WFRP can accomodate a wide range of styles, but is commonly associated with the 'dark' or 'low' fantasy subgenres, both of which use insanity and aberrant behaviour as indicators of realism.  

A good contemporary example is George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, which has a number of characters who become unhinged by their experiences.

Quote from: J ArcaneI really hate to bring him up, because I tihnk he's a fucking hack, but as I recall, people going nutso was definitely an occurence in Wheel of Time, especially if they were men.  

I dimly recall mention of some other series involving main guys who were a bit nutters, and there's crap tons of "I am hard and emotionally scarred because I kill people for a living" anti-hero shit going around in ALL forms of genre fiction, fantasy included.

Really?  I sit corrected then.

That said, I do think WFRP overdoes the insanity mechanic a bit, but that's not criticising the concept, just the execution.

Quote from: DrewWFRP can accomodate a wide range of styles, but is commonly associated with the 'dark' or 'low' fantasy subgenres, both of which use insanity and aberrant behaviour as indicators of realism.  

A good contemporary example is George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, which has a number of characters who become unhinged by their experiences.

i haven't read martin yet, but with that you'd sold me!

This is lame, and I've mentioned it before, but the early D&D rule about clerics and no edged weapons bothered me for years.

Quote from: beeberi haven't read martin yet, but with that you'd sold me!

I consider it to be one of the finest pieces of fantasy literature ever published. It's gritty and brutal and completely believable, full of high intrigue, low treachery and often obscene violence. Martin handles the genre superbly, depicting the hidden fantastical elements of the world in such a way that is thoroughly convincing.    

ASOIF is also one of those rarest of commodities-- a fantasy series that keeps you coming back for more. It's an epic for adults (in every sense of the word). I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Contains Martin spoilers:
I find Martin competent, but not overwhelmingly so. I think he overstates things and drags things out too much. The whole Queen Cersi plot line is a good example of this- She's evil! No,  really, really Evil. Honest.  Also the build up is just endless what the hell is going on up north? how many more books do i have to slog through to find out.Well at least there's all the child rape to keep me interested... I'm not saying they suck or anything, I just have a problem with his uncharitable view of humanity- everybody and everything sucks. furthermore, he isn't really very good at surprising the reader- how many hints is he going to lay down about the connection between the existence/presence of dragons and magic before he "reveals" the connection. Nevermind me though, I'm a fussy bitch.
P.S. I like Jon Snow and Jamie  quite a bit. Although, I think I'd kill Fat Sam about two minutes after meeting him.

Quote from: AosThis is lame, and I've mentioned it before, but the early D&D rule about clerics and no edged weapons bothered me for years.

That always bothered me, too.  It makes sense within the context of a particular deity (like, say, the medieval Christian God) that prohibits its priests from shedding blood.  But it's ass-stupid for, say, Krashafrast, High Lord of Blades and Blood, to prohibit his priests from using edged weapons.  It should have been a restriction tied to specific worship, not a general class.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThat always bothered me, too.  It makes sense within the context of a particular deity (like, say, the medieval Christian God) that prohibits its priests from shedding blood.  But it's ass-stupid for, say, Krashafrast, High Lord of Blades and Blood, to prohibit his priests from using edged weapons.  It should have been a restriction tied to specific worship, not a general class.

!i!

It was especially galling for me because it was one thing that no DMs I knew would house rule away. "It will unbalance the game," was the universal 'reason' for this. Yeah, I did an extra two points of damage,  and now the pillars of reality are coming down. I should have seen it coming.

Beside that, striving for balance in 1e was like striving towards modesty in a strip club.

Quote from: AosContains Martin spoilers:
I find Martin competent, but not overwhelmingly so. I think he overstates things and drags things out too much. The whole Queen Cersi plot line is a good example of this- She's evil! No,  really, really Evil. Honest.  Also the build up is just endless what the hell is going on up north? how many more books do i have to slog through to find out.Well at least there's all the child rape to keep me interested... I'm not saying they suck or anything, I just have a problem with his uncharitable view of humanity- everybody and everything sucks. furthermore, he isn't really very good at surprising the reader- how many hints is he going to lay down about the connection between the existence/presence of dragons and magic before he "reveals" the connection. Nevermind me though, I'm a fussy bitch.
P.S. I like Jon Snow and Jamie  quite a bit. Although, I think I'd kill Fat Sam about two minutes after meeting him.

Martin draws heavily on late medieval european history for his portrayal of Westeros. When viewed in that context it's hardly surprising that many of the characters come off as awful examples of humanity. A big part of the story is how power traps and corrupts those who seek to wield it, often at the expense of thousands of innocent lives. As Cersei herself says, you either play the game of thrones or you die.

That said there are plenty of sympathetic characters in the books-- most of the Starks, many of the Night's Watch, even a couple of the Lannisters by the end of A Feast For Crows. I have a soft spot for the desperate, obstinate honour of Brienne, and if I ever met Samwell Tarly I'd shake his hand. He hasn't done badly for an obese coward.

I see ASOIF as a classic story of good vs. evil, with the killer twist being the agents of said opposing forces are all too human in their foibles and prejudices.

Quote from: DrewMartin draws heavily on late medieval european history for his portrayal of Westeros. When viewed in that context it's hardly surprising that many of the characters come off as awful examples of humanity. A big part of the story is how power traps and corrupts those who seek to wield it, often at the expense of thousands of innocent lives. As Cersei herself says, you either play the game of thrones or you die.

That said there are plenty of sympathetic characters in the books-- most of the Starks, many of the Night's Watch, even a couple of the Lannisters by the end of A Feast For Crows. I have a soft spot for the desperate, obstinate honour of Brienne, and if I ever met Samwell Tarly I'd shake his hand. He hasn't done badly for an obese coward.

I see ASOIF as a classic story of good vs. evil, with the killer twist being the agents of said opposing forces are all too human in their foibles and prejudices.

As I said, I'm a fussy bitch, and I fully admit that I am too picky I don't see Sam as so much of a character as a vehicle for nerdly wish fulfillment. He gets to be brave and scores a woman (in distress, no less) waaay out of his league ect... it reminds me of the fantasy I had in junior high of rescuing the cheerleader from danger and then getting some as my reward.
Some of the things you sight as strengths are things I don't like- did the world really need another massive pseudo medieval fantasy series? Well judging by the sales figures, I guess it did.
And, again, the build up is too long- I got many of the points he's still beating the reader over the head with a book or two ago.

bitch bitch bitch ect ect ect....

Quote from: AosAs I said, I'm a fussy bitch, and I fully admit that I am too picky I don't see Sam as so much of a character as a vehicle for nerdly wish fulfillment. He gets to be brave and scores a woman (in distress, no less) waaay out of his league ect... it reminds me of the fantasy I had in junior high of rescuing the cheerleader from danger and then getting some as my reward.
Some of the things you sight as strengths are things I don't like- did the world really need another massive pseudo medieval fantasy series? Well judging by the sales figures, I guess it did.
And, again, the build up is too long- I got many of the points he's still beating the reader over the head with a book or two ago.

bitch bitch bitch ect ect ect....

Fair enough. You're certainly not required to enjoy it in the same way as I do.

I'd be happy to continue debating the merits of the series, but think it'd probably be better to do so in another thread. Feel free to start one if you like.

Quote from: AosContains Martin spoilers:
I find Martin competent, but not overwhelmingly so. I think he overstates things and drags things out too much.

Agreed.  I absolutely loved A Game of Thrones.  Then I read the second book and liked it, but it felt stretched out.  It wasn't too long into the third book when I realized that the story was not a trilogy (as I mistakingly believed) but in fact a Wheel of Time-esque "stretch the story to infinity" extravaganza.

Despite not overly liking the third book, I went ahead and bought the fourth one.  I shouldn't have bothered.  It didn't move the story forward one inch and didn't even bother to discuss half the characters.

It's been a couple of years now and still no word when the other "half" of the storyline for the fourth book is told.  Who knows when the full series will be finished?  At this rate, I seriously think it won't be finished before Martin dies (he's no spring chicken, after all).

I'm going back to my rule of not buying any book series until after the entire thing has been finished.

(A Feast for Crows was poor. Up until then I quite enjoyed the series)

D6 system - 'pips' - why should I want 2d6 in a skill when 1d6+3 on average rolls better?

Quote from: Sean(A Feast for Crows was poor. Up until then I quite enjoyed the series)

D6 system - 'pips' - why should I want 2d6 in a skill when 1d6+3 on average rolls better?

Actually, the average of 1d6+3 would be 6.5, which is still not quite as good as the average of 7 for 2d6.

Also, your minimum roll would be better (4 instead of 2) but your maximum would be lower (9 instead of 12).

oWoD combat- you declare your actions from lowest initiative to highest, than resolve them from highest to lowest (provided you haven't forgotten them already, which is a very real risk in groups of 4+ players)