Jump to content



Photo

The FAQ extends a hand to the v2 crowd?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 donbaloo

donbaloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 10:32 AM

So not being a current WFRP player I was just wondering how the FAQ sounded to you folks as v2 enthusiasts.  It read as if they were anticipating offering information that would still benefit you even though you're sticking with v2.  Did that section of the FAQ do anything for you guys?  Did it give you any hope for future materials benefiting your campaigns? Or did it simply feel like lip service?



#2 RebelDave

RebelDave

    Member

  • Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 10:36 AM

donbaloo said:

So not being a current WFRP player I was just wondering how the FAQ sounded to you folks as v2 enthusiasts.  It read as if they were anticipating offering information that would still benefit you even though you're sticking with v2.  Did that section of the FAQ do anything for you guys?  Did it give you any hope for future materials benefiting your campaigns? Or did it simply feel like lip service?

PDFs available for a limited time only spoilt it for me... I cant see why keeping them available would cause an issue for furture marketing of 3rd Ed... but Now I need to think about forking out over £100 to ensure I have them.



#3 donbaloo

donbaloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 10:46 AM

 Sorry, I should have been more clear.  I wasn't refering to the limited PDF availability of v2 stuff.  It sounded to me as if they were saying that even the new v3 stuff would be new, unexplored information, and still be of value to those that stick with v2.  Did you get that impression and does that give you any hope for continued support for your game?



#4 ragnar63

ragnar63

    Member

  • Members
  • 386 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 10:55 AM

Very little. The PDF's will probably be only available until the new edition comes out in a few months time. I suspect any new information in V3 will be  of limited use  and/ or difficult to convert, as in the High Elf race stuff.



#5 Tiacapan

Tiacapan

    Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 11:12 AM

Frankly it sounded like a bunch of platitudes really, not much in the way of actual information.



#6 Mazinkaiser

Mazinkaiser

    Member

  • Members
  • 146 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 11:13 AM

 Yea... this may be what 4th edition was to 3rd. Nothing might be backwards compatible. 

 

Currently I'm DMing a 2nd edition WHFR game. I'm kind of rushing to get the current storyline done, but I'm interested to see what 3 brings out. If it's good, we'll swap over to the new system and continue the campaign. If I don't like it as much... well we still have our v2 books. 



#7 DagobahDave

DagobahDave

    Laser Brain

  • Members
  • 1,187 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 11:31 AM

Tiacapan said:

Frankly it sounded like a bunch of platitudes really, not much in the way of actual information.

 

There are a couple of new bits of info.

We've now seen our first Reputation card and our first Critical Hit. Both of those are good to see, and give me a fair idea of what the others might be all about.

We have a much more complete list of the components than we had before.

This is the first time I've seen or heard of "stance rings", so that's got me wondering what they're good for, and why there are 6 of them.


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

 


#8 jadrax

jadrax

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 11:52 AM

DagobahDave said:

This is the first time I've seen or heard of "stance rings", so that's got me wondering what they're good for, and why there are 6 of them.

I assumed that was the thing the Troll Slayer cut-out was stood on?



#9 Istivan

Istivan

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 02:08 PM

donbaloo said:

So not being a current WFRP player I was just wondering how the FAQ sounded to you folks as v2 enthusiasts.  It read as if they were anticipating offering information that would still benefit you even though you're sticking with v2.  Did that section of the FAQ do anything for you guys?  Did it give you any hope for future materials benefiting your campaigns? Or did it simply feel like lip service?

Ive said before i honestly dont plan on using this new mutant system to play with but i will buy the new material to use for 2nd edition, any of the new background stuff or scenarios should be easily adapted to second edition by any GM who is worth their pouch of  warpstone tokens. It should be easy to use with second edition, and who knows for those of us who buy it to convert it just might like it enough to give it a shot.

 

P.S. to the people who are looking to buy the books on PDF format, i would check EBAY or Amazon first as you can get some of the books(in actual book format) for much less than the prices i saw the PDFS selling for.

 

 



#10 kristof65

kristof65

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 03:46 PM

Saying there was new setting information seemed to me like like a way to pacify 2e enthuisists, and plead for them to buy it.

It did nothing for those like me and my friends, who don't use the setting information for our campaigns, just the rules.  



#11 Retina

Retina

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 04:34 PM

To me it did seem like a  plea to buy it, until I read the next part where they said flatly that no more 2nd would be coming (I expected this) and no reprints would be made either. The "no reprints" was a bit jolting. It felt like they were saying "2nd is dead so shut up already". It really felt weird.



#12 Knight Panther

Knight Panther

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 08:17 PM

Retina said:

It felt like they were saying "2nd is dead so shut up already".

Same impression here!



#13 Hellebore

Hellebore

    Member

  • Members
  • 556 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 08:57 PM

I hope the books aren't the standard book design for the game. 96 pg softbacks describe tabletop armies, but for an RPG you need something a little meatier.

We got 200+ page tome of sorcery for 2nd ed, but that fits into a 128pg soft back for 3rd? Or have they removed information?

 

If everything is released as boxed sets it will kill any chance of hardbacks. Soft backs called "Tomes of suchandsuch" are a bit of a joke.

 

I think one of the problems I have with it is the technical and clinical descriptions of the mechanics. It's one of the reasons I really dislike 4th ed D&D. The emphasis is put on game rather than background, rather than story. Toolkits, innovative tools, this game talk really puts me off. 2nd ed was very laid back with its writing, creating a far more immersive reel. When you are reading descriptions that read like technical manuals it really puts you off and prevents immersiveness.

 

I'm reminded about one of the statements made by a D&D 4 designer who said before the game had come out that they 'took another look at the maths'. That was his statement about 4th ed. Nothing but clinical mathematical discussion.

 

Hellebore



#14 PzVIE

PzVIE

    Member

  • Members
  • 178 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 09:37 PM

Hellebore said:

I'm reminded about one of the statements made by a D&D 4 designer who said before the game had come out that they 'took another look at the maths'. That was his statement about 4th ed. Nothing but clinical mathematical discussion.

 

But you need it. Badly. If the basic rule mechanics are not thoroughly calculated, the outcomes of your dice rolls may become unrealistic or just stupid (see also the v1 "Naked Dwarf Syndrome", or the v2 complain that magic isn't as dangerous as it should be, or the fact that a 2nd or 3rd career human with an SB of 5 is incredibly strong compared to a Dragon with an SB of 9 or so...)

The ideal would be rules that are completely uncoupled from the background (and yes, they may be written in a structured, mathematical form). Rules embedded in too much background are hard to find. The background on the other hand may contain as much fluff as possible - these texts should make your imagination dance and sing!



#15 Hellebore

Hellebore

    Member

  • Members
  • 556 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 10:37 PM

But when the PR campaign focuses on that aspect, it puts me off. The more technical you get, the less enjoyable the game appears. This is probably why MMOs are so appealing, they have extremely complicated maths governing them (well, compared to tt RPG maths anyway) but all you see is 'super attack +20' giving an easily digestable interface ontop of a complicated machine.

I'm not sure that 96 pg softback books are going to give you the kind of background depth and immersiveness seen in the books from 2nd ed.

I'm not sold on the dice mechanics for several reasons. One is the fact that the dice also have failures on them as well as successes. Which means the more of those dice you roll, the higher chance you have of rolling successes as well as failures. Unlike a dice pool system like WoD where you simply roll dice and must equal or beat a specific value. Each additional die simply increases the chances of success. I  don't think that the better you get the worse you get, really works.

 

Hellebore



#16 macd21

macd21

    Member

  • Members
  • 915 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 10:46 PM

 

 

Hellebore said:

 

I hope the books aren't the standard book design for the game. 96 pg softbacks describe tabletop armies, but for an RPG you need something a little meatier.

We got 200+ page tome of sorcery for 2nd ed, but that fits into a 128pg soft back for 3rd? Or have they removed information?

 

But how many pages did the v2 corebook use to describe magic? 128 pages on magic is impressive in a corebook, IMO.

Hellebore said:

 

If everything is released as boxed sets it will kill any chance of hardbacks. Soft backs called "Tomes of suchandsuch" are a bit of a joke.

 

The supplements are all going to be boxed sets, aren't they? I doubt we'll be getting hardbacks in them. Not something that bothers me really, but I recognise tastes differ.

 

 Hellebore said:

 

I think one of the problems I have with it is the technical and clinical descriptions of the mechanics. It's one of the reasons I really dislike 4th ed D&D. The emphasis is put on game rather than background, rather than story. Toolkits, innovative tools, this game talk really puts me off. 2nd ed was very laid back with its writing, creating a far more immersive reel. When you are reading descriptions that read like technical manuals it really puts you off and prevents immersiveness.

 

Whether the descriptions of the mechanics are clinical is irrelevent. What is important is whether the mechanics themselves are immersive, something that I didn't really feel was the case with v1 or 2. Looking up a table in a book is always disruptive for me, but I found the flaws in the percentile system annoying as well. As someone who likes dice pools I think that this system may be more to my liking. Unfortunately I'm unlikely to be running a game for a long time...



#17 macd21

macd21

    Member

  • Members
  • 915 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 10:49 PM

Hellebore said:

I'm not sold on the dice mechanics for several reasons. One is the fact that the dice also have failures on them as well as successes. Which means the more of those dice you roll, the higher chance you have of rolling successes as well as failures. Unlike a dice pool system like WoD where you simply roll dice and must equal or beat a specific value. Each additional die simply increases the chances of success. I  don't think that the better you get the worse you get, really works.

That isn't how the v3 system works. The better you get, the better you get, simple as that. Admittedly, the more Reckless you get the more likely you are to get a Bane, but that's appropriate.



#18 Hellebore

Hellebore

    Member

  • Members
  • 556 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 11:02 PM

it's more the mentality and 'atmosphere' those descriptions produce that put me off. It implies a focus on the abstract rules.

Why do we role play? To enjoy game mechanics or tell a story? if the mechanics aren't any good then the story can suffer, but the mechanics aren't the point of the RPG. They are the means to an end, as everyone has been saying regarding why no one should whinge about 3rd ed.

 

Jay's presentation used lots of mechanic jargon. No one 'dynamically throttles their stances' when in combat, they 'change tactics, fight more cautiously or give it their all'. Characters don't have throttles. It's this application of what i would call 'inappropriate' terminology that puts me off. Tell me what you're representing with the rules in a story perspective because that's how the game will be played. Nothing breaks the immersiveness of a game like using abstract gamist terms to describe actions 'i throttle my character's stance back to conservative' is extremely bland compared with 'On second thoughts I become cautious'.

We get told we have 'tools' and 'unique capabilities and options' but that's not how we actually play the game. "I use my character tool options to perform a dynamic stance throttling' is not generally how I or my players approach the game.

I don't really find a point to jargon except to try and wow people with big words.

 

Hellebore

 



#19 Casamyr

Casamyr

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 11:06 PM


 

 

Hellebore said:

 

I hope the books aren't the standard book design for the game. 96 pg softbacks describe tabletop armies, but for an RPG you need something a little meatier.

We got 200+ page tome of sorcery for 2nd ed, but that fits into a 128pg soft back for 3rd? Or have they removed information?

 

 

My understanding is that they've dropped the need for 'big' books for cards. Instead of flicking through a books, you just whip out the card (ccg anyone) you need and check the result.

This has really turned me off the whole concept of a rpg. I like big books, pouring over them night after night reading the rules, reading the fluff. RPG rules aren't really all that had to remember and after several sessions it becomes second nature. I know that in one of the videos, it is mentioned that as you get more used it you'll use the cards less. Why make them in the first place if you intend on the players not using them. Seems like a waste of printing materials or a PR ploy to get non-rpgers (boardgamers or ccgers) to play thei new thing.

The FAQ almost seems like a justification of the new system. People are going to play it, which is cool, people who have never played rpgs are likely to give it a go, which is even better imho, but it's not for me. Most of the new addtions seem to be gimmicks which can be done by a good GM, bits of paper, a pencil, and 2 d10s.

I'll say good on FFG for trying something different. It's just not for me. I'm happy with WFRP 2ed and DH.

 



#20 macd21

macd21

    Member

  • Members
  • 915 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 11:18 PM

Hellebore said:

We get told we have 'tools' and 'unique capabilities and options' but that's not how we actually play the game. "I use my character tool options to perform a dynamic stance throttling' is not generally how I or my players approach the game.

I don't really find a point to jargon except to try and wow people with big words.

He's explaining and justifying the new system. That means mechanics and technical jargon. It isn't about how your approach to the game, it's about how the mechanics work. The new system needs to be explained moreso than the setting.






© 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