Lol,

To each their own. I find 4E gets bashing from people that never give it an honest chance.

My favorite argument is the WoW argument. I ask if the person plays wow? Yes. Did you play Wow for a long time? Yes. So you are mad a 4E for being WoW but you have spent at least 100 dollars or more on WoW, thinking it's a good game? Yes.

And YES I will go on record saying IT is WAY better than 3X. I'm so happy that game is less played around here.   Although I think AD&D might be as good as 4E.

oh i gave it the old college try, twice and i ran the game for 3 months, the story was excellent, but the game rules were terrible.

I never played WOW so i have no comparison, nor do i ask if anyone has played it, as it is irrelevant.

I am playing Dragon Age now and it is a wonderful game, even though its mechanics remind me on warhammer 3e.  So why the difference is like/ dislike. It must be because warhammer 2e is great by itself, if they wanted to make a new game then call it something else....

c8tiff said:

Well, I'm sorry you don't forsee it as being worth a campaign.  Let me suggest a few answers to your issues:

The reasons are that the dice convention employed means that the players are more busy laughing at the poor die rolls than seriously staying in character

Hmm, interesting. I didn't see this, so it was an interesting dynamic of the group you played with. I will say that every RPG has moments where players laugh at dice rolls, whether they be good or bad.  The GM should run with it.  Come up with a creative and interesting narrative for the quirky results. Draw the players back into the game by making the roll a story.  Or, don't forget you can award fortune points for good roleplaying. Remind the players that you will do this, and get them to make a story out of the roll.  Again, drawing them back into the story.  Of course, you could also penalize the group by adding to the party tension if they get too out of character laughing about the roll too.

and the players tend to limit themselves to the choices in the cards than to thinking out of the box.

I think I already covered this previously. First, the cards are shiny and new, and unfamiliar. So, yeah, they will make the players focus a bit more on what they do, rather than how they do it.  Given time to get comfortable with the various action cards, I think most players will get more comfortable using them in creative ways.  Also, give the players incentives (either with [W] or fortune points) to describe the actions being performed with the action card, rather than letting the player just play it down and roll.

2e is more complete

It depends on what you mean. It has been around longer, and has more expansions... so yes there's more material for it.

enables use of a mat and miniatures so that you can get bonuses for more than one npc on a pc

Mat and miniatures take up a lot of space and time. While I myself have been a big fan of mats and minis and grid positioning, I found the abstract movement quite refreshing and quick to handle combat.  As for bonuses. There is a maneuver called "Assist" which provides a [W] fortune die to another ally involved in the same engagement. It's a maneuver, so you can attack too ... thus, you can get bonuses. As well, the GM is free to award [W] for outnumbering, or [B] for being outnumbered, etc. So, 3e does not have a restriction on giving bonuses for more than one npc on a pc (or vice versa).

Leveling up has got to be better in 2e as opposed to more of the stupid colorful dice

Leveling up in 2e is more than "more of the stupid colorful dice."  You can gain stats, action cards, talents, skills, wounds, fortune dice, and stance pieces. Yes, some of those provide more dice.  More dice is the equivalent to gaining % points in a 2e stat or to use a skill/stat.  Action cards and talent give a PC more options on what they can do, without giving any more dice.  Skills can not only provide a die, but also the ability to actually use a skill (you can't used advanced skills until they have been trained). Wounds are obvious (and are not dice).  Stance pieces allow a PC to move farther in a stance direction.  In a way, I suppose it is more dice ... it doesn't change the total dice, but allows an additional of the color to replace a characteristic die.  So, all in all, 3e leveling is about more than "more colorful dice", and I dare say you have more options on what to buy with your XP in 3e than you do with 2e.

I hope this gives you a few more ideas about how the game can be run and can work well as a campaign.

thanks.  I played Dragon Age again last night to find out why i liked it better, although the mechanics are very familiar with warhammer 3e.

The social interactions in the game are superb, none better than any ive seen so far, much like the table rpg games when i am the DM.

the fights are tough, tactical and very challenging, which is not tactical enough in warhammer 3e, they are challenging and you can laugh when it looks like you pulled a hammy trying to aggressively attack but there is definetly not enough tactical movement in 3e.

To me the game is enjoyable enough to play, but not to be the one to invest in it and have it sit on my shelf.  I buy almost everything that FFG produces and this time i will actually pass.

c8tiff said:

But then

"the fights are tough, tactical and very challenging, which is not tactical enough in warhammer 3e, they are challenging and you can laugh when it looks like you pulled a hammy trying to aggressively attack but there is definetly not enough tactical movement in 3e."

So...a dice pool takes people out of character but micromanaging squares on a grid doesn't?  Grid movement DOESN'T limit your choices to what actions you take, but reference cards do ?  I'm....confused.  If you want a tactical board game, 3e is definitely NOT going to make you happy.  If you want story telling, then 3e works very well.  If you like "old school" with stacks of books for reference, 3e won't make you happy.  If you want a rules framework with rules details written on cards for easy reference, then 3e WILL make you happy.

I really do not get the people complaining about the cards like they somehow 'limit' the character.  That's like claiming 3e/4e D&D talents somehow limit the character.  Only difference is that these talents are on cards for easy reference so you don't have to have a stack of books.  I'd much rather have the 7 or so rules that pertain to me right on the table rather than flipping through rule books for the needle in a haystack.  Flipping through books HAS to be the biggest time waster and enemy to 'staying in character'.  Right up there with micromanaging squares on a grid.

I can already visualize, for example, Lord of the Rings... Aragorn running to a wraith on Weathertop:

Aragorn; "Get back!"..."no...wait...5' too far..let me back up a bit.."Get back!"...no..wait...ran through that wraith's threatened square.  Let me try that again: "Get back!".  Wait...

give me abstract layouts for story telling any day.  Give me 'post it note' rules references to prevent book flipping.  Those two things streamline the game SO much and lets people focus on story instead of 'tactics'.

micro managing the combat is the best thing about combat.

good dming and knowing when and how to interract with the pcs during the social encounters is also paramount.

i'm not saying i didnt like the game, i'm saying that i enjoyed it enough to play when the opportunity strikes, just not enough to add it to my extensive library.

yes i hate dnd 4e because it is awful, but i do use elements of it in my games.  I will probably use elements of warhammer 3e whenever i run.  There are good ideas, just not enough in one package to switch over to it.

i do dislike when pcs do not think original thoughts for themselves, and i highly reward them when they actually roleplay with either a better story, xp, or dice adjustment for the "skill" rolls, as an example i dislike the pcs just trying to make a "diplomacy" check in dnd 3e without some element of discussion, as you can read that is a poor mechanic in dnd 3e.

So, what do i like to run you ask.

1) Bushido

2) Rogue Trader

3) Dark Heresy

4) Warhammer 2e

5) Pathfinder

6) Vampire

7) Twilight 2013

8) dnd 3.5

i'm sorry if just being out of position for one round and still having to close with the enemy is a tough test of your tactical abilities

as written from your latest reply below

I can already visualize, for example, Lord of the Rings... Aragorn running to a wraith on Weathertop:

Aragorn; "Get back!"..."no...wait...5' too far..let me back up a bit.."Get back!"...no..wait...ran through that wraith's threatened square. Let me try that again: "Get back!". Wait...

c8tiff said:

I think that you're missing his point.  He was addressing your concern that the elements of WHFRP 3e would spoil in-character roleplaying and kill immersion, not that tactical gaming on a grid was too hard.

dvang said:

I just wanted to thank Dvang for his/her calm, reasoned responses in many threads.  Nice, classy defense of the game without resorting to rudeness or edition bashing.  Well done.

John

Dvang had great reasoned replies. But as you can clearly see I was not stating that the edition was BAD.

Nor was I asking for arguements to defend it. Nor is the game that bad to need defence, unlike DND 4e.

I didn't mean coming off like a douche (rereading it after lunch did reveal that to me)...

After reading numerous 'dont like' threads, it boiled down to:

1) dont like cards (it limits player choice)

2) dont like dice (limits roleplaying)

3) dont like the lack of a grid (not enough tactics)

Often times the above are in the same post...and they are mutually exclusive.  A grid does not add to roleplaying...it adds to tactics.  LACK of grid adds to roleplaying.  Cards do not limit roleplaying.  Cards are just conveniences. 

While D&D has been moving from tactical->story->tactical....until we see in 4th edition a set of rules that is completely wargame/tactical (ie. every story element has to have a mechanical +/-).  WFR3e took the opposite approach and moved towards story (admittedly, I'm a 1e WFRP player, not 2e).

Tactical games are not roleplaying.  I saw Vampire in your list...great example of a story game. minimal reliance on tactics/grids.  The rest are, for the most part, heavy tactical.

Best stories I've played in came from Mage and a gridless Gamma World.  Worst ones have come from the wargames trying to pass themselves off as an RPG.

"i'm sorry if just being out of position for one round and still having to close with the enemy is a tough test of your tactical abilities"

Lol..son..I cut my tactical teeth on Star Fleet Battles, so hop off the 'i can move my character on a grid' high-horse...the point is that a ROLE playing game (which is what this is), should NOT be concerned about movement tactics.  That is not cinematic.  That is not 'story'.  That is minutia which only gets in the way of the story.  If you like tactical games, cool!  Me too!  But to condemn RPG for lacking tactics due to an element that drives story (ie. gridless) and in the same breath condemn the same game for an element that increases tactics, choice AND roleplaying because it takes away from roleplaying  (ie. dice) is inconsistent.

Let me put my Aragorn example in simpler terms.  When was the last time you read a book that detailed how far the character ran in feet?  How many books have you read where the hero was concerned about getting 'diametrically opposed to get a flanking bonus'.  These are things that, as a story teller, I deplore (tried to remove the grid requirements for D&D4e with rules modifications...not worth the effort).

This game IS a radical departure from the norm.  Current RPGs have not evolved much in the 30 years that i've been playing.  Every now and then a gem comes out that tries to stand out in a saturated landscape with fresh ideas.  If RPGs were operating systems, we'd still be using a command prompt.

c8tiff said:

+1.  Halleluja.

I didn't mean coming off like a douche (rereading it after lunch did reveal that to me)...

After reading numerous 'dont like' threads, it boiled down to:

1) dont like cards (it limits player choice)

2) dont like dice (limits roleplaying)

3) dont like the lack of a grid (not enough tactics)

Often times the above are in the same post...and they are mutually exclusive. A grid does not add to roleplaying...it adds to tactics. LACK of grid adds to roleplaying. Cards do not limit roleplaying. Cards are just conveniences.

While D&D has been moving from tactical->story->tactical....until we see in 4th edition a set of rules that is completely wargame/tactical (ie. every story element has to have a mechanical +/-). WFR3e took the opposite approach and moved towards story (admittedly, I'm a 1e WFRP player, not 2e).

Tactical games are not roleplaying. I saw Vampire in your list...great example of a story game. minimal reliance on tactics/grids. The rest are, for the most part, heavy tactical.

Best stories I've played in came from Mage and a gridless Gamma World. Worst ones have come from the wargames trying to pass themselves off as an RPG.

"i'm sorry if just being out of position for one round and still having to close with the enemy is a tough test of your tactical abilities"

Lol..son..I cut my tactical teeth on Star Fleet Battles, so hop off the 'i can move my character on a grid' high-horse...the point is that a ROLE playing game (which is what this is), should NOT be concerned about movement tactics. That is not cinematic. That is not 'story'. That is minutia which only gets in the way of the story. If you like tactical games, cool! Me too! But to condemn RPG for lacking tactics due to an element that drives story (ie. gridless) and in the same breath condemn the same game for an element that increases tactics, choice AND roleplaying because it takes away from roleplaying (ie. dice) is inconsistent.

Let me put my Aragorn example in simpler terms. When was the last time you read a book that detailed how far the character ran in feet? How many books have you read where the hero was concerned about getting 'diametrically opposed to get a flanking bonus'. These are things that, as a story teller, I deplore (tried to remove the grid requirements for D&D4e with rules modifications...not worth the effort).

This game IS a radical departure from the norm. Current RPGs have not evolved much in the 30 years that i've been playing. Every now and then a gem comes out that tries to stand out in a saturated landscape with fresh ideas. If RPGs were operating systems, we'd still be using a command prompt.

sorry to be on my high horse again, but its ok if you disagree with me that great combat can add to the experience at the table

c8tiff said:

c8tiff said:

Just because i'm sitting here bored at work...

my group got all hyped on the 4th edition announcement 2 years ago.  3.5 had turned into a muchkinfest of '1BG/1Pal/1Ass/1Sorc/1blah/15zing' prestige classing with a smorgasboard of feats pulled from 6 different splatbooks that had never been playtested together that the game became a steaming pile of feces (yay, Paizo for trying to fix the mess).  4th edition rolls out and, at first, it looked good.  Played once and we all stared at each other.  All we could say was 'well...the rules are cohesive'.

Now, I understand that story isnt driven by rules, but story CAN be destroyed by rules.  My gamer's palette had just ingested the equivalent of 2 pounds of ricecake.  Not filling, not tasty, not pleasurable.  We just went through the exercise of chewing.

"Well...lets see how the Forgotten Realms handles 4th edition..maybe we just have the wrong take on it".  Books came out...tried it again.  Left the table feeling like a prostitute who didnt get paid.  Broke, screwed, and unsatisfied.  It kept getting worse!

I like my RPGs rules light (except for the Hackmaster 5e...that one fills an unusual void for me) and 4e seemed to put everything into a consistent, uniform, box.  Bleah.

Of our group, 2 enjoyed the grid tactics...spent half of all combat figuring out the 'perfect movement and positioning'.  Left the other 3 picking their nose for most of it.  A single combat would take 3 hours.