Quote from: jeff37923;523584The one thing that I have always been dissappointed about is that GW never made a WH40K version of Blood Bowl.

That I'd buy, get me a little Battle Sister love on. Nuns with guns!

Quote from: RPGPundit;523561Well, good to hear. I'll look forward to seeing the results.

RPGPundit

I've posted a few teasers to my Google+ in the past few days.  Here's the links.  

https://plus.google.com/112753168035670360050/posts/RxKYzThwTeC
https://plus.google.com/112753168035670360050/posts/eL9FdFRhQcj
https://plus.google.com/112753168035670360050/posts/Mw6CgWZr6sG

Quote from: Ladybird;523481There's plenty of room for multiple interpretations of Warhammer.

There might have been, until GW decided that what sells to the morons is All Grimdark, All The Time.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;523653There might have been, until GW decided that what sells to the morons is All Grimdark, All The Time.

RPGPundit

You really do talk some crap.

Quote from: RPGPundit;523653There might have been, until GW decided that what sells to the morons is All Grimdark, All The Time.

Pundejo seems fairly biased towards clinging to the "word of God" canonical interpretation of settings. While it's clear, from the excellent Dark Albion thread and a few others, that he's no stranger to creating his own settings whole cloth, threads like this one (and every WW/WoD thread you post in) suggest that he's fairly reticent to take a published setting and modifying it the better to suit your vision. I don't know why, he seems like a fairly creative guy sometimes, and it boggles the mind, so I usually chalk it up to his rhetorical purity-in-gaming crusader persona.

I generally agree with Ladybird. Take the published stuff and do whatever you want with it. My take on WFRP is that it works best as a fantastic caricature of late Medieval and early Modern history: there's toothless peasants carting manure, capricious noblemen executing people and claiming jus primae noctis, wily burghers out for coin, religious strife and heresy, the bloody flux ravaging towns and camps, elector counts choosing an ineffectual dolt for their Emperor, barber-surgeons sawing limbs and charlatans seling snake oil, powerful but unreliable black powder guns, chivalrous but insufferable douchebag Frenchmen stand-ins, and everything seems to be building up towards an impeding Apocalypse that looks like a mash-up between Michael Moorcock's Stormbringer and the Biblical Revelations of John directed by Terry Gilliam. My group refers to D&D as "Medieval fantasy" and running WFRP will be all about putting cranking the "Medieval" up to 11, complete with every inaccurate but fun stereotype about the Middle Ages ever.

I just happen to be using 2e for the rules because they're easier to get, better organized, and I like the magic system better (like a good scumbag GM, I'll be giving the PCs a chance to play magic-users, only to have the vagaries of the Winds of Magic and/or divine disfavor bite them in the face).

And if I was running 40K, you could expect more of the same. Dark Heresy I'd basic ally run as Call of Cthulhu In Space. Rogue Trader, as an epic Fading Suns Guild game, with giant spaceships and thousands-strong crews. Deathwatch is an over-the-top MilSF slugfest. None of which are particularly imaginative, but hey, between the production values and the ready-made fanbase, not a bad deal.

OK, I tried to quickly write something a bit more subtle in the same vein of humor as the examples of the OP.  I attempted to write something which could easily be taken seriously by a casual reader or youngster, but a fan should probably easily recognize it for what it is.  Hopefully, it's subtle enough that it can merit a chuckle, but not anywhere near jarring enough to remove a game from a state of immersion just by mentioning the character.

QuoteThis is Carolus Brunozon.  Once a military operative and one of the Dirty Dozen, Brunozon settled down only to have his wife and daughter murdered by undercity mutants.  His personal vigilante quest for vengeance brought him the to attention of the Inquisitor Mikail Victor.  Victor recognized Brunozon's death wish and set about using his methodical recklessness to serve the Inquisition.  Brunozon is a night owl, and does most of his best work in the 10 to midnight timeframe.  He's also a sort of chameleon, able to seem at home at a noble banquet or mingling effortlessly with the scum of the undercity.  He has a quiet and calm demeanor which causes opponents to underestimate him.  His favorite weapon is the relatively obscure Widley Bolter Pistol, but he knows a wide array of ways to kill, all delivered with nearly mute efficiency.  His most typical alias is "The Architect," but he has gone by more colorful titles such as "Mister Majestic" and "Messenger of Death."

I'm not a professional writer, and I'm sure that's obvious.  I'm definitely not a comedy writer.  However, I did a little more than just randomly name a character James T Solo.  I took an action star I like, I tried to warp his name a little but still remain recognizable, and I tried to work a few of his movies into his description in such a way that it could conceivably seem natural.  Hopefully, it's worth a smile, or at least not as bad as a rubber chicken delivered to the face by sledgehammer.  Considering the prominent references in modern Dark Heresy to Captain Harlock, and the style in which those are done, I think it roughly, if clumsily, could fit in.

I'm not an artist, so I can't supply art.  If it helps, think of the above text preceeded by the Charles Bronson picture of him dressed all in black with two handguns held cross armed in front of him.  Mentally add a couple of skulls, wax seals, and dangling parchments.  That's basically the image I was thinking of as I was typing it.  

Maybe it's just as heavy handed as Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau and Pudding.  Of course, I feel like I put more effort into mine.  I at least did some quick research and pulled out some trivia.  I just feel that we as readers and paying customers deserve more than lazy non-sequiturs passing for "gonzo" creativity.

Quote from: RPGPundit;523653There might have been, until GW decided that what sells to the morons is All Grimdark, All The Time.

RPGPundit

While I believe it's rather Master of Obvious to say "you can take a setting and do with it whatever you wish", I do agree with THIS sentiment Pundit (I still believe that it is the Gonzo + Grimdark that results in my dislike for setting changes of 2e and new 40k - although 40k I can stomach and I do somewhat like, I was never big fan of RT). Too much Grimdark in da Warhammer hauz.

The more I hear shit like this on this site makes me wonder how anyone could actually give a shit about what the Pundit thinks.

or his Cult of Personality.

Not everyone shares your dislike of what you're calling grimdark.

You are actually talking about GRIMDARK and that's a good thing.

In the grim darkness of 41st millennium, there is only grimderp.

And I wish I wasn't talking about grimdark. I wish Warhammer was still Warhammer, not "hurr hurr hurr Hamburgers loving the silly medieval people".

*edit* When I say Warhammer, I mean both 40k and Fantasy.  They're pretty much the same in my world, just replace swords with guns in the context.

I'm sorry.  I got a lot more Warhammer going on than just WFRP 2e, which I'm running tomorrow for my 11th session this season.  26 sessions total.

My club does Mordheim, Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Warhammer 40,000, Necromunda and as many other wargames.  As well, we've got all the 40k RPG material thus far published.

I can tell you right now that it's mostly about swords and shields.  And arrows.  And catapults, cannon, handguns and spears.  And teeth.  And metal.  And serious magical murdering of masses.

It's not about sprites.  Warhammer has spites.

The idea is that you're in the land of battle.  There is no hope.  K?  NONE. NOT FOR ANYTHING.

That's the entire premise of the setting.  Just to die with your sword in your hand.  

I'm not sure how that bozo shit flew back in the day.  Oh wait...Warhammer(s) weren't as popular back then.  I wonder why?  If you think it WAS more popular, you're kidding yourself.

It's ok to look fondly back upon that time.  I had fun with it, when I had few models to choose from.  But it's going to far to say it's gone to shit when it clearly hasn't.  It has gotten better from the very beginning - at least if you're enjoying the wargame.

I guess my thesis is if you don't play the wargame you're judging it unfairly.

That said, I do not support WFRP 3e for aesthetic reasons.

And see, not for a moment I found Warhammer to be a "Die with a sword in" setting. For me it was always "From grave robber to hero". And bollocks on "no hope" - the days of elves and dwarves are gone, but the Man is setting up to be the New Power. Gunpowder arrives, giving the strength of magic missile into hands of any men or women capable of learning how to shoot a rifle, not just the scholarly elite that are wizards (and no I do not believe in wizards because of birth, because screw 2e).

And my father had been playing Battle, and me with his armies, since I was 12. But I never loved the wargame as much as RPG.

Quote from: Rincewind1;523715And see, not for a moment I found Warhammer to be a "Die with a sword in" setting. For me it was always "From grave robber to hero".

I see the difference in focus, but again, I don't see how 2e is incompatible with this. A game in which you are three times as likely to start your adventuring existence as a humble Rat Catcher or Protagonist, than a comparatively flashy and badass Kislevite Kossar or Estalian Diestro, still lends itself handsomely to this sort of adventure. Which is also high on my list of priorities, BTW.

Regarding "no hope" settings, it's no different from Werewolf: The Apocalypse, or Call of Cthulhu, or Vance's Dying Earth, or the Norse Ragnarok. Like the rest of my group, I see a certain appeal in the fatalistic hero who clings to his beliefs (and/or ambitions) even in the face of ultimately inevitable destruction. On an archetypal level you might see a comment on mortality there, i.e. stuff is worth doing and life is worth living even if we're all going to die eventually, but that's a tad more (pseudo)intellectual analysis than we like at our gaming table. Maybe it's just that we like big epic battles and shit.

Then again, I'm not sure I'm on the same camp as Blackhand. I do believe that the Old World's headed to the crapper, but I think PCs still have a fair chance of making a difference.

Quote from: The Butcher;523726I see the difference in focus, but again, I don't see how 2e is incompatible with this. A game in which you are three times as likely to start your adventuring existence as a humble Rat Catcher or Protagonist, than a comparatively flashy and badass Kislevite Kossar or Estalian Diestro, still lends itself handsomely to this sort of adventure. Which is also high on my list of priorities, BTW.

Regarding "no hope" settings, it's no different from Werewolf: The Apocalypse, or Call of Cthulhu, or Vance's Dying Earth, or the Norse Ragnarok. Like the rest of my group, I see a certain appeal in the fatalistic hero who clings to his beliefs (and/or ambitions) even in the face of ultimately inevitable destruction. On an archetypal level you might see a comment on mortality there, i.e. stuff is worth doing and life is worth living even if we're all going to die eventually, but that's a tad more (pseudo)intellectual analysis than we like at our gaming table. Maybe it's just that we like big epic battles and shit.

Then again, I'm not sure I'm on the same camp as Blackhand. I do believe that the Old World's headed to the crapper, but I think PCs still have a fair chance of making a difference.

I am not saying 2e is incompatible. I am saying that 2e supports a view of Old World that I consider flawed and shallow - a grimdarkian view of Old World. And to be honest - while PCs are certainly important, I had always clinged that it's not just PCs who have Fate Points. Karl Franz got at least 3 - 4 of them, from all the times he had been saving the Empire. Same goes for more important Chaos champions. It's all the stage for war of gods, after all. Who might be actually Great Old Ones (in my vision ).

Blackhand had been pulling "I play Battle so I know shit" for quite a while, so I have a similar retort:

Why is 40k fluff retarded if it goes alongside wargame?

Dreadnoughts.

Deadly machines of war, with often millennia of experience - 3, 4 thousand of years. Steel tombs operated by finest of the finest, who are only awakened for the brief moments of battle. The terror of Emperor, weapons that seen hundreds of battles.

And what happens during the actual wargame play?

A Dreadnought, machine that had been to hundred of battles (supposedly), is, in round 3, destroyed by an Ork with a meltabomb, a space equivalent of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ZxC0qVHio

Quote from: Rincewind1;523728I am not saying 2e is incompatible. I am saying that 2e supports a view of Old World that I consider flawed and shallow - a grimdarkian view of Old World.

And here's what I don't get. Why do you feel the "grimdarkian view" is "flawed and shallow"? Bear with me, as I have only passing knowledge of 1e.

Quote from: Rincewind1;523728And to be honest - while PCs are certainly important, I had always clinged that it's not just PCs who have Fate Points. Karl Franz got at least 3 - 4 of them, from all the times he had been saving the Empire. Same goes for more important Chaos champions. It's all the stage for war of gods, after all. Who might be actually Great Old Ones (in my vision ).

I agree. I'm OK with PCs being a cut above the common man, but having Fate Points as a PC-only mechanic would be shit. Not every Beastman and Goblin need have Fate Points, but important NPCs certainly do.

Quote from: The Butcher;523731And here's what I don't get. Why do you feel the "grimdarkian view" is "flawed and shallow"? Bear with me, as I have only passing knowledge of 1e.

To make things clear - it is my personal preference. I don't really see one edition as "morally" superior to the other. I had fun when playing 2e's vision, but I much prefer my own - based on 1e. I think I'd just throw it out there.

And as for the answer:

Because I feel like it shows the Old World by lens of big hyperbole. Everything got too "epic", and I mean both epic as in suddenly fire wizards have literally fire everywhere around them, as well as that everything that was already a hyperbole in 1e, is now even a bigger hyperbole.  1e felt very "down to earth" to me, both in terms of gaming content, as well as it's humour. In 1e, some peasants will be dirty, some will be clean, and some will bang entire village's wives on the side (honestly - village write - ups in 1e supplements are simply spectacular. See Lichemaster or Death's Dark Shadow. You feel bad when you start killing those characters as a GM). In 2e, all villagers are dirty, downtrodden, and probably hosting a Chaos shrine in the village's woods, because Chaos is everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, and behind every single plot.

To sum up my feelings on 1e and 2e, and perhaps understand them a bit - if you can, take 1e and 2e corebooks. Look at Sailor profession illustration in 1e, then at Sailor from 2e. The differences between the aesthetics of those two illustrations greatly show the difference between aesthetics of the mood of the two games - and my dislike for 2e.

PS. And magic items. At least in Poland, since the days of 1e really, but this got much stronger in 2e, there's this bizarre notion that Warhammer is GRIMDARK supreme - as in, there are NO MAGIC ITEMS AT ALL, for example.

To which I often ask : "How do you explain that the bloody Captain of the Empire is carrying 50 points worth of magical loot in an army list"? Which creates the "you will never be as cool as them, buckoo" syndrome, at least for me.