nWoD player here: can you sell me on oWoD?

This might convince you.

/shameless plug

I always prefer the definition of a Freudian Slip as being a sexy, see-through nightdress.  In other words, something that draws attention to what it is thought to be concealing.

Thebian:

I always prefer the definition of a Freudian Slip as being a sexy, see-through nightdress.

Knowing Freud, wouldn't that be your mother's sexy, see-through nightdress ?

HelterSkelter:

you said "reviled" instead of "reveiled"

I think that's what he meant :-)

no, I meant "reviled" instead of "revealed". :)

Thebian:

The OWoD rules are lighter

Thebian:

I find that it also has too many rules.

While I really don't feel like retreading a lot of the old vs new stuff... this strikes me as an odd comment.

I'm not really sure where this is coming from.  My oWOD book collection (a vast one at that) has a lot of rules in it.

I don't really notice a major difference in quantity or 'lightness' to them compared to the oWOD ones.  Both have a lot more crunch around combat, supernatural powers and key thematic traits, than they do around general social and mental tests.

There are things the oWOD covers in greater detail than the nWOD, and vice versa.

How do you even start to qualify this?  Straight numeric count?  Do we take rules complexity into it?  Do we go by word count or page count?

Or is this not even really a statement of comparison in regards to the number of rules present, but simply a statement of impression of something like 'number of superfluous rules to this reader?'

My take is that NWoD has more rules and they're generally more complex.  Overall, I think they're better rules, which is why I use several of them, replacing the wonky ones from OWoD.  But there are just a few too many for me.  I think there's also the factor that I started with OWoD and am more comfortable with it.  If I came fresh to the NWoD, I don't think they would be an issue for me (we're talking about a light rules system compared to a lighter rules system, after all - not like it's D&D3e vs. Primetime Adventures, lol).  But my baseline is the OWoD, which has less of them, which I prefer.

Really Old World of Darkness plays up the setting, story and metaplot in a way that the New World of Darkness does not. Some people really dug the metaplot of the Old World of Darkness. Some people didn't. The rules in New WoD are much more streamlined and simply function a lot better.

But basically, any discussion of the differences between New WoD and Old WoD pretty much begins and ends at the metaplot.

Though for me, I really liked Kuei-jin, Tzimisci and Ananasi. As soon as we get them in the new World of Darkness, I'll become the number 1 fanboi. Until then though, I'll sit on the sidelines and just live the New WoD vicariously.

AnubisXy

Thebian:

My take is that NWoD has more rules and they're generally more complex

That's not really answering my questions though.

What has lead you to this conclusion?  How did you take the two games and compare them and come to this?

It isn't just a matter of preference, like metaplot fans vs. metaplot haters.  How many rules there are, and how complex they are, are quantifiable things.

I'm simply at a total loss as to where the conclusions that the oWOD rules are less in quantity, 'lighter' in what I take to mean more abstracted and narrative rather than simulationist, and less complex.  I don't see where you're getting it from.

AnubisXy:

Though for me, I really liked Kuei-jin, Tzimisci and Ananasi. As soon as we get them in the new World of Darkness, I'll become the number 1 fanboi.

Given that none of those would be able to come back completely as is from the oWOD, what aspects of them are you really keen on?  All three have options in the nWOD that capture significant facets of those groups.

I don't want to speak for Thebian, but I had a similar impression for a little while...

It wasn't exactly a conclusion that had been evidenced on my part, more a feeling regarding the rules system, a flavor thing rather than a quantifiable breakdown of the numbers involved.

In my case, it was because I had spent years internalizing the OWoD ruleset for the games I played the most often. It had become ingrained, largely automatic and extremely familiar to me. Stat + Stat = action, this power requires a roll at this difficulty, success translate as follows, during character creation, stat X + stat Y = stat Z and so on and so on.

When looking at the NWoD rulesets in the core book and the semi-related lines (vampire to vampire, mage to mage, werewolf to werewolf), it was the changes which stood out and kept sending me back to the books to double check which dice pools would apply or which stats would be used on resist rolls. Some of the changes were bigger than others, some were more subtle, but they were all in conflict with a rules system that had become completely absorbed and habitual. So the changes stood out and, for awhile (and admittedly to this day from time to time), I end up having to look things up or sometimes offhandedly calling for a roll using the wrong dice pools.

So it feels more complex and rules heavy because it's not as automatic for me while playing. Although as time went on and I spent more time in the new system, these issues have gradually lessened to the point where I only have the rare hiccup or mental blank. Once the new system became pretty solidly familiar, the actual process of rolling dice and determining the results felt much more streamlined, although for some reason my NWoD games tend to involve more dice than my OWoD games. Probably a result of the relative power/immunity thing.

Zeev:

Thebian:

My take is that NWoD has more rules and they're generally more complex

That's not really answering my questions though.

Well, it is.  I find that there are more rules in NWoD than OWoD, and I find them more complex.  That's my answer.  You might not agree.  Fair enough.

Zeev:

What has lead you to this conclusion?  How did you take the two games and compare them and come to this?

By opening the books and looking at their contents?  And then forming an opinion based on what I saw.

Zeev:

It isn't just a matter of preference, like metaplot fans vs. metaplot haters.  How many rules there are, and how complex they are, are quantifiable things.

I'm simply at a total loss as to where the conclusions that the oWOD rules are less in quantity, 'lighter' in what I take to mean more abstracted and narrative rather than simulationist, and less complex.  I don't see where you're getting it from.

To be clear, I'm not talking about any GNS-style issues here.  To restate, I find that there are less rules in OWoD and that they are not as complex as in NWoD.  I get it that you don't agree with me or understand my position.  So be it.  If you're looking for a blow-by-blow comparison or a page-count justification of my position, you aren't going to get it.  Because I would find that boring.  But the kind of thing that I am talking about is the difference between the oMage and nMage magic systems, for example.  Awakening has more rules for its magic system than Ascension does, and they are more involved.  So I prefer to stay with Ascension and import those rules from Awakening that I find superior.  It's very much a preference thing.  What is a fiddly rule for one person might not be that for another.  And as I mentioned previously, there is also the kind of thing that Loxosceles is talking about - the subjective element, which is where opinions come from after all.

Thebian:

Well, it is.  I find that there are more rules in NWoD than OWoD, and I find them more complex.  That's my answer.  You might not agree.

But my question was not, "What is your opinion?"  My question was, "How on did you get there?"

Your previous post was, "I got there by getting there."  Which is not addressing the questions I posed in the slightest.  It's just restating what you'd already said.

Thebian:

I get it that you don't agree with me or understand my position.

You could actually try explaining things to me so I understand.  That is, after all, what I've been asking of you.

Loxosceles explained rather well how he felt this way.  I understood what he said just fine, despite not having that experience myself.  But that it wasn't actually a matter of how many rules there are or their complexity.

Is that what you're really saying?  If so, it's rather confusing for you to keep saying that the oWOD is ligher/less rules/less complex.  That is not a statement of preference.  "I grok the oWOD rules better" is a statement of preference.  "I like where the oWOD focuses rules" is a statement of preference.  These are opinions that don't invite the 'boring blow-by-blow' comparison you aren't interested it.

Thebian:

Awakening has more rules for its magic system than Ascension does, and they are more involved.  So I prefer to stay with Ascension and import those rules from Awakening that I find superior

If the oWOD has 'less rules' as an advantage, doesn't this somewhat fly in the face of that assertion?  If you're importing more rules (from where ever) it would imply that the Ascension rules are lacking.  That if they really have less (which I'd challenge, but you don't seem to care to actually examine it) it is not a good thing.

Hmm.  This is rapidly approaching my tedium limit, you understand, but I'll indulge you a while longer ;)

Zeev:

But my question was not, "What is your opinion?"  My question was, "How on did you get there?"

Your previous post was, "I got there by getting there."  Which is not addressing the questions I posed in the slightest.  It's just restating what you'd already said.

I said it very simply and very clearly.  I read the books and saw that one version had more rules than the other, and that one version had more complex rules than the other.  Other than the fact that you don't agree with that opinion, what is so hard to understand about that? 

Zeev:

You could actually try explaining things to me so I understand.  That is, after all, what I've been asking of you.

Loxosceles explained rather well how he felt this way.  I understood what he said just fine, despite not having that experience myself.  But that it wasn't actually a matter of how many rules there are or their complexity.

Is that what you're really saying?  If so, it's rather confusing for you to keep saying that the oWOD is ligher/less rules/less complex.  That is not a statement of preference.  "I grok the oWOD rules better" is a statement of preference.  "I like where the oWOD focuses rules" is a statement of preference.  These are opinions that don't invite the 'boring blow-by-blow' comparison you aren't interested it.

It's not as cut-and-dried as you'd maybe like.  My preference for the OWoD (the actual subject of the thread, remember?) is influenced by how well I, um, grok its rules.  It's also influenced by NWoD's amount of rules and their relative complexity.

Zeev:

If the oWOD has 'less rules' as an advantage, doesn't this somewhat fly in the face of that assertion?  If you're importing more rules (from where ever) it would imply that the Ascension rules are lacking.  That if they really have less (which I'd challenge, but you don't seem to care to actually examine it) it is not a good thing.

I have examined it.  I've given a few brief examples.  You don't think they're sufficient.  I'm OK with that :).

Ascension has less rules for its magic system than Awakening and the NWoD, less rules for its character creation, less rules for its combat.  I like that leaner approach.  Some of those rules suck, however.  So I replace them with superior rules from Awakening (or wherever).  It's still as lean, just with some improvements from elsewhere.

You may be forgetting my actual position, which is not that OWoD is better than NWoD.  The best, for me, is a melding of the two, in the way that I have described.  But the OP asked for some examples of things people prefer about the OWoD, so I gave some.  I'd really be happier if you'd get out of my face about it, thanks.

Thebian:

I always prefer the definition of a Freudian Slip as being a sexy, see-through nightdress.  In other words, something that draws attention to what it is thought to be concealing.

That sentence is made of pure win

Thebian:

This is rapidly approaching my tedium limit, you understand, but I'll indulge you a while longer

I think the problem is that:

1)  You aren't really indulging me.  I've asked set of relatively straightforward questions.  If any of them are confusing I'd be happy to clarify them.  The one solid answer you've given is intellectually unsatisfying, because you've completely shut down following that tangent of conversation through attitude.
2)  You seem to be reading my questions as 'aggression.'  They're not.  They're questions.  I want to understand how you got to this conclusion.

Thebian:

It's not as cut-and-dried as you'd maybe like.

It doesn't have to be cut-and-dried.  I don't mind a complex explanation if it actually explains what I'm not getting about your position.

Thebian:

It's also influenced by NWoD's amount of rules and their relative complexity.

And let me try to address what is confusing me:

I've done some of (since I don't think one person could really do it in exhaustive detail) the 'tedious' blow-by-blow comparisons.  I don't find a factual basis for this statement, because I've found that the oWOD and nWOD are pretty close to equal in terms of numeric rule count and rules complexity.  Some of these values are shifted.  Some things in the oWOD are less rules and less complex, but the same is true in the nWOD.

By your own statements, I'm lead to assume that you are not interested in this sort of analysis.  Which means when you say, "The nWOD has more rules and the are more complex," I have to conclude that you mean this in some subjective sense, not an objective one.

What is the context of this subjective opinion?  If the factual number and complexity is not the issue (since it is arguable, and an argument you've rejected making), what really is?

Thebian:

You may be forgetting my actual position, which is not that OWoD is better than NWoD.

I'm really not.  We're talking about what you have cited is an advantage for the oWOD.  Whether it is, or is not, might effect personal opinions about the two games, but it isn't a debate about which is better.

Thebian:

I'd really be happier if you'd get out of my face about it, thanks.

If I was a brand new user, and I had made the original post, then continued down this line of discussion with you, would you still feel so poorly about it?

If the point of thread is to show some advantages of the oWOD to a nWOD fan, wouldn't it help to be able to address this sort of thing?  I have a feeling most people that have just played the nWOD, and start looking at the oWOD are going to be incredibly incredulous of the claim of less and simpler rules.  If for no other reason than what Loxosceles already demonstrated.