WoD renaming, White Wolf returns

[Thomas Shey]

Exactly. The settings are in the same genre, sure, but the details are wildly different.

Mage: The Ascension is about… just take a look at this screen art.

C.J. Carella’s WitchCraft is about playing people with magical powers—including psychics, wiccans, vampires, shifters, Atlantean immortals, etc.—who live secretly within muggle society.

They’re hardly interchangeable

Again, the setting that's leading up toward Armageddon? And has all the roots around it before then?

Mages are theoretically secret too.

Again, I'm just not buying it. They aren't the same, but they aren't different in anything but the details, and unless you're focused on the Technocracy, even not that different in those. There's certainly the equivalent of vampire culture, werewolf culture and things like the Nephandi. There weren't enough books to go into all those in detail, but they're still there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's really the root of the issue. What will sell? With a few exceptions, I don't think anyone knows what will sell let alone what might become the next runaway hit. Did anyone in 1991 think Vampire the Masquerade was making the way for a line of products that included 8+ games like Mage, Hunter, Werewolf, etc., etc. (not even including the Dark Ages, Victorian, or Wild, Wild West variants)? Companies stick with old White Wolf games because it's got a track history of success. It's the same reason Disney owns Marvel, Star Wars, and the Muppets now.

I'm just saying that once one game in a genre comes out and is reasonably successful, any successor has a hill to climb.

 

[MGibster]

I'm just saying that once one game in a genre comes out and is reasonably successful, any successor has a hill to climb.

I agree. We've all got limited cash and time to invest in RPGs, so if you're invested heavily in Call of Cthulhu or D&D you're less likely to become heavily invested in a similar game that scratches that same itch. Maybe not you or anyone else who posts here, we're weirdos, but for most people I think that's the case.

 

[VelvetViolet]

They aren't the same, but they aren't different in anything but the details,

This is a meaningless statement that you can say about anything.

I personally care about those details and find they produce very different experiences. The communities and playstyles were very different.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree. We've all got limited cash and time to invest in RPGs, so if you're invested heavily in Call of Cthulhu or D&D you're less likely to become heavily invested in a similar game that scratches that same itch. Maybe not you or anyone else who posts here, we're weirdos, but for most people I think that's the case.

Not only that, but just hearing about "the second game" is harder, and its already got market penetration that makes it more likely new players will hit the first one. And of course, do new entrants try something really different (which can go well or not) or try and fish somewhat in the same pond (where they really competing head on)?

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is a meaningless statement that you can say about anything.

What I mean is that they play very similarly because other than the Technocracy, they have the same in-setting issues and problems. Mages and Witchcraft mages (as contrasted with some of the other types) even have some of the same problems with magic use.

I personally care about those details and find they produce very different experiences. The communities and playstyles were very different.

Not in my experience. I saw a number of campaigns of both, and barring Mage campaigns focused on the Technocracy, you could have interchanged the systems and got virtually the same results. That was even true of mixed campaigns (other than that Mage didn't have any practical way to do the equivalent of the Witchcraft casters that were drawing on the power of the Mad God, but then, those guys weren't going to be very popular with most Witchcraft PC groups, either).

 

[VelvetViolet]

Who thinks ttrpgs are a hugely profitable sector, anyway? Most “publishers” are single hobbyists!

 

[aramis erak]

I mean, my feeling is usually kind of the reverse, maybe I'm a neophiliac or whatever but if a game is like, absolutely in my "strike zone" interests-wise, i.e. it's very similar to a game I like in terms of subject matter, then that automatically makes me more interested in it, not less.

To a point, I'm the same way. I'm more interested in a Trek Like than a novel science fiction setting. I was excited for 2d20 STA when it released. I've run a bunch (a couple campaign-years of almost weekly sessions) of STA, and I like it. I like how it makes it easier to get my players to think in terms of drama, and how it added nifty mechanics that other trek games would benefit from a similar bit. It does, however, have a couple big issues... ship combat being the big one.

What would make me less interested isn't "It's about that subject you like running RPGs about!", but rather "The rules are rather similar to that RPG about that subject that you already have!" or "This game just applies generic-ass rules to the subject".

Very similar - if it's adaptation of the rules, and I like the setting and find the ruleset tolerable, I'll be delighted to read it... until, at least, I find bits that make me go "Ugh!"

Hence yet another d20-based, level-based, linear-power-gain Heroic Fantasy RPG doesn't necessarily make me go "Ooooh!", but a gain using very different mechanical approaches and ideas to explore Heroic Fantasy or a similar area does make me pay attention.

Which is why I'm interested more in Daggerheart than (whatever name Black Flag changed into). The latter set out to be more D&D-5E-ish... while Daggerheart aims for a similar range of settings, but a different playstyle and GMing style, and mechanicalizes those differences.

I don't think this is uncommon either - like, there's a whole bunch of Cthulhu mythos games for a reason, and I don't think it's just a lot of people thinking "CoC sux lol" or something, but rather because people like seeing different ways it could be done, and like trying new games with similar subject matter to see if they prefer them.

And trying is part of it because like, how does one know that, say Arkham Horror and Candela Obscura won't do a better job than CoC? I'm not saying they will, but I'm making the point that most people don't just know that - that wanting to find that out by playing them or at least reading them is actually very common.

But only common once one's gotten them outside the D&D/Pathfinder trap zone.
Certain 5E variant engines seem to be excellent at that, save for their specific settings. (I'm thinking mostly of Pugmire, Monarchies of Mau, and Squeaks in the Deep - the PugSteady System games... with a more pick your path of growth system for it's classes...)

I'll note as well: many of my friends who like the Cthulhu mythos don't like BRP at all. A few do, and love BRP and CoC. It's a bit of a divide... Many times, I've seen them try a new system as a group compromise... And that divide also prevented me from running ElfQuest, RuneQuest, Worlds Beyond, and FASA Trek.

 

[aramis erak]

Again, the setting that's leading up toward Armageddon? And has all the roots around it before then?

Mages are theoretically secret too.

Again, I'm just not buying it. They aren't the same, but they aren't different in anything but the details, and unless you're focused on the Technocracy, even not that different in those. There's certainly the equivalent of vampire culture, werewolf culture and things like the Nephandi. There weren't enough books to go into all those in detail, but they're still there.

Witchcraft doesn't need some of those splats... The Full Unisystem games are fully interoperable. The ones I remember by name being Witchcraft, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, and Terra Primate. AFMB has a ton of splats.
(Note: Unisystem Lite works a little differently, but is closely related; it's convertible but not really directly compatible, and adds BTVS, Angel, Army of Darkness & Ghosts of Avalon...)

In terms of setting, I tend to agree that Witchcraft and Mage are the same genre... but Mage seems to have a larger range of power and epicness... but I've not actually played/run WC, while I've run M:TA a few sessions. M:TA also had, in the editions I had/have, interoperability with VTM, WWTA, CTD, GTO, HTR, and Street Fighter... learn one, and the others are readily grasped.

I'm not up on the new editions... didn't buy the splats, either, for most of them. For a while, it was easier to find WW players in Anchorage than AD&D 2e players (this was pre-3E).

 

[Jd Smith1]

I'll note as well: many of my friends who like the Cthulhu mythos don't like BRP at all. A few do, and love BRP and CoC. It's a bit of a divide... Many times, I've seen them try a new system as a group compromise... And that divide also prevented me from running ElfQuest, RuneQuest, Worlds Beyond, and FASA Trek.

CoC as a setting or setting concept is, IMO, amazing, and I use it to some degree in nearly every setting I play. They just do the occult right. But their system, whether BRP or 7e, just leaves me cold. I want to like it, and it has many agreeable points, but there are key choices they've made which just derail its use (for me). Which is a shame, because their support books are plentiful and of high quality.