View Full Version : WFRP: Old, new or not at all.

29-06-2005, 13:31
A poll! Just out of curiosity really, seems to me that several of the forum users here play WFRP in one form or another. So I have started this thread to discus the relative merits and problems of both incarnations of WFRP, so people can say which is their favourite and why.

I'm biased, wilts I own a few books from v1, I never played that much (mostly used the books for background). I have played v2 a lot LOT more and I'm the GM for our local WFRP group, so IMO v2 is ever so slightly better, mostly because of the % system which new players seem to be able to pick up really quickly. However I do miss some of the old background, v1 seemed to me to have more depth.

May the discussion commence!

29-06-2005, 13:35
I played a lot of the old WFRP over the years, but it's taken the new book to get me up and running a new campaign (which work permitting should start next week).

The resolution of some of the fundamental problems, like Dwarf tanks, is what has me veering for Version 2.

29-06-2005, 13:46
well as i have opnly played the new one... its the one i like, i will read the old book though, as it looks interesting, and it has fimirs in it!

29-06-2005, 14:05
Personally I prefer the newer one for the rules... it seems so much easier than the original. Though thats probably just my memory, it's been ages since I played v1. The magic system is definately better in v2 though. Some of the background is missed though...

29-06-2005, 14:07
I'm gonna buck the trend here and say v1, purely cos of the background, and it was the first GW game i played (sentimental I know). Having said that, it not that theres anything wrong with v2, the differences in rules sort a few bits out but overall....

29-06-2005, 19:03
Can one of you give me a rundown on what the new WFRP is? When it came out? Etc, etc. I loved the old game and have many of the expansions (Doomstones, TEW, etc.)

Is someone publishing a new version?

29-06-2005, 19:15

Should find out most of what you asked there.

Bubble Ghost
29-06-2005, 19:22
The new rules system is better, although it's hardly without its problems, especially compared to a slickly designed dedicated wargame - there's nothing like playing anything but the most abstract RPG to remind you that GW's wargame rules systems are actually extremely well put together. But I digess - on the whole, better rules.

The book itself is also a lot prettier. Nicer art (mostly) and full colour. It's professional, in other words. Apart from all the typos. There's also the advantage of continuing support for the new version.

The background "differences", such as they are, are what cause the most discussion - my opinion is that the differences are largely either cosmetic or ones of emphasis, not substance, and that the two worlds are far closer together than version 1 die-hards would like to think. That every discussion of this nature on the official WFRP forum boils down to the fact that Karl-Franz has a griffon is an indication of how little there really is to the issue. The only thing that's earth-shatteringly different is Bretonnia, and the discussion on the relative merits of the two visions of it has been done to death with the only conclusion being that it's a matter of opinion, not a case of one being innately dumber than the other.

Bottom line: new version better.

Lord Lucifer
01-07-2005, 05:22
I suspect 'lack of background' will be remedied by further releases

Haven't played a single game of v2 yet as I'm still relatively new to RPG gaming, but I've got the book and I'm keen to try it out at some point :)

06-07-2005, 14:49
I've played the 1e version for many years, and i'm currently running The Enemy Within with the new edition. It works very nicely, very smooth. There are some very minor rules issues (such as humans being able to leap 21 feet 30% of the time, but jumping rules are usually out of whack in RPGs anyway).