World of Dimness

[Otogi]

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

[Zincorium]

Running world of darkness games as light-hearted, slapstick heavy romps through a Tim Burton style setting?

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

[Otogi]

So was the result bad, or simply not what you wanted?

[The Demented One]

I think Genius sorta inevitably devolves into this. For Science!

[Satyr]

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

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

[Otogi]

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

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

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

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

[Satyr]

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

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

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

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

Yes, Changeling is awesome.

[Otogi]

Indeed it is, and yes that's much better!

[Totally Guy]

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

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

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

[Yuki Akuma]

If you like the old Changeling, use the new Changeling mechanics and the old Changeling fluff. It's not hard.

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

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

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

[Satyr]

If you like the old Changeling, use the new Changeling mechanics and the old Changeling fluff. It's not hard.

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

[Overshee]

If you like the old Changeling, use the new Changeling mechanics and the old Changeling fluff. It's not hard.

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

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

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

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


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

[Yuki Akuma]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Draxar]

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

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

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

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

[Gnaeus]

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, you mean IN CHARACTER.

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

[kamikasei]

I think the basic setting effectively is this, if not by intention then by implementation.

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

[Satyr]

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

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

Sorry, no, No Way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JoshuaZ]

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

I think Genius sorta inevitably devolves into this. For Science!

Yeah, that is why I want to run it. The Storyteller system looks interesting because of it's descriptive role play aspects, but Genius: The Transgression looks too two fisted super-science AWESOME to go all moody and goth on it, as much as the source book tries.

[satorian]

On the rules:

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

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

On the flavor:

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

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

[Kesnit]

On the rules:

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

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

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

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

[Tengu_temp]

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

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

[Yuki Akuma]

Sorry, no, No Way.

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

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

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

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

You seem to care about this a lot.

[Ravens_cry]

You seem to care about this a lot.

He's a nerd.
We CARE.

[satorian]

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

[Totally Guy]

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

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

[Satyr]

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

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

[Tengu_temp]

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

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

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

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

[Gnaeus]

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

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

[Satyr]

Let's take two typical examples:

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

Yes, this is fun. Sure.

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

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