Dancey claimed that many aspects of WFRP 2e were based on d20. Most of the aspects he mentions in the review were not -- Dancey was wrong.
You and I must be remembering different reviews.
Sure there were a few d20-isms introduced into the game (the 'full action' and 'half action' stuff during combat is the only thing that I can think of off the top of my head), but for the most part the 'd20-isms' in WFRP 2e were already present (in some form) in WFRP 1e.
What Ryan was saying was that the choice of emphasis, the overall structure and tone of the game, and many of the changes/alterations to 1e mechanics were clearly inspired by the lessons Pramas & co. had learnt from D20.
Also, Dancey gave the Bestiary 2 stars because it 'wasted' so much space describing popular perceptions of the creatures in the Old World (i.e. 'fluff'). Talk about not understanding the subject matter he's reviewing ... :rolleyes:
Hey, I'm a hardcore WFRP player, and I utterly and totally AGREE with him. Half the fucking bestiary is a waste of space!
This is the typical behaviour of a group of people who, having been struck on the head repeatedly with "the enemy within" have come to believe that somehow WFRP is some kind of ultra-sophisticate pansy-asssed investigation-game, rather than the punk dwarf game of ultraviolence it really is.
The part I loved, for example, was when some "real" fans of Warhammer pissed all over Dancey for suggesting that the Bestiary could have had treasure tables; telling him that WH was superior to D&D, that he doesn't understand the "true spirit" of Warhammer, and that Warhammer is not about that kind of "meaningless dungeon crawling", etc etc ad nauseum, right up until the moment I pointed out to these stupid fuckwits that 1E WFRP HAS FUCKING TREASURE TABLES, RIGHT THERE, IN THE BOOK.
So get over yourselves. WH is a different version of D&D. Its not fucking Renaissance limp-wristed World of Darkness. Fuck that. Its a gorier, grittier, dirtier, filthier version of D&D... only more VIOLENT.
RPGPundit