Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - 2e vs 4e

[The Butcher]

Relevant to this discussion, The Rookery had a video discussion yesterday with the designers of WFRP 2E, 3E and 4E present. I've only watched half so far, but I am finding it's a good discussion of the tough choices you have to make in creating a new edition of an RPG. This is just a warmup for next week's discussion, where they bring in Graeme Davis to represent 1E as well.

Been out of the loop for a while but intrigued by the Rookery Publiations crew. Can't see anything by them over at DTRPG, what's the deal with them?

Speaking of 2e Warhammer rpg, I just received an email about a 2e Humble Bundle.

Humble RPG Book Bundle: Warhammer Fantasy RPG by Cubicle 7

Gather your party and face the perils of the Old World with this vast library of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay rulebooks, sourcebooks, and adventures. Plus, pay what you want & support charity!

www.humblebundle.com

Edit: Looks like it's a mix of 1e, 2e and 4e now that I'm reading down through it. Interesting. Fifty books looks like.

Damn, that's a ton of stuff... seriously considering it.

 

[Acmegamer]

T The Butcher I already blew my saving throw to resist. Probably because I keep throwing the dice instead of rolling them.

 

[Ralph Dula]

Speaking of 2e Warhammer rpg, I just received an email about a 2e Humble Bundle.

Humble RPG Book Bundle: Warhammer Fantasy RPG by Cubicle 7

Gather your party and face the perils of the Old World with this vast library of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay rulebooks, sourcebooks, and adventures. Plus, pay what you want & support charity!

www.humblebundle.com

Edit: Looks like it's a mix of 1e, 2e and 4e now that I'm reading down through it. Interesting. Fifty books looks like.

I’m torn. I don’t think I’ll ever run WFRP again for a group, so the $30 bundle isn’t that great a deal for me. On the other hand, it does have the one 2E book I don’t have, and I do like fiddling with the sliders to give as much as I can to charity, so I’m tempted to go in at that price.

 

[Acmegamer]

I’m torn. I don’t think I’ll ever run WFRP again for a group, so the $30 bundle isn’t that great a deal for me. On the other hand, it does have the one 2E book I don’t have, and I do like fiddling with the sliders to give as much as I can to charity, so I’m tempted to go in at that price.

I actually have the 4e physical core book and pdf, the starter box set pdf/physical already but I couldn't resist due to the rest of the files and giving me a chance to read 2e since I never read it. I'd read/owned 1st edition years ago though, so I appreciate getting my paws on a pdf of 1e. For the 30 bucks I just can't resist, I love to read the material of rpgs and evaluate it in general. Even if never use it, it feeds idea for creative ends for other rpg related stuff I might do. Plus the whole charity aspect just adds frosting to the cake.

 

[Simlasa]

I went ahead and got the bundle... though I'd already had a lot of it from a prior offer, but no 4e.
I'm in a group that's playing TEW with 4e so it will be nice to have a copy (I've got the physical starter box but it's a bit less than I want as a Player... mostly fancy cardstock without anything like a quickstart rulebook).

 

[Acmegamer]

So is 2e generally considered the best version of WHRP? I'm also wondering why 3e wasn't in the offer for the Bundle as well.

 

[Simlasa]

So is 2e generally considered the best version of WHRP? I'm also wondering why 3e wasn't in the offer for the Bundle as well.

I've seen a number of people say they like 2e rules best, if not it's setting (which adhered more to the wargame's fluff of that moment). I only played 2e in it's 40K configuration.
But it seems like 1e/2e/4e have fairly similar mechanics... vs. 3e which was a whole other thing.

 

[Silverlion]

I had 1E, I thought 2E was cleaner, I've not seen 4E, don't really care for the new "special faction" RPG Soul whatever. Meh.

 

[Simlasa]

I had 1E, I thought 2E was cleaner, I've not seen 4E, don't really care for the new "special faction" RPG Soul whatever. Meh.

Soulbound is its own thing... different setting, different rules. I don't know much about it but it kind of struck me as a Warhammer + Planescape sort of thing... but that can't be right.

 

[Silverlion]

Soulbound is its own thing... different setting, different rules. I don't know much about it but it kind of struck me as a Warhammer + Planescape sort of thing... but that can't be right.

I'll be honest, it doesn't seem as well thought out as Planescape, I think they were trying to tie into the Age of Sigmar or something, don't know. Not my thing, I read some of it but was like "I just want to be an Elf Shepard, or Forester or something simple.."

 

[Séadna]

Relevant to this discussion, The Rookery had a video discussion yesterday with the designers of WFRP 2E, 3E and 4E present. I've only watched half so far, but I am finding it's a good discussion of the tough choices you have to make in creating a new edition of an RPG. This is just a warmup for next week's discussion, where they bring in Graeme Davis to represent 1E as well.

A lot of quality stuff there, never knew about the gnome controversy. Andy Leask's comments about unifying the magic system with the basic skill resolution system to align with the metaphysics of the setting were interesting.

 

[Simlasa]

I'll be honest, it doesn't seem as well thought out as Planescape, I think they were trying to tie into the Age of Sigmar or something, don't know. Not my thing, I read some of it but was like "I just want to be an Elf Shepard, or Forester or something simple.."

I took it as an attempt by GW to thwart the decline in sales of their fantasy figures (and relatively generic IP) vs. the better selling 40K... so they hit on, "What if the heroic knights in WFB were more like Space Marines? How could we justify that and give everything proprietary names while we're at it?"

 

[Jaeger]

I don’t think you can really appreciate the game until you dive full heartedly into what they are doing with the campaign books too.

A mistake on the developers part then.

Hiding appreciation behind a specific campaign is a great way to signal to potential new players and GM's to take a look at something else.

It's just lacks mood. It could easily be D&D.

Probably because D&D's art has consistently drifted to a 15th to 18th century aesthetics in many areas sine 3e.

IMHO it has become even more pronounced in the 5e era.

At the same time I'm not a fan of 4e's art either, because to me it's a mix of being too cartoony and bright but too grimy and dirty. Most of 1e and 2e had cities in the Empire looking more or less like towns out of Renaissance Europe with a Brothers Grimm flair to some of it, but 4e makes the Empire look like a blend of 40k and Tim Burton, both extremely filthy and gritty but also bizarre and fantastical.

For me the 4e art style is the concept art for a WFRP video game...

The 4e artists are approaching the old world without the same aesthetic references as the artists who did the work of 1e.

I'll give one important tip for anyone who wants to give 4E a spin. You have to use the Fast SL optional rule on p.152. Not only is it easier at the table, it's the way the game worked all through playtesting. All the Talents and the Advantage system assume you are using Fast SL. I'm not clear on the why, but someone decided to flip the way SL worked at the last minute, and broke a lot of the game.

Simply mind-bottling.

They put a spike in their game sales for no reason other than a conflict of design choice.

4e will not do as well as it could have because it got a rep as a complicated broken game on release. A rep it will never shake.

A shame to see such idiocy repeated again and again for WFRP...

 

[Skarg]

You could do what I do with GURPS 3e and GURPS 4e, and play your favorite of the rules from both editions.

And/or play Gurpshammer, which is what I'd do instead of play Warhammer. ;-)

 

[Jaeger]

You could do what I do with GURPS 3e and GURPS 4e, and play your favorite of the rules from both editions.

And/or play Gurpshammer, which is what I'd do instead of play Warhammer. ;-)

The real big miss was in the mid 90's when Hogshead didn't do a marvel team up license with Chaosium, and put out a 2e of WFRP with a custom variant of the magic world/stormbringer rules. (I would have gone all pendragonish, and divided everything by 5, and done a d20 roll under version.)

WFRP 2e with a clean, uncomplicated, yet familiar rules set released in AD&D2e's dying years 95-99 could have done very well I think!

If wishes were fishes...

 

[CRKrueger]

The real loss of Andy Law from the project is we won’t get his maps.

 

[TristramEvans]

So is 2e generally considered the best version of WHRP?

lol, no. First edition by a wide margin.

 

[Sosthenes]

lol, no. First edition by a wide margin.

The opinion you heard often is that from a technical perspective, 2E – or at least bits of it – is better, but from pure packaging and mouthfeel, 1E was a bit of a pinnacle. Of course, nostalgia doesn't play any part in this at all ;)
One example for the rules aspect is the magic system, which, IIRC, was a bit rushed in the 1E stage and resulted in something more D&D-like than appropriate for the Old World.

At least the two camps gang up together on 3E, which seems universally disliked – and I haven't noticed this changing in the same way that opinions about D&D 4E improved.

 

[TristramEvans]

The opinion you heard often is that from a technical perspective, 2E – or at least bits of it – is better, but from pure packaging and mouthfeel, 1E was a bit of a pinnacle. Of course, nostalgia doesn't play any part in this at all ;)
One example for the rules aspect is the magic system, which, IIRC, was a bit rushed in the 1E stage and resulted in something more D&D-like than appropriate for the Old World.

At least the two camps gang up together on 3E, which seems universally disliked – and I haven't noticed this changing in the same way that opinions about D&D 4E improved.

1e was, from a technical perspective, more streamlined and better constructed. 2e added unnecessary complexity, while attempting to "balance" game elements in a way that removed verisimilitude and ignored in-game play in favour of "character builds". Moreover, in one of the most blatant cash grabs in the industry, 2e took the elements of the core rulebook in 1st edition and split them up between numerous extremely thin volumes.

The magic system in 1e bears little resemblance to D&D magic, there is nothing Vancian in the mechanics, instead evolving from the wargame. If I were to compare it to anything, it would be the magic system from the King's Quest seris of games, just more dangerous. And like the Wargame, when 4th edition ushered in the reconception of Warhammer magic as based on the "Winds of Magic", this was likewise introduced into 1st edition via the Realms of Sorcery.

As for 3rd edition, I was one of the few defenders of the system itself, though it was all wrong for the Warhammer world, it was most certainly not as Jennifer Aniston and others who didn't actually read the game claimed, a "boardgame masquerading as an RPG". I thought the dice system was quite clever.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

lol, no. First edition by a wide margin.

I know it's not your view, but I think the majority opinion is probably 1e setting and 2e mechanics.

The problem with 2e is it had to follow GW canon, which at that point was just post the Storm of Chaos.

Which was great for the wargame, but a lot more limited for the RPG.

Aside from anything else, you couldn't really do the "secret and invidious nature of chaos" when large mutant armies had just invaded the Old World.

 

[TristramEvans]

I know it's not your view, but I think the majority opinion is probably 1e setting and 2e mechanics.

The majority opinion also voted Taco Bell the best Mexican restaurant in America.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

The majority opinion also voted Taco Bell the best Mexican restaurant in America.

I really like some of the supplements for 2e but it's the ones when they mostly ignored the Storm of Chaos. Tome of Salvation, Organisations of the Old World and stuff like that are really good and easily used in a 1e game.

And Renegade Crowns is my favourite WFRP setting of all time (the Border Princes) largely because it has almost nothing to do with the metaplot.

 

[TristramEvans]

Children of the Horned rat was fun, but I thought lacked ambition. They tried to translate army units from the wargame into professions, which I don't think worked very well - they should have instead tried to picture the sort of jobs required to support Skaven society. As Chaotic as it is, some sort of infrastructure exists, with the need for passing messages, sharing technology, bartering for and distributing resources, etc.

 

[Ladybird]

I've seen a number of people say they like 2e rules best, if not it's setting (which adhered more to the wargame's fluff of that moment). I only played 2e in it's 40K configuration.
But it seems like 1e/2e/4e have fairly similar mechanics... vs. 3e which was a whole other thing.

The WFRP2e system works a lot better in fantasy than sci-fi, because that's what it was designed for; the 40k incarnation adds on a lot of extra rules and complexity to represent the increased tech and abilities, which is where it bogs down.

Without all those, it's a simple and fairly nippy system.

 

[Séadna]

For anybody using 4E the "Archives of the Empire" supplement has some great stuff fleshing out the other races, especially the Halflings.

 

[Trippy]

A mistake on the developers part then.

Hiding appreciation behind a specific campaign is a great way to signal to potential new players and GM's to take a look at something else.

Is it? I mean, according to Cubicle 7, it's where the money is at. When they took over the license, they quickly realized that their fundamental fan base was prepared to pay big money for deluxe quality books, and a collector’s set of ‘Director’s Cut’ Enemy Within campaign supplements and their respective Companions. If it is making them money, then it doesn’t seem like much of a mistake to me.

Moreover, The Enemy Within Campaign is one of the most celebrated campaigns in RPG history - I’d rank it in the top 3 myself - and serves to elevate the WFRP game from just the core game alone. When people seek fondly of the brio of Warhammer’s Old World setting, much of the exposition came from the campaign books.

In terms of which edition is best, I’d say they could all be argued for having their strengths.

In the case of 1st Edition, you have to consider that it was massive tome for its time - nearly 400 pages, with great art including some full colour plates inside. It was originally meant to be just a supplement for Warhammer Fantasy Battle, but expanded beyond its original brief to become its own thing. It was clearly influenced by games that Games Workshop were involved with - Runequest, Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu for the most part, Judge Dredd and also Traveller (the formatted careers system, mainly) along with Tolkien (which elements felt more authentic than AD&D, because the characters were more down to earth). You could also cite the influence of Alexander Scott’s Maelstrom too.

When compared to these other games, WFRP wasn’t really that massively innovative - but it did create a good sense of its society mainly through having a big selection of 100+ careers outlined in character generation, each one with a drawn illustration. The book was much meatier than what most fans had seen before, and complete with setting detail and bestiary.There was black humor in the critical hits tables used, that gave graphic and gruesome descriptions of wounds. There were some flaws too - Move, Strength and Toughness and Wounds were rated on a different scale to the other percentile-based Characteristics; the magic system was a bog standard magic points system, with the Realms of Sorcery expansion not coming out for another 13 years; combat had some clunkiness in it (the so-called ’naked dwarf’ problem for high damage resistance of certain characters). It still used D6s for certain things when the bulk of the mechanics were percentile.

When 2nd Edition came out, around the same time as D&D3.5 Edition, one has to note that for many US gamers this was their first experience of the game. Back in the 80s and 90s, Games Workshop did not have any great drive towards pushing the game to the US market (it was much more interested in their miniature war games), letting the license be maintained by a small publisher, Hogshead Publishing for a mainly UK audience. It was only after D&D/D20, and possibly some internal pressure, that they started to reconsider their IPs through the RPG medium again. When it came out in 2003 it was one of the few games with the production standards and support that could challenge D&D. Even though the book wasn’t as big as 1st edition, it was still ‘complete’ by comparative standards, and had a number of good supplements. Mechanics wise, it ironed out some of the inconsistencies in stats, divided the skills and talents into separate categories and fully integrated the more colorful and flavorsome magic system into the core rules. You could still fit most character information on to an index card if you liked though, and it was pretty polished as a system.

3rd Edition was when Fantasy Flight Games picked up the license and chose to experiment on the design, largely because the previous edition had already had several years to run its course and they were really more interested in the 40KRPG lines at the time, I feel. The dice mechanic that is now used in Star Wars was first designed here, along with a lot of other gimmicky things in a box. It was quite expensive, and evidently didn’t really appeal to the audience.

4th Edition has tried to go back to the 1st edition to a degree, although the presentation of character stats is more convoluted - with separate skill scores for the first time. The production standards are very high though, and like I say, they know precisely what their fanbase wants to spend money on. Generally, I like it - but I’m not sure I’m as much a fan as others.

 

[Jaeger]

Is it? I mean, according to Cubicle 7, it's where the money is at. When they took over the license, they quickly realized that their fundamental fan base was prepared to pay big money for deluxe quality books, and a collector’s set of ‘Director’s Cut’ Enemy Within campaign supplements and their respective Companions. If it is making them money, then it doesn’t seem like much of a mistake to me.

Moreover, The Enemy Within Campaign is one of the most celebrated campaigns in RPG history - I’d rank it in the top 3 myself - and serves to elevate the WFRP game from just the core game alone. When people seek fondly of the brio of Warhammer’s Old World setting, much of the exposition came from the campaign books.

FWIW - I have 1e, 2e, & for 4e just the rulebook.

Having a "a collector’s set of ‘Director’s Cut’ Enemy Within campaign" is not a bad thing in and of itself. And I do not doubt C7's financial reasoning for doing it.

The hardcore/ fundamental fan base will very much appreciate it! I have my 1e TEW stuff and am sorely tempted to take a look...

But if you want the game to really grow you have to bring in the noobs and normies.

And that is not done by putting up a huge cost barrier to the 'fondly of the brio of Warhammer’s Old World' through a set of expensive hardbacks.

It was a mistake to focus on TEW campaign in the 1e era just as it is today. Not that TEW shouldn't have been made - just that a multi volume AP should not be the 'gateway' for new players of the game to get to know the old world.

That focus seems to be a legacy of the direction that they took in 1e where it is pretty clear that in trying to “fix” issue they had with D&D, they neglected to emulate the things that D&D got right.

IMHO the 20-30 page sandboxy adventure module model of early TSR was the way to go. By all means do a TEW AP, but also keep the overall barrier to experiencing the old world low.

The "core experience" of playing WFRP should be accessible to new players and groups without having to play TEW.

4th Edition has tried to go back to the 1st edition to a degree, although the presentation of character stats is more convoluted - with separate skill scores for the first time. The production standards are very high though, and like I say, they know precisely what their fanbase wants to spend money on. Generally, I like it - but I’m not sure I’m as much a fan as others.

Yes 4e looks very pretty..

In my opinion: They overcomplicated the game with 4e. Separate skill scores, overcomplicating the SL etc,..

There was just no need for all that. A proper revised and streamlined version of 1e, with the lessons learned from 2e would have done the trick.

The few good things that the 4e rules bring to the table are not enough to overcome the way it has handicapped itself with own goals from wider adoption by the general RPG community.

4e has a rep for overcomplicated brokenness.

And once gained such reps are very hard to overcome when trying to attract new blood to a game line.

 

[Acmegamer]

Reading through the WRP 1st edition core book for the first time in about thirty years.(Thank you Humble Bundle) One of the odd things I've noted so far is that Strength and Toughness are based on a 1 - 10 scale versus 1 - 100 like the other stats you might roll tests with like Intelligence, Will Power etc. You could still roll with them like the other stats so you'll have to x10 the stat to get the percentage base to roll with.

I'd love to know why they did that. I get why wounds, movement etc aren't on the percentile system, but I can't figure out why Toughness and Strength aren't since they're used in the same way as the other attributes.

 

[Trippy]

FWIW - I have 1e, 2e, & for 4e just the rulebook.

Having a "a collector’s set of ‘Director’s Cut’ Enemy Within campaign" is not a bad thing in and of itself. And I do not doubt C7's financial reasoning for doing it.

The hardcore/ fundamental fan base will very much appreciate it! I have my 1e TEW stuff and am sorely tempted to take a look...

But if you want the game to really grow you have to bring in the noobs and normies.

And that is not done by putting up a huge cost barrier to the 'fondly of the brio of Warhammer’s Old World' through a set of expensive hardbacks.

It was a mistake to focus on TEW campaign in the 1e era just as it is today. Not that TEW shouldn't have been made - just that a multi volume AP should not be the 'gateway' for new players of the game to get to know the old world.

That focus seems to be a legacy of the direction that they took in 1e where it is pretty clear that in trying to “fix” issue they had with D&D, they neglected to emulate the things that D&D got right.

IMHO the 20-30 page sandboxy adventure module model of early TSR was the way to go. By all means do a TEW AP, but also keep the overall barrier to experiencing the old world low.

The "core experience" of playing WFRP should be accessible to new players and groups without having to play TEW.




Yes 4e looks very pretty..

In my opinion: They overcomplicated the game with 4e. Separate skill scores, overcomplicating the SL etc,..

There was just no need for all that. A proper revised and streamlined version of 1e, with the lessons learned from 2e would have done the trick.

The few good things that the 4e rules bring to the table are not enough to overcome the way it has handicapped itself with own goals from wider adoption by the general RPG community.

4e has a rep for overcomplicated brokenness.

And once gained such reps are very hard to overcome when trying to attract new blood to a game line.

Well, I’m not trying to sell any edition to you, to be sure. I agree that WFRP4e is more convoluted in its rules and the provision of skills makes it look more like Runequest than any previous editions. I would note that this was due to fans clamoring for a separate set of skills though during the play testing, so you can’t please everyone, I guess. I did like the rules addition of allowing player choices in character generation for an XP cost, rather than having to accept random rolls all the time - which I’d probably adopt in all editions as a house rule.

WFRP is an interesting game to me, but not my absolute favourite. I’d rank it as the same as Runequest in that respect. I’d probably be content playing something similar as a setting using D&D5 rules to be honest, as there are more fans in my region to choose from. Beyond that, I currently run Vampire and Traveller, so WFRP isn’t a pressing concern.

That aside, WFRP does have alternative supplements and adventures - some of which are free - as well as a Starter Set for beginners. However, you cannot discount that a lot of veteran players are getting their fulfillment by the Director’s Cut of The Enemy Within Campaign. I’d be interested to know how WFRP4e sales compare to both 40KRP Wrath & Glory and Warhammer: Age of Sigmar. I bet a wager that the aging WFRP fanbase trumps the sales figures of the new games still.

 

[TristramEvans]

Reading through the WRP 1st edition core book for the first time in about thirty years.(Thank you Humble Bundle) One of the odd things I've noted so far is that Strength and Toughness are based on a 1 - 10 scale versus 1 - 100 like the other stats you might roll tests with like Intelligence, Will Power etc. You could still roll with them like the other stats so you'll have to x10 the stat to get the percentage base to roll with.

I'd love to know why they did that. I get why wounds, movement etc aren't on the percentile system, but I can't figure out why Toughness and Strength aren't since they're used in the same way as the other attributes.

Because Toughness and Strength directly interact with the combat rules, so they are on the same scale as inflicted wounds

 

[Simlasa]

I'd love to know why they did that. I get why wounds, movement etc aren't on the percentile system, but I can't figure out why Toughness and Strength aren't since they're used in the same way as the other attributes.

Is it something to do with keeping the stats similar to the wargame? ( I don't know much about the current version of that game's rules).

Children of the Horned rat was fun, but I thought lacked ambition. They tried to translate army units from the wargame into professions, which I don't think worked very well - they should have instead tried to picture the sort of jobs required to support Skaven society.

That's how I felt about Dark Heresy as well. The careers are all the big-damn-heros from the wargame... there's not the same panoply of street-level humanity depicted in WFRP.
I'm sure that's probably what the clamoring 40K fans wanted... though you still couldn't play space marines, not at first... but I'd prefer to have an option for whatever 40K's version of a 'Ratcatcher' might be.

For anybody using 4E the "Archives of the Empire" supplement has some great stuff fleshing out the other races, especially the Halflings.

Anything about the Slann? I'll have to look... campaigning in Lustria has been sadly neglected.

 

[Baulderstone]

Been out of the loop for a while but intrigued by the Rookery Publiations crew. Can't see anything by them over at DTRPG, what's the deal with them?

The book I have of theirs, Well of Bones, seems to be a Patreon-exclusive preview. I own it on DriveThru via the link they gave me, but I can't find it for sale. It's a flavorful location with no system. You got location descriptions, descriptions of the NPCs and a bunch of plot hooks to get players involved. It would very easy reskin this location to be related to the Cult of Morr in WFRP.

Here is the ad from the back of the book, to give you an idea of what's coming.

A mistake on the developers part then.

Hiding appreciation behind a specific campaign is a great way to signal to potential new players and GM's to take a look at something else.

I have to disagree with this. As a guy that used to sell games for a living, it's a lot easier to sell a game that has a great campaign.

That aside, because most published RPGs are garbage, it's easy to dismiss how useful they can be in conveying a setting. Sourcebooks often get lost in the clouds, but adventures ideally give you ground-level view of the world. Even if you never run The Enemy Within, reading it shows you a lot of the nuts and bolts elements of the setting at a level where the PCs live.

For me the 4e art style is the concept art for a WFRP video game...

The 4e artists are approaching the old world without the same aesthetic references as the artists who did the work of 1e.

I understand other people's feelings about the art, but I actually like it. It feels closer to the tone of the game. When people talk about 1E, they often gloss over how much silliness was in there.

It's not something I am looking to persuade people on. I love the old art as well.

As for 3rd edition, I was one of the few defenders of the system itself, though it was all wrong for the Warhammer world, it was most certainly not as Jennifer Aniston and others who didn't actually read the game claimed, a "boardgame masquerading as an RPG". I thought the dice system was quite clever.

In that video I linked yesterday, Andy Law from 4E tells Jay Little of 3E how he loved the dice system in 3E. Even though 4E went back to a percentile system, he was looking for ways to get that kind of complexity of result. It explains something I like about 4E. It uses just about every trick you can with percentiles such as a blackjack mechanic, flipping numbers, special effects on doubles. As an old Unknown Armies player, I love that stuff. It also means that you can get mixed results in combat like hitting your opponent, but losing your weapon or scoring a critical hit on an opponent while defending.

Given how heated edition wars are with fans, it's always refreshing to see the designers get together act like professionals with respect for one another.

I really like some of the supplements for 2e but it's the ones when they mostly ignored the Storm of Chaos. Tome of Salvation, Organisations of the Old World and stuff like that are really good and easily used in a 1e game.

And Renegade Crowns is my favourite WFRP setting of all time (the Border Princes) largely because it has almost nothing to do with the metaplot.

Thanks to the bundle, I just started reading through Tome of Salvation. That really is good.

I've been stubbornly resistant to 2E for years, partly out of purist snobbery, but I suspect mainly because I pretty broke around the time it came out, and disdaining it made it easier to avoid buying it.

I've mellowed out on WFRP becoming a little more fantastical over the years. The Emperor may have a griffon, but that doesn't mean anything to your rat catcher. The Chaos Incursion was always a bad idea, especially hitting Middenheim, which was the most detailed city back then.

The WFRP2e system works a lot better in fantasy than sci-fi, because that's what it was designed for; the 40k incarnation adds on a lot of extra rules and complexity to represent the increased tech and abilities, which is where it bogs down.

Without all those, it's a simple and fairly nippy system.

I kludged together WFRP and 40K: Rogue Trader back in the '80s, and it did not work particularly well.

 

[Séadna]

Speaking of popularity WFRP 4E is the biggest game with groups around me at the moment being the first major RPG to be printed and produced here, so it's cheap as chips relatively. I've seen it in more shops here than D&D 5E.

And thanks Acmegamer that 20% discount with the Humble Bundle means it's even cheaper.

 

[CRKrueger]

1e was, from a technical perspective, more streamlined and better constructed. 2e added unnecessary complexity, while attempting to "balance" game elements in a way that removed verisimilitude and ignored in-game play in favour of "character builds". Moreover, in one of the most blatant cash grabs in the industry, 2e took the elements of the core rulebook in 1st edition and split them up between numerous extremely thin volumes.

The magic system in 1e bears little resemblance to D&D magic, there is nothing Vancian in the mechanics, instead evolving from the wargame. If I were to compare it to anything, it would be the magic system from the King's Quest seris of games, just more dangerous. And like the Wargame, when 4th edition ushered in the reconception of Warhammer magic as based on the "Winds of Magic", this was likewise introduced into 1st edition via the Realms of Sorcery.

As for 3rd edition, I was one of the few defenders of the system itself, though it was all wrong for the Warhammer world, it was most certainly not as Jennifer Aniston and others who didn't actually read the game claimed, a "boardgame masquerading as an RPG". I thought the dice system was quite clever.

Yeah, but when we crossed swords over at the Site about this, we found out your GM wasn’t using the system RAW.

I agree though, the dice system is clever. However, the problem with any version of FFG‘s “Narrative Dice” system though is that they’re meant to be like those story dice you throw for inspiration in improvisational storytelling. You really have to like storytelling to come up with an interpretation for the dice Every.Single.Time. Those “Successes with a minor complication” get exhausting after a while, especially if the Roleplaying/Storytelling cross thing isn’t really what you’re there for.

For me it was all the other little JayLittleisms that made the game downright unplayable. Zones, blobs of minions counting as one creature. There being no method for spell or ability use outside of actual combat rounds. Places had aspects and abilities to tag like Fate. Just a witches’ brew of completely unnecessary narrative hooey that seemed like a half-baked experiment.

Also the time period was really odd. It was just before the Storm of Chaos. It’s like setting an RPG in 1937 Poland.

The class design, however, was inspired if not at times downright brilliant. It was so good it made me want to break the system apart and redesign the Narrativium out.

People knocked FFG for making a boardgame out of it with cards, counters, etc, but they used their expertise to come up with a great way to keep track of different aspects of gameplay.

The dice, cards, counters, etc I don’t think were the problem. The problem was they took a property that for decades was expressed in wargames and traditional RPGs and made a narrative game with a bunch of fiddly parts. Too narrative for the traditionalists, too complicated for the narrative peeps.

Plus the maps were laughable. Vermintide had better maps of Ubersreik. You can’t do the whole narrative “the specifics of the setting don’t matter” with a licensed property that has had RPGs for 20 years. They learned that lesson when they retooled the dice system for the Star Wars games.

So to answer Sosthenes , 4e D&D had an audience, and was recognised as a great tactical skirmish game even if it wasn’t what D&D roleplayers really wanted. WFRP3 didn’t really have an audience.

 

[TristramEvans]

Yeah, but when we crossed swords over at the Site about this, we found out your GM wasn’t using the system RAW.

Sure, but I owned the system. It wasn't in any way a boardgame, it just divided out elements of the system onto different formats. It's no different than if someone took D&D, put all the classes on large cards, Proficiencies and Spells were made into card decks, and players were given trackers for HP.

Granted, I found it annoying, so I much preferred the later traditional presentation of the game as 3 hardback rulebooks.

I agree though, the dice system is clever. However, the problem with any version of FFG‘s “Narrative Dice” system though is that they’re meant to be like those story dice you throw for inspiration in improvisational storytelling. You really have to like storytelling to come up with an interpretation for the dice Every.Single.Time.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly why I gave up on it. Sometimes (a LOT of the time actually) you just need a "yes/no" answer.

 

[CRKrueger]

Sure, but I owned the system. It wasn't in any way a boardgame, it just divided out elements of the system onto different formats. It's no different than if someone took D&D, put all the classes on large cards, Proficiencies and Spells were made into card decks, and players were given trackers for HP.

Granted, I found it annoying, so I much preferred the later traditional presentation of the game as 3 hardback rulebooks.





Yeah, that's pretty much exactly why I gave up on it. Sometimes (a LOT of the time actually) you just need a "yes/no" answer.

I never really had a problem with the widgets.

 

[TristramEvans]

I never really had a problem with the widgets.

I guess it's OK if you always play at a table. But a lot of my games in those days were just a bunch of us on couches and in easychairs, using a coffeetable to roll dice when needed.

 

[Jaeger]

I would note that this was due to fans clamoring for a separate set of skills though during the play testing, so you can’t please everyone, I guess.

IMHO - this is a case of the inmates running the asylum. Keeping your hardcore fanbase placated and interested in a new edition of a game, is a very different thing than giving your hardcore fanbase everything that they think they want.

However, you cannot discount that a lot of veteran players are getting their fulfillment by the Director’s Cut of The Enemy Within Campaign. I’d be interested to know how WFRP4e sales compare to both 40KRP Wrath & Glory and Warhammer: Age of Sigmar. I bet a wager that the aging WFRP fanbase trumps the sales figures of the new games still.

I would tend to agree. Which just adds to the tragedy of some of the decisions made with WFRP 4e.

There is a big and rather welcoming fanbase just waiting to answer questions and proselytize on the developers behalf to gamers new to WFRP.

You are not helping your cause when that "proselytizing" for the new edition comes in the form of advice on how to fix the broken parts of the new edition before you even start to run it!

when people talk about 1E, they often gloss over how much silliness was in there.

This is true, but for some it was a feature not a bug.

I have to disagree with this. As a guy that used to sell games for a living, it's a lot easier to sell a game that has a great campaign.

That aside, because most published RPGs are garbage, it's easy to dismiss how useful they can be in conveying a setting. Sourcebooks often get lost in the clouds, but adventures ideally give you ground-level view of the world. Even if you never run The Enemy Within, reading it shows you a lot of the nuts and bolts elements of the setting at a level where the PCs live.

Like I said: Having a "a collector’s set of ‘Director’s Cut’ Enemy Within campaign" is not a bad thing in and of itself.

I completely believe you about how much easier it is to sell a game with a complete campaign available to run at launch.

My argument is that a big AP should not be the only, or even most common point of entry for new GM's and players 'to get the game'.

 

[Trippy]

My argument is that a big AP should not be the only, or even most common point of entry for new GM's and players 'to get the game'.

But it isn’t. There are free scenarios available and a WFRP Starter Set. That is the common point of entree for new GMs and players. It is as good as you get with other fantasy RPGs.

You don’t have to buy the whole Enemy Within Campaign - indeed, it hasn’t been fully published yet anyway. It is just that, for many WFRP fans, it is a major selling point of the game.

 

[TJS]

One of the thing's that struck me about the whole character creation process in 4e is how confused it is (and how long it takes). It wants you to roll up a random character and tries to incentivise that, then it asks you to answer questions about your character's childhood home life and decide on their motivation.

What's going on there? Am I playing a comic smelly ratcatcher or is this some kind of deep highly characterised historical epic? My seaman starts with a mop and bucket but no weapons other than a dagger, but I need to come up with a serious personal motivation for them becoming an adventurer? It's like they realise that all the comic elements are important and need to be there, but seem to have completely missed the fact that they are comic.