TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: RPGPundit on May 24, 2020, 09:26:21 PM

Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: RPGPundit on May 24, 2020, 09:26:21 PM
I haven't seen it at all, and I'm curious. After the really good WFRP 2e, and then the atrocious 3e, what's 4e like? Is there anything that would actually make it better than playing 2e (or 1e for that matter)?
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: lordmalachdrim on May 25, 2020, 12:37:12 AM
It should have greater longevity during a campaign if characters survive due to all increases being reduced to 1 point at a time with a cost that increases the more times you've improved that stat/skill. It's also pretty

Massive talent bloat. More restrictive professions. An advantage rule that feels like it was never really play tested before hand turning all combats into a one-sided curb stomp as someone gets luck on a couple of rolls and just starts building a massive (cumulative) +10 to all combat rolls (and since the greater you succeed in the hit the more damage you do, you get the idea).

It's late and it's been a few months since I last looked at the books.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: HappyDaze on May 25, 2020, 11:13:21 AM
It's not technically WFRP, and the setting is very different (it's Age of Sigmar-based), but mechanically, I really like the Soulbound game. It's based on D6 pools with variable target numbers (difficulty) and number of successes needed (complexity). The game gives very balanced starting characters (feature vs. bug is in the eye of the beholder) and the default game dials in for larger than life heroes. Still, it does give an option for "grim & perilous" play. It does use zones for movement and ranges rather than distances, and this abstraction is, again, a feature vs. bug thing.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: bat on May 25, 2020, 11:32:39 AM
I enjoy running it, the game is sleek and well put together.  I still prefer WFRP1e, but this is a solid game. The only thing that puzzles me is how so many people on the Facebook group don't understand the rules. The game is very straightforward,  yet a lot of people ask the same questions over and over and then I start questioning myself and if I am getting it.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: remial on May 25, 2020, 06:23:53 PM
it is no Zweihander...  :p
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: Kuroth on May 25, 2020, 07:37:39 PM
Quote from: bat;1131200
I enjoy running it, the game is sleek and well put together.  I still prefer WFRP1e, but this is a solid game. The only thing that puzzles me is how so many people on the Facebook group don't understand the rules. The game is very straightforward,  yet a lot of people ask the same questions over and over and then I start questioning myself and if I am getting it.
I have had that feeling before. ha You start to wonder, 'I'm I glossing over something that is causing the log-jam for people?' ha  Ya, I bet you are good.

I am curious too, as I always thought Warhammer 1 was a decent game.  The change of setting thing is an odd choice for them, since the setting seemed like a good property to continue to foster.  Sounds like it is a physically attractive thing at the least.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: lordmalachdrim on May 25, 2020, 08:22:08 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze;1131199
It's not technically WFRP, and the setting is very different (it's Age of Sigmar-based), but mechanically, I really like the Soulbound game. It's based on D6 pools with variable target numbers (difficulty) and number of successes needed (complexity). The game gives very balanced starting characters (feature vs. bug is in the eye of the beholder) and the default game dials in for larger than life heroes. Still, it does give an option for "grim & perilous" play. It does use zones for movement and ranges rather than distances, and this abstraction is, again, a feature vs. bug thing.

I think he was asking about WFRP 4th ed also released by Cubicle 7.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: Kuroth on May 25, 2020, 08:35:49 PM
So, Warhammer 4 continues with the original setting than after all?
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: lordmalachdrim on May 25, 2020, 10:17:05 PM
WFRP 4 does use the original setting - with a directors cut rerelease of the classic Enemy Within campaign.

Soulbound uses the new post Warhammer world.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: Kuroth on May 25, 2020, 10:50:34 PM
Quote from: lordmalachdrim;1131257
WFRP 4 does use the original setting - with a directors cut rerelease of the classic Enemy Within campaign.
OK!  That sounds much better!
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: HappyDaze on May 26, 2020, 04:26:12 AM
Quote from: lordmalachdrim;1131245
I think he was asking about WFRP 4th ed also released by Cubicle 7.

He was. I own both, and I just wanted to point out that there is another option that, in some ways, is mechanically attractive Whereas 4e is based on 1e/2e mechanics with the complexity dialed up some, Soulbound is considerably lighter in rules. It will generate a different feel than 4e, even if using the "grim & perilous" option, but that might be a good thing.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: lordmalachdrim on May 26, 2020, 07:07:38 AM
Ok. I was mostly asleep (still half asleep) because of an issue at work that had me working over the weekend and monday midnight to 18:00 pretty much each day.

Mechanically 4e may be more complex but the real issue is it feels like no one bothered to play test the system and they just dumped what they had because they'd missed the original release date and GW was starting to get twitchy.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: Frey on May 26, 2020, 09:31:27 AM
I don't really like it, the rules are too complex for my tastes, and sometimes they were difficult to understand. They should have kept the second edition rules, they were perfect for this game.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: PencilBoy99 on May 26, 2020, 11:16:34 AM
I have WFRP 2E, WFRP 4E, and Zwiehander.  WFRP 4E is very slick and has some cool innovations but is very crunchy and complex. Zwiehander is actually a better successor (but still too crunchy) - I wish they would create a differently worded / organized version that was more concise. I'd love a retroclone of 2e or 1e that was less crunchy than Zwiehander or WFRP 4E.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: remial on May 28, 2020, 11:56:50 AM
the thing that bugs me is Cubicle 7 had 3 different Warhammer RPGs and they all use different systems.

I want them to all use the same system so if I want to do a massive Hodge-podge setting, I can.  without having to sit with 3 rule books and write out conversion rules.

(granted the only reason I would do that would be to drive the grognard assholes at the local game store nuts, but still)
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: KingCheops on May 28, 2020, 11:59:56 AM
Quote from: remial;1131578
the thing that bugs me is Cubicle 7 had 3 different Warhammer RPGs and they all use different systems.

I want them to all use the same system so if I want to do a massive Hodge-podge setting, I can.  without having to sit with 3 rule books and write out conversion rules.

(granted the only reason I would do that would be to drive the grognard assholes at the local game store nuts, but still)

Are you including Soulbound in that group of 3 Warhammer games?  The proper Warhammer Fantasy ruleset is wildly inappropriate for the tone of Age of Sigmar.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: lordmalachdrim on May 28, 2020, 03:22:12 PM
Quote from: KingCheops;1131579
Are you including Soulbound in that group of 3 Warhammer games?  The proper Warhammer Fantasy ruleset is wildly inappropriate for the tone of Age of Sigmar.

I a more accurate statement would be. Age of Sigmar is wildly inappropriate for the tone of anything Warhammer related.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: KingCheops on May 28, 2020, 07:34:07 PM
Quote from: lordmalachdrim;1131598
I a more accurate statement would be. Age of Sigmar is wildly inappropriate for the tone of anything Warhammer related.

Lol

Yes it isn't everyone's cup of tea.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: HappyDaze on May 29, 2020, 06:40:03 AM
Quote from: lordmalachdrim;1131598
I a more accurate statement would be. Age of Sigmar is wildly inappropriate for the tone of anything Warhammer related.

It's fine if you take it as its own thing and don't try to play WFRP with it. It is written from the viewpoint that the Old World is dead and gone (and it's core is literally being strip mined for materials to build the new army of Sigmar) and something else replaces. For anyone that ever complained that a new version of something was just buying a slightly different take on the old, this one shows the good and bad of recombining elements in sometimes radically different ways. Also, while I'm of mixed feelings on the AoS setting, but the Soulbound mechanics seem very tight.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: The Exploited. on May 29, 2020, 06:46:41 AM
There's an extra layer of complexity in 4e that I don't care for. I'll just stick to 2e which is the best implementation of the rules so far.
Title: So how good or bad is the new WFRP?
Post by: KingCheops on May 30, 2020, 11:09:01 PM
Oh I'm a huge AoS fan.  I loved Warhammer but it was always kind of "meh" as a setting.  It had enough interesting elements to keep me coming back to it but I was eagerly anticipating Soulbound.  The novels are so much fun and I love the heroic, bat-poop crazy nature of the new settings.