PDA

View Full Version : World of Dimness



Otogi
2010-02-14, 01:18 AM
So, I'm running a new World of Darkness game, and I wondering if anyone has ever tried to run a light-hearted WoD game, and if it was any good. Anybody try?

Zincorium
2010-02-14, 01:46 AM
Running world of darkness games as light-hearted, slapstick heavy romps through a Tim Burton style setting?

That has (perhaps unfortunately) been the result every time I tried to run it with one of my older groups. I think it's best if the storyteller takes it as seriously as possible but lets the players run free- as long as you think you can handle it.

Otogi
2010-02-14, 03:32 AM
So was the result bad, or simply not what you wanted?

The Demented One
2010-02-14, 03:45 AM
I think Genius sorta inevitably devolves into this. For Science!

Satyr
2010-02-14, 06:52 AM
I think the basic setting effectively is this, if not by intention then by implementation.
The world of darkness is assumed to be a place that is grittier and darker than the real world.
Most people who play the game have little perspective and idea how "bad" the real world truly is. Because they usually have nice little leisure time to play games and enough money to buy RPG books, it is easy to assume that the players are comparatively priviledged.
Thus, the setting usually is supposed to be darker than the real world of the players, and can therefore still be a much nicer place than the real world in general really is.

That said, the old Changeling game had a light-hearted, often outright romantic touch to them and was usually friendlier and more heartwarming than the rest. Sure, the world were cold, grey and uncarring, but at least you had a chance to stay true to your dreams and your inner child and the game rewarded you for it.

Otogi
2010-02-14, 07:27 AM
I think the basic setting effectively is this, if not by intention then by implementation.
The world of darkness is assumed to be a place that is grittier and darker than the real world.
Most people who play the game have little perspective and idea how "bad" the real world truly is. Because they usually have nice little leisure time to play games and enough money to buy RPG books, it is easy to assume that the players are comparatively priviledged.
Thus, the setting usually is supposed to be darker than the real world of the players, and can therefore still be a much nicer place than the real world in general really is.

That said, the old Changeling game had a light-hearted, often outright romantic touch to them and was usually friendlier and more heartwarming than the rest. Sure, the world were cold, grey and uncarring, but at least you had a chance to stay true to your dreams and your inner child and the game rewarded you for it.

Wow, I'd totally sig this if it were shorter and catchier.

You know, from what I heard about Changeling, I was really looking forward to it; a carefree, fairy-tale like game in, well, a world of darkness. But because this was the new WoD, it wasn't that. In fact, it was the complete opposite of that. But, I still don't see how you can't still play a light-hearted game, but what about the rest of you?

Satyr
2010-02-14, 07:36 AM
Wow, I'd totally sig this if it were shorter and catchier.

If you think that world is bad, and you have a flatscreen TV and can order pizza three days a week, you live in denile. If you think the world would be any worse because there is a plotting malvolent conspiracy of supernatural creatures, you are a White Wolf author. Better?



You know, from what I heard about Changeling, I was really looking forward to it; a carefree, fairy-tale like game in, well, a world of darkness. But because this was the new WoD, it wasn't that. In fact, it was the complete opposite of that. But, I still don't see how you can't still play a light-hearted game, but what about the rest of you?

I really think that the nWoD cannot nearly hold a candle to the orignial. It is interesting how a remake can be worse than the remake in every single incident.
Yes, The Dreaming is a beautiful, if somewht melancholic game. It's a game were ending up in a cubicle office is a fate worse than death, and it actually celebrates escapism, which makes it the game that glorifies the occupation with roleplaying games the most. In changeling, playing a wizard in a dusty dungeon delving adventure might actually save your soul.
And you can have a tourney of chivalrous knights on motorcycles. And the knights are giant blue trolls.

Yes, Changeling is awesome.

Otogi
2010-02-14, 07:44 AM
Indeed it is, and yes that's much better!

Totally Guy
2010-02-14, 08:21 AM
I think this is how the game has gone every single time.

There was one time we called a drug dealer on his phone:

"Hello, I would like to buy some drugs please."
"What kind?"
"...umm... two of them."

Yuki Akuma
2010-02-14, 09:37 AM
If you like the old Changeling, use the new Changeling mechanics and the old Changeling fluff. It's not hard.

Also, the new "lighthearted" gameline is Geist. Changeling and Wraith/Geist did a complete swap when it comes to lightheartedness.

Seriously, Sin-Eaters are the happiest supernaturals in the setting - because they know what it's like to die and want to enjoy their second life as much as possible. (Vampires don't know what it's like to die. They never die, just get darn close.)

(And yes, I agree, old Changeling was awesome. <3)

Satyr
2010-02-14, 10:21 AM
If you like the old Changeling, use the new Changeling mechanics and the old Changeling fluff. It's not hard.

Why? The nWoD rules suck so hard, I swear you could create a black hole by piling rnough of the books together.
I could live with the background changes, at least with the systems I didn't care about (okay, setting. Singular. Mage.) But the rules? The changes were abyssmal. It's like a large collection of stpid design decisions, if you take the original rules as a base.

Overshee
2010-02-14, 10:38 AM
If you like the old Changeling, use the new Changeling mechanics and the old Changeling fluff. It's not hard.

Also, the new "lighthearted" gameline is Geist. Changeling and Wraith/Geist did a complete swap when it comes to lightheartedness.

Seriously, Sin-Eaters are the happiest supernaturals in the setting - because they know what it's like to die and want to enjoy their second life as much as possible. (Vampires don't know what it's like to die. They never die, just get darn close.)

(And yes, I agree, old Changeling was awesome. <3)

I haven't played it, but I really enjoyed reading Geist. Awesome concept, looked really fun to play.


Also, while not technically WoD, Scion is definitely dim, not dark. (And also at least reads as cool.)

Yuki Akuma
2010-02-14, 10:52 AM
Why? The nWoD rules suck so hard, I swear you could create a black hole by piling rnough of the books together.
I could live with the background changes, at least with the systems I didn't care about (okay, setting. Singular. Mage.) But the rules? The changes were abyssmal. It's like a large collection of stpid design decisions, if you take the original rules as a base.

But they're actually playable now. Old WoD was a mess.

Most consensus seems to be that nWoD is mechanically superior, really, so I have no idea where you're coming from.


I haven't played it, but I really enjoyed reading Geist. Awesome concept, looked really fun to play.

If I wasn't in way too many PbP games right now, I'd totally suggest finding an ST to run it.

Well, I'd suggest that anyway, but wouldn't be able to play. :(

Draxar
2010-02-14, 11:10 AM
Mages were playable before, they just weren't simple to play. And I'm of the opinion that it's okay to have games that are more complicated and need more thought to do – they won't be for everyone, but they can add a lot to the experience for those that do play them.

nWoD has solved some of the mechanical issues that oWoD has. There's less of the 'this is the background you need to have at maximum if you want to optimise' as was the case with Generation and Avatar.

The problems come when doing so makes the game less good – yes there are real advantages to Blood Potency over Generation, but it rather destroys the theme of the young versus their elders. Also (as a specific niggle) by the core book alone, the Ordo Dracul should have a vast number of BP 10 folks in it.

To me, they've gutted the settings of Vampire and Mage with little good put back in its place. Foresaken I have less issue with, as its setting is much more different, and is interesting, as opposed to 'like before but with much of the interesting stuff gone'

Gnaeus
2010-02-14, 11:27 AM
Most of the light hearted world of darkness games I have seen have been actively bad. Either silly-stupid, like a group of 25 year olds roleplaying 10 year olds at a birthday party, or running away from a crayon dragon (changeling experiences), or DM mary sue power trips where oracles and legendary garou solve all the worlds problems.


I think this is how the game has gone every single time.

There was one time we called a drug dealer on his phone:

"Hello, I would like to buy some drugs please."
"What kind?"
"...umm... two of them."

Hehehehe. :-) There were lots of times we called a drug dealer on the phone to ask him if he was running his game that night.

Oh, you mean IN CHARACTER.

My old gaming groups never had any trouble finding a player who could describe what drugs they wanted to buy.

kamikasei
2010-02-14, 11:33 AM
I think the basic setting effectively is this, if not by intention then by implementation.

Um, no. Your argument following this doesn't work. Just because something isn't maximally dark doesn't mean it's lighthearted. A work can, in fact, be dark even if worse things happen in reality.

Satyr
2010-02-14, 12:30 PM
But they're actually playable now. Old WoD was a mess.

Most consensus seems to be that nWoD is mechanically superior, really, so I have no idea where you're coming from.

Sorry, no, No Way.

The fixed Target Number made the game a lot more predictable and rigid; the beautiful trigonomy between pool size, difficulty and number of successes was thus destroyed and replaced with an utter predictable and therefore dull system. This made the game probably a bit easier, but also a lot less interesting to play.

Then they took the botch rules away. Or mostly. Again, makes the game duller, more predictable and less fun (at least for the people who are no whiners and feel like they are personally disadvantaged if they roll a botch, but I like to disappoint people like this on principle). Again, this made the game worse.

But the ultimate design flaw, the blandest and most darringly stupid decision was to remove the active defense. Passive defense is one of the best ways to make combats dull, uninteresting and yet again, predictable. This alone ruins any system involves (and uttery refuse to play any game where this idiocy is not patched) and compared to the original rules, this is a vast step down, reduces options in combat and makes it just dull.

Yes, it is more streamlined, and it is simpler. But simplicity is a mean to an end, not an end in itself, and if you sacrifice tension and excitement for speed, you are doing something terribly wrong.
And thus, the nWoD rules are terrible, or at least they are worse than the original rules (which weren't that brilliant either, but which at least had their dramatic climaxes).


Um, no. Your argument following this doesn't work. Just because something isn't maximally dark doesn't mean it's lighthearted. A work can, in fact, be dark even if worse things happen in reality.

I take reality as is pretty much as a dividing line between what I conscider dark and what not. If it is consciderably lighter than reality, it is not dark, no matter how many leather trenchcoats and sunglasses are around.
This is a sliding scale, not a binary system, so there are more and less dark or lighthearted systems around, but usually most are comparatively light when you take the real world into account.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-14, 12:39 PM
If you think that world is bad, and you have a flatscreen TV and can order pizza three days a week, you live in denile. If you think the world would be any worse because there is a plotting malvolent conspiracy of supernatural creatures, you are a White Wolf author. Better?


Eh, I can think the world is a pretty bad place even if I don't think it is bad for me personally.

Ravens_cry
2010-02-14, 12:47 PM
I think Genius sorta inevitably devolves into this. For Science!
Yeah, that is why I want to run it. The Storyteller system looks interesting because of it's descriptive role play aspects, but Genius: The Transgression looks too two fisted super-science AWESOME to go all moody and goth on it, as much as the source book tries.

satorian
2010-02-14, 12:55 PM
On the rules:

For oWoD I've only played Mage, Vampire, and Werewolf. I liked the rules, especially for Mage. For nWoD, I only played a few sessions of Mage, but really couldn't stomach it. I never plan on playing another nWoD game. I don't think the target numbers work very well. The amount of damage something can cause per dot is streamlined to the point of neither being dramatic nor sensible. I miss active defenses. I miss the freedom. The old spheres made more sense. For instance, Fate is too flavor dependent.

I've only read the rules for the other games, but it seems to me that many of the changes were designed so that the different supernaturals, and even mortals, were balanced against each other so you could have a garou, mage, and vampire party wandering around. That change made the game weaker and less special. In the old game, mages were mortals with fragments of gods in them. They were badass. The things that threatened them were on a scale simply on a different order from the threats to a vampire. Part of my bias comes in the fact that I think vampires are stupid, but nevertheless I'm ok with each game being separate, and with the different supernaturals being unbalanced in comparison to one another, especially if that unbalance preserves greater verisimilitude. ST is and should be a VERY narrativist game, where gamism should be minimal.

On the flavor:

Without exception, all of the background myths for nWoD are worse than oWoD. In old Mage, there was relativistic reality, where every world history is only a perspective. That is stunningly awesome. In nWoD you have... a stupid Atlantis story. In old Vampire, you have shadows of the ancients, biblical "history", real world history retold, all creating a great backdrop. In nWoD you have, what, I dunno, absolute power corrupts absolutely? A normative morality, not humanity, written into the rules. Meh.

As for less darkness, I played a Mage game that was less dark. All the WW storyline was there, but it wasn't as oppressive. Or rather, the storyline with its shadowy organizations was a little oppressive, but the tone of the game wasn't. Our characters met for coffee in the daytime. None of them used heroin. Most cops weren't actively corrupt, though they might be unwitting agents of a corrupt force. Crime and grit were realistic: bad in some places, less bad in others. It worked fine.

Kesnit
2010-02-14, 01:09 PM
On the rules:

I've only read the rules for the other games, but it seems to me that many of the changes were designed so that the different supernaturals, and even mortals, were balanced against each other so you could have a garou, mage, and vampire party wandering around.

If that was the goal, it failed. To quote my ST, "a Changling could walk into a group of vampires and take every single one of them down easily."


As for less darkness, I played a Mage game that was less dark. All the WW storyline was there, but it wasn't as oppressive. Or rather, the storyline with its shadowy organizations was a little oppressive, but the tone of the game wasn't.

That is the fault of the ST, not the system. (Unless the party wanted less darkness. I can't tell from your post which way you wanted it.) Vampire, Changling, and Mage can be as dark as the ST chooses to make them. Werewolf I don't know well enough to know how dark it can be. Geist is more light-hearted.

Tengu_temp
2010-02-14, 01:14 PM
But the ultimate design flaw, the blandest and most darringly stupid decision was to remove the active defense. Passive defense is one of the best ways to make combats dull, uninteresting and yet again, predictable. This alone ruins any system involves (and uttery refuse to play any game where this idiocy is not patched) and compared to the original rules, this is a vast step down, reduces options in combat and makes it just dull.


How are active defenses better than passive defenses? The only difference is that combat becomes more luck-dependant and, because of an increased amount of rolling required, slower. I don't see how they make the game more exciting in the slightest.

Yuki Akuma
2010-02-14, 01:33 PM
Sorry, no, No Way.

The fixed Target Number made the game a lot more predictable and rigid; the beautiful trigonomy between pool size, difficulty and number of successes was thus destroyed and replaced with an utter predictable and therefore dull system. This made the game probably a bit easier, but also a lot less interesting to play.

Then they took the botch rules away. Or mostly. Again, makes the game duller, more predictable and less fun (at least for the people who are no whiners and feel like they are personally disadvantaged if they roll a botch, but I like to disappoint people like this on principle). Again, this made the game worse.

But the ultimate design flaw, the blandest and most darringly stupid decision was to remove the active defense. Passive defense is one of the best ways to make combats dull, uninteresting and yet again, predictable. This alone ruins any system involves (and uttery refuse to play any game where this idiocy is not patched) and compared to the original rules, this is a vast step down, reduces options in combat and makes it just dull.

Yes, it is more streamlined, and it is simpler. But simplicity is a mean to an end, not an end in itself, and if you sacrifice tension and excitement for speed, you are doing something terribly wrong.
And thus, the nWoD rules are terrible, or at least they are worse than the original rules (which weren't that brilliant either, but which at least had their dramatic climaxes).

You seem to care about this a lot.

Ravens_cry
2010-02-14, 01:46 PM
You seem to care about this a lot.
He's a nerd.
We CARE.:smallamused:

satorian
2010-02-14, 01:48 PM
I agree that the amount of darkness depends on the ST, and that both games, or really any game system, have a certain amount of latitude on darkness (cthulu less so, but still a little). While I do have a preference that a game not feel artificially dark to me, based too heavily of goth sensibilities, and while I do feel that the WoD flavor is designed to engender that goth feeling, clearly the ST can make a game less dark. That, in fact, was what I was saying when I said I played a Mage game that was less dark and worked fine.

Totally Guy
2010-02-14, 01:59 PM
I'm going to make the World of Darkness setting lighter not by making things at the game table lighter... no. I'll make the real world darker.

I'll darken every silver lining. Make the whole world pay.
I'll be the nastiest story teller and force them all to play.
I’ll step on throats of kitties — I’ll throw caution to the wind
There’ll never be another person I will call a friend
I’ll do everything I can to be deplorable and then,
Goodbye world of darkness, hello new D10.

Satyr
2010-02-14, 02:52 PM
How are active defenses better than passive defenses? The only difference is that combat becomes more luck-dependant and, because of an increased amount of rolling required, slower. I don't see how they make the game more exciting in the slightest.

Making the game less predictable automatically makes the game more interesting, because it makes it more surprising. The more you can anticipate the coming result the less interesting it is - as long as the result remains plausible. A game suffers dearly when it becomes too predictable.
The next thing is the additional tactical level -with an active defense, you have de facto another layer to involve player actions,focuses and the like - typical examples would be counterattacks, feints, lures and the like.
But the most important aspect is the psychologic aspect - if you let the players roll to defend their characters you induce a feeling that they could influence the result and can do something about it. A passive defense basicaly mean that you watch how your character gets mauled. It doesn't matter if it makes a statistic difference, but this aspect means a lot.

Tengu_temp
2010-02-14, 03:22 PM
Making the game less predictable automatically makes the game more interesting, because it makes it more surprising. The more you can anticipate the coming result the less interesting it is - as long as the result remains plausible. A game suffers dearly when it becomes too predictable.

No matter if you roll against a static number or against another roll, it all boils down to the same thing - a percentage chance to hit the enemy. How is rolling 10d10 vs enemy defense roll of 10d10 more interesting than simply having a 50% chance to hit?


The next thing is the additional tactical level -with an active defense, you have de facto another layer to involve player actions,focuses and the like - typical examples would be counterattacks, feints, lures and the like.
But the most important aspect is the psychologic aspect - if you let the players roll to defend their characters you induce a feeling that they could influence the result and can do something about it. A passive defense basicaly mean that you watch how your character gets mauled. It doesn't matter if it makes a statistic difference, but this aspect means a lot.

A lot of games with passive defenses let you respond to enemy attacks - for example Exalted 2e with its many reflexive charms, or Mutants and Masterminds where even if you lack any reaction powers you can always use Extra Effort or a Hero Point to do something.

Gnaeus
2010-02-14, 03:48 PM
Making the game less predictable automatically makes the game more interesting, because it makes it more surprising. The more you can anticipate the coming result the less interesting it is - as long as the result remains plausible. A game suffers dearly when it becomes too predictable.

Speeding up combat allows the DM to fill the extra time with other stuff. More RP, more enemies in each fight, more different fights. Giving the DM more options of stuff to do in a 4 hour block makes the game less predictable than endless rolling and counter-rolling, at least if the DM is any good.

Satyr
2010-02-14, 04:00 PM
Let's take two typical examples:

Passive Defense:
GM: The Thug aims his sawed-off shotgun at your face and pulls the trigger. *rolls* He hits you. You're dead.
Player: My character tries to dodge.
GM: Yes, he did. The thug hits you anyway.
Player: Can't I do anything?
GM: You can build a new character.

Yes, this is fun. Sure.

Active Defense:
GM: The mafia soldier pulls out a giant knife and tries to stab you *rolls* and he would probably hit you.
Player: I try to sidestep and grap his arm to keep his knife away *rolls* Yeah, would work *both compare their results*.
GM: okay, he doesn't stap you, but know you two are grappling. What do you want to do?
Player: I try to ram my knee in his crotch *rolls* and I hit.
GM: * rolls* He tries to wriggle away, but because you still held his arm, he can't. He crinches in pain.

Same situation, completely different feel. One approach allows the player to interact, and treats him as an active part of the game. The other does not.

The_Snark
2010-02-14, 04:06 PM
Making the game less predictable automatically makes the game more interesting, because it makes it more surprising. The more you can anticipate the coming result the less interesting it is - as long as the result remains plausible. A game suffers dearly when it becomes too predictable.
The next thing is the additional tactical level -with an active defense, you have de facto another layer to involve player actions,focuses and the like - typical examples would be counterattacks, feints, lures and the like.
But the most important aspect is the psychologic aspect - if you let the players roll to defend their characters you induce a feeling that they could influence the result and can do something about it. A passive defense basicaly mean that you watch how your character gets mauled. It doesn't matter if it makes a statistic difference, but this aspect means a lot.

I don't especially care for the World of Darkness combat system either, but I think the passive defense might be an attempt to make you feel more helpless. The game is rather offense-heavy—unless you have supernatural powers to increase your Defense or Armor by rather a lot, you're going to get hurt by competent opponents. Combat is quick and bloody, and most sane people avoid it or try to end it very quickly—hence a simplified system without many defensive measures.

Now, does this make it interesting to play? Not really, but there is at least a reason behind it. It makes sense for a game where violence is supposed to be frightening and dangerous.


Without exception, all of the background myths for nWoD are worse than oWoD.

I feel like I should speak up on behalf of Changeling: the Lost now. I've been wanting to say this for a while: I like both the old and the new Changeling. I've never played or even read a sourcebook for the old Changeling, but I like what I've heard about it. The theme of nostalgia and magic slowly fading away is a good one, and allows you to alternate between melancholy and happy moods. The new one takes a different tack, making fairies utterly alien and changelings the people caught between two worlds. The general theme is fear combined with a longing to go back, which is one you'll find in a lot of old fairy tales.

They're different approaches, but I think it was a much better idea to try something new, rather than publish a series of books rehashing the same ideas with new rules attached.

Can't speak for any of the other lines, really... except Mage, where I have to agree with you even without knowing old Mage in the slightest.

Tengu_temp
2010-02-14, 04:07 PM
Let's take two typical examples:

Passive Defense:
GM: The Thug aims his sawed-off shotgun at your face and pulls the trigger. *rolls* He hits you. You're dead.
Player: My character tries to dodge.
GM: Yes, he did. The thug hits you anyway.
Player: Can't I do anything?
GM: You can build a new character.

Yes, this is fun. Sure.

Active Defense:
GM: The mafia soldier pulls out a giant knife and tries to stab you *rolls* and he would probably hit you.
Player: I try to sidestep and grap his arm to keep his knife away *rolls* Yeah, would work *both compare their results*.
GM: okay, he doesn't stap you, but know you two are grappling. What do you want to do?
Player: I try to ram my knee in his crotch *rolls* and I hit.
GM: * rolls* He tries to wriggle away, but because you still held his arm, he can't. He crinches in pain.

Same situation, completely different feel. One approach allows the player to interact, and treats him as an active part of the game. The other does not.

Even taking aside the fact that these are two different situations, with the enemy in example #1 having a much more lethal weapon, oWoD doesn't let you do the latter - you declare defenses on your own initiative, not in response to enemy attacks. It is however possible in, for example, Mutants and Masterminds, and it's a system that uses passive defenses.

Satyr
2010-02-14, 04:29 PM
Even taking aside the fact that these are two different situations, with the enemy in example #1 having a much more lethal weapon, oWoD doesn't let you do the latter - you declare defenses on your own initiative, not in response to enemy attacks. It is however possible in, for example, Mutants and Masterminds, and it's a system that uses passive defenses.

Usually it doesn't matter that much if someone cuts your throat or shoots you in the face. Dead is dead. I didn't thought that these were a different threat level.
And your interpretation of the rules is not entirely correct. In oWoD, you can change any declared action into a defensive action. It requires a Willpower roll though.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-14, 04:37 PM
So, I'm running a new World of Darkness game, and I wondering if anyone has ever tried to run a light-hearted WoD game, and if it was any good. Anybody try?
For awhile, I ran exclusively Light oWoD games - including my very best one-off ever: Miami Vampire.

Yes, that's Miami Vice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Vice) Setting + Vampire: The Masquerade rules - with an extra dose of 80's Film & TV Tropes thrown in.

The plot revolved around a rogue Camarilla official smuggling in arms shipments to support a Sabbat uprising. Two of the PCs - detectives in the Miami PD - ended up embarrassing the Prince's Sheriff (their boss) in the pursuit of this conspiracy and were thrown "off the force." Later, with the aid of various independents they were able to catch the rogue official red-handed after disarming the time bombs set to destroy the evidence.

The Sheriff then, reluctantly, handed the cop PCs back their badges and high-fives were exchanged :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2010-02-14, 04:41 PM
Let's take two typical examples:

Passive Defense:
GM: The Thug aims his sawed-off shotgun at your face and pulls the trigger. *rolls* He hits you. You're dead.
Player: My character tries to dodge.
GM: Yes, he did. The thug hits you anyway.
Player: Can't I do anything?
GM: You can build a new character.

Yes, this is fun. Sure.

Active Defense:
GM: The mafia soldier pulls out a giant knife and tries to stab you *rolls* and he would probably hit you.
Player: I try to sidestep and grap his arm to keep his knife away *rolls* Yeah, would work *both compare their results*.
GM: okay, he doesn't stap you, but know you two are grappling. What do you want to do?
Player: I try to ram my knee in his crotch *rolls* and I hit.
GM: * rolls* He tries to wriggle away, but because you still held his arm, he can't. He crinches in pain.

Same situation, completely different feel. One approach allows the player to interact, and treats him as an active part of the game. The other does not.

That's...far from an accurate comparison. It'd be more like:

PASSIVE DEFENSE:

DM: The thug shoots his shotgun at you. *rolls* What's your Defense?
Player: 4.
DM: He hits you for *roll* 7 damage. You're dead, make a new character.

ACTIVE DEFENSE:
DM: The thug shoots his shotgun at you. *rolls*. He hit, roll your Dodge.
Player: *rolls* I got a 13.
DM: Not high enough,you needed a 16. *rolls* 7 damage, you're dead. Make a new character.

You've slanted the comparison there in favor of the 'active defense' scenario by having that character survive the otherwise lethal attack - the fact that the player got to roll an extra set of dice isn't significantly interesting.

Tengu_temp
2010-02-14, 04:50 PM
And your interpretation of the rules is not entirely correct. In oWoD, you can change any declared action into a defensive action. It requires a Willpower roll though.

I'm afraid I haven't play nWoD, but can't you use Willpower to increase your defenses there? I know you can in Exalted, which shares a lot of similarities. And again, I don't see how is that better than the mechanism M&M uses, which bases on passive defenses.

Selrahc
2010-02-14, 04:55 PM
Let's take two typical examples:

Passive Defense:
GM: The Thug aims his sawed-off shotgun at your face and pulls the trigger. *rolls* He hits you. You're dead.
Player: My character tries to dodge.
GM: Yes, he did. The thug hits you anyway.
Player: Can't I do anything?
GM: You can build a new character.

Yes, this is fun. Sure.

Active Defense:
GM: The mafia soldier pulls out a giant knife and tries to stab you *rolls* and he would probably hit you.
Player: I try to sidestep and grap his arm to keep his knife away *rolls* Yeah, would work *both compare their results*.
GM: okay, he doesn't stap you, but know you two are grappling. What do you want to do?
Player: I try to ram my knee in his crotch *rolls* and I hit.
GM: * rolls* He tries to wriggle away, but because you still held his arm, he can't. He crinches in pain.

Same situation, completely different feel. One approach allows the player to interact, and treats him as an active part of the game. The other does not.

Your two examples are rather screwy. In one the player died, in the other he didn't.

A more equivalent example for the active defence side would be:
GM: The Thug aims his sawed-off shotgun at your face and pulls the trigger. *rolls* and he would probably hit you.
Player: I try to sidestep and grab his arm to knock off his aim away *rolls* Yeah, would work *both compare their results*.
GM: The thug hits you anyway.
Player: Can't I do anything?
GM: You can build a new character.

Pretty much the same, but with an extra bit of rolling.


Also you can use willpower to add to defences in NWoD, so the idea that you can't react at all is a bit wrong.


On the area of background: I like new changeling more but only a little. I like Forsaken a lot more than I liked Apocalypse. I pretty much ignore the background of new mage, which is definitely worse. Never really got into either of the Vampires.

On the original topic: It's perfectly possible to play it somewhat lighthearted. Most of my games have been more action movie/intrigue than horror movie.

Terraoblivion
2010-02-14, 05:36 PM
It is not that a slit throat is less dead than a blasted face, it is that it is much easier to blast someone with a shotgun at point blank than it is to slit their throat. Basically the situation is that in order to slit someone's throat you have to get beneath their guard and avoid them twisting their head away, in order to at least incapacitate them and put them out of the battle with a shotgun you just need to point it in their general direction and pull the trigger at that short range.

Also it doesn't change the larger problem that you made it seem like the outcome was based on the method of defense, which the relative lethality of the weapons play into, as many people have already noted.

Also in the specific case of oWoD, being forced to do an active defense places you in a situation where you can't effectively act as long as your opponent can consistently get at least one die to come up with a 6. Not very hard if fighting against a skilled opponent. At least until you win initiative and it can swap. I don't know about anybody else, but i don't think that a stalemate is particularly interesting. And god forbid you fight multiple opponents and don't win initiative, in which case you are basically just screwed.

Regardless of the relative merits of active versus passive defenses, the active defenses in oWoD just didn't work very well. They hinged too much on who won initiative and left little way to fend off multiple opponents and numerous other scenarios that made them both slow the game down and grossly skew game balance based on just one roll. They also made supernatural abilities granting extra actions much more powerful than they would otherwise have been.

Otogi
2010-02-14, 08:39 PM
So, oWoD = awesome fluff+good defense and nWoD = not so awesome fluff+weird defense. That's good to know, and so is Miami Vampire, but is the fluff so bad on it's own that it's unworkable as anything light-hearted or comical?

The_Snark
2010-02-14, 08:55 PM
So, oWoD = awesome fluff+good defense and nWoD = not so awesome fluff+weird defense. That's good to know, and so is Miami Vampire, but is the fluff so bad on it's own that it's unworkable as anything light-hearted or comical?

Pffft, of course not. A little while back, I played in a game that the Storyteller described as "the World of Darkness as directed by Michael Bay." Explosions and gunfights were encouraged, Morality was largely tossed aside (bad guys don't really count, right?)... drama and angst was allowed, but only if it was amusingly hackneyed.

It was rather silly, but fun while it lasted. I'm sure you could make it work without going as far as outright parody—especially if your players are on board. For that matter, if your players are inclined to be light-hearted, it's probably easier than trying to run a 'dark' game.

Otogi
2010-02-14, 08:58 PM
Pffft, of course not. A little while back, I played in a game that the Storyteller described as "the World of Darkness as directed by Michael Bay." Explosions and gunfights were encouraged, Morality was largely tossed aside (bad guys don't really count, right?)... drama and angst was allowed, but only if it was amusingly hackneyed.

It was rather silly, but fun while it lasted. I'm sure you could make it work without going as far as outright parody—especially if your players are on board. For that matter, if your players are inclined to be light-hearted, it's probably easier than trying to run a 'dark' game.

Wow, that does sound fun! Did you ever try any other directors?

And that's good advice; it's how the player's react, so thanks Snark.

Coidzor
2010-02-14, 09:10 PM
Pretty much the same, but with an extra bit of rolling.

You mean, aside from the higher chance of surviving attacks?

Yes, it's possible to die even with active defenses, but that wasn't the point being argued. There were two, actually. The one was for a more indepth, scrabbling, grapply, roll-intensive combat archetype and the other was for the increased chance of survival. With two rolls, it's less likely that both will go badly for the one person than if there was only one roll.

Also, combat is longer, due to there being more rolls. That's one of the bigger points in favor of passive defenses, IIRC, they help streamline combat.

In this particular case, I don't know what sort of combat system he was coming from, because it didn't sound like anything I'd heard of for any storyteller system.

Heliomance
2010-02-14, 09:51 PM
You Fail Statistics Forever. Surprisingly enough, the people that wrote the rulebooks don't, and they will have balanced the system so that both systems give around the same chance of success or failure. Look at it this way.

You roll a d10. To succeed, you have to score above a 5. Your success rate is 50%.

You roll a d10, and I roll a d10. To succeed, you have to score higher than me. I can't be bothered to crunch the numbers, but I'm pretty sure your success rate is still 50%.

tl;dr: There is no increased chance of survival with an active defense system.

Yuki Akuma
2010-02-14, 10:15 PM
You Fail Statistics Forever. Surprisingly enough, the people that wrote the rulebooks don't, and they will have balanced the system so that both systems give around the same chance of success or failure. Look at it this way.

You roll a d10. To succeed, you have to score above a 5. Your success rate is 50%.

You roll a d10, and I roll a d10. To succeed, you have to score higher than me. I can't be bothered to crunch the numbers, but I'm pretty sure your success rate is still 50%.

tl;dr: There is no increased chance of survival with an active defense system.

Well... with the active defense system, they still need to roll higher than a certain number of successes to prompt you to even roll to dodge.

lesser_minion
2010-02-14, 11:31 PM
Well... with the active defense system, they still need to roll higher than a certain number of successes to prompt you to even roll to dodge.

With active defence, if you roll poorly, your opponent is going to hit you and get bonus damage which reduces your defence for next time. If your opponent rolls well and you roll badly, you die. If you roll well, you don't worry about it. If you roll OK, you're in trouble if your opponent rolls well.

End result:

{table=head]V: Attacker|Defender (bad)|Defender (OK)|Defender (good)
Bad|50/50|miss|miss
OK|hit|50/50|miss
Good|splat!|hit|50/50
[/table]

Compare this with passive defence, and the same hypothetical character carves his opponent's damage output in half from the outset. There might be only one roll to go well or badly, but I think it's worse for the OWoD guys really.

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-02-15, 12:19 AM
I feel like I should speak up on behalf of Changeling: the Lost now. I've been wanting to say this for a while: I like both the old and the new Changeling. I've never played or even read a sourcebook for the old Changeling, but I like what I've heard about it. The theme of nostalgia and magic slowly fading away is a good one, and allows you to alternate between melancholy and happy moods. The new one takes a different tack, making fairies utterly alien and changelings the people caught between two worlds. The general theme is fear combined with a longing to go back, which is one you'll find in a lot of old fairy tales.

They're different approaches, but I think it was a much better idea to try something new, rather than publish a series of books rehashing the same ideas with new rules attached.
Agreed. I've heard the oWoD Changeling is very good, and I'd love to play a game there. I've been looking through The Lost, and I also really like it as well. The theme is amazing, and I love how it casts the character of the Lost as those people set adrift, neither Fey nor fully human.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-15, 12:28 AM
To me, they've gutted the settings of Vampire and Mage with little good put back in its place. Foresaken I have less issue with, as its setting is much more different, and is interesting, as opposed to 'like before but with much of the interesting stuff gone'
I don't really know the difference between the old Vampire and new Vampire.

I did examine both Mages for a time and find myself mostly indifferent to the changes, setting-wise.

Old Mage was a mess. I hated the postmodernism. That was not well thought-out. And it felt like the setting was so intimidatingly huge that you didn't know where to begin.

New Mage just has Atlantis (a bit dull until you decide to make the legend ambiguous), and has gnosticism. I hate gnosticism for a lot of the philosophical flaws. But I hate it less than the aggressive postmodernism of old Mage. And I feel there is at least more simplicity and less "official" canon.

Putting it simply, White Wolf is fail in philosophy. New Mage is less fail, since gnosticism is at least workable if you ignore all the stupid stuff where they try to justify ethical positions by capitalizing words (i.e. "Supernal" and "Fallen World" and "Soul" and so forth) and ignore the headstrong insistence that materialism is somehow "base" or "Fallen." They also failed to inject the right poetry into Paradox, since what it actually is seems a bit vague. Point is, it kicks you in the teeth for screwing up magic.

New Changeling seems cool. Really cool. Fairy tale Grimm with a dash of Lovecraft cool. I only wish they had that much panache for the new Mage.

Satyr> So basically you're compressing two rolls into one and pretending like having two rolls necessarily makes the GM describe more stuff.

Okay . . .

As long as the system makes offense more likely to hit and defense makes that attack less likely to hit, then I don't really see any difference. That's just math.

Satyr
2010-02-15, 08:12 AM
I really don't care about the statistical aspect of this. What is important is the psychological one - an activbe defense gives the player the opportunity to react and to influence the outcome, it involves him in the action. It does not need to make a difference in the total result, but in the process, an active defense treats the player as an active party of the game.
A passive defense mechanism however, does nothing to activate the player's interest or involvement and treats him not as an active part of the game but as an oberservant with little influence on the total result. The effect slightly resembles the psychological phenomenon of Learned Helplessness - the player's influence on the game is minimal, and thus his decisions have little impact, which connotates that his decisions are meaningless after all.

Congratulations. In circumstances outside of what is only game, you know in the real world were stuff is important, this is a mechanism which can lead to clinical depressions. Now, within a mere RPG environment, this is totally hyperboling the effect, sure. But there is this resemblance, and thus I doubt that this kind of meachanics is a good idea.

Terraoblivion
2010-02-15, 08:19 AM
Because as we all know the exchanging of blows is the only aspect of the game and the player never gets to be the one attacking.

Tiki Snakes
2010-02-15, 08:22 AM
I really don't care about the statistical aspect of this. What is important is the psychological one - an activbe defense gives the player the opportunity to react and to influence the outcome, it involves him in the action. It does not need to make a difference in the total result, but in the process, an active defense treats the player as an active party of the game.
A passive defense mechanism however, does nothing to activate the player's interest or involvement and treats him not as an active part of the game but as an oberservant with little influence on the total result. The effect slightly resembles the psychological phenomenon of Learned Helplessness - the player's influence on the game is minimal, and thus his decisions have little impact, which connotates that his decisions are meaningless after all.

Congratulations. In circumstances outside of what is only game, you know in the real world were stuff is important, this is a mechanism which can lead to clinical depressions. Now, within a mere RPG environment, this is totally hyperboling the effect, sure. But there is this resemblance, and thus I doubt that this kind of meachanics is a good idea.

So what you're saying is, you enjoy rolling dice for it's own sake? :smallsmile:

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 08:38 AM
I really don't care about the statistical aspect of this. What is important is the psychological one - an activbe defense gives the player the opportunity to react and to influence the outcome, it involves him in the action. It does not need to make a difference in the total result, but in the process, an active defense treats the player as an active party of the game.
A passive defense mechanism however, does nothing to activate the player's interest or involvement and treats him not as an active part of the game but as an oberservant with little influence on the total result. The effect slightly resembles the psychological phenomenon of Learned Helplessness - the player's influence on the game is minimal, and thus his decisions have little impact, which connotates that his decisions are meaningless after all.

Congratulations. In circumstances outside of what is only game, you know in the real world were stuff is important, this is a mechanism which can lead to clinical depressions. Now, within a mere RPG environment, this is totally hyperboling the effect, sure. But there is this resemblance, and thus I doubt that this kind of meachanics is a good idea.

Except that you aren't helpless unless you're supposed to be.

You don't even have to roll - you can break out celerity and carve a bucket of dice out of your opponent's attack. You can drop a couple of points of plasm to negate damage (no matter what kind of damage). There's also Willpower.

As long as you aren't a mortal, you probably have something you can use as a defence.

Sure, mortals don't have these kinds of options, but I think that is part of the point.

And even then, you have to decide whether or not to use defence because it gets eroded by attacks.

Yuki Akuma
2010-02-15, 08:46 AM
You can drop a couple of points of plasm to negate damage (no matter what kind of damage).

Sin-Eaters are awesome.

smellie_hippie
2010-02-16, 08:43 AM
I kind of like the overarching rule that is written at the beginning, middle and end of every White Wolf book. (cannot quote because I don't have it with me)

The rules are changeable.

Want an active defense for a more involved combat? Use it.
Need a passive defense for some of the smaller mooks before entering a more demanding fight? Go for it.

As for story fluff and backgrounds... I have only read the new Changeling and Werewolf. I have to say that I enjoy both the old and the new backgrounds and storylines. They have distinct differences to give significantly different feels. I may even bring some of the ideas from the old Changeling system into my upcoming Changeling game. But all of this points towards the job of the Storyteller. Tell the story! It has never been about the dice or the successes to make the game entertaining! Toss in bonus dice for good descriptions, and give the gritty or lighthearted feel you want through your dialogue!

I can guarentee that a figure from my original Changeling: The Dreaming will eneter into my darker Changeling: The Lost game. A 6 year old Pooka with purple overalls and a tricycle that provides a sudden burst of speed from the command word "Engage"!

I love the Storyteller system. period.

bosssmiley
2010-02-16, 10:08 AM
So, I'm running a new World of Darkness game, and I wondering if anyone has ever tried to run a light-hearted WoD game, and if it was any good. Anybody try?

Tried. Changeling (the first version). It was a little bit Neil Gaiman, a little bit John Tynes Puppetland.

The die pool system killed it for us though. Die pools are self-loathing and a deep, abiding hatred of all life expressed in the form of a game mechanic. It's difficult to have fun playing when the die mechanic (and the broader b0rkedness of the game system) gets off on kicking you in the crotch repeatedly. :smallannoyed:

WoD die pool mechanic = Angry Marines, only PMS-ier. ("FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-")

Curiously, this is also the reason why die pools work so well for L5R, which is naught but gaming masochism made manifest.

Drakyn
2010-02-16, 11:39 AM
A 6 year old Pooka with purple overalls and a tricycle that provides a sudden burst of speed from the command word "Engage"!


What happens if you tell it "shields up, weapons online" or "make it happen"?

incubus5075
2010-02-16, 12:34 PM
But they're actually playable now. Old WoD was a mess.

Most consensus seems to be that nWoD is mechanically superior, really, so I have no idea where you're coming from.



If I wasn't in way too many PbP games right now, I'd totally suggest finding an ST to run it.

Well, I'd suggest that anyway, but wouldn't be able to play. :(



I agree, Old WoD required way to many rolls when what I consider the best part of (NWoD) combat is how quick and deadly it is. Coming fom DnD where combat takes hours and you never worry about dying combat in NWoD, how few rolls you need etc... is great. less dice more scary story hooks I say

lesser_minion
2010-02-16, 12:59 PM
Die pools are self-loathing and a deep, abiding hatred of all life expressed in the form of a game mechanic.

Wait... what's your issue with dice pools?

I can understand having an issue with WFRP's shiny new "roll six times to walk across a room" mechanic (N.B. I haven't seen it in action, this is just a pessimistic response to what I've seen), but WoD-style dice pools don't seem so bad.

Indon
2010-02-16, 01:27 PM
I've played in lighter (Old) WoD games. There's plenty of room for different setting and tone in the game.


I'm going to make the World of Darkness setting lighter not by making things at the game table lighter... no. I'll make the real world darker.

I'll darken every silver lining. Make the whole world pay.
I'll be the nastiest story teller and force them all to play.
I’ll step on throats of kitties — I’ll throw caution to the wind
There’ll never be another person I will call a friend
I’ll do everything I can to be deplorable and then,
Goodbye world of darkness, hello new D10.

Is this an incredibly clever commentary on Disney villains?

lesser_minion
2010-02-16, 02:09 PM
Well, as a guide on how not to do it: here (http://forums.bioware.com/viewpost.html?topic=639622&post=5897859&forum=84).

Ravens_cry
2010-02-16, 02:18 PM
Well, as a guide on how not to do it: here (http://forums.bioware.com/viewpost.html?topic=639622&post=5897859&forum=84).
If that was an actual DM, I wouldst cry havoc and and let loose my Pathfinders Core Rulebook. I shed a little tear at the damage inflicted by the broken shards of teeth and blood stains to the mighty tome, but I realize such sacrifices are necessary as I beat the Dungeon Masters face into a sodden pulp.

The Tygre
2010-02-16, 02:58 PM
I don't know... I can kind of see the fault with dice pools in certain settings. It can amount to a lot of dice, which you might not have, or you might have to repeatedly roll the one die ten times and catalogue the results, which can be painful. Still, I've had little trouble with dice pools.

Totally Guy
2010-02-16, 03:09 PM
Is this an incredibly clever commentary on Disney villains?

Sure, why not.:smallwink:

Susano-wo
2010-02-16, 03:22 PM
Satyr: WHat you are describing for the active defense mechanic sounds fun. But if that a part of the rules? or do the rules simply state something to the effect of "attacker rolls for attack, and defender rolls for defense; compare successes for result?"

what I'm getting at is that it seems that a gritty combat where you're choice of defense matters is not necessarily bound up in an active defense, though an active one makes it easier and spells out how good each party did. You could also tell your players that the thug is stabbing.shooting at them, and ask them how they want to defend. the results would be the same.

That being said, it often does *feel* to me, when I roll for defense, that my character is actually defending. IN a passive defence game, not so much. But a lot of that is also in GM description. I GM my wife in solo games (and she does the same with me), and both of us really try to put a lot into description. How a person succeeded, or why they failed.

The numbers determine the outcome/level of success, and different styles do create different feels, but kit seems that what you want isn't totally dependent on the active defense mechanic.

lesser_minion
2010-02-16, 03:26 PM
If that was an actual DM, I wouldst cry havoc and and let loose my Pathfinders Core Rulebook. I shed a little tear at the damage inflicted by the broken shards of teeth and blood stains to the mighty tome, but I realize such sacrifices are necessary as I beat the Dungeon Masters face into a sodden pulp.

That might be a little over the top, but I can see your point.

Kantolin
2010-02-16, 03:34 PM
If you want an active defense where describing your action in a cool method gives you bonuses, you want Exalted. :P

In exalted, decreeing that you fade a little back, then dart low forward to avoid the followup, and deflect the third swing with your shield while hopping away gives you bonuses on your defense (or offense, or whatever you're doing).

Simultaneously, Exalted's second edition also has passive defenses. Which I like a lot more - they mean things go a lot more swiftly.

They also negate the irritating frequency of which some guy with a stick can reliably hit the supernatural world's grand champion of evasion because he didn't split enough to defend or something.

The_Snark
2010-02-16, 03:34 PM
Wait... what's your issue with dice pools?

I can understand having an issue with WFRP's shiny new "roll six times to walk across a room" mechanic (N.B. I haven't seen it in action, this is just a pessimistic response to what I've seen), but WoD-style dice pools don't seem so bad.

I suspect it's because they are so very, very fickle. This is especially true of nWoD, where dice pools tend to be low and the success criteria are harsher than they are in other Storyteller systems.

I don't mind so much myself, but if you play a session and get a streak of bad luck...

smellie_hippie
2010-02-16, 03:56 PM
I still say you could almost make it through an entire session without rolling a single die... much less a dice pool.

Story. Flavor. Visual descriptions. This is what the whole game is about. Drop the mechanics and just enjoy the game!! Have fun describing over the top feats of athleticism, and enjoy depicting spectacular failures just because they help move the story forward.

I'm not interested in finishing a session of WoD (because that's what I primarily run) because the time with friends and creating an experience is more fun that finding if statistics or bags full o' dice get me to the end quicker.

Yuki Akuma
2010-02-16, 04:11 PM
Okay, sure, but that's communal storytelling, not a roleplaying game.

Which is fine. Both are fun. But when I sit down to play an RPG I expect to roll some dice and fail horribly due to the whims of chance, damnit!

Project_Mayhem
2010-02-16, 04:20 PM
I still say you could almost make it through an entire session without rolling a single die... much less a dice pool.

Story. Flavor. Visual descriptions. This is what the whole game is about. Drop the mechanics and just enjoy the game!! Have fun describing over the top feats of athleticism, and enjoy depicting spectacular failures just because they help move the story forward.

I'm not interested in finishing a session of WoD (because that's what I primarily run) because the time with friends and creating an experience is more fun that finding if statistics or bags full o' dice get me to the end quicker.

Well said. I keep banging on about this, but we drop at least two thirds of the rolling in our NWoD Mage game, and have (IMO) way more fun.

Although I agree the default fluff in Mage is a bit meh. Our ST spiced it up substantially

Totally Guy
2010-02-16, 04:33 PM
World of Darkness rewards you for doing cool stuff. Heroism and Danger! I can't overcome all the odds without rolling dice. So I'm with Yuki on this one.

Ravens_cry
2010-02-16, 04:39 PM
That might be a little over the top, but I can see your point.
Harsh trials call for harsh measures.:smallamused:

Project_Mayhem
2010-02-16, 04:46 PM
World of Darkness rewards you for doing cool stuff. Heroism and Danger! I can't overcome all the odds without rolling dice.

At which point strategy and quick thinking become increasingly relevant instead.

NeoVid
2010-02-16, 05:02 PM
The die pool system killed it for us though. Die pools are self-loathing and a deep, abiding hatred of all life expressed in the form of a game mechanic.

You're thinking of oWoD, where a really big dice pool increased your chance of botching. I'm pretty sure that no one will dispute that that's mechanically a bad thing.





Although I agree the default fluff in Mage is a bit meh. Our ST spiced it up substantially

Yeah, I got into RPGs with old Mage, I've played new Mage for years, and even though the system works much better, the setting took years to get anywhere near as interesting as in the old days. It's not a good idea to take Awakening's default background at face value.

Also, I want to be the third person to point out to Satyr that nWoD has active defense in combat.

Edit: Since it hasn't been brought up yet, I want to mention that Promethean=win, if you like intense RP challenges.

Totally Guy
2010-02-16, 05:20 PM
At which point strategy and quick thinking become increasingly relevant instead.

As well as.

smellie_hippie
2010-02-16, 05:35 PM
Okay, sure, but that's communal storytelling, not a roleplaying game.

Which is fine. Both are fun. But when I sit down to play an RPG I expect to roll some dice and fail horribly due to the whims of chance, damnit!

......and a good storyteller should be able to decide on the fly if this might call for a dice pool against a passive defense, an active dodge defense, a resisted roll with an obnoxiously large dice pool... whatever!

The minute my players know what the hell I'm doing, is where I've lost control of my game. Because to be honest... I don't know what the hell I'm doing!!

Yuki Akuma
2010-02-16, 06:10 PM
......and a good storyteller should be able to decide on the fly if this might call for a dice pool against a passive defense, an active dodge defense, a resisted roll with an obnoxiously large dice pool... whatever!

The minute my players know what the hell I'm doing, is where I've lost control of my game. Because to be honest... I don't know what the hell I'm doing!!

If you feel as though you need to be in control of the game, you're doing it wrong.

Edit: Also, damnit, I want to play in an nWoD game. Badly. And I'm already in one.

What the hell.

Edit2: Maybe because the one I'm in is Genius and I suddenly want to play Geist or Promethean.

Ravens_cry
2010-02-16, 06:24 PM
Edit2: Maybe because the one I'm in is Genius and I suddenly want to play Geist or Promethean.
How is it? The idea of playing a mad scientist of any stripe sounds awesome, but my mechanics interpretationer is rather unwieldy.

Yuki Akuma
2010-02-16, 06:26 PM
How is it? The idea of playing a mad scientist of any stripe sounds awesome, but my mechanics interpretationer is rather unwieldy.

We haven't done anything yet. I'll get back to you once someone rolls for something. Anything.

Although so far all of the players are top-notch, and we've had some impressive technobabble and wonderfully ludicrous Wonder names.

togapika
2010-02-16, 06:39 PM
My short-lived NWOD game: Power Rangers The Morphing

As I was describing their colors and creatures (Based on mythological creatures) one of the players just looks at me and says "What are we, Power Rangers?"
At that point I had them turn over their custom-made character sheets I had created for them.

Yuki Akuma
2010-02-16, 07:05 PM
My short-lived NWOD game: Power Rangers The Morphing

As I was describing their colors and creatures (Based on mythological creatures) one of the players just looks at me and says "What are we, Power Rangers?"
At that point I had them turn over their custom-made character sheets I had created for them.

I've considered doing this with Exalted. Enlightened Mortals with colour-coded power armour, artifact weapons and warstriders.

bosssmiley
2010-02-17, 01:19 PM
Wait... what's your issue with dice pools?

Mainly the mechanical opacity of them. I don't do that kind of probability maths for fun thanks.

Add to the fact the designers are English majors, not statisticians, and you have situations like the WoD system: as you get better at something the chance you will botch actually increases. W? T? F?!?!?

The Gaming Den's Anatomy of Failed Design (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49690) thread (avoid if swears make Mommy angry) curbstomps WoD harder than I ever could though. Oh, and their AoFD: Exalted (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50260) thread reverses a steamroller over the sorry mess that is the WoD house system. :smallamused:

Repent dice poolists! Only through repentance, contrition and L5R can your forfeit souls be saved. :smalltongue:

Project_Mayhem
2010-02-17, 01:22 PM
Add to the fact the designers are English majors, not statisticians, and you have situations like the WoD system: as you get better at something the chance you will botch actually increases. W? T? F?!?!?

To be fair, that's OWoD, which most people have been arguing has weaker mechanics. In NWoD, you can only botch if you end up with less than 1 dice.

smellie_hippie
2010-02-17, 01:26 PM
If you feel as though you need to be in control of the game, you're doing it wrong.

Oh, I don't need to be in control. I fully play/plan all my games with an intro and a small plot hook, and the rest is completely player driven.

I just think that it has merit to ask for dice rolls when you can tell your players want to feel control and thus the chance of failure, and when to wave the roll after hearing some awesome descriptive actions.

Edit: I'm still plotting out a game of Changeling: The Lost set in Seattle. I'm just trying to fill in all the details of NPCs, important places and an overview of the city's ambience...

Yuki Akuma
2010-02-17, 02:36 PM
Add to the fact the designers are English majors, not statisticians, and you have situations like the WoD system: as you get better at something the chance you will botch actually increases. W? T? F?!?!?

Yes, everyone agrees that that mechanic was funky.

Including White Wolf.

So they changed it. Now you can only botch if your dice pool is less than one.

lesser_minion
2010-02-17, 03:23 PM
Mainly the mechanical opacity of them. I don't do that kind of probability maths for fun thanks.

You can expect one success for every three dice. This is not hard.

As far as anyone cares in a game, it's just a case of how many dice you need before you can expect something to work, and the answer is three.

(Yes, this varies with certain other effects, and it would have been nice if they'd written it into the books).

Kurald Galain
2010-02-17, 03:30 PM
I suspect it's because they are so very, very fickle.
Even rolling two tensiders is less fickle than 1d20.


You're thinking of oWoD, where a really big dice pool increased your chance of botching.
I've heard that rumor before, but could you post some evidence of that? Because it doesn't seem to match up with the math.

First and second edition oWOD: you botch if you roll more ones than successes. Unless a 10 is somehow not a success, I fail to see how adding any die would make botching more likely.
Third edition oWOD: you botch if you roll no successes, and at least one "one". Any added die obviously increases the odds that you roll a success.

lesser_minion
2010-02-17, 04:14 PM
Even rolling two tensiders is less fickle than 1d20.


I've heard that rumor before, but could you post some evidence of that? Because it doesn't seem to match up with the math.

First and second edition oWOD: you botch if you roll more ones than successes. Unless a 10 is somehow not a success, I fail to see how adding any die would make botching more likely.
Third edition oWOD: you botch if you roll no successes, and at least one "one". Any added die obviously increases the odds that you roll a success.

The probability of rolling a botch given that you've failed every roll is 1 - (5/6)^N

The probability of failing every roll is 0.6^N

That gives you the formula P(botch) = (0.6^N){1-(5^N)/(6^N)}

Which becomes P(botch) = (0.6^N) - (0.6^N)(5^N)/(6^N)

Or: P(botch) = (0.6^N) - (0.5^N)

Differentiating gives you y = dP(botch)/dN = ln(0.6)*0.6^N - ln(0.5)*0.5^N

ln 0.6 and ln 0.5 are both negative, but the behaviour is totally weird - until you reach a certain number of dice, you do become more likely to botch with each dice you add. This does stop at a certain point, however.

More 1's than successes is harder, but then you still have -1s as negative, which isn't especially intuitive either.

Susano-wo
2010-02-17, 04:23 PM
ok, I must confess that I lost you about the 3rd line. BUt isn't the chance of rolling all 1's 1 in 10Xnumber of dice?

I mean, the probability of rolling 2 ones in 2d6 is 1 in 36, since you multiply 6(size of dice) by 2(number of dice rolled) to determine total combinations, and only 1 combination of numbers will net you 2 ones.

Is there something I am missing?

O.o;;

NeoVid
2010-02-17, 04:26 PM
Mainly the mechanical opacity of them. I don't do that kind of probability maths for fun thanks.


Huh?

Since you need a 8 or better to succeed on a die, less than three dice means the odds are against you. With four dice, you have a 75% chance of success. With 6 dice, you have an 88% chance of success. That's all the dice statistics I've ever kept in mind while playing nWoD, and it's all I've needed.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-17, 04:37 PM
The probability of rolling a botch given that you've failed every roll is 1 - (5/6)^N
I suppose you mean 1 - (9/10) ^ N

I'm not sure that changes the overall outcome, though.

(edit) let me see. If I roll one die, the botch chance is trivially 10%
If I roll two, then the botch chance is 0.01 (snake eyes) + 0.1 * 0.5 (botch plus failure) + 0.5 * 0.1 (failure plus botch) is indeed 11%, which supports your claim assuming a difficulty rating of 7 or more (the normal rating is 6, though).
Three dice, we get
(0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1) + (0.1 * 0.5 * 0.5) * 3! + (0.1 * 0.1 * 0.9) * 3!
= 0.001 + 0.15 + 0.054 = 20.5 %


More 1's than successes is harder, but then you still have -1s as negative, which isn't especially intuitive either.
Oh, I completely agree that the oWOD dice system is not intuitive.

Attilargh
2010-02-17, 04:48 PM
Here (http://wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Probability_Math#Botching.2C_Secon d_Edition) are a couple of tables that illustrate the probabilities of botching with a given dice pool and target number.

Ædit: I really should stop trying to think in numbers after midnight. :smallannoyed:

lesser_minion
2010-02-17, 04:52 PM
I suppose you mean 1 - (9/10) ^ N

No, I don't. You want the probability of rolling at least one result of 1 given that you have an abject failure, so there are only six numbers left.

I did make a mistake, but it was to assume that the formula at the end would always be positive - it's only like that up to a certain number of dice, after which the probability starts to drop again.

As you may have noticed, I gave the probabilities of botching in Exalted - with variable success numbers, it comes up slightly differently.

Lycar
2010-02-17, 05:01 PM
So, I'm running a new World of Darkness game, and I wondering if anyone has ever tried to run a light-hearted WoD game, and if it was any good. Anybody try?

*Sigh* My experiences to oWoD games is a bit limited I'm afraid. I have an absolute, passionate hatered of all things undead, and vampires especially, that I will never, ever play a game of V:tM.

No, not even then.

And I tried to play Mage. But.. I just could not wrap my mind around the concept. :smallfrown:

Werewolf on the other hand... things are bad and that makes you really, really mad and you want to go Groar on those things? Yeah, that I can understand.

Unfortunately, the premise of the oWoD W:tA was that you are screwed. Period. No matter what you do, you are doomed to failure, all your efforts will be naught.

Maybe that is what the game really is about: That you do what has to be done, even if, ultimately, it won't change the fate of the world. Could be a metapho for life, I dunno. But that hoplesnes was what turned me off. That was just too dark for my liking.

By contrast, if there was even a shimmer of hope that you could do something, however small to change things would be a comparativly light-hearted game for me.

But let us face it: A game about supernatural predators who exist for the express purpose to destroy world-devouring monstrosities doesn't really lend itself to anything called light-hearted.

As for the new setting... Huh, I kinda find the notion of the werewolves to be the GSG 9 of the spirit world to be interesting. *

In a light-hearted variant, the spirits could be less destructive about their posessing mortals, leaving their host alive but either unconscious or as 'passengers along for the ride'.

And then you could have, I dunno, some posessed humans as sort of 'recurring characters'. In a silly game, that sleazy street-rat could actually be, you know, a guy posessed by a rat spirit or something.

And the woofs only don't chew him up because he, well, 'rats out' on other spirits breaking the border. :smalltongue:


*
Although I feel they missed out on an intersting opportunity here: The otherworldy animal spirits try to get into the physical world by posessing humans, effectivly killing them off in the process.

Now, basically werewolves are wolf spirits in human guise. Except that the wolf spirits somehow managed to join with humanity, so that they now form a whole race of 'wolf spirits in human bodies'.

Okay I can see that the prospect of being an animal spirit that forcibly takes over a human host may be... a sort of turndown for many prospective players (although that is pretty much how Monte Cooks WoD handles things... mixed feelings here though... very mixed).

But if the wolf spirits would simply be a bit less... destructive about that whole 'taking human guise by posessing a human thing'... well, that myth about becoming a werewolf by being bitten by one has to come from somewhere, right? :smalltongue:



Speeding up combat allows the DM to fill the extra time with other stuff. More RP, more enemies in each fight, more different fights. Giving the DM more options of stuff to do in a 4 hour block makes the game less predictable than endless rolling and counter-rolling, at least if the DM is any good.

Or you could, like, have less combat, but make those encounters count for more.

I mean, D&D essentially evolved from a wargame. Classic D&D pits a group of adventures against a self-contained battlefield, usually called a 'Dungeon'. Which sometims also has 'Dragons' in it. (:smallwink:)

So the basic premise is to battle your way through that dungeon. It is abut the fighting. Roleplaying and Storytelling optional.

Now, if you reverse those priorities, then your PCs may have a single fight in, say, a week of gametime (if at all), but each encounter offers a very real chance of dying.

Because even the experienced knight in his full plate, lopping off extremities left and right with his Zweihänder can be brought low by a numerically superior force. Or at least that what it ough to be like if you want fight s to mean some real danger, even for experienced PCs, without having to resort to more and more powerful (and ridiculous) monsters.

Now, if we want to have a certain feel of lethality in our combat system, active defense works better. Because the number of attacks you can defend against is limited.

In one particular game system, the combat system is geared toward modeling the combat between individual pairs of combatants. Combatants get an offensive action and a defensive action (a parry or a dodge). If a single combatant faces 2 enemies, he still can defend against only 1 attack. So, even if all his attacks hit and all his parries are flawles, one of the foes could get lucky.

Not so much in a passive defense system when the mechanics allow the defense to be so high that low-powered enemies are rendered completely impotent.

In a passive defense system, orks and goblins simply become extinct after a certain level.

In an active defense system, a large group of low-level enemies still poses a tangible threat.

Personally, I favour the latter over the former.

Lycar

lesser_minion
2010-02-17, 05:06 PM
OK, you're most likely to botch when rolling 1.6740427 dice according to Google Calculator, so basically it's a case of figuring out when your chance of botching drops back below 10%.

Basically, adding more dice doesn't usually make you more likely to botch. You're more likely to botch with two dice than with one die. That's it.

Three dice give you less chance of botching than one die.

NOTE: This is for Exalted, which is very clear that you can only botch if none of your dice show successes. Losing successes because of a penalty doesn't cause a botch.


Not so much in a passive defense system when the mechanics allow the defense to be so high that low-powered enemies are rendered completely impotent.

Not especially. You're confusing a limit on how often you can use a defence (which can also be applied to passive defences, and actually is used in WoD) with a requirement to roll for it.

Attilargh
2010-02-17, 05:07 PM
Because the number of attacks you can defend against is limited.
This is not inherent in the concept of an active defence, at least as I've come to understand it. I've always taken "active defence" to mean that the attacker's attack roll is opposed by the defender's defence roll, and that's it. Penalties or lack thereof from getting mobbed are system-independent. In fact, you're in trouble if you happen to get mobbed under the nWoD ruleset, as multiple attackers impose penalties to a victim's Defense score.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-17, 05:14 PM
Basically, adding more dice doesn't usually make you more likely to botch. You're more likely to botch with two dice than with one die, but after that, adding more dice makes botches less likely.
I agree, and Attilargh's table also concurs with that.

I found some quirky results with difficulty 2 (because of parity), 9 and 10. The third edition rules fix the problem with 2 and 9, and I'm reasonably sure the rulebooks tell you not to use difficulty 10. So yeah, there is an issue, but no, it is not likely to ever come up in actual gameplay.

The_Snark
2010-02-17, 05:15 PM
Even rolling two tensiders is less fickle than 1d20.

It feels more fickle, though. This may just be me, but when rolling a handful of dice I tend to expect at least a few of them to succeed. A single d20 roll is something I'm used to; those fail all the time. When you roll 5d10 and all of them fail... yeah. For that matter, you can feel like the dice aren't favoring you even if you succeed but score a below-average number of successes—1 success on a 10-die pool, for example. Whereas if you barely scrape by on a d20, you feel like you've beaten the odds by the skin of your teeth.

I guess it may have something to do with me assuming they're too reliable—just because a dice pool has an average doesn't mean you can rely on rolling that average. It's a psychological thing, rather than a statistical thing. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with Bosssmiley's reasons, but it's why my subconscious refuses to trust a handful of d10s.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-17, 05:27 PM
It feels more fickle, though. This may just be me, but when rolling a handful of dice I tend to expect at least a few of them to succeed. A single d20 roll is something I'm used to; those fail all the time. When you roll 5d10 and all of them fail... yeah.
That's a good point, although I personally feel the opposite.

In my opinion, crits and fumbles in D&D are nothing special because they occur all the friggin' time. Whereas the one time you score five successes (or, of course, five ones) on 5d10, well, you're going to remember that!

Susano-wo
2010-02-17, 08:11 PM
ok, I see now where I am making the mistake of my calculations--that you only need to roll a 1 where there are no successes, but I still don't get how adding dice would possibly give you a higher chance to botch when you have (at least) 3 more numbers on each die that prevent botching. (after 2 dice, that is. I see how because you can't get a botch and success on only 1 die, it actually goes up with 2 dice)

with three, don't you have a 1.47% chance? with 2 you have 14 combinations out of 100 that produce a botch, and with 3 you have 147 out of 10,000.

right? >.>

lesser_minion
2010-02-17, 08:15 PM
Yes, I made a mistake by not checking the result of ln (0.6) and ln (0.5).

You're more likely to botch on two dice than one die, but after that there's no problem.

Cthulhutech is worse for weird botches.

Susano-wo
2010-02-17, 08:35 PM
ok. I feel better. I'm not a skilled statisticologist by any means, but I didn't think I was that bad :P