Jump to content

zarkzervo

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About zarkzervo

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bærum, Akershus, Norway
  1. From wikipedia on Aschaffenburg The name Aschaffenburg (Ascaffaburc, Ascapha or Ascaphaburg in the Middle Ages) originally meant "castle at the ash tree river" deriving from the river Aschaff that runs through parts of the town. (I tried to paste in the phonetic pronunciation, but the FFG database did not like that at all) But it said preassure on the first a (and not on the second), so no ass-monkeys I'm afraid.
  2. pumpkin said: I hadn't noticed that before and had been pronouncing it "Shaff-en-berg", with the sound as in Shave, but I am making it a hard sound now, with a ch sound as in Church to see how long it is before my group catch on!!! I'm not German, but I speak it. I'm sure it is pronounced ash-affen-berg. (Of course if the locals haven't their own way of saying things) And for my previous post asch and arsch is pronounced so similar in normal speak so you will have to listen for context. If someone calls you an "ashloch", he probably said "Arschloch" and not "Aschloch". He's not speaking of the hole in the ash, that's for sure Enough with the German language class. I'll stop now.
  3. zarkzervo said: arsch in german is ass. Did a little more thinking after I saw someone said there is a real city in Germany called Aschaffenburg. Asche in german is ash in english. So originally, I think it has something to do with the tree. But the developers from FFG are probably aware of the ass-monkey-castle similarity
  4. arsch in german is ass. affe in german is ape. berg in german is mountain, but i think "berg" is used for "burg" which is castle. So I don't think it is too far off to say "ass-monkey-castle" if we are a little creative on the first "s". I choose to think so. Because it's the most funny
  5. Lucas Adorn said: Personally I mostly use player character races as adversaries as I find it more interesting to use intelligent enemies. That does not mean I won't throw the occasional monster at them but I always have to explain to myself first what reason that monster has to be where it is and whats its motive for attacking the PC's. I hate monsters that has no place in the ecology system and were made by a 'wizard experiment gone wrong' and now there's one in every dark dungeon. But thats just me. I like for things to make sense in their own way even though its fantasy and everything is magic. Couldn't agree more. There were 3 things that really caught me back in -89 when I found WFRPG: 1) The monsters were often from our own mythology were there were monsters and humans were often the preferred enemy. 2) Low key magic. Compared to how we played D&D where every peasant had some magic sword, magic items are rare and are something to really take care of if you get hold of it (and 9/10 chances are that it is evil 3) The rules were liberating. I used to play with this guy who would quote rules for every occasion: "But the rules say that I should do these 4 tests to see if I handle this social situation and decide correctly. " The RP-part was out the window.
  6. Great review! As you have much more experience than me, but come from the same background, I see your pros and cons and recognize them as issues I want answered. Let's see if I can't come up with some money to buy this thing
  7. Thanks for all the replies. I think I will stick with my original plan of playing at least a couple of games using the old system and then buy the new system if they like it. @willmanx: I found the math in the old system quite... hmmm... well placed. Not that math is the goal here, but it's applied math and kids at 13 (this one is) sometimes need some first hand experience with adding and getting to know how percentages work and figuring out the chance of winning. But of course not a make or break for a game. @Doc, the Weasel: A good point that the NPC should not roll dice. I just have to figure out a smart way of winning/losing when I want to. And good idea as a narrative. A fight one-on-one is just tossing dice, but if they have to change their target to go "tanking" for their NPC (or other friends for that matter) it gives a more exciting game. I remember from "the old days" that the fights weren't the reason I liked RP, it was the stories. I rewarded players that used their stats to make a great story. A stupid and thieving hafling is always entertaining. Thanks again for your views and we'll see how it goes from here.
  8. I played a lot of WFRPG back in the days of 1st edition or 2nd edition (the one with the soft cover) in the late eighties. I wanted to introduce RPG to my family and I have already re-read the old rulebooks and we have created the first characters. So for the questions: 1) How well does the 3rd edition play with as few as two players? (As a GM, I will probably frequently use NPC's) 2) Would you recommend playing the old rule-set to measure the interest and then buy the new game if they find it interesting, or is the new game so much better that their interest will probably be triggered by the new fancy schmancy edition? Personally, I really want the new edition, but if it is placed on the shelf after one measly game, it will only bother me. I really like RPG's, but I can't enforce this upon the family.
×
×
  • Create New...