Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I've seen quite a few posters comment on how much they like one version of World of Darkness over another, and I'd like to get a feel for why this is the case.
On the surface, it seems there is not much difference between the two, other than setting and fluff, but I could be mistaken as I'm more familiar with the newer version than the older version.
Can you enlighten me as to why you prefer one version over another?
Also, can you highlight what you perceive to be the differences in the two versions and why one version is better than the other?
Thanks in advance!
On the surface, it seems there is not much difference between the two, other than setting and fluff, but I could be mistaken as I'm more familiar with the newer version than the older version.
This is actually it for me. I really liked all of the history and meta game that was involved in owod. I played VtM and all of centuries of personal grudges and clan interactions were one of the things that really got me into it. To throw all of that away kind of upset me. The Requiem really doesn't seem to have much of that. It seems kinda generic to me, but I've only ever read the main requiem book. So there may be additional supplement to fix this problem.
I know that some people were upset with how they handled Werewolves and mages mechanically, but I've never checked them out, so I can't really comment on that.
I prefer the nWoD rules. I'd say I prefer the nWoD setting, too, but then again, I don't have too much of a commitment to the old WoD.
oWoD was more defined for you already, and the politics were based more on clans within sects than on "covenants" made up of multiple clan members fighting other covenants who may have the same clans represented heavily, for one thing. It also had a higher power level, if you want to call it that - things like the Celerity discipline were much stronger in oWoD than nWoD.
I like both, and am not super familiar with either, but I do prefer oWoD from what I've seen, if not that heavily. Plus, oWoD had the Tzimisce...I miss the fleshwarpers in new.
|
I much prefer the WoD to nWoD, though both are similar enough that you can cut out things you like and insert them into the other with very little work.
Personally, like the first responer, I just like all the metagame and story of the oWoD and nWoD just doesn't even try to duplicate it. I can't really get behind any of the nWoD groups, to be honest. In vampire, I hate every single covenant. In the sense that I would never want to play a member of any of them. Just doesn't have any appeal for me.
I really don't see the point of new werewolf. They are literally security guards of the spirit world with unpronouncable terminology. Wereas the old werewolf game was epic, fighting a lossing war, the new seems, in my opinion to not have much actual options. Mage is pretty good, but both Mage and werewolf had a large problem early on in that many people said "ok I read the book and have all these cool powers, but what am I suppossed to do with them".
Otherwise, I've never heard anything bad about mage, but a lot of good. They kept the free form magic system, but did sort of limit it (similar to the D&D arguement about psionics in a sense). A problem in the old mage was that the more creative and smooth BS'r a PLAYER was, the more their character could do because they could explain anything. The new mage doesn't allow that so much.
The nWoD is more rules dependant and streamlined, which is why some people loved it and others don't. it is sort of like the difference of 3E and 4E, in some ways. Another problem I have, and I seem to be alone here, is that I find most of the nWoD increadably hard to read. The fonts and colors are just terrible on my eyes. I hate the cursive of Vampire, and Mage and Werewolf don't contrast well to the page background, so I have to strain a lot just to try to understand a sentence. I have a friend with poorer vision that can't read mage at all, (and werewolf much). Sure it looks nice, but not worth it to me. The WoD core is fine, as is Changling, Hunter, and Promethean, though.
You guys should definetly check out Darker Days Podcast and Forums. It is for both old and new WoD, and great for showing you both sides of the WoD. They recently did a Sabbat conversion to nWoD, which was fantastic.
Otherwise, I've never heard anything bad about mage, but a lot of good. They kept the free form magic system, but did sort of limit it (similar to the D&D arguement about psionics in a sense). A problem in the old mage was that the more creative and smooth BS'r a PLAYER was, the more their character could do because they could explain anything. The new mage doesn't allow that so much.I came primarily from Mage. I have four main gripes with Mage: the Awakening as opposed to Mage: the Ascension.
- The five orders of the Awakening are very Eurocentric, this loses the sense of diversity that was inherent in The Ascension's Council of Nine Traditions (which was still too Eurocentric but at least was trying). In fact, the beliefs and methods of Atlantian Orders are so similar that they fuctions better as "Houses of Hermes" rather then as distinct magical groups.
- Magic is very "matter" of fact in The Awakening. Dropping the idea of "Paradigm" removes the element of "personal belief" from magic. In The Ascension the Nine Spheres were an undersystem overwhich the mage's tradition or personal interpretation was overlaid. This added a sense of wonder and involvement in magic that is missing from The Awakening.
- The die rolling system used in the nWoD is much more random, as it uses a "hits" system rather then a target/hits system. All target numbers are "8" on a d10, so all influences on task resolution add or subtract dice fromt the roll. This makes all things much more chancey, and while that may sound good, what it realy does is make it MUCH more difficult to gadge difficutlies as a Game Master or Player.
- Finally, all character types (mages, vampires, werecreatures, etc.) are more fragile. This means that there will be a greater level of character turn-over in the campaign, and some GMs/players may like that. I do not, as I have also found that too much character death makes it very hard to sustain a story arch.
I over all like the nWoD more than I did the old. It feels has a more realism feel to it, and the rules are easy enough I can grab a sheet and have someone playing inside of 10 minutes, with them actually knowing what they are doing.
I'm not overly pleased with the merits and flaws system of nWoD but it is something I have been able to work with. The idea that you only get "x" to start with unless the DM gives you more bothers me a bit. You can have a rocking concept for an adult character and not be able to play it because you have the exact same blah that someone with a college student would have. Generally I think I just need a bit more conversion to be able to represent someone with more merits than skills or more skills than merits et al, not a huge deal really.
I like mage now since I can pick up a book and know what I can expect out of my character. As mentioned before one of the hardest parts of old mage was they fact you had no real idea what was within the power limits of which sphere, and at what rank. Now you have some fairly clear definition of what is possible with a 3 dot life sphere.
New vampire feels and plays a lot more like something Anne Rice would have wrote -- and I like that. You can have a big plot, or just a small one, and never lack for the vampire feel. I hated generation back in the day, and blood potency feels much more 'organic' to me for the vampire system. Locally we have had some fun with the interaction of the sect and bloodline politics. Personally I like the fact that clan isn't necessarily the be all end all of your character's political aliance. It always seemed a bit like saying "Your Black you have to go with this party".
nWoD Werewolf is the one I don't like. Where as the others returned to a fairly dark, spooky possibly unknown but mythology support role again, werewolf just feels completely out in left field to me. Also werewolves are wimps, and that's not right.
|
|
I prefer the old WoD, I agree a lot with what Becket and Lord said about it.
A big thing for me is the old games felt more diverse. The differences of the clans, traditions, tribes ect all felt more. I thought the game books read better and the fluff was better. They was the first books i could just buy the game book, read it and enjoy just reading the book weather I ever used the book or not.
I did not feel the same way about the new WoD books. As far as the rules goes they made a lot of changes but mostly minor changes. I liked about half the changes and disliked about half of them. I loved a couple of changes and hated a couple of changes. So the rules changes was a net wash for me.
So take as a old I liked the oWoD much better, though it is getting much harder to find people to play with. Right now i am reduced to playing it online on a friend online chat site to find people to game with.
I over all like the nWoD more than I did the old. It feels has a more realism feel to it, and the rules are easy enough I can grab a sheet and have someone playing inside of 10 minutes, with them actually knowing what they are doing.
This is true. The old World of Darkness was more technical - you had to know what you were doing to get the character you wanted. Mage: the Ascension especially so.
I like mage now since I can pick up a book and know what I can expect out of my character. As mentioned before one of the hardest parts of old mage was they fact you had no real idea what was within the power limits of which sphere, and at what rank. Now you have some fairly clear definition of what is possible with a 3 dot life sphere.
Actually, understanding the Spheres and - more importantly - the combinations of Spheres was never that difficult for me.
In any event, I do not like feeling so boxed in. A mage is dependent on his/her rotes - of which a character does not get nearly enough. (And, yes while "spontanious" magic is possible, the dice pool penalties for it are so vast, as to make in not viable.)
|
|
I agree with Dark Mistress. I just didn't want to sound too antinWoD. The original WoD you could just read and enjoy like a great novel. I baught all most all the vampire line for that reason. It is just so readable. NWoD I just can't get into. Even the new clanbooks seem, well kind of boring and "whats the point".
Over at Darker Days, there are a few games trying to take off. I have one almost ready for a PbP.
|
I prefer OWoD personally but mainly for the fluff and story, history etc. I have run a number of long running Vtm campaigns and really had a great time. Played Mage and Werewolf a bit as well and had a good time although im not as much of a fan as those games as I am Vtm
Played Vtr in NwoD a few times but just cant into it. I dont think the setting is anywhere near as good or interesting. Just doesnt feel right and I dont really like the covenants and just.... well the setting : ( which is a shame cos I used to love giving WW money. Havent done for many years now.
Not too bothered about the rules really its the setting that does it for me!
Can you enlighten me as to why you prefer one version over another
There are some good bits in the nWoD, but overall, I prefer the oWoD.
*The setting changes have not been all that well received by my group as they trashed what we had come to love, but not in any awesome way. We were excited at the possibility of nWoD, but, for example, VtR trashed VtM and replaced it with something that was sort of similar. If the games had been a lot more different, we would have been more excited. Ah well.
*The opposite is true for CtD vs. CtL - apart from the fairy connection, these two games are nothing like each other, and we were all disappointed to see that there is no nWoD analogue for CtD.
*The nWoD rules are much more streamlined, but this makes for bad gaming. Your vampire, werewolf, hunter, etc. all feel much more similar in nWoD than in oWoD, where the rules were seperate (but not un-combine-able if that was your goal). A lot of the nWoD stuff seems too "by the numbers" (PtC I'm looking at you!), as in, these are you fast guys, these are your tough guys, these are your social guys, etc. The rules just aren't as much fun.
*The "ethics" seem to be a little off too. We've gone from the sales of WtA contributing to environmental charities, to having to buy numerous "core" books, covering normals, firearms, etc. All that you needed was in a single book with oWoD. And coming from a D&D background, I *really* liked that.
All, of course, IMHO.
Peace,
tfad
|
|
*The setting changes have not been all that well received by my group as they trashed what we had come to love, but not in any awesome way. We were excited at the possibility of nWoD, but, for example, VtR trashed VtM and replaced it with something that was sort of similar. If the games had been a lot more different, we would have been more excited. Ah well.
That was a big problem I had to. They changed the games enough that a lot of the stuff I most loved about the old games was either changed or gone. Yet they used some of the same names for stuff for things that was similar but different. So the game kinda fell into the middle ground. They changed to much for those that loved all the old fluff for it to feel the same but left enough in and reused enough words that it didn't really feel like a new game either.
I prefer nWoD. Primarily because I never got into oWoD and didn't have an interest in it until near the end of it's life-cycle. I played in a couple of short-lived campaigns (Vampire and a "mixed" home-brewed campaign) that used oWoD (or the rules at least) and I had fun. But the level of complexity in the plots and background was a little too daunting for my tastes. With nWoD I can jump in with very little knowledge of a meta-plot (because it's just barely there in most of the settings) and be just fine. Had I gotten into oWoD while still in highshcool (before the second edition of those books came out) I would most likely feel differently. But now just getting into it, it's accessible and much easier for me to jump into with both feet. I also rather like that mortals have a place in nWoD. In fact, my preference would be to run a mortal campaign with all the other "monsters" as adversaries (Thank goodness for Hunter.)
I can however completely understand those that prefer oWoD to nWoD, but for this one guy, the nWoD is better.
I have no referance for the nWoD because when White Wolf anounced the reset I stopped playing any of their games.
|
|
I prefer nWoD. Primarily because I never got into oWoD and didn't have an interest in it until near the end of it's life-cycle. I played in a couple of short-lived campaigns (Vampire and a "mixed" home-brewed campaign) that used oWoD (or the rules at least) and I had fun. But the level of complexity in the plots and background was a little too daunting for my tastes. With nWoD I can jump in with very little knowledge of a meta-plot (because it's just barely there in most of the settings) and be just fine. Had I gotten into oWoD while still in highshcool (before the second edition of those books came out) I would most likely feel differently. But now just getting into it, it's accessible and much easier for me to jump into with both feet. I also rather like that mortals have a place in nWoD. In fact, my preference would be to run a mortal campaign with all the other "monsters" as adversaries (Thank goodness for Hunter.)
Here's something I have never really understood. Okay, the WoD had a deep metaplot and backstory. I'm not argueing that. I can even understand that some people just don't care for either the metaplot specifically, or any metaplot. But the deal with the older games was always right there in the front, "if you don't like it, don't use it". That was practically the first rule in all WoD books. It's here if you want, but don't feel you have to ever use any of it, or feel free to change what you want. That basically serves everyone just fine. It's is there for those that want it, but nothing in the game rules are really dependant on any of it. With the nWoD, however, it doesn't exist. Which mean that those that didn't really like it, or are neutral, are good, but those that did like it are disapointed. I just don't see how that was a wise choice? Am I wrong?
|
|
I played years worth of the original World of Darkness, and have played every Camarilla Clan (some in multiple games, or up to Elder levels of power) as well as Tzimisce, Setite, Assamite and Lasombra. We even played a cobbled-together homebrew 'Dark Ages' game long before they released a supplement for that. I also played years worth of LARP as well, and wrote up LARP versions of the various Bloodline Disciplines and expanded Paths of Thaumaturgy long before White Wolf got around to it.
I very much enjoyed the various Clans, particularly the core Clans, who often didn't have a specific Discipline that 'did their job for them,' unlike many of the Bloodlines. The Ventrue didn't have, or need, a Discipline to make money. The Toreador didn't have, or need, a Discipline to make art. The Malkavians didn't have, or need, a Discipline to make people crazy (well, not until later, with Dementation, which was a piss-poor cousin to how crazy you could make someone with Dominate...). I kinda liked that.
The game was chock-full of Clans, Bloodlines, etc. and, while a Vampire didn't not even exist on the same order of magnitude with the power of a Werewolf, they were still pretty impressive put up against normal mortals.
I never got overly into the metaplot, and we generally ignored it in our own games, having our own plots relevant to our own storylines. My own games were set in Denver (the mile-deep city, beneath which strange things lurked) and Miami (cold war city, where Sabbat and Camarilla each claimed half of the city, and co-existed in a fragile state of detente).
Myself and another regular Masquerade player tried nWoD at GenCon (or was it Origins?) in a demo game run by White Wolf interns / staffers, and the party of six vampires were routed by a dog. Not a ghoul dog. Not a magical hound from hell. Not Cujo. Just a dog. My sample character was a computer specialist, and he failed the five rolls he got to make that entire session. Not 'failed to get enough successes,' just flat out failed to get a single success, at anything, including his specialty. (And, if any task wasn't mind-bendingly easy, he might have been expected to get *multiple* successes on those dice rolls that he utterly failed.) It was four hours of sheer frustration, almost as fun as slaving over the various charts and rolls necessary to design a Traveller character that ends up dying during character generation.
Note to game developers, if you design a game that sucks so hard that your own demos drive people away from it, maybe you should go back to the drawing board.
Little things bugged me. The Nosferatu now had a Discipline to scare people. One player in the game we attempted maxed that puppy out, and failed to incapacitate anyone with it when he tried to use it. He took to carrying a baseball bat, as it did a better job of scaring people away. (One victim lost some Willpower or something, but that's fairly meaningless against an NPC with a gun. It's only an inconvenience to a PC who is going to want to use that Willpower later in the game. It's like, 'Ha! I use a power that cost every single experience point I've gained over six months of game play to make a scary face! Lose two Action Points.' 'I'm an NPC, I'll cease to exist at the end of this scene anyway. Now observe closely as I shoot you in the scary face, loser.')
There was a rule that when two Vampires meet, they have to make a roll as their predatory natures rise up and feel threatened, and if one or both fails this roll (and failing rolls in Requiem, easier than you'd think...), they fight. How could a species have a society where 50% of encounters between members of the species involve a battle to the death? Would *you* be willing to meet another Vampire, knowing that they might be your pen-pal, your bested online buddy, your cyber-sexin' something-something-on-the-side, but will still as likely as not attempt to rip your head off if you ever end up in the same room (and that you'll just as likely flip out and try to kill them, too?).
When I asked about that rule on the forums, the official response was, 'Well don't use it, obviously.' My un-official response was 'Then why the hell did it get written in the first place, if it 'obviously' shouldn't be used?'
I don't know if it's a perception thing (and I am hella biased, obviously), but White Wolf seemed to be doing a heck of a lot better, commercially, expanding in all directions, and self-publishing some pretty crazy (and sometimes ill-advised) things, in the days of the old World of Darkness, than they are doing with the new World of Darkness.
|
|
It's here if you want, but don't feel you have to ever use any of it, or feel free to change what you want. That basically serves everyone just fine. It's is there for those that want it, but nothing in the game rules are really dependant on any of it. With the nWoD, however, it doesn't exist. Which mean that those that didn't really like it, or are neutral, are good, but those that did like it are disapointed. I just don't see how that was a wise choice? Am I wrong?
The metaplot, for me, is like Psionics in D&D.
I've got no use for it, but I'm glad it's there to serve the people it was designed for. It costs me nothing, and it makes other players happy. Where's the downside?
The only time metaplot bugs me is when, as it did with the Time of Trouble Realms-Shaking-Event, rules and changed and player options are removed from the game because of something that happened in some poorly-written novel. I'll never know what a Specialty Priest of Lleira or Myrkul would look like, and have far too much game information for some clown named Cyruk, who appears to be the god of massively screwing up overly-complicated plots and unearned victories through dumb luck over vastly more competent (and interesting) foes.
Yeah, I'll just backstab the god of assassins, which succeeds brilliantly, because it just so happens that my sword is yet another god, who turned into a sword, for some bizarre reason. Then I'll invite the goddess of deception, illusion and trickery into a dark alley alone and offer her candy, bonk her over the head and steal all of her power, too. For my next trick, I'll take Thor's hammer, by suddenly grabbing it and pushing him off a cliff! Yoink!
As long as White Wolf continued to publish usable mechanical material for Clans, Bloodlines, etc. that were 'canonically dead' (such as the Salubri, Cappadocians, True Brujah, Lamia, Lhiannon, etc.), it was all good. If I decide that my game has no use for Kiasyd, yay me. No Kiasyd. If a major game event involves a Kiasyd and I want to use it, I can say, 'Some Lasombra, rumored to have ties to the Fae,' and be done with it.
|
|
From my Conversations with Justin Achilli, I got the distinct feeling that he Hated the oWoD meta-plot, In fact at one point he mentioned that if he re-designed the game he would get rid of a ton of Clans *Including the Tremere*. He had major influence on the company at the time of going from oWoD to nWoD, most likely his feeling for the oWoD is the main reason they got rid of the Meta-plot in the nWoD.
Edit: During the oWoD I was a huge White Wolf fan, Payed close attention to everything and at that time they were like Paizo is today, very open to the Fans, these days they are not as open, and rarely, but a few, post in thier forums. Even though I still buy thier products I am not the Fan of the company I used to be.
Well, I actually have no experience with the nWoD. I´ve been playing the oWoD from the point where the rulebook said "Sabbat are a bunch of crazies living below old graveyards" or something in that vein. So, I´m probably a crotchety old bastard when it comes to the oWoD. I´ve played and storytelled Dark Ages excessively, Masquerade intensively, Mage on and off, Werewolf a few times, and own several dozen books.
They lost me the moment they decided to trash 15 years of publishing history, retaining a few names, tagging those to something completely different and said "lo and behold, the nWoD is born". To me, they could have killed the oWoD all right, the metaplot was running in that direction all the time anyway, but then, for gods sake, and for once, let the dead lie. The history was one of the strong points in the oWoD for me, and AFAICT, it plays almost no role in the nWoD. What´s more, I do have enough oWoD stuff to last me a lifetime anyway. It just failed to appeal to me at all, as it changed too much for my taste. (I could say the same about D&D4, but this is another topic entirely. Maybe I´m just getting too old...)
... now get off my lawn, vampire punks! Hah! Let me show you what being a vampire meant in MY day - you youngsters have no idea just what I´m capable of. Let me just get those old Disciplines going!
Stefan
Grognard stuff
QFT. I did buy the core books of nWoD, but the whole reworking really left a sour taste in my mouth. After that, WW lost me as a customer. Unfortunately there was no OGL to allow another company to continue publishing OWoD compatible stuff, but I know I've still got my books on the shelf.
Perhaps this Fall, friends ...perhaps...
I far prefer the nWoD myself. It is clearer, and more open. It is a bit more work to master, but it is smarter and better wrought in my opinion. I think the changes are for the better.
The only one I do not like is mage. I prefer the wildness of old Mage.
I don't mind that they nerfed magic. That was welcome. I mind the Atlantean metaplot. I just prefer willworkers to disciples of a golden age. Personal preference.
I had no practical experience with oWoD, but own tons of the books. I just never could get anyone to play.
I have not explored the nWoD very much at all.
I find it interesting that the new Changeling became their runaway hitout of the reboot.. to the point they charted out a specific number of books for the line, and then had to write more books because the line was so popular. But the more established Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage games, while doing okay, didn't spark as much for them.
(My source was a passage I read in the forward of one of the books that basically read: 'This was supposed to be the last Changeling Book in the line, but you darn kids keep buyin' 'em like crazy so we'll write more!')
Hunter also appears to be doing well. Scion, while not nWoD, also is doing great.
Any comments? I don't have an opinion other than which of the new lines did better than initially anticipated.
Justin Achilli
I don't want to bash the guy, but after a couple of years of reading his posts and his replies to my wife's posts, his name has become something of a dirty word in our house. I really think his WoD is just not the same as my WoD.
I find it interesting that the new Changeling became their runaway hitout of the reboot
I find it somewhat depressing and kinda telling about a section of the audience of nWoD. All the old CtD fans, in my neck of the woods at least, consider it to be inferior and a largely unjustified deep-teen-angst-fest. IMHO, it is nowhere near the standards or awesome of the original Changeling. That was game *made* for gamers - you can't get any more moving or epic than the death of imagination.
Ah, well. However old your WoD is - game on!
Peace,
tfad
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I find it interesting that the new Changeling became their runaway hitout of the rebootI find it somewhat depressing and kinda telling about a section of the audience of nWoD. All the old CtD fans, in my neck of the woods at least, consider it to be inferior and a largely unjustified deep-teen-angst-fest. IMHO, it is nowhere near the standards or awesome of the original Changeling. That was game *made* for gamers - you can't get any more moving or epic than the death of imagination.
Ah, well. However old your WoD is - game on!
Peace,
tfad
I never 'got' changling. I always looked at them as parasitic soul consuming vampires, with better press. The only book I have that held my interest was Land of 8 Million Dreams.
I just wish I had a copy of the Great War.
I find it somewhat depressing and kinda telling about a section of the audience of nWoD. All the old CtD fans, in my neck of the woods at least, consider it to be inferior and a largely unjustified deep-teen-angst-fest. IMHO, it is nowhere near the standards or awesome of the original Changeling. That was game *made* for gamers - you can't get any more moving or epic than the death of imagination.
I've read through the new changling book, and were I can see how that idea could get through I saw a lot of other possibilities for plot and characters than that. However I did like the old changling too -- to me the fairy book that I like best (overall) was dark ages:Fae, however that easily went too powerful, or fall over dead depending on the GM.
I think a lot of either system really depended on the GM. It almost requires GM Fiat to start and continue a game, and GM I ran with ruled all over the place in every direction possible.
What powers, character types, skills and even weapons were effective really depends on the GM in both WoD games.
********************
I think if oWoD and nWoD had come out at the same time, by two different companies in much the same way Pathfinder and 4e are doing, it would have been interesting to see which got picked up more.
It almost requires GM Fiat to start and continue a game, and GM I ran with ruled all over the place in every direction possible.
Really? See, as the ST for CtD on numerous occasions, I really feel that it comes down to the players. I mean, CtD *needs* mature players who want to contribute to the world, more than any other RPG I've played. I mean, without their imput, their imaginations, their characters actually die (or a lot worse).
I can't help but relate a tale of a CtD game we played through in response to the most-Matrix, nWoD world we currently live in. The public's imagination had been fired up and glamour was flowing pretty freely. But there was an unfortunate side effect of numerous chimera wandering around in dark glasses and leather coats trying to start bullet-ballets and kung-fu hustles.
My players wet themselves laughing when, during their first battle in the dreaming, this chimera started bending backward and slowly flailing his arms around in the middle of the fight. "Is he casting a spell?" "What's going on?" "I hide behind my shield!" *penny drops* *laughter for 10 minutes real time*
The troupe just walked off and left him to it, flailing away....
I think if oWoD and nWoD had come out at the same time, by two different companies in much the same way Pathfinder and 4e are doing, it would have been interesting to see which got picked up more.
That is a *very* interesting question, I'd not thought of.
I guess that WoD was/is a very generational thing. Perhaps a lot of us don't get nWoD simply because it wasn't meant for us.
Peace,
tfad
Any one know how Mark Rein-Hagen feals about the NWoD?
I'd bet a years pay he would like to burn White Wolf studios down to the ground.
I personally Hated the oWoD Changeling, and felt it never belonged
I see this a lot and just don't get it. Ancient traditions, a world beyond that which mortals know, love, sadness, loss, violence, stuck between two worlds, magic, mixed reactions to the "modern" world, etc. All these things fit right into all the "classic" WoD themes.
In fact, going from that list, you couldn't tell if I was talking about VtM, WtA, HtR, MtA or CtD.
Long live the Dreaming!
Peace,
tfad
|
|
I don't agree here, but Changling had a very bight aspect to it, and it is not hard to say it didn't fit. While vampire, mage, hunter, mummy, werewolf, wraith and whatever was about dread and sort of an in-your-face the world is twisted and sucks, Changling was more about "things are bad, but we are the light". It was one of the few games that a player didn't risk losing contro of their character each game, (frenzy, the shadow, etc. . .). It was also not about a group of creatures all out to screw each other over at the slightest chance, but rather about everyone working together to save the world(s).
To my knowledge, it was also the only series that had color pages.
It almost requires GM Fiat to start and continue a game, and GM I ran with ruled all over the place in every direction possible.Really? See, as the ST for CtD on numerous occasions, I really feel that it comes down to the players. I mean, CtD *needs* mature players who want to contribute to the world, more than any other RPG I've played. I mean, without their imput, their imaginations, their characters actually die (or a lot worse).
Agreed, like most games, without players and ST's that know each other and what to expect from each other.
I joined a game once with a group that had been very comfortable with each other. However my tastes and expectations were very different from their tastes and expectations. To be clear no one at the table was power gaming, rules lawyering, or anything of the like, and our basic perceptions of the WoD was very close to each other. However our basic assumptions and thoughts on how the morality worked.
It ended with me leaving the group on friendly terms (being the newcomer I didn't want to disrupt the group mechanic that was working for them simply because I didn't see eye to eye with how they were doing things), and still consider them friends, however it was an interesting experience.
|
|
To be clear no one at the table was power gaming, rules lawyering, or anything of the like, and our basic perceptions of the WoD was very close to each other. However our basic assumptions and thoughts on how the morality worked.
I'm not sure what you mean?
They were playing a different game than you, (not literally)? Like a superhero version of VtM.
To be clear no one at the table was power gaming, rules lawyering, or anything of the like, and our basic perceptions of the WoD was very close to each other. However our basic assumptions and thoughts on how the morality worked.I'm not sure what you mean?
They were playing a different game than you, (not literally)? Like a superhero version of VtM.
Kind of. I took the morality rules rather seriously, they didn't so much. I was very careful of what I did in front of humans, again someone else popped claws in front of a bar. I would act my part in society, the others would think they were bad enough not to have to. They played as if they were apart of the world around them instead of a part of the world around them.
Examples - We find a drained (completely... emptied the veins with very low pressure compressed air) corpse with a map carved into the foot. My character takes a sheet of paper out of his note book and copies the map. They hack off the foot. I act disgusted at the disrespect for the dead, and they say "It's just another human." They were turned less than a month ago, I've been around 75 years (spent the last 25 in voluntary toupar). Lowest humanity of the group was mine at 5, I avoided killing when needed/possible. They kill the guards I just knocked out so they couldn't ambush us later.
Humans in their world just generally ignored completely what happened around them. In the one I was use to playing in, if you weren't careful you could start a riot, or get someone to try and become a "vampire hunter".
I guess the way to put it was I was use to playing something Anne Rice ish (or even slightly Anita Blake ish) and they were playing Buffy.
Here's something I have never really understood. Okay, the WoD had a deep metaplot and backstory. I'm not argueing that. I can even understand that some people just don't care for either the metaplot specifically, or any metaplot. But the deal with the older games was always right there in the front, "if you don't like it, don't use it". That was practically the first rule in all WoD books. It's here if you want, but don't feel you have to ever use any of it, or feel free to change what you want. That basically serves everyone just fine. It's is there for those that want it, but nothing in the game rules are really dependant on any of it. With the nWoD, however, it doesn't exist. Which mean that those that didn't really like it, or are neutral, are good, but those that did like it are disapointed. I just don't see how that was a wise choice? Am I wrong?I prefer nWoD. Primarily because I never got into oWoD and didn't have an interest in it until near the end of it's life-cycle. I played in a couple of short-lived campaigns (Vampire and a "mixed" home-brewed campaign) that used oWoD (or the rules at least) and I had fun. But the level of complexity in the plots and background was a little too daunting for my tastes. With nWoD I can jump in with very little knowledge of a meta-plot (because it's just barely there in most of the settings) and be just fine. Had I gotten into oWoD while still in highshcool (before the second edition of those books came out) I would most likely feel differently. But now just getting into it, it's accessible and much easier for me to jump into with both feet. I also rather like that mortals have a place in nWoD. In fact, my preference would be to run a mortal campaign with all the other "monsters" as adversaries (Thank goodness for Hunter.)
I understand completely that you can throw out the meta-plot with little problem. (Though it does render portions of some books less useful from what I could see.) In fact the games I played in used none, or nearly none of the meta-plot. The issue for me wasn't a dislike of the meta-plot. Quite the opposite, I did like the meta-plot. but my interest in the game didn't really exist until they had begun to tie up the greater story arc. At that point, I didn't have any of the books from oWoD (spending most of my gaming resources on D&D). What I was able to read (and I did read a bit) I borrowed from friends who liked the system/setting, and/or were running games that I was in. Rather than bog myself down in collecting out of print books that were becoming more and more difficult to find (Wraith for instance), I opted to give nWoD a look. Doing so, it did one thing that I like more than anything else: Made mortals a part of the game. A legitimate part of the game. I know I only touch on this at the end of my last post, but it is a big thing for me. (I also feel the mechanics are a little bit more streamlined and easier to integrate between settings, but that is by the by.)
Any one know how Mark Rein-Hagen feals about the NWoD?
I'd bet a years pay he would like to burn White Wolf studios down to the ground.
That is a good question. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
All this talking about WoD makes me hungry for a game.
One thing I thought would be interesting is kind of a 'big supernatural on campus' thing. Take a college in a Cam held town, and have everyone make their characters tied into it somehow.
Generic examples:
Vamprie: staff or faculty, doing the 'night shift' routine.
Werewolf: students or late changing staff.
Mage: Well Mage would fit in anywhere
Wraith: ghosts of anyone tied to the school.
Hunter: See Mage
Mummy: See Vampire
Changling: Always rough, they don't integrate well with others.
The other college game I thought of was a 'second stringer' game. Limit characters to mortals, kinfolk, kinnan, hedge wizards, ghouls dhampyr, dhampires, and revenants. Half the fun would be to use your Gifts/Disciplines/Wizardry/etc w/o getting noticed.
Like I said, I never got into the fuzzy superheroes of W:tA, I could play a nWoD mortals game, using the 'generic' nWoD books, and might swipe some things into my oWoD vampire game. (Ordo Dracul would work as an Obertus/Basrab cult)
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Thanks to all of you for your responses (so far).
I've been working through the nWoD, and find that I like it a lot. Especially the ability to be a mortal PC.
I plan to run a nWoD campaign with my gaming group as soon as I get through the different books (Vampire, Werewolf, Hunter, Changeling, Mage, Promethean, and probably Geist when it comes out). This campaign will begin with all PCs being mortals, and their circumstances will determine what happens. I envision some will remain mortal and become hunters, while others may become turned from the actions that occur to them. The group dynamic as the Troupe has to deal with what is happening to them, and how they interact with each other will be the main focus of the storyline.
From what I've read in these posts, that kind of campaign would not be possible in oWoD, so I'm glad I discovered the nWoD, as it applies more directly to the type of game I want to run.
Thanks again for your comments, and I hope to see more of them!
Thanks to all of you for your responses (so far).
I've been working through the nWoD, and find that I like it a lot. Especially the ability to be a mortal PC.
I plan to run a nWoD campaign with my gaming group as soon as I get through the different books (Vampire, Werewolf, Hunter, Changeling, Mage, Promethean, and probably Geist when it comes out). This campaign will begin with all PCs being mortals, and their circumstances will determine what happens. I envision some will remain mortal and become hunters, while others may become turned from the actions that occur to them. The group dynamic as the Troupe has to deal with what is happening to them, and how they interact with each other will be the main focus of the storyline.
Just beware of the task resolution mechanic. As I pointed out, and Set provided a very vivid example, characters are very likely to fail even at relatively simple tasks - even at things that they are supposed to be good at.
I don't agree here, but Changling had a very bight aspect to it, and it is not hard to say it didn't fit.
I think that this is one of the biggest misconceptions that fans of CtD try hard to dispel. So I'll do my bit before bowing out! ;p
about dread and sort of an in-your-face the world is twisted and sucks
The world is twisted and sucks - the world is a frightening place to Changelings. The everyday and mundane are toxic to them - for example, going through a drive through, with all the disenfranchisement that entails, could potentially kill a Changeling. Seeing a child soldier, almost certainly so! It's twisted too, some people, serial killers, rapists, haunted soldiers, etc. have an horrific effect on the world of the Dreaming. While a Hunter may face the killer him/herself, a Changeling has to actually face the twisted parts of them that led them down that dark path. There can be some damn scary minds out there! There is definitely some feelings of dread in CtD - just ask your troupe to go within a half-mile of anything from a bullied child to a blood-stained sanitarium and there *will* be dread.
Changling was more about "things are bad, but we are the light".
Not so. Although it is possible to play it that way, the default is more "things are bad and they are only going to get worse". Have your troupe try to continually inspire the artist that provides them with glamour. Slowly that well is going to dry up and it won't be long before his studio becomes a twisted hall of tried and tested post-modernism, sucking the life out of the dreaming....
It was one of the few games that a player didn't risk losing control of their character each game,
There is a constant battle that Changelings have to fight between their summer and winter natures, as well as the steady stream of glamour - every bit as necessary as blood for vampires, only much harder to collect. A good roleplayer will have an infinite source of stuff to work with from that. While there are *fewer* instances requiring you to actually roll or lose control, that is a good thing. Otherwise, there'd not be the hoo-har there is in D&D over "save-or-suck". And a roleplayer in CtD has more than enough material to work with if they want to lose control.
Watching one of our Redcaps lose control of his hunger while trying to drive and talk on the phone was a lot of fun, leading the troupe to some scary moments!
It was also not about a group of creatures all out to screw each other over at the slightest chance, but rather about everyone working together to save the world(s).
Changeling politics is every bit as brutal as the politics of VtM. The advancement is more limited, as you're either a noble or your not, plus killing another Changeling (i.e. your political rival) will hurt you and the rest of the Dreaming, so the schemes can get *very* nasty. Plus there are a lot of social rules you can play with too, similar to the Traditions in VtM.
To my knowledge, it was also the only series that had color pages.
Yes. And they're pretty to look at! ;p Seriously, though, it is to help convey the world to the reader - it's a bright and vibrant world in the Dreaming. Shame it is all going down....
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, but CtD players often need to fight against the preconceptions that others have about their game. Make no mistake, no matter how silly and happy you think the fey-folk are, CtD is every bit as dark and twisted as the other WoD games and it does belong on a shelf next to VtM, HtR, WtA, etc.
Peace,
tfad
|
|
I wasn't trying to say that Dreaming was only all bright, just that it has a different feel. Also, the WoD games completely changed gears from 2nd to Revised editions, and Changling never made it that far. In VtM 2nd, the Sabbat are crazy psychos that actually do worship Satan, live in graveyards and drink each others blood because it tasts good. While the whole "we fight the rising Antideluvians" thing was there, it was not a major focus. They were the vampires that people could play without worrying about morality. Malkavians where also comedic crazy. It was okay to walk down the street having conversation iwth a headless fish, naked. In Mage, the Technocracy was a group that kidnapped and made other mages vanish. They were Men in Black and a lot less serious mature.
In the revised editions, though, Malkavians became, "these are actually scarry, mess up, broken people. Insanity is a curse, it is not funny." The Sabbat developed into a more semimoral institution, that had actually intrinsic goals. The Technocracy, likewise became a complete realistic faction. Tey stopped being the boogy man and developed more as an oppossing force, but one that had bigger deals to look at than the Tradition mages, usually.
Okay have not read all the post so I may not be unique in this but let me tella a quick story.
I got most if not all of the OWOD books, except for city books, and I really loved all the games, but I did find interactions between monster types to be difficult. Never mind the fact that we never did get the game Humans: The Miniority. Still I was in a group that got vampire of the new WoD and was going to be having Midnight games the whole month it came out. I played.
Right off I loved the new rules, the system was better and smoother to interact with other monsters, the game went faster then the old game (and I never had an issue of speed with that game). However something was lacking. By the third night our storyteller had a gang of vamps that was for all intents the sabbat. Over the next three or four games we were converting clans and rules sets. IN the end we ended up playing the old world of darkness with the new rules.
Although I have never gotten a set of the new rules, well not yet, I reall regard them as rule books only, fluff wise the nWoD really falls shourt (except for the new changeling which I've heard nothing but good things of). Now partly this is due to WW attempt to make the game more generic, but at the same time the OWoD had the problem that they didn't think the game was going to be so popular, nor that they would need a base line powerlevel for the monster games.
In any case I guess this puts me on the OWoD side of the question, but I freely admit the new ruleset is much better concived and exicuted.
TTFN DRE
In any case I guess this puts me on the OWoD side of the question, but I freely admit the new ruleset is much better concived and exicuted.
I might actually agree ...
... if it wasn't for the way tasks were resolved. :(
I don't agree here, but Changling had a very bight aspect to it, and it is not hard to say it didn't fit.I think that this is one of the biggest misconceptions that fans of CtD try hard to dispel. So I'll do my bit before bowing out! ;p
I also never understood that.
Of all the Supernatural types, the Fae of Changeling the Dreaming are most keenly aware that their world is dying. So if anything, Changeling was always, to me, the most grim and depressing of all the games. (I do include Wraith in that list, btw.)
The bright colors of Changeling have more the flavor of people trying to force themselves to be happy.
-----
If anything, the "brightest" oWoD game was Mage: the Ascension.
Remember, the core of magick was that "An enlightened Will can change the world." So if a mage, or a group of mages, believes strongly enough, they can change the world for the better.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
In any case I guess this puts me on the OWoD side of the question, but I freely admit the new ruleset is much better concived and exicuted.I might actually agree ...
Attributes are better laid out. Moving "Appearance" to a Merit (that actually does something was a really good idea). Skills are much simplified (oversimplified?) and better sorted. Systems have been unified, easing cross "species" games. ... if it wasn't for the way tasks were resolved. :(
+1 I always hated a) seeing high appearance characters or b) seeing app 2 or 1 characters looking like models in their written descriptions.
Blast, now I'm going to end up getting a nWoD PDF or something and try to convert mechanics, aren't I?
So, consensus seems to be:
* nWoD is a better, more streamlined system.
* oWoD has a better setting/fluff.Is that a fair statement?
Not completely.
"nWoD is a better, more streamlined system."
"oWoD has a better setting/fluff."
|
|
I am not in any way impressed with the nWoD rules. I don't think they are streamlined at all, and full of problems and things that just completely irk me.
I am currently running a nWoD mortals game based off of Supernatural for two players. Both are obviously somewhat combat geared. In the last boss fight, (I am trying to run this somewhat episodically), the boss had a special defense of 3. The two players had a typical dice pool of between 8 - 12 (depending on gear and attack type). After burning willpower each and every round, the main damage dealer got either 1 or 0 successes every single round, and the combat which was suppossed to be fun and the final big fight after all this research took near an hour of I miss, I miss, I miss, I miss, 1 damage, I miss, 1 damage. It seriously got to the point that when it was finally at just under half, I just killed it to get it over with.
It irks me that 1 success and 4 are the exact same thing, (most of the time). They really need to through in a 3 success's milestone too. As it stands, and granted I don't play nWoD to often, but enough, I have never seen a Critical success. As a ST, I really miss Botching. That was random fun, that is pretty much gone, replaced with a chance roll that pretty much forces the players to blame the ST for making things so hard on them rather than a bad roll.
As far as the games being better intergrated together, I don't see it. WoD, had some general concepts about each other game line. Werewolves hated Vampires (presumably) because. . . Mages and Werewolves sometimes got into territorial conflicts, but each side had their own idea why, even if completely wrong. In the nWoD, there is really no concept about what Prometheans think about Immortals. It is just way to open. Just because the rules work about the same doesn't mean they are any better intergrated. In fact, I think the nWoD has the least amount of material on how to work with the various game lines. WoD had sections about the others, from their perspective, and also had little books that where specificaly for that purpose, like The Red Sign, the something something Foundation, Blood Moon, etc. . .
nWoD has it's up sides, I just don't think those are any of them.