|
Krzysztof Zięba
Poland
Kraków
-
Third Edition is coming up, I went on a rage in the forums saying how dissatisfied I am with the route FFG took. I've set up the exact same discussion at a Polish forum, and one of the users there showed me something that I'm not sure what to think about. Let me paste what I have already written in a different topic, but nobody has picked it up just yet.
Quote: A colleague of mine added something to the discussion by stating the following in a similar discussion:
"Warhammer is really nothing more than re-themed D&D, and it's the players who THINK that it should be played as a dark, gritty game where the PC's are pansies which could get their asses kicked by near anyone."
Some arguments he used - which I think are worth looking at:
1) there is a lot of reference to the players being "heroes". First of all - Destiny Points (I'm not sure if it's called the same thing in English). They make the PC's less likely to die, while people tend to think that the mortality rate should be high in WFRP. Plus, the nature of these points, as being a favor of the Gods. Secondly, the fact that (at least in the second edition) there is a note at least in a couple of places that the starting professions is not what your character IS doing, but what he USED to do before deciding on the path of an Adventurer.
2) some of the symbols of Warhammer are not Rat Catchers and Beggars, but a Troll Slayer, a Sigmar Priest (with a big-ass hammer) and a mage. Plus - covers of all editions include art that suggests Warhammer is about fighting big/a lot of creatures.
3) the mechanic is helps the players to survive more than in D&D. Level one characters in the latter have a bigger mortality rate than the starting characters in Warhammer.
So my question stands. How is it, that even though the game explicitly mentions that the players are supposed to be heroes and their professions are only what they USED to do and now they are Adventurers, off to achieve glorious deeds and save the world from darkness, a GREAT number of players think that Warhammer is really about being a nobody and trying to survive in a world that's out to get you? Is WFRP really only a D&D'ish game in a dark setting? Is it in fact a dark heroic fantasy game, and not a dark fantasy theme as some would call it?
If anyone has any thoughts on this, I would appreciate it. I want to prove the guy wrong, but his arguments are solid (quotes from the books)...
Also - if you agree the players idealise the system, then how come such great numbers of them do that? My colleague has a theory (not a very probable one) in regard to the Polish vision of the game. But what about the rest of the world?
-
Dave Terhune
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
This is a blatant example of frivolous spending.
I spent 100 geek gold and all I got was this lousy overtext.
-
I think the biggest problem is that the rules and the flavor text with regard to adventurers are not consistent.
The flavor text says that you used to be a rat-catcher. Why, then, are rat-catcher skills and abilities the only things you can improve until you exit the supposedly former career for another one? Regardless of what the flavor text says, during play it feels like you're still a rat-catcher.
So players are rightfully ignoring text that just doesn't match their actual experiences with the game.
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
I do think there is an intentional flair to the Warhammer RPG setting that is not the same as that in most other fantasy RPGs.
Fantasy RPGs, in general, use the convention that the heroes are good people with good motivations out to fight the good fight and save the day. Even a one-sided heroic quest such as is portrayed in Lord of the Rings, where the good guys are vastly outclassed by the bad guys on a large scale, still features heroic castle defenses and epic success... this is to say that most fantasy is "high fantasy", concerned with the great and the mighty, with the expectation that heroic deeds will be done by heroic people in heroic settings.
Similarly, Warhammer characters are expected to be heroes too, not nobodies or useless clods. Like other fantasy settings, the characters have risen above the mundane world and entered into the epic struggle... except that the premise of Warhammer is that it cannot be won. That is its signature difference - a world of war, strife, and eventual ignoble death in squalor and dirt fighting a pointless struggle against overwhelming forces who only wait their chance to finish off the doomed world. The friend you trust today turns to Chaos or is struck down by disease unexpectedly for no reason. The villian you thought vanquished is brought back or re-appears in another form.
Warhammer is what we call "dark low fantasy". By contrast, "dark high fantasy" would be something like Elric - wild settings but the heroes suffer and fail. Another contrast would be "heroic low fantasy" such as Lankhmar - common settings and low motives, but the heroes win.
It is the expectation of the Warhammer character that, at best, for a time, they may enjoy a somewhat better life, won through risking their lives for gold or cause. But in the end, death is all that awaits them.
-
Krzysztof Zięba
Poland
Kraków
-
jgerman wrote:
When you start the game you ARE still a rat catcher. Maybe you've decided there's more to life, maybe you've been swept up into some plot against your will. Either way you're still a rat catcher until you gain enough experience to become something 'more'. There's nothing wrong with the career system in that respect.
Well, that's not what the manual says though. In the second edition there is an explicit mention that it's what you character USED to do, before DECIDING on taking up adventuring. So the discrepancy Dave refers to is quite a bit of a problem - what Beggar gets up one day and says "Enough of this, let's kill some goblins!". And as far as I know, it's the same in 1st edition - even on the back cover.
-
Old Scratch
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
jgerman wrote: WHFRP is low fantasy through and through, always has been.
Nitpick. It's WFRP. And it isn't low fantasy through and through. It's a lot of different things. There are investigative scenarios, there are melodramatic scenarios, there are madcap caper scenarios. It is not low fantasy through and through. Take for example, Doomstones or Drachenfels supplements for WFRP1. Definitely not "low fantasy".
It most frequently is played low fantasy and it does support it, but that doesn't mean that it is low fantasy through and through.
Quote: Furthermore in D&D you out level low level mobs. A 15th level character has nothing to fear from 15 goblins. In WHFRP (excluding certain broken exceptions) a character on his third career had best start running when being attacked by that many gobbies, or snotlings for that matter.
Two words: naked dwarf.
Quote: Add in the open ended damage roles and the risk of death seems much higher in WHFRP.
Would seem. But if you factor in the low to hit rolls, the roll of armor and toughness in combat and fate and fortune points, risk of death is not higher in WFRP.
-
Old Scratch
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Lord_Kristof wrote: So my question stands. How is it, that even though the game explicitly mentions that the players are supposed to be heroes and their professions are only what they USED to do and now they are Adventurers, off to achieve glorious deeds and save the world from darkness, a GREAT number of players think that Warhammer is really about being a nobody and trying to survive in a world that's out to get you? Is WFRP really only a D&D'ish game in a dark setting? Is it in fact a dark heroic fantasy game, and not a dark fantasy theme as some would call it?
Your answer is that WFRP emerged from a number of things and influences. The WFB game. Call of Cthulhu. Yes, D&D. Lots of pop culture references.
There is no one answer to your question. WFRP is a lot of things. It's not a narrowly focused game, although that one aspect of play, the grim and gritty part is one that appeals to most people.
It is a game of contradictions:
WFRP is supposed to be grim and gritty, except that the characters are special snowflakes.
WFRP is a supposed to be lethal, except for the fact that nobody hits and players have a pool of points to turn the risk of death into a dramatic miracle of survival.
WFRP is supposed to be a game where the characters leave behind their careers... only to enter into new careers. Leave behind that career of Rat Catcher for a life of adventure... as a bone picker.
WFRP is supposed to be a game about rat catchers and their little dogs, pavement artists and ferrymen, except for those War Dancers and Giant Slayers and Vampire Hunters they turn into.
WFRP is supposed to be a game where not all people are equal, except for now in WFRP2 when the careers have been balanced so that nobody get's shafted...
WFRP is supposed to be a game of grim and perilous adventure in a world based upon an epic style wargame with the Emperor riding Griffons.
I don't think there is one "WFRP". There's a game with many different and sometimes contradictory facets, but to say that the game is a pure grim and gritty low dark fantasy game is to ignore that many of the rules and supplements suggest that there are other alternative means to playing this game.
-
Bossko B.
England
Brierley Hill
The Black Country
BAZINGA!
-
Any RPG is what you make it out to be. While D&D is marketed prety much as high Fantasy fighting monsters a solid GM can turn their world into a dark gritty one. Likewise Wahammer can be played High Fantasy with world spanning magical wars.
Personally I love playing Warhammer as dark and gritty. The characters can better themselves, like in all games, but Fate Points don't last forever. The highest PC mortality rate has always been in our WFRP games.
-
Krzysztof Zięba
Poland
Kraków
-
Ugavine wrote:
Personally I love playing Warhammer as dark and gritty. The characters can better themselves, like in all games, but Fate Points don't last forever. The highest PC mortality rate has always been in our WFRP games.
So the question I have to ask here to have a valid argument "for later" is: what made you play it like that? Because the manual doesn't suggest playing the game with a "highest PC mortality rate".
-
Rich P
United Kingdom
Sheffield
United Kingdom
I didn't know what to do with my UberBadge, so I left it as a GeekBadge.
Back home after a world tour. How quickly a year goes...
-
Ugavine wrote: Is Warhammer being idealised by it's players?
Yes, because it is ideal. 
-
-
Hi,
jgerman wrote:
3. This is a non-argument. He'll have to quantify this somehow and answer which edition of D&D. It's damn hard to kill someone in 4E D&D. I'd like to see the data on this one. The fact that fate points exist in WHFRP doesn't make the characters necessarily more survivable at any level.
Happy to oblige.
I shall compare Wfrp ed1 (the least controversial and least heroic edition among warhammer fans, as I understand) with AD&D 2ed, as it is only fitting to compare two rpgs from the same period. And I'm pretty sure that idea of greater mortality in wfrp started well before 3rd edition D&D.
So 1lvl Ad&d fighter has an average stats of between 9-12 (6 straight rolls 3d6 with no swapping between stats, it's pen and paper not baldur's gate, people) which gives him bonuses to precisely nothing (more hp is con 14, more ac is dex 15, and not by much if you wonder)
If he rolls well for money he will buy a scail mail and a shield giving him AC 5.
Which means that an orc hits him 1 in 4 times and downs him to 0 hit points in average 2 hits. Orcs damage roll 1d8; warriors starting max hit-points 1d10. Yes, you can have a 1hp-max warrior in d&d if you are an unlucky bastard. You can call him "Dead Meat". 6hp is already above average.
If downed to 0hp - d&d warrior DIES. No critical rolls to check if he maybe is only sligthly wounded, no fate points to rescue him, no uncousciousness and bleeding. Just a new character, and don't even think about raise dead for maaany levels.
NOT VERY IMPRESSIVE,
Compare it to below average statted (30 all the way) human soldier in wfrp, give him +1 A as a free advancement, remember that he starts with some nice armour can dodge AND parry and send him on a wfrp orc (who can't parry cause he's too stupid, can't dodge as well and apart similar stats has only 1 attack) and you will see the might of empire.
Hell, even a ratcatcher with his free advancment in WS and a shield bought for starting cash can have a decent chance killing an orc and coming out of it unscratched.
And I didn't even mentioned fate points.
Or Wfrp Uber races: the elf and the dwarf. The first one can easily become untouchable even early in the game to one attack monsters thanks to high initiative (elves love dodge), the other one... We all heard about wfrp dwarves didn't we? 
Wfrp just doesn't strike me as significantly more lethal.
Quote: Furthermore in D&D you out level low level mobs. A 15th level character has nothing to fear from 15 goblins. In WHFRP (excluding certain broken exceptions) a character on his third career had best start running when being attacked by that many gobbies, or snotlings for that matter. Add in the open ended damage roles and the risk of death seems much higher in WHFRP.
Not that much really. D&D characters are heavily dependent on their equipment. And treasure by level didn't come until 3ed. I assure you that 15th level ad&d warrior may get in trouble when fighting 15 goblins if his GM is not generous with money and magic items. Quite a lot of wfrp 3rd profession characters could very well kill 15 goblins with basic equipment if they didn't get surrounded (back to wall, a corner or a friend). And when you give them some magic items then their chances only increase.
Also I'm pretty sure that you need more game sessions to get a 15th lvl warrior in ad&d than to get 3rd profession in wfrp, though I am lazy enough to ignore the math.
Cheers
-
John Mehrholz
United States
Springdale
Arkansas
-
The difference between D&D and WHFRP:
Take a peasant with a pitchfork and throw him against a tenth level D&D character in any edition: dead peasant with no worry from the PC. Take ten peasants with a pitchfork and get the same result.
Now take that peasant and throw him against a WHFRP character in the middle of his third career and the result is likely to be the same, but if the GM gets a lucky Ulric's Fury result the PC may find himself left for dead in the gutter. Take ten peasants with pitchforks and that result actually becomes a very real possibility.
I've never felt the sense of constant danger in battle in any other Fantasy RPG that I've felt playing WHFRP, even with the fate points. It is a deadlier system. The fate points simply make it playable by giving the PCs a second or third chance.
The thing is, the PCs are heroes in WHFRP. They're heroes not because they're more powerful than the average person (although they can become so), they're heroes because they're not more powerful than the average person, yet they choose to fight against the odds anyway. Maybe they're fighting the good fight, or maybe they're just fighting to survive, but in the Old World, either one is a fight against the odds.
As for the OP and the game being about the characters trying to survive in a world out to get them, here's straight from Chapter 1 of the rules:
"Life is short and brutal... this is the land in which your adventures will take place, a world of unwilling heroes, desperate struggle and black irony."
-
David Graffam
United States
California
-
A colleague of Lord_Kristof's wrote: 1) there is a lot of reference to the players being "heroes". ... (at least in the second edition) there is a note at least in a couple of places that the starting professions is not what your character IS doing, but what he USED to do before deciding on the path of an Adventurer.
They're heroes because I'm the GM and they're the characters at the center of our story. Heroes might be drunks or witch hunters (or both). Some heroes can't hit the broad side of a barn. Some heroes rob and cheat and steal and go to jail and get fleas. Some heroes are knights fighting alongside the Emperor for the battle to decide the fate of the Old World. You play heroes in WFRP.
A colleague of Lord_Kristof's wrote: 2) some of the symbols of Warhammer are not Rat Catchers and Beggars, but a Troll Slayer, a Sigmar Priest (with a big-ass hammer) and a mage. Plus - covers of all editions include art that suggests Warhammer is about fighting big/a lot of creatures.
The cover for V1 and the intro adventure included with it (The Oldenhaller Contract) don't really match up. You'd have to work your way up to the cover. I expect much the same is happening here. Long-term play (or just starting off with a lot of experience points) gets you to something equivalent to what's on the cover, and beyond that.
They fight on the covers of Warhammer because it's harder to make a leprous beggar look cool. Seriously, fights are depicted on the covers because it says 'Warhammer' and it would look weird if anything else were happening but a big fight.
-
David Graffam
United States
California
-
Reign wrote:
Happy to oblige...
The lethality of two RPGs can't be proven with a side-by-side test of a static encounter. There's storytelling involved, and that could mean that your D&D characters never get in a fight during the whole campaign. You just can't get a meaningful answer from your examples.
But why would you judge how heroic heroes are by how easily they can be killed at the start of play?
It seems to me that as characters advance in both games, D&D characters become much more difficult to kill than WFRP characters. I can't prove it, though.
-
Nathan Roberts
Australia
Bombala
NSW
-
Why do we all roleplay? The term would suggest taking on a role and playing it...
Fantasy RPGs have long held a prominent position in the RPG community, what with D&D, Tunnels and Trolls, Runequest (Traveller notwithstanding) and in the darkness of 1986, along came WHFRP.
In essence, these 'systems' are just convenience for players and storytellers, allowing a pre-organised structure to both the mechanics of gameplay and the background of the milieu.
When I wrapped my grubby little hands around the WHFRP rulebook for the first time and read and re-read that glorious tome for the first time, I was struck by the theme dripping through every page and entry. The rules were a not-so-subtle adaption of the Table-top Wargame, with the added concept of careers for characters. The very English sense of dark humour that envelops the game pervaded the systems, allowing beginning roleplayers to access that 'dark and gritty' atmosphere. A complementary world view, rife with inconsistencies, unbalanced archetypes and social systems, mimicked everyday life in Thatcher's Empire.
Not to say that you couldn't play D&D in the same way, it just took a little more imaginative effort from the players and the storyteller.
You get out of any RPG what you put in it.
Its just that WHFRP as it was presented (in one rulebook no less) set you up as a nobody, wanting out of your humdrum existence. Characters were multifaceted from the outset, the 'skeleton' of the written character sheet seemed to open the minds of my players to really embody their characters, talk in odd accents, avoid combat as a dramatic tension, seek out an active role in determining the story, co-creating the campaign. Don't forget this is teenage boys we are talking about!
John Blanche, my favourite artist / figure painter / biker of all time was the instigator of this vision. He lived in (and still does) the warhammer universe! His paintings portrayed this darker side of a fantasy world. His miniature armies sprouted tentacles, warts and toothed genitalia of his own modification. Here was inspiration and approval for us to explore a radically different vision of a fantasy world.
WHFRP was revolutionary for us as burgeoning roleplayers. We escaped the dungeon, forgot about leveling up, focused on the world events around us in this rich, smelly, dirty, bloody, lewd, prejudiced milieu. The 'system' became less and less important, the 'milieu' became all encompassing. Horror and dichotomy crept into our portrayals, the overwhelming insignificance of our efforts in a world slowly eating itself from within by the rotting corruption of chaos.
Not to say that we couldn't have progressed this way with D&D or Runequest, and Call Of Cuthulhu had a similar level of 'corruption'. Its just that WHFRP did for us to Fantasy Roleplaying, what Gemmel did for 'Heroic' fantasy fiction.
We don't play to kill characters, fighting is seen as an obvious form of dramatic tension, we rarely consult our character sheets for 'stats' in order to roll to achieve 'actions'. The play has become freeform, yet the world had ever deepened. Our descriptions become verbose, my players query's are in character and insightful of their 'state-of-mind'. We have a 20 year history in our version of 'a grim world of perilous adventure'.
All of the supplements, White Dwarf articles, (when it was a magazine about more than tabletop battles!), websites and fanzine's (especially Warpstone) served to enlighten playing in this world. Mechanics were far less improved or expanded in favour of articles about 'getting grit', career developments or expanding world events.
Yes Warhammer is Idealised by me, and yet I rarely use the 'rules' anymore (other than to create and develop amazing characters of all ranges of life experience). After 25 years of roleplaying, I still LOVE WHFRP as much, if not more than the first day I pored over those rules some 22 years ago.
All thanks to Mr. Priestly, Monsieur Davis, Master Gallagher and his Lordship Halliwell for their vision and 'old boys' rendition of a most satisfying pastime. 
-
-
DagobahDave wrote: Reign wrote:
Happy to oblige...
The lethality of two RPGs can't be proven with a side-by-side test of a static encounter. There's storytelling involved, and that could mean that your D&D characters never get in a fight during the whole campaign. You just can't get a meaningful answer from your examples. But why would you judge how heroic heroes are by how easily they can be killed at the start of play?
Because there are different ways to define heroic. This example was to show that apart from being heroic by being brave, wfrp characters can be actually heroic in a "stroneger than you" way, eating goblins for breakfast and orcs for lunch, or if they happened to roll their character really well occasional ogre for supper, and all that just from the beginning.
The world is not so dark and gritty that the PCs faint if they see an orc.
Quote: It seems to me that as characters advance in both games, D&D characters become much more difficult to kill than WFRP characters. I can't prove it, though.
The thing is - it really depends. You do have more control and more options in qour creation of characters in wfrp. So if you consistently make a non-combat character and then repeatedly go into combat, than yes, the mortality is greater. But if you go for a fighting character then there is more than one way to make a terrying combat monster in Warhammer.
On the other hand the only thing that grows for a Ad&d warrior with levels is his number of attacks (a grand maximum of 2(two) on level 15th), to-hit (Thac0), and hit points; defense doesn't grow.
So if he is for some reason without his +3 full plate mail, even low level mobs in big groups will be a significant danger.
Noofy
+1
I'm not trying to prove that warhammer does not have a lot of instant flavour. Because it has. For example the "former carreer" is a brilliant concept instantly giving your character background, generating ideas and rooting your character and your imagination deeply in the world of wfrp which then becomes so much more alive.
There is more of sweet things like that.
I'm not out here to say that warhammer is a flavourless dungeon crawl.
I'm just saying that there is a lot of heroism (in the "we are bad-ass" kind of way) inbuilt in the system as well, and if some one wants to play that way, he is not "doing it wrong", he is not cheapening the experience and not playing "real" warhammer. There is much more to spirit of wfrp than just being or not being buff.
-
David Graffam
United States
California
-
Pawel, your hypothesis is that 1st level D&D characters have a higher rate of mortality than starting WFRP characters. You have set out to prove this through an experiment.
When conducting an experiment, it must be "a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same." (I copied that from a website because I couldn't say it any better.)
That's impossible to do when comparing the combat systems of two different games. There are too many variables. You would have to set up identical situations with identical players giving identical answers at each stage. But even then, the differences in the way rounds are conducted, the way the actions are resolved, the way damage and range are handled will all affect the outcome of your experiment. Your test just isn't scientific.
My impression has been that D&D games have always encouraged and rewarded more heroic play, while WFRP is content to have merely heroes without any real incentive to be heroic. WFRP characters sometimes get to be heroic and sometimes can't help it. But of course everybody's game is different.
-
-
DagobahDave wrote: Your hypothesis is that 1st level D&D characters have a higher rate of mortality than starting WFRP characters. You have set out to prove this through an experiment.
When conducting an experiment, it must be "a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same." (I copied that from a website because I couldn't say it any better.)
I never said it's experiment or proof of anything. Believe me, I had some academic training in conducting experiments and know the procedure well.
Comparing rpgs is not hard sience, and won't be, and even if it could it wouldn't be worth the effort.
However, we do form opinions on systems based on *something*. Experiences, how we feel when we play, what we heard about someone's games or characters, - anecdotal data.
This 1lvl example was not a proof of anything, apart from giving you another perspective on looking on things, some facts to compare, a little less assumptions, for those who don't know the dnd mechanic yet make judgements about it.
Quote: That's impossible to do when comparing the combat systems of two different games. There are too many variables. You would have to set up identical situations with identical players giving identical answers at each stage. But even then, the differences in the way rounds are conducted, the way the actions are resolved, the way damage and range are handled will all affect the outcome of your experiment. Your test just isn't scientific.
That's for sure and that's the reason I did not set out to prove anything. I just shown one of possible situations using on both sides similarly competent characters (average warriors) and pitched them against a monster that in both systems occupies same niche (low level yet brutal bully, scourge of the peasants) and shown that there are no noticable differences in this particular scenario (one of many possible).
The thing is that "common knowledge" of wfrp deadliness & unheroicness has not be proven scientifically as well, yet it persists, based on this type of shake impressions, anecdotes, feelings. If I manage to supply enough examples that seem to undermine this "common knowledge" if it stops to be unquestioned assumption, I'm good cause then the burden of proving anything will be on the opposite shoulders.
I'm just fighting fire with fire, you could say.
Hope I made myself clear.
Quote: My impression has been that D&D games have always encouraged and rewarded more heroic play, while WFRP is content to have merely heroes without any real incentive to be heroic. WFRP characters sometimes get to be heroic and sometimes can't help it. But of course everybody's game is different.
Yep, that's your impression. And that's what I deal with with these examples - spreading alternative "impressions".
-
David Graffam
United States
California
-
Reign wrote: The thing is that "common knowledge" of wfrp deadliness & unheroicness has not be proven scientifically as well, yet it persists, based on this type of shake impressions, anecdotes, feelings. If I manage to supply enough examples that seem to undermine this "common knowledge" if it stops to be unquestioned assumption, I'm good cause then the burden of proving anything will be on the opposite shoulders.
I'm just fighting fire with fire, you could say.
Hope I made myself clear.
No worries, man. You guys wanted to know if Warhammer is being idealised by its players. I'm one of its players, so hopefully you'll consider my opinion in your sample group.
-
SJ Benoist
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
-
I must be getting old
The definition of "Low-Fantasy" sure has changed in the last 25 years!
-
Krzysztof Zięba
Poland
Kraków
-
SJBenoist wrote: I must be getting old The definition of "Low-Fantasy" sure has changed in the last 25 years!
Could you elaborate, please? I'm not very good with definitions and categories. What did "Low-Fantasy" mean 25 years ago (I'm not even that old, not to mention my RPG experience - 10th anniversary I think, sometime this year).
-
Simon Crowe
United Kingdom
Sheffield
-
Lord_Kristof wrote: SJBenoist wrote: I must be getting old The definition of "Low-Fantasy" sure has changed in the last 25 years! Could you elaborate, please? I'm not very good with definitions and categories. What did "Low-Fantasy" mean 25 years ago (I'm not even that old, not to mention my RPG experience - 10th anniversary I think, sometime this year).
I'll assume he means that low fantasy is traditionaly used to describe settings that are primarily human based, with the fantastical elements very toned down.
The WFRP world, full of Orcs, Skaven, Chaos, Undead, Wizards etc. is hardly low fantasy in that regard.
-
-
PCs riding griffons are not very "low" either.
(page 238, 1ed corebook)
Unless they are flying their griffons very close to the ground
-
|
|
|
Posted Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 pm
