All right, if no one will say it and point out the giant mutant elephant in the room, I will. Clearly, New World of Darkness is in all ways objectively better than D&D. There, I said it.
Well in terms of encouraging roleplay, yeah, it is. There's systems set up for fame, for followers/cultists, for resources (divorced from magical items, etc.), for contacts, for allies and political connections. This allows virtually limitless customization in a lot of respects. You can make a rock star who is actually famous and gets mechanical benefits (not by DM fiat). This allows you to make a charismatic cult leader. An information broker who knows everyone and trades secrets. A rich playboy. A street crook barely making it by. And I haven't even gotten into supernatural options.
For rules, well, it's White Wolf. Combat is short, dirty, and usually based on ambushes or getting the drop on people. Certain powers are objectively ridiculous, while others are barely worthwhile. Specialties are more broken than they used to be (somehow) and they let people get absurd dice pools that are impossible to survive. 3E was a model of long, involved combats in comparison. Rocket tag barely begins to describe it. The splatbooks are going to contain things that make Unearthed Arcana look like childs play if you give them long enough (hi True Brujah, I'm sure you'll be back).
But yes, in terms of encouraging and rewarding roleplay, it's objectively better than D&D, just as 4E is objectively better than 3E. There are other factors.
Fate vs. nWoD is actually interesting, because Fate handles on the fly a lot of things WoD predefines. It's almost narrative vs. simulationist, at least in a form (although not in a way that any D&D player would recognize).
Prove that any of that is objectively true.
Also, immense irony when considering this reply to a joke post (Zaramon was clearly kidding around, after all) and the previous attacks on me for "Edition Warring" and wanting to argue over anything.
Generally I am the last person to jump on a personal opinion, especailly for something like a role-playing game, but I am going to have to agree with Yagami here. I simply don't see how 4e is objectively better. It depends solely on the metric you use to measure it. By the metrics I measured it (which was more than just "did I like it or not," I found it highly, highly lacking.
Though, I don't think there is much potential for argument against the idea that WoD is better at encouraging role-playing than D&D. What I will say though is that in actuality the DM/story-teller is responsible for encouraging the party/troupe to role-play, and the players have to be willing to reciprocate. Unless that foundation is in place, it doesn't matter how good the books are at doing anything.
That ritual is stupid and I consider it doesn't exist. Seriously, an enormous pilklar of ag fire comes flying down no matter where on earth you are?
No.
Stupid.
Plot wrecking BS.
TBH I enjoy nWoD, but it's definitely not perfect. At the moment FATE is probably my prefered system, followed by 4E. Although the new Exalted is supposed to do cool things (prolly a lie, Exalted is the king of big promises small results).
You're 100% right. It is totally plot-wrecking BS, and people thought thaumaturgy from oWoD was bad. At least with thaumaturgy I can only set someone on fire and watch them burn as I turn immaterial. And yes, no matter where on earth you are. I re-read that ritual over 100 times when I was considering being a theban sorcerer. The only caveat is that you need to have a piece of the person or a possession that they place moderate value on. If you have that, you really can hit them no matter where they are. Hell, they could be in the Geist underworld and you could hit them from earth still. Its retarded. You know what else is dumb? the gangrel bloodline, Brujah.
At character creation, you burn all your merits on BP so you have 3, then you go 5phy (3 str, 3 dex, 3sta), 4men (3 resolve, 3 wits), 3 soc (4composure), 3 protean for claws, brawl specialty in striking, high brawl, firearms, investigation, empathy/subterfuge. Then dump humanity to 5 for 10 xp, buy the first dot in Auspex. You can now fight solid at range, you're beyond lethal in melee, you have good health, you're comparatively unlikely to be affected by one-shot removal powers like dominate due to your high resistance and BP, and you have auspex so you can clash of will with obfuscaters, and you can do that fairly well. Only people who are really specialized are going to have a slim chance at stoping a monster like that.
Just for fun I actually built that guy and ran him through a bunch of different kinds of encounters multiple times. His success rate was high. For role-playing, WoD is great but its systems need some re-balancing. God especially Hunter. That one you don't even have to try to break. It just breaks itself.
For role-playing, WoD is great but its systems need some re-balancing. God especially Hunter. That one you don't even have to try to break. It just breaks itself.
WoD as a game has always been a commendable amount of fluff-work wrapped up in a system that ranges from mediocre to flat-out terrible in execution. Mind, you, I've played the game and, more often than not in my experience, people have just thrown out entire MASSIVE sections of the rules all-together because of the issues they cause. In some cases, the system was totally ignored in favor of just using the fluff.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
Generally I am the last person to jump on a personal opinion, especailly for something like a role-playing game, but I am going to have to agree with Yagami here. I simply don't see how 4e is objectively better. It depends solely on the metric you use to measure it. By the metrics I measured it (which was more than just "did I like it or not," I found it highly, highly lacking.
Though, I don't think there is much potential for argument against the idea that WoD is better at encouraging role-playing than D&D. What I will say though is that in actuality the DM/story-teller is responsible for encouraging the party/troupe to role-play, and the players have to be willing to reciprocate. Unless that foundation is in place, it doesn't matter how good the books are at doing anything.
It's going back to the skills again. Lets say you want to make a blacksmith in 3E. Well poo on you. You need something like a 12-14 in Craft(*smith) to even break even on making simple items (otherwise you burn too many mats). And in return? You get, well, honestly very little. Smithing doesn't let you make any magic weapons or anything, and falls off very rapidly in terms of doing anything for your party (by level 5 you can buy anything you can make smithing out of your pocket change, and only Wizards can make magic items, not blacksmiths (*sigh* Monte, did Wizards have to be the best at EVERYTHING?).
And as a fighter, giving up 1 of your 2 skills for a roleplaying skill that will be of no use to the party at any point just plain hurts. There's plenty of skills you will end up using in adventuring, and when you've got 50% of your skills (or god forbid you have an 8 in Int, 100% of your skills) tied up in a RP doohicky that never matters, it's painful. Thus, one of the most common archtypes in fantasy is very difficult to recreate - the blacksmith turned fighter.
This goes across the board. Want to have a hobby of playing the lute (Name of the Wind)? Better spend points in perform, to the detriment of skills you might actually use adventuring. Want to establish your character as an old wise woman and have her knit at campsites at night? Craft (Knitting) or go home! The skill list excises a pure tax on your character concepts that drives everyone towartds a kind of limited situation. It actively opposes roleplaying.
In contrast, 4E is just kinda neutral on the matter of roleplaying. Could do it, could avoid it. The skill system is so heavily abstracted that it becomes very clear that players have tons of skills barely covered, and the system lets you have them. It all runs on DM Fiat, but at least being neutral is better than punishing players with interesting concepts.
P.S. The people who say "balance doesn't matter" should look at the fact that White Wolf has declined in prominence heavily since it's heyday. Sometimes its the setting, but often it's just "White Wolf makes bad systems." Notoriously bad systems, with jokes like True Brujah getting published eventually. If balance actually didn't matter, no one would mind this sort of trash coming from WW.
Generally I am the last person to jump on a personal opinion, especailly for something like a role-playing game, but I am going to have to agree with Yagami here. I simply don't see how 4e is objectively better. It depends solely on the metric you use to measure it. By the metrics I measured it (which was more than just "did I like it or not," I found it highly, highly lacking.
Though, I don't think there is much potential for argument against the idea that WoD is better at encouraging role-playing than D&D. What I will say though is that in actuality the DM/story-teller is responsible for encouraging the party/troupe to role-play, and the players have to be willing to reciprocate. Unless that foundation is in place, it doesn't matter how good the books are at doing anything.
It's going back to the skills again. Lets say you want to make a blacksmith in 3E. Well poo on you. You need something like a 12-14 in Craft(*smith) to even break even on making simple items (otherwise you burn too many mats). And in return? You get, well, honestly very little. Smithing doesn't let you make any magic weapons or anything, and falls off very rapidly in terms of doing anything for your party (by level 5 you can buy anything you can make smithing out of your pocket change, and only Wizards can make magic items, not blacksmiths (*sigh* Monte, did Wizards have to be the best at EVERYTHING?).
And as a fighter, giving up 1 of your 2 skills for a roleplaying skill that will be of no use to the party at any point just plain hurts. There's plenty of skills you will end up using in adventuring, and when you've got 50% of your skills (or god forbid you have an 8 in Int, 100% of your skills) tied up in a RP doohicky that never matters, it's painful. Thus, one of the most common archtypes in fantasy is very difficult to recreate - the blacksmith turned fighter.
This goes across the board. Want to have a hobby of playing the lute (Name of the Wind)? Better spend points in perform, to the detriment of skills you might actually use adventuring. Want to establish your character as an old wise woman and have her knit at campsites at night? Craft (Knitting) or go home! The skill list excises a pure tax on your character concepts that drives everyone towartds a kind of limited situation. It actively opposes roleplaying.
In contrast, 4E is just kinda neutral on the matter of roleplaying. Could do it, could avoid it. The skill system is so heavily abstracted that it becomes very clear that players have tons of skills barely covered, and the system lets you have them. It all runs on DM Fiat, but at least being neutral is better than punishing players with interesting concepts.
P.S. The people who say "balance doesn't matter" should look at the fact that White Wolf has declined in prominence heavily since it's heyday. Sometimes its the setting, but often it's just "White Wolf makes bad systems." Notoriously bad systems, with jokes like True Brujah getting published eventually. If balance actually didn't matter, no one would mind this sort of trash coming from WW.
If it runs on DM Fiat it is your DM encouraging roleplay, not the system. As for skills, I do the same with my game where I have tweaked many DCs and allow broader applications of skills.
"Balance doesn't matter"? Ridiculous notion. Anyone that says that doesn't know what they're talking about. Balance is very important. The appearance of balance, however, usually isn't. In fact, an appearance of perfect balance can be detrimental.
Balance itself though? It definitely matters.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
I remember discovering the Tremere bloodline after pouring over rules looking for something that could fit what I wanted, and rejoiced when I found that bloodline, only to realize it was Masquerade, and the group wouldn't allow a conversion of it.
I one played a vampire who claimed to be Malkavian. He normally acted crazy enough that the Malkavians thought it was funny and didn't point out the obvious-to-them fact that he wasn't.
He maintained the pretense because he observed that Malkavians could get away with practically anything, while everyone was always suspicious of anything a Tremere did.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
It's going back to the skills again. Lets say you want to make a blacksmith in 3E. Well poo on you. You need something like a 12-14 in Craft(*smith) to even break even on making simple items (otherwise you burn too many mats). And in return? You get, well, honestly very little. Smithing doesn't let you make any magic weapons or anything, and falls off very rapidly in terms of doing anything for your party (by level 5 you can buy anything you can make smithing out of your pocket change, and only Wizards can make magic items, not blacksmiths (*sigh* Monte, did Wizards have to be the best at EVERYTHING?).
I will admit I was surprised initially when I realized that there wasn't a non-magical weapon quality progression. That always struck me as odd.
And as a fighter, giving up 1 of your 2 skills for a roleplaying skill that will be of no use to the party at any point just plain hurts. There's plenty of skills you will end up using in adventuring, and when you've got 50% of your skills (or god forbid you have an 8 in Int, 100% of your skills) tied up in a RP doohicky that never matters, it's painful. Thus, one of the most common archtypes in fantasy is very difficult to recreate - the blacksmith turned fighter.
Yep. I want to point out that this underscores a larger problem about intelligence not mattering to a fighter hardly at all. This doesn't make sense to me. Sure, it still gives the fighter skill points, but it is blatantly not as attractive an option due to the already low amount of skill points and the lack of class features to synergize with it.
This goes across the board. Want to have a hobby of playing the lute (Name of the Wind)? Better spend points in perform, to the detriment of skills you might actually use adventuring. Want to establish your character as an old wise woman and have her knit at campsites at night? Craft (Knitting) or go home! The skill list excises a pure tax on your character concepts that drives everyone towartds a kind of limited situation. It actively opposes roleplaying.
In contrast, 4E is just kinda neutral on the matter of roleplaying. Could do it, could avoid it. The skill system is so heavily abstracted that it becomes very clear that players have tons of skills barely covered, and the system lets you have them. It all runs on DM Fiat, but at least being neutral is better than punishing players with interesting concepts.
Ah. Now I see where you're going. See, this is why in my own system that I have basically been building from the ground up has what I call "trades" that include a variety of skills that are more like WoD or Alternity style skills than standard d20 skills. I have it set up to where you can pick "jack of all trades" and mix and match skills from various trades, but that way you don't get into the trade guild and risk losing out on premium contracts.
P.S. The people who say "balance doesn't matter" should look at the fact that White Wolf has declined in prominence heavily since it's heyday. Sometimes its the setting, but often it's just "White Wolf makes bad systems." Notoriously bad systems, with jokes like True Brujah getting published eventually. If balance actually didn't matter, no one would mind this sort of trash coming from WW.
Even simpler, no one wants to feel like they are playing second fiddle. People like contributing in games. People who always say proper balance is important, then believe it or not, some come along to ask why. Well, good balance helps people feel like they are contributing, that's why. to use White Wolf as the example again, as a mekhet with a pistol, you kind of feel like you're playing second fiddle to the gangrel when he charges into melee with claws out. Especially against vampires, guns don't do **** to them unless you're packing flechette rounds in a shotgun, hollow-points, or dragonsbreath. But using any of those, particularly dragonsbreath, carries its own set of problems.
