Jump to content

alfonzo54

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About alfonzo54

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
  1. New Zombie said: anti-piracy probably wasn't the starting point for the design decision. but it certainly was a by-product of the choice. pre guides... not having the individual cards made the game impossible to play even with pdf versions of the rule books. i can't believe anyone went to the extent of scanning all the wound, action, talent, career, party, insanty, miscast, mutation, item, location cards and trackers. even if they did it would cost more to print the things than buy the game and they'd still need to buy the dice. i doubt that many people played pirated copies. compare this to non component driven games where you can play with a pdf of the core rule books. then the guides arrived... i don't get these. i can't imagine playing the 'lite' version. i'm sure these have been pirated, but i don't think there would be many people who are playing using them in isolation. if anything it may have been a master stroke by FFG, get the game out there, pirates grab it - try it, realise it is a great game but hamstrung without the components so they make an informed decision to purchase the game with components. I don't see how it's more difficult to put down flat cards on your scanner than slice up a book. I can't imagine trying to play a pirated copy with printed materials but I'd assume that lots of people looking for this stuff have laptops at the game table and would use a fan-made dice roller or get the app. For lots of the components you could just write it on paper (like the lite version). As for tracking tokens, lots of gamers have tokens of various sorts lying around or you could just go to the bank with $1 and get two rolls of pennies. Also a lot of pirates are just nuts. They don't do it because they want the game, they do it because they can. I don't know if the guides were planned from the beginning or if they were a response to a vocal minority of the player base that doesn't seem to like the game anyway so I can't really comment on them. I don't see what purpose they serve other than being an out of date compilation of material, like an annual. I wouldn't want to play the lite version either. It seems like a hassle.
  2. Venthrac said: You might be too young to remember this, but there was a time when many RPGs were sold in boxes. If you go back to the golden years of TSR, which I would define as the 1980s, they did pretty much all of their RPGs as boxed sets. West End Games also did some good boxed sets for their Ghostbusters and Torg RPGs. There were many more, as well. I guess role-playing games are like fashion - everything comes around again if you wait long enough. I started gaming when I was 14 (in the late 90s) but I'm pretty familiar with the history of the hobby and I was going to say the same thing. I think FFG, being a boardgame company, is uniquely suited to produce boxed games. If piracy was an influence on the design then it didn't work. Everything important was scanned within a week of release and then they put out .pdf books with all the info needed to play anyway.
  3. There was this BBC comedy called 'Allo 'Allo set in France during WWII. To differentiate the languages spoken on the show the characters spoke English with the most outrageously stereotypical accents of their nationality. This is how Warhammer languages work in my head.
  4. So the solution to the "difficulty" of getting in to this game is to make a smaller, incomplete box set that tells people to either buy a larger, complete box set with repeated components or a series of hard cover books and vaults with repeated components. And people are expected to pay for this. Or not, if you live in a magical fairy world where rpg companies can afford loss leaders.
  5. Doc, the Weasel said: Really, the fix was raising the CR from 2 to 3. Fast hand weapon equivalent for cheaper than a hand weapon was bad. CR 2 is what put it over the top.
  6. schoon, those action cards on your website are tiny. Any chance of uploading larger versions? I found your website over a year ago and it's good to see that you're on this forum and doing updates.
  7. donbaloo said: Right, I realize that's how it works. Just wondering why it works that way when all other opposed checks are very clearly not treated that way. In all other opposed tests Specializations do impose misfortune dice against the opponents check. If you're trained in stealth and specialized in rural environments, and I try to find you in the woods....that's 2 black dice to my observation test. Why is combat treated differently I wonder? I get the feeling this is a well beaten horse though so I'll poke around the forums a bit to see what's been discussed. I just haven't been paying much attention to the subject I guess. It's because combat is not an opposed check against a skill. Anything that is versus target defense has nothing to do with whether or not you are trained in weapon skill, coordination or resilience. The defense cards parry, dodge, and block specifically state the effects those skills have on the card, they don't make it an opposed check. If a card said "versus target resilience" or "versus target weapon skill" then you would add any relevant specialties.
  8. I had some bad characteristic dice in my core set. Customer Service replaced them promptly.
  9. I think most people did. Good conversation with you, anyway!
  10. Doc, the Weasel said: Alfonzo said: It's not "let the player bend rules interpretations for mechanical benefit but penalize them anyway." The thing is (and I think that this has been lost in the discussion) there is no outlandish mechanical benefit for doing this. Diestro cards aren't overpowered when you have a shield, and there's no restriction on armor, so the soak isn't an issue. There is little difference between using a Diestro attack any other melee attack. People have been throwing the term "munchkin" around, but there is no rules exploit. He's talking about the Talent called Diestro Training from Edge of Night and the Player's Guide which specifically reads "Diestro Training: While armed with a single fencing weapon,or a fencing weapon and dagger, gain +1 Defence." And he wants to use it with a shield. That's not allowed by the rules.
  11. Doc, the Weasel said: Alfonzo said: The "but" part of your "yes, but" is functionally to penalize the player into saying "no" by himself. You might as well just say no. By introducing mechanics like you suggest I feel that you're edging closer to the very situation you want to avoid: restriction by rules. Instead of coming up with mechanical stuff to enforce the mechanics that are already printed just tell him it's not what the rules intend, nor is it in the spirit of the game. Then let him retrain whatever he wants if he feels that he needs to. Or let him use a buckler or something. A tower shield and a rapier is just kind of silly. The end result may be the same, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent. The difference is in player agency. In my experience there is a huge difference in player response between saying they can't do something, and that they can try but it will be insanely difficult. The former takes the choice away from the player, and I've seen that have a significant effect on how they respond to the game as a whole (even though it may seem functionally the same as just saying no). Of course, this all assumes that you can live with the results of the player saying "sure, I'll take the penalty." I don't know, dude. My players are okay when I say no. I understand the idea of player agency and the concepts behind saying yes but on the other hand players are presumably adults and can deal with being told no once in a while, as long as there's a reasonable explanation. In fact I've had GMs ratchet up the difficulty on stuff for they weren't comfortable with a player doing it can come off as a bit passive aggressive. That achieves the opposite result. There are two sides to this coin. I find it's important to foster trust and clear communication with your players. That way if you say no they go along with it but they trust you enough that their agency doesn't feel threatened. I also think that the original intention of "say yes" and "yes but" is "let the player do what they want and drive the story forward with consequences" given that it originates from Dogs in the Vineyard. It's not "let the player bend rules interpretations for mechanical benefit but penalize them anyway."
  12. Doc, the Weasel said: Nisses said: Diestro is fencing, meaning you turn your sword-side to an enemy, quite the opposite of sword and board, where you usually lead with your shield-side. That represents only a few fencing styles. There are plenty of old fencing styles that involve a buckler (or cloak, or lantern, or main gauche for that matter), where you face your opponent head-on. -- If you take the "only the items listed on the card" approach it's going to bite you in the butt some other way (like not being able to use a shield with a card that requires a hand weapon). If you outright deny his ability to use the actions at all with the shield, then you are closing the door on future creative uses of action cards that you would otherwise want (like if he's holding his friend upright with one hand and fencing with the other at a climactic moment). Your best solution (almost always) is to say "Yes, But" rather than "No." Let him tell you he's not going to use the tower rather than the other way around. I would allow him to use the tower shield, but throw in a few misfortune dice when using Diestro actions. Based on his equipment choices, the misfortune dice (2-3ish) should be sub-optimal enough to make him reconsider. Bucklers fit into the fencing tradition, so I wouldn't penalize those. The "but" part of your "yes, but" is functionally to penalize the player into saying "no" by himself. You might as well just say no. By introducing mechanics like you suggest I feel that you're edging closer to the very situation you want to avoid: restriction by rules. Instead of coming up with mechanical stuff to enforce the mechanics that are already printed just tell him it's not what the rules intend, nor is it in the spirit of the game. Then let him retrain whatever he wants if he feels that he needs to. Or let him use a buckler or something. A tower shield and a rapier is just kind of silly.
  13. There are a whole bunch of characters that fit the scholar role in the spectrum between Indiana Jones and some dusty old book worm. Just some ideas off the top of my head. Not knowing what your game is about, a scholar could be: -doing research for a book (on a topic that fits the premise of your game) -writing a book/serial on the adventures of the group -looking for ancient tomes or other artifacts -trying to use academics as a means of social/political advancement -socially/politically radical and attempting to bring about change in the Empire -out of a job due to academic politics and looking to get back at their rival by doing any of the above. Also their character could be influenced greatly by what their first career was. Just because you're a scholar doesn't mean you started off as a student or scribe.
  14. Also, skolo said: you can not agree with me or whatever, but saying I`m childish or stupid is just not fair. skolo said: guys! grow up. FFG di not and will do no such thing! heh
  15. RARodger said: I can't speak for anyone who didn't order the book, but here's the thing-- part of the attraction of WFRP 3 to me was the inclusion of components, including the cool action cards and career cards. They speed up play and nice. So that is part of the reason I bought the game and its supplements. When there are misprints on the cards in detracts from their value. Either I have to mark up the cards with the correction or print the "high-res" version myself, which makes them look less cool, or for more serious issues we have to refer to the errata which slows down play. Neither of these are crippling issues, neither of them are preventing us from playing the game, and neither are preventing me from having fun. BUT when part of the attraction is the components and there are errors on the components it detracts from the attraction. I don't know why that is so hard to accept. This is an entirely reasonable opinion and I don't think anyone is having trouble accepting it. I'm not happy that the cards are wrong. Nobody is happy about that. Nobody is criticizing those people holding this opinion. People who say FFG doesn't give a rat's ass about their customers are being hyperbolic and have an inflated sense of entitlement. People calling anyone who isn't as bothered as they are about errata fanbois are being obnoxious. Those types of people are being criticized RARodger said: Honestly, I've rarely been bothered by rule books that have errata or errors. But a card that says "graphic goes here" or whatever misses QC, that's disappointing. Yes those are disappointing and you would think they would be easily caught. It's not a vote of confidence for future products. RARodger said: Upon consideration, as much as I want more for this game, I feel like if they slowed down the release schedule to correct some of these issues I might be happier. Well, maybe not. Maybe getting more stuff quicker is worth a few errors. I don't know. Wizards recently slowed down their release schedule to address quality control issues and I wish more companies would do things like that. RARodger said: But I don't see how feeling the company should be responsible for correcting components is inappropriate. I'm not familiar with FFG's replacement policies on boardgame components. I did get some replacement dice when I emailed and asked for them, but that's a component that's readily available and wouldn't require a new printing. I have no idea if it's logistically or economically feasible* to print a group of corrected actions, talents, and I guess that one career sheet for replacement and I doubt anyone in this thread does either. I'd be thrilled if they did so, but I'm not getting bent out of shape about it. Some people are apparently upset that others aren't getting bent out of shape about it! *and I shouldn't have claimed that it wasn't feasilbe in my earlier post
×
×
  • Create New...