Jump to content



Photo

Fun for a night


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#21 Zug

Zug

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 03:46 AM

c8tiff said:

The reasons are that the dice convention employed means that the players are more busy laughing at the poor die rolls than seriously staying in character, and the players tend to limit themselves to the choices in the cards than to thinking out of the box.

But then

"the fights are tough, tactical and very challenging, which is not tactical enough in warhammer 3e, they are challenging and you can laugh when it looks like you pulled a hammy trying to aggressively attack but there is definetly not enough tactical movement in 3e."

 

So...a dice pool takes people out of character but micromanaging squares on a grid doesn't?  Grid movement DOESN'T limit your choices to what actions you take, but reference cards do ?  I'm....confused.  If you want a tactical board game, 3e is definitely NOT going to make you happy.  If you want story telling, then 3e works very well.  If you like "old school" with stacks of books for reference, 3e won't make you happy.  If you want a rules framework with rules details written on cards for easy reference, then 3e WILL make you happy.

I really do not get the people complaining about the cards like they somehow 'limit' the character.  That's like claiming 3e/4e D&D talents somehow limit the character.  Only difference is that these talents are on cards for easy reference so you don't have to have a stack of books.  I'd much rather have the 7 or so rules that pertain to me right on the table rather than flipping through rule books for the needle in a haystack.  Flipping through books HAS to be the biggest time waster and enemy to 'staying in character'.  Right up there with micromanaging squares on a grid.

I can already visualize, for example, Lord of the Rings... Aragorn running to a wraith on Weathertop:

Aragorn; "Get back!"..."no...wait...5' too far..let me back up a bit.."Get back!"...no..wait...ran through that wraith's threatened square.  Let me try that again: "Get back!".  Wait...

give me abstract layouts for story telling any day.  Give me 'post it note' rules references to prevent book flipping.  Those two things streamline the game SO much and lets people focus on story instead of 'tactics'.



#22 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 04:15 AM

micro managing the combat is the best thing about combat.

good dming and knowing when and how to interract with the pcs during the social encounters is also paramount.

i'm not saying i didnt like the game, i'm saying that i enjoyed it enough to play when the opportunity strikes, just not enough to add it to my extensive library.

yes i hate dnd 4e because it is awful, but i do use elements of it in my games.  I will probably use elements of warhammer 3e whenever i run.  There are good ideas, just not enough in one package to switch over to it.

i do dislike when pcs do not think original thoughts for themselves, and i highly reward them when they actually roleplay with either a better story, xp, or dice adjustment for the "skill" rolls, as an example i dislike the pcs just trying to make a "diplomacy" check in dnd 3e without some element of discussion, as you can read that is a poor mechanic in dnd 3e.

So, what do i like to run you ask.

 

1) Bushido

2) Rogue Trader

3) Dark Heresy

4) Warhammer 2e

5) Pathfinder

6) Vampire

7) Twilight 2013

8) dnd 3.5



#23 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 04:21 AM

i'm sorry if just being out of position for one round and still having to close with the enemy is a tough test of your tactical abilities

as written from your latest reply below

 

I can already visualize, for example, Lord of the Rings... Aragorn running to a wraith on Weathertop:

Aragorn; "Get back!"..."no...wait...5' too far..let me back up a bit.."Get back!"...no..wait...ran through that wraith's threatened square. Let me try that again: "Get back!". Wait...



#24 Y'all Of Cthulhu

Y'all Of Cthulhu

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 04:35 AM

c8tiff said:

i'm sorry if just being out of position for one round and still having to close with the enemy is a tough test of your tactical abilities

as written from your latest reply below

 

I can already visualize, for example, Lord of the Rings... Aragorn running to a wraith on Weathertop:

Aragorn; "Get back!"..."no...wait...5' too far..let me back up a bit.."Get back!"...no..wait...ran through that wraith's threatened square. Let me try that again: "Get back!". Wait...

I think that you're missing his point.  He was addressing your concern that the elements of WHFRP 3e would spoil in-character roleplaying and kill immersion, not that tactical gaming on a grid was too hard.



#25 johnmarron

johnmarron

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 04:58 AM

dvang said:

I hope this gives you a few more ideas about how the game can be run and can work well as a campaign.

I just wanted to thank Dvang for his/her calm, reasoned responses in many threads.  Nice, classy defense of the game without resorting to rudeness or edition bashing.  Well done.

John



#26 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 05:19 AM

Dvang had great reasoned replies. But as you can clearly see I was not stating that the edition was BAD.

Nor was I asking for arguements to defend it. Nor is the game that bad to need defence, unlike DND 4e.


 



#27 Zug

Zug

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:14 AM

I didn't mean coming off like a ****** (rereading it after lunch did reveal that to me)...

After reading numerous 'dont like' threads, it boiled down to:

1) dont like cards (it limits player choice)

2) dont like dice (limits roleplaying)

3) dont like the lack of a grid (not enough tactics)

Often times the above are in the same post...and they are mutually exclusive.  A grid does not add to roleplaying...it adds to tactics.  LACK of grid adds to roleplaying.  Cards do not limit roleplaying.  Cards are just conveniences. 

While D&D has been moving from tactical->story->tactical....until we see in 4th edition a set of rules that is completely wargame/tactical (ie. every story element has to have a mechanical +/-).  WFR3e took the opposite approach and moved towards story (admittedly, I'm a 1e WFRP player, not 2e).

Tactical games are not roleplaying.  I saw Vampire in your list...great example of a story game. minimal reliance on tactics/grids.  The rest are, for the most part, heavy tactical.

Best stories I've played in came from Mage and a gridless Gamma World.  Worst ones have come from the wargames trying to pass themselves off as an RPG.

 

"i'm sorry if just being out of position for one round and still having to close with the enemy is a tough test of your tactical abilities"

Lol..son..I cut my tactical teeth on Star Fleet Battles, so hop off the 'i can move my character on a grid' high-horse...the point is that a ROLE playing game (which is what this is), should NOT be concerned about movement tactics.  That is not cinematic.  That is not 'story'.  That is minutia which only gets in the way of the story.  If you like tactical games, cool!  Me too!  But to condemn RPG for lacking tactics due to an element that drives story (ie. gridless) and in the same breath condemn the same game for an element that increases tactics, choice AND roleplaying because it takes away from roleplaying  (ie. dice) is inconsistent.

Let me put my Aragorn example in simpler terms.  When was the last time you read a book that detailed how far the character ran in feet?  How many books have you read where the hero was concerned about getting 'diametrically opposed to get a flanking bonus'.  These are things that, as a story teller, I deplore (tried to remove the grid requirements for D&D4e with rules modifications...not worth the effort).

This game IS a radical departure from the norm.  Current RPGs have not evolved much in the 30 years that i've been playing.  Every now and then a gem comes out that tries to stand out in a saturated landscape with fresh ideas.  If RPGs were operating systems, we'd still be using a command prompt.

 



#28 Zug

Zug

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:15 AM

c8tiff said:

Nor is the game that bad to need defence, unlike DND 4e. 

 

+1.  Halleluja.



#29 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:19 AM

I didn't mean coming off like a ****** (rereading it after lunch did reveal that to me)...

After reading numerous 'dont like' threads, it boiled down to:

1) dont like cards (it limits player choice)

2) dont like dice (limits roleplaying)

3) dont like the lack of a grid (not enough tactics)

Often times the above are in the same post...and they are mutually exclusive. A grid does not add to roleplaying...it adds to tactics. LACK of grid adds to roleplaying. Cards do not limit roleplaying. Cards are just conveniences.

While D&D has been moving from tactical->story->tactical....until we see in 4th edition a set of rules that is completely wargame/tactical (ie. every story element has to have a mechanical +/-). WFR3e took the opposite approach and moved towards story (admittedly, I'm a 1e WFRP player, not 2e).

Tactical games are not roleplaying. I saw Vampire in your list...great example of a story game. minimal reliance on tactics/grids. The rest are, for the most part, heavy tactical.

Best stories I've played in came from Mage and a gridless Gamma World. Worst ones have come from the wargames trying to pass themselves off as an RPG.

 

"i'm sorry if just being out of position for one round and still having to close with the enemy is a tough test of your tactical abilities"

Lol..son..I cut my tactical teeth on Star Fleet Battles, so hop off the 'i can move my character on a grid' high-horse...the point is that a ROLE playing game (which is what this is), should NOT be concerned about movement tactics. That is not cinematic. That is not 'story'. That is minutia which only gets in the way of the story. If you like tactical games, cool! Me too! But to condemn RPG for lacking tactics due to an element that drives story (ie. gridless) and in the same breath condemn the same game for an element that increases tactics, choice AND roleplaying because it takes away from roleplaying (ie. dice) is inconsistent.

Let me put my Aragorn example in simpler terms. When was the last time you read a book that detailed how far the character ran in feet? How many books have you read where the hero was concerned about getting 'diametrically opposed to get a flanking bonus'. These are things that, as a story teller, I deplore (tried to remove the grid requirements for D&D4e with rules modifications...not worth the effort).

This game IS a radical departure from the norm. Current RPGs have not evolved much in the 30 years that i've been playing. Every now and then a gem comes out that tries to stand out in a saturated landscape with fresh ideas. If RPGs were operating systems, we'd still be using a command prompt.



#30 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:21 AM

sorry to be on my high horse again, but its ok if you disagree with me that great combat can add to the experience at the table



#31 Zug

Zug

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:26 AM

c8tiff said:

Dvang had great reasoned replies. But as you can clearly see I was not stating that the edition was BAD.

Nor was I asking for arguements to defend it. Nor is the game that bad to need defence, unlike DND 4e.


 

c8tiff said:

 Nor is the game that bad to need defence, unlike DND 4e.

 

Just because i'm sitting here bored at work...

my group got all hyped on the 4th edition announcement 2 years ago.  3.5 had turned into a muchkinfest of '1BG/1Pal/1Ass/1Sorc/1blah/15zing' prestige classing with a smorgasboard of feats pulled from 6 different splatbooks that had never been playtested together that the game became a steaming pile of feces (yay, Paizo for trying to fix the mess).  4th edition rolls out and, at first, it looked good.  Played once and we all stared at each other.  All we could say was 'well...the rules are cohesive'.

Now, I understand that story isnt driven by rules, but story CAN be destroyed by rules.  My gamer's palette had just ingested the equivalent of 2 pounds of ricecake.  Not filling, not tasty, not pleasurable.  We just went through the exercise of chewing.

"Well...lets see how the Forgotten Realms handles 4th edition..maybe we just have the wrong take on it".  Books came out...tried it again.  Left the table feeling like a prostitute who didnt get paid.  Broke, screwed, and unsatisfied.  It kept getting worse!

I like my RPGs rules light (except for the Hackmaster 5e...that one fills an unusual void for me) and 4e seemed to put everything into a consistent, uniform, box.  Bleah.

Of our group, 2 enjoyed the grid tactics...spent half of all combat figuring out the 'perfect movement and positioning'.  Left the other 3 picking their nose for most of it.  A single combat would take 3 hours. 



#32 Herr Arnulfe

Herr Arnulfe

    Member

  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:29 AM

Zug wrote:

"...the point is that a ROLE playing game (which is what this is), should NOT be concerned about movement tactics. That is not cinematic. That is not 'story'. That is minutia which only gets in the way of the story."
 

I usually prefer having minis indicating where everyone is positioned, so we don't have to spend time during combats describing it verbally. Leaves more time for roleplaying. Also, WFRP was not traditionally a grid-based combat system - it assumed freeform movement using a ruler when necessary. The grid was added for v2, in order to ride on D&D3e's coattails. But you can easily remove the grid from v2 because there aren't any AoOs or other grid-dependent mechanics.

I should also add that the amount of roleplaying expected by players in combat is inversely related to the amount of combat in the campaign. If you run a game with few combats and lots of intrigue, then players are more likely to hunger for tactical gameplay when combat does arise.

EDIT: stupid quoting code



#33 Zug

Zug

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:40 AM

Herr Arnulfe said:

 

I usually prefer having minis indicating where everyone is positioned, so we don't have to spend time during combats describing it verbally. Leaves more time for roleplaying. Also, WFRP was not traditionally a grid-based combat system - it assumed freeform movement using a ruler when necessary. The grid was added for v2, in order to ride on D&D3e's coattails. But you can easily remove the grid from v2 because there aren't any AoOs or other grid-dependent mechanics.

I should also add that the amount of roleplaying expected by players in combat is inversely related to the amount of combat in the campaign. If you run a game with few combats and lots of intrigue, then players are more likely to hunger for tactical gameplay when combat does arise.

At least with abstract distances, you don't need to worry about scale :-P .  100'x100' areas were a freaking nightmare to draw out back to back (dwarves were short, dammit...why did their halls have to be so damn big).  It'll be nice to even just sketch a box, stick minis in, give relative distance and call it 'done' (glad 3e didnt pitch the minis...I am partial to having that part of the visual).



#34 Herr Arnulfe

Herr Arnulfe

    Member

  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:43 AM

Zug said:

 

At least with abstract distances, you don't need to worry about scale :-P .  100'x100' areas were a freaking nightmare to draw out back to back (dwarves were short, dammit...why did their halls have to be so damn big).  It'll be nice to even just sketch a box, stick minis in, give relative distance and call it 'done' (glad 3e didnt pitch the minis...I am partial to having that part of the visual).

I'm not saying one method is better than the other, just that there's room for tactical combat even in a ROLE-playing game, especially if you're running an intrigue-heavy adventure where combats are considered a major event.



#35 Zug

Zug

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:49 AM

Herr Arnulfe said:

 

I'm not saying one method is better than the other, just that there's room for tactical combat even in a ROLE-playing game, especially if you're running an intrigue-heavy adventure where combats are considered a major event.

 

I should donate one of my players to you..his idea of 'intrigue' is an assassination.  Other 4 players are usually struggling to reign him in.



#36 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:52 AM

for those of us still stuck in dnd3x trying to get it to work, yes it is too feat and too prestige class heavy so needs to be drastically limited by the dm.

for those of us who have tried 4e, it does have some concepts to pull from but yes the too numerous books are too alike as well as the pcs.  To make matters worse there is way too much emphasis on "pushing" "sliding" or "moving" around and around the mat.

for some, the mat limits ideas, they dont think out of the grid and imagine if there is other items like a candlelabra they may be available.

for the group i'm in and run for at times, they think out of the box alot, but when it comes to descent or the rpg version of it warhammer 3e, they turn into boardgamers.  Admittedly is was only one exposure, and admittedly is was a very linear story (like descent), and admittedly some of it had to do with the gm.  But i NEVER said i didnt like the game or the experience, just that I personally wouldnt invest in it.  It just wouldnt get played enough to remind them of their roleplaying skills



#37 Herr Arnulfe

Herr Arnulfe

    Member

  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:54 AM

Zug said:

 

I should donate one of my players to you..his idea of 'intrigue' is an assassination.  Other 4 players are usually struggling to reign him in.

I'd have him begging for a combat scene after 2-3 sessions. And then when he finally got one, it would be a tactically rich scene with floorplans and minis that would leave him sated for the next 2-3 sessions of intrigue.



#38 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:56 AM

thanks Herr I couldnt have said it better, in fact i wish i had said it  :-)



#39 Y'all Of Cthulhu

Y'all Of Cthulhu

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:58 AM

Personally, one of the things which appeals to me about WHFRP 3e is the abstract setup for combat.  I've never been a big mini's-and-tactics guy.  I do enjoy it sometimes, but for years I never bought miniatures growing up because I would've rather spent the $20 that I had as a teenager going towards a new book for my games.  I defintely agree with Zug's analogy with the description of combat in fiction, and I think that the 3e method will proivde the environment for that type of combat description.

I have gotten into the idea of tactical combat in rpg's in the last couple of years, and I've purchased some of the Star Wars mini's to go with my Saga Edition material (finally bought a battlemat too! I had previously never needed one).  I've played 4e a few times and I must say that I do enjoy the tactical combat in that system, especially when the other players aren't spending an eternity picking out what they're going to do next.  I like the idea that whichever power I choose has a different effect on the damage that I deal or the condition that I can induce upon an enemy.  No more, "I hit.  Regular damage. Oh, I critical hit.  Double damange!"

Fourth edition does bring in the tactical gamers a good bit, and that's just not the overall style that I'm looking to play.  I think that WHFRP 3e seems like a game that uses some of the cool things that I like about 4e (e.g. different attack actions instead of just "I attack."; cooldown periods for actions, thereby making it tactical but not rules-heavy tactical, etc.), but does them in a more scaled-back fashion.  I'm also not a longtime Warhammer fan, so the Old World is still kind of new to me and I like the fact that it's slightly more analogous to medieval Europe instead of the Forgotten Realms or Eberron.  Although, I do really like Eberron.  So right now, I'm also taking an interest in the setting itself, which has always been there yet I haven't gotten into until recently.  Admittedly, I could get into the setting with the 2e stuff, but I can get the 3e core set on Amazon for about $12 more than I could get just the 2e core book used.  I think that it's a good deal, and the quality of the material makes the retail price ok with me.

The fact that everything I need to run a game (and for me, as the usual GM, I'm the guy who always bought all of the game material anyway) is in one box and retails for just a few bucks under what the core 4e books would cost, which don't come with all of the groovy accessories that WHFRP 3e has is just great!  My wife has even given in and is going to try to play.  Of course, I'm going to have to play Scrabble as a trade-off.

I hate Scrabble.



#40 Zug

Zug

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:59 AM

c8tiff said:

for those of us still stuck in dnd3x trying to get it to work, yes it is too feat and too prestige class heavy so needs to be drastically limited by the dm.

for those of us who have tried 4e, it does have some concepts to pull from but yes the too numerous books are too alike as well as the pcs.  To make matters worse there is way too much emphasis on "pushing" "sliding" or "moving" around and around the mat.

for some, the mat limits ideas, they dont think out of the grid and imagine if there is other items like a candlelabra they may be available.

for the group i'm in and run for at times, they think out of the box alot, but when it comes to descent or the rpg version of it warhammer 3e, they turn into boardgamers.  Admittedly is was only one exposure, and admittedly is was a very linear story (like descent), and admittedly some of it had to do with the gm.  But i NEVER said i didnt like the game or the experience, just that I personally wouldnt invest in it.  It just wouldnt get played enough to remind them of their roleplaying skills

c8tiff said:

for those of us still stuck in dnd3x trying to get it to work, yes it is too feat and too prestige class heavy so needs to be drastically limited by the dm.

for those of us who have tried 4e, it does have some concepts to pull from but yes the too numerous books are too alike as well as the pcs.  To make matters worse there is way too much emphasis on "pushing" "sliding" or "moving" around and around the mat.

for some, the mat limits ideas, they dont think out of the grid and imagine if there is other items like a candlelabra they may be available.

for the group i'm in and run for at times, they think out of the box alot, but when it comes to descent or the rpg version of it warhammer 3e, they turn into boardgamers.  Admittedly is was only one exposure, and admittedly is was a very linear story (like descent), and admittedly some of it had to do with the gm.  But i NEVER said i didnt like the game or the experience, just that I personally wouldnt invest in it.  It just wouldnt get played enough to remind them of their roleplaying skills

c8tiff said:

for the group i'm in and run for at times, they think out of the box alot, but when it comes to descent or the rpg version of it warhammer 3e, they turn into boardgamers.  Admittedly is was only one exposure, and admittedly is was a very linear story (like descent), and admittedly some of it had to do with the gm.  But i NEVER said i didnt like the game or the experience, just that I personally wouldnt invest in it.  It just wouldnt get played enough to remind them of their roleplaying skills

demo story was very...eh.  I wouldn't base too much on it.  It WOULD be nice if the FFG guys would do a podcast or something.  wizards podcasts with Wil Wheaton are hilarious AND informative.  Might go a long way to sell the new mechanics.

For me, I'll give my $65 to FFG rather than a toothless stripper at my local hangout...doing my bit for the economy!  Hoper yer happy, FFG...she told me she was earning money for college!






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS