Jump to content

Xyd

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. "These are their, meaning Cubicle 7's, creations? Or are they just more products of other persons just in English to start off with?" Nope. Victorian one, and Cthulhu Britannica. Not sure about the rest but I know Doctor Who and The One Ring isn't. The guy who primarily did a lot of the design for Doctor Who is this bloke - https://twitter.com/autocratik It's possible that the publishers may have had input in the creation of some of the rpgs they're publishing, but looking them up such as The One Ring its clear that Cubicle 7 are publishers rather than designers. The lead designer on The One Ring however has on his FB profile as a former freelancer for Cubicle 7, so... could imply designer input from the publishers.
  2. A little prank that I pulled on one of my players. I GM two star wars games. A primary campaign that features 5 players, and another game on the side that is completely separate. This separate game features just one player, Kurt, who plays a private detective on Corellia. Now Kurt is very 'protective' of this game cause he enjoys it a lot, and is very hesitant to allow anyone else in. A mutual friend however wanted to join, albeit, temporarily, and it was agreed that I'd fit him in as a CorSec homicide detective, with Kurt's character being drafted in to help with a particularly nasty case involving a serial killer, and partnering up with our mutual friend. Unfortunately he had to drop out due to a very busy schedule, so I brought in another player to fill in the shoes of a different CorSec detective. The thing is, Kurt has absolutely no idea who his partner will be, nor the species of his partner. As such, we decided to play a prank on him. Kurt was already apprehensive about letting in a replacement cause this particular replacement (Tez) is known for playing somewhat goofy but hilarious characters. I promised Kurt that he'd be playing a 'serious' character... Here's the file - https://soundcloud.com/user-156185575/jarjar-prank/s-up2mu
  3. I find that notion laughable. If that statement was remotely true, then I shouldn't be GMing a 2nd edition game, with players who have never played 2nd edition before. I've been gming 2nd edition for 2 years now which certainly does not constitute as 'way back then' and I have been playing 2nd edition for even less than that time. Now I get it; you don't like 2nd edition, which is perfectly fine, it's not for everyone. I say this cause I am the exact opposite of you, and because of that, I'm going to treat your opinion and view with respect. But I will call out statements such as 'trying to play it is only possible for people who played it way back when, and its not really unlike D&D'... Which is a very generalizing statement your making there. As someone who has played 2nd Edition, Gm'ed 2nd edition, played D&D 3.5 (and hated every bit of it), played WFRP 3rd edition, and played (5e D&D) I can say with hand on heart that there's nothing remotely D&D about 2nd edition, if you've ever played 2nd edition then I'm confused how you could think that. Maybe its the dice system... 2nd ed uses percentile dice = D&D. D&D uses a horrible amount of dice. Even 5e which goes a long way to removing the clutter still is very math heavy and dice heavy. 2ndEd uses 1d10/2d10 and 1d100. That's it, those are the primary dice. It's not even remotely on the same level of D&D for being math heavy, not to mention all the variant attacks/abilities and damage types in D&D. Now I've got to say that 3rd edition is very component heavy, and uses quite a lot of dice compared to other systems. I actually like the narrative dice, although I feel the Star Wars system perfected it, it's not that bad, and I would say IF it was backed by good mechanics, I'd use narrative dice over percentile dice any day. Unfortunately, when I played 3rd edition, I didn't enjoy any of the mechanics. I did not enjoy the way combat was dealt with and I absoloutely hated the butchering of the career system, bringing it down to a paltry amount. Worse offense was the treatment of magic in it, it really declawed magic. In my opinion I view the 3rd edition as a complete mess. And how anyone can spend a fortune on a component heavy system that doesn't even provide you with all the said necessary components is beyond my comprehension. One of the GM's who was running a 3rd edition game (I was in 3 separate 3rd edition games ran by 3 different people at different periods), who had all the books and all the components, was slowly getting fed up with the system. In the end he switched over to running a 2nd edition game for the first time and commented that there was just so much more content and smoother mechanics. And he enjoyed running it. I honestly can't go back to a 3rd edition game, I just don't get enjoyment out of it. It's the same reason why I'll not ever play in a D&D game that predates 5e, and I am still finding 5e a daunting task to get my head around, not only as a player but also as a new DM for that ruleset. Right now my favorite system out of the lot is FF Star Wars. I just love it. If there was a way to bring the narrative dice into 2nd edition without disrupting the core mechanics, I'd probably do that, and its the only part of the 3rd edition that I liked. Again this is my opinion. 3rd edition is simply not for me... same way 2nd edition is not for you. But I'll not have it said that its similar to D&D in any way - That's just an outright blatant lie.
  4. Unfortunately finding a warhammer game isn't so easy compared to finding a DnD game. I run a WFRP 2nd Ed game myself but I'm not looking for players. I recommend you check out Fantasy Ground forum in the looking for games section and make a post for the game you're looking for. Roll20 is another one. Reddit is also good, nearly all of my players came from me advertising on reddit - https://www.reddit.com/r/lfg/
  5. And thus, we come full circle, and back to the point I was making; you are comparing today's world and making a case for it against the medieval mindset. You simply cannot compare 21st century mentality with medieval/dark age mentality. They are incompatible. If you grasp that concept then you'll see where your argument falls apart.
  6. One of the biggest faults with WFRP 2e IMO was the "untrained Basic skill = stat/2" rule. Not only did it lower skill ratings to 16% for average (i.e. too low), it also added number-crunching every time a stat increases with XP. The 1e system of straight-up stats with +10 bonuses for skills was far more elegant. Degrees of Success/Failure increments of 10% could also require some number-crunching, but otherwise I agree, 2e isn't particularly math-heavy. The untrained skill was basically half your stat. So lets say you've got an intelligence stat of 32. You wanted to use a skill that uses intelligence but your not trained in it, so its half your intel stat which is 16 in this case. If there's a stat increase with xp which is always increased by increments of 5, so 32 becomes 37. Half of 37 is 18. I will agree though that the degree of success/failure can be a pain to work out but I usually don't use degrees/successes unless specifically called for in certain situations.
  7. I do hope you don't mean WFRP 2nd Edition cause if so I'd like to know what edition that is so I could avoid it... Having played and Gm'ed 2nd edition WFRP for what must be nearly 3 years soon, I can say, hands on heart that there is zero number crunching going on in it. It's a pretty simple system; you roll 1d100, if it equals your skill or below your skill you pass. If its over it, fail! It's really that simple. Damage? Roll 1d10. Result = your damage along with your Str Bonus. Hardly any crunching involved. Having played 3rd Edition I'd argue the same, there is no number crunching involved however 3rd edition has a lot of 'look-up' rules. Got 3 hammers? Look up what you get. Am I on conservative or reckless? Ok I'm on Reckless, gotta look up the result for being on reckless. Ok I get +2dmg with that, plus my agility/str bonus PLUS weapon damage. ARGH. Having experienced both I can say that I find the 2nd ed system to be much faster and efficient. Now if we are going to discuss number crunching I'd have to say DnD takes the crown for the amount of crunching going on in that ruleset. 5e certainly clears up a lot of the hassle but there is still some crunching going on. If there's one thing I would like to implement into 2nd edition and really the only part of 3rd edition that I liked was the narrative dice. I just didn't like the mechanics built around it. I find the star wars system to be the refined version of what 3rd Edition should have been. And I really love the SW system, its just plays so smooth and the narrative dice is coupled with a fast working mechanic system to it without the need for cards and such. Its brilliant. I will say narrative dice is the way to go and definitely trumps the percentile dice by a huge margin.
  8. GoldenIslandsonYouTube really seems to have an issue with oppression... almost bordering on a personal attack there against poor Gurhkal. I think I'm now starting to understand the reasons behind all the suggested lore changes In anyhow, you said "No one wants to be oppressed" Island... I would argue you're wrong. Not everything is so black and white as you seem to be making out, and the degree of oppression is a factor in this. It's a very idealistic viewpoint that you're taking that doesn't really apply to medieval terms. Some elements of the lower classes appreciate law and order to the point that removing the establishment would be, in their eyes, detrimental to their livelihood. Tyranny is not so easy to analyze to the point that saying 'everyone' would rise up in rebellion. It really depends on how well the people are treated. Even living under a harsh tyrant, you'll get some peasants enjoying the current status quo. Because removing that status quo means anarchy. People are afraid of anarchy, and the uncertainty of what follows after it. You got to look at it from a psychological viewpoint, specifically from the viewpoint of the working man. Rebellions mean war. War means strife, disease, hunger and huge resources of spent manpower. Not to mention roving bands of criminals doing as they please. Rebellions remove law and order of the establishment, or at least, in attempting to do so they put it under great stress. From the perspective of 'some' families, who enjoy the establishment despite whatever harsh conditions that befall them, fear what war might bring. A tyrant who overtaxes his subjects will be unpopular, no doubt. But what of the other aspects? Does the tyrant provide adequate protection? Is he just in his dealings with criminals? Does the taxes go towards building institutions? My point; every tyrant has his supporters, even among his oppressed subjects. When you remove that system, you remove meaning for the average peasant. Freedom is an alien concept to most medieval mindsets and usually only ever truly grasped by some unique individuals in history who get the ball rolling in rebellious movements. You may be surprised to know that in those times, people liked being 'led'. I want to reiterate that I'm not saying that a blood thirsty hateful bastard of a tyrant is going to be loved by one and all; just that the idea of being universally hated is not true, as it doesn't exist. It's mathematically impossible. And I believe Goldenisland that you disregard the symbiosis relationship that the peasantry and the nobility have. To give a rather hazy example from true history; one of the Byzantine Emperors (I couldn't remember which one exactly although it may be Basil I) was renowned for being far too humble for his own good, which would prove disastrous for his popularity. There was a particular story connected to him in relation to how he saw himself as an 'equal' to the lower classes. Naturally this did not sit well with his court, the nobility, and surprisingly, the peasantry. I believe he was popular in the social reforms he conducted and such, but casting himself as equal with the common man did not sit well. His title was divine, given to him by right of god... so when he decided to climb down the social class and demanded that he not be bowed to by the common folk, this upset the establishment and the belief that their ruler was divine. T That's removing a very comfortable belief and replacing it with an uncomfortable concept for the peasantry.
  9. Seen this post on Reddit. It wasn't well received there by any stretch of the imagination. The reaction you're getting here seems to be more tolerant than the replies I've noticed you got over at reddit. I'm actually surprised to see it pop up here, I figured that the poison you were receiving would have deterred you It's hard to take some of what you say seriously; such as when you go on regarding dwarf teeth, human teeth and halfling teeth. It seems... odd. Odd that you'd focus a lot on teeth for some reason. "Dwarfs have good teeth that do not suffer often from diseases." In any case, you're free to make the changes you so desire should you ever GM your own game. But you can hardly advertise it as Warhammer as the changes you propose are radical and move away from everything that Warhammer is about. It becomes a different kettle of fish altogether, and no longer Warhammer. In fact you seem to want to take away 'War' and just have the Hammer part... And you shouldn't be so surprised by the reactions you're likely to receive for taking a well established brand and then 'suggesting' that if you had the money, you'd turn it into a completely different thing that is alien to the loyal fans of the franchise. Yeah, that won't go down well... My advice to you, if your serious about this; is to create your own lore, your own universe, your own sandbox. You've obviously put a lot of thought into it. Forget about Bretonnia, Kislev... Forget about the Old World and build your own world from scratch, cause the changes you suggest are far too radical to fit into the established lore. You simply can't erase it and plop your own down, it will not mix well. There is in fact nothing wrong with changing lore to suit your own needs, assuming you were running a game. I for example GM a regular 2nd edition roleplay game set in Warhammer, and I've made changes to the lore that I feel were/are appropriate. But that's a whole different ballgame as opposed to what your suggesting. If I was to implement your changes into my game, I'd have a full blown rebellion! My players come to me to play Warhammer, and not some other game that has none of the grit, dirt and grime that the Warhammer universe is known for. So as I said; I suggest you create your own lore and call it something other than Warhammer, because what you've suggested is not, by any stretch of the imagination, Warhammer. And I can say the same thing for Age of Sigmar
  10. I'd say put your own twist on it. The whole 'mad necromancer in a castle/keep' has been done quite a few times, and there are elements of it already in the lore, such as Constant Drachenfel (Drachenfel Castle). Maybe there's an old forgotten 'god' that demands worship from whoever stays at the Brass Keep or a cult that turns anyone who seeks shelter within the keep into a brain-washed follower or turn the whole concept of the keep upside - maybe its extensive defenses were not designed to keep people out, but to keep something from getting out... I actually prefer it when lore sources are a little bit vague, it allows the GM to inject his own creative flow into it without having to succumb to a lore protest from any of this players.
  11. I discussed this before with another GM who used to run 3rd Edition when I was asked if the FFG SW system could be compatible with 3rd edition or if it could fix some of the issues that 3rd has. Both rulesets are deceptively similar and what I mean by that is that while they are similar in terms of narrative dice, it ends there. SW uses a dynamic damage system, not fixed. You'd have to remove nearly all the actions in 3rd edition, you'd have to butcher the career advancement system (cause your removing the actions/cards) and there is no way to bring in the dynamic damage system of SW without drastically changing a lot of the other aspects. This was tried with another GM and while it seemed to 'work' for awhile, it created problems with career advancement and a lot of the action cards just being useless now. In the end he switched to 2nd edition WFRP. Problem with trying to incorporate other elements from other rulesets into 3rd edition is that 3rd ed is a fairly rigid restrictive system built around its own mechanics. If you take out even one mechanic, the whole thing comes crumbling down.
  12. Yep. Not just that though, usually any successes over 4/6 tend to be useless as most cards are only 3/4. But yeah that's good if you use extra damage and such, but thing is that be you as a GM adding spice to the game (much needed spice) but mechanically there is no actual benefit aside from say a GM house ruling it or making it a crit success. I got 12 when I was playing as an Ogre Maneater and I was on full reckless and was attacking something, can't rightly recall whatever it was, but I do remember feeling really **** at just how all that extra lovely successes didn't help me
  13. I've played in a WFRP3rd game for sometime, and I GM a monthly Star Wars game, so I can speak with some experience relating to this. I'll put it this way; I don't like the WFRP 3rdEd mechanics, but I absolutely love the Star Wars mechanics. So... are they similar? Yes and No. As Noel says, the FFG SW ruleset is a refined version of the 3rdEd mechanics, although I would say it goes further than that. For example the mechanics are not interchangeable. 3rdEd damage for example is fixed damage: You roll your attack, and your damage is based on the card action+stat. So 3 hammers for example might translate on a card as +2 plus your stat/weapon dmg. That's 3 different values you've got to be aware of! Stat+Wpn+Card! Star Wars ruleset does away with cards and having a fixed damage system. Each success on a dice roll in SW = +1dmg + weapon damage, so the damage system is dynamic, with each success you get adding damage. This was one of the major gripes I had with 3rd ed. Say for example you roll to hit in 3rd, you get massive success and it means nothing. I once got 12 hammers on a roll. None of those hammers with exception to the first 3 mattered. I find there is no actual jumping for joy with the way damage is dealt with in 3rdEd. In SW, this is solved cause now you do certainly jump with joy when you get massive success. The SW ruleset keeps the narrative of the WFRP system but improves upon it with the threat and advantage system. It's also much more faster as a system. No longer checking cards to see what they do when you get 2/3/4 hammers or checking reckless/conservative stances. I feel the system is faster, it removes the clutter and removes the 'boardgame feel' that I felt was attached to 3rd. I'd highly recommend it.
  14. Age of Sigmar fucken rules! It's brilliant, probably the best thing Games Workshop have ever done, period. ..... ..... O sorry about that. I seemed to have been possessed momentarily by an evil spirit belonging to a GW employee. Apologies. Down with AoS and all that!
  15. I'm going to reign in on this in a bit less of a biased view. I say that despite the fact that I run a 2nd Edition Warhammer game, have played Warhammer, am a massive fan of Warhammer, and have also played 3rd edition But... I am also a player in a DnD game so I'm not one of those who just refuses to touch DnD with a ten foot pole. First of all its important to ask if your aware of the different versions of Warhammer Fantasy. I say this cause I noticed you mentioned 40k a lot in your post. Well if you've played 40k, then you've already had a taste of the Fantasy system for 1st/2nd edition. The 40k system (at least Dark Heresy) uses a system very similar to 1st/2nd edition Warhammer. It has a similar skill/talent setup and it uses 1d100. That's sorta where the similarity dies, but 1st/2nd edition Warhammer would be familiar to you. Also important to note that despite the, *cough* very similar gods (practically the same gods) in 40k, the lore is completely different. Again you will still feel a sense of familiarity coming from your 40k background. But you might find it hard to differentiate between the two universes. This forum here in particular is dedicated to 3rd Edition Warhammer. If your looking for Warhammer Fantasy, but something completely 'new' then 3rd edition would be more up your alley. It's completely vastly different from the earlier editions, and your experience with the 40k rulesets will not lend you aid here, offering you a totally new experience at least mechanically. Personally I'm not a fan of 3rd edition, but if you do go down that route you'll find it easier to get all the products you need, books and all that jazz or you might get a deal on someone selling their old set. You'll be hard pressed to find a complete physical set of the earlier edition stuff if you plan to play a physical game. As for dnd. Well, for years I used to have the same opinion as Noelyuk. I wouldn't touch it or go near it and my opinion of the system was very vindictive. I had played 3.5 briefly and did not enjoy my experience at all. Then I joined a 5th edition game despite being cautious in doing so. And I have to say, I quite enjoyed it. And I know a few people who are big into their dnd and the collective response I get from them is that 4th edition is the one you should 'forget' about, as if it never existed. Like the 13th floor that nobody ever goes too... Just ignore it. 5th edition it seems clears up a lot of the rule heavy earlier editions and nonsense, and makes it easier to just get down to it and play. Now, I still prefer my Warhammer over dnd and I don't think that bias is ever going to change. But having fun is the reason why we play these games and I certainly can say I had a lot of fun with 5th edition as a player, and am still having a lot of fun as a GM in Warhammer 2nd edition.
×
×
  • Create New...