A recent, remarkably honest thread on RPG.net talks about how Exalted as played by most normal people is apparently an utterly different game than "RPG.net Exalted", the game as people on RPG.net like to talk about it.

I think this is a pretty common freaking phenomenon, where if you were to believe what people write about a game online, you'd think that it was actually played a certain way, but the way most normal people have fuck all to do with that.

One other example I can immediately think of is WFRP, where the whole "enemy within" crowd imagine the game as this basically "fantasy Cthulhu" game where the PCs are never doing anything even vaguely resembling D&D and spend all their time trying to decipher deep conspiracies only to be massacred in the end because combat is Frowned Upon. Whereas most people play the game as straightforward fantasy roleplaying with lots of combat, renaissance gritty-roleplay with lots of religious persecution of Mutant Scum, and a bit of investigation on the side.

Other examples?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;306711One other example I can immediately think of is WFRP, where the whole "enemy within" crowd imagine the game as this basically "fantasy Cthulhu" game where the PCs are never doing anything even vaguely resembling D&D and spend all their time trying to decipher deep conspiracies only to be massacred in the end because combat is Frowned Upon.

Only you think the TEW crowd think this way.

QuoteWhereas most people play the game as straightforward fantasy roleplaying with lots of combat, renaissance gritty-roleplay with lots of religious persecution of Mutant Scum, and a bit of investigation on the side.

This is more what most people think of WFRP, with TEW crowd liking more of the investigation aspect which the design philosphy of the original game empahsized.

As for other examples 4E.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;306714This is more what most people think of WFRP, with TEW crowd liking more of the investigation aspect which the design philosphy of the original game empahsized.

No. It really, really didn't. Read the 1e manual. There is NOTHING in that whole big manual which would suggest this "design philosophy".

It was pretty bog-standard fantasy adventuring complete with random treasure tables (which made it hilarious that later, the Swine were shocked at the idea of including random treasure tables for 2e suggesting that this somehow was a "betrayal" of what WFRP was "all about" even though its something that was there from the very beginning and was later omitted).

RPGPundit

For what it's worth, WHFRP was one of the first roleplaying campaigns I played in and in retrospect the "fantasy Cthulhu" description sort of fits. It was plot-intensive, fairly dark and there wasn't much in terms of combat. Of course being new to the hobby that didn't strike me as odd or unusual at the time. It was actually good fun.

I am not saying my experience as a player with WHFRP is representative of how everyone played WHFRP or even an indication of how it should be played, just saying you can't blame online communities for the "fantasy Cthulhu" take on Warhammer because it was clearly being widely played that way long before the Internet became available to regular people.

As for what maks for a "normal person", I'm not even going there.

For me the biggest disconnect between what I've expereinced as a roleplayer and what I read on blogs and forums is the whole length of campaign thing. You read about campaigns that have run for 10, 20 years even. In my experience 10 sessions is a long campaign.

Quote from: RPGPundit;306716No. It really, really didn't. Read the 1e manual. There is NOTHING in that whole big manual which would suggest this "design philosophy".

It was pretty bog-standard fantasy adventuring complete with random treasure tables (which made it hilarious that later, the Swine were shocked at the idea of including random treasure tables for 2e suggesting that this somehow was a "betrayal" of what WFRP was "all about" even though its something that was there from the very beginning and was later omitted).

No, Read the design thoughts from the designers themselves found in White Dwarf - I have quoted the section many times whenever you have brought this nonsense up - and take a look at the TEW campaign itself - everything but Empire in Flames, which did not go down well with anyone. WFRP could be played in any way something the designers encouraged but it was investigation/roleplaying in a grim perilous world that the designers thought separated this game from the other high fantsay games of the times. They were even pleased with the term "grubby" fantasy. Actually it's pretty interesting, there was a WD adventure called Moorglum's (sp) Marauders which made fun of the fact that WFRP sessions seemed to be stuck in the cities and characters sniffing around nobles hoping to get a whiff of chaos......

Regards,
David R

I have no idea how the "majority" plays anything.

I have played a lot of WFRP 1e and it's best strength is "Fantasy Cthulhu" and certainly never BOG standard (if BOG = generic D&D).   The Oldenhaller Contract intro adventure sets the tone nicely - lots of adventure, bloody combat, gritty grubby roleplay and the requisite stink of Chaos.

Of course, in my CoC games, PCs are there to confront the Mythos - quite often with shotguns, not just burn books and run away which seems to be a common online whine.

However, you are 100% right about the random magic item chart.   Good stuff...'course, I prefer the chart in the Realms of Chaos books.

Quote from: Halfjack;306733I have no idea how the "majority" plays anything.

Agreed.

For my own part, the only local Exalted campaign I have information on seems to run exactly like the RPGnet description.

Also, "WFRP = fantasy CoC" totally works for me, but I seem to run CoC differently from many online reports.  In my CoC games Deep Ones are tommy-gunned by the truckload, PCs are to the Yellow Sign what Wyatt Earp in Tombstone was to the Red Sash, and generally shit gits blown up.

Well, first I'd need an offline gaming group to compare...

There's always personal horror vs. superheroes with fangs in WoD...

Here's one from online play: The GM and other players matter a lot more than system and setting. You just need a half-decent system and setting; you need better than that for GM and players.

Enthusiasm is key.

The only RPG I would consider "fantasy Call of Cthulhu", besides Cthulho Dark Ages, obviously, is Aquelarre.

Quote from: jrients;306737Also, "WFRP = fantasy CoC" totally works for me, but I seem to run CoC differently from many online reports.  In my CoC games Deep Ones are tommy-gunned by the truckload, PCs are to the Yellow Sign what Wyatt Earp in Tombstone was to the Red Sash, and generally shit gits blown up.

My CoC games run similar as well.  As I always say, my CoC games much more resemble Dashiell Hammet stories than Lovecraft ones.

'Dashiell Hamet'?

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;306767'Dashiell Hamet'?

Are you asking why I would mix pulp detective novels with my Cthulhu plots?  Or just unfamiliar with the author?

If the former, it's because I like noir stuff, and slipping in some extra Cthulhu horror just adds to the fun.  In one campaign I ran in college, the PCs were actually all gangsters or connected acquaintances of gangsters, who ran across some horrific goings-on in the course of business.  Hilarity ensued (my version of CoC has a lot of dark humor, too).

If the latter, let Wikipedia guide you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashiell_Hammett