Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyDaze

Did I read that right? Redone to be BC/OW compatible?

Recommended Posts

Pfft whatever dude. 4E was fun as heck and a huge improvement on 3E, if you ask me.

Like it or not, it was also the edition that for the first time in the history of ever forced D&D to compete for the first place as most sold roleplaying game, it's main competitor being a 3.5 clone. From that perspective, it was a disaster.

 

 

Wait a minute, is this a bait post? Implying that only games with Hit Points are True Roleplaying Games? A World of Warcraft reference? You're setting up a grognard bingo card here.

I'm pretty sure he was just referencing the fact that about 99% of roleplaying games have some variation of hit point mechanics. Call them health levels, wounds, stress track or whatever, slap additional effects on them or not, but they're still variations of the very same concept first introduced in D&D. Off the top of my head, the only system I remember that did away with such a mechanic altogether is Mutants and Masterminds. Well, and maybe Riddle of Steel, but it's been ages since I've read those rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfft whatever dude.

A compelling rebuttal.

Remember that what happened with 4E and what you personally think about 4E can be two different things. I like things I know people didn't like, and there are things I don't like that I know are quite popular. You like 4E, and that's totally fine, but the game was not a sucess, ended with a quasi-4.5E, and now Wizards are in their D&D Next phase as they try to salvage D&D and make it something that the 3.5 players will like without driving away all the 4E players.

 

It's also really curious how people seem to eqaute "listening to the people who are part of the beta" with "cowardice" and "caving". No one's caved. No one's a coward. FFG asked for feedback, was given feedback, and is now acting on that feedback. How is this a bad thing?

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the reason why D&D had such a hard time with 4E is that their open D20 license (which, coincidentally, Gygax himself thought was a terrible idea) allowed certain other companies to literally steal their game system and ideas wholesale and make the claim that this copied property was the "true successor" to D&D. Also, although D&D lost market share for 4E, they also made money hand over fist with 4E and had a very successful line with tons of top-selling products. There's a reason why no one was competing with Wizards during 3E, and it's because Wizards is **** good at what they do.

 

FFG has two advantages in this aspect: Warhammer is a licensed and heavily protected property. Also, the d100 system used for DH isn't under an open license the way d20 was. I know that there is a group making its own successor version of WFRP 2nd edition, but I'd imagine as soon as they start trying to sell it, the hammer is going to come down hard.

 

I'm reserving judgment about what the new beta will bring with it, as I found the OW system to be workable. I just feel like game design is a technology the same as anything else, and there have been a lot of recent developments that really shine a light on the problems with the old WFRP d100 system. It's like Settlers of Catan. That game seems incredible when it's the first euro board game you've played. But, when you start to get to know other games, and get more experience with it, a lot of the flaws really start to shine, and you realize that half the fun of the game is the other people you're playing with. I think a lot of people forget that about playing old systems; a lot of the fun you've had with it comes from your friends, not the system itself. I'd personally prefer to play a really enjoyable game with my cool friends rather than a passable one. I hope that the new update is the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the reason why D&D had such a hard time with 4E is that their open D20 license (which, coincidentally, Gygax himself thought was a terrible idea) allowed certain other companies to literally steal their game system and ideas wholesale and make the claim that this copied property was the "true successor" to D&D. Also, although D&D lost market share for 4E, they also made money hand over fist with 4E and had a very successful line with tons of top-selling products. There's a reason why no one was competing with Wizards during 3E, and it's because Wizards is **** good at what they do.

 

FFG has two advantages in this aspect: Warhammer is a licensed and heavily protected property. Also, the d100 system used for DH isn't under an open license the way d20 was. I know that there is a group making its own successor version of WFRP 2nd edition, but I'd imagine as soon as they start trying to sell it, the hammer is going to come down hard.

 

I'm reserving judgment about what the new beta will bring with it, as I found the OW system to be workable. I just feel like game design is a technology the same as anything else, and there have been a lot of recent developments that really shine a light on the problems with the old WFRP d100 system. It's like Settlers of Catan. That game seems incredible when it's the first euro board game you've played. But, when you start to get to know other games, and get more experience with it, a lot of the flaws really start to shine, and you realize that half the fun of the game is the other people you're playing with. I think a lot of people forget that about playing old systems; a lot of the fun you've had with it comes from your friends, not the system itself. I'd personally prefer to play a really enjoyable game with my cool friends rather than a passable one. I hope that the new update is the former.

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfft whatever dude. 4E was fun as heck and a huge improvement on 3E, if you ask me.

 

4th Edition was a different, new experience, not a 'huge improvement'. Pathfinder was an improvement, and the route I chose to go. It's completely impossible to be all new -and- improved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disappointing. I was really hoping to see a good system come out of this. People are complaining about "change for the sake of change," but the opposite can also be true - keeping the same out **** just to keep the same old ****. I can understand wanting to keep a system you're familiar with, but the fact is the old system is horribly flawed. It would have been nice to see what FFG could do without one hand tied behind their back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pfft whatever dude. 4E was fun as heck and a huge improvement on 3E, if you ask me.

 

4th Edition was a different, new experience, not a 'huge improvement'. Pathfinder was an improvement, and the route I chose to go. It's completely impossible to be all new -and- improved. 

 

 

Pathfinder was an improvement over 3.5, but not nearly as good as it could have been. It retained many, many flaws of the old system in the name of backwards compatibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Pfft whatever dude. 4E was fun as heck and a huge improvement on 3E, if you ask me.

 

4th Edition was a different, new experience, not a 'huge improvement'. Pathfinder was an improvement, and the route I chose to go. It's completely impossible to be all new -and- improved. 

 

 

Pathfinder was an improvement over 3.5, but not nearly as good as it could have been. It retained many, many flaws of the old system in the name of backwards compatibility.

 

 

 

True, not all the flaws - but 3.5 was never an 'unplayable mess', nor did it lack any fun factor. Thus, the fixes they did make made a good game experience better, which is awesome. There really isn't any argument in this regard though - Pathfinder is still going. If the rules were horribly flawed, I doubt that would be the case.

 

 

Disappointing. I was really hoping to see a good system come out of this. People are complaining about "change for the sake of change," but the opposite can also be true - keeping the same out **** just to keep the same old ****. I can understand wanting to keep a system you're familiar with, but the fact is the old system is horribly flawed. It would have been nice to see what FFG could do without one hand tied behind their back.

 

You would have been disappointed with the beta as is. It was very raw, clunky, and inconsistent in the chief mechanic (combat). Changes that increase the complexity for little pay off are very poor in design - such as that, while others were quite good but sadly overshadowed by the GLARING flaws that were being introduced. 

 

As another note: FFG does not, nor will it ever, have it's hands tied behind their back. They can decide the first version of the beta if they felt like it. Because they choose to pool many sources of information (Forums, GenCon, etc) and work on the feedback they receive is a sign of market sampling, customer targeting and just plain common sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to be assuming 4E performed poorly, but do you guys actually have EVIDENCE to back that up? Sure, Pathfinder sold more books, but that doesn't mean 4E did badly by any means, and anyway, most of WotC's money from 4E comes from their subscription services, not book sales (Pathfinder has more books to sell, too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to be assuming 4E performed poorly, but do you guys actually have EVIDENCE to back that up? Sure, Pathfinder sold more books, but that doesn't mean 4E did badly by any means, and anyway, most of WotC's money from 4E comes from their subscription services, not book sales (Pathfinder has more books to sell, too).

 

Not sure anyone actually mentioned 4E actually performing poorly. Rather, it's release and subsequent competition from the rules the company had just abandoned was rather a showing tale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to be assuming 4E performed poorly, but do you guys actually have EVIDENCE to back that up? Sure, Pathfinder sold more books, but that doesn't mean 4E did badly by any means, and anyway, most of WotC's money from 4E comes from their subscription services, not book sales (Pathfinder has more books to sell, too).

 

Depends on what you mean by 'poorly'. But it's clear that 4ed didn't do as well as WotC would have liked, or as well as it should have. Pathfinder simply shouldn't have been a factor - DnD just isn't supposed to have a rival in the RPG industry, especially not in the generic-fantasy genre. That Pathfinder not only survived but essentially equaled 4ed as the top dog in the RPG industry through selling a direct competitor for DnD... that alone is sufficient to describe 4ed's performance as poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy

The news of the return to a compatible system is welcome news to me and the local crew.

The proposed wound system was a deal breaker for many here locally.

It is interesting that the same folks that want the grand changes to DH on these boards poop on 4th edition D&D for grand changes.

BTW which division is the most profitable at Hasbro. They are a public traded company.

Edited by major shultz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually love 4th edition, but even I notice flaws.  Mainly how WotC was milking off their digital crap of a character sheet maker.  They promise a lot and delivered next to nothing.  Another shot to the knee was not making it part of the OGL and thus ruining any chance of another company to salvage the system once WotC was done ruining it.  Though the killing blow was the name of the game itself.  Seriously I had stated a long time ago that if 4th edition dnd was named Chainmail 2.0 the backlash it had gotten would not exist.

 

Because of 4th edition WotC has to deal with compentition by the name of Pathfinder which I too have many of their core books.  A few pdfs of their setting as well I might add.  This also brought out older edition games such as Stars Without Numbers, Labyrinth Lords, and Lamanenation of the Flaming Princess in which I really love.  Not to mention they have to deal with the perfect hybrid of 3.5 and 4.0 known as Radiance which is a victorian steampunk dnd.  Still pretty good and has a lot of every thing that the people love in 3.5 as well as what other people love in 4.0.  In other words there was one name in town till 4th edition was made.  Now there are many names in town and WotC now has to compete for the first time.

 

Not shocking that WotC decided to switch to 5.0 to save their own sinking ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the d100 system used for DH isn't under an open license the way d20 was.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here - it's not possible to copyright the mechanics of a game. I could, if I wanted, release a game that was mechanically identical to Dark Heresy, and just re-write the rules in my own terms and remove all references to Games Workshop- or FFG-owned intellectual property - artwork, flavour text, iconic equipment, etc.

 

Reference: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that means though that they skip the new interesting...tactical AP system, that would really be a pity.

I approve of all of their changes wholeheartedly other than the Wound system. The update sounded like they are changing back a lot of what I liked, which is unfortunate. I felt so much revolutionary change in the book and was happy about 95% of it.

 

I like the idea of backwards compatibility, but adjusting the new rules for that isn't necessary. It's a game of imagination, there's nothing preventing GMs from mutating the old content to fit the new rules. Simply translate whatever old sourcebook into the new rules using your understanding of the rule differences.

Edited by Uncle Kulikov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of backwards compatibility, but adjusting the new rules for that isn't necessary. It's a game of imagination, there's nothing preventing GMs from mutating the old content to fit the new rules. Simply translate whatever old sourcebook into the new rules using your understanding of the rule differences.

This is easier said than done, particularly with certain sections of the rules. Some people don't have a firm enough grasp of game mechanics to do this, others don't have the inclination. If FFG were to release a guide (preferably as a free, separate pdf) on converting old material, it would go a long way; unfortunately, DH1e is messy and it would be a big job to account for everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeeeez... It was because of how the rules in general worked in the current BETA I actually started up a new game. The NEWS update is to vague on how much will change in the base rules. Some changes in combat, but not enough details if it is removing Wounds system and AP (that would not be liked) or if the NPC stat blocks can be read both ways of the fence.

 

Depending on the rule changes coming... if it becomes more like the older versions (yes even like OW) I might not bother actually buying the full edition when it comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So when they say they are making the systems compatible, we can't be sure what they mean. Do they mean to switch back to the old system (in which case, why not just release the new sector as a supplement ?) or do they plan to keep the new system and provide conversion rules ?

 

 

Because DH does need an update. Whether you liked FFG's first version of DH2.0 or not, DH still needs to be updated. I'd rather it be updated to make use of the improvements from the BC/OW lines, and it appears that most people did as well, hence the new update. So releasing a setting supplement wouldn't help much, because there are problems with (current) DH that do need fixing.

BYE

 

 

Which problems in DH1 couldn't be fixed with another errata ?

 

The beta wound system admittedly does look terrible. <snip>, the logic of it has no ties to the real world to keep it intuitive,

 

How do hitpoints fit the real world any better ?

 

At least with the wound system, injuries that didn't incapacitate you would still slow you down. With hitpoints, until you hit 0 you're operating at full capacity.

 

The sad part about hitpoints is that they are the standard in computer RPGs. Even when looking up a table would be no problem there.

 

FFG has two advantages in this aspect: Warhammer is a licensed and heavily protected property. Also, the d100 system used for DH isn't under an open license the way d20 was. I know that there is a group making its own successor version of WFRP 2nd edition, but I'd imagine as soon as they start trying to sell it, the hammer is going to come down hard.

We are talking about Games Workshop here. Don't be surprised if they kill it even if it's released for free.

 

 

 

-And I really can't play along with the people saying that they refuse to play any RPG with a 'hit point' system, since they are just admitting that they don't play RPGs to begin with! Not exactly a viable target audience for FFG to persue...

For the sake of honesty, it's possible they're all playing Mutants and Masterminds  :P

 

 

Or Ironclaw. A game which had a damage system that was mostly non-cumulative. Similar to the wound system except there is no modifier for cumulative wounds and it's simplified to the point that all the effects of taking damage could be included on the character sheet.

 

 

We are involved with a business that NEEDS to listen to its customer base.

Question is, which side of this discussion has more people ?

I've seen both sides claim they have more numbers. But no proof either way.

I doubt anyone here has access to all the information FFG has.

 

More importantly, which side will hand over more money ?

 

Think about how many people you've seen complaining about how many rules were just copy-pasted from DH1 into the other RPGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The beta wound system admittedly does look terrible. <snip>, the logic of it has no ties to the real world to keep it intuitive,

 

How do hitpoints fit the real world any better ?

 

At least with the wound system, injuries that didn't incapacitate you would still slow you down. With hitpoints, until you hit 0 you're operating at full capacity.

 

The sad part about hitpoints is that they are the standard in computer RPGs. Even when looking up a table would be no problem there.

 

I guess I wasn't entirely clear, my apologies.

 

RPG mechanics kind of have two kinds of logic, internal and external. Internal logic is something like using the same kind of dice roll for similar things (or everything). External logic is something like having a run speed if you have a walk speed, or a wound effect if you have a damage roll.

 

Off-hand I can't think of an example of a traditional HP mechanic like Wounds in DH1e in RPGs on or off the tabletop, that is either kind of logically consistent with the overall system it is used with. Wounds in DH1e, for example, are neither consistent with the logic of the meta or the the way the meta generally ties into the fiction. It's basically an absurdity.

 

Which is why I tried, but evidently failed, to make it very, very clear that I'd rather use the now old beta's wound mechanic that go back to DH1e's HP-by-another-name. And why I kind of really hate HP and wish nobody'd ever thought of the concept.

 

All that said, the now old beta's wound system wasn't particularly great in my opinion. The whole process from attack to injury had issues with external logic, and it was too elaborate for decent tabletop resolution speed. Comparing it and HP is kind of like comparing America and Sweden and proclaiming Sweden is the best country in the world - it may or may not technically be true, but it says rather more about the state of the world than about whether Sweden's actually any good at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-And I really can't play along with the people saying that they refuse to play any RPG with a 'hit point' system, since they are just admitting that they don't play RPGs to begin with! Not exactly a viable target audience for FFG to persue...

 

Uh. Maybe you should get out more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disappointing. I was really hoping to see a good system come out of this. People are complaining about "change for the sake of change," but the opposite can also be true - keeping the same out **** just to keep the same old ****. I can understand wanting to keep a system you're familiar with, but the fact is the old system is horribly flawed. It would have been nice to see what FFG could do without one hand tied behind their back.

 

I agree here.

 

The old system also has a lot of flaws - people just got used to it, and they usually like to keep what they know.

 

I do not deny at all, that also the new concepts yet have flaws - but they have the potential to improve the old system a lot, after the most heavy flaws get adjusted. I'd say give the changes a chance and help balancing them out, so an even better experience is possible.

 

If this somehow could go a little better in line with the previous lines, all the better. But if sometimes this means non-100% compatibility (which btw was never the case, even between other lines), so be it.

Because honestly - the one system which it would have to be compatible most importantly, would be DH1

--> and DH1, with all its alternate ranks, development trees and oldest-of-all-rules will NEVER be close to compatible to the new approach anyway.

It might be closer to OW, but still, what benefit does that mean in the face of existing free OW-conversion rules anyway ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't be the same as Only War, though. It'll be built upon the solid foundations which have been made up by OW. And BC. And DW. And RT. And DH1. And WFRP 2. And WFRP.

 

Aka, it won't be the same as its predecessor and will attempt another incremental improvement. I'm sure it will still be worth the title; "Second Edition".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off-hand I can't think of an example of a traditional HP mechanic like Wounds in DH1e in RPGs on or off the tabletop, that is either kind of logically consistent with the overall system it is used with. Wounds in DH1e, for example, are neither consistent with the logic of the meta or the the way the meta generally ties into the fiction. It's basically an absurdity.

 

Which is why I tried, but evidently failed, to make it very, very clear that I'd rather use the now old beta's wound mechanic that go back to DH1e's HP-by-another-name. And why I kind of really hate HP and wish nobody'd ever thought of the concept.

Except the proposed wounds system is still a hit point mechanic, with rolling on random effects table tied to every hit. Also, everyone has less hit points than in the old system.

 

 

Disappointing. I was really hoping to see a good system come out of this. People are complaining about "change for the sake of change," but the opposite can also be true - keeping the same out **** just to keep the same old ****. I can understand wanting to keep a system you're familiar with, but the fact is the old system is horribly flawed. It would have been nice to see what FFG could do without one hand tied behind their back.

 

I agree here.

 

The old system also has a lot of flaws - people just got used to it, and they usually like to keep what they know.

People keep saying that, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times the old system really broke down on me. They were all using various pre-BC rules, and most of the issues got errata'd with satisfactory results.

 

I do not deny at all, that also the new concepts yet have flaws - but they have the potential to improve the old system a lot, after the most heavy flaws get adjusted. I'd say give the changes a chance and help balancing them out, so an even better experience is possible.

 

If this somehow could go a little better in line with the previous lines, all the better. But if sometimes this means non-100% compatibility (which btw was never the case, even between other lines), so be it.

Because honestly - the one system which it would have to be compatible most importantly, would be DH1

--> and DH1, with all its alternate ranks, development trees and oldest-of-all-rules will NEVER be close to compatible to the new approach anyway.

It might be closer to OW, but still, what benefit does that mean in the face of existing free OW-conversion rules anyway ?

See, I agree with you in principle - I'd gladly sacrifice backwards compatibility if it meant getting a better system. Certain changes in BC/OW rules do make porting certain parts of the older material much more troublesome than porting material from the first three games was between each other, and I've never hung up on it for a moment, because I liked the new rules so much better.

 

I completely disagree with you in the case of the particular beta rules we got - as far as I'm concerned, they roughly consisted of two kinds of rules:

1. Small, useful tweaks that could have easily been introduced to the old basic system (streamlined skills, faster way of determining DoS/Hit Location, psychic rules having an element of gamble to them rather than a steady increase in effectiveness over time, separate Perils tables for different psychic disciplines, the ability to turn Malignancies into an asset at the cost of Corruption, the Subtlety system and other investigative rules).

2. Big, sweeping changes that made me and my group completely unable to enjoy the system (new combat rules and wound charts).

 

Obviously, it's a matter of preference and not facts, but my group was perfectly unanimous in not even wanting to touch the new combat rules. For me, it's an instant dealbreaker. I'm not opposed to them because they are different from what I know, I'm opposed to them because in my opinion, they are downright terrible and not something I'd ever want to play.

 

 

It won't be the same as Only War, though. It'll be built upon the solid foundations which have been made up by OW. And BC. And DW. And RT. And DH1. And WFRP 2. And WFRP.

 

Aka, it won't be the same as its predecessor and will attempt another incremental improvement. I'm sure it will still be worth the title; "Second Edition".

That's very much what I'm hoping for - at least as much of an improvement over OW/BC as these two were an improvement over DH/RT/DW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what "big" mentionable changes were there ?

 

The really big changes just were:

> new tree-less character creation (which will be kept as I understood them)

> new wound system

> AP system in combat (including the change of RoF style)

 

Medium impact changes:

> more compact skill groups (continues a tendency that already started in previous lines)

> talent trees

> partially changes in weapon stats & weapon trait descriptions

> new fatigue system

 

+ quite some minor changes, whoch shouldnt be game breakers for compatibility or no-compatibility, broken or non-broken.

 

If I forgot something, please tell me.

 

Otherwise, this discussion is manily about 3-7 topics.

 

As the character creation was confirmed already (and does not mess too much with previous lines anyway), it is even only about 2-6 topics, the AP system and the new wound system being the ones with the most impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...