PDA

View Full Version : NWoD



Sequinox
2008-11-02, 07:29 PM
Hi. I'm thinking about buying the World of Darkness, and one of the side books (Vampire, Hunter, or Changeling, probably). I'm wondering if anyone could tell me what it's like compared to, say, Dungeons and Dragons, and how much of a change it would be to run. For example, combat isn't as prevalent in WoD, and story is usually heavier. So... Any advice?

Satyr
2008-11-02, 07:57 PM
Try to get the original World of Darkness books instead of the new ones. While the rules of new edition may be faster, they are also a lot more restrictive and constrictive, while the background is mostly an unoriginal rip-off of the predecessor which rarely ever reaches the quality of the original.
While these games are out of stock and therefore not easily avalable, the gigantic gap in quality completely justifies the additional efforts to search them.

Jerthanis
2008-11-02, 08:22 PM
I disagree with Satyr. I suggest if you're a new player to invest in the nWoD rather than the oWoD. The gap in quality he describes is in my opinion the result of already being a fan of the old work and seeing it changed (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks). As a casual player of Old World of Darkness, but not a fanatic, New World of Darkness has just as good of flavor, and far superior mechanics. Except Mage. While Old Mage had some of the best flavor of any RPG sourcebook ever, New Mage has some of the most meandering, contradictory and poorly written flavor I've ever seen. Mechanics-wise Old Mage was basically, "Have your ST make it all up" and New Mage is a kludge of unclear and complex rules.

My recommendation: If you're planning on playing Vampires, Werewolves, Humans/Hunters, or a mixed group including some of each... go for nWoD. If you're planning on playing Mages, definitely go Old World of Darkness.

Innis Cabal
2008-11-02, 08:30 PM
Try to get the original World of Darkness books instead of the new ones. While the rules of new edition may be faster, they are also a lot more restrictive and constrictive, while the background is mostly an unoriginal rip-off of the predecessor which rarely ever reaches the quality of the original.
While these games are out of stock and therefore not easily avalable, the gigantic gap in quality completely justifies the additional efforts to search them.

Gotta agree with this. nWoD just....its WoD put in the shell of Exalted(Which 1st ed is better then 2nd as well..). Both are great games, but not combined.

Mystery Meep
2008-11-02, 09:30 PM
Read them for yourself, and decide whether you like the themes, I'd say--as you can see, the systems are somewhat polarizing.

The main difference is that the characters will be of greater importance than the treasure or the locations in many ways--just like you would have in D&D statted encounters and been very careful about dungeons and such, in WoD you need to really know your NPCs and PCs. Gameplay will be a little different in that it's more dramatic and less-action oriented, but it can be a smooth transition if you do it with your eyes open.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-02, 09:43 PM
I'm going to disagree with those saying learn the owod. It's just a huge amount to learn, somewhat akin to being expected to learn every DnD splatbook all at once. It's not fair, and it's not good for a new player.

It's not necessarily a massive change in how you run games, but the prescribed methods and goals in WoD are /massively/ different from the prescribed methods and goals of D20.

Eclipse
2008-11-02, 10:24 PM
My recommendation: If you're planning on playing Vampires, Werewolves, Humans/Hunters, or a mixed group including some of each... go for nWoD. If you're planning on playing Mages, definitely go Old World of Darkness.

I'll second this opinion, based on my own experience with Mage, and what friends of mine who are fans of WoD have said about Mage and everything else in the system. Since you didn't specify you wanted to get Mage though, I'd say go with New World of Darkness.

In general, the system is quite a bit looser than D&D, and more focused on telling a story than following the rules. In character creation, they beat you over the head with the idea that you're creating a character and not a bunch of stats on a piece of paper. They constantly remind the storyteller to bend rules if it will make the story better, and only rely on dice when necessary. It's much more about cooperative storytelling than crunching numbers, and you will be reminded of this all the time as you read the rulebooks.

Also, combat is usually much more lethal in WoD than in D&D, which is likely why it's less common. Combat is actually a lot more realistic I would say... inasmuch as anything in an rpg is realistic. Though if you're playing as vampires and werewolves, combat can actually be quite a chore due to various powers they have that can really prolong the fight... so enter into combat at your own risk if you don't like long fights.

Incidentally, they also have a much better since of humor in WoD than in D&D I think. That doesn't really effect the game much, but it makes for fun reading while you learn the rules.

Cathaidan
2008-11-02, 10:49 PM
My two cents:

First off, to answer your original question, WoD is a much more cinematic game than D&D. Hit points don't last as long, actions are more over the top and the entire focus on the games lends itself poorly to dungeon crawl / quest of the week. So if you're looking for that kind of game, then have at it. If not, you need to go back to a style you are more comfortable with.

Now to comment on the whole oWoD vs. nWoD. I prefer the oWoD material. There are a couple of things that I like better. The first is that the world is more detailed. There is more material to go off of, there are more directions that you can run with your characters, there is more going on. Not to mention the fact that each different "game" comes out of the box with an overarching plotline that, even when not used by a storyteller, has an impact on the game.

nWoD on the other hand, leaves all, and I mean all of these decisions up to the storyteller, and I have yet to play under a storyteller that has been able to give me enough written background to satisfy my thirst for fluff. Also, it has a nasty habit of contradicting itself. You might notice that in each of the source books it talks about how Werewolves are very scary things to deal with, but in reality, they are just as balanced as any other supernatural. They were balanced so that a party of all supernaturals would be fair to play, but then we shouldn't have hints that say "these guys are killing machines, avoid at all cost." Or the fact that in Vampire, every city is an island, you shouldn't travel between cities, people who travel between cities are throwing away their lives. But really? From where I live there are three metropolitan areas within 2 hours drive of each other. If we extend that to a five hour drive (easily done over a single night) then the number of metropolitan areas increases to 9. To add to this, the first supplement out for Vampire was Nomads, a book that talks about how to travel safely between cities.

To sum this all up, nWoD has a better overall system, especially if you want to allow for multiple supernatural types, but it gains this by leaving every decision about the setting to the Storyteller, including things as trivial as the ease of travel and how to justify making the other supernaturals live up their reputations.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-02, 11:49 PM
I play a ton of WOD.

NWOD is Crap Except Mage... if you want to play mage play the new one... the old one is terribly complicated... it takes a level of abstraction, and ususaly comes down to bardering with the gm about not giving you paradox cuz you decided to close your door at range in your own abode....


But every other setting is better in the older version.
Werewolf is all about the ass kicking... lots of ass kicking. Vampire is a bit more about drama...
And Changling is about whos hooking up with who...


But as far as less combat, it depends our WOD games tend to have more Combat. but its diffrent because you have to be carful of where when and how...


Lots of fun.

The old system isn't that hard to learn... if you want less combat and more drama i would go vampire.. Just pick up the Vampire book and the players guide...

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-03, 01:57 AM
I'd say get whatever is cheaper and/or most easily available, personally. nWoD is going to be more expensive, but the books will be easier to find and (if you're the sort of person who likes sourcebooks) it'll be supported. On the other hand, picking up an oWoD base rules (one book!) on the cheap is a great way to be introduced to the feel of playing a White Wolf game.

But, back to the OP question: what's it like compared to D&D?

(1) Setting
WoD is a very setting-heavy system. In D&D you generally can just make up your world - everything to the gods & kingdoms to whether wizards learn in academies or from random hermits. WoD integrates their fluff much more, so it can be harder to homebrew. Plus, at least in oWoD, there's not really a transparent system for statting things, so you're better off sticking to the examples they give in the books.

(2) Play Style
WoD leans more towards a "narrative" type of system. There are few rules and the skill system is fairly kludgy (the storyteller picks a stat and a skill for a check - so you can be rolling Firearms + INT or Firearms + DEX) so things work better if the players think up what they want to do, and the storyteller makes an ad hoc ruling for how to resolve it.

This means less "Power Attack for 5" and more "I jump down from the ledge and try to knock him to the ground."

(3) Plots
WoD, generally, is not really combat focused. Characters are not all that durable, and getting injured can really ruin your whole day. That said, if you play a supernatural being (which you probably will), you are going to be tough enough to whup up on mortals all day, and do some action-hero style stuff.

Ideally, a WoD game will be very social - you will spend more of your time talking to people than killing them. However, a detective game works well here too. Dungeon crawls, however, are pretty much right out.

(4) Rules Structure
WoD is nothing like D&D.
- D&D uses many different dice against target numbers. WoD uses D10s in dice pools, and success can be determined by target numbers and the number of successful rolls.

- D&D uses HP and you fight just as well until dead. WoD uses a general wound system in which pretty much everyone can take the same amount of damage before dying, and getting wounded can impact your ability to do pretty much everything.

- D&D has an alignment system to help guide RP. WoD has a built-in ethics meter which, depending on how you act, can go up or down. If it gets too low, bad stuff happens.

- D&D combat is simple. You roll to hit a DC, and if you hit, you roll damage. Sometimes you attacks do status effects - neat. WoD has complicated combat. has you roll one dice pool to hit, and depending on how well you do, you roll another dice pool for damage. That damage may be resisted or otherwise mitigated by your opponent's die roll.

And those are just examples.

Disclaimer
I'm much more familiar with oWoD than nWoD, but from my experience, the above is a fair comparison of the two systems. If you want to play WoD, you will need to learn a whole new rule set than any D20 system you may have played - thems the breaks for trying something new. WoD is a very fluff-heavy game, so if you like homebrewing, it can be your enemy. If you prefer to work within a well-defined universe, then WoD is for you.

Attilargh
2008-11-03, 04:56 AM
Oracle_Hunter: NWoD combat is much more streamlined. You look up your attack pool, subtract the opponent's Defense, roll and mark the successes as wounds. Gets more complicated if there are supernaturals involved (soaks, mainly), but that's the basics of it.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-03, 04:58 AM
Oracle_Hunter: NWoD combat is much more streamlined. You look up your attack pool, subtract the opponent's Defense, roll and mark the successes as wounds. Gets more complicated if there are supernaturals involved (soaks, mainly), but that's the basics of it.

Well, thank god for that. oWoD combat was never worth the trouble. Still, it's going to be more complicated than D&D, unless they also got rid of freeform combat manuevers.

Satyr
2008-11-03, 05:25 AM
I found nWoD combats to be dull and bloodless, mostly because of a) the static target numbers of everything (because it makes so much sense that beating someone with bare hands is as easy as using a sword...) and b) the lack of an active defense that is also the suspense killer of D&D combats. The original WoD combats were much more dynamic and allowed for more creativity and involvement of the players. I think that suspense is a bad thing to sacrifice to gain a more streamlined system.


I disagree with Satyr. I suggest if you're a new player to invest in the nWoD rather than the oWoD. The gap in quality he describes is in my opinion the result of already being a fan of the old work and seeing it changed.

The base of any comparison is that you know the things you compare. It may be that the nWoD is not as disappointing for people who don't have the possibility to compare both systems / settings, but for many, many people who were quite fond with the original World of Darkness, the new one was major letdown.
In Germany, the oWoD was probably the second most popular RPG around with many, many players and very active Larping community. The distribution of the nWoD on the other hand was stopped after a year or two because no one took it up. I think there are still more people who play in the original WoD here than those who made the change.
The dislike for the nWoD is not just my personal opinion, it is very common, mostly because there are good reasons for it.

As a side note, if you want the probably 'better' version of any WoD, try Witchcraft (http://www.edenstudios.net/witchcraft/WitchcraftCorebook.zip). Is likely the best of both worlds, with rules that are both enthralling and fast, and it is free.

Dhavaer
2008-11-03, 05:56 AM
I found nWoD combats to be dull and bloodless, mostly because of a) the static target numbers of everything (because it makes so much sense that beating someone with bare hands is as easy as using a sword...)

Swords give you, IIRC, a +3 bonus to your dice pool and deal lethal damage instead of bashing. Killing someone with a sword is much, much easier than with your fists.

Satyr
2008-11-03, 06:02 AM
I have to adit that my rules knowledge of the nWod is quite lacking. I have onyl played irt for a very short time when the game was still new and I was still convinced that the game could be quite good (despite the painfully dumbed down background elements like the borrowed VtM clansthat were reduced on the basic stereotype).

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-03, 08:37 AM
Rules wise for people who just want to pick up the books and go rather then learn the rules(which honestly combat in OWOD isn't that bad, even if you have the big book of beating ass. the only thing that realy makes in complicated is the manuvers... the new fluff blows...

OP i would talk to the people you know in RL around that area that play and know your gaming style. We do combat heavy oWOD, its a lot of fun. Hyper lethel and realy cool. Don't play combat like you play D&d the characters will die.

Stating can be a pain untill you get to know the system.

Lord Tataraus
2008-11-03, 11:26 AM
Well, I am a new fan of WoD and other White-Wolf so here is my opinion. First of all, I have never played oWoD so everything I know is 2nd-hand knowledge, but a lot of it is consensus.

First of all, oWoD has a more encompassing amount of fluff in the terms of setting. Whether this is a good or bad thing is based on the player/ST's opinion. In my opinion, I prefer nWoD fluff because it gives you a good base and then I can make the world my own a lot easier and it feels more like a game I've created for my players than some module (which I don't usually like). The only exception to this is, as almost everyone will and has told you, nWoD Mage. The system is still very complex, but a bit more solid from the oWoD version, but the fluff is very limiting in the basic book.

In terms of mechanics, nWoD is far superior. Even oWoD fans have conceded, that yes the nWoD mechanics are better than the oWoD mechanics in some basic respects. The most major of these is in crossover balancing. nWoD is a lot more balanced between the systems, as long as you are looking at every aspect as of the game. Vampires are not as good at combat as Werewolves (anyone who says werewolves don't live up to their hype hasn't fought a good Werewolf pack). Everything subsystem has it's own focus that needs to be taken into account. The second major advantage nWoD has over oWoD is that it is a lot easier to learn, a lot more streamlined, but the fun isn't reduced.

Eclipse
2008-11-03, 11:38 AM
Homebrewing a setting actually isn't bad at all in WoD, if that's your thing. Yes, some mechanics are tied to the fluff, but there's still a lot of extraneous fluff that can be stripped away to make way for your own setting. You'll still need to keep what's tied to the mechanics and tie it into your new fluff, but that isn't so bad really. Of course, you could also reflavor the fluff that mechanics depend on to be consistent with plot, if that's necessary.

Just be sure you explain your plans ahead of time if you're homebrewing. There are definitely people out there who really like the WoD fluff, and do not want to play a game in which it is significantly changed. As long as everyone is on the same page though, it should be fine.

Sequinox
2008-11-03, 05:59 PM
To the previous poster: Honestly, I'm the only person I know who's heard of WoD... or at least knows a little about it. I'm sure most of my friends have seen the books next to the DnD books...

So... Thanks. I was also wondering what exactly Changeling would be like to play... I'm not much of a hack 'n slasher, so I'm not too worried about most of it, but I'm sure I'm going for Changeling or Hunter... or at least first. How do the books mesh together in a setting where they meet? And is it possible to create a non-earth setting for WoD?

And I'm probably going with NWoD, if not just because it's the only thing my bookstore sells.

Tadanori Oyama
2008-11-03, 06:04 PM
None earth setting in WoD is as easy as establishing the "rules" for the world you want to put it on. Just say your not on earth and play how you will.

Hunter the Vigil is a good game for human play. It lets you keep the "rules" on the supernatural very, very vague so your players will be on their toes.

Changeling is my favorite out of all the settings and I always recommend it. Even if you don't play the game, getting the book will let you create some very amazing Changeling (or Fey) styled antagonists.

Changeling is the easiest setting to mesh with others because Changelings strable the human/monster line alot closer than some of the other settings.

Hack and Slash is easy to work out of the system. Just give the players stuff to investigate and puzzles to solve, you can cut combat out completely and still have a workable dice system.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-03, 06:07 PM
If you're going to go with a non-earth setting, it'll take some work but it's very very doable.

As for particular books, I'd recommend the core book (World of Darkness) which shows you how to run the game and make mortals. Given the option between Changeling and Hunter, I'd go with Hunter, but that's really a matter of personal preference. I'd also recommend getting either Antagonists or Ghost Stories, if you're planning on playing a mortals game. It's really quite versatile, really. Ghost Stories + Hunter = Ghostbusters, whereas Antagonists + Hunter = Resident Evil and Hunter + Prometheans = Frankenstein.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-03, 06:21 PM
To the previous poster: Honestly, I'm the only person I know who's heard of WoD... or at least knows a little about it. I'm sure most of my friends have seen the books next to the DnD books...

So... Thanks. I was also wondering what exactly Changeling would be like to play... I'm not much of a hack 'n slasher, so I'm not too worried about most of it, but I'm sure I'm going for Changeling or Hunter... or at least first. How do the books mesh together in a setting where they meet? And is it possible to create a non-earth setting for WoD?

And I'm probably going with NWoD, if not just because it's the only thing my bookstore sells.


They say you can find other worlds in the deep umbra... but yes.. we actualy had a game that pritty much played out mostly on mars.

Lord Tataraus
2008-11-03, 07:33 PM
Personally, I'd suggest Hunter. At my college, I'm the only one in the gaming club who has ever played WoD or really knows anything about it which makes Hunter that much more fun. Basically, the players are learning about all the crazy stuff that's going on with no metagame knowledge in the way and they mess up sometimes, but never to a TPK yet (I've had to pull a Deus Ex Machina once, but that was the second session and they learned their lesson after that). Unfortunately, I have no experience with Changeling except I know they are considering making it more of a central subsystem like Vampire, Werewolf and Mage are out of popularity, so I bet its good.

Sequinox
2008-11-03, 09:15 PM
Hack and Slash is easy to work out of the system. Just give the players stuff to investigate and puzzles to solve, you can cut combat out completely and still have a workable dice system.

Well yeah. My point there was that it wasn't quite as large a change when people brought up the lack of hack n slashiness. Just wanted to make that clear.

It sounds really interesting... Now I just need the money and to convince friends that this isn't gonna work out like the time we tried Star Wars... Arguments over whether Endor had been discovered in the Old Republic era...

Anyway, I'm thinking I'm gonna go with Hunter in a pseudo-earth with the same technology and all that stuff. (I just like being able to draw out my own maps, I guess)

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-03, 11:40 PM
I just use locations no one has every been to, or work out my own town...

Or as my group had done we made this town, collectivly, in canada. completely ficticous and the back ground of the city was worked over by our group its pritty cool.

Jerthanis
2008-11-04, 01:48 AM
If you're interested in Changeling, I can't tell you much one way or the other, because I didn't play it when it was Changeling: The Dreaming, and I don't own it now that it's Changeling: The Lost, but here's the one thing I do know. Old World of Darkness Changeling was so unpopular they quit publishing material for it LONG before they stopped publishing for any of their other lines. New World of Darkness Changeling is so popular, they've extended the publishing life of the game far beyond what they originally planned.

As for fans of the previous game line disliking the new game line, I understand why, but I still think the new line is just as good or better as a game than oWoD was. A friend of mine who is less of a fan of oWoD than I am once said, "White Wolf didn't start making RPGs until 2004, before that it made bad Anne Rice fanfiction that it got away with publishing by tacking on an RPG system where you could play spectator to the setting NPCs."

I didn't agree with him entirely, but I do believe that the game is now a lot easier to generate a sense of "player ownership" of the setting. While I understand the appeal of the sense that "the game" is larger than your table, but I'm never going to meet most of them... and I've got five good friends here who are more interested in the story we're telling right at the table than anyone else's story.

Playing non-earth settings will be hard either way, but I can't help but feel like nWoD would be better for that, since there are fewer specific references to specific real-world myths and histories.

banjo1985
2008-11-04, 06:53 AM
I'll base my views solely on nWoD, because I never had the opportunity to play the original except for a few hastily thrown together Vampire sessions.

I must say that I view nWoD as my favourite rules system, and the one I run to the exclusion of all others. The combat is fluid and deadly, and the fluff in the different settings is really flavourful and gives me lots of ideas for campaigns and one shot adventures. It's good stuff, but if you're used to playing DnD and want something similar, it might come as a bit of a culture shock.

One thing you might want to try is Monte Cook's World of Darkness, a kind of 3.5 take on the WoD world using the DnD section. I've been told it's pretty inferior to nWoD, but it might be worth a look if you want DnD style rules with a different setting.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-11-04, 11:01 AM
Hm. I think I just heard Tengu exploding.

Sequinox
2008-11-04, 06:02 PM
One thing you might want to try is Monte Cook's World of Darkness, a kind of 3.5 take on the WoD world using the DnD section. I've been told it's pretty inferior to nWoD, but it might be worth a look if you want DnD style rules with a different setting.

Actually, there was a time where I was really interested it and was this close to buying it, but I ended up deciding that if I wanted a new game, I might as well pick up a new system. The reason this started was actually because I was getting tired of d20 system. It's not bad, but it's getting old. (Also, D20 variants of games tend to get old quickly - see SW reference in last post... though that was probably more SW and less d20) And 4th edition didn't do it for me, so... This game has always interested me, so I figured I would think about this next.

Dyvim Matt
2008-11-05, 11:51 AM
Concerning non-Earth settings, I know old Mage was very well suited to that kind of campaign. In about 12 years of playing White Wolf games, I never bothered with White Wolf fluff beyond the basics set out in the core book, so it might explain why I have such an easy time doing it. I don't know how easy it is with the new Mage, however, because I have only tried it once, but I'm pretty sure it could be done if you replace the new fluff with whatever is relevant to your world. Either way, you could pull it off with just the core book (or books if you go with new Mage.) As pointed out by others, old Mage had a more free-form magic system than the new one, in which the rules are a lot more defined. As opposed to many other Mage players, I work better with a rules-light system when designing and running my stories, so I don't bother with the specifics of each spell beyond what is necessary; also, the old "active defense" mechanics (attack roll vs. defense roll) are more to my taste than the new "passive defense" mechanics (roll Attack pool minus defense pool) but this is just my tastes. Apart from the magic and combat rules, I think the new system is very good. Conclusion: new or old, try Mage for a non-Earth setting. [/my 2 cents]

Terraoblivion
2008-11-05, 03:41 PM
Having played WoD for years i have come to the conclusion that nWoD is superior to oWoD in just about every way. Like pretty much everyone has said then the rules for nWoD are a lot more fluid and streamlined than those of oWoD. That does not necessarily mean better in all cases, but they are generally faster to use and easier to remember simply because there are fewer and they typically work in a more consistent fashion as well. One thing i have also noticed is that the powerlevel of supernatural beings compared to mortals has generally been lowered.

That is also reflected in the primary difference in fluff. Where oWoD was all about the ancient conspiracies that secretly ruled the world, Vampire alone had like three of them for example, nWoD brings a lot more power back in the hands of mortals. Not that the supernaturals are not powerful or influential anymore, but their power tends to be of a more local sort. Instead of an ancient vampire secretly ruling the Roman Catholic Church in oWoD, the same vampire would merely be able to influence the overall priorities and ideology of the church in nWoD, while the church still mostly went along based on the desires of mortals.

Part of the reason for this is that WW has taken a new approach to the fluff. Instead of creating a world with important people, secret societies and all that, they have decided to give the GM a toolbox. The primary ingredients of this toolbox are themes and moods and some basic archetypes to work for and the rules needed to make it all work. In addition to that they do have a lot of examples you can use and often additional rules and specific fluff that you can include if you like them or ignore them if you don't without losing something that is integral to the other fluff you have.

Ultimately it is that change in fluff that is the major point of contention between supporters of oWoD and followers of nWoD. Most of the disgruntled oWoD fans point to really liking the story and setting created in the huge number of sourcebooks, while nWoD fans tend to either not know, not care about or genuinely dislike that fluff. I personally fall into the last group, i found the increasingly specific descriptions of each splat suffocating, not to mention that the eternal contradictions made it very hard to actually figure that fluff out. I also tended to find much of it highly cheesy and poorly written, though i know that several people, including at least one close personal friend, would want my head for saying that.

I also find that the production values in terms of art, editing and typography of nWoD is leagues above those of oWoD. The art direction of most nWoD books i have seen has been stunning, while i found many of the illustrations in oWoD pretty mediocre. The degree to which computers have entered the publishing industry with the benefits that has for layout is also apparent in nWoD, the rigid division in columns and pages and with single rectangular pictures taking up very specific amounts of space is gone. This is of course not a major thing, but it still goes a long way to make the books more appealing.

As for which of the games you are thinking about to choose, i would say it depends on your personal preferences. Having only played Vampire and read some Changeling, my advice will not be too sound. Hunter will probably be what you are most familiar to in narrative style of, as you are humans who has decided to protect others against monsters. In general, however, Vampire is the most classic of the games, so classic that they have been mocked to death and back. Even so it is very much about politics and about subtle social manipulation and snubbing, as well as the loss of humanity and the struggle against bestial urges on one hand and stagnation on the other. And Changeling is the one of them i fell in love with even if i have not had the chance to play with it. It has a general sense of surreality to it and probably focuses the most of personal stories and the least on external conflicts. The general theme of it is about coming to terms with your loss of humanity and the loss of your identity and life, but with the magic, mystery and dreamlike quality of the fey still there. Probably also the hardest of the three to run because of the general abstraction and ambitious nature of the themes involved. So my advice is to look at the themes involved in each of the games and decide on which you like the best.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-05, 03:56 PM
Having played WoD for years i have come to the conclusion that nWoD is superior to oWoD in just about every way. Like pretty much everyone has said then the rules for nWoD are a lot more fluid and streamlined than those of oWoD. That does not necessarily mean better in all cases, but they are generally faster to use and easier to remember simply because there are fewer and they typically work in a more consistent fashion as well. One thing i have also noticed is that the powerlevel of supernatural beings compared to mortals has generally been lowered.

That is also reflected in the primary difference in fluff. Where oWoD was all about the ancient conspiracies that secretly ruled the world, Vampire alone had like three of them for example, nWoD brings a lot more power back in the hands of mortals. Not that the supernaturals are not powerful or influential anymore, but their power tends to be of a more local sort. Instead of an ancient vampire secretly ruling the Roman Catholic Church in oWoD, the same vampire would merely be able to influence the overall priorities and ideology of the church in nWoD, while the church still mostly went along based on the desires of mortals.

Just because a lasombra ruled the church doesn't meen any thing :)...

there where more then three in vampire if i remember correctly that also depends if you are talking about before the ravanos went down. :) I personaly liked the power of supernaturals in compairison to Mortals... because it wasn't like other games where youc an destroy citys and walk away cuz then you would be hunted by your own supernatural.

NeoVid
2008-11-05, 04:26 PM
Anyway, I'm thinking I'm gonna go with Hunter in a pseudo-earth with the same technology and all that stuff. (I just like being able to draw out my own maps, I guess)


Hunter is a good choice to start with, as it only has minor changes from playing completely ordinary humans. Keep in mind it's a horror game, and unlike D&D, the fact that the PCs are fighting back makes them more likely to be killed, not less. Just remember you need the WoD core book first, though you can play a good game with just that.

That also highlights one of the biggest differences between the old days of WoD and now: normal humans are actually playable and fun, instead of not being intended as PCs.

If Changeling is the other one you're most interested in, I'd say you should run Hunter first and hold off on the really supernatural games until your group knows the games better, since the things that really set Changeling apart from other games (dreamriding and Pledges) are complicated to work with.

My personal favorite of the nWoD, slightly edging out Mage, is Promethean, but it's the hardest RPing challenge I've ever seen, which does not make it a beginner's game.

As for the mechanics, they're far easier and simpler than D&D's, and you can improvise a lot more.

Tadanori Oyama
2008-11-05, 04:50 PM
My personal favorite of the nWoD, slightly edging out Mage, is Promethean, but it's the hardest RPing challenge I've ever seen, which does not make it a beginner's game.


God that one's a fun game! Impossible to get anybody to play but fun when it does (against all odds) come together.

Sequinox
2008-11-05, 08:43 PM
Promethean

That was actually my original interest... Until I learned just what Promethean was about. Then I didn't see how anyone could even play a game of it. I couldn't come up with any sort of plot. How's promethean as an experienced game, anyway?

And about hunter: what type of monsters are fought? Should you have other books (other than core WoD. That's what I'm getting first) to make it playable? What would they fight? Is it up to the DM... Storyteller to make them up himself?

Fax Celestis
2008-11-05, 08:52 PM
I find Promethean to be better material for NPCs than PCs. Hunter players tracking down a rampaging Promethean makes a good arc.

Selrahc
2008-11-05, 08:54 PM
I couldn't come up with any sort of plot.

Promethean seems like an easy one to make a plot for. You and a agang of other misfits want to become human, you go on a journey both personal and literal in an attempt to make that happen. Typical quest stuff.



You've got to put a lot of work into preparation, but the basic plot is fairly inbuilt.

If you try for something outside of that structure, it becomes more difficult however.

Beleriphon
2008-11-05, 10:31 PM
And about hunter: what type of monsters are fought? Should you have other books (other than core WoD. That's what I'm getting first) to make it playable? What would they fight? Is it up to the DM... Storyteller to make them up himself?

The other books are best for using those creatures as playable characters. They are not necessary at all to make usable NPCs, or for most Hunter games decent monsters.

The core WoD rulebook has some pretty good generic monsters ready to go, and Hunter should have a enough that you can fiddle to your hearts desire. Just remember that unique monster abilities aren't that big of a deal provided that you at least try to base it on something else of similar power. That way you have something that should be approaching fair.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-05, 10:38 PM
The other books are best for using those creatures as playable characters. They are not necessary at all to make usable NPCs, or for most Hunter games decent monsters.

The core WoD rulebook has some pretty good generic monsters ready to go, and Hunter should have a enough that you can fiddle to your hearts desire. Just remember that unique monster abilities aren't that big of a deal provided that you at least try to base it on something else of similar power. That way you have something that should be approaching fair.

I'd go a step further and say get Antagonists at least. Antagonists has some great example monsters, as well as zombie rules.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-05, 11:45 PM
That was actually my original interest... Until I learned just what Promethean was about. Then I didn't see how anyone could even play a game of it. I couldn't come up with any sort of plot. How's promethean as an experienced game, anyway?

And about hunter: what type of monsters are fought? Should you have other books (other than core WoD. That's what I'm getting first) to make it playable? What would they fight? Is it up to the DM... Storyteller to make them up himself?

Zombies and werewolves...

Once killed a werewolf with a silver spoon as a hunter... was good times.

banjo1985
2008-11-06, 06:10 AM
Promethean just seems like a really great setting and story, but a really intimidating challenge to run, and one that I have yet to feel myself ready for. The pure amount of preperation you have to put in to run the thing is astounding, and it seems very very difficult to create a game for.

I would love to play one though, as the fluff offers a rich variation of suitable concepts for some truely tragic characters.

I'd also suggest starting with Hunter, as it's not much above the standard setting, and the humans you play don't have too much in the way of strange abilities or spiffy powers to have to get used to. After that, Vampire, Mage or Werewolf are obvious steps, though I must admit Mage leaves me cold.

Friv
2008-11-06, 11:22 AM
So... Thanks. I was also wondering what exactly Changeling would be like to play... I'm not much of a hack 'n slasher, so I'm not too worried about most of it, but I'm sure I'm going for Changeling or Hunter... or at least first. How do the books mesh together in a setting where they meet? And is it possible to create a non-earth setting for WoD?

As someone running a Changeling game, I can give a bit of insight into the former, although it'll be shaded by how my players tend to play.

Generally speaking, Changeling is a game that promotes a certain amount of paranoia in players, alongside senses of wonder and horror. How much those three themes get focused on depends on the group.

On the wonder side, there is a world apart from Earth, filled with powerful magic and amazing creatures.

On the terror side, most of them want to eat you, violate you, or do terrible things to your mind, and you may become more like them if you aren't careful.

On the paranoid side, some of your friends may already have become more like them, so even people you have trusted in the past might not remain trustworthy.

Changeling can mesh well with Hunter, assuming the hunters learn the truth about what's going on relatively early. Changelings are effectively humans who have been the victims of the supernatural, and they have powers that can help them fight the forces that hurt them, so hunters who understand the differences between changelings and other monsters might not be adverse to having them onside for a bout of Fae-hunting. Of course, everyone involved has a good shot at dying horribly, but them's the breaks when you try to fight elder horrors from beyond the world. Changelings also have the power to bind promises and deals with magic, giving the promisers power in exchange for them not breaking their word; hunters could see that as a useful power that doesn't stain the soul. (Or not, depending on the hunters).

Adapting Changeling to a non-Earth setting is pretty easy. Adapting Hunter is less-so, because most of the Hunter organizations are based on the way that Earth's societies have evolved, but they can be changed (a government organization can be from a different government if you're playing modern, and people with demon blood are pretty applicable everywhere.)

Sequinox
2008-11-06, 03:48 PM
I'm going to pick up the WoD book pretty soon... Probably today on the way back from Guitar. Can't wait to try it!

(Also, I found a preview of Vampire: The Requiem on the official website. Sweet. Looks like fun, although the whole 'feeding players' thing kinda got me. Not very heroic, but there's the difference.)

NeoVid
2008-11-06, 04:35 PM
That was actually my original interest... Until I learned just what Promethean was about. Then I didn't see how anyone could even play a game of it. I couldn't come up with any sort of plot. How's promethean as an experienced game, anyway?

Promethean doesn't have much need for a lot of plot. The PCs just interacting with people is enough to drive the game. What ensued from my experience of just having a trio of Prommies working as roadies to a metal band for a few weeks was pretty damn memorable.

Tragically, I haven't had a serious chance to play it, as you need a group that will commit to the game in the long term for it to work. We have someone who wants to run it, but we'd need a couple more people who we can absolutely trust to show up every session for a long time.




And about hunter: what type of monsters are fought? Should you have other books (other than core WoD. That's what I'm getting first) to make it playable? What would they fight? Is it up to the DM... Storyteller to make them up himself?

Hunter main book has rules for making simple-to-run versions of just about anything you care to throw at your players. They can have to deal with just about anything, though the more likely a creature is to harm ordinary people, the more likely a target they'll be, so vampires are common. Werewolves are probably second, but never forget that unlike in the oWoD, you're within your rights as an ST to make all sorts of original things that no one has ever heard of.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-06, 05:53 PM
Promethean doesn't have much need for a lot of plot. The PCs just interacting with people is enough to drive the game. What ensued from my experience of just having a trio of Prommies working as roadies to a metal band for a few weeks was pretty damn memorable.

Tragically, I haven't had a serious chance to play it, as you need a group that will commit to the game in the long term for it to work. We have someone who wants to run it, but we'd need a couple more people who we can absolutely trust to show up every session for a long time.




Hunter main book has rules for making simple-to-run versions of just about anything you care to throw at your players. They can have to deal with just about anything, though the more likely a creature is to harm ordinary people, the more likely a target they'll be, so vampires are common. Werewolves are probably second, but never forget that unlike in the oWoD, you're within your rights as an ST to make all sorts of original things that no one has ever heard of.


In oWod you could make up your own things... thats definitely not new. I believe that actually had books on how to make your own monsters in Wod.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-06, 05:56 PM
In oWod you could make up your own things... thats definitely not new. I believe that actually had books on how to make your own monsters in Wod.

True, but they've made it easier in nWoD, considering basically everything is your basic mortal plus a template.

Terraoblivion
2008-11-06, 06:03 PM
Not only that the less crowded setting and the less specific nature of the fluff, makes it easier to introduce it without any of the players feeling that it breaks the setting.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-06, 06:25 PM
Not only that the less crowded setting and the less specific nature of the fluff, makes it easier to introduce it without any of the players feeling that it breaks the setting.

Could you please use an example or explain your point a little more im having a hard time understanding... i've never realy seen any problems with stating NPC in oWoD... actualy i thought it was easyer then D20...

Terraoblivion
2008-11-06, 06:54 PM
NPCs are not a problem. Creating monsters for hunters to fight is what we were talking about, however. OWoD had much less conceptual space in which to put your own monstrous creations because it was already so busy with all the splats and their fairly detailed, designated antagonists. Also because practically every mysterious phenomenon in the world was already explained as being the work of one faction or another it would also be hard to use them as a basis for it. NWoD, with its near complete lack of canon NPCs and approach of saying that pretty much everything specific is just a suggestion, has much more space in which to stick monsters you invent yourself, whether Sasquatches, Loch Ness monsters or greys. Especially Hunter or the basic mortals from the core book should make it easy to include beings like that.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-06, 07:11 PM
NPCs are not a problem. Creating monsters for hunters to fight is what we were talking about, however. OWoD had much less conceptual space in which to put your own monstrous creations because it was already so busy with all the splats and their fairly detailed, designated antagonists. Also because practically every mysterious phenomenon in the world was already explained as being the work of one faction or another it would also be hard to use them as a basis for it. NWoD, with its near complete lack of canon NPCs and approach of saying that pretty much everything specific is just a suggestion, has much more space in which to stick monsters you invent yourself, whether Sasquatches, Loch Ness monsters or greys. Especially Hunter or the basic mortals from the core book should make it easy to include beings like that.

I guess that depends See I think you went at it with a d20 look... those splats and what not are just sugestions they don't need to be used.. we had one game where we where hunting down el chicacabra esc monster. It was sweet... also you can play hunter and not use any of the other WOD books. A lot of our earlier games where like that. How many people actualy used any of the NPC's or Villians out of the books any way... i meen the system was set up to be easily modified... ok yeti well lets see i can do this numerous ways... i could use a Were coyote perma stuck in chronos form, or i could use some monster stats from the umbra, ehh screw it ill just make some stats from no where...

O wait chathulu type game... can any one say deep umbra?

Sequinox
2008-11-06, 10:26 PM
So... I got the core book.

I read it, or at least the first 50 pages.

Made my character.

Tried to come up with a story to tell.

Arg. Dumb writer's block. (The funny thing is that I never get it while I'm writing unless it's for school. I only get it for games.)

Anyone have any thing that they do to look for inspiration for plots?

Eclipse
2008-11-06, 10:44 PM
So... I got the core book.

I read it, or at least the first 50 pages.

Made my character.

Tried to come up with a story to tell.

Arg. Dumb writer's block. (The funny thing is that I never get it while I'm writing unless it's for school. I only get it for games.)

Anyone have any thing that they do to look for inspiration for plots?

Two words: Conspiracy theories!

Look for a conspiracy theory you like online, then blend it in with the WoD setting. This is actually what I'm doing for the campaign I'm currently preparing, and it's a lot of fun getting everything ready.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-06, 10:49 PM
So... I got the core book.

I read it, or at least the first 50 pages.

Made my character.

Tried to come up with a story to tell.

Arg. Dumb writer's block. (The funny thing is that I never get it while I'm writing unless it's for school. I only get it for games.)

Anyone have any thing that they do to look for inspiration for plots?

First, pick a genre. For Hunter (which is what the Core is good for, IIRC) I'd go with Survival Horror or Supernatural Detectives.

For the former, you can go with Monstrous Stalker (some monster is hunting one or more of the PCs) or Kidnapped by Cultists (someone near & dear to a PC is kidnapped for use by Cultists).

For the later, things like Mysterious Murder (they read on the internet that the latest "Serial Killer" has been killing folks through improbable means) or Find the Artifact (self-explanatory) will probably do just fine.

But for inspiration? I read this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Plots). :smallbiggrin:

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-06, 11:04 PM
watch movies based around it...

WOD typicaly watch constintine, Underworld's, John carpenter's vampire slayer, and matrix....
...

Terraoblivion
2008-11-07, 02:38 PM
The thing is, RagnaroksChosen, that there is no mechanical reason to play oWoD except for mage. Almost everyone who has posted here agrees on that. The reason to play oWoD is the fluff, however, that fluff is notoriously busy and crowded, unless you throw most of it out which leaves you with the question of why playing oWoD in the first place. If you look at the fluff in the core books then it is quite similar in oWoD and nWoD, thematically at least. So if you are not going to use the splatbook fluff there is no good reason to play oWoD, while if you are the world is already too crowded to support monsters like that as it would clash with the fluff already there.

Also i doubt i am coming at this from a d20 perspective given that i don't actually play d20 games, at least not unless you count Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition as being d20.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 02:44 PM
The thing is, RagnaroksChosen, that there is no mechanical reason to play oWoD except for mage. Almost everyone who has posted here agrees on that. The reason to play oWoD is the fluff, however, that fluff is notoriously busy and crowded, unless you throw most of it out which leaves you with the question of why playing oWoD in the first place. If you look at the fluff in the core books then it is quite similar in oWoD and nWoD, thematically at least. So if you are not going to use the splatbook fluff there is no good reason to play oWoD, while if you are the world is already too crowded to support monsters like that as it would clash with the fluff already there.
That.. was pretty much exactly what I was going to put. Though you could just use limited oWoD splats. For instance, "All of Werewolf is true, but screw the rest." Still, oWoD is not inviting for change. It's a big, established, setting, and people just don't like those being changed too much, as a rule. Which is weird considerring Exalted's player base is within the same company but makes a point of ****ing with the established setting..


Also i doubt i am coming at this from a d20 perspective given that i don't actually play d20 games, at least not unless you count Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition as being d20.

It does.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-07, 02:47 PM
The thing is, RagnaroksChosen, that there is no mechanical reason to play oWoD except for mage. Almost everyone who has posted here agrees on that. The reason to play oWoD is the fluff, however, that fluff is notoriously busy and crowded, unless you throw most of it out which leaves you with the question of why playing oWoD in the first place. If you look at the fluff in the core books then it is quite similar in oWoD and nWoD, thematically at least. So if you are not going to use the splatbook fluff there is no good reason to play oWoD, while if you are the world is already too crowded to support monsters like that as it would clash with the fluff already there.

Also i doubt i am coming at this from a d20 perspective given that i don't actually play d20 games, at least not unless you count Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition as being d20.

The d20 thing is an assumption I make about people on these boards.

I hate nWod mechanic's there a lot more static... and as far as old Mage blew hard... there weren't really mechanics... it was more bartering with the ST. I've always loved the old mechanics versus the new... I guess I'm just old school like that ... Same reason i never understood every ones problem with Thaco.. oWOD is a relatively simple and robust system.. thats what i loved about it... i meen we ran with just core books all the time.. even though between the group we own most of the white wolf books...

I'd like to understand why you think the new one is better? Can you give examples?

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 02:51 PM
oWoD's mechanics were more complex, not simpler. Target Numbers, and defenders rolling are extra things to take into account. And the way Supernaturals interacted with each other was, to my memory, a completely garbled mess, rather then everyone working against similar dice pools (Generally Composure + Supernatural Stat)

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-07, 02:58 PM
oWoD's mechanics were more complex, not simpler. Target Numbers, and defenders rolling are extra things to take into account. And the way Supernaturals interacted with each other was, to my memory, a completely garbled mess, rather then everyone working against similar dice pools (Generally Composure + Supernatural Stat)

see the thing is though is that the diffrent supernaturals where not ment to go together... nor where they ever ment to be balanced... one of the frustrations i have with the new system much like 4th ed the've deluted every thing down to make it more "even".

Also you have to understand that within each super natural systems(referd to here after as systems) there were contradictions. Remeber each system was supposed to be played individualy with the others being "wrong", according to the fluff Mixed groups of supernaturals don't work with out GM fiat.

That is if we strictly want to go by RAW and fluff... but then again how many people actualy played by the book as far as fluff goes.

what about the target numbers and opposed rolling thats one of the things that made it great, it was actualy well balanced when you played it as close to raw as possible, Hyper lethal to all but werewolves...

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 03:18 PM
see the thing is though is that the diffrent supernaturals where not ment to go together... nor where they ever ment to be balanced... one of the frustrations i have with the new system much like 4th ed the've deluted every thing down to make it more "even".
Supernaturals were clearly supposed to interact with each other. Let us excuse the fact that you could not swing a werecat without hitting a Vampire or Mage plot, or berserk vampires, or a changeling society, or whatever. The NWO, and by extension, It-X were supposed to spend their time, in part, suppressing supernaturals. The Void engineers were pretty much guaranteed to run into various types of Spirits in their travels; Ditto the Dreamwalkers. And you are a crazy man if you expect a Son of Ether to walk away from the pulpy fantastic goodness of, say, Werewolves.


Also you have to understand that within each super natural systems(referd to here after as systems) there were contradictions. Remeber each system was supposed to be played individualy with the others being "wrong", according to the fluff Mixed groups of supernaturals don't work with out GM fiat.
I know. I just don't see how in the name of Ether that was supposed to be a good idea. Why would you try and maximize incompatibility? It removes the ability of the GM and the players to mix if they want. nWoD worked people off the same /basic/ system. Honestly? so did oWoD. nWoD just decided "Let's not create arbitrary incompatibility". And despite what you were saying.. they did not balance the supernaturals against each other. I haven't looked over Hunter, but there is no way I would ever say they're all equal. Not even close. Mages still win.


That is if we strictly want to go by RAW and fluff... but then again how many people actualy played by the book as far as fluff goes.
too many. That's why I don't play oWoD.


what about the target numbers and opposed rolling thats one of the things that made it great, it was actualy well balanced when you played it as close to raw as possible, Hyper lethal to all but werewolves...

Erm, yo'ure not making a lot of sense. You were just railing against the balance, and neither Target Numbers nor Opposed Rolling have anything to do with it at any rate. Target Numbers made it easier to handle everyday, simple tasks that simply took a while (TN 3, Diff 3 might be making scrambled eggs, for instance; Easy, but not doable in a minute.) Opposed rolling does almost as much for balance as goggles do; Nothing. DV is the average of your defense rolls. It's like claiming DnD is better or worse because you roll AC instead of 'taking 10'. The only difference is that a DV takes less time.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-07, 03:24 PM
see the thing is though is that the diffrent supernaturals where not ment to go together... nor where they ever ment to be balanced... one of the frustrations i have with the new system much like 4th ed the've deluted every thing down to make it more "even".

This "dilution" makes atypical groupings (such as what players enjoy) more possible.

Besides, anything's better than The Rule of Four.

Terraoblivion
2008-11-07, 03:29 PM
Why i prefer nWoD? Like RPGure said oWoD is a big established setting focusing on all the things i ultimately didn't care about, specifically what the different neigh-omnipotent NPCs went around were doing. How would that ever be useful? Those beings were so powerful that they were impossible to meaningfully include in a game that should be about the players. NWoD on the other hand has, despite numerous books for each of the splats, managed to stick to what the core books of oWoD had focused on, that being archtypes, mood and theme and in those the two games are quite similar, at least for Vampire the others diversify to a greater degree.

As for how it works mechanically then nWoD is just a much simpler and more fluid system than oWoD. One dice roll with a fixed target number to wound someone is a lot easier and faster than three rolls with fluid target numbers. The hideous unbalance of the supernatural abilities within each splat was another problem of oWoD. Being a vampire without high Auspex was to invite assassination for example given how Obfuscate worked and that is one of the most benign examples of unbalance. Pretty much all Thaumaturgy except for that in the core book was utterly ridiculous. I still remember the path that allow you to play puppeteer with someone without an opposed roll or any of their stats influencing the difficulty. The mechanics were just clunky and internally inconsistent in oWoD, while they are much clearer and consistent in nWoD.

And all the references to the Sabbat, Nephandi, Marauders and the Technocracy found in various Werewolf sourcebooks would disagree on whether the different supernaturals were meant to work together. There were also numerous sourcebooks writing the grand unified history of the setting, the one that blew up Bangladesh and killed off Wraith is the one that springs to mind most easily.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-07, 03:44 PM
First of all i'd just like to say i agree with you guys about nwod Mage being better i hate mage with a passion but even i can't disagree with you.


As far as the balancing of the supernaturals.. thats the biggest argument for nwod besides of course how "combat is easyer". which i think it may be slightly easyer but it lost alot of its flexability. Alot of flexablility...


I wonder about how white wolfs numbers are doing with the nWod stuff... i know the old books still sell like hot cakes up here in NE and down in AZ...

RPGuru1331:
I disagree that they where ment to interact... i can walk in yellow stone national park and never see a bear... i have a good good chance, but i might not same goes for all the examples you gave... and most people who played mage agree that if you didn't have enough prep time any super natural would kick ur butt. They did have some interaction and in alot of the Neutral source books they mention the fact that things over lap but ususaly its from one view point or the other...
I don't think they tried to create incompatibility, i think it just kinda happend. it more happend with more and more source books. i meen look at Demon, they where ridiculously over powered... where tare pritty much any thing apart. but i would consider that extra... But demon aside...

When i talk about owod im only talking about the "core" races Vampire, werewolf, mage, changling, hunter. i know there are a million off shoots of races ... all the other where races, highlander, mummy, etc.. etc..

As far as balance goes... i don't think Race-ly balance is a good thing though the system it self is well balanced. combat was fluid, the abilities where fluid, it all flowed well... and i understand about the whole static thing vs rolling defence but with the way the system worked around those concepts the rolling worked better though statistically there probably the same.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 03:59 PM
First of all i'd just like to say i agree with you guys about nwod Mage being better i hate mage with a passion but even i can't disagree with you.
I'm kinda curious as to the rest then, but okay.


I disagree that they where ment to interact...
I don't know how you can justify that when you know for a fact that the largest organizations had divisions specifically for dealing with other supernaturals, to be perfectly honest.


When i talk about owod im only talking about the "core" races Vampire, werewolf, mage, changling, hunter. i know there are a million off shoots of races ... all the other where races, highlander, mummy, etc.. etc..
Hunter was Core? I honestly thought Hunter was a side thing. It barely got more support then Demon or Mummy, which was a shame, because Hunters were cool

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-07, 04:00 PM
I'm kinda curious as to the rest then, but okay.


I don't know how you can justify that when you know for a fact that the largest organizations had divisions specifically for dealing with other supernaturals, to be perfectly honest.


Hunter was Core? I honestly thought Hunter was a side thing. It barely got more support then Demon or Mummy, which was a shame, because Hunters were cool

Didn't hunter have an apocalypse book to them selves.

Edit: Correction hunter had a ton of books:
http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showline&gamelineid=19

Edit edit: Terraoblivion: i agree that the splat books added in organisations for mutual interactions however the main books did not... any game with source books , the books are considered optional..

And i agree with you some of the tremer's powers out side of core where Horribly over powered... but im just talking about the core books. becuase again all the fluff in the Splat books are optional... in the same way all the fluff in the complete books(for d20) are optional.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-07, 04:27 PM
Tremere in general were overpowered. Auspex and Thaumaturgy and Dominate? Sure, let's just give the best clan-only discipline and the two best non-clan disciplines to one clan. Good job, guys.

Terraoblivion
2008-11-07, 04:44 PM
Though Thaumaturgy didn't become truly insane until the source books. Path of Blood was nice and the fire one that i have forgotten the name of was a good source of damage. The rituals in the core book were also powerful and the combination of them and the paths made Thaumaturgy easily the most powerful discipline. But the brokenness of Thaumaturgy got much, much worse in sourcebooks. And Auspex was pretty much the best discipline other than Thaumaturgy, the moment you started mattering you had a big, fat target symbol on your back if you didn't have a fair deal of it.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-07, 04:48 PM
Though Thaumaturgy didn't become truly insane until the source books. Path of Blood was nice and the fire one that i have forgotten the name of was a good source of damage. The rituals in the core book were also powerful and the combination of them and the paths made Thaumaturgy easily the most powerful discipline. But the brokenness of Thaumaturgy got much, much worse in sourcebooks. And Auspex was pretty much the best discipline other than Thaumaturgy, the moment you started mattering you had a big, fat target symbol on your back if you didn't have a fair deal of it.

Well, not to mention Auspex completely defeated Obfuscate all on its own and didn't even require blood expenditure for most of its powers. The only other truly broken discipline I can think of is Valeran, but that's only if you're a twinker, are low gen, and know what you're doing.

Terraoblivion
2008-11-07, 04:57 PM
Yeah. Obfuscate was pretty much an on/off switch. If you had more than your opponent had auspex then your hiding was impervious to them, if you had less it was entirely irrelevant. Not really a case of good design, i'd think.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-07, 05:00 PM
On a side note: this (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pm7ZjJLKmI5d3EgZtHC1mfg) may interest oWoD players.

Dyvim Matt
2008-11-07, 05:26 PM
On a side note: this (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pm7ZjJLKmI5d3EgZtHC1mfg) may interest oWoD players.

Now this is quite a timeline! I don't think I would use it, but mainly because my campaign is really, really Mage-centred (long story short: only Mages have it right in my game, other supernaturals only believe in "fairy tales".) A crossover fan would definitely love it though. Thanks!

Regarding the "New vs. Old WoD" discussion, I think it all boils down to a matter of tastes. Sure, the new mechanics are very good, but, for instance, I like oppposed-roll combat rules, so the new combat rules are just not my thing. I also completely agree that the old setting was too overgrown... which is why I never used anything beyond what's in the core books, instead homebrewing any tradition leaders, metaplots, etc. that I would need. Those would even change from campaign to campaign, like the leader of Clan A being Elder X in one and Elder Y in another (while Elder X doesn't even exist anymore) and I find that it helps surprising players. I did disappoint some players who wanted to join my game (mainly because, for instance, they wanted to use their favorite clan/tradition/whatever book even though I ban them all from my games) but even they realized at some point that anyone can come up with fluff that is at least as good as the official fluff. As someone else pointed out, the new setting is more "fluff-free", so it should be easier for me to do my own thing while avoiding complaints, but I have my reasons to stick to the old stuff. First and foremost, the "bartering-with-ST-whether-a-spell-is-coincidental-or-not" phenomenon seen in Old Mage fits my playing style more than the new and better-delineated magic rules of New Mage, but I can certainly understand why others prefer the new rules.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 05:34 PM
Honestly, we still do "Barter with the ST", we just have better guidelines now.

As to opposed combat rules, I should point out that it's easy to switch to or from them within most systems. Just.. roll the values they tell you to average. :smallbiggrin:

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-07, 05:37 PM
Now this is quite a timeline! I don't think I would use it, but mainly because my campaign is really, really Mage-centred (long story short: only Mages have it right in my game, other supernaturals only believe in "fairy tales".) A crossover fan would definitely love it though. Thanks!

Regarding the "New vs. Old WoD" discussion, I think it all boils down to a matter of tastes. Sure, the new mechanics are very good, but, for instance, I like oppposed-roll combat rules, so the new combat rules are just not my thing. I also completely agree that the old setting was too overgrown... which is why I never used anything beyond what's in the core books, instead homebrewing any tradition leaders, metaplots, etc. that I would need. Those would even change from campaign to campaign, like the leader of Clan A being Elder X in one and Elder Y in another (while Elder X doesn't even exist anymore) and I find that it helps surprising players. I did disappoint some players who wanted to join my game (mainly because, for instance, they wanted to use their favorite clan/tradition/whatever book even though I ban them all from my games) but even they realized at some point that anyone can come up with fluff that is at least as good as the official fluff. As someone else pointed out, the new setting is more "fluff-free", so it should be easier for me to do my own thing while avoiding complaints, but I have my reasons to stick to the old stuff. First and foremost, the "bartering-with-ST-whether-a-spell-is-coincidental-or-not" phenomenon seen in Old Mage fits my playing style more than the new and better-delineated magic rules of New Mage, but I can certainly understand why others prefer the new rules.


Have to agree with pritty much all you said there it is really a matter of taste. Its almost an argument of whats better Flex-ability or eas-ability.


Also that timeline, is that base on the novels or on the fluff from the rules books/splat books....

Fax Celestis
2008-11-07, 05:40 PM
Also that timeline, is that base on the novels or on the fluff from the rules books/splat books....

From the rulebooks. You can see the particular sources in Column C.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-07, 05:42 PM
arg my bad... heh

wait though thought the final nights was 2000?

ehh need to go re-read the apocolypse books

Dyvim Matt
2008-11-07, 05:54 PM
Honestly, we still do "Barter with the ST", we just have better guidelines now.

As to opposed combat rules, I should point out that it's easy to switch to or from them within most systems. Just.. roll the values they tell you to average. :smallbiggrin:

True but these (especially the combat thing) were just the examples that came to my mind. I haven't checked the new rules set in a looooong while.
RagnaroksChosen summarized my point really well. It's all about what you look for in a system and either picking the one that suits you best, or maybe mixing and matching.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-07, 06:05 PM
Right now we are playing a game of Chuthulu-esc game of White wolf... using the mortal rules... we tried converting it to the new editions but we all felt combat was to easy and not flexible enough for what we wanted...Granted in owod we where using the Big book of beeting ass...


but still all my friends up here cept the ones that play mage play owod.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-07, 06:06 PM
arg my bad... heh

wait though thought the final nights was 2000?

ehh need to go re-read the apocolypse books

Remember, the information presented in the books is often from the perspective of those within the world, not an objective perspective. Therefore, some of those dates may conflict or be entirely in error.

Sequinox
2008-11-07, 06:27 PM
I just ran a game of 15 minutes. I'm running a normal, mortal game about a bank robbery (the characters are people who happened to be in the back rooms and have to find a way to survive).

My biggest problem was how I started it: "You're in the back room of the Key Bank down by the waterfront, talking to a financial consultant when you hear a gunshot."

Now, the story (I'm using WoD vocab already!) is going to get more complicated, and things are going to bring in the supernatural - but only once I get Hunter. Why did I blow all my money on Fable 2? (Answer: Because it's a great game, obviously. Duh.) Anyway, I'm hoping it turns out for the best. My two player's characters (more will get brought in as the plot progresses, but this is almost a test-game to get me used to the game itself) are very unique. The first is a vigilante, or at least he will be once he gets more RPing time - that's his concept. The other one is a drunk - and a priest - at the same time. When they heard the gunshot, the vigilante looked out the peephole on the door to see what's going on. The other opened up his 'hollow bible' - a bible with the insides cut out, and a bottle placed inside - and started drinking. The financial consultant's words: "You're the worst priest ever."

Oh, and we're not done, but they were going to see a football game, so we were cutting it close. Character creation took longer than I had expected.

Terraoblivion
2008-11-07, 06:55 PM
Sounds like a solid start, though it was cut short. And something simple like that can actually work very well, that is the beauty of the basic system. Any game in a modern setting that features more plot than action and is on the gritty end of things can be handled well by the core rules. Though of course the supernaturals are the main draw, making hunters, paranormal detectives and ordinary people caught up in the occult the obvious games to run with mortals.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-07, 07:54 PM
Sounds like a solid start, though it was cut short. And something simple like that can actually work very well, that is the beauty of the basic system. Any game in a modern setting that features more plot than action and is on the gritty end of things can be handled well by the core rules. Though of course the supernaturals are the main draw, making hunters, paranormal detectives and ordinary people caught up in the occult the obvious games to run with mortals.

Zombie survival horror does well with the core rules too, actually.

Terraoblivion
2008-11-07, 07:57 PM
Hmmm...i can imagine actually. They capture the desperation and desire to avoid physical confrontation well after all and that just makes the zombies that much more horrifying.

Egiam
2008-11-07, 08:49 PM
I have a question. Can you combine different sourcebooks (mage, hunter) in one game?

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 08:59 PM
I have a question. Can you combine different sourcebooks (mage, hunter) in one game?

It works pretty well in nWoD, yes. In oWoD, you're looking at near complete incompatibility and a lot of stress from trying to hammer at it with wrenches to make it work.

I'm not saying the splats are balanced against each other in the least, of course, but they're compatible.

Terraoblivion
2008-11-07, 09:02 PM
Pretty much what the Guru said. In nWoD they have even explained how powers from different splats interact in clearly spelled out rules and not just guidelines, not a problem at all other than to make the story coherent and to ensure that all players feel like they are contributing. No bringing vampires along on the trip across Greenland in the summer :smalltongue:

Haven
2008-11-07, 09:18 PM
oWoD Mage is one of my favorite things ever. Sadly, I've never gotten a chance to play or ST a game of it, but the ideas behind it are just so wonderful...

And oWoD Changeling is really underrated, I think.

That's about all I have to say!

Sequinox
2008-11-07, 09:43 PM
My plan for the beginning of the not-campaign/chronicle would be to establish their identities strongly before throwing them a curveball with Hunters. Namely, the drunk priest, the "worst priest ever", might have to start dealing with the consequences, considering that I'm trying to create a darker atmostphere. (Did I mention he's got 5 dots in kung-fu? His backstory was that he was trained at a Chinese restaurant by a Mr. Miyagi ripoff: Mr. Wong. "Now, fill all three bowls with an even amount of Sweet and Sour Soup in three seconds - without spilling any!")

So yeah... The other character I have a lot of ideas for, though. A vigilante can become pretty interesting before the supernatural gets thrown in. Even more so afterward.

Jerthanis
2008-11-07, 11:24 PM
First of all i'd just like to say i agree with you guys about nwod Mage being better i hate mage with a passion but even i can't disagree with you.

Huh... weird. oWoD Mage is in my top 5 list the category of "Things Which Exist", next to the movie High Fidelity, the videogame Grandia 2 and something clever, but not PG-13. Meanwhile nWoD Mage is what I'd consider the biggest waste of money I've ever dropped on an RPG book. (Not the worst RPG I've seen, nor the worst one I've played, but the worst one I spent 40 bucks on)

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-07, 11:30 PM
Huh... weird. oWoD Mage is in my top 5 list the category of "Things Which Exist", next to the movie High Fidelity, the videogame Grandia 2 and something clever, but not PG-13. Meanwhile nWoD Mage is what I'd consider the biggest waste of money I've ever dropped on an RPG book. (Not the worst RPG I've seen, nor the worst one I've played, but the worst one I spent 40 bucks on)

I think it has to do with its very different mechanics.

In truth, the magic "system" in oMage is so unworkable by RAW that most everyone homebrewed something somewhere. However, if you take the magic system as a guideline, you have a really interesting Narrative Game tacked on to WW's mundane system. Some folks don't like Narrative Games ("bargaining with the Storyteller") and so for them, oMage would be terrible. nMage, on the other hand, has clearly defined the scope of magic and, while the system is still a bit complex, it is playable.

nWoD certainly appears to be much more focused on the mechanics than oWoD is, anyhow.

Dyvim Matt
2008-11-08, 09:57 AM
nWoD certainly appears to be much more focused on the mechanics than oWoD is, anyhow.

That's both a blessing and a curse, depending on how you approach it. Along with the new fluff, I think this is what makes or breaks the game for those who try it. Like Jerthanis, I prefer the old version because of those two aspects, but unlike him, I don't agree that it is such a waste of money. Oracle_Hunter said the old system was unworkable because it needs lots of home brewing, but after years of running it, I think it was the whole point, or at least that's how I feel about it. "Your Mage Should vary", if you will. And because there isn't much to the system, I find it easier to change the game from one about mages to one about, let's say, Jedi knights, super-heroes (one of my players had actually suggested doing a game based on the Heroes TV series), or just about anything else. But hey, that's just my opinion: it's not like I have a lot of experience with the new one, after all...

Fax Celestis
2008-11-08, 01:19 PM
That's both a blessing and a curse, depending on how you approach it. Along with the new fluff, I think this is what makes or breaks the game for those who try it. Like Jerthanis, I prefer the old version because of those two aspects, but unlike him, I don't agree that it is such a waste of money. Oracle_Hunter said the old system was unworkable because it needs lots of home brewing, but after years of running it, I think it was the whole point, or at least that's how I feel about it. "Your Mage Should vary", if you will. And because there isn't much to the system, I find it easier to change the game from one about mages to one about, let's say, Jedi knights, super-heroes (one of my players had actually suggested doing a game based on the Heroes TV series), or just about anything else. But hey, that's just my opinion: it's not like I have a lot of experience with the new one, after all...

That is a major strength of the oWoD Mage system: it is incredibly versatile, and as such can represent anything from Merlin to Wolverine.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-09, 02:29 AM
Oracle_Hunter said the old system was unworkable because it needs lots of home brewing, but after years of running it, I think it was the whole point, or at least that's how I feel about it. "Your Mage Should vary", if you will. And because there isn't much to the system, I find it easier to change the game from one about mages to one about, let's say, Jedi knights, super-heroes (one of my players had actually suggested doing a game based on the Heroes TV series), or just about anything else. But hey, that's just my opinion: it's not like I have a lot of experience with the new one, after all...

That's kind of the point. If you read the magic rules in Mage, it is clear that WW intended for there to be a system involving fixed target numbers and successes to guide STs and PCs in casting spells. I reality, this system was just plain unworkable. I mean, look at the 3 different ways to counterspell an effect!

However, the concept of oMage is extremely versatile, and the descriptions of Spheres allows a lot of latitude. If you took about all system numbers in the books, you would basically have a Narrative System (or a "Rules Light System" if you prefer) in which dots in Spheres indicates the scope of your effects, while your Arete reflects how many dice you roll. The Target Numbers, effects of successes, and so forth will be wholly made up by the ST since the actual rules in the books are nigh incomprehensible.

Just because a system can be easily homebrewed around doesn't mean it isn't broken. And I love oMage, but this is true. nMage, if nothing else, has a usable rules system for casting spells, though it loses much of the oMage fluff which was essential to the mechanics of that system.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-11-09, 04:28 AM
If that's your stance, I move that oMage was "broken/unuseable" in a good way, like a computer game whose bugs are more fun than the game as intended, like Dwarf Fortress or (according to its proponents on the internet) Smash Bros. Melee (though damn if I can figure out how to wave-dash...)

Dyvim Matt
2008-11-10, 08:19 AM
I'm starting to think there's something I really don't understand. I know that oMage's magic rules are less defined than nMage, but I don't see how they are downright broken. The more this conversation goes on, the less I see what you mean... :smallfrown: Can you provide examples of ways in which oMage is broken? Is it that the Spheres encompass too much? Spells that can't be done? Or just the vagueness of the whole thing? Please help, I'm confused...

NeoVid
2008-11-10, 04:48 PM
My standard example of oMage abuse:

There was no mechanical or major roleplaying reason not to cast an infinite number of permanent spells on yourself.

The funny part is that I didn't realize these rules holes until after nMage came out, I saw how many limitations there were now... and then it hit me what was possible with those limitations missing...

Eclipse
2008-11-10, 05:03 PM
I believe that in oMage, the success tables said the spell effect may become permanent at the storyteller's option. So really, this rule is a tool to be used in telling a good story, not making overwhelmingly powerful permanent effects.

In my games, I almost always rule that for a permanent effect, you'd better be making a Talisman or Fetish, or give me a very good reason why it will improve the story for everyone involved if that isn't self-evident to all of us. Each of these, though extremely powerful, have their own unique drawbacks as well.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-10, 07:41 PM
I believe that in oMage, the success tables said the spell effect may become permanent at the storyteller's option. So really, this rule is a tool to be used in telling a good story, not making overwhelmingly powerful permanent effects.

In my games, I almost always rule that for a permanent effect, you'd better be making a Talisman or Fetish, or give me a very good reason why it will improve the story for everyone involved if that isn't self-evident to all of us. Each of these, though extremely powerful, have their own unique drawbacks as well.

Well yes, but if you go by the Duration Table, you don't even need to Ritual many spells to have 'em last the whole day. And let's not get into Life 3 Cheese... or Mind 1 Cheese.

Yes, if Mind 1 allows you to control your own brain, then you should be able to get photographic memory, speed reading, or lighting calculation as a coincidental effect.

Dyvim Matt
2008-11-11, 10:52 AM
I think I know what you mean now. Thanks for the examples.

R4ph
2008-11-11, 11:51 AM
My plan for the beginning of the not-campaign/chronicle would be to establish their identities strongly before throwing them a curveball with Hunters. Namely, the drunk priest, the "worst priest ever", might have to start dealing with the consequences, considering that I'm trying to create a darker atmostphere. (Did I mention he's got 5 dots in kung-fu? His backstory was that he was trained at a Chinese restaurant by a Mr. Miyagi ripoff: Mr. Wong. "Now, fill all three bowls with an even amount of Sweet and Sour Soup in three seconds - without spilling any!")

So yeah... The other character I have a lot of ideas for, though. A vigilante can become pretty interesting before the supernatural gets thrown in. Even more so afterward.
I play a lot of nWoD, and the campaign I'm in which I'm enjoying the most followed a similar progression to that - started as mortals, moved to hunters. howeverr it's been going for about a year by now, and 2 of the characters are still just basic mortals, the hunter "template" hasn' been applied yet.

The GM sums it up really well - Hunters aren't normal people anymore. They're broken - They're people who have seen the real world, and it's bent them into something else, something that is taking the fight to the bad things. Hence the fact that all the party aren't hunters yet - Only 4 (of 6) have broken, the others have yet to hit the point that messes them up.

As regards oWoD vs nWoD : nWoD is more mechanically streamlined, but all the oWoD fluff I've heard about is better. And I really like that nWoD lets you play a mortal, in oWoD you played either a supernatural or a hunter (who were really just another kind of supernatural), no chance to play a normal person with all kinds of weird **** going down around you, as your life falls apart.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-11, 11:54 AM
I play a lot of nWoD, and the campaign I'm in which I'm enjoying the most followed a similar progression to that - started as mortals, moved to hunters. howeverr it's been going for about a year by now, and 2 of the characters are still just basic mortals, the hunter "template" hasn' been applied yet.

The GM sums it up really well - Hunters aren't normal people anymore. They're broken - They're people who have seen the real world, and it's bent them into something else, something that is taking the fight to the bad things. Hence the fact that all the party aren't hunters yet - Only 4 (of 6) have broken, the others have yet to hit the point that messes them up.

As regards oWoD vs nWoD : nWoD is more mechanically streamlined, but all the oWoD fluff I've heard about is better. And I really like that nWoD lets you play a mortal, in oWoD you played either a supernatural or a hunter (who were really just another kind of supernatural), no chance to play a normal person with all kinds of weird **** going down around you, as your life falls apart.

They have mortal rules... in multiple spots to... I belive theres one for thralls, mortals, kinfolk...etc

Fax Celestis
2008-11-11, 11:56 AM
They have mortal rules... in multiple spots to... I belive theres one for thralls, mortals, kinfolk...etc

oWoD's mortal rules consisted mainly of vague handwaving and a near-zero survival rate when presented with any sort of supernatural encounter.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-11, 11:58 AM
oWoD's mortal rules consisted mainly of vague handwaving and a near-zero survival rate when presented with any sort of supernatural encounter.

Ya it was very Chuthulu-esc, if you where mortal you where F***ed if you got cought with your pants down... Unless you have shotguns... then bring it... :)

We played alot of mortal games using the vamp mortal rules.

R4ph
2008-11-11, 11:58 AM
True, they did have rules for using mortals, however they were put in for thralls and the like, not for actual primary use in chroncicle. It could be done, but it wasn't especially intuitive. I will concede that my earlier point was wrong though.

The other thing which follows from that, which i forgot, is that the basic mechanics get rehashed over and over again in every book. Wheras now the only mechanics in Vampire are the vampire specific ones. It means you need to buy at least 2 books to run a supernatural game, but it also means that if you buy a new splat you don't need to wade though everything you know already to find the bits you don't

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-11, 01:13 PM
True, they did have rules for using mortals, however they were put in for thralls and the like, not for actual primary use in chroncicle. It could be done, but it wasn't especially intuitive. I will concede that my earlier point was wrong though.

The other thing which follows from that, which i forgot, is that the basic mechanics get rehashed over and over again in every book. Wheras now the only mechanics in Vampire are the vampire specific ones. It means you need to buy at least 2 books to run a supernatural game, but it also means that if you buy a new splat you don't need to wade though everything you know already to find the bits you don't

Can you give and example of your second point?

Fax Celestis
2008-11-11, 01:41 PM
Can you give and example of your second point?

Compare Vampire: the Masquerade to Vampire: the Dark Ages.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-11, 02:17 PM
Compare Vampire: the Masquerade to Vampire: the Dark Ages.

True but there have been multiple sources saying that those two systems where not ment to be played or interwined we can see that in the basic rulings.

What I believe he ment was splat books with in the WOD world... if he did meen Dark ages then my bad... but i don't realy consider dark ages part of the WOD fluff more like its own type deal. cuz even some of the story lines differ in dark ages as they do in WOD.

R4ph
2008-11-11, 05:35 PM
Can you give and example of your second point?
Sure.


The basic mechanics of the old WoD system - what all the stats are, what all the skills are, hoe combat works, etc. are explained in every single book - Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, etc.

The basic mechanics of nWoD are in the core book. All the skill descriptions etc. The only things in the vampire book are stuff exclusive to vampires.

Now, this difference means that with the old system, you only needed one book to play, but on the other hand every time you got a new book, at least half the crunch was rehashing stuff you already knew. As far as I know, there was not a distinct separation between the splat specific stuff and the core stuff, so you would need to at least skim through the things you knew already to get to the new bits.

Whereas with nWoD, you need to buy 2 books to run a supernatural game, but if you buy more afterward, they all build off the base from the core, rather than having there own base included. It's a little more user friendly, and it saves on paper.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-11, 07:47 PM
It's also a better deal. nWoD books are about as thick as oWoD, but since you're not retreading mechanics..

RagnaroksChosen
2008-11-11, 08:42 PM
fair enough however most of the new books are fluff so the rehash isn't there...


I think they did the whole core rules with each book so that people didn't need to pick up a core book they could just pick up what ever book they wanted and play... but i can see the benefit of both...

Sequinox
2008-11-12, 08:28 PM
I'm waiting for hunter to come in from Amazon. Sure, I have to wait a week, but the 10$ savings are worth it. Now listen to this:

Hunter: The Vigil price: 35$
Marked down to: 22$.
Shipping and handling: 4$.
Total price: 26$.

Now Amazon has a special thingy where if you order at least 25$ worth of stuff, your shipping is (lousy and slow, but) free. So if they had marked up the price by 3$, I could've saved a dollar.

Just kinda funny. Thought I'd bring it up.

Egiam
2008-11-14, 02:00 PM
Does WOD use a grid combat system?

Fax Celestis
2008-11-14, 02:02 PM
No, it doesn't. There's no movement rates, no squares, no mapping...

NeoVid
2008-11-14, 04:02 PM
There is a movement speed stat, but it's rare for it to be important.

NWoD's fights are almost entirely improvised, though not to the degree of, say, Feng Shui.

Of course, nothing is improvised to the degree of Feng Shui.

Egiam
2008-11-15, 02:10 PM
No, it doesn't. There's no movement rates, no squares, no mapping...
Could you please give me a more detailed description on how this works?

RPGuru1331
2008-11-15, 02:24 PM
Abstraction. You don't keep precise track of the battlefield, but the GM just gives some relative distances. If that. Bear in mind it's not a combat heavy game.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-15, 07:55 PM
Could you please give me a more detailed description on how this works?

Like RPGuru said, it's abstract. So a typical combat might go like this:
ST: You begin searching the abandoned warehouse for evidence of the Nephandi cabal that's supposed to be here. Greg, you said you were searching a pile of crates in the corner, right? Well, while you're prying open one of them, it explodes outward, revealing some sort of large beetle with four pincers and glowing red eyes. Roll for initiative!

Rachel: OK, I'm first! How far away from me is it?

ST: Maybe 30 feet, but there's a bunch of junk in the middle of the room that's blocking a clear shot.

Rachel: Okay, I'll move around it, while keeping my distance. When I get a clear shot, I'll shoot it.

ST: You edge your way around the junkpile, but Greg is standing right in front of the Bug, so you can't get a completely clear shot. If you botch, you'll hit Greg.

Rachel: Gah! OK, I'll use my Correspondence to line up a good shot then.

ST: Alright. Are you going to take that shot this turn?

Rachel: Um... yeah, I'll try it. *rolls* OK, I got 3 successes on my Cor roll, and a 2, 3, 9, and 1 for the firearms.

ST: Well, the target was 7, so you got one success, but the 1 cancels it out. You aim carefully, letting the Great Loa guide your hand. You fire between Greg's legs, but your bullet thuds into a hefty chunk of crate instead of the Bug. The Bug lunges forward at Greg *much rolling* knocking him down. The Bug now stands atop Greg's chest and looks like it's going to start on his face, first.

Dex: Where am I? Can I get to the Bug this turn?

ST: Um, you said you were going to rummage through the wrecked machine, right? That was... let's say 50 feet away, and it's surrounded by odds and ends. You'll need to make an Athletics & Dexterity check, but it shouldn't be too hard.

Dex: OK, I'll chance it *rolls* ha!

ST: Good. Now you're next to the Bug. It's big and pointy.

Dex: Nice description :smalltongue:. Well, if I'm already running, I'll try to tackle the Bug off Greg. I'll use Forces 3, Prime 2 to add a little omph to that hit.

ST: OK, splitting actions... roll, and let's see how you do.

As you can see, it's very loose and free flowing. Most actions start off with the player asking the ST what they can do (can I get next to it, is there cover I can get to, etc.) and then narrating what they want to do. The ST figures out the target numbers, and then narrates the results. Rarely is it just a "you shoot him for 3 Health Levels. He soaks 2" sort of game.

Egiam
2008-11-17, 02:54 PM
Thanks for the Info. :smallsmile:

I have another question (sorry). Most of the DND games I play have sort of the same flow to them. Town under attack, someone important disappears, map to treasure found. All of these require the P.C.s to come to x and do y, without much wiggleroom and the P.C.s to be "adventurers". How do you play in a world with planes (the vehicle, not a dimension :smallwink:) and credit cards? Are the P.C.s CIA or Mi6 operatives? Are they monster hunters?
Is this a stupid question?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-17, 03:02 PM
Thanks for the Info. :smallsmile:

I have another question (sorry). Most of the DND games I play have sort of the same flow to them. Town under attack, someone important disappears, map to treasure found. All of these require the P.C.s to come to x and do y, without much wiggleroom and the P.C.s to be "adventurers". How do you play in a world with planes (the vehicle, not a dimension :smallwink:) and credit cards? Are the P.C.s CIA or Mi6 operatives? Are they monster hunters?
Is this a stupid question?

Do you live on the Orient Express, 'cause it sounds like you're always on the rails :smalltongue:

WoD games are generally not loot-based games. Ostensibly, character development is more important than finding new shinnies, and sometimes has in-game effects. For example, in oWoD, performing certain actions that are in sync with your Nature and Demeanor (read: WoD alignment) would restore your Willpower (a sort of re-roll bank).

In any case, White Wolf encourages Storytellers to allow the PCs to "find their own adventures" based on their background or leveling. In oMage, every time you improved your Arete (raw magic power) you were supposed to go on a character-developing solo adventure. If you failed to develop your character, no level-up for you! Other examples would be PCs trying to improve their Contact or Allies ratings, to get more Resources, or so on.

That said, Storytellers generally have an overarching plot that they make adventures for; they use plot hooks to reel in the PCs, and typically have some sort of award at the end.

Friv
2008-11-17, 05:06 PM
Thanks for the Info. :smallsmile:

I have another question (sorry). Most of the DND games I play have sort of the same flow to them. Town under attack, someone important disappears, map to treasure found. All of these require the P.C.s to come to x and do y, without much wiggleroom and the P.C.s to be "adventurers". How do you play in a world with planes (the vehicle, not a dimension :smallwink:) and credit cards? Are the P.C.s CIA or Mi6 operatives? Are they monster hunters?
Is this a stupid question?

This will depend greatly from game to game, but World of Darkness tends to run better off games with investigation- or political- frameworks. Players see X strange event, and either look into it or are marked for death because of it, and then have to meander around resolving it.

As a modern setting game, the standard is for the players to stay in the same area for the bulk of a chronicle. Travelling chronicles exist, but they're less common. With that in mind, major NPCs have a way of returning, doubly so if you can't kill them without bringing the police on your head, and they can't kill you for the same reason.

Other times, the characters are trying to defend an area from a creeping menance. Zombies in the gutters, ghosts on the stairs, that sort of thing. In these cases, the characters need a compelling reason to feel that running away isn't viable - usually because doing so means losing everything.

If you want a few example:

http://www.white-wolf.com/downloads.php?&category_id=6

Check the Quickstarts for Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage for a starter. Vampire and Mage really showcase the Investigation story, and Werewolf is designed around the Defense story.