ymrar said:

I agree with you that fluff in adventure books will be related to the adventure. Of course. But why is that a problem ?

The reason games produce fluff books more than adventures is that fluff can be a worthwhile buy for many players and gms. It is general enough and thus can be used by people playing many different styles of campaigns. It's a logical sell. Also, these are easier to write. Why ? Because they do not need to create dramatic tension, they are just basically inventories of what you will find in this or that region/race/profession. Of course, good writing is always hard, but for a competent writer, I think coming up with a good plot, with twists and all, is the hardest proposition.

This said, a good campaign can really get the fanbase excited about the game, its tone, the way the story is written, the humour of it, the gore whatever. A good campaign can give everyone an idea of what WFRP should be. For what kind of story is it best suited. How can you use the rules and settings in an original and creative way to write an adventure.

TEW was great to teach all the GMs out there the special brand of WFRP dark humour. No supplement could do it as well. THe action, the NPCs, the gory discoveries, everything in TEW (right from SoB) made you experience the difference of WFRP. The specific and unique aspects of this game. What separates it from other fantasy RPGs.

Cities will be cities, wars will be wars, secret cults secret cults. Until you meet them up close in an adventure, you can't know how a WFRP city, war or cult will really be like. That's the use of adventures and campaigns.

I agree that these supplements are a risky venture business wise, but they can really push the enthusiasm up and bring new players in the game. Just like Grayhawk, Forgotten Realms or Ravenloft did for D&D. All of these settings had numerous published adventures to play.

Jericho said:

I still remember my players spending 5-6 sessions trying to hit rich with the boat they found in Death of the Reik. That made for lots of fun, shady dealers, smuggling, pirates encounters, encounters with corrupt river guards, near misses in locks and sluicegates,...

Related to this, in my opinion, The Thousand Thrones was a step in the right direction (you can hardly get grimmer than that) but they tried to get too much adventure information in just one book so sometimes the result seems rushed and with insufficient information. I would have prefered BI to divide the campaign in 4-5 books and include extra lore and game mechanics in each of them.

Maybe the "extra goodies" 3rd edition will come with will move FFG towards this kind of campaigns... at least that's my wish.

Well one thing I think FFG will have to do is release an Elf book, given half their PC race choices are Elves.   If its overlooked they are just shooting themselves in the foot, especially since they are totuting they added extra elves to give them some more dues.

Loswaith said:

The elves does seem a strange choice. I haven't done a poll or anything but the general impression that Warhammer fans have always given me is that Elves were the least popular race often even Ogres were prefered.

Foolishboy said:

Ogres are popular (though difficult to implement as player characters). I think the popularity of the races has always been Humans, Dwarves, Elves. After that it's probably Skaven, then halflings. If they released a greenskin supplement they would probably compete with Skaven for fourth place. I'm not actually sure where Ogres come in on that list, probably compete with Elves for third place.

I'm hoping 3E fails and the license changes hands again to a company that doesn't do board games and will make a 4th edition that is once again a RPG that requires only some imagination and some dice. Not a board game with required playing pieces. At the $100 plus cost including tax to buy only a part of the system and another 30 some bucks to buy the rest, it is a good bet it'll fail.

This dumbed down version geared towards young kids who depend on a parent to buy them the game (at that price, not likely happening) or those who are interested in board games and video games and they are typically looking for a short term distraction and will not be interested in purchasing every supplement, like true fans of Warhammer would.

Sooner we can stick a stake in 3E and chop off its head the better, for that is all it is, a money sucking scheme to REQUIRE you to buy all these new dice and playing pieces to immerse you into a game instead of actually roleplaying and using your imagination. It is blasphemy and destroying roleplay in general.
 

onlinechaos said:

So much for you being a "true" fan of warhammer. I am not saying you have to buy the game to be fan but at least try and support it. This is 3rd edtion WFRP after all. I thought WFRP was a well loved game that had a good fan base. Well, I guess I was wrong because people are so quick to hate the game they used to love so much. This is still WFRP and it's not a board game.

lordsneek said:

That is not my perception.  Anyone can make rules for a game, be it a fan or a game company.  Just because FFG has the license doesn't make what they spew out WFRP.  This is not a new edition, it is a new game.  It has been tainted and mutated so it should not suffer to live.  Burn it.

lordsneek said:

A lot of D&D 1-3.5  fans say that the best thing to come from D&D4 will be D&D5. For everyone who has a go at the ranters, I understand why they are so upset, they do love WFRP that's the problem, because as they see it the new game is not WFRP, it is some random ruleset with a recognisible name stuck to it. I can understand why WFRP 1&2 fans will say the best thing that could happen to WFRPv3 is failure and then move on to WFRPv4. I have not passed judgement on this game yet, there are elements that concern me and I am already planning on houseruling out several of what I see as the kiddies aids, in spite of this I will most likely buy the game and give it chance, if I don't like it I'll sell it on ebay or pop it on the shelf. 

Foolishboy said:

Yes, I realize what I said is probably harsh, but you understand my thinking as to why I'd like to see it fail. I want to see a 4E by another company that are true fans of the original game that has some cross over with 1&2. Typically with new editions there is some crossover, but this is truly a new game. I really had wanted a 3E originally and I wanted to support the game when I heard about it, but how they've marketed the game, by splitting up player content into multiple supplements and darn near require all these playing pieces to manage your character I can't support it on principle alone. I've gone on a rant today after reading the FAQ section and about how to make a character in this new edition. I come to this site occasionally still hoping to read more about the new edition, hoping all my fears are wrong, but the more I read the more I'm repulsed by it. I swear I'd rather see another WFRP Dark Age then this.

lordsneek said:

I can understand his hoping it will fail - I've had bouts of it myself.  And it is possible to be a fan of WFRP without being a fan of the setting.  I like WFRP 1e and 2e because of the game mechanics, not the setting. So  yeah, I don't give a rat's crap about the new edition, because the game mechanics are too far removed from what I liked about WFRP.

I don't really want it to fail completely, because that's bad overall.  I guess what I'm really hoping though is that 3e isn't so succesful that Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader get converted to it the same mechanics.  Because I like DH as it is.  Other than that, I think I've come to terms with 2e being abandoned, knowing that it will be no worse than the days of 1e before 2e came along.

The future?  Here is the future:

On this and other internet forums conservative reactionaries are going to whine and moan about the game while knowing very little about it and call themselves "true fans" and argue with people who want to at least see the game before deciding if it sucks.

Then it will come out.  At this point it will be:

1) Awesome

2) Fairly good

3) Suck

4) Truly awful.

If it is widely recognized as 1) or 2) (and this could take some time) then it'll become the standard.  Holdouts will continue to play v2 or (god help them) v1, but they'll represent a minority that will dwindle into a tiny group.

If widely recognized to be 3) or 4) then a lot of people will continue playing v2.

cogollo said:

... and that would turn me off buying them. If it's a campaign book, then it perhaps introduces a few extra bits here and there, but there needs to be a focus on the lore. The reason it works with Path of the Damned was that a city only needs so much coverage to work - whereas when you are covering a RACE then you need a lot more detail.

YMMV.

phobiandarkmoon said:

I'm wondering if this is where FFG will see their biggest divide in consumer opinion.  For example, I'm with cogollo, I'd like to see world information and supplemental expansion tied in with published adventures.  Ten years ago, I wouldn't have.  But now I want a total package to maximize my time.  The gazetteer approach, with a new book spouting reams of encyclopedic information for each race, country and oddity will not interest me.  Tie the crux of the information to a good adventure and I'm hooked.

donbaloo said:

I think that the two groups has always existed. I'm sure there has always been people who prefer adventures/campaign books and people who prefer lore/gazetteer books. I think it comes from the style of play.

Those who like more to stick to a straight story (and dont have time to write stories of their own) want adventures from books. Just like you said. Time is mostly the matter. Players who never GM dont see the effort GM has to put in, so adventures are a nice short cut.

Those who want to play in a free world, where the player can hugely alter the story heading to any random direction want lore from the books. They need to fill their mind with ready (and in some groups canon). Also those who want to write their own stories needs lore too.

I guess most groups play somewhere in between of a straight story and a freeform. This is the first time I hear people talking of "killing" lore books. There has been many people wishing that. I find that a bit offensive. I've never had any trouble with adventure books, although I very rarely buy or need one. I know that many people do. I also know that I'm not only one fond of lore books and would be sad if they would be gone.

So there is only division in consumers if FFG makes it so. Bring in adventures AND the lore books, just like before and I see no trouble. Because with lore it doesnt matter what the mechanic is. I use lore from the Fantasy Battle books or sometimes if it suits me *gasp* from the WAR MMO! This way the 3rd ed players can play the 3rd ed and the rest can play what ever the grognards play (mutated versions of 2nd/1st)...