Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9678924" data-attributes="member: 18">I get that this is your opinion, but it's in hard conflict with how an awful lot of oWoD games were actually played. Not as D&D, but certainly as having fairly regular and significant combat.As for "combat was a frequent complaint" - I don't think that's true, actually, or rather no more than any other system, including combat-centric ones like D&D. Actually for the first few years of oWoD I would go as far as to say combat was frequently praised. Only later when they started messing with the mechanics more, and increasingly failing to test, did it break down, mostly post-Revised and post-Exalted. The worst WW game for combat was Scion (despite it being more combat-centric than some), where the maths was absolutely awful, and they'd clearly failed to either calculate or even test their own mechanics.And sorry, but even WW themselves didn't suggest "personal drama" was the WoD's strength - they suggested intrigue was. In fact, 2E VtM explicitly calls out personal drama as hard to do, and requiring an experienced and careful Storyteller. It's right there in the Bourbon Street entry. Whereas intrigue is called out as what the game is best at. So if we're talking about what the "strengths" of games are, we shouldn't confuse the oWoD (an intrigue-centric game) with say, Masks, which does do personal drama very well.</blockquote>