From: jurasanen@phcu.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: WFRP: about
Date: 24 Dec 92 22:25:28 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Finland

In article <surge.725118925@buck>, surge@cqs.washington.edu (Jonathan Sari) writes:
> The system is so minimalist that is has very little bearing on
> reality.  The entire concept of boolean skills and characteristics
Little bearing on reality? Like the concept that a person acquires skills
and characteristic advances based on his _profession_ (eg. fisherman) and not
some abstract "character class". ? Like the fact that a person who is 
a fisherman (or a mercenary) his whole life only acquires certain skills
and can only advance certain characteristics to a certain degree? IMO this 
neatly avoids the unrealistic "experience = automatic skill advance" scheme 
that many games subscribe to. (Correct me if I get it wrong, but in RQ a
fisherman who spends 40 years fishing becomes an expert in fishing by virtue
of the time he's spent doing it. Real life doesn't work this way, does it?)				   					
							
> that can multiply themselves ten-fold through the course of a
Wouldn't four-fold be closer to the tru (and even that's unusual)

> character's life always left a bad taste in my mouth.  Add to that the
> fact that armour is of little consequence at all, and I'd have to list
> this as my least favorite rules system in existence.
While it's true that armour is less important than in other RPG:s, this can
be easily corrected by raising the AP (armour points) for plate armour to 2
instead of 1. Besides, even if the AP value is one, using a shield and 
plate/chain armour gives you 2 AP:s which equals two Toughness points. 
As T usually varies from 2 to 7, this is a significant advantage. 
I have GMed WHFRP for about 2 years now and have noticed that armour does make a
difference. However, if you just read the rules you do get the impression that
armour is useless.                             																																										
																		 
> Agreed.  The world is entertaining, though at least moderately
> revolting.  
Revolting? Explain. (was this a positive statement?)

> This is not a game for players seeking any degree of
> realism.  
I don't know.. The dwarves and elves are (as always) pretty silly, but if you
survive that I think it's okay. (then of course, I'm wrong)

> The Enemy Within works very well for the most part, with a
> few reservations.
Agreed. 
 
>>       The Enemy Within
> 
>  I joined after the party had completed this one.
OK (though not really necessary) background information and a really
low-quality module (to be avoided). 
 
>>       Shadows Over Bogenhafen
> 
>  Played it.  Many of our players got so frustrated with the plot that
> they were about to completely give up.  Not the fault of the module,
> but rather the players.
> 
My players got through it all right. (I'll never understand how)

[sorry about an act of destruction]

>>       Death on the Reik 
Plot continuity is left a bit vague. I had some problems in keeping the story
going without giving the players overtly un-subtle hints. (but then, I only
noticed the problems durign a game se) (it sometimes pays out to read thed
the scenario more than once...)         							
>>       The Power Behind the Throne 
Works best (IMHO) if developed slowly, so that players are at first
rather confused about everything and in a terrible hurry as the end draws near.
>>       Something Rotten in Kislev
One of the scenarios (the one with Sulgrin Durgul) is rather silly. 
More like a Paranoia scenario. Haven' t actually GMed this yet.


Cease purpose and die.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  	You can always try		
/ Hope is the beginning of unhappiness. /
  / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /          jurasanen@phcu.helsinki.fi

						but I doubt that'll do any good