Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 5324893" data-attributes="member: 14159">I think I understand.&nbsp; You wanted a total continuity reboot, a World of Darkness not encumbered by over a decade of byzantine metaplots and with more &quot;sandbox&quot; and &quot;toolkit&quot; elements, that also took advantage of lessons learned in game design (making the core book about mortals with only very minor supernatural content, and making each supernatural being a separate &quot;setting&quot; book that built off a common core was good)With regards to metaplot and WoD, I thought it tended to get in the way, personally.&nbsp; I always hated it when a player would come to the table (or the larp) and start spewing lots and lots of esoteric metaplot references to obscure characters and automatically think they were part of that game.&nbsp; Metaplot and an extremely detailed setting help build verisimilitude in settings far removed from reality (Forgotten Realms, Star Wars ect).&nbsp; For a setting like WoD that is supposed to be very much like the world out your front door, you already have an idea of what the world is like, you just need some things added in here and there.&nbsp; However, even when you have Metaplot, it shouldn't fundamentally make prior products unusable.&nbsp; Advance the presumed campaign date a year or two: Okay.&nbsp; Make the presumed outcome of published modules an in-game fact mentioned later on: Okay.&nbsp; Have some minor events happen like tertiary NPCs die, or new organizations arise as responses to prior events: Okay.&nbsp; Have big-name NPCs die plunging the setting into total chaos and civil war and have future books assume that's the status quo: Not Okay.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wingsandsword, post: 5324893, member: 14159"] I think I understand. You wanted a total continuity reboot, a World of Darkness not encumbered by over a decade of byzantine metaplots and with more "sandbox" and "toolkit" elements, that also took advantage of lessons learned in game design (making the core book about mortals with only very minor supernatural content, and making each supernatural being a separate "setting" book that built off a common core was good) With regards to metaplot and WoD, I thought it tended to get in the way, personally. I always hated it when a player would come to the table (or the larp) and start spewing lots and lots of esoteric metaplot references to obscure characters and automatically think they were part of that game. Metaplot and an extremely detailed setting help build verisimilitude in settings far removed from reality (Forgotten Realms, Star Wars ect). For a setting like WoD that is supposed to be very much like the world out your front door, you already have an idea of what the world is like, you just need some things added in here and there. However, even when you have Metaplot, it shouldn't fundamentally make prior products unusable. Advance the presumed campaign date a year or two: Okay. Make the presumed outcome of published modules an in-game fact mentioned later on: Okay. Have some minor events happen like tertiary NPCs die, or new organizations arise as responses to prior events: Okay. Have big-name NPCs die plunging the setting into total chaos and civil war and have future books assume that's the status quo: Not Okay. [/QUOTE]

Verification