Talk:Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay/Archive 1

Please clarify
This statement from the article makes little sense:
 * "In Poland, it's been known as a generic role-playing game, as opposed to Dungeons and Dragons elsewhere."

A generic role-playing game is one that is not tied to a particular genre or setting. WFRP, in addition to having its own "built-in" game world, is very much a "hard-wired" medieval fantasy game. How can it possibly be known as a generic in Poland? Is there a fan-created Polish variant that is not medieval fantasy and is not set in the "Old World" WFB setting? Additionally, what does the second clause of that sentence mean, "...as opposed to Dungeons and Dragons elsewhere"? That just doesn't parse. Naturally, D&D is not generic, but neither is WFRP. In what sense are the two "opposed"? Did the author mean to say that WFRP is more popular in Poland than D&D? If so, why not simply say so (and cite sources) instead of being needlessly cryptic and confusing? 12.22.250.4 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the offending line. My best guess as to what it meant was that WFRP is the common 'default' game for people to play as their first exposure to RPGs, or that it was the most commonly played game.  No idea if that is true or not, so the line is gone.  --Clay Collier 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

good support?
I removed the sentence "After its initial launch it was well supported by Games Workshop." I do not think there is a definition on how much support a game needs to be considered good or bad. Most games recieve attention from their publishers right after release, for obvious reasons. My point here is that you need a source to make that claim.

Especially as that suggests a level of support above average, when for most people (v1) WFRP is known as a game that was either sleeping or supported through subsidiaries/licensees. Incidentally, removing this sentence brings proper attention to this latter circumstance, which is another reason why I did it.

regards 85.227.226.235 (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

abilities WFRP vs WFB
Made a small tweak to remove the (unintentional?) impression v1 was closely based on WFB (but that v2 wasn't/isn't). 85.227.226.235 (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Repetition
Every section of the article starts by stating in the first sentence that WFRP is based on WFB. I think we pretty much got it the first time. This doesn't need to be restated in every section. 12.22.250.4 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked the state of the article back then, but now it's okay I think. There are now three comparisons to WFB, and all are valid in my opinion:

1) Setting - it is relevant to compare the games in order to highlight the more personal (and non-heroic) focus of the rpg. 2) System - it is relevant to discuss the games' common mechanical origins, while highlighting notable differences. 3) History - mentioning that WFRP started out as an attempt by GW to draw in the crowds to WFB is definitely appropriate.

In summary, as I see it there isn't any needless repetition (any longer). I'll wait two weeks, and then remove the repetition template, alrighty? :-) CapnZapp (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the template now. CapnZapp (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

non-english links
Hi 81.185.159.162. I undid your addition of a french external link. Unless I've gone completely insane, links for the English Wikipedia should be in English if at all possible. Feel free to add your link on the fr.wikipedia WFRP page. Of course, you can discuss my action here. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

cleanup
I thought the FFG deal was sufficiently important to warrant a paragraph of its own. CapnZapp (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I pruned the intro a bit, seeing that the full publishing history is given in the History section. CapnZapp (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also changed the structure of the sentence "BI elected to create a new adventure campaign rather than reprint Enemy Within". I suspect this was meant as veiled criticism - why should there be a reprint, and why should Wikipedia mention this explicitly? Instead, I kept to the topic - which is to introduce what 2nd edition brought, rather than what it didn't bring. CapnZapp (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned FFG in the intro, I removed the link from its mention in the History section. CapnZapp (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, 74.95.140.177! Why did you add back this link? My understanding is that any link needs only to appear once, where it is first occurring. Anyway, I undid your change. Br, CapnZapp (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced GW with FFG as the game's publisher. CapnZapp (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In "Setting", I moved the explanation of magic below that of Chaos, as it references that concept. CapnZapp (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agreed to the linkfarm tag on the external links. Individual fan sites are simply not notable (but please add them back again provided you have a good source as to why). I hope we can reach consensus that besides official sites, StS and Warpstone warrant a mention. CapnZapp (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to add Liber Fanatica to this shortlist, but don't know how to go about justifying it (for Wikipedia's notability purposes)? CapnZapp (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In "history" I changed the wording that mentioned the updated background between v1 and v2 to read in a more neutral way. I didn't like how the previous phrasing implied that v1 wasn't "in line" with the timeline and "tone" of WFB with no source given. I'm sure WFRP has always been "in line" with the timeline of WFB - at the time of each edition's publication! In this context, I feel that "updating" describes the process better. CapnZapp (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that FFG's WFRP site is up, and BI has removed its WFRP content, I have updated the links section, pointing the FFG link to its WFRP page and removing the BI link altogether. CapnZapp (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"History Revision" of page?
What was that about? CapnZapp (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a history merge on the page to fix a cut-and-paste move. Now all the relevant edits are in one place, in the page history of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Graham 87 09:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

High/Low fantasy
it says the world is a low fantasy one, but is that really so? it has got an extensive mythology of creatures directly based on Arda most of it, which is high fantasy. it gives extensive lore and background, and a very distinctive good vs evil. i think it is high fantasy, just less glamourous perhaps as some other high fantasy 'realms'. or have i a completely mistaken idea of what low fantasy is in contrast to high fantasy? if so then the low fantasy article is in desperate need of updating.--Lygophile 16:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

or rather - re-viewing the low fantasy article - it is high fantasy that needs its criteria clarified some more.... i find these destinctions and descriptions rather vague--Lygophile 17:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Warhammer the role-playing game focuses (mostly) on low-fantasy aspects of the game world, while Warhammer the table-top game focuses (almost exclusively) on high-fantasy aspects. This is a continuous source of friction between rpg gamers and Games Workshop: many wfrp fans do not wish to be reminded of the high-fantasy elements commpnly employed by the minis game. You can certainly play a dozen adventures without even once encounter any "high fantasy" elements, so I'd say the world is theoretically high fantasy while much less clearly so in practice. 85.227.226.168 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not so familiar with the term 'Low Fantasy'. However, I can tell you why warhammer is defenately not High Fantasy. Though there is a clear distinction on the surface between good and evil, their practical meaning has a much less clear meaning. Being neutral in a Warhammer setting is what a high fantasy system would deem as evil as each person is one own best friend. I most Warhammer scenarios the enemy is "the Enemy Within" - a realisation of the dynamics of a real society. You can have evil followers of good gods which is directly opposed to the high fantasy state of mind. Also the strong racist and nationalist motives in warhammer are not typical of high fantasy where all the good guys tend to be friends (but is is realistic of a medival setting and adds to what is great about Warhammer).

IMO the strongest defined struggle in Warhammer is between Chaos (directly represented) and Law (not really represented, except by a, for all pratical purposes, long gone race (High Elves)) - and this struggel is again not clear beneath the surface...

I've heard Warhammer mentioned as being "Steam-punk" and I quite like the term, as Warhammer offers the dirty, supersticious, brutal and intolerant setting of a realistic medival setting spiced up with some magic and renescaince technology - a mix that no other system really has (save perhaps Warcraft, who were perhaps vaguely inspired by Warhammer :P).

83.90.66.42 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Having played Warhammer Fantasy I would disagree that this is low-fantasy. Low-fantasy is a genre that tends to have little involvement of magic, or fantasy creatures. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying has lots of magic, lots of fantasy creatures. Secondly, there is a clear distinction of Good vs. Evil. Evil is represented by the forces of Chaos which are mutating humans, creating monsters, and clearly bent on destroying everything else. The forces of Good are generally everyone else. Albeit, there are factions that might squabble the overarching theme of Good vs. Evil is there and clearly defined.

Warhammer is clearly High Fantasy.

Suffice to say, Warhammer is definitely not steam-punk, which definitely has emphasis on mechanistic devices (running on steam no less). Warhammer Fantasy has none of this except perhaps a small of amount of firearm statistics. --75.45.112.3 (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The current claim "The setting of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is high fantasy, similar to Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Earthdawn and other popular fantasy settings." is an affront to anyone familiar with the game. The WFRP setting is in many ways a reaction to the four-color settings of Dungeons & Dragons (as exemplified by Forgotten realms or Dragonlance) and it is highly inappropriate to compare it to these settings. WFRP simply has its inspirations elsewhere. I have therefore pruned that part of the article - without moving it to the "low" camp, I hope. Please do not add back any claims supporting either claim until we can reach a consensus here.85.227.226.235 (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so the text doesn't read too well currently. I think the best solution is to replace the D&D properties, to better explain which fantasy settings WFRP does have (close) similarities to (that doesn't evoke shining knights riding dragons ;-p ). I'll have a go - feel free to tweak further. CapnZapp (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I abandoned the idea to make direct comparisons. Unless we can find a source for such a comparison, I feel it isn't Wikipedia's task. CapnZapp (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Warhammer is closer to high fantasy, which is akin to Tolkein's Middle Earth, than low fantasy, which is akin to Howard's Hyboria. Low fantasy has very little magic and very few non-humans in it- it tends to be more of an adventure story with a few fantastic or horrific elements. High fantasy is much more heroic and mythic in tone, with lots of demihumans skipping around chucking spells back and forth like ten pen jugglers. Warhammer is best described as a Dark fantasy, like Elric. It has a focus more on horror elements: sinister atmosphere, violent carnage, brain twisting chaos, demons and undead feature prominant roles, etc. It is high fantasy, but the dark elements give it a hopeless and gritty tone- thus it is often mistaken for low fantasy. (AWR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.56.247 (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New edition or new game?
I have added FFGs press release, uneqivocally determining that the new game indeed is the third edition and called as such by FFG themselves.

Please stop editing the page to make it read as if FFG's game is a completely new and unrelated game.

Not only is this claim unsubstantiated (all editions have various things in common: campaign world, career advancement, trollslayers etc) but far more relevant: unless you can find a source debating the issue it is only original research to add back such claims, and such things have no place on Wikipedia.

Thank you, Zapp CapnZapp (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the link, if it gets moved around or removed from the main page: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=731 CapnZapp (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

new TEW
See the Enemy Within talk page for a new possible source of info. CapnZapp (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

new edition pic?
Can we replace the cover picture with one of the current edition, please? CapnZapp (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't do it myself (new account), but a picture of the current edition's cover can be found here : http://store.fantasyflightgames.com/productdetails.cfm?sku=whf01 --Roxolan (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Green Ronin in the lead
I would argue that for want of five words we can give a reader a more complete summary overview of the history of the game in the lead, allowing the lead to better fulfill the guideline that it should summarize the key points that are in the body of the article. And it is a key point, that the game was developed by an outside studio and not in-house by Games Workshop/Black Industries. Indeed, I'd say that Green Ronin being the developer of the second edition is more significant than Hogshead reprinting the first edition with a few supplements, which is why I had previously put Green Ronin in and left Hogshead out, but I can see mentioning Hogshead as being a suitable detail for the lead. I just think that the developer of a major edition, whose logo does appear on the back cover of the book, is significant enough to mention as well. Especially since the 40K games were based on that system, and not the 3rd edition, despite being published by FFG, like WFRP 3e. (I will mention, as an aside, that the last printings of 2e were actually published by FFG, despite their replacement of it by 3e shortly thereafter. The article currently doesn't even mention this.) oknazevad (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for taking this to talk. Let me meet your points one at a time:

I believe that is everything. Now, I invite other editors to chime in on the main issue - what studio to mention re: 2nd ed in the lede. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree Hogshead warrants a mention in the lede, after all, they kept the game alive during a difficult period of time: I'd definitely consider them one of the game's major publishers; perhaps not so much because of their output, but because they stewarded the game during the emergence of the Internet: I bet many gamers found out about WFRP during the Hogshead era.
 * I also don't feel our lede is too large - we shouldn't have to choose between Hogshead and something else.
 * I do believe that the 2E-related studio mentioned in the lede should be 2nd edition's publisher (Black Industries), and not their sub-contractor (Green Ronin). If you were there during the time you would agree BI handled everything. GR were used as an external dev studio, that's all. There were nothing on WFRP at GRs own site. That GR developed 2E is of lede-worthy notability - only over at GRs page and not here. Here, the pertinent fact about 2E is imo that it was published (and maintained) by BI; this fact is what I believe should go in the lede, with any other info in the section below (as is already the case). Note: the sidebar info stating Green Ronin as the publisher of 2E is incorrect, and I'll update it shortly.
 * Feel free to mention the connection between WFRP 2E and the 40K games. Ideally by finding a source that claims the connection.
 * I think we do mention FFG publishing two modules for 2E?
 * I think he way you phrased it is good. I am satisfied that we were able to find a happy medium. oknazevad (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with this compromise. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)