nWoD player here: can you sell me on oWoD?

Scuttlest:

In oWoD, because a metaplot existed, even "optional" material was woven into that metaplot, and played its role in the overarching story.

I disagree. The Sabbat does not need Harbinger of Skulls, or even Tszimisce to be a valid structure, nor does Gehenna need to be the one option you describe. Heck, the Gehenna book has several scenarios where Tszimisce isn't a big player at all.

I also regarded it all as optional... BUT!

I have to concede that after any material was published in one book and treated as canon or part of the metaplot or "the way things are" those events would then shape future books. Which made the additional books worth less (not worthless, just worth less) because they were detailing new stuff that depended on the older stuff. Some are clearly more setting-wide than others, but some of these big events changed the way new supplements were written past that point. Vampire has some of the more egregious examples because it seemed to be one of the more plot-heavy games.  ur-Shulgi woke up and changed how assamites were viewed, the week of nightmares pretty much wrote Ravnos out of existence, the Gangrel sort of up and left the Camarilla, vissicitude is a disease of some kind, Saulot was a good guy, no a bad guy, no a good guy...

A lot of which could be monkeyed with to mash it into any given game... but it did mean that individual long running games became more and more divergent from the published material. Which meant the published material was potentially less and less relevant to the games people were actually playing.

I enjoy it all and I can sit down and sift through it and decide what I want to use for individual games (and from game-to-game, I mix it up). Still, I could see issues with it if I had my favorite clan that got radically altered (or stopped seeing anything new published because they were "all dead") or if I was depending on the published material to define the setting (like some folks running LARPs or massive globe-spanning online games), rather than regarding it all as inspiration.

Hod:

Scuttlest:

In oWoD, because a metaplot existed, even "optional" material was woven into that metaplot, and played its role in the overarching story.

I disagree. The Sabbat does not need Harbinger of Skulls, or even Tszimisce to be a valid structure, nor does Gehenna need to be the one option you describe. Heck, the Gehenna book has several scenarios where Tszimisce isn't a big player at all.

I think you might be missing Scuttlest's point: for many (most?) players, and for most of the stories that followed the insertion of element "X", the material was effectively canon for the less "flexible", or thought-out, gamers; that is, while more experienced roleplayers could spin the material provided into whatever they wanted, or disregard it altogether, the less experienced or imaginative ones relied more heavily on the books, especially if they were playing in groups that weren't  long-standing, close-knit troupes, but rather on-and-off ones at the local gameshop, conventions, etc., where the rules and "official canon" were the only common ground amongst more casual acquantances.

That doesn't invalidate what you posted, but just illustrates that your response was a step sideways to what was being expressed...

Hod:

I disagree. The Sabbat does not need Harbinger of Skulls, or even Tszimisce to be a valid structure, nor does Gehenna need to be the one option you describe. Heck, the Gehenna book has several scenarios where Tszimisce isn't a big player at all.

I didn't say every strand of story thread was vital to the grand ole tapestry of metaplot they had going, but many pieces naturally assume the presence of others. If they hadn't been in such a hurry to finish things, I hope they would have resolved the ongoing Harbingers/Giovanni/Capuchin plot issue (argh), but you're right, as it is there's really not much reason to include the Harbingers or not. However, some story issues, such as the Week of Nightmares - well, just try ignoring that if you want to draw on any of the other metaplot material published after 1999. They did a good job of trying to make it such that you could ignore it if you really, really wanted to, but the fact remains that as "optional" as such a big metaplot item may be, it's really not any more or less optional than the entire metaplot as a whole, if that makes sense.

I think the problem with the "optional" debate when it comes up is that for some reason optional gets taken as a binary state:  Rules are either optional or they aren't.

Which is a bit silly.  This is a game that is, by its nature completely optional.  Even beyond these specific games:  Monopoly might not say its rules are optional, but nothing stops me from changing them on a whim.

If you're really going to look at this for comparing two RPGs, I think you need to make sure you're looking at two specific subjective measures:

1)  Practicality.  That is how mechanically easy is it to institute changes.
2)  Presentation.   Which would address how the authors and creators of the work approach the idea of optional additions.

JimB:

BloodKnarledFur:

I was just thinking about this post and I came to a conclusion, why?  I mean, if you are playing nWoD and you like it, why would you want to be “sold” on oWoD?

I can't speak for the original poster, but personally, I find it an interesting experiment to see if gamers can actually articulate reasons why they like or dislike a game beyond kneejerk elitism.  We tend to be a very snobby group of people, and it's my experience that we react with prejudice to new things. 

Yes, I agree with you on this, but what I was trying to say, and i read my post and . . . well . . . I did a horrable job trying to say what I was trying to say.

Ok,
What I was trying to say was that I am not sure why we should try and sell you on the game, I am all for telling you what I like about oWoD, but I am not sure if you could be sold on the game.  If you like it you like it, if not . . . not sure if any amount of posting will change your mind, but I could be wrong here.

JimB:

HIM: Ugh, White Wolf.
ME: What, you don't like White Wolf?
HIM: White Wolf sucks.
ME: What sucks about it?
HIM: It's stupid.
ME: ...Okay, but I more meant, what in particular is stupid?
HIM: Their games are shit.
ME: Never mind.

Oh man, I have had that very same conversation like 10000 times.

What I love (rather still love, I have loved so much about the old world of darkness) is, it is like looking around a junkyard of old ideas. There are many things that still run, maybe not as smooth and clean as the new stuff, but as far as fiction go they are made of some of the most recyclable stuff on Earth, ideas. I like picking it through it like an old scrap heap to get idea, that can be twisted molded and made new and fresh. Some people like old cars. Most people will admit there was style and flare in yesteryear and admire the work that has been done. To be sure there are purists among that group that says to change a thing is to ruin it, and some only love what is new and avant gard, but the majority of people if you borrow a bit of class from a bygone era and make it new again with all the modern advantages they are correctly impressed.

I loved the debate and philosophic aspects of old Mage, where belief had real meaning. Most people I talk to say it was anything possible. I always feel those people are missing the real point, that only what you believe is possible and understanding your characters beliefs are important. 

New Mage, I do like for its consistency and most of all Wisdom mechanic, something I hated about old Mage, (Mages made some of the best deviant serial killing monsters in Old World of Darkness because the lack of a morality trait) Also the struggle for finding a place in the world constantly tempted by incredible power, which is built to be your downfall if abused is something I love about new Mage. Of the things to salvage the philosophy and debate of beliefs, is one of the hardest thing to take from the old system to the new system. Sometimes, even though the gas mileage is poor, and its performance on the road is a bit boat-ish there is nothing quite like driving a 1978 Impala. New Mage isn't an old Mage replacement, rather it is a new thing entirely.

Werewolf The Apocalypse , there is a lot to be stolen from there, great place to steal ideas for Forsaken, someone's world is always ending somewhere, it doesn't have to be the big thing. Maybe its only an apartment building, or even just one man. It is easy to scale overly theatrical stuff down to be digestible, local and more personal. Besides blowing up the  whole world is only fun once. I don't miss old werewolf at all. Some people miss the grandiose meta-plot and fire and brimstone end of the world, personally I like sustainability.  If you want a play an RPG that is reads like an awesome Norse epic, that involves tree-hugging Child of Gaia hippies waving a politically correct flag, Apocalypse is for you. It is better for LARP because of the fore-mentioned hippies there is a lot more standing around talking.

Wraith was amazing and truly moving, Geist is great but not the same, apples and oranges. You can salvage parts from old wraith, but that is like making a boat from car parts, it really isn't the same. Of course there is Fan Supplements that do a conversion to the new system, and they've done a good job. If I were to play wraith again it would be that way, but as a stand alone, as it doesn't fit as well in the new WoD, though the update in the system is nice.

i like oWoD for the LARP system (not any line in particular) but i haven't had any experience outside of the LARP.  but something i do love with the nWoD that has interfered or been the center of the plot ofr every oWoD larp game i've played in is the lack of metaplot. but regardless of that the oWoD has a few games that i really wanna run that i don't ever see myself playing in (mummy and wraith)  

I think what's better depends a LOT upon what type of game you're looking for. However, I can only speak from my own perspective as someone who primarily played and then ran oldMage, then tried newMage, and am currently running oldMage with some newMage mechanics tacked on. So take this as you will;

For me, when trying newMage, the thing that struck me was how SMALL it was. Magic worked one way and it was basically the Crowley New Age school of thought that defined it. You could take all of the types of magic in newMage and it would pretty much amount to one single Tradition in oldMage.

The thing that I love about oldMage is the notion that reality was created by the beliefs of humanity and that mages are people who push the limits of the possible. Any form of magic worked so long as you believed in it and had awakened to the fact that magic (as you understand it) is real. Thus you had Akashic Brothers focusing their Ki, Celestial Chorusists praying for miracles, Euthanatos playing with karma, members of the Order of Hermes incanting words of power, Sons of Ether playing with weird science, Verbena following the "Old Ways", and Virtual Adepts reprogramming reality into Reality 2.0. All of them work magic... all of them change the world in some fashion.

And that's just the basics... if those magical traditions don't appeal to you, you can be a Solitary (or Orphan) who works their magic in their own way.

Further, the notion that science is just a form of shaping reality (i.e. magic) that the common man can understand and accept (within limits... they still don't believe in ray guns and FTL... yet) was perhaps the most intriguing part for me. How many people really understand what's going on inside their computers or cell phones or is it just a "magic box"? And if it is just a magic box then clicking on an icon to bring about some end is just as much a matter of faith (unless you actually understand the coding involved in your computer's programming language) as praying to God for miracle.

Which in turn sets up one of the main conflicts in oldMage... that of the mystical traditions against the Technocractic Union... a group of mages dedicated to pushing science that, in the process lost its soul, and now seeks to stamp out any belief in anything other than itself and its science because it believes it's the savior of mankind.

That is probably the biggest draw to me... the notion that EVERYTHING is true (to some degree or another) provides a LOT of flexibility in terms of character concepts and storyarcs. You want to believe in Native American Shamanism or the Oriental Mandate of Heaven or that reality is just a giant computer program you've learned to hack? No problem. It's not only possible, its actively encouraged.

One semi-mechanical aspect that I definitely preferred in oldMage as well was that rotes simply were NOT that important to spellcasting. The free-form system of combining spheres (arcana in newMage) to create magical effects lends itself far more to creativity than the massive rote lists of newMage (at least, in my experience). A subtle mage could even make something like a blast of Forces magic coincidental if they were paying attention to their surroundings and described things properly (falling electrical lines, exploding gas mains, cars going out of control and hitting your foes, tripping onto the third rail, your foe's gun misfiring and exploding in their hand).

Related to this is that, with few exceptions, no rote or effect was automatically vulgar or coincidental (covert), but depended upon the circumstances and how the effect manifested (i.e. whether or not a normal person would be believe such a thing was possible or not) and the level of acceptance of those bearing witness (a faith-healing at a religious revival would likely be coincidental for example).

That said, I do like several of the nWoD rules and have incorporated versions of them into my oldMage game. Most specific is the nWoD Power/Finesse/Resist setup for attributes and the Defense trait (instead of Dex+Dodge) for combat resolution. A more subtle one was assigning a second specialty sphere and an inferior sphere to each Tradition.

To sum up; what's worthwhile about oWoD to me is the setting and cosmology of oldMage which I find to be infinitely broader in scope than that of nWoD. Outside of Mage though, I have almost nothing to offer because neither Vampire nor Werewolf in either version appealed to me especially much.

For me, I could never really pinpoint what it was about the nWoD that I didn't like.  I like the oWoD's metaplot.  I liked that it was unbalanced and more in depth, and sometimes downright unfair.  But there was always something else I just couldn't put my finger on.  Until it dawned on me.  The oWoD was Gothic-Punk personal horror. The nWoD is just Gothic personal horror, and it really shows.  The overall power and scope are much smaller, and scalled in the nWoD game, and it can not really be used for much beyond what it is. The options in the oWoD had kind of vanished.  So running a vampire game through the ages, while still possible, just doesn't work the same. The philosphy for books is much less about creating something (like plot or continuation) and much more on putting possibilities into the gamers hands.  All in all, I prefere the oWoD in pretty much every case.

Vampire, I'm very bias towards VtM and I really dislike most everything about VtR. Not bashing it, I just can not get into it for a lot of reasons.

Mage, I'm sort of split.  I like most of the MtA1, and I like the mechanics of MtA2, but I really don't care at all for most of the history and mythology.

Werewolf, I liked the concepts, interplay, politics, etc of WtA and am neutral on most other aspects.  WtF, I really don't know what to do with.  Maybe it is just me, but I can't seem to get any extended story there.

Wraith/Geist, I loved parts of Wraith but it was just to dang difficult to run the way I wanted to (more ghost less underworld). I do not yet have Geist, (actually having difficulty locating it, arg!!!).

Changling, I like them both, but neither are really my favorate game.  The fact that Changlings are more playable with everything else, (one of the few cases that I like the balance idea, somewhat, but it is also primarily the the mythology doesn't go completely against the others, too).

Mortal, in my opinion, the only real case that the nWoD really shines, both over the oWoD and "truely shines". While thee isn't a lot that you could not do in the oWoD (even as a mortal), the nWoD really focuses on mortal first, monster later if at all. Whereas vampire (VtM) made the players vampires in a world of mortals, the nWoD started with only mortals and built everything else around them. In some ways, I think that the nWoD is more realistic, it is not necessarily more mature (not in the porn sense). Again, not bashing, that is just my opinion. I find it really hard to get into the nWoD for various reason.  One of them is that everyone just seems so generic.  The stats just don't really show enough, the fact that 1 and 4 successes are usually the exact same thing, and the lack of freebie points to make your character a little more personal and what you want.  Every time I make a character or NPC, I just feel like I want more and can't get it.

Chris24601:

The thing that I love about oldMage is the notion that reality was created by the beliefs of humanity and that mages are people who push the limits of the possible. Any form of magic worked so long as you believed in it and had awakened to the fact that magic (as you understand it) is real. Thus you had Akashic Brothers focusing their Ki, Celestial Chorusists praying for miracles, Euthanatos playing with karma, members of the Order of Hermes incanting words of power, Sons of Ether playing with weird science, Verbena following the "Old Ways", and Virtual Adepts reprogramming reality into Reality 2.0. All of them work magic... all of them change the world in some fashion.

This IS the reason I HATE new mage.  Cookie F'ing Cutter mages.  Well said.

Chris24601:

Which in turn sets up one of the main conflicts in oldMage... that of the mystical traditions against the Technocractic Union... a group of mages dedicated to pushing science that, in the process lost its soul, and now seeks to stamp out any belief in anything other than itself and its science because it believes it's the savior of mankind.

One of the things that keep me from getting into nWoD Mage was the . . . well . . . lack of a bad guy.  Now I know that there are things from beyond the abyss that your are fighting or some such, but there is not a "Bad Guy" in the true meaning of the word.

Chris24601:

One semi-mechanical aspect that I definitely preferred in oldMage as well was that rotes simply were NOT that important to spellcasting. The free-form system of combining spheres (arcana in newMage) to create magical effects lends itself far more to creativity than the massive rote lists of newMage (at least, in my experience). A subtle mage could even make something like a blast of Forces magic coincidental if they were paying attention to their surroundings and described things properly (falling electrical lines, exploding gas mains, cars going out of control and hitting your foes, tripping onto the third rail, your foe's gun misfiring and exploding in their hand).

100% agree

BloodKnarledFur:

This IS the reason I HATE new mage.  Cookie F'ing Cutter mages.  Well said.

Thanks.

The thing of it is... if you'd never played oldMage before (which the original poster stated) I'm not sure you'd ever even realize what you were missing out on. NewMage's systems and world are well thought out and internally consistent and an excellent game system IF it weren't being billed as the replacement for oldMage.

BloodKnarledFur:

One of the things that keep me from getting into nWoD Mage was the . . . well . . . lack of a bad guy.  Now I know that there are things from beyond the abyss that your are fighting or some such, but there is not a "Bad Guy" in the true meaning of the word.

The big problem is, and it's one I've dealt with from time to time when characters who want to portray a sympathetic Technocracy type who can put aside their differences to work with the Traditions comes into my campaign, there's only so many times you can play the "evil cultist/Lovecraftian horror" card before it gets old. Most of the bad guys in newMage are just other mages with different agendas. They aren't even outright EVIL (like the Nephandi of oldMage), INSANE (like the Marauders of oldMage), or MONOLITHIC (like the Technocracy of oldMage)... just different agendas.

Which honestly (to me) makes the newMage setting seem geared more for LARPing (where your primary "foes" are going to be other players with different agendas) than any sort of epic conflict (a War of Ideas only sounds lame until you remember that belief creates reality and my idea that chanting in Enochian and pointing a wand causes a massive bolt of lightning to hurl your way is the logical response to your idea that a cybernetic plasma rifle should be able to roast me alive).

Chris24601:

NewMage's systems and world are well thought out and internally consistent and an excellent game system IF it weren't being billed as the replacement for oldMage.

Who's billing Awakening as a replacement for Ascension?

JimB:

Who's billing Awakening as a replacement for Ascension?

Well, White Wolf did. You may remember back in 2004 they ended all the old World of Darkness lines and replaced them with the new World of Darkness lines. The very fact that they ended the old World of Darkness their next series of books (advertised in all the Time of Judgement supplements) was called the NEW World of Darkness says that it was a replacement.

From my perspective, saying that Awakening was not billed as the replacement for Ascension is rather like saying that Windows Vista was not billed as a replacement for Windows XP.

Chris24601:

JimB:

Who's billing Awakening as a replacement for Ascension?

Well, White Wolf did.

I think you and I disagree on the meaning of the word "billing," which according to my dictionary means "advertising as by public notice."  I don't remember anyone from White Wolf ever saying, "If you liked Ascension, you'll love Awakening!"  I don't remember them ever making a statement that we should buy it based on comparison to the old World of Darkness at all.  The only people who're comparing it as a selling point are the players, and that's crap.  Refusing to judge something on its own merits because it's not the thing that came before it is spectacularly unfair.

Chris24601:

You may remember back in 2004 they ended all the old World of Darkness lines and replaced them with the new World of Darkness lines.

If you were being serious: Yes, I recall that.  If you were being sarcastic: Don't be a jerk.  Only I'm allowed to be a jerk.

Chris24601:

The very fact that they ended the old World of Darkness their next series of books (advertised in all the Time of Judgement supplements) was called the NEW World of Darkness says that it was a replacement.

There are World of Darkness ads in the back of some of my Exalted books, too.  No one's making the assertion that the new World of Darkness is a replacement for Exalted.

Chris24601:

From my perspective, saying that Awakening was not billed as the replacement for Ascension is rather like saying that Windows Vista was not billed as a replacement for Windows XP.

I think your perspective is wrong.  A company cannot decide what replaces what you're already using.  They can only decide what they're going to publish.  It is the consumer who decides when a product replaces what he's using.