From: lmollett@lunatix.uucp (Laura Mollett)
Subject: Re: WFRP: about
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:03:27 GMT
Keywords: WFRP Warhammer campaign

In article <surge.725118925@buck> surge@cqs.washington.edu (Jonathan Sari) writes:
>>WFRP is among my top three favorite games...
>>                                  It's a pity, since it had a nice
>>minimalist system that reinforced the heroic yet dark fantasy world.
>
>The system is so minimalist that is has very little bearing on
>reality.  The entire concept of boolean skills and characteristics
>that can multiply themselves ten-fold through the course of a
>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.

Hello there,
	Since (I think) the original poster was responding to my request for
more info on Warhammer, I guess I'll stick my .02 in here somewhere's.  I 
wish I understood your comment a little better tho.  Can you define how you're
using the term "boolean" in this context?  
	Our group originally intended to use the system for our "children's
game."  In that context, the more minimal the system the better.  Anything
too complex in game mechanics quickly bogs down our group of 7 to 12 year olds.
However, my husband liked the game so well, he's planning on running it when
he GM's our "adult" group as well.  We are usually more than happy to suspend
disbelief of "reality" in favor of smooth, quick game mechanics that don't
ruin the flow of role-play.  (I mean, we don't care too much that such and so
a weapon would really do a little more/less damage when compared to such and
so a weapon than is reflected in the rules; or that damage from something is
really a lot more complicated to figure than is reflected in this game system,
etc.)  Thus, particularly in your comment about armour rules, I doubt the
group will even notice this, unless it's so major that the purchase of a very
expensive piece of armour doesn't help a PC at all in combat.  I'm not really
sure enough of the mechanics to comment on this, as we haven't actually
played yet.
	However, I think I take exception to your comment on the skills and
characterstics (assuming I understand you correctly).  It seems to be a
reasonable system for allowing people to play in a medieval based fantasy
setting.  Of course, the addition of magic makes _any_ setting unrealistic,
but this is fantasy, and I'm assuming you have no inherent objection to magic,
elves, dwarves, giants etc. ad nauseum.  If I'm understanding the rules
correctly (like I said, I haven't actually _played_ yet; just roled up a
character) it seems a perfectly reasonable middle-ground between allowing
characters to have what they want, and not letting everyone have everything
(seeing *D&D as _not_ allowing PC's to have what they want, i.e. a "magic-
user" can't fight, and a "fighter" can't cast spells; and something like
Hero or GURPS as letting everyone have everything - just buy whatever you
want).  You start with a "base" concept of what you want - academician, rogue,
warrior, and ranger.  Then you choose a career from within this base,
academician off their table etc.  Say you think you wanna be a MU, so you
choose "apprentice MU" off the academician table.  OK, that career comes with
a few skills one learns while apprenticing to this profession - you pay 100 pts.
per skill.  When you're finished with that "career", there are suggested exits
that are fairly easy to move too.  BUT, if you decide at some point that you
don't like the direction you are moving, you can change your mind and change
careers.  If you want to move to something else on the academician table,
that's easy to do, and you just move on.  If you want to change "bases" that's
harder and costs extra or you have to subject yourself to a random roll on the
other 3 tables.  If you change career's and your new one requires something
you've already learned, you don't have to learn it again.  There are lots of
pre-reqs., i.e. you _must_ be an "apprentice" before you can be a "master" -
and the career's are really well-thought out with wonderful medieval choices.
(I'm an "actor" off the entertainers career - I'm also in the SCA and loved
producing medieval plays, so this makes for lots of fun background for my
character.)  So how does this allow "skills and characteristics that can
multiply themselves ten-fold throught the course of a characters life"?  Do
you prefer systems that make you choose one career and stick to it forever?
That isn't any more "realistic" to a medieval world-view, you know.  I can give
you examples of medieval peoples who went from surfs to rogues to business-men;
or actors to professionals of one kind or another, or loads of other things.
Many people (then as now) decided what to do and did it...many others (then
as now) changed their minds and did something else.  What system do you prefer
for medieval _fantasy_ role-play?  And how is it "more realistic" in giving
skills and characteristics?
	Since I haven't played yet, and all the modules are off-limits to me
(we have only been able to find one so far anyway), I'm deleting some of your
other comments.  This is long enough already, I'm sure <grin>.
			Laura Mollett


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy