Jump to content



Photo

Too late for Beta....tell me about it


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 ymrar

ymrar

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 12:39 PM

Well I'm glad to hear it's not a "complete overhaul". I wasnt in beta, but I am a fan of Warhammer 2nd edition. I've tried to play 3rd edition with my friend so bad... but it is so broken and awful that I can't stand it.

 

D&D went overhaul with 4th, and now they're backing up.

 

There's just so much that can go wrong with a complete overhaul. I wouldn't have risked it either. Their main audience has bought so many books with the old system, and they would have lost most of them with the change. (they did lost a lot with WHRPG 3rd ed.)

 

Yes, the system is Olde. After all it's roots are in (what? 80's) WFRPG 1st edition. But it has worked quite well to start with actually (for us), and FFG has done brilliant job tweaking it Core game after Core game.

 

I'm happy by these news.


  • c8tiff and Snowman0147 like this

#22 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 11:41 PM

Saying new systems are a bad idea purely because you haven't liked a couple of new editions of games is pretty shaky reasoning, honestly. Under that sort of thinking, we'd all still be playing this

D%26d_Box1st.jpg

 

Like, people use the change from 3e to 4e as an example of how bad and horrible huge overhauls are. But they seemingly forget that 3e itself was a massive departure from 2e, rendering most older books totally useless (as far as the actual mechanics go, anyway). You know, exactly what 4e did.


Edited by Tom Cruise, 04 March 2014 - 11:41 PM.

  • Lynata, MagnusPihl and GMmL like this

#23 Kainus

Kainus

    Member

  • Members
  • 120 posts

Posted 05 March 2014 - 01:23 AM

Saying new systems are a bad idea purely because you haven't liked a couple of new editions of games is pretty shaky reasoning, honestly. Under that sort of thinking, we'd all still be playing this

 

 

Like, people use the change from 3e to 4e as an example of how bad and horrible huge overhauls are. But they seemingly forget that 3e itself was a massive departure from 2e, rendering most older books totally useless (as far as the actual mechanics go, anyway). You know, exactly what 4e did.

Couldn't have said it better myself. 

I really have the feeling that this is the morass that the mainstream TTRPG industry has fallen into- a demand for familiarity instead of experimentation. In fact, this is not uncommon for mainstream media, so it only seems natural that TTRPGs should follow suit. Sure, there is progress, as veterans tire of their media or newbies are inducted into the hobby, but any progress typically moves at a crawl. It's a generational gap, of sorts. 

Optimistically speaking, it shows that there is something in our hobby that resonates with ourselves beyond the generation in which it was conceived, and that's pretty awesome.

However, this is why I feel like I'm going to be moving towards the fringes of the industry. If I wasn't enamored by Warhammer lore, I would have done so much sooner. I only find myself frustrated, like an punk-rock teenager in a Sinatra household, with people demanding a conservative game design in popular productions. However, in an economic age where the safe bet is typically the best bet, I think that it's only natural to expect this from our popular entertainment. 

Because, to be perfectly honest, the first Beta really wasn't a huge change from the 1st ed. 40k RPG systems. 

 

Well I'm glad to hear it's not a "complete overhaul". I wasnt in beta, but I am a fan of Warhammer 2nd edition. I've tried to play 3rd edition with my friend so bad... but it is so broken and awful that I can't stand it.

That's funny- I just got into WFRP 3e and I'm realizing how much I actually disliked 2e and all of its successors (40kRPGs), which I've been playing for 5 years.

I was actually upset that FFG was being far too cautious with the first Beta, and I'm really surprised how that turned out.


  • GMmL likes this
"The union of art and action is death." -Yukio Mishima
Roleplaying games are the most tragic artform.
They represent the death of the folkloric tradition, the understanding that beuacracy touches our identity in ways that the individual can not seperate from themselves. That we can become abstracted into statistics so easily, yet we still demand to tell stories in light of this- because of this. The distinction between human and system has become seamless.
When we roleplay together, we mourn ourselves- how we can no longer communicate without a defined social system- be it race, gender, class, consumer, employer, Game Master, or player. We mourn our human synthesis with systems by employing them to tell stories. It helps us embrace our modern humanity like no other artform.

#24 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,508 posts

Posted 05 March 2014 - 05:14 PM

Dismissing things based on their age, in either direction (i.e. both "only old things are good" and "only new things are good") is a very unhelpful stance to take, because it blocks constructive debate and hampers actual improvement. Just because something you liked changed, doesn't mean it changed for the worse. But just because something, even something you disliked, changed, doesn't mean it changed for the better. Every new thing deserves a chance to be evaluated and judged on it's own merit, not just in the context of things it replaced.

 

I maintain the decision to scrap the first beta was a good call on FFG's side - not because it was new or different, but because it was built on very weak premises that didn't bode well for the future of the line.

 

I also maintain that FFG getting overly reactionary and rewinding the game to OW mechanics with only cosmetic changes was a bad call, as many things about that system could stand to be improved much more, and the opportunity to do so was sacrificed in favor of playing it safe with potential buyers.

 

The resulting game is... well, not exactly bad, in the sense that OW wasn't a bad game, but it feels extremely redundant and uninspired. Most of the changes compared to OW are either cosmetic (character creation), extremely minor (subtlety, influence), completely extraneous (reinforcements joke system) or, worst of all, actually bad (inescapable attack). Again, it's not a bad game overall, and I'm sure it'll sell alright, but for a reboot of the franchise's flag title, I'd expect something much more exciting. I was very excited when I first got my hands on DH, and it feels disappointing that I can't get equally excited with it's successor.


  • Adeptus-B and Magus Black like this

There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#25 seanpp

seanpp

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 05 March 2014 - 07:20 PM

I'm reasonably happy with DH2 - and happy to get back to defending the Emperor without regular rule changes & with a system improved over DH1

 

I play for the setting & I was fine with the DH1 system.  I thought it could use some tweaks, which I did with house rules to mimic some of the changes found in OW.  Just because some of us were already tweaking DH1 with OW modifications doesn't make those DH2 modifications modeled after OW meaningless.  I'm happy for a cogent set of rules that incorporate changes that had been shown to improve the system over DH1...AND my myriad of DH1 books are still mechanically applicable.  Boooooyah.

 

I play for the setting & was generally fine with DH1 - so I'm happy to see an evolutionary improved DH2 rather than a revolutionary rewrite.

 

Back to the ramparts...the tyranids are coming.


Edited by seanpp, 05 March 2014 - 07:21 PM.

  • c8tiff, Adeptus-B and Snowman0147 like this

#26 LuciusT

LuciusT

    Member

  • Members
  • 911 posts

Posted 06 March 2014 - 07:11 AM

 

Like, people use the change from 3e to 4e as an example of how bad and horrible huge overhauls are. But they seemingly forget that 3e itself was a massive departure from 2e, rendering most older books totally useless (as far as the actual mechanics go, anyway). You know, exactly what 4e did.

 

I think is a good example for a different reason...

 

Firstly, there was a big time gap between the major releases of AD&D and D&D 3e (and honestly, a lot of people had abandoned AD&D for other games... a big push early in the D&D 3e was the attempt to win people back to the game... the d20 Wheel of Time and d20 Call of Cthulhu games were just such efforts). D&D 3e was followed by the fairly rapid and minor revision between 3.0 and 3.5, different but not terribly so. D&D 4e seemed for come very hot on the heels of 3.5 and was a massive change in system to a game that still a fairly solid base audience. The fairly short perceived time between editions, combined with a fundamental change in direction and, seemingly, target audience, after a more incremental change, made the "edition shock" more extreme.

 

This is a very good analogy for the development of the 40K-RP line... each game within the 40K line can reasonable be seen as a different "edition" of the same rules set. We started with Dark Heresy and have seen minor, incremental changes every few years. That makes a massive change much harder for the established audience to accept. 


  • ymrar, Snowman0147, Magus Black and 2 others like this

#27 Simsum

Simsum

    Member

  • Members
  • 440 posts

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:45 AM

I think is a good example for a different reason...
 
Firstly, there was a big time gap between the major releases of AD&D and D&D 3e (and honestly, a lot of people had abandoned AD&D for other games... a big push early in the D&D 3e was the attempt to win people back to the game... the d20 Wheel of Time and d20 Call of Cthulhu games were just such efforts).


The "big time gap" thing is deceptive, as TSR were pushing several different versions of what was mechanically the same game, and were pushing multiple campaign settings for the various versions of the system. I'd disagree with you, because they were in fact pushing lots of major releases.

Whether they lost a lot customers, I honestly don't know. I haven't seen the numbers, assuming numbers exist. That said, as a non-D&D player during that period my impression is that everyone who played RPGs played D&D and only a faction played anything else besides D&D.

D&D 3e was followed by the fairly rapid and minor revision between 3.0 and 3.5, different but not terribly so. D&D 4e seemed for come very hot on the heels of 3.5 and was a massive change in system to a game that still a fairly solid base audience. The fairly short perceived time between editions, combined with a fundamental change in direction and, seemingly, target audience, after a more incremental change, made the "edition shock" more extreme.
 
This is a very good analogy for the development of the 40K-RP line... each game within the 40K line can reasonable be seen as a different "edition" of the same rules set. We started with Dark Heresy and have seen minor, incremental changes every few years. That makes a massive change much harder for the established audience to accept.


3e came 9 years after the last major release of the system, and prior to it there had been only incremental changes to the more and less crunchy versions of the D&D system (AD&D and D&D). 3.5e followed another 3 years later, and again consisted of incremental changes only. 5 years later still - 8 years after the release of 3e - 4e was released. And like 3e, 4e was a major revision of the system.

What all this means, as an extension to your post, I guess would be that major revisions to products that are less than 9 years old cause system shock. And especially if we roll on the old AD&D tables, that makes it a very good thing FFG re-decided and are releasing nothing that haven't released before. Because system shock rolls in AD&D were pretty lethal, and dying from a revised RPG system would suck.

...

Tortured humour aside, I'd still rather have a single incrementally updated rulebook for all the lines than the current mess. And I still have more than enough issues with WFRP2.5e that I'd very much have liked to see the new edition of DH actually be a new edition - a major revision of the system, not just slight tweaks.

But I guess the playerbase has spoken... So I'll slink off back under the bed to resent you lot for it :P

#28 Adeptus-B

Adeptus-B

    Part-Time Super Villian

  • Members
  • 1,875 posts

Posted 06 March 2014 - 03:01 PM

The underlying design directive with D&D3E was 'make it like AD&D, but better: more colorful, smoother rules'; the directive with D&D4E was 'make it more like a video game'. I don't think it's a great mystery why 3E was popular and 4E was unpopular.

 

I suspect that the main reason FFG decided to scrap the first Beta was the fact that so many of its supporters on this Forum let slip that they absolutely hate DH1. This branded them as an unknown; FFG has no sales numbers to track their spending habits- unlike the fans of DH1, whom they have solid numbers on. Sticking with the established fanbase who have proven their willingness to spend their money on FFG products is a more logical business decision than gambling on a different audience who may or may not make regular purchases...


  • Snowman0147 likes this

#29 Simsum

Simsum

    Member

  • Members
  • 440 posts

Posted 06 March 2014 - 05:25 PM

Hate is a strong word. I have a laundry list of complaints, but I'll readily concede that at its heart, WFRP2.x is a very simple, easily customisable, and highly transparent system. Coming from AD&D2e to WFRP1e was a pleasure, as was transitioning from WFRP1e to WFRP2e. But at the time I didn't know any better, and my playstyle was an entirely different beast from what it is now.



#30 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:29 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if FFG haven't pushed for any major innovation because their 40kRPG team is a shadow of what it used to be. I mean, every book in recent memory other than the cores has been pretty hugely flawed and imbalanced, and there plainly hasn't BEEN as many books as we used to get. The shoddy handling of this beta process (from as early as the internal tests if some posters are to be believed) is just more evidence. I think it's very much a case of 'Star Wars makes more money' here.


  • Brother Orpheo likes this

#31 Simsum

Simsum

    Member

  • Members
  • 440 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 01:09 AM

At this point I'm just crossing my fingers FFG drops the Aptitude mess for the vastly simpler and functionally identical Roles of DH2.3b
  • cps likes this

#32 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,886 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 10:30 AM

Saying new systems are a bad idea purely because you haven't liked a couple of new editions of games is pretty shaky reasoning, honestly. Under that sort of thinking, we'd all still be playing this

 

Good point - one shouldn't cast a general and absolute judgement regarding this. That being said, my own criticism was that it actually did not deviate far enough from the previous edition, making most of the controversial changes unnecessary by kind of "ruining the point" of having a full reset in the first place.

 

But needless to say, we're all bound to have highly individual opinions regarding such specifics.  ;)


  • Simsum likes this
current 40k RPG character: Aura Vashaan, Astromancer Witch-Priestess
previous characters: Captain Elias (Celestial Lions Chapter -- debriefed), Comrade-Trooper Dasha Malenko (1207th Valhallan Ice Warriors -- KIA), Sister Elana (Order of the Sacred Rose -- assassinated), Leftenant Darion Baylesworth (Rogue Trader Artemisia -- retired), Taleera "Raven" Nephran (Hive Ganger & Inquisitorial Assassin -- mindwiped)

#33 ymrar

ymrar

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 03:37 PM

Saying new systems are a bad idea purely because you haven't liked a couple of new editions of games is pretty shaky reasoning, honestly. Under that sort of thinking, we'd all still be playing this

D%26d_Box1st.jpg

 

Like, people use the change from 3e to 4e as an example of how bad and horrible huge overhauls are. But they seemingly forget that 3e itself was a massive departure from 2e, rendering most older books totally useless (as far as the actual mechanics go, anyway). You know, exactly what 4e did.

 

As I said, we tried to play the 3rd edition hard.

I wouldn't have done it, if I weren't interested how a new system works, would I?

That's the thing, we are talking about overhauls to Existing systems. That's the reason they are risky.

There is already a set base. Set base of rules and fans, and with overhauls you always try to bend to new players with new rules and old players with old rules. When you bend towards another, your backside is showing to the other. You cant please everybody. THAT is the problem with overhauls.

 

New systems, in new IPs.

After two afwul disasters with old IP's that I've tried... Those are the new systems that I'm looking forward to push the RPG-gaming forward.

Now, I'm pleased to hear one of my favorites is going strong with bow to the Old system.

 

PS.

Showing me a picture of Ye Olde D&D as a "slap" :rolleyes:






© 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