Herr Arnulfe
-
Content Count
389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Herr Arnulfe
-
-
It's starting to look like Monster Threat Level is v3's version of the Low Skill Problem in v2. Critics insist that it's a problem with the system, meanwhile v3 defenders claim that the critics just aren't trying hard enough to make it work.
-
Necrozius said:
True, but in my opinion, a GM should make sure to always include story hooks that give the chance for each party member to take the spotlight, despite their stats and action cards.
EDIT: I don't mean ALL at once. That's some serious Captain Planet sh** goin' on there...
Yes, I'm just thinking that Scribe-type skills are more difficult for new GMs to invent interesting challenges for. Oftentimes the Scribe challenge is reduced to: "roll vs. Read/Write to understand this manuscript". Compared to combat, this often doesn't seem very interesting. If the rulebook doesn't provide guidance for GMs to design better academic-type "fantasy CoC" challenges, then at least having a few Action Cards might be a start.
-
Necrozius said:
The Scribe should get the spotlight too when their skills (whatever they may be) can come in handy.
Perhaps what's needed are some research, lore and forgery-related Action Cards to make the Scribe's unique skills a bit more "juicy".
-
LeBlanc13 said:
Some creatures are hungry and only seek to disable their opponents. You assume one party member is enough to fill and satisfy the gullet of the creature chasing the party.
It's a funny cliche, but it doesn't work in all situations. I've seen in movies where creatures can swallow humans whole. The rest of the party just delays the inevitable... or just dies tired.
The only time I could justify pulling off a TPK using carvivorous creatures was in the v2 adventure Barony of the Damned when the PCs were surrounded by hundreds of Ghouls, challenged the Cannibal Knight to a duel, and then cheated...
Otherwise, I've always been able to justifiably give the PCs a chance to avoid TPKs involving carnivorous monsters. Of course, it's easier with Fate Points.
-
LeBlanc13 said:
What about running into creatures way above your capabilities that are faster than your party?
TPK.... End of story. Not fun
The slowest PC gets eaten and rolls up a new character.
-
Lexicanum said:
In the end, you won't be leveraging the strengths of the system, which as written encourage the GM to change things on the fly.
Personally, I enjoy changing things on the fly occasionally, but I wouldn't want it to be a constant requirement. I'm definitely not Gamist, BTW. So the odd statline anomaly is fine with me, as long as it's the exception rather than the rule.
-
MSpookshow said:
There are many narrative-based systems on the market today, and some of them are quite popular. These games are the polar opposite of systems like D&D, where everything is ruled, stat'd out, and codified. I like to think that WFRP3 sits comfortably somewhere between these two styles. Personally, I find it insanely liberating as a GM.
I would point out the difference between rules-light and Narrativist. Some Narrativist games are also quite rules-heavy (e.g. Burning Wheel). D&D4 is probably rules-heavy and Gamist, whereas WFRP v3 is rules-medium and also Gamist, but with Narrativist aspirations.
-
Llanwyre said:
If you have a variety of social, investigation, and combat encounters, it's easy enough for every player to shine, even if some players are drastically better at one kind of action than another. Of course, I also just write scenarios, NPCs, and opportunities for individual characters if I feel they haven't had the spotlight on them in awhile. If I know that there's a player who's likely to feel less involved in a combat-heavy scenario, I make sure to put in some things s/he can do wellobservation checks, negotiations with key NPCs, or straight RP opportunities. That's part of my job as GM (at least as I see it.) I make sure the work is divided up amongst the players.
I think Machpants does have a point, and it's one which underlies the biggest challenge that WFRP v3 faces walking the line between boardgame and RPG. Much of the players' enjoyment in v3 comes from playing Action Cards (or "kewl powerz", as it were). For combat situations, it's easy to design Action Cards because combat is by its very nature like a boardgame. However, once you begin making Action Cards for non-combat situations, you run the risk of limiting RP because symbol-coded cards can be fairly restrictive, and many non-combat RPG activities are distinctly not like a boardgame. So for players who enjoy v3 primarily for the Action Cards, combat is likely to be their main focus.
-
Machpants said:
Thanks for your opinions about RPG design and balance, very interesting. Irrelevant to my question, but still interesting
In my experience, the magic-using careers' special abilities were offset by the amount of time they needed to spend channeling. In other words, they'll spend 2 rounds standing there winding up a spell while the other PCs are doing cool stuff, then the priest/wizard gets his one big shebang, and hopefully the combat isn't over yet when it goes off.
-
Sinister said:
There's some truth in this, what I might call excitement. IF you can make the diplomacy as exciting as combat that's your goal. If it's just a dice roll, well the players would probably rather have the excitement of the combat. This is where it takes a clever, and willing, GM to go that extra mile because combat is just so much easier to plan than:
"You approach the elector count 's manor knowing that his armies will descend upon your friends unless you can sway him. You must convince his steward to give you an audience, then you must convince his snivelling little weasel of a brother, who hates you after what you did at the battle of black hills, that your course of action is the best course of action. Then of course the elector count's wife, the lost love of the human coachmen in the party. Can he convince her to put aside the spurnning he gave her all those years ago? What of the elector's count's advisor, wasn't that they guy you saw stealing the von carstien ring from the Strigany last week? Yes it's him, he may be a vampire! That would explain the servant girl wearing a scarf you just saw....."
Right on, excellent example. As someone else mentioned above, I applaud v3's usage of Social Actions because they go halfway towards providing a gameable framework for non-combat challenges (although some Basic Social Actions would be nice). But ultimately, the scenario must provide engaging "story meat" in order for social encounters to be exciting. Watching the Elector Count's disposition gradually improve along the Progress Track as you play your Social Action cards won't cut it - there would also need to be tangible rewards and complications at various points along the Progress Track that the players can react to in-character.
For a scenario to be truly balanced though, the GM / writer would have to allow for relevant application of other skills like Tradecraft, Knowledge, Survival etc., not just combat and social conflict. It can be difficult to hit all the keys at once, but in many ways, that's what sandbox WFRP demands.
-
Lexicanum said:
Merely having an option of going the "diplomatic" route isn't equalize playtime. If the game is truly balanced the rules would have to provide penalties or incentives to balance things out.
Furthermore, the diplomatic route would also have to be interesting. If it just comes down to rolling a few Diplomacy tests while you roleplay your character, most gamers would probably prefer a combat encounter instead. Social challenges are far more dependent on the GM / writer providing an assortment of moving parts, complications, rewards and interesting NPC dynamics, whereas for combat challenges you can fire-and-forget, for the most part.
-
Sinister said:
Sadly very few games focus on non combat conflict. I think AD&D birthright, and legend of the five rings do a good job bringing politics and social courtly behavoir into the game. Call of Cthulhu brings the whole you can't win conflict. Most games however, combat is the central theme, which is too bad, because with the right amount of creativity there's all sorts of non combat conflicts you can create. The problem is, that all other conflicts tend to take more story elements to craft, while combat doesn't even need context or backstory, you just throw orcs out and say "fight". I think because it's so easy, it creates lazy GMs that the industry caters to.
You're right, combat-driven scenarios are easy to design (and therefore fast & cheap to develop) so it's in the industry's best interests for gamers to remain content with the "Kill X, find a clue, then Kill Y" formula. And in most cases, gamers are happy to oblige.
-
Lexicanum said:
Yet an imbalance can crop up in "balanced systems". A character that's strongly invested in social attributes will be next to useless in a combat-centric game. So in the end I reject the notion of a "balanced" game, because balance can only be achieved if you severely limit the definition of balance to a narrowly-defined set of activities. So in open-ended scenarios it becomes impossible to prove it is balanced.
Balance can also be achieved by providing equal screen time to all PC specialties, but few GMs or scenarios actually accomplish this. More often, combat is the main challenge and other challenges are relegated to window-dressing. D&D gets around this by acknowledging that combat is the primary focus of every PC whilst other skills are merely tertiary. WFRP wants to be more of a sandbox game where talking, stealth and fighting are all equally valid options, but in practice the books tend to favour combat as the most interesting solution to most problems.
-
Sinister said:
If he has other skills and abilities, then he is balanced. That's my point. He doesn't have to be as good as others at some things, but he has to be better than others, at other things. That's balanced.
As for the comic relief, anyone can be comic relief with the right roleplaying, so why punish a particular player or character?
Well, in some games the Fat Kid's haggling, evaluation and blathering skills might not be very useful, so other PCs might wonder what he's actually contributing. On paper he's balanced, but in reality he's often not.
I think there's also something to be said for comic relief characters actually being mechanically disadvantaged in key ways. The lowly Peasant who's mechanically equivalent to everyone else isn't really an object of pathos; you must suspend disbelief to make him so. Likewise, mechanically balanced Elves aren't actually the mysterious and smug master race; you must convey that through RP instead.
-
Sinister said:
Now it's nice and wonderful for people to protest and say "I really roleplay, I'd play the fat kid" but the truth is from a game standpoint your a shmuck if you do. From a game standpoint all you do is hurt the party. You roll dice and fail much much more than your teamates. From a roleplaying standpoint playing a failure might be fun for 1 or 2 sessions, but by session 10 if you aren't annoyed you're crazy.
I think a great deal depends on the type of campaign and the player in question. In some games, the Fat Kid might have other skills or abilities that benefit the party, or perhaps he can deliver comic relief and Warhammery pathos on a consistent basis.
-
Well, the nice thing about the Warhammer setting is that beneath the Alphabet Soup of canon are many well-realized ideas for making the setting elements believable and coherent. For instance, readers with the patience to read through the Undead canon will find that Vampires are truly Evil, but yet their motives always seem believable. This makes for some great moral / ethical ambiguity that can fuel roleplaying. Ditto with Chaos. The problem is that you can't convey this in 140 words without sounding like a WH fanboy. People really need to immerse themselves in the material to appreciate the nuances, and to the casual observer WH doesn't seem nuanced at all; it just looks like generic Dark Fantasy. So my advice is to pick one element (e.g. Vampires) and convey its multitude of RP possibilities in Warhammer.
-
Lexicanum said:
So what I'd like is to hear ideas on how to effectively sell the setting (WFRP) to new players.
For me one of the selling points of the setting is just how intricate and varied many parts of it are. So I have a tendency to become long-winded and focus on the myriad details that make up the setting. Which just leaves new comers drowning in a sea of details, and it doesn't really paint a very compelling picture for them unless they piece it all together.
So I'd like to get tips from others on what key points or descriptions summarize the awesome that is Warhammer without becoming too verbose.
The Warhammer setting itself is nothing special. It's a fantasy mash-up that borrows from all over the place to provide GMs with a great deal of flexibility. The only really unique thing about the WH setting is Chaos, and WFRP has always been wary of delving too deeply into Chaos-related material that doesn't link directly with WFB.
I'd focus more on selling the genre you're playing. Are you playing a campaign of cult intrigue and terror? If so, then use your 140 words to talk about the Old World's fantasy-horror backdrop of corrupt officials, insidious Chaos taint and darkened alleyways. Are you playing a more combat-focused, wilderness-romping campaign? Then use your 140 words to praise Warhammer's unique usage of skulls and spiky bitz.
-
Armoks said:
Troll has got 7 soak, 19 Wounds and 2 AG (thus it's small probability that he'll act first). A character with a Double Strike action card can simply deal 15 damage, plus boons effect. Think about it. Usually there are 3 PCs, on average each Player can deal from 10 to 15 damage per hit with about 90% success rate.
Assuming that River Troll act last in the round he'll receive 3*(12-7) damage (12 is an average damage that Player can deal without boons effects) so when a Troll's round will come he'll has got only 5 wounds.
Sounds like 2-3 Trolls might be a more apt challenge for starting v3 parties.
-
Shadowspawn said:
It is disappointing that this kind of thing wasn't found during playtesting. Especially since presenting the PCs with a meaningful combat challenge can be so important to advancing a story.
It's also possible that playtesting aided the designers in achieving the threat level they wanted for v3.
-
Rat Catcher said:
Interesting point, would people complain about the lack of this or that, if the 3ed was in reality the first exposure we'd had to Warhammer? Probs not.
Probably not, but then FFG/GW had a choice between standing on the shoulders of the giants that came before, or doing their own thing, and they chose the latter.
-
Necrozius said:
Where do you suppose mathboys and mathnards fit on the Geek Hierarchy?
Probably just below Fanboys and Grognards respectively, wherever that places them.
-
Necrozius said:
I prefer playing RPGs with average people, not math grognards.
Or mathnards, as it were.
What about math fanboys? Mathboys?
-
Daedalum said:
This game is gonna appeal to visual and kinesthetic intelligences in a way few RPGs have in the past. The dice pool may even work for rythmic intelligences.
Visual-spatial intelligence I can see, but kinesthetic intelligence is "body smarts" (e.g. such as an athlete would have) and rhythmic intelligence is "musical aptitude". So I think those would be a bit of a stretch.
-
DagobahDave said:
I think they're referred to as 'eagles' in the text, but I'm getting old and can't be sure of anything any more.
It's possible they're referred to as eagles; I couldn't find it with a quick search. I was mainly thinking in terms of what they "should" be called. At my table, they will be called griffons.
Wizards and Priests
in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
Posted
Necrozius said:
Yeah, I agree, actually.
Perhaps the actions don't have to necessarily be focused on writing abilities or forgery, but ones which take advantage of the unremarkable nature of these archetypes.
Like a "Face in the Crowd" action, which allows PCs with the relevant Traits on their career cards (academic, menial etc...) to benefit from their mundane appearance to better use stealth or blather under certain circumstances.
I guess it depends on whether you feel that academic pursuits are fundamentally boring and ungameable in RPGs. I don't believe they are, having enjoyed several CoC adventures involving Library Use etc., but CoC adventures do take a lot of work to write.