Quote from: jan paparazzi;965980I think most competitors used to be clones that came out a decade too late like gurps Cabal or Witchcraft. And Urban Shadows and Monsterhearts are both Apocalypse World. I don't think you find much fans for an indie game system like that on this forum with all these old school renaissance fans. Petsonally I like the setting of urban shadows and the way it divides the characters in four groups. But the mechanics .... they are vague. I like the corruption and debts mechanics, because they make sense in a game where power leads to corruption and politics is all about debts and favors. But all I could think of was "Where are the skills?" while I was reading the book.

As said I like Urban Shadows but don't like Apocalypse World but I like Urban Shadows enough to grin and bear it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;965755I don't really understand why anyone takes published settings seriously to the point of flame wars. I always found it more fun to mix/match and cherrypick.

Monsterhearts and Urban Shadows do the metaphors and and politics better than WoD does, so there's little reason to use WoD over them when WoD's only draw is its convoluted setting. I recall someone made a WoD conversion to Urban Shadows but the links are all dead.

WoD dominates the market despite its competitors usually being better designed. Most of the competitors are either no longer supported or minimally supported. Why is this?

Because your judgement about the design of games is in error?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;966258Why do you think the old/classic wod gets all the hate, but the new/chronicles wod doesn't get much appreciation either? It got rid of the metaplot focus, but it seems like it's totally off the radar for most people except the hardcore WW crowd.

Probably a number of reasons, but a few are (and these are all just guesses on my part):
1) Simply because it was a sequel that came out right after the original ended. So it isn't like Star Trek and Next Generation, but more like Next Generation and Voyager. People might watch/partake, and certainly point out flaws, but their not likely to feel strongly one way or the other.
2) Not to diminish urban fantasy or playing as monsters or even exploring your PC's moral evolution, but those are all fairly niche concepts within the greater whole of gaming. For a large swath of the total gaming population to jump on board... well that just happens once a generation, not twice.
3) By the time nWoD came around, those people who like the basic concept of the game enough to still be playing had built up their hacks and fixes and houserules to force the original system to work for them. The official nWoD rules were just someone else's attempt to do the same thing, so why switch?

Quote from: Frey;966317I have tried to read Mage: the Awakening maybe ten times, and every single on I fall asleep after a couple of minutes.

I had 2nd ed Mage I think. Seemed ok overall? But felt like there was something missing?

Quote from: Baulderstone;966315The only one I really looked at was Mage: the Awakening. It seemed kind of cool in a lot of places, but the splats were terrible. Even when I didn't like a splat in most of the oWoD games, they were generally pretty clear archetypes a new player could quickly grasp. NWoD mage gave you Unicycle Girl and Cowboy Dandy.

I had the same. None of the splats were appealing to me and the other players. We usually ignored them all with vampire. Just used the clans. The other games had the same problem, except hunter.

Quote from: Frey;966317I have tried to read Mage: the Awakening maybe ten times, and every single on I fall asleep after a couple of minutes.

Yes, I had this too. The first few years the books were extremely dry. That improved after 2008 since Russell/Rose Bailey became lead designer. For me it was too little too late.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;966376Because your judgement about the design of games is in error?

I don't think so. WoD books are really good in bringing a certain mood in a game like a radio play or a campfire story. But after seeing unisystem, GenreDiversion, basic roleplaying and d00 lite I came to the conclusion that all those games have better designed rulesets and are better at bringing in focus what the players want to do and supporting them with that. It's a shame really, because the WoD settings are usually really cool.

Quote from: Baulderstone;966315The only one I really looked at was Mage: the Awakening. It seemed kind of cool in a lot of places, but the splats were terrible. Even when I didn't like a splat in most of the oWoD games, they were generally pretty clear archetypes a new player could quickly grasp. NWoD mage gave you Unicycle Girl and Cowboy Dandy.

WoD and CoD are more or less the same, but the latter decoupled powers from politics. I never understood why everyone seemed to have a problem with this, since it's only slightly more complicated but otherwise the same. In WoD, your powers and politics were packaged together. Bruja were rebels without causes who had magic charisma and super strength and speed. In CoD, your powers and politics are picked separately. Daeva had magic charisma and super strength and speed, but whether they were rebels without causes depended on whether you chose Carthians or not.

I suppose it's probably just a simple mental block and most people simply find thinking outside of their previous boxes difficult. That said, I wasn't very wowed by the factions in CoD (or WoD) because their motivations were often detached from anything I could sympathize with and I had a lot of difficulty thinking about what characters were supposed to do on a daily basis. Something as simple as an evangelical faction offers instant ideas for plots since your motive is to go around and spread the good news.

Basing game factions on real political parties or gang warfare sounds like a good idea to add instant, frivolous conflict.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;965980Btw, now I use the d00 system of DWD Studios for my games. There is a modern horror/urban fantasy hack called Sigil and Shadow. I like the system and the writing style of DWD a lot. I hope they will make it into a full product one time complete with all those awesome random tables they always use in those books.

Thanks for the link!

Quote from: Baulderstone;966315The only one I really looked at was Mage: the Awakening. It seemed kind of cool in a lot of places, but the splats were terrible. Even when I didn't like a splat in most of the oWoD games, they were generally pretty clear archetypes a new player could quickly grasp. NWoD mage gave you Unicycle Girl and Cowboy Dandy.

WoD and CoD are more or less the same, but the latter decoupled powers from politics. I never understood why everyone seemed to have a problem with this, since it's only slightly more complicated but otherwise the same. In WoD, your powers and politics were packaged together. Bruja were rebels without causes who had magic charisma and super strength and speed. In CoD, your powers and politics are picked separately. Daeva had magic charisma and super strength and speed, but whether they were rebels without causes depended on whether you chose Carthians or not.

I suppose it's probably just a simple mental block and most people simply find thinking outside of their previous boxes difficult. That said, I wasn't very wowed by the factions in CoD (or WoD) because their motivations were often detached from anything I could sympathize with and I had a lot of difficulty thinking about what characters were supposed to do on a daily basis. Something as simple as an evangelical faction offers instant ideas for plots since your motive is to go around and spread the good news.

Basing game factions on real political parties or gang warfare sounds like a good idea to add instant, frivolous conflict.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;966459WoD and CoD are more or less the same, but the latter decoupled powers from politics. I never understood why everyone seemed to have a problem with this, since it's only slightly more complicated but otherwise the same. In WoD, your powers and politics were packaged together. Bruja were rebels without causes who had magic charisma and super strength and speed. In CoD, your powers and politics are picked separately. Daeva had magic charisma and super strength and speed, but whether they were rebels without causes depended on whether you chose Carthians or not.

I actually liked decoupling the political and power splats. It's just that power splats felt limited and arbitrary. There weren't that many of them, and the ones that were there didn't click for me. Super strength, speed and charisma worked for me with Brujah because those all are vampire traits. With the Daeva, it just didn't fit with any kind of mage archetype cleanly, and most of the splats failed to evoke any kind of mage archetype, and it didn't do a good enough job of selling me on a new archetype.

I'd contrast it with Unknown Armies which had very unconventional magic users like dipsomancers (that build up magical charges by getting drunk) and entropomancers (who build up charges by taking risks). Those were weird, but I was instantly able to wrap my head around them and how to play them. The splats in Mage felt murky and unappealing.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;966459I suppose it's probably just a simple mental block and most people simply find thinking outside of their previous boxes difficult. That said, I wasn't very wowed by the factions in CoD (or WoD) because their motivations were often detached from anything I could sympathize with and I had a lot of difficulty thinking about what characters were supposed to do on a daily basis. Something as simple as an evangelical faction offers instant ideas for plots since your motive is to go around and spread the good news.

Basing game factions on real political parties or gang warfare sounds like a good idea to add instant, frivolous conflict.

The factions have a very elaborate and wordy philosophy, but not really clearly defined goals. That makes them hard to roleplay. For example in SW Hellfrost there are factions who fight for money, collect relics, collect lore, protect travellers from bandits, protect people in the mainlands from monsters on the frontiers etc. Pretty concrete.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;966451I don't think so. WoD books are really good in bringing a certain mood in a game like a radio play or a campfire story. But after seeing unisystem, GenreDiversion, basic roleplaying and d00 lite I came to the conclusion that all those games have better designed rulesets and are better at bringing in focus what the players want to do and supporting them with that. It's a shame really, because the WoD settings are usually really cool.

Well, that's a subjective then. Unisystem's Witchcraft was about as dull as you could possibly make a game about the occult.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;966639Well, that's a subjective then. Unisystem's Witchcraft was about as dull as you could possibly make a game about the occult.

It was generic. Can't deny that. But it's easier to make your own.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;966642It was generic. Can't deny that. But it's easier to make your own.

How so? It's just more restrictive ultimately, as it deals more in stereotypes. I have similar criticism of Apocalypse World games, which some argue is the pinnacle of game design these days: it's a class-based system with very limited game play variation. For what it does, fine, but it doesn't actually replicate the immersive design qualities of the World of Darkness games, regardless of how tidy the mechanical game play is.

I always liked CJ Carellas Witchcraft. As Goth games went it was a darn site better than eyeliner and velvet that was WoD (Mage & Changeling being the exception because I like those )