Jump to content



Photo

Your laziness thrills the Dark Gods


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 cegorach

cegorach

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 13 August 2009 - 12:34 PM

I can't even remember my twenties, and my thirties are blurry at best. So I'm as veteran as the next person, probably more so.

And I welcome this change.

Honestly, you people are such complainers. I've played Warhammer with Reign, when I wanted something with grand scale mechanics, with Castle Falkenstein when I wanted a quick, narrative-based game, and The Riddle of Steel (which I wrote masses of WH rules for) when I wanted the ultimate in realism.

All different systems, all better than the painful % based WFRPG original (which love as you may, is far from realistic or balanced) and all tailored with minimum effort to give the best playing experience for my group.

If this is fast and flexible, I'm in. The story is more important than buckets of dice, maths and page-flipping.

If it's not, I carry on playing Warhammer however I please. And so can you. There are tens of thousands of pages of Warhammer background online and offline that you can get a hold of very easily. And your imagination *should* have no limits.

At the end of the day, if the doomsayers are correct, FFG will be the only losers. You can all carry on playing 2E while they lose money.

If not, don't let your laziness blind you to what could be a good game.
 



#2 Sythorn

Sythorn

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 13 August 2009 - 12:59 PM

cegorach said:

All different systems, all better than the painful % based WFRPG original (which love as you may, is far from realistic or balanced) and all tailored with minimum effort to give the best playing experience for my group.

"Far from realistic or balanced" is precisely why I love the original system.  Can't say I've ever found it painful at all.



#3 Sythorn

Sythorn

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 13 August 2009 - 01:00 PM

cegorach said:

If not, don't let your laziness blind you to what could be a good game.

It's not really laziness so much as it's the $100 price tag.



#4 cegorach

cegorach

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 13 August 2009 - 01:10 PM

Sythorn said:


"Far from realistic or balanced" is precisely why I love the original system. Can't say I've ever found it painful at all.

 

That's great, and of course you know the new edition has nothing to do with you using those rules? Some people don't around here apparently.

Sythorn said:


It's not really laziness so much as it's the $100 price tag.

 

Now that's a good concern, and one I wish people would separate from the moaning about 'betrayal' etc. etc.



#5 Foolishboy

Foolishboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 194 posts

Posted 13 August 2009 - 01:20 PM

Sythorn said:

 

It's not really laziness so much as it's the $100 price tag.

This $100 price tag is a major sticking point. If the Core Game was priced at about $50 then it would fly off the shelves, because it would be cheap enough to be worth the risk of buying a poor game vs. the chances of getting a good game. But at $100 I'm really having to think this one over. It feels like too much to invest in a game for which I have serious misgivings.



#6 ejacobs

ejacobs

    Member

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 13 August 2009 - 01:21 PM

Consider the price tag a bit of free education.  LEARN about a product before you buy it.  Don't rush in.  You are welcome.  Good day.

E



#7 Sythorn

Sythorn

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 14 August 2009 - 04:18 AM

ejacobs said:

Consider the price tag a bit of free education.  LEARN about a product before you buy it.  Don't rush in.  You are welcome.  Good day.

E

RPGs are funny in that research doesn't help as much as one might think.  No amount of reading about a game can prepare you for actually playing it.  A perfect example, for me at least, is Reign and the One Roll Engine; I read a lot about it before actually trying the game and it turned out to be nothing like I was imagining.



#8 Sythorn

Sythorn

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 14 August 2009 - 04:21 AM

cegorach said:

Sythorn said:


"Far from realistic or balanced" is precisely why I love the original system. Can't say I've ever found it painful at all.

 

 

 

 

That's great, and of course you know the new edition has nothing to do with you using those rules? Some people don't around here apparently.

Of course I realize that, I was mearly responding to your statement that the percentile system was painful and had problems, because that statement isn't true for a lot of us.



#9 Captin'

Captin'

    Member

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 14 August 2009 - 05:56 AM

cegorach said:

At the end of the day, if the doomsayers are correct, FFG will be the only losers. You can all carry on playing 2E while they lose money. 

Yoy seem to forget that 2E will loose support and new suplements. They are far from the only loosers.



#10 Steerpike

Steerpike

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 14 August 2009 - 09:18 AM

 Well, we can produce our own game material for 2e games in perpetuity.  FFG will actually lose something if the new version doesn't do well.  Personally, if the went the 4e route in their thinking, I'd be happy enough to see the whole thing sink like a lead balloon.  Not because of any personal desire to see FFG harmed, but because if a few RPG developers lose out big after jamming a finger in the eye of their existing fan base, other companies might think twice before doing the same thing.  

 

 






© 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