Many people that aren't receptive of the new edition are like that for a wide variety of reasons. Your question above here is arrogant and smug. If you were serious about your points or questions you wouldn't immediately start your post like that.
There are many games that are about roleplaying, people like and dislike them for various reasons. Not all roleplaying games are created equal, just because they are a roleplaying games.
Don't play coy here. You already feel that way and this post is just to your way of making that point. Why dance around it?
Because im arrogant and smug?
But that put aside, must my arrogance and smug demeanor necessarily mean that I don't wish to know the real reasons behind the somewhat over-the-top negative remarks about this game? (even if I do intend to argue my point of course, but that's the whole point of a discussion anyway so you can't really hold that against me)
WFRP 2E did, however, appeal to a great number of people. Many of these people see no reason for a new edition. For myself, it's the most enjoyable roleplaying game I've ever played. My group enjoys it more than any other game and my local gaming store (a very successful game store at that) has enjoyed it being thier best selling roleplaying game.
Good for you and them! (no sarcasm or arrogant smugness now, totally candid and honest remark)
I actually don't think it will be played in a very unconventional manner. From what I've read (after the enlightening rpgnet post) its very similar to the previous edition, with the addition of cards to use instead of tables. Some people just don't see the need for it and would rather see FFG's energies given to expanding the game under 2E. There were plenty of areas in the Old World that were left untouched in 2E. Now we will see the game start over and those areas will most likely move to the back of the line again.
Well, sure I can relate to feeling a bit disappointed about FFG not exploring those unexplored venues that you speak of. But really, should the third edition really have to stand for such a barrage of vitriol and mean-spirited bitterness?
I mean, if the old players are so fine and dandy about the 2nd edition (and it's safe to assume that they own copies of that game), why not just stick with that edition and just be happy (or at the very least indifferent) to the fact that FFG wants to take a new approach to roleplaying games with the third edition?
Why ***** so much about it, if the 2nd edition is sooo good and "superior" to this new edition?
An RPG is about whatever the player and gamemaster make it. If the players are happy on focusing on dungeon crawling then great. Dungeon crawling and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. Many of my WFRP games involved delving into some old dwarf tomb or chasing Skaven through forlorn sewers. I suppose those games don't fit your version of roleplaying?
Who knows what people have forgotten, but you seem determined to categorize everyone that way... which as I said above, was the entire point of your post.
No it wasn't, you just assumed that was my point. And I don't believe you can read minds either (your theory about what my real point is proves that fact).
And while I do agree that any given gaming group should stick to what they think is fun, the gaming form is called an RPG (ROLEPLAYING GAME) for a reason. Hence it is completely fine to assume that roleplaying is what the game is primarily intended to be about and should be considered the norm, regardless if individual groups wish to deviate from that norm or not.
And you gotta admit that my point is pretty valid, especially since many posters have accused the third edition for being a "boardgame" and a "cardgame" and whatnot. My question is: what kind of solid basis do they have for such statements? Is it because the game contains cards?
By that reasoning, is it safe to assume that playing yahtzy is the same thing as playing an RPG, because both games use dice, pencil and paper?