Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;968331I 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.

They're 20+ year old games that targeted post-adolescents with social issues in the 90's, and prided themselves on being progressive artistes while publishing a card game about abusing whores (and yes, that "we're serious mature artists, have some child rape in your Exalted" dichotomy never really went away).  

No harm in disliking them today.  

That said, I still like them for the immature power-trip fantasies they offered.  Heck, I'd go so far as to say the early portions of the nWoD were outright decent games that were actually close to what White Wolf thought it was making in the early days (i.e. mature games for mature people).  I wouldn't say that's the case much these days though....

Quote from: san dee jota;968345To 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.

2nd edition wasn't much different to to 1st edition, beyond having a hardback and reformatting/editing the text. The combat system was not altered much, either (it's now 8 pages long!). The WoD Combat supplement, written by Steven Long of Champions/HERO fame, was a release in 1996. Considering that White Wolf was releasing more than fifty WoD supplements a year by that stage, it's not really a major supplement and I'd probably associate it more with the more combat orientated Werewolf, myself. I never bought it anyway, and I think there is something of a disconnect between gamers that possibly just bought a corebook and a few Clanbooks, as I did, and those that slavishly bought every supplement to follow metaplot and the like.  

I can be critical of the combat system if you like, which essentially attempted to shoehorn a loose comparative dice pool system into a standardised three-tiered combat model (Initiative, Attack, Damage) which didn't work simply because there was too many ineffectual rolls being made. But, hey, it was fixable by most groups and led to a lot of other game systems being born out of this - Deadlands system was in some ways a development from it, for example.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;967988I don't know. Elegance and innovation may simply not be what people want. I think the combination of 'easy to grok at a glance', familiarity with the system over time, and setting, are all contributing factors. But I think you can't ignore the part about pips being pretty easy to grasp. Whenever I talk to WoD players, that is one of the big reasons they list of for liking it.

These are, in my experience, the major factors to WW oWoD's benefit. Some of the players I encountered magnified their fears of mathematics to, *ahem* dramatic *ahem*, proportions. Just the sheer removal of number symbols from the sheet -- even though there's more numeric values everywhere for which to account -- gave the semblance of approachability.

Similarly using d10s gave the illusion of simplicity. "You can count to ten, right?" Never mind that Rule of 1 fucked up that probability-ease from the get go, (and exploding 10s later did not help). Throw in larger success thresholds, iiterative successes, compounding XP costs, etc. what was at first friendly to math-phobes becomes a convoluted mess for any numeracy-capable GMs and players not to exploit.

Further the 'cliques united by oppressive circumstance' premise made quick sense to anyone, especially any who endured junior high or high school. Oh sure, the antipathy was baked into the cake as it were, but it was in service to resist a greater villainy. And that was really it's big outré appeal: play a monster with all its cruel flaws, polite society ostracism, shitty secret high school, and hopeless shit spiral world -- but it has to be done because there's worse shit out there and we're really trying to save the uninitiated from an even worse tyranny.

Needless to say it was catnip to drama students and their attending circles of misfits.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;968184I 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.

When its a deliberate marketing gag. Yeah. Its not a good thing. Like withholding key background info.

But when its little things like what really happened to Voctor Lazlo or what happened to the atlanteans. Its not a sell point and more like an easter egg for those who actually pay attention. And it creates a feeling of the setting being a little more alive as things unfold. Like following Tarns travels.

You get that too with WOD where theres little things in the backstory that make you go. "huh?" when you connect the dots.

Quote from: Snowman0147;968279I do agree that urban fantasy needs the attention that only Kevin Crawsford can give.

5e Urban Arcana seems to be on a few minds still at WOTC. But theres been no mention in quite a while.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;9683832nd edition wasn't much different to to 1st edition, beyond having a hardback and reformatting/editing the text.

Mechanically I'd agree, but 2ed was when the game started focusing on actively defining everything.  That was a -big- shift from 1ed.  I'd also argue that is when the whole "trenchcoats and katanas" mindset arose, helped in part by things like WoD Combat, enchanted chainsaws, and the rise of cross-over games where people started seriously wondering "who'd win in a fight" (answer: the Mage always wins... unless they're a newb).

Quote from: TrippyHippy;968383I can be critical of the combat system if you like, which essentially attempted to shoehorn a loose comparative dice pool system into a standardised three-tiered combat model (Initiative, Attack, Damage) which didn't work simply because there was too many ineffectual rolls being made. But, hey, it was fixable by most groups

I agree 100% there.  The system was problematic if you wanted something gritty (it failed my "Kill Aunt May Test"*), but easy enough to house rule and fix.  

(*the idea of the Kill Aunt May Test is to build a frail old person, and see how easy or hard it is for a random robber to kill them with a shotgun at close range.  Figure a robber has a Dex of 2 (Average) and a Firearms of 1 (they know how to shoot it, but aren't really trained).  They roll 3d10 against a 6, and get... 2 successes.  I forget if you add both of those to the damage of the attack or just one, but we'll say two.  So the robber then rolls a pool of 10d10 against 6, getting 5 successes.  Aunt May then rolls her lone Stamina/Soak die and gets 1 success, reducing the damage to 4 Health Levels... except she's a mortal, so she doesn't soak any of that Lethal shotgun damage.  At this point she's maimed and bleeding out.  If she doesn't get medical attention in two days, the octogenarian will die!

Granted, it's entirely possible for the robber to hit her and kill her outright, or hit her and just graze her for no damage at all.  But on average, the Storyteller System is designed so that you -can't- kill somebody in a single hit.  My fix was to make all damage rolls automatically successful.  Combat became scary and serious once you did that, even though PCs all had cool ways to survive a hit or two.)

Actually, that's a fairly reasonable result compared to real life. Firearms, even powerful ones aren't death rays. People survive them all them all the time or linger for days. The problem for nominal realism can be how most games make conventional medical attention an automatic life saver and recovery always successful given time with no chance of lasting injury and disability. Though its probably more playable to handle it simply. Also I imagine having a character laid up for weeks, maimed or crippled long term is less fun and cinematic then a relatively quick clean death.

Quote from: Nexus;968463Actually, that's a fairly reasonable result compared to real life. Firearms, even powerful ones aren't death rays. People survive them all them all the time or linger for days. The problem for nominal realism can be how most games make conventional medical attention an automatic life saver and recovery always successful given time with no chance of lasting injury and disability. Though its probably more playable to handle simply. "Gritty" games often bump lethality above real life for mood and game play.

If I recall, the game Millenium's End got a bit deep into the whole dying process (its been ages but I am pretty sure there was a chart in there that somehow involved heart rate). I may be thinking of another game. I think sometimes this stuff can add a lot to game (Butcher gave some advice that helped me shape my in-house rules on sepsis), but it helps to still try and keep it simple because real life is usually a lot more complicated than a single die roll and things can rapidly become unwieldy.

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?

Apparently TrippyHippy and San Dee Jota. Well, I tried to explain why, but it's pointless and will only lead to nitpicking and holding every word I say under a magnifying glass. Endless discussions going nowhere. I leave this topic for what it is. I will let you know if I finally found something I like.

Edit:
Btw, I am not an Apocalypse World fan. That's Boxcrayontales. I would rather have a more open, broad sandbox setting with a more diverse set of organisations. Not the cliques doing politics because they want their views to become policy. And the icing on the cake would be random generators or tables, because out of the 6 options they provide me there are usually 1 or 2 I didn't think of.

Quote from: Nexus;968463Actually, that's a fairly reasonable result compared to real life. Firearms, even powerful ones aren't death rays. People survive them all them all the time or linger for days. The problem for nominal realism can be how most games make conventional medical attention an automatic life saver and recovery always successful given time with no chance of lasting injury and disability. Though its probably more playable to handle it simply. Also I imagine having a character laid up for weeks, maimed or crippled long term is less fun and cinematic then a relatively quick clean death.

It's the American mindset.  The Wild West was a massive societal imprint for them, where the Gun was the almighty weapon that trumped everything, and it has been reflected in the various media, especially Hollywood.  In other cultures it's not as prevalent.

For example, in Japan, the Sword is their God weapon, which is why you often see swordsmen out doing gunners on a regular basis.  In China it's Kung Fu over everything. And so on.  But due to globalization of the entertainment media, especially Hollywood, the perception of the Gun as a The Greatest Killer Ever is getting increased exposure.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;968496Apparently TrippyHippy and San Dee Jota. Well, I tried to explain why, but it's pointless and will only lead to nitpicking and holding every word I say under a magnifying glass. Endless discussions going nowhere. I leave this topic for what it is. I will let you know if I finally found something I like.

It's called debate, and all anyone is doing is presenting you with counterargument, that you seem to struggle with.

QuoteEdit:Btw, I am not an Apocalypse World fan. That's Boxcrayontales. I would rather have a more open, broad sandbox setting with a more diverse set of organisations. Not the cliques doing politics because they want their views to become policy. And the icing on the cake would be random generators or tables, because out of the 6 options they provide me there are usually 1 or 2 I didn't think of.

By way of example, I could also present you with reasons why CJ Carella's Witchcraft was basically derivative too. If you just want some narrative-generating random  tables, however, I could suggest Fiasco.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;968603It's called debate, and all anyone is doing is presenting you with counterargument, that you seem to struggle with.

Fucking annoying. That's the last thing I want when I provide reasons for not liking something. I could be lazy and just say the World of Darkness sucks monkey balls and be done with it. That saves a lot of time and effort.

When I see someone on a forum saying he or she doesn't like something because of reasons, then I usually try to figure out why he/she doesn't like it and how it could be solved. Or maybe it just isn't meant to be for that person.

It always strikes me as odd if you say you think dr Pepper is gross and then someone tries to convince you you are wrong. "No, it isn't gross. It's the best thing since sliced bread.". I don't get it. You can't discuss about taste. Taste is taste. Period.

Generally, I never run into this problem on this forum. But on the WW and shadownessence fora it is rampant. That mindset ... man, how annoying is that. As pretentious and preachy as Tool fans. Hence, the irritation. It's coming from hanging out there waaaaaaaaay too long.
/rant

Quote from: TrippyHippy;968603By way of example, I could also present you with reasons why CJ Carella's Witchcraft was basically derivative too. If you just want some narrative-generating random  tables, however, I could suggest Fiasco.

Derivative of what?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;968651Fucking annoying. That's the last thing I want when I provide reasons for not liking something. I could be lazy and just say the World of Darkness sucks monkey balls and be done with it. That saves a lot of time and effort.

So any counterargument towards your statements is fucking annoying and the last thing you want? Duly noted. Duly thrown into the wastebasket.

QuoteWhen I see someone on a forum saying he or she doesn't like something because of reasons, then I usually try to figure out why he/she doesn't like it and how it could be solved. Or maybe it just isn't meant to be for that person.

When I see someone talking as if their opinion is objective truth, then I point out the flaws in their argument. Whether a game is for a person or not, is up to them. Whether a game is superior or inferior to others is an open debate.

QuoteDerivative of what?

The World of Darkness games, obviously, with mechanics plucked from a few other eclectic sources. And before you get all defensive about that, it is worth pointing out that C.J Carella himself has actually said as much about it too. Indeed, it may be worth having a read up of George Vaskilakos' (owner of Eden Studios) review of Vampire: The Masquerade in the Hobby Games: The 100 Best book, if you want to know why Vampire has been popular and successful over the years. It's pretty well explained there.

Quote from: Snowman0147;968279I do agree that urban fantasy needs the attention that only Kevin Crawsford can give.

What genre doesn't?

Well, it all comes down to your mileage may vary. I never claimed any game is superior or inferior to any other game. For whatever reasons (and I have a pretty good idea why that is and I don't want to debate them) my mileage out of a wod is extremely low. When I read Hunter the Vigil I have no idea what to do with. Some cool ideas, but nothing pops up. When I read SW Rippers I get a zillion ideas and I instantly know what to do with.

So in my opinion that makes wod games worthless. To me at least. I think and I repeat I think (as in my opinion, completely subjective) they are the worst written books out there. The literary equivalent of kryptonite to my inspiration. I don't hate the wod, don't get me wrong. I got back into rpg's after playing VtM Bloodlines. I love urban fantasy games more than any other genre. If it's a modern setting where monsters are real and magic is real I am game. But wod and me wasn't meant to be. A workhorse of a game and probably the biggest dissapointment in my gaming life. I hoped the setting rights end up with another company who would give it another treatment as usual. Maybe the combi paradox and Ken Hite will work, so I will keep tabs on that.