After my last post I decided to write FFG again. Again I was told that they are planning more Expansions. And that the line will be around as long as people buy it.

They also said they do not respond to forum speculation and will not announce any new material until there is a release date.

So take that how ever you want. I'm hopeful. Cuz either way this is the only RPG I''m buying. I want the cards and I like the system. The world is up my ally also. So I'll pick up the 2nd Edition stuff for fluff because its (mostly) cheap but thats about it. They make a 4th Edition without cards, like all the other paper rpg's, I'm out. I would have enough material anyways.

cool stuff master yoda however rampant speculation based on nothing is a time honored forum tradition and i'll be horribly skeptic until i actually see said  planned expansions on the shelves :) 

gmanjkd said:

Ho, ho, ho!

HI,

I used to post here all the time, but got busy and sort of fell of the radar.  Now that I have more free time I came here to see what's been going on with FFG and the fantastic Edge of Empires game coming up (that I've very recently gotten the chance to play a lot more).  

For the past 5 years, until edge of empire, I have played Warhammer almost exclusively.  My group even began porting other games into the Warhammer mechanics and I've ran almost everything using this system.   The only real criticism I've ever heard about the game from other players is that the action cards and stance meters are the flaw of the game.  This does not include the stance dice.  They work fine, but the meter itself gets in the way of the game for them.  The action cards and the complex recharge mechanics they also don't like.  They just want to say what they do and not have a card dicatate how its done.  This has been the case from playing at my local game shop to the group I play with regularly.  So, I began running the game without them.  Once you cut these components you cut out over 2/3 of what player's consider to be the "fiddly" bits.  It works beautifully.  The only issue is you have to cut all the talents that relate to "recharge" and redefine what the delay symbol means.  However, the description in the books give clear examples on how to use it.  To me, this sets the dice free and the player's have a lot less to worry about.  

I think its funny on how well the Star Wars mechanics are being received comparatively.  Star Wars is a great game, but it's essentially what I am describing:  Warhammer without action cards.   Star Wars maintains talents, it's just talents on one big fiddly bit - the talent sheet.  The Force powers are the same as a Wizard Spell, but instead of the chart being printed on a card, its printed in a book. There is a still a micro-chart that explains how the power works that players are still required to track, it just tracks them differently.  Now, there are some major differences between the systems, I am not denying that, but at their core, they are the same game.  Years ago, in the house rules section I proposed creating essentially the harder, difficulty die that upgrades a purple when facing a serious bad guy.  I am glad to see it in star wars (and I think Warhammer could still use it - my famous Orange die). 

So its the same game in a different package.  I do think its success - when comapred to the criticisms of Warhammer - is the removal of action cards and card recharge.  But way back, 5 years ago (the stone age right?) the entire gaming industry was obsessed with designing MMO style RPG table top games.  Even DND 4e, the walking disaster, was obsessed with it.  It's what killed 4e over time as well.  Actions being codified people do not want in an RPG anymore (if ever).  It was a way to try to bridge a gap between MMO's and RPG's, but it just didn't work.  

I do think Warhammer (and Star Wars) now face a new challenge.  With the rise of games like Fate, Dungeon World, Burning Wheel, and other indie narrative games these big-box, traditionalist model games have a new beast.  The market is changing drastically in terms of what people are looking for from an RPG experience and new, fresh designers are taking a totally different look at the RPG experience - though it has been around for years.  Star Wars as well as the little I've heard about the next DnD is trying to bridge the gap between the traditionalist model and the narrative game.  I think Warhammer was a great attempt at this as well, I just think it got lost in all the vitriole about "fiddly" bits.  I do think its funny though anytime I hear someone sing the praise of these narrative games, then criticize the Warhammer dice.  In a nutshell, no other narrative game - though they all try - are as capable of creating the type of narrative outcomes from their core mechanics as the dice FFG are now producing.  They use complex mechanics to try and achieve it, but so far, they fail to capture the diverse nature of banes/boons.  It just can't be done on a binary mechanic of standard dice.  These dice offer so many more narrative possibilities than any other system out there.  If you don't believe me, play Dungeon World straight up, then play it again modding it over using Warhammer Dice - just the dice, nothing else.  It is by far a better narrative experience.  

I do think that Star Wars will be well received - and I am glad that it is - but I wonder, 5 years from now, if the current trend of Narrative games continue to rise from the indie markets, I feel that it will be criticized for some of its more traditionalist mechanics that it adheres to currently.  Just as 5 years later, Warhammer is seen as Star Wars' clumsy, ugly grandfather.  Just last night, I read a Star Warsmodification to the Apocalypse World Engine.  It wasn't half bad, but I think FFG's is better.   

So, if Warhammer was to be revised I think they should look at cutting the action cards entirely and I think people would have a massively different reaction to it.  I am curious to see if this is what's coming in the future for it. 

Happy gaming,

Commoner

Well written post Commoner,

I'm still confused about why people dislike the cards. The cards give you rules just like in any other RPG. A talent is a talent. An Action card is like any other Feat. I keep looking through rpg's at the store and keep scratching my head. Ok so in DnD I can get double strike as a Feat, Awesome! So I can get it as an Action card in Warhammer. What's the difference? Star Wars Saga has a force power called Whirlwind attack. Hmm, That sounds like an action card.

I myself love the cards, because I hated writing done short hand notes of the rules. I hated remembering or trusting my players knew the rules interuptiation. I started out with Star Wars Saga. Do you know what I was doing? Creating cards when someone advanced and bought it. I have a small deck of cards started. I was getting tired of making them. But you had to make them. And then I ran across this game. Boom! I was sold. And on top of that I love the simple math/numbers system. It's great.

So I guess the thing is that I would pay extra so I can get professional looking cards which I than do not have to waste my time making myself.

I guess the argument really comes down to price point. Some people don't want to spend more for cards, while others will. I could think of other areas that FFG could cut to save costs. 

* We get fulll-color books

*Card board NPC stands, are great, but are pointless unless you give us more. I mean it can be pretty obvious which NPC's are important in these adventures. (Gathering Storm for example)

* Less card board. there is plenty in the core box to save us from that expense in the future. How many recharge tokens do you really need?

I mean if they did it wisely they could have given us some basic weapon cards, gear, etc. More NPC stands. More handouts and few nice maps. Give us black and white books

Even if they want to revise it by dumping the cards, thats fine. As long as they still have the option to buy the cards in the form of a POD, Vault or something.

master yoda said:

Although I know nothing about the Star Wars game, I largely agree with Commoner's critique of WFRP 3.

In a sense you're right: what's the difference between a double strike card, and a double strike rule written in a book?   Nothing.   But I don't want a double strike rule at all.   If my players want to double strike, I'll let them, perhaps imposing some modifiers.   Why do they need a defined card / talent to do this?   Why do they need to buy 'flirt', or 'winning smile'?   What's wrong with rolling fellowship and roleplaying/describing what you're doing?   Buying very specific manoevres seems very old fashioned to me.

Although I have nothing against the use of components in principle, a lot of the cards add clutter and complexity that I just don't need.

I guess I always considered these as aids or addittions. As in you can flirt, but if you spend an advancement for the Flirt action card you could flirt better. Which in a way is telling us that over the years you have been able to fine tune the way you flirt for those special occaions when you need a little more ump.

I come from a board gaming back ground so I have a different view on things. But when you say you don't want those rules, than where are the boundries? who cares about a system? what system? why roll dice? Why not just seat around and tell a story? In truth that's what we do but the rules guide us and tell us how well or bad our character does with the actions(not cards) that we choose during that journey/story, otherwise we would be unstoppable characters that can do anything and everything.

master yoda said:

Ah! but there is a difference. The game mechanics of the action cards sucks in my opinion. The traking tokens, not only they add more things to the table but additionally this is a board or PC game mechanics lazily brought into a rpg. There is indeed an attempt to justify the traking tokens in the core book, but it fails when you look at it with the lens of a rpg. I won't argue that these mechanics achieve one thing at least, keep some game balance, but it does it in a way that for me is poor. They should have found a better way to do it, which would have additionally cleaned the table of traking tokens and easen both GM and players job.

They could have used fatigue and stress, or add more risky chaos star effects on those cards whith high recharge time.

Similarly, the mechanism for active defenses is equally bad. A player character cannot parry each round…or dodge or block…

I understand that many people not caring a all about simulation can be ok with this system, but I think one has to remember that one of the goals of a an rpg system is to simulate its world. Two rpgs with different worlds like super heroes and far west, can have very different mechanics (or more precisely components of its mechanics) but both of them will try to simulate their worlds from books, comics, movies etc.

At the end of the day, every one of use care about simulation, that is why there are so many house rules about shooting into a melee, or for wearing amours, and that is also why a GM would not allow an enemy to shot his bow across a wall, because it is not real enough.

Well, for me the mechanics of the action cards are not realistic enough, and moreover they fill the table with extra tokens, dice, stones or whatever.

Cheers,

Yepes

Yepesnopes said:

This is straight up false. There are plenty of wonderful games that have completely abandoned simulation.

Many people may prefer that playstyle, but it is not the end-all be-all of gaming. 

Doc, the Weasel said:

It is not false. I am pretty sure you would not allow your players in wfrp 3 to jump over a chasm which is 100 m wide, neither will you allow them to stay for 30 minutes underwater. Why not? to simulate "reality" or more precise to simulate "heroes (or adventurers) in a fantasy setting". This of course may change in other settings, where for example the players play with alien races or with super heroes, but then again, there will be other concerns regarding simulation of the setting.

Nertheless, I will rephrase it a bit. At the end of the day, every one of us care about simulation up to some degree.

Cheers,

Yepes