" are missing from the Old World Bestiary. Such guidelines are unnecessary in a roleplaying game, only really required if your playing some kind of board game without a GM to adjudicate.


----------



## GMSkarka (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> I suspect that many of you will find my thoughts interesting




If you do say so yourself.....


----------



## Dagger75 (Aug 15, 2005)

So does that mean that 3rd Edition stole all there ideas from the First Edition of Warhammer Role Playing game.   2nd edition cleans up a few things here and there but skills and combat are essentially the same.


----------



## mearls (Aug 15, 2005)

I'd be very interested in seeing a review from you written after a playtest. I've been toying with the idea of buying all of the mainstream RPGs released so far this year and doing a grand tour of them all, with detailed reviews written up after 2 or 3 sessions of playtesting.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 15, 2005)

Hmm, I wonder if Ryan is so over-exposed to dnd and d20 stuff that he sees it everywhere he looks?

Having just a few days ago played my first session in omrob's WFRP game, I have to say it is _nothing at all_ like d20 (as far as the rules go).

Okay, so there's arguably a core mechanic.  Meh.

Okay, so you get two actions per round.

Blah- so what?  There's no "d20 higher is better" (heck, there's no d20 at all!).  Combat is extremely different. 

Ryan uses a lot of terms wrong in his review, too- for instance, in WFRP you don't make 'checks,' you make 'tests.'  A minor quibble, I'm sure, but what would ya think of a review of 3.5 that referred to skill 'tests' all over the place?

Just my feelin' on the subject.  On the other hand, it was an interesting read.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> inheritance from 3E is paltry, no more than the level of derivation than many have seen in 3E from the 1st ed WFRP.




Other than the non-cyclic combat initiative system, the combat action system, the division of character abilities into skills & feats (talents), the use of a unified die rolling mechanic, the effort to make a unified target number convention (in this case, lower is almost always better), the increment to all system values in 5% degrees, and so on, right?

[edit:  rsd -- I'm repeatedly and reliably informed that Advanced Classes predate 3E and are a reasonable potential ancestor for the Prestige Class concept, so I removed them from the above list of similarities.  We'll say instead that 3E and WFRP share the feature in common, with preference to WFRP's chronology.  Thanks to all who responded to this point.]



> In the setting description, it also seems to have completely sailed over the author's head that "the Empire" is a reflection of the Holy Roman Empire, not "Germany."




"Modern" Gemany:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:De-map.png

Is a closer geographic model to the Empire than the Holy Roman Empire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Western_empire_verdun_843.png

(which included much of  the Czech Republic, Austria, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Belgium, and Luxembourg, as well as large parts of modern Poland and small parts of the Netherlands, Switzerland, and parts of France and Italy.)

My intention in discussing the geography of the Empire (the portion from which you are discussing) was simply to give the reader the information that the "world" of Warhammer Fantasy is a reasonably close facsimilie to our own, rather than a completely imaginary place like Middle Earth or Faerun, for example.  I did describe at some length the social/political/religious makeup of The Empire to make clear I was not comparing it to modern Germany (or even Bismarkian Germany).



> The example demonstrating how the mechanics of the system are "identical" to D20's is highly questionable:




Other than being mechanically accurate, you mean, right?



> do I have to point out the obvious, that in a percentile system, that only happens a fifth of the time?




You begin the character creation process by rolling 2d10 and adding a constant (10, 20 or 30) based on your race for each major attribute.  The example in the book is a starting Elf PC with an attribute score of 41.



> If the author had understood the system better, the author would also have realized that one of the key differences between D20 and WFRP mechanics is the higher granularity and more limited dynamic range of WFRP stats.




This is an illusion.  WFRP simply doesn't account for a range of characters across as large a spectrum as D&D does _in its core book_ (I assume you mean "D&D" not "D20", for obvious reasons.) 

The example Elf in the book, if he/she becomes a Master Thief, could aspire to an Agility of 81% (41% base plus 40% from the template).  That's the equivilent of a +16 bonus in D&D - i.e. an 13th level PC with a linked ability score of 10.  (If we assume an ability score of 18 base for our "Elf Master Thief", and a +2 inherent bonus from levelling, that's the equivilent of a 9th level D&D PC. (Max skill ranks of level +3, base of +4, inherent +2).

At the rate of XP awards (100XP per 4 hour session) recommended as the baseline in WFRP, it would require 360 sessions to reach 9th level.  It would require 780 sessions to reach 13th level.  I've played a lot of D&D.  I doubt strongly I've ever played the same character 360 times.  So you're right - in practice, these nosebleed values won't be reached by WFRP characters.  Not because the system doesn't support/allow them, but because the players will likely chew their own limbs off in boredom before they get there.  

Faster advancement in D&D is a set of choices - reward vs. effort.  WFRP delivers less reward for the same effort.  That just creates a different facade on the same treadmill.

The inflated ability scores that appear in D&D are an artifact of magic items, and while magic items are limited by fiat in WFRP, there's no mechanical reason I couldn't load my WFRP character down with as much phat loot as my D&D character.  I can accomplish the same thing in a D&D campaign by fiat just as easily.  And many people do.

There's no mechanical reason a PC in WFRP couldn't have an score of 200% (or more).  The fact that it does not feature such bonuses is a design _presentation_ choice, not a design _mechanical_ choice.



> In D20, there's much more of an all-or-nothing effect, just because it doesn't have that little bit of odd slop in the WFRP percentiles.




I agree:  D&D does not have the odd extra once-in-fifty die roll failures that WFRP does.  I don't see this as a design feature or penalty, just a quirk.



> WFRP does not have saving throws at all.




Almost without exception, when a spell effect is used against a target, the target is affected by the spell if, and only if, it fails a test.  That's a saving throw.

Fear and Terror tests are explicitly defined in-game effects which require the target to make a successfull roll or take a penalty.  That's a saving throw.

When poisoned, characters take Toughness Tests to determine severity and effect.  That's a saving throw.

Just because the mechanic isn't labelled "Saving Throw", and presented as three standardized types doesn't mean it's not present.  Had it been present, in fact, a lot of extra words could have been stripped from the template (used in the "editing" sense, not the character advancement sense) - i.e., Saving Throws in D20 are a "macro", in WFRP, they're spelled out every time they're required.  And they're required all the time.



> The overall impression I get from this review is that it's mostly Ryan Dancey's soapbox to convince us that D20 is the font of all gaming.




To be honest, the point of the review was to talk about a product I found to be quite exceptional in many positive ways.  I hope people buy & play it.

Ryan


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I've been toying with the idea of buying all of the mainstream RPGs released so far this year and doing a grand tour of them all, with detailed reviews written up after 2 or 3 sessions of playtesting.




If you do this, I will help.  Let me know.

Ryan


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 15, 2005)

Sorry, but I don't buy the "clever derivative of D&D 3rd Edition" at all. If you had left out the "3rd edition", I wouldn't have a problem with it - most fantasy RPGs are inspired by D&D somewhat.

But while WFRP 2E does take a few concepts from D&D 3E - like half actions - the game it is derivative of first and foremost is WFRP 1E, which predates D&D 3E by two decades or so. It has _far_ more in common with its first edition than with the modern incarnation of D&D. If you can find an old copy, I would suggest browsing through it and comparing the two - this would help understand why the idea that WFRP 2E is a "clever derivative of D&D 3rd Edition" rubs lots of old-time WFRP fans the wrong way (as the current RPGNet thread proves).


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 15, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Let's see, how the new Runequest next year will look like. I have the feeling, the d100 will just stay "because it's Runequest", whereas other elements will look, let's say, familar . Not too surprising, though, given some of the roots of d20.




Well, it's been said that Runequest came out of Steve Perrin's house rules for D&D, so similiarites will certainly be there since prior editions of D&D are part of the roots of d20


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 15, 2005)

A couple of other notes that are only likely to be apparent to old-time WFRP fans:

"It will not be a good game for people who want an ad hoc quickie one-shot adventure with a "bring your own PC" approach."

To the contrary, I think that WFRP is very good for one-shots. Character creation is _much_ faster than in D&D3E, and the fact that you are supposed to roll up your initial career (though experienced groups might do away with this limitation) makes it easily accessible to newbies as well. The standard assumption for WFRP adventures is that the PCs are always in over their head - just like in Call of Cthulhu - and can only succeed through luck and cleverness. The "Fate Point" mechanics helps make sure that the PCs survive until they are moderately competent and have found their specialized niche.

"And the range of magical effects is mostly limited to things that can happen on the battlefield - no plane-walking, ethereal travel, animal awakening, etc. for WFRP."

This is rather intentional, since in the history of the game elves taught magic to the humans with the _express purpose_ to aid them on the battlefield against their common enemy. Non-combat spells are usually Petty Magic (which teaches the basics of magic) or Hedge Magic (which is invented through dangerous and uncontrolled self-experimentation - which attracts the forces of Chaos...).

And given that the only alternate plane of existence known is the Warp - the home of the Ruinous Powers - any sort of dimension-hopping strikes me as a really bad idea...

"A system for creating magic items, and more magic items (there are only 2 magic items presented in the core book, and neither of them are very interesting mechanically)"

Well, basically _all_ magic items in WFRP are artifacts, and thus likely out of reach to create for all but the most powerful PC spellcasters. And even if the PCs could create magic items, it would take many, many years to create them - time in which they can't adventure.

"The Good Guys:"

The idea that there are "good guys" in the Warhammer World - except maybe for some lone, heroic individuals (possibly but not necessarily including the PCs) amuses me greatly.


One wit once descriped the game thus:

"WFRP is when the players think they are playing D&D, only to gradually discover that they are playing Call of Cthulhu."

And I think this is most accurate.


Incidentally, two articles that will help understand the general feel of the Warhammer World immensely are the (in)famous:

"How James Wallis Ruined My Character's Life" and "Yes I Sank Your Barge"


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Aug 15, 2005)

This was not a review. This was an atempt to get WHFRP players to switch over to d20.

I think mr. Dancy has lost his focus. In determinig whether WHFRP is a good game or not, what relevance does it have that Pramas used to work at WotC.

Please, get off the soapbox.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> while WFRP 2E does take a few concepts from D&D 3E - like half actions - the game it is derivative of first and foremost is WFRP 1E




There are a lot of choices that can be made on page one that have an almost inevitable effect on what gets produced in the next 256 pages.  Bad designers tack on systems that don't integrate, or that break other parts of the system due to ignorance or stubborness.  Good designers constantly work to reinforce the initial decision set they made as they work down each path the design takes them as they flesh out the game.  Chris Pramas is a good designer, and I believe we can reverse-engineer a lot of his thought practice by looking at the end result of his labors.

I perceive that Chris' first decision was "replicate the fun game experience I had in college" (which is why that experience shows up in his designer notes, and is a choice I wholeheartedly support:  I wish more designers moved "fun" into the initial parameters of design.)  I think his second decision was "figure out what parts of the various incarnations of WFRP are unique, are representative of the Warhammer Fantasy brand, add value, and are fun, and keep them.  I think his third decision was "apply the lessons learned by Wizards of the Coast on how to design a successful RPG, taking into account player & GM task load, play patterns, and stable, consistent mechanics.

My opinion is that the result of these decisions was a game that encapsulates a lot of D&D, (mechanically, if not in direct presentation), but also includes very non-D&D systems as big ticket features.  The fact that it encapsulates so many D&D features is not necessarily a statement of D&D's fitness itself, as it is a recognition that D&D 3E was shaped by the same kinds of logical, organized design processes that appear to have shaped WFRP.  

I have read and played various prior versions of WFRP.  What I remember clearly from those experiences was that the prior games were very chaotic - many different systems, little consistency, several places where mechanics overlapped, or contradicted themselves, or were supposed to be delivered in future products that never got released.  I'm certain that bits and pieces (sometimes large bits and pieces) of those earlier editions are resident in this version of WFRP.  But I do not believe that those versions were the foundation on which the game was rebuilt from scratch.  Their presence is important - heritage, familiarity, and suitability to task are all praiseworthly reasons for their inclusion.  But to ignore the extensive, deep, and systemic similarities with D&D is, in my opinion, to ignore the truth of what the game actually represents.

Take for example the GW produced Inquisitor RPG.  Designed in the UK, by people with no connection to WotC, its research, its market testing, or the feedback it experienced from D&D, it is a very, very different beast than WFRP, despite sharing much of the same "genetic code" in the form of the "Warhammer" ethos and the Games Workshop belief in what makes Warhammer (Fantasy and 40K) successful.  In Inquisitor, we have a wholly separate branch of the "Warhammer Roleplay" tree and it looks very little like D&D.  If we created a systems map featuring "old" WFRP games, Inquisitor, "new" WFRP products and D&D 3e, the "new" WFRP product is going to show an extremely close affinity to D&D 3e compared to the other potential data points.

Here's another test to consider.  If I took the time to mark up my "new" WFRP book to convert all values to constants, set the DCs at 20, and changed the die roll from percentile to a d20, I could play WFRP with my D&D group with little more than an explanation of the ability scores, how to buy advances of the character templates when they get XP awards, how critical hits work and how to determine what spells they can cast.  That briefing is maybe a half hour long at most.  Can you imagine how much of a re-write I'd have to make to previous versons of WFRP to reach the same level of direct compatibility?  Or how long and involved the "conversion" conversation would have to be if I did not do the conversion to the text directly?

We had a test back in the height of the first CCG boom, circa 1995-1996.  The test was this:  If I could teach your game to a 3rd party familiar with Magic using Magic terminology, and that person could play your game with a reasonably high degree of mechanical correctness based on that instruction, you had a Magic clone, regardless of how hard you had tried to hide behind a different nomenclature, different graphic design, and different branding.  I'd say a similar test could be applied to RPGs:  If I can explain your game to someone familiar with D&D using D&D terminology, and they can play the game with a reasonably high degree of mechanical accuracy, your game is a very close cousin to D&D.  I submit to you that I can perform that test with "new" WFRP, and not with any previous version.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 15, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> But while WFRP 2E does take a few concepts from D&D 3E - like half actions - the game it is derivative of first and foremost is WFRP 1E, which predates D&D 3E by two decades or so. It has _far_ more in common with its first edition than with the modern incarnation of D&D. If you can find an old copy, I would suggest browsing through it and comparing the two - this would help understand why the idea that WFRP 2E is a "clever derivative of D&D 3rd Edition" rubs lots of old-time WFRP fans the wrong way (as the current RPGNet thread proves).



When I picked up D&D 3.0 and flipped through it, after not gaming at all for more than ten years, one of my first thoughts was, "Wow, this is a lot like Warhammer Roleplay."


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

I wrote in my original review:

"It will not be a good game for people who want an ad hoc quickie one-shot adventure with a "bring your own PC" approach."



			
				Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> To the contrary, I think that WFRP is very good for one-shots. Character creation is _much_ faster than in D&D3E




If you believe that the "ad hoc quickie one-shot adventure" will feature brand new PCs, I'll accept your premise.  If you're telling me that you could sit down with a group of strangers and cook up a workable party of advanced PCs that an ad hoc GM could challenge in a fun and effective way faster than I could do that task with a group of strangers for D&D, I'll disagree.

My direct experience is that ad hoc games are the least likely to be run with absolute new PCs, other than when people "just want to try the game".  When experienced players gather, they'll have binders of PCs ready to play, or will be able to map out a character quickly based on prior experience.

For D&D, I could tell the group "I'll play a 10th level elven fighter with a bow specialization".  That's going to define a whole lot of stuff in this context to my fellow gamers and help them frame the choices they'll make to give the party a cohesive feel and a playable foundation of skills and abilities.  What's the comparative statement you could make about an advanced WFRP character?



> The standard assumption for WFRP adventures is that the PCs are always in over their head - just like in Call of Cthulhu - and can only succeed through luck and cleverness.




This may be true, and I won't argue as I've played very little WFRP.  But I will argue that such a conclusion is not to be drawn from the book as written.  Clearly, the PCs are expected to succeed in "Through the Drakwald" - little space is given to guiding GMs towards a CoC "everyone goes nuts at the end" resolution.

I wrote:

"A system for creating magic items, and more magic items (there are only 2 magic items presented in the core book, and neither of them are very interesting mechanically)"



> Well, basically _all_ magic items in WFRP are artifacts, and thus likely out of reach to create for all but the most powerful PC spellcasters.




I've been misunderstood.  I meant a _mechanical_ system for creating magic items, to be used by the GM - not necessarily an in-game system for characters to use to make their own magic items.  WFRP tells me that heroes are "lucky" to have one magic item, and that "mighty heroes" may have as many as three.  That tells me, as a reviewer, that magic, while uncommon, is not unheard of, and the PCs will get and use magic items on some kind of reasonable timeframe (as we expect them to aspire to be "lucky" if not "mighty" before all is said and done.)

I'm also basing this conclusion on the cover art (guy with flaming, obviously magical sword) - which should be representative of the game to be played, and my knowledge of Warhammer Fantasy Battles, which features lots of magic items.

However, based on the half-page info in the core book, I don't know when PCs are supposed to come into possession of magic items, how this is supposed to happen, how powerful those items should be, how to handle "upgrading" from lower power to higher power, how to resolve stacking vs. overlapping bonuses, paper doll issues, sale price, or how to equip higher level foes to match the power level of the PCs, etc.  (Frankly, I suspect this is all in another sourcebook that I have not reviewed, so this may simply be a complaint that the core book doesn't explicitly say "All the magic items are in the Magic Book, go buy it now".  I understand however that WFRP has a traditionally bad track record of delivering "the Magic Book" (although I think the Green Ronin version is already in print.))



> The idea that there are "good guys" in the Warhammer World - except maybe for some lone, heroic individuals (possibly but not necessarily including the PCs) amuses me greatly.




_"The Warhammer World is a rich one, a place of chaos and war, of intrique and politics, or desperation and heroism, of gods and daemons."_ -- WFRP, page 9

The extensive fiction throughout the book clearly implies that the PCs are to act in a heroic mode, and that there are many heroes in the Warhammer World (outnumbered, perhaps, underpowered, in some cases, but numerous enough to be the common mythology of the place, and the model on which the reader is expected to base conclusions about the setting.)



> One wit once descriped the game thus:
> 
> "WFRP is when the players think they are playing D&D, only to gradually discover that they are playing Call of Cthulhu."




I like that description.  Had it been the overt positioning for the work in question, I think that would have created a wonderfuly unique take on the "medeival fantasy roleplaying game".

I think that part of the disconnect may be that people are reading a lot of stuff into the book that isn't there, based on their previous experiences with Warhammer Fantasy, the novels, the miniatures game, and the older RP stuff.  I'm not disagreeing with anyone who says that's where the setting is going, or that's how the game is to be played - I'm simply saying that you can't base those conclusions on the WFRP book itself.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 15, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> If you do say so yourself.....




He was right though.

/M


----------



## Maggan (Aug 15, 2005)

*A nitpick*

A nitpick, advanced classes were present in WFRPv1, well before prestige classes were invented.

/M


----------



## tarchon (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Other than the non-cyclic combat initiative system, the combat action system, the division of character abilities into skills & feats (talents), the use of a unified die rolling mechanic, the effort to make a unified target number convention (in this case, lower is almost always better), the increment to all system values in 5% degrees, Prestige Classes (Advanced Careers), and so on, right?



It's had all of those since WFRP1, except parts of the combat action system, which definitely has D20 influence. The die mechanic has only changed slightly in WFRP2, with the combat damage going from d6 to d10 - almost everything else has been percentile since the beginning. I would assume that d6 was some kind of wargame holdover.
Most old WFRP players I've talked to about it actually figured you got PrCs from WFRP advanced careers. Dagger75 summed it up better than I did. I mean, WFRP has had skills for 20 years, and D&D suddenly dropped "proficiencies" in favor of "skills" like 5 years ago was it? Unless the Games Workshop developers flew into the future in a time machine to steal a copy of 3E, it's not from 3E. They already had the target number convention, they already had the 5% and 10% increments, they already had the talents, they already had the non-cyclic intiative, they already had the advanced careers. Yeah, it's derivative - derivative from first ed. WFRP. 

Re your comment on the magic system "saves" - that's completely misunderstanding it. When spells do allow resistance (many don't), it's always Will Power, because in WRFP you're not resisting the spell effect as in D&D. What you're resisting is the magic (i.e. chaos), opposing the caster's will. Whenever you resist (or use) magic or chaos, that's what you roll. This Will Power test is not modifed by any abilities of the caster or the level of the spell. It doesn't have automatic failure or automatic success. It's the same roll you make to cast spells, and totally like any other ability check. It's just not the same thing as a D&D save. None of those things you mentioned are any different from regular ability tests, whereas in D&D, you have a special class of tests called saving throws, with special rules, special modifiers, special advancement schemes, and the saves are never used to perform actions. This special statistic class does not exist in WFRP, because anything you would do with a D&D save is integrated into the regular resolution mechanic. That sounds a lot more streamlined to me.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> A nitpick, advanced classes were present in WFRPv1, well before prestige classes were invented.




Noted & comments revised!

Ryan


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> In the setting description, it also seems to have completely sailed over the author's head that "the Empire" is a reflection of the Holy Roman Empire, not "Germany."



Well, as WFRP is a Renaissance setting, the proper state name to compare the "Empire" to would be "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". This means, it's more or less nitpicking .


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> Most old WFRP players I've talked to about it actually figured you got PrCs from WFRP advanced careers.




I believe the inspiration (you'd have to ask JoT directly) was the Samurai option from the Wizardry computer game.



> Re your comment on the magic system "saves" - that's completely misunderstanding it.




If Character A does something to Character B, and Character B rolls a die to see if that effect fizzles, that's a save.  I don't think that can be any more clear.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Well, as WFRP is a Renaissance setting




Why do you say that?  The Renaissance represented a period of liberalizing beliefs, expanded acceptance of science vs. superstition, the growth of a middle class, a flourishing of humanist art & culture, and the restructuring of medevial fuedal governmental systems towards broader-based democratic principles.

What part of the Warhammer World does _that_ reflect?

(Gunpowder and firearms do not make a setting "Renaissance", in my opinion.)

Ryan


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> I think his third decision was "apply the lessons learned by Wizards of the Coast on how to design a successful RPG, taking into account player & GM task load, play patterns, and stable, consistent mechanics.




This I can agree with - I appreciate that a lot of serious thought went into designing D&D 3E, and it is indeed good to see to see other game designers give more thought to the actual process of (re)designing an RPG.

Emulating the _process_ of designing something does not mean that the final _product_ is derivative, however.



> I have read and played various prior versions of WFRP.  What I remember clearly from those experiences was that the prior games were very chaotic - many different systems, little consistency, several places where mechanics overlapped, or contradicted themselves, or were supposed to be delivered in future products that never got released.  I'm certain that bits and pieces (sometimes large bits and pieces) of those earlier editions are resident in this version of WFRP.  But I do not believe that those versions were the foundation on which the game was rebuilt from scratch.  Their presence is important - heritage, familiarity, and suitability to task are all praiseworthly reasons for their inclusion.  But to ignore the extensive, deep, and systemic similarities with D&D is, in my opinion, to ignore the truth of what the game actually represents.




Let me see if I can list all the changes from WFRP 1E to 2E, and see how much they resemble D&D 3E:

- All primary characteristics are now percentage values - Strength and Toughness used to be values from 1 to 10.

It could be argued that this follows a similar trend of "cleaning up" attribute values like that from AD&D2E to D&D3E (Str 18/98, anyone). Still, many gaming systems have used the same scale for all attributes (like Call of Cthulhu), and this is only a minor point.

- The distinction between Skills & Talents, as well as Skill Mastery.

Yes, this has similarities with the distinction of Skills and Feats with D&D. Still, there always was such a distinction between them mechanically in WFRP1E - it was just that this difference was not spelled out explicitly. Skill Mastery is new, but it is rather different from the way D&D 3E handles things.

- Changing the damage dice from 1d6 to 1d10

If this is derived from any other system, I'd say the Storyteller system, since the goal here was to use one single dice type for all mechanics - something which D&D has not implemented (though several d20 variants have).

- Distinctions between "full actions" and "half actions"

Here the influence of D&D is readily observable, and I will concede this point. Still, it is only one of many.

- Cleaned up "Basic Careers" and "Advanced Careers" for better game balance

This is more of an "internal housecleaning". And the "prestige classes" of D&D3E are a rather obvious derivative of the Advanced Classes of WFRP1E, so here it is actually the other way around than you suggest!

- An advance will give you a 5% bonus, rather than a 10% bonus.

While this is similar to the basic 5% chance that you get on a d20 when you improve or lower the odds by one step, I wouldn't make too much of it. Players have complained for a long time that mundane characters will rapidly gain all advances from interesting Advanced Careers while spellcasters take forever to get anywhere. This, combined with the cleaned up careers and the new Skill Mastery, merely means that characters take a longer time until they "max out" their abilities, and thus enhances long-time play.

- The new magic system

This is actually a huge step _away_ from D&D3E - the old magic system was a rather conventional "resource management" system, while now we have a "risk management" system - the spellcaster always has to ask himself: "Am I willing to risk casting another spell, even though it might have negative consequences for me?" This is more similar to Call of Cthulhu, where casting spells almost always comes with a price.

- Reduced number of magic items

Another conscious design decision that represents a huge step away from D&D3E. It used to be that magic items were relatively common that PCs might eventually own several of them. Now they are as rare as in Call of Cthulhu - each one is a unique artifact.


This is all that I can think of at the moment.. And only in _one_ instance is the derivation from D&D3E obvious - so I maintain that claiming that WFRP is "a clever derivative of D&D 3rd Edition" is wrong.



> In Inquisitor, we have a wholly separate branch of the "Warhammer Roleplay" tree and it looks very little like D&D.  If we created a systems map featuring "old" WFRP games, Inquisitor, "new" WFRP products and D&D 3e, the "new" WFRP product is going to show an extremely close affinity to D&D 3e compared to the other potential data points.




I haven't played it myself, but from what I heard, Inquisitor isn't a "true" RPG but a miniature wargame with RPG elements. But I will leave others who actually know the game to comment on it.



> Here's another test to consider.  If I took the time to mark up my "new" WFRP book to convert all values to constants, set the DCs at 20, and changed the die roll from percentile to a d20, I could play WFRP with my D&D group with little more than an explanation of the ability scores, how to buy advances of the character templates when they get XP awards, how critical hits work and how to determine what spells they can cast.  That briefing is maybe a half hour long at most.  Can you imagine how much of a re-write I'd have to make to previous versons of WFRP to reach the same level of direct compatibility?  Or how long and involved the "conversion" conversation would have to be if I did not do the conversion to the text directly?




Hardly longer at all. The two editions are very similar to each other, apart from the changes I have outlined above.



> If I can explain your game to someone familiar with D&D using D&D terminology, and they can play the game with a reasonably high degree of mechanical accuracy, your game is a very close cousin to D&D.  I submit to you that I can perform that test with "new" WFRP, and not with any previous version.




Actually, it could be easily done with WFRP1E as well. In fact, it might even be easier, since the old magic system is closer to D&D than the new one...


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

I think what we may have reached is a point where a number of roads all join together in one place.  From my perspective, we got to this point by following a clear set of directions.  From yours, we got to the same point from a completely different set of instructions.

I am not a person who believes that 3e was "innovative" in its mechanics.  3e represented an effort to look at the way RPGs have developed over the past 25 years predating its design, and cherry pick the stuff that appeared to work the best, while re-writing those things to make them consistent, to reflect D&D's heritage, and to fill in a lot of gaps that the system had been ignoring for years.  I suspect that lots of system partisans can point at their favorite game and say "see - D&D took this from my game!" because that's often true (especially when the feature was used in common by many different kinds of games and seemed to work well in many applications.)

If I started at WFRP(old), walked forward to 3E, then walked forward to WFRP(new), I would likely see a different continuum of development than if I started from a different vantage point.  That is, my perception of the "road" would be shaped differently from just those data points than it is from my actual perception, which consists of dozens or hundreds of data points.

What I believe is that there was very little "direct" development done to D&D based on WFRP(old), although 3e may have some things in common with it due to osmosis.  That is, the 3e designers did not sit down, dissect WFRP(old), figure out what they liked and didn't like about it, and then actively incoporate that work into the design of 3e.

I also believe that a process akin to that _was_ used for WFRP(new) - I believe Chris Pramas knows what he likes, doesn't like, thinks works, thinks doesn't work, can be revised for simplicity, or discarded without major impact when it comes to D&D, and he used that knowledge to build WFRP from a blank sheet of paper to the product I'm holding in my hand right now.

I could be totally wrong.  Chris may have the mental discipline to ignore the entire 3e experience, and all its related feedback & commentary, and he may have held in his head for twenty years how he'd do "Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay" if ever given a chance, and it is just coincidence that his pure vision of the WFRP and D&D 3e are substantially systemically similar and demonstrate a parallel design philosophy.  It's 1:30am for us West Coasters, and Chris is almost certainly asleep.  I suspect that by morning, he'll have made some comment of his own, and I can stop guessing and get the straight skinny right from the source.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2005)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Well, it's been said that Runequest came out of Steve Perrin's house rules for D&D, so similiarites will certainly be there since prior editions of D&D are part of the roots of d20



I just wanted to point out that the influences of RPGs often go in both directions. Runequest might have been born from someone's D&D house rules, but Runequest contained many concepts that were decades ahead of D&D and are now found again in the d20 system. The d20 system was very good in picking up good elements from other games. Of course, this makes those games more similar to d20 than ever.

However, I don't say that Runequest or WFRP are the same as the d20 system. Both, Runequest and WFRP, have completely different power curves than D&D, which makes for quite a different gameplay, whether they have some mechanical similarities or not.


----------



## delericho (Aug 15, 2005)

I must say, I found this review to be very disappointing. I had expected a review of the strengths and weaknesses of WFRP on its own merits, and not a comparison with D&D. Sad to say, despite the fact that I've played nothing but d20 for 2 years now, it is not the be-all and end-all of role-playing.

I also don't believe it is accurate to state that the game is a derivative of D&D. As other posters have said, many of the mechanics in the current edition existed in the old edition. Of the new mechanics, most of the changes have been made to allow the system to adopt the new core mechanic - which is not the d20 core mechanic, and the _existence_ of a core mechanic was hardly an innovation of D&D 3e.

Also, just because you can easily see a conversion from one to the other doesn't mean that they're derivative of one another - the core of both systems are mathematical, so all a conversion is is an equation between two sets of numbers. Might as well claim Exalted is derivative of D&D, since the core mechanic can be converted with only a slightly harder set of equations. (Besides, converting the core mechanic isn't enough - you also need to convert the corners of the system, such as the magic system in WFRP or the charms in Exalted.)

(Now, it is true to say that the combat system does bear significant resemblance to D&D, and the division of skills and feats, sorry talents, seems to be a D&Dism. Against that, there's the fact that the magic system is entirely new, and has nothing to do with the D&D combat system.)

Regarding the question of character advancement: In order to move to a new career, a WFRP character must have completed his existing career. This limits the options of a character for min-maxing. A character wh min-maxes for combat ability will, almost of necessity, have picked up some other skills along the way. However, it is true that a min-maxed character will be more competent than a character who has dabbled in multiple different career paths. Then again, in D&D, a single-classed 15th level character will easily outclass a Fighter/Rogue/Bard/Wizard/Cleric with 3 levels in each class.

Criticising WFRP for not allowing as wide a range of characters with the core book as D&D does is almost laughable. The core rules for D&D are 1,000 pages long, as opposed to just over 250 for WFRP. Of course the game doesn't cover as much!


----------



## ackron (Aug 15, 2005)

> I also believe that a process akin to that was used for WFRP(new) - I believe Chris Pramas knows what he likes, doesn't like, thinks works, thinks doesn't work, can be revised for simplicity, or discarded without major impact when it comes to D&D, and he used that knowledge to build WFRP from a blank sheet of paper to the product I'm holding in my hand right now.
> 
> I could be totally wrong. Chris may have the mental discipline to ignore the entire 3e experience, and all its related feedback & commentary, and he may have held in his head for twenty years how he'd do "Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay" if ever given a chance, and it is just coincidence that his pure vision of the WFRP and D&D 3e are substantially systemically similar and demonstrate a parallel design philosophy.




I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between those two statements. Clearly, Chris Pramas learned alot about designing RPGs from the process of building 3rd Edition and applied it to WHFRP, but based on what I have seen of his work on this project, it also seems clear he did not simply "start from a blank piece of paper."

I think, as Jurgen already stated, that he took the process of RPG development that he had learned from D&D and used it to build WHFRP 2nd edition. Did he sit down and think "hmm, how can I turn this game into a derivative of D&D 3rd edition?" No, he sat down and thought "here is what I know about making a good RPG, now how can I apply this knowledge to make a derivative of WHFRP first edition, and make it a good game?"

Ultimately, of course, it is a matter of perspective. Certainly there are many similarities between all three games (WHFRP 1st edition, 2nd edition, and D&D 3rd edition). Do these similarities detract from the value of any of the products? No, of course not, in fact, the adaptability of D&D material to Warhammer probably adds value to it, rather than the reverse. But it is still probably unfair to the creative process that designed WHFRP 1st edition to call WHRFP 2nd edition a derivative of 3rd edition D&D. Most of what WHRFP works was already there in 1st edition, and did not have to be taken from D&D.

Of course, by the time I post this, the conversation will almost certainly have eclipsed my comments, but oh well.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

delericho said:
			
		

> Criticising WFRP for not allowing as wide a range of characters with the core book as D&D does is almost laughable.




Note:  We were discussing character *power levels* not character concepts.  In my review, I stated that the excellent WFRP character system will lead to a population of very distinct and interesting characters, as opposed to D&D.

Ryan


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Why do you say that?  The Renaissance represented a period of liberalizing beliefs, expanded acceptance of science vs. superstition, the growth of a middle class, a flourishing of humanist art & culture, and the restructuring of medevial fuedal governmental systems towards broader-based democratic principles.
> 
> What part of the Warhammer World does _that_ reflect?
> 
> ...



Gunpowder and firearms are two elements in this. Mercenary armies are a different element. The renaissance was the age of the witch hunts. Superstition was met by the first attempts at building a modern legal system, it was institutionalized. This means, witch hunts were much more effective now, torture was applied more systematically, and this lead to more burning witches (witch hunts are a phenomenon of the modern era, not of the middle ages). The renaissance was also the time of flourishing absolutism, which took away the rights of all other citizens. The renaissance was the time when the religious wars in central Europe culminated, during which a large part of the population was killed.

Yes, there were also the histories of the Netherlands or Switzerland, which seem to reflect your idealized image. For the majority of the people in central Europe, the renaissance saw a sharp decline in their standard of living with lots of death and misery. It fits the WFRP world quite well.


----------



## MonsterMash (Aug 15, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> When I picked up D&D 3.0 and flipped through it, after not gaming at all for more than ten years, one of my first thoughts was, "Wow, this is a lot like Warhammer Roleplay."



My experience was similar except I was looking at D&D 3.0 thinking - all these good ideas borrowed from RuneQuest2


----------



## Imruphel (Aug 15, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> (snip) This is more of an "internal housecleaning". And the "prestige classes" of D&D3E are a rather obvious derivative of the Advanced Classes of WFRP1E, so here it is actually the other way around than you suggest! (snip)




Don't forget that D&D1E (and possibly OD&D) had its "prestige classes" first: bards and hierophant druids.


----------



## Imruphel (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> (snip) the division of character abilities into skills & feats (talents) (snip)




IIRC, this was a feature of the first edition of the Warhammer RPG and one that I thought inspired the idea of Feats in D&D3E. Yes/no?


----------



## Sulimo (Aug 15, 2005)

MonsterMash said:
			
		

> My experience was similar except I was looking at D&D 3.0 thinking - all these good ideas borrowed from RuneQuest2




And me with Rolemaster.


----------



## Sulimo (Aug 15, 2005)

Imruphel said:
			
		

> IIRC, this was a feature of the first edition of the Warhammer RPG and one that I thought inspired the idea of Feats in D&D3E. Yes/no?




Earthdawn did too.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> For the majority of the people in central Europe, the renaissance saw a sharp decline in their standard of living with lots of death and misery. It fits the WFRP world quite well.




I think you may be the first person I've ever seen use "Renaissance" as a synonym for "things got worse".


----------



## johnsemlak (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> > *Originally Posted by Turjan*
> > For the majority of the people in central Europe, the renaissance saw a sharp decline in their standard of living with lots of death and misery. It fits the WFRP world quite well.
> 
> 
> ...




It's not at all unusual that during a historical period which was noted for achievements in ideas, arts, etc., that the daily life of the comman person was getting worse


----------



## Sammael (Aug 15, 2005)

3.x feats are absolutely _identical_ to SPECIAL system perks. The XP table is also identical. Yet, no one is claiming that 3.x is a derivative of SPECIAL...


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> I think you may be the first person I've ever seen use "Renaissance" as a synonym for "things got worse".




Maybe not for the artists and proto-scientists, but for the general population it was another matter. Read this for some short notes.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Aug 15, 2005)

Indeed. A rebirth in classical learning (which is truly what the Renaissance was celebrating) does not necessarily result in enough food and shelter for everyone, nor prevent religious hysteria.

Kind of like Dancy's review, now that I think of it.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> I think you may be the first person I've ever seen use "Renaissance" as a synonym for "things got worse".



You think that's not true? I think you fell for the Renaissance propaganda of the so-called "Dark Ages". For most people, things got worse in the "Renaissance" and Baroque ages. This is scientifically documented by field investigations of buried people. While most skeletons from people of the early modern ages show signs of severe malnutrition and wearout, skeletons until quite late into the Middle Ages look mostly healthy. A better understanding of economical processes had a large part in this deterioration. In the Middle Ages, dependent people ate what the farms produced. In the early Modern Ages, dependent people only got to eat the cheapest product that a farm produced, and only this. That, in combination with a fast growing population, led to severe malnutrition and famines.

The phenomenon of the witch hunt should make the very common erroneous picture of the renaissance and baroque ages clear. The witch hunts culminated in the 16th and 17th centuries, well into renaissance and baroque. These were the heydays of superstition.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Aug 15, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> He was right though.
> 
> /M



Only in that rubber-necking, watch-the-flames-go-higher kind of way endemic to all mankind


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Other than the [snip] the use of a unified die rolling mechanic




Sorry, are you seriously trying to argue that the concept of a unified die rolling mechanic as a design objective for a game was first seen in D&D 3rd Ed?

Erm... GURPS? D6 Star Wars? The various White Wolf systems? Just off the top of my head...


----------



## tetsujin28 (Aug 15, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> You think that's not true? I think you fell for the Renaissance propaganda of the so-called "Dark Ages". (snip lots of good and true stuff)



Which would be why many scholars have renamed the "Dark Ages" Late Antiquity, and the "Renaissance" Early Modern.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Aug 15, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Sorry, are you seriously trying to argue that the concept of a unified die rolling mechanic as a design objective for a game was first seen in D&D 3rd Ed?
> 
> Erm... GURPS? D6 Star Wars? The various White Wolf systems? Just off the top of my head...



Villains & Vigilantes? Ars Magica (which Jonathan Tweet co-designed)?


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> I wrote in my original review:
> 
> "It will not be a good game for people who want an ad hoc quickie one-shot adventure with a "bring your own PC" approach."
> 
> ...




Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be saying that when you said:

_"It will not be a good game for people who want an ad hoc quickie one-shot adventure with a "bring your own PC" approach."_

...what you were actually meaning was:

_"If you have a group of players who have previously played D&D and already have D&D characters created, but who have not previously played WFRP, then D&D will be a better, and faster, system for GMing a one-shot scenario for them than WFRP."_

...which is just a tad different.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 15, 2005)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Villains & Vigilantes? Ars Magica (which Jonathan Tweet co-designed)?




Exactly. I'd suggest that probably every game designed from the mid-eighties onwards had a unified die mechanic. In fact, I seem to recall that this was generally the criticism thrown at 2nd Ed D&D (that it *didn't* have a unified die mechanic).


----------



## S'mon (Aug 15, 2005)

BTW 13-20 is a 40% chance of success, not 35%.  So to convert WFRP to D&D you need a base DC of 21 not 20...


----------



## delericho (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Note:  We were discussing character power levels not character concepts.  In my review, I stated that the excellent WFRP character system will lead to a population of very distinct and interesting characters, as opposed to D&D.




I understand that. However, I still don't think it's a fair complaint. If you remove all of the D&D material supporting play at levels above 13th (that was your example, wasn't it?), you're removing a good 40% of the spells and monsters from the game.


----------



## Balbinus (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> I think that part of the disconnect may be that people are reading a lot of stuff into the book that isn't there, based on their previous experiences with Warhammer Fantasy, the novels, the miniatures game, and the older RP stuff.  I'm not disagreeing with anyone who says that's where the setting is going, or that's how the game is to be played - I'm simply saying that you can't base those conclusions on the WFRP book itself.




Leaving aside the discussion on the Renaissance, where I agree Ryan has gone a bit astray in terms of his knowledge of the relevant history, I think the above is a good comment.  This is a setting in which the king rides a gryphon into battle, a game where if a PC dies there is a mechanic giving you an extra life just like in a video game, a game which when it came out led to several hundred post threads on rpg.net about how they had changed the setting to make it more high fantasy and how some stuff from DnD seemed to have crept in.

If you didn't already know the game how would you see it?  It's a fair question, I'm not persuaded that as the game now stands it's the fantasy CoC everyone thinks it is.  First edition was that, I'm not persuaded second is.

Otherwise I think partly Ryan is getting a kicking because of who he is, others have made similar comments without anything like this kind of backlash.


----------



## Ian Sturrock (Aug 15, 2005)

I love the way that Mr Dancey's complaints about WFRP 2.0 seem to boil down to "it's derivative of D&D 3.0 -- look, all sorts of features that D&D 3.0 borrowed from WFRP 1.0!" but his complaints about the Old World Bestiary seem to boil down to "it's not derivative of D&D 3.0 -- look, no treasure tables!"

As one of the writing team behind the "average or below-average quality, stream of conscious, intentionally error-riddled fiction" in the Bestiary, I must declare some bias. Fortunately, I don't feel the need to worry overmuch about the comments of someone whose 'critical faculties' are so finely tuned he can't even spell the name of the book he's reviewing.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 15, 2005)

Ian Sturrock said:
			
		

> I love the way that Mr Dancey's complaints about WFRP 2.0 seem to boil down to "it's derivative of D&D 3.0 -- look, all sorts of features that D&D 3.0 borrowed from WFRP 1.0!"




Yeah, I think that level of ignorance of history is on a par with the old "We saved your butts from the Nazis!" (by American, directed at a Brit) in its ability to rile people up.


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 15, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Sorry, are you seriously trying to argue that the concept of a unified die rolling mechanic as a design objective for a game was first seen in D&D 3rd Ed?
> 
> Erm... GURPS? D6 Star Wars? The various White Wolf systems? Just off the top of my head...




Don't forget about Rolemaster.....

Unified mechanic, yup.
Skills & talents, yup..

Personally, I think that the review is simply nothing more than pure propaganda to try and take away some of WHFRP's thunder and momentum, in order to turn people towards d20/D&D.

Such a big deal is made about Chris Pramas having worked at WotC, that the review tries to imply that WHFRP has to be derivative because of this.  If this were the case, then that would mean that D&D3.0 just HAS to be derivative of Rolemaster because Monte Cook worked at ICE at one time.

Here is a link to the RPG.Net thread on this topic for those who are interested...
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=211410


----------



## Buttercup (Aug 15, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> If you do say so yourself.....




Well, but looking at the game in a big picture sense, he was correct.  Besides, the review *was* positive, so why all the fuss?


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 15, 2005)

Balbinus said:
			
		

> If you didn't already know the game how would you see it?  It's a fair question, I'm not persuaded that as the game now stands it's the fantasy CoC everyone thinks it is.  First edition was that, I'm not persuaded second is.




Well, the insanity mechanics are pretty much the same, apart from the more evocative names for the mental disorders.

Combat is possibly even _more_ lethal, thanks to the higher damage dice. Now even naked dwarfs (and yes, that's spelled the right way) have to watch out...

Magic items have become much rarer - from something most adventurers will pick up several of during the course of their careers to something that is incredibly rare.

Finally, magic now actually _is_ sanity-blasting if used too often. Spellcasters who use their magic too frequently often end up insane. Or mutated.

Whether WFRP 1E was the fantasy CoC is one question, but if it was, then WFRP is it even more so.


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 15, 2005)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Well, but looking at the game in a big picture sense, he was correct.  Besides, the review *was* positive, so why all the fuss?




Sorry, but the review was only "superficially" positive. It was filled with a lot of degrading innuendo and allusion that would leave most readers with a bad taste in their mouth when it came to WHFRP. It tries to imply that D&D 3.x is the source for most of the changes, and tries to imply (indirectly) that you should be getting D&D cause it is a better game.

I think somebody earlier used the phrase "damning with faint praise". That about sums it up.


----------



## Buttercup (Aug 15, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Sorry, but the review was only "superficially" positive. It was filled with a lot of degrading innuendo and allusion that would leave most readers with a bad taste in their mouth when it came to WHFRP. It tries to imply that D&D 3.x is the source for most of the changes, and tries to imply (indirectly) that you should be getting D&D cause it is a better game.
> 
> I think somebody earlier used the phrase "damning with faint praise". That about sums it up.




I guess we didn't read the same review.  I can tell you that before I read it, I had not even considered buying the book, but now I intend to give it a close look, and may even pick it up.  

All of the criticism of the review has left me perplexed.  From where I'm sitting it looks like a bunch of people have teh hat for Ryan Dancy and have decided that anything he says about their fave game must be bad because he was the one saying it.  :shrug:


----------



## Ian Sturrock (Aug 15, 2005)

I don't have anything against Dancey personally. I wouldn't trust him (see the parallel rpg.net thread, in which his computer hacking to attempt to take control of a trade organisation is mentioned), but I have in the past found his analysis of the industry to be insightful, and as a writer who has made a fair living out of the d20 industry I would be foolish to complain about said industry's prominence.

Those two reviews were just silly, though.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 15, 2005)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Well, but looking at the game in a big picture sense, he was correct.  Besides, the review *was* positive, so why all the fuss?




Well, I can't speak for the others, but _my_ beef was the claim that WFRP was a "clever derivative of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition" when it was rather obvious that it isn't.


----------



## Unseenlibrarian (Aug 15, 2005)

Imruphel said:
			
		

> IIRC, this was a feature of the first edition of the Warhammer RPG and one that I thought inspired the idea of Feats in D&D3E. Yes/no?




This is definitely a yes: The only thing 2e did that's different from 1E in that department, as far as I can see with the two books in front of me,  was seperate the binary abilities from the ones you rolled.


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 15, 2005)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> All of the criticism of the review has left me perplexed.  From where I'm sitting it looks like a bunch of people have teh hat for Ryan Dancy and have decided that anything he says about their fave game must be bad because he was the one saying it.  :shrug:




First, please let me point out that I have never owned nor played any WHFRP games. From Dancey's review, I would not ever purchase either. He makes it sound (intentionally) as a derivative of D&D3.x and seeing as how I have that, why would I need to purchase it.

Secondly, I have noticed over the past few years that most anything that Dancey does publicly is meant to further D&D/d20 and the OGL. This includes conversations where D&D is not the focus (the rules-lite thread?). This is just another instance of that, IMO.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 15, 2005)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> I guess we didn't read the same review.  I can tell you that before I read it, I had not even considered buying the book, but now I intend to give it a close look, and may even pick it up.




Do pick it up. I like D&D as much as the next guy, but WFRP makes for a terrific change of pace. This is a world where, no matter how powerful your PCs get, they still remain _mortal_. Though they might become highly competent at what they do, they are still vulnerable, and charging into whole armies of orcs (at least, without your _own_ army at your side) is tantamount to suicide. The PCs should never get too cocky here.

The quip about D&D and Call of Cthulhu really does capture the feeling rather well.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 15, 2005)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> All of the criticism of the review has left me perplexed. From where I'm sitting it looks like a bunch of people have teh hat for Ryan Dancy and have decided that anything he says about their fave game must be bad because he was the one saying it. :shrug:




I agree. This article does read more like an essay than a review though. Mr. Dancey invited criticism on that alone, and perhaps would have been better served posting his comments in a new thread over here. Having said that, it told me everything I needed to know about whether or not to buy it, and I probably will.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 15, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> First, please let me point out that I have never owned nor played any WHFRP games.




You immediately need to rectify that, you know.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Aug 15, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Do pick it up. I like D&D as much as the next guy, but WFRP makes for a terrific change of pace.




Amen! I really like WFRP, and wish I could get a group to play it.

I was going to start a WFRP game, in large part because of the character creation system, but 2 of the players had already played AU/E with me, and we went with that so that we'd have some people who knew how to play.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 15, 2005)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Well, but looking at the game in a big picture sense, he was correct.  Besides, the review *was* positive, so why all the fuss?




It doesn't matter if a review is positive, if it says things that aren't actually true - especially when those things falsely imply that the game is inferior in certain areas to another game, a game which the author of the review had a hand in developing. In that case, the "positive things" come across as actually being part of the fraud, because they make it more likely that a reader will believe the mistruths.

i.e. If I was going to tell some lies about someone, I'd surround those lies with a load of vague complements to make it sound like I was "trying to be fair".

For example:

_Joe's a really great, kind guy. Yeah, there's been a few incidents in the past with him stealing things, but I'm sure he's got over that by now, and even if he hasn't, he's such a great guy that I recommend being his friend in spite of those issues!_


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 15, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Do you think it's easier if you tell a d20 group "You can make whatever character you want", and they show up with a fighter, a ranger, a wizard and a monk for the Tomb of Horrors? It's also tough in d20 games if certain roles, like rogue and cleric, are not filled in. That's why we see variants like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, I suppose.




Can't speak for RyanD, but for me, it's not as much an issue for short term battles. The levelling aspect of the game gives characters in D&D some equal ground.

In point based games, GURPS, Hero, and games that are semi-leveled like Warhammer, it's not quite so easy. There is no automatic advancement of hit dice. There is no automatic knowledge of spells. There are no expectations that you'll have items worth xxxx g.p. Because of these factors, it can be much more difficult to come up with opposition that can match the heavy weights of the group, and not slaughter the thinkers of the group.

Even in D&D, a wizard with d4 hit dice who gets up to 10th level, still has 10d4 hit dice, and perhaps some Con bonus. There's not a lot of that going on in Warhammer.


----------



## Ghostwind (Aug 15, 2005)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> I guess we didn't read the same review.  I can tell you that before I read it, I had not even considered buying the book, but now I intend to give it a close look, and may even pick it up.
> 
> All of the criticism of the review has left me perplexed.  From where I'm sitting it looks like a bunch of people have teh hat for Ryan Dancy and have decided that anything he says about their fave game must be bad because he was the one saying it.  :shrug:




I've got it and am quite impressed with it. In fact, I am strongly thinking about running a WHFRP game at the store because of it. 

When I read the reviews, I felt that Ryan was using 3rd ed D&D in a way to give the casual reader a point of reference. Not as a means to bash/glorify one system or another. Most online gamers are familiar with D&D, so it is only logical that if you were trying to explain a system that wasn't d20 D&D, that you make comparisons against it to give readers an understanding of your point and a frame of reference.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 15, 2005)

*You know what they say ...*



			
				Ghostwind said:
			
		

> I've got it and am quite impressed with it. In fact, I am strongly thinking about running a WHFRP game at the store because of it.
> 
> When I read the reviews, I felt that Ryan was using 3rd ed D&D in a way to give the casual reader a point of reference. Not as a means to bash/glorify one system or another. Most online gamers are familiar with D&D, so it is only logical that if you were trying to explain a system that wasn't d20 D&D, that you make comparisons against it to give readers an understanding of your point and a frame of reference.




Well, you know what they say; "Everyone is entitled to an opinion ... except Ryan Dancey."   

And before I get jumped on for defending "satan and the greatest evil that has befallen the rpg industry" (to paraphrase comments in RPGnet, let me just say that I feel Dancey gets some things the wrong way, and no, I don't take his word as gospel, but I've read far worse reviews than his.

Maybe that's what's behind this outcry; a fear that people DO take Dancey's word as gospel? Could it be so? Do people really do that?

/maggan


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 15, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Can't speak for RyanD, but for me, it's not as much an issue for short term battles. The levelling aspect of the game gives characters in D&D some equal ground.




Well, starting WFRP characters are also all on equal ground - they are _all_ a bunch of loosers.



> In point based games, GURPS, Hero, and games that are semi-leveled like Warhammer, it's not quite so easy. There is no automatic advancement of hit dice. There is no automatic knowledge of spells. There are no expectations that you'll have items worth xxxx g.p. Because of these factors, it can be much more difficult to come up with opposition that can match the heavy weights of the group, and not slaughter the thinkers of the group.
> 
> Even in D&D, a wizard with d4 hit dice who gets up to 10th level, still has 10d4 hit dice, and perhaps some Con bonus. There's not a lot of that going on in Warhammer.




There is some truth to that. D&D is nearly alone in its rigid conception of "how powerful" advanced characters are (including the "typical wealth" numbers). This has some powerful advantages - it is easy to create "appropriate challenges" for your PCs, and making one-shot adventures for more experienced characters are also easier, since they all tend to be fairly equal in combat effectiveness (though in different fields of expertise).

Still, equally experienced characters in other RPGs - such as WFRP - all have strengths that aren't matched by the other characters. The difference is that "strength" or "usefulness" of a character is not focused on combat - no one expects a Noble Lord to be the equal in combat of a Judical Champion, even though both are likely to have the same number of experience points.

So at least for the more powerful WFRP characters, you have to write the adventure to fit to the stregths or weaknesses of the characters if you want to create a "balanced adventure". This can be a problem and requires some adjustment for some game masters. Still, it is not _too_ much of a problem for WFRP, since the characters are never really intended to get _really_ powerful in the way high-level D&D characters (or _Exalted_ characters) are. So pretty much any encounter can be "challenging", whether the characters are experienced or not.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 15, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Well, you know what they say; "Everyone is entitled to an opinion ... except Ryan Dancey."




This has nothing to do with Ryan Dancy - at least, not for me. It's just that if I notice a rather obvious error in a review, I will say precisely why I think that review was in mistake.

The last time that happened was when someone reviewed Blue Rose and got a number of things wrong about the setting. In response, I wrote my own review.


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL! (Aug 15, 2005)

Why this review treats WFRP almost as Dungeons and Dragons supplement?


----------



## Maggan (Aug 15, 2005)

*Great!*



			
				Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> This has nothing to do with Ryan Dancy - at least, not for me. It's just that if I notice a rather obvious error in a review, I will say precisely why I think that review was in mistake.
> 
> The last time that happened was when someone reviewed Blue Rose and got a number of things wrong about the setting. In response, I wrote my own review.




Great! But you have to admit that not everyone involved in this discussion has shown to be that level-headed.

Still I guess Dancey is doing what Dancey seems to do best; creating buzz about himself and d20. 

Cheers!

M.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 15, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Well, starting WFRP characters are also all on equal ground - they are _all_ a bunch of loosers..




The new edition fixed this to a limited extent but... a scholar, (I forget if it's wizard's apprentice or just scholar) is not anywhere in the same class as a bandit, shield brother, etc... etc... There are still big gaps in starting power level.




			
				Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> So at least for the more powerful WFRP characters, you have to write the adventure to fit to the stregths or weaknesses of the characters if you want to create a "balanced adventure". This can be a problem and requires some adjustment for some game masters. Still, it is not _too_ much of a problem for WFRP, since the characters are never really intended to get _really_ powerful in the way high-level D&D characters (or _Exalted_ characters) are. So pretty much any encounter can be "challenging", whether the characters are experienced or not.




But yet, even the adventurers written by the professionals suffer from this problem. Some of them make assumptions that players will have skill X, even when they include pregenerated characters (who actually don't have the necessarily skills to make the tests), and include a ton of combat options. While a skilled GM can rig some of the combat so the initiate priest isn't getting hit the same as the giant slayer, it eventually does feel rigged.


----------



## tarchon (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> If Character A does something to Character B, and Character B rolls a die to see if that effect fizzles, that's a save.  I don't think that can be any more clear.



So when you roll against opposed skill check in 3E, that's a saving throw? When you roll a check to dispel magic is that a saving throw too?


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Are you seriously trying to argue that the concept of a unified die rolling mechanic as a design objective for a game was first seen in D&D 3rd Ed?




Of course not.  I was enumerating an open ended lists of changes made to WFRP that make it more similar to D&D 3e.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 15, 2005)

OK, folks, I have to step in here.

Disagreeing with Ryan is fine, but there's a real undercurrent of hostility towards him running through this thread.  That's not fine.  Please treat other members of this board with courtesy, whether you agree with them or not.

Thanks, folks.


----------



## Buttercup (Aug 15, 2005)

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> When I read the reviews, I felt that Ryan was using 3rd ed D&D in a way to give the casual reader a point of reference. Not as a means to bash/glorify one system or another. Most online gamers are familiar with D&D, so it is only logical that if you were trying to explain a system that wasn't d20 D&D, that you make comparisons against it to give readers an understanding of your point and a frame of reference.




Thanks, Steve.  That's exactly how I understood the review.  The other point I thought Ryan was trying to make was that philosophically, the mechanics of D20 and WHFRP were related.  That's the kind of insight that I find fascinating, whether it's about roleplaying games or medicine or information technology architecture.  I guess if one isn't used to engaging in those sorts of mental exercises, one might read things into Ryan's comments that I didn't, though.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

Ian Sturrock said:
			
		

> I love the way that Mr Dancey's complaints about WFRP 2.0 seem to boil down to "it's derivative of D&D 3.0 -- look, all sorts of features that D&D 3.0 borrowed from WFRP 1.0!"




Calling WFRP(new) a "clever derivative of D&D 3e" is not a complaint.  It's a high compliment.

I think people are confusing the use of the term "derivative" and "cheap low quality knockoff".  A Cadillac Escalade is a "derivative" of a Jeep Wrangler.  The Escalade is not diminished by that linkage.  WFRPG(new) should not be considered diminished by my comments comparing it to D&D3e.



> but his complaints about the Old World Bestiary seem to boil down to "it's not derivative of D&D 3.0 -- look, no treasure tables!"




No, my complaint is that 11% of the book is wasted space, and that more than half of the book may not be useful to many readers, and thus the price of the book is not comesurate with its value.

The book would be >more useful< with treasure tables, larger group tactics, etc.  That isn't a comment in reference to any other RPG, it's just a comment with reference to its basic utility.



> Fortunately, I don't feel the need to worry overmuch about the comments of someone whose 'critical faculties' are so finely tuned he can't even spell the name of the book he's reviewing.




Thank you for pointing that out.  I'll have GR fix the typo immediately.

Ryan


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> So when you roll against opposed skill check in 3E, that's a saving throw?




In the widest interpretation, I'd say "yes":  You're rolling to "save" yourself from a negative outcome.  I think the analogy is stretched too far at this point to be of much use however.



> When you roll a check to dispel magic is that a saving throw too?




No, the target magical effect is already operative, you're attempting to alter a previously existing in-game condition.  If you fail, the effect will still be operative.

RYan


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Calling WFRP(new) a "clever derivative of D&D 3e" is not a complaint.  It's a high compliment.



*RyanD*, would you feel equally "complimented" if someone said that d20 was a clever derivative of _Alternity_, or _Boot Hill_, or _Top Secret_?


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> d20 was a clever derivative of _Alternity_, or _Boot Hill_, or _Top Secret_?




As all of those statements are true, I'll say "yes".  Don't forget James Bond 007, and Ghostbusters too.

Standing on the shoulders of previous successes is a good thing, not something to be ashamed of or feel belittled about.

Ryan


----------



## Belen (Aug 15, 2005)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> I guess we didn't read the same review.  I can tell you that before I read it, I had not even considered buying the book, but now I intend to give it a close look, and may even pick it up.
> 
> All of the criticism of the review has left me perplexed.  From where I'm sitting it looks like a bunch of people have teh hat for Ryan Dancy and have decided that anything he says about their fave game must be bad because he was the one saying it.  :shrug:




They're all mad because it was compared to D%D 3e.  Warhammer is too _pure_ a game to be sullied with the name of D&D.

It is a very elitist attitude and akin to this one guy I know who refuses to switch to 3e from 2e because the easier mechanics of 3e allow "less intelligent" people to play.


----------



## Belen (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> As all of those statements are true, I'll say "yes".  Don't forget James Bond 007, and Ghostbusters too.
> 
> Standing on the shoulders of previous successes is a good thing, not something to be ashamed of or feel belittled about.
> 
> Ryan




I liked the review.  It made me far more likely to pick up Warhammer and thought it was an excellent way to describe the games within terms that I already understand.  Thanks!


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Standing on the shoulders of previous successes is a good thing, not something to be ashamed of or feel belittled about.



I agree - however, the word "derivative" carries an emotional charge for some people signifying shoddy or second-rate, which would explain some of the reaction to the review.

(That, and failing to note that 3e D&D  is derivative of 1e WHFRP...  )

And *BelenUmeria*, please watch where you swing the "elitist" stick - most of the discussion so far has nothing to do with whether or not one system is "better" than another, but rather better understanding of the relationship of the two systems. Throwing bombs in what so far has been a mostly useful discussion is irresponsible.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Calling WFRP(new) a "clever derivative of D&D 3e" is not a complaint.  It's a high compliment.
> ...




Irrespective of whether you think this claim is a 'complaint' or a 'high compliment', it is a plainly _false_ statement.

To say that _x_ is a 'derivative' of _y_ is to say that _x_ is _based upon y_.

To say that WFRP 2e is 'based upon' 3e is laughable.  It is based on WFRP 1e.  While it has 3e 'influences', it is not 'derived' from 3e.

In short, this central claim of your review is bogus.


----------



## tarchon (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> They're all mad because it was compared to D%D 3e.  Warhammer is too _pure_ a game to be sullied with the name of D&D.



I'm not mad - the review is just factually incorrect in many respects and the arguments used to support it are mostly highly mistaken. If somebody'd written a review of AD&D and based it on how heavily it derived from Warhammer, I'd have given it the same treatment if it had come my attention, because that would have been just as wrong and misleading.
Ryan knew exactly what he was stirring up when he started a whole thread to pimp this review - he's not stupid. I think it should be obvious to everyone who's spent any time on gaming boards that the style of review he wrote ["here's how this gaming system is derivative of my favorite gaming system (that I just happened to help develop)"] and the way he advertised it was inevitably going to draw attention. I mean, let's not blame the bulls because they come snorting at the guy who's jumping around in the pasture with a red flag yelling "look at me!".


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> They're all mad because it was compared to D%D 3e.  Warhammer is too _pure_ a game to be sullied with the name of D&D.
> 
> It is a very elitist attitude and akin to this one guy I know who refuses to switch to 3e from 2e because the easier mechanics of 3e allow "less intelligent" people to play.




Rubbish.  It has nothing to do with 'purity' or 'elitism'.

It has to do with the fact that the review makes a number of plainly false claims.


----------



## Belen (Aug 15, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> And *BelenUmeria*, please watch where you swing the "elitist" stick - most of the discussion so far has nothing to do with whether or not one system is "better" than another, but rather better understanding of the relationship of the two systems. Throwing bombs in what so far has been a mostly useful discussion is irresponsible.




I have not seen much discussion at all.  Instead, I have seen a lot of venom torwards Mr. Dancey about a positive review of the product.  The review (correctly) speaks to people who actively play D&D and presents the book in a way for them to understand it.  Heck, I would think that review is going to sell a lot of copies of the book that would not otherwise have been purchased.  

So, a lot of people (who already seem to own the book, publically castigate the reviewer for daring to imply that it shares underlying concepts with D&D 3e.  In fact, the comments on the review sites are enough to undo Mr. Dancey's review and turn people away from the product because they violently disagree with the D&D 3e "stigma."

To me, this is a very elitist attitude.  I see no other reason for the viscious comments directed against Mr. Dancey other than this type of attitude.


----------



## Belen (Aug 15, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Rubbish.  It has nothing to do with 'purity' or 'elitism'.
> 
> It has to do with the fact that the review makes a number of plainly false claims.




Reader 1: "Hey, someone wrote a positive review of Warhammer Fantasy RPG.  It said that we should go out and buy the book and would even make a good setting for the legions who play D&D/d20."

Fan: "It says the game is like D&D!?  Get my pitchfork and torch."


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Reader 1: "Hey, someone wrote a positive review of Warhammer Fantasy RPG.  It said that we should go out and buy the book and would even make a good setting for the legions who play D&D/d20."
> 
> Fan: "It says the game is like D&D!?  Get my pitchfork and torch."




If the review made comparisons between WFRP and D&D to help explain the system (and its strengths and weaknesses) that would be fine.  But that is not what the review does.  The review claims that WFRP 2e is a 'derivative' of 3e.

That's just plain false.  _Comprendez-vous_?


----------



## Belen (Aug 15, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> I'm not mad - the review is just factually incorrect in many respects and the arguments used to support it are mostly highly mistaken. If somebody'd written a review of AD&D and based it on how heavily it derived from Warhammer, I'd have given it the same treatment if it had come my attention, because that would have been just as wrong and misleading.




You could have fooled me.  I do not see how the review is factually incorrect.  Warhammer 1e derives from AD&D.  Thus, we have

AD&D => Warhammer 1e => D&D 3e => Warhammer 2e

Why anyone feels the need to flame someone for a positive review is beyond me.  The review has the potential to add to the existing fanbase of Warhammer, thus making it easier to find players, increase profits for Green Ronin, and keep the game in print.

Yet, the review is "factually incorrect."  Basically, Ryan says "the game shares much in common with 3e."  Everyone else says "Nah uh! "


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The review (correctly) speaks to people who actively play D&D and presents the book in a way for them to understand it.



That's one interpretation - another is that the review "damns with faint praise" by an unfortunate choice of language or attempts to attribute elements of 2e WHFRP to 3e D&D that have in fact been around since 1e WHRPG (and influenced the development of 3e D&D).







			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I see no other reason for the viscious comments directed against Mr. Dancey other than this type of attitude.



Mr. Dancey generates viscious comments - full stop. It's unfortunate but true. (Mr. Dancey's writing style and selective grasp of history may contribute to this, IMHO, but that's neither here nor there.) Is that justification for you to start calling names?


----------



## Belen (Aug 15, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> If the review made comparisons between WFRP and D&D to help explain the system (and its strengths and weaknesses) that would be fine.  But that is not what the review does.  The review claims that WFRP 2e is a 'derivative' of 3e.
> 
> That's just plain false.  _Comprendez-vous_?




Yes, because 3e is the devil!


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Yes, because 3e is the devil!



Well, now we have something we can agree on!


----------



## Belen (Aug 15, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Is that justification for you to start calling names?




Please find where I single someone out and started calling them names.  Instead, I commented on the amount of vitriol torwards Mr. Dancey in this thread.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Please find where I single someone out and started calling them names.  Instead, I commented on the amount of vitriol torwards Mr. Dancey in this thread.



You said that the disagreement with the review is based on "elitist attitudes," and like the word "derivative," the connotations of elitism are usually negative.

Are we done with the semantic misdirection games now?


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Yes, because 3e is the devil!




It has nothing at all to do with 3e being the devil.  I don't understand you inability to grasp the following basic fact: _WFRP 2e is not a derivative of D&D 3e_.

Perhaps Dancey is using the word 'derivative' in a way that differs from standard English.  I don't know.  But given the standard English meaning of the noun 'derivative', his claim is simply _false_.

That's really the heart of the issue.  Dancey makes a patently false claim in his review.  (There are other factual errors in the review as well, but most of those have already been covered in this thread.)

I don't see how objecting to a plainly false claim is 'elitist'.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 15, 2005)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Thanks, Steve.  That's exactly how I understood the review.  The other point I thought Ryan was trying to make was that philosophically, the mechanics of D20 and WHFRP were related.




They're not related, though - at least, no more than OD&D and 1st ed Runequest were related, ca 30 years ago, and really less than that.  From the review, I gather:

1. WHFRP uses what Johnathan Tweet calls a "Platonic Ideal*" d% roll-under mechanism, where you have a fixed score and aim to roll under it.  (Runequest and many other games use/d this system).

2. D&D 3e uses a non-Platonic d20 roll-over mechanism vs a non-fixed DC.

*where eg "lockpick success chance" exists as a thing-in-itself, rather than being a product of the environment.  1e Thief skills were Platonic, 3e skills are non-Platonic.

These two are more alike each than either is to die pool systems, but they're really not very alike.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> So, a lot of people (who already seem to own the book, publically castigate the reviewer for daring to imply that it shares underlying concepts with D&D 3e.  In fact, the comments on the review sites are enough to undo Mr. Dancey's review and turn people away from the product because they violently disagree with the D&D 3e "stigma."



You fail to acknowledge the fact that nobody in this thread denies the mechanical resemblances between D&D 3E and WFRP2. If the review had used your words, _"that [WFRP2] shares underlying concepts with D&D 3e",_ nobody would have complained, because this is an obvious truth (in a relatively loose sense, because they want to achieve similar mechanical goals). The point is that the exact words in the review were _"The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game is a clever derivative of D&D 3rd Edition with an innovative character advancement system."_ Both these statements are wrong as written. It implies that WFRP2 just took the d20 engine and plugged a new character generation system on top of it. Obviously, Ryan Dancey is aware that this isn't quite the way it was, as he later writes _"The most substantial difference between WFRP and D20 is the character advancement system. This system is a hallmark of the WFRP game line *and has been present in some aspect or another in all the game's previous incarnations.*"_ So what about this innovative character generation system plugged on 3E?

The point in question is what is derivative of what. Btw, I don't want to imply that D&D 3E is in any way derivative of WFRP, but a look at WFRP1 would have probably led to a different conclusion in the review.

Edit: Much too slow  .


----------



## S'mon (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> AD&D => Warhammer 1e => D&D 3e => Warhammer 2e




I don't think any of those are "a derivative of" the preceding game, clever or not.  Clearly there were some influences in each case, but I wouldn't say Star Wars was "a clever derivative" of Buck Rogers, say, and that's a much stronger case than D&D 3e => Warhammer 2e.


----------



## Aesthete (Aug 15, 2005)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Villains & Vigilantes? Ars Magica (which Jonathan Tweet co-designed)?




I always thought D&D 3rd Ed was derivative of Ars Magica.  Ars Magica used the [single die roll] + [ability modifier] + [skill level] vs difficulty number *waaaaaaaaaay* before D&D did.


----------



## Henry (Aug 15, 2005)

Let's be done with insulting tenor, _*period*_, ladies and gentlemen.

I can see some similarities in Warhammer and 3E, having skimmed over it. But even I think that "derivative" is too strong a descriptor for the relationship the two games share. It's technically correct (in the "around 20 to 30% of the mechanics draw from concepts seen in d20" sense of the term). But when most people see "derivative", they think in the 60 to 70% vein of shared mechanics.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 15, 2005)

Aesthete at Gencon UK 2003 Johnathan Tweet talked about this in an Ars Magica seminar, he made it clear that he did indeed base the 3e core mechanic on the one in Ars Magica.


----------



## Belen (Aug 15, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I don't think any of those are "a derivative of" the preceding game, clever or not.  Clearly there were some influences in each case, but I wouldn't say Star Wars was "a clever derivative" of Buck Rogers, say, and that's a much stronger case than D&D 3e => Warhammer 2e.




You can; however, say that Battlestar Galactica is a derivative of Star Wars.

There is not wrong with being derivative.


----------



## Belen (Aug 15, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> You said that the disagreement with the review is based on "elitist attitudes," and like the word "derivative," the connotations of elitism are usually negative.
> 
> Are we done with the semantic misdirection games now?




Actually, I said the people who feel the need to flame Mr. Dancey are elitist.  

The funny thing here is that "disagreement" has the effect, if not the intention, of telling D&D players "We don't serve your kind here."


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 15, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> ... I can see some similarities in Warhammer and 3E, having skimmed over it. But even I think that "derivative" is too strong a descriptor for the relationship the two games share. It's technically correct (in the "around 20 to 30% of the mechanics draw from concepts seen in d20" sense of the term). But when most people see "derivative", they think in the 60 to 70% vein of shared mechanics.




I don't think it is 'technically correct' -- at least not without qualification.  Strictly speaking, the noun 'derivative' means 'something that is based on another source'.  So, without qualification, the only thing that WFRP 2e is a 'derivative' of is WFRP 1e -- since that is obviously what WFRP 2e is based upon.  Other games (including 3e) might have influenced some of the rules revisions in WFRP 2e, but as Chris Pramas makes extremely clear in his designer notes in the book, WFRP 2e is based fundamentally on WFRP 1e.  Only the magic system is entirely new.

Dancey's claim would be fine if he had stated something like: "Some parts of WFRP 2e are derivatives of 3e".  But without any qualification, the clear meaning of the sentence is that the _primary_ basis of WFRP 2e is D&D 3e.  And that's just false.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Actually, I said the people who feel the need to flame Mr. Dancey are elitist.



It doesn't make it any less insulting or unnecessary.







			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The funny thing here is that "disagreement" has the effect, if not the intention, of telling D&D players "We don't serve your kind here."



I didn't get that impression at all, personally - I think folks were legitimately interested in correcting some misapprehensions put forth in the review.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The funny thing here is that "disagreement" has the effect, if not the intention, of telling D&D players "We don't serve your kind here."




As a D&D player I can honestly say I didn't feel that.  
Although personally I thought 1e WFRP was too grim & gritty for my taste, 2e likely still is also.  That it's not mechanically like 3e D&D doesn't bother me, though.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You could have fooled me.  I do not see how the review is factually incorrect.  Warhammer 1e derives from AD&D.  Thus, we have
> 
> AD&D => Warhammer 1e => D&D 3e => Warhammer 2e




You and Ryan seem to have the same definition of "derives".  "Influenced by" and "derives from" are distinctly different.  It is entirely possible that both you and Mr. Dancy are intending "derives from" to mean "influenced by".  That is the complaint.  I have no value judgement on whether or not Ryan intended one to mean the other.  The only thing I can say is that using "derives from" is incorrect.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Why anyone feels the need to flame someone for a positive review is beyond me.  The review has the potential to add to the existing fanbase of Warhammer, thus making it easier to find players, increase profits for Green Ronin, and keep the game in print.




There have been (two? three?) posters who flamed Mr. Dancy, the majority of the posters here are trying to get him to understand where he is factually incorrect.

Why exactly are you flaming them?  (And yes, saying something along the lines of "the people who are complaining about this are elitists" is a flame against those people.)

_Edit - I see now that in post #97 you clarify that you are referring only to the few folks who actually flamed Ryan.  I will point out that flaming someone is generally not a good idea, regardless of whether or not you think you are justified in doing it. _



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Yet, the review is "factually incorrect."  Basically, Ryan says "the game shares much in common with 3e."  Everyone else says "Nah uh! "




Ryan may have intended to say that "the game shares much in common with 3e".  No one is disputing that.  What is in dispute is Ryan's claim that WHFRPG 2 is a "derivative" of 3e.  To use your diagram above, it would more accurately be displayed as:


```
AD&D --- Warhammer 1e 
   |               |
   |               |
   v               |
D&D 3e  <-----------
   |               |
   |               |
   |               v
   ------>  Warhammer 2e
```
With all of those arrows representing influences.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 15, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I don't think it is 'technically correct' -- at least not without qualification.  Strictly speaking, the noun 'derivative' means 'something that is based on another source'.  So, without qualification, the only thing that WFRP 2e is a 'derivative' of is WFRP 1e -- since that is obviously what WFRP 2e is based upon.  Other games (including 3e) might have influenced some of the rules revisions in WFRP 2e, but as Chris Pramas makes extremely clear in his designer notes in the book, WFRP 2e is based fundamentally on WFRP 1e.  Only the magic system is entirely new.
> 
> Dancey's claim would be fine if he had stated something like: "Some parts of WFRP 2e are derivatives of 3e".  But without any qualification, the clear meaning of the sentence is that the _primary_ basis of WFRP 2e is D&D 3e.  And that's just false.




I agree 100% with all the above, and very well put.  I think it would be good if Ryan could take this onboard and withdraw this claim, change the wording to something that isn't clearly wrong.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You can; however, say that Battlestar Galactica is a derivative of Star Wars.
> 
> There is not wrong with being derivative.




You could say "the starship sequences in Galactica are derivative of Star Wars" but no, Galactica is not "a derivative of" Star Wars, it clearly used a lot of other influences, most notably the Old Testament.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 15, 2005)

Lordy, I'm impressed with 2e Warhammer. I never thought that much of the original, but perhaps that was because I never played it. Reading the new edition was a blast for me, though. I'm looking forward to trying the game.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Yes, because 3e is the devil!




That is correct; don't forget demons. In 2nd edition they were called baatezu and tanar'i.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 15, 2005)

Wow, I too am surprised by the vitriol that has come out in this thread.

Personally, I found the review to be kind of a backhanded compliment- the impression I got was, "oh, WHFR 2e is cool _because_ they derived a lot of it from 3e."  I don't think that's accurate at all.  

The game is great and is significantly different from dnd (any version) in both tone and mechanics.  I think that calling it 'derivative' is loading the review in such a way that you _know_ (or at least should know) that someone is going to be offended.  I mean, how would you feel if you wrote a novel and a reviewer said, "Good book, but derivative of author X's book Y."  I know that I would feel as though it was just short of an accusation of plagiarism.  

Just a few thoughts as to why people are gettin' all worked up here.  I love dnd and I love WHFR; they are distinctly different imho, as different as Ravenloft and VtM.


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Aug 15, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> I think that calling it 'derivative' is loading the review in such a way that you _know_ (or at least should know) that someone is going to be offended.




...and then go and start a thread about your own review...


----------



## Faraer (Aug 15, 2005)

The review is a time-honoured medium; unfortunately most online 'reviews' are nothing of the kind, these two among them.

Ryan's précis of the Old World tacitly attributes its own simplisticness to its subject and entirely fails to discuss the way in which the Warhammer world combines its inspirations, i.e. its actual implementation. He similarly doesn't comment on the introductory short story or the adventure. The second two-thirds which ostensibly evaluates the game's mechanics -- which indicates Ryan's biases in itself -- reads like a thought-experiment in tunnel vision. Yes, you can interpret everything in relation to d20, but so what, and why does that perspective belong in a review? The 'derivative of D&D' comment is demonstrably wrong ('clever' is a classic snide put-down, and may be here). There are too many factual mistakes, undeclared biases (though Ryan sees fit to go into Chris Pramas's background) passed off as facts, and non sequiturs ('it remains to be seen if that tone still resonates with today's gamers... the game is certain to generate a large and active player network') for a piece which adopts a tone of objectivity.

The first half of the _Old World Bestiary_ 'review' is a reiteration of the book's contents (the current trend in RPG 'reviews'). The second half describes the main part of the book as 'average or below-average quality, stream of conscious, intentionally error-riddled fiction' -- a useless remark unless we're told how it is average or below-average -- gives a pointlessly brief evaluation of the Warhammer world, says 'The value for the price is just not justified' without saying why not, then lists things that Ryan would have liked to see in the book -- two of them fair requests, the others taking WFRP for D&D (a treasure-winning game with many magic items).

The Renaissance is so called because members of the urban elite classes adopted the _conceit_ that their age was a revival of ancient Greek and Roman culture; almost no one now thinks it actually was.


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 15, 2005)

Aesthete said:
			
		

> I always thought D&D 3rd Ed was derivative of Ars Magica.  Ars Magica used the [single die roll] + [ability modifier] + [skill level] vs difficulty number *waaaaaaaaaay* before D&D did.



And Rolemaster used that samebasic mechanics even years earlier....

[single die roll](percentile roll) + [ability modifier](stat bonuses) + [skill level](skill rank bonus) vs difficulty number (Success for a Medium maneuver >=111)


----------



## Ibram (Aug 15, 2005)

Although I did not find his review of the main book to be negative hes "bias" towards the d20 system is rather obvious.  To say that WHFRP2 is derivative of 3.x is not an accurate statement, rather they are products of parallel evolution.  In the end what dice based RPG doesnt come down to rolling X dice to hit number Y?

I interpret his review as targeted to those who already use the d20 system, so it does make sense to compare the two systems.

as to the Bestiary review...

This I'll take issue with.  Firstly I LOVE this book, and wish that more monster manuals followed its format (rather then having evil humanoid variant 2433-53.B to 2742-61.K).  Having the first half of the book devoid of game mechanics was a wonderful idea.  It also follows the layout of the GW army books, which is what most fans of the game would be familiar with.

The idea that All the background material in the book is open to all characters is simply not true. Page 3 has a sidebar calle "What PCs know" which gives general guidelines for what PCs know.

The idea that everything in WHFRP is there to be "Killed and Looted" then you should probably go back to Greyhawk/FR (no to disparage other systems).  The first section gives an insight into how the different creatures are intergrated into the Warhammer world, and from an in-game point of view.  I would like to know what errors were present in the fiction, because I didnt notice any (and I know a great deal about the game world, having read most of the fiction out there).  I also found the writting to be very well done for an RPG book, (the comments from the skaven "expert" were wonderful, I'd buy that guy a beer if we ever met).

Intrestingly enough after your comments about the first part I found you statement about the second part being "dry and sparse" to be rather odd.

the comments about "classic" monsters being repetative is also odd... as they do need to have a rules description so that they can be used in the game, and also because there are some unique twists on the classics (the minotaur being the best example).

going down the list of "missing" things it would seem to me that most are not needed (or have no place in the system).  Treasure tables are something I always ignore, and as such I didnt even notice that they were not there.  The same thing goes for having a writeup for larger groups of monsters (is it realy so hard to have 5 orcs, one with slightly higher stats, to represent a patrol?).  Looking through the ToC the only creatures missing are Lizardmen, and since the book focuses on the Old World that makes sense.  I'm not sure what new creatures a GM would need to add that could not be done so by modifying an existing creature.  He also points out the absence of magic items, which is (as has been stated many... Many times) is a function of the world not something that has been left out.

Looking through my Dark Elf army book I cannot see any items that would be hard to convert to the RPG.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Aug 15, 2005)

Ibram said:
			
		

> I LOVE this book, and wish that more monster manuals followed its format (rather then having evil humanoid variant 2433-53.B to 2742-61.K).



 

That's kinda funny, being as WFRP is replete with "evil humanoid variant X."

Goblins, night goblins, orcs, black orcs, hobgoblins, chaos dwarves, Druchii, Skaven...


----------



## Ibram (Aug 15, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> That's kinda funny, being as WFRP is replete with "evil humanoid variant X."
> 
> Goblins, night goblins, orcs, black orcs, hobgoblins, chaos dwarves, Druchii, Skaven...




True, but you will note that there are a large number of differences between those creatures... I was refering to the Goblin variant 1-15, Orc Variant 1-8 type of monsters.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

I think that the use of the term "derivative" in my original review has caused my meaning to become distorted.  I've asked GamingReport to revise the review as follows, which I think better encapsulates my opinion:

Change:

"The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game is a clever derivative of D&D 3rd Edition with an innovative character advancement system, "

to

"The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game shares many similar design goals to D&D 3rd Edition, and uses a "basket" of mechanics and mechanical design choices that are clearly influenced by the design of D&D 3rd Edition.

This reviewer's opinion is that this represents a positive and successful attempt to marry a valuable and loved heritage with a state of the art design philosophy.

The game also features a number of other systems that are either unique to the WFRP game, or are borrowed from other successful RPGs.  These include the innovative, incremental character advancement system, a brain-blasting insanity system, and a metagaming "hero point" system.
Integration between all these sub-systems is good, and the complete game works well as a cohesive whole.

The game is "


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 15, 2005)

That change definitely improves the review!

(The review for the OWB, though, is still completely misguided IMO, as I think it's one of the best monster books ever produced.)


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game shares many similar design goals to D&D 3rd Edition, and uses a "basket" of mechanics and mechanical design choices that are clearly influenced by the design of D&D 3rd Edition.



What "basket" of 3e D&D mechanics are included in WHFRP 2e? The mechanics described in the review suggest that 2e is "clearly influenced" by 1e, not D&D.


----------



## Henry (Aug 15, 2005)

Gents, Russ and I have already asked twice to be considerate. Next person to fire off gets more than a warning, and the thread gets closed.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 15, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Gents, Russ and I have already asked twice to be considerate. Next person to fire off gets more than a warning, and the thread gets closed.



I'm hoping this wasn't prompted by my question, above.

I owned but never played 1e WHFRP - too grim for my tastes. I'm asking because I genuinely can't tell, on reading the review, what 3e D&D mechs appear in 2e - from what I recall, everything that RD describes is similar to 1e.

This question is directed to anyone who's read 2e WHFRP, by the way - I wasn't expecting a reply solely from *ryand*.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 15, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Gents, Russ and I have already asked twice to be considerate. Next person to fire off gets more than a warning, and the thread gets closed.




Also, please note that I have deleted the latest offending post and one that quoted it. The rules are the same as usual, gang - be polite, or don't post. If you have a chip on your shoulder, this isn't necessarily the place to display it to the world.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 15, 2005)

EDIT: Deleted, since it referenced a deleted post.


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL! (Aug 15, 2005)

Mods here are harsher than on RPG.net.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 15, 2005)

Melkor said:
			
		

> Mods here are harsher than on RPG.net.




That is something of an understatement.


----------



## Melkor (Aug 15, 2005)

I guess Tim's (Rasyr) statement was considered a personal attack ?!?!?!?!

Hmmmm....


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> What "basket" of 3e D&D mechanics are included in WHFRP 2e?




A partial summary of my opinion on this matter is the first portion of message #16.

Ryan


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL! (Aug 15, 2005)

Melkor said:
			
		

> I guess Tim's (Rasyr) statement was considered a personal attack ?!?!?!?!
> 
> Hmmmm....




Well, it was slightly harsh, but still criticism of reviewing style.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 15, 2005)

Please quit discussing the argument, and get back to discussing Warhammer and/or the review of it. If you want to discuss moderation, you're more than welcome to do so in the Meta Forum.

Many thanks.


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 15, 2005)

Ibram said:
			
		

> Although I did not find his review of the main book to be negative hes "bias" towards the d20 system is rather obvious.  To say that WHFRP2 is derivative of 3.x is not an accurate statement, rather they are products of parallel evolution.  In the end what dice based RPG doesnt come down to rolling X dice to hit number Y?
> 
> I interpret his review as targeted to those who already use the d20 system, so it does make sense to compare the two systems.




Then I wish he told us that he's comparing the two systems to show that to move from D20 to WFRP isn't difficult due to the hidden similarities of the system instead of outright claiming that WFRP is a derivative of DND 3E - its like he totally ignored the original edition of WFRP and how much of the system was derived from that.




			
				Ibram said:
			
		

> as to the Bestiary review...




With the comments about "Treasure tables and guidelines for determining what can be looted from the bodies and lairs of the monsters" being missing, Ryan seems to think that WFRP is all about killing and looting and levelling up.

Although pleasure is gained from seeing your character advance, I don't think thats what WFRP is about and including such information would convey the wrong message. Characters in WFRP, for the most part, should not be rolling in cash after slaying a few monsters. Perhaps it would have been a waste of space to have beside each creature entry "Treasure: none", "Treasure: you wish" or "Treasure: only in your mind (gain d10 insanity points)"?


----------



## tarchon (Aug 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Yes, because 3e is the devil!




Actually, I like 3E quite a bit - I thought it was almost brilliant in the way it adapted all the great new developments in RPGs since 2E while maintaining the flavor of D&D. All kudos to Ryan for his part that - seriously, it was a great job.

It just factuallly and demonstrably wasn't the inspiration for WFRP1 or WFRP 2. That's all. Why does that bother you so much?


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 15, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> A partial summary of my opinion on this matter is the first portion of message #16.



Thanks, I missed that on my scroll-through.

It might strengthen your review to mention these (and the others), rather than just making a declarative statement without offering examples.

That said...







			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> ...non-cyclic combat initiative system, the combat action system, the division of character abilities into skills & feats (talents), the use of a unified die rolling mechanic, the effort to make a unified target number convention (in this case, lower is almost always better), the increment to all system values in 5% degrees, and so on, right?



...collectively don't seem to have appeared fully-formed from 3e D&D - as noted throughout the thread, some (most?) of these originated before 3e D&D, sometimes by many years, and to suggest otherwise is perhaps a bit disingenuous.

*RyanD*, I've read the review a couple of times now, and the impression that I come away with is that it doesn't give a fair evaluation of 2e WHFRP. While I think your intent may have been to make the review more accessible to d20 gamers by purposes of comparison, some of the comparisons are needlessly unflattering.

For example, the comment regarding the lack of plane-traveling, _&c_ magic suggests, intentionally or otherwise, that the game offers "less" than D&D, rather than noting that this is a function of the way the game-world is structured - "there is no Great Wheel in Warhammer, rather there is the Warp, and these are the effects is has on the game..." would still capture the difference while actually offering a review of the game, instead of a recitation of what D&D has and WHFRP does not.

Since there seems to be an undercurrent in all the threads that I've seen discussing this review of "WH Fanboys v. d20 Tools," let me just say that I've played 3e D&D but don't any longer, and I owned the first WHFRP book years ago but don't plan on buying the new one. I have no stake in supporting one game-system over another. I take issue with the review as described herein on its own merits.


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Aug 15, 2005)

There are several errors in the review - for example, I don't believe that the Magic book has yet been published for the 2E of WFRP, yet the review implies that it's available - there's also several comments like:



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> I have read and played various prior versions of WFRP.  What I remember clearly from those experiences was that the prior games were very chaotic - many different systems, little consistency, several places where mechanics overlapped, or contradicted themselves, or were supposed to be delivered in future products that never got released.




The current edition of WFRP is the 2nd edition.  There are arguably only two prior versions of WFRP - the 1st printing by Games Workshop, and the reprints by Games Workshop or Hogshead that incorporated the errata.

If we're to include other games published by Games Workshop as "prior versions of WFRP" it would seem a little strange - discussions of prior versions of D&D normally don't include Top Secret, Boot Hill, Gamma World, etc...

Ryan, can you clarify what you mean and what 'prior versions' you have played?


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 15, 2005)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Please quit discussing the argument, and get back to discussing Warhammer and/or the review of it. If you want to discuss moderation, you're more than welcome to do so in the Meta Forum.
> 
> Many thanks.




Umm.. the post of mine that you deleted WAS discussing the review. Not sure if I should try to say in what regard, or make ANY more comments on this thread at all considering that Henry is apparently threatening a banning.

And yes, I have posted a question about this post deletion over in the Meta forum.


----------



## WSmith (Aug 16, 2005)

This review is unbelieveable. 

Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing is one of the best RPGs ever created, both version 1 and 2.  It predates 3rd edition by more than a decade. To say that it is a derivative of 3rd edition is pretty arrogant, IMO.

To honor P'Cat's request here is some relavant WH info:

The V2 magic is amazing. Nothing like the standard Vancian magic used in every incarnation of D&D from 1974 on. There was no mention of that in the review.


----------



## WSmith (Aug 16, 2005)

Sorry, I must have glossed over this:

_The magic system of WFRP is similar to the system in Call of Cthuhlu. Characters cast arcane spells they have acquired via the advancement system, and risk catastrophic negative effects each time they use magic. Some of these effects are sufficient to render a character essentially unplayable. Thus, spellcasting members of the party are both an asset, and a liability, and magic will often be an option of last resort. Divine spells are slightly less dangerous, and slightly less powerful. Magic in general in WFRP is less powerful than that in D&D. Spellcasters can help in combat, but they likely cannot win it outright. They can buff the party, but the buffs will not feel "required". And the range of magical effects is mostly limited to things that can happen on the battlefield - no plane-walking, ethereal travel, animal awakening, etc. for WFRP.

There is a magic supplement available, and it is reasonable to surmise that the supplement expands the range and nature of the spells available to spellcasters, so this limitation may be addressed with an additional purchase. The spells provided in the core book are a reasonable basis for running the game._

Not 100% accurate, but oh well.


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 16, 2005)

nevermind....


----------



## RyanD (Aug 16, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> It might strengthen your review to mention these (and the others), rather than just making a declarative statement without offering examples.




You might be right, but I was trying to focus on what was in WFRP, not write a lengthy dissertation on comparing D20 and WFRP.  I only devoted enough space in my review to explain the logic behind my conclusion of the close ties between WFRP and D20, and present a brief mechanical description of how easily material could be converted between the two systems.



> That said......collectively don't seem to have appeared fully-formed from 3e D&D - as noted throughout the thread, some (most?) of these originated before 3e D&D, sometimes by many years, and to suggest otherwise is perhaps a bit disingenuous.




The point is that this smorgasboard of features was combined successfully in 3E on the basis of research and testing, not simply designer whimsy, and that research and testing was information that the author of the book was immersed in while it was being performed.

3E may not be "innovative" in its sub-components, but it is "innovative" in the way those sub-components were selected for inclusion, integrated, and tested.

WFRP gained the value of that innovation, and it gained it by mirroring those choices.  Let me give an example of what I mean by this statement.

Breaking character features into skills & feats (Talents) using the same logical basis as D20, and then quantifying the skill component in the same way as was done in D20 allowed the designers to forego extensive playtesting for basic functionality - they already knew that such a system would work.  They could instead focus on platesting the actual instance of each skill to be included:  A much less time consuming process, and a process without risk of "system failure" - that is, there was zero chance that such a design approach would just fail (because it had already been successfully demonstrated).  Indeed, based on many variations of d20, several of which have originated at Green Ronin, that design team was particularly well suited to do this work, do it quickly, and do it with rigor.  They weren't doing it for the first time, they were doing it for the half-dozenth.  That's incredibly valuable.

This was not an evolution of WFRP (old) to WFRP (new) based on trendlines within the game.  It was evolution of D20 (and by extension to the stew of predecessors filtered & modified for D20, certainly including WFRPG (old) as well) to WFRPG (new) with an eye towards maintaining brand compatibility with the property.

I'll make the same argument for the restructuring of the combat system.  The WFRP (new) combat system could be lifted from the pages of virtually any D20 System RPG.  The parts that are different from "D20 Standard" (the critical hit system and the wound system) are smoothly integrated *because* the designers didn't have to worry about the rest of the system working.  They already knew the rest of the system would work, and they could focus their attention on the new stuff.  

Look at the changes made from WFRP (old) to WFRP (new):  Cyclic initiative.  Round one surprise and flat-footedness.  Full/Half/Free Actions.  The actions themselves.  The careful division of armed & unarmed, touch and ranged touch attack types.  These are all D20 System staples, a "basket" of well tested, previously integrated systems.  Many games featured some of these concepts prior to 3E, but 3E is the place where this specific group of features was combined, integrated, tested, and popularized - and that work was done at least in part by the author of WFRP!

If the WFRP (new) skill & "Talent" system replicates D20 (and it does), and the combat system replicates D20 (and it does), you've accounted for a material amount of all the rules used by players during the actual play of the game.  Not 100% obviously.  But a large enough percentage that it will be noticable to the players.

And, as I said before, I intend that statement as a compliment, not an insult.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 16, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> ...
> Breaking character features into skills & feats (Talents) using the same logical basis as D20, and then quantifying the skill component in the same way as was done in D20 allowed the designers to forego extensive playtesting for basic functionality - they already knew that such a system would work. ...




I don't understand this.  The skill system in 1e WFRP is _very_ similar to the one in 2e.  In 1e you had a range of different skills, most of which were based on the PC's attributes.  I don't see how 2e's skill system "quantifies" skills in the same way as d20 -- it "quantifies" them in the same way as 1e did (though it slows progression down to 5 percent increments instead of 10 percent increments).

Moreover, the 'talents' were _already_ 'skills' in 1e WFRP!  Pramas just broke them away from the skills that were based on the PC's percentage-based attributes.  This is hardly an innovation of 3e, but a distinction that predates it by many years.

More generally, while the 3e design process may have _influenced_ Pramas' revisions to WFRP, the basis for WFRP 2e is clearly WFRP 1e, _not_ 3e.  Chris Pramas claims this quite explicitly in his designer notes in the book.  As far as I can tell, I see no reason to dispute his claim.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 16, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> ... I'll make the same argument for the restructuring of the combat system.  The WFRP (new) combat system could be lifted from the pages of virtually any D20 System RPG.  The parts that are different from "D20 Standard" (the critical hit system and the wound system) are smoothly integrated *because* the designers didn't have to worry about the rest of the system working.  They already knew the rest of the system would work, and they could focus their attention on the new stuff.  ...




For the record, this claim is also bogus.  While there are clear d20 _influences_ on the 2e combat system (full actions and half-actions being the clearest), the basis for it is clearly 1e WFRP.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but since it is so obvious that most of the core features of WFRP 2e are based on 1e, I have to wonder whether you've actually looked at or played WFPR 1e.  
 :\


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 16, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> You might be right, but I was trying to focus on what was in WFRP, not write a lengthy dissertation on comparing D20 and WFRP.  I only devoted enough space in my review to explain the logic behind my conclusion of the close ties between WFRP and D20, and present a brief mechanical description of how easily material could be converted between the two systems.



If you say so, but reading it I felt more like it was a conversion treatise than a review.







			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> Look at the changes made from WFRP (old) to WFRP (new):  Cyclic initiative.  Round one surprise and flat-footedness.  Full/Half/Free Actions.  The actions themselves.  The careful division of armed & unarmed, touch and ranged touch attack types.  These are all D20 System staples, a "basket" of well tested, previously integrated systems.



If this had been in the review initially, it would have cleared up a lot of questions for me.







			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> Many games featured some of these concepts prior to 3E, but 3E is the place where this specific group of features was combined, integrated, tested, and popularized - and that work was done at least in part by the author of WFRP!



Again, if you say so. As I mentioned earlier, one of my first impressions on picking up 3.0 D&D in the store was, "Gee, this looks a lot like Warhammer Roleplay."

Of course, I'm just an ordinary gamer, so what do I know?







			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> If the WFRP (new) skill & "Talent" system replicates D20 (and it does), and the combat system replicates D20 (and it does), you've accounted for a material amount of all the rules used by players during the actual play of the game.



It's been many years since I've looked at 1e WHFRP, but I don't recall major differences in the basics of combat resolution or skills between the edition I knew and the new edition as you describe it - however, I will have to leave it to others more familiar with both systems to evalute the veracity of these statements.


----------



## eyebeams (Aug 16, 2005)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Please quit discussing the argument, and get back to discussing Warhammer and/or the review of it. If you want to discuss moderation, you're more than welcome to do so in the Meta Forum.
> 
> Many thanks.




Sure. The purpose of the review was to insult the design process used Pramas/Green Ronin by arguing that is virtually bereft of original craft on the part of the writer.

The review is actually about that. The only way to keep the discussion from discussing this salient and central fact of the review would be to close the thread, which I heartily encourage you to do. Its link was not posted here for any constructive reason whatsoever.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 16, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> It's been many years since I've looked at 1e WHFRP, but I don't recall major differences in the basics of combat resolution or skills between the edition I knew and the new edition as you describe it - however, I will have to leave it to others more familiar with both systems to evalute the veracity of these statements.



There are quite a few changes, actually. First edition skills were little rules systems all to themselves, while second edition has a unified system where each skill has an associated attribute, and checks are made using a unified mechanic.

As far as combat goes, you have free, half and full actions, a surprise round, roll once, cyclical initiative, a full action called charge that lets you move twice your base movement and then make an attack, a full round action calles swift attack that is required if you want to make multiple attacks, a disengage option that voids the free attack you receive from moving away from a target when you're engaged, and a delay action that costs a half action but allows you to take another half action later on in the round.

The rules for WFRP v2 borrowed heavily from D20, but they also borrowed from other sources as well and also have innovative qualities to them. I think Chris Pramas looked at the original edition, decided on the things that were important to the game (its core if you will) and then decided to use a common-sense, don't reinvent the wheel approach for the rest of it. I'm *glad* that's what he did, since it makes playing WFRP easier for me, and also makes it an easier sell to my fellow gamers. That's the approach Chris talks about in his excellent designer's notes, and I think it's at the heart of what Ryan is talking about too.

For me, what makes Warhammer special is the career system and the damage/critical hit rules. Both of those rules made it in relatively unchanged. The things that were changed were largely some of the wonky rules that may have made sense back at the time, but really don't make for a fluid game anymore. 

To make those changes, Chris went with what has been tested and successful in the last few years, and also was smart enough to go with what the audience he was looking for would actually want to see. Much of the time that makes WFRP derivative of D20, but those certainly aren't it's only influences. *And that makes sense*. What do I mean? Having played some of the *Dying Earth *roleplaying game, I think it uses excellent design and has very elegant rules. These rules would have been *awful* to borrow from for WFRP!

So did Chris Pramas make a derivative game entirely from D&D? Of course not! He made a game using the best mechanics he had available to him to simulate a rules-medium, slightly gritty fantasy game. He took from his source, and them came up with some innovative rules, and also took from the existing world of games. That's something that every game designer does, at least every good one! Much of the time the best mechanics came from WFRP first edition, but sometimes they came from systems with similar target audiences, which includes D&D.

Was that such a hard thing?

--Steve


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> _"The Warhammer World is a rich one, a place of chaos and war, of intrique and politics, or desperation and heroism, of gods and daemons."_ -- WFRP, page 9



yeah, that's the new GW vision of the world... which most of the old time fans (i.e. everybody who hasn't started to play with the new edition of the game... i suspect is the bigger part of the market) don't like at all. what they did to the emperor or to bretonnia was cause of much aggro. also, i have seen a number of people adopting the new rules with the old flavour text and adventures.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Aug 16, 2005)

The amount of backpedaling in this thread is fascinating.


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Why do you say that?  The Renaissance represented a period of liberalizing beliefs, expanded acceptance of science vs. superstition, the growth of a middle class, a flourishing of humanist art & culture, and the restructuring of medevial fuedal governmental systems towards broader-based democratic principles.
> 
> What part of the Warhammer World does _that_ reflect?
> 
> ...





i'd say early baroque, which is even further down the history line.
quest forforbidden knowledge that can damn the world AND your own soul? baroque (exploring the forbidden world of science sure wasn't as bad as messing with chaos, but is you had to face the inquisition, you wouldn't had been much happier)
witch lynching? baroque (check salem or cromwell's england)
a fair amount of technology in its early stage? baroque
national states that have not yet concluded the construction of their overstructures? baroque again.


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I have not seen much discussion at all.



ehm... look again?


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Reader 1: "Hey, someone wrote a positive review of Warhammer Fantasy RPG.  It said that we should go out and buy the book and would even make a good setting for the legions who play D&D/d20."
> 
> Fan: "It says the game is like D&D!?  Get my pitchfork and torch."




just because he gave 4 stars to the core book (a positive review, in fact), it doesn't mean that said review was correct at all about his claims of warhammer being derivative of D&D.

as other people have pointed out, if i read in a review that game X is derivated from game Y, chances are i'm not buying it, if i don't like game X, or if i own it, no matter how raving the review was.

in addition, you have to allow that people do have strong feelings, from time to time. the fact that D&D is hated by a lot more people than, say, Call of cthulhu or Warhammer FRP is only a reflection of the state of the market. D&D is a MUCH MORE widespread game, so no wonder it gets a bigger share of the hate...

does that mean that everybody stating his opinion of why Ryan was wrong has an anti-D&D agenda? good grief, that would be just as narrow minded as bashing a game system because of its name!


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Wow, I too am surprised by the vitriol that has come out in this thread.




funny, i'm not...
it seems to me that Ryan, not being a random fanboy, should weight his words much better. it's not the first time that i see a flame war starting because he was "misunderstood" or because he wasn't too clear... 
maybe he should pay more attention not to be misunderstood?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> I think that the use of the term "derivative" in my original review has caused my meaning to become distorted.  I've asked GamingReport to revise the review as follows, which I think better encapsulates my opinion:
> 
> Change:
> 
> ...




I think that's much better.  I don't entirely agree with it, but it's much more justifiable than the original wording.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 16, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> it seems to me that Ryan, not being a random fanboy, should weight his words much better.



So he should just expect to have a flock of readers who are reading his stuff waiting to take something in the negative way, almost trying as hard as possibly can be done to read something negative in what he writes?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> funny, i'm not...
> it seems to me that Ryan, not being a random fanboy, should weight his words much better. it's not the first time that i see a flame war starting because he was "misunderstood" or because he wasn't too clear...
> maybe he should pay more attention not to be misunderstood?




I haven't actually seen much if any vitriol in this thread, if there was any presumably the mods have deleted it.  I think people have been pretty polite while still strongly taking issue with the perceived errors in the reviews.


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

Ibram said:
			
		

> Although I did not find his review of the main book to be negative hes "bias" towards the d20 system is rather obvious.




even for the casual reader? ever for somebody who doesn't read the credits of the D&D book line? even for somebody who doesn't use enworld boards?
i don't think his bias is that obvious... just because you are/ have been instrumental in the design and success of a game system, it doesn't mean that you can't be anything near objective, when looking at other games.

in all fairness, if it wasn't Ryan, i think the majority of us would have agreed at this point, that they were not well written or too informative.

let's forget for a moment that i believe that basing a whole review of a game on a comparison bewteen that game and another one is misleading and often tells me little about the game being reviewed, unless i'm aware of the other one works and is designed.

my view on the subject is that, even if warhammer was an almost verbatim transliteration of D&D (which is not, by any stretch of the imagination), the feel of the world alone (even in its "washed up" heroic new version) is so different from 99% d20 published worlds out there to make you feel you're playing a different game.

an example: AD&D 2nd edition. one system.
can you really say that a dragonlance campaign would be similar to a dark sun one? both might be heroic... but the feel is so different that you are effectively playing two different games.

Ryan's reviews ignored this element. They also ignored the fact that the many "similarities" between Warhammer 2nd edition and D&D 3rd edition are there because D&D 3rd edition borrowed some ideas from the original Warhammer (and from a number of different sources, as well).
i would not dream to say that D&D is derivative of Warhammer, or Call of Cthulhu, or Ars magica, or whatever. D&D 3rd edition is _vaguely _derivative from AD&D, and that's it.

As Ibram says, the similarities between different systems in the market today, are more the result of a general favourable attitude towards streamlined system than anything else.

GURPS 4th edition is more streamlined than its 3rd edition. so is the new world of darkness. so is warhammer, and so is D&D. they all have combat actions, they all have magic systems, and they all are about "heroes" against some sort of "bad guys"... does that make them all derivative from one another?

finally, i do agree that the prices of the books is a bit high... having said that, most RPG books today do seem to me to be a bit pricey, even wizards of the coast's ones.
and i do have to say that the bestiary is one of the best examples of that type i have seen in ages (maybe the monstercomicon is up there, too). in my opinion it beats the monster manual any time.
the fact that there is no treasure table, no hint on how to make magic items, and not a huge number of monsters are flaws only if you intend to play Warhammer as a D&D spoof. nothing wrong with that.
on the other hand, if you claim that the book is poor because it doesn't break a decennal design philosophy that attracted all the past fans of the game to begin with, then you are being a bit big headed, aren't you?



			
				Ibram said:
			
		

> Having the first half of the book devoid of game mechanics was a wonderful idea.



i couldn't agree more. i do have an agenda here: more fluff and less crunch!!! 



			
				Ibram said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what new creatures a GM would need to add that could not be done so by modifying an existing creature.



at least that is a very legitimate request. i do think that the standardisation of D&D monster manuals is, in the long run, cause of many more troubles than it's worth, but i also see that such feelings comes from my view of game mastering, role playing and design philosophy.


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

besides, as somebody else already asked, what has this thread, or Ryan's reviews for that matter, to do with any discussion of rule light vs. rule heavy game systems???


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> So he should just expect to have a flock of readers who are reading his stuff waiting to take something in the negative way, almost trying as hard as possibly can be done to read something negative in what he writes?




no. but i've seen the "i've been misunderstod" self defence a bit too much... frankly, i'm stating to think that he's making it on purpose. that, or i should allow that a game designer (who earns his living throw writing and using words) suddenly forgets how to phrase a sentence in a way that it explains what he means as soon as he's not writing about game rules anymore. or that Ryan is not a good writer to begin with, so he just can't explain himself. i can't choose the least offending option, and, being here to discuss and not to insult, i prefer to say that he should expect people to judge his words in a different light or take offence at them, just because he's a game designer.
after all, if you saw a review of steve jackson claiming that D&D is a "clever derivation" of GURPS, wouldn't you be pissed off? what if a random fan would make such a claim? would you honestly feel as much offended? i don't think so... else you would see hate threads every time a poor review see the light of the day on the net (and there are a lot of them out there).


----------



## Turjan (Aug 16, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> besides, as somebody else already asked, what has this thread, or Ryan's reviews for that matter, to do with any discussion of rule light vs. rule heavy game systems???



Ryan's interest in WFRP2 results from this thread, where a 'rules light' vs. 'rules heavy' discussion lead to the discussion of other game systems. Briefly, WotC had done some market research on popular RPGs during the late days of AD&D2E, and the claim was that rules-light games don't actually play any faster than rules-heavy ones. WFRP2 was mentioned in this thread as a somewhat streamlined alternative to D&D3E (this is a very shortened version of a very long thread, so please don't draw any wrong conclusions from my words), and Ryan declared that he wanted to have a look at that game. The review in this thread is the result of this closer look. I think that's principally a good idea, btw.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 16, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I've been toying with the idea of buying all of the mainstream RPGs released so far this year and doing a grand tour of them all, with detailed reviews written up after 2 or 3 sessions of playtesting.



I just want to mention that I think this is a great idea. I'm not sure whether 2 or 3 sessions will be enough to do all systems justice, but this will be sufficient for a general overview. Some games are hard to get used to if you come from D&D, though .


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

besides, following the RPG.net thread on the subject, one comes accross some peculiar views on the subject... like that on posts 121 (read the end of it) that would explain how the dimissions of Ryan from the GAMA board might have a lot to do with the reviews in question...
i think the link to that page is: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=211410&page=13&pp=10

i wonder if Ryan can comment on these claims?


----------



## glass (Aug 16, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter if a review is positive, if it says things that aren't actually true - especially when those things falsely imply that the game is inferior in certain areas to another game, a game which the author of the review had a hand in developing. In that case, the "positive things" come across as actually being part of the fraud, because they make it more likely that a reader will believe the mistruths.
> 
> i.e. If I was going to tell some lies about someone, I'd surround those lies with a load of vague complements to make it sound like I was "trying to be fair".




After all, you have to get behind someone before you can stab him in the back...  

_EDIT: Not that I am suggesting Ryan was necesarily doing that. It's just that JN's post reminded me of the phrase. It's a quote from 'Yes Minister', BTW._


glass.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 16, 2005)

I think we are all getting sidetracked from the main point here.

The main point is, of course, that any of you who don't have WFRP 2E already should go and buy it so that you can start playing it right now.


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> I think we are all getting sidetracked from the main point here.
> 
> The main point is, of course, that any of you who don't have WFRP 2E already should go and buy it so that you can start playing it right now.



amen!


----------



## Belen (Aug 16, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> besides, following the RPG.net thread on the subject, one comes accross some peculiar views on the subject... like that on posts 121 (read the end of it) that would explain how the dimissions of Ryan from the GAMA board might have a lot to do with the reviews in question...
> i think the link to that page is: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=211410&page=13&pp=10
> 
> i wonder if Ryan can comment on these claims?




Wow.  That post is exactly why I refuse to visit RPG.net.  The man writes a positive review and gets publically flogged for it.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Aug 16, 2005)

This is the only review of WFRP2e I’ve read. I own 1e, though I haven’t played it in many a long year. The review confused me.

WFRP is/was a skill based system, with (IIRC) limited Hit Points (or whatever they were called), armour reduced damage, used a simple hit location system and was a percentage based.

DnD is a level based system with skills (or whatever they are called) added.

They don’t sound very similar to me, but the review implies that they are. I’ve read all of this thread so, before I rush out & buy the game (as requested) I’d be grateful if someone could answer the following questions regarding WFRP2e.

Have ‘Occupations,’ which could be changed been replaced by ‘Classes’ (which AFAIK can’t)?

Have ‘Character Levels’ been added?

Have ‘Hit Points’ been amended to such a point that one or two lucky (or unlucky) blows can kill someone?


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Wow.  That post is exactly why I refuse to visit RPG.net.  The man writes a positive review and gets publically flogged for it.




i'd say: "the man writes a review that doesn't really review the game, willingly or not manages to get a lot of people angered with his (at best) ill phrased compliments, and gets public flogging for it"
granted, some of the posts were rather extreme... but still, the post from grumpy, below, shows you just how bad and confusing his review was, positive votes or not!

and i still would like him to comment at those implications i was talking about in the post above...


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Wow.  That post is exactly why I refuse to visit RPG.net.  The man writes a positive review and gets publically flogged for it.




The point you seem to be missing is that it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not it is a positive review.

Some people believe that it is a positive review.

Other people believe that it is using positive sounding language in order to convey a negative impression of the product. (i.e. they think that it is implying that WFRP is an inferior copy of D&D).

It is your opinion that it's a positive review. That's a perfectly valid opinion to hold, but I don't think it's constructive to treat it as a fact, and then criticise peoples' behaviour on the basis of that assumed fact.


----------



## Belen (Aug 16, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> The point you seem to be missing is that it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not it is a positive review.
> 
> Some people believe that it is a positive review.
> 
> ...




I am critical of the personal attacks and insults thrown at the man.  

If anything, he wrote a review targeted to the D&D crowd that will make them look at the game rather than just dismiss it.  A lot of people will not touch anything that does not have a d20 label.  By showing fans of D&D how Warhammer is mechanically similiar, he is giving a de facto boost to the image of Warhammer.


----------



## Belen (Aug 16, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> i'd say: "the man writes a review that doesn't really review the game, willingly or not manages to get a lot of people angered with his (at best) ill phrased compliments, and gets public flogging for it"
> granted, some of the posts were rather extreme... but still, the post from grumpy, below, shows you just how bad and confusing his review was, positive votes or not!
> 
> and i still would like him to comment at those implications i was talking about in the post above...




Not only were some of the posts extreme, but many were uncalled for.  Not to mention the ever flamining hostility to D&D at RPGnet.  It is the huge anti-d20 bias there that I see as the main reason for the flames.  You could compare a donut to d20 on RPGnet and get flames a majority of posters who defend the donut.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I am critical of the personal attacks and insults thrown at the man.
> 
> If anything, he wrote a review targeted to the D&D crowd that will make them look at the game rather than just dismiss it.  A lot of people will not touch anything that does not have a d20 label.  By showing fans of D&D how Warhammer is mechanically similiar, he is giving a de facto boost to the image of Warhammer.




I don't agree with personal attacks, but this review does seem to have a very slanted view.

It's a bit like someone "reviewing" a novel by saying, _"XXXX is a very good novel, which is not surprising because it is largely derived from the novel YYYY, which I wrote some years ago"_. If - in that example - it turned out that the novel XXXX was not in any way derived from the novel YYYY, the author of XXXX - and his or her supporters - would rightly be very aggrieved. Defending the actions of the "reviewer" by saying that his actions were likely to encourage people who'd read and enjoyed YYYY to go out and read XXXX would, in my opinion, be somewhat missing the point.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not only were some of the posts extreme, but many were uncalled for.  Not to mention the ever flamining hostility to D&D at RPGnet.  It is the huge anti-d20 bias there that I see as the main reason for the flames.  You could compare a donut to d20 on RPGnet and get flames a majority of posters who defend the donut.




There are actually a lot of d20 fans over at RPG.net.  Not as many as here (obviously), but there is hardly a universal anti-d20 position there.

Also, I found that thread on Dancey's review over at RPG.net most entertaining.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I am critical of the personal attacks and insults thrown at the man.
> ....




Is it a 'personal attack' to point out previous immoral, and possibly illegal, behaviour?  :\


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not only were some of the posts extreme, but many were uncalled for.  Not to mention the ever flamining hostility to D&D at RPGnet.  It is the huge anti-d20 bias there that I see as the main reason for the flames.  You could compare a donut to d20 on RPGnet and get flames a majority of posters who defend the donut.




Well I'm not a big fan of RPGNet and don't go there, for reasons which aren't any secret but which I won't go into here because they a) aren't relevant to the discussion, and b) might potentially be seen as entering into the realms of politics and/or religion.

But to a certain extent, ENWorld is the site for people who play D20 while RPGNet is the site for  people who don't. Outright hostility there to D20 is stupid, and the people who display it stupid also. But equally, there are plenty of people on ENWorld who upon hearing that a game is non-D20 will loudly declare how stupid a move that is and insist that they will never buy it for that reason alone.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 16, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> It's a bit like someone "reviewing" a novel by saying, _"XXXX is a very good novel, which is not surprising because it is largely derived from the novel YYYY, which I wrote some years ago"_. If - in that example - it turned out that the novel XXXX was not in any way derived from the novel YYYY, the author of XXXX - and his or her supporters - would rightly be very aggrieved. Defending the actions of the "reviewer" by saying that his actions were likely to encourage people who'd read and enjoyed YYYY to go out and read XXXX would, in my opinion, be somewhat missing the point.




Yes but at the end of the day, this review is an opinion piece. That it's from Ryan Dancey seems to lend it a perception that it's the d20 establishment saying those things, when it's not. However, RD's approach to this whole thing (posting such a thing on RPGnet of all places, then posting a new thread here to draw attention to it) has not helped matters. At the end of the day, I agree with his slant that WHFRP2ed is derivative of D&D3ed, and objectively, my opinion is much more subjective about the matter than Ryan Dancey's, who has far more experience in the matter than I ever will.


----------



## MonsterMash (Aug 16, 2005)

Got to admit that as far as reviews of WHFRP 2 go I found the one at RPG.net doing a comparison to the original version to be the most useful, as it is comparing like with like. 

Personally I am interested in WHFRP2 and will try and play it at some point, but just having the time seems to be hard at the moment.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Aug 16, 2005)

Only one more thing to add: I bought WFRP v2 without having played or read v1. While reading it, I was struck several times by the similarities to D&D, especially in the realm of combat. I knew that the author of v2 was a big d20 writer, and I assumed that these things had been influenced by D&D. 

The point being, if Mr. Dancey hasn't played WFRP v1 (recently), it's quite understandable that he might see other similarities (that were in fact relics of v1) and assume that they were in large part derived from D&D.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 16, 2005)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> I agree with his slant that WHFRP2ed is derivative of D&D3ed, and objectively, my opinion is much more subjective about the matter than Ryan Dancey's, who has far more experience in the matter than I ever will.




Okay, my belief is that WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed. That is, I believe that Green Ronin took the WFRP 1ed rules, and then added various new elements:

- some of which were newly created;

- some of which were concepts which - since the writing of 1ed - have become regarded as a universal game concept (such as a universal die roll); and

- some of which are concepts found in D&D 3ed (such as full, half and free actions - although other people have claimed that these are in fact universal concepts also).

I further believe (and I've played both editions of WFRP plus also D&D 3Ed) that if you were to go through the WFRP 3ed rulebook, circling every single game element (rule, concept etc.) with a colour-coded pencil according to whether it came from the WFRP 1ed rulebook or the D&D 3ed rulebook or a bunch of other rulebooks, it's my opinion that you would find that for every "D&D 3ed circle" you would have literally dozens and dozens of "WFRP 1ed circles".

Basically, when I played WFRP 2ed it felt a *lot* like WFRP 1ed, and very little like D&D 3ed. It's the original system, updated. It's not D20. At all.

That would simply *not* be the case if WFRP 2ed was indeed derived from D&D 3ed (i.e. if it's rules were based on the D20 SRD, with just a few old WFRP flavour elements thrown in).

In short: WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed, and *not* D&D 3ed.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Aug 16, 2005)

MonsterMash said:
			
		

> Got to admit that as far as reviews of WHFRP 2 go I found the one at RPG.net doing a comparison to the original version to be the most useful, as it is comparing like with like.
> 
> Personally I am interested in WHFRP2 and will try and play it at some point, but just having the time seems to be hard at the moment.




Thanks for pointing this out. It certainly answers most of my questions. All round a better written and more useful review than Mr Dancey's.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Aug 16, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Okay, my belief is that WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed. That is, I believe that Green Ronin took the WFRP 1ed rules, and then added various new elements:
> 
> .........................................
> 
> In short: WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed, and *not* D&D 3ed.




Based on reading the RPGnet review, I've come to the same conclusion.


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 16, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> funny, i'm not...
> it seems to me that Ryan, not being a random fanboy, should weight his words much better. it's not the first time that i see a flame war starting because he was "misunderstood" or because he wasn't too clear...
> maybe he should pay more attention not to be misunderstood?




This was kinda the point that I had been trying to get across in the post of mine that had been deleted. I was apparently too brusque, and it had been seen a higly inflamatory statement. So, I will try again, but in a more polite manner this time. 

Ryan has a history of using non-standard definitions for words. These definitions tend to have no real connection with standard dictionary definitions. This trend can be seen in both this thread with his unique definition of the word "derivative", and over in the rules-lite thread with other terms. I am sure I could find more instances, but at the moment, I do not have the time to go search.

Ryan also tends to act bewildered or surprised when folks misunderstand what he is trying to say. Using the proper definitions for words would alleviate this issue.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> If anything, he wrote a review targeted to the D&D crowd that will make them look at the game rather than just dismiss it.  A lot of people will not touch anything that does not have a d20 label.  By showing fans of D&D how Warhammer is mechanically similiar, he is giving a de facto boost to the image of Warhammer.



I am sorry, but upon reading that review the first thing that flashed into my mind was all the times that I have seen other games talk about themselves and comparing themselves to D&D and how they are so much better. This review seemed to take the same tactic, only it compared WHFRP to D&D and tried to show that WHFRP was based on (i.e. derivative) D&D and how D&D was better.

While the review itself gave 4 stars, all that would do would be to ensure that others read it. The actual content of the review missed a number of points about the system, did no comparing to the previous edition, and actually spent a not inconsiderable amount of space talking about WotC and D&D. 


			
				wedgeski said:
			
		

> However, RD's approach to this whole thing (posting such a thing on RPGnet of all places, then posting a new thread here to draw attention to it) has not helped matters.



The review was actually posted on Gaming Report, where Ryan has business links, not RPG.net. The rpg.net thread was a spontaneous reply to his review.


			
				John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Only one more thing to add: I bought WFRP v2 without having played or read v1. While reading it, I was struck several times by the similarities to D&D, especially in the realm of combat. I knew that the author of v2 was a big d20 writer, and I assumed that these things had been influenced by D&D.



Or perhaps these things influenced D&D in the first place? That is something that should also be considered....


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 16, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> The review was actually posted on Gaming Report, where Ryan has business links, not RPG.net. The rpg.net thread was a spontaneous reply to his review.




And I've finally hit my stupid point quota for this month!  Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Morte (Aug 16, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Incidentally, two articles that will help understand the general feel of the Warhammer World immensely are the (in)famous:
> 
> "How James Wallis Ruined My Character's Life" and "Yes I Sank Your Barge"




Thank you, Jürgen, it's far too long since I read those.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 16, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> ...
> In short: WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed, and *not* D&D 3ed.




Exactly.  The fact that this is so painfully obvious to anyone with minimal knowledge of WFRP is what makes the review's initial claim so outrageous.

And, as I've already pointed out in this thread, the _author_ of WFRP 2e, Chris Pramas, states quite explicitly that, with the exception of the magic system, all of the core rules of 2e are based on the rules of 1e (revised, streamlined, and so forth -- but clearly based on things in the earlier edition).

I have yet to see any reason to doubt Pramas' own account of his development process.  :\


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 16, 2005)

Morte said:
			
		

> Thank you, Jürgen, it's far too long since I read those.




Slightly off topic, but thank you both of them for liking them.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Aug 16, 2005)

I think my major concern with the review is its accessibility. A proper review is intended to talk about the product, not draw a comparison to another product line in the same market. If a review does so, it is of absolutely no value to someone who either doesn't like d20 or doesn't play it. It has no value to someone who wants to play WHFRPG and isn't looking for a setting to convert to d20.

A good review should exist entirely within the capsule of the product it is reviewing without going to external resources beyond the related product line. Sure, it's fine to have a brief blurb like _"a big step up from AUTHOR X's last offering, A Slab of Poo and Bob, Too' "_, but much more beyond that creates a comparitive analysis and not a product review. Even comparing too much to WHFRPG 1e would be beyond a good review's purpose because, again, it's comparing the product rather than saying what the product is and why that is a good or bad thing in and of itself.

A review is there to discuss the merits of the product, not to illustrate relationships to other game systems, be those relationships real or imagined.


----------



## glass (Aug 16, 2005)

GrumpyOldMan said:
			
		

> Have ‘Occupations,’ which could be changed been replaced by ‘Classes’ (which AFAIK can’t)?



Careers work pretty much the same way they always did. The only real change is that you always have to complete a career to move on to one of it's exits. In 1e that was only the case with magic careers.



> Have ‘Character Levels’ been added?



No.



> Have ‘Hit Points’ been amended to such a point that one or two lucky (or unlucky) blows can kill someone?



One or two (un)lucky blows could always kill someone. The increased damage dice have made the dame slightly more deadly, but increases in armour value mean this really only affects unarmoured characters. BTW, in WFRP, they're called 'wounds'.


glass.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Aug 16, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Or perhaps these things influenced D&D in the first place? That is something that should also be considered....




I won't go into detail, but the things that first struck me have since been confirmed to be influenced by D&D. Later in my post, I referred to Mr. Dancey possibly assuming that, since some things _were_ from D&D, other things that merely _looked_ like it (but were in fact from v1) were also from D&D.


----------



## Numion (Aug 16, 2005)

There was a good point made on gaminreport comments: if the review got RPG.NET so riled up, it _has[/] to be somewhat true _


----------



## Turjan (Aug 16, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Okay, my belief is that WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed. That is, I believe that Green Ronin took the WFRP 1ed rules, and then added various new elements:
> 
> - some of which were newly created;
> 
> ...



We should not forget that the rational design process that went into D&D 3E implied lifting many proven concepts from other games. AD&D 2E was a relatively old-fashioned design compared to many of its competitors, and the 3E designers managed to bring the game up to date. I think they did a good job with that. But now claiming that the concept of half actions, full actions and swift actions is something coming from D&D 3E just distorts reality. That has been common in popular RPGs since 1981.

It's things like this that trigger the reaction this review gets.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 16, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> We should not forget that the rational design process that went into D&D 3E implied lifting many proven concepts from other games. AD&D 2E was a relatively old-fashioned design compared to many of its competitors, and the 3E designers managed to bring the game up to date. I think they did a good job with that. But now claiming that the concept of half actions, full actions and swift actions is something coming from D&D 3E just distorts reality. That has been common in popular RPGs since 1981.
> 
> It's things like this that trigger the reaction this review gets.




Exactly. Many of these things (such as the unified dice roll) are very much a parallel evolution that practically all games systems have or are going through.

Saying that WFRP 2nd Edition has copied "D&D's" concept of having a unified dice roll is like saying that bats evolved from birds on account of them both having wings.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 16, 2005)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> A good review should exist entirely within the capsule of the product it is reviewing without going to external resources beyond the related product line.




This strikes me as simply untrue. A 'good' review is one that helps the reader to make a judgement about the product in question without having seen or read it themselves. And like I have said before, all reviews are merely opinions. TBH RD's review was tons more useful than 95% of all RPG reviews I have read here or elsewhere.


----------



## Henry (Aug 16, 2005)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> I think my major concern with the review is its accessibility. A proper review is intended to talk about the product, not draw a comparison to another product line in the same market.




I'll offer another point of view on this: This review does exactly what it was written to do -- it gave the author's opinion of the product and was detailed in those opinions. Often, more than one kind of review is needed, not just the same objective fact-finding that occurs in some reviews I've seen before. This review is indeed written from the perspective of the fan of d20, someone who wants to assure other fans of d20 that this product is not so far off that they would have a hard time learning it, or worried if it has inconsistent or problematic rules. If someone wants the perspective of a reviewer who is a fan of Warhammer and approaches it that way, then there are other reviews that do this. Even a review of someone who hated previous editions of Warhammer would be welcome to me, because sometimes THOSE reviews see something the others have glossed over with rose-colored lenses. If I want a review that deconstructs EVERY SINGLE mechanical component that is incorrect in a product, I'll go to John Cooper, who is a master of collecting that kind of info.

The only way a review is useless if it simply says, "Product X is Dog Poo", and then either states nothing or states totally incorrect info. Ryan's review, where facts were used, were accurate in order to support his opinion, e.g. ACs, actions, initiatives, success chances, etc. His conclusions wrong or right, I have no clue, because only Chris Pramas can definitively provide an answer. But he did use specifics, and offer an opinion, and even, according to this thread, draw some people to check out WFRP who wouldn't have before.


----------



## eyebeams (Aug 16, 2005)

I note that Ryan has edited the review.

Of course, it has already served its purpose . . . .


----------



## Melkor (Aug 16, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> There was a good point made on gaminreport comments: if the review got RPG.NET so riled up, it _has[/] to be somewhat true _



_

[sarcasm] That's as good as scientific evidence. [/sarcasm]

_


----------



## RyanD (Aug 16, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> So he should just expect to have a flock of readers who are reading his stuff waiting to take something in the negative way, almost trying as hard as possibly can be done to read something negative in what he writes?




Oh, I fully expect that.  I actually thought I'd be flamed for the review for comparing it to Middle-Earth.  I expected to get hammered by the JRRT crowd, then whipcracked by the WF people who are Old World partisans.

I didn't expect to get slammed for what I perceived as a complimentary comment.  So I changed the comment to make sure people got the fact that I thought it was a compliment.  No harm done.

Ryan


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I note that Ryan has edited the review.
> 
> Of course, it has already served its purpose . . . .




If that purpose results in more people buying Warhammer, I have a little trouble complaining - it sure seems to have drawn peoples' attention to an excellent game, whether or not you agreed with the review.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 16, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> ... Ryan's review, where facts were used, were accurate in order to support his opinion ...




Actually, a lot of the 'facts' are not accurate (he gets some of the features of the WFRP rules wrong), and even from those facts that he does get more or less right, he draws _unsupportable_ conclusions from them (viz. that WFRP 2e is a 'derivative' of 3e).


----------



## RyanD (Aug 16, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> i wonder if Ryan can comment on these claims?




Sure.  While pursuing the objective of protecting what I consider a valuable (maybe irreplacable) resource, I made a bad decision.  I took responsibility for that poor choice, and suffered the consequences of my actions - loss of an elected position, public defamation, and a lot of personal anquish.  That's my cross to bear, and I don't let it affect my strategic analysis of the gaming industry or my punditry.

I do not have any animosity towards Green Ronin or any of its owners or employees.  I did not write the review to damn with faint praise.  My objective was simple:  I wrote a review of a product I liked, and I hope other people will buy and play it as a result.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 16, 2005)

Hmmm...

You know, although I found Ryan's review to be somewhat deprecating at first, after he's edited and clarified a little I find it much better.  

Honestly, I think one thing is getting lost in the noise here- _it's a positive review._  Maybe it wasn't put as well as it could have been (and maybe Ryan should be more careful with how he phrases things like this, in order to avoid future furor), but he gave it four stars.  

Hey Ryan, I want to thank you for taking the time to follow this thread and post here.  Your efforts to clarify your position are appreciated (at least by me).  Don't let the barking and yelling get you down!   Thank you for sticking with the discussion when, frankly, it might be easier to let everyone else just fight among themselves over what you meant.  I'm glad you're making the effort to state what you meant.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I note that Ryan has edited the review.
> 
> Of course, it has already served its purpose . . . .




Your tinfoil hat is slipping a bit - you might want to readjust.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 16, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Hmmm...
> 
> You know, although I found Ryan's review to be somewhat deprecating at first, after he's edited and clarified a little I find it much better.
> ...




I agree that the review of the core book is better after the revision.  I still think that the review of the OWB is pretty bad -- it essentially misses the whole point of the Warhammer setting.  For example, to complain that there are no 'treasure tables' demonstrates a failure to grasp that WFRP is _not_ about 'killing and looting'.  WFRP is about trying to stay alive, and keeping your sanity, in a fundamentally hostile world -- one where wealth is measured in brass pennies, and the only magical items are legendary.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 16, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I agree that the review of the core book is better after the revision.  I still think that the review of the OWB is pretty bad -- it essentially misses the whole point of the Warhammer setting.




Well, I have neither read that review nor looked at the OWB, so I can't speak to that.


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not only were some of the posts extreme, but many were uncalled for.  Not to mention the ever flamining hostility to D&D at RPGnet.  It is the huge anti-d20 bias there that I see as the main reason for the flames.  You could compare a donut to d20 on RPGnet and get flames a majority of posters who defend the donut.




well, since i'm not active of their boards, and i only lurk there form time to time, i can't really debate on your "anti-20 boards" label.
from my experience, though, it seems that there are d20 haters, gurps haters, wod haters, new wod haters...

your idea of comparing a doughnut to d20 doesn't really hold water in this regard. MOST comparisons i have seen, in almost any board (even on these ones) do tend to become flame wars in the (really-not-so) long run, UNLESS a very specific point is made: "the spell system in runequest is very similar to that in call of cthulhu" or what has you.

finally, one thought: if you have problems with people attacking other people, you should turn the tones down. it seems to me that most of your posts on these boards (not rpg.net) have the kind of tone that says: "say all you want, but Ryan rocks". maybe he does, but if all you have to say is complaining about people "attacking him" (even when they are making legitimate point in a civil, albeit somewhat heated discussion), you are not doing much to prevent said discussion from turning into a war...


----------



## Henry (Aug 16, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Actually, a lot of the 'facts' are not accurate (he gets some of the features of the WFRP rules wrong)...




Just curious, but which features? I have been reading back through the thread and can't find anyone mention specifics on what you refer to. (Could be the eyesight -- they say it's first to go. )


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> By showing fans of D&D how Warhammer is mechanically similiar, he is giving a de facto boost to the image of Warhammer.




this is your opinion, and you are very well entitled to it. i, for one, would never buy a book that is "derivative" form another.
so, we can do two things: we could argue until the end of times about whose opinion matters most, or we can discuss the merit of the review and its phrasing, and seeing that it's really effective as a review, or as a compliment.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 16, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> For example, to complain that there are no 'treasure tables' demonstrates a failure to grasp that WFRP is _not_ about 'killing and looting'.




I disagree.

What's a "Treasure Table?"

It's a way to randomly generate a given creature's belongings - whether they were purchased, stolen, traded for, etc.

The presence of a treasure table does not mean that a monster exists to be killed and have its stuff taken.  It's there so that the DM can answer, on the fly, "What stuff does X have?," given it's relative power and proclivities (favors weapons and armor over gems, prefers coins, etc.).

So, if there's no treasure table, the answer to that question is, "Whatever I decide to give it, absent any particular guidance on what might be appropriate."

The ability to kill something and take its stuff is independent of how the stuff got there in the first place.

And, hell, there's no reason that the treasure table couldn't look like:

Percent ............................................. Treasure

01-90............................. Weapons / Armor as mentioned in description
91-95 ............................ As above, +1d4 brass pennies
96-97 ............................ As above, +1d4 brass pennies, +1d4 silver dollars
98-99 ............................ As above, +1d2 gold ducats
100 ............................... As above, +1 interesting item


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Also, I found that thread on Dancey's review over at RPG.net most entertaining.



yeah, some stuff was hilarious! i would have laughed if they were talking about ME!!!


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> But equally, there are plenty of people on ENWorld who upon hearing that a game is non-D20 will loudly declare how stupid a move that is and insist that they will never buy it for that reason alone.




amen... whe i was using another alias, i dared to suggest to a guy that was a bit unhappy with the d20 system to go and try GURPS... some people (who clearly had never played GURPS, or whose style was not catered by that system) went out of their way to smash the game down, as if it was the worst woe on earth since the black death...


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 16, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> But now claiming that the concept of half actions, full actions and swift actions is something coming from D&D 3E just distorts reality. That has been common in popular RPGs since 1981.




I have no idea of their first instance, but I do remember that MY first experience with half actions, full actions, and such came with the first time I ever played Champions. It has Half Phase actions, Full Phase Actions, and even Zero Phase (i.e. free) actions.


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> That it's from Ryan Dancey seems to lend it a perception that it's the d20 establishment saying those things, when it's not.



i agree completely. that why he could have done much worse than taking that in account and paying more attention to the way he was making his point...



			
				wedgeski said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, I agree with his slant that WHFRP2ed is derivative of D&D3ed, and objectively, my opinion is much more subjective about the matter than Ryan Dancey's, who has far more experience in the matter than I ever will.



the funny thing is that i feel the same *up to a point*. after all, if the head of one of the leading d20 publishing houses writes a revision of a system, some of the fixes are going to come from the d20 system, rather than, say, the storytelling one.
but, the new version is still very much tied to the old warhammer.
AND i had the feeling that the 3rd edition of D&D also incorporated a number of ideas from warhammer first edition, among other sources.

now, if i'm writing a review and i casually mention this, and maybe spend a paragraph or two about what's similar, i'm doing alright. if i base my whole review on this matter, ignoring some interesting ideas of the system just to prove my point i am not.
for one, i am not writing a good review. then, i'm not really writing a review, but i'm trying to state a point. he could have written an article, if he was so compelled to share his vision.


----------



## Henry (Aug 16, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> this is your opinion, and you are very well entitled to it. i, for one, would never buy a book that is "derivative" form another.
> so, we can do two things: we could argue until the end of times about whose opinion matters most, or we can discuss the merit of the review and its phrasing, and seeing that it's really effective as a review, or as a compliment.




You'd never buy AD&D? 3E? Warhammer? Mutants and Masterminds? Star Wars? All of them are derivative of previous works, some more so than others. Or do you mean you'd never buy a game that miscredited the sources it obviously came from? I honestly don't understand your meaning in this statement.

I'll agree that arguing about the meaning of derivative is pointless, though, because the review's been edited now to make the point clearer.



> some people (who clearly had never played GURPS, or whose style was not catered by that system) went out of their way to smash the game down, as if it was the worst woe on earth since the black death...




I've seen that here, for sure, but then I've seen it on every forum from here, to Kenzer, to RPGnet, to Dragonsfoot; everybody's got a "slam" contingent, and in some cases I've seen it's the same people on every forum, just changing the game they're defending.


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

sorry, nonsense cut away... :=)


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> I do not have any animosity towards Green Ronin or any of its owners or employees.  I did not write the review to damn with faint praise.  My objective was simple:  I wrote a review of a product I liked, and I hope other people will buy and play it as a result.



thanks for clarifying that.
having said that, no offence, but you should really pay more attention to your phrasing. that alone will eliminate many many flaming attempts.
(and, besides, i still think the bestiaryrocks, but that's my opinion, of course... )


----------



## Spell (Aug 16, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> You'd never buy AD&D?



yes, because i could use the new settings.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> 3E?



not anymore, because i don't really like the system that much, and it requires some serious conversion to make it work with older matherial (in this regard, i wish it was much more derivative...)



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Warhammer?



yes, because the new system was derivative from the old one, i could use the old books i had without much conversion (i checked the reviews looking for that, specifically).



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Mutants and Masterminds? Star Wars?



no, and no.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> All of them are derivative of previous works, some more so than others.



and what's the problem? some of them were supposed to be derivative. some of them offer much more in terms of flavour and setting to be very very enjoyable despite being essentially the same game system with a new dress.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> I honestly don't understand your meaning in this statement.



i mean that i'm not buying a game that has:
1. a vanilla flavoured medieval europe setting with a little addition of a chaos and demonic theme
2. a game system that is obviuosly derivative from another, which comes accorss from being a lot more flexible
3. a game system whose bestiary is obviously overpriced when compared with the market standard.

that was my idea of warhammer 2nd edition after reading the reviews.
fortunately, i do have the books, i can tell you that:
1. the setting is anything but medieval or reinassance europe + a demon or two.
2. if warhammer 2nd edition is derivative from a source, that would be its 1st edition (which is a good thing, because the first edition is out of print, and because the old gamers that got the old book can still make some good use out of them
3. the bestiary is pricey (like 99% of RPG books out there... i don't care if they spend a lot in production... as long as i'm concerned, they could give me a cheap pdf file with no flashy fonts and no art, if the price would drop A LOT!), BUT it's also great to give the GM and the players more idea of how the setting actually is, AND it really rocks as a bestiary in its own regard.

maybe i should've made my point clearer?




			
				Henry said:
			
		

> I've seen that here, for sure, but then I've seen it on every forum from here, to Kenzer, to RPGnet, to Dragonsfoot; everybody's got a "slam" contingent, and in some cases I've seen it's the same people on every forum, just changing the game they're defending.



which, in a way, it's fair... well, ok, it's not, but it's understandable.
having said that, you can't really blame other people to have that attitude when some people here don't act differently. i wonder if there would have been such an outcry, in these boards, if somebody was attacking, say, sandy petersen...
i very much doubt so!


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 16, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Just curious, but which features? I have been reading back through the thread and can't find anyone mention specifics on what you refer to. (Could be the eyesight -- they say it's first to go. )




Well the fact that all of the main rules in 2e WFRP are based upon the main rules in 1e WFRP (except for the magic system) is very clear.  It is clear to anyone passingly familiar with 1e, and is mentioned by Chris Pramas himself in his designer notes.  For some reason though, the review claims that many core elements of 2e WFRP are based on 3e D&D.  One example, which I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, is the WFRP system of skills and talents.  Dancey claims that this system is based on 3e, whereas in reality most of the skills and talents in 2e were (in a slightly different form) already present in 1e.  The main difference is that in 1e they were all just lumped together as 'skills'.  I suppose that the 2e distinction between 'skills' (scalable) and 'talents' (nonscalable) resembles the distinction between skills and feats in 3e -- but this distinction between these two different kinds of PC abilities predates 3e by decades (e.g. see GURPS).  

Some more picky points from the review:

_“This is further facilitated by the fact that most percentile values in the game are evenly divisible by 5, and external effects are presented in increments evenly divided by 5 as well, allowing fast, on-the-fly conversions without a lot of prep work.”_

A minor point, but strictly speaking, this isn’t true.  The core ability scores of characters are determined by rolling 2d10 (+ some base, depending on race), and all skills are based on those ability scores.  So in fact only a few of a characters’ skills and abilities (1 in 5) will be divisible by 5.

_“The downside to this system is that presenting it to the reader is very complex, and tracking all changes to a character over time requires diligent and careful paperwork. A GM cannot quickly glance at a character sheet and determine if all the math has been done to spec - the whole sheet would need to be reverse-engineered to check all decision points.”_

Actually, keeping track of characters over time is pretty darn simple, as each new career lists the maximum level that a character can have in any particular ability, etc. (i.e. career bonuses are not ‘cumulative’), and a character must achieve all the ‘advances’ in a particular career before advancing to the next one.  It is pretty easy to check – especially since a character’s ‘original abilities’ are also listed on the character sheet (along with his/her previous careers, etc.).

_“…Characters are humans, elves, dwarfs (sic), and halflings who become more powerful over time as they kill monsters, take their stuff, and power up….”_

Actually, WFRP adventures are quite different from D&D adventures.  WFRP is _not_ about 'killing monsters, taking their stuff, and powering up'.  To interpret the game in this way is to miss the whole point -- and conveys an incorrect picture of the game to potential players.

More precisely, combat is much more rare –- and generally considered something to be avoided –- in WFRP games, as it is more dangerous than in D&D, and healing is slower and more difficult.  There is also far less emphasis on ‘loot’ in WFRP – adventurers are more likely to be fighting for their lives (and sanity) than more thousands of gold pieces and magic items.  Magic items are very rare, and magic is unpredictable and feared.

_“A system for creating magic items, and more magic items (there are only 2 magic items presented in the core book, and neither of them are very interesting mechanically)”_

Well, this kinda misses one of the main points of the Warhammer setting, namely, that magic items are extremely rare.  It is plain different from D&D in this respect.

Particular quibbles aside, the _overall problem_ with the review is that it tries to fit the square WFRP 2e peg into a round D&D 3e hole.  As a consequence, the review is misleading.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 16, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> We should not forget that the rational design process that went into D&D 3E implied lifting many proven concepts from other games. AD&D 2E was a relatively old-fashioned design compared to many of its competitors, and the 3E designers managed to bring the game up to date. I think they did a good job with that. But now claiming that the concept of half actions, full actions and swift actions is something coming from D&D 3E just distorts reality. That has been common in popular RPGs since 1981.
> 
> It's things like this that trigger the reaction this review gets.



Quote for trufery.


----------



## tarchon (Aug 16, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Just curious, but which features? I have been reading back through the thread and can't find anyone mention specifics on what you refer to. (Could be the eyesight -- they say it's first to go. )




The most glaring thing is what everybody pointed out and what he corrected, which was the idea that all of WFRP 2's d20-like features are from d20, when almost all were really brought over from WFRP 1.

The characterization of skills as going of the raw stat value:


> A WFRP character who wanted to try and hear a noise would roll 2d10, and try to roll under their relevant stat percentile value. A D20 character who wanted to attempt this task would roll 1d20 and add a bonus vs. a DC of 20.



In fact, they do use bonuses from Skills, somewhat like d20, though the the increments are different and the advancement methods are very different. If you have a Skill, you get a +10% for the check, and you can take a skill up to three times, if you can buy it in separate careers each time. Talents also frequently modify skill tests.

Plus, there's the analysis that Warhammer's percentile resolution is "in most cases" mechanically identical to d20, which it very clearly is not. He picked a special case when they are and used that as evidence for a general conclusion (i.e., if a stat is evenly divisible by 5 like 35, then you can do it with a d20 - but 20% of the time is not "most of the time" - what if it's 36, 37, 38, or 39?). It was a bit like saying that d20 resolution is "most of the time" just like flipping a coin because a +0 attack bonus against a 11 AC has a 50% chance of succeeding. Factually wrong.

Then there are the peculiar geography statements, like comparing Bretonnia to "Norman France." I assume he meant Normandy, or at least the Norman duchy, which is/was just north of Brittany, where the Bretons live. In WFRP 2, Bretonnia is quasi-Arthurian, and real-world Britanny is the setting of much of the earlier Arthurian legends. You don't have to be Dr. History to see what "Bretonnia" is supposed to be. In general, the WFRP setting has a large "alternate history" component - what if the Bretons ruled France? Someone who really had a keen eye for geography would also realize that WFRP Europe is essentially Europe with the sea level raised by about 2 melted icecaps (note the absence of Denmark), but that's definitely in the extra credit realm.

"Proper nouns are anglicized local language derivatives ("Altdorf", "Sigmar", etc.)." "Altdorf" and "Sigmar" aren't even slightly anglicized. I understand roughly what he's getting at, but the way he said it is wrong, and he picked some pretty bad examples, since those are both straight German. Basically, most place names are versions of real place names, often warped at bit (e.g. Bretonnia=Brittany, Norsca=the more elevated parts of Scandinavia, Kislev=Kiev, Albion=Britain), but there isn't a general pattern of anglicization.

OK, maybe nitpicking there, but there's just a very general pattern of not being very familiar with the setting (plus errors of real-life fact) and seeing everything through d20-colored glasses. That's why I think it's not a very good review. The amendments improved it a lot, but it's still not very good at capturing the real differences between WFRP and d20 because it's so bent on proving the similarities.


----------



## eyebeams (Aug 16, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> I do not have any animosity towards Green Ronin or any of its owners or employees.  I did not write the review to damn with faint praise.  My objective was simple:  I wrote a review of a product I liked, and I hope other people will buy and play it as a result.




I find your sincerity and honesty as compelling as ever.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Aug 16, 2005)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> This strikes me as simply untrue. A 'good' review is one that helps the reader to make a judgement about the product in question without having seen or read it themselves. And like I have said before, all reviews are merely opinions. TBH RD's review was tons more useful than 95% of all RPG reviews I have read here or elsewhere.



And if the review requires the person to first have experience with another product in order for the reader to make that judgement because just about every point the reviewer makes is tied to something else ... ?


----------



## Belen (Aug 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I find your sincerity and honesty as compelling as ever.




Did you witness the execution of your pound puppy at a very young age?


----------



## Belen (Aug 16, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> finally, one thought: if you have problems with people attacking other people, you should turn the tones down. it seems to me that most of your posts on these boards (not rpg.net) have the kind of tone that says: "say all you want, but Ryan rocks". maybe he does, but if all you have to say is complaining about people "attacking him" (even when they are making legitimate point in a civil, albeit somewhat heated discussion), you are not doing much to prevent said discussion from turning into a war...




Nope.  I could care less about Ryan.  It is the undercurrent of anti-d20 elitism that gets on my nerves.  (And the RPGnet thread is anything but a civil argument.)

I can guarantee you that had the rules been "derived" from GURPS or had the review been by Joe Nobody, then there would not be such an uproar.  

Yet, compare a game to D&D, the game that the senseless masses play, and you get to sit back and watch the flamefest.

I think it is the ant-establishment "damn" the man tendency among gamers that make them look upon the guy on top and feel a need to take him down a peg.

As for the review, I thought it was good.  It got me interested in Warhammer despite its fans.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I think it is the ant-establishment "damn" the man tendency among gamers that make them look upon the guy on top and feel a need to take him down a peg.



For what it's worth, I'd never heard of Ryan Dancey until a few weeks ago, knew nothing about his role in bringing 3.0 to market, nothing about his participation in GAMA (and I have no idea what GAMA is, for that matter, nor am I interested).

After seeing his posts here along with his review and reading an interview with him from some years ago, I understand why he has his detractors.

As far as the excitement over his review, there's no escaping the fact that he is (as I've since learned) a player of sorts in the gaming business - he's not Joe Blow writing a review, and to expect that he be treated is such is perhaps a bit naïve.


----------



## Henry (Aug 16, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> i mean that i'm not buying a game that has:
> 1. a vanilla flavoured medieval europe setting with a little addition of a chaos and demonic theme
> 2. a game system that is obviously derivative from another, which comes accorss from being a lot more flexible
> 3. a game system whose bestiary is obviously overpriced when compared with the market standard... maybe i should've made my point clearer?




I was curious because you said you'd never buy an obviously derivative work, yet that's what the majority of the RPG systems available are, in some form -- derivative works. I understand you saying you wouldn't buy it if it were as "cookie cutter" as the review implies to you, but saying, "NO derivative game systems" just didn't sound right.



> having said that, you can't really blame other people to have that attitude when some people here don't act differently. i wonder if there would have been such an outcry, in these boards, if somebody was attacking, say, sandy petersen...i very much doubt so!




Neither can you, because as I said there's always a contingent of naysayers... and as I said, in the RPG community it's frequently the same people from board to board! 

And at least one person would have said something had Sandy been attacked, because he's one of my favorite game designers.


----------



## Faraer (Aug 16, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I agree that the review of the core book is better after the revision.  I still think that the review of the OWB is pretty bad -- it essentially misses the whole point of the Warhammer setting.  For example, to complain that there are no 'treasure tables' demonstrates a failure to grasp that WFRP is _not_ about 'killing and looting'.  WFRP is about trying to stay alive, and keeping your sanity, in a fundamentally hostile world -- one where wealth is measured in brass pennies, and the only magical items are legendary.



And even the request for '"How to make a monster" rules' indicates misconceptions that this is a game about lots of surprising monsters (like D&D) and that systems need 'rules' to make up monster stats (like current D&D). As I said, it's entirely inadequate as a review. The actual negative criticism responsible for the 2-star rating is as follows:







> If you can figure out for yourself why demons, orcs, skaven, dragons, ogres, and vampires are evil and should be killed & looted, you may wonder what you're supposed to do with 65 pages of average or below-average quality, stream of conscious, intentionally error-riddled fiction.



First is the insinuation that the material says nothing more than that the monsters 'are evil and should be killed & looted'. It's either demonstrably wrong if literal, since anyone with the book could quote more information than that, or snide and sarcastic (and uninformative) if not. The 'looted' part is wrong, since loot is hardly mentioned. The assertion that it's not obvious why the information is unreliable is also transparently wrong (it's explained in the introduction). It is not 'stream of conscious[ness]' (writing which attempts to reproduce interior conscious experience). That leaves 'average or below-average quality': maybe so, but just asserting so without explaining the opinion is of no use to anyone.







> The reader may find this ... boring repetition of materials already covered by a hundred other products, depending on the reader's perspective.



The implication that (a reasonable reader might find that) Warhammer world monsters have nothing distinctive about them is, again, either demonstrably false or snide, and either way, again the assertion is useless without back-up.







> The value for the price is just not justified



This claim is, once more, unsupported except for the indirect and unsubstantiated complaints about quality and an equally vague claim that '5 pages are consumed with zero usable content of any kind (full page "art" that isn't art)' -- I don't even know what pages are referred to.

It barely deals at all with how good the book is -- how well it succeeds in presenting a range of interesting, believable, and dynamic monsters. It doesn't mention how well the book represents the Warhammer world, how well put together the stats are, whether there are major omissions, how well the authors (T.S. Luikart and Ian Sturrock, who aren't even named) manage the multiple voices, or how well the art and text evoke the right atmosphere. It doesn't attempt to give any kind of vivid representation of what the book is like. It's not a review.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I can guarantee you that had the rules been "derived" from GURPS or had the review been by Joe Nobody, then there would not be such an uproar.
> 
> Yet, compare a game to D&D, the game that the senseless masses play, and you get to sit back and watch the flamefest.



Don't forget that Ryan _asked_ for his review being discussed here! Additionally, this review must be seen as part of the heated rules-light vs. rules-heavy discussion, where the idea of the WFRP2 review came up in the first place. Coincidentally, that thread rose back up from the depths of the forum again.

This is, btw, why I don't criticize the review for all its comparisons between WFRP2 and D&D 3E; that was part of the deal. In the old thread, Ryan was confronted with the statement that WFRP2 is a game that is at least as good as D&D 3E but needs much less rules and leaves more breathing room for the DM. I suspect that's why the review is like it is; it wants to address this statement. It fell a bit short of an adequate discussion of WFRP2's peculiarities in this process and there were some factual errors paired with a somewhat unfortunate wording, and you get what you got.

This means that you cannot expect this review to be treated like some piece by Joe Nobody. It has its particular context.


----------



## tarchon (Aug 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I find your sincerity and honesty as compelling as ever.




I don't really think this helps things too much. It's one thing to point out that the review is flawed and say why it is flawed, but I don't see any reason to think that it was written dishonestly. The tendency to interpret a thing in terms of what one is most familiar with is a perfectly normal human trait.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 16, 2005)

This thread is, IMO, somewhat, not-unlike, derivative of things similar to off-shoots of-


_Hang on a sec.  I believe I had a point when I started typing..._


----------



## Breakdaddy (Aug 16, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> I don't really think this helps things too much. It's one thing to point out that the review is flawed and say why it is flawed, but I don't see any reason to think that it was written dishonestly. The tendency to interpret a thing in terms of what one is most familiar with is a perfectly normal human trait.




_EDIT - Name calling DEFINITELY not a good idea. -Henry_


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 16, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> _Hang on a sec.  I believe I had a point when I started typing..._



That seems to be an epidemic with regards to this thread and the use of the word "derivative."


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I can guarantee you that had the rules been "derived" from GURPS or had the review been by Joe Nobody, then there would not be such an uproar.
> 
> Yet, compare a game to D&D, the game that the senseless masses play, and you get to sit back and watch the flamefest.




Well in so far as it applies to me, that isn't true. I don't play GURPS; I don't particularly like it. I do play a lot of 3rd Ed D&D, and like it a lot. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that I think that 3rd Ed D&D was a brilliant piece of work, and I'm still deeply impressed with the degree to which its designers were able to totally overhaul and update the old D&D ruleset whilst still maintaining the feel of D&D.

But the second edition of WFRP - a game I'm also a huge admirer of - simply was not derived from 3rd Ed D&D. I felt it was dishonest for Dancy to say so, and given that he was one of the people behind 3rd Ed D&D, it seemed like he was trying to unfairly take the credit for an achievement that wasn't his.

That was entirely my beef. It wasn't elitism. It wasn't anti-D20ism. It wasn't about giving the "guy on top" a kicking (in fact, it could be argued that given Dancy's recent difficulties, the guys at Green Ronin are much more the "big guys" than he is).

Now I can't speak for everyone in this thread, but that's where I'm coming from.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 17, 2005)

I think the question is when the second edition of WFRP came out.  Given that Green Ronin can pretty much be considered a d20 publisher, as in, their origins were involved in the d20 license, it seems that the 2nd edition of WFRP would have to be considered, at least, "instructed by" 3rd Ed D&D.  Whether you think "derivative" is too strong a word is likely a personal judgment.

(And note, let's try to keep things civil, huh?)


----------



## tetsujin28 (Aug 17, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> besides, following the RPG.net thread on the subject, one comes accross some peculiar views on the subject... like that on posts 121 (read the end of it) that would explain how the dimissions of Ryan from the GAMA board might have a lot to do with the reviews in question...
> i think the link to that page is: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=211410&page=13&pp=10



There's nothing 'peculiar' about it. Dancey's behaviour towards Chris Pramas and Nicole Lindroos has been nothing short of reprehensible.







> i wonder if Ryan can comment on these claims?



He'll just backpedal, as usual.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Aug 17, 2005)

Ooh, I sense a thread-closing a-comin!


----------



## scourger (Aug 17, 2005)

Well, now I kind of wish I _hadn't_ given WFRP as a gift to a buddy who I am reasonably certain will never run it.  All this information makes it more appealing.  

I guess I'll have to wait for the Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay (WH40KRP)!  *That* will be off the chain!


----------



## Bobitron (Aug 17, 2005)

Wow. So much animosity. I've run into plenty of flak from the WHFRP crowd in the past, and have learned that many of them tend to be such rabid fans that any comparison to another system cause the sort of comments found after your review.

I'm with Shaman on this one, too; I have no idea who Ryan is and what his relationship to D&D is. But I think your review was pretty good, Ryan. Thanks for the link, and I appreciate you taking so much time to answer the many comments made here on EN World regarding something as simple as a review.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 17, 2005)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Yep, I'm a d20 fan, and it was about Dancey being a class-A jerk.




Given the many warnings in this thread, you just earned yourself a week's ban.  

I'm not going to close the thread, though.  It's an interesting discussion.  I think the best strategy is to just remove those who ignored the moderator requests for everyone to remain polite.


----------



## Melkor (Aug 17, 2005)

Bobitron said:
			
		

> Wow. So much animosity. I've run into plenty of flak from the WHFRP crowd in the past, and have learned that many of them tend to be such rabid fans that any comparison to another system cause the sort of comments found after your review.




Funny, I have noticed the same thing from the "D20 crowd" when D20 is compared to other systems (rabid defense, comments that lash out at anyone who disagrees, etc.). I guess it just goes with the territory when people are passionate about the subject: 

"Mine is the best."
"No, mine is."
"No, _mine_ is...and...and....you suck!"

Just for the record, I am a WFRP fan and a D20 fan.


----------



## Jack Spencer Jr (Aug 17, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> But the second edition of WFRP - a game I'm also a huge admirer of - simply was not derived from 3rd Ed D&D. I felt it was dishonest for Dancy to say so, and given that he was one of the people behind 3rd Ed D&D, it seemed like he was trying to unfairly take the credit for an achievement that wasn't his.



Actually, for me it felt more like I knew less about the game under review and more about the reviewer's preferences. This is not the makings of a good review. Not at all. Most disappointing, in fact.

Such a tempest in a teacup.


----------



## Bobitron (Aug 17, 2005)

Melkor said:
			
		

> Funny, I have noticed the same thing from the D20 Crowd when D20 is compared to other systems (rabid defense, comments that lash out at anyone who disagrees, etc.). I guess it just goes with the territory when people are passionate about the subject:
> 
> "Mine is the best."
> "No, mine is."
> ...




You are probably right. It just seems that d20 bashing is popular, as it is the most popular system. I know this guy over at the Privateer Press forums who is a HUGE Iron Kingdoms fan, but makes a new thread every week about how he thinks the system sucks.

I own more game systems than I care to think about. I would say that d20 is my favorite, but I have bought every 2nd ed WHFRP book except for the new Armory, and play in 3 WH play-by-post games. I love the new system, and I do own a half-dozen of the first edition to compare it to.


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 17, 2005)

Jack Spencer Jr said:
			
		

> Such a tempest in a teacup.



And here I thought that the tempest in the teacup was you baiting Nisarg over on his personal blog site....


----------



## Turjan (Aug 17, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> And here I thought that the tempest in the teacup was you baiting Nisarg over on his personal blog site....



I haven't read anything about pseudo-intellectuals in a long time. Might be fun !


----------



## Spell (Aug 17, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> I was curious because you said you'd never buy an obviously derivative work, yet that's what the majority of the RPG systems available are, in some form -- derivative works. I understand you saying you wouldn't buy it if it were as "cookie cutter" as the review implies to you, but saying, "NO derivative game systems" just didn't sound right.



alright, i should've been clearer then 




			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Neither can you, because as I said there's always a contingent of naysayers... and as I said, in the RPG community it's frequently the same people from board to board!




oh, but i know. that's why i don't waste my time trying to eradicate an anti-d20 crusade that really don't exists... 



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> And at least one person would have said something had Sandy been attacked, because he's one of my favorite game designers.



i think very highly of him, too! 

i think there should be more topics about old designers, and how good they are/ were.


----------



## Spell (Aug 17, 2005)

scourger said:
			
		

> Well, now I kind of wish I _hadn't_ given WFRP as a gift to a buddy who I am reasonably certain will never run it.  All this information makes it more appealing.
> 
> I guess I'll have to wait for the Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay (WH40KRP)!  *That* will be off the chain!



well, if you have the army books, and know the background, it shouldn't be too dificult to mess a bit with the WH system and start playing in the WH40K universe today.
my advice is: buy the warhammer book again. you can then choose between a fantasy world and a loosely sci-fi one.


----------



## Spell (Aug 17, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Given the many warnings in this thread, you just earned yourself a week's ban.
> 
> I'm not going to close the thread, though.  It's an interesting discussion.




to be fair, the name calling started elsewhere... i would point that in PM if i could! 
thanks for not closing the thread, though!


----------



## eyebeams (Aug 17, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> I don't really think this helps things too much. It's one thing to point out that the review is flawed and say why it is flawed, but I don't see any reason to think that it was written dishonestly. The tendency to interpret a thing in terms of what one is most familiar with is a perfectly normal human trait.




On what basis do you interpret my statement as a negative one? Could it be that your prior experience with my positions makes you aware of such nuances?

That's the case with the review, too.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 17, 2005)

Bobitron said:
			
		

> Wow. So much animosity. I've run into plenty of flak from the WHFRP crowd in the past, and have learned that many of them tend to be such rabid fans that any comparison to another system cause the sort of comments found after your review.




Well the animosity appears to be on both sides of the argument. We (the people who feel that the review was flawed) are repeatedly being told that we're "elitists" who are lying when we say we're simply arguing in favour of the truth and have no animosity towards the D20 system.

The review didn't "compare" WFRP2 to D&D3. It said that it was *derived* from D&D3, which simply isn't true. It's a fundamentally different system that shares a small number of common concepts, most of which are also shared with many other games. Given the history (Dancy worked on D&D3, Dancy has had a public falling out with the team behind WFRP2) this therefore came across as a not particularly thinly veiled accusation of, if not plagerism, then an attempt to cast doubt on how much Green Ronin can take credit for the game.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 17, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> We (the people who feel that the review was flawed) are repeatedly being told that we're "elitists" who are lying when we say we're simply arguing in favour of the truth and have no animosity towards the D20 system.




Funny, I'm one of the folks who feels the review is flawed, yet simply remaining civil has left me out of the 'elitist' umbrella of accusations. 

I would posit that just trying to be nice about it will exempt you, at least largely, from such complaints.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 17, 2005)

Morte said:
			
		

> Thank you, Jürgen, it's far too long since I read those.




Best sentence:

"Go on. Buy another barge. I'll ing sink that one too."


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 17, 2005)

In case you want to get some other perspectives on WFRP 2E, there are reviews here, here, here and here that don't make comparisons to D&D 3E.

And if you want to compare it with WFRP 1E, there's a review of that edition here.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 17, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Funny, I'm one of the folks who feels the review is flawed, yet simply remaining civil has left me out of the 'elitist' umbrella of accusations.
> 
> I would posit that just trying to be nice about it will exempt you, at least largely, from such complaints.




I'm pretty sure I've been both nice and civil throughout the discussion. Certainly, if anyone has an example of something I said that they felt was out of order, I'd very much like them to bring it to my attention.

The accusations of elitism, and assumptions about motivation, were not ones that have been addressed to me personally. They were instead *blanket* accusations that appeared to be addressed at *everyone* who was criticising the review - i.e. both myself and yourself.

If you don't feel that they were addressed to you then that's fine, but please don't assume that by mentioning those accusations I was somehow confessing to rude and uncivil behaviour.

As I said, if anyone thinks I've have been either rude or uncivil then I'd be grateful if they would bring the offending text to my attention. (It could be that I said something that I didn't felt was wrong, but that someone else might think so).


----------



## Spell (Aug 17, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> We (the people who feel that the review was flawed) are repeatedly being told that we're "elitists" who are lying when we say we're simply arguing in favour of the truth and have no animosity towards the D20 system.




wait a second here! are you telling me that THAT was not our point?!?!?


----------



## Turjan (Aug 17, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> The accusations of elitism, and assumptions about motivation, were not ones that have been addressed to me personally. They were instead *blanket* accusations that appeared to be addressed at *everyone* who was criticising the review - i.e. both myself and yourself.



I agree, I had the same feeling. I don't have any hate for d20; it's the only game I get to play at the moment. The only criticism I have is that I feel the workload for the GM is a bit high (but this doesn't belong into this thread). I'm not a WFRP2 'fanboy', either. I have the book and find the game quite interesting. I might give it some actual play if I can interest my players. But that's not a high priority. The discussion from my side was more to the point of giving credit where credit is due. I don't think that most critics of the review deserve the accusations made by some of the other posters.

I think I have to look at that Old World Bestiary, too, if only to be able to build my own opinion about that title. It wasn't high on my priority list, because many people told me that you don't really need the bestiary for WFRP, because the monsters play only a secondary role in that game.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 17, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> wait a second here! are you telling me that THAT was not our point?!?!?




Shush!

The first rule of the Popular Front for the Liberation of non-D20 Roleplaying is that we don't talk about the Popular Front for the Liberation of non-D20 Roleplaying!   

_Comrade Jonny Nexus, People's Shock Trooper in the 2nd "WFRP" Regiment of the Popular Front for the Liberation of non-D20 Roleplaying._


----------



## Turjan (Aug 17, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Shush!
> 
> The first rule of the Popular Front for the Liberation of non-D20 Roleplaying is that we don't talk about the Popular Front for the Liberation of non-D20 Roleplaying!
> 
> _Comrade Jonny Nexus, People's Shock Trooper in the 2nd "WFRP" Regiment of the Popular Front for the Liberation of non-D20 Roleplaying._



Are you sure you don't mix that up with the People's non-d20 Roleplaying Liberation Front?


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 17, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I think I have to look at that Old World Bestiary, too, if only to be able to build my own opinion about that title. It wasn't high on my priority list, because many people told me that you don't really need the bestiary for WFRP, because the monsters play only a secondary role in that game.




Well, I _was_ disappointed with the limited selection of monsters in the main book. At the very least, if you have a Trollslayer career in the book, you should have the stats for a troll in the book so that said character can attempt to slay it and die heroically in the process...   

But that was the only thing I was really disappointed with.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 17, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Are you sure you don't mix that up with the People's non-d20 Roleplaying Liberation Front?




Splitters! We don't talk about them.


----------



## Morte (Aug 17, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Best sentence:
> 
> "Go on. Buy another barge. I'll ing sink that one too."




It's second only to Semi-Sentient Biped Pack Animals


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 17, 2005)

Morte said:
			
		

> It's second only to Semi-Sentient Biped Pack Animals




Cool.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 17, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Given the many warnings in this thread, you just earned yourself a week's ban.




Wow. You know, I never thought of banning as anything other than a permanent thing.

For the record, I hereby volunteer myself for similar, short-term involuntary cool down periods, should the need arise. 

I mean honestly, if it's during the work day, a one-day ban is as good as a kick in the nuts.


Wulf


----------



## the Jester (Aug 17, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure I've been both nice and civil throughout the discussion. Certainly, if anyone has an example of something I said that they felt was out of order, I'd very much like them to bring it to my attention.
> 
> The accusations of elitism, and assumptions about motivation, were not ones that have been addressed to me personally. They were instead *blanket* accusations that appeared to be addressed at *everyone* who was criticising the review - i.e. both myself and yourself.
> 
> ...




Oh, I apologize if my post sounded that way- I was just trying to wryly make a point.  I certainly hadn't noticed anything inappropriate coming out of you, but I skimmed through a page or two's worth of posts and was making a general comment.

I don't mean to imply that you were rude or uncivil in any way- and by the same token, I don't think the comments in question were worth responding to.  In a discussion like this I think that the best way to deal with things like that is often to ignore them.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 17, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Oh, I apologize if my post sounded that way- I was just trying to wryly make a point.  I certainly hadn't noticed anything inappropriate coming out of you, but I skimmed through a page or two's worth of posts and was making a general comment.
> 
> I don't mean to imply that you were rude or uncivil in any way- and by the same token, I don't think the comments in question were worth responding to.  In a discussion like this I think that the best way to deal with things like that is often to ignore them.




Fair enough.


----------



## amethal (Aug 17, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> i wonder if there would have been such an outcry, in these boards, if somebody was attacking, say, sandy petersen...
> i very much doubt so!



You just try it, and then you'll find out why nobody ever dares criticise Mr Petersen around here.   

Ryan can look after himself, however.

His "review" of WHFRP was, as other people have said, more of an article than a review, and an interesting one at that. 

However, the review of the Bestiary was a extremely unfair. WHFRP is not D&D, whatever Ryan may think, and the Bestiary shouldn't be criticised for not being like the Monster Manual. 

I think I'll post a review of the Monster Manual and give it two stars on the grounds that it is sadly lacking in flavour text, there are no ideas for integrating the monsters into the campaign setting, no ideas given of what is common knowledge about the beasts, and its largely the same old monsters I was using 15 years ago in my 1st edition games. Oh, and it doesn't have any treasure tables


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 17, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Wow. You know, I never thought of banning as anything other than a permanent thing.



If it is any consolation, the bannee was practically congratulating himself over the ban over on another website.   :\


----------



## ssampier (Aug 17, 2005)

*I'm trying it out.*

I have never played WFRP. The review intrigued me enough to read more reviews and I liked what I read. I just ordered a copy on buy.com (sale priced) and I'm waiting for delivery.

My players are hard-core AD&D 2nd edition fans. They don't like any variant of 3rd edition (we do play a d20 Star Wars game, though). The AD&D second edition system tires me, so I wanted to try something new. I'm not sure how nihilistic the world is, but I hope it's less depressing than Midnight. As long as I can send hordes of diseased rat men after them and they run scared; my work is done.


----------



## tarchon (Aug 17, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> On what basis do you interpret my statement as a negative one? Could it be that your prior experience with my positions makes you aware of such nuances?
> 
> That's the case with the review, too.



I've never seen you before that I can recall. I was talking about the review.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 17, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> If it is any consolation, the bannee was practically congratulating himself over the ban over on another website.   :\




Huh? It's not as though it's particularly hard to get banned here. The rules are pretty strict. 

_Dammit! Just thought of a really good metaphor involving the criminal justice system of a south east Asian country, but I can't say it because that would be political._ 

(Not complaining mind... it's nice to be able to go somewhere where people can't recommend that I be put to death on account of my ethical beliefs).


----------



## tarchon (Aug 17, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> My players are hard-core AD&D 2nd edition fans. They don't like any variant of 3rd edition (we do play a d20 Star Wars game, though). The AD&D second edition system tires me, so I wanted to try something new. I'm not sure how nihilistic the world is, but I hope it's less depressing than Midnight. As long as I can send hordes of diseased rat men after them and they run scared; my work is done.



It's not quite as far down the darkness scale as Midnight (let's say 10 PM) - the war isn't lost, but you do get the sense that eventually Chaos will win out, kind of like Werewolf: the Apocalypse. It's also not as low-magic as Midnight.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 17, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> (Not complaining mind... it's nice to be able to go somewhere where people can't recommend that I be put to death on account of my ethical beliefs).




SE Asia? Heck, that also rules out certain neighborhoods in London.


----------



## eyebeams (Aug 17, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> I've never seen you before that I can recall. I was talking about the review.




From what you read in this thread, you knew that my statement was ironic. Similarly, from what I've read elsewhere, I am certain Ryan Dancey's article is an insult dressed up as a review.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 17, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> SE Asia? Heck, that also rules out certain neighborhoods in London.




Oops. Just to clarify - in case my previous statement is taken as being political - when I referred to people calling for me to be put to death on account of my beliefs I was referring to RPGNet not the SE Asian country, and it was the ENWorld moderation policies that I was saying that I wasn't referring to.

If that makes any sense.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 17, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> If it is any consolation, the bannee was practically congratulating himself over the ban over on another website. :\




Was he now?  Do you have a link?


----------



## Turjan (Aug 17, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Was he now?  Do you have a link?



He did, but I find this quote much more important:

"Like I said, I don't begrudge it. I stepped over their line, I got a one-week suspension. It's their board, and I agreed to the rules. I'll live " 

Click!

No need to get excited about it .


----------



## Jack Spencer Jr (Aug 17, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> And here I thought that the tempest in the teacup was you baiting Nisarg over on his personal blog site....



Touche.

But then, that was a moment of weakness on my part and the sort of thing nisarg thrives on.

By the by, can you summarize his "love letter" for me? I can't be bother to read it, to be honest. I'm too busy trying to start a flame war about the forge in the comments of the previous entry.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 17, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Was he now?  Do you have a link?




It starts on this page.  

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=211410&page=38&pp=10


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 17, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Was he now?  Do you have a link?




Why is his behaviour on another board relevant?  

In anycase, as Turjan pointed out, tet28 explicitly acknowledged that the ban was fair, given what he did, and the rules of ENworld/


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 17, 2005)

Jack Spencer Jr said:
			
		

> Touche.
> 
> But then, that was a moment of weakness on my part and the sort of thing nisarg thrives on.
> 
> By the by, can you summarize his "love letter" for me? I can't be bother to read it, to be honest. I'm too busy trying to start a flame war about the forge in the comments of the previous entry.



Not unless I want to get banned (for repeating/summarizing him - yes, it pretty much is that bad)....   

Let's just say that he was in his usual form and that I think you progressed way past "Swine" in his heart.... hehe


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 17, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Why is his behaviour on another board relevant?



Well, Wolf expressed that a week long ban being pretty hefty to him. I replied that based on what the bannee said elsewhere he wasn't at all outraged or choked up about it... after all he wasn't quite about to be able to post here with his take.


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 17, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Well, Wolf expressed that a week long ban being pretty hefty to him. I replied that based on what the bannee said elsewhere he wasn't at all outraged or choked up about it... after all he wasn't quite about to be able to post here with his take.



Umm... You might want to go back an reread what Wulf actually said. In short, he only stated that he had never thought of banning as being something other than permanent. He did not say that he found a week a heavy punishment...


----------



## Spell (Aug 17, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I think I have to look at that Old World Bestiary, too, if only to be able to build my own opinion about that title. It wasn't high on my priority list, because many people told me that you don't really need the bestiary for WFRP, because the monsters play only a secondary role in that game.




well, monsters tend to be much more "mundane" in the Old World. no flashy dragons, or demi planar half liches, but orcs, chaos cultists, some undead... you have the idea, i'm sure.
that said, i cannot recommend the bestiary more, for two reasons:
1. as i have already said more than once in this very thread, it's one of the best bestiaries out there. reading through it you not only get information on the monsters and some adventure ideas, but you also manage to build a better idea of the world, of how things work, and so on (of course, you could build on the many published novels for that, much more efficiently, but then...)
2. you have much more informationt than what is contained in the basic manual (which was very scarce on monster data...)

what you can do to save money is avoid to get the player's game pack and the game master's game pack... i found them to be a bit thin on the usefulness and quite thick on the price...

if you plan to run your adventures (as opposed to published ones), i do recommend you to get hold of the bestiary.


----------



## Spell (Aug 17, 2005)

amethal said:
			
		

> You just try it, and then you'll find out why nobody ever dares criticise Mr Petersen around here.




i would never tell a word against the ol' fella, you know...   



			
				amethal said:
			
		

> I think I'll post a review of the Monster Manual and give it two stars on the grounds that it is sadly lacking in flavour text, there are no ideas for integrating the monsters into the campaign setting, no ideas given of what is common knowledge about the beasts, and its largely the same old monsters I was using 15 years ago in my 1st edition games. Oh, and it doesn't have any treasure tables




funny, apart from the treasure table comment, that is exactly what i felt when i managed to put my hands on the 3.0 Monster manual...  "WHAT?!?!? there's a typo!!! they forgot to include the ecology section!"
seriously, i think that was one of the last nails in the coffin for me and D&D (the last one being the Epic handbook)... i thought the ecology was what made the monstrous compendia worth buying and reading...


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 17, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Umm... You might want to go back an reread what Wulf actually said. In short, he only stated that he had never thought of banning as being something other than permanent. He did not say that he found a week a heavy punishment...






			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I mean honestly, if it's during the work day, a one-day ban is as good as a kick in the nuts.




I believe this means that he feels a one-day ban is pretty bad, which would mean a one-week ban would be worse.  And as far as the bannee's behavior on another board, if he shows that he is unwilling to follow the rules (for example, saying that he's proud of his ban and plans more of the same for the future), a permanent ban would be in order.

At any rate, weren't folks discussing Ryan's interview?  Or has that run its course?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 17, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I believe this means that he feels a one-day ban is pretty bad, which would mean a one-week ban would be worse.




It was really two comments. First, that I had always thought banning was permanent. And then, realizing that the mods have other weapons in their arsenal besides a permanent ban, just sort of saying, well, a 1-day ban would do me good on occasion-- especially if it takes the 1-week ban off the table.


----------



## Spell (Aug 17, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how nihilistic the world is, but I hope it's less depressing than Midnight.




the original take on the old world made it very grim and desolate, but in a different subtler way than Midnight. it was more like "the taint of chaos is slowly corrupting the entire civilised world, and no matter what we do, there seem to be no light at the end of the tunnel", rather than "watch out, or the chaos bad boys will come to get you!!!" (i know that's a gross simplification of midnight, but i think it drives the point home).

the new version is a bit more heroic (the emperor, for example, is now described as a valuable hero in the fight against the chaos, as opposed to a stupid babbling weaking... or bretonnia is now practically camelot, as opposed to an even more corrupted version of pre-revolutionary france), but you can find enough information for free on the net (www.warhammer.net for example) to revert back to the old style, if you wish so.
it's not like it's raining lollipops in the new "old world", though... i think you'll like it!


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 17, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> ... And as far as the bannee's behavior on another board, if he shows that he is unwilling to follow the rules (for example, saying that he's proud of his ban and plans more of the same for the future), a permanent ban would be in order. ...




I didn't realize that the mods here had the authority to punish people for their behaviour on _other_ boards.  It seems that a poster's behaviour on _this_ board is all that is relevant.  

In any case, it's moot, since Tet28 made it clear over at RPG.net that he understood and accepted the reason for his 1-week ban.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 17, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> ... the new version is a bit more heroic (the emperor, for example, is now described as a valuable hero in the fight against the chaos, as opposed to a stupid babbling weaking... or bretonnia is now practically camelot, as opposed to an even more corrupted version of pre-revolutionary france), but you can find enough information for free on the net (www.warhammer.net for example) to revert back to the old style, if you wish so.
> it's not like it's raining lollipops in the new "old world", though... i think you'll like it!




The new version is still plenty grim.  The Empire is reeling after the Storm of Chaos, and is quite weak.  Internal corruption is still prevalent.  Bretonnia might have shiny knights, but it has starving bitter peasants as well.  

And then there's the disease, wilderness, insanity ...


----------



## tarchon (Aug 17, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> the new version is a bit more heroic (the emperor, for example, is now described as a valuable hero in the fight against the chaos, as opposed to a stupid babbling weaking... or bretonnia is now practically camelot, as opposed to an even more corrupted version of pre-revolutionary france), but you can find enough information for free on the net (www.warhammer.net for example) to revert back to the old style, if you wish so.



The new emperor is the new emperor because of what happened to the old emperor from the first edition. I do agree that it's marginally less gritty in several respects, made up for by the new "now with more dire mayhem!" magic system


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 17, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I didn't realize that the mods here had the authority to punish people for their behaviour on _other_ boards.




They don't, and this certainly isn't an example of that.

But then, I think you knew that already.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 18, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I didn't realize that the mods here had the authority to punish people for their behaviour on _other_ boards.  It seems that a poster's behaviour on _this_ board is all that is relevant.
> 
> In any case, it's moot, since Tet28 made it clear over at RPG.net that he understood and accepted the reason for his 1-week ban.




If we're being technical about it, I can refuse people permission to post here for any reason I want - and if someone were gloating about their ban and acting like they'd behave in the same way again, I'd not hesitate in making it permanent.  

But you're right - I have no problem with what he posted over there.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 18, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> the original take on the old world made it very grim and desolate, but in a different subtler way than Midnight. it was more like "the taint of chaos is slowly corrupting the entire civilised world, and no matter what we do, there seem to be no light at the end of the tunnel", rather than "watch out, or the chaos bad boys will come to get you!!!" (i know that's a gross simplification of midnight, but i think it drives the point home).
> 
> the new version is a bit more heroic (the emperor, for example, is now described as a valuable hero in the fight against the chaos, as opposed to a stupid babbling weaking... or bretonnia is now practically camelot, as opposed to an even more corrupted version of pre-revolutionary france), but you can find enough information for free on the net (www.warhammer.net for example) to revert back to the old style, if you wish so.
> it's not like it's raining lollipops in the new "old world", though... i think you'll like it!




Awesome. It sounds pretty interesting!

I'm glad I was able to help this thread stay on topic


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 18, 2005)

I'm curious to know if the Bestiary (or the corebook) uses the "intelligent fungi" origin for Orcs?


----------



## Spell (Aug 18, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> The new version is still plenty grim.  The Empire is reeling after the Storm of Chaos, and is quite weak.  Internal corruption is still prevalent.  Bretonnia might have shiny knights, but it has starving bitter peasants as well.
> 
> And then there's the disease, wilderness, insanity ...




exactly. i think it's more like a change of perspective than a real change of background. if you know how the old Emperor and Bretonnia were portraited, you can say that the "new" version is just the same tale told by a different story.

for example, if you asked the average frenchman what he thought about Louis XVII throughtout the history you would get very different answers.

as i said, the current version is very grim, too. i just liked some of the old assumptions and point of views, but putting them back in the background it's a... uhm... free action!


----------



## Graf (Aug 18, 2005)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> This was not a review. This was an atempt to get WHFRP players to switch over to d20.
> 
> I think mr. Dancy has lost his focus. In determinig whether WHFRP is a good game or not, what relevance does it have that Pramas used to work at WotC.
> 
> Please, get off the soapbox.




He's said they are similar, but players get to have more choices and control over their characters. (which players love more than just about anything else)

I do not think it is an exaduration to say that there are 100 DnD players for every WFR player. 

The man doesn't even work for WotC anymore, but assuming his goal is to get people to switch WFR doesn't have much of a fan base to be raiding.

<A line that was probably not appropriate has been deleted. I hope nobody read it and the thread continues to be productive and fun for everyone.>

Personally I think that a review of a product that compares it with the mainstream product of the same catagory with specific, in-depth rules comparisons is awesome. Mechanical analysis is often lacking in reviews, but its far more important that someone's personal flavor-related opining.

But I've always liked RD's focus on taking apart rulesystems and discussing their relative merits. Its not something everyone is into though.
[Edits = deleted line, spelling, clarity.]


----------



## Numion (Aug 18, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> well, monsters tend to be much more "mundane" in the Old World. no flashy dragons, or demi planar half liches, but orcs, chaos cultists, some undead... you have the idea, i'm sure.




Hmm. I don't know where this idea comes from - it doesn't come from WFRP 1E. I only have the 2E main book, so I can't comment on 2E. 1E, however, does have Dragons, really fantastic demons, liches, vampires, Jabberwocky (yeah, that one), etc .. 1E Old World is filled with the usual D&D tripe, sorry. 1E WFRP even had template monsters before 3E D&D --> ZING!!!   

WFRP is a world of grim, but heroic adventuring. It's not Call of Cthulhu. It's got fate points for chrissakes! The cover of 1E WFRP is what the world is about - gore filled splatter orgy.


----------



## Graf (Aug 18, 2005)

*kinda off topic but*



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Wow. You know, I never thought of banning as anything other than a permanent thing.
> 
> Wulf




I would expect that permenent bans would be meaningless unless the Mods were really willing to put out a lot of effort. With the ability of people to just get new addresses, cloak their IPs, etc its pretty tough to keep someone out of an open community.

A short ban is much more likely to make the person want to take a break.


----------



## MonsterMash (Aug 18, 2005)

Graf said:
			
		

> I do not think it is an exaduration to say that there are 100 DnD players for every WFR player.



Not certain about this, especially in the UK and rest of Europe where WHFRP was very popular at one time.


----------



## Olive (Aug 18, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I'm curious to know if the Bestiary (or the corebook) uses the "intelligent fungi" origin for Orcs?




It doesn't say either way...


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 18, 2005)

Graf said:
			
		

> ...
> I do not think it is an exaduration to say that there are 100 DnD players for every WFR player.
> 
> The man doesn't even work for WotC anymore, but assuming his goal is to get people to switch WFR doesn't have much of a fan base to be raiding. ...




Some facts:

WFRP 1e was the most successful RPG produced outside of the United States.

WFRP 2e is currently the third best selling RPG around.


----------



## Belen (Aug 18, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Some facts:
> 
> WFRP 1e was the most successful RPG produced outside of the United States.
> 
> WFRP 2e is currently the third best selling RPG around.




Where did you get that information?

I still do not see why so many people are "offended" by the review.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 18, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I still do not see why so many people are "offended" by the review.



But you can accept that people see it differently than you do, right?


----------



## Belen (Aug 18, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> But you can accept that people see it differently than you do, right?




I have always saw that people could see things differently from me.  It is the people who're acting offended that I rail against.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 18, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Where did you get that information?
> ...



That WFRP 1e was the best selling RPG produced outside of the U.S. is a well-known fact.  Asking me where I got that information is like asking where I got the information that D&D is the number one selling RPG of all time.  However, I'm sure some poking around the WFRP sites will turn up this point easily enough (I can't be bothered to do it myself).  It might actually be mentioned in the core book (I'd have to check).

As for the fact that WFRP 2e is currently the third best selling RPG, that was a claim made by Chris Pramas, and I see no reason to doubt it.  Apparently the first printing ran out faster than expected, and BI had to rush to get more copies on the shelves.


----------



## eyebeams (Aug 18, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> That WFRP 1e was the best selling RPG produced outside of the U.S. is a well-known fact.  Asking me where I got that information is like asking where I got the information that D&D is the number one selling RPG of all time.  However, I'm sure some poking around the WFRP sites will turn up this point easily enough (I can't be bothered to do it myself).  It might actually be mentioned in the core book (I'd have to check).
> 
> As for the fact that WFRP 2e is currently the third best selling RPG, that was a claim made by Chris Pramas, and I see no reason to doubt it.  Apparently the first printing ran out faster than expected, and BI had to rush to get more copies on the shelves.




Supported by info at IVC2.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 18, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> It is the people who're acting offended that I rail against.



Some people are offended by what they see as a misleading and self-serving review by an industry "name" - why does this trouble you so?


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 18, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> ...  It is the people who're acting offended that I rail against.




People objected to the review because: 

(a.) it claimed that WFRP 2e was a 'derivative' (i.e. based upon) D&D 3e, whereas it was in fact clearly based on WFRP 1e (3e may have influenced aspects of the revisions, but to assert that it was the basis for WFRP 2e was absurd); 
(b.) more generally, it claimed that particular rules and features of WFRP 2e were based on superficially similar ones in 3e D&D (e.g. the review claimed that the WFRP 2e skill system was based on 3e's, whereas it was clearly based on WFRP 1e);
(c.) it failed to grasp some of the essential differences between WFRP and D&D by applying D&D notions to the WFRP game and setting (e.g. that it is about 'killing, looting, and powering-up', etc.);
(d) and, overall, the tone of the review conveyed the impression that it was a 'backhanded compliment' to the work done by the author (e.g. 'a clever derivative...', etc.).

Please note that _none_ of these reasons have to do with 'anti-D&D elitism' or any such nonesense.  Rather, people disliked the review because it was inaccurate, and failed to do justice to WFRP's distinctive merits.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 18, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> That WFRP 1e was the best selling RPG produced outside of the U.S. is a well-known fact.  Asking me where I got that information is like asking where I got the information that D&D is the number one selling RPG of all time.  However, I'm sure some poking around the WFRP sites will turn up this point easily enough (I can't be bothered to do it myself).  It might actually be mentioned in the core book (I'd have to check).
> 
> As for the fact that WFRP 2e is currently the third best selling RPG, that was a claim made by Chris Pramas, and I see no reason to doubt it.  Apparently the first printing ran out faster than expected, and BI had to rush to get more copies on the shelves.




I wouldn't know about that. I mean in White Dwarf 300 they were talking about how poorly the game sold and how there were like only 5000 role players in the world no? And that's from the horses's mouth.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 18, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> That WFRP 1e was the best selling RPG produced outside of the U.S. is a well-known fact.



Although "outside of the U.S." most probably means the UK, where the game had a home match. It's definitely not true for some other countries with large roleplaying communities. Anyway, it sold amazingly well.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 18, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Although "outside of the U.S." most probably means the UK, where the game had a home match. It's definitely not true for some other countries with large roleplaying communities. Anyway, it sold amazingly well.




So which other game, _produced outside the US_, sold more _world wide_?


----------



## Turjan (Aug 18, 2005)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> So which other game, _produced outside the US_, sold more _world wide_?



My point was more that claims like this cannot really be backed with hard numbers. It's not even possible to tell the market share of D&D in the US with enough certainty (you will find numbers between 38% and 75%). Numbers for most other countries are completely in limbo. That's why I meant that the statement about WHFRP's success is most probably true for the UK, but I don't see the "world wide" claim can be proven in any way.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 18, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I wouldn't know about that. I mean in White Dwarf 300 they were talking about how poorly the game sold and how there were like only 5000 role players in the world no? And that's from the horses's mouth.



Well, from Black Industry's own forums, there was a thread confirming that the Core rulebook for WFRP2 went to reprint after one month, and the expectation was for it to take 6 months. That would be from the horse's mouth. 

As I recall, the White Dwarf comment was a prediction, not sales announcement.  

Oh, and here is Chris Pramas' post from his blog on the subject of sales of his baby.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 18, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I wouldn't know about that. I mean in White Dwarf 300 they were talking about how poorly the game sold and how there were like only 5000 role players in the world no? And that's from the horses's mouth.




That article has been widely mocked for having no relation to the real world.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 18, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I still do not see why so many people are "offended" by the review.




I'm pretty sure that previous posts of mine (three of which were themselves replies to posts of yours) addressed that, so I'll quote from them here:



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> But the second edition of WFRP - a game I'm also a huge admirer of - simply was not derived from 3rd Ed D&D. I felt it was dishonest for Dancy to say so, and given that he was one of the people behind 3rd Ed D&D, it seemed like he was trying to unfairly take the credit for an achievement that wasn't his.
> 
> That was entirely my beef. It wasn't elitism. It wasn't anti-D20ism. It wasn't about giving the "guy on top" a kicking (in fact, it could be argued that given Dancy's recent difficulties, the guys at Green Ronin are much more the "big guys" than he is).
> 
> Now I can't speak for everyone in this thread, but that's where I'm coming from.




And...



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> The review didn't "compare" WFRP2 to D&D3. It said that it was *derived* from D&D3, which simply isn't true. It's a fundamentally different system that shares a small number of common concepts, most of which are also shared with many other games. Given the history (Dancy worked on D&D3, Dancy has had a public falling out with the team behind WFRP2) this therefore came across as a not particularly thinly veiled accusation of, if not plagerism, then an attempt to cast doubt on how much Green Ronin can take credit for the game.




And...



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> The point you seem to be missing is that it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not it is a positive review.
> 
> Some people believe that it is a positive review.
> 
> ...




And...



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> I don't agree with personal attacks, but this review does seem to have a very slanted view.
> 
> It's a bit like someone "reviewing" a novel by saying, _"XXXX is a very good novel, which is not surprising because it is largely derived from the novel YYYY, which I wrote some years ago"_. If - in that example - it turned out that the novel XXXX was not in any way derived from the novel YYYY, the author of XXXX - and his or her supporters - would rightly be very aggrieved. Defending the actions of the "reviewer" by saying that his actions were likely to encourage people who'd read and enjoyed YYYY to go out and read XXXX would, in my opinion, be somewhat missing the point.




I can't speak for everyone, but I hope those explain why the review offended me.


----------



## Barak (Aug 18, 2005)

Of course Jonny is polite, he's british, for Sigmar's sake!

And a RPG personality in his own right, in many circles more influential than Mr Dancey.

(note that I didn't say "most" circles, juts "many")


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 19, 2005)

Re: intelligent fungus orcs.



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> It doesn't say either way...



That's a shame. I always thought the idea could be pretty cool if it was written well.


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 19, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Re: intelligent fungus orcs.
> 
> 
> That's a shame. I always thought the idea could be pretty cool if it was written well.




I though the "intelligent fungus" angle was from WH40K? But this is from someone who has no idea about WH other than what's in the RPG.


----------



## Graf (Aug 19, 2005)

MonsterMash said:
			
		

> Not certain about this, especially in the UK and rest of Europe where WHFRP was very popular at one time.



 Obviously I can't back it up with hard numbers.

I will say that most of the die hard WFR players I know -used- to play. 

I used to play back in HS but there is only so much you can do with a game system that has a small number of products (mostly out of print) and isn't being developed.
One of my players is a long time WFR player who ultimately went to DnD because there were no other players, no products, etc.

The point with that line was just that the idea that RD is trying to steal away WFR players by saying DnD is similar to WFR misses the point that (I expect) virtually every WFR player is also a (reluctant I am sure) DnD player.

For every Jonny Nexus (who's Critial Miss web-zine should be read by every roleplaying gamer who understands English) who still plays mostly WFR there are probably 99 people like me and my WFR loving buddy who play DnD now (even if we talk about how fun/wonky WFR was and how we can incorperate more of it into DnD).


----------



## Barak (Aug 19, 2005)

Well Graf has a good point.  Example?

My latest D&D campaign (now I'm running WLD in a "regular campaign, but that's sort of beside the point) had..  Skavens, the Chaos Gods (and their mutated cultists), Sigmar as a God, dwarven troll/giant slayers, the towns of Altdorf and Middenheim, blase students, etc..

So why wasn't I just running WFRP?  None of my players know the system, and none of us (me included) have the books.  And before this new edition came out, getting even just the main book would have been sort of arduous around here.  D&D?  It's at Waldenbooks.  They don't really need "misleading reviews".

I do play in a WFRP game on-line though.  And even thought it's in the new edition, and all I -remember- (and all I ever played!) was the first edition, it's easy for me to play.  So yeah, it's still pretty close to it's roots.

And Nexus does rock, even though CM hasn't updated in 72 years.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 19, 2005)

Graf said:
			
		

> For every Jonny Nexus (who's Critial Miss web-zine should be read by every roleplaying gamer who understands English)




Thanks!  



			
				Graf said:
			
		

> who still plays mostly WFR there are probably 99 people like me and my WFR loving buddy who play DnD now (even if we talk about how fun/wonky WFR was and how we can incorperate more of it into DnD).




Well I do feel I should just point out here that I play a lot more D&D than I play WFRP. We did one big WFRP campaign, on and off, for two or three years, but that has now finished. Although I did buy the WFRP2 rulebook, my playing experience of that is limited to a game at the convention where it was launched. One of my Sunday group, John, has bought the game and I believe is thinking of running a campaign, but that will be after he finishes his current Call of Cthulhu (BRP) campaign that we've been playing, on and off, for well over a year now.

Meanwhile, I'm currently playing (besides that CoC campaign), *three* on and off D&D campaigns, one on Sunday and two on Thursday.

My point being that I'm genuinely not a D20 hater who plays WFRP but not D&D.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 19, 2005)

Barak said:
			
		

> And Nexus does rock,




On behalf of my ego I thank you!  



			
				Barak said:
			
		

> even though CM hasn't updated in 72 years.




I've been busy. You know how it is: one moment the newspapers are full of FDR and the New Deal, then you get a bit distracted and before you know it you've missed a world war, a cold war, the fall of communism and a whole bunch of other stuff.  

Anyhow, just for the record...   

I have been doing a few other things, which should be listed in my sig (including a blog) and which people who liked CM might be interested in (one of which managed to achieve the *lowest* ENWorld rating in Mongoose's history). But the main thing is that I'm currently trying to get into novel and comic writing which is currently absorbing a lot of my creative energies.


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Hmm. I don't know where this idea comes from - it doesn't come from WFRP 1E. I only have the 2E main book, so I can't comment on 2E. 1E, however, does have Dragons, really fantastic demons, liches, vampires, Jabberwocky (yeah, that one), etc .. 1E Old World is filled with the usual D&D tripe, sorry.



the diference is that you don't have them all around the place. you might have hints of them, but my experience with D&D is that you tend to encounter a beholder, a dragon, a powerful undead, demons, and similar monsters once every two or three sessions...
not so in warhammer. while the monsters are still there, they are exactly that: monstrousities! (as opposed to fairly mundane opponents with weird to horrible looks).


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I have always saw that people could see things differently from me.  It is the people who're acting offended that I rail against.



so, they can see things differently from you, but if they do they are somewhat misguided... very interesting...


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 19, 2005)

Barak said:
			
		

> Of course Jonny is polite, he's british, for Sigmar's sake!




You haven't been to Britain recently, have you?   

I mean, it's the _USA_ where people can be sued for looking at other people in a slightly funny way, not the UK. Compare sessions of Congress to sessions of the British Lower House some time. It should be... illuminating.


----------



## Numion (Aug 19, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> the diference is that you don't have them all around the place. you might have hints of them, but my experience with D&D is that you tend to encounter a beholder, a dragon, a powerful undead, demons, and similar monsters once every two or three sessions...
> not so in warhammer. while the monsters are still there, they are exactly that: monstrousities! (as opposed to fairly mundane opponents with weird to horrible looks).




It depends on the campaign. Most of peoples view of the world comes from the Enemy Within campaign, which is mostly situated within civilized lands. Not much monsters there. The other campaign, Bloodstones, is pretty similar to D&D adventures. All in the Old World. It features firebreathing minotaurs, tentacled monsters, wyverns, orc lichs, etc .. And let's not even go to Castle Drachenfels ..  :\ 

Most people, me included, prefer the more civilized adventures, with low-XP characters and hidden chaos cults. But it's just plain wrong to claim that the other, pretty darn _fantastic_, side of Old World and WFRP didn't exist.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 19, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> It depends on the campaign. Most of peoples view of the world comes from the Enemy Within campaign, which is mostly situated within civilized lands. Not much monsters there. The other campaign, Bloodstones, is pretty similar to D&D adventures. All in the Old World. It features firebreathing minotaurs, tentacled monsters, wyverns, orc lichs, etc ..




The "Doomstones" campaign. And as far as I know, they were originally indended as _D&D_ adventures, and rewritten for WFRP...


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Most people, me included, prefer the more civilized adventures, with low-XP characters and hidden chaos cults. But it's just plain wrong to claim that the other, pretty darn _fantastic_, side of Old World and WFRP didn't exist.




i see your point, BUT, if the majority of the warhammer games tend to gravitate towards low magic adventures in a civilised setting (be it the Empire, Bretonnia, or what has you), wouldn't it accurate to say that the "flashy" (*) element in warhammer is tuned down a lot?

(* i didn't negate the fantastic side of warhammer, because, well, even mundane opponents like orcs, or goblin _are _fantastic... they come from (sometimes twisted or amended) real world mythology, after all! my point was that the "flashy" element was not present. with flashy i mean larger than life, awe inspiring (as opposed to horror filling), glossy, neat, quasi-human despite the looks... what i mean is:

D&D: a dragon!!! let's toast it, save the village and have the treasure!!! c'mon babe, daddy needs that new +2 sword!

Warhammer: a dragon!!! RUN!!!!!! (well, for that matter, with some nasty GMs i've talked with ,it would be: "a goblin!!! AAAAAAAARRRGH!!! RUN!!! )

of course it does vary from campaign to campaign, but if you compare the general tone of, say, dungeon adventures, or D&D fan sites, to that of the average warhammer adventure or fansite, you can still trace some kind of general conclusion.)


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> The "Doomstones" campaign. And as far as I know, they were originally indended as _D&D_ adventures, and rewritten for WFRP...




i heard that, too. apparently, the common knowledge is that they added more investigative parts and reduced the dungeon crawling bits to make them more palatable to warhammer fans.
but that, of course, might be just a myth!


besides, this discussion has nothing to do with the reviews anymore... shall we all migrate to the one about warhammer and newbies?


----------



## Numion (Aug 19, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> The "Doomstones" campaign.




Of course .. I've GMed them, how could I forget. DUH   



> And as far as I know, they were originally indended as _D&D_ adventures, and rewritten for WFRP...




... which just goes to show that the milieus of the two games are not necessarily as distant as people make them out to be. Old World is unique, but it got its share of standard fantasy tripe, maybe not that much in the Empire. 

If you think about just the cities in WFRP, Middenheim has a festival with formation flying of Wizards, druids freezing a pond for skating, etc .. it's no Waterdeep, but still pretty fantastic.


----------



## MonsterMash (Aug 19, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Well, from Black Industry's own forums, there was a thread confirming that the Core rulebook for WFRP2 went to reprint after one month, and the expectation was for it to take 6 months. That would be from the horse's mouth.
> 
> As I recall, the White Dwarf comment was a prediction, not sales announcement.
> 
> Oh, and here is Chris Pramas' post from his blog on the subject of sales of his baby.



Anecdotal evidence - Playin' Games in Museum St London has a list of last months best selling items and since its release WHFRP has been in there, usually with the 3.5 PHB and World of Darkness latest, most other stuff might be in there for the month of release and that would be it.


----------



## Belen (Aug 19, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> D&D: a dragon!!! let's toast it, save the village and have the treasure!!! c'mon babe, daddy needs that new +2 sword!




Nice to see you being condescending.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 19, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Well, from Black Industry's own forums, there was a thread confirming that the Core rulebook for WFRP2 went to reprint after one month, and the expectation was for it to take 6 months. That would be from the horse's mouth.
> 
> As I recall, the White Dwarf comment was a prediction, not sales announcement.
> 
> Oh, and here is Chris Pramas' post from his blog on the subject of sales of his baby.





Actually, the White Dwarf comment, in the form of an editorial, was the reasoning why GW got out of the RPG industry in the first place.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 19, 2005)

Graf said:
			
		

> Obviously I can't back it up with hard numbers.
> 
> I will say that most of the die hard WFR players I know -used- to play.
> 
> ...




Um, you're aware that there's a _new_ edition out, right?  One that has been selling extremely well since it was released earlier this year (behind only 3e and WoD)?  One that is attracting _new_ players?  And that Dancey's review was of this _new_ edition, and not the out-of-print one?

In other words, your claim that the system 'isn't being developed' is, ummm, flat _wrong_!

Indeed, since the _new_ core book was published, there have been at least five 'support products' released... and more are coming for the rest of the year.

In short, the 'facts' differ from your personal experience.

(I do agree with you about Critical Miss, though.)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 19, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> That article has been widely mocked for having no relation to the real world.




But yet, it was printed in the official Games Workshop magazine so I imagine that someone in the company must've read it and gave it the thumbs up. Just because GW is big doesn't mean that they're not stupid.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 19, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But yet, it was printed in the official Games Workshop magazine so I imagine that someone in the company must've read it and gave it the thumbs up. Just because GW is big doesn't mean that they're not stupid.




Sure -- it was given 'thumbs up' by someone who doesn't know squat about RPGs, by  a company that for years has had a very anti-RPG mentality (and, to some extent, still does have, outside of Black Industries).

More generally, I'm not sure what your point is.  That article is laughably inaccurate in many of its claims (5000 RPG players worldwide -- including D&D?!).  A bad article was published in WD -- big deal.

The fact of WFRP's past and current success is not affected by it.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 19, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Nice to see you being condescending.




Apologies if I'm being unfair here, but you only seem to reply to people who are slamming D&D. Where someone, like myself if I can be so bold, makes a reasoned point against the review, you seem to totally ignore them.

So far, I've made five replies to posts of yours, attempting to explain where I (and others who didn't like the review) are coming from, and you've only replied once - and even there your post appeared to make absolutely no reference to anything I'd said in my post.

You also haven't replied to my post of yesterday in which I attempted to directly answer a question you'd asked (by quoting from previous posts where I had already provided the answer).

I genuinely like debating with people over issues such as these, and feel that such debate is the best way to resolve differences. But debating has to be a two-way street, and if someone is asking questions, but appears to have no interest in reading the answers... well I begin to think that perhaps there's no point continuing.


----------



## Barak (Aug 19, 2005)

Indeed Mr Nexus, I do read your other works..  But CM was special.  And without access to advice from the advice column, my life took a definite turn for the worse. 

Anyway.  It is true, I believe, that WFRP biggest selling point, and it's biggest difference from D&D worlds is the atmosphere.  The rule system is different, yes, but in the end matter little, other than to keep the characters at relatively lower power longer, allowing that very atmosphere to remain longer.  

Talking atmosphere, of course, requires talking about "average" campaigns.  It is possible to run WFRP in a D&D fashion, and to run a D&D campaign in a WFRP fashion.  Not overly recommended, as the system in both cases -support- the atmosphere better than it's "opposite".  Which, I believe, is why so many people familiar with WFRP -campaigns- (and not just rules) took a dim view of the review.  If someone totally unfamiliar with WFRP was to read the review, and buy the book based on that, chances are the -atmosphere- would end up being closer to D&D than is good for the system.  After all, the rules are "similar".  But if done that way, there's not only no point in playing WFRP, it's even -better- to play D&D, since the system is better-suited for that atmosphere.


----------



## orangefruitbat (Aug 19, 2005)

So was "Power Behind the Throne" - which is generally considered one of the finest WFRP adventures out there, and is almost complete RP.



			
				Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> The "Doomstones" campaign. And as far as I know, they were originally indended as _D&D_ adventures, and rewritten for WFRP...


----------



## Belen (Aug 19, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Apologies if I'm being unfair here, but you only seem to reply to people who are slamming D&D. Where someone, like myself if I can be so bold, makes a reasoned point against the review, you seem to totally ignore them.
> 
> So far, I've made five replies to posts of yours, attempting to explain where I (and others who didn't like the review) are coming from, and you've only replied once - and even there your post appeared to make absolutely no reference to anything I'd said in my post.
> 
> ...




Jonny:  I do not dispute your right to dislike the review and anything I have wrote has not touched on your points because I do not disagree with them.  I like the review because it gives me a reference point to understand Warhammer.  Without the review, I would have ignored Warhammer because I hate to learn new systems.  By showing how similiar things between the two systems are, the review made Warhammer palatable and significantly increased my likelihood to buy it.

The people are disagree with are the people who obviously do not like D&D/d20, hate that the review compared the two systems, and are mad that any comparison can be made.

I agree that Dancey could have chosen a better style and format for his review and certainly could have chosen his words better, but the review does not signal that the sky is falling and I think it will have a positive effect on people who know nothing about Warhammer, even if the Warhammer fans want to draw and quarter Dancey because he dared sully the name of Warhammer with D&D.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 19, 2005)

Barak said:
			
		

> Indeed Mr Nexus, I do read your other works..  But CM was special.  And without access to advice from the advice column, my life took a definite turn for the worse.




You were taking advice from the advice column!   



			
				Barak said:
			
		

> Anyway.  It is true, I believe, that WFRP biggest selling point, and it's biggest difference from D&D worlds is the atmosphere.  The rule system is different, yes, but in the end matter little, other than to keep the characters at relatively lower power longer, allowing that very atmosphere to remain longer.
> 
> Talking atmosphere, of course, requires talking about "average" campaigns.  It is possible to run WFRP in a D&D fashion, and to run a D&D campaign in a WFRP fashion.  Not overly recommended, as the system in both cases -support- the atmosphere better than it's "opposite".  Which, I believe, is why so many people familiar with WFRP -campaigns- (and not just rules) took a dim view of the review.  If someone totally unfamiliar with WFRP was to read the review, and buy the book based on that, chances are the -atmosphere- would end up being closer to D&D than is good for the system.  After all, the rules are "similar".  But if done that way, there's not only no point in playing WFRP, it's even -better- to play D&D, since the system is better-suited for that atmosphere.




Yeah, my feeling is that if I was playing a WFRP campaign I'd want to use the WFRP system because:

a) It is specially written to support the style of the setting;

b) I find having a different system makes the game feel different and helps get me in the different mindset.

In one of our D&D campaigns, we did actually play a WFRP scenario, but it felt very much like D&D. I think this was partly that the D&D rules support a different (not worse, just different - and I for one like variety so I play both games) style of play, partly that we were playing D&D characters so they carried on in the same way, and partly just that without a different rules system things don't feel different. Of course, you could argue that since this scenario was being dropped into an existing D&D campaign, we didn't want it to feel different.

Interestingly enough, we're shortly going to test what impact the rules have on the perception of the setting because when our current BRP CoC campaign (GMed by John) finishes, we're going to start a new D20 CoC campaign (GMed by General Tangent). I'm interested to see whether that will feel like D20 or CoC (to my not particularly flexible brain).


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 19, 2005)

orangefruitbat said:
			
		

> So was "Power Behind the Throne" - which is generally considered one of the finest WFRP adventures out there, and is almost complete RP.




Huh? I thought the "Empire Within" campaign was written exclusively for WFRP...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 19, 2005)

Anyone who thinks that Warhammer isn't high fantasy really needs to sit down with the various Slayer books (Skaven, Troll, Vampire, etc...) It's like a Monster Manual or whose whose of monsters in the Warhammer world and it's main character runs around with a rune axe and his hencman with a dragon bane sword!

Much like D&D, Atmosphere is up to the GM and players and is portrayed widely different in the source material. Heck, look at Valten. He's got the whole farm boy saves the world thing going on.


----------



## MonsterMash (Aug 19, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> More generally, I'm not sure what your point is.  That article is laughably inaccurate in many of its claims (5000 RPG players worldwide -- including D&D?!).  A bad article was published in WD -- big deal.
> 
> The fact of WFRP's past and current success is not affected by it.



So we've all registered on average six times at ENWorld then (5k x 6 = 30k, approx ENWorld membership).

GW probably sold more copies of 1e AD&D PHB in the first year of its release than that. On anecdotal evidence WHFRP is selling well, oddly enough in the UK GW do not sell it from their own stores which might be providing a nice little boost to the other games stores. You are right in saying there is a bit of any RP feeling with some at GW, after all you don't need to buy lots and lots of minis to roleplay....



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> but the review does not signal that the sky is falling...



We have 4edition threads for that!


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 19, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Jonny:  I do not dispute your right to dislike the review and anything I have wrote has not touched on your points because I do not disagree with them.  I like the review because it gives me a reference point to understand Warhammer.  Without the review, I would have ignored Warhammer because I hate to learn new systems.  By showing how similiar things between the two systems are, the review made Warhammer palatable and significantly increased my likelihood to buy it.
> 
> The people are disagree with are the people who obviously do not like D&D/d20, hate that the review compared the two systems, and are mad that any comparison can be made.




And who precisely are they? As fair as I recall, most (perhaps all) of the people you disagree with have repeatedly said that they have no beef against D&D, and in many cases are fans of it.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I agree that Dancey could have chosen a better style and format for his review and certainly could have chosen his words better, but the review does not signal that the sky is falling and I think it will have a positive effect on people who know nothing about Warhammer, even if the Warhammer fans want to draw and quarter Dancey because he dared sully the name of Warhammer with D&D.




But if you didn't want to know why people like me were offended by the review, why did you ask? (Especially, when we'd already answered that question, multiple times). And when I did take the time to answer your question, did you not think that it would be courtious to reply, if only to thank me?

The impression I got was that when you said, _"I still do not see why so many people are "offended" by the review"_ it was not meant as any kind of question, to which you desired an answer, but as a rhetorical statement proclaiming what you felt to be the illogicality of those who were offended by the review.

I cannot understand why you say that you do not disagree with my points when I have been pubically disagreeing with you, such as when you claimed that the review would have a benefit for WFRP:

_If anything, he wrote a review targeted to the D&D crowd that will make them look at the game rather than just dismiss it. A lot of people will not touch anything that does not have a d20 label. By showing fans of D&D how Warhammer is mechanically similiar, he is giving a de facto boost to the image of Warhammer._

...and I replied by saying that it didn't matter if it gave a sales boost to WFRP because that still didn't make what he said acceptable:

_It's a bit like someone "reviewing" a novel by saying, "XXXX is a very good novel, which is not surprising because it is largely derived from the novel YYYY, which I wrote some years ago". If - in that example - it turned out that the novel XXXX was not in any way derived from the novel YYYY, the author of XXXX - and his or her supporters - would rightly be very aggrieved. Defending the actions of the "reviewer" by saying that his actions were likely to encourage people who'd read and enjoyed YYYY to go out and read XXXX would, in my opinion, be somewhat missing the point._

You can't have agreed with what I was saying because I was totally disputing your point.

Moreover, you keep on using dismissive, sarcastic and near-abusive language to describe fans of WFRP (I count myself among their number), such as: 



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> and I think it will have a positive effect on people who know nothing about Warhammer, even if the Warhammer fans want to draw and quarter Dancey because he dared sully the name of Warhammer with D&D.




...and:



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> They're all mad because it was compared to D%D 3e.  Warhammer is too _pure_ a game to be sullied with the name of D&D. It is a very elitist attitude




...and:



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> To me, this is a very elitist attitude.




...and:



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Fan: "It says the game is like D&D!? Get my pitchfork and torch."




...and:



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Yes, because 3e is the devil!




...and:



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> It is the undercurrent of anti-d20 elitism that gets on my nerves. (And the RPGnet thread is anything but a civil argument.)
> 
> Yet, compare a game to D&D, the game that the senseless masses play, and you get to sit back and watch the flamefest.




...and:



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> It is the people who're acting offended that I rail against.




Hint: Saying that we are *acting* offended implies that we're lying when we say that we're offended (i.e. that we are faking it for some reason).

Anyhow, I've now pretty much come to the conclusion that you're just trolling in an attempt to wind up WFRP fans up, so I'm going to stop replying to your posts.


----------



## Chiaroscuro23 (Aug 19, 2005)

I think it's obvious to most people that calling one piece of artwork derivative of another is insulting. Creativity in art is the expectation in Western culture. Even art that is based on something previous is labelled with a different word when the speaker wants to give a positive impression--it's called pastiche, homage, a remake, a sequel, &c.

There's a similar issue with RPGs. Creativity is expected. Definitely in the fluff, but also in the crunch. Some folks think it's foolish that each new system needs a new dice mechanic, or even new subsystems, if they're not significantly different or especially evocative of the setting. (Especially within d20, I think there's a feeling that it's a shame that the "best" way to do, say, a madness system didn't catch on, and instead everybody's got to do their own.) But a level of creativity is expected. Saying a game is derivative of an earlier game suggests a lack of creativity.

Ryan has said that he intended "derivative" as a compliment, not an insult. I think that's strange, but don't see any reason not to believe him. I can see two likely explanations:

1. Ryan's a businessman (apparently fairly successful when at WotC) and not an artist, so he just doesn't think things like I've layed out above. This seems kind of likely to me, especially given his comments about learning new systems being a "tax" on players. It suggests the efficiency-above-all attitude I'm used to in business and among some legal scholars. I think it's foolish in some ways, though, since sometimes efficiency isn't the point. Just as diversity in people can be celebrated despite the difficulties of learning new cultures and languages, diversity in games can be valuable because people want different types of games. Of course, humans have value on their own and games only do as tools, so it's an imperfect analogy.

2. Ryan is just lying; he's being disingenuous and attempting to hurt WHFRP or help d20 for his own reasons. I see no reason to think this, though it seems clear that eyebeams and others do. Benefit of the doubt and all that.

Since I have no connection to WHFRP, I'm not much insulted by the derivative comment, though I would be insulted by some of the unfavorable comments about d20 that internet trolls are fond of making. As my father likes to say, it depends on whose ox is getting gored. That said, the response has been unecessarily vituperative, and since Ryan's changed the beginning of his review, I see no major harm.

Cheers,
C.


----------



## Belen (Aug 19, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Anyhow, I've now pretty much come to the conclusion that you're just trolling in an attempt to wind up WFRP fans up, so I'm going to stop replying to your posts.




Of course you call me a troll.  I am not saying what you want to hear.  Excuse me if I do not go through the entire thread just to argue with you.  You see it as a negative review.  I see it as a positive review.  

There is no debate as we obviously will have to agree to disagree on this point.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 19, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Of course you call me a troll.  I am not saying what you want to hear.  Excuse me if I do not go through the entire thread just to argue with you.  You see it as a negative review.  I see it as a positive review.
> 
> There is no debate as we obviously will have to agree to disagree on this point.




<sarcasm>But I thought the reason you weren't answering my posts was because you didn't disagree with the points I'd been making?</sarcasm>



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> anything I have wrote has not touched on your points because I do not disagree with them.


----------



## Barak (Aug 19, 2005)

I -always- follow -all- advice from -all- advice columns I read.  I hate to think. 

To get back on topic, I think it's rather telling that virtually (I'd say -all-, but I'm not sure) everyone who is familiar with WFRP disagree in big parts with the review, and believe it's incorrect on many points, and that virtually (see above parenthesis) everyone who isn't familiar think it's a favorable review, and "helps" sell WFRP.

I also believe that it shows, despite claims to the contrary, that other than reading the new edition, Mr Dancey isn't very familiar with WFRP, or it's history.  Given both that, I have little problem believing he (Mr Dancey) doesn't see what the uproar is about.  After all, everyone not familiar with WFRP seems to view the review the same way he does.  It's just that anyone with some understanding of the way WFRP works, and has worked, view it as bad, because due to experience, understand that it's erroneous.  But that takes experience -playing- the game, and not just reading the rulebook.

Long live the Queen!


----------



## Professor Phobos (Aug 19, 2005)

I don't know how Green Ronin/Black Industries pulled it off, but I've been able to find every Warhammer FRP book at my local Barnes and Noble or Borders, which is fantastic. Normally that kind of bookstore would only have WoD and D&D stuff, and I'd have to take a trip to a game store/order online to get anything else. (Which I'm cool with, mind, but, still...)


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Apologies if I'm being unfair here, but you only seem to reply to people who are slamming D&D.



just leave him alone. some people enjoy themselves with little... 
even if this thread has very little to do with the review anymore, why following any attempt to turn it into a flame war? if nothing else, some of the posts were interesting for people who were looking for more information on warhammer.
if this guy doesn't even realise how partronising and narrow minded his behaviour looks, what's the good of point that out to him? he won't listen to you anyway!


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 19, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> just leave him alone. some people enjoy themselves with little...
> even if this thread has very little to do with the review anymore, why following any attempt to turn it into a flame war? if nothing else, some of the posts were interesting for people who were looking for more information on warhammer.
> if this guy doesn't even realise how partronising and narrow minded he is looking (or being... i'll leave you the power to judge by yourself...), what's the good of point that out to him? he won't listen to you anyway!




It's okay, it's okay! I'm going! I'm walking!    

(...walking in a looking back over my shoulder kind of way, admittedly).


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 19, 2005)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I don't know how Green Ronin/Black Industries pulled it off, but I've been able to find every Warhammer FRP book at my local Barnes and Noble or Borders, which is fantastic. Normally that kind of bookstore would only have WoD and D&D stuff, and I'd have to take a trip to a game store/order online to get anything else. (Which I'm cool with, mind, but, still...)




Could it be (just guessing here) that they sell a lot of Warhammer novels, which might then give them good contacts/influence/leverage at conventional book shops?

(In the same way that White Wolf and WoC also sell lots of novels in conventional book shops).


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

Barak said:
			
		

> Anyway.  It is true, I believe, that WFRP biggest selling point, and it's biggest difference from D&D worlds is the atmosphere.




you know, i do agree with you... even if i have a hunch that the world wouldn't play well with a rule heavier system...
i think it conveys a certain old school, not necessarily politically correct feeling, that makes the game fun.
but then, i don't agree with people that say that the setting couldn't be played, say, with some version of the old D&D game (those that say that classes are much worse than careers... well, maybe so, but still...).
it would just take the right elements.



			
				Barak said:
			
		

> If someone totally unfamiliar with WFRP was to read the review, and buy the book based on that, chances are the -atmosphere- would end up being closer to D&D than is good for the system.



you are right, but in the book there are enough hooks and setting fluff matherial that the idea of running a hack and slash warhammer adventure *in the way it is run in d&d* should sound pretty crazy.
you can surely have high adventures and/or hack and slashing in warhammer, if you feel so... you just have to avoid big monsters that have made the story of that type of D&D game until your PCs are enough beefed up to be a match to, say, a dragon. i do agree with you though, that maybe playing some version of (A)D&D would probably suits the tastes of the group better...


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

orangefruitbat said:
			
		

> So was "Power Behind the Throne" - which is generally considered one of the finest WFRP adventures out there, and is almost complete RP.



you see, the point is not whether you can have non combat adventures with D&D or not. i think you're reading something that is not in the statement.
of course you can have investigative or political campaigns with D&D, where nobody draws a sword for entire adventures.
it's just that, on *average*, people playing with D&D will be more interested in fighting big monsters, AS WELL AS role playing. i am not saying anything new, if i say that combat is a central part of D&D. do we all agree with that?

well, in warhammer, combat is important, too... but it's much much more lethal. sure, you can spend fate points to avoid death... but that doesn't mean that you will be like new in two days, when the party cleric will have a good deal of curative spells cast on you.
the fact that going into combat could very well mean that your character will not come out alive from the encounter, does discourage you from taking on unnecessary fights.
at least, that is my experience.


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The people are disagree with are the people who obviously do not like D&D/d20, hate that the review compared the two systems, and are mad that any comparison can be made.




i should really ignore you, but i can't stop from asking this as well: 
can you name some names? who are these blind "D&D haters" that you are pointing your fingers at? i don't see any!


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Anyone who thinks that Warhammer isn't high fantasy really needs to sit down with the various Slayer books (Skaven, Troll, Vampire, etc...) It's like a Monster Manual or whose whose of monsters in the Warhammer world and it's main character runs around with a rune axe and his hencman with a dragon bane sword!
> 
> Much like D&D, Atmosphere is up to the GM and players and is portrayed widely different in the source material. Heck, look at Valten. He's got the whole farm boy saves the world thing going on.




joe, i think that you should not confuse warhammer fantasy battle with warhammer roleplaying. most fans on the net have conceded that the world has changed to make room for more high fantasy stuff in the war game.
now, green ronin was forced to introduce at least some of those changes (i am not into the war game stuff, so i can't tell how high fantasy the old world is in those books) by games workshop. that doesn't mean that the roleplaying's old world is now high fantasy, but it *is* a bit more high fantasy than before if you are totally new to the game and pick up what's in the core book and ignore the old matherial. you can very well ignore whatever change in the setting and go with the old version, too.

that said, i don't think you can say: "warhammer is high fantasy because they sell miniatures of the emperor on a griffon" or "just check those army books"... at the end of the day, those are two games, developed by different people, and enjoyed (*sometimes*) by different fan bases.
it would be like somebody saying: "magic is quite rare in D&D... look at those AD&D2nd edition raveloft books..."


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

joe: what do you exactly mean with high fantasy, though? my definition might have littel to do with yours!

if you call high fantasy a world where there is a lot of awe inspiring and horrible things going on, where magic does exist and it produces great results and inspires great fear in the average peasant, then we can agree.
if you call hig fantasy (as i do) a world where there is a clear distinction between good and evil, where the PCs are meant to be good and to save the world at least at the end of every campaign, where magic is mundane and disposable and safe, where dragons and the most common fantasy monster are quite common and lose much of their impact on the gamers, then i think you are missing the point of warhammer...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 19, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> joe: what do you exactly mean with high fantasy, though? my definition might have littel to do with yours!
> 
> if you call high fantasy a world where there is a lot of awe inspiring and horrible things going on, where magic does exist and it produces great results and inspires great fear in the average peasant, then we can agree.
> if you call hig fantasy (as i do) a world where there is a clear distinction between good and evil, where the PCs are meant to be good and to save the world at least at the end of every campaign, where magic is mundane and disposable and safe, where dragons and the most common fantasy monster are quite common and lose much of their impact on the gamers, then i think you are missing the point of warhammer...




But to a certain point, Warhammer still has a distinction between good and evil. For example, there are no good Chaos worshippers. There are no good orcs. There are no good skaven. Many of the monsters in Warhammer are indeed monsters and make many apperances in the fiction and gaming material (heck, the 'secret' Skaven make like two apperances in the adventure anthology).

And saving the world? Well, the core campagins ahve the PCs doing some big things.


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But to a certain point, Warhammer still has a distinction between good and evil. For example, there are no good Chaos worshippers. There are no good orcs. There are no good skaven.



that is very true. as a matter of fact, to some extent, D&D has a wider gray scale palette for monsters. orcs might be riding the village because they are evil, or maybe because some horrible monster pushed them out of their caves and now they are starving... i have played many D&D campaigns where the players had to make some tough moral call.
in warhammer, there is not such need. orcs, goblins, dragons, beasts of chaos... they are all evil, and they all want to kill everybody for gore's sake.

on the other hand, would you say that the average peasant is good? what about the politicians down the city? the wizard in the lonely tower?
throughout the warhammer matherial it is pointed very clear that everybody is plotting, and a secret agenda going on, is probably telling you lie after lie to make you do what he wants, is exploiting you and the world all around in a way or another.
sure, there is place for white hearted heroes... but those are the exception, not the norm.
in a way, the fact that the monsters are perceived to be sinkholes of evil is also a by-product of such widespread grittiness: if my brother is ready to backstab me for a plate of soup, then those horrible monstrosities must be really *really* sick!!!




			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And saving the world? Well, the core campagins ahve the PCs doing some big things.



that is true, too. but i feel that the PCs do those things despite themselves and the world around them... as if put in the right circumstances, they had no way out to save their skin but doing those big things...


----------



## Barak (Aug 19, 2005)

The Felix and Gotrek novels do give a good view of that.  They don't do heroics for heroics sake (well, especially not Gotrek), and they stumbled upon and stop big bad plots by accident more often than not, or because a bad guy is betraying another.


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

well, since we are now talking about warhammer at large...
any advice on which novels are must read (i.e. very good for the background and/ or the plot)? which are best avoided?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 19, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> well, since we are now talking about warhammer at large...
> any advice on which novels are must read (i.e. very good for the background and/ or the plot)? which are best avoided?




For me, the Felix and Gortex novels are popcorn. Not deep, a little silly, and a 'waste' of a good afternoon.

I've heard good things about C. L. Moore (I think that's it), Witch Hunter series.


----------



## Barak (Aug 19, 2005)

Granted, they aren't high-litterature.  But they do a good job, I believe, of showing a certain aspect of the atmosphere intresect of the setting.  -Every- WFRP campaign I've been in, after all, has had some humor in it, to offset the rather grim tone of the game in general.  And I don't think any evil race was ever portrayed as greatly, from two perspectives, as the skavens are in "Skavenslayer".


----------



## ssampier (Aug 19, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> Warhammer: a dragon!!! RUN!!!!!! (well, for that matter, with some nasty GMs i've talked with ,it would be: "a goblin!!! AAAAAAAARRRGH!!! RUN!!! )
> 
> of course it does vary from campaign to campaign, but if you compare the general tone of, say, dungeon adventures, or D&D fan sites, to that of the average warhammer adventure or fansite, you can still trace some kind of general conclusion.)




Sounds like my kind of campaign. As a general rule, I like big monsters--like dragons--to inspire fear and wonder, rather than, "Hmmm what magical [McGuffin] do I have to combat this?" Orcs and goblins shouldn't be too terrifying; just a challenge.

I think someone mention in the other thread that humans are fairly easy to kill, but monsters are not; that sounds *right* to me.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 19, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I've heard good things about C. L. Moore (I think that's it), Witch Hunter series.




The author's name is C.L. Werner, and that is indeed a good series.

_Drachenfells_ is supposedly a classic, but it's out of print, and I haven't been able to find a copy.


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

thanks for the book's names


----------



## Breakdaddy (Aug 19, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> The author's name is C.L. Werner, and that is indeed a good series.
> 
> _Drachenfells_ is supposedly a classic, but it's out of print, and I haven't been able to find a copy.




You mean *this* Drachenfells?

http://cgi.ebay.com/DRACHENFELS-WAR...230255970QQcategoryZ91153QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 19, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> You mean *this* Drachenfells?
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/DRACHENFELS-WAR...230255970QQcategoryZ91153QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem




Yeah, that's the one.      I'm tempted to bid, but I'm not sure about paying for postage all th way from Australia ...


----------



## Spell (Aug 19, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I am sorry that you feel that way.



that's alright. as i said in meta, i would have understood it more if it would have come in the first few pages of the thread.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I do not recall anyone who said that they had to agree with Dancey.



well, not, but they way you phrased a reply, it did seem that way. and not just to me, if johnny replied to you in the way that he did.




			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> There were two arguments in that thread that were exclusive of each other.  The first argument was "Dancey does not have a clue, it is a bad review, and here is why."
> 
> The second argument was "We thought the review was fairly positive and would help someone who plays D&D get interested in Warhammer."



alright. but there are various factors here.
the review did give a good grade to the core book, BUT in its original form (i still have to re read it after the changes) was misleading. it has put some people on warhammer's path (ssampier, at the very least), and that is good for warhammer's community and its publisher.
on the other hand, the review was misleading. it did had a number of mistakes (and big ones, too) like the statement that warhammer is just another fantasy world with an added chaos element. or that the majority of it was derivative from another game system.
now, that might be a compliment or not, depending on how you look at the word "derivative". if someone implies, as ryan did, that D&D left more space for character development, though, i have a problem, because a reader that knows jacks about warhammer, might say: "mmh... one game is derivative, another is the real thing. one gives you some options, the other gives you all of them".
that made the grade quite irrelevant.

one more thing: ryan made a number of remarks (both in the core book review, and in the bestiary one) that showed that if he ever had any command on warhammer knowledge, he had lost it before writing the review.
accusing the monster book to lack a treasure table, for example, misses the point of warhammer completely.
even if you ignore any negative repercussion that this might have on a reader ("the guy says the monster book is crap... it must be, then! no treasure table!"), and concede that someone might still buy the book to check the game out, i still feel that ryan did a poor job.
it would be like somebody approaching D&D because i told him to expects gory horror and low fantasy... the big majority of D&D campaigns and books out there are simply not that way.
sure, the person might like the game just the same... but i would have tricked him into buying it, and that tends to piss some people off, *especially *if they don't like what they bought.

i can bet all my beer money that the people, like me, who were offended by ryan's review, were *not *offended by the fact that warhammer was "tainted" by being compared to D&D. as a matter of fact, one of the best reviews of the core book on rpg.net (the one that compares the first edition with the second) does hints at the fact that some rules are inspired by the d20 system and D&D. but the author goes out of his way to examine what is in the rulebook, what is not there, how the game works, what's different between the two editions, and so on. that is a good review. you can agree with the author or not, but it's not like he makes some claims without substantial proof of what he says. he might have gotten his facts wrong, but still, he made a big effort in the process, and i think everybody appreciated the review, even if they didn't agree.
moreover, from my personal point of view, while i do have some problems with the new D&D and the d20 system as a DM (to be blunt, i can't stand being a DM for both games... but i can, and would play as a player with no problem), i am fond of the old D&D more than i can say. in Italy, where i come from OD&D was THE role playing games for ages, because there was no other game translated, and everybody that was into roleplaying was playing it. a tiny tiny minority, in my city, did play other games, too, but, for the most part, if you were playing RPG, you were playing D&D. then it came AD&D, by 1989. then you got the italian call of cthulhu. then cyberpunk 2020.
for me OD&D, AD&D, CoC, and cyberpunk 2020 are like sons. the amount of great time i had thanks to them, the friends that i have met, the things that they gave me, are difficult to quantify.
so, if somebody comes to me and says that i am having an elitist approach and that i'm trying to slap D&D down, that would be like telling me that i hate my mother or something. i would not know where he comes from.

you could say that you don't know where we come from, too. but, before thinking that we have a secret agenda that pushes us to write long hate posts on what are basically d20 fan boards, you could ask if your assumptions are wrong.




			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I, personally, thought there was a strong undercurrent of hostility to D&D in the thread.  There is definitely a strong current of hostility to Dancey in the thread.



i agree with you on the hostility towards Ryan. having said that, it's not the first time he causes huge fights because he used some words meaning another thing, so i'm not surprised that some people can be mad at him. this is not my fault, nor my business, so i'll let ryan and those people and the mods, to sort things out as they see fits.
on the other hand, really, i couldn't see any hostility towards D&D. if you have seen otherwise, and you can't stand it, do name names. say: "i can't understand why so and so has a chip on his shoulder" and don't make general comments that might be taken as directed to anybody who is not agreeing with you.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> My wife read the thread and asked me why people were so offended that Warhammer was compared with D&D.  Her only point of reference is with D&D, so the review made sense to her.



but the thing is: IF someone says: "i just picked up the game, i never heard of warhammer before, and i think X" he would have probably cause less contempt than someone saying "i've played the game times and again, and i play X".
in addition, ryan is not your wife. he has a name and a past in the industry, and he should know what weight that brings. it's not all prestige. you can't just say things undiplomatically and expect everybody to smile and say: "oh, good old man!"
people do take offence at what you say, if you are ryan, or monte, or gary, or whoever. if you are joe gamer, chances are that they will just think "what a pile of garbage" and never care to reply to what they think is nonsense.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> There does not seem to be much discussion there other than a need to prove Dancey wrong.



the thing is: if you check and read the book yourself (that or the first edition book) you will see by yourself why and how ryan is wrong. as somebody else's pointed out, those that have no experience with warhammer do tend to agree with ryan, or, at least, not to understand why people who did play the game are so willing to say that he is wrong.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Aug 19, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's the one.      I'm tempted to bid, but I'm not sure about paying for postage all th way from Australia ...




How about from Great Britain then (You're in Ireland ATM, right?)? 
 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Warhammer-Novel...232554541QQcategoryZ91153QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 19, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> How about from Great Britain then (You're in Ireland ATM, right?)?
> 
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Warhammer-Novel...232554541QQcategoryZ91153QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem




Thanks!


----------



## tarchon (Aug 20, 2005)

MonsterMash said:
			
		

> Anecdotal evidence - Playin' Games in Museum St London has a list of last months best selling items and since its release WHFRP has been in there, usually with the 3.5 PHB and World of Darkness latest, most other stuff might be in there for the month of release and that would be it.




Yeah, well, be that as it may, it's hardly likely to win 2 Ennies, including Best Game, or anything.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 20, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> Yeah, well, be that as it may, it's hardly likely to win 2 Ennies, including Best Game, or anything.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 20, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

>




Well clearly the people who vote for the Ennies are just a bunch of elitist D20 haters.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 20, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> that is very true. as a matter of fact, to some extent, D&D has a wider gray scale palette for monsters. orcs might be riding the village because they are evil, or maybe because some horrible monster pushed them out of their caves and now they are starving... i have played many D&D campaigns where the players had to make some tough moral call.
> in warhammer, there is not such need. orcs, goblins, dragons, beasts of chaos... they are all evil, and they all want to kill everybody for gore's sake.




I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding.

First a minor point - it is made rather clear from the source material that dragons are _not_ out to kill everyone. In fact, it is even possible to converse with some of them and live to tell it _if_ you are exceedingly polite (and possibly bring some nice gifts for its hoard).


And about "Good" and "Evil" in the Warhammer world... I tend to see these as purely human concepts (and possibly of that of the other near-human races, like halflings, dwarfs, and elves, though that point could be argued). "Good" is someone who generally works for improving the lot of his fellow humans, and "evil" is someone always looks out for his own self-interest first, without regard how that might affect other people.

Goblins and orcs, on the other hand, are neither "Good" nor "Evil", though they might appear to be the latter to most humans. Instead, they are _off the scale altogether_. They are alien life forms with alien thought processes who just happen to have some rough physiological similarities to humans and compete for the same living space. The fight between them and humans (and dwarfs and elves, for that matter) is not a struggle between "Light" and "Dark", but simply a Darwinian struggle for survival. They can't co-exist at the same place for any length of time, so most simply try to kill the other without losing any sleep about it.

In a way, the same thing goes for Chaos. The four Powers of Chaos present concepts and urges that are an intrinsic part of humanity - in fact, without these urges, humanity wouldn't be able to grow and prosper like it has. What presents the danger to humanity is that giving oneself over to these powers means giving up _any_ restraints in following these urges.

Most human cultists of these entities _are_ evil (though not all), since their lack of restraint does hurt their fellow humans. But the true Gods of Chaos, as well as their demons and chaos spawn, are too alien to be truly "evil". Even with mutants and beastmen it is the remaining human part that makes them evil, and not the chaos in their hearts and bodies.


----------



## Ian Sturrock (Aug 20, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> Yeah, well, be that as it may, it's hardly likely to win 2 Ennies, including Best Game, or anything.




And likewise the Old World Bestiary would never get a look-in at the ENnies. I mean, who would vote to give an ENnie award to a Best Adversary/Monster Product that doesn't even tell you how many magic items you can loot from the dead monsters?!?


----------



## Spell (Aug 20, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding.
> 
> First a minor point - it is made rather clear from the source material that dragons are _not_ out to kill everyone. In fact, it is even possible to converse with some of them and live to tell it _if_ you are exceedingly polite (and possibly bring some nice gifts for its hoard).




you may very well be right on this... i never used dragons in my campaigns (D&D or whatever), so i might have skipped their description altogether. 

my point, thought, is that monsters are considered evil, not because they are inherently so, but just because my perception of the warhammer world is that humans and... ehm... demihuman races tend to think that if something is menacing their communities, then it's evil, and has no other purpose than creating them problems.
of course that might not be written in the rules... but after some time, talking about the flavour of a campaign world, i tend to forget what's on the book and what has been just in my campaign, especially if it was from day one! 

on the evilness of chaos: i tend to ignore what real purpose gods have, and concentrate on the repercussion they have in the campaign world.
let's take an example out of real world. sex is natural and is necessary for the well being of the human race, BUT for centuries (and, in some circles, even now) it has been related with filthiness, amorality, and so on. sex made for reproduction was tolerated because it was necessary. everything that was not aimed at reproduction was seen as evil and corrupt, because of the moral teaching of the church.

now, the gods of chaos might not be evil per se, but that is the way they are perceived by most bystanders in the old world. again, maybe it's something that i enforced on my campaign and it is not really explicit in the books... but it does make sense, if you consider that warhammer should be a fantasy paralled of our world.


----------



## Spell (Aug 20, 2005)

Ian Sturrock said:
			
		

> I mean, who would vote to give an ENnie award to a Best Adversary/Monster Product that doesn't even tell you how many magic items you can loot from the dead monsters?!?



well, i did, but i'm obviously a fanboy... 

Ian, can I ask you if you can speculate on what is keeping Black Industries from publishing bigger hardbacks rules, or to have slimmer books out as paperbacks? i think both way would be great to reduce the costs and/ or to give more value for money to the buying public (i.e. me! )


----------



## Ian Sturrock (Aug 20, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> Ian, can I ask you if you can speculate on what is keeping Black Industries from publishing bigger hardbacks rules, or to have slimmer books out as paperbacks? i think both way would be great to reduce the costs and/ or to give more value for money to the buying public (i.e. me! )




Sorry, I don't have any contact with anyone at Black Industries to find out -- my work on the OWB for them was done through Green Ronin.


----------



## Spell (Aug 20, 2005)

Ian Sturrock said:
			
		

> Sorry, I don't have any contact with anyone at Black Industries to find out -- my work on the OWB for them was done through Green Ronin.



thanks anyway.


----------



## Graf (Aug 21, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Um, you're aware that there's a _new_ edition out, right?  One that has been selling extremely well since it was released earlier this year (behind only 3e and WoD)?  One that is attracting _new_ players?  And that Dancey's review was of this _new_ edition, and not the out-of-print one?




I had noted all that. As I am sure you could tell from reading my post and the quote.
As my friends complain quite loudly about the lengths of my posts I have been trying hard to edit down the extranious or obvious points.
It does make an easier target for people who think we're playing some kind of message board verson of Quake though.



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> In other words, your claim that the system 'isn't being developed' is, ummm, flat _wrong_!



Sorry if I hit a sore point.... 

I'm probably showing my age, but I think about stuff that happened in the last few months in the roleplaying game world as basically having "just happened". When I was playing WFR in HS the DM had just the one (battered and aging) book I think he'd inherited from his older brother.
The 12+ years between then and now saw Hogshead struggling to get out a few books probably but it didn't feel much like development, which discouraged groups who didn't want to make things up whole hog themselves.

I think my point that: at this point in time, due to things that include limited developement of the line over many years, the number of people who play more WFR is a small fraction of those who play DnD: is correct.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the new WFR developes. Whether its economically viable for GR to continue to product a new line of product, etc, or not.

In some ways I think it has to find a new player base and or attract back the people who had positive experiences in the past from DnD. It won't be viable with the existing fanbase (i.e. the one that existed prior to the printing of the new edition).

IIRC people always raved about WFR adventures, I think GR may be able to do something there.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 21, 2005)

Graf said:
			
		

> ... In some ways I think it has to find a new player base and or attract back the people who had positive experiences in the past from DnD. It won't be viable with the existing fanbase (i.e. the one that existed prior to the printing of the new edition). ...




The fact that WFRP is the third best selling RPG around (and just picked up 3 gold Ennies) suggests to me that it is finding a 'new player base' quite well.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 23, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> alright. but there are various factors here.




I think the quotes I'm going to make responses to are a great example of someone who wanted to be offended reading things into my review which were not there, and then misremembering them to build a logic chain to reach a pre-determined conclusion.  As such, I think it is a good example of how inaccurate much of this negative criticism has been.  

Let me respond in detail.



> like the statement that warhammer is just another fantasy world with an added chaos element




I never made such a statement.

I did say:  *"The Warhammer Fantasy world is a variant of Europe."*

Do you really want to argue with that conclusion?

I also wrote:  *"Warhammer Fantasy is a large, well loved, and richly detailed world"*



> or that the majority of it was derivative from another game system.




1)  No matter how you slice it, WFRP(new) is a nearly total derivative of _something_.  The only material indicated as wholly new by the designer is the magic system.  It's either a derivative of D&D(new), WFRP(old) (it in turn an acknowleged derivative of D&D(old)), or a derivative of a basket of games produced in the years since WFRP(old) was developed.  But I will not accept the whitewash argument that it's "not derivative".  Or that calling it "derivative" was intended as an insult to anyone.  Nobody involved with WFRP(new) could or would attempt to pass the work off as wholly original.  Getting upset about the term "derivative" being used in the review is and was a smokescreen.

2)  You may have an _opinion_ about the extent to which WFRP(new) is derivative of D&D 3E, as do I.  Neither of us has the ability to factually prove the point one way or the other.  You can _disagree_ with my opinion in a logical way and I'll be happy to entertain your logical argument.  I hope that you would extend the same courtesy to me.  You cannot however, simply state that I am wrong based on the facts, because there are no facts on which we can draw other than the written words in the book and the history of the people involved.  I feel comfortable that I can respond effectively with evidence and game theory to support my conclusion that *"The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game shares many similar design goals to D&D 3rd Edition, and uses a "basket" of mechanics and mechanical design choices that are clearly influenced by the design of D&D 3rd Edition."*  And so I stand by that statement in the review.

I did not change my review to remove the word "derivative" because I feel that that word was used inaccurately.  I changed it because the word engendered enough negative reaction leading to a mis-interpretation of my opinion of the work to make changing the review worthwhile to ensure my actual opinion was being transmitted effectively.



> if someone implies, as ryan did, that D&D left more space for character development




I wrote:  *"In a nutshell, this system allows a player to customize the PC by taking bits and pieces of various "classes" and accumulating them at a slow, but steady rate, incrementally. This is a very flexible approach to character generation and will result in a wide variety of character abilities and ability levels."*

and

*"The range of templates is wide and varied, from the mundane to the mystical. Clearly a lot of history and a lot of thought has gone into the preparation of the templates, and the result will be a fantasy world populated by a diverse cast of characters who are much more descriptively detailed than the generic characters that populate most D20 System worlds."*

I'll just consider your argument on this point refuted and move on.



> accusing the monster book to lack a treasure table, for example, misses the point of warhammer completely.




In my review I indicated that my problem with the product was that it abused the purchaser by delivering poor value for the money.  It is encumbant on me, as a reveiewer, to provide some insight on how more value could have been provided, and I did so.  I believe that "treasure tables" would, and will be, useful to the person using the book to run WFRP(new), and I stand by my _suggestion_ that they'd be useful.

My _opinion_ about the problem with the book is this:

*"In a 128 page book, 5 pages are consumed with zero usable content of any kind (full page "art" that isn't art), the credits, index and "intro" consume 3 pages, 6 pages are 3/4 filled with art, and 1 pages self-references the "flavor" portion in "flavor text" - i.e. 11% of the book has no value to the purchaser."*

Had less space been wasted elsewhere, I'd have been less critical of stuff like the credits page, or the ad on the last page as they are somewhat industry standard.  Given the state of the whole work however, the waste of space including those pages was relevant to my review as to the value of the work.

What's *your* opinion of the value of the book based on its use of its page count?  How does this book compare to other 128 page books?  How does it compare to other products at a similar price point?  Are you seriously going to argue that given the state of the industry and the contents of this book that you got fair value for your purchase?

If you want to argue with my review, argue with my stated opinion about the work, not some harmless suggestion on how to improve it - it's a suggestion for utility, not a dissertation on how WFRP is supposed to be played.  Do you have suggestions on how to improve the work?  That might be a fruitful conversation.  Or do you think paying $30 for that book was "just right" and you'd advise others to feel the same way?  That would be a useful data point to know as well.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that at GenCon I had a chance to congradulate the team at Games Workshop on the product line, and express my personal pleasure at the WFRP(new) book to them directly, and compliment them on the ENies they received.  I was glad to hear that sales continue to be strong, and that the line has widespread appeal.  I look forward to seeing many interesting works in the line in the future.


Ryan


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 23, 2005)

Yeah, but D&D sucks, and you compared Warhammer to D&D, so obviously you must suck too. 

Ryan, while attempting to refute the arguments with logic is noble, it will generally be futile.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 24, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> "In a 128 page book, 5 pages are consumed with zero usable content of any kind (full page "art" that isn't art)...



As someone who hasn't seen the 'Bestiary' yet, I'm just curious: What is meant with "full page "art" that isn't art?" Is it some photograph of Warhammer minis, or how do I have to understand this?

And what is meant by "65 pages of average or below-average quality, stream of conscious, intentionally error-riddled fiction", and here the "intentionally error-riddled" part? Fiction that contains intentional errors? I have honestly no idea.


Edit: I don't mind if someone else who knows that book provides an answer or at least an educated guess .


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 24, 2005)

I've only got WFRP in it's original form, but isn't it derived almost entirely from WFB?  The stat block is basically the same as the one in the wargame but with some values taken to 1-100 instead of 1-10.  I never got the impression that WFRP was derived from AD&D in any real way other than it was a FRPG.


----------



## Nikchick (Aug 24, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> In conclusion, I'd like to say that at GenCon I had a chance to congradulate the team at Games Workshop on the product line, and express my personal pleasure at the WFRP(new) book to them directly, and compliment them on the ENies they received.





That was awfully nice of you. I'm sure the Sabertooth reps appreciated that, though the role Sabertooth plays in the WFRP line primarily selling the finished product (except for Kate Flack, who was the only member of Black Industries at the show).

Did you find time to stop at the Green Ronin booth and talk to the authors, line developer or art director to congratulate them on their work as well?  The couple of times I saw you go past you seemed to be focused on getting somewhere else in a bit of a hurry, but I was running Blue Rose games for most of the con and may have missed you.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> As someone who hasn't seen the 'Bestiary' yet, I'm just curious: What is meant with "full page "art" that isn't art?" Is it some photograph of Warhammer minis, or how do I have to understand this?
> 
> And what is meant by "65 pages of average or below-average quality, stream of conscious, intentionally error-riddled fiction", and here the "intentionally error-riddled" part? Fiction that contains intentional errors? I have honestly no idea.
> 
> ...




I have the book, and really love it.  IMO it is one of the best 'monster books' ever produced.

There are no photographs of Warhammer minis.  There is one page that has a faux cover for the first part of the book called "Perilous Beasts: A Study of Creatures Fair and Foul".  In that part of the book there are different (some _intentionally_ 'error-riddled') accounts of the different kinds of beasts found in the Old World.  These 'first person' descriptions are broken down into different categories: "Common View"; "The Scholar's Eye"; and "Our Own Words".  It is excellent flavour text, and gives you different accounts of the creatures to give to the players, based on their knowledge level.

There is also a page devoted to a faux back cover of the first part (leather looking page with the symbol of Sigmar).

The space may have been better used, but it is forgivable in an otherwise so excellent product.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 24, 2005)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> Did you find time to stop at the Green Ronin booth and talk to the authors, line developer or art director to congratulate them on their work as well?




You, Chris, and everyone else listed on the credits page of the product at Green Ronin have my thanks for writing such a great product.  I'm looking forward to having an opportunity to play it in some depth either this summer or this fall.  Great work to all involved.

Ryan


----------



## RyanD (Aug 24, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> What is meant with "full page "art" that isn't art?"




The "non-crunch" portions of the work are bounded at beginning and end with full-page images that are meant to look like the covers of a tattered folio, supposedly the notes of a famous sage who collected the work within.



> And what is meant by "65 pages of average or below-average quality, stream of conscious, intentionally error-riddled fiction", and here the "intentionally error-riddled" part? Fiction that contains intentional errors? I have honestly no idea.




The "non-crunch" part of the book is presented from three viewpoints:  That of the common man, that of the sages, and that of the creatures themselves.  Per the intro material, we are lead to understand that not all of this material is accurate, and indeed, it often contradicts itself.  This is, I suppose, to preserve an air of mystery for the GM's use.

Most of the sections of the text in the "non-crunch" section is a (long) paragraph or two in length, often captured mid-stream as part of an excerpt from a "longer narrative" (of which we of course are not able to read).  As a result, the text is choppy, disorganized, and often non-linear.  This is not a mistake, or sloppy editing, or other professional lapse - it was clearly the itent of the writers/designers to present the material in this fashion.  If you enjoy that kind of thing (and I know many people do) it won't bother you, and may enrich the experience.  It certainly has the added benefit that you can pick the book up, turn to virtually any page, and read a random section without having to worry about the context.  It would be a good book to read on a bus, or between periods in school, or other places where long stretches of uninterrupted reading would be inappropriate.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 24, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> There are no photographs of Warhammer minis.  There is one page that has a faux cover for the first part of the book called "Perilous Beasts: A Study of Creatures Fair and Foul".  In that part of the book there are different (some _intentionally_ 'error-riddled') accounts of the different kinds of beasts found in the Old World.  These 'first person' descriptions are broken down into different categories: "Common View"; "The Scholar's Eye"; and "Our Own Words".  It is excellent flavour text, and gives you different accounts of the creatures to give to the players, based on their knowledge level.



Ah, thanks. No Warhammer minis, good . The part with the different view angles seems good for knowledge checks. Does this make mechanical differences if the players get different answers, or is it only something for the DM to chuckle?


----------



## Turjan (Aug 24, 2005)

RyanD said:
			
		

> The "non-crunch" portions of the work are bounded at beginning and end with full-page images that are meant to look like the covers of a tattered folio, supposedly the notes of a famous sage who collected the work within.



Thanks. Maybe I'll have a closer look at that.


> The "non-crunch" part of the book is presented from three viewpoints:  That of the common man, that of the sages, and that of the creatures themselves.  Per the intro material, we are lead to understand that not all of this material is accurate, and indeed, it often contradicts itself.  This is, I suppose, to preserve an air of mystery for the GM's use.



This air of mystery can make the world interesting. This was one of the positive points of the Scarred Lands setting, where the information always differed, depending on the people telling the story. Later, they introduced much too many certainties, which was one reason for the downfall of that setting. Okay, that has nothing to do with WFRP .


> Most of the sections of the text in the "non-crunch" section is a (long) paragraph or two in length, often captured mid-stream as part of an excerpt from a "longer narrative" (of which we of course are not able to read).  As a result, the text is choppy, disorganized, and often non-linear.  This is not a mistake, or sloppy editing, or other professional lapse - it was clearly the itent of the writers/designers to present the material in this fashion.  If you enjoy that kind of thing (and I know many people do) it won't bother you, and may enrich the experience.



I have monster books that seem similar to that, with monster descriptions, some stories interspersed and the statistics somewhere in the corners. I quite like that, makes the monsters come alive . I don't use that many non-humanoid monsters, anyway, so it doesn't really bother me if it takes a minute longer to gather the core info. Of course, I have first to take a look at how it's organized in the 'Bestiary'.


----------



## tarchon (Aug 24, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I've only got WFRP in it's original form, but isn't it derived almost entirely from WFB?  The stat block is basically the same as the one in the wargame but with some values taken to 1-100 instead of 1-10.  I never got the impression that WFRP was derived from AD&D in any real way other than it was a FRPG.




I think mechanically 1E does lean more on WFB than AD&D directly, but there are some clear D&D aspects, like the Human/Elf/Halfling/Dwarf race selection, the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic alignment system, and the rather useless umbrella class system (Ranger/Rogue/Warrior/Academic). Happily, both of those last ones got dumped in the 2nd edition. AFAIK, some of those could be from WFB too, but WFB obviously owes something to D&D. Ironically, in the allegedly derivative 2nd edition, it's become far more its own game than it was in the first, casting off a lot of the superfluous old Wargame and gotta-be-like-AD&D baggage.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 24, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> Ironically, in the allegedly derivative 2nd edition, it's become far more its own game than it was in the first, casting off a lot of the superfluous old Wargame and gotta-be-like-AD&D baggage.



I wonder if Chris Pramas could attest to how much the novels played a roll in casting off the old wargame and gotta-be-like-AD&D baggage. Because if there ever was a gamebook "feel" that really coincided with the game fiction for the setting it is WFRP(new) and the novels for the Warhammer line. No TSR novel I have ever read has aligned with the game material as well as or as consistently as Black Library's novel line does with Black Industry's new edition of WFRP.

Just something that came to mind... Of course, maybe it's been well coordinated all along, I'm a (relative) newbie to the WFRP setting and game but I now own more than a dozen of the Warhammer novels.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 24, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> I think mechanically 1E does lean more on WFB than AD&D directly, but there are some clear D&D aspects, like the Human/Elf/Halfling/Dwarf race selection...



..which came from Tolkien and mythology...







			
				tarchon said:
			
		

> ...the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic alignment system...



...which came from Moorcock...







			
				tarchon said:
			
		

> ...and the rather useless umbrella class system (Ranger/Rogue/Warrior/Academic).



...hmmm, you may be right on that one.


----------



## tarchon (Aug 24, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> ..which came from Tolkien and mythology



I wasn't aware that Tolkien and mythology had a concept of allowable PC races. The use of the TSR's copyright-dodging circumlocution "halfling" is rather telling as well. Interestingly, WFRP did use just the Basic D&D races, rather than full palette of AD&D races, but I guess gnomes are a bit superfluous.



> ......which came from Moorcock



I wasn't aware that Moorcock had a concept of character "alignments." Actually, I misremembered the alignments anyway. Warhammer 1E had Good and Evil alignment as well, not that they were really used for much. It is undeniably D&D influence though, the only major difference being that Warhammer considered the 5 alignments to be mutally exclusive rather than two orthogonal axes. I do agree that D&D gets Law/Chaos from Moorcock, but WFRP's take on the idea is clearly derived from AD&D. I think it's unlikely that if someone had read Elric novels without seeing AD&D they would have come up with the idea that characters are defined by Good/Evil/Law/Chaos and that this property should be called "alignment."


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 24, 2005)

The best D&D (any incarnation) monster books I know where the monster books for the Planescape settings. They had lots of flavor text, too, which really gave me a good feeling how to present the monsters.

The WotC Monster Manuals, on the other hand, can at best be described as "functional". Sure, they do what they are supposed to do - give us lots of ready-to-use monster stats - but they don't really give me a feel how they behave and interact with their environment, beyond some basic combat tactics.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Ah, thanks. No Warhammer minis, good . The part with the different view angles seems good for knowledge checks. Does this make mechanical differences if the players get different answers, or is it only something for the DM to chuckle?




I guess it might make a 'mechanical difference' if the PCs think that the monster has x ability, and proceed on that assumption, but it turns out that the monster has y ability instead.

Beyond indirect mechanical consequences like that, though, I don't think there are any mechanical consequences.  I'd have to look more closely to be sure.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 24, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I guess it might make a 'mechanical difference' if the PCs think that the monster has x ability, and proceed on that assumption, but it turns out that the monster has y ability instead.
> 
> Beyond indirect mechanical consequences like that, though, I don't think there are any mechanical consequences.  I'd have to look more closely to be sure.



That would be mechanical enough . My question aimed more at the point whether it's just a difference in background information, or whether it affects what the PCs do. The former just reads well, because the players probably won't dig into it any further and the GM is lthe only one who enjoys the information, whereas the latter gives an incentive for the players to get additional clues in some way, and in that case the information actually comes fully into play.


----------

