Wraith: Minor Sales Problem
James Nicoll
standing about a meter in front of it at the time, but alas
the store was not pitch black and for some reason I don't
have UV lights rigged in my store, so the nifty 'glow in the
dark, but *completely* invisible in the light' _Wraith_ logo
couldn't be read. Maybe it's just me, but in general I haven't
found that unseeable games sell particularly well. The stealth
logo might not be the stupidest marketing idea I've ever seen
('Free Game Box Included' for a bookshelf game was, judging how
well TFG did with _History of WWII_) but it sure is a contender.
Do real people come up with ideas this bad on their own, or do
they rent brain tumours for the occasion?
A suggestion for the WW folk: in the second edition of
_Wraith_, pehaps the logo could visible to human eyes? So few
of my customers have guide-bees.
James Nicoll
--
"(The severed hand) drew a crowd real quick," Webber added. "Everybody
quit working. Pretty soon, I told them to put the hand back in the glove
box and go back to work. Then we got to thinking, maybe we better call
the police."
Timothy Toner
James Nicoll <jam...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> A suggestion for the WW folk: in the second edition of
>_Wraith_, pehaps the logo could visible to human eyes? So few
>of my customers have guide-bees.
From the trickle of blood coming out of their left eye, and the wisps
of smoke emerging from either ear, clearly visible at GenCon, btw,
I think it's safe to say that it was a printing blooper, and we shouldn't
rake the marketing/editing/creative team through the mud like we normally
do. As a matter of fact, I'm getting the impression (probably left in
my brain from all the negative psychic energies given off by WW Staffers
when they bring it up) that all the dropped text and cover typos _aren't_
the fault of the creative/editing teams, but rather forces that are quite
beyond their control (printers, etc., who can only promise to get it right
the next time, when the book is already 1 day late). They won't SAY this
is the problem, since that would be unprofessional, but they're taking
these snafus _really_ well (in public).
---
than...@interaccess.com / "Want to go to Toner's after this?
DeathUrge, Master of Unknown \ I always like it."
Time and Space. / - John Constantine, _Hellblazer_
"It's a Zen thing. You wouldn't understand."
--
than...@interaccess.com / "Want to go to Toner's after this?
DeathUrge, Master of Unknown \ I always like it."
Time and Space. / - John Constantine, _Hellblazer_
"It's a Zen thing. You wouldn't understand."
Jeffrey O Pfaffmann
>_Wraith_, pehaps the logo could visible to human eyes? So few
>of my customers have guide-bees.
>
> James Nicoll
I once again reiterate what I said when I saw it, "That's silly"
Went asked if I ment them WW themselves I replied, "Well their
silly for even doing it"
And you know the more I think about it, they really are silly.
Not just normal silly, but real honest to God Ahnk toteing
sillies.
IMHO of course!
See ya,
Jeff.
Jamison Graff
>found that unseeable games sell particularly well. The stealth
Cool! Just like the fabled Spinal Tap "Black Album". Well, it does
help to make sure that only tragically hip conventioneers will be able
to buy the game, and we wouldn't want anyone unworthy to own it.
Jamison
--
Jamison Graff
Dept. of Industrial Engineering & Management Science
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
jtg...@nwu.edu, jam...@merle.acns.nwu.edu
Moses Moore
>standing about a meter in front of it at the time, but alas
>the store was not pitch black and for some reason I don't
>have UV lights rigged in my store, so the nifty 'glow in the
>dark, but *completely* invisible in the light' _Wraith_ logo
>couldn't be read.
To add insult to injury, after he indicated the book to me (the only reason
I entered the store was to pick it up and look for Mage stuff), my eyes
passed over the Mage books and I decided not to buy this book.
Why? I play around with Mage:tA all the time, and I will not buy the
actual rulebook -- I'm waiting for the second edition to come out, with
it's bug fixes and overhauls. Remembering how I'm waiting years now to
not waste $20+, I thought I'd better do the same for Wraith too... I
bought V:tM and got burned by newbies who don't know the 1st ed rules.
I bought the W:tA and got burned a second time (mostly by it not being
to my tastes, but now the rules are antiquated to people I will be
encountering).
Twice burned for >$45. I learned my lesson and I'm waiting for the
second edition Mage. I'm going to do the same with Wraith -- so those
1st edition rulebooks from WW are so much tree corpse to me.
Happy ending: We talked about Jyhad, and traded some vampire cards before
I left.
--
'finger jajm...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca | grep <subject>' for Internet Services.
GCS(T) d- H+++ s:+ g- p0 !au a- w+ v++(-) C++$ UUS++(++++$) /Moses Moore
P+>++ L>+ !3 E--- N++ K++ W++(--) M- !V po* Y t+ 5- !j /CompSci Club, UW
R(+) G+ tv b+ D++ B--- e+ u+(-) h-- f++ r++ n* y++ /#include<disclaim.h>
David Nalle
>>
Why? I play around with Mage:tA all the time, and I will not buy the
actual rulebook -- I'm waiting for the second edition to come out, with
it's bug fixes and overhauls. Remembering how I'm waiting years now to
not waste $20+, I thought I'd better do the same for Wraith too...
<<
While a new edition may fix the cosmetic flaws and typos, nothing is
ever going to fix the basic, fundamental design flaws in WW's games.
The problem is that they think that the huge, glaring bad mechanics
in their system are assets rather than liabilities, and no one can
free them from their delusive state.
Dave
Timothy Toner
David Nalle <d...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
Advocacy, Mr. Nalle. A-d-v-o-c-a-c-y. When something you're going to
post is an opinion that contains no constructive criticism about a
game system and/or its aherents, it belongs in rec.games.frp.advocacy.
That's what it's (<--hey, LOOK! It's THERE! <--It's there AGAIN! 8^p)
for. That's why I don't read it, because by and large, r.g.f.a. becomes
a cesspool of negative thinking. If people are having FUN playing it, then
it's worth the buckazoids they paid for it.
"Delusive state." That's the second time this week you've used that phrase
that I've noticed. Methinks it might be an indication that perhaps
delusion is in the eye--and mind--of the beholder.
In the interest of CONSTRUCTIVE critiquing, let me append this:
1) Posting what you feel is wrong with Mage will help the consumer better
understand the length and bredth of your problems with the product, and
allow them to form their own opinion. Posting sweeping generalizations
will only annoy those of us who already have made an educated opinion and
confuse those who have not. In short, we don't NEED it.
2) Not every game can be Ysgarth. Not every game WANTS or TRIES to be
Ysgarth. As the designer of Ysgarth, you've probably said, "That's the
best I can put out, given my resources." If there was a BETTER game,
then why bother with your own. This in itself biases your opinion. MAge
is not Ysgarth. Werewolf is not Ysgarth. Vampire, Wraith and StreetFighter
are not Ysgarth. But they've sold MORE than Ysgarth. Why? Well, you'll
have us believe that they're all deluded FOOLS! I know sales does not indicate
quality, but it does give a good idea what kind of games people want to
play, and apparently, they want to play the Storyteller series, more than
likely because they like the kludgy setting, and are willing to forgive
the squicked mechanics. They're human beings with above average intelligences
(they've picked up a RPG, after all 8^P). They'll compensate if it means
that they'll have a good time. You have the right to your opinion, but
so do we all, ESPECIALLY the deluded fools who play the Storyteller games.
Accept that.
3) Good luck on the Magic: The Gathering booster set. That's a royal
coup if I ever saw one, and will definitely make a few eyes wander toward
the Ragnarok section of the store.
4) Too bad that White Wolf beat you to the punch, with its own seperate
game to boot, that seems to be selling darn well, kludgy mechanics and
all. DOn't you love these extended metaphors? 8^p.
>
>Dave
>
James Nicoll
Moses Moore <jajm...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>To add insult to injury, after he indicated the book to me (the only reason
>I entered the store was to pick it up and look for Mage stuff), my eyes
>passed over the Mage books and I decided not to buy this book.
>
>Why? I play around with Mage:tA all the time, and I will not buy the
>actual rulebook -- I'm waiting for the second edition to come out, with
>it's bug fixes and overhauls. Remembering how I'm waiting years now to
>not waste $20+, I thought I'd better do the same for Wraith too... I
>bought V:tM and got burned by newbies who don't know the 1st ed rules.
>I bought the W:tA and got burned a second time (mostly by it not being
>to my tastes, but now the rules are antiquated to people I will be
>encountering).
>
>Twice burned for >$45. I learned my lesson and I'm waiting for the
>second edition Mage. I'm going to do the same with Wraith -- so those
>1st edition rulebooks from WW are so much tree corpse to me.
>
>Happy ending: We talked about Jyhad, and traded some vampire cards before
>I left.
The other happy ending is that I offered to pay the postage if
he chose to send a postcard to WW telling them *why* he didn't buy _Wraith_.
This offer is open to any of my customers.
FWIW, I called WW to ask if I could get the errata for _Wraith_.
First I was told none were needed, and then that WW doesn't *do* errata.
Ah well, I tried the nice route.
Anthony Ragan
jam...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) writes:
>
> FWIW, I called WW to ask if I could get the errata for _Wraith_.
>First I was told none were needed, and then that WW doesn't *do* errata.
>Ah well, I tried the nice route.
That's typical of WW's miserable attitude towards customer service:
they did the same thing with the ArM3 release, which was an editing and
layout disaster. Would it really cost them so much to make errata
available for the price of a SASE, like a certain company with whom
they no longer have good relations? :)
--Anthony
ecz...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu -OR- Iris...@aol.com
Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda, Snotling in Chief
Peter Donald
(Anthony Ragan) writes:
> That's typical of WW's miserable attitude towards customer service:
>they did the same thing with the ArM3 release, which was an editing and
>layout disaster. Would it really cost them so much to make errata
>available for the price of a SASE, like a certain company with whom
>they no longer have good relations? :)
Yep - then they'd have to admit just how shoddily put together their
product is. I mean a decent set of errata for Wampire would probably be
almost as long as the main rulebook...
--
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the
black flag and begin slitting throats."---------H. L. Mencken
John
>I bought the W:tA and got burned a second time (mostly by it not being
>to my tastes, but now the rules are antiquated to people I will be
>encountering).
What exactly are the differences between 1st and 2nd edition rules?
(and why would I want to start playing 2nd edition rules for any
of the systems?)(except W:tA, since I never picked up the 1st edition).
Also, I keep seeing references to all the problems with Mage.. anyone
care to describe what these are? It doesn't appear to have any
problems except the 'problems' people say are indemic to all of the
storyteller games.
John
--
John "Kzin" Rudd gt6...@prism.gatech.edu (ex-...@cc.gatech.edu)
Ascii Mail only (no Nextmail) (ex-...@ucscb.ucsc.edu)
========Intel: Putting the backward in backward compatable.===============
James Nicoll
Anthony Ragan <ecz...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <Cv7Lu...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
>jam...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) writes:
>>
>>First I was told none were needed, and then that WW doesn't *do* errata.
>>Ah well, I tried the nice route.
>
>they did the same thing with the ArM3 release, which was an editing and
>layout disaster. Would it really cost them so much to make errata
>available for the price of a SASE, like a certain company with whom
>they no longer have good relations? :)
Here's an idea: why not create the _Wraith_ errata using the
folks on the 'net. No effort needed by WW, and a copy could even be
sent to them for reference in 2nd edition.
This would have to be done by people who don't get migraines looking
at that first section.
To start things off:
Back cover: 'itis' should be 'it is' and 'no where' should be
'nowhere'.
James Wallis
> In article <Cv5HL...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
> James Nicoll <jam...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > A suggestion for the WW folk: in the second edition of
> >_Wraith_, pehaps the logo could visible to human eyes? So few
> >of my customers have guide-bees.
>
> my brain from all the negative psychic energies given off by WW Staffers
> when they bring it up) that all the dropped text and cover typos _aren't_
> the fault of the creative/editing teams, but rather forces that are quite
> beyond their control (printers, etc., who can only promise to get it right
> the next time, when the book is already 1 day late). They won't SAY this
> is the problem, since that would be unprofessional, but they're taking
> these snafus _really_ well (in public).
White Wolf print their games at McNaughton & Gunn in Ann Arbor, which
is the same printer used by about 25% of all role-playing companies. I
visited them in late July and saw RPGs from Palladium, White
Wolf, Marquee Press, Phage Press and some other company whose
mechanics I didn't recognise going through their presses.
McNaughton & Gunn are an incredibly professional outfit. More
related to the topic: they're printers, not typesetters. They
print the material they are given. If it includes errors, they
print the errors: it's not their job to check through every
project they receive and try to second-guess whether the client
really wanted things that way. Like all good printers around the
world, they do what they are told to do.
If White Wolf are blaming their printer for the quality of the
printing of "Wraith", it's because somebody at WW gave the printer
the wrong instructions, or the wrong artwork.
--
James Wallis <> INTER*ACTION 2 out in Dec '94.
BOAR BOOKS ("Anything's game") <> <> The long-heralded BUGTOWN RPG
(boar...@wonder.demon.co.uk) <> will be published in May 1995
Bryan J. Maloney
>the fault of the creative/editing teams, but rather forces that are quite
>beyond their control (printers, etc., who can only promise to get it right
>the next time, when the book is already 1 day late). They won't SAY this
>is the problem, since that would be unprofessional, but they're taking
>these snafus _really_ well (in public).
Wait just one cotton-picking minute, there!
ONCE blaming it on the printer would be acceptable--everybody can get
screwed over by a printer. TWICE blaming it on a printer would make me
seriously doubt the intelligence of their business officer. THIS MANY TIMES
blaming it on a printer tells me that SOMEBODY at White Wolf (not one
of the writers but some yutz in the business end of the concern) is
shirking his job to an intolerable level of incompetence.
Yeah, it's inconvenient to find a good printer, but one would think that
the business end of White Wolf might have the merest shreds of sanity
and intelligence necessary to seek out a worthwhile concern to send their
work to. SJG managed to do it--in the MIDDLE of their monetary problems!
Then again, would anyone care to review WW's history of customer support?
--
Bryan Maloney
Bryan J. Maloney
Actually, my biggest problem with the Storyteller _SYSTEM_ is that it
is the epitome of what I call "numerical roleplaying" or "numbers as
roleplaying".
In many ways, Storyteller is the culmination of certain trends in Hero
and GURPS, specifically that one can assign a numerical value to
personality traits and then those numbers define central aspects of the
character's personality and behavior. Whatever happened to roleplaying
via roleplaying instead of having to consult quantities of "humanity",
"conscience", "rage", etc?
--
Bryan Maloney
Bobby Hitt
>> FWIW, I called WW to ask if I could get the errata for _Wraith_.
>>First I was told none were needed, and then that WW doesn't *do* errata.
>>Ah well, I tried the nice route.
>
> That's typical of WW's miserable attitude towards customer service:
>they did the same thing with the ArM3 release, which was an editing and
>layout disaster. Would it really cost them so much to make errata
>available for the price of a SASE, like a certain company with whom
>they no longer have good relations? :)
>--Anthony
Actually, WW does do errata. After Mage came out last year, an errata sheet
was printed in White Wolf magazine, the next Mage supplement, and made
available to all who asked. I was told that the same would be done with
Wraith, in addition to posting the errata to the net. WW tends to respond
rather favorably to those who don't have a miserable attitude toward _them_.
James Nicoll
Bobby Hitt <bh...@gab.unt.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994082714...@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECZ...@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Anthony Ragan) writes:
>
>>> FWIW, I called WW to ask if I could get the errata for _Wraith_.
>>>First I was told none were needed, and then that WW doesn't *do* errata.
>>>Ah well, I tried the nice route.
>>
>> That's typical of WW's miserable attitude towards customer service:
>>they did the same thing with the ArM3 release, which was an editing and
>>layout disaster. Would it really cost them so much to make errata
>>available for the price of a SASE, like a certain company with whom
>>they no longer have good relations? :)
>
>was printed in White Wolf magazine, the next Mage supplement, and made
>available to all who asked. I was told that the same would be done with
>Wraith, in addition to posting the errata to the net. WW tends to respond
>rather favorably to those who don't have a miserable attitude toward _them_.
I'm not sure how offering to distribute errata sheets for them
through my store shows a negative attitude, and I don't recall identifying
myself by name in the conversation. The person I was talking to seemed
dubious that there was a need for errata and then told me that WW doesn't
supply errata. If they'd said 'errata will be in an upcoming issue of
White Wolf Magazine' that'd be fine, but if they do intend on making
the corrections available, they aren't telling the retailers. That's a
PR error, and it isn't clear what they would think they gain from it.
Endie
>Subject: Re: Wraith: Minor Sales Problem
>McNaughton & Gunn are an incredibly professional outfit. More
>related to the topic: they're printers, not typesetters. They
>print the material they are given. If it includes errors, they
>print the errors: it's not their job to check through every
>project they receive and try to second-guess whether the client
>really wanted things that way. Like all good printers around the
>world, they do what they are told to do.
>If White Wolf are blaming their printer for the quality of the
>printing of "Wraith", it's because somebody at WW gave the printer
>the wrong instructions, or the wrong artwork.
>James Wallis <> INTER*ACTION 2 out in Dec '94.
I can't speak about McNaughton & Gunn in particular, but I've got to second
that. We print dozens of publications every year, and if they look
tatty, it's the fault of Design. Printers are the ultimate in 'garbage in,
garbage out'. If you decide you want a CMYK fill without the CM and Y (which
is what seems to have happened here <g>), then they'll print you a black logo
on a black book. Minimalism is so passe, dahling :) These days, you send the
printer a file, either postscript, of a print file for their Linotronic
Whatever, or Photoshop or whatever, and they don't even get to see it.. out it
comes, _just like you asked for_ (unless you used Corel 4.0 :)
Endie
>While a new edition may fix the cosmetic flaws and typos, nothing is
>ever going to fix the basic, fundamental design flaws in WW's games.
>The problem is that they think that the huge, glaring bad mechanics
>in their system are assets rather than liabilities, and no one can
>free them from their delusive state.
>Dave
What an arrogant statement. You almost seem to have a dislike of WW that goes
beyond purely gaming matters, and leads you to make foolish accusations like
that above. Gaming systems are subjective matters, especially when simulating
the imaginary (how would a vampire be affected by a shotgun ?). What matters
is that people, very often, like the system. It is not flawless, but no
system is, after all. I like it because it's simple enough not to get in the
way of my group and I telling a story together. People buy it... lots more
people than buy the so-called 'better' systems so applauded by WW-phobics.
And do you have to keep going on about 'delusive states' ?
Jennifer Carolyn Boggess
|> In article <33nrh1$e...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu> d...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:
|>
|> >ever going to fix the basic, fundamental design flaws in WW's games.
|> >The problem is that they think that the huge, glaring bad mechanics
|> >in their system are assets rather than liabilities, and no one can
|> >free them from their delusive state.
|> >Dave
Granted that the mechanics can be clumsy (I'm thinking specifically
of _Masquerade_'s group combat system), but I think "glaring bad"
is a bit of an overstatement.
|> . . . Gaming systems are subjective matters, especially when simulating
|> the imaginary . . . What matters
|> is that people, very often, like the system.
Very true. For example, I've met three different (and very good)
role-players. One gushed over the White Wolf games and couldn't
stand Ysgarth, one liked Ysgarth a lot but felt the White Wolf
Storyteller games were deeply flawed, and one felt that they were
both admirable, one in the gothic-punk world and one in the weird-
fantasy league. I've met a lot of gamers who felt that both were
flawed. I happen to think that Ysgarth has too many rules and
that White Wolf's quality is uneven, but there are good points
to both.
|> It is not flawless, but no
|> system is, after all.
Not even Suburban Slasher. ;)
|> I like it because it's simple enough not to get in the
|> way of my group and I telling a story together. People buy it... lots more
|> people than buy the so-called 'better' systems so applauded by WW-phobics.
You don't need to remind Dave of that, I'm sure.
--
- Boggles
jbog...@owlnet.rice.edu
John Cooper
>rake the marketing/editing/creative team through the mud like we normally
>do. As a matter of fact, I'm getting the impression (probably left in
>my brain from all the negative psychic energies given off by WW Staffers
>when they bring it up) that all the dropped text and cover typos _aren't_
>the fault of the creative/editing teams, but rather forces that are quite
>beyond their control (printers, etc., who can only promise to get it right
>the next time, when the book is already 1 day late). They won't SAY this
>is the problem, since that would be unprofessional, but they're taking
>these snafus _really_ well (in public).
Right. WW can be thought of as three separate departments: E&D (editing
and development), Production (layout, typesetting, etc.), and S&M (sales
and marketting, etc.). Once a game leaves E&D, it is up to Production to
put all the pieces together properly and see that it reaches its final
form the way E&D envisioned it. You can blame E&D for stupid ideas and
bad writing, but you can't blame them for layout errors, cross-referencing
errors, or other production-related snafus.
And believe me, E&D gets just as upset over "page XX" mistakes as the
rest of us. Of course, when forces within a company insist that a new game
must reach GenCon one year after the last one, regardless of whether or not
it is ready, well, what do you expect?
-John
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| John R. Cooper | Internet: j...@vivitech.com, |
| Vivid Technologies, Inc. | jco...@world.std.com |
| Waltham, MA 02154 | AOL: JRCooper (jrco...@aol.com) |
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| | GCS/O d H s g+ p? au>+ a- w v++ C++$ U-- |
| "Rub her feet." | P- L- 3- E N+ K++ W++ M++ V -po+ Y+ t++@ |
| - Long's Notes | 5 j R+++$ G' tv@ b+ D+ B--- e++ u** h--- |
| | f+ r++ n->+ y+++*>$ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Eric Tolle
>Also, I keep seeing references to all the problems with Mage.. anyone
>care to describe what these are? It doesn't appear to have any
>problems except the 'problems' people say are indemic to all of the
>storyteller games.
Allow me to be cynical and sarcastic for a moment....
Structurally, the main problems with mage is that the magic system is very
open-ended and undefined. Instead of a specific spell-list they have certain
effects that one can do at a given level of knowlege. this can lead to quite
a bit of confusion and debate.
And of course in the inimicable WW manner, certain sections are extreemly
vague, leeding to lots of frustration.
Philisophically, there are a few other points of dislike: (put on your
whiney voice...)
It's not Ars Magica. Certain 'Ars Snobs' are so into Ars Magica that they
thought they should use Ars Magica's highly specific and very limited magic
system. In their view, _NOT_ being Ars Magic dooms any magic system to
inferiority.
(reall whiney voice) Mages are too Pooooweeerfullll (whine whine) These are
the people who think that all WoD denizens should be inferior to the vampires.
These are known as 'Vamp Posers'. Mages are _not_ more powerful then vamps,
but they just want all other characters to be servile to vampires, I guess.
I hate the mileu: The world is a huge conspiracy, reality is consensual, and
the secret masters of the world are not vampires. These people can
accept the idea of vampires, weres and wraiths, but can't get beyond the basic
premise of mage. No comment, 'cause if I did, it would be unprintable.
(absolute constipated look) its not World of Darkness. To these people the
WoD should consist of week, terminally depressed, helpless characters adrift
on a sea of nihilism and despair. Everyone should wear black clothing and
hang around in Goth nightclubs mooning about how hopless everything is and
how existance is a neverending hell. Mages have a large degree of hope and
can actually do something about their goals, and so obviously are not
Gothic Punk.
Plus, mages can get away with wearing Hawiian shirts, yet another source
of aggrevated damage to vamps...
Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
Yeah, i'm rude mean, sarcastic and bitter. I spent the weekend reading
Wraith.
Bruce Baugh
>Granted that the mechanics can be clumsy (I'm thinking specifically
>of _Masquerade_'s group combat system), but I think "glaring bad"
>is a bit of an overstatement.
As nearly as I've been able to tell, David Nalle and the folks at WW must
have been separated at birth. David (I think) hates them so passionately
precisely because they, like he, feels that there is an optimal approach to
rolegaming...but it's not his. I've never seen David quite come to terms
with the fact that rolegaming serves different purposes for different
people, and that therefore systems are right to vary in how they handle
things.
--
bru...@teleport.com | "People outlive governments now." - Bruce Sterling
| "I din't know you was a bona fide hippocritical
Bruce Baugh | oaf." - Walt Kelly
Jason D Corley
Eric Tolle <unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
>Structurally, the main problems with mage is that the magic system is very
>open-ended and undefined. Instead of a specific spell-list they have certain
>effects that one can do at a given level of knowlege. this can lead to quite
>a bit of confusion and debate.
This is very true. In our local gaming group, we have found it to
be much more useful to call the whole thing a GM fiat. There's
nothing wrong with that, however. Better for them to give us no
answers than wrong answers.
--
*******************************************************************************
"Television is a medium of entertainment which permits millions of people to
listen to the same joke at the same time, and yet remain lonesome."--T.S.Eliot
Jason D. "cor...@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley wanders the streets a free man.
Bryan J. Maloney
>is the same printer used by about 25% of all role-playing companies. I
>visited them in late July and saw RPGs from Palladium, White
>Wolf, Marquee Press, Phage Press and some other company whose
>mechanics I didn't recognise going through their presses.
>
>McNaughton & Gunn are an incredibly professional outfit. More
>related to the topic: they're printers, not typesetters. They
>print the material they are given. If it includes errors, they
>print the errors: it's not their job to check through every
>project they receive and try to second-guess whether the client
>really wanted things that way. Like all good printers around the
>world, they do what they are told to do.
>
>If White Wolf are blaming their printer for the quality of the
>printing of "Wraith", it's because somebody at WW gave the printer
>the wrong instructions, or the wrong artwork.
There's one endorsement of the printer that WW uses. Why aren't Phage
Press, Marquee Press, and Palladium constantly having to re-issue and
correct their stuff on the second printing if it's all the printer's fault?
Could someone answer me that?
--
Bryan Maloney
David Cake
>Actually, my biggest problem with the Storyteller _SYSTEM_ is that it
>is the epitome of what I call "numerical roleplaying" or "numbers as
>roleplaying".
A very different reason to why most people don't like them. Most people don't
like them because do not consistently offer sensible chances of success
relevent to skill, because they are oversimplified, and because they fall
apart at power levels away from the average.
>In many ways, Storyteller is the culmination of certain trends in Hero
>and GURPS, specifically that one can assign a numerical value to
>personality traits and then those numbers define central aspects of the
>character's personality and behavior. Whatever happened to roleplaying
>via roleplaying instead of having to consult quantities of "humanity",
>"conscience", "rage", etc?
The trend you identify is probably more directly drawn from Chaosiums
Pendragon, which much more explicitly quantifies all aspects of the
personality. It is also generally regarded as a great game for encouraging
real roleplaying.
What it means to quantify a characters personality is that the
personality can be drawn into the game easily, in a manner agreed on by
both GM and player, without argument. This means that game rewards and
integrating personality directly into the plot is common and worthwhile.
Experienced roleplayers tend to use their personality attributes directly
only at points of conflict, or as a note to themselves. Very bad roleplayers
at least can be forced into some semblance of roleplaying, and they may even
learn something.
I have to say that I have found that personality traits add a lot to
a game, and can work very well indeed, in the hands of a reasonably skilled
GM and players. It doesn't drive the roleplaying, it expresses it and helps
it interact with the rules.
While I have never played any WW games, I imagine that it similarly
can be a valuable role playing tool in those games too, if skillfully applied,
and I think that criticising it so vigoously either shows ignorance of how
such a technique can be used well (in which case, check out Pendragon) or
reflects a rather intolerant attitude, or both.
Cheers
Dave Cake
>--
>Bryan Maloney
--
David Cake |life is easily understood as bit strings with logical
|depth greater than their length - Rebis, Doom Patrol
Slowly, without trying, everyone becomes what he despises most. - Steve Albini
John
>(John) writes:
>>Also, I keep seeing references to all the problems with Mage.. anyone
>>care to describe what these are? It doesn't appear to have any
>>problems except the 'problems' people say are indemic to all of the
>>storyteller games.
>Allow me to be cynical and sarcastic for a moment....
>Structurally, the main problems with mage is that the magic system is very
>open-ended and undefined. Instead of a specific spell-list they have certain
>effects that one can do at a given level of knowlege. this can lead to quite
>a bit of confusion and debate.
So, you consider flexability to be a negative game feature? (I'm not sure
of the exact nature of your sarcasm here..)..
>And of course in the inimicable WW manner, certain sections are extreemly
>vague, leeding to lots of frustration.
>Philisophically, there are a few other points of dislike: (put on your
>whiney voice...)
>It's not Ars Magica. Certain 'Ars Snobs' are so into Ars Magica that they
>thought they should use Ars Magica's highly specific and very limited magic
>system. In their view, _NOT_ being Ars Magic dooms any magic system to
>inferiority.
yeah..well..This isn't the first time 2 different game systems have
been built around the same 'alternate history'. I would hate to have
to convert characters back and forth between an "Ars Magica Compatable
Mage:TheAssencion", and "The rest of the Storyteller system". That would
have been rather lame. And the magic system presented is incredibly
different from any I"ve seen in any other game... I definitely consider
it the best I've seen (Don't get my wrong.. while I like WW's games,
I don't buy in to the 'Cult of the White Wolf'.. and I mostly only like
the basic game books.. I definitely don't spend money on all the endless
clanbooks, etc).
>(reall whiney voice) Mages are too Pooooweeerfullll (whine whine) These are
>the people who think that all WoD denizens should be inferior to the vampires.
>These are known as 'Vamp Posers'. Mages are _not_ more powerful then vamps,
>but they just want all other characters to be servile to vampires, I guess.
>I hate the mileu: The world is a huge conspiracy, reality is consensual, and
>the secret masters of the world are not vampires. These people can
>accept the idea of vampires, weres and wraiths, but can't get beyond the basic
>premise of mage. No comment, 'cause if I did, it would be unprintable.
Since this last paragraph was separated I wasn't sure if you're saying
you hate the mileu, or they do. I like the way 'reality is what you make
it'.
>(absolute constipated look) its not World of Darkness. To these people the
>WoD should consist of week, terminally depressed, helpless characters adrift
>on a sea of nihilism and despair. Everyone should wear black clothing and
>hang around in Goth nightclubs mooning about how hopless everything is and
>how existance is a neverending hell. Mages have a large degree of hope and
>can actually do something about their goals, and so obviously are not
>Gothic Punk.
>Plus, mages can get away with wearing Hawiian shirts, yet another source
>of aggrevated damage to vamps...
*LAUGH* Yeah...well.. Probably doesn't help their world view that the
group of mages that do fit the Goth role are the mages who are least likely
to get really good at a sphere of magic (they pay more experience to raise
them), and are refered to as "hollow". :-)
David Nalle
>Advocacy, Mr. Nalle. A-d-v-o-c-a-c-y. When something you're going to
>post is an opinion that contains no constructive criticism about a
>game system and/or its aherents, it belongs in rec.games.frp.advocacy.
I'll keep that in mind. When I post something that has no content it will
go straight to advocacy. Where your argument falls down is that I've
got reasons for disliking Storyteller beyond the mere fact of how it's
marketed and the behavior of the publishers (which also seem to occupy
a lot of space on this group).
>That's what it's (<--hey, LOOK! It's THERE! <--It's there AGAIN! 8^p)
>for. That's why I don't read it, because by and large, r.g.f.a. becomes
>a cesspool of negative thinking. If people are having FUN playing it, then
>it's worth the buckazoids they paid for it.
This is patently untrue. The mere fact that a game has sold some copies
doesn't make the game good. The mere fact that people are playing it
doesn't make it a worthwhile game. If your argument were true, then
AD&D would be a great game and we'd all be worshiping it.
>In the interest of CONSTRUCTIVE critiquing, let me append this:
>
>1) Posting what you feel is wrong with Mage will help the consumer better
>understand the length and bredth of your problems with the product, and
>allow them to form their own opinion. Posting sweeping generalizations
>will only annoy those of us who already have made an educated opinion and
>confuse those who have not. In short, we don't NEED it.
I and others have already extensively posted on what's wrong with the
Storyteller system. Did you miss all those posts? Think of mine as the
conclusion to a long essay.
>2) Not every game can be Ysgarth. Not every game WANTS or TRIES to be
>Ysgarth. As the designer of Ysgarth, you've probably said, "That's the
>best I can put out, given my resources." If there was a BETTER game,
>then why bother with your own. This in itself biases your opinion. MAge
>is not Ysgarth. Werewolf is not Ysgarth. Vampire, Wraith and StreetFighter
>are not Ysgarth.
This is true. And I wouldn't expect them to be Ysgarth. But there ARE
plenty of other game systems which meet a certain basic level of design
competence, and they're not Ysgarth either. My problem with Storyteller
is that it substitutes hollow style for meaningful substance and it's
ultimately doing a disservice to those who play it. They're attracted by
the setting and they end up getting a very poor idea of roleplaying from
a game which manipulates them in a number of negative ways. I think
GURPS Vampire's a great thing, because it gives some of them the chance
to play the setting they want with mechanics which are fairly good.
>But they've sold MORE than Ysgarth. Why? Well, you'll
>have us believe that they're all deluded FOOLS!
No. Actually, the reasons should be obvious. We haven't taken out a paid
ad for Ysgarth since 1984. The traditionalist fantasy setting of Ysgarth
doesn't appeal to the same audience. They're not fools because they're
not buying Ysgarth. They're fools because they can't see through the
charade of Vampire to realize how little they're getting for their money.
>I know sales does not indicate
>quality, but it does give a good idea what kind of games people want to
>play, and apparently, they want to play the Storyteller series, more than
>likely because they like the kludgy setting, and are willing to forgive
>the squicked mechanics. They're human beings with above average intelligences
>(they've picked up a RPG, after all 8^P). They'll compensate if it means
>that they'll have a good time. You have the right to your opinion, but
>so do we all, ESPECIALLY the deluded fools who play the Storyteller games.
>Accept that.
I do accept it. But I also have the right and even the obligation to point
out to them that they ARE being fooled, no matter how unlikely it is that
I'll get through to them.
>3) Good luck on the Magic: The Gathering booster set. That's a royal
>coup if I ever saw one, and will definitely make a few eyes wander toward
>the Ragnarok section of the store.
Actually, the Ysgarth card set is a stand-alone or compatible set, with
more cards than anything released to date.
>4) Too bad that White Wolf beat you to the punch, with its own seperate
>game to boot, that seems to be selling darn well, kludgy mechanics and
>all. DOn't you love these extended metaphors? 8^p
Is that what it is? I've seen Jyhad, and reports are that it's passable,
but doesn't have the lasting playability of Magic itself.
Interestingly, the Ysgarth supplement went into design well before
Jyhad, but we wanted to make sure we perfected it before it went into
print. It was originally proposed for release before Jyhad. Send me
email if you want to hear details on why Jyhad came out first.
Dave
Paul Jackson
>The trend you identify is probably more directly drawn from Chaosiums
>Pendragon, which much more explicitly quantifies all aspects of the
>personality. It is also generally regarded as a great game for encouraging
>real roleplaying.
Generally, perhaps. Certainly not universally. I personally absolutely
loathe the Pendragon traits, at least AS THEY ARE DESCRIBED TO WORK IN THE
RULES. They can easily lead to complete non roleplaying when the dice
suddenly take control of the character.
The traits work well as descriptions and indicators, they work badly when
invoked to control the character. They DO work well to recreate Arthurian
mythos, mind you, where characters generally act in pretty random fashions a
whole lot of the time :-).
I think my single biggest problem with Pendragon traits is that all
characters HAVE to have a numerical value in all of them. There is therefore
no way of differentiating between something that really is a core part of a
characters personality and something that he just happens to do a fair bit.
The other problem, of course, is that a real character doesn't just act
heroically 80% of the time and cowardly 20% of the time randomly determined
by a dice roll.
--
Paul Jackson
David R. Henry
>Generally, perhaps. Certainly not universally. I personally absolutely
>loathe the Pendragon traits, at least AS THEY ARE DESCRIBED TO WORK IN THE
>RULES. They can easily lead to complete non roleplaying when the dice
>suddenly take control of the character.
You may have not read the Traits section in the rules that carefully;
the only time players are required to roll on them is when they get an
actual game advantage out of the Trait. For instance, having a 16 or higher
in any Trait gives you Glory equal to that Trait that year, a considerable
source of Glory for a lot of passionate knights. If you're going to rake
in the Glory for being, say, 17 Reckless, then the game figures that you
should be required to act Reckless to match your reputation. Otherwise,
your Reckless Trait falls, and you stop gaining Glory for it.
>I think my single biggest problem with Pendragon traits is that all
>characters HAVE to have a numerical value in all of them. There is therefore
>no way of differentiating between something that really is a core part of a
>characters personality and something that he just happens to do a fair bit.
Yes, but if your Traits are around 12/8, you're not usually ever required
to roll on them, so you can act like you want to with no strictures on
your role-playing. And since the game is an Arthurian game, part of the
idea is that of people getting so emotionally wrapped up in events that
they don't do things logically, which matches fine with the setting.
This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's
bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes...
--King Arthur
--
David R. Henry - Rogue Fan Club //// "Check the credits, Frank." --MJ-ST3K
"All you of Earth are IDIOTS!"-P9fOS / What was the question? -- Kate Bush
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu * Evolution: Give it some time, it'll grow on ya.
Eric Tolle
I wrotew (yes, it's all my fault)
> >Allow me to be cynical and sarcastic for a moment....
after all, it is my demeaner ;)
>So, you consider flexability to be a negative game feature? (I'm not sure
>of the exact nature of your sarcasm here..)..
Actually, let me make myself perfectly clear: I am not now, nor have I ever
been a member of....*ahem*. Actually, I like mage, I play Mage, it is
currently my favorite ST system. I also think the magic system, for all it's
flaws is the best on the market today, excepting possibly for the Lego's
Master system I did for Teanager's ;)
> >And of course in the inimicable WW manner, certain sections are extreemly
> >vague, leeding to lots of frustration.
as evidenced in a couple mailing lists...
> >I hate the mileu: The world is a huge conspiracy, reality is consensual, and
>Since this last paragraph was separated I wasn't sure if you're saying
>you hate the mileu, or they do. I like the way 'reality is what you make
>it'.
A-heh. It should have read "I hate the mileu". While it is not Illuminati,
the basic premises of Mage are about as easy to accept as those of Vampire,
Wraith, etc....sometimes I _do_ wish they had read less pirsig tho...
>*LAUGH* Yeah...well.. Probably doesn't help their world view that the
>group of mages that do fit the Goth role are the mages who are least likely
>to get really good at a sphere of magic (they pay more experience to raise
>them), and are refered to as "hollow". :-)
Actually the Hollow Ones tend to have a 'More WoD then thou" attitude...
except around Euthanatos, who really are Gothic and not posers.
And of course the Sons of Ether are gothic. What's more gothic then
wandering around around your castle tearing your hair out in agony over
the loss of your dear Lenore? Then deciding to make a new one?
yes, I did see 'Vincent' by Tim Burton...
Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
...but he wanted to be...Vincent Price! -'Vincent', Tim Burton
Bill Seurer
|> And believe me, E&D gets just as upset over "page XX" mistakes as the
|> rest of us. Of course, when forces within a company insist that a new game
|> must reach GenCon one year after the last one, regardless of whether or not
|> it is ready, well, what do you expect?
I expect them to catch on and release their products when they are ready
and not on some schedule unrelated to reality.
--
- Bill Seurer Language and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com Home: BillS...@aol.com
Jason D Corley
Eric Tolle <unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
>And of course the Sons of Ether are gothic. What's more gothic then
>wandering around around your castle tearing your hair out in agony over
>the loss of your dear Lenore? Then deciding to make a new one?
That ain't no raven. It's a Paradox Spirit, bucko.
Schwark R.
>ever going to fix the basic, fundamental design flaws in WW's games.
>The problem is that they think that the huge, glaring bad mechanics
>in their system are assets rather than liabilities, and no one can
>free them from their delusive state.
That's a matter of opinion. I happen to think the same of Gurps.
Realistically, once they've committed to a system, its theirs to keep...
Do you really think they'd do a complete system overhaul and say "whoops,
please throw out everything you did, and use this now. we were just kidding
before." I can just imagine the whining about that...
Ry
Scott Olson
In article <3422td...@charlie.summit.novell.com>, r...@summit.novell.com (Schwark R.) writes:
>Do you really think they'd do a complete system overhaul and say "whoops,
>please throw out everything you did, and use this now. we were just kidding
>before." I can just imagine the whining about that...
It's been done before: D&D/AD&D/AD&D 2nd Ed; Traveller/MegaTraveller/TNE,
RoleMaster (new version isn't out yet, but it's planned for release in stages
this fall and winter); etc. It's not impossible to revise/change a system,
it's just not always the norm.
Scott
Jack Dracula
By all means. Let's go.
>Structurally, the main problems with mage is that the magic system is very
>open-ended and undefined. Instead of a specific spell-list they have certain
>effects that one can do at a given level of knowlege. this can lead to quite
>a bit of confusion and debate.
But this is also one of the best features. No D&D spell lists, this
inspires creativity and role-playing, rewarding creative gamers for
their quick thinking. What that does unfortunately do is attract
powergamers who want to turn vampires into lawn furniture, but they
are just as quickly turned away by either ST Balance ("The Nephandi
turned -me- into a lawn chair?!") or the lack of Power-Gamer Reward
(No new level to get, no dragon hoard to plunder, no next level of
the dungeon.)
>And of course in the inimicable WW manner, certain sections are extreemly
>vague, leeding to lots of frustration.
You say frustration, we say ST discretion. I like vague areas. I don't
like the guy who memorized the Monster Manual, since everything is
so well-defined for him.
>Philisophically, there are a few other points of dislike: (put on your
>whiney voice...)
(I'll put on my clove-cigarette-smokin'-White-Wolf-defending voice...)
>It's not Ars Magica. Certain 'Ars Snobs' are so into Ars Magica that they
>thought they should use Ars Magica's highly specific and very limited magic
>system. In their view, _NOT_ being Ars Magic dooms any magic system to
>inferiority.
I never played it, but I'm beginning to consider giving it a try.
What's all this about demons in underwear?
>(reall whiney voice) Mages are too Pooooweeerfullll (whine whine) These are
>the people who think that all WoD denizens should be inferior to the vampires.
>These are known as 'Vamp Posers'. Mages are _not_ more powerful then vamps,
>but they just want all other characters to be servile to vampires, I guess.
Now, I guess I'm nominated to defend those of us we call Vamp Poseurs,
(since I'm sure, if you saw me, that's what you'd say.) But I agree
with what you say (character only as powerful as you play it) so we go on.
>I hate the mileu: The world is a huge conspiracy, reality is consensual, and
>the secret masters of the world are not vampires. These people can
>accept the idea of vampires, weres and wraiths, but can't get beyond the basic
>premise of mage. No comment, 'cause if I did, it would be unprintable.
The world -is- a huge conspiracy. But I digress.
>(absolute constipated look) its not World of Darkness. To these people the
>WoD should consist of week, terminally depressed, helpless characters adrift
>on a sea of nihilism and despair. Everyone should wear black clothing and
>hang around in Goth nightclubs mooning about how hopless everything is and
>how existance is a neverending hell. Mages have a large degree of hope and
>can actually do something about their goals, and so obviously are not
>Gothic Punk.
I hang around in goth clubs, making bad movie references. That count?
>Plus, mages can get away with wearing Hawiian shirts, yet another source
>of aggrevated damage to vamps...
What about loud paisley silk shirts?
>Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
>Yeah, i'm rude mean, sarcastic and bitter. I spent the weekend reading
>Wraith.
I'd like to say a) I can't stand clove cigarettes, as they stink, and b)
despite what this article looks like, I like playing D&D. But anyways.
Jack Dracula
Tzimisces Paladin
Great Cthulhu
>There's one endorsement of the printer that WW uses. Why aren't Phage
>Press, Marquee Press, and Palladium constantly having to re-issue and
>correct their stuff on the second printing if it's all the printer's fault?
>Could someone answer me that?
IT'Z ALL PART OF THE WURLDWIDE KONSPIRASY ORGANIZED BY DAVE NALLE AND STEVE
JACKSON TO BRING DOWN THOSE VAMP POZERZ!!!!!!!!!
--
-Doug Gibson d...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
"What's this 'lecherous'? Does that mean chaotic?" - overheard at a game con
GS d-(+) H s+:+ !g p? au a- w+ v C++ UH++(++++) P--- L- 3- E N++ K W--- M+ V--
po- Y+ t+ 5- j R++ G+('') tv b+++ !D B--- e++>++++ u+ h---(*) f r+++ n- y+++
John Upstone
>
>I confess, I like the Storyteller system. I like the World of Darkness.
>I don't care that the figures mean that Werewolves have had a population
>explosion in the last few years, or that every city in the world is
>overpopulated with vampires, or that about 50% of the people in the
>world are fomori. I do philosophy when I want perfect working out
>of all logical consequences.
You're not trying to imply that *it's just a game,* are you?! Heresy!
The success or failure of the games lies in whether they are enjoyable
to play. Some people like them, others don't. Why can't each group leave
the other alone and stop cluttering up the net?
Debates on specific aspects of the games are fine, but sulky 'WW games
are crap' postings can only elicit replies of 'no they're not!' and the
whole thing starts spiralling downwards.
Cheers,
John
+----------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| 'The world is fucked, and so am I. | 'There's only one way of life, |
| Or maybe it's the other way round, | and that's your own.' |
| I can't seem to decide.' Therapy? | The Levellers |
+----------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|John Upstone, 6a Cascadia Close, Loudwater, High Wycombe, Bucks HP11 1JW |
|Home: 01494 536615 Work: 01494 484000 Email: ju...@cix.compulink.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Philip Masters
> What it means to quantify a characters personality is that the
> personality can be drawn into the game easily, in a manner agreed on by
> both GM and player, without argument. This means that game rewards and
> integrating personality directly into the plot is common and worthwhile.
Hmm. Normally, I avoid commenting on WW game mechanics, because I've not
studied them in detail, I've played with them relatively little, and I'm
not sure the game I did play with them was working right. Hence, what
follows may be criticised by the more experienced. But...
One thing I did notice when I played V:tM was that some characters with
high Conscience stats were being played as pretty brutal, vicious, and
amoral.
Player: "Okay, I rip his throat out."
GM: "How do you feel about that?"
Player: "Four successes on my Conscience roll..."
GM: "Fine"
As I say, this may not be a valid reading of the rules. I may add that my
character had his Humanity reduced for putting a handgun bullet into
another PC (with whom he had very considerable reason to be pissed off,
and who he knew full well could survive such treatment), whereas other
PCs were off turning mortals into ghouls, mind-controlling innocent
bystanders, and generally acting like gothic villains - then claiming
that their high Humanity ratings meant that they could come to terms
with all this.
Perhaps it was imperfect GMing. But I developed a strong feeling that
those players who'd read the rules were manipulating the "characterisation"
aspects to their own advantage, while my character - who started out as
a rough, tough, brawler type - had nowhere to go but down.
--
Phil Masters
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None learned the art of archery from me | Useless is a wonderful milk-yield
Who did not make me, in the end, | From a cow which kicks the pail over
the target | - Hadrat Muinudin Chishti
- Saadi of Shiraz |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Rilstone
> The other problem, of course, is that a real character doesn't just act
> heroically 80% of the time and cowardly 20% of the time randomly determined
> by a dice roll.
Far be it from me to rules quibble, but that isn't how they work. Your
valourous 16 cowardly 4 character rolls the D20. On a 1-16 he makes
his valourous roll. On an 16, he criticals it. On a 17-20 he fails
his valourous, and must make a cowardly roll. On a 1 -3 he makes his cowardly
roll: on a 4 he criticals it, and on a 5-20 he fails it.
I think that works out as:
Valourous 80% of the time.
Neither particularly brace nor particularly valourous 16% of the time.
Cowardly 4% of the time.
The rules also say that a character is only compelled to act in accordance with
his trait when he criticals. So the character will definitely be brave 5% of
the time, and definitely be cowardly 0.25% of the time.
They further say that these roles are not to be used to make someone act
out of character: if a character with 16 chaste manages to critical his lust
role, he doesn't go out and commit rape, he brushes his lady lightly on the
cheek. Similarly our valourous knight whose criticalled his "cowardly" would
hestitate for a moment before rushing into battle, or turn white with fear,
or ask his foe to give him quarter. Not run screaming from the field
of battle.
It has always seemed reasonable to me that a character is not in control
of his feelish of bravery, or hunger, or sexual appetite: and that the
dice should be used to tell a character "you are *feeling* angry" "you
are *feeling* lustful." What a character does about those feelings is
the players decisions - except on those rate criticals, where the feelings
take him over. Which is certainly something that happens in the legends,
and I think sometimes happens in real life, as well.
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk
**********************************************************************
"To be really medieval, one should have no body. To be really modern,
one should have no soul. To be really Greek, one should have no clothes.
Oscar Wilde.
**********************************************************************
Jack Dracula
Philip Masters <Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>One thing I did notice when I played V:tM was that some characters with
>high Conscience stats were being played as pretty brutal, vicious, and
>amoral.
>Player: "Okay, I rip his throat out."
>
>GM: "How do you feel about that?"
>
>Player: "Four successes on my Conscience roll..."
>
>GM: "Fine"
OK, this is a person who picked stats over character, and should
have been rewarded for his roll-playing with automatic Humanity
losses, instead of rolls. Powergaming occurs everywhere.
>As I say, this may not be a valid reading of the rules. I may add that my
>character had his Humanity reduced for putting a handgun bullet into
>another PC (with whom he had very considerable reason to be pissed off,
>and who he knew full well could survive such treatment), whereas other
>PCs were off turning mortals into ghouls, mind-controlling innocent
>bystanders, and generally acting like gothic villains - then claiming
>that their high Humanity ratings meant that they could come to terms
>with all this.
Um, no. This should not happen.
(And I think player should be rewarded for shooting other players, but
ah well.)
>Perhaps it was imperfect GMing. But I developed a strong feeling that
>those players who'd read the rules were manipulating the "characterisation"
>aspects to their own advantage, while my character - who started out as
>a rough, tough, brawler type - had nowhere to go but down.
>--
>Phil Masters
I think the first problem was the players raping the rules. The second
problem here is the ST (who I assume doesn't regularly run Whitewolf
stuff) didn't understand how to avoid such player-problems.
Jack Dracula
Bryan J. Maloney
>Structurally, the main problems with mage is that the magic system is very
>open-ended and undefined. Instead of a specific spell-list they have certain
>effects that one can do at a given level of knowlege. this can lead to quite
>a bit of confusion and debate.
Actually, I'm of the opinion that this is not a bug, it's a feature. You have
to play with Mage using a completely different paradigm for adjudication and
play than with the majority of magic systems. Generally, you've got to have
a highly skilled GM or players with a great deal of restraint. Munchkins will
go to town with Mage in a way that makes Werewolf look like a hiccup. I
didn't even bother reading the so-called "spell list". I only read the
effects per level list and ran with it. Since I'm an honest person and not
a greedy gamer, I tried to stay reasonable within those limits.
Mage requires either responsible players or a GM who can lay down the law
when need be. As for "confusion"--hey! Magic is SUPPOSED to be confusing.
We're not talking freshman algebra, here, folks. Argument is more a matter
of the particular social contract of your gaming group than anything else.
>I hate the mileu: The world is a huge conspiracy, reality is consensual, and
>the secret masters of the world are not vampires. These people can
Well, I'm hardly a great lover of the milieu, myself, if only because I
find conspiracy theory as a lifestyle to be ludicrous. In general, I'd say
that, were these games to be run by somebody who actually has more than two
firing neurons, the GM (oops, "Storyguide"--why does every game these days
think it has to re-invent the wheel?) will soon decide that maybe, maybe, maybe
10% of everything that goes on in the world is actually a result of all the
various conspiracies combined. The rest isn't, although the obssessive-
compulsives in the conspiricies are convinced otherwise. The fact that they
can't find any evidence that some conspiracy is involved 90% of the time only
"proves" how well hidden "the enemy" is and how deeply buried its forces are.
"Trust no one. Watch your back. Keep your laser handy." Wrong game? Except
for the laser reference, I'd say not.
(WoD in Alpha Complex--this sounds fun, no?)
>Plus, mages can get away with wearing Hawiian shirts, yet another source
>of aggrevated damage to vamps...
Try a Werewolf in a Hawaiian shirt, bermuda shorts, penny loafers, black
socks with garters, and a watch that has a calculator in it. Now, put that
Werewolf in the middle of the Prince of Boston's party--and nobody is permitted
to touch him because they all think that he's some insane, and powerful,
Toreador...
--
Bryan Maloney
renfield
>Eric Tolle (unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu) wrote:
[lots of stuff deleted saying why mages are too powerful]
Well, IMHO, Mages are the most powerful of the three (Haven't looked at Wraith
yet) and they have the most potential. However, Vamps and Weres have one huge
advantage over the Mages:
They can heal!
A Mage that starts out with Life 3 to heal himself won't be able to harm Vamps.
And Weres are going to dodge/shrug off Life 4 effects.
If you want to kill a Mage, get him when he's alone. Hit them fast and hard,
then get out of there. They'll be toast!
-:-Renfield
D. Chart
>
>(And I think player should be rewarded for shooting other players, but
> ah well.)
>
>
Um, Jack, keep this in character, please. RPGs have a bad enough
reputation as it is.
On the original subject, I had a character with high conscience and
humanity who got away with diablerie, setting up another PC for
murder, Embracing his sister (in a hospital, in front of an RC
priest with True Faith, but that's another story...)' deliberately
burning down a church, and murdering a couple of the members. Why?
He was ten years old, so he really didn't realise that what he was
doing was wrong. (He thought he was saving his sister, the church
was responsible for burning his violin, etc.) I played him that
naive: he signed a contract with a Tremere saying that he owed
a life boon, in blood (after the diablerie), and the Tremere was
the de facto Prince. Shortly afterwards he swore to help the
local Garou. He got the coterie into vast amounts of trouble, and
he was great fun.
Moral: sometimes, you can get away with gross violations of the
rules because it makes for a better game.
--
David Chart Reality is the fantasy you choose to believe.
Trinity College Sanity is the result of a good choice of fantasy.
Cambridge Everything that is possible is real.
UK Everything else is real as well.
Geir O'Jensen
> Now, what's this got to do with Wraith's black-on-black logo? (Which
> will make it very easy to find when it reaches Britain. The only RPG
> without a title :)
Hm... sorry, but it's *NOT* black-on-black! I was rather shocked when I
picked up my copy of _Wraith_ in the store today. (I presume the rest of
Europe gets the same book as Norway). The cover is very strange;
- there's a lock
- a big medallion (some crazy symbol)
- and lots of iron chain (depicted only!)
The logo is nearly invisible (even IN the dark) but there's clear and
white text on the side. Anyway, I knew at once that this book was
_Wraith_ even before I knew the store had it in stock. Something sneaky
about it... well, I guess I'll be reading it the next few days... :-)
T.L. Preas
: And Weres are going to dodge/shrug off Life 4 effects.
Hmm...sure about that? Remember, Life 4 does about 4 levels of damage
per success. And they only get to dodge if they can see it coming..
--
*=======================================================================*
|"The United States is not a | "Sir, an unkown vessel is approaching |
|Christian nation any more than | us." |
|it is a Jewish or Mohammedan | "Hail them and say we surrender." |
|nation." | "My mistake, sir. It is an asteroid."|
| George Washington | "Can't we still surrender?" |
*=======================================================================*
Unknown
>In article <33tnf5$13...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> pfst...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Paul Strack) writes:
>>Allan Bailey <al...@elvis.tamu.edu> wrote:
>>> What about having non-Cainite vampires? In the movie Dracula
>>>Vlad Dracula was cursed and made a Vampire by swearing a blasphemous
>>>oath against the xtian God and all that. This makes him a
>>>new bloodline not descended from Caine, right? So I wonder if WW
>>>would ever consider using that, or other storytellers?
>>
>>Well, there are rumors that the Oriental vampires aren't desended from
>>Caine, but are from some totally different origin. For that matter, the
>>whole Caine thing may well be a myth, and the true situation unknown.
>>There are undoubtably vampires out there that have other origin stories
>>(the Ravnos come to mind).
>
>Well non-Cainite Vampire published by White Wolf, take a look in Chicago
>by Night. I won't point it out expressly, in case you want to keep
>it secret. But, its in there.
>
>Kyle
>Minister of Cyberspace
>ky...@ucs.indiana.edu
>
I'm afraid you're confusing a demon with a vampire.
Incubi are demons (read more (but not enough) about it in ST
guide to sabbat).
Quin
David Nalle
>What an arrogant statement. You almost seem to have a dislike of WW that goes
>beyond purely gaming matters, and leads you to make foolish accusations like
>that above.
Not at all. There's plenty about their style of gaming to dislike without
going into more personal matters.
>Gaming systems are subjective matters, especially when simulating
>the imaginary (how would a vampire be affected by a shotgun ?). What matters
>is that people, very often, like the system. It is not flawless, but no
>system is, after all. I like it because it's simple enough not to get in the
>way of my group and I telling a story together.
I'm not that concerned with what people like. I'm much more interested in
what produces good roleplaying. People like playing Magic the Gathering. That
doesn't make it a good RPG.
>People buy it... lots more
>people than buy the so-called 'better' systems so applauded by WW-phobics.
As P. T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." And I guess I'm
just one of those do-gooders who gets worried when other people are being
duped, or getting less than they might deserve, even when they're convinced
they want it.
>And do you have to keep going on about 'delusive states' ?
I have no idea. I used the phrase once and you and a couple of other people
have latched onto it obsessively.
Dave
Mr Neville Steven Percy
>In article <Cv5HL...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
>James Nicoll <jam...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>couldn't be read. Maybe it's just me, but in general I haven't
>>found that unseeable games sell particularly well. The stealth
>Cool! Just like the fabled Spinal Tap "Black Album". Well, it does
>help to make sure that only tragically hip conventioneers will be able
>to buy the game, and we wouldn't want anyone unworthy to own it.
Heh. Of course Spinal Tap only went and did a black album because their own
idea was too unPC for the public to tolerate. If the same has occurred here,
then RESPECT for whoever wanted to release the gross version, and BOOO to
whoever wanted to sell it to anything other than we, the hardcore WW junkies.
On a tangent, is the book plain black with a ghostly pallour in the dark
specifically to attract ghostly pallid people dressed in black?
-- Nev (:>
Paul Robert Bartel
Personally, I'm running an integrated campaign of the three
(Vamp, Wolf, and Mage). Its confusing as hell, because of the
three different paradigms, but leaving that aside, I have found
that while Mages have the most potential for advancement, they
start off the weakest. The low Arete and high cost for raising
it really limit them. While capable of some fantastic effects, a
Vampire with celerity or a raging Werewolf can tear apart a Mage
very easily. In fact, the group raided a technocracy stronghold
in the last session, and had virtually no problem in dealing with
the Technocracy Mages, because all the Mages or their critters
could do was get off one attack before they were torn to pieces.
While the player Mages did okay, it was defintely the Vamps and
the Wolves who carried the day.
Paul
Paul Robert Bartel
Right on! The game, the _story_ always takes precedence over the
rules.
In my Vampire campaign, one of the players has a Malkavian
character with a split personality. His second half is
extrodinarly violent and mean, and when it makes it clear that he
is operating in that personality, he gets away with a lot - more
than I would give to the other characters. Sometimes he has to
make a Humanity roll, but only after coming back to his other
personality and after he has done something heinous, like killing
10-12 people. Even then, I make the difficulty lower for him,
because that aspect of his personality is important to his
character, and the story as a whole; too much penalizing for
using it, and he wouldn't be playing his character the way he
should.
Paul
Jason D Corley
Mr Neville Steven Percy <spb...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Heh. Of course Spinal Tap only went and did a black album because their own
>idea was too unPC for the public to tolerate. If the same has occurred here,
>then RESPECT for whoever wanted to release the gross version, and BOOO to
>whoever wanted to sell it to anything other than we, the hardcore WW junkies.
Yes. There's a very, very fine line between clever and...uh...stupid.
--
***************************************************************************
"I was pleased to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't
know."----- Mark Twain, _Life on the Mississippi_
Jason "cor...@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley Was Here But Isn't Anymore
Jamison Graff
Jack Dracula <vam...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>In article <778406...@philm.demon.co.uk>,
>Philip Masters <Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>One thing I did notice when I played V:tM was that some characters with
>>high Conscience stats were being played as pretty brutal, vicious, and
>>amoral.
>
>>Player: "Okay, I rip his throat out."
>>
>>GM: "How do you feel about that?"
>>
>>Player: "Four successes on my Conscience roll..."
>>
>>GM: "Fine"
>
>OK, this is a person who picked stats over character, and should
>have been rewarded for his roll-playing with automatic Humanity
>losses, instead of rolls. Powergaming occurs everywhere.
More than the player were at fault! "Fine" is a piss-poor response. In
my world, the vampire would do whatever (s)he wanted to do. If (s)he
survived, I would later ask for a Conscience roll. If it failed, the
character would never give the event another thought (although the player
probably would, erasing that Humanity dot). If it passed (and I would
modify things based on the character's history, before, during and after the
inhuman act), the character would have the opportunity to keep the points by
roleplaying some personal torment, grief and sorrow. No roleplay, no save-o
de points. This is about the character's psychology, it can't be done with
dice.
>
>>As I say, this may not be a valid reading of the rules. I may add that my
>>character had his Humanity reduced for putting a handgun bullet into
>>another PC (with whom he had very considerable reason to be pissed off,
>>and who he knew full well could survive such treatment), whereas other
>>PCs were off turning mortals into ghouls, mind-controlling innocent
>>bystanders, and generally acting like gothic villains - then claiming
>>that their high Humanity ratings meant that they could come to terms
>>with all this.
You can't get absolution unless there is serious intent not to repeat the
sin. The principle applies here as well.
>
>>Perhaps it was imperfect GMing. But I developed a strong feeling that
>>those players who'd read the rules were manipulating the "characterisation"
>>aspects to their own advantage, while my character - who started out as
>>a rough, tough, brawler type - had nowhere to go but down.
I'd say you would be better off playing Warhammer with that GM than Vampire.
>
>I think the first problem was the players raping the rules. The second
>problem here is the ST (who I assume doesn't regularly run Whitewolf
>stuff) didn't understand how to avoid such player-problems.
> Jack Dracula
>
Players come in all sizes, and we can only assume that these guys didn't
"get the message" when they read the rulebook. Leaving them in that state
was clearly the fault of the GM.
Jamison
--
Jamison Graff
Dept. of Industrial Engineering & Management Science
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
jtg...@nwu.edu, jam...@merle.acns.nwu.edu
nils per skjodt
> No, the rules as written are broken. Vampire doesn't
>distinguish between something you do on purpose and something rolling
>badly 'forces' you to do. What you suggest is a valid fix, but it is a
>fix. The rules, as written, are broken.
>
though it might seem a bit of a cop out, and I'm sure this sentiment has
been expressed before, one must not loose sight of the most important
vampire 'rule'.. make it a good story. if the rules get in your way,
screw 'em. WW isn't about number crunching.. so we shouldn't get too
picky about the few numbers there are.
Eric Tolle
>In article <33tkjd$f...@ucsbuxb.ucsb.edu> unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu (Eric Tolle) writes:
>>Structurally, the main problems with mage is that the magic system is very
>>open-ended and undefined. Instead of a specific spell-list they have certain
>>effects that one can do at a given level of knowlege. this can lead to quite
>>a bit of confusion and debate.
>Actually, I'm of the opinion that this is not a bug, it's a feature. You have
>to play with Mage using a completely different paradigm for adjudication and
>play than with the majority of magic systems. Generally, you've got to have
>a highly skilled GM or players with a great deal of restraint. Munchkins will
>go to town with Mage in a way that makes Werewolf look like a hiccup. I
>didn't even bother reading the so-called "spell list". I only read the
>effects per level list and ran with it. Since I'm an honest person and not
>a greedy gamer, I tried to stay reasonable within those limits.
once more I chorus: I LIKE MAGE!! I _also_ think the magic system is an
excellent part of it, even though it's resulted in much debate and confusion.
Ranting mode on....(please ignore...)
With all due respect to the Ars Fans, though it is an excellent system (though
not as easy to use as they claim), it _is_ limited in the type of magic one
can do: I.E., the elementalism based magic of the hermetic Order. If I
want to have a mage that does something completely different then the
ArM mages, say one who cajoles spirits into doing everything for him (like,
say, _ACTUAL_ hermetic thought of the Middle Ages ;), I'm ouit of luck. If I
want to do a Shinto Priest, or a American Indian Shamen, or even a Cabbelist,
I'm forced to cludge something up out of incompatable disciplines in the
Ars Magica. It doesen't matter that Shamens or Shintoists don't see the world
the way the ArM hermetics do...
And don't give me something about 'Supllement so-and-so has it', that's doing
to ArM what people have been complaining about Mage.
Not that I don't like the system, I do. Still...
Ranting mode off...
>Mage requires either responsible players or a GM who can lay down the law
>when need be. As for "confusion"--hey! Magic is SUPPOSED to be confusing.
>We're not talking freshman algebra, here, folks. Argument is more a matter
>of the particular social contract of your gaming group than anything else.
Exactly! If someone wants a GM who screws over the players, they can go play
Vampire, or Wraith (which seems expressly designed for that sort of thing).
>>I hate the mileu: The world is a huge conspiracy, reality is consensual, and
>>the secret masters of the world are not vampires. These people can
To again _not_ be sarcastic, I _LIKE_ conspiracies, i like a tangled web of
mysterious movers who trip over each other. As an example, in the WoD '60's
Kennedy was the target of literally hundreds of groups, including vampires,
mages, CIA FBI NRA NSAABCDEF. There were so many stumbling over each other
trying to kill him and interfering with each other, only a crazed normal
managed to kill him. It's a wonder he survived past infancy... ;)
For anyone who lacks a sense of humor, the last three sentances were a joke.
really. (i'm starting to hedge my bets now...)
>(WoD in Alpha Complex--this sounds fun, no?)
If we can get them all to wear black outfits...
Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
I'm realizing that in this group if I'm sarcastic I'll need warning signs
before and after.
Eric Tolle
>Philip Masters <Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>One thing I did notice when I played V:tM was that some characters with
>>high Conscience stats were being played as pretty brutal, vicious, and
>>amoral.
>OK, this is a person who picked stats over character, and should
>have been rewarded for his roll-playing with automatic Humanity
>losses, instead of rolls. Powergaming occurs everywhere.
(Attention: for the humor impared, my reply will contain
sarcasm: If you cannot understand or accept sarcasm, please
turn off your computer until this post is ended. Thank you.)
You can takethe player away from rolemaster, but you cant take Rolemaster
from the Player...;)
>problem here is the ST (who I assume doesn't regularly run Whitewolf
>stuff) didn't understand how to avoid such player-problems.
I definatly think it was a case of a GM not stopping and thinking 'Hey',
does this really fit the intent and not the letter of the rules.
or maybe they're too used to playing Shadowrun? ;)
Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
ATTENTION! The sarcasm portion of this post is ended! You may leave
the building! THe sarcasm has ended! You may leave the building!
Eric Tolle
>> The other problem, of course, is that a real character doesn't just act
>> heroically 80% of the time and cowardly 20% of the time randomly determined
>> by a dice roll.
(not so funny stuff deleated)
>It has always seemed reasonable to me that a character is not in control
>of his feelish of bravery, or hunger, or sexual appetite: and that the
>dice should be used to tell a character "you are *feeling* angry" "you
>are *feeling* lustful." What a character does about those feelings is
>the players decisions - except on those rate criticals, where the feelings
>take him over. Which is certainly something that happens in the legends,
>and I think sometimes happens in real life, as well.
Good lord! ANd I thought _I_ was sarcastic! This is simply a masterpiece
of taking a silly concept and running with it to the point of absurdity
untill.....ummmm....you wern't _serious_ by any chance were you?
Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
Why does this remind me of Arduin's '% Liar' bit?
Dan Bongard
>In article <edu> d...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:
>>While a new edition may fix the cosmetic flaws and typos, nothing is
>>ever going to fix the basic, fundamental design flaws in WW's games.
>Gaming systems are subjective matters, especially when simulating
>the imaginary (how would a vampire be affected by a shotgun ?).
While I mostly agree with you, Endie, I think David is right on at
least one point: the White Wolf dice system. It desperately needs to
be overhauled; botches are far, far too common.
Not that there aren't a dozen ways to fix this quickly and simply.
It's just sort of annoying that WW itself thinks the system is good.
dbon...@ucsd.edu
Daniel Bongard
York H. Dobyns
>In article <33nrh1$e...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu>,
>David Nalle <d...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
[...]
>>While a new edition may fix the cosmetic flaws and typos, nothing is
>>ever going to fix the basic, fundamental design flaws in WW's games.
>>in their system are assets rather than liabilities, and no one can
>>free them from their delusive state.
>
>
>2) Not every game can be Ysgarth. Not every game WANTS or TRIES to be
>Ysgarth. As the designer of Ysgarth, you've probably said, "That's the
>best I can put out, given my resources." If there was a BETTER game,
>then why bother with your own. This in itself biases your opinion. MAge
>is not Ysgarth. Werewolf is not Ysgarth. Vampire, Wraith and StreetFighter
>are not Ysgarth. But they've sold MORE than Ysgarth. Why? Well, you'll
>have us believe that they're all deluded FOOLS!
Tcha. I have had nothing to do with Ysgarth in any way whatsoever: I've
never played it, don't own the rules (and don't intend to), and have no
financial or professional connections of any sort with the game.
However, despite my complete lack of vested interest, I find Dave
Nalle's comment above something that I can agree with completely,
wholeheartedly, and without the slightest reservations. White Wolf's
World of Darkness is a marvelous concept; the games that they've
designed around that concept are atrocious botches that are an insult
to the publishing industry and the gaming community. Good WoD campaigns
are good in despite of, not because of, the moronic mechanics WW has
chosen to encumber its basic story idea with. In point of fact, I've yet
to see *anyone* run a campaign of *any* WoD system without
having to tweak some of the game mechanics. Or invent them out of whole
cloth where they've simply not been provided. And yes, the staff of WW
do give every impression of considering their products' worst deficits
as strengths. As long as they keep up that attitude, their games will
never improve _as games_, and (to anyone with the slightest concerns
about consistency, realism, or usable mechanics) will remain utterly
useless except as idea sourcebooks for other game systems.
--
York Dobyns ydo...@phoenix.princeton.edu
Bad hypotheses have a way of subverting evidence -- William Poundstone
nils per skjodt
I agree that mages have the most potential whole heartedly. But
honestly, as starting characters, though they have lots of neat
detection skills and alot of versatility, they aren't very much the
combat machines. I think it's pretty even between the 3.. each
'species' simply has different str's and wkns's.
--Nils
Curtis Shenton
>>
>>(And I think player should be rewarded for shooting other players, but
>> ah well.)
>>
>> Jack Dracula
>>
>
>Um, Jack, keep this in character, please. RPGs have a bad enough
>reputation as it is.
Well if a player went around shooting other players in my game I'd give
him as many character points as he wanted. ;)
--
Curtis Shenton cur...@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet
Interested in the process of designing unique magic/psionic/etc power
systems in an rpg? The loc-l mailing list is set up for discussions on
this topic. Email me to find out how to sign up.
Bryce J. Jones
Actually, the degree of power of mages is NOT based on anything
EXCEPT how lenient the ST is on what is "coincidental". :)
If I ran Mage, Mages would be quite powerful -- because I am
quite lenient, as I can best accurately judge myself.
On the other hand, someone I know ran a cross-over game, and
the only Mage (me) was *way* underpowered.
With an average ST, the order of power (Low to High) is:
BEGINNING: Mage Vampire Werewolf
MIDDLE: Theoretically equal
ADVANCED: Werewolf Vampire Mage
Falcon-Muad'dib. Whose eyes see all.
--
Bryce Jones
Internet Address: BU27%NEMOMUS...@ACADEMIC.NEMOSTATE.EDU
Bitnet: BU27@NEMOMUS
David Nalle
>>
Do you really think they'd do a complete system overhaul and say "whoops,
please throw out everything you did, and use this now. we were just kidding
before." I can just imagine the whining about that...
<<
We can always hope...
I know of other companies and designers who have looked at their systems and
decided to scrap everything and start over, or at least rethink a lot of
the specific mechanics.
It wouldn't take much to make Storyteller a LOT better. The game concept isn't
bad (trite, but interesting in some ways), and there are good ideas in the
mechanics, but there are holes in the rules you could drive a truck through.
I think a lot of people would have a great deal of respect for WW if they
called in a couple of great mechanics wonks and let them do Storyteller over
into something more appealing to those of us who like substance with our
style. That would bury a large amount of the flak they get for being posers
as well.
Actually, licensing Vampire to SJG was a move in the right direction, but
with recent developments it looks like their worser instincts got the better
of them.
Dave
D. Chart
Easy, just have R&D develop black reflec armour. Naturally, it
increases damage taken from all lasers, but finding these sort
of bugs is what troubleshooters are for, right?
--
David Chart
Trinity College I'm not mad.
Cambridge But they want you to think I am.
UK
John Upstone
>World of Darkness is a marvelous concept; the games that they've
>designed around that concept are atrocious botches that are an insult
>to the publishing industry and the gaming community.
You find them an *insult* to the gaming community? Really? Don't you
think you're taking things *way* too seriously here?! Lighten up! Is
the phrase "it's just a game" comprehensible to you?
I like the StoryTeller system. It suits the fast and loose style of my
GMing, and gives players more to think about than their stats. I agree
that it has flaws, but I've yet to see a perfect game. I doubt such a
thing could exist, or that I'd want to play it if it did. If other
people don't like ST, then fine, let them play something else. I'm not
"insulted" by game systems I dislike, I just work around them, and know
that there are other people out there who *do* like them. Variety and
choice are what's all about, my friend.
>In point of fact, I've yet to see *anyone* run a campaign of *any* WoD
>system without having to tweak some of the game mechanics. Or invent
>them out of whole cloth where they've simply not been provided.
I've yet to play *any* RPG that this didn't apply to. The game designer
isn't me, therefore he thinks differently to me. I disagree with him on
some points, and so change them. It happens all the time, but it's no
big deal.
Cheers,
John
+----------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| 'The world is fucked, and so am I. | 'There's only one way of life, |
| Or maybe it's the other way round, | and that's your own.' |
| I can't seem to decide.' Therapy? | The Levellers |
+----------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
Jack Dracula
>>
>>>(WoD in Alpha Complex--this sounds fun, no?)
A NWO Realm taken over by Marauders.
The rest is left to your imaginations, but believe you
me, the more you think about it, the more correspondences
there are.
F'rinstance:
Mystics: CoX HPD & MC: NWO (also PLC)
Corpore Metal: Ix IntSec: MiBs
FCC-CP: CC Death Leopard: Brujah
Sierra Club: Dreamspeakers Computer Phreaks: VAs
R&D: SoE (also ProTech) Clone Banks: Progenitors
...the possibilities are endless.
Jack Dracula
Keeps his Laser Handy
Bruce Baugh
>You can takethe player away from rolemaster, but you cant take Rolemaster
>from the Player...;)
Motto! Motto! :-)
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|bru...@teleport.com Bruce Baugh, thoroughly unaffiliated with Teleport|
| "An' besides you IS a rabbit." "Not a 'nothing-BUT-a-rabbit', tho'." |
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Philip Masters
vam...@wam.umd.edu "Jack Dracula" writes:
> I think the first problem was the players raping the rules. The second
> problem here is the ST (who I assume doesn't regularly run Whitewolf
> stuff) didn't understand how to avoid such player-problems.
Hard to say. The GM in question has run some very good games in the
past using other rules, but this campaign just didn't work for me. I'm
not even sure that he perceived some of this stuff as a "problem" -
vampires rip people's throats out, the players seem to be enjoying
themselves, what's the problem?
Of course, I started badly in that campaign. "Right" I think, "vampires
are unpleasant beings who kill people. So my vampire will be, oh, let's
say, a gun-toting redneck Texan professional mercenary".
Mistake.
I'm playing a character who I dislike and despise, who finds himself
entangled in a world full of people who both he and I dislike and
despise (me because they're self-absorded prats, him because they're
freaks, weirdoes, and useless pond scum). He soon discovers that
the local head of his clan is a weirdo faggot (as he'd put it) who
prances about in women's underwear, and he's obliged to work with
people who regard vampirism as an excuse to pull massively tedious
practical jokes on everyone in sight. Eventually, when he gets to
the stage of shooting them, he discovers that they can control his
mind. So he tries to get out of town (he'd rather take his chance
with the werewolves than put up with this bunch), and he gets dragged
back by forces beyond his control. Eventually, one of his "partners"
goes mad and betrays everyone else...
For the first time in my role-playing career, I found myself running
a character with a serious and sincere death-wish. Trouble was, that
GM *doesn't kill PCs*. It was an educational experience of a very
limited sort, I suppose.
That campaign is currently quiescent. I'm not voting to reactivate it.
So if I don't come across as a Vampire fan, you may now know why.
--
Phil Masters
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None learned the art of archery from me | Useless is a wonderful milk-yield
Who did not make me, in the end, | From a cow which kicks the pail over
the target | - Hadrat Muinudin Chishti
- Saadi of Shiraz |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Rilstone
> Good lord! ANd I thought _I_ was sarcastic! This is simply a masterpiece
> of taking a silly concept and running with it to the point of absurdity
> untill.....ummmm....you wern't _serious_ by any chance were you?
Er...to be honest, I can't work out whether you are being sarcastic now,
or not.
For the record: I ran a two years plus Pendragon campaign, used the
traits and criticals, and found they added a lot to the game.
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk
**********************************************************************
"To be really medieval, one should have no body. To be really modern,
one should have no soul. To be really Greek, one should have no clothes.
Oscar Wilde.
**********************************************************************
Anthony Ragan
Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk (Philip Masters) writes:
>I'm playing a character who I dislike and despise, who finds himself
>entangled in a world full of people who both he and I dislike and
>despise (me because they're self-absorded prats, him because they're
>freaks, weirdoes, and useless pond scum).
Wait, I thought the above was the whole point of a WoD game??? ;)
Seriously, the above story reminds me of one long-running Vampire
game around here. The GM was such a serious control freak (in his
view he was just following the dramatic needs of the story -- feh!),
that we wound up renaming the system "Storydictator."
(Note to WoD fans, I have seen WoD campaigns run much better, so the
above should be taken as my opinion of that GM, not the whole set
of WoD games.)
--Anthony
ecz...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu -OR- Iris...@aol.com
Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda, Snotling in Chief
CHRISTOPHER M. ACKNEY
problem has struct me. They make mention of a Relics background in the sample
character creation, a pair of rollerblades. In an attempt to design my first
character, I can only find an Artifacts background, which is not something I
want. I simply wish to have an item from the real world that was destroyed
when the character died (If you must know, a violin). Can relics belong to
beginning characters? I do not want any mystical powers, just the item (and
I sure would like to know why rollerblades would be worth two background
points). Anybody with any information? Sam?
Many thanks, Martin
Mitchell J. Gross
buy your relics and then just assume you had them when you died.
--'---,---'---,--`--'-,-'-`---'-,--`-'---,---'-----,---'---`---'-,-`-`-'---,--
* . . Mitchell J. Gross m...@io.com . . . *
( . * Computer Artist & Storyteller . . .
. . alt.arts.storytelling . . . * . *
. "Fools allow others to rule them. Wise men rule themselves." .
-`---,---'-,---`---`--'--,--`-'-,--`--'--,---`--'-,--`-'-,--,-'-`--'-,-`--,---
Timothy Toner
CHRISTOPHER M. ACKNEY <cs91...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca> wrote:
>I've been perusing the new Wraith material with great interest, but one
>problem has struct me. They make mention of a Relics background in the sample
>character creation, a pair of rollerblades. In an attempt to design my first
I, heh, was the unfortunate slob who pointed this out to Sam during a
game he ran at GenCon. Sam wrote the sample character sheet, but Sam was not
informed that Relics was dropped. The way we played it was to determine,
one on one, what items 1) were with you when you died 2) were buried with
you or 3) held GREAT significance to you. These items were the relics
we started with, all subject to the ST's approval, of course.
There ARE some gaping holes in the rules for arbitrating Relics. It says
you need Pathos to make them work, but how much? How often? What's the
deal? As a hard and fast rule, 1 Pathos will activate an item for a
scene, UNLESS the Pathos conduit is broken (ie the item is dropped or
thrown, physically seperating it from you). The item must be recharged
to make it work.
--
than...@interaccess.com / "Want to go to Toner's after this?
DeathUrge, Master of Unknown \ I always like it."
Time and Space. / - John Constantine, _Hellblazer_
"It's a Zen thing. You wouldn't understand."
Endie
>From: d...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle)
>Subject: Re: Wraith: Minor Sales Problem
>Date: 2 Sep 1994 10:47:45 -0500
>Endie wrote:
>>Gaming systems are subjective matters, especially when simulating
>>the imaginary (how would a vampire be affected by a shotgun ?). What matters
>>is that people, very often, like the system. It is not flawless, but no
>>system is, after all. I like it because it's simple enough not to get in the
>>way of my group and I telling a story together.
>I'm not that concerned with what people like. I'm much more interested in
>what produces good roleplaying.
What a delightful touch of arrogance. But actually, you're joking, aren't
you ? Rules don't have too great an effect on role-playing, unless your group
is one of those dreary rules-lawyer groups who let the book rule their lives.
In any case, you ignored what I said, which is that the system of rules
actually *promotes* good role-playing through their simplicity.
>>People buy it... lots more
>>people than buy the so-called 'better' systems so applauded by WW-phobics.
>As P. T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." And I guess I'm
>just one of those do-gooders who gets worried when other people are being
>duped, or getting less than they might deserve, even when they're convinced
>they want it.
>Dave
Well, I must admit that coming on here (alt.games.whitewolf) and calling us
all suckers for buying these games has a certain arrogant panache. Our
delicate little Scottish term for such opinions is that "They're aw ootie step
bar oor Jock..." I don't want to go into an argument about who has played
RPGs for more years/decades, experienced more systems, been educated to a
higher level and so on, but please accept my assurance that neither I, nor the
large number of highly intelligent and able people I have had the pleasure to
play WW games with since they came out, are suckers. I am probably no more
easy or hard to dupe than the next man, and very hard to dupe for a period of
years. Methinks you're being a bijou tadette silly casting accusations of
gullibillity around with such a liberal hand.
Yours with a good-humoured chuckle at what must obviously been a joke on
your part that either fell flat or I missed,
Keith
Endie
>From: ydo...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns)
>In article <33nuu8$m...@nntp.interaccess.com> than...@interaccess.com writes:
>>In article <33nrh1$e...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu>,
> White Wolf's
>World of Darkness is a marvelous concept; the games that they've
>designed around that concept are atrocious botches that are an insult
>to the publishing industry and the gaming community.
I do so loooove it when people get disproportionate about things, dahling.
Listen to yourself "atrocious", "botches", "insult". Doubtless you are firmly
of the opinion that the WW game system is a plot by Beelzebub and all his
little demons to force Rolemaster (or whatever sweet little Rule-Playing Game
you get so defensive about) into oblivion. But if that vast overstatement
(which has not one whit of solid evidence to back it up, particularly (as I
have said before) when you *cannot* justify it, because we are talking about a
*simulation* of *imaginary* things) was not enough, later w get this diatribe:
>As long as they keep up
>that attitude, their games will never improve _as games_, and (to anyone with
>the slightest concerns about consistency, realism, or usable mechanics) will
>remain utterly useless except as idea sourcebooks for other game systems.
You know, if, through a complex alchemic process, Jessie Helms and John Knox
had been crossed with Ian Paisley and Rush Limbaugh, and then given Steve
Jackson's recent experiences with WW, I'd expect this sort of stuff. Yes,
there are flaws with the WW systems (as with any system, or do you have a
perfect one in mind... do share it with us), but they do not render it
unplayable. With regard to your sweeping, insulting generalisation, I have
great concern for consistency is my games, and I like WW games. I have *some*
concern for realism, but not too much, considering that I don't know what
realism is for a vampire, so I dont get too anally fixated about the issue.
And the mechanics of WW games are perfectly adequate, and any tweaking I do is
a matter of personal taste. My group has house rules for every game we play,
be it CoCthulhu, SRun, RM, AD&D, or whatever. *Everyone* tweaks the rules to
the tastse of their group or the dramatic needs of a situation (OK, OK,
everyone I've ever met).
Why this fixation with slagging of WW games ? If you'd said "there's a few
rules need alteration to play the game the way I like it, but the setting is
inspired", or even "I just don't like it, but a lot of people do, so there you
go, it takes all sorts, etc, etc..." that would have been fair enough. But
all of this "WW products are vomit-stained carbuncles which rape 3rd world
babies" stuff is sooooo tiresome after the first week of chuckling.
John Upstone
>Mistake.
I'd agree with that! <g>
>For the first time in my role-playing career, I found myself running
>a character with a serious and sincere death-wish.
I have this experience at the moment in a Gloranthan RQ campaign. We
suddenly switched from Vampire to RQ (the GM was bored!) and I had to
come up with a character in a hurry. Now I've had time to think about
it, I'm itching to play a Humakti, but I've got this idealistic young
Orlanthi character instead. I've warned the GM that I won't mind if he
dies, and the character is basically pretty reckless, but it still
leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
>So if I don't come across as a Vampire fan, you may now know why.
Well, without meaning to insult the GM in question, it really doesn't
sound like he did a very good job. In *any* game, not just Vampire, a GM
should take some responsibility for character creation. He knows the
campaign and his players do not (well, not at first), so he should offer
comments and suggestions on their character concepts. Any experienced
Vampire player could have warned you about the problems a character like
that might have. Fair enough, if you *wanted* to play a character who
was a total outcast, but you might have to do so on a different evening
to everyone else. <g>
My basic message (plea?) is: don't let one bad experience put you off.
John Upstone
>called in a couple of great mechanics wonks and let them do Storyteller over
>into something more appealing to those of us who like substance with our
>style. That would bury a large amount of the flak they get for being posers
>as well.
No, please, no! What exactly do you mean by "substance?" The thing I
like about Storyteller is the fact that is a simple system. Not always
realistic, but then I don't require it to be. I'm telling stories, not
simulating real life. There are some rules flaws, but I really wouldn't
want to see the whole system reworked.
>Actually, licensing Vampire to SJG was a move in the right direction,
Some people might disagree with that. I quite like GURPS, but it has
huge flaws of its own, for example the supreme importance of IQ and DX
in comparison with the other stats. Still, it's a good system, but I
felt the conversion of Vampire wasn't handled very well by SJG, and I
know I'm not alone in that opinion.
Jamison Graff
John Upstone <ju...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>d...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) said:
>
>>Actually, licensing Vampire to SJG was a move in the right direction,
>
>Some people might disagree with that. I quite like GURPS, but it has
>huge flaws of its own, for example the supreme importance of IQ and DX
>in comparison with the other stats. Still, it's a good system, but I
>felt the conversion of Vampire wasn't handled very well by SJG, and I
>know I'm not alone in that opinion.
>
I agree that GURPS Vampire is an inexplicably unfaithful translation.
Still, I'm curious why the license itself was not a move in the right
direction. The idea seems pretty sound to me - give rules-mongers a
version of the game that satisfies them, so they'll buy umpty-billion
supplements (after all, every WWer knows that a rules-monger can't
write a good story on his own :). Opening up an otherwise hard to
reach market niche seems like a move in the right direction.
Not that it's relevant to a.g.ww, but the importance of IQ and DX is
that skills depend on them. The only other stats in the game are
strength and health - making skills depend on them would, in general,
be pretty ridiculous and counterintuitive, IMHO. More importantly, ST
and HT are the "dish out damage" and "soak up damage" stats, making them
principle munchkin targets. If ST and HT cost less than other stats,
munchkins would buy big old brutes that were combat machines, and people
would complain that GURPS fosters D&Dism. Instead, incentive is created
to invest in DX and IQ, at the expense of the combat stats. This really
strikes you as a fatal flaw?
Jamison
, but strength and tougness are the only other
stats in GURPS; neither of them _really_ seems like something many
skills should be based on, does it? The importance of IQ and DX stem
from the fact that skills are based on them, not on
WRAL-TV
"But what if I, as a player, decide that my character would feel
no remorse? You're talking about letting the dice roll decide
that for me, which is not what roleplaying is all about."
Perhaps, perhaps not. Unfortunately it is a part of the Humanity
system. If you feel that is not roleplaying, remove Humanity from your
game, and end of problem.
Personally, I don't see it as "not what roleplaying is about." You still
have the choice of doing the action, you just can't control the effects.
It is no more opposed to roleplaying than Nature/Demeanor or Alignments.
I like to think that role-players will take the result and run with it.
--
David Ridout rid...@mercury.interpath.net
Fighting for truth, Justice, and the Cynical way
Genin
JG> From: jam...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Jamison Graff)
JG> In article <Cvo7o...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
JG> John Upstone <ju...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>> d...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) said:
>>> Actually, licensing Vampire to SJG was a move in the right direction,
>> Some people might disagree with that. I quite like GURPS, but it has
>> huge flaws of its own, for example the supreme importance of IQ and DX
>> in comparison with the other stats. Still, it's a good system, but I
>> felt the conversion of Vampire wasn't handled very well by SJG, and I
>> know I'm not alone in that opinion.
JG> I agree that GURPS Vampire is an inexplicably unfaithful translation.
JG> Still, I'm curious why the license itself was not a move in the right
JG> direction. The idea seems pretty sound to me - give rules-mongers a
JG> version of the game that satisfies them, so they'll buy umpty-billion
JG> supplements
Well, if there's a gamesystem You'll buy umpty-billion supplements
for, then it must be some of the WW games...
World Of Darkness...The gamesetting that was supplemented to death!
Someone /\ Goeran Dahl
You trust / \ InterNet: ge...@telumar.ct.se
is one of / () \ FidoNet: 2:200/113.9
_us_. / \ AmigaNet: 39:163/101.9
/________\ PGP 2.3a.4 Public Key Available on request !
... Have a nice day or I'll kill You.
Thomas Bagwell
and kept overlooking a rather non-descript book with black/white/swirled
cover, mainly because no title or game system was visible. A few minutes
later in another part of the store I happened to remember this discussion
and went back to look closer...sure enough, it was Wraith. I looked at
the clerk, indicated the book and commented, "My..now *that* was a clever
idea." [Imagine sarcastic tone]. He just laughed and rolled his eyes and
mentioned that I should get a discount for finding it...
Tom B.
--
tbag...@netcom.com
Joseph G Behrmann
>a matter of personal taste. My group has house rules for every game we play,
>be it CoCthulhu, SRun, RM, AD&D, or whatever. *Everyone* tweaks the rules to
>the tastse of their group or the dramatic needs of a situation (OK, OK,
>everyone I've ever met).
Well, I GM TORG without any houserules. Every other system
I've ever GM'ed has had to have house rules to fix it. I think that
TORG has a great fast and loose system, it encourages role-playing,
and its quick and easy to play.
The system itself employs tweaking the situation to dramatic
needs, I don't have to modify it to have it work this way. The times
that I've looked at Vampire, never played, the rules seems cumbersome
to produce what should be easy to produce. I saw holes in them from
just a quick flip-through. It might feed your need for a system, but
it doesn't satiate mine.
From what I've seen of the background, its quite original, but
like MtG, I won't play it on principle. MtG is a great game, but I
won't buy it out of protest/principle. The same goes for the WoD
supplements, my dollars aren't going to go to support the attitude and
ego of the system's designers, since I don't like that attitude.
They insulted me with their statements about WoD games being the
only true roleplaying games and that they cornered the market on
originality. I find that to be insufferably rude and arrogant and I
won't support it.
>Why this fixation with slagging of WW games ? If you'd said "there's a few
>rules need alteration to play the game the way I like it, but the setting is
>inspired", or even "I just don't like it, but a lot of people do, so there you
>go, it takes all sorts, etc, etc..." that would have been fair enough. But
>all of this "WW products are vomit-stained carbuncles which rape 3rd world
>babies" stuff is sooooo tiresome after the first week of chuckling.
The fixation comes from the arrogance of the designers, not
anything intrinsic to the games themselves. If they wouldn't have
been so sanctimonious when writing it and publisizing it, I probably
would have bought something from them, instead I've taken my money
elsewhere and refuse to buy any WW product because of it. Granted,
what do a few hundred gaming dollars a year (~$30 a month) mean to WW?
Probably not much, but its the only way I can show my distaste of
their practices.
Joe
--
Joseph Behrmann -- jgb...@pitt.edu -- behr...@psc.edu -- Quote of the day:
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by."
- Douglas Adams
Jamison Graff
Joseph G Behrmann <jgb...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>Endie <k.har...@norcol.ac.uk> wrote:
>>a matter of personal taste. My group has house rules for every game we play,
>>be it CoCthulhu, SRun, RM, AD&D, or whatever. *Everyone* tweaks the rules to
>>the tastse of their group or the dramatic needs of a situation (OK, OK,
>>everyone I've ever met).
>
> Well, I GM TORG without any houserules. Every other system
>I've ever GM'ed has had to have house rules to fix it. I think that
>TORG has a great fast and loose system, it encourages role-playing,
>and its quick and easy to play.
I dearly love Torg, but we had to tweak it. Every time a highly dextrous
character gets hit, he gets hurt. After all, any blow good enough to
hit him is good enough to hurt him. So you never get a bruise when you're
fast, you just get hit in the vitals. Tweak, tweak.
Jamison
David C. Foyt
: The fixation comes from the arrogance of the designers, not
: anything intrinsic to the games themselves. If they wouldn't have
: been so sanctimonious when writing it and publisizing it, I probably
: would have bought something from them, instead I've taken my money
I think that you've confused their ideals and goals that they have for
their games with an arrogant and sanctimonious attitude.
A lot of people do that.
Granted, their goals seem lofty, but, in the end they are just goals and
ideals of reviving an artform <or at least trying to get everyone to
think about what their doing.>, not claims of insipid eliteism.
So don't feel as though you MUST tell only quality stories with White
Wolf products, then maybe you won't feel so pressured.
-christopher
John Cooper
>I'm not that concerned with what people like. I'm much more interested in
>doesn't make it a good RPG.
If you're not concerned with what people like, then that alone explains
why Ysgarth will probably never break out of the slum of obscurity.
M:tG isn't an RPG to begin with, so your statement (on the face of it)
is vacuous. If you mean to imply, by logical extension, that a lot of people
like playing Vampire, but that doesn't make it a good RPG, then you're only
partially correct.
What you mean to say, I hope, is that just because thousands of people
like playing Vampire, that doesn't mean it's a good RPG for *you*. Tastes
differ, but a game can be a great game for some people and a horrible game
for others. If you think there's an absolute scale of Quality by which an
RPG can be measured, then you are in a "delusional state" yourself, Dave.
>>People buy it... lots more
>>people than buy the so-called 'better' systems so applauded by WW-phobics.
>
>As P. T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." And I guess I'm
>just one of those do-gooders who gets worried when other people are being
>duped, or getting less than they might deserve, even when they're convinced
>they want it.
I could easily say the same thing about Ysgarth, having read the mini-
rules. Anyone who even contemplates purchasing or playing the game is a
sucker, and it is my duty to warn them away from such self-abuse. Isn't
turnabout fair play?
Fact is, I don't want to be the target of your do-gooder intentions,
and I doubt very many others do either. If I'm convinced I want something
or like something, who are you to tell me I'm wrong? That has to be the
height of arrogance, and nothing irritates me more than someone who wants
to do my thinking for me. Go stuff yourself and your so-called good
intentions, thankyouverymuch.
-John
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| John R. Cooper | Internet: j...@vivitech.com, |
| Vivid Technologies, Inc. | jco...@world.std.com |
| Waltham, MA 02154 | AOL: JRCooper (jrco...@aol.com) |
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| | GCS/O d H s g+ p? au>+ a- w v++ C++$ U-- |
| "Rub her feet." | P- L- 3- E N+ K++ W++ M++ V -po+ Y+ t++@ |
| - Long's Notes | 5 j R+++$ G' tv@ b+ D+ B--- e++ u** h--- |
| | f+ r++ n->+ y+++*>$ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Rodney Payne
>Joseph G Behrmann (jgb...@pitt.edu) wrote:
>: The fixation comes from the arrogance of the designers, not
>: anything intrinsic to the games themselves. If they wouldn't have
>: been so sanctimonious when writing it and publisizing it, I probably
>: would have bought something from them, instead I've taken my money
>I think that you've confused their ideals and goals that they have for
>their games with an arrogant and sanctimonious attitude.
No. Joseph, I think, is saying that the presentation of their `ideals and
goals' is ruined by their `arrogant and sanctimonious attitude'. You seem
to be suggesting that they are mutually exclusive. While they have some
good ideas, their attitude implies that they have *all* the good ideas.
>A lot of people do that.
>Granted, their goals seem lofty, but, in the end they are just goals and
>ideals of reviving an artform <or at least trying to get everyone to
>think about what their doing.>, not claims of insipid eliteism.
And the precise point is that to a large extent roleplaying, to the extent
that it is an artform, is not in need of reviving. It is still growing.
All WW did was select a niche market, and make games to appeal to it. But
the sort of `roleplaying' that they claim to have invented was in fact
quite widespread well before a lot of its nouveau players had even heard
of D&D.
>So don't feel as though you MUST tell only quality stories with White
>Wolf products, then maybe you won't feel so pressured.
Eeeyooooo.... Mmmmmmmm.... Other cringing. I don't think that was a very wise
thing to say. You have said several contentious and I think inaccurate
things here, including:
* Implying that Joseph doesn't play `quality' games
* Implying that `quality' is only achievable via WW
* Misunderstanding Joseph's position. He doesn't dislike WW because he
can't or doesn't like `quality', but because he thinks its writers are
pretentious wankers.
* That `quality' has a specific definition (your definition), and that
games that somehow deviate from this are lacking something.
Next time think a little more about what you're saying before posting.
Hmm, I just noticed that this'll be crossposted to alt.games.whitewolf.
Apologies to readers of that group if WW semiflames are inappropriate there.
--
Rodney Payne | What is the meaning of life? Life has no
| meaning. It's just a fortunate coincidence
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | of carbon chemistry. Forget about it.
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | Anonymous
David Nalle
>>called in a couple of great mechanics wonks and let them do Storyteller over
>>into something more appealing to those of us who like substance with our
>>style. That would bury a large amount of the flak they get for being posers
>>as well.
>
>No, please, no! What exactly do you mean by "substance?"
The kind of things which help create a well-rounded character. A decent
and playable skill system, for one.
>The thing I
>like about Storyteller is the fact that is a simple system. Not always
>realistic, but then I don't require it to be. I'm telling stories, not
>simulating real life. There are some rules flaws, but I really wouldn't
>want to see the whole system reworked.
I wasn't thinking in terms of redoing the whole system over again from
scratch. You could preserve the basic character of the game while cleaning
up the junk and the intrusive mechanics and adding a few simple bits to
help people who want to roleplay, and you could have a very nice, simple
game system.
The fact that they haven't taken the generally recognized botches out of
the rules is a commentary on how little WW cares about the quality of the
roleplaying that people do with their games.
>>Actually, licensing Vampire to SJG was a move in the right direction,
>
>Some people might disagree with that. I quite like GURPS, but it has
>huge flaws of its own, for example the supreme importance of IQ and DX
>in comparison with the other stats. Still, it's a good system, but I
>felt the conversion of Vampire wasn't handled very well by SJG, and I
>know I'm not alone in that opinion.
No question that GURPS has its flaws, some of them shared by Storyteller,
some of them very different. What I meant by my statement was that the
fact that they were willing to license Vampire to SJG was an indication
that they were aware there was an audience they were missing, and that
for some there might be shortcomings in their mechanics.
Dave
Laughing Coyote (aka. Darknut the Knight of Cups [master of paradox])
>In article <33nuu8$m...@nntp.interaccess.com> than...@interaccess.com writes:
>>In article <33nrh1$e...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu>,
>[...]
>>>While a new edition may fix the cosmetic flaws and typos, nothing is
>>>ever going to fix the basic, fundamental design flaws in WW's games.
>>>The problem is that they think that the huge, glaring bad mechanics
>>>in their system are assets rather than liabilities, and no one can
>>>free them from their delusive state.
>>
Oh, great wise one....please show us a game mechanics system by which your
emminent illumination would follow. Otherwise shut the f*ck up.
>[...]
>>>
>Tcha. I have had nothing to do with Ysgarth in any way whatsoever: I've
>never played it, don't own the rules (and don't intend to), and have no
>financial or professional connections of any sort with the game.
>However, despite my complete lack of vested interest, I find Dave
>Nalle's comment above something that I can agree with completely,
>wholeheartedly, and without the slightest reservations. White Wolf's
>World of Darkness is a marvelous concept; the games that they've
>designed around that concept are atrocious botches that are an insult
>to the publishing industry and the gaming community.
Oh really, is that why it draws so many non-traditional gamers into gaming?
What system do you like? please elaborate so i can rip you to pieces, or are
you afraid that if you put forth your ideas that they might get ripped apart
because they are complete shit like this stuff you post?
Good WoD campaigns
>are good in despite of, not because of, the moronic mechanics WW has
>chosen to encumber its basic story idea with. In point of fact, I've yet
>to see *anyone* run a campaign of *any* WoD system without
>having to tweak some of the game mechanics. Or invent them out of whole
>cloth where they've simply not been provided. And yes, the staff of WW
>do give every impression of considering their products' worst deficits
>as strengths.
Its not a bug, its a feature ;)
> As long as they keep up that attitude, their games will
>never improve _as games_, and (to anyone with the slightest concerns
>about consistency, realism, or usable mechanics) will remain utterly
>useless except as idea sourcebooks for other game systems.
>
Phsa, whatever. more sweeping mindless generalization, and no substance.
realism? much more real than GURPS or D&D systems, and much more usuable and
capable of producing more interesting character effects.
>--
>York Dobyns ydo...@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Bad hypotheses have a way of subverting evidence -- William Poundstone
hrm. seems like you could follow ol wille's advise. I tweak EVERY game system
I play with. So far you have been all talk. assertion is not proof. give us
something to work with rather than mindless platitutes
Laughing Coyote
David Nalle
>>>Gaming systems are subjective matters, especially when simulating
>>>the imaginary (how would a vampire be affected by a shotgun ?). What matters
>>>is that people, very often, like the system. It is not flawless, but no
>>>system is, after all. I like it because it's simple enough not to get in the
>>>way of my group and I telling a story together.
>
>>I'm not that concerned with what people like. I'm much more interested in
>>what produces good roleplaying.
>
>What a delightful touch of arrogance.
And where more appropriate than when discussing WW games?
>But actually, you're joking, aren't
>you ?
No. People have abominably bad taste and can rarely discern what they
really want. Gamers, like everyone else, tend to go for the easy, quick
high and ignore the potential of more subtle and substantial sources of
entertainment.
>Rules don't have too great an effect on role-playing, unless your group
>is one of those dreary rules-lawyer groups who let the book rule their lives.
Absolutely not. Rule lawyers lose the roleplaying in the rules. While
rules cannot MAKE good roleplayers, bad rules can make roleplaying more
difficult than it needs to be. A lot of people have become so used to
lousy mechanics that they have basically written off their value. The
fact is that good rules CAN promote roleplaying to a limited extent, by
providing mechanics which make it easier for a player to develop and
detail his character and by NOT intefering and intruding in the creative
process. Good rules enable. Bad rules restrict and dictate.
>In any case, you ignored what I said, which is that the system of rules
>actually *promotes* good role-playing through their simplicity.
Assuming that you're referring to Storyteller, I completely disagree.
Where simplicity is called for Storyteller is junked up with unnecessary
and intrusive mechanics which dictate personality and character actions
when player imagination should be left free. In areas where mechanics
are needed to help players develop and express their character concepts
the Storyteller system is woefully inadequate. Overall the game IS
fairly simple. But those mechanics which it does have are liabilities
rather than assets and its overall emphasis runs counter to good,
creative roleplaying.
>>>People buy it... lots more
>>>people than buy the so-called 'better' systems so applauded by WW-phobics.
>
>>As P. T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." And I guess I'm
>>just one of those do-gooders who gets worried when other people are being
>>duped, or getting less than they might deserve, even when they're convinced
>>they want it.
>>Dave
>
>Well, I must admit that coming on here (alt.games.whitewolf) and calling us
>all suckers for buying these games has a certain arrogant panache.
Actually, I never intended for this discussion to get onto alt.games.ww.
Someone else cross-posted it there and I never noticed the crossover.
>Our
>delicate little Scottish term for such opinions is that "They're aw ootie step
>bar oor Jock..." I don't want to go into an argument about who has played
>RPGs for more years/decades, experienced more systems, been educated to a
>higher level and so on
No, that would be futile.
>, but please accept my assurance that neither I, nor the
>large number of highly intelligent and able people I have had the pleasure to
>play WW games with since they came out, are suckers.
The nature of being a sucker is that you don't KNOW you're a sucker, right?
>I am probably no more
>easy or hard to dupe than the next man, and very hard to dupe for a period of
>years. Methinks you're being a bijou tadette silly casting accusations of
>gullibillity around with such a liberal hand.
The great thing about selling an audience on something like Storyteller is
that the authors appeal to the worst instincts and tendancies of the audience.
For their own self esteem, once players have embraced the system they can't
afford to acknowledge that they might have made a mistake.
There's also an awful lot of irrational system loyalty among gamers of all
sorts. If a system takes you heart you'll never see the truth of its flaws
no matter how wretched it really is. Storyteller lures people in with its
darkness and elitism and once they become loyalists their desire to roleplay
creatively is subjugated to their product-loyalty.
>Yours with a good-humoured chuckle at what must obviously been a joke on
>your part that either fell flat or I missed.
Afraid I wasn't the one who came up with the joke. And sad to say, you may
be the unknowing butt of the joke.
All that said, I'll sugar coat the pill. If you're having fun playing
Storyteller that's great. Fun is the primary objective of all gaming. I
just feel sort of sad that you're missing out on so much more that you
could be enjoying with a real ROLEPLAYING game.
Dave
rev. roy crisman
Nils said:
you really have to be assuming that all us WW fans <or most of us> are
just stupid. So your implied assumption is that your taste is simply
superior to all of ours. If it really truly is, there's nothing you can
do but shake your head and cluck your tongue at silly us. In the end,
complaining about the quality of something many of us truly enjoy will
gain you nothing.
----------------
Isn't that the same thing we do with the poeple who still play T$R?
roymeo
D. Chart
>
>Absolutely not. Rule lawyers lose the roleplaying in the rules. While
>rules cannot MAKE good roleplayers, bad rules can make roleplaying more
>difficult than it needs to be. A lot of people have become so used to
>lousy mechanics that they have basically written off their value. The
>fact is that good rules CAN promote roleplaying to a limited extent, by
>providing mechanics which make it easier for a player to develop and
>detail his character and by NOT intefering and intruding in the creative
>process. Good rules enable. Bad rules restrict and dictate.
>
I entirely agree with this point, but I would say that the ST system is
acceptable (just) from this point of view. I don't like the low
resolution, or a closed-range skill value, but the skills are various,
and you can do a reasonable job of producing the character you have
in mind.
That said, I much prefer the Ars Magica basic mechanics.
>
>Where simplicity is called for Storyteller is junked up with unnecessary
>and intrusive mechanics which dictate personality and character actions
>when player imagination should be left free.
>
Hmm, now I think I seriously disagree. I guess that you are thinking about
virtues and frenzies, and the point about these mechanics is that they are
supposed to simulate something beyond the character's control. They
should dictate character actions.
>Actually, I never intended for this discussion to get onto alt.games.ww.
Oops... Well, it's here now. :)
>
>Storyteller lures people in with its
>darkness and elitism and once they become loyalists their desire to roleplay
>creatively is subjugated to their product-loyalty.
>
Maybe this is just me, but I use the rules so little when role-playing
that ST is good enough. I certainly don't buy it for the rules, but I
don't buy anything for the rules. I like the background, and I like
role-playing, creatively, within it. If the rules get in the way, I
junk them. BUT, and this is important, I tend to junk rules anyway.
It's not a case of "They ought to work so you don't have to junk them":
even if they were the ultimate in speed, accuracy, and role-playing
guidance, I would almost certainly junk them. That's just the way I
play.
>
>All that said, I'll sugar coat the pill. If you're having fun playing
>Storyteller that's great. Fun is the primary objective of all gaming. I
>just feel sort of sad that you're missing out on so much more that you
>could be enjoying with a real ROLEPLAYING game.
>
Any concrete example of what else I could get from a different rule
system would be welcomed. I might even use the idea to make a fix. :)
--
David Chart
Trinity College I'm not mad.
Cambridge But they want you to think I am.
UK
Lee Short
|> I think that you've confused their ideals and goals that they have for
|> their games with an arrogant and sanctimonious attitude.
|> So don't feel as though you MUST tell only quality stories with White
|> Wolf products, then maybe you won't feel so pressured.
Need I say more?
I can't think of anything I could possibly add to such a telling
self-indictment.
It's pretty damn arrogant to say that the only possible reason the
original poster felt that WW was arrogant was because he felt couldn't
meet the standards WW set for storytelling. All I can say is that if
all WW players were like you, the fanboy-in-black reputation would be
*well* deserved.
Lee
--
Lee Short "Act like a dumbshit, and they'll treat you like an equal."
le...@asf.com -- "Bob"
Hughes Training, Inc. Minneapolis
nils per skjodt
David Nalle <d...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
[Huge ol'd chop]
>
>The nature of being a sucker is that you don't KNOW you're a sucker, right?
Yesssss.. this is true. But for SO many people to be SO fooled,
you really have to be assuming that all us WW fans <or most of us> are
just stupid. So your implied assumption is that your taste is simply
superior to all of ours. If it really truly is, there's nothing you can
do but shake your head and cluck your tongue at silly us. In the end,
complaining about the quality of something many of us truly enjoy will
gain you nothing.
>
>All that said, I'll sugar coat the pill. If you're having fun playing
>Storyteller that's great. Fun is the primary objective of all gaming. I
>just feel sort of sad that you're missing out on so much more that you
>could be enjoying with a real ROLEPLAYING game.
why are you sad that we're having fun? I've played lots of RPG's, and
ST is up there among my very favorites. You seem to be lamenting the
fact that we don't share your tastes, and therefor are missing out on
the finer things in gaming life. Stay with your tastes, and I'll stay
with mine. The things you seem to hate about ST are the things I love
about it. <shrug>
--Nils
Howard B. Des Chenes
John Upstone
>I agree that GURPS Vampire is an inexplicably unfaithful translation.
>Still, I'm curious why the license itself was not a move in the right
>direction.
Sorry, it wasn't my intention to say that the license was a bad move.
Translating from my favourite system to my second favourite system was
something I was quite keen on. My objection was to the idea that it was
a good move because the WW rules were so crap.
>Not that it's relevant to a.g.ww, but the importance of IQ and DX is
>that skills depend on them...
>Instead, incentive is created
>to invest in DX and IQ, at the expense of the combat stats. This really
>strikes you as a fatal flaw?
Absolutely, though not quite for those reasons. To be brief, since we're
way off topic for a.g.ww:
GURPS is supposed to be a "universal" system. In a modern horror
campaign, for example, or indeed arguably in any non-fantasy one,
hand-to-hand combat is so infrequent that the ability to hit hard (a
high ST) is vastly less important than having a high IQ or DX. I am
writing a character for a cyberpunk game and I want him to be quite big
and beefy, but mainly because that's what I want him to look like. In 3
years of playing this campaign I don't think any of my previous
characters have ever been involved in melee.
And I don't think the character creation mechanics should need to
actively discourage combat. There's nothing wrong with combat - I can
still intensively role-play a character who's good at fighting!
I've run a GURPS cyberpunk campaign where the ST cost was reduced, and
the HT slightly less so, and it seems fairly balanced. Another GM is
going to use the same tables for his horror game.
How many GURPS characters have you seen with a low IQ and DX, but high
ST and HT? I've not seen any, yet I've played stupid characters in other
games. If you take a really low IQ you're heavily penalising yourself,
and perhaps I'm not quite role-player enough to do that yet. <g>
Cheers,
John
+----------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| 'The world is fucked, and so am I. | 'There's only one way of life, |
| Or maybe it's the other way round, | and that's your own.' |
| I can't seem to decide.' Therapy? | The Levellers |
+----------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|John Upstone, 6a Cascadia Close, Loudwater, High Wycombe, Bucks HP11 1JW |
|Home: 01494 536615 Work: 01494 484000 Email: ju...@cix.compulink.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tim
roy...@iastate.edu "rev. roy crisman" writes:
>Nils said:
>>you really have to be assuming that all us WW fans <or most of us> are
>>just stupid.
>
>Isn't that the same thing we do with the poeple who still play T$R?
Heh heh. A truly adult question! much commendations, senor Crisman.
As an aside, I play and enjoy AD&D, WW _and_ Ars... so what in the
name of <deity of choice> does that make me?? Multiple-Personality, maybe??!
*grin*
Tim.
--
"A magician walked along the shore, & the water was making her toes all wrinkly"
t...@midnight.demon.co.uk *** Insanity en Croute - try it with a side of bacon!
Monsters... we're Heavy and we're Hungry! Monsters... we're Coming Your Way!
* * * * Section Head European Operations -- Wednesday's Coterie of Thugs * * * *
Endie
>From: d...@dewey.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle)
>Subject: Re: Wraith: Minor Sales Problem
>Endie opined:
>No. People have abominably bad taste and can rarely discern what they
>really want. Gamers, like everyone else, tend to go for the easy, quick
>high and ignore the potential of more subtle and substantial sources of
>entertainment.
You know, that is the attitude not so much of Marx as Stalin, circa the Second
International, or even of the State in '1984': these poor proles don't know
what's good for them, because they're all so stupid, but fortunately they have
the wise and good David Nalle to give them what they need, not what they want.
I say again: you are waaaay too arrogant on this. You won't persuade anyone
(which, in your self-percieved role as saviour of our gaming souls, must
surely be your aim), because you're too busy alienating all of us who you are
calling (and I quote) 'suckers'. Look, I restrained myself last time, but now
I'm getting bored of your assertions. True, if I'm a sucker, I might not know
it, but I *do* know that you are arrogant. Has it ever occurred to you that
the hundreds of thousands of WW/ST gamers cannot *all* be suckers ? That they
might just be seeing something in the system that you have missed ?
>>I am probably no more
>>easy or hard to dupe than the next man, and very hard to dupe for a period of
>>years. Methinks you're being a bijou tadette silly casting accusations of
>>gullibillity around with such a liberal hand.
>The great thing about selling an audience on something like Storyteller is
>that the authors appeal to the worst instincts and tendancies of the audience.
>For their own self esteem, once players have embraced the system they can't
>afford to acknowledge that they might have made a mistake.
Ever heard of Occam's Razor ? It's a little analytical technique, dating back
to the middle ages (William of Occam, I think). It basically means: cut away
all that is unnecessary, and don't leave yourself with assumptions which are
more complex than the facts support. So here, faced with a game which has
sold to a lot of intelligent people (I know: I've met enough to make a mildly
representative sample, although of course, there are some pretty dim people,
too, in there), it is simpler to assume that the game has some quality in its
nature which justifies such behaviour, rather than assuming that all of these
people had a lapse of concentration, allowed themselves to be suckered into
buying a game, and are now too weak to admit they were wrong.
>All that said, I'll sugar coat the pill. If you're having fun playing
>Storyteller that's great. Fun is the primary objective of all gaming. I
>just feel sort of sad that you're missing out on so much more that you
>could be enjoying with a real ROLEPLAYING game.
>Dave
Don't be so bloody condescending. I have many, many weaknesses, and i am not
too arrogant to admit that, and one of my real weaknesses is that I hate being
talked down to by someone who has given me (so far) no reason to respect. I
like being persuaded I'm wrong: that is learning, and i love learning,
ascending, becoming wiser. I am wrong about things on a regular basis (we all
are, David: remember that), and fortunately there are people around who can
point this out and persuade me of the fact. You have persuaded me of nothing
so far except that you are one of the most arrogant people in Texas, and
you're up against some pretty stiff competition there....
Keith
Great Cthulhu
>How many GURPS characters have you seen with a low IQ and DX, but high
>ST and HT? I've not seen any, yet I've played stupid characters in other
>games. If you take a really low IQ you're heavily penalising yourself,
>and perhaps I'm not quite role-player enough to do that yet. <g>
I've seen loads and loads of them with 9 or lower IQ. Haven't seen many (I
assume that by "characters" you really mean "PCs") with DX that low (mostly
mages). Personally, the lowest IQ I've played a PC with was 10, and the
lowest DX was also 10, largely because I don't like buying down stats in
general (I've made small exceptions for ST 9 and HT 9, but those are few and
far between). I'm really just not that interested in playing low-IQ
characters... I like to be one of the clever ones for the most part, and I
don't feel I can do that with a really low IQ. Occasionally I've taken a big
guy with average IQ as a change of pace, but only occasionally.
--
-Doug Gibson d...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
"What's this 'lecherous'? Does that mean chaotic?" - overheard at a game con
GS d-(+) H s+:+ !g p? au a- w+ v C++ UH++(++++) P--- L- 3- E N++ K W--- M+ V--
po- Y+ t+ 5- j R++ G+('') tv b+++ !D B--- e++>++++ u+ h---(*) f r+++ n- y+++
Marc Lombart
: I wasn't thinking in terms of redoing the whole system over again from
: scratch. You could preserve the basic character of the game while cleaning
: up the junk and the intrusive mechanics and adding a few simple bits to
: help people who want to roleplay, and you could have a very nice, simple
: game system.
: The fact that they haven't taken the generally recognized botches out of
: the rules is a commentary on how little WW cares about the quality of the
: roleplaying that people do with their games.
About the first paragraph, exactly what intusive mechanics are you
talking about? I have no problem with the character generation system. I
really am curious as to what you believe is bad about it.
In regards the second paragraph, which recognized botches? Please
enlighten me.
Wes thu hal
--
--
Marc Lombart : Pagan, great debater, lover, poet and story teller.
York H. Dobyns
>In article <1994Sep2.2...@Princeton.EDU>, ydo...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns) writes:
>>[...] White Wolf's
>>World of Darkness is a marvelous concept; the games that they've
>>designed around that concept are atrocious botches that are an insult
>>to the publishing industry and the gaming community.
>
>Oh really, is that why it draws so many non-traditional gamers into gaming?
"Non-traditional gamers"? I've yet to see anyone jump directly into WW's
fare without extensive previous experience in other roleplaying games.
>What system do you like? please elaborate so i can rip you to pieces, or are
>you afraid that if you put forth your ideas that they might get ripped apart
>because they are complete shit like this stuff you post?
If this your standard of critical commentary, I have nothing to worry
about. My personal preferred systems are Hero and Gurps, in no
particular relative order. I'm also reasonably fond of the Runequest/BRP
mechanics.
>> As long as they keep up that attitude, their games will
>>never improve _as games_, and (to anyone with the slightest concerns
>>about consistency, realism, or usable mechanics) will remain utterly
>>useless except as idea sourcebooks for other game systems.
>>
>Phsa, whatever. more sweeping mindless generalization, and no substance.
>realism? much more real than GURPS or D&D systems, and much more usuable and
>capable of producing more interesting character effects.
Consistency: each new WW game has introduced different attributes and
dropped old ones, because of the changing focus of interest.
Unfortunately, the "missing" attributes are tied up into the mechanics
in fundamental ways, so that (for just one example) there are vampiric
tricks that mages, per the mechanics, do not get to resist, since they
lack Humanity or Conscience or some other attribute that was assumed as
a default in the Vampire mechanics.
Realism: Where to begin? A skill system with intrinsic, built-in
pathologies? I like the concept of multiple dice/multiple successes.
White Wolf is aware of the fact that their d10 system becomes
pathological at difficulty 10. They seem blissfully ignorant of the fact
that it is *also* pathological at difficulty factors 8 and 9 and, for
some skill ratings, 2. In this particular case I take as "pathological"
a system where having greater ability at some task -- more dice to roll
-- *increases*, rather than decreasing, your probability that something
spectacularly bad will happen. This is not, of course, the sole source
of pathologies in a task resolution system.
A combat system such that it takes an Elder Vampire using blood pool to
pump his ratings to humanly-unachievable levels, to match the
*documented* performance of human snipers in RL.
Running rules that give about a 20% difference in movement rate, max,
between 80-year-old, arthritic Aunt Mary and an Olympic sprinter.
More realistic than Gurps? It is to laugh. I'm not about to defend
D&D: see "Take That! And That! And That! And..." or "His Top is Made
Out of Rubber, His Bottom is Made Out of Springs" in _Murphy's Rules_.
Usable mechanics: Somewhere in the background section, V:tM makes the
offhanded comment that vampires see better in the dark than humans.
Good; that's a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, any details
of game effects for this difference are left for the GM to figure out.
(Granted, all of the player characters are vampires and share the same
advantage, but unless it's a really weird campaign there *is* going to
be some interaction with mortal NPC's from time to time!)
Mage mentions that using a talisman allows a Mage to roll more dice
than his Arete rating: a useful and important thing to know, since any
character can start with a Talisman by buying the appropriate
background. It would also be nice to know *how many* more dice are
available this way, but the rules on talismans are silent here.
In one of the most egregious consumer response goofs of all time, the
design mavens at WW took an *already complete and workable* system for
resolving "stepping sideways" into the spirit world (in Mage) and,
apparently under the delusion that they were making things "more
compatible" with Werewolf, imported the difficulty table from Werewolf
for the same feat. Thus, they heroically converted a straightforward
mechanic that fitted cleanly into the magic system into the linguistic
equivalent of Frankenstein's Monster. I could list a half-dozen or so more
problems from memory, without having to go back and consult any of the
rulebooks; but why bother? This should be ample to demonstrate that I have
specific criticisms (and plenty of them), not just "empty generalities."
When I buy a game, I'd like to get a system that I can use with, at most,
a few minor tune-ups, not a theoretical outline of something that might
be a playable game if I wrote 40% more rules myself.
Oh yeah, "interesting character effects." I found it extraordinarily
interesting that *none* of the personality archetypes the WW folks came
up with fit me at all; apparently they find it inconceivable that
someone like me can exist. If they wanted a way of categorizing
personality types for game purposes, they'd have done a lot better
by, say, "popularizing" the Meyers-Briggs inventory ( a standard
psychological tool). But that would have been a lot of work, and
required some kind of copyright negotiations, and hey, we all know the
rules don't matter, right?
The Storyteller games repeatedly insist that the rules are dross, the
precious Story is all; they also have execrable rules. It is very hard
to avoid suspecting a correlation.
--
York Dobyns ydo...@phoenix.princeton.edu
Some people are always critical of vague statements. I tend rather to be
critical of precise statements; they are the only ones which can be
correctly labeled "wrong". -- Raymond Smullyan