PDA

View Full Version : Warhammer Fantasy RPG



Wargor
2010-10-08, 03:49 PM
Hey all.

I'd like to look into the WFRPG, but I'm not which edition to look into. I didn't even realise there was a 3rd edition till just now, but from what I read it's very different to the others, and sounds a little...strange. I just wanted opinions on which one is the best really, and which is most commonly played on the boards.

Thanks in advance!

Another_Poet
2010-10-08, 06:35 PM
The most recent edition (3rd) has some design innovations in common with D&D 4e. Not the cartoony stuff or powers per se, but the emphasis on balance, looking heroic & having abilities that set things up for other party members. It runs very smoothly. Check out this review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14664.phtml) to understand more.

The previous edition (2nd) is a beautiful piece of work, one of the finest roleplaying game systems I've ever touched (I haven't tried 1st or 3rd myself). Just excellent. Simple, intuitive, yet complex and rich in detail and mood. I recently played out a duel against a witch hunter and realised (as a practicing swordsman IRL) that it was very much like an actual duel, but not mechanically heavy at all. Just a work of art. Search these forums for "The Hour After Midnight" and read a little to get a feel.

1st edition I know less about, except that it is far more deadly. I wouldn't recommend 1st edition unless you really enjoy harsh challenges, grit to the max and gallows humor.

There are reviews of all three editions on the site linked above.

ap

Wargor
2010-10-08, 06:39 PM
From the sound of it I think 2nd might be more my kind of thing. The 3rd edition sounds a little too...old school Warhammer if you know what I mean? Thanks for the help as well. :smallsmile:

DwarfFighter
2010-10-09, 04:40 AM
As a veteran WFRP player (except for this 3rd edition) I can definitely recommend 2nd edition. There's really nothing in there that isn't an improvement on the 1st edition. :)

Stuff I can recommend:

The core rule book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warhammer-Fantasy-Roleplay-Perilous-Adventure/dp/1844162206

Your game will greatly benefit from these two books:

The "monster manual": http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Bestiary-Warhammer-Fantasy-Roleplay/dp/1844162265/ 'Nuff sedd.

Equipment: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Old-World-Armoury-Militaria-Miscellania/dp/1844162664/

I'd also recommend the Empire source book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigmars-Heirs-Guide-Empire--Depth/dp/1844162656/. While not essential to laying the game, I rate this as the second best "setting book" I've had the pleasure of reading. Not only does it provide a nice overview of the core setting of the Warhammer world, it also gives each province its own distinctive feel.

-DF

BloodyAngel
2010-10-09, 05:10 AM
I must agree with what's been said before. 2nd is the way to go. The system is simple but can do a heck of a lot... and it makes for a very good game experience where you can often forget the rules are there and focus on the story.

Oh... and that duel with Jagrun was awesome. :smallbiggrin:

Siegel
2010-10-09, 05:18 AM
Another thing to recommend

http://www.d20radio.com/sbv/

Small but Viscious Podcast all about WFRP

Anterean
2010-10-09, 05:30 AM
Another vote for the second edition here.

Having played both first and second edition they are similar, magic has been toned down a little in the second edition and characters are in general more durable and it is really a lot more streamlined, but still has the dark gritty warhammer feel.

Kiero
2010-10-09, 05:43 AM
How do you feel about random-only chargen, and potentially inept starting characters? Or glacially slow advancement and having to wait until at least your second career before characters are even half-way competent? Or tedious chain-of-rolls combat resolution where no matter what the level of competence, you can have round after round where nothing happens?

They're all problems with 2e, some of which can be fixed if the GM is willing to houserule things, others which are inherent.

Anterean
2010-10-09, 06:05 AM
How do you feel about random-only chargen, and potentially inept starting characters? Or glacially slow advancement and having to wait until at least your second career before characters are even half-way competent? Or tedious chain-of-rolls combat resolution where no matter what the level of competence, you can have round after round where nothing happens?

They're all problems with 2e, some of which can be fixed if the GM is willing to houserule things, others which are inherent.

Actually I like this, you start out as regular bloke, and only trough hard work and horrible experience do you become a hero.

There is nothing wrong with starting out a heroic, but that is what I high fantasy games for right ?

Wargor
2010-10-09, 06:10 AM
Thanks guys, that's definitely helped to make my mind up. I like the whole starting from nothing thing, but here's a question. Do you always use the random generation? I can see it being slightly difficult for a person to then just come up with a character. Or actually, now I think about it, it might be very helpful...

Leon
2010-10-09, 06:18 AM
I can't pass coment on 1&3 but 2nd is a great system.

Ive only used the random Character Gen onece and that was for a Oneshot character for a game i gatecrashed (and wrecked)

Anterean
2010-10-09, 06:21 AM
Random generation can obviously be a problem if you are dead set on playing something specific (like say en escaped gladiator or some such).
But as you say it can be helpful in it is way, I tend to roll up a character and then work from the results

Wargor
2010-10-09, 06:33 AM
Cool. From what I've seen it seems pretty similar to Dark Heresy. Of course it came out first, but I was just wondering how similar it really was, as that might make it easier to pick it up.

DwarfFighter
2010-10-09, 07:15 AM
The core mechanics are basically the same: To succeed on an action you need to roll 1d100 equal to or less than the appropriate characteristic.

If the test requires a skill then you get to test at your full characteristic if you have that skill. Otherwise you test against half the characteristic. Skills can be taken multiple times for improved expertise in that area. Only Basic skills tests can be attempted without possessing the actual skill; Advanced skill tests require that you possess the skill.

Rather than setting skill check DCs as in d20 the GM decides on the difficulty that modifies the characteristic used for the test anywhere from -30 (very difficult) to +30 (very easy).

Here's a tip: As a baseline conversion between the two systems, any action with a skill check DC of 15 in d20 should count as an Easy (+20) test in WFRP.

My reasoning is this: Assuming a WFRP character with the appropriate skill and a characteristic of 30 is pretty much equivalent to d20 character with +0 ability modifier and four skill ranks (+4 skill bonus). The WFRP character needs a +20 bonus for a 50/50 chance of success, and the d20 character has a the same chance of succeeding on a DC 15 check.

-DF

Wargor
2010-10-09, 07:37 AM
Ah ok, that makes it easier as I'm learning both systems atm.

Morty
2010-10-09, 07:51 AM
First edition is an old system, which means it's rather rough, if you know what I mean. A bit like AD&D in that regard. I can't say much more though, since I've only glanced at the book. I don't have any experiences with 3rd edition, the initial info turned me away.
As for 2nd edition, I can give you a tip regarding combat: read the Advanced Combat Options and use them. They make the combat both more smooth and varied, and they're not very complicated. Enemies with WS(the attribute responsible to melee fighting) of around 31 - meaning they have a 31% chance to hit - should use the All-Out Attack option, increasing their chance of hit by 20% but denying them the possibility of blocking and dodging. At least, that's how I see it. I don't have that much experience GMing WFRP 2ed, so someone might well disagree.

alexthemad
2010-10-09, 08:26 AM
I have played the first two systems and I am currently running a game using the third. Only to the 3rd session though. I would recommend the second edition for sure, and my opinion on the 3rd so far is...just ok.

I like the ideas behind most of the game, havn't seen the follow through on all of it yet. But it's so different than the previous editions, it's almost hard to compare. The new dice seem to be the hardest element to pick up, but I am actually enjoying them as well. The dice results actually help in telling the story.

Is it an improvment over the 2nd edition...I'd say no. But I don't think its bad either. If I had to pick one to play forever...2nd.

DwarfFighter
2010-10-09, 08:46 AM
Do you always use the random generation?

My players tend to favour the random character generation, though mostly this is because it's there. But there really is no reason why the player shouldn't be allowed to select their own starting careers and other random features.

There isn't a points-buy system as such, but the Mercy of Shallya rule at least allows you to avoid sucking at your main characteristic. :)

-DF

Wargor
2010-10-09, 10:40 AM
Ah that rule looks good, I like the fact that it can save you from disappointment. Now I'm totally in the mood for a game, using everything random and most likely having everyone start of sucking. :smallbiggrin:

Leon
2010-10-09, 10:42 AM
The Outnumbering Rule we used to try and get as often as possible to help with combat - to the point where it became a meme for the group i played with and asking for it in situations where it was very clear that we would not get it

Matthew
2010-10-09, 11:28 AM
As far as I am aware, second edition and first edition are about 95% compatible, or dare I say even identical, with second edition attempting to correct some of the shortcomings of first edition (with varying degrees of success). Never played or even read through third edition, but second edition was generally positively received by first edition players, whilst third edition seems to have been too different to really talk about editions. Mainly people say it is middling to good game.

Another_Poet
2010-10-10, 07:58 PM
Thanks guys, that's definitely helped to make my mind up. I like the whole starting from nothing thing, but here's a question. Do you always use the random generation? I can see it being slightly difficult for a person to then just come up with a character. Or actually, now I think about it, it might be very helpful...

I believe the standard rule is to roll twice and pick the one you prefer.

Most WFRP gm's I've spoken to allow you to just pick.

Tehnar
2010-10-10, 09:17 PM
There is but one question: Does it pack enough waaaaaaaagh? *

*Or rather can you play as greenskins.

Deadmeat.GW
2010-10-11, 05:27 AM
Technically...yes :), you could play an Orc but it would require some work from the GM.

2nd edition is a lot more balanced if you use the Action, Action optional rule and half the duration of the 'rounds'.

Otherwise you run into something silly like an Elf (above human movement attribute) unable to run 100 meters dash in less then half a minute...

Action, Action rule gives you 3 half actions instead of 2 half actions (or the equivalent).
Making you far more mobile and giving people the chances to act tactically in fights.
A move action is a half action, a run is a full action, a sprint (combining move and run action) would use 3 half actions as an example.
With it an Elf for instance could cover 60 meters in 10 seconds while wearing armour and equipment and without any skills or abilities that give an increase in movement.
A standard adult human would cover almost 50 meters in the same 10 seconds while being lightly encumbered (and wearing up to medium armour).

The 2nd edition is a totally different beast then the 3rd edition, to be honest apart from the background I would not consider them to be editions of the same game.
The 3rd edition game is a lot based on luck with dice, which can be dangerous but funny if you have players who don't mind writing up new characters :).

Kiero
2010-10-11, 05:42 AM
Thanks guys, that's definitely helped to make my mind up. I like the whole starting from nothing thing, but here's a question. Do you always use the random generation? I can see it being slightly difficult for a person to then just come up with a character. Or actually, now I think about it, it might be very helpful...

In our current game, we had random stats, but chosen starting careers. The GM had a more heroic game in mind, and the players were on board with that. I certainly wouldn't have been interested in a fully random game, there's very few careers I'd want to play. As it was I ended up with tolerable stats (Mr Average, with a 31 or 32 in everything after Shallaya's Mercy removed the 26).

It wasn't any harder to come up with a character than in any other system, the only difficulty I found was a starting career that actually fitted the concept I had in mind.

Psyx
2010-10-11, 05:53 AM
*Or rather can you play as greenskins.

No. Not unless the GM writes a few new rules.


2e is the way forward. It's a genuinely excellent low-fantasy game, which rewards role-playing and is fairly flexible.


How do you feel about random-only chargen, and potentially inept starting characters? Or glacially slow advancement and having to wait until at least your second career before characters are even half-way competent? Or tedious chain-of-rolls combat resolution where no matter what the level of competence, you can have round after round where nothing happens?

It's brilliant. No problems. Fine. It's brilliant.
It's not like 1st level D&D characters can't suck and are brilliant, either. And glacially slow advancement? Compared to 13 combat encounters per level in D&D, which means that you get to advance your character every 4 sessions if lucky. That's nothing changing on your character for a month. Compare that to WFRP where you walk away from every session with XP that you can spend and advance yourself with every session.

If you want to choose career, give 400xp per session, roll 3d10 drop d10 for all stats and be amazingly competent from the get go, then low-fantasy is the wrong genre for you, and no low-fantasy system is going to sit well.

If I wanted high fantasy, I'd play D&D. WFRP is excellent at what it does.

Kiero
2010-10-11, 08:00 AM
It's brilliant. No problems. Fine. It's brilliant.
It's not like 1st level D&D characters can't suck and are brilliant, either.

That's precisely why I won't play start-at-1st-level D&D. Last game I played started at 8th level. Game before that started at 7th.

Even when we tried SWSE, that started at 4th level.


And glacially slow advancement? Compared to 13 combat encounters per level in D&D, which means that you get to advance your character every 4 sessions if lucky. That's nothing changing on your character for a month. Compare that to WFRP where you walk away from every session with XP that you can spend and advance yourself with every session.

Advancement is slow in reality because all those Talents are merely fractured and granularised bits of what should be bigger abilities. There's little meaningful difference between getting 1/4 of a level-up's contents every session and getting 1/1 of a level up every 4th session. Most of the advances mean nothing from session to session, +5% to an attribute is tiny and given the linear probabilities of percentiles often makes no difference anyway.


If you want to choose career, give 400xp per session, roll 3d10 drop d10 for all stats and be amazingly competent from the get go, then low-fantasy is the wrong genre for you, and no low-fantasy system is going to sit well.

If I wanted high fantasy, I'd play D&D. WFRP is excellent at what it does.

No, WFRP works perfectly fine without sticking to the written rules for starting characters. Otherwise why allow planned advancement since by the time characters are completing their second careers they are a lot more durable than starting ones?

It's got nothing to do with high or low fantasy.

None of which changes the fact that the combat system is invariably boring. I miss. I hit, but he parries/dodged. I hit, he fails to parry/dodge, but my damage roll is too low to beat his armour and Toughness. Your opponent does the same. Turn after turn, potentially, of nothing happening. More attacks often means more opportunities for nothing to happen.

DwarfFighter
2010-10-11, 08:32 AM
The Swift Attack Grind (SwAG? :smallconfused:) is a fairly major issue. In a one-on-one fight there is no point in not taking the Swift Attack action as often as possible, which means the action tends to grind to a halt until one enemy finally keels over. This is the complete opposite of the rather more fluid style of the game that you see when the character has only a single attack.

A lot of the other actions enhance your attack or defence but are essentially combined with a single attack (or no attacks). But all of these rich combinations are simply sub-par compared to taking two or more attacks against the same target.

The only solution I could come up with was allowing each character three half-actions per round instead of just two. This at least let them mix things up with a different action in addtion to their Swift Attack. At the point where I enabled this rules option the PCs all had 2 Attacks on their profile anyway, so nobody was cheated or nothing. Still, it wasn't an awesome improvement.

-DF

Psyx
2010-10-11, 08:43 AM
That's precisely why I won't play start-at-1st-level D&D. Last game I played started at 8th level. Game before that started at 7th.

You like high-powered games, I like low ones. WFRP is not a high powered game, D&D is.



None of which changes the fact that the combat system is invariably boring.

We don't find it so. It's a lot less boring than rolling a d20 against AC, brainlessly swinging in a world where the skill of the swordsman makes no actual difference to their defence. WFRP has got a wound system too, unlike 20. It's not a high granularity system, but it makes D20 looks like the invention of a caveman.

Kiero
2010-10-11, 09:16 AM
You like high-powered games, I like low ones. WFRP is not a high powered game, D&D is.

Nonsense. Our PCs are all into their third careers, there's some pretty high fantasy stuff going on as a result.

Starting characters might be low fantasy, but get a couple of careers under a character's belt and it stops being so. My character just survived being shot twice by a Hochloand long rifle by a hidden sniper. The first hit was an Ulric's Fury that did a lot of damage.

And low-level D&D is certainly not a high-powered game.


We don't find it so. It's a lot less boring than rolling a d20 against AC, brainlessly swinging in a world where the skill of the swordsman makes no actual difference to their defence. WFRP has got a wound system too, unlike 20. It's not a high granularity system, but it makes D20 looks like the invention of a caveman.

If to-hit and defense rolls in WFRP actually used margins of success, then you could say skill made a difference. Since it's a binary "under your skill: success" then it isn't really. You can have the ridiculous situation of a master swordsman (WS70) against an untrained novice (WS20) who can't land a hit on them round after round because of the vagaries of the dice (and use of Fortune Points). Because you only need to roll under your skill to defensd. Even if the other guy is much more skillful and rolls low.

Of course margins of success would increase the handling time, which is about the only good thing about WFRP's combat. Tedious but fast-moving.

I'm not quite sure why you keep making the comparison to D20, I don't like D20 games. I've played and liked D&D4e, but that's it. My mainstay is FATE 3.0, which doesn't have any of these problems.

Leon
2010-10-11, 11:05 AM
D&D is the large target so its got a bonus to be hit.

DwarfFighter
2010-10-12, 12:45 AM
Indeed. d20 is well known (not just the name) by a large number of players, so it serves well as lowest common denominator. :)

-DF

Deadmeat.GW
2010-10-12, 02:01 AM
Nonsense. Our PCs are all into their third careers, there's some pretty high fantasy stuff going on as a result.

Starting characters might be low fantasy, but get a couple of careers under a character's belt and it stops being so. My character just survived being shot twice by a Hochloand long rifle by a hidden sniper. The first hit was an Ulric's Fury that did a lot of damage.

And low-level D&D is certainly not a high-powered game.



If to-hit and defense rolls in WFRP actually used margins of success, then you could say skill made a difference. Since it's a binary "under your skill: success" then it isn't really. You can have the ridiculous situation of a master swordsman (WS70) against an untrained novice (WS20) who can't land a hit on them round after round because of the vagaries of the dice (and use of Fortune Points). Because you only need to roll under your skill to defensd. Even if the other guy is much more skillful and rolls low.

Of course margins of success would increase the handling time, which is about the only good thing about WFRP's combat. Tedious but fast-moving.

I'm not quite sure why you keep making the comparison to D20, I don't like D20 games. I've played and liked D&D4e, but that's it. My mainstay is FATE 3.0, which doesn't have any of these problems.

In the above example, you are aware that you can cause penalties to your opponent by doing things?
Blind the opponent, distract him, get behind him?
All of these can and will make a skilled fighter far more deadly then the amateur but...it requires a lot more time.

You can give up to 30% penalties to people by doing certain things, or even better disallowing people from rolling due to terrain or circumstances.
No shield to reduce the damage that you do, no parry and no dodge normally for people you attack from behind.

Edit:

Hum, btw, you are aware that advances are not granted multiple times?
A career with +4 wounds with all 4 wound advances taken does not allow you to later on take the +7 wounds from a knightly career.
If you started with 12 wounds, had 3 careers, of which one of them gave you +4 w, one +3 and one +7 you have a total of 19 wounds because only the highest profile counts...not exactly the end of the world.

An Ulrik's Fury hit from a strength 4 weapon that reduces armour more then standard would do a minimum of 15 damage before you remove T and armour.
If you have 3 armour and 4 toughness an Ulrik's Fury that did just the minimum damage would knock 8 wounds of your profile.

That is a serious hit.

Kiero
2010-10-12, 05:04 AM
In the above example, you are aware that you can cause penalties to your opponent by doing things?
Blind the opponent, distract him, get behind him?
All of these can and will make a skilled fighter far more deadly then the amateur but...it requires a lot more time.

You can give up to 30% penalties to people by doing certain things, or even better disallowing people from rolling due to terrain or circumstances.
No shield to reduce the damage that you do, no parry and no dodge normally for people you attack from behind.

Almost all of those require at least a half action, and so are a waste of time. They'd prevent the skilled fighter being able to take a Swift Attack, and thus deny him one or maybe even two additional attacks. More attacks is better than a bonus to one attack.

As DwarfFighter said upthread, it's the Swift Attack Grind.


Edit:

Hum, btw, you are aware that advances are not granted multiple times?
A career with +4 wounds with all 4 wound advances taken does not allow you to later on take the +7 wounds from a knightly career.
If you started with 12 wounds, had 3 careers, of which one of them gave you +4 w, one +3 and one +7 you have a total of 19 wounds because only the highest profile counts...not exactly the end of the world.

An Ulrik's Fury hit from a strength 4 weapon that reduces armour more then standard would do a minimum of 15 damage before you remove T and armour.
If you have 3 armour and 4 toughness an Ulrik's Fury that did just the minimum damage would knock 8 wounds of your profile.

That is a serious hit.

Well aware, my character has 17 Wounds (started with 11, +6 from Veteran, the +4 from Outlaw and now +4 from Highwayman are irrelevant being lower than +6). He has a Toughness bonus of 4, and was wearing leather armour (1 point) at the time. First hit took him down to 3 Wounds, second put him in critical hit territory.

Fortunately he had a trained medic (Knight Templar) on hand to stop him bleeding to death, and didn't fail the 20% chance of dying immediately roll.

misterk
2010-10-12, 05:20 AM
If to-hit and defense rolls in WFRP actually used margins of success, then you could say skill made a difference. Since it's a binary "under your skill: success" then it isn't really. You can have the ridiculous situation of a master swordsman (WS70) against an untrained novice (WS20) who can't land a hit on them round after round because of the vagaries of the dice (and use of Fortune Points). Because you only need to roll under your skill to defensd. Even if the other guy is much more skillful and rolls low.

Of course margins of success would increase the handling time, which is about the only good thing about WFRP's combat. Tedious but fast-moving.

I'm not quite sure why you keep making the comparison to D20, I don't like D20 games. I've played and liked D&D4e, but that's it. My mainstay is FATE 3.0, which doesn't have any of these problems.

You do realise thats absurd, right? First of all, your average WS70 guy will almost certainly have more than one attack, and only the first one can be parried (the untrained novice will probably not have dodge blow), and even so, will only manage to block 1/2 the time (assuming they've got a shield and use a fortune point EVERY time).

Kiero
2010-10-12, 05:43 AM
You do realise thats absurd, right? First of all, your average WS70 guy will almost certainly have more than one attack, and only the first one can be parried (the untrained novice will probably not have dodge blow), and even so, will only manage to block 1/2 the time (assuming they've got a shield and use a fortune point EVERY time).

Which still leaves the damage fail-point. Untrained novice has a Toughness bonus of 3 and is wearing mail armour (3 points); skilled swordsman has a Strength Bonus of 4 with a hand weapon, if he rolls a 1 or 2 on the damage roll, nothing happens. So even having managed to land a hit, which wasn't parried, 20% of those will fail to do anything.

Even if he has Strike Mighty Blow that merely reduces it to 10% chance of successful hits, which weren't parried, doing nothing.

Psyx
2010-10-12, 06:18 AM
Nonsense. Our PCs are all into their third careers, there's some pretty high fantasy stuff going on as a result.

But you informed me that you started D&D campaigns at 7-8 level and hated slow advancement. Hence: You like higher powered games (than I).


Starting characters might be low fantasy, but get a couple of careers under a character's belt and it stops being so.

Skilled protagonists do not make a game high fantasy. They make it high powered. It can still be high or low fantasy.

High fantasy = very common magic. Players are dripping with magic.
Low fantasy = more medieval based setting. Players lucky to have a couple of magic items each.



. You can have the ridiculous situation of a master swordsman (WS70) against an untrained novice (WS20) who can't land a hit on them round after round because of the vagaries of the dice (and use of Fortune Points). Because you only need to roll under your skill to defensd. Even if the other guy is much more skillful and rolls low.

Bread and butter NPCs most certainly do not get Fortune points to spend on dice rolls. Only Heros and major NPCs do.

Your situation is indeed pretty absurd. In the situation you describe, there is only a 9% chance that the skilled warrior isn't capable of landing a telling blow in 3 rounds, assuming he's a dolt who neglected to ever buy an extra attack. If he has two attacks per round that falls to 0.8%. You're saying it's a poor system because a statistical fluke can happen. Statistical flukes should not be the bread and butter of commentary on a system. In D&D my 20th level mage could repeatedly fail to land a save or die spell on a 1st level human thanks to the whim of the dice. That alone does not make the system in any way bad.


Untrained novice has a Toughness bonus of 3 and is wearing mail armour (3 points); skilled swordsman has a Strength Bonus of 4 with a hand weapon, if he rolls a 1 or 2 on the damage roll, nothing happens. So even having managed to land a hit, which wasn't parried, 20% of those will fail to do anything.

Erm... that's kind of the point of armour. It doesn't stop you getting hit. It stops you getting hurt. Frankly armour in WFRP is -if anything - way underpowered. Mail only negating 1/3 of blows is a very poor reflection on the armour. If anything, you're criticising in completely the wrong direction: Sword blows do not cut through armour.

Kiero
2010-10-12, 06:48 AM
You keep comparing to D&D, but you're overlooking the fact that it has fewer fail-points.

To hit isn't an opposed roll in D&D, where your opponent's roll negates your attack regardless of how well you rolled.
Damage in D&D isn't soaked or reduced by armour and toughness, meaning a hit is a hit which does damage.

Both of which make for more decisive combats where more of the rolls actually mean something.

Three different dice rolls to tell me nothing has happened is a lot more boring than one dice roll that tells me nothing has happened. It has a longer handling time, too.

Psyx
2010-10-12, 08:06 AM
D&D is one big fail point.

I find such systems a dreadful travesty, because the skill of the defender means nothing (A high-level warrior is as easy to hit as a commoner... yeah, right). And armour acts merely to completely negate a blow, or fails to actually do anything at all.

I want to be able to actually a parry, rather than moronically allow my character to be hit in the face with an axe. So what if you launch a perfect thrust? If your foes steps back: you miss.

I want my armour to soften even the hardest of blows and reduce damage somewhat.

The reasons why you dislike WFRP combat are the reasons that I like it.
I want something that models combat slightly more realistically, rather than by taking huge chunks of Hit Points off each other in a glorified version of Ro-Sham-Bo until someone simply falls over, having taken no wound penalties along the way.

Kiero
2010-10-12, 09:08 AM
D&D is one big fail point.

I find such systems a dreadful travesty, because the skill of the defender means nothing (A high-level warrior is as easy to hit as a commoner... yeah, right). And armour acts merely to completely negate a blow, or fails to actually do anything at all.

I want to be able to actually a parry, rather than moronically allow my character to be hit in the face with an axe. So what if you launch a perfect thrust? If your foes steps back: you miss.

I want my armour to soften even the hardest of blows and reduce damage somewhat.

As I said before, you're arguing against this straw man of D&D when it isn't even my game of choice. But it still does more decisive combat than WFRP.

WFRP doesn't allow margins of success in hit rolls, which makes the claim that defender skill is more important than in D&D meaningless. It's still a binary "you hit" or "you miss", with the complication that irrespective of skill the defender can negate that.

In FATE 3.0, both parties skill matters because it's the margin of success which determines whether or not there's a hit, not a fixed target number. It also factors into damage. I'd note that armour absorbs damage, rather than making you harder to hit there, too.


The reasons why you dislike WFRP combat are the reasons that I like it.
I want something that models combat slightly more realistically, rather than by taking huge chunks of Hit Points off each other in a glorified version of Ro-Sham-Bo until someone simply falls over, having taken no wound penalties along the way.

There's nothing especially realistic about either D&D or WFRP. In WFRP you've got the same Ro-Sham-Bo, except there's a death spiral with critical hit tables tacked on to the end of it. Tacked on, because until you've run out of Wounds, it doesn't engage.

DwarfFighter
2010-10-12, 09:36 AM
Both of which make for more decisive combats where more of the rolls actually mean something.


Strange. I'd conclude that the rolls mean less and the bonuses you add mean more.

-DF

comicshorse
2010-10-12, 10:00 AM
WFRP doesn't allow margins of success in hit rolls, which makes the claim that defender skill is more important than in D&D meaningless.



Well apart from the fact that the Defenders skill is what his Parry goes on so you are much less likely to hit a skilled opponent as he will successfully defend himself

Psyx
2010-10-12, 10:51 AM
As I said before, you're arguing against this straw man of D&D when it isn't even my game of choice. But it still does more decisive combat than WFRP.

Straw-man is a phrase used far too often on these boards, usually at the wrong time.

No, I'm pouring my personal derision upon any system that abstracts combat to a single dice roll that has no consideration for parrying, and an absurd consideration for armour. But I'm only doing that in order to highlight how much I like to be able to parry, and armour to absorb damage.

It does make for a decisive combat, but so does rolling a d6 each, and adding +1 per level of skilling in 'killing things', with the highest party winning the fight, and the lowest dying in the gutter. Decisive does not mean good.

WFRP is tense. More tense than many games, because when that Troll connects with that tree-trunk, it's down to YOU to roll the dice to stop it. You even get fate points, which you can decide to use, too.




WFRP doesn't allow margins of success in hit rolls, which makes the claim that defender skill is more important than in D&D meaningless. It's still a binary "you hit" or "you miss", with the complication that irrespective of skill the defender can negate that.


Erm. No.
How can that be, when the skill of the defender is the crucial factor in regards to voiding a blow?
It's not a hit or miss. It's a 'I have to hit, and they have to not parry it'
And of course the defender can negate that, regardless of skill. Every swordsman learns to void or parry blows, irrespective of the skill of the attacker. There is no such thing as an attack 'too good' to riposte. That simply means the defender is not good enough to do so.



There's nothing especially realistic about either D&D or WFRP. In WFRP you've got the same Ro-Sham-Bo, except there's a death spiral with critical hit tables tacked on to the end of it. Tacked on, because until you've run out of Wounds, it doesn't engage.

WFRP isn't an accurate simulation. For that an increase of complexity is required. (*rolls out Riddle of Steel and whips a silk sheet of the top of it*)
However, WFRP is a MUCH more realistic simulation than 3.5/4e/half the games out there. That's why I think it's pretty good.

If I want a gritty, low-fantasy, but pretty simple system, with a ton of background material, a world which most gamers are familiar with, works well in an urban setting and has a bunch of award-winning campaigns penned for it, I'd plump for WFRP every time. Because it's brilliant at all of those things.
If I wanted something that was a better simulation, I'd use my own house rules... which I do. However, it comes at the price of increasing the level of play complexity by another degree, which is not always what I want from a game.

Kiero
2010-10-12, 11:34 AM
Strange. I'd conclude that the rolls mean less and the bonuses you add mean more.

-DF

That's not an apples-with-apples comparison. I'm talking about the relative impact of an individual dice roll in D&D cf WFRP. In D&D one roll tells you whether an attack was meaningful. In WFRP you need at least three rolls to tell you the same.


Well apart from the fact that the Defenders skill is what his Parry goes on so you are much less likely to hit a skilled opponent as he will successfully defend himself

Margins of success are irrelevant in WFRP, which would be a meaningful comparison of relative skills.

Attacker (WS 70) can roll 01 and pass their attack by 69, which is a phenomenal roll.

Defender (WS 20) can roll 19 and pass their defense by 1, which is scraping by, yet that still completely negates the attacker's roll.


Straw-man is a phrase used far too often on these boards, usually at the wrong time.

No, I'm pouring my personal derision upon any system that abstracts combat to a single dice roll that has no consideration for parrying, and an absurd consideration for armour. But I'm only doing that in order to highlight how much I like to be able to parry, and armour to absorb damage.

Well FATE 3.0 (as per Legends of Anglerre) doesn't do that. Attacker makes a roll, defender makes a roll, margins of success determine whether there's a hit or miss. Weapons add Stress, armour absorbs Stress.


It does make for a decisive combat, but so does rolling a d6 each, and adding +1 per level of skilling in 'killing things', with the highest party winning the fight, and the lowest dying in the gutter. Decisive does not mean good.

Only true if you abstract "decisive" to the level of meaningless. As with everything it's a balance between complexity and handling speed.


WFRP is tense. More tense than many games, because when that Troll connects with that tree-trunk, it's down to YOU to roll the dice to stop it. You even get fate points, which you can decide to use, too.

Whereas in my experience WFRP is boring. Far too many rolls that do nothing. Fortune points merely spin the pointless rolls out still further ("you failed your Parry, and on a re-roll...you still failed your Parry").

This notion that "you can roll to stop it" is rather illusory. Especially with probabilities as wild as you get with percentiles.


Erm. No.
How can that be, when the skill of the defender is the crucial factor in regards to voiding a blow?
It's not a hit or miss. It's a 'I have to hit, and they have to not parry it'
And of course the defender can negate that, regardless of skill. Every swordsman learns to void or parry blows, irrespective of the skill of the attacker. There is no such thing as an attack 'too good' to riposte. That simply means the defender is not good enough to do so.

Without margins of success, skill is a lot less important than it might otherwise be. There's such a thing as lacking the skill to effectively stop attacks.


WFRP isn't an accurate simulation. For that an increase of complexity is required. (*rolls out Riddle of Steel and whips a silk sheet of the top of it*)
However, WFRP is a MUCH more realistic simulation than 3.5/4e/half the games out there. That's why I think it's pretty good.

Greater complexity rarely produces more accuracy, just slower handling times and perhaps going down blind alleys. Invariably you end up with vagaries more a product of the biases of the game's designer than anything to do with reality.


If I want a gritty, low-fantasy, but pretty simple system, with a ton of background material, a world which most gamers are familiar with, works well in an urban setting and has a bunch of award-winning campaigns penned for it, I'd plump for WFRP every time. Because it's brilliant at all of those things.
If I wanted something that was a better simulation, I'd use my own house rules... which I do. However, it comes at the price of increasing the level of play complexity by another degree, which is not always what I want from a game.

And again, I don't agree greater complexity=better simulation.

Psyx
2010-10-12, 12:28 PM
Well FATE 3.0 (as per Legends of Anglerre) doesn't do that. Attacker makes a roll, defender makes a roll, margins of success determine whether there's a hit or miss. Weapons add Stress, armour absorbs Stress.


Yes, but I like WFRP...



Only true if you abstract "decisive" to the level of meaningless. As with everything it's a balance between complexity and handling speed.


Yes, and our preferences lay at different levels. You seek 'one/two dice roll' solutions, whereas I prefer a little more.



Whereas in my experience WFRP is boring. Far too many rolls that do nothing. Fortune points merely spin the pointless rolls out still further ("you failed your Parry, and on a re-roll...you still failed your Parry").


It's boring with a boring GM. The WFRP system is fantastic with a GM who is happy to describe the action, and players happy to dive in as well.



Especially with probabilities as wild as you get with percentiles.


Err... sorry, but that makes no sense. It's a linear progression. There's nothing wild about it.



Without margins of success, skill is a lot less important than it might otherwise be. There's such a thing as lacking the skill to effectively stop attacks.


You mean like having a 20WS, so you might just happen to get your sword in the right place?

Again: There is no attack too good to parry. And parrying is pretty easy. Simply holding a sword in the right place and tilting it a bit negates a massive number of blows.



Greater complexity rarely produces more accuracy, just slower handling times and perhaps going down blind alleys. Invariably you end up with vagaries more a product of the biases of the game's designer than anything to do with reality.


Wow. Sweeping statement. I disagree. Increased complexity CAN lead to a simulation no more accurate than a simpler system (cf Rolemaster). However, in a well designed game, that is not the case.



And again, I don't agree greater complexity=better simulation.

A better simulation requires a higher level of complexity, starting at our baseline of 'flip a coin to see who wins' and terminating with a massive computer simulation which take into account the length of character's arms and the armour coverage on every inch of their body. Everyone picks where they like to be on that scale.

Now some of that complexity can be mooted by an increased elegance in the rules, but given equally good game design, better simulations are more complex.
D&D for example is a pathetically poor simulation that has a high level of complexity. There are much more elegant systems out there which provide more accurate simulation while having a much more streamlined rule system.

DwarfFighter
2010-10-13, 12:57 AM
Whereas in my experience WFRP is boring. Far too many rolls that do nothing. Fortune points merely spin the pointless rolls out still further ("you failed your Parry, and on a re-roll...you still failed your Parry").


There is the Feint combat action. This differs from a standard attack/parry exchange in that it is an actual opposed WS test and thus favours the more highly skilled character. The reward: the enemy doesn't get to dodge/parry your next attack. So you'd better make sure the next attack hits.

-DF

Deadmeat.GW
2010-10-13, 01:10 AM
Also keep in mind that if you do other things in combat you can increase your chances to hit or decrease the enemies chances to parry.

You can go for unarmoured parts also which a skilled fighter has a chance of doing but an unskilled fighter would never be able to do.

So your toughness 3 and armour 3 guy is suddenly reduced to toughness 3 and that is it...

For combat the best thing to do is to be able to take your enemy down by stabbing him in the back, no dodging, no parrying and going on standard rules a +20 or so bonus to your attack rolls.
Once you start doing that things get really bad really fast.

Also keep in mind that locations can be crippled faster then taking down your whole hp-pool.
It is an optional rule but you should give it a try.

Kiero
2010-10-13, 06:25 AM
It's boring with a boring GM. The WFRP system is fantastic with a GM who is happy to describe the action, and players happy to dive in as well.

Not in my experience. My GM is brilliant, the plots and storylines are excellent. Players are good and characterisation is too. Combats have meaning and context, and description is appropriate.

No amount of flowery description makes a string of misses and non-events interesting after the third or fourth one.


Err... sorry, but that makes no sense. It's a linear progression. There's nothing wild about it.

It's wild compared to a bell curve centred around results in the middle, as you get in anything involving pools or multiple dice. That favours skill of a character, rather than putting most of the power in the randomiser.

In FATE, whether 4dF or d6-d6, results tend towards 0, meaning a character's skill is the main determinant of success or failure.


You mean like having a 20WS, so you might just happen to get your sword in the right place?

Again: There is no attack too good to parry. And parrying is pretty easy. Simply holding a sword in the right place and tilting it a bit negates a massive number of blows.

Nonsense. When someone is outmatched in skill, they have trouble attacking and defending. They can't keep up with the distancing, ability to close the distance, telegraphing (or lack thereof) and feinting. The list of advantages a skilled opponent has are fairly massive. Parrying is far from easy. Especially if you're actually trying to get your own shots in.


Wow. Sweeping statement. I disagree. Increased complexity CAN lead to a simulation no more accurate than a simpler system (cf Rolemaster). However, in a well designed game, that is not the case.

Shame WFRP isn't a well-designed game.


A better simulation requires a higher level of complexity, starting at our baseline of 'flip a coin to see who wins' and terminating with a massive computer simulation which take into account the length of character's arms and the armour coverage on every inch of their body. Everyone picks where they like to be on that scale.

Now some of that complexity can be mooted by an increased elegance in the rules, but given equally good game design, better simulations are more complex.
D&D for example is a pathetically poor simulation that has a high level of complexity. There are much more elegant systems out there which provide more accurate simulation while having a much more streamlined rule system.

False dichotomy. Arguably you could get much more accurate simulation with freeform and a reasonable group than any randomiser. The scale doesn't go "coinflip to 1GB spreadsheets", it doesn't have to involve randomisers at all.

misterk
2010-10-13, 09:06 AM
To be honest, while I don't think wfrp combat is terribly good, you are basically ignoring various options here. Even with ws 20, our guy is going to die will before ws70 guy, and will usually die quite quickly, thanks to ulrics fury adding lots of extra damage.

As to getting past a poor swordsman.. feint? Thats EXACTLY a test which determines skill difference, or as I already mentioned, attacking so quickly that they CAN'T parry each time.

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-13, 09:45 AM
I can't speak for 2nd or 3rd edition of WFRP, except that they'd have to try to be not better than 1st. It is...not an elegant system, to say the least, from layout to Naked Dwarf syndrome to Wizards-Win-With-Fireball to an index being put into one of the expansions because it was nearly impossible to find anything...

We play it, however, because the quest books for it were simply fantastic. They blow their contemporary AD&D modules right out of the water, and really, until I got Shackled City and Paizo's adventure modules, they were the best I'd ever seen. (Castle Drachenfels and Lichemaster are particularly good.)