Why Do People Love World of Darkness?

[Pyromancer999]

I don't really get how the system works, but almost everyone I know loves the World of Darkness, to the point where you can visibly see them suppressing the urge to drool whenever someone even mentions that they're thinking of running a campaign, or even a one-shot. So, I was wondering why everyone and their mother(well, not literally everyone's mother, but you get the idea) loves the World of Darkness campaign settings/games. Not that I like it or dislike it, I'm just curious about what makes people love it.

[Mordokai]

From a nonplayer: I love the fluff. Vampires, werewolves, mages... whathave you. You can come up with a cool character concept that's unusual and awesome at the same time. It's high on horror, the more visceral kind and the psychological one as well. It appeals to me as a player and person.

I also love the system itself, with only one dice to determnine success or failure and the rest of the stuff. It's easy to master and still allows for it's share of deepness(is that even a word? I should be making linguistic arguments at midnight) and you can make a lot of similar character that are very different from one another.

Like I said, I'm not a player. I just read a lot of sourcebooks. I do however consider myself a fan of the system. Make what you will of it.

[Lapak]

It is well-liked because it appeals to several different sets of people in terms of what its fluff and crunch support: people who want to get heavily into their roleplaying, people who want crazy action, and people who want a sense of dread.

- The various subsettings all carry a philosophical theme. Many share the common theme of 'losing humanity.' Vampires crave blood, werewolves go berserk, etc. For groups that want to get heavy into mental/emotional roleplaying, this is pretty fertile ground. What actions are permissible in the service of a supernatural drive? What goals are worth risking what is left of your humanity to gain? What makes a person human? The Mage setting instead asks the group to define what reality is, or should be, and what role human choices play in that. They're not crazy-deep philosophically, but there's enough there to support as much effort as you want to put into it.

- Most of the subsettings allow for pedal-to-the-metal action gaming. Carefully designed characters, even at the beginning stages, can be awesomely superhuman and perform amazing feats that are just cool to contemplate. Vampires can mesmerize people, move at superspeed, and get back up when shot through the heart. Werewolves can turn into ten-foot-tall killing machines and throw around small cars. Mages can cause an entire SWAT team's guns to accidentally jam at once, whisper a warning backwards in time, or hack the most secure database in the world from 5000 miles away.

- Most of the settings (in oWoD, at least) have a threat that is simply beyond the players' ability to face. The players are not going to beat the Antediluveans. The players are not going to slay the Wyrm. The Technocracy has a stranglehold on the modern world. It's just Not Going To Happen. The idea that the party is not the biggest thing on the block, that even their major victories are minor on another scale, is a different feeling than a lot of systems give.

Obviously, all those don't apply at once. Action Group might ignore or overturn the sense of doom just as they ignore the mental game; the roleplayer types might not build their characters as war machines. But the fact that there is a certain amount of built-in support for different playstyles when you look at the whole system, fluff and crunch and all, is part of why a lot of people like it - it will let you do what you like best in it.

[STsinderman]

Well its a pretty simple answer

The Fluff: Very well written and comprehensive without being restrictive. Not to mention that it melds seamlessly with the real world.
The System: Easy to understand easy to use, doesn't require much book trolling unless you need to.

Perhaps because in general it is just so darn dynamic, in every sense.

[Grinner]

Honestly, you could just read the books without ever actually playing a game and still be contented.


I also love the system itself, with only one dice to determnine success or failure and the rest of the stuff. It's easy to master and still allows for it's share of deepness(is that even a word? I should be making linguistic arguments at midnight)

I think you were looking for the word "depth".

[Grytorm]

Honestly, you could just read the books without ever actually playing a game and still be contented.

Like me and all role-playing games (in real life at least).

[One Tin Soldier]

Personally, because the people I play with are great gamers.
More broadly, the setting(s). They tend to be quite interesting, and are great for bringing out character concept ideas.

[Adindra]

im currently playing in a zombie apocalypse nwod game and ever since the first session ive loved it even when my character doesnt do too well (i built a computer nerd with next to no athletics because i wanted to make a believable character) i couldnt honestly tell you what it is about the system but it just hooked me from day one

although all of this may be because i have a great storyteller but the system is amazing as well :smallbiggrin:

[Jerthanis]

For me it's because every WoD game is written with the express intent of getting at specific themes of the human experience. Each game has an idea that it puts forth and asks you to explore at your gaming table. These ideas are broad enough in scope that you get a lot of freedom in the character you get to design, but narrow enough that everyone knows what's up going in without any work on anyone's part. I've found this is a particularly good recepie for unique gaming experiences, and they have dozens of game lines, all with their own sets of ideas.

[Fatebreaker]

Three reasons, all interlinked:

#1) Because the settings manage to be evocative, inspiring, compelling, deep, etc., in creating a large, vibrant game-world... while still leaving a lot of mysteries and unexplored territory for players to really dig into and build off of.

#2) Because the crunch and fluff are meant to compliment one another and go hand-in-hand.

#3) Because, in general, the design philosophy seems to be yes rather than no.

My example comes from Exalted, which isn't World of Darkness, but it's the same company. One of my players made an Exalted character whose entire build was based around calligraphy. Everything. Her background fluff, her in-game roleplay, her non-combat crunch, her combat crunch. Everything was devoted to this concept of someone seeking perfect beauty through the written word, both in its expression (what words she used) and its portrayal (how those words were written). And not only was she was wildly effective in combat, but she was a lot of fun to watch roleplay.

Most systems wouldn't really allow for a character defined by calligraphy. A lot of systems that do allow for it don't have the depth that Exalted did for it to fit into the world. And a lot of systems wouldn't really have the game-design to allow for it to be unique (say, games where everyone is largely identical in how they do things, but different in the flavor of the doing).

The Storyteller system (which both Exalted and WoD broadly use, albeit with individual tweaks for each specific system) lets players explore a character concept and mechanically express that within their game while still contributing to the progress of the group in a meaningful way. It's a system that trusts its players. That's a powerful attraction.

If you've never played it, try it sometime. Try it with good players and a good Storyteller. Even if it's not your style of game, I think you'll see what makes it so appealing to folks.

[Incorrect]

Personally I don't like it.
But after thinking quite a bit about why I don't, I realized that I have never had a single good WoD game. It's not for lack of trying; vampire, werewolf, mage, hunter, different versions and all.
But if it's not just a bad GM (all of them), or bad players (also all of them), then it is the clichés. Everyone is brooding emos!
I was even told "Noooo, you can't play a skinny anarchist brujah focused on chemistry and drugs! Brujah are all big and stupid! Here, take a baseball bat!!" :smallmad:

In addition I feel that the rules are a bit strange. It doesn't feel like there is a lot of difference between, for example, having shot a rifle once and being a professional hitman.

I can live with the rules, and I still hope that I someday will play a really good WoD game.


BTW! Dont get me started on WOD LARP. Oh the horror :smalleek:

[Thiyr]

I agree, I think a lot of it has to do with groups and how they run it. I like to think (though this is admittedly mostly a bias that is likely stemming from groups rather than the systems themselves) that it depends if it's nWoD or oWoD. Either way there's a lot of flavor, and the rules work (though can be a bit swingy). Personally, I enjoy it despite never actually being in a great game of it. All my experiences with nWoD were great, but lasted about one or two sessions before people stopped showing. oWoD was decent, but the group left a sour taste in my mouth (stereotypes of clans defined too much, too much was decided by a character's "birthrights" rather than their actions, and there was a ton of fluff that if you don't know it beforehand could weigh a game down a ton).

That said, they both are full of wonderful RP fodder, and they don't wait for you to get into the fancy stuff. You can do astounding things right away, but you're never more than a bad day away from being a pile of dust on the ground.

(that said, if you have a say in it, I suggest going with nWoD. Just the removal of botching makes the game so much more enjoyable imo. Can't say I enjoyed the experience of going into my field of expertise, and then suddenly forgetting the equivalent of how to add 2 and 2 because I got negative successes)

[Roderick_BR]

Funny thing, I do like the setting, but I am yet to find a group that actually roleplay people losing their humanity instead of "bloody superhero/villains that kills everything that moves".
My D&D group roleplays way better than any WoD group I've played with, specially the ones that clain that "D&D is not really roleplay, Vampire is a way better game".

Then again, I just have bad luck finding people to play.

[The Glyphstone]

I agree, I think a lot of it has to do with groups and how they run it. I like to think (though this is admittedly mostly a bias that is likely stemming from groups rather than the systems themselves) that it depends if it's nWoD or oWoD. Either way there's a lot of flavor, and the rules work (though can be a bit swingy). Personally, I enjoy it despite never actually being in a great game of it. All my experiences with nWoD were great, but lasted about one or two sessions before people stopped showing. oWoD was decent, but the group left a sour taste in my mouth (stereotypes of clans defined too much, too much was decided by a character's "birthrights" rather than their actions, and there was a ton of fluff that if you don't know it beforehand could weigh a game down a ton).

That said, they both are full of wonderful RP fodder, and they don't wait for you to get into the fancy stuff. You can do astounding things right away, but you're never more than a bad day away from being a pile of dust on the ground.

(that said, if you have a say in it, I suggest going with nWoD. Just the removal of botching makes the game so much more enjoyable imo. Can't say I enjoyed the experience of going into my field of expertise, and then suddenly forgetting the equivalent of how to add 2 and 2 because I got negative successes)

Pretty much this, though I don't have the OWoD experience.

Interestingly, no D&D group I've ever see did RP to any level even approaching the NWoD LARP club I play with monthly.

[loki_098]

In my experience, OWOD games tend to be a lot of fun because they allow for more character development than some other games. Whenever I've sat down and played D&D with the same people I run World of Darkness for, instead of getting these really awesome, deep, dynamic, three-dimensional characters, with real-world goals and motivations, and even some character flaws, I get "oooh, you mean I'm plus four to Hide AND Move Silently?" There's just not the same sort of personal investment in the character.

Beyond that, at least in LARP rules, the system is hideously easy to learn. Most of the gamers I run with either started with OWOD or started their GM/DM/ST experience with OWOD, just because you don't need more than one book, maybe two, tops, and you don't have to carry dice. If you can play rock/paper/scissors, you can play World of Darkness.

In totally unrelated news, my sig's got a link to our OWOD chronicle...totally online, made of winsprinkles. :D

[Pyromancer999]

BTW! Dont get me started on WOD LARP. Oh the horror :smalleek:

Guess what's part of the reason why I asked? :smalltongue:

So, basically, can I presume that the basic reason people love WoD is because it's a Roleplayer's wet dream, not to be coarse, and because it requires almost no thought mechanically?

[Nerd-o-rama]

It's a fun setting - set of settings, really - and New World of Darkness is simple to play, easy to pick up, and still fun and easy to make a variety of characters in (though there's still White Wolf's traditional emphasis on roleplaying a unique character rather than statting a unique character).

NWoD is the only remotely competent White Wolf game in terms of design, in fact. There's still some wonky stuff, but it's not the printed migraine that is Old World of Darkness or Exalted. Although Old World of Darkness had the more intricate fluff, and in terms of setting the difference between the two is mainly one of consistency and open-endedness (New) vs. intricacy and a detailed metaplot (Old).

[Eldan]

In my experience, OWOD games tend to be a lot of fun because they allow for more character development than some other games. Whenever I've sat down and played D&D with the same people I run World of Darkness for, instead of getting these really awesome, deep, dynamic, three-dimensional characters, with real-world goals and motivations, and even some character flaws, I get "oooh, you mean I'm plus four to Hide AND Move Silently?" There's just not the same sort of personal investment in the character.

Interestingly, I've had quite the opposite experience, though it was two different groups. I've played D&D for years with one group, and we had pretty good, story-focused games with interesting characters and NPCs, with, on average, perhaps, about three very short combats per two sessions.
Then I joined another group playing NWoD hunter. And suddenly, it was all shotguns, home-made explosives, fast cars and guns akimbo. If you didn't kill two dozen supernatural creatures per session, the GM had failed, was the prevailing opinion. From what they told me, their Vampire game was about the same. Hacking through hordes of enemy ghouls and vampires, becoming the badassest mother-effer on the block, which was mostly defined by having the highest stats possible in your combat skills.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Interestingly, I've had quite the opposite experience, though it was two different groups. I've played D&D for years with one group, and we had pretty good, story-focused games with interesting characters and NPCs, with, on average, perhaps, about three very short combats per two sessions.
Then I joined another group playing NWoD hunter. And suddenly, it was all shotguns, home-made explosives, fast cars and guns akimbo. If you didn't kill two dozen supernatural creatures per session, the GM had failed, was the prevailing opinion. From what they told me, their Vampire game was about the same. Hacking through hordes of enemy ghouls and vampires, becoming the badassest mother-effer on the block, which was mostly defined by having the highest stats possible in your combat skills.

The thing is that really, emphasis varies depending on the group. You can play NWoD as a psychological roleplaying experience, as creeping CoC-esque horror, or dark superheroes. It really just depends on how you want to do things, as the system is vague enough to support all three and the setting is pretty much just that - a setting for players and GMs to do with as they wish. It's the same with D&D really, the difference being that D&D has a few more combat rules and explicit rewards for playing as aggressive forces of destruction that most DMs I know can take or leave depending on their preference at the time.

[prufock]

I'm playing a V:tM game now. To be honest, I find it less than captivating. I was going to long rant about what I don't like, but I'll trim it to just the highlights.

- Could be because I'm still unfamiliar with it, coming from d20 background, but I find the dice pool mechanics counter-intuitive. It isn't complex so much as convoluted. Instead of just variable DCs, now there are variable DCs AND variable number of successes required. I can get 2 "successes" and still fail at my task? Yeah, that makes sense :smallannoyed:

- One little thing that really bugs me: the character sheets. First, why have those little dots to fill in instead of actual NUMBERS? Second, WHY OH WHY is there no space for my total bonus to my talents? A custom character sheet may be necessary.

- Lack of self-determination. The setting seems to be built as a railroading ST's dream. I don't mind games having some characters more powerful than me, but in this game you end up being everybody's lackey, and rely on getting favours from others; which of course means you owe them, so you can be their lackey.

- The setting is supposed to be moody, morose, and dark - yet I can't take it seriously. I'm not even sure why. I don't mind moody characters, but when EVERYONE is doing the whole "struggling with being a monster" emo trip, it's boring and ridiculous.

- Speaking of which, the way they arrange the clans leans the characters towards being cliches, as much as we try not to.

- The setting itself makes very little sense to me. After thousands of years the human race hasn't caught on that there really are vampires, werewolves, mages, and all that? Despite the fact that they're everywhere.

- I can't see any plausible reason why the vamps bother with the Masquerade nonsense, except that it's tradition. They have ghouls, thralls, retainers, lackeys, etc everywhere. They have supernatural powers.

- Player vs player, oh how I loathe thee. That is a thing best left to Paranoia!

I know this is only personal opinion, and people will undoubtedly try to refute what I've said, but this is based on my experience.

[The Glyphstone]

That's because Masquerade, and the Old World in general, was/is overall a ridiculously complicated and convoluted mess. NWoD's unified dice pool system is a beautiful thing compared to both OWoD and D20.

The only point you have I can really refute is the dot thing - that's done like it is because WoD characters grow 'organically' to a point; Merits, Disciplines, etc. increase 1 dot at a time. If it was just a number, you'd have to print out a new sheet or attack your existing one with an eraser every time you spent XP, so it's easier to just have the dots to fill in.

Plus, it means all that practice you got in school filling out standardized tests is actually relevant for something.:smallsmile:

[Tyndmyr]

Funny thing, I do like the setting, but I am yet to find a group that actually roleplay people losing their humanity instead of "bloody superhero/villains that kills everything that moves".
My D&D group roleplays way better than any WoD group I've played with, specially the ones that clain that "D&D is not really roleplay, Vampire is a way better game".

Then again, I just have bad luck finding people to play.

My limited experience with the system indicates that "roleplay people losing their humanity" translates, in practice to "angst over how much it sucks to be superpowered and awesome".

I don't mean to decry the system mechanically, it's just that it appears to collect some rather odd individuals in it's culture.

[GRM13]

As Glyph has mentioned, for the exception of the Dots I agree with all the stuff you mentioned. I still enjoy oWoD games, but they are far from perfect. Another thing that I dislike is that the character developing (A.K.A. the lvl up) is very driven by players activity.

Now in general I love this cause it means that if I train how to use my gun better in the shooting range, I actually get better at shooting. The problem comes when you have people who love to do convoluted scenes and long negotiations with NPCs, most of the time considering how oWoD work against the other players. There have been time when one player has taken half of the night doing their own individual scene that by the end of the session that person can say he has done around 5-6 things that have helped him either in point getting or to gain an advantage plot wise and a good few are left with "um... I got my blood points back?".

This is obviously dependent on the players, but I don't like it when a system allows the glory hog to actually gain an advantage over the others. Again adding that I quite like the storyteller system with it's flaw/merits and personal development, but it also invites it's own problem players cause of it.

Note: This is all my experience with the oWoD, I haven't' tried any of the nWoD ones as no games have been run though I will say that I dislike their changes to the Changeling one (others I'm indifferent)

[ko_sct]

My limited experience with the system indicates that "roleplay people losing their humanity" translates, in practice to "angst over how much it sucks to be superpowered and awesome".

I don't mean to decry the system mechanically, it's just that it appears to collect some rather odd individuals in it's culture.

The only time we role played people losing their humanity, there was no angst over it. In fact, it the game was almost over when I realized both of the characters had lost part of their humanity over the course of the game.

The first one made a pact for powers with an eldritch abomination. He needed the powers to save 2 of his friends from an other eldritch abomination. Part of his pact was that he had to kill 2 "potential conducts" (people who could be used to strengthen the grasp of an eldritch abomination on our world. He was a potential conduct as well as the 2 he was trying to save and like, 2-3 other npc.) before the end of the week. The time limit pressed him to go on an hunt for the other potential conducts, creating a whole lot of destruction and carnage in his wake. Once he lost his power, he reverted to a more normal state of mind.

My character lost part of his humanity when he desperately needed a way to fly. The void (the eldritch abomination to which he was linked) offered him the power of flight if he could offer something equivalent in exchange. Unable to think of something he asked the void what was equivalent, the void offered him the power to control the effect gravity had on him, and took part of his humanity. So, the righteous one, alway trying, not only to do what was right, but also what was best for everyone, become an uncaring entity, only wanted to protect his surrogate children's and the world from the eldritch abominations, not caring if had to destroy half of it in the process if it was the quickest way. (he also lost his ability to give up or to second guess himself, but thats an other story)

Since me and the other player lost our humanity at different time, and never both of at the same time, there was often confrontation like:

Me: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING ?!? WHY ARE YOU BLOWING UP CARS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HIGHWAY ?!?
Other player: What ? We know he's in there, it's the fastest and easiest way to kill him.
Me: But what of everyone around ? They might get hurt !
Other player: Pfff, it's probably a lot safer than letting him get away.

(or the other way around when he gained back his humanity and I lost mine)



TL;DR The lost of humanity can be role played in many way. Looking back, in our game it was a pretty constant theme, it just wasn't the "woe is me" angsting thing.

[Civil War Man]

Note: This is all my experience with the oWoD, I haven't' tried any of the nWoD ones as no games have been run though I will say that I dislike their changes to the Changeling one (others I'm indifferent)

Honestly, you are the first person I've ever encountered who prefers old Changeling over new Changeling. Everyone I know finds old Changeling to have creepy undertones with its obsession with children and innocence, while new Changeling is about coping with traumatic experiences and loss of sanity.


But if it's not just a bad GM (all of them), or bad players (also all of them), then it is the clichés. Everyone is brooding emos!
I was even told "Noooo, you can't play a skinny anarchist brujah focused on chemistry and drugs! Brujah are all big and stupid! Here, take a baseball bat!!"

Whoever told you that is a moron.


BTW! Dont get me started on WOD LARP. Oh the horror

No arguments here.


I can't see any plausible reason why the vamps bother with the Masquerade nonsense, except that it's tradition. They have ghouls, thralls, retainers, lackeys, etc everywhere. They have supernatural powers.

I'm not a huge fan of Vampire, mostly due to it attracting a certain type of player. For this particular point, though, the rationale is that mortals are more numerous, and they have lots of weapons. It makes more sense when you take the Mage setting into account (specifically the Technocracy).

[GRM13]

Honestly, you are the first person I've ever encountered who prefers old Changeling over new Changeling. Everyone I know finds old Changeling to have creepy undertones with its obsession with children and innocence, while new Changeling is about coping with traumatic experiences and loss of sanity.

If one looks of it that way what's stopping them from looking every children animated cartoon from the same (care bears, Troll with the green thumb, among others). Both can be played with the same scenarios just as fine just that the dreaming focus on the magical and the wonderful but with warning of it's dangers and fearing the banalities of the world and loosing the ability of believing, while the lost it's all tragedies and sadness over what has happened to your character before the game even starts.

Also to note that the Lost isn't any less creepy with the kidnapping of children by the fae. I just personally see it as changeling going in the middle between cheery fairy tales and grimm stories (though a bit skewered to the first one) and lost just went all the way to grimm. it's easy to move the scales a bit form side to side, but it's harder to drastically shift it to the other side when it's solely focuses on the other.

Then again it also helps that in changeling I can play Plato, the platypus pooka that is a genius but with the attention span of a mouse.

[Libertad]

I think that many people like World of Darkness because it's an RPG where you play as monsters in a modern day pseudo-Gothic environment. The three main lines represent human themes and desires through the context of creatures not quite human: vampires represent mankind's fear of the predators among them; werewolves represent our fear of irrational anger and hurting the ones we love; mages represent the "power corrupts" concept; Prometheans are the loners who wish to be part of the group.

World of Darkness also has the status of being D&D's main competitor. For a time in the 90's, people thought that it may eclipse TSR in influence.

Vampire: the Masquerade was also instrumental in the introduction of many female players to the RPG hobby. White Wolf has always tried to make games with an emphasis on human relationships and the tragedy and drama which arise from them. I think that this is a part why female gamers may have found it more appealing than the standard "Dungeon Crawl."

[Need_A_Life]

In short: The setting.

The mechanics of the system(s) isn't always to my liking. Whether it's how any amount of system savviness means that a 15th generation vampire is an actual threat to a vampire elder (oWoD) or how I wouldn't be able to create myself as a starter character* (nWoD) they don't always make too much sense.

The setting, however, is appealing. Lots of evocative books, filled to the brim with plot hooks waiting to see play. The humanity mechanic (or morality or synergy etc.) is an interesting one and helps guide people towards what the game is supposed to be about, although I don't like how it's executed.

Even when running other games, I steal everything I can from WoD sourcebooks. My current Dresden Files game might never have come to be if I hadn't stolen things from books like Midnight Roads, Geist: the Sin-Eaters, Immortals and Ghoul: The Fatal Addiction.**

I've tried very roleplay-intensive WoD, where we might go an entire session without rolling the dice or at least a few hours. I've also tried a combat-intensive "Klingon Promotion"-esque campaign, where roleplay was practically ignored in favour of planning on who to kill next.
Both were fun, although I would rather play the former again than the latter.

* Merits for Kung-Fu, Languages (Danish(Native), English, German, Latin, Classical Hebrew), a decently-sized apartment and some income is ridiculously expensive.
** AFB; titles are as I remember them.

[Lord Raziere]

Mage. Changeling. Geist. three of my favorite things that I want to play. sure there is a curse involved in all three, but thats a small price to pay for being cool ghostly mediators of the dead, fanciful half-fae full of flair or outright reality warpers who want to find a way to stop normal people from destroying their reality warping by looking at it.

I've also got Werewolf to, and of course Werewolves are badass and I've heard good things about the other splats as well.

[Civil War Man]

If one looks of it that way what's stopping them from looking every children animated cartoon from the same (care bears, Troll with the green thumb, among others). Both can be played with the same scenarios just as fine just that the dreaming focus on the magical and the wonderful but with warning of it's dangers and fearing the banalities of the world and loosing the ability of believing, while the lost it's all tragedies and sadness over what has happened to your character before the game even starts.

Also to note that the Lost isn't any less creepy with the kidnapping of children by the fae. I just personally see it as changeling going in the middle between cheery fairy tales and grimm stories (though a bit skewered to the first one) and lost just went all the way to grimm. it's easy to move the scales a bit form side to side, but it's harder to drastically shift it to the other side when it's solely focuses on the other.

Then again it also helps that in changeling I can play Plato, the platypus pooka that is a genius but with the attention span of a mouse.

Lost doesn't limit itself to kidnapping children. The Fae do kidnap children, true, but they are just as prone to kidnap adults.

It is also not all tragedy and sadness. Not all Lost were tortured at the hands of the Fae. The trauma comes from the inhuman behavior of the Fae and the way one's perception of reality gets warped while in Arcadia. It's about learning to cope with a traumatic or unusual experiences, which can take many forms. I'm in a campaign where I play a Spring Beast, and he is easily the most well-adjusted member of the party, and is even happier than he was before he was kidnapped.

There's also an extra layer in some of the other books where it implies that the Lost are part of the Fae's reproduction cycle.

And the reason the people I know consider Dreaming creepy is because the Changelings are usually physically adult, but spend a lot of time around children because of their purity and innocence, because being an adult exposes you to the banality of the real world.

It actually presents an interesting dichotomy. Dreaming is about desperately holding onto innocence and avoiding becoming an adult, while Lost is about losing innocence and learning to cope with it (essentially becoming an adult).

Anyway, I can see why someone who likes Dreaming would not like Lost. I'm just saying that so far you're the only person I've encountered who prefers the former.

[GRM13]

No worries, each have their own preferences on which they like, just wanted to put out my reasons for disliking it. :smallsmile:

[Civil War Man]

Yeah. I think one of the reasons for my surprise is that Changeling was such a minor setting that Lost was basically added to nWoD as an afterthought. And it turned out to be such an unexpected hit that White Wolf ended up having to write up more source books than they originally anticipated.

But your mileage may vary. I'm not a fan of Vampire, even though it is the setting everyone thinks of when they think World of Darkness.

[Ashjustash]

I don't really get how the system works, but almost everyone I know loves the World of Darkness, to the point where you can visibly see them suppressing the urge to drool whenever someone even mentions that they're thinking of running a campaign, or even a one-shot. So, I was wondering why everyone and their mother(well, not literally everyone's mother, but you get the idea) loves the World of Darkness campaign settings/games. Not that I like it or dislike it, I'm just curious about what makes people love it.

Everyone so far as spoken of the fluff, the crunch, and it seems a lot of from the players view of wod campaigns.

All of which I agree with, but as an ST/GM? I love it because the focus is on the characters and the story. You can have a high intensity pure action, roll the dice every few seconds, game one night and then the next nearly no real dice rolling cause the group(or more often in our case the "characters") has decided they're going to be emotive and reactive to the horror of the previous night.

The books, at least owod, encourage you to aim for what appeals to you and your group and not necessarily what's in the books. Yes, there are the core rules, which can get a bit confusing if you're new, but on the other hand the st/gm can cut through the confusing bits for the new kids. Edit things down, simplify things, for ease of consumption without in any way lessening the impact and fun of the session for the experienced players.

The added aspect of this is that each game, for each group, by different ST's while still in the same "world" can be wildly different experience. You can literally take a character you've played in one campaign, join a new group doing a similar campaign and have a vividly different experiences with your character. You can take the entire same group of players and characters and play with them all for years and still have stories to tell.

I've played the same campaign with the same group of people for going on nearly 10 years (going from offline interactions, to online cause of rl, and back again, and then back again) and I've been the ST for nearly all the time (minus when the group decides they have their own thing they really want to do and make me scramble on the fly to figure how to make it happen), and the funny thing? 10 years and we're just now ending this "campaign" and its not even because I've ran out of stories/enemies/plots/goals for them. The owod provides so much fodder for campaigns, from so many point of view, its almost impossible to run out of things to do...I've done some of the other systems, with their plethora of information, settings, dice, gods, races, classes, weapons, enemies; but when the campaign ended, even though I had fun, I was glad it was open. Spent so much time on the specifics of what I could and could not do as a priest/hunter/whatever that I never had the immersion which I gained from owod.

Of course, like all rp's, the amount of fun you have is determined less by the game it's self and more about the people your st/gm. I simply feel that owod allows both the group and the st/gm a lot more control and leeway for getting creative with the story/characters/enemies then what I've experienced with other games...

Then again, I'm the ST who lets a group of vampires and a mage try to figure out a way to steal the avatars of other mages in order to give them to vampires to make a fubard mix to vampire/mage hybrid...They're yet to succeed, but still, I'm too lenient in their whims some times :D .

[Roxxy]

From a nonplayer: I love the fluff. Vampires, werewolves, mages... whathave you. You can come up with a cool character concept that's unusual and awesome at the same time. It's high on horror, the more visceral kind and the psychological one as well. It appeals to me as a player and person.

I also love the system itself, with only one dice to determnine success or failure and the rest of the stuff. It's easy to master and still allows for it's share of deepness(is that even a word? I should be making linguistic arguments at midnight) and you can make a lot of similar character that are very different from one another.

Like I said, I'm not a player. I just read a lot of sourcebooks. I do however consider myself a fan of the system. Make what you will of it.I'm exactly the same.

[boredgremlin]

I've been an ST in a few NWoD games. Havent tried OWoD at all but i loved the new one and my group of D&D players who were just trying it out did too.

For me what i loved most is the mechanics. We played a D&D fantasy style campaign just using the mage rules once and found it worked fine. Whats was best about them is how simple and intuitive a dice pool is. The mechanics never become the focus of the action. They are just what mechanics are supposed to be... a way to represent luck and character skill deciding success. Not how well you min max or do fast math.

Turns in combat flew by, the action was fast and furious, the magic more magical and creative (even though it took some getting used to) and there was actually a big mechanical difference between things like Ogre's and humans.

And during RP parts of the games the mechanics were again fast and intuitive without getting in the way of RP. Simple things like a dice pool to convince someone usually being 3 dice for a character but after a good bit of banter giving him a bonus dice or two were a fast, simple mechanic that again made a huge difference in success rate and degree without being clunky and slowing things down the way that stacking modifiers does in most games.


In short what I love about NWoD is that the system lets you do what you want and then gets the hell out of your way while you actually do it.

[GungHo]

My limited experience with the system indicates that "roleplay people losing their humanity" translates, in practice to "angst over how much it sucks to be superpowered and awesome".

I don't mean to decry the system mechanically, it's just that it appears to collect some rather odd individuals in it's culture.
While the early game did cater somewhat to the Azrael Abyss' and Circe Nightshades of the world, you can't fault the game for some of the goofballs who play it any more than you can fault D&D for basement nerds or anime for weeaboos.

[Morty]

Like most people here, I like World of Darkness for its atmosphere. It's like our world, until you scratch away the surface and uncover what's underneath. It encourages keeping a low profile and creativity - even if you're a supernatural being you need to be wary of keeping your existence secret, avoid mortal law enforcement and, most importantly, remember that there are plenty of things as powerful as you are or more. Combined with its emphasis on personal struggle - vampires fighting the Beast, mages grappling with hubris, hunters trying to balance the Vigil and normal life and stay sane - it makes a very tasty mix, in my not-so-humble opinion.
My favourite WoD game is Hunter: the Vigil from nWoD, because it's about normal, squishy mortals taking the fight to the things that see them as pawns or food. Unlike in other WoD games, you're the underdog, which necessitates using every edge you can possibly get. I'm also familiar with Vampire: the Requiem and Changeling: the Lost, which are also good in their own ways. I wish I had more opportunityes to play the latter, though.
From oWoD, which I investigate mostly out of curiosity as I prefer nWoD, I'm mostly familiar with Hunter: the Reckoning, like I said out of curiosity - while the game has potential and some interesting themes, its design is schizophrenic and rules a mess(though that's normal in oWoD) making H:tV a far better choice.

[Tyndmyr]

While the early game did cater somewhat to the Azrael Abyss' and Circe Nightshades of the world, you can't fault the game for some of the goofballs who play it any more than you can fault D&D for basement nerds or anime for weeaboos.

Meh, the culture is what it is. I happily make jokes about D&D folks living in their parent's basements all the time.

That said, I'd punch a baby for a good local urban magic larp...Mage or Dresden Files would be epic.

[TurtleKing]

From the one campaign have played in I love it. I think I played OWOD considering was playing a dual tradition Cultist of Ecstasy/ Dreamspeaker. My guy was in no way a fighter at all. Granted did have a little thanks to my combatives training from the military but nothing much. Oh yea I was essentially playing myself. My main weapon before finally got a second dot into Prime so could do the lightsaber thing using Holy Stroke (Schwartz power anyone?) is a small tool that has a inch long blade. In no way long enough to kill or even really hurt but the main issue is concealability. I have gotten through airport security and was even examined with the guy giving it right back.

As fo that grimdark we had a good taste of that has we investigate to find the guy who is basically stealing mage avatars and werewolf skins from kids at a Hogwarts like school in the Umbra. However since playing myself did manage to keep it light sometimes with a few jokes. Oh when I say jokes I mean rolling on the floor crying and gasping for breath from laughing jokes. For drama we had some especially in regards to my character and the DMPC (all but the ST and one player were new to WOD) were developing a relationship. Oh if wondering did my character sleep with her no but did stay in the bed with her to help guard her along with the werewolf at the foot of the bed.

As for roleplaying, combat, or such we averaged a fight either one a session or every other session. The werewolf player built his to do mean damage with his glaive easily splitting people down the middle. The Vampire player playing a brujah was the second best in combat. The werespider player was either ineffective though vary comedic or quite devastating. The Verbana was not so much a fighter but an awesome healer. My guy was the least capable till almost the end with one fight I basically stay out of because was unnecessary yet unavoidable. Though in some fights engagements instead served as the DMPC's limiter so wouldn't roast everything.

I enjoyed it because of the unparalled roleplaying got to do compared to all the D&D did before. The few times came close either derailed or had a leash of sorts put on my character to not hog the light. But with WOD we each got the limelight as we each had out respective areas of expertise along with effort to be apart of the story. Even when not our niche we still could contribute like while the werewolf and brujah engaged our suspect the rest of us dived into the suspects mind to get answers.

[prufock]

For this particular point, though, the rationale is that mortals are more numerous, and they have lots of weapons. It makes more sense when you take the Mage setting into account (specifically the Technocracy).

The vamipres have access to the same weapons, and it seems like half the humans are under their control. I've been told it has something to do the Technocracy. Whatever.

[SiuiS]

World of Darkness is a game where who you are is more important than what you are. D&D evolved such that 'elf wizard' was a valid character. In nWoD, you would instead be Vaarsuvius, androgynous Obrimos, proud and wrathful.

Flaws are built in to the character in such a way that they reinforce the character. they are at heart, better facsimiles of people than a lot of other games provide. And that goes a long way towards the type of gameplay I prefer.

[The Glyphstone]

The vamipres have access to the same weapons, and it seems like half the humans are under their control. I've been told it has something to do the Technocracy. Whatever.

From the Vampire perspective, the existence of the Technocracy is completely irrelevant to the Masquerade. According to the fluff books, the elder vampires (the ones in charge) remember the medieval era where there was at most a few million humans armed with torches and swords, and the Inquisition came close to wiping out the Cainites/Kindred. Now there are six billion humans, and they have automatic weapons, incendiary grenades, and nuclear bombs. Vamps control half of humanity's leadership, but they can't possibly directly control three billion people, let alone six billion, even if the world's entire vampire population teamed up. Humanity figuring out collectively that they exist would, at best, end in total mutual annihilation, and the elders realize that.

Now let's throw in the other supernatural splats, each of which also enjoy their respective Masquerades, would really rather not see the vampires yank the blanket off their pillow fort, and actually have the oomph to do something about it if they try.

[Morty]

Also, vampires control the human population indirectly. If the Masquerade were to be blown off, many of those puppets would suddenly tear away their strings. Not all of them, of course - ghouls and brainwashed mortals would remain loyal to the vampires, but many of those controlled in ways not overtly supernatural would turn against them.

[gkathellar]

So, I was wondering why everyone and their mother(well, not literally everyone's mother, but you get the idea) loves the World of Darkness campaign settings/games. Not that I like it or dislike it, I'm just curious about what makes people love it.

Because it's so cute how it takes itself completely seriously.

That's not a joke. I think a lot of the attraction is that WoD pretends it's got a really great, really mechanically well-supported handle on the serious existential angst thing. It doesn't, really, its mechanics for an angsty horror are no better than Burning Wheel or Fate or BESM 3E's, and they're outright surpassed by games like Eclipse Phase. But because WoD puts on such a good showing, just mentioning the name helps put people in the mood.

[The Glyphstone]

Because it's so cute how it takes itself completely seriously.

That's not a joke. I think a lot of the attraction is that WoD pretends it's got a really great, really mechanically well-supported handle on the serious existential angst thing. It doesn't, really, its mechanics for an angsty horror are no better than Burning Wheel or Fate or BESM 3E's, and they're outright surpassed by games like Eclipse Phase. But because WoD puts on such a good showing, just mentioning the name helps put people in the mood.

Huh? WoD's mechanical approach to its angst and horror are lackluster at best and awful at worst. The angsty gothic horror flavoring lures people in, but it's the simplistic elegance of the rest of the game, mechanically, that keeps them there.

[Alejandro]

I gave WoD a good sporting try, but I just could not enjoy it very much. My reasons:

- The characters felt too alike. When we were playing Mage, all the PCs were Mages. Yes, we were different kinds of mages and did things differently, but no one felt overly unique to me. I actually tried, on purpose, to make a mage that used guns and fisticuffs while searching for magical trinkets (the storyline had a slight Indiana Jones flavor) but found it was better to just sling spells directly like the others, in terms of actually being effective.

- Varying player expertise was extremely influential. One other player worshiped at the WoD altar and knew the rules and mythology inside and out. That player ended up with a very powerful PC that really did not need the rest of us for anything, and it led to PC vs. PC conflict, which apparently is encouraged in some WoD, except we mostly did not care for that (except the dedicated WoD player.)

- Like the above, it just got to me, after a while, that we weren't trying to do heroic things as much as we were trying to please NPC masters greater than us, or keep another PC from screwing us. I did not enjoy it as it felt too much like real life, instead of escapist entertainment.

I will say, however, that I did enjoy a brief Hunter(?) game that was run, because we were basically normal people with a few supernatural powers, who had to work together instead of against each other to survive, and the different PCs felt different (as opposed to everyone being a vampire, everyone a mage, etc.)

[gkathellar]

Huh? WoD's mechanical approach to its angst and horror are lackluster at best and awful at worst. The angsty gothic horror flavoring lures people in, but it's the simplistic elegance of the rest of the game, mechanically, that keeps them there.

I agree entirely, and personally I want to take nWoD's beautiful, beautiful system and go play an entirely different game. But they're so sincere that often you can't help but take them seriously.

[Civil War Man]

From the one campaign have played in I love it. I think I played OWOD considering was playing a dual tradition Cultist of Ecstasy/ Dreamspeaker.

You were playing the older version. Every reference you drop in this post is from oWoD factions.


The vamipres have access to the same weapons, and it seems like half the humans are under their control. I've been told it has something to do the Technocracy. Whatever.

As Gladstone said, the issue is that there are too many humans to reliably control, especially since any given vampire is effectively incapacitated for 33-50% of any given day. To add to it, if all vampires started ignoring the Masquerade, it would stir up a number of equally or more powerful factions. The werewolves would love nothing more than an excuse to annihilate every vampire on the planet. And even a modestly powerful mage has enough power to give a vampire elder a very bad day.

And then there's the Technocracy. Just as a reference of what they're capable of at higher levels: one of the Apocalypse scenarios involved one of the Antediluvians waking up (one of the weakest ones, granted, but we're still talking 3rd generation vampire). The Technocracy blasted him with a dose of concentrated sunlight fired from an orbiting satellite. While that didn't kill him outright, that sort of thing would instantly turn any vampire weaker than him (ie every vampire except other Antediluvians and Caine himself) to ash. Basically the best case scenario for all vampires ignoring the Masquerade is mutually assured destruction. Worst case is the entire vampire population gets collectively curbstomped by the rest of the world.

And, even ignoring all of that, a vampire elder would see the Masquerade as a useful tool to control neophyte vampires, even if they didn't believe that it was vital to survival.


The characters felt too alike. When we were playing Mage, all the PCs were Mages. Yes, we were different kinds of mages and did things differently, but no one felt overly unique to me. I actually tried, on purpose, to make a mage that used guns and fisticuffs while searching for magical trinkets (the storyline had a slight Indiana Jones flavor) but found it was better to just sling spells directly like the others, in terms of actually being effective.

For Mage, this can definitely vary. If the party can do a good job avoiding witnesses, that can definitely reduce the unique flavor because they don't have to worry as much about dressing up their spells to fit their paradigm.

From my personal experience, I've had more fun with crossover games (which nWoD handles much better). It's not for everyone, though. New Changeling also does a decent job making characters unique, since they tend to specialize more than mages.


Varying player expertise was extremely influential. One other player worshiped at the WoD altar and knew the rules and mythology inside and out. That player ended up with a very powerful PC that really did not need the rest of us for anything, and it led to PC vs. PC conflict, which apparently is encouraged in some WoD, except we mostly did not care for that (except the dedicated WoD player.)

Definitely a valid concern. Experienced players are much better at generating powerful characters. PvP is a bit more group dependent, but a lot of the fluff does encourage it. That can only be avoided at the group level, doing stuff like avoiding filling the party with characters in factions or settings that work at cross purposes or are eternal enemies.


Like the above, it just got to me, after a while, that we weren't trying to do heroic things as much as we were trying to please NPC masters greater than us, or keep another PC from screwing us. I did not enjoy it as it felt too much like real life, instead of escapist entertainment.

Yeah, basically the system isn't really for you.


I will say, however, that I did enjoy a brief Hunter(?) game that was run, because we were basically normal people with a few supernatural powers, who had to work together instead of against each other to survive, and the different PCs felt different (as opposed to everyone being a vampire, everyone a mage, etc.)

Out of the nWoD settings, I'd probably rate Hunter as the most optimistic. I'd generally rate the optimism of the settings like this (from most to least optimistic):

1. Hunter (humanity standing up for itself to fight off the supernatural bullies preying on it)
2. Geist (getting a second lease on life, especially optimistic when compared to its spiritual ancestor, Wraith)
3. Mage (becoming part of something greater than yourself, questing to reclaim your heritage)
4. Vampire (political skullduggery, part of an undead pyramid scheme)
5. Werewolf (you are tasked with maintaining the balance. And the thing you are trying to keep under control is trying to kill you)
6. Changeling (everything views you as prey or a useful pawn. You have a hard time discerning what's real anymore. Surviving long enough to be able to defend yourself may actually turn you into one of the monsters that tortured you)
7. Promethean (everything hates you. Everything wants to kill you. If someone doesn't hate you, spending any time with them will make them hate you. The very land you walk on rejects you and starts to wither and die because you exist. If you are lucky, you will eventually succeed in forging a soul for yourself and becoming an ordinary human, immediately losing all of your memories and superpowers. Losing your supernatural template is your reward)

[Tyndmyr]

I agree entirely, and personally I want to take nWoD's beautiful, beautiful system and go play an entirely different game. But they're so sincere that often you can't help but take them seriously.

Have you tried 7th Sea? D10 based, some definite similarities. Fantastic setting.

[The Glyphstone]

1. Hunter (humanity standing up for itself to fight off the supernatural bullies preying on it)
2. Geist (getting a second lease on life, especially optimistic when compared to its spiritual ancestor, Wraith)
3. Mage (becoming part of something greater than yourself, questing to reclaim your heritage)
4. Vampire (political skullduggery, part of an undead pyramid scheme)
5. Werewolf (you are tasked with maintaining the balance. And the thing you are trying to keep under control is trying to kill you)
6. Changeling (everything views you as prey or a useful pawn. You have a hard time discerning what's real anymore. Surviving long enough to be able to defend yourself may actually turn you into one of the monsters that tortured you)
7. Promethean (everything hates you. Everything wants to kill you. If someone doesn't hate you, spending any time with them will make them hate you. The very land you walk on rejects you and starts to wither and die because you exist. If you are lucky, you will eventually succeed in forging a soul for yourself and becoming an ordinary human, immediately losing all of your memories and superpowers. Losing your supernatural template is your reward)

I'd rank Hunter as #3 myself, with Geist and Mage as #1 and #2 - Hunter is superficially about humans standing up to the big nasties, but that just brings to mind the Nietzsche line about 'he who fights monsters...'. A Hunter either dies horribly, goes insane, or adopts an alternative morality code that makes them less human anyways, so it's a lot more bleak in the long term than the other two.

[Morty]

Hunter places differently on the optimism/pessimism scale depending on whether you look at the big picture or the small picture. On a personal scale, it's pretty damn bleak - you're pretty much outclassed and if you're not killed by the things you hunt, you'll go mad. But on the big scale it is, as was mentioned, about humans telling supernaturals they're not going to sit around and be cattle - and while individual hunters are fragile and mortal, the Vigil itself is anything but. For every Hunter that ends up dead, institutionalized or simply gives up, another will appear to take his or her place.

[Kesnit]

- The characters felt too alike. When we were playing Mage, all the PCs were Mages. Yes, we were different kinds of mages and did things differently, but no one felt overly unique to me. I actually tried, on purpose, to make a mage that used guns and fisticuffs while searching for magical trinkets (the storyline had a slight Indiana Jones flavor) but found it was better to just sling spells directly like the others, in terms of actually being effective.

Honestly, this sounds like more of a problem with your group or your ST than the system. Let me tell you about my current Mage group. (As a background, we were told we all had to be students at a college.)

1) Stoner who is more interested in looking good and partying than going to class.
2) Doctoral candidate in physics who has decided magic is the solution to the mysteries of the universe. Is currently working on a "death ray" that works like the portal gun in Portal.
3) English major and conspiracy theorist who believes that the secrets of the universe can be found encoded in old writings.
4) Navy SEAL who is getting his bachelors before going back to the Teams as an officer.

One thing I like about WoD is there is a lot of flexibility in building PCs. Want to be a Marine Corps DI who was taken to Arcadia to train the "hunting animals" in your Keeper's stable? There's at least 4 Seemings/kiths that will work for that. Want to be a Knight Templar who was Embraced? 5 Bloodlines would work really well, and any number of others can work.


- Varying player expertise was extremely influential. One other player worshiped at the WoD altar and knew the rules and mythology inside and out. That player ended up with a very powerful PC that really did not need the rest of us for anything,

That's a problem with the player, and with the ST for letting them get away with it. Knowledge of the system is a benefit in any game.


and it led to PC vs. PC conflict, which apparently is encouraged in some WoD, except we mostly did not care for that (except the dedicated WoD player.)

Yes, PC v. PC conflict can be part of WoD. (Some systems lean more towards it than others, like Vampire.) But part of the role of the ST is to run a game that is fun for the players. If your ST wasn't going that, that's a problem with the ST, not the system. (Even Vampire can be run as a cooperative game.)

[Arbane]

I'm not a huge fan of Vampire, mostly due to it attracting a certain type of player.

WoD's biggest gift the the RPG community: Hot goth chicks. :smallbiggrin:

[TurtleKing]

@Arbane: I would say instead introducing chicks period to tabletop RPGs.

As for the mages feeling similar that was because was more of playing builds than characters. Can easily have the everyone is alike in any setting if just using the mechanics. It is upto the players and how they roleplay their characters that really distinguishes them. Though if want to keep them from feeling similar a crossover game would be better.

As for the not feeling like a hero that really depends on perspective. Doubt could have the whole saving the world with WoD but can be of your little world. WoD doesn't focus on the big picture so much as the little picture.

Now as for if nWoD is better than oWoD or not I couldn't say as very little experience. Plus can't get the source books to read and creating characters so couldn't play in another.

As for that pvp I can see that though having a reason they need you around could help. In my case our team's greatest combatant still needed me who can barely fight to help heal his wounds. Not too mention having the ability to look back in time at a location to glean answers helps.

[HunterOfJello]

I'm interested in trying out Mage the Awakening and nWoD. I have a few questions:

1. Is it necessary to read all of the nWoD book to be a storyteller for a Mage game? Is the nWoD book necessary at all?

2. How much do the players need to read the Mage book beforehand to be able to play starting off?

3. I've heard that there are quite a few subtleties and rules involved in playing Mage. Do players need to be fully aware of these from before the 1st session, or can they be learned over time?

4. Is one storyteller and two players a good group size? Is it too small?

5. Are there many splat books available for Mage? One of the players that could be involved loves pouring over tons of spells.

6. How does combat in Mage differ from 3.5 d&d? I know that these are completely different beasts, but that's where most of my tabletop gaming knowledge comes from.

7. Which class would you compare most Mages to in general? Are they mostly similar to wizard/cleric/druid or can some end up being played as the hack and slash fighter types?

[SiuiS]

EDIT: @HunterofJello, This guy's got some stuff you may be interested in (http://Thanqol.deviantart.com/journal/The-Perfect-Arrow-p1-Influences-258001113), all under the title of A Perfect Arrow. Fourteen journal entries that showcase the way he sets up his game, that could at least give you food for thought if not answer your questions.


Huh? WoD's mechanical approach to its angst and horror are lackluster at best and awful at worst. The angsty gothic horror flavoring lures people in, but it's the simplistic elegance of the rest of the game, mechanically, that keeps them there.

Angsty gothic horror isn't why I like the mechanics. I could ignore the fluff entirely, hand my players the new World of Darkness sourcebook and run D&D with it. It would be grittier, darker, more lethal. Rather than twelve orcs, it's an indeterminate amount of malformed beast men in lethal melee. I don't feel this is at cross purposes to dungeons and dragons at all, because the same level of zoomed in detail lends itself well to rewards of happiness and deep emotion.

World of darkness has two appeals to me. First, the math is somewhat less linear, so that there shouldn't be a huge discrepancy between the fighter and the rogue when it comes to dodging. Second, world of darkness characters are people. You will get more from the character by building a personality and allowing the character to pick their own crunch choices, than you would by just picking skills you think will be good in this game.


I gave WoD a good sporting try, but I just could not enjoy it very much. My reasons:

- The characters felt too alike. When we were playing Mage, all the PCs were Mages. Yes, we were different kinds of mages and did things differently, but no one felt overly unique to me. I actually tried, on purpose, to make a mage that used guns and fisticuffs while searching for magical trinkets (the storyline had a slight Indiana Jones flavor) but found it was better to just sling spells directly like the others, in terms of actually being effective.

- Varying player expertise was extremely influential. One other player worshiped at the WoD altar and knew the rules and mythology inside and out. That player ended up with a very powerful PC that really did not need the rest of us for anything, and it led to PC vs. PC conflict, which apparently is encouraged in some WoD, except we mostly did not care for that (except the dedicated WoD player.)

- Like the above, it just got to me, after a while, that we weren't trying to do heroic things as much as we were trying to please NPC masters greater than us, or keep another PC from screwing us. I did not enjoy it as it felt too much like real life, instead of escapist entertainment.

I will say, however, that I did enjoy a brief Hunter(?) game that was run, because we were basically normal people with a few supernatural powers, who had to work together instead of against each other to survive, and the different PCs felt different (as opposed to everyone being a vampire, everyone a mage, etc.)

it does indeed sound like the story teller or the group were the trouble, not the system. Characters are made by point selection, so there is a huge amount of possible variance. If everyone in the group has similar goals, like surviving combat, then they will all have good combat skills and stats and health. The ST could do two things, either indulge the group or shake things up. Personally, I find shaking things up to be the best solution, as folks often don't realize they are in a gaming rut until shaken out of it.

World of Darkness is a weird system. I can't just pick it up and run it, but having only played it once, currently, I have entire world spin out in front o me when I get a good prompt. Someone on this forum, for example, said they were going to play a game that was set in Ireland during Viking incursions before a storm strands them in the night amidst vampires and werewolves. And Sisters Themsleves, I had all sorts of immediate ideas for how the game would run and feel. And that's a fabulous thing. When a system speaks to you, it's entirely easier to get into. Too many RPG books sit there untouched because they were clunky and hard to implement with the stories involved.

[WitchSlayer]

Honestly, WoD isn't much of a horror game as it is an urban fantasy game. That said the XP system could use a lot of work, luckily my current Storyteller is a handy houseruler so it doesn't bother too much.

[One Tin Soldier]

I'm interested in trying out Mage the Awakening and nWoD. I have a few questions:

1. Is it necessary to read all of the nWoD book to be a storyteller for a Mage game? Is the nWoD book necessary at all?

2. How much do the players need to read the Mage book beforehand to be able to play starting off?

3. I've heard that there are quite a few subtleties and rules involved in playing Mage. Do players need to be fully aware of these from before the 1st session, or can they be learned over time?

4. Is one storyteller and two players a good group size? Is it too small?

5. Are there many splat books available for Mage? One of the players that could be involved loves pouring over tons of spells.

6. How does combat in Mage differ from 3.5 d&d? I know that these are completely different beasts, but that's where most of my tabletop gaming knowledge comes from.

7. Which class would you compare most Mages to in general? Are they mostly similar to wizard/cleric/druid or can some end up being played as the hack and slash fighter types?

Hoo boy, Mage is a tough one to start out with, but I'll see how I can answer your questions.

1. It is not exactly necessary to read all of it (you don't need to know every single spell, for example), but you should read a good deal of it. If for no reason other than the fact that White Wolf editing can be shaky sometimes, and important information can end up in weird places. The core book is well organized, but the splat books are variable.

And yes, the core book is necessary. That's where all of the basic rules are. nWoD characters are (intended) to be made by creating a human character first, then adding the supernatural template. Which brings me to...

2. With Mage, at least, the players should at least browse through the setting info, particularly the order and path sections, and get a basic idea of what kinds of spells are in each Arcana. It's possible to play without much knowledge of how being a Mage works (especially if your character is freshly awakened), but it's fairly easy to slip up and make fatal choices if you do.

3. As I touched on before, the players (and you) should probably try to wrap their/your heads around spellcasting before you're actually in play. Otherwise, you will spend half an hour puzzling through the rules the first time a character casts a spell. You won't figure all of it out immediately, but get a handle on it before you start.

One of the most important things to remember about Mage spellcasting is that while the spells listed in the book are varied and useful, they are only a fraction of what your magic can do. The spells are there as power level guidelines, and you can do literally anything within that power level. Anything.

4. That group size seems fine.

5. There are a number of Mage books with Legacies, spellcasting information, item enchanting, all kinds of stuff. There isn't anything like the 3.5 Spell Compendium, though. If your player wants a spell that isn't in the core book, he can make it up on the spot. (As long as you approve it.)

6. nWoD combat is very different from D&D combat. In D&D you are expected to fight regularly without much risk of dying. nWoD combat, on the other hand, is fast and brutal. Without crazy supernatural defensive and offensive capabilities (For example, a min-maxed and experienced Mage), you are not going to be charging into groups of enemies and living to tell the tale. Or rather, your players aren't. Furthermore, healing more than a small amount of damage takes either a lot of time or scarce magical resources. Even then, you need a Life mage who can actually do it.

Even after all that, the Morality system (or in Mage's case, Wisdom) means that regularly killing people, even in self-defense, will probably lead to morality loss and Derangements. This is not a good thing.

7. Compared to the rest of the major nWoD supernaturals, Mages are indeed the Wizard of the bunch. That is to say, ridiculously overpowered. Unlike D&D, however, this is mostly intentional, since the "horror" themes of Mage revolve around hubris. It gives the players plenty of rope to hang themselves with. (Seriously, Paradox is a bitch.)

Within their own game, though, the players should not feel limited to weak, scholarly types. A Navy SEAL can be a Mage just as easily as a cheerleader, or a college professor. Mages can be terrifying in combat, especially once they get to the 4th and 5th dots of the Arcana. Any Arcana can be useful in combat, though some are more obvious than others. A character's ability to cast magic is only tangentially limited by their stats.

I hope this was helpful. :smallsmile:

[Civil War Man]

I'm interested in trying out Mage the Awakening and nWoD. I have a few questions:

1. Is it necessary to read all of the nWoD book to be a storyteller for a Mage game? Is the nWoD book necessary at all?

You should be familiar with all books you plan to use if you want to be a storyteller. For Mage, the core Mage book and nWoD book are necessary. The way nWoD is set up is that all supernatural characters are a human with a template laid over it. The nWoD core book has the general rules that are common across all settings, and all the other books refer to it for mundane rules.


2. How much do the players need to read the Mage book beforehand to be able to play starting off?

At least enough to get a general idea of how magic works and understand at least the basics of their path (what kind of magic they use best) and order (their role in mage society).


3. I've heard that there are quite a few subtleties and rules involved in playing Mage. Do players need to be fully aware of these from before the 1st session, or can they be learned over time?

If they want to start out as more than initiates, they should try to familiarize themselves with some of the subtleties of the system. It's less important for people playing freshly awakened mages. The storyteller should be familiar with as many of the rules as possible to help players learning from the ground up.


4. Is one storyteller and two players a good group size? Is it too small?

As with D&D, it depends on the campaign.


5. Are there many splat books available for Mage? One of the players that could be involved loves pouring over tons of spells.

There are a lot of splat books, but most of them focus on expanding the fluff and adding extra flavor, with maybe a few extra merits or spells thrown into the mix. The magic is extremely flexible, so there isn't a lot of need to publish a ton of extra spells with each book.


6. How does combat in Mage differ from 3.5 d&d? I know that these are completely different beasts, but that's where most of my tabletop gaming knowledge comes from.

It really is a massive change if you are used to D&D.

The basics go like this: You have attributes. They are a number between 1-5 (barring high-level play). You have skills. They are a number between 0-5. Most skill checks involve taking an attribute, adding a skill, then adding any bonuses from equipment or circumstances and subtracting any penalties. When you have that sum, roll that many d10s. Any die that comes up 8 or higher counts as a "success". 10s count as a success, and allow you to roll an additional die to try to add more successes. If a roll has more than 5 successes, it's considered an exceptional success, which may add additional effects. If penalties reduce the number of dice you roll to zero or lower, you roll one d10. This is a chance die. Only a 10 counts as a success, and a 1 on a chance die is a critical failure.

Those are the basic rules for all skill checks. Including combat. Simple attacks involve taking an attribute (usually Strength or Dexterity) and a skill (like Brawl, Firearms, or Weaponry), adding bonuses (weapons, for example), and subtracting penalties. The most common penalties are defense (their ability to avoid an attack) and armor (their ability to absorb an attack), which are tracked separately because they are affected by different things (swarm tactics reduce defense, but not armor, while armor piercing weapons will ignore armor, but not defense). Roll the sum total in d10s, and count every success as 1 point of damage.

There are also multiple types of damage. Bashing damage is caused by stuff like punches, kicks, and blunt weapons, and heals relatively quickly. Lethal damage is caused by stuff like blades and bullets, and can take a few days to heal. Aggravated damage is massive damage (sunlight to a vampire, silver to a pureblooded werewolf, cold iron to the True Fae) and takes weeks to heal if you do not have magical means of healing it. Taking lots of damage can give you penalties to all of your rolls.

Every character has a certain amount of health. If they receive bashing damage equal to their health, they are on the verge of unconsciousness, and any additional damage will convert the bashing damage into lethal damage on a 1 to 1 basis and cause most characters to pass out from the pain. If they have lethal damage equal to their health, they start bleeding out, taking 1 additional damage per round unless stabilized in some way, and all additional damage converts the lethal damage into aggravated damage on a 1 to 1 basis. If they have aggravated damage equal to their health, they are dead.

Explaining it is complex, but it becomes pretty intuitive once you get the hang of it.


7. Which class would you compare most Mages to in general? Are they mostly similar to wizard/cleric/druid or can some end up being played as the hack and slash fighter types?

WoD is classless. The settings in WoD are more like selecting a race or adding a template than choosing a class. Mages can be fighters, barbarians, wizards, rogues, druids, bards, paladins, etc. So can Changelings. So can Vampires. So can Werewolves (though werewolves have a bit of barbarian and druid flavor regardless of the role they ultimately play).

[One Tin Soldier]

If they have lethal damage equal to their health, they start bleeding out, taking 1 additional damage per round unless stabilized in some way, and all additional damage converts the lethal damage into aggravated damage on a 1 to 1 basis. If they have aggravated damage equal to their health, they are dead.

Actually, bleeding out converts at 1 point per minute, not per turn. For reference, a nWoD turn is about 3 seconds.

This brings up another good point, though. When a character dies in this game, they are dead for good. No Raise Dead spell here. (Well, unless you're a Genius. But that's a fan-made game, and not what you're playing.)

[Civil War Man]

Furthermore, healing more than a small amount of damage takes either a lot of time or scarce magical resources. Even then, you need a Life mage who can actually do it.

This is true in most instances (especially Mage since mana is hard to come by), but there is one exception that comes to mind in one of the other settings. Specifically Gift of Warm Breath, a 1 point Spring contract. No prerequisites to learn it. Costs 1 Glamour (which, when compared to mana, is trivial to gather), and removes fatigue, hunger, thirst, any damage suffered as a result of those effects, and then heals all bashing damage on top of it. Plus it gives a temporary point of Stamina on an exceptional success.

It's not necessarily OP on its own, since it only heals bashing damage. Its real power comes from the healing contracts that convert lethal and/or aggravated damage into bashing, especially in those rare instances when you fulfill the catch of the more powerful contract and waive the casting cost entirely.

[Civil War Man]

Actually, bleeding out converts at 1 point per minute, not per turn. For reference, a nWoD turn is about 3 seconds.

This brings up another good point, though. When a character dies in this game, they are dead for good. No Raise Dead spell here. (Well, unless you're a Genius. But that's a fan-made game, and not what you're playing.)

I stand corrected on the bleeding out.

And technically, a character is only dead for good 99.9% of the time (ignoring any instances of archmages blatantly violating as many mage laws as possible). Prometheans get one extra life (they are only dead for good if they die a second time).

And a Hunter in the Malleus Maleficarum can learn a Benediction that allows them to reduce their total willpower by 1 to bring a non-supernatural human who died less than X minutes ago (where X is their Benediction stat) back from the dead with full health and "only" a major derangement as a souvenir of them being dead. That's really the exception that proves the rule, though, because a cost that high means that it's pretty much only worth it to bring that person back from the dead if the universe is going to be destroyed if they aren't resurrected.

[HunterOfJello]

Wow, that was very informative. Thanks for the information.

One more question. If both the storyteller and the players are new to nWoD, would it be best to play as generic humans for a while to get the hang of it and then switch to Mage?

I get the feeling that having everyone adjusted to the setting first would be beneficial. Also, if that's the case, is it possible for characters to change later on?


Scratch that, I just found a secton on "prelude characters". Has anyone played a character that way and how did it go for you'?

[One Tin Soldier]

Wow, that was very informative. Thanks for the information.

One more question. If both the storyteller and the players are new to nWoD, would it be best to play as generic humans for a while to get the hang of it and then switch to Mage?

I get the feeling that having everyone adjusted to the setting first would be beneficial. Also, if that's the case, is it possible for characters to change later on?


Scratch that, I just found a secton on "prelude characters". Has anyone played a character that way and how did it go for you'?

I have not, though I agree that it's probably a good idea.

[Absol197]

This right here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?446663-Werewolf-The-Forsaken-quot-Detroit-Rock-City-quot) will show you why I like the WoD.

It is, in my mind, the perfect example of what the World of Darkness is supposed to be like, and an example of what can happen when you have a superb Storyteller/GM (and it's in my favorite setting, too; Werewolf, which many people seem not to like, for some reason...)

[Nerd-o-rama]

On the death thing: plus, you can always bring a dead mortal back as a Geist (Geists themselves also get Extra Lives if I recall correctly). That's a big character change, though, and will ditch any templates they had before, including Hunter.

Vampire is also possible, though probably only if they're already dying of exsanguination and there's a willing Vampire on hand.

On preludes: If you've got time for a one-on-one session, a short, one-scene prelude is handy for establishing characters. Just make sure you and your player work things out so they're actually going to Awaken or whatever, and then play out the details.

[boredgremlin]

Wow, that was very informative. Thanks for the information.

One more question. If both the storyteller and the players are new to nWoD, would it be best to play as generic humans for a while to get the hang of it and then switch to Mage?

I get the feeling that having everyone adjusted to the setting first would be beneficial. Also, if that's the case, is it possible for characters to change later on?


Scratch that, I just found a secton on "prelude characters". Has anyone played a character that way and how did it go for you'?


Mage can be pretty complicated. I would try at least a short intro adventure or 2 with regular humans so your not trying to learn all of the rules at once.

Oh and on damage I'm not sure how clear it was, I know when i first read it in the book it was a little confusing. But if you look on the character sheet in the back it becomes much clearer. You have health boxes equal to your health. So say its 8. Which is about average if i recall correctly (I havent played in a while) You would have 8 open boxes like so

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

if you get punched or bashed you and take 2 bashing damage you would put slashes through 2 boxes like so

/ / - - - - - -

If you then get shot for 2 more you add 2 lethal damage as X's and move the bashing over. like so.

X X / / _ _ _ _

And if your then blasted with fire or sunlight as a vamp or whatever and take 2 aggravated damage the first 2 boxes upgrade again and everything shifts over, like such.

* * X X / / _ _

So that you can be K.O.'d, shot and bleeding all at once and tracked differently but in a simple, easy to read way. Everything upgrades. When you have all bashing more bashing becomes lethal, all lethal? More lethal becomes aggravated and so forth.

When you have all *'s (aggravated ) your toast.

I love it. it keeps various combat factors flavorful but still easy to track. And since you never have a ton of health combat is always fast and gritty.

[Tetsubo 57]

I liked Monte Cook's take on the WoD. The explanation for the existence of supernatural beings made a lot more sense to me. The classic oWoD made zero sense to me. The shear number of supernatural beings on Earth was staggering. You wouldn't be able to walk down the street without bumping into one. Yet the general population is suppose to have been clueless to their existence. For me that stretch 'willing sense of disbelief' to the breaking point. Plus the needlessly complex politics in the setting. Never liked it.

[Civil War Man]

I've heard that estimates on the percentage of the population in oWoD being supernatural is skewed by entities like the Technocracy and Pentex. Anyone who works in a government position in oWoD, for instance, would count as being influenced by the supernatural because of the Technocracy, even if they are not supernatural and are completely unaware of the supernatural.

But yeah, either way, it was kind of a mess. I blame it on a combination of a long-running setting, the creation of tons of splat lines, and "consensus reality" being the driving force behind Mage.

[Absol197]

I liked Monte Cook's take on the WoD. The explanation for the existence of supernatural beings made a lot more sense to me. The classic oWoD made zero sense to me. The shear number of supernatural beings on Earth was staggering. You wouldn't be able to walk down the street without bumping into one. Yet the general population is suppose to have been clueless to their existence. For me that stretch 'willing sense of disbelief' to the breaking point. Plus the needlessly complex politics in the setting. Never liked it.

I can't recall the actual numbers exactly, but in the nWoD, I believe that the most populous supernatural race (werewolves) has a worldwide population of a little more than 100,000. Promethians, the least populous, has a population just barely scratching a couple hundred. Supernatural creatures are far less numerous in nWoD than it seems they were in oWoD (I've never played oWoD, so I don't know for sure).

[GungHo]

The populousness (word?) of supernaturals in oWoD was a fluid thing. If you read the original sourcebooks, they were very rare and populations were kept low due to social and/or environmental factors. The further you got in supplimental books, though, you could make a case that half of the population of Mexico City were Sabbat.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I don't know the official figures, but I know my wife declared the New World-edition Vampire population of Chicago in 2015 to be between 200 and 300, or on the order of .01% of the mortal population. This is possibly a little low, but the Covenants and the Prince's court all have their power connections to various aspects of mortal society to keep things orderly. It also allowed her to detail like 10% of the Kindred population as NPCs without spending too much effort, emphasize the Prince's strict policies on Embracing and immigration, and lets all the Vampires know everyone at the start of play so we don't have to worry about frenzying at everyone we meet. Also, Mages at the very least also exist, and that's a pretty good population control on Vampires right there (well, Forces mages are). Also, this might be excluding smaller Vampire domains in the suburbs.

Again, no idea what the canon is here, but so far about .01% Vampire population in NWoD makes sense to me.


It's a big help that NWoD specifies that Vampire societies are rather small, isolated communities with only the tenuous connection of the "official" Covenants and Vampire instinct to organize into hierarchies bringing them together, rather than everyone being members of one of two globe-spanning conspiracies. There's big helpings of "here be Werewolves" in between major cities to keep the gilded cage motif going.

It's a "points of darkness" setting, if you will.

[Talakeal]

I can't recall the actual numbers exactly, but in the nWoD, I believe that the most populous supernatural race (werewolves) has a worldwide population of a little more than 100,000. Promethians, the least populous, has a population just barely scratching a couple hundred. Supernatural creatures are far less numerous in nWoD than it seems they were in oWoD (I've never played oWoD, so I don't know for sure).

In oWoD there were 60,000 Vampires and 40,000 werewolves globally. The others major supernaturals are rarer still (except for were rats, apparently they were the most populous species, but they lived underground and no one ever noticed them). Not sure about minor supernaturals like fomori or ghouls.

Still, keep in mind there are six BILLION humans. That means that if you live in a city the size of New York or Tokyothere are maybe 100-200 supernaturals in the whole city, in an average size town you are lucky to have 1.

[Arbane]

That means that if you live in a city the size of New York or Tokyothere are maybe 100-200 supernaturals in the whole city, in an average size town you are lucky to have 1.

Considering the way most supernaturals treat normals in WoD, 'lucky' might not be the right word.

Also, remember oWoD's conceit that supernaturals were behind EVERYTHING important that ever happened...except the Holocaust. (I used to joke that Hitler went insane and tried to conquer the world when he realized he was the only actual normal human left.)

[Morty]

I think nWoD went quite a long way to distance itself from the "everyone important is a supernatural or controlled by one" conceit.
And according to the Requiem book, the number of vampires varies from one vampire for 100,000 mortals in small cities to one for 50,000 in big ones. However, it's said to vary from domain to domain, so it's hard to pin down.

[Sergeantbrother]

The problem with the high population of supernatural creatures in the OWoD largely stems from using the setting and game lines in ways in which they were not originally intended. Each game line was essentially a stand alone game with its own setting and unique cosmology. They games and setting were similar enough that they could be combined and as time went by, the game lines were increasingly combined by both the writers and the players - which resulted in originally serious games and setting turning into farces like what happened in the Week of Nightmares.

If you look at vampire, and only vampire, then the population of vampires isn't too high and while vampires do have major influence on human society, it isn't overwhelming or absurd. Throw in Werewolf with Vampire and things start to get more silly with spirits all over the place influencing mortals, the Wyrm and corporate conspiracy theories, etc. Add Mage in there and you have the Technocracy secretly controlling human thought and government along with reality itself. If you only take the big three, then who controls government and business starts to become ridiculous even though any single one of those games would work with suspension of disbelief. On top of that throw in all of the various splats like werecats, demons, faeries, wraiths, risen, kuei-jin, mummies, spirits, fomori, sorcerers, hunters, werecrocodiles, and numerous other beasts and it's more comical than dark. The only real human left really is Hitler.

So,for the games and setting(s) to work, they need to be looked at individually or combined with one other game at the most. If you are going to play Vampire, play Vampire and then if you want a strange unusual NPC, use something from only one other game line and do it sparingly with introducing all of that game line's setting fluff.

Steak is good. Ice cream is good. Steak flavored ice cream, not so good.

[The Glyphstone]

Steak a la mode, on the other hand, can be delicious, because while you are eating them together, it works just as well if separated and eaten separately. That's NWoD in this extended analogy that's making me hungry.

[Talakeal]

I think the setting can work beautifully if you don't overdo it. The key to a good cross over is to keep it subtle and mysterious. You don't know why things happen or what is going on. It is a very big world. Just because something exists somewhere doesn't mean it is everywhere.
Adding a were crocodile to every garou sept might be comical, but if you restrict them to a few tropical and exotic locations they become mysterious, and a lone clan of people in the Louisiana bayous who can turn into alligators can be something both mysterious and scary.
There is a lot of bad crossover, but there is also some very good crossover when they remember to keep it mysterious.

For example, the Technocracy is trying to influence Pentex as if it was a normal corporation. As a result you have the Pentex book unwittingly working to fulfill the technocratic agenda, but they don't realize why. Garou who see this behavior should become confused and unnerved by Pentex seemingly random goals. On the other hand, in the Technocracy book you have devices which are sub contracted out to Pentex, which the mages think are magical but are actually possessed by banes.

Likewise, the video games generally do this well. In the Vampire video game they have all four other games represented, but they are all subtle and mysterious. People talk about werewolves in fear, but you don't see any for the first 2/3 of the game, and when you do encounter one it just jumps out and beats the crap out of you, seemingly without motive. The tremere have a stash of fey blood, and if you drink it you gain certain powers while it is in your system, but you never actually see a changeling. The guy who runs the magic store MIGHT be a mage, but you don't know, but the aura of mystery is enough to make you take him seriously and not treat him like any other mortal.

Likewise in the Hunter video game one of the bosses is a werewolf. After the fight you find out that he isn't an enemy, he was sent here to fight the same evil you were. You don't actually learn who the werewolves are or what they believe, you just get a brief glimpse into another world, and the knowledge that you don't know jack.

[eepop]

We've had good and bad WoD campaigns, just as we've had good and bad D&D campaigns.

The biggest breaking point for us with WOD has been that the system rewards a certain amount of specialization in your characters. You only need one Social character, one fixer (generally a computer guy), and a murder-machine. Whenever you face a challenge of those types, that character steps up and generally solves it, while the others stand around, try their best to assist without screwing everything up.

When the Storyteller has done a good job of making all those people engaged often it has worked well.

When there are long stretches where some characters are sitting around doing nothing, the game has disintegrated.

[Juhn]

I was even told "Noooo, you can't play a skinny anarchist brujah focused on chemistry and drugs! Brujah are all big and stupid! Here, take a baseball bat!!" :smallmad:Then your group was doing it wrong. You're supposed to be able to play whatever you want, as long as that's not going to completely destroy the ability to work as a group and as long as you have a reason to engage with the plot.


In addition I feel that the rules are a bit strange. It doesn't feel like there is a lot of difference between, for example, having shot a rifle once and being a professional hitman.That's because there really isn't. Taken purely on Firearms skill, that's a difference of about 2-3 dice. Or about one success/extra damage. Which isn't that much.


I can live with the rules, and I still hope that I someday will play a really good WoD game.They exist. You just need to find a group that wants to play the sort of game you want to play. Keep on looking.