PDA

View Full Version : OWoD vs NWoD



ChaosArchon
2014-01-02, 04:13 PM
So I've been reading up on both Worlds of Darkness but so far the Old one seems more interesting to me but I was wondering what the general consensus was with WoD players? Is the New World of Darkness more enjoyable to play in or is it less enjoyable to the Old World of Darkness? To me (and I could be totally wrong here) the NWoD seemed a bit more optimistic and while yes the whole grimdark setting (in many games) can get old, the setting of OWoD seemed very interesting to me, but I digress.

TheCountAlucard
2014-01-02, 04:57 PM
NWOD doesn't try and choke you with its metaplot, since it doesn't have a metaplot. In that regard it's a little better. Also, while it's far from perfect, it's vastly more mechanically sound.

Vertharrad
2014-01-02, 05:25 PM
Most people like OWoD for the plot and setting while most like NWoD for the mechanics being user friendly.

Black Jester
2014-01-02, 05:49 PM
As far as I know, the players who are old enough to actually played the original WoD when it was first published vastly prefer it to the new system; those who came later to the game tend to favor the new system due to its somewhat more streamlined mechanics. These two are abit like Star Wars. The original World of Darkness is more like the original movies, it has heeart, but in a few moments, it shows its age. The NWoD is smoother, but also a lot more....eh. Those old enough to see the original trilogy before the prequels came out, usually like those better, while the younger audience might prefer the prequels. It's the same with the WoDs.

That said, I would personally attribute the nWod with little redeeming qualities. It is, in my opinion, the vastly inferiour system, especially when it comes to the game mechanics, which are simplified to a level of boredom and predictability, and thus utterly lacking the dynamics of the original World of Darkness system (which was far from perfect as well). The lack of an active defense mechanism just is actively preventing dynamic and interesting combats for instance (and is pretty much the telltale sign of lifeless game design).

So, basically, you end up with a game with rather mediocre mechanics either way, one with being too unpredictable and sometimes rather sluggish, and one quicker, but anti-climactic and dull. It may be a different taste of mediocrity, but claiming that one is clearly better is a rather baseless assumption. As such, I stuck with the game with the better setting, the mediocre system that had idiosyncracies more in line with my personal tastes and without the assumption that a cross-over game is more than a novelty lacking the distinct character of each of the game lines.

The lack of a metaplot makes the NWoD settings likewise static and rather dull. Instead of a changing, breathing environment worthy of interaction, it is reduced to a mere stage design, offering little to no input into the actual gameplay. An existing metaplot is always, always preferable to no metaplot. I can still choose to ignore any events, but I might not have the time at lesiure to develop one in its stead on a global scale.

As a result, I have been running a Werewolf: Apocalpyse campaign for more than seven years. It has now come to an end, but a follow-up is already in planning.

The Glyphstone
2014-01-02, 06:10 PM
Comparing NWoD to the Star Wars prequels? No, that's not laying early bias at all.:smallcool:

OWoD: Incredibly intricate metaplot, tons of story to draw on as inspiration, an extremely thematically resonant setting, all glued to some of the most unbalanced, convoluted, and generally terrible mainstream-published mechanics to have ever been inflicted on the undeserving eyes of gamers anywhere. The best thing to do with OWoD books is use the fluff in a better ruleset.

NWoD: Designed from the ground up as sandbox-style setting, with modular mechanics, plot, and story components pre-designed for compatibility with each other and general user-friendliness. Next to no metaplot, putting an immensely larger workload on the shoulders of the Storyteller to create a coherent world if one needs to exist outside the immediate game setting and generally resulting in a bland experience without a skilled Storyteller at the helm.


Also, note that nearly anyone who played in the OWoD era will regard NWoD as slightly less appealing than the aftermath of rabid hogs drenched in skunk spray ransacking your house, and vice versa. The rationales vary from person-to-person, but D&D edition wars are nothing compared to WoD devotees doing battle.

Raendyn
2014-01-02, 06:23 PM
Comparing NWoD to the Star Wars prequels? No, that's not laying early bias at all.:smallcool:

OWoD: Incredibly intricate metaplot, tons of story to draw on as inspiration, an extremely thematically resonant setting, all glued to some of the most unbalanced, convoluted, and generally terrible mainstream-published mechanics to have ever been inflicted on the undeserving eyes of gamers anywhere. The best thing to do with OWoD books is use the fluff in a better ruleset.

NWoD: Designed from the ground up as sandbox-style setting, with modular mechanics, plot, and story components pre-designed for compatibility with each other and general user-friendliness. Next to no metaplot, putting an immensely larger workload on the shoulders of the Storyteller to create a coherent world if one needs to exist outside the immediate game setting and generally resulting in a bland experience without a skilled Storyteller at the helm.


Also, note that nearly anyone who played in the OWoD era will regard NWoD as slightly less appealing than the aftermath of rabid hogs drenched in skunk spray ransacking your house, and vice versa. The rationales vary from person-to-person, but D&D edition wars are nothing compared to WoD devotees doing battle.

Claps claps claps claps. GIVE THIS GUYA A MEDAL AND A COOKIE!!

But thb, I just see most of these as different games, and act accordingly to what party and mood I have in order to pick what to play. You can keep both, although I admit that from oWoD I know only some mage and a bit of vampire.

SaurOps
2014-01-02, 06:24 PM
NWOD doesn't try and choke you with its metaplot, since it doesn't have a metaplot. In that regard it's a little better. Also, while it's far from perfect, it's vastly more mechanically sound.

20th anniversary editions don't have metaplot, and any events from the metaplot are optional. W:TA even gives helpful directions for people who might want to play the tribes or breeds that went extinct in the past. It's essentially become another toolbox to play with.

The Glyphstone
2014-01-02, 06:28 PM
20th anniversary editions don't have metaplot, and any events from the metaplot are optional. W:TA even gives helpful directions for people who might want to play the tribes or breeds that went extinct in the past. It's essentially become another toolbox to play with.

I'll concede the anniversary editions as an exception, their mechanics are for the most part cleaned up significantly from Revised and earlier. Still clunky, but playable.

Zavoniki
2014-01-02, 06:43 PM
From what I understand, and with the little of both editions I've played, OWoD has slightly better world building and fluff on average and nWoD has much, much, much better mechanics. I also feel that the best nWoD fluff(Demon, Changeling) is better than anything OWoD ever produced but that it also has some things that are worse than anything from OWoD(nWoD Vampire). That being said a lot of WoD splats you will only like if you like that style of game. For example I'm a big fan of espionage style games so Demon: The Descent is right up my alley.

Black Jester
2014-01-02, 07:07 PM
Comparing NWoD to the Star Wars prequels? No, that's not laying early bias at all.:smallcool:

Have I created an even vague impression that I am particularly impartial in this discussion?
But you are right, that comparison is not entirely correct, after all the two Star Wars trilogies are at least part of the same continuity. The NwoD is more like the Total Recall remake. :smallwink:


OWoD: Incredibly intricate metaplot, tons of story to draw on as inspiration, an extremely thematically resonant setting, all glued to some of the most unbalanced, convoluted, and generally terrible mainstream-published mechanics to have ever been inflicted on the undeserving eyes of gamers anywhere. The best thing to do with OWoD books is use the fluff in a better ruleset.
Harsh, but not entirely unjustified. I never said that the original set of rules was particularly good - but the supperiority of the NWoD mechanics are an unsubstantial myth. It's just as bad, just replacing clunkiness with boredom and blandness. Besides, there was a genuinely *good* alternative set of rules for the original World of Darkness.
Besides, the lack of balance, at least between the various games within the OWoD is a genuinely good thing, because the scope and mood of each game is entirely different and, as a result the role of the characters differ. Besindes, that form of balancing only really matters in a crossover game, which pretty much requires the sacrifice of each game's distinct character, so it really doesn't matter that much.



Also, note that nearly anyone who played in the OWoD era will regard NWoD as slightly less appealing than the aftermath of rabid hogs drenched in skunk spray ransacking your house, and vice versa. The rationales vary from person-to-person, but D&D edition wars are nothing compared to WoD devotees doing battle.

It didn't help that the OWoD, and especially Vampire was one of the favorite objects of condescension for the Forgians and their bend on RPG theories.
In my experience (but again, that might very well be coloured, including by the fact that the NWoD was a colossal economic disaster over here and never developed much of a player base, while the OWoD is still played quite publicly, at least among the large and active LARP community spawned by it), the need of the NWoD players to express their distance and dislike for the OWoD has been a lot more vocal and aggressive than the other way around, while the Antediluvians of the OWoD have a not entirely undeserved reputation for pretentiousness and a patronizing tone.

The Glyphstone
2014-01-02, 09:23 PM
Have I created an even vague impression that I am particularly impartial in this discussion?
But you are right, that comparison is not entirely correct, after all the two Star Wars trilogies are at least part of the same continuity. The NwoD is more like the Total Recall remake. :smallwink:



Better, I guess. It's definitely more bland and uninspiring, but at least it doesn't have Schwarzenegger as the star, so you lose good and bad.:smallbiggrin:

Lord_Gareth
2014-01-02, 09:34 PM
I'm gonna have to dissent from the general trend - I hate oWoD. I hate every part of oWoD. It's a wretched, filthy cesspit best served by being forgotten as swiftly as possible. That the mechanics were garbage is well-known, but the fluff was, and is, heavy-handed, immature, shoddily-written and inconsistent. White Wolf's attempts at supernatural politics are painful to read through, and their End Times storyline has more choking canon characters than a Forgotten Realms campaign - and that's considering how many they have even if you're not running the freaking apocalypse. The 'advice' articles in the backs of certain books (check out the Werewolf Player Guide) are holier-than-thou and almost entirely unhelpful, and as you add splats the lack of consistency gets only worse, not better.

Burn it and walk away.

Cirrylius
2014-01-02, 10:28 PM
The lack of a metaplot makes the NWoD settings likewise static and rather dull. Instead of a changing, breathing environment worthy of interaction, it is reduced to a mere stage design, offering little to no input into the actual gameplay. An existing metaplot is always, always preferable to no metaplot. I can still choose to ignore any events, but I might not have the time at lesiure to develop one in its stead on a global scale.

^This. The ST in OWoD was always free to adjust metaplot to their campaign. NWoD you have to invent it yourself, whole cloth.

That said, I get the feeling that Blood and Smoke is going to start veering back towards tolerable, useful levels of metaplot, but that's just my gut talking.

SaurOps
2014-01-02, 11:14 PM
I'm gonna have to dissent from the general trend - I hate oWoD. I hate every part of oWoD. It's a wretched, filthy cesspit best served by being forgotten as swiftly as possible. That the mechanics were garbage is well-known, but the fluff was, and is, heavy-handed, immature, shoddily-written and inconsistent. White Wolf's attempts at supernatural politics are painful to read through, and their End Times storyline has more choking canon characters than a Forgotten Realms campaign - and that's considering how many they have even if you're not running the freaking apocalypse. The 'advice' articles in the backs of certain books (check out the Werewolf Player Guide) are holier-than-thou and almost entirely unhelpful, and as you add splats the lack of consistency gets only worse, not better.

Burn it and walk away.

Vampire had a setting constrained by ultra-powerful NPCs. Werewolf had the player characters in the thick of it and fighting to make a difference. This may have had something to do with the developer from 1995 on not liking Forgotten Realms "Elminster will save us!" plots very much, which he even cited as being problematic back on the old, old forums.

Black Tooth died in canon, but his killers were never identified in the books - so that he could still be the focus of a game.

The Stargazers left the Garou Nation, but there was never any ironclad demand in the books that keeping Stargazer characters was doing it wrong.

Zhyzhak was horribly powerful, but the books never tried to make her absolutely immortal. The Zmei, too, had formidable stats, but you could fight them, and you could win, maybe. And there would be some hope from that.

I will grant that the mechanics prior to the 20th anniversary revamp made me put it on the shelf for a long time, but most of the clumsiness was no longer there when it was revisited, fresh and renewed. Even the lackluster transliterations of the past managed to get patched up! It's still a bit of a pain to have to jump through hurdles to get your way to the top of the bildungsroman heap, but there are suggestions for bypassing that, too.

There are few rule sets that are so horrid that just a few shifts can't solve the vast majority of problems. ST is so simple that just stepping back the bite on the botching rules results in something much more workable, which is how Exalted managed to last for so long before Power Combat started to drag things down. You don't have to make a series of modular box structures that can't accept anything other than a Power Stat, Fuel Stat and Morality Stat with some slight additions that don't fit on the character sheet in order to tighten up the mechanics.

Lastly, if we're going to burn a game at the stake for being preachy and giving profoundly unhelpful advice in a few books, that would leave the overall landscape of tabletop a scorched wasteland.

TheCountAlucard
2014-01-03, 06:48 AM
^This. The ST in OWoD was always free to adjust metaplot to their campaign.You seem to be missing the part where the gamelines actively told you not to mess with them, like the ones that had Sam Haight in them with explicit instructions not to let the players' characters kill him.

Black Jester
2014-01-03, 07:06 AM
And? The original game also had this tendency about recommending navel gazing and fits of Angst about becomming a monster, which, as far as I know, wasn't nearly as much of a focus in many groups as Mark Rein-Hagen probably intended. Emancipation from the author's opinion is a sign of independent and critical thinking, and if I am intended to not use the metaplot, I am even less inclined to use the meta-metaplot as well.

And Haight is a bad example anyway, as the game considerably grew and ripened during its runtime, and become less prone to extremes and better toned down.

Cirrylius
2014-01-03, 08:21 PM
You seem to be missing the part where the gamelines actively told you not to mess with them, like the ones that had Sam Haight in them with explicit instructions not to let the players' characters kill him.
Did they give a reason why not to do that, or did they just threaten to kick down the door and confiscate your books if you exercised Rule Zero?

Anderlith
2014-01-03, 10:46 PM
I've played both. I like nWoD better.

It's cleaner, & I hated oWoD's fluff. It's mythos was fine but the way they handled storytelling was like fan fiction for Anne Rice & Buffy/Angel. Not to mention the overpowered NPC's. They choked you with the fluff, & it was badly written. I prefer a blend & balance to fluff & mechanics. I prefer to construct my own worlds too, I play to create my own stories not play someone else's.

comicshorse
2014-01-04, 11:18 AM
You seem to be missing the part where the gamelines actively told you not to mess with them, like the ones that had Sam Haight in them with explicit instructions not to let the players' characters kill him.

Or the Baba Yaga scenario where if the P.C.s don't find the clues that will lead them to her location the ST is told to tell them they just wake up on the train going there anyway (and if they try to get off the train keep waking up there)

Joe the Rat
2014-01-06, 10:53 AM
Or the Baba Yaga scenario where if the P.C.s don't find the clues that will lead them to her location the ST is told to tell them they just wake up on the train going there anyway (and if they try to get off the train keep waking up there)
Methinks someone took "railroading" a little too literally on that one...

Yawgmoth
2014-01-09, 10:22 AM
I'm gonna have to dissent from the general trend - I hate oWoD. I hate every part of oWoD. It's a wretched, filthy cesspit best served by being forgotten as swiftly as possible. That the mechanics were garbage is well-known, but the fluff was, and is, heavy-handed, immature, shoddily-written and inconsistent. White Wolf's attempts at supernatural politics are painful to read through, and their End Times storyline has more choking canon characters than a Forgotten Realms campaign - and that's considering how many they have even if you're not running the freaking apocalypse. The 'advice' articles in the backs of certain books (check out the Werewolf Player Guide) are holier-than-thou and almost entirely unhelpful, and as you add splats the lack of consistency gets only worse, not better.

Burn it and walk away. All of this and more. I played oWoD in high school/early college and it is Peak 90s in terms of terrible writing and ill-tested mechanics. When nWoD came out, I got the core book and said "oh finally" about a dozen times on the first pass. The only thing I like in oWoD are the VtM clans and their clan disciplines. Fortunately there's a translation guide to bring them into nWoD, so I never have to deal with that wretched system ever again.

GMC has some nice upgrades (linear costs, Integrity) but it backslides in other places (combat is a quagmire, gaining xp is kind of weird) so the jury's still out on it over here.

The lack of a metaplot makes the NWoD settings likewise static and rather dull. Instead of a changing, breathing environment worthy of interaction, it is reduced to a mere stage design, offering little to no input into the actual gameplay. That's a feature, not a bug. A metaplot is always a failing and should be constrained to adventure modules at best. I don't want to follow someone else's plot or use someone else's setting by default; I want to run my plot in my city with my NPCs. I would rather spend my time developing those than having to burn a hundred hours divesting my setting from some other guy's screed. The lack of metaplot is only "dull" if you rely wholly on someone else to provide a story for you to run. Otherwise, it grants you the freedom to run any and all things you could want.

Lord_Gareth
2014-01-09, 10:44 AM
And? The original game also had this tendency about recommending navel gazing and fits of Angst about becomming a monster, which, as far as I know, wasn't nearly as much of a focus in many groups as Mark Rein-Hagen probably intended. Emancipation from the author's opinion is a sign of independent and critical thinking, and if I am intended to not use the metaplot, I am even less inclined to use the meta-metaplot as well.

And Haight is a bad example anyway, as the game considerably grew and ripened during its runtime, and become less prone to extremes and better toned down.

So if you ignore all the stupid parts, the game being infested with stupid parts is okay? What part of the system did you use? The sloppy social groups? The insipid political systems? The wildly swingy pre-made NPCs and antagonists? What part of this wretched mess are you actually attempting to defend?

Yawgmoth
2014-01-09, 11:42 AM
And to go into further detail why metaplots are awful in general and oWoD's in particular was atrocious: When you have a metaplot, you implicitly say "you have to run your game with our story and anything else is wrong." You then waste a significant portion of not only the core book, but every book on updating that plot. And what happens when you didn't anticipate X happening in the writers' decided plot line, or the PCs did A instead of B? Well you either have to completely nullify the players' actions, or you have to ignore the metaplot. And you have to make this choice every time a new book comes out. If you do the latter at any point, you are then paying for half a book you will not use every time you buy a book.

And in WoD, that's roughly half a book wasted on telling us what really happened with a thousand NPCs that nobody cares about. Dozens of characters that no ST can realistically use, because they all have Celerity 8, Thaumaturgy 7 (with 3-5 attendant paths), their clan disciplines at 6+, and at least a couple skills and attributes each >5. Why do they have such insane stats? Because bigger numbers = more cooler, and also if the PCs try to actually involve themselves with them (or even worse, attack them!), they can easily say "hahano." and proceed to dither and faff about unmolested until the next book comes out. Which they have to do, because (a) predicting that many interactions in a row is statistically impossible and (b) the writers love to throw in "gotcha!" moments all over the place. Oh, turns out this guy was lying and was Secret Tzimisce the whole time! Scratch out Thaumaturgy and write in Koldunic Sorcery. The sheriff of the city? Totally an infernalist, give him 5 dots in Dark Thaum for S&G. It's an entirely tertiary, bordering on vestigial, part of the game material and should be sold as such.

I have nothing against pre-written plots, or having those plots line up into a contiguous whole. But I do not want it made into an inextricable part of the game, because I want to run what I want to run. I don't give a single floating **** about what you want to run unless we are both in the same game. Furthermore, I want the PCs to be the stars of the game and the main characters of the story; if I am beholden to the metaplot, they then have to be secondary characters at best. That, to me, is the antithesis of fun. If I want to hear about someone else's characters I will read a novel.

sktarq
2014-01-10, 02:07 AM
I have to admit-I grew up with oWoD and while a bit skeptical about nWoD I became a total convert within the first book for a single reason. They got rid of the metaplot. With that they narrowed the focus down to the city level as the largest practicable scale and allowed the ST to run whatever kind of game they wanted to. And that metaplot was BORING to a big chunk of people, myself included. The oWoD also had a bad habit of defining things at the point of creation. Now while I'm most familiar with vampire I played other games in both oWoD and nWoD and found the same issues. There was no real mystery. That's part of why I absolutely despise the Blood and Smoke and the whole God Machine concept. The fact that my players don't know how the greater world works means I can change it to be whatever I need it to be to tell the kind of stories we want to play. Is it more work-yes but I'm not bored and nor are my players.

and on a related note the nWoD seemed to focus more on the players because humans basically had been upgraded (or the supernaturals nerfed) to the point where how a character interacted with them MATTERED. In oWoD interaction with non-supernaturals pretty quickly die off to bit parts, goons, decoration, and fuel sources. - This in many was is more important to me than metaplot at times. There was a wonderful ghost hunter story oWoD game whose name is being blocked by my migraine ATM. It was more railroaded than any other oWoD I played but it had the ability to ignore it without disrupting the game system better than the others.

Black Jester
2014-01-10, 04:15 AM
That's a feature, not a bug. A metaplot is always a failing and should be constrained to adventure modules at best. I don't want to follow someone else's plot or use someone else's setting by default; I want to run my plot in my city with my NPCs. I would rather spend my time developing those than having to burn a hundred hours divesting my setting from some other guy's screed. The lack of metaplot is only "dull" if you rely wholly on someone else to provide a story for you to run. Otherwise, it grants you the freedom to run any and all things you could want.

No. A metaplot is almost always a boon and helps to elevate a game from static to vibrant. having a metaplot is always superior to having no metaplot. Even a really bad one offers more options and adds dynamics to the game. It is not a binary option where you are either completely bound to the metaplot or are completely independent of it. The existance of a metaplot does not restrict your capability to introduce your own stuff in any form. It actually helps to do so by offering attachement to the overall world making it much simpler to organically develop your specific locations and subsetting within the larger world and thus establish the feeling of diversity and actual setting growth. You can still have a sub-setting with clearly defined boundaries, NPCs, and events but you also have potential interconnections with the outside world and this additional layer of interaction. Of course you can do that on your own, but it is a lot more work and doing so has a minor drawback by focussing on one personal style. The actual fun chalenge as a Gamemaster (or Storyteller, if you prefer) is to take this sometimes random crap thrown at you and shape it into something fitting your campaign. Not being able to do so is not a sign of creativity but the lack of it.



So if you ignore all the stupid parts, the game being infested with stupid parts is okay? What part of the system did you use? The sloppy social groups? The insipid political systems? The wildly swingy pre-made NPCs and antagonists? What part of this wretched mess are you actually attempting to defend?

Sorry, just because you or I do not like a certain aspect of the game doesn't make it stupid. It just makes it not up to my tastes. But having more options is preferable to not having them. Think about it as a buffet. Only because you might not like cheese, the inclusion of dairy products for others to pick does not affect you that much, as long as you can freely ignore it. But if you do only occasionally like a slice of delicious Appenzeller for yourself having the option to choose one from time to time is nice. A metaplot even a really bad one offers more options to choose from, and is therefore by default superior to having no metaplot. Always. Even if it just serves as a warning example.
(There is one exeption, but Harnmaster has so little to do with the WoD that bringing it up here has no other purpose but mentioning how awesome harnmaster is).

Delta
2014-01-10, 05:04 AM
Sorry, just because you or I do not like a certain aspect of the game doesn't make it stupid.

The problem is that oWoD had a lot of things that were, beyond matters of taste, objectively handled badly, simply from a game design perspective. The first one is the ridiculous "split" in power level, if I look at my VtM core book, it's a pretty low powered system, it clearly tells you "this is what you can possibly do with your character, no more!" and has a very "hard" power cap in the form of generation (at least as long as you're playing Camarilla which seems to be the default setting)

Then comes the rest of the universe that gets filled with NPCs with kewl powerz that a PC playing by the rules will be definition never have, a power structure so rigid with said NPCs at the top that they basically tell you "No, nothing your character will ever do will have any significant meaning unless some NPC allows it. No you will never be able to challenge this NPC because he's just so much better than you" in a way I have hardly ever seen in any other game setting save Cthulhu, where being ants to be squashed at will by the Big Bad is a conscious design decision. In D&D, nothing prevents your character from reaching max level and being as badass as anyone in the world. In Shadowrun, yes, your characters are meaningless parts of the system, but technically, it's just about money, if you ever got a hold of a couple billion bucks your character could play the power game just as well as anyone else, there's no "mystical barrier" that keeps your character down.

VtM couldn't seem to decide whether it wanted to be a low-powered game about "personal horror" or a larger than life supernatural mystery action thriller about world-spanning ridiculously powerful ancient conspiracies, and by trying to be both, it essentially failed at both. Add to that the fact that by the book, most of the different splats could hardly fit into the same world without an immediate nuclear war breaking out between them, and yes, I feel very confident in saying that oWoD suffered from some bad design flaws, and not only as far as the rules were concerned.

Now note that this not mean that everything about oWoD is bad, far, far from it, my oMage campaign was some of the most fun I ever had at a gaming table, but that shouldn't make the setting immune to criticism. And of course, nWoD has its own flaws, but at least I always had the feeling that the designers got a lot of the stuff that was simply bad about oWoD and improved on that.

BWR
2014-01-10, 06:50 AM
The metaplot was one of the things I really liked about oWoD. It gave depth and meaning to the settings. There are plenty of games with a metaplot that have been great, as well as ones that haven't been so great.
Bascially, it boils down to 'do you want a static, unchanging setting or do you want things to change?' Do you want the setting to have any sort of official story and progress, or nothing but a still shot of one period which you can play with as you please?
The best thing about a metaplot, you can ignore it if you don't like it and run things in the set-up period, like running things before the Scorpion Clan Coup in Rokugan (the best period, imo, ignoring lots of the stupid that came later), or running a V:tM game before Gehenna.

Black Jester
2014-01-10, 07:41 AM
Balance is a way overrated myth, especially when it comes to the notion of balance between the envionment and the player characters it is absolutely silly and completely counter-productive. It is completely okay and plausible that an average player character is not the centerpoint of a gaming universe. The metaplot by default and necessity takes place on a different layer of events and as a consequence focus on different kind of characters.
The idea that te player characters by default are the only thing that matters is an expression of sheer self-entitlement and as result a pretty horrible criterium to measure a game's quality.

So, you are basically saying "because there is international diplomacy, local level policies are pointless. "


VtM couldn't seem to decide whether it wanted to be a low-powered game about "personal horror" or a larger than life supernatural mystery action thriller about world-spanning ridiculously powerful ancient conspiracies

VtM did not need to decided between these two, because there is no confliuct whatsoever betweeb these two levels if you not try to create a particular contrived gameplay example for proving the game wrong which usually bears no resemblance to actual gameplay. See for comparison Call of Cthulhu, which has the almost word for word exact guidlines - personal horror, large than life supernatural elements. world-spanning ancient conspiracies... it is all the same.
I am not going to say that the OWoD background is particularly brilliant or flwaless. It is certainly not (Mage for instance is a game that never appealed to me in the slightest), but there are some good ideas here and there (and that is much more than the NWoD ever provided, especially when it comes to background.

Another cool thing about metaplot by the way, is that it keeps the setting more suspenseful and interesting and by default more immersive by providing more opportunities to identify with the setting. The setting becomes more than just a backdriop for events and becomes a factor of entertainment in its own rights. You can speculate, you can actively reveal some secret or the other, it provides you with some fiction in an unusual form in addition to offer a servicable background for your own games. As a consequnce, the game wil provide more fun and satsifaction by default.

Lord_Gareth
2014-01-10, 08:21 AM
No. A metaplot is almost always a boon and helps to elevate a game from static to vibrant. having a metaplot is always superior to having no metaplot. Even a really bad one offers more options and adds dynamics to the game. It is not a binary option where you are either completely bound to the metaplot or are completely independent of it. The existance of a metaplot does not restrict your capability to introduce your own stuff in any form. It actually helps to do so by offering attachement to the overall world making it much simpler to organically develop your specific locations and subsetting within the larger world and thus establish the feeling of diversity and actual setting growth. You can still have a sub-setting with clearly defined boundaries, NPCs, and events but you also have potential interconnections with the outside world and this additional layer of interaction. Of course you can do that on your own, but it is a lot more work and doing so has a minor drawback by focussing on one personal style. The actual fun chalenge as a Gamemaster (or Storyteller, if you prefer) is to take this sometimes random crap thrown at you and shape it into something fitting your campaign. Not being able to do so is not a sign of creativity but the lack of it.

Why thank you for implying that my games and settings are uncreative in the most patronizing manner you possibly could. That's just what I needed to polish off my breakfast and start my day, it was.

The bit you're missing, and missing hard, is that the presence of the metaplot - especially such a dimension-spanning metaplot - creates expectations that influence games and Storytellers. And before you wanna go running off at the mouth accusing me of anything, I've played Masquerade and Ascension under thirteen different Storytellers and attempted to run both myself, with five of those games being Mind's Eye Theater - and all of them were plagued by the exact same problems. Even when I attempted to focus down on local problems and individual characters' conflicts and stories in my Vamp game my players couldn't relax and get into it; they jumped at shadows, looking for the strings that weren't there.

And that's really not okay.

Forgotten Realms, in 3.5, is super guilty of this problem where its NPCs super powerful and actively involved in the world. It makes players wonder why they're just sitting on their asses doing nothing and creates plot holes. oWoD doesn't have that problem - its super-powerful NPCs are actively involved in the world and interfere on every level from the local up to the extradimensional. They're written that way, and its enforced and reinforced in supplement after supplement. Even if you're one of the storytellers that wants to step away from that, doing so requires re-writing not some, but most of the setting's expectations and then managing to sell your players on this revision. Between that and the shoddy mechanics the system's just not worth fighting with. Why put in the effort when all I'm going to get out of it is pain?

The metaplot is also responsible for the thematic confusion in oWoD. When I bought those books as a kid I thought I was being sold horror. What I purchased was a horror-themed supernatural action movie, co-starring Dan Brown.

So, no, the metaplot does not enhance the game. What it does is make the players feel robbed of agency, pull focus away from what are supposed to be the main characters of a story, and dilute and/or urinate all over the themes billed in the setting. But more on that later, since you replied to my post too.


Sorry, just because you or I do not like a certain aspect of the game doesn't make it stupid. It just makes it not up to my tastes. But having more options is preferable to not having them. Think about it as a buffet. Only because you might not like cheese, the inclusion of dairy products for others to pick does not affect you that much, as long as you can freely ignore it. But if you do only occasionally like a slice of delicious Appenzeller for yourself having the option to choose one from time to time is nice. A metaplot even a really bad one offers more options to choose from, and is therefore by default superior to having no metaplot. Always. Even if it just serves as a warning example.

Options? Options? You look at this choking miasma and see options? From what twisted mirror universe do you freaking hail?

You wanna talk options, let's talk the approach taken in nWoD's supplements. Hell, let's just talk Changeling, since it's the one I know best (and own every book for). nWoD's setting is not static, as you claim. What it has are mysteries, which are presented both so the Storyteller can use them as springboards, inspiration, and plot hooks and so that players can do the same things. Each supplement adds options and variants that the Storyteller can use to flesh out their world and implies things about locations without strictly defining them. Most of these supplements introduce or imply NPCs (Night Horrors: Grim Fears is nothing but antagonists and plot hooks that also introduce new player-friendly options) that - and this is important - operate at a level that makes player agency important. Even when we get into some of the crazier stuff like the Tangle Woman or the content in The Equinox Road, it retains its promised focus on personal horror and the beauty and madness that's supposed to define the gameline.

nWoD treats its themes, for the most part, with maturity and respect. They remain purer in each gameline, and the world that is presented is very different and much easier to relate to. oWoD presents a setting in the unshakeable grip of omnipotent beings. nWoD presents a world, a world much like Earth, that has surrendered to evil. That has given up on hope. And it challenges players to ask if their characters' attitude is 'Why should I act better than anyone else?' or if they've chosen to take the bitter road towards the light and lift a little of that despair from their lives, their homes, their cities. Like a true horror story the two real focuses are mankind's evils and failures (on the one hand) and mankind's triumph and glory (on the other). oWoD wishes it could've handled those concepts with as much class and finesse.

Black Jester
2014-01-10, 11:16 AM
Why thank you for implying that my games and settings are uncreative in the most patronizing manner you possibly could. That's just what I needed to polish off my breakfast and start my day, it was.

That's the most patronizing tone you could think of? Are you sure that you are not slightly exaggerating this?


The bit you're missing, and missing hard, is that the presence of the metaplot - especially such a dimension-spanning metaplot - creates expectations that influence games and Storytellers.
What exactly is bad with expectations? I assume that you mean something like "players assume that this or that metaplot event is relevant" and that this is somehow bad, but why is completely beyond me. "Oh no! The players are investigated in the game and speculate about events! They spew plot hooks and connect their personal stories to the setting as a whole! The horror, the horror..."
That seems profoundly silly to me. A reliable framework of expectations and references is pretty much mandatory is mandatory for any meaningful game, that's what give any game a direction and a base everybody - player and gamemaster (or storyteller, if you prefer) is dedicated to for this campaign.
Besides, those dreadful expectation are not the result of a metaplot, but of a setting. A static setting can provide a framwork and laying the groundwork for moots, stories, atmosphere and major players just as much without any ongoing plots.



Forgotten Realms, in 3.5, is super guilty of this problem where its NPCs super powerful and actively involved in the world. It makes players wonder why they're just sitting on their asses doing nothing and creates plot holes. oWoD doesn't have that problem - its super-powerful NPCs are actively involved in the world and interfere on every level from the local up to the extradimensional. They're written that way, and its enforced and reinforced in supplement after supplement.

So... powerful NPC who do nothing are wrong. Powerful NPC who do something are wrong. Are you basically argueing against powerful NPC in the first place?
Besides, which "super-powerful" NPC in the WoD are we talking about? I can think of exactly one example, and that is Samuel "Old Shame that was killed off years ago" Haight. Every other example is just well, an NPC who might become relevant (in the ways NPCs are) for your game, or plot devices, like the antedlivians.



Even if you're one of the storytellers that wants to step away from that, doing so requires re-writing not some, but most of the setting's expectations and then managing to sell your players on this revision. Between that and the shoddy mechanics the system's just not worth fighting with. Why put in the effort when all I'm going to get out of it is pain?

That is a constructed problem with no equivalent in real gameplay. I can easily pick whatever I like from the metaplot or the setting, and use it as I see fit, I can ignore stuff from the metaplot and not use it as I see fit. I can mix and match these approaches without any difficulty. I can even use both at the same time, using metaplot events as rumours and then proving them wrong and ridcule them in a huff of a petty grudge (childish, but sometimes seductively satsifying). So maybe because I do not understand what your issue with expectations is and why they are supposedly bad (I honestly don't), so the closest thing I make out of this is "All those rules and restrictions are stopping me from making my own stuff up" and I really don't get why.


The metaplot is also responsible for the thematic confusion in oWoD. When I bought those books as a kid I thought I was being sold horror. What I purchased was a horror-themed supernatural action movie, co-starring Dan Brown.

There is no thematic confusion in WoD. There are quite a few very different games with different moots and some overlay. Even in each sub-franchise(?) or splat(?), having more forms of actual play than one is a genuine good thing, allowing for diversity and not being shoehorned into one specific
For what it's woth, the horror theme works best by underlining that the PCs are in fact monsters and that they are doing horrible, horrible things. The ongoing decline of their moral standards as the game goes on can be genuinely terrifying (especially in Werewolf where you alrady have a strong tendency to justify any means by the great cause). Giving the players ample opportunity to set their moral compasses askew can be pretty horrifying (at least for normal people. There is a certain ewww factor when you combine this with a very strong sense of escapism and power fantasies common to many games).

However, the Dan Brown thing was genuinely funny. Thank you.


So, no, the metaplot does not enhance the game. What it does is make the players feel robbed of agency, pull focus away from what are supposed to be the main characters of a story, and dilute and/or urinate all over the themes billed in the setting. But more on that later, since you replied to my post too.

This again is an arguement against a predetermined setting and NPCs with any sort of power in the first place, not necessary a metaplot.




Options? Options? You look at this choking miasma and see options? From what twisted mirror universe do you freaking hail?

Supposedly one not entirely existing of superlatives and worst things ever.


You wanna talk options, let's talk the approach taken in nWoD's supplements. Hell, let's just talk Changeling, since it's the one I know best (and own every book for). nWoD's setting is not static, as you claim. What it has are mysteries, which are presented both so the Storyteller can use them as springboards, inspiration, and plot hooks and so that players can do the same things. Each supplement adds options and variants that the Storyteller can use to flesh out their world and implies things about locations without strictly defining them. Most of these supplements introduce or imply NPCs (Night Horrors: Grim Fears is nothing but antagonists and plot hooks that also introduce new player-friendly options) that - and this is important - operate at a level that makes player agency important. Even when we get into some of the crazier stuff like the Tangle Woman or the content in The Equinox Road, it retains its promised focus on personal horror and the beauty and madness that's supposed to define the gameline.

Yes. The NWoD supplements are just like the WoD ones, at least the latter ones, with the exception of the slightly different backgrounds in mind and the lack of a metaplot. Pretty much all of the revised WoD stuff follows exactly this pattern. The first edition stuff is sometimes a bit weird (and pretty bad), but by the revised edition you can really see the learning curve.
I guess most were written by the same creative teams, so the massive simiularities are not that surprising. Perhaps the writing got even a bit better, as the creators became more experienced, but I usually recognize only very, very good writing or very bad one; I don't remember the NWoD books to be particularly good and I have long recognized that whenever I could play any NWoD game, I could probably also play the original game, so I sold all the books I owned.


nWoD treats its themes, for the most part, with maturity and respect. They remain purer in each gameline, and the world that is presented is very different and much easier to relate to. oWoD presents a setting in the unshakeable grip of omnipotent beings. nWoD presents a world, a world much like Earth, that has surrendered to evil. That has given up on hope. And it challenges players to ask if their characters' attitude is 'Why should I act better than anyone else?' or if they've chosen to take the bitter road towards the light and lift a little of that despair from their lives, their homes, their cities. Like a true horror story the two real focuses are mankind's evils and failtures (on the one hand) and mankind's triumph and glory (on the other). oWoD wishes it could've handled those concepts with as much class and finesse.

The bolded part is very much objectively wrong, with the much stronger focus on crossover play for the NWoD than any of the WoD ever had, diluting whatever identity the heir game lines ever had signficantly by reducing their stand-alone factor.

So again, which omnipotent beings? Kane? Does he actually appear? The antediluvians? They are just plot devices (and do not seem to do all that much in the first place). Gaia? The Wyrm? They might be actually omnipotent (or close enough for the sake of a game, but do gods even qualify as NPC, especially when they are pretty much rather abstract beings who do not directly affect affairs? Most of the reoccuring named NPC like Theo Bell or Sasha Vykos for Vampire or Albrecht or Konietzko for Werewolf are certainly powerful, but not out of reach for PCs by any means and
Seriously, it all comes down to Sam Haight, who was a horrible NPC, the creative team recognized that, and killed him of making sure that he never ever recurred. Haight is certainly not a shining example, but it is one case. Using this misstep for a general statement is seriously misleading and a massive exaggeration.

Red Fel
2014-01-10, 11:38 AM
My perspective on oWoD and nWoD is much, much simpler: Malkav.

I loved Malkavs.

My first WoD experience - and the bulk of my WoD experience subsequently, with the exception of a short-lived Hunter campaign and a short-lived Werewolf campaign - was V:tM. And while we had all kinds, naturally, we always had a Malkav. Not always the "look at me I'm wacky Malkav and I'm stapling spiders to this guy's face" Malkav; sometimes he was the toned-down, one step off of normal, creepy but entertaining cousin Malkav. And he kept the campaign from becoming oppressive.

I get that WoD is supposed to be dark and disturbing. It has "Darkness" in the name, for crying out loud. But anybody who has ever written can tell you that, to make a dark atmosphere truly powerful, you need to punctuate it with a few lighter moments. Malkav did that for us.

When WW made the switch to nWoD, I was excited. I thought, "New mechanics, new metaplot, this will really rejuvenate my WoD game!"

... And then I found Malkav. Poor, emo, lobotomized Malkav. He went from being a bloodline in his own right, with a madness so pervasive that it allowed him to transcend reality, to being Ventrue's tragic little brother, a friendly eccentric prone to horrific tragedy during his "blackout" periods.

They ruined my precious Malkav. And they did it, I'm told, because, while making nWoD, they surveyed the player base, and found that people wanted darker, more tragic, less levity and more angst. At least that's what I'm told.

I despise angst-ridden games. I megaloathe them. Malkav kept our WoD games from going there. And now he was part of that angst, rather than a tool against it.

Vaguely, I was aware that we could simply import classic!Malkav and ignore new!Malkav. But Malkav isn't Coca-Cola to me. And something was lost in the translation.

I've never played nWoD. Perhaps I might enjoy it, with the right ST. But I just can't bring myself to try it. I can't bring myself to play the game that would ruin my adorable Malkav.

Aaaaaangst.

Teucros
2014-01-10, 11:59 AM
But...but...WoDs are more than their Vampires :smallwink:.

OK, just kidding. I like Malkavians too and seriously dislike their NWOD version too.

Now, I'm probably not the right person to ask since I am willing to play but never GM WoD games, but for what it's worth...

We never do crossovers, so it's all about the specific type of game for me.

Vampires? I'll take the large clans of oWoD and their intrigues over NWoD's "personal horror" focus, thank you very much(plus the Malkavian Crime :smallbiggrin:).
Mages? Close call here. The Awakening's approach probably, but it's core book can be really bland at times.
Changelings? NWoD again, hands down this time. Probably my favourite WoD line. The kiths, the courts, the attitude...I love it.
Mummies? Exactly the opposite case-the oWoD version with Osiris and Apophis is definitely closer to my tastes.

I haven't tried any of the rest, so I can't really comment on them.

Lord_Gareth
2014-01-10, 12:13 PM
As a fan of the Malkavians myself, I feel honor-bound to direct you at the Ventrue Clanbook, which introduces the phenomenon of malkavinization.

Teucros
2014-01-10, 12:20 PM
As a fan of the Malkavians myself, I feel honor-bound to direct you at the Ventrue Clanbook, which introduces the phenomenon of malkavinization.

Oh, I am aware of it. Can't say I was much of a fan. But nice of you to point it out anyway.

The Glyphstone
2014-01-10, 12:51 PM
As a fan of the Malkavians myself, I feel honor-bound to direct you at the Ventrue Clanbook, which introduces the phenomenon of malkavinization.

The disease of Malkavia is a tragedy and a half-hearted sop to fans of the Malkavians from OWoD. I'm a NWoD partisan myself, as noted upthread, but even I like to pretend Malkavia doesn't exist.

Leliel
2014-01-10, 01:24 PM
The disease of Malkavia is a tragedy and a half-hearted sop to fans of the Malkavians from OWoD. I'm a NWoD partisan myself, as noted upthread, but even I like to pretend Malkavia doesn't exist.

And with Blood and Smoke, can't. No Derangements.

Speaking of which, B&S is really the best of both worlds. No metaplot, but there is a massive and dynamic vampiric society, as well as a rejiggered Humanity system that allows you to enjoy yourself to an extent without plummeting (really, just avoid killing people, and you'll happily bob around the 5-6 range).

Also features the best version of the Strix (unliving shadow beings who hate the very concept of Humanity, to the point where dragur come off as too human for their tastes) yet, for when you get sick of social maneuvering and just want to hunt worse monsters than you.

Morty
2014-01-10, 02:29 PM
My preference for nWoD started with Hunter: the Vigil, which is my favourite World of Darkness game, but doesn't really have an equivalent in the oWoD - perhaps because mortals opposing the supernatural have the life expectancy of a snowball in hell there. Eventually, though, I grew to prefer it for all sorts of reasons, such as the lower power level, more local focus of action, lack of metaplot and the "toolbox of mysteries" design.

Kiero
2014-01-10, 04:43 PM
The oWoD mechanics are amongst the worst of any mainstream, popular system. nWoD at least manages to salvage something workable from that mess, though it still has its own problems.

Black Jester
2014-01-10, 05:37 PM
The oWoD mechanics are amongst the worst of any mainstream, popular system. nWoD at least manages to salvage something workable from that mess, though it still has its own problems.

They are both pretty mediocre games. The failings of the WoD System have been exaggerated as much as the supposedly improvements in the nWoD. It is more like a step sideways than a step forwards, but the original game mechanics have a somewhat undeserved bad reputation. They are not good by any means, but they are quite accessible, easy to get an initial grasp on and have a few elements considerable superior to its successor, like active defense rolls or a distinct dynamic between difficulty, dice pool size and number of successes.
So, the majority of the criticism are either based on semantics (like "calling the dice that hit te target number successes is misleading, because you can rol a success and still fail" or the honestly stupid-sounding lethal bruises) or personal preferences while the actual problems (like the slow resoultion of injuries or the relevance of botches are blown out of proportion.

The Glyphstone
2014-01-10, 05:54 PM
I wouldn't call "active defense rolls" something considerably superior...it might make combat more dynamic, but it also doubles (or more) the time it takes to go through one combat round - not advantageous in a game where combat is supposed to be a secondary focus. Nor is the constantly shifting goalposts of inconsistency in what number is a success or how many successes you need particularly beneficial, it's just 3 different ways to overcomplicate the math of 'this is harder to succeed at'. So the only real thing you got accurate was the bit about 'personal preferences' being the basis of most criticisms; the things you consider objectively superior are as much personal preferences as anything else.

Black Jester
2014-01-10, 06:15 PM
Active defesnes make combats more involving and dynmic, but most importantly, they create the suggestion that the player has an actual influence on the events and can actively avoid harm to their alter ego. Even if it bears no mathematical differences over a longer period at all, the suggestion of agency is a powerful and empowering one.
The inability to avoid harm in any form on the other hand is a rather negative impression; in a extreme versions (which is of course grossly exaggerated within the context of a mere game), this perceived incapability to actively do anything to prevent harm and the resulting absence of control over the outcome of a situation is basically one of the foundations for learned helplessness, which might very well lead to depressions in real life. Of course I am not suggesting here that passive defense mechanisms could actually cause depressions or something massively and inapropriately overblown. It doesn't help that in my social circles, clinical depressions seem to be depressingly common. That just makes you more sensitive for the issue, perhaps to a silly degree. i don't know. However, I really think that for a game that, after all is set and done still has the main function to provide a positive experience in the broadest possible terms, anything resembling causes of depression might be a very bad design. So yeah. Passive defense mechanisms suck.

AMFV
2014-01-10, 06:34 PM
Active defesnes make combats more involving and dynmic, but most importantly, they create the suggestion that the player has an actual influence on the events and can actively avoid harm to their alter ego. Even if it bears no mathematical differences over a longer period at all, the suggestion of agency is a powerful and empowering one.

But players have the ability to do that by altering their other defenses using their skills, I for one, have no experiential difference between rolling a die, or not as far as my own perception of agency is concerned. Also active combat drags on, it really slows everything down, as people drop dice, need to do more math on the spot (something most people are terrible at), and those problems only increase with larger die pools, it winds up being a huge mess. At least in my experience, I would say that saying it is unequivocally superior is probably stretching the truth at least a little bit.

Also while the long term mathematical effect may be slight, there is a lot more spiky randomization in combat, and in a narrative like WoD, having players die due to randomness is a waste, because their deaths have no narrative impetus, no resolution, just randomness, that sort of system works much better in a hack and slash game.




The inability to avoid harm in any form on the other hand is a rather negative impression; in a extreme versions (which is of course grossly exaggerated within the context of a mere game), this perceived incapability to actively do anything to prevent harm and the resulting absence of control over the outcome of a situation is basically one of the foundations for learned helplessness, which might very well lead to depressions in real life. Of course I am not suggesting here that passive defense mechanisms could actually cause depressions or something massively and inapropriately overblown. It doesn't help that in my social circles, clinical depressions seem to be depressingly common. That just makes you more sensitive for the issue, perhaps to a silly degree. i don't know. However, I really think that for a game that, after all is set and done still has the main function to provide a positive experience in the broadest possible terms, anything resembling causes of depression might be a very bad design. So yeah. Passive defense mechanisms suck.

No, they don't.

Black Jester
2014-01-10, 06:44 PM
I will never understand why people think that the death of player character could under any circumstances have under any circumstances "no impetus". It is a moment of true tragedy created organically from the events of the game. That is perfect, after all it is the game that defines the story, not the other way around and it is far superiour to artificial melodrama force-fed to the players for dramatic reasons. As resolutions go, it is pretty finite (and closure is an illusion anyway).


No, they don't.
Oh yes, they do (what a lovely convincing arguement, isn't it?).
They are also boring and predictable, and predictability is basically anti-tension. The lack of hit locations is bad enough.

AMFV
2014-01-10, 06:50 PM
I will never understand why people think that the death of player character could under any circumstances have under any circumstances "no impetus". It is a moment of true tragedy created organically from the events of the game. That is perfect, after all it is the game that defines the story, not the other way around and it is far superiour to artificial melodrama force-fed to the players for dramatic reasons. As resolutions go, it is pretty finite (and closure is an illusion anyway).

Stories are typically not usually a series of random events, and those that are pretty terrible, anyone can die, is fine in AD&D, in D&D, in CoC, but in WoD, it's kind clunky and a little bit frustrating at best. Besides which I don't think closure is an illusion, again having been around some real life stuff that would cause me to believe otherwise.

[QUOTE=Black Jester;16765985]
Oh yes, they do (what a lovely convincing arguement, isn't it?).
They are also boring and predictable, and predictability is basically anti-tension. The lack of hit locations is bad enough.

I disagree, I find hit location systems tedious and dramatically unrealistic, having been around people who were in real combat, I can tell you that getting shot in the ankle can very easily kill you. You're confusing things that you prefer with things that are "better game design" many people dislike active defense because it's tedious and very random, which in my opinion take away from a heavy narrative, such as WoD.

sktarq
2014-01-11, 04:24 PM
Also while the long term mathematical effect may be slight, there is a lot more spiky randomization in combat, and in a narrative like WoD, having players die due to randomness is a waste, because their deaths have no narrative impetus, no resolution, just randomness, that sort of system works much better in a hack and slash game.

I disagree with you here. For the simple reason that it massively ups the dramatic tension of any and all combat to know that a "lucky shot" could lay waste to any character at any time. Even a near death fight due to a lucky shot gives the entire group a huge respect for combat that exists in few RPGs. . . Personally I like that. Combat takes long enough as it is and if I can get my players to think around problems then it generally turns out more fun for everyone.

and as for hit location tables - yeah that is up to a storyteller needing a decent intelligence score and high wits (I'd 3 dots min and 4 preferred) Can be somewhat useful in allocating penalties in a fair way but WoD is so narrative heavy that can generally be worked through.

AMFV
2014-01-11, 04:43 PM
I disagree with you here. For the simple reason that it massively ups the dramatic tension of any and all combat to know that a "lucky shot" could lay waste to any character at any time. Even a near death fight due to a lucky shot gives the entire group a huge respect for combat that exists in few RPGs. . . Personally I like that. Combat takes long enough as it is and if I can get my players to think around problems then it generally turns out more fun for everyone.

Well that's not really pertinent to an active combat system, and WoD isn't really based around the idea that random character death should be a part, since the whole game is narratively focused.



and as for hit location tables - yeah that is up to a storyteller needing a decent intelligence score and high wits (I'd 3 dots min and 4 preferred) Can be somewhat useful in allocating penalties in a fair way but WoD is so narrative heavy that can generally be worked through.

Well WoD doesn't have enough focus on combat that a bogged down combat penalties system is probably not a good idea, games where those aren't worked in natively it's difficult to add them.

sktarq
2014-01-11, 05:12 PM
Well that's not really pertinent to an active combat system, and WoD isn't really based around the idea that random character death should be a part, since the whole game is narratively focused.
To a large extent it is. Since the narrative is collaborative between players and storytellers having such a risks means that using combat as part of the narrative is strongly disincentivized for the players and that shapes the nature of narrative strongly in comparisons to say oWoD.



Well WoD doesn't have enough focus on combat that a bogged down combat penalties system is probably not a good idea, games where those aren't worked in natively it's difficult to add them. Generally agree. Storyteller fiat works well in WoD but requires establishment of trust and fairness which for some players is fine until it effects them. - I use "luck dice" for this to a large extent to mitigate that.

AMFV
2014-01-11, 05:14 PM
To a large extent it is. Since the narrative is collaborative between players and storytellers having such a risks means that using combat as part of the narrative is strongly disincentivized for the players and that shapes the nature of narrative strongly in comparisons to say oWoD.

Depending on if you want the combat to be not part of the narrative, it's certainly possible to have a combative thing in WoD without instant lethality, not in a mortals campaign generally.



Generally agree. Storyteller fiat works well in WoD but requires establishment of trust and fairness which for some players is fine until it effects them. - I use "luck dice" for this to a large extent to mitigate that.

There should be an establishment of trust and fairness, that's an inherent part of gaming.

sktarq
2014-01-11, 05:37 PM
Depending on if you want the combat to be not part of the narrative, it's certainly possible to have a combative thing in WoD without instant lethality, not in a mortals campaign generally.
Possible. But either the players or storytellers must shape it to be so-usually to the advantage of the narrative.

[QUOTE=AMFV;16771152
There should be an establishment of trust and fairness, that's an inherent part of gaming.[/QUOTE]
SHOULD is the key word there. Also I've had several players, generally not the most emotionally mature or "best" players whose trust and sense of fairness appears just fine until they are on the wrong end of it personally. Its a kind of mental dissonance that happens and simply must be dealt with.

AMFV
2014-01-11, 05:46 PM
Possible. But either the players or storytellers must shape it to be so-usually to the advantage of the narrative.


SHOULD is the key word there. Also I've had several players, generally not the most emotionally mature or "best" players whose trust and sense of fairness appears just fine until they are on the wrong end of it personally. Its a kind of mental dissonance that happens and simply must be dealt with.

Well then you play differently with them... But the assumption of trust is a reasonable assumption.

Morty
2014-01-11, 05:54 PM
I can see the reasoning behind the desire for active defences. However, nWoD allows for plenty of options for players to actively shape their characters' chances of survival - they can declare dodge or spend a Willpower point to raise their defences, just to name the two most obvious options. Or they can sacrifice their defence for the sake of offence. Besides, plenty of supernatural powers and other actions involve contested rolls. So I don't really see an issue here.

awa
2014-01-11, 11:02 PM
just popping in i was old enough to play the old world of darkness and i hated the meta plot it was a stupid waste of space in every book. the more splats you added the worse the meta plot became as the number of all powerfully evil organisations kept pilling up.

Just my opinion but there you go.

SaurOps
2014-01-12, 02:17 AM
I can see the reasoning behind the desire for active defences. However, nWoD allows for plenty of options for players to actively shape their characters' chances of survival - they can declare dodge or spend a Willpower point to raise their defences, just to name the two most obvious options. Or they can sacrifice their defence for the sake of offence. Besides, plenty of supernatural powers and other actions involve contested rolls. So I don't really see an issue here.

Why should you have to pay for a merit to actively defend yourself with a combat Ability?

Lord_Gareth
2014-01-12, 02:20 AM
Why should you have to pay for a merit to actively defend yourself with a combat Ability?

You don't. Dodge isn't a merit, it's a built-in part of the nWoD system. Some options improve Dodge or alter how it functions, but anyone down to the slowest wheelchair-bound senior citizen can /attempt/ it.

Morty
2014-01-12, 06:14 AM
Why should you have to pay for a merit to actively defend yourself with a combat Ability?


You don't. Dodge isn't a merit, it's a built-in part of the nWoD system. Some options improve Dodge or alter how it functions, but anyone down to the slowest wheelchair-bound senior citizen can /attempt/ it.

Yeah, pretty much. I'm not sure where you got the idea that you need a merit to dodge.

Vertharrad
2014-01-12, 06:27 AM
Although I'm not sure if it's RAW we've always run that a character gets 1 free dodge in a round before needing to allocate resources for more. It never became a problem for us.

PS - never played NWoD.

SaurOps
2014-01-12, 11:55 AM
You don't. Dodge isn't a merit, it's a built-in part of the nWoD system. Some options improve Dodge or alter how it functions, but anyone down to the slowest wheelchair-bound senior citizen can /attempt/ it.

Brawling Dodge and Weaponry Dodge are quite definitely Merits that must be purchased. So, in order to actively defend yourself with superior combat skills, as opposed to just floundering wildly*, you have to pony up more points for it. Kind of weird.

*Only pays off if you have Dexterity and Wits both at 5 or higher, in which case it's probably too much of an investment to buy Brawling or Weaponry Dodge.

Lord_Gareth
2014-01-12, 11:58 AM
Brawling Dodge and Weaponry Dodge are quite definitely Merits that must be purchased. So, in order to actively defend yourself with your skills, you have to pony up more points for it. Kind of weird.

Note the 'alter how it functions' bit. Those merits change Dodge from "double your defense" to "your defense plus your ranks in (Brawl/Weaponry)." This is only really all that useful for masters of the blade/fist, and sometimes not even then if you're staring down a Wizened or something with superior speed. It's available as a one-dot Merit for those folks who want it. It doesn't need to be the default.

SaurOps
2014-01-12, 12:00 PM
Note the 'alter how it functions' bit. Those merits change Dodge from "double your defense" to "your defense plus your ranks in (Brawl/Weaponry)." This is only really all that useful for masters of the blade/fist, and sometimes not even then if you're staring down a Wizened or something with superior speed. It's available as a one-dot Merit for those folks who want it. It doesn't need to be the default.

Citation nee... wait, that's an opinion, nevermind.

Lord_Gareth
2014-01-12, 12:04 PM
Citation nee... wait, that's an opinion, nevermind.

In my experience, a lot of players only buy combat skills up to 2 or 3 and they get improved later on. By the time Brawl/Weap Dodge would be valuable they've instead invested in armor and other defenses that can take Dodge's place as an option.

This may be slightly skewed by a heavy Changeling focus, though.

Morty
2014-01-12, 02:29 PM
I have no idea what this has to do with my point that there's plenty of ways for an nWoD character to actively affect their chances of survival.

aldeayeah
2014-01-15, 07:07 AM
You seem to be missing the part where the gamelines actively told you not to mess with them, like the ones that had Sam Haight in them with explicit instructions not to let the players' characters kill him.


Did they give a reason why not to do that, or did they just threaten to kick down the door and confiscate your books if you exercised Rule Zero?

Berlin by Night (1993) credits page:

Word from the White Wolf Game Studio
We hope that all of you had a chance to look at GURPS Vampire: the Masquerade, but to answer the question we have been getting here: no, the GURPS setting is not consistent with the White Wolf version, nor should it be. Vampire and the entire Storytelling line is open to whatever interpretations anyone may have of it, and we welcome different looks at them. Storytellers should feel free to pick and choose whatever they like best to add to their chronicles. Hopefully, this will give you more options than you would have had before.

Lorsa
2014-01-15, 08:27 AM
I played oWoD and when I first heard about the new one I thought it was really stupid, overly simplified and removing a lot of clans for no good reason.

When I actually got to play the new one though I must say I don't know why I even liked the old. The new one is a much better game on many levels. Sure, if you like rolling 4 dice pools per attack and that each person has about 5 attacks per round (because if they don't they shouldn't be anywhere near a combbat situation) then the old one will be better for you.

Personally I think the so-called metaplot in the old WoD ruined all the mystery there was and made STs feel less free to do with things as they please. Also, either the players need to have a way to attect the metaplot and the events or else what is the point? If you can't do anything with it you might as well be without it. And the oWoD metaplot you most certainly couldn't do anything about.

White Wolf's storyteller advice has always been very close to "you should railroad your characters around and maybe leave the "last scene" up for possible success/failure". Even the nWoD ST guide on how you write a story will give you this idea. So it's no surprise their metaplot follows the same formula.

There's a lot more stuff you can do with nWoD I feel, and the mechanics are, while not perfect, at least vastly superior. I find it easier to come up with ideas on what to do in it. But then again, maybe I am just one of those "good STs" that nWoD is dependant upon according to some. Sure would be nice if that was the case...