There are similarities in western and japanese pen and paper rpgs? Judging from how different western and Japanese computer RPGs are, I was thinking that the same was true for pen and paper rpgs.

Game's Lore shipping costs are a joke [i live in greece btw]. I will check total wargamer though.

Yeah, more success = better outcome makes a lot of sense. I am a newbie GM tho, so I have trouble thinking of two outcomes out of the fly [success or failure]. Having to think of even more outcomes to narrate depending on the severity of success or failure will drive me nuts.

I had a specific example for my questions which I regretted ommiting it. It would make my question simpler. PCs are traveling and they need to use Observation check to spot an ambush. I suppose they are in story mode so I would say that they use spot on neutral stance. The argument is that although this makes sense, from a mechanical viewpoint this makes social characters (ie not geared towards combat) even more disadvantaged. So, what I am asking is, should they make the check in neutral stance? And is this really a disadvantage to social characters (since they only need ONE success in order to succedd in contrast to combat where more success is even better)?

Fresnel said: Yes. Your stance is applied to all skill checks. Is this confirmed? As per the faq, the general ruling is not to use stance on social checks for instance, unless it can be backed-up by the story. I was assuming that social checks were made in the neutral stance.

No, they are doing the same thing. For instance tug of war. Since they start at the same time, nobody should have an advantage. And considering they have the same str characteristic, it would probably be a tied. However, in the opposed check case, the 'initiator' would have the advantage as his difficulty is 'easy (1d)'

During my last session a PC tried to play a card game vs another PC. They both wanted to cheat each other, so I ruled an opposed check between PCs. Since they both had same stats, it became evident that in any PCvsPC check, the one who initiates the test has the advantage. It didn't really seem fair to me, so I gave another check where the other player had initiative. The result was that the first time player A won, next time player B won. Net result: 0. Which was the best way to resolve it? I hate house rules. I am a by-the-book player and prefer playing a game as per RAW (even though I can't justify why I do this. I guess it's OCD or something) 1. Have them made two checks, each check being initiated by a different PC and check who had more success? This looks like the best option 2. Use the progrees bar, each player making checks in turn and the winner would be the one who reached an event space first? This seems time consuming

On a similar note, I have trouble finding the Dice Pack through UK online shops such as bookdepository.co.uk or maelstromgames.co.uk

I am reading EfaE and it states many times that players need to roll for observation checks, one check for each player. Isn't this overkill? I mean if there are 4 PCs, and the check is easy, is there a reason for all of them to roll? It's nearly impossible to miss. Is any of you using just one player's roll? Which player, the one with the higher characteristic, other things being equal (all PCs are together, all are alert, all are in same proximity to target, etc)?

I didn't own any previous edition of WFRP before, and I am a fan of RPGs and FFG, so I didn't really have a choice at all. The editiing of the book is a little messy, finding a specific rule is tricky, especially in the begining, but you get used to it. That's my only complain. Generally I find this new 'type' of RPGs very promising. I hope it is going to be implemented in other systems/settings as well.

Hedgewizard: Yes I was looking at an older Sheet. Adding a version numbering would be great Gitzman: I can't wait for an update.

HedgeWizard said: plutonick said: I got the GM screen, but it's not that usefull. I rarely consult the screen. What I found VERY useful, are the reference screen from Gritzman. Highly recommended http://www.sweetwatercakery.com/_jesse/WFRP3/WFRP3%20Resources.html The sheet that Gritzman posted is slightly out of date. I post the most up-to-date GM sheet here (which is due for a renewal shortly): http://geekdo.com/filepage/50349/gm-reference-sheets-wide-format Thanks for the updated sheet. May I ask why was the 'condition' table removed from the newer version?

I got the GM screen, but it's not that usefull. I rarely consult the screen. What I found VERY useful, are the reference screen from Gritzman. Highly recommended http://www.sweetwatercakery.com/_jesse/WFRP3/WFRP3%20Resources.html

Ha, my first session suffered from the 'things started getting silly too'. All of the PCs put 0 creation points in wealth. Then, the first thing they wanted to do, was steal money from the inn's patrons. This pissed me off, because in essence they tried to 'cheat' during character creation. Why spent creation points in wealth, when we can get money by stealing when we start the adventure, is what they must have thought. We didn't have much time, since we wanted to try the demo fast, or else, I would have 'role-played' pick pocket failures, by letting the guards in the inn and cutting their hands or something.

I used to think that the white die next to the experts characteristics implied a 'training' in all skills governed by that characteristic, but then i remembered Player Characters can spent an advance for white dice in characteristics, so obviously this is the case with NPCs as well, and not 'training' effort

Do such fleshed out NPCs exist in Gathering Storm or other supplements? I only have the Core box yet.

Well, enemies have trained skills? I looked at the Tome of Adventure and couldn't see any trained skills mentioned there. How can you add more than one misfortune dice then? Or are they implying we will be using generated NPCs that act like the PCs do in game term mechanics?

Sorry for the hijack, but I am desperate. Is there a quick formula to convert NPC and enemies from 1st and 2nd edition published adventures to 3rd?

mac40k, your interpretation makes perfect sense to me. I am going to use this too, provided my players don't lynch me [they are ex-DnD mucnhkins heh)

I was under the impression that a use of a basic attack was just one attack. Otherwise, what you are saying about using two arrows definately makes more sense.

A player fires a bow and kills 2 henchmen with a single arrow. How to narrate this? Saying that the arrow went through one enemy and hit another is ok I guess, but it can only work once. Maybe twice. Perhaps I am using the henchmen rules wrong?

Thanks. I had almost the same understanding, but wanted to be sure, I wasn't missing something!

Being a non-english speaking GM (greek is my native language), I have two questions regarding some quotes from the books that I can't understand. POSSIBLE SPOILERS 1. The title of the adventure 'a day late and a shilling short'. Certainly 'a day late' refer to the delay of the package. But what does 'a shilling short' refers to? 2. In the adventure 'Eye for an Eye' we get the following blurp from Aschaffenberg first encounter with the PCs “... I’m not sure if it’s serious enough to bother the proper authorities with yet. Don’t want to go upsetting the applecart over nothing, what?” And then it says that Lord Aschaffenberg pauses to see if anyone gets the joke. Well, I don't I know the expression 'upsett the applecart', but why is this funny in this situation? Perhaps I am reading too much into it?

Is there an updated or pdf version of this? Or is this final?

WFRP 3rd is the first Warhammer rpg I play, therefore I know next to nothing about the warhammer setting. After reading the core rules, it is still unclear to me how various races communicate with each other. I assume Humans, Elves and Dwarves can all speak a 'common' language, else there would be no mix-groups of adventures. But can adventurers communicate with Beastmen? In the core books, it is written that Orcs sound like thugs and goblins like thugs after inhaling helium. Does this imply that they can communicate with the PCs?