oWoD vs. nWoD, and White Wolf in general

[Solarn]

This has been eating at me for a while now, but I only now managed to put it into words that make sense for anyone else.

I too was originally one of the people who hated nWoD on principle, mostly for messing with Vampire and cutting most of what I considered the interesting bits. But now I've had the chance to read some nWoD rulebooks and even play one or two short games, and I must say, I altogether like nWoD much more than oWoD.

In hindsight, oWoD suffered from what I want to call "Don't change a good thing even when it's not so good anymore" syndrome. If you look at all the games and take away the unique, but ultimately gameplay-oriented (as opposed to fluff-oriented) gimmicks they have, they are very much the same. White Wolf chanced upon a fantastic tone of bleak nihilism and waiting for the end of the world with V:tM, and transplanted it into everything else they did.

Werewolf: the Apocalypse is the most obvious offender, basically being Vampire WITH WEREWOLVES! It also introduced an element that was originally missing from V:tM, but became a staple of all other oWoD games, a battle between the "good guys" (who are good only by virtue of not wanting the world to end) and the "bad guys" (who do), which the "good guys" are fated to eventually lose and are in fact already losing. (There was, if I remember correctly, no value judgement applied to either the Camarilla or Sabbath in Vampire at first, that came after the success of the other games and even then, the Camarilla was firmly in control until the last few retcons.)

In contrast, nWoD has a much more varied set of moods for their games.
Vampire is dark and brooding as always (and we wouldn't want it any other way), but there's no Gehenna looming on the horizon any more.
Werewolf cannibalized some of Wraith's plot points while becoming much more action-oriented (as it was supposed to be in oWoD, too bad that got ruined by the gothy atmosphere that pervaded all their works).
Changeling became a depressing exploration of existential issues (the only change I lament, as C:tD was the most "fun" of the oWoD games).
Mage lost many of the game-breaking elements it once had (and sadly, became almost as formulaic as the oWoD games).
And as for the new lines, Promethean, for all the **** the titular characters have to go through, has a powerful underlying message of hope and Geist is actually fun this time.

So, to summarize it, the only part of oWoD I truly miss is Changeling: the Dreaming (and maybe the Technocracy from Mage, but that's mostly because of fan supplements I've read that fleshed it out). At the same time, I enjoy the nWoD games a great deal more than I ever did their older counterparts. The tendency to group everything in fives also appeals to my aesthetic sense, but that's neither here nor there.

[Quietus]

To add : The system itself is vastly improved. You aren't rolling against varying difficulties any more, then rolling successes to see how much damage you did, after they roll dodge... no. That was, in my (very limited, admittedly) experience, painfully slow. It's a game; It shouldn't necessarily be upbeat, but it should definitely NOT be boring. So the new system of rolling - simple stat+skill dice pools, modified by defense/circumstances/whatever, against a static number for success, makes the game as a whole run far more smoothly. White Wolf did a fantastic job here, and deserve all the kudos they can get for it.

[Yora]

Sometimes the plans of writers and designers to restart their creation to clean up the mess it has become, do actually work.
Not often, but it happens. :smallbiggrin:

[Oracle_Hunter]

The nWoD rules system is vastly improved, but damn it, I miss my fluff :smallannoyed:

In particular, the "war of ideas" approach to oWoD Mage was inspired and its implementation was excellent. Yes, it steals from Ars Magicia but, IMHO, it does a better job of fluffing it out.

I still have philosophical complaints with the nWoD mechanics, but it is clear that the Core nWoD did a lot to fix the oWoD "core" system - although it can fairly be asked whether anyone actually used those mechanics while playing oWoD in the first place :smallbiggrin:

[Lord_Gareth]

I'd also like to chime in that nWoD cleaned up the cosmology and the world-building fluff immensely. I, too, liked oWoD, but with every new book that came out and every new addition to their world-building (some of them decent, others horrendously ill-thought) made their setting groan under the strain of the weight. First they ended up having to make crossovers optional, and then they just threw their hands up into the air and declared, "Screw it!". By the time the End Times rolled around, Armageddon was more or less a fart for all the players actually cared.

[comicshorse]

So, to summarize it, the only part of oWoD I truly miss is Changeling: the Dreaming (and maybe the Technocracy from Mage, but that's mostly because of fan supplements I've read that fleshed it out). At the same time, I enjoy the nWoD games a great deal more than I ever did their older counterparts. The tendency to group everything in fives also appeals to my aesthetic sense, but that's neither here nor there.

Ironic considering that Changeling is the game I think improved the most in nWoD going from teeth grindingly twee to a world where we see why fairy tales were meant to scare the hell out of kids.

[Theodoxus]

Speaking of fluff and such, I'm planning on running a Dark Ages campaign, but like the mechanics of nWoD. Would it be terribly difficult to run DA using nWoD? I haven't put much thought into it - and unless deemed impossible or not recommended, I'll probably go forward with it. But any insight would be helpful if anyone has done something similar... don't want to invent the wheel, if I don't have to - so to speak.

[Kurald Galain]

Werewolf: the Apocalypse is the most obvious offender, basically being Vampire WITH WEREWOLVES!
That statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The entire mood, aim, and setting is very different between the old Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage games. The first chapter of each elaborates on this.

And yes, you can play all of them in an "emo" way, but then you can play everything in an "emo" way.


The nWoD rules system is vastly improved, but damn it, I miss my fluff :smallannoyed:This, too. Good rules are a dime a dozen, but good fluff is a rarity.

[Oracle_Hunter]

And yes, you can play all of them in an "emo" way, but then you can play everything in an "emo" way.
I challenge you to play Emo Monopoly! :smalltongue:


This, too. Good rules are a dime a dozen, but good fluff is a rarity.
Well... I wouldn't go that far. Good rules can be hard to find for a given set of fluff; but still, few people are moved to passionate displays by a well-crafted rules set while a good backstory can inspire epics.

[comicshorse]

I challenge you to play Emo Monopoly!

If you think that you've never played it with my nephew :smallsmile:

[Kurald Galain]

I challenge you to play Emo Monopoly! :smalltongue:Emonopoly! With such great Chance cards as "you decide existence is pointless and burn $1000 of your cash", or "you spend the night writing awful poetry, skip your next turn"! :smallbiggrin:


Well... I wouldn't go that far. Good rules can be hard to find for a given set of fluff; but still, few people are moved to passionate displays by a well-crafted rules set while a good backstory can inspire epics.Yes. What I meant to say is that good fluff contributes much more to an RPG session than good rules. Unlike certain message boards, most games aren't focused on finding the most creative loopholes :smalltongue:

[Psyx]

I challenge you to play Emo Monopoly! :smalltongue:

There's no point buying anything, I'll only get in debt, and I'd just be a conformist hypocrite if I did so. I'm just going to land on 'chance' as many times as I can so I might win second prize in a beauty contest, and the world will finally appreciate my worth.

Only Andrew Eldrich/Trent Reznor/Marilyn Manson/Bullet for my Valantine* know my pain.



*Delete as appropriate to your generation

[Comet]

I'm a massive fan of nWoD. It just seems a lot neater and less bloated than the old game in its final days. Really, oWoD and its metaplot were so messed up by the time armageddon came around I was absolutely relieved to hear they were finally ending it. I'm not a huge fan of metaplots in general, just give me the world and some options/examples on what kind of stories I can tell in that world.

The rules are a lot smoother, too, which is always a plus for me. Really simple, easy to modify and easy to get the hang of for a new player.

Some thoughts on the different splats as compared to the old ones:

Core nWoD: I love playing mortals. It's like Call of Cthulhu without the name, you can do pretty much anything with it. It also has some great expansion books. Second Sight is pretty much one of the best things ever, both mechanically and as a source for ideas.

Vampire: the Requiem - No more metaplot, no more ancient vampires throwing mountains around (hyperbole, I know). A lot of different factions instead of just two large ones with smaller subsections. And the Convenants are each pretty damn cool. Bloodlines are a bunch of boring-ness, though. I never bothered with them, the five clans were enough as they were, with the exception of some quirkier villains who got appropriately weird bloodlines to go with their alien nature.

Werewolf: the Forsaken - A massive step up from Apocalypse. Everything feels more personal, the battles more meaningful. The myths and history are awesome, as well as the spirit world and all the crazy dynamics you can have there, not to mention the battle against the Pure. Also, Shadows of the UK is a great source book that really puts a new spin on the original Forsaken.

Mage: the Awakening - Haven't played much of this, because the magic mechanics are pretty much impossible to use meaningfully unless every player has their own damn book from which to look up stuff and plan ahead. Still, on the whole it feels a bit more tidy than Ascension, even though I miss some of the more outrageous/fantastical elements.

Promethean: the Created - Now here's something new and exciting. Epic, personal journeys full of both crushing fatalism and optimistic rebellion against impossible odds. Not much good for very long campaigns, but for a short, intense series of adventures it doesn't get much better than this.

Changeling: the Lost - Good, gritty fantasy that has a lot of potential for exploring all those exciting tales we grew up reading about. Weird spells, twisting mazes, ugly witches, clever goblins, all that good stuff.

Hunter: the Vigil - Take Hunter: the Reckoning and tone down all the ridiculous superman stuff. Hunter is finally about Mankind facing against the darkness.

Geist: the Sin-Eaters - Haven't played this one yet.

[Ruinix]

nWoD born as a respond to the crys of the players, just like those awful changes in the MMOs wich usually shater the old school players from the newcommers, in the old days of 2nd edition of WoD some players cry for the lack of control or mostly the lack of abuse of their powers, so that is why nWoD born.

nWoD is preaty much what WoW did to the occidental MMOs. yes is fun some times, but lack of the mature scope as use to be.

[Fouredged Sword]

I have had the fun of playing NWoD mages with a bunch of engineers. Fun lot and though the game takes some reading to get all the powers down, you can do a lot with it. Just look up and use rotes for your staple spells and you are good to go. Otherwise it is just Gnosis + Path vs a effect dificulty. Don't worry to much about individual effects you can do, but rather the power limits of your dot levels. It works much better that way.

No other game have I found RAW means for your characters to talk to NPC's in the past, throw a tree at a car, and use C4 as a melee weapon. It can get silly, but a mage with a bit of prep time is a powerful force.

[Oracle_Hunter]

No other game have I found RAW means for your characters to talk to NPC's in the past, throw a tree at a car, and use C4 as a melee weapon.
You should check out oWoD Mage :smallamused:

EDIT: For example, my favorite anti-vampire rote from oWoD was "Convert Pants to Fire" (Forces 3 / Matter 2) :smallbiggrin:

[Solarn]

Ironic considering that Changeling is the game I think improved the most in nWoD going from teeth grindingly twee to a world where we see why fairy tales were meant to scare the hell out of kids.
Oh, make no mistake, the new Changeling is fantastic, it's just way too bleak for me, bleaker than even Wraith has ever been and I think Dreaming could have been salvaged as it was. But we got Geist instead, so I'm not complaining too much.

That statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The entire mood, aim, and setting is very different between the old Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage games. The first chapter of each elaborates on this.
It was the intention, yes, but it quickly got deprecated in the sea of all-consuming "goff" that White Wolf drowned their works in. I can't even remember a Werewolf rulebook after the core books that wasn't geared for inter-tribe politicking with a backdrop of losing horribly to the Wyrm with only ever managing minor victories. Mage was the most "different" of all the games, but even it got farther removed from its original tone towards bleak hopelessness with every book.

{Scrubbed}

[Aron Times]

With all this talk about the nWoD being full of win, is anyone planning on running a game? I want to roleplay a Ventrue whose virtue and vice are Justice/Sloth; he mind controls people into fighting crime and not breaking the law. The character that I have in mind is a lot deeper than that, but it's the best description I can give with a single sentence.

[Terraoblivion]

You know i often hear people talk about how oWoD was more mature than nWoD. I'm not necessarily contesting it, though it doesn't fit with my perception of the two games. However, i have never heard anybody elaborate on why that was. It always seems to be put out as a self-evident truth that doesn't need explaining, so would any of those who hold this view be so kind as to enlighten us about the depth and maturity of oWoD? Especially oWoD outside Mage, since i have heard explanations on that part.

[Oracle_Hunter]

You know i often hear people talk about how oWoD was more mature than nWoD. I'm not necessarily contesting it, though it doesn't fit with my perception of the two games. However, i have never heard anybody elaborate on why that was. It always seems to be put out as a self-evident truth that doesn't need explaining, so would any of those who hold this view be so kind as to enlighten us about the depth and maturity of oWoD? Especially oWoD outside Mage, since i have heard explanations on that part.
Much like versimilitude, "maturity" is a concept applied to games you like and its absence is used to condemn games you dislike :smallamused:

Personally, though, I'd like to hear the arguments of "maturity" you've heard about Mage vis a vis oWoD v. nWoD. I've never actually heard the "maturity" argument applied in this way before.

[Solarn]

You know i often hear people talk about how oWoD was more mature than nWoD. I'm not necessarily contesting it, though it doesn't fit with my perception of the two games. However, i have never heard anybody elaborate on why that was. It always seems to be put out as a self-evident truth that doesn't need explaining, so would any of those who hold this view be so kind as to enlighten us about the depth and maturity of oWoD? Especially oWoD outside Mage, since i have heard explanations on that part.
oWoD was much more brooding, dark, hopeless and tragic. You know, the kinds of things teenagers think are mature. Changeling was just about the only oWoD game that I don't remember being about the inevitable end of the world as we know it and I might simply be forgetting something. Meanwhile, nWoD has maybe one apocalypse scenario (two if you squint really hard) and neither is even close to happening. This is disturbingly close to happiness and as we all know, only immature and childish people are ever happy.

I want to roleplay a Ventrue whose virtue and vice are Justice/Sloth; he mind controls people into fighting crime and not breaking the law.
That is a glorious idea.

[Terraoblivion]

Well, i'll admit that i'm largely stretching the arguments in favor of Ascension to imply that those making them considers it a more mature game than Awakening. In general it just is that people actually provide reasons why they think that Ascension was a better written more interesting game than Awakening.

It is more that i have never really heard anybody elaborate on why they prefer oWoD, with the exception of Mage: The Awakening, over nWoD except in vague terms like saying it was more mature or deeper. The closest was Satyr writing a ten page essay on why actively rolling defense was vital for the player to feel involved and important and i somehow doubt anybody else share that view. It also the doesn't touch on the fluff in any meaningful way.

And no offense, Solarn, but i'm ultimately more interested in hearing people who prefer oWoD explain it themselves.

[Solarn]

Well, i'll admit that i'm largely stretching the arguments in favor of Ascension to imply that those making them considers it a more mature game than Awakening. In general it just is that people actually provide reasons why they think that Ascension was a better written more interesting game than Awakening.

It is more that i have never really heard anybody elaborate on why they prefer oWoD, with the exception of Mage: The Awakening, over nWoD except in vague terms like saying it was more mature or deeper. The closest was Satyr writing a ten page essay on why actively rolling defense was vital for the player to feel involved and important and i somehow doubt anybody else share that view. It also the doesn't touch on the fluff in any meaningful way.
To be honest, I can see where someone would be coming from saying that old Mage is more mature than the new one. Ascension originally had very strong themes of self-exploration and discussion on the nature of humanity and reality and held on to them longer than any other oWoD title did to their own themes. It also had no clear cut heroes and villains like other oWoD titles did, as both factions were portrayed from their own viewpoint as the ones with the right idea and from the other's viewpoint as dangerous lunatics.

In comparison, Awakening has a clear distinction between the good guys and the bad guys and replaced self-exploration and reality-warping with generic supernatural magic.

[Aron Times]

GENTLEMEN.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9535726

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, i'll admit that i'm largely stretching the arguments in favor of Ascension to imply that those making them considers it a more mature game than Awakening. In general it just is that people actually provide reasons why they think that Ascension was a better written more interesting game than Awakening.
Fair enough :smallsmile:

My 2 tass on the matter :smallamused:
oWoD Mage is the easy case - the mechanics were tied to the fluff and moving from "if I believe it, I can make it true" to "space Atlantis!" is a bit jarring.

oWoD Vampire fluff - depending on how you prune it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FanonDiscontinuity) - gave you a compelling shadow society where plans begun millenia ago were only now coming to fruition. As I understand nWoD Vampire, the timeline of plots has been shortened tremendously and there isn't much of a mystery of what's going on at any given time. No more Antedelluvian imposters; no more ancient grudges being fought with pawns; and no more dominate-or-be-dominated politicing.

The scope of nWoD Vampire just seems so... pedestrian in comparison.

Now, full disclosure - I only flipped through the nWoD Vampire book and saw basically "dumbing down" of the Clans. Some had been merged into bland amalgamations of their parent clans while others just seemed to disappear. From reading posters who are fans of nWoD it sounds like most of the intrigue is gone as well - it's an action game, not a plotting game. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary, but so far that's how it looks to me.

Oh, and I never cared for Werewolf. In my experience, oWoD Werewolf quickly resulting in silly powergaming and extremely linear play (i.e. why roll a non-combatant when it is so easy to fight); the oWoD mechanics just weren't designed to support the sort of hack-and-slash gameplay that Werewolf seemed to be designed for.

[WalkingTarget]

oWoD was much more brooding, dark, hopeless and tragic. You know, the kinds of things teenagers think are mature. Changeling was just about the only oWoD game that I don't remember being about the inevitable end of the world as we know it and I might simply be forgetting something. Meanwhile, nWoD has maybe one apocalypse scenario (two if you squint really hard) and neither is even close to happening. This is disturbingly close to happiness and as we all know, only immature and childish people are ever happy.

That is a glorious idea.

Not to say that Changling couldn't be as brooding as the rest. The most soul-crushingly dark game I've ever been involved in was a Changeling: The Dreaming campaign (and I'm a fan of Call of Cthulhu).

C:tD wasn't about the end of the world per se, but one of the major themes available is the encroaching banality of existence and the destruction of imagination and wonder. Inject that theme into a game where the PCs are transitioning from childhood to adolescence and it can get really depressing.

[Aron Times]

To Oracle_Hunter:

Some RPGs are fun to read, while some are fun to play. They aren't mutually exclusive. This is how I see these four systems, and I won't claim to be objective, so take it with a grain of salt.

1. D&D 3.5 is quite fun to read, with all its detailed writeups of various stuff, but your mileage may vary on whether it's fun to play. The latter often depends on how well your character contributes the party, which can be a bit hard when all you can do are full attack (flurry of misses) and fail on skill checks. I can roleplay a monk well, but I can also roleplay a sorcerer (my favorite class) well and actually have the power to back it up.

2. D&D 4e is fun to play, but it doesn't look like it when you read it. Its fluff is not as detailed as in previous editions, so if you're used to long, detailed descriptions of monsters, powers, and magic items, you will be sorely disappointed. 4e is light on fluff (or depending on your point of view, bland), providing only short flavor text for most things, leaving the rest up to the DM's and the players' imaginations.

3. The oWoD was a LOT of fun to read, but had horrible mechanics. It took forever to resolve even short fights that my friends and I would do anything to avoid them. A simple fight between the coterie (made of low generation vampires) and some mortal gangsters, intended to be a cakewalk, took several hours to resolve.

4. The nWoD strikes a good balance between fluff and crunch. The game is more balanced and it takes much shorter to adjudicate combat and other dice-heavy aspects of the game. It's also an interesting read, though not as detailed as the oWoD.

What I like best about the system is that there is an actual reward to being a good guy. Maintaining a high Humanity/Harmony/Synergy/Wisdom/Clarity/Morality has the benefit of keeping your character sane. Characters gain derangements (which have actual penalties to stats instead of just being a roleplaying quirk) as they lose their version of Morality, and being a good guy means not suffering through all the penalties imposed by derangements.

This is how I see D&D 3.5, D&D 4e, the oWoD, and the nWoD. What do you think?

[Lord_Gareth]

Honestly, my biggest issue with oWoD is that White Wolf billed me a horror game and delivered an epic. Not bad in and of itself, but that's not what I paid money for, damnit.

Vampire Plotting
Honestly, I like nWoD plotting. It's more personal. Every oWoD vampire game ended up with an inevitable feeling of anything I (or the other players) did being utterly meaningless except as entertainment for beings that considered us to be amusements. Very existential, highly frustrating. How are players supposed to connect emotionally to an indomitable enemy with millions of years doing nothing but prepping to kick our ass?

nWoD plotting is much more local, yes, but it's also more personal. Vendettas are executed. Friendships and alliances are dissolved or held onto in great rushes of blood or pulse-pounding trials before the Prince. In fact, plotting rather than confrontation has become much more important, since vampires aren't only much more vulnerable, there's less of them running around. Breaching the Masquerade isn't just the threat of extinction, it's the absolute, horrific reality thereof. Plots to discredit your foe or to frame them for violating the Traditions are MUCH better than risking your unlife trying to tango with them face to face.

In my opinion, the clans haven't been dumbed down; they've been cut down to the ones that actually deserve to be clans. The Brujah have been reinvented entirely as the Daeva (the bloodline that inherited their name still have the emphasis on wrath), several clans became the Mehkt, the Ventrue, Nosferatu, and Gangrel all survived. Others with more limited scopes and narrower themes (the Toreador, the Tremere, the Setites) have become bloodlines - sub-clans - as they always should have been. There was no need for such narrow character concepts to be clans unto themselves, and don't even GET ME STARTED on the sheer stupidity of a clan as an autonomous political entity.

Needless to say, I prefer nWoD vampire to oWoD, and I spent six years playing the latter.

[Oracle_Hunter]

As a decorated veteran of the latest Edition Warz, I'm not touching 3.5 v. 4 :smalltongue:

4. The nWoD strikes a good balance between fluff and crunch. The game is more balanced and it takes much shorter to adjudicate combat and other dice-heavy aspects of the game. It's also an interesting read, though not as detailed as the oWoD.
Reading-wise, it is interesting (at least, the anecdotes in the Core nWoD book were) but I found the fluff in nWoD Mage & Vampire lacking - as far as I read it, anyhow. The reasons for that I've stated above.

I still find the mechanics are far too "heavy" for an ostensibly Storytelling-focused game. Look at them closely and you'll see they share a lot in common with SR4 - hardly a Storytelling system. In particular, combat needs to be massively scaled back: there is no reason for attack & defense to be as complicated as it is.

Full Disclosure - I'm intimately familiar with this aspect as I am using them as an aspect of a revival of oWoD Mage (working title: "Mage Prime") I'm working on. I'm using Bliss Stage for another aspect, and using something novel for the third part :smallamused:


What I like best about the system is that there is an actual reward to being a good guy. Maintaining a high Humanity/Harmony/Synergy/Wisdom/Clarity/Morality has the benefit of keeping your character sane. Characters gain derangements (which have actual penalties to stats instead of just being a roleplaying quirk) as they lose their version of Morality, and being a good guy means not suffering through all the penalties imposed by derangements.
You mean like the Humanity System in oWoD Vampire? :smallbiggrin:

Anyhoo, I don't like the way nWoD (or oWoD) tries to mechanize RPing. It's clunky at best and perverse at worst :smallyuk:

It's actually part of the reason I'm using Bliss Stage rules in my game.

[Lord_Gareth]

Umm, Oracle? Attack roll equals Attribute + Skill + Damage + any bonuses - Defense + Armor. Ta da. Simple.

[Postmodernist]

I played oWoD back in the day and enjoyed the distinctive system and world very much. However, the Gehenna/Armageddon metaplot really served to screw long-term play group. Hey, you guys have characters your invested in with goals and hopes and interests and stuff, right? Doesn't matter because the world ends. Boom! Alternately, your goal exclusively becomes trying to prevent the inevitable end of the world.

Still, your comments about nWoD intrigue me. Perhaps I'll have to give the system ago. Great, like I have time for any of that...

[Oracle_Hunter]

Umm, Oracle? Attack roll equals Attribute + Skill + Damage + any bonuses - Defense + Armor. Ta da. Simple.
No no. I'm talking about the finicky modifiers you use.

Are you dodging? What kind of cover is there? Are you close enough for Defense to apply to Ranged rolls? What range are you at? Did you double-tap? Did you fire full auto? Are there other powers modifying this roll? What are the favorable modifiers? What are the unfavorable ones?

And heaven help you if there's a car involved :smallsigh:

For SR, this is about the right level of granuality, but not for a Storyteller game!

[Yuki Akuma]

Attack vs. Defense is difficult...?

Changeling: the Dreaming is light-hearted wonder without the crushing despair of the other oWoD games?

...What books have you been reading?

[Lord_Gareth]

Eh, I find the combat mechanics to be pretty simple and intuitive, myself, but hey.

Awaiting your comments on my post about vampire plotting, above.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Eh, I find the combat mechanics to be pretty simple and intuitive, myself, but hey.

Awaiting your comments on my post about vampire plotting, above.
Combat is "simple and intuitive" for a wargamer or D&D player - but it is needlessly complicated for a system that purports to be for Storytelling.

I just read over your comments on Vampire Plotting and all I can say is:

I disagree.

Vampires are long-lived beings that spend most of their time hiding from discovery. There's no reason for them to act as quickly as short-lived humans and acting while your enemy still remembers you're hunting them is a good way to get killed. The nWoD style makes little sense to me; oWoD style makes more sense.

Clans make perfect political entities due to the nature of Blood Bonds. Every childe is naturally blood-bonded to their sire - the perfect set up for a hierarchical and unified entity. Plus, each member of a Clan shares certain inhuman experiences that those outside the Clan lack: all Ventrue know the difficulty of maintaining a supply of special blood while all Brujah are used to hard wrangling with The Beast. These common experiences give them a greater connection to each other than to other random kindred.

Also, I didn't find any of the clans they "cut" to be less worthy of existence than the ones they kept. Why Nosferatu and not Toreador, for example?
In the end, it's just a matter of taste. I like my Vampires to be inhuman puppeteers with plans that take centuries to complete. Neonates may contend themselves with the petty day-to-day of Camarilla face-saving, but surely after you've (un)lived for a few centuries your perspective has to change.

[Aron Times]

Umm, Oracle? Attack roll equals Attribute + Skill + Damage + any bonuses - (Defense + Armor). Ta da. Simple.

Fixed. You don't add the defender's Armor rating to the attacker's attack roll. LOL. :smallsmile:

[Blackfang108]

Fixed. You don't add the defender's Armor rating to the attacker's attack roll. LOL. :smallsmile:

I was wondering about that. I'm just starting a W:tF (I LOVE that acronym) pbp and, as a newbie, I'm glad I did have it right.

[The_Admiral]

Is it possible to convert Hunter The Reckoning to NWoD

[Terraoblivion]

I on the other hand has only seen VtM played as an action game, never VtR. And frankly i find it bizarre that anybody would. While combat has been simplified immensely, all the disciplines useful for it has been nerfed tremendously and combat is still as boring as in VtM. Just not as time consuming. I think this is mostly about the people and not the game, if anything VtR presents itself as being more based on intrigue than VtM. There is no Camarilla/Sabbath conflict and no Assamites and so on. The only place i can really see action entering as a major part, without just completely deviating from assumptions, would be to focus on mainstream vampire society faced with Belial's Brood or VII. Because really, the five covenants don't normally fight each other with anything but politics. Still, i wouldn't say either game encourages playing it like an action game, but i could see why those who do play it that way would be more inclined to playing the current version. I was about to insult all teenagers by suggesting they were the only ones to play it as an action game despite not being made for it, but then i remembered that the worst guy i've met in treating either of the two versions as one was thirty when i last talked to him.

The important thing to realize about the difference between the two is the nature of the clans. In VtM the clans were the one thing that truly mattered politically and socially within either of the two sects, everything else was secondary. In VtR the clans are largely just a framework for how the curse of vampirism manifests in you, they say relatively little about who you are or what you believe in. Of course the different clans still have different talents and generally prefer to embrace different kinds of people, it's a rare academic who rushes out to embrace a member of a biker gang after all, but ultimately they are about your powers. Your covenant is what defines you politically, but even these vary quite a bit between cities. Especially if you have the books on each of them, then the Carthians stop just seeming like a bunch of anarchists, instead being everything from neo-nazis, to vampire supremacists to tweedy, liberal intellectuals. The other are a bit less extreme, but even so they differ a lot.

So looking only at the clans they are indeed quite simplified and without depth compared to the clans of VtM, but i'd say that is largely because they are a completely different beast. Whether being forced into an ancient secret society without any real choice is superior to becoming a creature of a night and having to figure out how to react to it is an open question. I personally prefer the latter though, since i always got frustrated that i could never fit my concepts properly with the disciplines the clan that otherwise fit the best had. Also the clans seemed relatively narrow in their culture and society, greatly limiting the ease with which i could think of concepts and put a character together.

And the politicking is around, just with the opportunity for a skilled or clever neonate to rise to actual influence over the course of a couple of decades. Really, i never saw much of that in VtM except when playing elders, because you were small fish in a very big pond as a standard starting character. Whereas in VtR, for me at least, the absence of the millenia old plots and immortal elders who you can never match in power, no matter how old you get, means that you can meaningfully engage in politics even without being one of the absolute leaders of the city. It also creates a more open field for the GM to prepare stories in.

Basically i prefer the fluff of VtR for two reasons. One, the one i have elaborated on, is that it gives much more freedom for players and GMs to create their own characters and stories, rather than the one WW wants them to tell. The other is that the focus is much more intimate, on fleshing out the details the makes the world come to life and makes it easier to get into the mindset of an immortal predator. And frankly, i find that a lot more useful in playing the game than knowing who plotted what against who back in Sumeria.

[Blackfang108]

Is it possible to convert Hunter The Reckoning to NWoD

There is Hunter: the Vigil in nWoD.

If you're die-hard for H:tR, I don't know how difficult it is to convert.

[Aron Times]

Well, to each his own.

I would like to point out that it is possible to have plots that span centuries if not millennia, but you can't do it on your own because of the Blood Potency mechanic, which is basically Generation in reverse. Everyone starts at BP 1, and it increases by 1 for every 50 years that a vampire is active and decreases by 1 for every 25 years the vampire spends in torpor. At BP 7 or higher, only vampire blood can sustain him, so unless he wants to be a serial diablerist or blood bound to younger vampires, he has to sleep it off to the point where he can feed on mortals again. Even if he can find a steady source of vampire blood, he still has to fight the urge to sleep. Eventually, he will fall asleep.

Grooming one's childe to succeed you is one way of making sure that your plots stay in motion. This, of course, depends on a good relationship between sire and childe. By the time the sire wakes up, his BP will be lower than his childe's, which means that the weakling he embraced a few centuries ago is now powerful enough to tear him apart singlehandedly. Eventually, the childe grows sleepy and passes the baton back to his sire, assuming they are still on good terms at this point.

One thing that's problematic in the oWoD, Masquerade in particular, is that starting characters are permanently weaker than the lower generation NPCs pulling strings from the background. Neonates are screwed, and the elders have little motivation to help them. Why help a high-gen whelp when he might one day om nom nom you and take your place in the generation ladder?

This is another way that the nWoD rewards being a good guy. A Prince can be as tyrannical as he wants when awake, but then he's screwed when he wakes up centuries later and the neonates he's been bossing around are now gods compared to him.

[Lord_Gareth]

Vampires are long-lived beings that spend most of their time hiding from discovery. There's no reason for them to act as quickly as short-lived humans and acting while your enemy still remembers you're hunting them is a good way to get killed. The nWoD style makes little sense to me; oWoD style makes more sense.

And plotting by nWoD vampires can take decades to come to fruition, but there is an impelling reason to act; torpor. The Sleep of Ages comes whether you want it to or not unless you're willing to start hunting your own kind for blood. Since this isn't a choice most vampires will make (out of sheer pragmatism if nothing else), they need to either set their plots in motion before going to sleep and pray it all works, or finish things out before they pass out for only god knows how long and all of your enemies (or just ambitious up and comers) snap up or destroy your assets.


Clans make perfect political entities due to the nature of Blood Bonds. Every childe is naturally blood-bonded to their sire - the perfect set up for a hierarchical and unified entity. Plus, each member of a Clan shares certain inhuman experiences that those outside the Clan lack: all Ventrue know the difficulty of maintaining a supply of special blood while all Brujah are used to hard wrangling with The Beast. These common experiences give them a greater connection to each other than to other random kindred.

Incorrect; in both games, the Embrace is specifically said to shatter existing Blood Bonds. Furthermore, those common experiences don't overwrite someone's mortal existence. Why are all Tzimice inhuman monsters? What about one that fled his sire and sought sanctuary elsewhere? What about a Setite who got embraced as a "second initiation" into his cult and decided that now was actually the time to get the HELL out? But no. In oWoD, clans are what they are, and if you don't follow the party line AND the family line, the ST slaps the no button and moves on.


Also, I didn't find any of the clans they "cut" to be less worthy of existence than the ones they kept. Why Nosferatu and not Toreador, for example?

The clans chosen to remain living had broad concepts that can establish many characters; Ventrue are "vampires as masterminds", but that could mean anything from a king to a talented hacker with an axe to grind. Mehkt are "vampires as shadowy stalkers" but, again, that covers a LOT. The Toreador (alive again as a bloodline) are...art patrons. And that's it. Any given Toreador is an art patron and if you're not, the ST quietly informs you that maybe another clan would fit you better. I'm not saying that these more specific concepts have no place in the game - they most definitely do - but that they should belong to a more refined concept like a bloodline or a covenant rather than over-arching vampiric majorities.


In the end, it's just a matter of taste. I like my Vampires to be inhuman puppeteers with plans that take centuries to complete. Neonates may contend themselves with the petty day-to-day of Camarilla face-saving, but surely after you've (un)lived for a few centuries your perspective has to change.

Neonates - no matter how long they live - are completely screwed in V:tM. Furthermore, how does such a creature survive all that time without going utterly and completely mad? Insanity is a hindrance to plotting that lasts a millennium or more. I dunno, I just don't like world-shattering power in my vampire stories (well, except Hellsing). It doesn't belong there.

[Pisha]

I appreciate the fact that in nWoD, having a higher score in something meant I actually have a better chance at doing it well :) I remember being very frustrated in tabletop oWoD when I realized the more dice I rolled, the more I increased my chance to fail horribly as well as succeed.

And don't even get me STARTED on the difference in the LARP systems... (if I never play Rock Paper Scissors again it will be too soon!)


Oh, make no mistake, the new Changeling is fantastic, it's just way too bleak for me, bleaker than even Wraith has ever been and I think Dreaming could have been salvaged as it was. But we got Geist instead, so I'm not complaining too much.


Changeling is what you bring to it. (We've joked that it's the game where you can play anything. Absolutely anything. Aliens? Dragons? Knights in shining armor and beautiful princesses? Superhero pirates? Refugees from old movies? Creatures that would fit better in a different venue? Hyperactive otters? They're all possible.) You can certainly make it very, very bleak, but it doesn't have to be by a long shot. It's been said that playing a Changeling is essentially like playing a rape survivor - what you've been through is unarguably awful, but the story is how you choose to respond to it and what you do with the rest of your life. A story like that can be beautiful, courageous and hopeful just as easily as it can be depressing and despairing.

[Oracle_Hunter]

And the politicking is around, just with the opportunity for a skilled or clever neonate to rise to actual influence over the course of a couple of decades. Really, i never saw much of that in VtM except when playing elders, because you were small fish in a very big pond as a standard starting character. Whereas in VtR, for me at least, the absence of the millenia old plots and immortal elders who you can never match in power, no matter how old you get, means that you can meaningfully engage in politics even without being one of the absolute leaders of the city. It also creates a more open field for the GM to prepare stories in.
This is an interesting perspective. Y'see, this very reason is why there are Anarchs.
When a power structure is ossified and yet undefeatable, people start to move outside. Anarchs are the result of the youngbloods realizing that they don't have a chance to wield any power through the formal structure (and being too creeped out by the Sabbat to join them). They co-exist with the Camarilla, but they're not part of the system - and by and large, the Local Prince just doesn't have the free time to oppress every Anarch who decides to ignore him. Anarchs and Anarch groups can become quite influential on local level - but with influence comes attention. Does the Prince try to use them like a tool, or crush them? If he pisses them off, can he afford to risk losing them to the Sabbat?

This is the proper focus of oWoD Vampire, as taken from the fluff: neonates trying to make a way for themselves without stepping on the toes of bigger and badder foes. Who knows - perhaps these high-humanity neonates can end up being useful vassals for older and sleepier badasses? Playing as Elders misses the point, in a way - it's not about being King of the World; it's about learning to work with and around The Powers That Be to achieve your own ends.

The way nWoD Vampire has been described makes it sound like the entire world is run by neonates. Without Elders to keep the lid on them, I'm surprised that the Masquerade is even a useful fiction anymore; the pot should have boiled over long ago and spilt the violence where all can see.
But yeah, too many people play Vampire as a combat game because the combat disciplines are easy to understand and pretty badass. But playing it like that really misses the intent of the fluff and ignore a rather ingenious political dynamic that just isn't available in most other systems.

EDIT:

@Lord_Gareth - as I hope this post illustrates, we are simply going to have to agree to disagree. Aside from the "embrace shatters all blood bonds" (something I don't recall) we each just believe that an unlife should look differently.

I think you need to have different tiers of understanding with the younger generation constantly fighting amongst themselves for power while keeping the older one happy; you see it more as a continual feud that mirrors mortal existence - the older generation will "die" eventually and so it needs "sons" to carry on their legacy.

[Aron Times]

There is Hunter: the Vigil in nWoD.

If you're die-hard for H:tR, I don't know how difficult it is to convert.

Hunter: The Vigil also has a wider variety of Hunters than The Reckoning. In the oWoD, Hunters were holy warriors empowered by angels who fought supernaturals. In the nWoD, Hunters run the gamut from normal people victimized by bloodthirsty vampires to global conspiracies that use MORE DAKKA to kill the parasites feeding off of humanity. Let's compare three of them:

1. Malleus Maleficarum - The Inquisition. NOBODY EXPECTS THE MALLEUS MALEFICARUM! Amongst their weapons are surprise, ruthless efficiency, and the Wrath of God. Primarily targets vampires and demons. Vampires stupid or unlucky enough to expose themselves run the risk getting SMITE EVIL to the face.

2. Task Force Valkyrie - A secret quasimilitary organization funded by the USA. Uses bleeding edge technology to fight supernaturals, which often comes in the form of BFGs (BIG ****ING GUNS). Takes a MORE DAKKA approach to defending humanity. Thematically feels like the Technocracy from the oWoD.

3. The Lucifuge - A group of Hunters allegedly descended from the Devil, they use their infernal powers to fight evil. Ironically the nicest of the global Hunter conspiracies, proving that Dark Is Not (Always) Evil.

[Lord_Gareth]

@Oracle - Buy or borrow a copy of V:tR and read it through. You'll be pleasantly surprised. I'd pay especial attention to their example setting, New Orleans. Just ignore Katrina for the moment. It was written beforehand.

[Pisha]

The only problem I have with Hunter: the Vigil (and I'm speaking as someone who love, love, LOVES the game) is the difficulty in having a multi-faction group. First of all, the factions aren't all at the same power level. Second of all, canonically they don't all know about each other. Most importantly, they have reasons to seriously oppose one another in-game.

So either everyone has to agree to play one faction, or you get a lot of pvp conflict. (Or you get situations where the TFV guys, for instance, are saying to each other, "Y'know... unless the lieutenant specifically asks... let's just not mention that Jenkins is part demon...")

[Solarn]

Incorrect; in both games, the Embrace is specifically said to shatter existing Blood Bonds. Furthermore, those common experiences don't overwrite someone's mortal existence. Why are all Tzimice inhuman monsters? What about one that fled his sire and sought sanctuary elsewhere? What about a Setite who got embraced as a "second initiation" into his cult and decided that now was actually the time to get the HELL out? But no. In oWoD, clans are what they are, and if you don't follow the party line AND the family line, the ST slaps the no button and moves on.



The clans chosen to remain living had broad concepts that can establish many characters; Ventrue are "vampires as masterminds", but that could mean anything from a king to a talented hacker with an axe to grind. Mehkt are "vampires as shadowy stalkers" but, again, that covers a LOT. The Toreador (alive again as a bloodline) are...art patrons. And that's it. Any given Toreador is an art patron and if you're not, the ST quietly informs you that maybe another clan would fit you better. I'm not saying that these more specific concepts have no place in the game - they most definitely do - but that they should belong to a more refined concept like a bloodline or a covenant rather than over-arching vampiric majorities.
Uhh... please don't project your frustration with bad STs on the game as a whole.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Uhh... please don't project your frustration with bad STs on the game as a whole.
Although I wouldn't have phrased it so... bluntly, there may be a point here.

I don't see any reason for the oWoD fluff to forbid a Setite who is running from his Clan. He's probably an Antitribu Camarilla, hiding from the Settites who are hunting him down. Sure, it's not a great spot to be in, but the Player chose it. Likewise for the combat monster Toreador - you'll need to explain why his sire embraced him and he won't get along with his Clan, but he can be an Anarch instead.

The fluff only describes the general nature of each Clan and how it functions as a sociopolitical entity; it contemplates rebels (antitribu) and those who decided to stay out of the system entirely (anarchs). If anything, Lord Gareth's post hints at an underlying flaw of the WoD system - Tyranny of the ST - but neither oWoD nor nWoD does much to limit it.

[Terraoblivion]

Because there are still elders around Oracle_Hunter. They are just not all powerful and can be challenged if you have sufficient political skill to build a following. It won't be easy, even for Ancillae, but it is still possible if you are careful, skilled and thorough. Also i fail to see why neonates would be more inclined to break the masquerade than elders. They are infinitely squishier, they lack the resources to throw in the way of people coming after them to hurt them, while on the other hand they are much more capable of functioning in human society making it less likely they break the masquerade by accident.

And in general vampires don't solve their issues with violence in VtR. Not only do they still have social institutions that all recognize the legitimate existence of the others, even if they think they are wrong, and uphold a society with ordered rules. They are also not really all that much more capable of combat than humans. And really, neonates are the vampires least inclined to kill as they are more likely to keep the morals that say they shouldn't, as well as the least ability to get away with it. And as humans prove a society of a highly aggressive beings can stay relatively stable without people resorting to murder to settle their issues, even when most people are less than 50. Even a vampiric society not dominated by millenia old elders, would have an average population much higher than that.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Because there are still elders around Oracle_Hunter. They are just not all powerful and can be challenged if you have sufficient political skill to build a following. It won't be easy, even for Ancillae, but it is still possible if you are careful, skilled and thorough. Also i fail to see why neonates would be more inclined to break the masquerade than elders. They are infinitely squishier, they lack the resources to throw in the way of people coming after them to hurt them, while on the other hand they are much more capable of functioning in human society making it less likely they break the masquerade by accident.
From the sounds of it, nWoD Elders are very sleepy and don't expect to influence the world after a certain number of years. Or perhaps Lord Gareth misrepresented the Sleep of Ages?

Also - Neonates are more likely to break the Masquerade because they are less dependent on it. As you say, they can still blend into human society if they need to, so the Masquerade seems less important; using mind control to assemble a harem of hotties may seem more important than some silly Masquerade. Elders, on the other hand, would be picked out immediately if humanity became broadly aware of Vampires. Worse, Elders aren't as active or agile as younger vampires; sure they can kill everyone while they're awake, but once the sun rises they are essentially comatose and easy to destroy.


And in general vampires don't solve their issues with violence in VtR. Not only do they still have social institutions that all recognize the legitimate existence of the others, even if they think they are wrong, and uphold a society with ordered rules. They are also not really all that much more capable of combat than humans. And really, neonates are the vampires least inclined to kill as they are more likely to keep the morals that say they shouldn't, as well as the least ability to get away with it. And as humans prove a society of a highly aggressive beings can stay relatively stable without people resorting to murder to settle their issues, even when most people are less than 50. Even a vampiric society not dominated by millenia old elders, would have an average population much higher than that.
Well now, that sort of society sounds sensible if you ignore the fact that every Vampire is supposed to be continually warring with The Beast to keep their enhanced Evil side under control. That struggle to maintain Humanity was another feature of oWoD that I enjoyed; if The Beast is tame enough in nWoD that vampire society is so inherently stable then I'll say they've removed another valuable theme of unlife (IMHO, of course :smallsmile:).

[Terraoblivion]

The beast is so untamed that you have to roll for either frenzy or rötschrek every time you meet a vampire you haven't met before. However, my point is that humans are incredibly violent beings, chimps are about the only other animals as inclined to senseless violence as humans. And again, humanity is the best bulwark against the beast taking over, that makes neonates less likely to suddenly run amuck. Sure they don't have experience with the beast, but they are more likely to be terrified of it than to indulge it. Also, and perhaps most importantly, the vast majority of neonates lack the means to easily and cleanly kill their enemies. It is not like your average lawyer or construction worker is super effective at killing.

Also the immediate focus of a neonate is more on securing themselves from mortal society, such as from having to answer the door during the day or finding an income after becoming unable to keep their job, than on rubbing out rivals. That is in fact the primary way the Carthian Movement recruits members, promising help with the daily necessities of unlife. Also worth noting for you, the cases where vampiric society in a city does collapse it is typically due to the Carthians taking over and upset the established order. Incredibly low population density of vampires also means that there aren't that many causes for conflict at the level of influence a neonate operates on and those there are largely hinges on social advancement in the covenants. Which is where it would be hardest and have the worst consequences if you were to kill your rivals. As well as places where you get taught ideologies of why killing other vampires is wrong.

Also i think you overestimate the frequency of torpor. Any given elder will most likely be around as a vampire for at least three hundred years before going into torpor. That's still older than the typical leadership found in a North American city in VtM, since most of the really old elders didn't take the trip across the ocean and the amount of Native American vampires was quite low. So it is not that elders aren't around in VtR, it is that they are not unbeatable forces of nature who have everyone dancing at their whims.

[Zorzark]

This is an interesting discussion. I've heard a couple of times that oWoD had superior fluff to nWoD, and that nWod sucked the life out of the setting, but I've never heard anyone elaborate. I'm really only familiar with Vampire both ways (and have only played oWoD), and even though I've only read the revised core book and some of the Malkavian clanbook, there's a lot of fluff there that just makes me want to wall bang. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of clans get the description of "hated and feared by other clans." It really starts to stick out after a while :smallconfused:

And then there's the old MET rules, which I don't even begin to understand. Something about betting words on a game of rock paper scissors because adjectives make you more powerful because they act like skills even though there are skills but they don't actually do anything and aaaaaaargh.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Also i think you overestimate the frequency of torpor. Any given elder will most likely be around as a vampire for at least three hundred years before going into torpor. That's still older than the typical leadership found in a North American city in VtM, since most of the really old elders didn't take the trip across the ocean and the amount of Native American vampires was quite low. So it is not that elders aren't around in VtR, it is that they are not unbeatable forces of nature who have everyone dancing at their whims.
Again, I don't see why people are trying to "beat" the Elders - they've been Vampires for longer than your total life/unlife span combined, they should be unbeatable! If a random 12th Gen Vampire is capable of taking on an Elder, then why hasn't someone else taken them down?

IMHO, an unlife where older vampires dominate younger vampires makes more "sense" than one where older vampires and younger vampires are on even power-levels. From what I'm hearing from the nWoD crowd, they prefer the latter - or at least one where toppling an Elder isn't passingly rare.

[The Glyphstone]

Again, I don't see why people are trying to "beat" the Elders - they've been Vampires for longer than your total life/unlife span combined, they should be unbeatable! If a random 12th Gen Vampire is capable of taking on an Elder, then why hasn't someone else taken them down?

IMHO, an unlife where older vampires dominate younger vampires makes more "sense" than one where older vampires and younger vampires are on even power-levels. From what I'm hearing from the nWoD crowd, they prefer the latter - or at least one where toppling an Elder isn't passingly rare.

I get the impression it's not about toppling the Elders so much as the sense of freedom that having toppling an Elder be possible would give. The more you load your setting down with unbeatable uber-NPCs and background characters who control everything, secretly or otherwise, the less space there is for the PCs to do stuff. Ultimately, a game should be about the player characters, and if the setting is so choked with NPC plots and schemes that can't be interfered with, it engenders a feeling of futility - why should they bother with their own schemes, when a background NPC is doing it bigger, better, and can't be stopped?

OWoD, as people have said, seems to have started crumpling under the weight of its own metaplot and the sheer volume of NPCs running Xanatos Gambits on each other, with the PCs as willing minions at best and heedless dupes at worst. NWoD "fixed" the problem by turning Vampire from an infinite line to an infinite loop - the Elders get old and go Torpor, weakening in sleep as the neonates take their place, and when they finally awaken again, they're effectively neonates in power where the old Neonates are the new Elders, and the cycle repeats itself.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I get the impression it's not about toppling the Elders so much as the sense of freedom that having toppling an Elder be possible would give. The more you load your setting down with unbeatable uber-NPCs and background characters who control everything, secretly or otherwise, the less space there is for the PCs to do stuff. Ultimately, a game should be about the player characters, and if the setting is so choked with NPC plots and schemes that can't be interfered with, it engenders a feeling of futility - why should they bother with their own schemes, when a background NPC is doing it bigger, better, and can't be stopped?
People seem to have a fine time with Call of Cthulhu :smallamused:

Rant
Y'see, I suspect that a lot of people who favor nWoD have been burned by ST Fiat in the form of unstoppable Elders in oWoD. However, that is hardly how the setting is presented; by straight fluff, your standard low-gen member of the Prince's Court is hardly going to give you a second glance, let alone some 4th or 5th Gen Elder.

Games should feel more like SR where the PCs are characters trying to achieve their own goals against a backdrop of intrigue set in motion by The Powers That Be: nobody plays SR expecting to topple Azetchnology and nobody cries when one of Aztechnology's hit squads starts chasing you down because you unintentionally broke up one of their backroom deals on your latest run. The main difference is that in SR you're always an operative; oWoD Vampire lets you dream of grandeur in the future.
Finally, let's be clear: Player autonomy is always in the hands of the ST. Yes, the setting doesn't let PCs punch Caine in the face but there's still a lot of real power to be had; with luck, you might be able to become a trusted agent of the Prince and be allowed to command kindred in his name. With skill, you might become Prince, provided you cozy up to the right Elder. However, if your ST is willing to crush your ambitions with Fiat then it doesn't matter which edition you're playing - your autonomy is gone.

EDIT:
Ah, saw the description of the cycle in nWoD. I dislike how it mirrors mortal life - if you're going to have immortals running around, society should look different from what it currently looks like. But hey, YMMV :smalltongue:

[The Glyphstone]

People seem to have a fine time with Call of Cthulhu :smallamused:
:

Thats. Er. Uh. Totally different. Because...it is. Uh-uh. *shifty eyes*


Srs: Humans vs. Unstoppable Eldritch Horrors in one case, Weak Stoppable Vampires vs. Powerful Unstoppable Vampires in the other. Both have unbeatable NPCs, but the one where "they're you, but older and better and you can't win" is different than "they are so different you can't possibly understand them or beat them". It's tone as much as genre, I think.

[BG]

I also think that nWoD does better at actually integrating its systems together. If I want to have fae in a vampire game, I don't have to work to figure out how chimerical damage affects vampires.

Secondly, I like the way that there are more suggestions for backstory, without a hardcore metaplot that limits players. Hey, you can't play Ravnos anymore! Just because we decided that's where the story is going! (Not that I actually liked most people who played Ravnos, but still). I also think that while the Gehenna/Apocalypse stuff added an initial interesting twist to the games, it wasn't something that was ultimately necessary, especially because you're putting a final timeline on your universe.

The other thing I like is the easier integration of character generated stuff. Does your vampire want to make a new bloodline? You can do that, with better guidelines of making one that's balanced. Hell, in a CtL game I ran, half the players came up with their own kiths.

[Semidi]

And don't even get me STARTED on the difference in the LARP systems... (if I never play Rock Paper Scissors again it will be too soon!)



But... But...

I have the bomb and win all ties. Wanna compare traits?



Anyway, that aside. A lot of people have been mentioning things about oWoD as negatives that I consider positives and the same for nWoD (Just in reverse).

The thing I liked about oWoD WAS that your little 13th gen nobody was completely powerless and was being crushed by the oppression of the Camarilla (and God help you if you were Sabbat). You take your little victories when you can but ultimately you're pointless and don't really matter. See, that's kind of an alien concept to bring up on a D&D forum, but it's part of the oWoD game. It's about the story of either being going with the flow (Camarilla) for a little scrap of prestige/surviving, raging against it with little victories but in the end it being pointless (Anarch), or being forced to be free and being in a wacko religious cult where you'll probably die in a crusade.

I also liked the end of the world mythology. But it's a type of thing that just kind of exists, but it never really needed to happen (or just happened really, really slowly). I feel that it just adds this looming sense of horror and dread.

I despise blood potency as a mechanic as apposed to gen. For one reason, it makes elders complete wimps, which means that there's really no reason for elders to be in power. Another is that it removes any temptation for diablorie, which also added to the setting for both neonates and elders. For example, I played a 10th gen Brujah who was a nice enough guy (as far as vampires go), but damn was the temptation to try to diablorize this elder tempting and that same elder probably was paranoid as hell that I was going to get my two blood a round.

There are also things I don't like about nWoD like the focus on covenants as apposed to clan and the lack of culture involving clan. I just don't like the similarities with regard to covenant of all the characters in it. Clan focus adds much more diversity.

That being said I still like and play nWoD, it's just that there are parts I really don't like. There are also parts of oWoD that I don't like. Like Ravnos. I hate Ravnos. Like. A lot. I also don't like pnp mechanics (despite the joke at the beginning I don't really care for LARP mechanics, but nothing sounds as cool as "I have the bomb and I win all ties. I potently punch you in the face." Well cool or dorky. One of the two.

[Solarn]

The thing I liked about oWoD WAS that your little 13th gen nobody was completely powerless and was being crushed by the oppression of the Camarilla (and God help you if you were Sabbat). You take your little victories when you can but ultimately you're pointless and don't really matter. See, that's kind of an alien concept to bring up on a D&D forum, but it's part of the oWoD game. It's about the story of either being going with the flow (Camarilla) for a little scrap of prestige/surviving, raging against it with little victories but in the end it being pointless (Anarch), or being forced to be free and being in a wacko religious cult where you'll probably die in a crusade.
So basically there's no story at all and then you die.

Yeah, great roleplaying material there.

[Satyr]

The closest was Satyr writing a ten page essay on why actively rolling defense was vital for the player to feel involved and important and i somehow doubt anybody else share that view. It also the doesn't touch on the fluff in any meaningful way.

That's a bit overdramatic. Yes, I think that passive defense is bad for games - for once it makes the game more static and therefore predictable, which is the purgatory to the hell of boredom. It also prevents the player from getting actively involved with saving their characters, which in a small way resembles the very real problem of learned helplessness - a known psychological issue (basically: if one can't do anything to help yourself out of trouble, one will "learn" to do nothing to do so and just suffer through any occurring problems. The own decisions are in this context seen as meaningless or worthless. This is a known phenomena which can lead to depression). I also think that it is a good idea for any game to avoid any mechanisms which have these similarities to known cause of unhappiness in the widest sense. It seems to be common sense for me that a "good game" avoids sources of discomfort whenever possible.

[Solarn]

That's a bit overdramatic. Yes, I think that passive defense is bad for games - for once it makes the game more static and therefore predictable, which is the purgatory to the hell of boredom. It also prevents the player from getting actively involved with saving their characters, which in a small way resembles the very real problem of learned helplessness - a known psychological issue (basically: if one can't do anything to help yourself out of trouble, one will "learn" to do nothing to do so and just suffer through any occurring problems. The own decisions are in this context seen as meaningless or worthless. This is a known phenomena which can lead to depression). I also think that it is a good idea for any game to avoid any mechanisms which have these similarities to known cause of unhappiness in the widest sense. It seems to be common sense for me that a "good game" avoids sources of discomfort whenever possible.
Is that even a quantifiable thing? I mean, are there any cases apart from hearsay where a normal gameplay element in a roleplaying game had any lasting effect on a player's psyche? Players who were already mentally unstable don't count.

Also, I am mildly entomophobic and yet RPGs continue to feature bug-based monsters, often deliberately grotesque ones. These are not good games.

[comicshorse]

Geez what did the Ravnos do to annoy everybody ?

[Solarn]

Geez what did the Ravnos do to annoy everybody ?
Be racial stereotypes?

[comicshorse]

Not if you're playing the Sabbat type

[Satyr]

Is that even a quantifiable thing? I mean, are there any cases apart from hearsay where a normal gameplay element in a roleplaying game had any lasting effect on a player's psyche? Players who were already mentally unstable don't count.

Does it need to be quantifiable to be a concern in theory? Has anybody the ressources or time to actually make a study about this? I only say that there are certain, not very strong similarities, and as such that's enough for me to avoid it when there is a simple and elegant alternative: Just let your players roll, or otherwise influence the outcome.

And yes, I also usually ask players if they are uncomfortable with certain elements of plot or rules before the first game session and won't try to confront them with any elements they genuinely dislike. if you ask me, that's basic level gaming politeness.

[Yuki Akuma]

I don't like active defenses because they make PbP combat slow down to an even slower crawl.

[Solarn]

Does it need to be quantifiable to be a concern in theory? Has anybody the ressources or time to actually make a study about this? I only say that there are certain, not very strong similarities, and as such that's enough for me to avoid it when there is a simple and elegant alternative: Just let your players roll, or otherwise influence the outcome.
With that attitude, you'd need to be afraid of literally everything though. A nasty cough could easily be the beginnings of tuberculosis or the sign of an immune system weakened by AIDS. The sound of an unusually loud airplane engine getting closer could very well be because the plane is going to crash on your head. The list could go on, but just because these things could also theoretically mean the worst possible event they could accompany, that doesn't mean you should seriously consider it as a possibility unless there's evidence towards it.

And yes, I also usually ask players if they are uncomfortable with certain elements of plot or rules before the first game session and won't try to confront them with any elements they genuinely dislike. if you ask me, that's basic level gaming politeness.
I was being sarcastic. I don't believe my entomophobia, mild as it is, entitles me to control what aspects of a game others playing with me are allowed to see any more than I believe a fear of passive defenses in a roleplaying game maybe possibly engendering a tiny, passing feeling of learned helplessness, a fear that is so unlikely to ever be relevant as to not be quantifiable, is a good argument for active defenses, even if the latter slow gameplay down to a crawl. If something about a game I was playing in bugged me, but didn't bug any of the other players, I would leave that game, simple as that.

[Thiyr]

I despise blood potency as a mechanic as apposed to gen. For one reason, it makes elders complete wimps, which means that there's really no reason for elders to be in power. Another is that it removes any temptation for diablorie, which also added to the setting for both neonates and elders. For example, I played a 10th gen Brujah who was a nice enough guy (as far as vampires go), but damn was the temptation to try to diablorize this elder tempting and that same elder probably was paranoid as hell that I was going to get my two blood a round.

How is it that blood potency makes elders weaker, or makes diablerie any less of a temptation? In my experience in nWoD, elders were something to be feared and respected just long enough for you to get behind them and put a knife in their back. The elders that survive and succeed are the ones that are skilled enough not only to keep people from betraying them, but also are capable of setting up a quick track to power if they get put into torpor (presuming the torpor was involuntary. If you voluntarily go into torpor, you at least have some control over how long you're out, allowing you to regulate potency easier).

Diablerie is there as an option as a quick route to power, though. Do you do that which will make you a major enemy of others in order to accelerate your ascent by fifty years? There are risks, but the rewards can be worth it to some (especially players). Compare to oWoD, where eventually you will need to diablerize someone, it's just a matter of time. Instead of being the "easy route", it's the only route. Diablerie can easily make for a major impact on setting as well. To illustrate, the setting for a series of games I was in a few years back had the power players of the city banning the use of Auspex. Players were cautioned by their sires, or by the DM if they lacked a sire, that using Auspex in an obvious manner was not a smart idea. The big reason was, obviously, that auspex revealed the damaged aura indicative of one who committed diablerie. It was a blessing and a curse, but it was a nice touch to how the world was run.


There are also things I don't like about nWoD like the focus on covenants as apposed to clan and the lack of culture involving clan. I just don't like the similarities with regard to covenant of all the characters in it. Clan focus adds much more diversity.

And here I disagree. Covenants led to a lot more diversity in comparison to my (admittedly limited) experience with oWoD's clans. Clan "culture" served as a straightjacket, such that if I wanted a character that did something specific in a mechanical sense, would force me into a set of stereotypes which, regardless of my character, would be assumed and acted upon by every person around me, party included. personal example, a PI focusing on stealth, intending to use auspex and obfuscate would be forced to be a Malk. I ended up not playing that for not wanting to be insane, and tried to do that into a different clan, deciding on assamite. Which did the same thing, ultimately meaning I was assumed to be an assassin, and was distrusted by everyone in the group, regardless of my actions in support of others. By contrast, my first character in nWoD (and ever for that matter, prebuilt, admittedly), was a gangrel archeologist-activist, and mostly a non-combatant. He wasn't judged for being a gangrel, though. He was judged for being in the Ordo Dracul, a choice he made, because it was fitting in what he would do with himself (study and try to better himself). If I hadn't wanted to be in the Ordo, though, I could still have the same basic character concept, and people wouldn't associate me with them or their stereotypes. Ultimately, then, I found that while there was diversity in having clan culture as in oWoD, the fact that you would be so similar to your sire, who would be so similar to his sire, and that's how it was expected to be by everyone was uninteresting. I much prefer that a childe can separate himself from his sire's choices and do something entirely different if he wants, and while he will be judged for it, his judgement is on what he did, not that he did it. [/rant]

[hiryuu]

Changeling was just about the only oWoD game that I don't remember being about the inevitable end of the world as we know it and I might simply be forgetting something.

You are forgetting that all Changelings will be overcome with banality and forget who they are, join the head-bobbing workforce, die, and be reborn... and that Sluagh are fey on their last incarnations. Fey will never get back to Arcadia. They're trapped on this side of the Gauntlet and are condemned to forget who they are and die, over and over, until they reach absolute oblivion, and only when they reach the brink of that oblivion do they fully and truly realize what's been happening, but it doesn't matter because they cease to exist. Forever.

New Changeling is hopeful by contrast.

I like new WoD for the personal emphasis it creates. Mechanically, there is one thing that bothers me, and that's fighting styles. For next to no xp investment, and still be capable of making a well-rounded character, you can make a mortal with four attacks with pistols with around 17-18 dice each, simply because fighting styles are so cheap. To put that in perspective, supernatural powers often cost x4 to x8 xp per dot, and don't offer extra actions, and in fact, most of the choices are inferior to purchasing a fighting style or raising a skill. Not to mention that supernatural stats cost x8 per dot. For a game about short-term benefits being long term hindrances, it sure does do the reverse in that case (heck, even buying up your actual Strength is equivalent to buying dots in Vigor, once Vigor hits your Strength total, and so on).

[BG]

I also agree that Covenants add a nice aspect to gameplay, again because the characters choose them.

The other thing that I think is done better is a better sense of balance. I realize that not every RPG system needs to be super mechanically balanced, but the issues in oWoD were many. Wanted to be a combatant but didn't have celerity? You're up a creek. Or clan flaws, if you're Gangrel, you can eventually become bestial....which in the end is still better than the Nosferatu appearance of zero.

Also as far as Ravnos go, yeah, they were built on old Roma stereotypes. I'm not sure about other people, but the players who tended to congregate towards Ravnos were the kind of players that annoyed me ("I'm a total klepto! All the time! Illusory fire!").

[Lord_Gareth]

Okay, there seems to be some confusion on the subject of nWoD elders, possibly because folks haven't actually read the book(s). Allow me to explain exactly what happens and why elders are still the guys in power (and yet surmountable):

The older a vampire gets, the higher Blood Potency soars (at the rate of either one dot per fifty years or new dots x8 XP, whatever comes first), but only while they're awake. The current crop of elders in most places come from the Old World and came on ships when the US was still being colonized. They had the advantage of experience in the Requiem, personal power, and mortal connections. As the years marched on, these attributes (including, especially, and most importantly mortal connections) only intensify.

With the backing of their covenant, most elders in that power stay that way unless supplanted by a rival of similar puissant ability that manages to suborn, compromise, or slaughter their allies, especially if they're clever and reward their allies (which gets into further themes of subinfeudation that simply did not exist in oWoD) with feeding rights, actual territories, and privileges that allow/force them to run parts of the local Domain. These allies have a vested interest in keeping said elder in power, since THEIR power relies on said elder being in the position that they're in.

Eventually, after three hundred years or so on average, an elder must either become a headhunter (a vampire who feeds on other vampires) or else prepare for an engage in torpor to thin their blood. At this point, they typically take a childe, which enters play at the same 1 BP everyone else does. However, this neonate has one advantage no other neonate does - access to his sire's resources, which are typically handed over after an initial breaking-in period when the sire finally arranges the last of his pawns and sinks into torpor.

Upon rising again, the sire may be weak (lowered blood potency, typically down to 2-5 as opposed to 6-9), but their knowledge of Disciplines, the socio-political game, and the nature of the Damned remain untouched. More importantly, Blood Potency is lost more rapidly than its gained, giving them an even footing with their childe in terms of raw potency. With that in mind, in any personal match the elder who remembers how to crush wills is going to beat out the one who's still stuck on complex sentences for commands. Most neonates will cooperate with their former sire at this point, appointing them to the Primogen (ruling council, no longer synonymous with clan membership) or into a similar advisory position if they don't outright step down (not actually as common as has been suggested thus far). Eventually, the neonate must sleep, but they now have someone they can (kinda) trust to take the reins back, and thus does the incestuous cycle of Kindred politics continue.

[hiryuu]

Don't forget they'd also be a horrible anachronism. Imagine if William McKinley woke up and tried to become president again and run things like it was the 1890s.

Not just William McKinley, but a McKinley with no actual emotions and lacking the ability to grow and learn as a person. Don't forget, Requiem vampires (and Masquerade vampires, if the NPC writers had paid attention to the fluff) are mentally locked into the person they were when they were embraced. That is to say, they could become more skilled or pretend to have an emotion, but they won't change or develop further as a person. A child vampire embraced as a child is now a child forever.

The elder runs things because that's the way it's done, and vampires have trouble thinking outside the box, not because it's the wise thing to do for personal power. In the end, they're parasites of humanity, not really capable of being imaginative enough to rise to the sort of power you'd expect if humans got their hands on mind control powers and addictive blood.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Not just William McKinley, but a McKinley with no actual emotions and lacking the ability to grow and learn as a person. Don't forget, Requiem vampires (and Masquerade vampires, if the NPC writers had paid attention to the fluff) are mentally locked into the person they were when they were embraced. That is to say, they could become more skilled or pretend to have an emotion, but they won't change or develop further as a person. A child vampire embraced as a child is now a child forever.
...this is the first I heard of that. Where does it say that people can't progress mentally once they're Embraced? How does that jive with character development generally, and Humanity in specific?

[Lord_Gareth]

...this is the first I heard of that. Where does it say that people can't progress mentally once they're Embraced? How does that jive with character development generally, and Humanity in specific?

It's mentioned repeatedly through V:tR and passingly in V:tM in the main book.

Essentially speaking, while a vampire can grow more intelligent and learn new facts, they are emotionally stagnant - almost emotionally dead, really. What's left of their soul applies echoes of former emotions to current experiences; that is, an angry vampire is actually angry, but the anger itself is the leftover from something that happened earlier in their life. They can't become more mature or learn new emotions after the embrace. If you embraced someone who had never been sad or emotionally distressed or even afraid, they would be literally incapable of these emotions.

The only exception is emotions granted by the Beast; all forms of Frenzy are felt body and soul, irregardless of personal experience.

EDIT: In terms of Humanity, this is the reason vampires don't gain Humanity for exceptionally virtuous actions. As the Beast takes hold, the vampire in question must strive harder and harder to remember what it was like to be human and to re-gain those mores and emotions once more, and this becomes harder and harder as their own morality crumbles. Honestly, the reason most vampires end up as selfish pricks isn't because of any inherent spiritual evil; it's sheer exhaustion. After a hundred years of struggling with the beast, can you muster the will to be appalled at committing a crime (let's say manslaughter) that you've committed dozens, maybe hundreds of times before?

[BG]

The discussion of blood potency also reminded me of something I like better about nWoD: the ability to easily play old vampires.

Sure, in oWoD you could play an old vampire coming out of torpor, but if you were 1000 years old and still 13th Gen? I mean, it's explainable, sure, but not easily so. With blood potency, you can open up a lot more character concepts, and have more intricate backstories from back when your character was young and powerful.

I and a lot of friends of mine all had character concepts at one point or other that involved playing an old vampire, and now it's much more elegantly built into the system.

[Kurald Galain]

As a decorated veteran of the latest Edition Warz, I'm not touching 3.5 v. 4 :smalltongue:
Ironically, I'm quite sure there's three editions of oWOD, making nWOD the fourth edition of Vampire :smallbiggrin:


Sure, in oWoD you could play an old vampire coming out of torpor, but if you were 1000 years old and still 13th Gen?If you want to play a 1000-year-old vamp, why would you not start with 8th generation? That's a standard rule and pretty obvious. If you want to play a top-class athlete, you're not going to start with a dexterity of 1, either.

[Yuki Akuma]

If you want to play a 1000-year-old vamp, why would you not start with 8th generation? That's a standard rule and pretty obvious. If you want to play a top-class athlete, you're not going to start with a dexterity of 1, either.

Because you might want the backstory and diplomatic perks, but not the raw power?

Which is why nWoD Vampire is better for that character concept.

[Kurald Galain]

Because you might want the backstory and diplomatic perks, but not the raw power?
Putting five dots in the "generation" background really isn't much in terms of "raw power". A true powerful elder gets higher attributs and 20-30 dots in disciplines; a merely old vamp that's slept a long time does not. There certainly are flaws in oWOD but this isn't one.

[Terraoblivion]

If you want to play a 1000-year-old vamp, why would you not start with 8th generation? That's a standard rule and pretty obvious. If you want to play a top-class athlete, you're not going to start with a dexterity of 1, either.

You mean apart from the fact that treating Generation as an ordinary background would be utterly broken and flat out insane and the book just about says as much?

And Oracle Hunter, both the CoC and SR examples are different. Glyphstone pointed out the difference in nature and purpose of CoC. For SR there is the crucial difference that you are, by default, a free agent who hires yourself out to the megacorps. You aren't some gopher who gets ordered around by a guy you can't touch and can only choose whether to obey to better your career or to hide out as the vampiric equivalent of a hobo not to obey. And it was, as written, flatly impossible for a 13th generation to become anything important because not only could anybody who wanted to dominate you, you were a higher generation than them after all, but everybody considered you an unimportant wimp. You could easily forget about achieving any significant position in your clan or the city administration, you were simply too high generation for that.

That puts a rather big limit on the stories that can be told. And that is where my problem lies. It limits the creative freedom of both players and GMs more than the concept really suggests it should and that is a problem. Every game of VtM i've played, and given that it is actually the system i've played the most that's a lot, ended up being very similar because you had a very limited amount of set pieces that could only be organized in a very limited manner and similarly the amount of possible characters was quite small. Of course, there were cosmetic differences, but that didn't change that even the details of the game were quite similar. There wasn't the option of having an impending revolution or vicious political infighting between two factions rallying supporters for the big clash. There wasn't even really any support for a personal story about coming to terms with your loss of humanity, though that was more because WW didn't quite realize it might be all that important back then. There was just sitting around trying not to insult any of the people who actually mattered or being a henchman of one power hungry old bastard in his struggles against another power hungry old bastard. It was just extremely samey.

[Kurald Galain]

You mean apart from the fact that treating Generation as an ordinary background would be utterly broken and flat out insane and the book just about says as much?
Where does the book say so, then? "Flat out insane" is a description of Malkavians, not backgrounds; and "utterly broken" is a D&D term and really doesn't apply to any RPG other than D&D*.

Generation is an ordinary background, and has been so since the first edition, and generation/5 really isn't any more overpowered than e.g. resources/5 or mentor/5.

*(why? because D&D is the only RPG I'm aware of that thinks "game balance" is either a big deal, or an achievable design goal in the first place)

[comicshorse]

And it was, as written, flatly impossible for a 13th generation to become anything important because not only could anybody who wanted to dominate you, you were a higher generation than them after all, but everybody considered you an unimportant wimp. You could easily forget about achieving any significant position in your clan or the city administration, you were simply too high generation for that.

. There wasn't the option of having an impending revolution or vicious political infighting between two factions rallying supporters for the big clash. There wasn't even really any support for a personal story about coming to terms with your loss of humanity, though that was more because WW didn't quite realize it might be all that important back then. There was just sitting around trying not to insult any of the people who actually mattered or being a henchman of one power hungry old bastard in his struggles against another power hungry old bastard. It was just extremely samey.

Kinda true but that's because quite frankly starting as 13th Gen was the equivalent to starting with a massive social flaw. Start at a more reasonable gen., say 8th-10th and anything is possible. It's made quite clear there are Princes in that Generation range. Or merely Sheriff's or Primogens if you want to go for a more reasonable ambition.
As far lack of revolution may I point out the Anarch revolt, the LA Coup , the Sabbat formation and numerous other canon succesful revolts.

[Terraoblivion]

I don't have the book any longer, but if i recall Generation specifically has a clause recommending that the GM decides on a suitable level for everyone involved.

And utterly broken is not uniquely a D&D concept. It is a concept found in any system that has external conflict as the driving force and VtM certainly has that. It isn't physical conflict, that's true, but it is conflict. And if Generation is valued the same as other backgrounds it throws any kind of parity between characters out of loop. Generation gives not just larger blood pools it also allows the following: The use of more disciplines per turn, a much greater social status, defenses against a long list of other disciplines and a the same disciplines being of greater efficiency. It is especially important in games where the characters aren't close friends, but might try to cause actual harm to each other.

And comicshorse, the game was made based on the assumption that the players would be 13th generation. There is a reason that is the base one and if you look at everything written, it has the core idea that the players will start out as the small fry of the last truly vampiric generation. So i have largely argued from this assumption being in effect, though really moving the assumed generation lower just changes it to never really having to worry about your underlings, since they are too low generation. The actual problem in this case is that there is a single aspect of the game that overrides all else in significance, with no safe or easy ways to overcome that. I cannot claim that is very good design.

As for your example of revolts. Not only are three revolts over the last six hundred years, not exactly very much, especially not when two of them, the Anarch Revolt and the formation of the Sabbat, are essentially the same revolution. Not only that, in this case elders were heavily involved in the events, making it more along the lines of a top level squabble between those who actually mattered. Similarly the second Anarch Revolt, the 1944 one, was led by a group of centuries old elders. Sure they were Anarch elders, but they were still elders. Also these are the only examples of an even remotely successful rebellion i have seen mentioned anywhere in the setting and ultimately they come down to the rebels being foot soldiers in the feuds between elders. So i still think it is reasonable to say that you cannot really have a story of a revolution in VtM.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Every game of VtM i've played, and given that it is actually the system i've played the most that's a lot, ended up being very similar because you had a very limited amount of set pieces that could only be organized in a very limited manner and similarly the amount of possible characters was quite small.
I think this is the definition of a personal problem.

Even in the most restrictive system I've played (Mountain Witch - everyone is a Ronin and you're climbing Mount Fuji for the entire campaign) doesn't have this problem; and in my experience with oWoD Vampire this certainly hasn't been the case. As I've said before, it really does sound like you've had bad ST experiences - or you're looking to play Hearts while everyone else is playing Poker.

Trying to play a 13th Gen vampire and achieve Real Ultimate Power is like trying to do the same as a 9 INT Wizard in D&D: you've placed a serious roadblock between yourself and success before you even get out the front door. The fact that such roadblocks exist doesn't make oWoD a bad system by any means.

N.B. I do not mean to downplay the situation you've experienced - ST Tyranny is a persistant flaw in WW products. This is not to say ST autonomy is bad, but too much of the system is designed to make the ST feel justified in railroading the heck out of you. Worse, the mechanics in both systems are designed so loosely that there is no such thing as a straightforward roll: even nWoD assumes that every roll has the ST adding and subtracting dice from your pool without providing more than the roughest of guidelines for why he should be modifying it at all.

Odds & Ends

And Oracle Hunter, both the CoC and SR examples are different. Glyphstone pointed out the difference in nature and purpose of CoC. For SR there is the crucial difference that you are, by default, a free agent who hires yourself out to the megacorps. You aren't some gopher who gets ordered around by a guy you can't touch and can only choose whether to obey to better your career or to hide out as the vampiric equivalent of a hobo not to obey.
Clearly you've never played a game of SR where a corp plants a cranial bomb in your head :smalltongue:

And I have to disagree with Glyphstone's attempt to distinguish oWoD Vampire & CoC - older Vampires aren't like you; they're eldritch horrors who have only a passing resemblance to other kindred, much less humanity. Treating a Methuselah or Antediluvian like another person is a quick ticket to a painful Final Death :smallamused:

EDIT:
I think it's obvious that you can have an oWoD game about an attempted revolution - just like you can run a FR D&D campaign about overthrowing the gods. The fact that revolutions are rare is merely a reflection of an otherwise intrinsically stable system; the fact that the fluff says this system is now breaking down only heightens the terror experienced by its members.

Also - it's as obvious that you're supposed to start as a 13th Gen Vampire as it is that you should be penniless, mentorless, and alone. All three of those are resolved by the RAW of Backgrounds - you can start with a mentor, resources, and a Gen of less than 13.

[comicshorse]

What the game started off recommending and what it developed into are two entirely separate things. I've NEVER played in a game or heard of a game where the G.M. enforced generation on the players.
I'm not exactly certain what you feel is missing from V:TM, do you want to run a game where the P.C.s can rule the world ? Because while that is impossible in the game I'd say its impossible in most other systems. With a decent Gen ( and yes I accept that it is worth a lot more than most Backgrounds) it is entirely possible to run political campaigns where the P.Cs can rise to positions of importance within the city. Yes this often involves alliances with older Kindred but name me a system where you can rise to political power without courting the favour of the powers-that-be.

On an entirely seperate note I very much like the idea of Sire and Childe lap-frogging down the ages. Exchanging power, it strikes me as very similair to the set-up in 'UNDERWORLD' with the three elders exchanging power every century or so. Hmmm, perhaps the creators of 'UNDERWORLD' should sue White Wolf for stealing their ideas :smallsmile:

[Lord_Gareth]

Underworld (the card game) came up with the idea decades before White Wolf :P

@Hunter - Any comments on my explanation of the whole 'ageless jerk' phenomenon?

[Oracle_Hunter]

@Hunter - Any comments on my explanation of the whole 'ageless jerk' phenomenon?
...well, the description of how older vampires ultimately lose their Humanity jives with what I remember, but I still can't get over this idea of "freezing" people's minds when they Embrace. I've never seen, nor heard, of it anywhere in reference to oWoD and - done as you've described it - it seems like a mind-blowingly stupid thing to include in a RPG. If your mindset is frozen, how do you develop? If it can develop, then can you really say it's frozen?

I wish I still had my Vampire books (currently being "borrowed" by a friend working on a campaign for the past few years) so that I could look it up. It just doesn't seem right.

[Lord_Gareth]

It's not exactly mindset, though. It's emotional development. You can get smarter, more cunning, have better capabilities, even learn new Skills (albeit at some difficulty; this is less a symptom of being a vampire and more of waking up after a century of technological development and going, "Okay, what the HELL?"). What you WON'T do is grow more mature, develop emotionally, et cetera, so forth. That's part of the reason that many elder vampires will champion causes (like, say, racial segregation) that are a century or more out of date, simply because they're too old, stubborn, or inflexible to do otherwise.

[Oracle_Hunter]

It's not exactly mindset, though. It's emotional development. You can get smarter, more cunning, have better capabilities, even learn new Skills (albeit at some difficulty; this is less a symptom of being a vampire and more of waking up after a century of technological development and going, "Okay, what the HELL?"). What you WON'T do is grow more mature, develop emotionally, et cetera, so forth. That's part of the reason that many elder vampires will champion causes (like, say, racial segregation) that are a century or more out of date, simply because they're too old, stubborn, or inflexible to do otherwise.
...then how do you gain Humanity? Isn't that the same as "maturity?" And I find it hard to believe that WW would ever contruct a system which says "no emotional development" to its Players; the company does nothing but turn out games that provoke Teh Dramaz! :smallannoyed:

[Lord_Gareth]

Humanity doesn't represent emotional maturity, no. Humanity is a measure of a vampire's morality based on the nigh-universal standards humans generally follow as well as the clarity of their memories of life. A high Humanity vampire uses their morals (no killing, no stealing, et cetera, so forth) as an attempt to stave off being a selfish, cold-hearted monster, because following these laws and remembering WHY you're following them helps keep an empathic perspective with beings you can no longer truly understand.

The big draw for V:tR isn't the concept of emotional development as such. It's the struggle with the Beast, with Kindred society. The question that is not asked, but is constantly prevalent, is how far will you go to survive? Will you attack innocents night after night, potentially killing them, to survive? Will you join a corrupt political system that is slowly corrupting your city (even if it tries to improve or preserve parts)? Will you strike out against the system and suffer the consequences of success (if you even achieve it)? And if you do destroy yourself instead, what will you do to stop the thing that made you from simply making another?

V:tR, as has been stated before, is a very personal game. It's about what the players will do when the only options are bad and worse and fighting for what's good, right, or just is even harder than in the normal world of darkness. It's about the players exploring just what it really means to be a monster and finding out where they draw the line in the sand. Everything else is, ultimately, just a backdrop to that theme, just different methods of exploring it, but it's not so obvious that players can't miss it (or ignore it).

That's the reason folks who like (or converted to, in my case) nWoD complain about the indomitable power of elders and the Antediluvian sub-plot; because things aren't personal. Because no matter how much power you amass or how many allies you have or even how good a person you are, you're screwed. You're a pawn, a puppet, a toy, and in several cases where the ST decides to blow the End Times plot, you become an instant snack and roll a new character (Tzimice, anyone?). There are other complaints about V:tM that I can make, but this is the biggest one; no matter what you do, even the local Archon is an untouchable god with power you'll never know. Why do anything? Why get Embraced at all? You're worthless.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The big draw for V:tM isn't the concept of emotional development as such. It's the struggle with the Beast, with Kindred society. The question that is not asked, but is constantly prevalent, is how far will you go to survive? Will you attack innocents night after night, potentially killing them, to survive? Will you join a corrupt political system that is slowly corrupting your city (even if it tries to improve or preserve parts)? Will you strike out against the system and suffer the consequences of success (if you even achieve it)? And if you do destroy yourself instead, what will you do to stop the thing that made you from simply making another?

V:tM, as has been stated before, is a very personal game. It's about what the players will do when the only options are bad and worse and fighting for what's good, right, or just is even harder than in the normal world of darkness. It's about the players exploring just what it really means to be a monster and finding out where they draw the line in the sand. Everything else is, ultimately, just a backdrop to that theme, just different methods of exploring it, but it's not so obvious that players can't miss it (or ignore it).
Fixed that for you :smalltongue:

Basically, there is nothing in oWoD Vampire that precludes the above from being true there; in fact, the above serves as an excellent summary of the oWoD game.

As I've said before, the complaints centering on elder power remains baffling to me - it's like saying that because you can never run a megacorp, you shouldn't play SR; or that you should never play CoC because you can't beat the Elder Gods. Aside from those aims being antithetical to claims of focusing on the personal (what's personal about positional power?) there is a lot that can be done - both personally and power-wise - below the level of Big Cheese.

If you're not interested in working within a byzantine political system then oWoD Vampire is obviously not for you. For me, that's why I play oWoD Vampire; so far I've seen nothing in nWoD fluff that can replicate that feel.

[Lord_Gareth]

ARGH!

Alright, lemme try this one more time - you know that wonderful byzantine political system that oWoD vamp has going?

Players cannot participate unless they are elders.

THAT is the problem. RIGHT THERE. There's no method by which to challenge those that already hold power. It doesn't MATTER if you're smarter. It doesn't MATTER if you're up to date on the modern world. The best you can hope is to suck up to an actual elder and support THEIR bid for power. Forget power in the actual Camarilla - you can't even get power in YOUR OWN CITY. Do you wanna protect your family or friends? Good luck. If they're under threat from anything but another neonate, you're screwed. THAT is the problem. There's NO HOPE FOR ADVANCEMENT. There's no chance to get any better.

Getting worse, WW made a HUGE DEAL about the end times. I dunno about you, but I'd love to be able to, say, run a game where the players try to save the world, but no. That's not gonna fly. Look, being completely screwed works in a Cosmic Horror setting like CoC, but not in a personal horror game like WoD. As for the Shadowrun comparison, it doesn't fit, especially since a successful 'runner might actually amass enough funds to go legit and - wait for it - buy into a megacorp. Neonates in oWoD are boned, they get boned, and then they remain boned. There's no recourse for them short of diablerie or death, and both are bad options.

Is my point ANY clearer now?

[Tiki Snakes]

ARGH!

Alright, lemme try this one more time - you know that wonderful byzantine political system that oWoD vamp has going?

Players cannot participate unless they are elders.

THAT is the problem. RIGHT THERE. There's no method by which to challenge those that already hold power. It doesn't MATTER if you're smarter. It doesn't MATTER if you're up to date on the modern world. The best you can hope is to suck up to an actual elder and support THEIR bid for power. Forget power in the actual Camarilla - you can't even get power in YOUR OWN CITY. Do you wanna protect your family or friends? Good luck. If they're under threat from anything but another neonate, you're screwed. THAT is the problem. There's NO HOPE FOR ADVANCEMENT. There's no chance to get any better.

Getting worse, WW made a HUGE DEAL about the end times. I dunno about you, but I'd love to be able to, say, run a game where the players try to save the world, but no. That's not gonna fly. Look, being completely screwed works in a Cosmic Horror setting like CoC, but not in a personal horror game like WoD. As for the Shadowrun comparison, it doesn't fit, especially since a successful 'runner might actually amass enough funds to go legit and - wait for it - buy into a megacorp. Neonates in oWoD are boned, they get boned, and then they remain boned. There's no recourse for them short of diablerie or death, and both are bad options.

Is my point ANY clearer now?

As far as I can see, a portion of the oWoD preference boils down to you should be boned, and remain boned. A kind of YMMV It's not a bug, it's a feature situation.

[Oracle_Hunter]

ARGH!

Alright, lemme try this one more time - you know that wonderful byzantine political system that oWoD vamp has going?

Players cannot participate unless they are elders.
Which is simply wrong. No oWoD source says "high Gen vampires cannot participate in Camarilla politics;" in fact, read over the oWoD sourcebooks and I think you'll see things are presented quite differently. The night-to-night running of a city depends on youngbloods - not to mention all the Anarchs running through the streets and causing trouble. Even a 13th Gen isn't just "boned" from the get go; however, he certainly is not going to be able to bull his way up the ranks like a lower Gen might.

I think you have a very skewed view of oWoD fluff. At this point all I can do is disagree with you unless one of us decides to start quoting source text - which I certainly am not :smalltongue:

EDIT: I don't know about you, but a pre-SR4 'runner buying into a megacorp is as likely as a oWoD neonates ascending to Prince by diablrie - possible, but unlikely and out of character to say the least!

[comicshorse]

ARGH!

Alright, lemme try this one more time - you know that wonderful byzantine political system that oWoD vamp has going?

Players cannot participate unless they are elders.

THAT is the problem. RIGHT THERE. There's no method by which to challenge those that already hold power. It doesn't MATTER if you're smarter. It doesn't MATTER if you're up to date on the modern world. The best you can hope is to suck up to an actual elder and support THEIR bid for power. Forget power in the actual Camarilla - you can't even get power in YOUR OWN CITY. Do you wanna protect your family or friends? Good luck. If they're under threat from anything but another neonate, you're screwed. THAT is the problem. There's NO HOPE FOR ADVANCEMENT. There's no chance to get any better.

Getting worse, WW made a HUGE DEAL about the end times. I dunno about you, but I'd love to be able to, say, run a game where the players try to save the world, but no. That's not gonna fly. Look, being completely screwed works in a Cosmic Horror setting like CoC, but not in a personal horror game like WoD. As for the Shadowrun comparison, it doesn't fit, especially since a successful 'runner might actually amass enough funds to go legit and - wait for it - buy into a megacorp. Neonates in oWoD are boned, they get boned, and then they remain boned. There's no recourse for them short of diablerie or death, and both are bad options.

Is my point ANY clearer now?

( Kinda feel like I'm intruding on a private argument here but I'll add my two pence)
The point is perfectly clear, I just don't agree with it.
The vital part is :
Players cannot participate unless they are elders.
Which should say : Players cannot participate, at a world changing level, unless they are elders.
But there is intrigue, manipulation and backstabbing galore to be had at a city level which the players can get stuck into and enjoy and even win power and position for themselves. I totally agree with Oracle Hunter, where did the idea that you have to be able to affect the fate of the world to have fun in a game come from.
And in SR if you buy into a Megacorp you will, unsuprisingly, find you are a tiny fish swimming in the same pond as the huge financial powers that control the beast.

[Terraoblivion]

No, it's not about actually having personal power, comicshorse. It is about the potential to achieve it existing and what that means for the choices of the characters in question. It influences how the elders will view you, after all you are a potential rival no matter who your sire were, it influences how other neonates see you, as an actual rival. Being perpetually stuck at the bottom of the heap doesn't make for a compelling story, because the field of choices of how to deal with it is quite limited. When it is possible to achieve either political power or personal might, you are faced with having to determine how to react to that. Do you suck up to those in charge to pave the way for your own ascension? Do you not care and just want to be left alone, something that will sooner or later fail as you grow more personally powerful? Do you try to tear down the established order and replace it with someone else? Do you generally lack ambition but want to hang out with likeminded people for mutual protection? How far are you willing to go to achieve any of these goals? There are choices to be found in the possibility of power existing, even if you don't act on that possibility.

Ultimately i don't care about achieving the power if my character failing would create a more interesting story, but the possibility needs to be there for there to be a story at all. Playing a high generation vampire in VtM is playing a character in 1984, you don't really get any interesting choices of what to do since your power and potential for power is so limited, yet society is so cutthroat that you need power to not just be a tool.

And the page count dedicated to the personal aspects of being a vampire in VtM is miniscule compared to that found in VtR. VtM by and large spends its energy detailing the ancient plots of ancient vampires that you ultimately can't affect. How is that a useful way of spending your energy? What do these details really add that a plot created by the GM couldn't replicate. VtR on the other hand always focuses its descriptions on fleshing out the details that make the vampiric condition seem real to you. That show what you will do as a vampire, what problems you will face in your daily life and what exactly the draw and role of the social groupings are. Instead of describing what Ventrue McInvictus did five hundred years ago, it shows why a newly embraced person in the modern world would join a social grouping dedicated to ancient social customs and maintaining the status quo. It develops the theology and liturgy of both the religious covenants, goes into the philosophy of the one dedicated to research and self-improvement and truly works out the ideologies behind the two political ones. It provides details that are useful, not preexisting plots, which i have always found to be the greatest waste of space to include in any system.

[comicshorse]

Interestingly I agree with pretty much everything you said there. Though I'm going to have to take the stuff about the V:tR on faith as I only just started playing it and haven't read any of the books. Though this really encourages me to do so ( Though on a side-note I have found Clan to still be important to my Gangrel, more important than my Covenant though I've only just joined that and the Ordo Dracul don't seem the most cosy of groups. Also our ST also ran OWoD so that could be a hang-over.)
I quite agree that the labyrinthine meta-plot at the end got too much and so was happy to see OWoD wrapped up before it collapsed under its own weight.
The only thing I disagree with is some of the points of the background. Perhaps it comes from being a history buff but I loved the Kindred histories and seeing how the ancient feuds oplayed themselves out int he modern nights. And how the P.C.s could use them to their advantage/ get sucked in a and destroyed by them.
And again I disagree that the potential for power and position where as limited as you portray

[Terraoblivion]

I'll be honest. I don't think it was meant to be that way. It was just that when WW was still in the relatively early stages of developing VtM no one really understood effective developing a setting beyond the initial sketch. And like so many others at the time they went the path of metaplot and that heavily skewed the perception of what was and wasn't possible. And towards the end there was probably even so much that if you stuck to it all actual limitations crept in.

Mostly, however, as i see it VtR and VtM tries to do the same thing, create personal horror and political struggles among the undead. I just think that VtR succeeds much better at evoking that by keeping its focus, rather than beginning to detail things that are ultimately irrelevant and distracts from what the focus should be. As i understand it, the clans were also a lot broader and more inclusive early on, before the tangled weed of the metaplot added piles of history and strange customs and restrictions to them.

And personally i found the ancient vampiric histories to be quite dull to read and that they added nothing to the actual game i played. Despite liking history enough to actually majoring in it, though admittedly those stories have preciously little in common with history as a historian perceives it. Way too focused on individual actions and motivations.

[chiasaur11]

Haven't played either, but looking at both, I like New a whole lot more for fairly simple reasons.

An ordinary Joe can make a difference. Sure, it ain't easy, and trying will get you brutally murdered nine times out of eight, but in theory something an ordinary Joe does can matter.

Hunter seems ideal as an example.

Old Hunter: Angels give you superpowers. They sometimes let you kill very low level vampires and werewolves. In groups. If you're lucky.

New Hunter: You're an average guy/gal who's mad as hell and ain't going to take it anymore! You may well die in the attempt, but you have a chance at changing things for the better. Or maybe you work for the government's spook hunting division, where you and your team keep America safe from the night with lots and lots of guns. Or you're working for someone really nasty who happens to hate the undead more than those with a pulse.

The important thing? It's in large part determined by the actions of people. Not gods or centuries old conspiracies run by immortals or the guys who invented physics to prevent imagination or somesuch. Just people. Admittedly, some of the people are part demon or undead or in power armor, but still.

(Why I like Discworld so much, or a part of it. Vimes and De Word and Moist and Vetinari and Detritus? All important, and capable of impact with no special destiny or the like, even with a lot of magic and physical embodiments of things wandering about. 's nice.)

Actually, that's also why CoC gets a pass. Sure, in the end, everyone gets et, but for now?

Your hapless slobs can buy mankind one more year, one more week, one more minute, if you're smart and lucky. It matters, right up until nothing matters. OWoD? You start useless and you stay useless.

[Lost Demiurge]

Y'know, I had a lot to say but Chiasaur said it best. People make all of the difference.

In OWoD, humanity was a footnote at best. How many significant events in canon were the doing of vampires/werewolves/whatever? The World Wars, the discovery of the new world, the crusades, etc... Humanity was nothing. Elder vampires could do damn near anything, and were walking gods. Let's not even talk about werewolves...

In NWoD, the supernatural power level's been watered down. Now six or seven humans with shotguns or rifles are a credible threat, even if you're an elder. The supernatural's been behind very few world-changing events, if any. It hides in the shadows, because humanity's got NUMBERS. I like that.

Aside from that...

NWoD is more mechanically sound. It's also a lot more open. Using Vampire as an example, the covenant structure is a breath of very fresh air. Your powerset no longer determines your political slant, you actually get some choice in the matter! And while most cities do the prince/primogen thing by default, the door's open to other power structures. Elders are still a credible threat, but are beatable.

It's... Well, don't get me wrong, OWoD is still very playable, and fun with the right group, but OWoD suffered from being ossified. The books defined things as just SO, and any attempts to deviate from them didn't work to well. The metaplot was a pathetic joke, and there wasn't much you could really do with it, after a while, without seriously deviating from the basic game.

NWoD books... They're sandboxes, for the most part. With a few exceptions, they focus on smaller scale settings where you decide how things work. You can build awesome little games for your group. And there's room for expansion, if you want to kick it up a notch!

So yeah. I'll take NWoD over OWoD anyday. Under the right circumstances, if it's a choice between OWoD or nothing though, I'll choose OWoD. But when I'm running? NWoD all the way!

[Kurald Galain]

In OWoD, humanity was a footnote at best. How many significant events in canon were the doing of vampires/werewolves/whatever? The World Wars, the discovery of the new world, the crusades, etc... Humanity was nothing.
This is flat out contradicted by various oWOD books, though. Why do you think the vampires (and werewolves, too) have a Masquerade to begin with? They hide in the shadows, because humanity's got NUMBERS.

[Terraoblivion]

They say it is different. But the only major event that didn't involve supernatural beings as the ultimate instigators was the second world war and even that was a retcon, as originally Himmler was a vampire. So for humanity being whats matter and the supernaturals having to hide in fear is a big case of telling rather than showing, since what it shows is that supernaturals are in charge of just about everything.

[chiasaur11]

They say it is different. But the only major event that didn't involve supernatural beings as the ultimate instigators was the second world war and even that was a retcon, as originally Himmler was a vampire. So for humanity being whats matter and the supernaturals having to hide in fear is a big case of telling rather than showing, since what it shows is that supernaturals are in charge of just about everything.

It gets better. IE, worse.

One of the Gehenna scenarios has full on war between humans and vamps.

AFTER humans find out and have time to prepare, try diplomacy, and decide that it ain't worth trying with bloodsucking freaks. (The motive for human war is much stupider than any of the ones you're thinking likely, but one dumb idea at a time, right?)

Humans are depicted as getting curbstomped.

So much for the Masquarade having a point, yes?

[Lord_Gareth]

At this point, I think it prudent to allow Oracle time for his rebuttal.

[Oracle_Hunter]

At this point, I think it prudent to allow Oracle time for his rebuttal.
Eh?

Oh, there's nothing to rebut. Y'all have a completely different read on oWoD fluff than I do - and I suspect most other folks 'round here who enjoy oWoD read the fluff like I do.

Anyhoo, I think it might have something to do with The End Times. I never got into the End Times storylines, nor have I ever had them forced upon me. AFAIK, nobody liked The End Times fluff - but maybe I'm wrong?

Also: I'll second the points about Humanity being threatening as a mob on oWoD; it's true in oWoD Vampire & Mage at least.

[Lord_Gareth]

With six years of playing under about twenty different STs and groups, both tabletop and LARP, I am somehow having issues believing that my interpretation is the exception and not the rule, my friend.

[Oracle_Hunter]

With six years of playing under about twenty different STs and groups, both tabletop and LARP, I am somehow having issues believing that my interpretation is the exception and not the rule, my friend.
*shrug*

I'm not about to compare oWoD resumes, but it just doesn't seem like a game anyone would play. No emotional development allowed for PCs; NPCs running roughshod over every aspect of a PC's existence; no chance for social climbing - it sounds like the worst railroad I've ever heard.

Why did you play it for so long? :smallconfused:

[Lord_Gareth]

Because the fluff was that compelling.

Seriously. White Wolf got things so right in a lot of places - but when they got it wrong, they got it dead wrong. Antediluvians? No. Clans as political structures (for that matter, oWerewolf tribes, full-stop)? No. Malkavians? YES. GOD YES. Daughters of Cacophany? YES. Lasombra? YEEEEEEEEEEEEEES.

While I may not agree with their execution, the concept was brilliant, which is why I love V:tR so much. It's like V:tM grew up and got all better.

[Dimers]

Well, i'll admit that i'm largely stretching the arguments in favor of Ascension to imply that those making them considers it a more mature game than Awakening. In general it just is that people actually provide reasons why they think that Ascension was a better written more interesting game than Awakening.

It is more that i have never really heard anybody elaborate on why they prefer oWoD, with the exception of Mage: The Awakening, over nWoD except in vague terms like saying it was more mature or deeper.

Sorry if some of this is already covered ... I developed a case of tl;dr-itis after forty posts or so.

Nature and Demeanor are a much more accurate and meaning-giving pair of character traits than Virtue and Vice, particularly if you're only using those listed in the main book. Deciding on Nature and Demeanor for a character really gets me into what the character would think or feel about dozens of situations. Deciding on Virtue and Vice makes me think about how to contrive having the character perform certain acts which my ST would recognize as qualifying for Willpower renewal. It's the difference (for me) between a character being an exploration of my reality in a game setting, and a character being a collection of numbers and values that I try to manipulate for quantitative benefit.

Virtue/Vice are especially annoying because they also drip with Christian montheistic assumptions and terminology. I left Christianity, monotheism, AND their neopagan equivalents quite some time ago. To read about "God" as a base assumption of the universe, to have a fifth of the characters in V:tR and M:tAwake be focused on the principles I have decided to be unsound ... it's frustrating having that forced into my play time. And it speaks of dangerous things happening in the real world that I'd rather not think about every time I sit down to play a game. OWoD managed to avoid the attitude that there was a single god or even that gods could be defined in some way that's meaningful to humans. D&D clerics notwithstanding, a roleplaying game played by humans should focus on the characters themselves, not whatever might or might not be answering that character's prayers.

Mage and Wraith were my preferences. One explored how the nature of one person interacted with the nature of reality. The other mined deep into the psyche to create a goodly chunk of the game material. Those are about characters; that's what I fail to see in nWoD. I'm not trying to say you can't have a real character in nWoD; what I'm saying is, you can't NOT have a character in the oWoD games that I like.

Five races and five classes in each book is weird, stilted, and totally unnecessary. The designers had to throw out perfectly usable ideas in some cases and pull extraneous stuff from nowhere in other cases.

NWoD is omnigoth. It's pervasive throughout the books I've seen -- a constant focus on how much things suck, without questioning whether the world really ought to seem that way to the characters. Werewolves now call themselves "The Forsaken", and call their enemies "The Pure"? The Forsaken ought to think of themselves as pure, and think of "The Pure" as betrayers, fools and cowards, based on the ancient stories. Vampires don't develop social connections with people in distant places ... I'm sorry, but does the Internet not exist in nWoD? Mind you, I'm only comparing using materials I've read, which excludes the apocalyptic brouhaha of oWoD and anything beyond the basic books for nWoD, but seriously, it really seems like the writers consider it their duty to remind us that life in the World of Darkness has to suck 24/7. Well, I prefer to be a hero and to accomplish important things, rather that NOT taking certain actions because they'll offend some power group and cause rocks to fall and everyone to die.

And I'm disappointed with the basic mechanics, too. Shadowrun 4th Ed and nWoD simplified die rolls in the same way at the same time for the same reason, but Shadowrun made it work and nWoD just stopped before it was really done. I don't understand how raising your Strength from two dots to five improves your average damage by one HP -- that's all the difference there is between an exemplar of might and an average joe? One hit point? In my paradigm, the strongman should be able to chop through armored limbs, while the normal guy has a hard time penetrating at all. OWoD had a very solid idea in the Perception stat, and that was taken out in favor of resistance stat that overlaps too much with another one. The ruleset is unaccomodating if you don't think of your skills quite the same way as the book. I could go on picking at stuff ... but I think I've kinda overflowing here, anyway.

My own TL;DR? The oWoD games I played focused much more on roleplay for human players; I don't care for the religious and hopeless tones of nWoD; the mechanics might be simpler now, but they don't make much sense by comparison.

[Lord_Gareth]

I honestly feel that nWoD cut down quite a bit on the religion, my friend. Vampire contains quite a bit of it because religion is a big theme vis-a-vis vampirism, but almost none of the other lines (ESPECIALLY Changeling and Geist) really deal all that heavily with religious themes. The virtue of Faith may be an arguable one, but it can apply in many cases - faith in a deity, faith in a cosmic principle or a cause, even faith in nihilism. Heck, I ran an ultra-atheist scientist in a H:tV game who had the Faith virtue, revolving around his theory of universal sense.

Many of your complaints, above, ignore certain aspects of the world fluff. The Tribes of Luna (they often refer to themselves as that name as well) call themselves the Forsaken because that's what they are; abandoned by the spirit world and only partially forgiven by their mother, they struggle in order to be accepted once more. The Pure are known as such because they call themselves that and brook no other title. Why should the Forsaken care about the terminology? Luna's favor speaks more than words.

Likewise, the "hopelessness" is not actually hopeless. H:tV is distilled hope in a box. Even vampires have hope in the form of transcendence, Golconda, or simply the sheer iron will necessary to beat the Beast into submission. Geists came back from the DEAD to get to where they are; Prometheans have SPOKEN to those that have finished the Great Work and learned at their feet. Oh yes, the world sucks. The Abyss, Hell, and Arcadia all exist in it, after all. But on the other hand, unlike in oWoD with Pentex and the Jyhad, Oblivion and the Time of Judgment, you can do something about it. If your character struggles and fights to make their portion of the world a better place, they might actually succeed. Hell, that's what Changeling freeholds (at least, the well-run ones) do 24/7/365 - make the world a better place.

By the by, why'd you take two of the most depressing oWoD settings (Mage/Wraith) and then complain that nWoD is depressing?

[chiasaur11]

Isn't one of the big groups in Hunter essentially the Secret Service (Spooky Werewolf Division)?

That's something I really like, actually. OWoD, some supernatural entity or other always was pulling the strings, and nobody could say "Boo".

Here, Vampires may sometimes be able to kill the president, but the response isn't balling up and whimpering, it's "Chap with wings there. Five rounds rapid."

And it WORKS. Generally, the world is run by people who don't care that much, in the grand scheme, about the bumps in the night. Sure, if things start snowballing the nice comfy arrangement could go pfft any time, but it's kinda nice, in a brutal Delta Green suppress the truth, one more night at the opera, 9mm retirement package way.

[Solarn]

I honestly feel that nWoD cut down quite a bit on the religion, my friend. Vampire contains quite a bit of it because religion is a big theme vis-a-vis vampirism, but almost none of the other lines (ESPECIALLY Changeling and Geist) really deal all that heavily with religious themes. The virtue of Faith may be an arguable one, but it can apply in many cases - faith in a deity, faith in a cosmic principle or a cause, even faith in nihilism. Heck, I ran an ultra-atheist scientist in a H:tV game who had the Faith virtue, revolving around his theory of universal sense.

Many of your complaints, above, ignore certain aspects of the world fluff. The Tribes of Luna (they often refer to themselves as that name as well) call themselves the Forsaken because that's what they are; abandoned by the spirit world and only partially forgiven by their mother, they struggle in order to be accepted once more. The Pure are known as such because they call themselves that and brook no other title. Why should the Forsaken care about the terminology? Luna's favor speaks more than words.

Likewise, the "hopelessness" is not actually hopeless. H:tV is distilled hope in a box. Even vampires have hope in the form of transcendence, Golconda, or simply the sheer iron will necessary to beat the Beast into submission. Geists came back from the DEAD to get to where they are; Prometheans have SPOKEN to those that have finished the Great Work and learned at their feet. Oh yes, the world sucks. The Abyss, Hell, and Arcadia all exist in it, after all. But on the other hand, unlike in oWoD with Pentex and the Jyhad, Oblivion and the Time of Judgment, you can do something about it. If your character struggles and fights to make their portion of the world a better place, they might actually succeed. Hell, that's what Changeling freeholds (at least, the well-run ones) do 24/7/365 - make the world a better place.

By the by, why'd you take two of the most depressing oWoD settings (Mage/Wraith) and then complain that nWoD is depressing?
Also, as I can't stress enough, while EVERY SINGLE oWoD game had the end of the world (Gehenna, the Apocalypse, Oblivion, Banality for a more personal one and in the end, even Mage got its unique unavoidable end-of-the-world scenario) as a major element of their fluff, nWoD has... that thing with the Abyss in Mage and maybe something in Werewolf, and they're pretty much contained by their respective supernaturals.

[Kurald Galain]

They say it is different. But the only major event that didn't involve supernatural beings as the ultimate instigators was the second world war and even that was a retcon, as originally Himmler was a vampire. So for humanity being whats matter and the supernaturals having to hide in fear is a big case of telling rather than showing, since what it shows is that supernaturals are in charge of just about everything.
Two words: Unreliable Narrator (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnreliableNarrator).

Most books are written as if they were told to a novice vampire by an elder. This is why e.g. the Clanbook Gangrel gives a very different take on the Gangrel than the Clanbook Ravnos does. So yes, you can find statements in the setting that are stupid or don't make sense (and this is hardly unique to Whitewolf settings, either). That does not mean they are automatically true in most GM's renditions of the setting.

[Yuki Akuma]

So your reaction to bad fluff is automatically "Oh, that must be in-character propoganda or lies, WHite Wolf would never write something that bad seriously"?

Wow.

[Kurald Galain]

So your reaction to bad fluff is automatically "Oh, that must be in-character propoganda or lies, WHite Wolf would never write something that bad seriously"?
No, of course not.

My reaction to the fluff that "vampires caused every single major event throughout world history" is that this is a good example of an unreliable narrator.

My reaction to the fluff of e.g. the Black Hand, or that idiotic Mary Sue vamp/wolf hybrid from first edition oWOD is to say "that didn't happen in my campaign". And yes, I'm aware that this is an Oberoni fallacy.

Yes, there are parts of oWOD fluff that are bad. Yes, there are also parts of oWOD fluff where the writers intentionally gave us multiple contradictory versions of the same event. And saying that the game is bad because some of the fluff is bad is quite the exaggeration.

[Solarn]

No, of course not.

My reaction to the fluff that "vampires caused every single major event throughout world history" is that this is a good example of an unreliable narrator.

My reaction to the fluff of e.g. the Black Hand, or that idiotic Mary Sue vamp/wolf hybrid from first edition oWOD is to say "that didn't happen in my campaign". And yes, I'm aware that this is an Oberoni fallacy.

Yes, there are parts of oWOD fluff that are bad. Yes, there are also parts of oWOD fluff where the writers intentionally gave us multiple contradictory versions of the same event. And saying that the game is bad because some of the fluff is bad is quite the exaggeration.
As far as I know, almost none of the contradictions (except maybe for Rasputin) were intentional, the writing teams for the different gamelines (or even different sets of books within the same line, a la Vampire and Mage) just had no communication with each other or care for any other line than their own.

[Quincunx]

. . .and I like having to wrestle with contradictory, unreliable narrators. I read arty novels, mentally disciplined questions of the spirit, and poetry for enjoyment; I read fanfiction when FF7 was current just to see what great stuff people came up with to plug the gaping plot holes.* Unreliable narrators are a hook that gets me thinking about the world, engaging with it, to find out my version of the truth**.

That being said, when they went beyond setting to directly try novels, mental discipline, and poetry, they crashed and burned. I'm still looking for the granola box from which they copied the Book of Lilith.

*****

In my LARP, we were allowed to buy up to 10th gen without prior approval. Beyond that you had to challenge the Storyteller--a win allowed you the chance to buy up to 8th, tie 9th, etc. It did skew the bell curve a tad towards 10th because many people just didn't take the risk, but the same idea could be used to set the general generational mix where you wanted it.

*****

Dimers, I think the Virtue/Vice baggage was something that was explicitly brought into gameplay mechanics during the End Times hullabaloo, and they found they afterward couldn't unmake the idea that there was a single point of judgment--at least not in a system where the ST wields so much power.

*****

*Pursuant to the "why don't you try homebrew?" argument--D&D has no plot to be broken, just broken mechanics. Reading homebrew would be more like reading mindtwisters and sudoku puzzles that someone else has already answered.

**Brand X, of course.

[Project_Mayhem]

I'ma just drop in and say that Changeling the Lost is about the coolest game evar.

I've played VtM a lot more than VtR, and I'm pretty sure that biases me unfairly :p From what I've read I like them both

[Terraoblivion]

You know, Dimer. In VtM, vampirism was explicitly a curse created by God to punish Cain. Really, VtM was probably the game WW has ever developed where Christianity played the largest part as most of the background is, admittedly fairly loosely, based on Christianity and God is very explicitly real in VtM.

In VtR on the other hand there is one out of five political groups that are somewhat based on Christianity and can you honestly say that doesn't make sense for a society that developed in medieval Europe? Now i do have some problems as a historian with a liturgy developed in the fifth century being meant to evoke images of Roman Catholic liturgy that didn't come about until the counter-reformation in the 16th century, but that doesn't change what the core idea is.

As for Virtues and Vices compared to Nature and Demeanor, i find them roughly equally annoying and useless in describing a character. I'd prefer to just give them a miss and walk away happy, i pretty much always ended up doing that when playing oWoD games. It's a bit harder in nWoD since more mechanics ties into Virtue and Vice.

And Quincunx while i have no problem with unreliable narrators in fiction, i do believe it is quite a bit of trouble in games. Gaming is a cooperative exercise with multiple writers, having too much ambiguity in the writing is bound to cause conflicts and gross misunderstandings of the reality of what is going on. That doesn't improve the story the way an unreliable narrator in traditional fiction can do, it instead weakens it by introducing inconsistencies into the world. And the more broadly focused the game is, the greater the risk of such problems cropping up is and WW being incapable of keeping their VtM fluff straight did cause unending trouble when i played it. Without even going into the fluff from the other oWoD lines. It was especially problematic since the switches in narrator were hardly consistent and at times difficult to even track down, often jumping into an OOC voice without real warning.

As for supernatural beings controlling everything, Kurald, that was stated in the OOC setting descriptions too. The only real conflict there was centered about which supernatural beings were in charge. WWII was the only element of the setting that was explicitly stated to have been caused by humans. I'm not saying that WW meant for humanity to be unimportant on its own, i'm saying that in their eagerness to develop the metaplot and the power of the supernaturals they accidentally wrote themselves into that corner. In general i just think oWoD was ruined by WW having no idea how to keep developing their themes at the time and instead weakened or even ruined them by not keeping track of the material they added to the setting. They have been much better at keeping focus and consistency in nWoD, which is really the only major difference between VtM and VtR in my opinion. The rest are just cosmetic changes to make it clear they are different settings and establish a break, or minor elements in pruning the parts that didn't fit the theme. Other nWoD games differ more from their oWoD counterpart.

[Tyrrell]

In particular, the "war of ideas" approach to oWoD Mage was inspired and its implementation was excellent. Yes, it steals from Ars Magicia but, IMHO, it does a better job of fluffing it out.
The war of ideas in OWoD Mage had nothing at all to do with ars magica. The fluff of the two games was vastly different and both games were improved by the severing of the connection between them.

[Lost Demiurge]

I'ma just drop in and say that Changeling the Lost is about the coolest game evar.

I've played VtM a lot more than VtR, and I'm pretty sure that biases me unfairly :p From what I've read I like them both

I agree with you on all points. :)

Got a preference for NWoD, but I'll happily play almost any WoD game that's put in front of me so long as the GM and group are good.

[Quincunx]

Points conceded on unreliable narration not being a great foundation of a game, Terraoblivion, especially if you're treating the metaplot as being as important as the mechanics, which most of you seem to be. I'll still disagree on the significance of a final judgment in V:tM though, unless you were playing a Gehenna redemption plot, and even then I don't remember explicit mechanics for breaking the blood curse--it was only in the End Times (Wormwood I think it was, the small-scale scenario that wasn't based on global plots going kablooey) when the final judgment came looking for you, like it or not. Now, it seems, in V:tR there's no way of not checking oneself constantly against the finality of it all and I do not mean the finality of the Beast.

. . .say, how are they handling frenzy checks nowadays?

[Kish]

They say it is different. But the only major event that didn't involve supernatural beings as the ultimate instigators was the second world war and even that was a retcon, as originally Himmler was a vampire.
While I am in no way defending the portrayal of Himmler in Berlin By Night, I feel obligated to point out that originally Himmler became a vampire after Himmler-the-uninfluenced-by-any-supernatural-Muggle did all the things Himmler did historically (except die). World War II still lacked any significant influence by supernaturals.

[Lord_Gareth]

V:tR doesn't have any kind of extinction metaplot going down except for the fearful possibility of millions of insane vampires all rising from torpor at the same time and eating every vamp they can get their hands on, and that's played down as paranoid superstition, really. There's still the possibility of Golconda, if a Storyteller wants to approve it, and who knows, the Order of the Dragon may be correct about Transcendance.

There are three kinds of Frenzy checks these days, same as before. Wassail (literally translated - "Drink hail!") is hunger frenzy, and is technically checked against every time a vampire feeds (though they encourage STs to skip that step if the vamp is near-full) or when a starving vampire scents or sees blood. (Resolve + Composure) +/- Circumstance modifiers (like being starving or in Elysium) vs. a standard difficulty of one, increased for more intense stimuli. Rotschrek (fear frenzy) triggers off of sunlight or fire, and potentially triggers off of aggravated damage, phobias, or other extremely fearful stimuli; difficulty is dependant on how injured you are and the strength of the stimulus. Rage frenzy is more or less unchanged.

There's a new aspect to Frenzy these days - the Predator's Taint. When two vampires meet for the first time, the one with more potent blood checks vs. rage frenzy while the weaker one checks vs. rotschrek as their Beasts raise hackles over territory. While the feeling happens every time two vampires see each other, after the first initial meeting, they can control these urges. The Predator's Taint is the biggest reason vampires cannot trust non-bonded subordinates or partners; they are simply incapable of not feeling dread, unease, or irritation.

[The Glyphstone]

I'ma just drop in and say that Changeling the Lost is about the coolest game evar.

I've played VtM a lot more than VtR, and I'm pretty sure that biases me unfairly :p From what I've read I like them both


I agree with you on all points. :)

Got a preference for NWoD, but I'll happily play almost any WoD game that's put in front of me so long as the GM and group are good.

Yo dawg, I'm really happy for you, and imma let you finish that Changeling game, but Geist: The Sin Eaters is simply the best NWoD game of all time. Of all time!:smallcool:

[Lord_Gareth]

Yo dawg, I'm really happy for you, and imma let you finish that Changeling game, but Geist: The Sin Eaters is simply the best NWoD game of all time. Of all time!:smallcool:

I've heard the Geist was good and I'm certainly giddy to read it. Can you elaborate on the fluff any? The Trope page is like a filthy tease and it won't put out!

[hiryuu]

I've heard the Geist was good and I'm certainly giddy to read it. Can you elaborate on the fluff any? The Trope page is like a filthy tease and it won't put out!

The fluff will vary from krewe to krewe, since each krewe is supposed to (OOC) put out a religion/mythology which each member of the krewe is granted (IC) as a vision, the geists revealing things about themselves they kept hidden. One krewe says geists are Loa and adheres to the Christian mythos, another claims their geists are literal angels but has a mythos that resembles Gilgamesh's epic... and when the two meet, they have... trouble.

Our krewe, for example, believes our geists are the manifestations of the Jungian archetypes of Child, Trickster, Hero, and Mother, and that all stories are shadow plays of the true beginning of time, and the Underworld was created by the deathlords as a place to remove suffering and take endless bodies away from the people, giving the Mother a divine mandate to spread sickness among the elderly, and that monsters are created by this suffering, to spread more suffering, creating an endless circle. The spiral towards oblivion must be maintained, for it removes suffering, and monsters and people that work the spiral rather than the circle are to be left alone. We've got some Hunter crossover happening with our krewe and allies.

We share our town with another krewe who believes that they are the reapers of the dying, meant to prevent ghosts from appearing, helping people come to terms with their death before they die, and another who's very rave club voodoo.

[The Glyphstone]

Indeed, Geist directly encourages people to invent their own fluff, to a degree, especially with its equivalent of powers/disciplines/arcana being almost as varied as you can get without Mage-style freeformery.

The "default" fluff is pretty simple, as on the Tropes page. You died. You met a ghostly entity, who said "I'll bring you back if you let me hitch a ride". Now you're the Ghost Whisperer meets Ghostbusters meets Amoral Ghostwriter for the most part, though there's plenty of room for selfishness and goofing off - one of the Archetypes (Celebrants, specifically) is specifically devoted to the idea of "eat, drink, and be merry, cause tomorrow you might die. Or the day after that. Or next week. So party on, dude!" Another's all about using your Geist's abilities to benefit yourself, the Bonepicker Archetype - offering to take a "haunted" car off a rich banker's hands for him, for instance.

[Terraoblivion]

The metaplot, or rather the different approaches to fluff with the metaplot being one of the two, is the primary thing distinguishing VtM from VtR, so it gains relatively greater significance when discussing the differences between the games. Essentially most fluff in VtM describes events, plans and individuals. There are of course exceptions, but that is the general trend in what is described in VtM sourcebooks apart from mechanics. VtR describes cultural and psychological traits relating to various clans, covenants or other aspects of vampiric society, always providing a variety of options and establishing a continuum within the group. There are some events described, the Camarilla of ancient Rome, the legend of the Invictus king and the formation of the Carthian Movement for example, but they take a secondary position to details of what vampiric society is like today.

So the reason i spend so much energy focusing on the metaplot is simply that i consider it the thing to discuss the merits of when comparing the two games. The only other change i care about to any significant degree is splitting the social and metaphysical aspects of clans into two different concepts, because it sets you more free as a player to create your own character. That both of those groups are also broader and less rigid than most of the old clans helps too.

[Yuki Akuma]

Indeed, Geist directly encourages people to invent their own fluff, to a degree, especially with its equivalent of powers/disciplines/arcana being almost as varied as you can get without Mage-style freeformery.

To be elaborate, Sin-Eater powers are separated into seven Manifestations, each of which must be unlocked with a metaphysical 'Key' to function, which colours its abilities wildly. The Rage Manifestation, for instance, can set people alight with the Pyre-Flame Key, or damage machines with the Industrial Key, or cause mental instability with the Passion Key.

Manifestations are rated from one to five dots, like most abilities in WoD games. There are ten Keys and seven Manifestations - meaning that, in effect, you have seventy five-dot power sets to play around with.

Geist: the Sin-Eaters is awesome and more people need to play it.

[Project_Mayhem]

As opposed to Mages who have ∞ or so powers to play with :smallbiggrin:

[Yuki Akuma]

As opposed to Mages who have ∞ or so powers to play with :smallbiggrin:

Not really? There's only so much thematics you can apply to each Arcanun - and not every Mage can learn every one.

In fact, it's utterly impossible for a Mage to get more than four Arcana to sixth level, ever. Even at Gnosis 10. So a single Mage can't do anything - just a large subset of anything. :smallwink:

[Project_Mayhem]

Any Arcana can mix with any combination of any other

And theoretically any mage can master all 10 arcana. It's just hard.

However, even with 6-8 dots in arcana, the level our last game was, there are almost endless spell ideas if you're creative

[The Glyphstone]

Any Arcana can mix with any combination of any other

And theoretically any mage can master all 10 arcana. It's just hard.

However, even with 6-8 dots in arcana, the level our last game was, there are almost endless spell ideas if you're creative


As opposed to Mages who have ∞ or so powers to play with :smallbiggrin:

I did mention that Geist is as varied as you can get without Mage-style freeformery.

Plus, there's something delightfully screwy about a Morality system that dings you for accidental manslaughter, but not deliberate premediated murder.

[Lord_Gareth]

Perhaps because Geists have an extended view on death that may justify certain murders? I mean, they know what goes down afterwards!

[Project_Mayhem]

Awww, but the freeform is coool

And yes, I liked Geist's morality. The less attached to normal human morality the better :smallbiggrin:

For my changeling game, I completely divorced the moral aspect from clarity. It purely measures how well you can distinguish between the different worlds

[Lord_Gareth]

Awww, but the freeform is coool

And yes, I liked Geist's morality. The less attached to normal human morality the better :smallbiggrin:

For my changeling game, I completely divorced the moral aspect from clarity. It purely measures how well you can distinguish between the different worlds

Read Rites of Spring: it breaks down WHY each Clarity Breaking Point isn't a moral, but rather a psychological one.

Because even the core book mentions that it doesn't actually measure morality.

[Yuki Akuma]

And theoretically any mage can master all 10 arcana. It's just hard.

Nope! You can master eight, and even then it requires Gnosis 10. You can learn all ten, but the maximum for the last two you learn is capped at 4.

But this is just splitting hairs.

[The Glyphstone]

I always found Clarity interesting because it was the only Morality system where you could lose points for things you had no choice regarding. Having your house wrecked by a tornado/hurricane/fire is just as morality-damaging as impulsively murdering someone in a fit of passion. Losing your job is as bad as taking LSD or pickpocketing someone.

[Project_Mayhem]

It's still, in my mind, too linked to conventional morality. My version is mostly the same, except crimes of passion are treated more leniently than cold premeditated acts. Cause passion is human.

Also property damage is not so much of an issue. I find WoD tends to overrate that.

[Project_Mayhem]

Nope! You can master eight, and even then it requires Gnosis 10. You can learn all ten, but the maximum for the last two you learn is capped at 4.

But this is just splitting hairs.

checks book ...

oops.

Well that's still a lot :p

Especially if you extrapolate to archmage level. Although that's strictly non canon :smalltongue:

[Lord_Gareth]

It's still, in my mind, too linked to conventional morality. My version is mostly the same, except crimes of passion are treated more leniently than cold premeditated acts. Cause passion is human.

Also property damage is not so much of an issue. I find WoD tends to overrate that.

That's the thing - passion is sort-of human, but what it REALLY is is True Fae. Have you seen their Ruled by Passion feature? Giving into one's whims over one's word or intent is the ESSENCE of fae activity, which is damaging to Clarity.

[The Glyphstone]

It's still, in my mind, too linked to conventional morality. My version is mostly the same, except crimes of passion are treated more leniently than cold premeditated acts. Cause passion is human.

Also property damage is not so much of an issue. I find WoD tends to overrate that.

Yeah, but that wasn't my point so much as the bit about how of all the morality charts, it was the only one where events completely outside your control could influence your score. I just found it unusual and somewhat interesting.

[Yuki Akuma]

checks book ...

oops.

Well that's still a lot :p

Especially if you extrapolate to archmage level. Although that's strictly non canon :smalltongue:

Why is is that Mages, who specifically say "I can do anything." in cool gold text in the setting fluff, can't learn all of their supernatural powers?

But everyone else can. Any vampire could theoretically learn every Discipline, a werewolf could receive every Gift, a Promethean could perform every Transmutation...

[Lord_Gareth]

I'm pretty sure that with enough Arcana combinations and preparation, a powerful-enough mage CAN do anything. It's just more roundabout than, say, Matter might do it.

Also, mages are broken enough. Don't break them more. Please.

EDIT: RAW states that only the bloodline that practices it can learn a unique bloodline discipline, though this is house-ruled away often.

[Project_Mayhem]

@ The Glyphstone: Yeah sorry, I was responding to Lord Gareth's point. I agree entirely with the coolness of that.

My campaign will kick of with the death of an npc motely member, so degen roles from the start. What fun!

@ Lord Gareth: ... I might be remembering my notes wrong. Its still up in the air anyway. I definitely feel that it has too much morality in though. Why should, say, stealing affect clarity if you did it loads anyway?

[Yuki Akuma]

I'm pretty sure that with enough Arcana combinations and preparation, a powerful-enough mage CAN do anything. It's just more roundabout than, say, Matter might do it.

Also, mages are broken enough. Don't break them more. Please.

EDIT: RAW states that only the bloodline that practices it can learn a unique bloodline discipline, though this is house-ruled away often.

Hm. Alright. I don't know Vampires that well.

I'm pretty sure it holds true for Werewovles, Prometheans and Sin-Eaters, though.

(I know even less about nWoD Changelings.)

[Lord_Gareth]

@ Lord Gareth: ... I might be remembering my notes wrong. Its still up in the air anyway. I definitely feel that it has too much morality in though. Why should, say, stealing affect clarity if you did it loads anyway?

Regardless of the actual necessity of the situation (poverty, save the world), people are told that stealing is wrong when they're growing up; that it's selfish, cruel, and never to be done. We retain traces of this as adults, though our reasoning gets more complex. Remember, regardless of our perspective on the justification of a particular act, that fact that we are justifying it rather than ignoring it remains. Faeries steal constantly and feel no guilt whatsoever. Changelings, who have such a hard time convincing themselves that they aren't like the Fae to begin with, avoid theft because it can bring up troublesome thoughts and associations, typically beginning with, Am I just like my keeper?

[The Glyphstone]

Regardless of the actual necessity of the situation (poverty, save the world), people are told that stealing is wrong when they're growing up; that it's selfish, cruel, and never to be done. We retain traces of this as adults, though our reasoning gets more complex. Remember, regardless of our perspective on the justification of a particular act, that fact that we are justifying it rather than ignoring it remains. Faeries steal constantly and feel no guilt whatsoever. Changelings, who have such a hard time convincing themselves that they aren't like the Fae to begin with, avoid theft because it can bring up troublesome thoughts and associations, typically beginning with, Am I just like my keeper?

That's why I was never really bothered by Changeling's Clarity mimicing standard morality. The chart represents their ability to distinguish reality from Arcadia and themselves from the True Fae, and committing acts that a human would find reprehensible can trigger them to wonder how human they themselves really are.

[Lord_Gareth]

Especially since humans justify or condemn things and the Fae either don't, or do so in black-and-white terms befitting their simplistic maturity levels and story-like origins. A human who steals to feed himself reasons, in one way or another, "Stealing IS wrong, BUT I am starving, SO it's okay." A faerie just steals.

[Project_Mayhem]

...

You make some good points actually. I would still base it more on that characters paradigm of what humanity was - so a poor street kid who had *always* stolen would be ok with it, while a very self repressed individual with high moral standards would have a harder time.

So that its really about what 'they' consider inhuman

Edit: And what their keeper was like.

[Lord_Gareth]

...

You make some good points actually. I would still base it more on that characters paradigm of what humanity was - so a poor street kid who had *always* stolen would be ok with it, while a very self repressed individual with high moral standards would have a harder time.

So that its really about what 'they' consider inhuman

Edit: And what their keeper was like.

Read the morality appendix of Hunter: the Vigil. The system presented there may be of some interest/aid to you.

[Project_Mayhem]

Yeah, I considered adding that into the game. I like it. It makes more sense, cause people kind of do that.

[Terraoblivion]

I'd also like to add that the reason losing your home is ranked that bad is because is because Changelings constantly need to enforce stability on themselves to keep their humanity. Losing your home is a major instance of instability and chaos in your life. This is made worse by the fact that Changelings tend to live on the fringes of society and might very well have a hard time making up for the loss, making the event more traumatic. So while property loss might not be too bad for a normal person able to pick themselves up and moving on, a Changeling isn't a normal person and any sufficiently great disturbance of their routine makes them lose control. Any sudden, positive change in their life would cause a great deal of disturbance for them too.

[Project_Mayhem]

I understand that perfectly - I meant the *causing* mass property damage part.

Which, at a glance, isn't actually mentioned. Never mind :smalltongue:

I'm possibly thinking of mage

[Terraoblivion]

Ah, okay. I guess i misunderstood you then, because that part did seem pretty clear to me. When you lose your home unexpectedly any and all routines you have go along with it, in addition to the shock of the experience itself, after all.

[Project_Mayhem]

Oh yeah, definitely. Thats one of the coolest parts of changeling degeneration - when all the little things you've invested your stability in start crumbling adn you break down

[comicshorse]

Changelings, who have such a hard time convincing themselves that they aren't like the Fae to begin with, avoid theft because it can bring up troublesome thoughts and associations, typically beginning with, Am I just like my keeper?

Which is why it's so much better to be a Loyalist.
Sign up today, you're Keeper needs you

[The Glyphstone]

Any sudden, positive change in their life would cause a great deal of disturbance for them too.

Oh yeah, that's the other awesome part. A changeling can have his house blown up or win the lottery, and both are equally tramautic to his psyche.:smallbiggrin:

[Selrahc]

I'm pretty sure it holds true for Werewovles, Prometheans and Sin-Eaters, though.

Nah. There are a few things in Promethean and Werewolf that are exclusive. Werewolves can only use the Moon-Gifts that pertain to their Auspice, and some lodges also have exclusive gifts and of course a renown at 5 is needed to take any gift up to the fifth level. Prometheans can't use the Centemani transmutations unless they've become a Centemani. Stuff like that.

Mage is definitely oddly limiting though. I find it odd that they even needed to put that rule in, since nobody is going to max out the chart.

[Yuki Akuma]

Well, a Centimani can learn all the Transmutations.

So I guess it only really holds true for Sin-Eaters? Another reason to love 'em. :smalltongue:

(Of course, at its cheapest it costs somewhere in the vicinity of 700 xp to learn every key and manifestation...)

[Lord_Gareth]

'Lings can learn all Contracts, though it ain't cheap.

[Edge]

Prometheans can't use the Centemani transmutations unless they've become a Centemani. Stuff like that.

Actually, they can, but using them (or simply having them, if they're passive) does something freaky with Flux and imposes a Humanity drop. I forget the specifics. Prommies following currently following Centimani are immune to the effects, and some of the less crazy Hundred-Handed actually use that as an excuse or justification for their Refinement.

[hiryuu]

I just thought I'd throw this out there: Mirrors is the best book ever. It's Unearthed Arcana for WoD.

[SynissterSyster]

I have read most of the pages here, skipped some of five but will go back. I have read most of oWoD and enjoyed it alot. Knee jerk reaction to the new edition was I did not like it. It was not untill I just sat down and read it did it seem good.

As one who loved the plot of the oWoD the openness of nWoD is a welcome change. I like how the game itself has given humans a lot more to do then in oWoD. Which by the by was the biggest flaw of oWoD in my opinion. No one wanted to play a human because they were too squishy. Even things like ghouls, kinfolk, mediums and such were just not useful to play because of not haveing a lot of supernatural mojo to back them up. So seeing the core rules focus on humans and give the world a much more creepier feeling is a top score in my book.

As a side note I am wondering if anyone who is very familiar with the nWoD books can help me. A friend of mine is running a zombie apocolypse game using nWoD rules. It is set in my home town and we are required to play ourselves. Still I wish to know anything that can be used or helpful in said type of game. Zombies start off like night of the living dead, slow and stupid, but will get more powerful like a good Resident Evil type or Left 4 Dead.

Thanks in advance and wooot on first post!

[Semidi]

As a side note I am wondering if anyone who is very familiar with the nWoD books can help me. A friend of mine is running a zombie apocolypse game using nWoD rules. It is set in my home town and we are required to play ourselves. Still I wish to know anything that can be used or helpful in said type of game. Zombies start off like night of the living dead, slow and stupid, but will get more powerful like a good Resident Evil type or Left 4 Dead.

Thanks in advance and wooot on first post!

If I remember correctly, zombies should be in the books "Antagonists" (your best bet for customizing zombies to fit your needs), Mage: The Awakening (one version of zombies see death magic), Vampire: The Requiem (See: Lancea Sanctum Ritual "Gift of Lazerus"), and Bloodlines: The Chosen (Sangiovanni) for another version of creation zombies.

In terms of creating mortals who will survive. Pick of Armory for the weapons and fighting styles. If any of your players are playing cops then try Tales of the 13th precinct. If your players are playing soldiers or ex-soldiers Dogs of War might be good. Finally, the best book for this sort of thing would be Hunter: The Vigil for creating characters with professions (that kind of rock) and the tactics for one the characters start working together Left 4 Dead style.

Hope that helps.

[Yuki Akuma]

Geist has rules for zombies too, of course. Several different flavours, even.

[Lord_Gareth]

Lords of Summer has some zombie rules too. Prometheans make great boss zombies.

[Tiki Snakes]

If I remember correctly, zombies should be in the books "Antagonists" (your best bet for customizing zombies to fit your needs), Mage: The Awakening (one version of zombies see death magic), Vampire: The Requiem (See: Lancea Sanctum Ritual "Gift of Lazerus"), and Bloodlines: The Chosen (Sangiovanni) for another version of creation zombies.

In terms of creating mortals who will survive. Pick of Armory for the weapons and fighting styles. If any of your players are playing cops then try Tales of the 13th precinct. If your players are playing soldiers or ex-soldiers Dogs of War might be good. Finally, the best book for this sort of thing would be Hunter: The Vigil for creating characters with professions (that kind of rock) and the tactics for one the characters start working together Left 4 Dead style.

Hope that helps.

Actually, SS's post mentions they have to play themselves, so unless there's some hardcore going on, I'm thinking the fighting styles and so on are unlikely to be an easy sell to the Story Teller.

If the ST is setting it in your home-town, probably a better idea is to figure out where the nearest hardware store is, or where you'd find a gun should you need one. In the early bits, if the zombies are slow, you're going to want to be focusing on Gear and Supplies. For this reason, the Armoury books might still be worth looking into, mind. Otherwise, you should be fine with just the core book, and some decent tactics.

Remember - Food, Water, Weapons, Safety. You want to get somewhere, or somewheres safe, be able to defend yourself, and not die of starvation. Anything else will be dealing with Plot, and you'll have to just see what you can do as it arises. Avoid large buildings in central, urban areas, it never ends well. :smallwink:

[SynissterSyster]

As a tiny addition to my post. We all play Amtgard together and some of the other players also go out and play airsoft. So all of us have at least minimal knowledge of how to survive in the wilderness as well as some knowledge of how to shoot a gun. I take a marital art so I know enough on how to fight as the others know some from playing Amtgard.

Still great ideas on Antagonist as well as Armory. I will set out to buy them. My only worry is their wanting to make armor more realistic seeing how the first session started with then making it to some house out in the boonies with a bunch of food and home made armor (Like chain mail and a simple version of plate). So I dunno how effective that would be but oh well. Thanks again.

[comicshorse]

I'm intrigued by what I've heard on this thread about Geist. Opinions people ? What is it about ? Is it any good ? What are its strengths and weaknesses ?

[SurlySeraph]

Geist is pretty awesome, though not without flaws.

The basic concept is that you nearly died, made a deal with a Geist to come back, and now live in a kind of symbiotic relationship. Geist is the only WoD title where the first word of the title isn't what the player characters are called; the people bonded to the geists are called Sin-Eaters. Geists are basically ghosts that have archetypical elements - they're almost as much incarnations of concepts as the ghosts of specific people.

Problems first, since I'm thinking of them.
First, Sin-Eaters really don't have any weaknesses. The fluff says that ghosts are bothering them for help all the time, that they attract ghosts that can be malevolent, and that their geists can influence them in unpleasant ways and even try to possess them. But there's virtually no mechanics for that. If you reach 0 Synergy (the morality stat), your Geist possesses you, but that's it. It's somewhat difficult for them to regain Plasm (their mana-equivalent), but there are a lot of ways around it.
The fluff, and the fact that they're not nearly as iconic or play as big a role in the world as vampires, wolves, and mages, would make you think that Sin-Eaters shouldn't be that powerful. Nope! They're less powerful than mages, but who isn't? They can't easily out-manipulate vampires or out-murder werewolves, and they aren't anything special in melee, but they have a lot of very nice defensive abilities, and they can automatically come back to life (at the cost of permanent Synergy, as your Geist forces someone else to die in your place and you have to see that person's last moments through their eyes, and you may not want to come back) if they die.
Also, their abilities aren't very balanced against each other. The Boneyard manifestations, in particular, make the Rage and Oracle manifestations look pretty pointless. The Cauls are mostly great, too. As for keys, Pyre-Flame, Industrial, and Stigamata are really nice, while Primeval is quite weak.

And now the good. There's a ton of room for customizing your abilities. The book is quite inspiring and provides a lot of character concepts. The Archetypes (basically how your character approaches life; kinda like Clan or Tribe) are very flexible. Sin-Eater culture is less idiosyncratic than werewolf or vamp culture, but still very interesting. There's a great variety of stories that could be run, and when in doubt "Hey, go help that ghost" is always a fallback.

I find Geist completely awesome all in all.

[Aron Times]

Geist is the least depressing setting in the nWoD. In fact, being a Sin-Eater is AWESOME both in terms of fluff and crunch.

Basically, a Sin-Eater is a mortal who died and made a deal with a Geist (a spiritual manifestation of death) to return to life. In exchange for resurrecting the mortal, the Geist gets to piggyback ride on his soul. The union of a mortal and a Geist is called a Sin-Eater, which are the protagonists of the setting.

The newly-resurrected sin-eater gets ghostly powers and an insane voice in his head telling him to do all sorts of things. Unlike the Beast in Vampire, the sin-eater is in full control of himself, and does not have a frenzy or rage mechanic as a weakness. Sin-eaters are unique in that they mostly get cool stuff with virtually no drawbacks. Some emo STs I've run into hate the game because it's not dark enough for them.

If you're a fan of Bleach, sin-eaters are basically shinigami:

Sin-Eater = Shinigami/Soul Reaper
Plasm = Reiatsu/Spiritual Pressure
Ritual to allow a spirit to pass on to its final reward whose name i can't recall = Konsou/Soul Burial
Keystone = Zanpakuto*

All sin-eaters get a keystone, which is a magic item that serves as the focus of their powers. It can be any type of item, and the sin-eater can freely summon/unsummon to and from hammerspace. If your keystone is a sword, it's basically like a zanpakuto in Bleach.

There's a lot more to it than that, but basically, sin-eaters are Cursed with Awesome.

Edit: DAMN YOU SHINIGAMI NINJA!

[hiryuu]

If you're a fan of Bleach, sin-eaters are basically shinigami:

Sin-Eater = Shinigami/Soul Reaper
Plasm = Reiatsu/Spiritual Pressure
Ritual to allow a spirit to pass on to its final reward whose name i can't recall = Konsou/Soul Burial
Keystone = Zanpakuto*

All sin-eaters get a keystone, which is a magic item that serves as the focus of their powers. It can be any type of item, and the sin-eater can freely summon/unsummon to and from hammerspace. If your keystone is a sword, it's basically like a zanpakuto in Bleach.

There's a lot more to it than that, but basically, sin-eaters are Cursed with Awesome.

Edit: DAMN YOU SHINIGAMI NINJA!

And the concept of Shinigami is based on the concept of the grim reaper, imported from Western culture during the Meiji period, so YMMV.

[Selrahc]

Geist is the least depressing setting in the nWoD. In fact, being a Sin-Eater is AWESOME both in terms of fluff and crunch.

The Sin-Eaters themselves are (surprisingly) almost drawback free with regards to their personal powers but they are placed into a depressing world. Ghosts are almost all victims of tragic circumstances, and the underworld is a bleak desolate wasteland for the most part. I also think the idea of an insane and unpleasant creature who has bonded with your soul and constantly tries to influence you may not be a mechanical drawback, but certainly is a reason you wouldn't want to be a Geist in real life.

Geist is still definitely a horror game at its core.

As to the game itself. It's good. I haven't been as hooked by the setting as I have for some of the other WW games, but if you like the setting the mechanics are good and flavourful and the setting does have a lot of meat to it.

[Yuki Akuma]

Nitpick: Sin-Eaters never actually die. They make the Bargain on the brink of death, and if they 'die' again their Geist keeps the death away so they can heal. They're not the only supernaturals who can auto-resurrect - Prometheans can do it too. They have to pay XP each time they want their extra life back, but it doesn't have any other drawbacks.

Geist's main themes are "sugar skulls and New Orleans funerals" - celebrating life because you're not dead. Yet.

Sin-Eaters do have some weaknesses, mostly roleplaying-based, but they don't care - they're alive, and who could be wangsty about being alive? Even the Mourners revel in their angst.

They don't like vampires overly much.

[Lord_Gareth]

I also think the idea of an insane and unpleasant creature who has bonded with your soul and constantly tries to influence you may not be a mechanical drawback, but certainly is a reason you wouldn't want to be a Geist in real life.

When the other option is BEING DEAD? Bring on the soul-melds!

[Yuki Akuma]

When the other option is BEING DEAD? Bring on the soul-melds!

This is, in fact, the default assumption for how Sin-Eaters react to the Bargain - of course, some people reject it, and others change their minds, but they tend to either be dead or antagonists.

[Selrahc]

When the other option is BEING DEAD? Bring on the soul-melds!

It's still objectively unpleasant.

Yuki, I think you're overplaying how happy the *setting* is. Geist society is as a cheerful as they can make it, but it is just one aspect of the setting. The setting is rather bleak and horrific. The day to day activities of geists is likely to involve dealing with the dead, often those who have died before their time in tragic circumstances. That is a depressing job to have to deal with. The fact that geists don't emphasise that gloom in their social groupings is a good thing, because it would be far too easy to make the game unremittingly depressing. That doesn't mean it's all candy skulls and funeral parties.

[Yuki Akuma]

It's not objectively unpleasant. You just don't think you'd enjoy it.

The Geist's voice is just as strong as your conscience, and everyone can ignore that voice in their head just fine. A Sin-Eater can tune out ghosts if they don't want to have to deal with them, and he never has to enter the Underworld unless he decides to increase his Psyche to 6 - in which case one assumes he's actually interested in exploring the energies of Death.

Also, the fact that Sin-Eaters are the only supernaturals in the setting that can help ghosts truly pass on to their final reward makes Geist, if anything, hopeful. Depending on how the ST interprets it, of course - it could just be oblivion, but that's still better than what happens to the ghosts Mages, Werewolves and Prometheans banish.

[Selrahc]

It's not objectively unpleasant. You just don't think you'd enjoy it.

Alright, lets not say "objectively". But I do think that the idea of sharing your head with those beings is not a nice one. Look at the three geists presented in the antagonists section and imagine being intimately associated with them forever more. The fact that your argument is based on how easy it is to ignore shows that you don't actually seem to think the situation is one you'd ideally choose yourself.

If the choice is geist or death then geist is a very appealing option. If the choice is geist or no geist, maybe you'd still take the offer due to all the perks and powers. But having the geist piggy back on your soul is not a nice thing, and that is in fact one of the key points of the setting.


I'm not saying "Play the game like some big emo and sob about death the whole time". I'm saying that the game, like every other white wolf offering, has it's dark spots. To define it's guiding principles as just having a good time seems to me to be leaving one hell of a lot out.