Comments on: Why Warhammer 2nd Edition Sucks http://www.zanysite.com/tabletoprpgfun/2010/05/why-warhammer-2nd-edition-sucks/ Role playing game articles, reviews, humor, links, free downloads and more Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:08:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: J P http://www.zanysite.com/tabletoprpgfun/2010/05/why-warhammer-2nd-edition-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1460 J P Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:48:15 +0000 http://www.zanysite.com/tabletoprpgfun/?p=496#comment-1460 Hey good to hear from you again! Those are the typical "features" touted for Warhammer, and I don't have any problem with them as general facets, but I personally don't think they're the great hallmarks they're made out to be. The game is made so you intentionally have not just mediocre characters, in a world where it is already fairly easy to be goozled in combat should you enter without advantage, but your general competence in it or anything is particularly sub-par, in the 30 range, starting out, meaning you're going to fail at most things, whatever they are. I simply don't see this as a compelling advantage of a game - combat or skills where I keep rolling and never doing anything I try don't really strike me as particularly addictive or intriguing - you mean my character can continually attempt to do things that may be vitally important to stay alive, and I have a 65-75% of failure on average? Give me that! No... wait... They could easily have made combat deadly, and skill use and success passable as results, rather than impressive, without cripping starting characters' proficiencies into Boringville, to me. Hey good to hear from you again!

Those are the typical “features” touted for Warhammer, and I don’t have any problem with them as general facets, but I personally don’t think they’re the great hallmarks they’re made out to be.

The game is made so you intentionally have not just mediocre characters, in a world where it is already fairly easy to be goozled in combat should you enter without advantage, but your general competence in it or anything is particularly sub-par, in the 30 range, starting out, meaning you’re going to fail at most things, whatever they are.

I simply don’t see this as a compelling advantage of a game – combat or skills where I keep rolling and never doing anything I try don’t really strike me as particularly addictive or intriguing – you mean my character can continually attempt to do things that may be vitally important to stay alive, and I have a 65-75% of failure on average? Give me that! No… wait…

They could easily have made combat deadly, and skill use and success passable as results, rather than impressive, without cripping starting characters’ proficiencies into Boringville, to me.

]]> By: in8sworld http://www.zanysite.com/tabletoprpgfun/2010/05/why-warhammer-2nd-edition-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1459 in8sworld Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:42:46 +0000 http://www.zanysite.com/tabletoprpgfun/?p=496#comment-1459 as far as character classes go, I personally liked the plethora of classes available. Sure, they were all powerless and weak but they had some skill set that was unique and a career *path* that would ensure you didn't always end up just playing the same damn maxed class every time. The point being to allow you to ROLEPLAY different kinds of characters. Warhammer always seemed more geared to creating good roleplaying situations than a bunch of dice rolling (I hate that aspect of RPG and yet I know a lot of people who play that way). Some friends and I would even roleplay while camping without books or dice, just sitting around a fire in the dark making up stuff as we went, and it was just big fun. I'd say the same thing about Stats - a major theme in Warhammer (I think) was that your character was bloody weak, and it was a grim world. You were *going* to die, you just didn't know how. Well, maybe it was never as fatalistic as Cthulhu but lets just say I think a character's weaknesses were more important in having a good time playing Warhammer than their strengths. as far as character classes go, I personally liked the plethora of classes available. Sure, they were all powerless and weak but they had some skill set that was unique and a career *path* that would ensure you didn’t always end up just playing the same damn maxed class every time. The point being to allow you to ROLEPLAY different kinds of characters. Warhammer always seemed more geared to creating good roleplaying situations than a bunch of dice rolling (I hate that aspect of RPG and yet I know a lot of people who play that way). Some friends and I would even roleplay while camping without books or dice, just sitting around a fire in the dark making up stuff as we went, and it was just big fun. I’d say the same thing about Stats – a major theme in Warhammer (I think) was that your character was bloody weak, and it was a grim world. You were *going* to die, you just didn’t know how. Well, maybe it was never as fatalistic as Cthulhu but lets just say I think a character’s weaknesses were more important in having a good time playing Warhammer than their strengths.

]]>