My opinion has changed, but it hasn't got any better I'm afraid.

My original reaction was a knee-jerk "what the hell are they thinking of..." based purely on the press release. I leapt to some conclusions and ranted a bit and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

Now that they've started releasing some actual information, I still don't like it.

I'll admit that some of the game mechanics sound interesting, but for me they're outweighed by all the problems I can see and there're more problems with every new bit of information. I haven't made up my mind on the dice yet, they could be revolutionary or they could be hideously overcomplicated and we won't know until we actually get to try them.

This game requires space to play. You really need to have all the players round a table, and a sizable table at that, so that they have room to lay out all the various components that they're using. Stance tracker, career sheet with various attached cards, tokens, the party sheet with attached cards and more. This is no longer a game that you can play from the back of a book balanced on your knees, which means it's one that my group physically can't play unless one of us moves house and buys a bigger table.

All the extra components means more things that can be lost. And unlike D&D 4E, it doesn't look like the information on the cards will be reproduced anywhere else so if you lose one it's lost. Dice are less of an issue, you can always add sticky labels to a regular D8 or whatever and draw the symbols on.

I don't like the approach being taken with the background. Reiklander humans, dwarfs from a single hold (that has never been mentioned in the background before unless I'm remembering it wrong) and no halflings. It seems like the game will be aimed at a must smaller area of the Old World, possibly just Altdorf and its environs, and if this is the case it would take away the main reason I play WFRP in the first place.The Warhammer World is one of the best realised campaign settings in existence, and limiting your scope to one tiny corner of it just seems wrong.

I don't like the lack of character options. 30 careers in the core box, which includes basic and advanced careers seems like a woefully small number to me.

I don't like the fact that your choice of career limits your roleplaying options, at least initially, just through the fact that it dictates what stances are available to you. This kind of thing should be based on your character's personality, not their profession.

Personally, I don't care about the price. It's a drop in the ocean compared to what I tend to spend on games anyway. However most of my players tend to like owning their own copy of the rules so that they know what they're doing when they play, and for them $100 is prohibitively expensive. Yes it's the same price as buying the 3 D&D core books, but if you want to you can just buy the PHB for D&D which is a lot cheaper and you don't have that option here. Plus WFRP3 will have VAT on it, which makes it more expensive still.

So yeah, still not interested.

I'd be more interested if this wasn't Warhammer. If it was some generic fantasy background, and if you could use the new mechanics without needing all that room to lay out components, then I'd definitely be interested enough to give it a try.

However the limited background, lack of character options and the necessity of all the components just makes this a "no" for me.

I still like what I'm seeing.  Haven't had any major turnoffs yet.

ChaosChild said:

I see this sentiment aired periodically and I just wanted to say that I don't think the Stance meter interferes with your roleplaying at all.  Tying a character's experience and familiarity with recklessness/caution to his career is a simple design choice that roots the mechanic in the setting.  Opinions will vary as to whether its a valid way of going about it or not, and that's cool with me.  I personally like that decision and find that it makes sense to me.  Doesn't matter though.  The part that I don't understand though is the feeling that you are limited in your character realization because of it.  Every single career can operate as cautiously as you'd like to roleplay it out.  All the system is doing is saying that certain folks have more experience with cautious/reckless actions and thus can gain more from that behaviour.

This probably needs to be in its own thread though...

donbaloo said:

ChaosChild said:

I am feeling completely opposite.  I stated off, like you did, quite skeptical about a new edition. 2e was great, why change it and what's up with all the components?  Is this a boardgame now? 

However, the more I see about this new edition, the more I like it and the more excited I am about it.

Let me try to talk about your concerns:

SPACE: I suppose it might take up more space, assuming that you lay everything out.  Of course, nothing prevents you from just stacking your cards together, and putting them on your career sheet, etc to minimize the space needed.  My group already uses a big table since we use miniatures, so we've got some room. Still, if your group doesn't play where there's space, you could indeed end up having some issues.  Perhaps clearing some floor space and playing on the floor?

LOST COMPONENTS: Very true, although as of yet there is no official word if the card information will also be summarized in a book.  Regardless, I expect within a week or two of the game coming out that someone will provide a .pdf or other list of cards and their information.  Jay did say in the seminar video that the cards are visual tools to aid gameplay.

BACKGROUND: There is plenty of material to allow settings other than Reikland.  I expect that this area is just the initial focus of the core set and expansions will add to it, just as in every other RPG.  There is absolutely nothing preventing you from running a game in a different area of the world.  The Core Set could only focus its information on a limited area, and where better than the core of the Empire?  It is actually no surprise to me that they recommend dwarves from a specific younger hold.  It has already been mentioned in WFRP that usually only younger dwarves interact with humans from the Empire.  I doubt there is anything actually rule-specific that prevents a dwarf PC from being from somewhere else.  I expect, similar to the setting, they simply chose a single specific hold to make things easier and allow them to provide detailed background information about the hold.  As for halflings, well, I honestly don't care for them.  They are definitely planned for an expansion, and I expect it won't take too long for that expansion to come out either.  Again, this is a Core Set.  It is, of course, focused on a small area to allow FFG to give detailed information (in its limited space) about that area. There is plenty of 2e sourcebooks that still have usable information about other parts of the world.

CHARACTER OPTIONS: I agree, it seems a bit small ... but it is more than a lot of other RPGS.  Also, there are additional careers in the Toolkit, which is coming out at the same time as the Core set.  So ... I don't think you're as limited as you think.

ROLEPLAY: I think you have the wrong impression of the stance mechanic. It is a representation for how the PC approaches a task, and is a mechanic to allow a character to change dice when attempting to accomplish tasks.  It can be changed, from my understanding, by the player before every roll for every task.  It is in no way a mechanic to force roleplay.  Additionally, it was mentioned with the recent diary, that careers can purchase additional stance pieces, so a Troll Slayer could buy conservative stance pieces, they just cost advance points.  Mechanically, a Troll Slayer doesn't tend to be a cautious or methodical thinker/doer ... for them cautious might be being at neutral or a single reckless stance.  I think, rather than considering the stance as 'forcing' a player to roleplay, you might instead consider stances as a guide to how the typical person of that career would act. The PCs are PCs, they are not required to roleplay to match their stance exactly. Rather, the stance is a mechanical means to allow the player to alter the dice they use for a roll.

COST: Indeed, I think this is probably the big hurdle.  Especially, as you pointed out, for a player that just wants the rules.  Perhaps FFG will create a smaller 'player set', or perhaps FFG will allow for purchase of individual books and cards.  I hope so.  Of course, the book will give you the basics of how to play, but won't give you any of the true player information, so that is included on the career cards and action cards, etc, so a player really needs more than just the book to play.

dvang said:

See the issue with your reply?  Either they are optional, or they aren't.

ragnar63 said:

Hence why I said "at least initially" in my post.

Maybe I am missing the point on stances but it seems to me that the whole idea is to provide an in-game mechanism to reflect the attitude that the PCs have to their situation. Linking the possible options to your career seems like a mistake in most cases (slayers really shouldn't have a conservative option imho). Not all gamblers are inherently reckless, just how reckless you decide to play your character should be just that; your decision.

This is just one of those things that really shouldn't be linked to your career. Giving players a free choice of 4 stance pieces would be a better option.

It could pretty easily be argued that gambling is inherently reckless,since there is always chance you will lose something.  If you are a more cautious gambler, than you probably won't make very big bets and use your cautious stance.

I don't really understand the space issue.  I've had 5 people packed into somebody's tiny dorm room to play RPGs.  We had no table, the desks were covered with computers and homework.  We also had boxes of pizza and snacks in various places.  We made it work.

I also don't really see components being lost as an issue either.  Character sheets from other games can be lost too.  Books can be torn, or have things spilled on them.  Stuff happens, I don't really think it's a game system's fault when it does.  Use more cautious stance dice when you pack up the game and it won't be a problem  :)

ChaosChild said:

How reckless to be is the players decision, but at the same time you have to consider the character's experience. It isn't so much about personality as familiarity with situations in which a cautious (or reckless) aproach is necessary. Someone who works in a career that requires patience, calm and rational thinking will be good in situations where that kind of thinking is necessary, even if he usually prefers to be reckless. Someone who works in a career that requires split second decision making based on gut-instincts will be good when a reckless stance is called for, but (again), may prefere to be cautious the rest of the time.

NewTroski said:

Did the game you were playing have 30 different dice, hundreds of cards  stress meters, several boards and character sheets per person etc..?

That game was Vampire, but we had quite a bit of stuff.  Obviously everybody had their own character sheet, and each person had around 10 dice.  We also had real-world props that we used.  Our GM used Vampire cards from the card game as portraits for NPCs, so we could easily picture people.  We were constantly fiddling with the cards and arranging them according to our various theories about the political power in the city.  So, maybe not quite as much but a comparable amount of stuff.

Maybe I'm weird though; I still have all the pieces from some of the toys I had as a child.  I think if you're careful, it's not a problem.

@ Jarl : Not really. Perhaps I didn't explain it properly. The book doesn't have detailed information about specific characters and careers. Some of the cards, such as those for effects like Blindness, most likely ARE in the rules and the cards are not really necessary. It's possible the rules might have an appendix list of Core Set actions/talents, but for ease of play in either case, the cards are highly preferred. There is, however, nothing stopping a player from making their own paper list/reference sheet or writing down on a piece of paper all their PC's action card information and obviating the need to use the cards. After all, most RPGs have you write that information down on the character sheet anyway. WFRP 3e just gives you handy cards so you don't have to transcribe that information from the rulebook to your PC sheet if you don't want, but it doesn't prevent you from doing so either. So ... they are optional to use.

@ Chaoschild : Well, it depends on how you look at what the stances mean. Certain careers draw a certain temperment, so the stance pieces give a general guideline to how the career, by its very nature, functions. Are you *really* saying you think a typical player can/should choose a Trollslayer, but it's ok if they choose 4 conservative stance pieces? Why are they playing a Trollslayer then? Or, a scholar that chooses 4 reckless stance pieces? That's smacks to me of a one-off GM decision, not the norm. This is an RPG, and the GM is the final arbitrator. If you want the players to choose their stance pieces because you want them to be able to roleplay a temperment completely opposite their career, then you can certainly let them do so. However, I'll reiterate, that most careers draw a certain range of personalities, which is represented loosely, but appropriately, by the stance meter.  The default/initial stance meter can represent a guide for the general temperment of a career. If a player truly wishes to move outside these bounds, they can purchase additional stance pieces or move into another career. Or, as a GM, allow players to shift their starting stance pieces, etc. For rules purposes, however, it makes perfect sense to provide default/initial stance settings for careers, if nothing else but as a means to provide additional information about how a career works. Regardless of anything else, there is nothing stopping the player from roleplaying their character anyway they see fit, the only impact the stance mechanic truly has is what kind of dice (and how many) they can swap into a skill check.  A player could play a conservative trollslayer, yet still throw a bunch of reckless dice on a test, or if they truly wanted the dice to mimic their roleplaying (like a conservative trollslayer), throw only attribute dice and no reckless dice. For a trollslayer, no reckless dice *is* quite conservative.

@Foolishboy : Well, first of all, WFRP3e only has what, 7 different types of dice? (blue, red, green, purple, white, black, yellow) Hmm, D&D has d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20. So 6 types. The career boards don't appear to be mandatory, merely helpful aids (even more so than the cards). You could probably just transcribe the majority of the information from the careers and cards onto paper, just like you'd have to do with any other RPG, if you want to save space. As for the stance meter, it doesn't look like it takes up much room. Regardless, again you could probably have it on a piece of paper instead and make marks or use a paperclip to keep track of which box is current. So ... lots of suggestions on ways to reduce space without hurting the game or gameplay if you don't have all the available space to have all the visual aids present.

dvang said:

Yes, or put another way: the information is mandatory, the cards are not. Memorise it, write it on paper, whatever. They put it on a card instead of in the book; either way you need the rules.

dvang said:

A few things to consider though: 

- While WFRP 3e may only have one more dice type than D&D (7 vs 6), it looks like it will have more dice over all.  For me, this makes it less attractive than D&D, and I don't particularly care for D&D.  WFRP 1e was attractive to me in that it only required, what, two dice types - d10 and d6, and 2e went even further, meaning I only need d10s. 

- most gamers I know all like to have their own dice that are distinctive from the dice of the player's around them.  Going to be hard to do that with this edition, since the colors of the dice are so integral to the game system.

- some gamers, including myself, and several others I've gamed with, like dice enough that we like to buy seperate dice for each game, and sometimes even for each army for wargames, and for each PCs.  Every PC I play has their own set of dice - it's part of their "character".  Yeah, I know, for the most part, one set of dice is just like another, but for me, seeing the distinctive dice for a particular PC in front of me tells me immediately what character I'm playing, and helps keep me in character.

kristof65 said:

Ah, the posessive player syndrome, something which I and most of the players in my group are afflicted with. Then again this might solve some isues. for instance, every play session we've had have lead to that I have to lend some dice for some other who didn't bring their own for that particular session, which makes it a bit hard to keep track of which dice or mine and which dice is theirs.

This issue might be solved completely by a game like this since everyone is pretty much forced to use the dice out of the box rather than bringing their own.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Been a long time since I've had a problem with the lending of dice - I have so many now, that at my abode, there are plenty of sets of loaner dice. I usually have a spare set or two with me if we're playing somewhere else.

However, I do so another possible issue related to the possesive player syndrome and WFRP 3e, once the dice packs become available - how will you know who's die it is? Not a problem when everyone has different enough dice, but I've seen arguments over who's 40k scatter die is who's at clean up time among my mini gaming groups.