For discussion concerning the game in general.

I think it could be a cool idea to do something similar to what the lads at the Star Wars groups did and group GM's by time frames, but only with WFRP give each GM a territory in the Old World and let the characters move freely about.  It would take a lot of work, but if we had a 2:1 or 3:1 or at least a 1:1 GM to player ratio it wouldn't be that difficult at all. Well maybe not, it would be a pain in the ass, but if it worked it would be EPIC.

That would definately take a ton of work, but I agree that it should be something we think about. Were you proposing that it be something started within the RPOL boards? And what would the basic rulebooks a GM would need to be included, a standardized canon if you will?

It would take a lot of work, probably more problems than answers, but it is something to shoot for, an ongoing campaign with the GM ratio absurdly higher than the players, so the game will refuse to die off, and if one of the GM's happens to get board let him take over a PC in another group I mean, if you had 1-9 groups and A-E each with three GM's that would be 42 GM's it sounds impossible but even half of that and we could start a community that works together maybe not topographically, but in some sense that isn't a hierarchy.

The problem I have found with multiple GMs in a game is who deciding who is responsible for what. You have to have this clearly defined in everyone's mind otherwise if it is left to one person to do the workload of two then a game can quickly become stale. You would also have to ensure that everyone's ideas about the Warhammer world don't conflict. Does sound like an interesting concept though.

Furry Teddy is right, like any group project done at any level of school, someone always gets the short end of the stick.  I suppose  you would have to come up with some sort of democratic system in place just to put a system in place.  IE just to create canon you would have to define canon.  These kinds of semantics could go on forever, but if the game was run more geographically as an option, a player could find a GM he likes and a GM could possibly steer a player toward a GM that would better suit the player.

It would be like nation states, some games are slower paced, others faster, some with more combat others with more intrigue and the GM's could give mission statements on what kind of game they were going to run, and each GM would be able to guide the players on truly personal quests to find the GM they were really looking for when they RTJ instead of just dropping out, and the exploration of WFRP in my opinion is the best part of the Old World because it is so much like our 1500 a.d. Europe and yet complete in it's fantasy pathos.  And believe me there is enough room just in the Empire alone to cut up let alone the entire Old World.

Is it just me, but in most campaigns do the PC's get far more money than they ever should? Seriously, I did a comparison with the income chart in the rulebook and the regular sort of campaign funding the PC's get breaks even at around Wizard lord (300-800 GC).

Thoughts?
This message was last edited by the player at 23:19, Fri 23 Jan 2009.

Whoops.

I think its a good scale. I mean, the PCs are the ones who have to chase down all of the gear anytime they want to advance a level. And it gives them more oppurtunites to break into the other sections of the book, beyond casting spells and swinging swords.

How many people have had their PCs invest in an Inn or a Gambler's den?

It adds another level to the game, but it is definately something that should be monitored, or else you just get a bunch of gold nymphs breaking the economy of every town they go across.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:25, Fri 23 Jan 2009.

Just seems really, if you'll pardon the irony here, unrealistic. The way I Gm is that the motive of money really tests their characters morals.

I mean, just recently I had this loud mouthed, racist halfing hurling abuse at the PC's, but when he offered two of them money for a "dubious" task, they returned to work for him later when promised 30 gold coins. If I had allowed the PC's to gather millions of cold coins it would be reckless beyond belief, knowing they could bribe the emperor himself.

I suppose it depends on your GMing style, for example in nareik123's game, the PC's were offered a 100 gold coins to slay two mutants, something I would personally never do.

I think you are right, in that different players call for different games. The last time I was on a tabletop, the PCs all got together and bought some real estate and we did a whole session on them procuring land rights, paying off bribes, extorting officials and knuckling out the competition.

It was really quite fun.

But, these were characters well on their way to peaking out their classes. I can understand where not having a lot of coin could lend much more to the gritty aspect of the Old World.

I generally see coinage as another resource GMs can manipulate to find out what makes their players come back to the table. I'm not saying I'm a pushover, but, as long as the players don't try to buy the biggest sword because it does SB +5 instead of using the spear at SB+3 that he had clung to for so long, then I am not adverse to giving them the chance to add more numbers next to their GC values.

I think it all depends upon the players and also the characters. Personally I like my characters to have to scrape by. If I'm GMing I prefer to give rewards in something other than money so that players have to barter and I find this to be more realistic. However I do have WFRP characters that were converted from WQ battle level 10 characters and they have swords that are worth more money than a small palace but these really are characters who have made it in the world.

Magic items and loads of gold should be something left to D and D games IMHO.  Dirty, starving PC's are my favourite.  Most times my PC's get $$ it goes to buying new clothing to replace their blood soaked rages, rations, ammunition and occasionally a piece of new gear.  I tell my PC's as long as they stay within reason I will not add up encumbrance, and in nearly every game I end up adding it up because of one or two greedy players.  If PC's slay something/one the armour is often destroyed, or at least parts of it ruined, and weapons recovered are usually ingraved with with foul runes making selling them tough.  I love it=:)

Normally I end up offering the players fairly megre rewards, a good adventure nets them a few gold, and often this will be replaced with items, services or information. (My favourite game money wise was when the players tendancy to buy beer, ladies of negotiable affection or a stream of bribes and fines to conceal there actions, tended to leave them starting every adventure broke.)

Strangely enough I have never had players actually try to sell every piece of equipment they came across. The main annoyance though was arrow/bolt recovery, I ran a game were the entire party used bows and for a while half the combat's seemed to be obsessed with the state of the fired projectiles.

The one exception to that was when I was running an Elven game, where the player gained substancially more expensive items than they would normally get. Partially since I always fell that elves, still living in elevn territory should find elven items easier to get. (But still didn't want to give them the levels of money to buy such), partially since they were arrogant enough to never try looting items off humans and partially since they were ludacrously over competent.

New thought: Would the Empire folk view homosexuality as a chaos mutation of the mind or generally not care? Thoughts?

There is a longish thread on the fantasyflightgames site dedicated to this.

I think it would depend on the area.  Historically there have been ancient civilizations that have not had problems with it at all and others were it would be a death penalty offense.

As I recall one of the old campaigns written by GW had an NPC who was implied to be a bisexual.

I believe he was described to be flirtatious with human women, and elves. So I don't know if that helps you at all.

That's quite helpful actually, I didn't consider it changing from region to region.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:01, Mon 26 Jan 2009.

I have to say considering the Bretonnian obilivous view on Women, I just have the image that 'of course it's a complete abomination, and only the most heinous chaos worshipping scum would do such a thing.'
While in practice no one really likes it, but as long as those nobles involved are slightly discreete, aren't caught worshipping chaos dieties and eventually give an odd heir every one pretends not to notice.
Of course any peasent's caught sodomising would be hung if brought to a lord.

The other point is it could be a point of conflict between the 'good' dieties e.g. in Sigmarite doctrine it's evidence of corruption and the influence of chaos. Shallya doesn't like it, but tends to hide it due to not turning down those in need thing. Possibly even going to being a religous element of some cults of Taal.

Just some quick thoughts, I have to say this topic really got me thinking.

I would hazard a guess that it could be something dealt with, as mentioned before, on a region-by-region basis. Even within the Empire, certain lands might be more inclined to view homosexuality in a liberal light. For example, in Ostland, people might be too busy trying too survive to worry about their neightbors prediclections.

Interesting fodder for any GM, as a way to give a game a deeper breath of life.

Hey, just wanted to take everyone's temperature on this: What are your thoughts on pre-generated starting characters?

I'm working on a game where I have in mind a certain type of PC. I think it would be more fun letting the players work to strict guidelines to get to something that I want rather than just generating all the PCs myself. But that process might be a bit wearing on the players so it could save time if I did them myself. Anyone got an opinion?

I think some aspects of you creating them would be alright, but things revolving around personality and other aspects that make the character more linked with the player shouldn't be made by you. Of course you can always work with each player to guide them alittle towards what you want.

I agree with the last thing ArenTel typed. It might require a little more correspondence between you and the player, but they also might pleasantly surprise you with what the come up with.

For example, you could go with having one character fill a general idea of a career.

Like, "I need someone to play a shady career."

Between you and the player, you could come up with a graverobber-type with a conscience, or a rat catcher who takes care of the street urchins. Eventually, the rat catcher could develop into a crime lord, the Orphan King, and take a really interesting swing to the game.

You could even limit it more, like "I need a X career with the following skills" and then let the player go to town within that framework.

Seems to me any guidelines are fine aslong as you allow the PC's to create their own history. That way everyone wins.

Don't know if anyone has ever played Harnmaster, but part of the character creation system that they encourage people to use is for the player and GM to essential play out a 'mini-game' where you finish out the character's background.  You roll your starting stats, which is essentially your character at the age of 15-16, and then rough out additional background.

For instance:
GM: There's a famine at your village.  A group of men and women from the village are going to travel to the nearest city to look for work.  Or you can try to petition your local lord for relief, or do something else.
Player: I'll go talk to the baron.
GM: (rolls some 50/50 dice, or does a simple characteristic test)  The baron is swayed by your argument and lends you money to visit a market town and buy grain.  (Rolls again)  Unfortunately, you're attacked by bandits and robbed on the way to town.  You can go back home empty-handed, or try some other way to get food.
Player:  I'll go on to the town anyway and try to make money.
GM: There aren't many jobs available in town, but there is a mercenary company shipping out soon.  They'll hire you to work with the baggage train, tending the horses and mules and helping manage supplies.  You could also wait around town for other work, or go somewhere else.
Player: I'll take the job.
GM:  You spend a few days in town, and then move out heading for another province.  You spend three months with the mercenaries camped outside a castle while the mercenaries put down a peasant revolt.  One night, you spot another person from your own village.  He's pretty angry.  He says everyone assumes that you disappeared with the baron's money, and you've been declared an outlaw at home.
Player: Crap.

So in this exchange, you've given a player whose background is as a rural peasant or something a chance to enter into several possible careers (peasant, camp follower, mercenary, outlaw), you might give them some extra experience for the various things they've done, give them a chance to learn some different skills, etc.  Haven't tried it in a PbP game; might work better using an instant messaging client or something.