Jump to content

Herr Arnulfe

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    389

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Herr Arnulfe

  1. Posted

    Sarim Rune said:

    Everybody can have a valid opinion.  Some people like their tactical combat. 

    I, like some here, do not.  I find it interesting that some people can be so opposite. 

    Isn't it great that we live in a world where everybody is different? I've spent 18 years learning how to retain atmosphere during tactical scenes. It's not something that every GM can do, but once you figure it out you don't want to go back.

  2. Posted

    Sinister said:

     Well I asked a pointed question about the form description for V3 being called a "boardgame" and was instantly accused of being a fanboi.  The operator there did listen to people's criticism of such a description and changed it, which was indeed very much appreciated. Still is was very clear to see I stumbled across a site with 2nd edition fans defending their turf.

    Being called a fanboi right out of the gate, however, did little to make me think it was a critical discussion site.  Granted since then, I've had some very good discussions there with both pro and anti - v3 players over at STS and they all seem like basically good folk.

    As for feeding corporate greed, well let's just say I'm very glad FFG is doing the game instead of other parties, same goes for Blood Bowl Online.

    Sorry to nitpick, but the v3 forum description called it a "boardgame-RPG hybrid", presumably due to the boardgame-like components. If someone called you a fanboy, that was a mild personal attack and so it was probably moderated as such.

    I mainly wanted to defend StS, since I have over 1,000 posts there and Hedge Wizard's comment about the site seemed to indicate a lack of familiarity with the forum culture.

    Re: corporate greed, the accusations aren't unique to FFG. GR/BI's early v2 releases were criticised on StS for being "churned out", and many people felt they were deliberately incomplete to necessitate supplements. It's somwehat common during these types of rants for people to make generalized comments about company fanboys. If you enjoy the community, you learn to live with it.

    P.S. Bloodbowl Online rocks! I love the fact that you pay a $40 one-time payment and receive free updates and server access. That's the sort of corporate behaviour that makes me want to give them more of my money.

  3. Posted

    HedgeWizard said:

     

    I didn't mean to suggest there wasn't trolling or negative behavior on both sides. It's all died down over here to a relatively sane amount. Meanwhile, people are still going at it on STS. But where I continue to see the bulk of nasty things being said is from the folks calling buyers of the new edition "sheeple" "dumb" "ignorant" "Fanbois" (still not sure why they adopted that spelling, but whatever).  

    I was fairly skeptical throughout the leadup, but I was always willing to listen and give the benefit of the doubt until I tried the system. I was regularly branded any of the above. Good times. 

    StS is a site for critical discussion, not cheerleading. It's a site where products are both slagged and praised, and posters tend to be very critical of corporate greed and the consumers who feed it. I'm not saying this is necessarily so in FFG's case, but surely you can understand how some people might look at the v3 development model with a certain degree of cynicism?

  4. Posted

    Emirikol said:

    There's way too much crap.  That's why I'm using DOc Cthulhu's character sheet.  Just make a mark on your character sheet for fatigue, reg.wounds, stress, and stance..plus sockets on the side of the CHARACTER SHEET for talents instead of having all that other crap out there.  Screw chits!  I"m with you guys, I like my table to be taken up by pizza boxes, visuals and character sheets..not chits.  Now the cards..that hasn't changed much since playing D&D 4e.  In fact, our goal is to condense standard actions on to a SMALL sheet of paper instead of 6 differen't cards. 

    No house rules.  Just a character sheet.

    Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give that a try when we play the Gathering Storm adventure in the new year.

  5. Posted

    HedgeWizard said:

     

    I personally don't see why adding a (modified) range implementation from another system would be very difficult or time consuming. You already know what the close, med, long, ext range value of weapons are from prior incarnations or other systems. Use those, add a movement characteristic to your PCs (possibly modified by agility) and away you go.  If you want to incorporate special moves (like acrobatics style D&D moves around enemies) they should also be fairly easy. 

     

     

    As I mentioned earlier, it's not just a matter of time but also of table space. If you're familiar with my fan community involvement, you'll be aware that I have no problem investing time to houserule WFRP (although admittedly there are other things I'd rather spend my time writing). To play v3, I'm forced to make a choice between filling up my table space with minis and terrain, or filling it up with cards and dice - but not both. I don't see how this can be easily solved with houserules. There are lots of things I like about v3 (and some things I dislike) but I do wish the system wasn't asking me to make that particular choice.

  6. Posted

    szlachcic said:

    Obviously Ekek and Herr Arnulfe both have different preferences when it comes to movement systems.  I seriously don't have a problem with that at all.  I do however have a problem with people trying to say that the system is incapable of dealing with more complex situations b/c I don't think that is the case at all.  If you don't like the system and don't want to play the game that is fine too.  I don't see the need for any further discussion if that is the case.

    Clearly you do have a problem with our playstyles, or else you wouldn't be so defensive. Calling v3's movement system "abstract" is misleading, because the chit-stacking is actually more onerous than measuring distances. v3's movement system is better described as "compact". Abstract would be making X's on a piece of paper, or simply describing positions without any visuals at all.

  8. Posted

    szlachcic said:

    Actually you could take a lot of that into account, just use a map or the terrain.  It is up to the players to use what is availble, such as the crates or the elevation of the roof, to thier advantage (perform a stunt card).  I am sorry that my alternative wouldn't "measure up," but your example is laughably complex for what I am looking for in an RPG.  Like I said before, if I wanted to play a tactical miniatures game I would do so.

    So what you're proposing is exactly what I did, except replacing real space with chits separating each combatant? I don't see how that would've made the fight run more smoothly - it would've only slowed things down.

  9. Posted

    szlachcic said:

    Edit:  Ok, I have been thinking about your situation, you could easily make the barge itself a terrain card or give it attributes as such.  As a note, anything I say below is just off the cuff, I am sure it could be modified easily.  We could say the barge counts as medium range to move from one side to the other (so two maneovres to engage someone coming over the rails).  Then we could say it is long range from stem to stern.  If you layout your range markers it shouldn't be to hard to move around without having a problem.  Your navigation could be done by whoever is steering the ship.  Have them take an appropriate skill check anytime they get near the shallows and use a progress tracker to increment when the ship moves (every 3rd space counts as shallows or something more irregular).  If there is low light then have characters add misfortune dice when appropriate.  So you see, it really wouldn't be hard to do as that literally took me a minute to think up (although it is a little rough and could be fine tuned).  The great thing about the system is that it is so open and I don't have to worry about all these little details as the system can handle them quite well with a few guidelines put in place, some skill checks, and some modifiers that I can determine all on the fly.

    That wouldn't take into account the elevated roof of the barge, the mast, the crates stacked on the foredeck (which could be used either for cover or high ground) and the chaotic close-quarters scrum that ensued once a few of the mutants managed to get onboard. There was also a "drift" mechanic that affected the barge's movement if at least one PC didn't continue poling every round. I like to put a lot of time into making my fights tactically interesting. No offense, but your 5-minute alternative wouldn't measure up.

  12. Posted

    szlachcic said:

    Lol, this example illustrates exactly why I don't play other RPGs, I would never want to be the GM that has to run something like that.  I am sure there would be a satisfactory way to handle a similar situation within the WFRPv3 ruleset without getting into such intricate detail.  Which IMO bogs down the game and prevents it from actually being fun.  If you like these kinds of things then maybe stay away from this game, but I will leave my measuring for Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

    Well the players loved it, so I must've done something right. happy.gif

  13. Posted

    valvorik said:

    I agree that if you want a very terrain-rich game that the system doesn't work for you but you can bring a bit of terrain in easily.

    Oh, abstract movement is perfectly fine for having a couple of terrain pieces. Where it breaks down is when you have a gang of mutants circling the PCs' barge on rowboats, throwing grapples and boarding from different sides as the PCs run around trying to repel them, meanwhile a Necron Heavy Destroyer is following behind the barge hacking at its rudder with a 2-handed axe. Add in the shallows that need to be navigated, and the limited light radius from the lantern hung on the bow, and it gets pretty complex. In a fight like that, placing chits between each combatant to indicate relative ranges is actually more work than measuring movements.

  14. Posted

    boggle said:

    I like the fact that things are a little grey because it gives me back the power.. Something using a grid takes away. I sometimes feel it becomes a them and me situation i hate that...

    I have always wanted the game to be collaboration of efforts from everyone i believe this system achieves that.

    The abstract movement adds more to the whole experience than it removes by being tactical..

    By all means, people should try it before dismissing it. I tried it, and I've dismissed it (for my own games, anyway). There's too much going on in my combat encounters to handle everything satisfactorily with abstract movement. It's part of the reason why I won't run Burning Wheel either.

  15. Posted

    Ekek said:

    Hopefully, FFG will release an optional non-abstract movement system. If they do, I'll definitely buy back in.

    I can relate. Setting up tabletop scenes with terrain etc. for important encounters is essential to the way I run WFRP. However, I'm not sure v3 is compatible with scaled distances unless you have a massive table. I regularly pull out my 4x4 terrain board during WFRP sessions, but there's no space on the table after the cards etc. A 25mm scaled combat system would require a more compact user interface. However, I can totally understand the appeal of v3's movement system for people who've never used minis in WFRP, and incidentally, those are the same people who would've been most likely to find v1/v2's less gamist combat system a bit dull. So v3 is bringing players into the "WFRP family" by catering to a different playstyle.

  16. Posted

    Mordenthral said:

    It would be nice to know when they were playtesting if 85% of their attacks connected, like seems to be happening for me. I recall starting characters in 'lesser' editions could expect only about 33% success rate on unmodified (vacuum) attacks.

    85% sounds about right for PCs. It was lower for NPCs, because only the PCs were using active defenses. The higher to-hit rates canceled out the additional time spent on die-pools, so all-in-all, combat seemed to last about the same amount of time as v2.

  17. Posted

    Necrozius said:

     

    Someone here mentioned that they wanted to write up a scenario involving the Von Carsteins. Are there already any famous published campaigns involving vampires and their ilk?

     

     

    I don't know how famous it is, but the Thousand Thrones campaign for v2 includes numerous vampires, and the fan-made TTT Expansions are elaborating upon the vampire-related plots (all major bloodlines) in exhaustive detail. However, it's a long-term project, and it probably wouldn't be very useful to v3 players anyway.

  19. Posted

    Allavandrel said:

     

    Thanks for the reference, Herr Arnulfe! I just looked it up as I have never connected that sentence to equipment costs in the v2 core book. The Armaments Surtax doubles the prices on all weapons, armour and horses, so I guess the prices on these items in all the other books should be doubled. We have never played with double prices, and I believe this make the prices even more out-balanced. There is no mentioning of gunpowder weapons in particular.

     

     

    Actually, the "true" prices for armaments would be halved (hence the burgeoning illegal weapons trade). The "shelf price" for buying weapons from a smith remains as listed in the corebook and OWA (unless you're a noble, in which case you're exempt from the surtaxes).

  22. Posted

    Zug said:

     

    I should donate one of my players to you..his idea of 'intrigue' is an assassination.  Other 4 players are usually struggling to reign him in.

    I'd have him begging for a combat scene after 2-3 sessions. And then when he finally got one, it would be a tactically rich scene with floorplans and minis that would leave him sated for the next 2-3 sessions of intrigue.

  23. Posted

    Zug said:

     

    At least with abstract distances, you don't need to worry about scale :-P .  100'x100' areas were a freaking nightmare to draw out back to back (dwarves were short, dammit...why did their halls have to be so **** big).  It'll be nice to even just sketch a box, stick minis in, give relative distance and call it 'done' (glad 3e didnt pitch the minis...I am partial to having that part of the visual).

    I'm not saying one method is better than the other, just that there's room for tactical combat even in a ROLE-playing game, especially if you're running an intrigue-heavy adventure where combats are considered a major event.

  24. Posted

    Zug wrote:

    "...the point is that a ROLE playing game (which is what this is), should NOT be concerned about movement tactics. That is not cinematic. That is not 'story'. That is minutia which only gets in the way of the story."
     

    I usually prefer having minis indicating where everyone is positioned, so we don't have to spend time during combats describing it verbally. Leaves more time for roleplaying. Also, WFRP was not traditionally a grid-based combat system - it assumed freeform movement using a ruler when necessary. The grid was added for v2, in order to ride on D&D3e's coattails. But you can easily remove the grid from v2 because there aren't any AoOs or other grid-dependent mechanics.

    I should also add that the amount of roleplaying expected by players in combat is inversely related to the amount of combat in the campaign. If you run a game with few combats and lots of intrigue, then players are more likely to hunger for tactical gameplay when combat does arise.

    EDIT: stupid quoting code

×
×
  • Create New...