|
|
Which do you prefer: |
Old World of Darkness |
|
90% |
[ 10 ] |
New World of Darkness |
|
9% |
[ 1 ] |
|
Total Votes : 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:19 pm
Ironic Discordia I'd be willing to give it a shot. I wouldn't be able to get anything together until Wednesday at the earliest, though. Do people want a pre-Gehenna game, or one that starts just before and runs into the Time of Judgment? ('Cause I'm still playing through Gehenna for the first time anyhow.) There's actually a separate thread for this now. If you could please resond there so that everyone is on the same page.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:34 pm
I've also posted my strong preference for Old WOD. Personally I feel betrayed, my 2 or 3 thousand dollars worth of WOD books were rendered obsolete, not even useful as setting material/source books. I wouldn't have minded a system change, but the story chage is simply appalling.
White Wolf Insiders have told me that Old Wod had it's run and they wehre out of things do to with it, and le logical thing to do after the Apocolypse, Ascension, and Gehenna books cam out was to end it all. Frankly they could have put more work into thier Victorian, Renissance, Wildwest, and Dark ages Lines. They could have even explored the aftermath of the endtimes, and I personally would have loved to see some antiquities source books. Vampire in ancient Rome or China, come on, who wouldn't want to play in the fourth age, When the White howlers were a proud and noble tribe.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:53 pm
Or even more extreme, I would love to play a game set during the War of Rage. That would be beyond awsome. Plus, you could play as one of the lost changing breeds if you were so inclined. That would rock!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:06 pm
I think a post-Gehenna setting would have been highly preferable to slapping a coat of paint on the setting and calling it new. From everything I've heard, the game mechanics in the new systems are screwed up anyhow, and then they've got the gall to call it a new setting when they've just put a coats of whitewash on most of the 13 clans from the old setting. (I'm a Vampire player and have no idea how Mage or Werewolf have changed.)
Honestly, Malkovians? If they wanted something new they should've started from scratch. As is, there are shadows of the old clans without the interest of how they got there.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:55 pm
I'm going to be running a Vampire: the Masqerade rp in the 'in to character' giuld if anyone wants to play... or if you've been a ST longer then me (i'v only been STing for about a year and it's been manly all LARP)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:07 am
Hey all, I'm gonna try to get a VTM game started, but I need you to let me know what you want out of a game. I've got a poll in the VTM subforum.
And if you hit other, please let me know what else exactly you'd like. Otherwise it's looking like Camrailla intrigue. xd
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:09 am
the oWoD is all I know, and I barely know that, so yes im glad its the oWoD
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:07 am
In all honesty, I haven't bothered picking up any of the New World of Darkness books. Thus I have no real basis for comparison...but the New World seems like a copout to me.
Granted, there's probably not much they could have done for a declining game system after tossing all the really epic storylines out for PC enjoyment.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:41 pm
I have read the books, and you're not missing much.
They seem like a good game if you haven't played oWOD. You wouldn't know any better.
I didn't pay for them, thank God. I got a digital of the Vampire book, and read the werewolf book in a store.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 10:00 am
won't let me vote, but definately old WoD!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:33 am
SoReal0 Ironic Discordia, I completely agree with you. As much as I'm sure you would love to try out nWoD, please allow me to explain my reasoning behind my firm backing of oWoD (in case any of you missed it). Also, let me state before I begin, that I've only ever played Vampire in each of oWoD and nWoD, so don't let this mislead all of you Mage and Werewolf players. Thank you. =D 1. There is practically no story. Each covenant has their own views of how vampires were created, and none of them are very fleshed out, so three of the five covenants think that, all of a sudden, *pop*! Vampires just appeared. I particularly like the oWoD story of Caine and the Book of Nod as a better and more logical explanation for the creation of Kindred. 2. The dice rolling. Instead of setting a difficulty for each die roll, every die roll is made at difficulty 7. Plus, the specialties rule was switched, so that specialties give you a +1 to your die pool, and 10s are automatically re-rolled on every die roll. Oh, and did I mention? No botches. That's right. The only way you can botch a roll in Requiem is if your dice pool is reduced to zero, and that "chance die" comes up a 1. Which means that you must be completely horrible at a task to screw up on it. Hell, in RL, I type practically for a living, yet I still make spelling and grammatical errors. I don't need to be blind to have that happen, it's nature. It just makes no sense to me. 3. All modifiers affect dice pools. This goes hand in hand with what I said above on the difficulty being removed. Any modifiers affect your dice pool. There is no changing the difficulty of the roll. So as a task gets harder, it's not the task itself that becomes harder, your skill technically becomes weaker! It's ridiculous, because it makes every task so much harder, instead of just upping the difficulty of the task itself and performing it at the same skill level. 4. Willpower. In oWoD, 1 WP = 1 success. In nWoD, 1 WP = +3 dice to your dice pool. Wow. As if that didn't make things too easy. All you have to do is make a Gangrel with Stamina and Strength high, then in a fight, Blood Boost and WP. Bam! +5 dice. You're a ******** tank. Ridiculous. Ugh. It actually makes me sick that this game became so much less than oWoD, when it was supposed to be improved. I suppose, though, that going from the best game in the world, the only direction you can go is down, right? =D Oh, and by the way, I did cut my teeth on Requiem, and still thought it sucked when I tried Masquerade for the first time after 8 months of frustrating Requiem situations. So I'm not biased in any way, I've experienced both, and by all rights should be more geared towards Requiem, but in my opinion, it's just a worse game. Whew. However, the best learning experience is to form your own opinions, so please, by all means, do not let me hinder you from doing just that. =D I'd like to contest some of these points, if I may.
1. I believe WW has taken a cue from real life. All sorts of beliefs about where humanity arose from, nobody to really say for certain and different kinds of vehement objections to other peoples' theories. Really, where humanity arose from isn't all that interesting; what's fun to watch is the interaction between factions. Honestly, I found parts of the oWoD ancient backstory a bit forced.
2. I like this. Less variables to keep track of. And what's wrong with only botching on 1 on a chance roll? Your example has you misspelling. That's not a botch; a botch is where you accidentally format your computer and erase everything you've written for the past months. Which doesn't happen very often, and I presume never while you still have the ability to think through what you're doing. Really, the possibility of it happening only really arises if you're under considerable pressure with considerable distractions (which would get your Wits+Computers pool down to 0). Grammatical and spelling errors would at most be a failure, though since I presume your work will be spellchecked as part of the process, I wouldn't even give it that much credit. The games I've played have had a botch chance between 5% and none at all. Honestly, when it's as much as 5%, it detracts from the game. It's difficult to act out the character when every so often he botches a spell and ends up comatose for days.
3. That's just sillytalk. "End dice" does not equate "skill". It equates chance of success. I don't really see a problem with that at all.
4. Nothing wrong with powerful characters, but if an ST doesn't like that, he could rule that the Willpower boost only can be used only in a direct action, not in some boost-building mechanic. Or when dramatically appropriate for the character to really focus all his might on it. I have no idea how Blood Boost works, though.
But I can't say that nWoD is any better than oWoD. Mainly due to setting. I can certainly agree with many of the changes and I applaud others. But they removed the Malkavians, my very favourite feature of oWoD and they tried to attract people with the Malkovians as a nod, which is just cheesy. But that's just one point. I can live with it.
But then, I haven't actually tried either, so disregard my opinions as you wish.
As for you people who complain about books being invalidated, you're still sitting on a gigantic, well-loved setting, but one which honestly can't be explored much more. The setting won't grow more from official way, which doesn't mean it can't be used. Now comes the true test for the oWoD: non-endorsed usage. If the setting is good enough, people will keep playing it. One of my favourite games has rules and setting which were created almost exclusively during the mid-80s. There's even a project working on straightening up and continuing construction of the setting, 20 years after it was originally made.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:20 am
You're one of the first who's actually had a decent argument for nWOD. That's somewhat refreshing, even for me, who plays old.
Most of the people who play new only do so because they've never tried old.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:55 pm
I've honestly never trulylooked through the oWoD rules. Though judging by comments I've heard on the WW forum, the various rulesets are better balanced in nWoD. That's imperative for me, who's interested in running mixed games.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:43 pm
True, they are more balanced.
nWOD is very much one game, while old is many games with the same setting.
They are not intended to be played alongside each other.
You can, and it's really fun, but it adds a completely different level to the game. It isn't equal. It matter which group you play as. In the new one they all fill the same role, somewhat.
For example, if a mage were equal in strength to a werewolf, what would be the point? Mages aren't supposed to be played like a werewolf. A mage might use his brains and magic to get out of danger, while a werewolf would use his fangs and spirit buddies to get into danger.
One of the things that I really dislike about the new world is what it does to werewolves. They go from being the top dog, Gaia's warriors, gifted and cursed at the same time, to weenies. They have the same will to fight, but they don't have the power. IF they tried, they'd get their asses kicked. Why give them a role and then make them unable to fullfill it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:47 pm
Irony, I suppose.
While I find Werewolves amusing at least, I do prefer Mage or Vampire, and over them mortals. Probably since real history is so much more convoluted and interesting than made up ever have a chance of being.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|