PDA

View Full Version : WFRP Newbie GM looking for tips



pife
2010-10-06, 03:52 PM
I hit a mini jackpot the other day when I was given (gratis, free, no charge) 9 books for WFRP 2nd Ed. I've always wanted to play in or run a game in this world, but never broke away from my other games to buy it.

Now however, it's sitting there staring at me, daring me to run a game.. I've been playing PnP RPG's for 25 years, mostly 2/3/3.5 DnD... All of you folks that have played or DM'ed WFRP2e, I'm looking for some highlights.. I don't want to run this like a D&D game with fancy classes.. I'm wanting to run a gritty nasty Warhammer game.. Here's what I'm hoping for

I've read and am absorbing the rules, and I like them a lot. But I'd like to hear from all of you about those little intangibles that a WFRP rookie wouldn't notice? What kinds of things do I need to keep in mind? What works, and what doesn't? Is there some crunch I MUST know about? Did you use Insanity Points like it suggests in the rules? Any house rules that really improved things? Hit me with what you've got!

Thanks very much for any advice you can give..

comicshorse
2010-10-06, 08:08 PM
Beware of Elves, they can start a little high powered ( this was only figured out half way through the game so we have no House Rule to fix it)

Yes use Insanity Points its all part of the lovely horror of the background

Let your P.C.s pick there starting careers no matter what the rules say. Its their character after all

Psyx
2010-10-07, 05:44 AM
Read up on some of the WFRP back-fiction, to get an idea of the world.

It's pretty low magic, and magic should be rare and treated with a large measure of superstition. Having -at most- one magic user of any type in the party is a good plan. I'd actually recommend using random character generation for a nice low-key start to things.

Low-key, low-power is the thing. Definitely use the insanity rules. WFRP makes a great horror/investigation game, with cultists being foiled and the like. The IP system aids this well. Characters should start to fray a little at the edges, but don't be purely random about it, and adopt insanities to make them playable and viable. Use the rules, but don't be a slave to them, and maybe allow characters to decrease insanity by doing the things that help us retain a grip on the world. Say if a character takes a year out out, marries his childhood sweetheart in his home-town, and is expecting a child; I'd reduce their IP by a few points. Doing 'nice things' over time should reduce insanity points a bit, and is a great way of encouraging PCs to live 'proper' lives and to have families.

Watch 'Plunkett and McLean'.

WFRP is famed for it's non dungeon-crawl style of play. Many adventures are urban in nature. Reading some of the pre-written ones will give you a feel for it all. I'm not too sure about the pre-written scenarios for the 2nd Edition, but 1st ed has the reputation of having some of THE BEST pre-writes to its name. The Enemy Within campaign is a classic, and you could do a lot worse than steal it whole-sale and convert it.

Combat is dangerous, and players who dive into it should learn their lessons the hard way. Players should seek to minimise conflict.
Remember that the cities are ordered environments. Players who flout the law, are rude to the nobility, and pull swords in street scuffles should be made to regret their poor roleplaying choices. Unlike some D&D campaigns, the world does not revolve around adventurers, and society will not tolerate them throwing their weight around.

All the non-humans are better than humans by stat-bar. You have to even this out with real disadvantages to playing them in other areas: By ensuring that they are played to their racial type properly and by portraying the characters as the outsiders in society. Most Imperial citizens have never even seen an elf, for example. I'd personally dump a mild insanity or two on any elves, or ban them as a player choice. Dwarfs are more integrated into society, but still ghettoise themselves and are very separatist.

Be pretty mean with the XP, rather than over-generous. Same with magical items and money.

pasko77
2010-10-07, 06:25 AM
Fights are a little boring, you never hit, but when you hit, you risk to insta-kill.
And that's for everyone.
This leads to the "fights are dangerous" description. What really happens is that REALLY fights are random, rather than "dangerous" in the heroic way.
That leads to the not very likeable patterns:
1 - you will always be scared to fight a goblin,
2 - you can kill a hero in the first round, if luck assists you.


I found, by trial and error, a house rule that REALLY improves things:
1) Get rid of the rule "Ulric's fury", for 's sake
2) +1A to everyone. I mean it. This leads to A) Fights being really nasty B) Careers with +1A are not overpowered, since they go from 2 to 3 instead of from 1 to 2.
3) Get rid of the partial action rule, it did not work in D&D, it does not work here. Let people full attack every round.

Hope it helps, Pasko

Psyx
2010-10-07, 06:43 AM
Boring?

Seriously?!

WFRP fights are fantastic. The system is gritty enough that the GM should actually do some work in describing them, rather than resorting to 'roll to hit, you hit' tedium.

Sure: You risk being insta-killed when someone stabs at your face with a spear. That's part of the fun of it. However, a skilled character who bothers parrying is generally going to be fine.

I strongly disagree with '1' and '2'. '1' gives an element of risk and works more often for players than the monsters. It's great to take a beastman down in one swing sometimes. Increasing attacks just means that people have more opportunity to get killed by swinging axes at each other, and further devalues ranged fire. I don't see that swinging twice in a round is more exciting if everyone swings twice in a round.

I agree with '3'. We dropped the very 3.5 partial action thing as well. It was dull.

We also used the 'old' WFRP way of using shields in that not only do they give a +20 to Parry checks, they also give a flat +2 armour to every location. It makes them really worth using.

LCP
2010-10-07, 07:00 AM
I'd agree that the combat system doesn't need modding - if you use all the advanced combat actions, and continue to mix it up rather than going standard attack, standard attack, standard attack (or swift attack, swift attack, swift attack if you have multiple attacks) then combats have a really dynamic ebb and flow to them.

I'd also say, don't scrap Ulric's Fury. Ulric's Fury is what stops characters with high TB and armour coming to dominate combats, and also what gives combat-competent characters pause when faced with large numbers of low-quality opponents. A goblin arrow in the back can kill you, whether you're a mud-farming peasant or a grizzled veteran - that's what UF represents, and it's in keeping with the themes of the game.

The complaint of randomness only comes in if you don't bring in all the available modifiers: that's where the advanced actions and all sorts of other things come in, and really encourage people to manoeuvre about to gain the advantage, rather than just battering away like a couple of clockwork soldiers.

pife
2010-10-07, 07:01 AM
Great stuff everyone!! Yeah, as I was reading the books, I was noticing a definite departure from the "mood" of Warhammer vs DnD, which was what prompted me to look for guidance. I must say, I like what I'm seeing so far!! And I definitely like the grittier combat! I never liked the fact that in DnD, for instance, by about 3rd level, players no longer had any respect for the "law".. Under normal circumstances, they weren't nervous when someone was aiming a heavy crossbow at their face, because "it only does 1d10 damage, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk.. It can't hurt me"!! Never cared for that much.

Thanks for all of the advice, looking forward to seeing more!

pasko77
2010-10-07, 07:11 AM
Boring?

Seriously?!

Increasing attacks just means that people have more opportunity to get killed by swinging axes at each other, and further devalues ranged fire. I don't see that swinging twice in a round is more exciting if everyone swings twice in a round.



No, you don't understand the purpose of these rules.
+1A is not meant to make fight "exciting".
It has the following purposes:
- Makes less overpowered the basic careers which provide +1A
- Makes up for the loss of sheer damage potential from Ulric's Fury.
- Keeps more balanced the fights.

If you keep Ulric's fury, damage output is basically random.
If you use my house rules, damage output is very reliant on attacker's strenght.

Ranged fire rolls full attacks like melee, with a single feat, if I recall (it's been a while), so I don't see how it's devalued. If I'm wrong here most probably we house ruled such a feat. Now I really don't remember.

Your mileage may vary, but trust me, these rules are well tested.

Psyx
2010-10-07, 07:24 AM
I don't recall 2e allowing multiple attacks with ranged weapons in a round, but I could be wrong.


I do however staunchly defend Ulric's Fury. There's only a 10% chance of it happening, and you then have to make another WS roll for it to roll-up, so it's not much of an issue.

Truth is, that from a GM's perspective, the rule means that you don't have to over-stat monsters in order to hurt the dwarf in full plate armour, who is otherwise invulnerable to everything thrown at him. You just wait for that '10' to come up and confirm, rather than make all the monsters Strength bonus 2 higher. It also makes fights unpredictable. One doesn't in reality walk into a fight thinking 'I can take three stabs with that sword before I need to even worry'. This is the aspect that many players -used to d20s frankly appalling wound system- don't like, because it means that there is an element of unpredictable risk involved in every fight.

Likewise, properly 'tough' monsters can be properly tough, instead of being whittled down by dozens of paper-cuts.

Damage output is indeed pretty random if you roll a d10 for it. I'm failing to see how a confirmed critical type situation on a '10' makes it more random. :smallconfused:

misterk
2010-10-07, 07:27 AM
Thats what fate points are for. In well balanced fights the players should be fine. I would stress that wfrp combat can easily become dull if the situation isn't interesting. Once in combat there is always an optimal choice for fighting- follow the flow chart

are you about equal, much weaker, or much stronger than your opponent?

If equal. do you have more than one attack? If yes, do a multiple attack. If no, aim and attack.

If much stronger, all out attack to kill them quickly

If much weaker, go for full defense and wait for support.

The things that make combat interesting are tactical choices, to try making assailants have a variety of styles and powers, throw cover around to try and give players more choice in how they wish to deal with the fight. Alternatively, make it quick and bloody.

I'm also a little distressed by people who want to choose their own characters, part of the joy of the system is seeing what kind of hero you'll be playing this time.

misterk
2010-10-07, 07:28 AM
I don't recall 2e allowing multiple attacks with ranged weapons in a round, but I could be wrong.


I do however staunchly defend Ulric's Fury. There's only a 10% chance of it happening, and you then have to make another WS roll for it to roll-up, so it's not much of an issue.

Truth is, that from a GM's perspective, the rule means that you don't have to over-stat monsters in order to hurt the dwarf in full plate armour, who is otherwise invulnerable to everything thrown at him. You just wait for that '10' to come up and confirm, rather than make all the monsters Strength bonus 2 higher. It also makes fights unpredictable. One doesn't in reality walk into a fight thinking 'I can take three stabs with that sword before I need to even worry'. This is the aspect that many players -used to d20s frankly appalling wound system- don't like, because it means that there is an element of unpredictable risk involved in every fight.

Likewise, properly 'tough' monsters can be properly tough, instead of being whittled down by dozens of paper-cuts.

Damage output is indeed pretty random if you roll a d10 for it. I'm failing to see how a confirmed critical type situation on a '10' makes it more random. :smallconfused:

If your reload time is 0 (rapid reload) then you can multiple attack with ranged weapons.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-07, 08:00 AM
I'm also a little distressed by people who want to choose their own characters, part of the joy of the system is seeing what kind of hero you'll be playing this time.

Random characters rarely are good for roleplaying.

I'm not familiar much with WFRP 2e, I'm afraid - in my days, we played first edition, a game that was simple and fun, but so imbalanced that it's easier to list all the non-broken character combos.

Psyx
2010-10-07, 08:38 AM
I've always found the reverse: The random characters are fantastic for roleplaying, as players come to grips with something they would never normally play. The character classes are highly divorced from the typical dull 'adventurer' type seen in other games, and I love it.

I would -at best- give a player two rolls and allow them to pick one, or allow the statistic re-roll to instead be used on careers (if that's not already a rule!)


but so imbalanced that it's easier to list all the non-broken character combos.

I'd agree that under the old regime, characters were poorly balanced. However, the 2E starting careers are well-balanced and pretty much equal. So no more 'I suck, I got a road warden' cries! they did a good job of fixing the problem.

And fate points do indeed head of untimely character death. I notice that newer scenarios are a little more free and easy when it comes to dishing them out, too.

The new magic system is fantastic, too.

pasko77
2010-10-07, 09:16 AM
Half OT:
anyone about 3rd edition?

Psyx
2010-10-07, 09:28 AM
Nope. I only know one person who has played it, and they said it was a bit 'odd' and more like a card/board game than an RPG.