Jump to content



Photo

Fun for a night


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 06:54 AM

I played in a demo last friday night, and i have to tell you it was great fun.  But, solely as a diversion.  It is a fun game to laugh at the die rolls, as it has almost limitless combinations.  But all in all it is just dice rolling.  There was no creative discussion at the table on how to tackle the fights or the social encounter.  If it wasnt on a card, no one knew how to think outside the box.  I'm sure there is a leveling system but due to the rush to get the game ready the gm just didnt know anything about it.  It seems like the characters have alot of options already, I cant really see flooding the table with many more cards/ choices.  This would be a game that i would play for a night if everything else fell through or if i was away at a game convention.  but i wouldnt design a campaign around it as i think the luster wears off quickly.  For true campaining I hope that 2e adventures continue to be written.



#2 Necrozius

Necrozius

    Member

  • Members
  • 947 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 07:10 AM

Interesting.

I'll be willing to bet that once the initial wonder at the new mechanics dies down a bit, and the players get used to them, then more in depth role playing could occur.



#3 pumpkin

pumpkin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,112 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 07:26 AM

c8tiff said:

I played in a demo last friday night, and i have to tell you it was great fun.  But, solely as a diversion.  It is a fun game to laugh at the die rolls, as it has almost limitless combinations.  But all in all it is just dice rolling.  There was no creative discussion at the table on how to tackle the fights or the social encounter.  If it wasnt on a card, no one knew how to think outside the box.  I'm sure there is a leveling system but due to the rush to get the game ready the gm just didnt know anything about it.  It seems like the characters have alot of options already, I cant really see flooding the table with many more cards/ choices.  This would be a game that i would play for a night if everything else fell through or if i was away at a game convention.  but i wouldnt design a campaign around it as i think the luster wears off quickly.  For true campaining I hope that 2e adventures continue to be written.

An interesting post.

Are you saying the game prevented creative thinking or didn't help facilitate it? is it possible this was just down to the players or the short demo situation they were in? A designer diary has previously mentioned the "perform a stunt" action that is there to help people think out of the box and give them a constant baseline for "trying anything", did this not see any play at the table?

What were the opinions of the other players at the table? did you discuss it after the game?

The majority of posts about the demos have been very positive, and although you admit you had fun, obviously the statement that you don't think its suitable for campaign raises some concerns, why do you think this, or do you just think 2nd ed is better placed for campaign play? if it is the latter why do you think this is the case?

 

cheers

 

 



#4 Sorenthion

Sorenthion

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 07:31 AM

Funny, my group had the exact opposite experience. We can't wait for the next game. We played for hours as my brother (who was GMing) kept the game going just improvising yet keeping us all interested in the story. The game mechanics work so well with being able to tell a story, more so than any other RPG I have played. We can't wait to get our copy so we can continue our campaign.



#5 Zug

Zug

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 07:44 AM

Wow..complete opposite experience.

Players spent no time  micromanaging squares on the battlefield, and more time getting creative (easier to be creative when you aren't playing mini-chess to navigate AOs).  Players spent no time looking in the book for obscure rules.  GM spent no time drawing on the battlemat and more time describing with flavor.  In a 'normal' rpg, gm has to:

wipe mat

draw new area while constantly referring to a map

count squares to make sure room/area is proper size

draw in terrain

put figures in proper location in room

describe room while players argue over marching order

every turn, player must figure out how to move their miniature to avoid AOs (all while keeping finger on miniature..chess rules! Once you take your hand off, your movement is done)

players must figure out how to achieve flanking with every move

players say '17...hit..for...10 damage' or 'miss'.

WFRP:

put counters on table with range markers

describe room

players figure out cool ways to express their die rolls

The abstract distance, to me, is the biggest plus (odd, because most people seem to like the stance meter more..).  No more 'flanking conga lines' where I have a party of 4-5 players alternating with 4-5 monsters.  Even wargames have evolved past the grid markers and use rulers to calculate moves.  About time rpg's caught up.

Even social encounters are better, imho.  4th edition socials felt more like combat.  The varying results of the dice opens up more of the nuances of a social encounter.

 



#6 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 07:51 AM

Are you saying the game prevented creative thinking or didn't help facilitate it? it didnt help to facilitate it as the players are usually creative, but having such clear cut mechanics in front of them in the form of pre-made cards positioned them to think more in terms of board gaming, maybe even unconsiously.

 

is it possible this was just down to the players or the short demo situation they were in? I'm sure it could be the case for some playtesters as it was really short, but due to the learning curve and the extremely long time it took to resolve combat as all three players were down to the last 2 wounds and all the players had at least one critical, even after heal checks after combat the dm was rolling very very well

 

A designer diary has previously mentioned the "perform a stunt" action that is there to help people think out of the box and give them a constant baseline for "trying anything", did this not see any play at the table? no anything that was not completely understood in game effects was ignored

What were the opinions of the other players at the table? all would definetly play it again, but only if someone else had a copy of the game

did you discuss it after the game? yes and we laughed and laughed about the bad dice rolling and the crits but later as we had time to talk about the future we mostly agreed to play if someone else hosted it but not going to plan to put this on the schedule for a regular game

The majority of posts about the demos have been very positive, and although you admit you had fun, obviously the statement that you don't think its suitable for campaign raises some concerns, why do you think this, or do you just think 2nd ed is better placed for campaign play? if it is the latter why do you think this is the case?  2e is better placed as it is more complete, the combat is faster, the combat is not limited to dice conventions, there is still some strategy as there is more to location than engaged, close, medium and long ranges.

In fact as i write this i am playing DRAGON AGE on the pc and with the attacks and the cool downs/ recharges, it resembles this alot.  But playing alone versus the pc as opposed to playing with a group and reacting to actual npcs given life through the gm it seems different, maybe because i cant "work" the pc the choices are either right or wrong so you have the constant feeling that you just messed up  :-)



#7 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 08:00 AM

Therein lies the Universal Truth the GM can make or break the game! 

Your brother then did a better job than ours, as ours took was stuck in the rules - primarily due to short time to work on it

If the game is exciting for him to run, then his first job is to make it exciting for his players to want him/her to run.

 

All the posts so far have been positive, i dont know if this is due to getting an advance copy of the rules, but at risk of being flamed I stated the problems we had and how we still felt that 2e had more openness between abilities to encourage a lifetime of playing versus what we felt was an afternoon of playing descent the rpg an afternoon or two a year.



#8 dvang

dvang

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,240 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 10:39 AM

It is certainly a valid point and post you have.  I have a feeling some of what you encountered stemmed from two things:

1) It was a demo adventure, that was pretty linear and started with a combat.

2) Everyone was new to the game and still learning the rules.

Combine these two, and I fear there is indeed a danger to think less outside the box and roleplay.  The "current" task of the scenario is to fight the beastmen. The players are still trying to figure out the dice pool, and end up just selecting action cards.

As a GM, I tried to remind players to think creatively and roleplay.  Especially, I reminded them that I awarded [W] Fortune dice on any action that they roleplayed, either describing what they did, how they did it, or yelled/said something.  I was pretty lenient on this (probably more than I would in normal games), but I found it helped a lot to make players pause a moment and go "oh, yeah. I'm not just selecting a card and rolling some dice".  I ended up having players climbing over and under the coach, for example. In my second game, Birgitta tried to stuff Rutger under the coach out of harm's way, before crawling under herself. Then, when the Wargor came close she attempted to "kneecap the Wargor, followed by an uppercut (with longsword) through the chin" when the player selected the Execution shot. And this was from what seemed to be a slightly less RPG experienced group (or at least a less extroverted group). 

The same for the Social Encounter.  I tried to prompt them to roleplay what they were saying/doing, rather than just letting them roll Charm/Intimidate/Winning Smile and taking the results. For the most part, regardless of what they came up with, I awarded a [W] die for the effort.  Again, it *really* seemed to help draw everyone out from thinking entirely about the cards and the dice rolls.

So, I don't think it's really an issue tied to the game itself, as you seem to think.  I think it's due to the two points I posted. I've found, with the increased number of actions, maneuvers, stnaces, costs (Stress/fatigue), etc, that mechanically the players have a lot more options on what they can do in and out of combat, than v2 does.

I would suggest you all try to play another time or two (see if you can get the GM to run the demo again next weekend, for example).  This time around, being more familiar with the rules, see how you can get creative with the action cards and use actions cards that hadn't gotten used before (Assess situation, maybe? Guarded Position? Both great cards, despite not doing damage themselves), or even just make a solid decision for everyone to roleplay the actions. It will feel much more like a natural RPG this way, I expect.



#9 Jericho

Jericho

    Member

  • Members
  • 376 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 11:05 AM

 I'm a V2 GM and a wfrp old timer.

I'm very interested in this new version, but the main thing that puts me off is the action cards becoming creative crutches.

Also, if the cards are not well balanced and gimmicky, that can really kill the simulationnist feel of the game.

The Double Strike card already seems to be posing some problems...

Any additionnal info regarding the actions, their variety and numbers would be welcome !


———
The time of change has come!

#10 Jericho

Jericho

    Member

  • Members
  • 376 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 11:12 AM

dvang said:

Especially, I reminded them that I awarded [W] Fortune dice on any action that they roleplayed, either describing what they did, how they did it, or yelled/said something.  I was pretty lenient on this (probably more than I would in normal games), but I found it helped a lot to make players pause a moment and go "oh, yeah. I'm not just selecting a card and rolling some dice". 

Very good idea !

I'm already thinking of ways to take advantage of the system and cards to enhance our gaming experience.

My strategies can be summed up as such:

- Players must speak in character as much as possible.

- The GM hands out dice modifiers (challenge or misfortune) as he is describing.

- Players must describe their combat or social actions and play the action card (if needed) WITHOUT mentioning the name of the card, or anything specific about it. (That for me is an advantage over V2 where you cannot forgo the step where you state your action, the card makes possible to "state your action" by physically putting the card down (or adding tokens on it))

The gist of the strategy here is to eliminate all gamespeak as much as possible by using the physical elements to make your mechanical situtation clear, but without having this intrude on the storytelling.

Am I dreaming here or is V3 capable of doing that ?


———
The time of change has come!

#11 dvang

dvang

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,240 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 11:42 AM

Thanks.  I also had the intention of doling out <P> Challenge and [B] Misfortune dice while describing what they were for.  I did that a few times, but found in the demo setting, and combat, that it would take too long to do that for everything.  So, it only occured if it was something unusual or new that gave the die.  I think that's a better tool for Social Encounters and Story mode, or for the initial rolls against the Wargor or other Boss beasty to heighten the effect of how powerful and dangerous they are.

Certainly, playing the card and describing the action without using the name printed on the card is doable.

So, while I think you *could* do it as you described, I think combat might feel a big sluggish if you as the GM had to dole out each <P> or [B] for every roll.  I think it can work for the initial attacks against the foes, but afterwards just allow the players to make thier dice pools with the known constants ... and only hand+describe if those negative dice change for a reason (such as it starts raining, its a different foe, etc). My opinions, anyway. I ended up dropping a lot of my end in that regard, in favor of suppring PC-side roleplaying with awarding the [W] dice.



#12 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 17 November 2009 - 03:33 AM

Thanks for the great ideas Dvrang, as the players would eventually get accustomed to the cards and would know the results of the dice better and to try to limit the times that they just say the RESULT and the name of the card title in use, i love the idea of adding fortune and challenge dice - especially to remain in character and to try to roleplay the encounter



#13 phobiandarkmoon

phobiandarkmoon

    Member

  • Members
  • 287 posts

Posted 17 November 2009 - 03:54 AM

For those who said they has the 'opposite' experience - I take it you meant you fully enjoyed the experience? As taken literally, you are saying you had no fun playing the demo but are planning to run long term games with 3rd ed...



#14 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 17 November 2009 - 05:57 AM

no i had fun, but dont forsee this as being a campaign, more like a diversion from regular campaigns.  The reasons are that the dice convention employed means that the players are more busy laughing at the poor die rolls than seriously staying in character, and the players tend to limit themselves to the choices in the cards than to thinking out of the box.  I personally wont invest the $100, i'll let someone else do and just play when the stars are in alignment or i am off at a convention.  2e is more complete, enables use of a mat and miniatures so that you can get bonuses for more than one npc on a pc, as opposed to the ranges in 3e.  Leveling up has got to be better in 2e as opposed to more of the stupid colorful dice.



#15 Sinister

Sinister

    Member

  • Members
  • 427 posts

Posted 17 November 2009 - 08:51 AM

 

See for me I look at this game in the opposite light of 4E.  I'm a fan of DnD and I happen to like 4E, but EVERYTHING about the game is just a tactical decision about combat. Position, effects, conditions, to hit rolls, combat advantage, etc...This makes the game a fun exercise in character combat but does little in the way of giving a cinematic feel.

This game is more about crafting a cinematic scene around the game. The dice aren't distracting, they are a mechanic to build upon the RPG experience. 

 



#16 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 17 November 2009 - 09:09 AM

i was not referring to the worst game in the history of rpgs, dnd 4e.  I was referring to the better 2e version of warhammer fantasy.  But if you are open to better rpgs as warhammer 3e is alot better than dnd 4e, then i will be happy to play at the same table.  Welcome to the great games that FFG publishes!



#17 Sinister

Sinister

    Member

  • Members
  • 427 posts

Posted 17 November 2009 - 09:29 AM

Lol,

To each their own. I find 4E gets bashing from people that never give it an honest chance.

My favorite argument is the WoW argument. I ask if the person plays wow? Yes. Did you play Wow for a long time? Yes. So you are mad a 4E for being WoW but you have spent at least 100 dollars or more on WoW, thinking it's a good game? Yes.

And YES I will go on record saying IT is WAY better than 3X. I'm so happy that game is less played around here.   Although I think AD&D might be as good as 4E.



#18 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 17 November 2009 - 10:21 AM

oh i gave it the old college try, twice and i ran the game for 3 months, the story was excellent, but the game rules were terrible.

I never played WOW so i have no comparison, nor do i ask if anyone has played it, as it is irrelevant.

I am playing Dragon Age now and it is a wonderful game, even though its mechanics remind me on warhammer 3e.  So why the difference is like/ dislike. It must be because warhammer 2e is great by itself, if they wanted to make a new game then call it something else....



#19 dvang

dvang

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,240 posts

Posted 17 November 2009 - 03:01 PM

c8tiff said:

no i had fun, but dont forsee this as being a campaign, more like a diversion from regular campaigns.  The reasons are that the dice convention employed means that the players are more busy laughing at the poor die rolls than seriously staying in character, and the players tend to limit themselves to the choices in the cards than to thinking out of the box.  I personally wont invest the $100, i'll let someone else do and just play when the stars are in alignment or i am off at a convention.  2e is more complete, enables use of a mat and miniatures so that you can get bonuses for more than one npc on a pc, as opposed to the ranges in 3e.  Leveling up has got to be better in 2e as opposed to more of the stupid colorful dice.

Well, I'm sorry you don't forsee it as being worth a campaign.  Let me suggest a few answers to your issues:

The reasons are that the dice convention employed means that the players are more busy laughing at the poor die rolls than seriously staying in character

Hmm, interesting. I didn't see this, so it was an interesting dynamic of the group you played with. I will say that every RPG has moments where players laugh at dice rolls, whether they be good or bad.  The GM should run with it.  Come up with a creative and interesting narrative for the quirky results. Draw the players back into the game by making the roll a story.  Or, don't forget you can award fortune points for good roleplaying. Remind the players that you will do this, and get them to make a story out of the roll.  Again, drawing them back into the story.  Of course, you could also penalize the group by adding to the party tension if they get too out of character laughing about the roll too.

and the players tend to limit themselves to the choices in the cards than to thinking out of the box.

I think I already covered this previously. First, the cards are shiny and new, and unfamiliar. So, yeah, they will make the players focus a bit more on what they do, rather than how they do it.  Given time to get comfortable with the various action cards, I think most players will get more comfortable using them in creative ways.  Also, give the players incentives (either with [W] or fortune points) to describe the actions being performed with the action card, rather than letting the player just play it down and roll.

2e is more complete

It depends on what you mean. It has been around longer, and has more expansions... so yes there's more material for it.

enables use of a mat and miniatures so that you can get bonuses for more than one npc on a pc

Mat and miniatures take up a lot of space and time. While I myself have been a big fan of mats and minis and grid positioning, I found the abstract movement quite refreshing and quick to handle combat.  As for bonuses. There is a maneuver called "Assist" which provides a [W] fortune die to another ally involved in the same engagement. It's a maneuver, so you can attack too ... thus, you can get bonuses. As well, the GM is free to award [W] for outnumbering, or [B] for being outnumbered, etc. So, 3e does not have a restriction on giving bonuses for more than one npc on a pc (or vice versa).

Leveling up has got to be better in 2e as opposed to more of the stupid colorful dice

Leveling up in 2e is more than "more of the stupid colorful dice."  You can gain stats, action cards, talents, skills, wounds, fortune dice, and stance pieces. Yes, some of those provide more dice.  More dice is the equivalent to gaining % points in a 2e stat or to use a skill/stat.  Action cards and talent give a PC more options on what they can do, without giving any more dice.  Skills can not only provide a die, but also the ability to actually use a skill (you can't used advanced skills until they have been trained). Wounds are obvious (and are not dice).  Stance pieces allow a PC to move farther in a stance direction.  In a way, I suppose it is more dice ... it doesn't change the total dice, but allows an additional of the color to replace a characteristic die.  So, all in all, 3e leveling is about more than "more colorful dice", and I dare say you have more options on what to buy with your XP in 3e than you do with 2e.

I hope this gives you a few more ideas about how the game can be run and can work well as a campaign.



#20 c8tiff

c8tiff

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 18 November 2009 - 02:48 AM

thanks.  I played Dragon Age again last night to find out why i liked it better, although the mechanics are very familiar with warhammer 3e.

The social interactions in the game are superb, none better than any ive seen so far, much like the table rpg games when i am the DM.

the fights are tough, tactical and very challenging, which is not tactical enough in warhammer 3e, they are challenging and you can laugh when it looks like you pulled a hammy trying to aggressively attack but there is definetly not enough tactical movement in 3e.

To me the game is enjoyable enough to play, but not to be the one to invest in it and have it sit on my shelf.  I buy almost everything that FFG produces and this time i will actually pass.

 






© 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