Combat example

Cubicle 7 // 2018
User avatar
Arnizipal
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:10 am

CapnZapp wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:15 am
Those blog posts read as if a fan is just messing around with a system; far from thought-through experienced rules design. No surprise then how the book ended up the way it did.

I definitely don't buy the "Lead designer (Dom) and Lead producer (Andy) do not agree" explanation.
Why not? They both had different ideas, they clashed on mechanics and decided to put both systems in.
Not the best solution maybe, but not unrealistic.

The combat rules needed more playtesting but outside of that I think the game is mostly fine.
CommanderCax
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:43 pm

Arnizipal wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:35 am

The combat rules needed more playtesting but outside of that I think the game is mostly fine.
I concur with Arnizipal. The system - including the combat rules - seem and are convoluted at times, but after more than a year of regular play I can say that many mechanics work surprisingly well, even though they seemd awkward in theory at the beginning. 2nd and especially 1st edition had more pressing issues in my view (nekkid dwarf, slug-fest in low level, career hopping, too easy to advance characterisitcs to a high level fast, invulnerability against low S attacks, high probability of dodge, attackers/chargers lose etc.), that I do not look back...

Still, it irks me after more than 25 years of GMing, that brand new RPG systems have such hard to grasp rules in them. It is as if the authors have no idea how their rules should work in a de facto roleplaying session. It is so theoretical at times it hurts, especially as it seems to have taken some time and creativity to write it up. This might not be such a problem for an experienced GM (and players), but beginners and inexperienced GMs might spend precious time and resources getting used to such a mechanically fiddly system with sometimes little to no mechanical impact (e.g. the whole SL bonuses/maluses versus value (i.e. +20; -10 etc.) bonuses/maluses or having Ini, Dex and Ag). This was an issue with Dark Heresy 2nd edition with their weird subtlety and inluence system as well for example (idea: great; mechanical implamentation: a mess).

So, I really wonder that new RPGs are often full of such convoluted stuff. Back when I started GMing, RPGs just had the most basic of rules. Look at WFRP 1st ed., you won't find such overburdened mechanics and rules in that book (even though it suffered heavily from the aforementioned issues). I think it is great that mechanics in RPGs progressed over the years, but at times that sort of progression is more akin to the progression of a proliferating tumor...
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

CommanderCax wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:28 am
Still, it irks me after more than 25 years of GMing, that brand new RPG systems have such hard to grasp rules in them. It is as if the authors have no idea how their rules should work in a de facto roleplaying session. It is so theoretical at times it hurts, especially as it seems to have taken some time and creativity to write it up.
there's actually a very simple explanation for this, which i have observed assisting some friends of mine develop an RPG system/setting to publish in the future. the authors are using their longtime, regular playing groups as the play-testers and don't realize how much of the system is actually their unspoken houserule agreements holding up the sloppy bits. when i took an early draft of their work to test with my group, they were baffled at the fact things like "the PCs can't autofumble but NPCs do*" weren't things everyone that played RPGs just did for "balance" and had to rewrite 2/3ds of the book because of how much of it was hanging on things they assumed everyone understood because everyone at their tables DID.

*tryin' not to mention anything related to the actual system, so they don't get mad at me....
easl
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:04 pm

CommanderCax wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:28 am
Still, it irks me after more than 25 years of GMing, that brand new RPG systems have such hard to grasp rules in them. It is as if the authors have no idea how their rules should work in a de facto roleplaying session. It is so theoretical at times it hurts...

...So, I really wonder that new RPGs are often full of such convoluted stuff.
Just my opinion, but I think crunch is back (or maybe "still relevant"). Yes, there are new popular systems that de-emphasize it, but there's also been a huge on-line draw for "old school" systems. I don't think it's unawareness so much as it is a desire to allow the player lots of powers/skills/abilities/splats that alter how the basic mechanic goes. In WRPG4, that's talents. Which IMO is why complaining about the basic d100 vs d100 + advantage mechanic misses the point; I think the system is designed to be balanced only when PCs and NPCs use talents to throw monkey wrenches into that basic roll.
Braddoc
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:16 pm

The talents...just those are enough to go insane..

In 2nd those were extras: you can hear better than most, reload faster, maybe know how to twist a blade when it strikes for extra penetration or get a flat bonus when using a certain skill....Worse case you can do somethign special with them in combat, like disarm or strike to stun.

Now it's almost wired ito the mechanics: you are noticably lower than your actual social rank, you are allowed to use calculator when calculating things, combat maneuvers and combat maneuvers and combat maneuvers, using a sheild and loosing a parry attempt grants you advantages.

It feels like it's Dark Heresy, minus the self-descriptive nature of the talent's name.

I agree with Orin J., it feels like a group's houserules system printed as-is but missing the contract details...
makrellen
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:01 am

Andy Law just posted an article on his own blog where he shows how to build NPC´s (an Orc):

https://lawhammer.blogspot.com/2020/02/ ... dlU21y5qR4

I think it speaks volumes that you have to do all the work of adding two careers levels from character creation to a basic NPC to get something suitable for an encounter with starting PC´s.

Face it - if you had to do the same in DnD to make encounters there would not be a 5e around still. People would just quit using it.
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

makrellen wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:32 am
Andy Law just posted an article on his own blog where he shows how to build NPC´s (an Orc):

https://lawhammer.blogspot.com/2020/02/ ... dlU21y5qR4

I think it speaks volumes that you have to do all the work of adding two careers levels from character creation to a basic NPC to get something suitable for an encounter with starting PC´s.

Face it - if you had to do the same in DnD to make encounters there would not be a 5e around still. People would just quit using it.
you should read that a little closer- it's two levels each of two careers, so four levels in total to make a suitable foe for a PC (if you leave out talents, which is arguably it's own pandora's box) so law is assuming quite a lot of work put in by the GM ahead of time. i'm impressed at the skills with quick mathing things out andy must have, but i don't see how this is remotely viable for a new group's GM.
Jareth Valar
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:16 pm

I have been doing this "level of work" for a long time and in several different systems.

I personally dislike the D&D style of monsters for anything other than "hey let's kill something at random" type of sit downs. I feel that it has hand held way to many for way too long and now there are quite a few that feel that every game needs to do everything for you. Like it should make it paint be numbers while helping you hold the brush.

As for how monsters work in 4th, having to add career levels or Attribute advances or Talents or whatever....SO? If you don't want to do that for every baddie you put against the group, make a couple of quick templates to add like 1st ed had; Minor Hero, Major Hero etc. Could they have given a few examples of this for newer GM's? Yeah, I can't argue that, but I personally don't think it should be a game breaker.

If Cubicle were to do something like this, I would expect it in a dedicated book for such, not in the main core rules. Others don't agree. That's their prerogative.

Our group has had a few sessions and feel the game plays fine. Does it have issues? Of course. I have a few major issues with D&D 5th as well, so no game is perfect for everyone. Typo's? Yeah. Some editing problems? Sure. Compare it to Catalyst Games Shadowrun (5th and 6th) and you will see there are far more severe offenders in this category.

One of my issues isn't with the game necessarily, it's with the posters here. All of the "4th sucks, go back and play 2nd!". My response is PLEASE DO! and leave this section to discuss 4th.
Karanthir
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:30 am

Jareth Valar wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:05 pm
I have been doing this "level of work" for a long time and in several different systems.
(Emphasis mine) That's great for you, but lots of people haven't, and wouldn't necessarily know where to start, especially if this is their first RPG.
Jareth Valar wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:05 pm
I personally dislike the D&D style of monsters for anything other than "hey let's kill something at random" type of sit downs. I feel that it has hand held way to many for way too long and now there are quite a few that feel that every game needs to do everything for you. Like it should make it paint be numbers while helping you hold the brush.
I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. Making the game more accessible is surely a good thing. Maybe the first few encounters a new GM runs will be "hey let's kill something at random", but if nothing else it helps the group learn the system. The thing is, putting creatures in the bestiary that are ready to use without modification makes it easier for new GMs (and GMs with other time constraints), but also still leaves more experienced GMs the option of modifying the creatures as they see fit. Seems like a win-win to me.
Jareth Valar wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:05 pm
As for how monsters work in 4th, having to add career levels or Attribute advances or Talents or whatever....SO? If you don't want to do that for every baddie you put against the group, make a couple of quick templates to add like 1st ed had; Minor Hero, Major Hero etc. Could they have given a few examples of this for newer GM's? Yeah, I can't argue that, but I personally don't think it should be a game breaker.
That would work, and could easily have been included in the core book without taking up too much extra space. But again, not something new GMs are necessarily going to think of. The fact that Andy Law has now written two blogposts on this subject suggests that, while not being a game breaker, it is an issue that's been a major obstacle for a lot of people.
Jareth Valar wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:05 pm
Our group has had a few sessions and feel the game plays fine. Does it have issues? Of course. I have a few major issues with D&D 5th as well, so no game is perfect for everyone. Typo's? Yeah. Some editing problems? Sure. Compare it to Catalyst Games Shadowrun (5th and 6th) and you will see there are far more severe offenders in this category.
That there are worse offenders does not exonorate this game of its own problems. Discussing issues can be constructive (especially when C7 have shown themselves to be welcoming - even inviting - of people pointing out typos and errors in the pdfs).
Jareth Valar wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:05 pm
One of my issues isn't with the game necessarily, it's with the posters here. All of the "4th sucks, go back and play 2nd!". My response is PLEASE DO! and leave this section to discuss 4th.
I can't disagree with your sentiment here, but from the other side it feels like this sort of reaction tars any and all critics with the same brush and seems like a way of shutting down any critical discussion (not saying that was your intention, just what it sometimes feels like). I've never played 2e, so I'd be the last person to recommend it. But it is easy to make comparisons between editions when they share a lot of basic similarities.
User avatar
totsuzenheni
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:38 pm

For what it's worth, in one of his comments here: http://lawhammer.blogspot.com/2020/02/l ... MMER%21%29 , Andy Law implies that the intent is that the bestiary in the core rulebook will be followed up by a 'full' bestiary for WFRP fourth edition, addressing these issues.
CapnZapp
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Orin J. wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:40 am
i don't see how this is remotely viable for a new group's GM.
It is not remotely viable full stop.
Graak
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:50 pm

Jareth Valar wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:05 pm
...

One of my issues isn't with the game necessarily, it's with the posters here. All of the "4th sucks, go back and play 2nd!". My response is PLEASE DO! and leave this section to discuss 4th.
But people ARE discussing 4th edition. (I’m not trolling)
Sure, controversy is vivid and some comments are caustic, but I would expect not less from any given game where a new edition introduces core-system revolution and has some widely-recognized issues (Issues? Problems? Concerns? Fiddly bits? Choose the term you like the most, I really would rather not be drawn into discussing a single word).

If wanting to discuss 4th edition why not opening new threads regarding it? Because the way I see it was clear from the start that this topic is a critical analysis of a combat experience from a disappointed player.
I think that if you want to friendly discuss some of your concerns or happy commenting 4th edition no one opposes to your right to create new threads and discuss the game you like with other fans of 4th edition. At least I really hope disappointed player would let those topics to live without jumping in yelling “bull****!”.
Haven’t checked a lot of topics here to be fair…but that’s the way I figure a healthy forum should be: permitting both good and bad comments to live side-by-side.
User avatar
Hyarion
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:56 am

Graak, I agree with you that that's how a healthy forum should be. And I do see that happening here on every sub-forum except for this one.
At least I really hope disappointed player would let those topics to live without jumping in yelling “bull****!”.
That is precisely what I see happening here in this sub forum.
I hold the glaive of Law against the Earth.
makrellen
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:01 am

Jareth Valar wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:05 pm
One of my issues isn't with the game necessarily, it's with the posters here. All of the "4th sucks, go back and play 2nd!". My response is PLEASE DO! and leave this section to discuss 4th.
I think it is absolutely fair to expect people to be constructive (with every edition regardless of which one they prefer). I count myself among those that have a fair amount of criticism of 4th ed and that may be viewed as though I would prefer that everyone played an older edition.

Let me just say that it is far from my objective. There is definately some good stuff in 4th ed but on a whole it just has too many fiddly and untested mechanics for me to ever consider running. But there are some good ideas to salvage for sure. And I personally hope we can move forward to a 5th ed sooner rather than later and keep the good stuff from 4th ed in that.

But please keep in mind that some of us also discussed 4th ed on the StS forums and when they closed much of the discussion there moved to this forum. And a big part of that discussion was whether the combat and beastiary sections would work in practical play. And to me that discussion has pretty much ended with this thread - I think it has been shown beyond any doubt that for the average GM it's just way too much work.

So let's focus on the things that are worth salvaging instead.
easl
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:04 pm

Karanthir wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:54 am
Making the game more accessible is surely a good thing.
I agree. But if I were truly a brand-new GM, I'd probably try one of the *free* intro adventures C7 advertises and offers. And those have pre-built adversaries. Criticism of the lack of such in the core book is fair. But credit where it's due, C7 then gave us two freebies to make up for it.
The thing is, putting creatures in the bestiary that are ready to use without modification makes it easier for new GMs (and GMs with other time constraints), but also still leaves more experienced GMs the option of modifying the creatures as they see fit. Seems like a win-win to me.
I agree here too. But, unfortunately, the designers went for a "build from component" type system and (as Andy himself mentioned), didn't explain it as well as they should. So that's what we have. And while it's not my preference, I also think it's an issue already plumbed to it's depths.
from the other side it feels like this sort of reaction tars any and all critics with the same brush and seems like a way of shutting down any critical discussion
Fair enough. Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be that if someone or a group wants to discuss the beastiary's problems, they start a thread called "my problems with the beastiary" and discuss it there? That won't shut down critical discussion or individual critics, and in fact if there are any lurkers from C7 around, keeping individual threads on topic might even help them find and understand player's opinions on various topics. For my part, I'd love coming to a forum like this, seeing a thread title like "combat examples", opening it up, and reading about....y'know...combat examples.
CommanderCax
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:43 pm

Karanthir wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:54 am
Making the game more accessible is surely a good thing.
Absolutely, and that is what irritates me with 4th ed. I really like my RPGs somewhat crunch heavy, but in 4th ed. it is partly a mess with all this this skipping back and forth in the rulebook. I do not want to immagine how tedious this is for an inexperienced GM.
Jareth Valar wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:05 pm
One of my issues isn't with the game necessarily, it's with the posters here. All of the "4th sucks, go back and play 2nd!". My response is PLEASE DO! and leave this section to discuss 4th.
Of course. Besides, I GMed WFRP 1st ed. for almost 10 years, WFRP 2nd ed. for almost 10 years, Dark Heresy 1st ed. for almost 10 years, Dark Heresy 2nd ed. for about 2 years and now WFRP 4th ed. for more that a year (never touched 3rd ed. though). The editions sort of got better and clearer with every edition and got rid of the major issues and pain points (see my post above for examples). Wohever says former editions are better than the latter might be on a nostalgia trip or simply confused. It is like saying a Mercedes from the 80ies is better that a modern one. Of course a Mercedes from the 80ies is a fine car, but mechanically certainly worse that those of today.
What irritates me though, is that they always invent unneeded new problems and rules issues with the newer editions. It has been sort of similar (but also sort of different) with WFB (3rd-8th ed.)...
FasterThanJesus
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:30 pm
Location: UK

easl wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:34 pm
Fair enough. Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be that if someone or a group wants to discuss the beastiary's problems, they start a thread called "my problems with the beastiary" and discuss it there? That won't shut down critical discussion or individual critics, and in fact if there are any lurkers from C7 around, keeping individual threads on topic might even help them find and understand player's opinions on various topics. For my part, I'd love coming to a forum like this, seeing a thread title like "combat examples", opening it up, and reading about....y'know...combat examples.
I think this is a good point. What constitutes on topic vs off is not always straightforward. It's easy to go down the rabbit hole of adding in all the things that are wrong with something from a certain starting point. Particularly when certain issues are emergent of other design decisions.

I think the OP is pretty good. I'm yet to play WFRP v4 in anger yet and I'm due to start up TEW in the next month or two. I have issues with decisions from just reading the rules and some of those issues are confirmed by some posts on the board. However, there are things I like in v4 and often the things I don't like are more closely related to implementation then concept.
Graak
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:50 pm

FasterThanJesus wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:12 am
...
I think the OP is pretty good. I'm yet to play WFRP v4 in anger yet and I'm due to start up TEW in the next month or two. I have issues with decisions from just reading the rules and some of those issues are confirmed by some posts on the board. However, there are things I like in v4 and often the things I don't like are more closely related to implementation then concept.
I'm eager to read your report after the game :)
FasterThanJesus
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:30 pm
Location: UK

Graak wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:12 am
I'm eager to read your report after the game :)
Sure, I'll start a thread, although updates won't be too regular as the group is dispersed over the country so it will likely be a session a month or two.

I'll include how I suck as a GM having not done it for years, how the players are getting on and what I, and others, think of the rules in practice.
Karanthir
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:30 am

easl wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:34 pm
Fair enough. Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be that if someone or a group wants to discuss the beastiary's problems, they start a thread called "my problems with the beastiary" and discuss it there? That won't shut down critical discussion or individual critics, and in fact if there are any lurkers from C7 around, keeping individual threads on topic might even help them find and understand player's opinions on various topics. For my part, I'd love coming to a forum like this, seeing a thread title like "combat examples", opening it up, and reading about....y'know...combat examples.
Agreed. It's easy to see how the topic of combat examples slipped into discussion of the bestiary, but that seems to have taken over the thread a bit now.
Post Reply