What will you be doing with the new World of Darkness?

[Welverin]

And yes, for disclaimer's sake, I did work on it.

So, what parts did you work on?

I think I'll start a purely hack'n'slash campaign about exploring ancient crypts, killing other supernaturals, and taking their stuff.

What?

Sounds like fun, I still prefer undead super heroes though.

 

[Umbran]

My FLGS had a midnight release party,and I picked up a copy of the Core Rulebook, but not V:tR. For the short term, the only thing I will do with it is perhaps a little playtesting to see how it feels.

My reading of it leaves me with mixed feelings, to be honest. It is streamlined, yes. The game should run more smoothly, with fewer rules-lookups and dice rolls. However, they've done that at the expense of resolution. They've decreased the number of skills (and the number of skill points) characters recieve. That generally leads to characters being more similar, which isn't so hot.

There also seems to be a decrease in the number of tactical options available. In the old WoD, a character generally had two degrees of freedom in dealing with actions - there was changing the target number, and changing the size of the dice pool. They've removed the first of those degrees of freedom. That should make things run more quickly, and that's okay for a game that is supposed to be about storytelling and not tactical wargaming. But it again decreses the ways in which characters and their actiosn can differ. A trade off, I suppose.

The lack of metaplot is nice. But the complete lack of setting information in the core rulebook isn't so nice. There's an old adage that the trick is to keep your mind open, without allowing your brains to spill all over the sidewalk. The Core Rulebook goes a bit too far to the latter in this regard - it contains virtually nothing for a Storyteller to work from. Not good in an introductory product.

From what I've heard and seen of the Vamire line, I wish they'd made more changes, and taken more risks. Whern D&D 3e was released, the big selling point was that it would be a new, better way to play the game you knew and loved, and to my mind that was an accurate statement. For WoD 2.0, the big selling point was that this was going to be a new game, unconnected to the old. But that's not what we are getting. We are getting a new (and perhaps better) way to play the same game. We're seeing mostly the same character powers and abilities, many of the same clan/bloodline types, and so on. If the game was really new and unconnected, it shouldn't bear so much resemblance to the old game.

That being said, so far it looks like it might well be a good, solid game. We shall see.

 

[Mouseferatu]

So, what parts did you work on?

Umm, let's see... Been a while since I actually worked on it...

A lot of the general "Vampire society" info, some of the religion info, several of the clan splats (Daeva and Nos), several of the covenant splats (Invictus and Lancea Sanctum), a few of the Disciplines, half the New Orleans appendix... I'm sure there were other sections, but those are the major ones that spring most immediately to mind.

That doesn't mean every word in those sections is mine, though. Justin Achilli did a lot of development and made a lot of alterations after final authors' drafts were in, as the game took shape. So if you see stuff in there you love, I can't take full credit for it. (But then, that also means I get to dodge some blame for stuff you don't. )

 

[maddman75]

Wow - the things I'm hearing are really turning me on. First, the system fixes sound perfect. I hate death spirals, and it sounds like they either eliminated or reduced it. Removing the dual dice pool/TN nonsense sounds great as well. There's only one way to change difficulty in d20, and that's plenty for us, why not ST. No metaplot, I hate playing in someone else's campaign. And the default setting is mortals in a supernatural world, with splats for vampires, mages, werewolves, or whatever else they come up with. And presumably all compatible, none of the cross-over conflicts from having several similar but different games and pretending it was all on one system.

 

[Zappo]

Sounds like fun, I still prefer undead super heroes though.

I was also thinking about a Toon crossover, though.

 

[Sorren]

Vampire? Nah. I never got into the idea of being an angst-ridden leech with legs.

You might consider taking another look at Vampire. One of the changes that I noticed was the game's tone. While their is always room for angst in any WoD game, Vampire are more .....angry now.

They play the role of the predator far more in the new game.

 

[Umbran]

I hate death spirals, and it sounds like they either eliminated or reduced it.

It is reduced, but still present.

No metaplot, I hate playing in someone else's campaign. And the default setting is mortals in a supernatural world, with splats for vampires, mages, werewolves, or whatever else they come up with.

I don't think this is an accurate description. Since the core rulebook has virtually no setting information whatsoever, there is no real default setting.

 

[Jakar]

I am not going to buy it for at least 6 months. There is way too much d20 goodness out there for me to get first.

I am looking forward to see what they have done with the system though.

 

[Tiberius]

I've not been able to absorb it all yet, but I like what I have seen. Especially the way that Celerity is not the must-have world-beater it was in previous editions. It's strange to see character creation without freebie points. Unfortunately, one of the players in my group is vehemenantely opposed to playing Vampire, so I question whether I will be able to make use of the books. Something about not liking to play villians or some such. Still, even if I never use 'em in a proper game, I like the imagination fuel.

 

[alleynbard]

double post