nWoD

[AndyJames]

...until they decided to cease the argument entirely.

I have to comment here.

This is actually a very important component of a Loser's (not to be mixed up with 'loser', who can be gracious in defeat) debating strategy. Once all avenues of idiocy and babble has been exhausted, once the Loser realises that not even his faux superior condescension is going to drive away his opponent, he will lapse into repetition ad nauseum until his opponents realise that they are speaking to a brickwall (with the brains to match) and leave. The Loser then claims victory.

An effective, if crude, strategy.

[Josh]

...until they decided to cease the argument entirely.

I have to comment here.

This is actually a very important component of a Loser's (not to be mixed up with 'loser', who can be gracious in defeat) debating strategy. Once all avenues of idiocy and babble has been exhausted, once the Loser realises that not even his faux superior condescension is going to drive away his opponent, he will lapse into repetition ad nauseum until his opponents realise that they are speaking to a brickwall (with the brains to match) and leave. The Loser then claims victory.

An effective, if crude, strategy.

So are you apologizing for using this strategy?  Did you just realize it?  What's going on? 

[AndyJames]

I rest my case about the Loser. In this case, the repetitive part was him claiming victory and superiority from day one without any form of cognitive functions attached. What a douchebag.

[Zeke]

I haven't really seen that at all AJ. In debate you are suposed to think you're right.

[AndyJames]

Think you are right, but open to the posibility that you are wrong. That is the core of debate in which you want to take something away from. Debate is more than just arguing that you are right. Debate can be a source of learning, because, guess what? You can get things wrong. I have had debates with ubernoob and AC and others, and I have accepted that I have been wrong, admitted it, learnt from it and moved on.

To claim that you are superior to everyone else from the get go is the sign of a rude insecure brat trying to build himself up by tearing others down. This sort of person is not debating to learn from the experience. This is a person who just wants to feel better than you by being a condescending jerk. He doesn't care if he is right or wrong, he just want to hurt. That is being an arrogant douchebag by any other name.

Nobody minds a debate if both sides respect the other to a certain extent. Josh has no respect for others. He puts others down for daring to think different from (in his mind) His Holy Highness. He comes across is an arrogant asshat with an overinflated sense of self-worth. None of his posts in either thread has even begun to dispel that image.

The worse of it is, he has been called on it many time by different posters, and yet, he goes on his own course. I don't know about you, but when a bunch of people tell me that I am being an ass, I would certainly take a second look at my actions. Not Josh. He just goes on and on and on on the same path he has been walking. Of all the people who post here, Josh would be a person I would kick from my table.

[Josh]

I am extremely well aware that I may be wrong about something. 

If something exists that I am unaware of, that would be the biggest thing. 

I am in fact the least biased most open minded person you are ever likely to meet.  When we reviewed Changeling recently I would not discuss the book or allow Zeke and Meg to discuss the book until they had each formed their own opinions.  I am also the one who says "while that comment is funny, its not true" and so we cut it from the review.

Am I arrogant?  Yep.  False humility is a lie.  I can't capitulate here, I'm right.

There is more I could say, but it is not needed. 

Think you are right, but open to the posibility that you are wrong. That is the core of debate in which you want to take something away from. Debate is more than just arguing that you are right. Debate can be a source of learning, because, guess what? You can get things wrong. I have had debates with ubernoob and AC and others, and I have accepted that I have been wrong, admitted it, learnt from it and moved on.

To claim that you are superior to everyone else from the get go is the sign of a rude insecure brat trying to build himself up by tearing others down. This sort of person is not debating to learn from the experience. This is a person who just wants to feel better than you by being a condescending jerk. He doesn't care if he is right or wrong, he just want to hurt. That is being an arrogant douchebag by any other name.

Nobody minds a debate if both sides respect the other to a certain extent. Josh has no respect for others. He puts others down for daring to think different from (in his mind) His Holy Highness. He comes across is an arrogant asshat with an overinflated sense of self-worth. None of his posts in either thread has even begun to dispel that image.

The worse of it is, he has been called on it many time by different posters, and yet, he goes on his own course. I don't know about you, but when a bunch of people tell me that I am being an ass, I would certainly take a second look at my actions. Not Josh. He just goes on and on and on on the same path he has been walking. Of all the people who post here, Josh would be a person I would kick from my table.

[Zeke]

AJ as has been said before, Josh pays for the upkeep and bandwidth these boards, so I guess he does feel some kind of entitlement. That said, I would never argue the way that he does. It is not to my taste to do so. However there are a number of people, on this board and others, who enjoy the "thunderdome" style of discourse Josh provides. In order to get him to admit he is wrong you have to prove it to him. This is not easy, he demands a high standard of proof and can be a nit picker. This is why I debate him rarely. It does not entertain me to participate in that kind of bare knuckle brawl. I prefer the more gentlemanly pistols at twenty paces.

As to the merits of NWoD: Succinctly, it suffers from scalability problems due to the low range of abilities, It fails to provide any sort of mechanic that aids "storytelling", and it has a kind of mush of different world philosophies that make its setting rather hard to comprehend. That is why I do not play it. If you wish to play it, I can't stop you.

I hope that was a rather more civil style of debate that is more to your liking.

[AstralFire]

Zeke: I can't say I disagree with your criticisms of nWoD; I do dislike it, after all. However, the mush of varying philosophies I think is part of its very appeal. It's a game that both contains a variety of worlds within it, yet they're still more unified and supported in-game than some other systems I can think of. It's a happy medium for those who think mediums are happy for them in that regard.

Regarding 'storytelling', I think the use of that term is as much historic as anything else (just as Dungeon Masters often run campaigns sans dungeons). When WoD emerged and subsequently flourished, it was the first real competitor to D&D 2 (there were other alternatives, sure, but it was the biggest), and I think you could argue that back then, it really was the alternative system for someone who wanted more vague mechanics that could be altered to fit the story; Gurps and HERO are very rules-heavy for the most part. The incredible rules mastery that 3E was designed to incorporate only furthered that divide.

To be honest, I don't really see a driving need for mechanics to openly aid the flavor as long as they do not get in its way. The line between mechanic and fluff is often blurry anyway, especially the more rules-light you go. SotC is a very good example of that; even Josh acknowledged the importance of the directions to a GM, and I think when rulebooks provide thematic guidelines and suggestions, they should be taken as less directly supportive of, but still notably aiding, the mood that the game seeks to create.

When you get right down to it, it is called a roleplaying game, and some people need help with the roleplaying just as much as others need a system of conflict resolution. (Another way to put it: pure crunch breaks your bones, pure fluff supports nothing.) If someone learns how they roleplay thanks to the pointers and reminders given to them in the 2E DMG and then starts playing Star Wars d6 using that 2E style of DMing, well, that's as much of a system influence as actually bringing in a house rule from another system.

These elements can be very difficult to divorce from games, and even a rules-medium system like D&D 3 has trouble removing some of its fluff from its mechanisms as you move into different settings, which most people who examine games notice pretty quick, I think: the Vancian casting and signature spells are two big ones, obvious and slightly less so, respectively. I can reflavor every spell in the book (I've reflavored a lot of powers in a project to have psionics replace magic) but half the people I'm playing with will hear "Winds of Wrath" and still think "Bigby's Grasping Hand" in their head.

[Josh]

So let me get this straight: I'm right and you know I'm right.

Do you want something more than case closed?

Zeke: I can't say I disagree with your criticisms of nWoD; I do dislike it, after all. However, the mush of varying philosophies I think is part of its very appeal. It's a game that both contains a variety of worlds within it, yet they're still more unified and supported in-game than some other systems I can think of. It's a happy medium for those who think mediums are happy for them in that regard.

Regarding 'storytelling', I think the use of that term is as much historic as anything else (just as Dungeon Masters often run campaigns sans dungeons). When WoD emerged and subsequently flourished, it was the first real competitor to D&D 2 (there were other alternatives, sure, but it was the biggest), and I think you could argue that back then, it really was the alternative system for someone who wanted more vague mechanics that could be altered to fit the story; Gurps and HERO are very rules-heavy for the most part. The incredible rules mastery that 3E was designed to incorporate only furthered that divide.

To be honest, I don't really see a driving need for mechanics to openly aid the flavor as long as they do not get in its way. The line between mechanic and fluff is often blurry anyway, especially the more rules-light you go. SotC is a very good example of that; even Josh acknowledged the importance of the directions to a GM, and I think when rulebooks provide thematic guidelines and suggestions, they should be taken as less directly supportive of, but still notably aiding, the mood that the game seeks to create. When you get right down to it, it is called a roleplaying game, and some people need help with the roleplaying just as much as others need a system of conflict resolution. (Another way to put it: pure crunch breaks your bones, pure fluff supports nothing.)

These elements can be very difficult to divorce from games, and even a rules-medium system like D&D 3 has trouble removing some of its fluff from its mechanisms as you move into different settings, which most people who examine games notice pretty quick, I think: the Vancian casting and signature spells are two big ones, obvious and slightly less so, respectively. I can reflavor every spell in the book (I've reflavored a lot of powers in a project to have psionics replace magic) but half the people I'm playing with will hear "Winds of Wrath" and still think "Bigby's Grasping Hand" in their head.

[AstralFire]

So let me get this straight: I'm right and you know I'm right.

Do you want something more than case closed?

I'm curious to see how you derived that. Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

I've never stated that I liked WoD - the opposite, in fact, multiple times. I argued that you couldn't objectively state it was inferior, and that you further have no grounds to state that it is with your admittedly cursory knowledge (something that you have only reminded the audience of repeatedly by your unwillingness to point to specifics). I kept things on the mechanics side because you wanted to keep them on the mechanics side, and I divorced my personal preference from the argument as best I could, attempting to see why someone likes the system mechanically - because those people do exist.

When I said I couldn't disagree with Zeke, I was no longer divorcing personal preference, because it was not necessary or relevant. He didn't claim that it was objectively worse; he said that was why he didn't play it. Furthermore, he's provided approximately the same amount concrete reasoning in one paragraph (mash-up of various worlds and numerical limitation of 5 dots) as you have in the entire thread (5 dot limitation, dislike of social combat). Nor did he rely on comparison against another system with its own flaws in order to state his dislikes. So not only is he a lot more concise, he's not furthering a bold claim.

Here, since you don't know how to criticize mechanics, let me do it for you: "I dislike the nWoD system of skills and attributes because there is little pattern to when a roll adds multiple attributes or just one, and in the case of opposed rolls, that leads to grossly imbalancing one side easily." (Me speaking personally.)

Of course, I could turn that around and say, "I like the nWoD system of skills and attributes because the combined rolls make sense logically, they provide a one-page tear-out cheatsheet for newbies, and the high failure rate caused by the imbalance contributes to the gritty feel." (Me speaking as someone who likes nWoD.)

If you're going to get back into this debate, then respond to my earlier points. Otherwise, get out of the thread. Or stay in it and throw another hissy-fit, I suppose you have that right as the board's owner.

[Zeke]

AF

I raise the storytelling point because NWoD claims to be a storytelling game. It's their reason-d'etre , the cornerstone of what makes them a different and interesting game.

I disagree, that mechancis that aid the flavor are not vital and neccesary. You can't tell someone that they're not playing with the right flavor if there are no mechanics to do so. D&D has mechanics that aid the flavor of playing in a mideival fantasy world Examples are the sytems for gods, the magic system, the magic item system, the classes as cosntructed and in many ways the combat system itself. Call of Cthullu, while in many ways a flawed game, has mechanics that link you to its themes of cosmic horror.

in regards to your points in your last post, I think if you just directly debated Josh, instead of taking issue with his phrasing, you might get a better response out of him. Remember, he  cares only about being right. If you want him to admit he's wrong, prove to him that he is. It is hard to do, which is why I rarely try to do it anymore.

[AndyJames]

...Remember, he  cares only about being right.

That, Zeke, says more about him that you can possibly realise (ok, I exaggerate, but hope you get my point).

AJ as has been said before, Josh pays for the upkeep and bandwidth these boards, so I guess he does feel some kind of entitlement.

I know about his relationship with the board. I believe I have said that myself on at least one occasion. He is entitled to being a douche on this board. He is entitled to saying that the one rule the board has here does not apply to him and thus proving to the world that he is a hypocrite on top of being an arrogant douche. That is fine, because it speaks directly to the podcasts that he makes. After actually "talking" with him now, I will view the podcasts with... actually, I will probably boycott the podcasts altogether That is how sales work.

However, if he takes that attitude off this board and into a IRL game, I am fairly certain that he will be quickly disabused of his notion of entitlement. I can only wish I can be there when he runs into that wall and is told to leave. Sadly, I doubt it will happen as he has a stable player base and he is king of the roost, so to speak. All I can say is that I will never game with Josh. He displays an attitude that I do not want to suffer through for hours at a time during my happy-fun times.

[AstralFire]

I disagree, that mechancis that aid the flavor are not vital and neccesary. You can't tell someone that they're not playing iwitht he right flavor if there are no mechanics to do so. D&D has mechanics that aid the flavor of playing in a mideival fantasy world Examples are the sytems for gods, the magic system, the magic item system, the classes as cosntructed and in many ways the combat system itself. Call of Cthullu, while in many ways a flawed game, has mechanics that link you to its themes of cosmic horror.

While D&D has flavored mechanics, for the most part, its own mechanics go against it somewhat for emulating the feel of medieval fantasy.

Vancian casting is at odds with both the modern conception of magic-as-artillery (which was ironically originated by Chainmail but has received significant modification from cRPG and vRPG) and more subtle, combat-unfriendly magic which more bears with the flavor of the times. Similarly, the various gods harken to an older age. The combat system doesn't bear much relation to medieval combat or medieval ideas - Hit Dice are a very gross abstraction. Magic items, yes, I will agree with that... but to use 3E as a basis, the christmas tree syndrome is also not really found outside of maybe the Legend of Zelda.

I would say D&D rules sans splat are less supportive of their target genre than nWoD rules sans splat, from my brief overlook of the latter system. nWoD places a higher mechanical emphasis on social interaction and personal insight than D&D does - an essential part of that system's flavor. Willpower and Composure are very integral to the world, after all, as is the fact that recovery takes a long time. Virtue and Vice are much more central to the system than alignment is to D&D by a long-shot, outside of Planescape - particularly by 3E and 4E - while framing the characters in specific ways which adhere to the world set-out by White Wolf. I mean, really, nWoD is not a system in which you really have to worry about not having enough opportunities to tell people that their stories aren't matching up against the world's flavor.

So yeah, I'd say nWoD does what it's set out to do. I don't like what it's set out to do, and I'm not gonna deny that WW's ego about their system ticks me off sometimes. But I also can't say with honesty that it is lesser. I can see what people like about it.

To speak more generally and not on the specific subject of nWoD, I guess I'm saying there's a threshold for which every system should aspire to link mechanics and flavor, but past that threshold, everything else is superfluous. That threshold is individually determined; the term 'threshold' even is misleading, since that implies there is only a "high" and a "low", rather than differentiating the different manners and ways in which mechanics connect to flavor.

To use an analogy, there's not really a lot in the mechanics of Beyond Good & Evil that separates it from the famous Legend of Zelda series in gameplay. In fact, that similarity is part of why I picked it up, initially. Nothing in the gameplay screams at you that you are in a technofuturistic world... at all. Yet, it's something that you cannot forget. Now, if there had been a mechanic in BG&E where you started taking out a music instrument to solve puzzles, then that would have destroyed a lot of the feel they were striving for... but that wasn't the case. And BG&E is regularly praised by the industry as one of the best games of the last generation for its storytelling and not just its cutscenes (I have to agree.)

Obviously, a vRPG is a little different from a tabletop RPG - divorcing a 'skin' and the engine isn't nearly so easy with programs, so it's not as crucial that the engine be unique in any given circumstance. But I feel that that illustrates my point as well as is possible when you switch subject matter. Once you get to a certain level of connection between flavor and mechanics, it's up to the PC and GM showmanship to finish the job, and no mechanic can fix that if it's not there. More isn't always better; it isn't ever worse in this case, but it's not always better.

If the instructions to the GM aren't sufficient in nWoD to cultivate 'dark mystery' instead of a gore fest, adding Aspects in SotC won't be enough to cultivate pulp instead of a godmode FPS.

[Josh]

I'm curious to see how you derived that. Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

Ok then in that case, start a new thread about it,  This is about WoD.  If you have any germane coments make them here.  If not, start a new thread.

Also, I apologize.  When people are acting like complete shitheads I tend to lump them together.  Not everyone is a douche-nozzle in the same way.  Lesson learned. 

...Remember, he  cares only about being right.

That, Zeke, says more about him that you can possibly realise (ok, I exaggerate, but hope you get my point).

I care only about the “rightness” of my statements.  Not, whether I win or lose.  I seek to be as correct as I can.  And when I am in err I will let you know immediately.

And this is also off topic.  WoD or new thread.

[Josh]

DnD is DnD.  you kill monsters and take stuff, it is in fact supposed to be “like Zelda.”

I would say D&D rules sans splat are less supportive of their target genre than nWoD rules sans splat, from my brief overlook of the latter system. nWoD places a higher mechanical emphasis on social interaction and personal insight than D&D does - an essential part of that system's flavor.

Actually these systems are on par with those of 3ed.  And actually inferior to those of 4e. 

To speak more generally and not on the specific subject of nWoD, I guess I'm saying there's a threshold for which every system should aspire to link mechanics and flavor, but past that threshold, everything else is superfluous. That threshold is individually determined; the term 'threshold' even is misleading, since that implies there is only a "high" and a "low", rather than differentiating the different manners and ways in which mechanics connect to flavor.

I am going to say, from where do you draw this conclusion?  After a certain point a game cannot be made better?  Is that what you are saying.
And in any case, WoD support while not zero, is no where near this acceptable threshold anyway.  So maybe, if you have some kind of concept behind this statement, but irrelevant anyway.

If the instructions to the GM aren't sufficient in nWoD to cultivate 'dark mystery' instead of a gore fest, adding Aspects in SotC won't be enough to cultivate pulp instead of a godmode FPS.

I used SotC because someone was aware of it.

There is no way to fully explain the depth of WoD without Understanding most of the games on my list.  And I said then and will say it again, those games are a start.

Here is a reading list to get you started:
The Savage World of Solomon Kane
Burning Wheel (revised)
Shock! Social Science Fiction
Dread
Essoterrorists (or Trail of Cthulhu)
Then one or two other “story” games that appeal to you.

You will start to get a better sense after these books.

[Shadowhowler]

Josh... I'm still currious how/why you belive OWoD nearly destroyed the hobby of RPG gaming. I provided an example of how, in my comunity, it did the exact opposet... expanding the player base for RPG's by leaps and bounds... but I do not recall you giving and specific reasons for why you think it nearly killed the RPG hobby beyond your statments of 'It's a bad game' and 'it fails to perform it's intended function.'

[Josh]

Josh... I'm still currious how/why you belive OWoD nearly destroyed the hobby of RPG gaming. I provided an example of how, in my comunity, it did the exact opposet... expanding the player base for RPG's by leaps and bounds... but I do not recall you giving and specific reasons for why you think it nearly killed the RPG hobby beyond your statments of 'It's a bad game' and 'it fails to perform it's intended function.'

I have heard that it expanded gaming, I have not seen any sort of proof.

When I was in high school, Girls were coming to the hobby of gaming.  Also people of a theater and English background.  Prior to WoD.  Also the "style" of game espoused by WoD had been going for at least 10 years.  In my estimation WoD exploited a trend, it did not create one.

So what about all those masses of WoD people?  Most of them never played another game and they are out of the hobby now. 

So the jury is out on the people it brought in.  The evidence is circumstantial at best and easily explained by other factors.

So why did it nearly kill the hobby?

1) The people who played the game were extremely evangelical.  They were also some of the biggest douchebags to ever darken the hobby.  And they were everywhere.  And they talked about vampire/mage constantly. 

2) the game claims to be new and different, and isn't.  This makes its players perpetually sour.

3) It overwhelmed the market trying to be the only non DnD game. 

4) The game is very strongly anti-intellectual, anti-science pro paranormal.  People would also try to follow the philosophy of the game.  A philosophy written by 12 year old goth cutters(I assume).

5) It fed into the image that gamers cannot determine what is reality, when they all claimed to be spell casting vampires.

[Zuki]

Can you 'prove' your point of view any better, Josh? What you've written looks your opinions, perceptions, and bad experiences to me, especially with comments like "biggest douchebags ever to darken the door of the hobby," "perpetually sour players," "written by 12-year old goth cutters," and "all claimed to be spell-casting vampires."


Additionally, what's your support for the idea that the trend existed prior to White Wolf's release of the first vampire game in 1991, and how widespread can you prove this trend in gaming was?

[AstralFire]

Ok then in that case, start a new thread about it,  This is about WoD.  If you have any germane coments make them here.  If not, start a new thread.

Also, I apologize.  When people are acting like complete shitheads I tend to lump them together.  Not everyone is a douche-nozzle in the same way.  Lesson learned. 

Fair enough to both points. I also apologize for putting on my pompous game face; I don't get to do it very often and I overdid it a bit.

I'll respond more generally... when I get around to it, I'm exhausted, and I'll honestly be a bit glad to not have a rapid fire debate to check on every few hours with my current schedule.

[Josh]

Additionally, what's your support for the idea that the trend existed prior to White Wolf's release of the first vampire game in 1991, and how widespread can you prove this trend in gaming was?

Second question first.  This was 100% the case.  It was how people played.  It was written about in Dragon magazine.  Vampires concept was not new to us when it came out. 

Can you 'prove' your point of view any better, Josh? What you've written looks your opinions, perceptions, and bad experiences to me, especially with comments like "biggest douchebags ever to darken the door of the hobby," "perpetually sour players," "written by 12-year old goth cutters," and "all claimed to be spell-casting vampires."

Perceptions and and experiences Do describe it.  These things are not bad or wrong.  Heck, opinion is only "wrong" to me.  If I did not have an obsession with being unbiased, impartial and objective I would use opinion.

1) WW does not accomplish the design goals it sets for itself.  This causes problems.
2) The Books are poorly written, as if 12 year old cutters wrote them.  See our review of changling for a sample.
3) We had survived the witch hunt 80s.  Only to have Vampire wannabes try to bring us down in the 90s.  The number of times someone seriously confided that they were a vampire or a witch per year requires me to take my shoes off.
4) Absolute pieces of human garbage were drawn to WoD.  The bombastic hatemongers made our lives as gamers miserable.
5) My experiences are mirrored by people around the us and canada. 

So reviewing this evidence
1) Fact.  Logically obvious, commented by many others including Ron Edwards.
2) Fact.  Incredibly obviously poorly done.
3) Fact.  It happened to me all the time, all over the place
4) Fact.  Again, it happened to me.
5) Look around and you will find WW horror stories.