PDA

View Full Version : Comparing two different game systems



TaintedLight
2009-07-03, 01:22 AM
Recently, a friend of mine introduced me to the World of Darkness roleplaying rules published by White Wolf and it got me thinking. My D&D games are fun, but after a while I begin to want something else from roleplaying besides a straightforward combat engine with a dash of flavor like the one I have been using. I realize that the game (D&D 3.5) allows for more complex roleplaying scenarios than that, but at first glance WoD streamlines the system fantastically. Fighting or magicking one's way out of a situation is suddenly far from the best way to do things 9 times out of 10. Specifically, I've been invited to play Vampire: the Requiem. I love the wealth of material and flavor in this game setting, and I was wondering how Playgrounders view WoD and VtR specifically in relation to D&D 3.5.

Again, I realize just how different these are at first blush. One new thing that caught my eye (with high marks!) is the successes system, for example. Rather than rolling d20 and adding a modifier that can be artificially inflated to preposterous heights with a few gimmicky tricks, you roll a certain number of d10 based on attributes and skill investments that you make. It's a lot like Arkham Horror, and as far as I'm concerned that's a good, sensible way to run. The real meat of the thread is this: how do people who have played both systems, extensively or otherwise, compare them to one another? Do you prefer one or the other for different kinds of games? (horror/action/intrigue)

BobVosh
2009-07-03, 01:59 AM
I like WW's system a lot. That said almost every setting has things that just completly demolish the balance. Not huge combos through 30 books like Pun-pun (as far as I know), but things like flashbangs demolish vampires. Or incendary gernades.

VtR is unfamiliar to me. I like masquerade, but a lot of it is stupid and doesn't make sense at times.

Success based dice systems are better imo than D20 style. Plus bucket o' dice is fun at times.

TaintedLight
2009-07-03, 02:02 AM
I agree with your statement about the dice pool system. In D&D's defense, rolling a die with a modifier to reach a target number seems wholly sensible, but it's so easily abused and broken from what I've seen many times. The only problem I have with the WW system is that I suck at rolling d10s :p.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-03, 05:11 AM
The real meat of the thread is this: how do people who have played both systems, extensively or otherwise, compare them to one another? Do you prefer one or the other for different kinds of games? (horror/action/intrigue)

I've played these and many other systems.

One thing that is great about all of the World of Darkness systems (both old and new) is character building. Putting in those skill dots is intuitive, flavorful, and very fast. It really feels like you're a character, rather than a set of mechanics. This also means it is an excellent system for new players, because of how simple and intuitive everything is. You don't need to know any rules to play.

Another is the powers. Do you want to start with a character that's invisible most of the time? Or that can force normal humans to do his bidding, no save? Go for it, no problem. This is where D&D starts to sputter "oh that is sooo unbalanced!" but where WOD says "so what?" The GM can easily set up meaningful threats, because NPCs can do the same thing to you. Yes, I shall obey, my Prince.

WOD is one of several systems (others include Call of Ctulhu and Cyberpunk) where combat is a Really Bad Idea because it can get you hurt or killed in short order. This means the PCs will spend more time planning, intriguing, and evading, because they can't afford to bash the head honcho's brains out whenever they feel like it.


Overall, D&D is better for light hearted combat adventures; admittedly the D&D combat rules are better than the WOD ones. WOD is better for lengthy character-focused campaigns. Imho.

Gnaeus
2009-07-03, 07:44 AM
This also means it is an excellent system for new players, because of how simple and intuitive everything is. You don't need to know many rules to play.

Changed that for you. New players can still gimp themselves if you don't make sure that they look at their powers and put dots in the attributes+abilities that govern the powers that they actually plan to use. But it is more forgiving than D&D, and mistakes in CharGen are more fixable.



WOD is one of several systems (others include Call of Ctulhu and Cyberpunk) where combat is a Really Bad Idea because it can get you hurt or killed in short order. This means the PCs will spend more time planning, intriguing, and evading, because they can't afford to bash the head honcho's brains out whenever they feel like it.

Overall, D&D is better for light hearted combat adventures; admittedly the D&D combat rules are better than the WOD ones. WOD is better for lengthy character-focused campaigns. Imho.

I agree as it relates to the vampire products certainly, and most of the time to Mage and Changeling. I agree that D&D combat is generally a better system than WOD.

Werewolf, on the other hand, is much more likely to be a combat game than a political game. Even the most non threatening werewolves can turn into a raging engine of bloody death, and the werewolf mechanics reward combat as well as thinking (you need glory renown as well as wisdom). In college we always played one shot werewolf games after exams. I can think of few settings more suited to making a bunch of powerful berserkers ripping through hordes of adversaries.

Also, in my experience, every werewolf group has enough foaming psychopaths itching to shout "Leeerrroooyyy Jennnkkiiinnnsss!" and charge any enemy headlong that making plans that don't involve a glorious charge is usually a waste of time (Yes, I know that in WOD those werewolves would die and the remaining werewolves would get smarter, but in play I find that after their deaths they are always replaced with an equal number of equally psychotic crazies. Go figure).