Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;967986WoD dominates the urban fantasy market despite its mechanics undergoing little refinement in the twenty five years since their inception.

And here is one of WOD's strengths. It didnt change too much from edition to edition and so unlike say 3e D&D and on, its not lost a chunk of players each time.

It was the setting changes that finally cost them a huge chunk of players.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;968032I think people mostly hang on to the wod because of the depth of the setting.

I dont think its the depth of the setting thats a draw, because lets face it, its pretty shallow. Its the puzzle of the setting. And here is where WW grabbed some players. The grand puzzle of what really happened. Its backstory might as well be called Rashamon.

Probably also why Rifts interests some. Theres these puzzles in the background and each new book might reveal a little more about those puzzles.

Quote from: Omega;968135And here is one of WOD's strengths. It didnt change too much from edition to edition and so unlike say 3e D&D and on, its not lost a chunk of players each time.

It was the setting changes that finally cost them a huge chunk of players.

Is that a good or a bad thing? The tabletop market, as far as markets go, can be abnormally toxic.

Quote from: Omega;968139I dont think its the depth of the setting thats a draw, because lets face it, its pretty shallow. Its the puzzle of the setting. And here is where WW grabbed some players. The grand puzzle of what really happened. Its backstory might as well be called Rashamon.

Probably also why Rifts interests some. Theres these puzzles in the background and each new book might reveal a little more about those puzzles.

I find this approach antithetical to the strengths of RPGs. It leads to people buying the books just to read them rather than to play or get inspired to create their own thing.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;968049In my copy of Vampire, which I will choose 1st edition by way of making a point, it included an entire chapter on "Chronicles" that discussed a range of options to base your stories on and an example introductory campaign set up with NPCs, etc. The notion of playing a brood of young, neonate Vampires working against the machinations of older, inhuman Vampires in a dark mirror of our own world was also explicit from the first chapter onwards. Did you really not know how to play it?

QFT

I've seen jan paparazzi's complaint before (I'm pretty sure, but not certain, from a different user), and it struck me as odd.  The WoD games all had recurring themes (old vs. young, faction vs. faction, splat vs. splat, mortals vs. monsters, emotional problems vs. players, etc.) designed to appeal to 20-30 something year old GenXers of the time.  They spelled these themes out in the books, directly and literally, and -then- throw out all these "Stereotypes" to help reinforce the idea that the monsters are all cliquish little groups who don't really like each other but work together because X will get them if they don't.  And the games each had their own X to contend with, whether the Jyhad of Vampire or the Oblivion of Wraith, there was -something- big enough to scare the monster PCs.

"But what is day to day life like for the PCs?"

Whatever you want it to be and can get away with.  The WoD games (and pretty much all RPGs to be honest) are all escapist power trips.  The factions and uberNPCs and what not are there to give the power gaming some semblance of meaning, because playing GodMode usually gets boring pretty quick.  Which is why most of the games I ever saw tended to ditch the mortal world in short order (where the PCs could usually do whatever they built their characters to do, with no effort) and focus on the supernatural world (where things weren't so certain or safe).

Quote from: TrippyHippy;968049In my copy of Vampire, which I will choose 1st edition by way of making a point, it included an entire chapter on "Chronicles" that discussed a range of options to base your stories on and an example introductory campaign set up with NPCs, etc. The notion of playing a brood of young, neonate Vampires working against the machinations of older, inhuman Vampires in a dark mirror of our own world was also explicit from the first chapter onwards. Did you really not know how to play it?

Pfffff. This kind of reaction reminds me of the kind of reactions I got at the WW or shadownessence fora. I am getting so tired from this. The chapters WW writes about chronicles are absolutely horribly written and nothing in there is appealing to me. I understand what they say, but I have zero interest in playing what is written there. I like Savage Worlds Rippers for example. That game gives you some random tables about how to do a hunt, an investigation, recruitment, politics and research quest. That is practical and a 1000 times better than what hunter the Vigil does for example. The urban fantasy genre needs a Sine Nomine book badly.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;968259Pfffff. This kind of reaction reminds me of the kind of reactions I got at the WW or shadownessence fora. I am getting so tired from this. The chapters WW writes about chronicles are absolutely horribly written and nothing in there is appealing to me. I understand what they say, but I have zero interest in playing what is written there. I like Savage Worlds Rippers for example. That game gives you some random tables about how to do a hunt, an investigation, recruitment, politics and research quest. That is practical and a 1000 times better than what hunter the Vigil does for example. The urban fantasy genre needs a Sine Nomine book badly.

There's a big difference between "I want randomization tables" and "the book doesn't deal with X".  It -does- deal with X, just not in the way you'd like it to.

Quote from: san dee jota;968206QFT

I've seen jan paparazzi's complaint before (I'm pretty sure, but not certain, from a different user), and it struck me as odd.  The WoD games all had recurring themes (old vs. young, faction vs. faction, splat vs. splat, mortals vs. monsters, emotional problems vs. players, etc.) designed to appeal to 20-30 something year old GenXers of the time.  They spelled these themes out in the books, directly and literally, and -then- throw out all these "Stereotypes" to help reinforce the idea that the monsters are all cliquish little groups who don't really like each other but work together because X will get them if they don't.  And the games each had their own X to contend with, whether the Jyhad of Vampire or the Oblivion of Wraith, there was -something- big enough to scare the monster PCs.

I think this is probably the thing. I have zero interest in cliques working together while they still don't like each other. I do like organisations who all have functional goals to achieve an who are all doing different things in the same universe. But you are more likely to find those groups in a scifi or fantasy setting. Hellfrost is a good example of a setting where I really dig all the factions. It offers something for everyone. Wanna fight? Join a knight order or mercenary group. Wanna collect artefacts? Join the reliquery or the lorekeepers. Wanna steal shit? Join the thieves guild.

Quote from: san dee jota;968260There's a big difference between "I want randomization tables" and "the book doesn't deal with X".  It -does- deal with X, just not in the way you'd like it to.

You don't hear me denying that.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;968049In my copy of Vampire, which I will choose 1st edition by way of making a point, it included an entire chapter on "Chronicles" that discussed a range of options to base your stories on and an example introductory campaign set up with NPCs, etc. The notion of playing a brood of young, neonate Vampires working against the machinations of older, inhuman Vampires in a dark mirror of our own world was also explicit from the first chapter onwards. Did you really not know how to play it?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;968259Pfffff. This kind of reaction reminds me of the kind of reactions I got at the WW or shadownessence fora. I am getting so tired from this. The chapters WW writes about chronicles are absolutely horribly written and nothing in there is appealing to me. I understand what they say, but I have zero interest in playing what is written there. I like Savage Worlds Rippers for example. That game gives you some random tables about how to do a hunt, an investigation, recruitment, politics and research quest. That is practical and a 1000 times better than what hunter the Vigil does for example. The urban fantasy genre needs a Sine Nomine book badly.

I think there is an oranges and apples comparison here. TrippyHippy points to 1st Edition Vampire:the Masqerade from 1991 as an example of WoD having some solid ideas for setting up campaigns. You point to Hunter: the Vigil from 2008 as an example that they don't.

We've got a 17 year spread here. During that time we went with a system change from oWod to nWod, and the entire staff of WW had rolled over during that time.

I played 1st edition Vampire, and despite some mechanical wonkiness, it was pretty easy to game to pick up and play. I know some people didn't like the stuff on mood and theme, but it had those sections alongside solid adventure hooks, not instead of them. Problems like meta-plot didn't creep in until later.

I have know nothing about Hunter: the Vigil, so I can't take a side there.

I do agree that urban fantasy needs the attention that only Kevin Crawsford can give.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;968263I think this is probably the thing. I have zero interest in cliques working together while they still don't like each other.

Not trying to be a dick to you here, but maybe the problem with the WoD you're having is not one of missing support, but that it's intentionally designed for a playstyle you dislike?

I know old White Wolf deserves some flack for posturing and circle-jerking over how artistic and story driven their games were ("is it art?"), but I'm not convinced a bunch of random tables would fix the problem with the games you're having here.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;968263I do like organisations who all have functional goals to achieve an who are all doing different things in the same universe. But you are more likely to find those groups in a scifi or fantasy setting. Hellfrost is a good example of a setting where I really dig all the factions. It offers something for everyone. Wanna fight? Join a knight order or mercenary group. Wanna collect artefacts? Join the reliquery or the lorekeepers. Wanna steal shit? Join the thieves guild.

 The World of Darkness did that too.

Want to fight in Vampire?  Play a Brujah or Gangrel (or combat spec -any- other Clan member).   Want to collect knowledge?  Play a Tremere or Nosferatu (or intelligence spec -any- other Clan member).  Want to steal stuff?  Play... well all the Clans can make good thieves really.  And the other games had equally "diverse yet specialized" splats.

Granted, combat took up 85% of everybody's attention because that's what storytelling games are all about apparently, but still... you could make all kinds of nifty builds in just about each and every game.  Sure there's the real issue of X Splat isn't optimized for Y activity, but compared to a mortal they usually have at least one trick that should make them able to walk over the greatest examples in mundane humanity.

Quote from: Baulderstone;968272I have know nothing about Hunter: the Vigil, so I can't take a side there.

Short answer: the PCs hunt monsters.

Longer answer: the GM picks a "tier" (or scale) the campaign is set at, either "independent" (which isn't necessarily small scale or local, but leans that way), "national" (which can actually spread across other nations, in a limited capacity), or "global" (which tends to be an organization that's big, powerful, and old).  Then the players make characters who would go hunt monsters at that scale.  Do all the hunters work with and/or against each other?  Up to you.  They might all exist together or the PCs may be the only ones in the world (in which case you don't -really- need HtV) or you can be somewhere in between (and customize the groups to fit your tastes if you want).  Need monsters?  Besides the DIY monster building toolkit in the rules, you literally have dozens of detailed books filled with pre-made species and societies in the form of every other nWoD (or CoD if you prefer) game out there.

Honestly, it's not that hard to work with because it's simply not that complex.  

(The later games... Mummy, Beast, Changeling, Demon... are more difficult, as they're basically games revolving around one single thematic thing, and that thing is sometimes already covered better in one of the earlier games.  But even there the problem is less "what do I do" than "what -else- do I do")

Quote from: jan paparazzi;968259Pfffff. This kind of reaction reminds me of the kind of reactions I got at the WW or shadownessence fora. I am getting so tired from this. The chapters WW writes about chronicles are absolutely horribly written and nothing in there is appealing to me. I understand what they say, but I have zero interest in playing what is written there. I like Savage Worlds Rippers for example. That game gives you some random tables about how to do a hunt, an investigation, recruitment, politics and research quest. That is practical and a 1000 times better than what hunter the Vigil does for example. The urban fantasy genre needs a Sine Nomine book badly.

Well, the issue is with you then surely? These games make it clear how to play them, but not to your tastes.

Moreover, if you are trying to make random tables out to be some sort of innovation, then let's look at the innovation in a game like Urban Shadows which apparently lifts the urban fantasy idea from games like WoD, then merely marry's it to a system entirely derived from Apocalypse World, including a handful of archetypes (Classes) presented in Character books (elaborated character sheets), with pre-specified 'moves' whose outcome is determined by the roll of 2D6 against set target numbers (gee!). Well, that's innovation or 'thematic depth' for you I guess!

In a sense this answers your earlier question, where you are mistaking an element of neatness in dice mechanics, or even just neat packaging with smaller cheaper books, as a substitute for real innovation, and then wondering aloud why players don't switch their decades long loyalty from a game like Vampire with all it's built up advantages in terms of support. It's really a no brainer.

Quote from: san dee jota;968298Granted, combat took up 85% of everybody's attention because that's what storytelling games are all about apparently, but still...

I agree with basically everything you say, but would just highlight this point: the original Vampire (1st edition) detailed their combat system in merely five pages of a chapter titled "Drama" that was more broadly about all the systems of play in general. It didn't take up a lot of space by comparison to most games. While most games of the era were heavy on combat, and presumably had fans that carried this tendency into the Vampire game too, it wasn't openly encouraging people to be driven by combat any more than new 'story games' of the modern era. It was just another system of play to be used as your group saw fit.

The irony is that when people complain about Vampire's system being rubbish, they are usually referring to the combat system that they say shouldn't be prevalent anyway. It's like the Woody Allen joke about two old ladies in a restaurant - "The food in here is dreadful"....."I know, and such small portions!".

Quote from: TrippyHippy;968302I agree with basically everything you say, but would just highlight this point: the original Vampire (1st edition) detailed their combat system in merely five pages of a chapter titled "Drama" that was more broadly about all the systems of play in general. It didn't take up a lot of space by comparison to most games. While most games of the era were heavy on combat, and presumably had fans that carried this tendency into the Vampire game too, it wasn't openly encouraging people to be driven by combat any more than new 'story games' of the modern era. It was just another system of play to be used as your group saw fit.

The irony is that when people complain about Vampire's system being rubbish, they are usually referring to the combat system that they say shouldn't be prevalent anyway. It's like the Woody Allen joke about two old ladies in a restaurant - "The food in here is dreadful"....."I know, and such small portions!".

I disliked the non-combat portions. For a self-proclaimed storytelling game, it still uses the vaguely "simulationist" model of others at the time except with filled circles. The rules for superpowers, as I said, are weirdly restrictive.

I don't know why anymore, but I just hate WoD and everything to do with it. I cannot stand the eclectic rules. I cannot stand the community and their constant inane arguments about fluff.

Is there anybody here who likes these games or are we preaching a hateful gospel to a hateful choir?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;968331I disliked the non-combat portions. For a self-proclaimed storytelling game, it still uses the vaguely "simulationist" model of others at the time except with filled circles. The rules for superpowers, as I said, are weirdly restrictive.

I don't know why anymore, but I just hate WoD and everything to do with it. I cannot stand the eclectic rules. I cannot stand the community and their constant inane arguments about fluff.

Is there anybody here who likes these games or are we preaching a hateful gospel to a hateful choir?

I like the games, obviously.

In terms of the 'simulationist' stance, it's worth noting that it was originally released in 1991, when practically every game was 'simulationist' insofar that these terms hadn't been fully coined yet. Vampire's systems merely carries on in the traditions established in formative narrative games like Ars Magica and Prince Valiant in terms of what it was trying to do in gameplay. That said, the Mind's Eye Theatre game does more radical work in terms of game play, so it's worth checking that out too. I'm not sure what you mean by 'eclectic rules' in the context you have referred to them, though.

With regards to your other objections, really, you just need to broaden your experiences to be able to appreciate the game's appeal and objectives. I hate it therefore it must be bad is not an objective argument.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;968302I agree with basically everything you say, but would just highlight this point: the original Vampire (1st edition) detailed their combat system in merely five pages of a chapter titled "Drama" that was more broadly about all the systems of play in general.

To be fair, when the majority of people (fans and critics both) talk about VtM, they're not referring to the relatively rare and "incomplete" 1ed, but the developed 2ed and onwards.  The era that gave us things like the WoD Combat supplement, among other things.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;968302The irony is that when people complain about Vampire's system being rubbish, they are usually referring to the combat system that they say shouldn't be prevalent anyway.

I always figure it's more because White Wolf couldn't decide if they making games with detailed results or games that relied on GM handwavium. The problem is in all their games to varying degrees, but Exalted has it in spades.