Jump to content



Photo

Bad luck or evil conspiracy?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Gnutten

Gnutten

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 23 August 2009 - 02:31 AM

Bad luck or evil conspiracy?

I had a little thought of the main idea behind this new edition.

What struck me as really odd was the totally different approaches the two (or three) GW role playing games has taken.

Dark Heresy and its sister Rouge Trader is in my eyes very good examples of mature and good role playing games. They are well received and has earned great and positive reactions from booth fans and other media. Senior RPG Developer Ross Watson received several awards for different source books and what I understand you can call the game rather successful even from a economic viewpoint. Personally I have never been a fan of science fiction but even I bought the core books and found them interesting, although I probably wont start a 40k campaign cause my real role playing passion has been WHFRP for many many years.


My initial thought was that is was real bad luck that Jay Little got the responsibility of developing the WFRP line and not a guy like Ross Watson.

I cant see no rational reasoning behind this new development of WHFRP.

All these "news" and fabulous ideas in V3 is absolutely nothing you couldn't create and implement in the V2 if you really wanted to. You got a lot of gadgets, dices, puzzle character sheets and eye candy stolen from different boardgames. Absolutely nothing that a RPG needs!

The "we put stuff on cards so you can focus on the story" or "we use a lot of shiny and strangely designed custom dice so you can focus on the story" reasons feels just plain dumb and just an excuse why we should accept these odd changes. The real insult to role playing games came when we also learned that "we decided where your little dwarf came from so you could focus on the story" or the really horrific "we made a group sheet so you know when you doesn't get along with the other players". The role playing experience get reduced to a "pick a card to know your class", "pick a card to know your background", "pick a card to know your motivation", "pick a card so you know why you're in a group", "pick a card so you know what happened in our last adventure", "pick a card so you don't have to think for yourself" etc...

Cynic and a bit exaggerated, but you get the idea...

Why oh why does V3 look this way...?

But then the other idea struck me that this could be a result evil reasoning from a business point of view.

If someone put a gun to my head and gave me the following instruction:

1. We want you to make a role playing system that doesn't compete with our other products (the mature RPG:s Dark Heresy and Rouge Trader)
2. We want you to make a game that requires card, tokens and other toys. In this way we will reduce players ability to download illegal copies.
3. We like the D&D idea that all players, not only the GM, should buy books, dice and stuff for the game.
4. Make sure that nothing is compatible from old material, not even the dice!
5. We want to include CCG thinking i the game. Make the games buy extra card expansions and more shiny dice every month.
6. Make a game that attract the younger audience! Steal the feeling and setup from World of Warcraft! We want group buffs, flashy special attacks and a LOT of visual aids.
7. We want to attract the players that thought D&D 4:ed was a bit to complicated. Make sure they can get over here and still feel at bit at home.
8. The kids today want to feel powerful and cool! Make Waywachters and elven ninjas!
9. Don't make it complicated! Reading numbers from dice and reading tables give kids headache!
10. We want to be able to create characters and groups in less that 10 minutes! Pull a bunch of cards, arrange them then off we go!
11. Descent is wicked fun! But we want at least to call this game a RPG so you cant include a board.

If I got these work instructions... well then I suppose the result would be something like the stuff we've seen so far from V3.

It would surely not be a good RPG and it wouldn't be Warhammer and it wouldnt appeal the old fans... but I would fulfil my instruction.

I don't know him but Jay Little could surely be a nice and smart dude... but I got REALLY curious what his instructions were when he made this game.



#2 Armrek

Armrek

    Member

  • Members
  • 144 posts

Posted 23 August 2009 - 04:08 AM

I sure hope that this is not the case , game play is more important than looking good in my book. But your theory is quite amusing and not imppossible :-)



#3 chojun

chojun

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 23 August 2009 - 05:12 AM

Gnutten you make a lot of good points.  and I'm more likely to read what you have to say because you are both a boardgamer and an RPG'er.

yep, its all about the business end of things.  They probably looked at the situation and said, "we don't have an entry point RPG." especially for the younger crowd.

I have no idea what they were planning, but one poster said that he had the impression that this might have been a separate project but was retooled once they got rights to do WH stuff. 

and once they put the WH label on it, they immediately got label recognition.

I remember from one of the vid's they said that their goal was to create a roleplaying interface system.  back in the old days when you played D&D with different groups of people, you weren't sure of what kind of experience you were going to get.  A lot of games i have played were GM centric, they were what the GM was going to make of em.  The rules were just a loose framework.

For better or worse, a trend that most people havent touched on is that companies want to give gamers a consistent game experience.  I know exactly what kind of game i'm going to get in when I play 4e D&D.  its a power card, mini and grid, hit point fest. no matter where I play it or with who, its going to be the same.  I suspect this is what they are trying to do here. for better or  worse.



#4 Istivan

Istivan

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 23 August 2009 - 09:01 AM

You make alot of great points here. I will buy the game regardless, i consider myself a collector as much as a player, the  the group i play with will probably keep playing 2nd ed.

What i dont understand is alot of these changes are said to make the game easier for newe players to the RPG scene, I have been RPGing for 28 years, i started in 1979 whe ni was 7 years old taught by my father playing DnD, if i remember correctly all we needed was 5 min to make a charecter a few books and dice, paper and pencil and we were good for weeks, it was sooooo simplw there was nothing to it. Now there is 36 dice??!! cards of all differnt types on top of multiple books, it looks nice and like i said i will buy it, but it deffinitatly looks alot more complicated than any other roleplaying experiences i have ever had in my 28 years of roleplaying



#5 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,478 posts

Posted 23 August 2009 - 04:43 PM

Im going to go with a little of both. I think alot of it was FFG management Mandated, but I also think Mr. Little is at part responsible.

You could dumb down WFRP to be kid friendlier and add all the bells and whistles and doohickeys and still have it seem more of a offspring of 1E and 2E, instead of some crazy boardless boardgame role playing card game of pretty objects and pictures.

Though I must say, Mr. Little doesnt seem to enthusiastic about the project he is shelling. Its like he has a few points he is proud of and a few command messages he has to say over and over again and a few facts he can correct easily enough. He genuinely seems proud of the "elf Distinction" factor, sees he has to say "focus on role playing" and is eager to correct "board game".

But he seems far lessanimated, excited and happy about his product than Ross does.



#6 DagobahDave

DagobahDave

    Member

  • Members
  • 981 posts

Posted 23 August 2009 - 09:49 PM

Gnutten said:

I cant see no rational reasoning behind this new development of WHFRP.

I'm afraid WFRP has nothing to do with that.


Join the Unofficial X-Wing Galactic Campaign and propel your favorite faction toward victory every time you play!

 


#7 Necrozius

Necrozius

    Member

  • Members
  • 947 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 02:10 AM

Very interesting post.

My point of view is a bit different, because my player group isn't a very standard one compared to others.

My friends and I are getting older and older, so we have increasingly complicated and busy schedules. It is very difficult for us to get together semi-regularly to do ANYTHING, let alone contribute to a complicated RPG plot.

Yup, we're becoming more and more of a beer & pretzels player group. Sure we like in-depth stories and the like, but we just do not have the time or energy to devote fully to this hobby, at least to the extent that most of the players here on this forum go to.

For the majority of us (well, all of us except for one player who shares a lot of the views expressed by the OP), this game's mechanics and feel really are appealing. Essentially a more complicated version of Warhammer Quest. Beer & Pretzels friendly rule system but with enough room for basic roleplaying and character development.

So I can understand why the more traditional players aren't pleased with this. I have a strong feeling that one of my long time players will feel the same, which is quite unfortunate.

That being said, I find all the talk of feeling betrayed or "spat in the face" by FFG a little extreme and stereotypically geeky.



#8 Dirach

Dirach

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 02:20 AM

Am I inmature if I find wfrp3 interesting?

Am I inmature if I like nice layout?

I do play cardgames, boardgames and Warhammer fantasy battle. Does this make me inmature?

Why is Dark heresy more mature than WFRP3?

I don't like "mature" beign an argument. 



#9 phobiandarkmoon

phobiandarkmoon

    Member

  • Members
  • 287 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 02:55 AM

Dirach said:

Am I inmature if I find wfrp3 interesting?

Am I inmature if I like nice layout?

I do play cardgames, boardgames and Warhammer fantasy battle. Does this make me inmature?

Why is Dark heresy more mature than WFRP3?

I don't like "mature" beign an argument. 

 

We can't tell that yet, it is true. So I'm staying out of that point. But side point - misspelling "immature" and "being" to prove your maturity does not make for a great riposte.



#10 Lord_Boofhead

Lord_Boofhead

    Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:07 AM

I like Boardgames and CCGs but I hate this so whats that say about me?

If FFG wanted to create an Avant Gaurde RPG why can't they **** Grimm or or Anima? Why destroy OUR game?

I don't just blame FFG, I blame GW to. Who ever is in charge of making sure GW Interlectual Properties don't get missused must have been asleep on this on.  I hope all the Gav Thorpe Haters are happy, cause when Gav had that Job I'll bet he wouldn't have let this **** through to the Keeper..

Seriously How does half an hours worth of set up make an RPG better? I have enough trouble not losing my Character Sheet, let alone trying to remember what special cards I had from last session!

And whats with this GM and up to 3 players **** I hear about? Maybe the low numbers is because the target audience has hardly any friends anymore after neglecting them all to play WoW?

Also why dumb down Warhammer 'for the kids' 40K is what the Teens play, WFB is all dudes in their 20s and 30s!

I seem to remember stuff like this being tried before and gee wasn't Dragonlance the Third Age such a huge hit....

 

If what Hasbro did to D&D 4th ed was The Bad Toutch then this is Violent Prison ****!
 



#11 Dirach

Dirach

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:42 AM

phobiandarkmoon said:

Dirach said:

 

Am I inmature if I find wfrp3 interesting?

Am I inmature if I like nice layout?

I do play cardgames, boardgames and Warhammer fantasy battle. Does this make me inmature?

Why is Dark heresy more mature than WFRP3?

I don't like "mature" beign an argument. 

 

 

 

We can't tell that yet, it is true. So I'm staying out of that point. But side point - misspelling "immature" and "being" to prove your maturity does not make for a great riposte.

Sorry for expressing me in my second language.

And I dont see my post as proving my maturity, but rather saying that it is a tag that I don't think fit when describing RPG's.

 



#12 Dirach

Dirach

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:46 AM

Dirach said:

phobiandarkmoon said:

 

Dirach said:

 

Am I inmature if I find wfrp3 interesting?

Am I inmature if I like nice layout?

I do play cardgames, boardgames and Warhammer fantasy battle. Does this make me inmature?

Why is Dark heresy more mature than WFRP3?

I don't like "mature" beign an argument. 

 

 

 

We can't tell that yet, it is true. So I'm staying out of that point. But side point - misspelling "immature" and "being" to prove your maturity does not make for a great riposte.

 

 

Sorry for expressing me in my second language.

And I dont see my post as proving my maturity, but rather saying that it is a tag that I don't think fit when describing RPG's.

 

Obs. Sorry.

"Sorry for expressing my self in my second language." Is more correct I guess.

 

 

 



#13 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,478 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:52 AM

I would like to agree Dirach there on that one nugget. Its not about maturity or anything of that nature.

Its more of an integrity question, and not a in a "you have no values" sort of way, but in a consistency way.

As Ive said before, this could be the greatest RPG ever, but it doesnt matter. Im perfectly happy with how 2E worked and was evolving. Reinventing the system was unnecessary and just a money grab.

And I stand by my statement that even Jay Little knows he is shelling out a pile of troll manuer to his fanbase.

WFRP3E will go down as the RPG for people who think they know the Lord of the Rings because they have seen the movies even without reading the books, or peopls who take the movie Braveheart as undeniable gospel of Scottish history. Its all flash, fancy colors, toys and bangs.

With 1E and 2E the game was in my head, here its cracker jacks in a box. Its still a RPG, the same as any other and a good GM and player group will make it fun and good, but to me, it is a miasm of ugly dice and cards.

However, while I want the game to flop and FFG to lose much money and face with this munchkin of a game, I do hope those of you who do follow it and buy it, enjoy it and make the most of it.



#14 Lord_Boofhead

Lord_Boofhead

    Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 05:16 AM

Peacekeeper_b said:

However, while I want the game to flop and FFG to lose much money and face with this munchkin of a game, I do hope those of you who do follow it and buy it, enjoy it and make the most of it.

Gotta say I'm with you on the hope they lose money bit. Was planning on giving Anima Tactics ago and Grimm has always interested me but FFGs can go to hell if they think I'll spend a cent on any non-GW licenced game they produce after they've done this to WFRP.



#15 macd21

macd21

    Member

  • Members
  • 914 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 07:56 AM

Peacekeeper_b said:

WFRP3E will go down as the RPG for people who think they know the Lord of the Rings because they have seen the movies even without reading the books, or peopls who take the movie Braveheart as undeniable gospel of Scottish history. Its all flash, fancy colors, toys and bangs.

No, it won't. You clearly haven't taken the time to actually learn anything about the game other than the most superficial elements ("it has dice pools and cards! Suxxors!"), or else you've just decided to hate the game without giving it a chance at all. There are some concerns about this edition, but it has great potential. A couple of us over on strike to stun have been going over what we can find out about the system. There are some very clever mechanics in there, but we won't know how well they work together until we see the final result. But from what I've seen so far, I think that this edition may actually do "Warhammer" better than the previous editions did. And by that I don't mean "Super-heroic epic fantasy SMASH!", I mean dark, gritty, down-in-the-mud fantasy horror.



#16 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,478 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 08:59 AM

macd21 said:

You clearly haven't taken the time to actually learn anything about the game other than the most superficial elements ("it has dice pools and cards! Suxxors!"), or else you've just decided to hate the game without giving it a chance at all.

That is pretty much the truth. And Im not ashamed of the fact that I havent researched the game. My initial reaction is one of non-interest and think the first things that pop to my attention (being dice pools and cards! Suxxors!) turn my stomach and turn me off on the game. Honestly! So why would I do research into it?

I stand by what I said, it may be WFRP by name, design, license and rights, but its not the WFRP I have any interest in.

Im not one to go and spend $100 and alot of time on a item that doesnt get me interested in the first few moments of seeing it. Its called window shopping, I saw enough in the first press release to turn me off. And Im allowed to express that view, even without not having done more research.

I never said the game wont work, or it will be a bad system. It may be the greatest game ever, I will never know as I am not interested in its presentation or initial style.

When the Wayans Brothers released the movie White Chicks I decided I wanted nothing to do with it, was I suppose to go research the film to convince myself otherwise? Im not going to tell you not to watch White Chicks and if you do go see it, I hope you enjoy it. But at the same time I wanted it to flop so the Wayans Brothers would stop making what to me were bad movies.

I dont see this as any different.

But you know what, I did watch the seminars and that only reinforced my personal dislike for the direction this game is going. The way you make it sound is that I have no right to dislike something without researching it first and then spending $100 on it only to find out then that I hate it.

Sounds a lot like dating. I think Id rather stay with the date I know and love instead of dumping her for the new girl in school just because she is new.



#17 Gnutten

Gnutten

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 10:53 AM

Dirach said:

Am I inmature if I find wfrp3 interesting?

Am I inmature if I like nice layout?

I do play cardgames, boardgames and Warhammer fantasy battle. Does this make me inmature?

Why is Dark heresy more mature than WFRP3?

I don't like "mature" beign an argument. 

 

Well... I don't like to discuss things on forums with the "if you don't think like I do you're and idiot" attitude, so my point was not to insult other members of this forum.

And if if I would say that you're immature when you collect minis or CCG:s then I suppoce I would REALLY bite my own butt.

Ive got a room in my basement dedicated to tabletop games and got about 3000+ minis, several painted WFB armies and also some shoe boxes of LOTR and Magic. I have also spent unhealthy amount of time with WOW and Warhammer Online. I have another room dedicated to board game and RPG evenings. And I'm also a sucker for good design.

Descent is also one of my favorite boardgames and my minis are painted and I have unhealthy plans to acquire Dwarven Forge dungeons just to pimp it up even more.

But on your other question: If I find Dark Heresy a more mature game than WHFRP 3:ed.

Answer: Yeah, actually I do. Surely based on everything we've seen of this new edition.

My point in this thread was some thought behind the very odd differences between the two different RPG systems, especially when Dark Heresy have received a lot of positive response. My conclusion was that WHFRP 3:ed was intently designed to please a new and younger crowd. My opinion is that I haven't seen anything here that improves a RPG but all "improvement" consist of flashy toys and eye candy.

To me the gritty and cynical role playing experience WHFB were in earlier edition rimes very bad with custom cuddly dice, flashy glossy cards and puzzle able character sheets.

I'm not trying to insult other people, I'm ventilating my frustration of the development of the game.



#18 macd21

macd21

    Member

  • Members
  • 914 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 11:06 AM

Peacekeeper_b said:

But you know what, I did watch the seminars and that only reinforced my personal dislike for the direction this game is going. The way you make it sound is that I have no right to dislike something without researching it first and then spending $100 on it only to find out then that I hate it.

You are certainly entitled to dislike it. However going online and stating that it sucks and insulting both the people who designed it and those who will buy and play it without actually taking the time to find out anything about the game is annoying and contributes nothing to the debate.

You dislike it - we get that. You dislike it because you'd prefer to see more material for 2E and because it has dice pools and cards. We get that. Those aren't, IMO, good reasons for disliking the game, but you are entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to point out my opinion - that your arguments lack merit and are insulting.



#19 Gnutten

Gnutten

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 11:20 AM

Necrozius said:

Very interesting post.

My point of view is a bit different, because my player group isn't a very standard one compared to others.

My friends and I are getting older and older, so we have increasingly complicated and busy schedules. It is very difficult for us to get together semi-regularly to do ANYTHING, let alone contribute to a complicated RPG plot.

Yup, we're becoming more and more of a beer & pretzels player group. Sure we like in-depth stories and the like, but we just do not have the time or energy to devote fully to this hobby, at least to the extent that most of the players here on this forum go to.

For the majority of us (well, all of us except for one player who shares a lot of the views expressed by the OP), this game's mechanics and feel really are appealing. Essentially a more complicated version of Warhammer Quest. Beer & Pretzels friendly rule system but with enough room for basic roleplaying and character development.

So I can understand why the more traditional players aren't pleased with this. I have a strong feeling that one of my long time players will feel the same, which is quite unfortunate.

That being said, I find all the talk of feeling betrayed or "spat in the face" by FFG a little extreme and stereotypically geeky.

I can totally relate to the busy schedule and the difficulty to get people together. It was surely simpler when people weren't married and had the bad taste of spawning evil offspring that severely cut down gaming time. (My evil offspring is 3 btw =) , so I have to get babysitters when its RPG time)

Our beer & pretzels RPG substitute is Descent... and that's a really fun one that!

I can see your reason and delight in getting a new Warhammer quest, seriously!

The reason I'm upset is that my "serious" RPG that we have spent YEARS on is turning into... well... a beer & pretzels game. =)

If FFG made a Warhammer Descent I would buy it immediately. Or a Warhammer Runebound or a new Advanced Heroquest. (srry... just didn't like the GM less approach of Warhammer Quest).

My problem comes when they REPLACE my favorite RPG with a (in my opinion based on the preview material) a board less Descent clone.

The absolutely silly thing is that my guess is that almost everyone in these forums would be happy if this V3 project indeed was a new Warhammer Descent-ish board game/rpg experience placed in the board game category of FFG:s product catalog alongside with WHFRP.

To keep the V2 fans happy would only require some books every year... the Dwarf and Elven source books, books of Tilean and Araby and finally and most important, a new long and epic adventure path that could challenge the Enemy Within for the throne. If FFG would like to make this their "own" game I have nothing against a revised rulebook, or a version 3... as long that its still a RPG and not a board less board game.



#20 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,478 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 06:58 PM

macd21 said:

Peacekeeper_b said:

 

But you know what, I did watch the seminars and that only reinforced my personal dislike for the direction this game is going. The way you make it sound is that I have no right to dislike something without researching it first and then spending $100 on it only to find out then that I hate it.

 

 

You are certainly entitled to dislike it. However going online and stating that it sucks and insulting both the people who designed it and those who will buy and play it without actually taking the time to find out anything about the game is annoying and contributes nothing to the debate.

You dislike it - we get that. You dislike it because you'd prefer to see more material for 2E and because it has dice pools and cards. We get that. Those aren't, IMO, good reasons for disliking the game, but you are entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to point out my opinion - that your arguments lack merit and are insulting.

Did I miss something? Perhaps I did. Where did I insult the designers or those who wanted to play/buy the game?

I may have said things like money grab, or shelling out manure or even mention the workd munchkin. But I dont remember saying "you are stupid to buy this game" or that "Jay Little is an idiot."

I recall even saying that I hope those who buy the game enjoy it, as I hope they do.

And if the mechanics (being cards and dice pools) are not good reasons to dislike a game, then what is?

What contributes nothing to the debate is personal attacks, I agree. Me saying that dice pools and cards are an aspect the new game presents that makes me disinterested in the game is very much a contributing factor.

The OP was a question as to whether or not one thought the direction this game was taking was bad luck or a conspiracy. If it was because Jay Little got the job or because FFG had an agenda. I stated I thought it was a little of both, but more FFG then Mr. Little. The very nature of this thread is about the direction of the game, and is a reference to what the OP saw as a negative angle. I happen to agree.

And for the record, Im not the only one who dislikes this game based on the mechanics we have seen so far.

I am glad you are looking forward to this, as a RPGer first and a WFRP fan second, I want RPGs to succeed and beat the pants of MMOs and what not. Id just rather it not affect what I think was already a fine game.

And if you fnid that insulting and without merit, then my apologies.






© 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