Monte Cooks WoD is for 3.5

[Imaro]

Well... Yes, old WoD would often force you to choose between one or the other, but a competent mundane combat-oriented character usually could decide to split his action and do both (with enough dice left over to make it worthwhile). And once you got into the realm of supernatural critters (which is, after all, the WoD bread and butter) it got relatively commonplace.

Splitting your dice pool is the same as defense, only done staticly for speed of play. Note where I metioned if the trait defense is based on goes up, it goes up as well. In fact it's better because you're getting a split dice pool of auto successes(plus you get to roll your full pool for attack) as opposed to maybe rolling no successes + the additional time to resolve it and getting only your partial pool to roll for attacks.

Is it that you want to decide how many dice to alot yourself? I think the speed and fluidity of play is more important, but that's just my oppinion.

 

[Odhanan]

Uh, no. Bullets, particularly large-caliber ones, rip tunnels and holes in flesh. Moreso if you're dealing in crazy stuff like hollow-points and Glaser rounds, doubly so if you have something like large-ought shot in a shotgun. Automatic weapons do this quickly. The idea that, somehow, the undead are immune (effectively) to bullets but not knives and swords is...amusing.

That was not Campbell's point, Jim. His point was that, in the context of nWoD rules, vampires regenerate from bullet wounds very easily. Which they do.

After you can make all the criticism you want about the power of firearms, but the bottom line is, undead don't exist in the real world. We're talking about a game element within the specific context of its rules.

 

[mmu1]

Now let's look at some games that are actually designed for this genre...Unknown Armies, Witchcraft, Seventh Seal, Armageddon, Buffy & Angel. All of them sacrifice your attack actions for a "full defense".

First of all, you didn't say "most horror RPGS" - you decided to make a blanket statement to make your argument look stronger, and now are backpedaling. But ok...

Second, all those games you bring up have more differences than commonalities - you have something based on a (slightly goofy) comedy/horror TV show, a game about the occult and everyday weirdness, and one about the end of the world when devils and angels walk the earth - the fact they all use a similar mechanic proves nothing, in this case.

Third, and finally, I didn't actually say "full defense" - I said "active defense". There's a difference...

 

[mmu1]

Splitting your dice pool is the same as defense, only done staticly for speed of play.

Uh... Again, with the responding to things I didn't actually say. I didn't say splitting your dice pool, I said splitting your action. Different mechanic.

 

[Imaro]

First of all, you didn't say "most horror RPGS" - you decided to make a blanket statement to make your argument look stronger, and now are backpedaling. But ok...

Second, all those games you bring up have more differences than commonalities - you have something based on a (slightly goofy) comedy/horror TV show, a game about the occult and everyday weirdness, and one about the end of the world when devils and angels walk the earth - the fact they all use a similar mechanic proves nothing, in this case.

Uhm so they have less in common with each other than say D6(which doesn't even have a horror book) than nWoD. Your grasping at straws here, if they we're all the same game they'd be nWoD...They're all based around the same theme horror/occult roleplaying.

Wasn't trying to "prove" anything, you asked for examples and I gave them to you...the fact that each one of these games has the same basic theme (horror/occult) roleplaying was just icing on the cake

Third, and finally, I didn't actually say "full defense" - I said "active defense". There's a difference...

Whatever...now whose reaching? Please tell me in what way are you using the word "active".

What's the difference, is D&D an "active defense" you don't get to roll for it, but it's always active?

What about Exalted...do charms that affect it make it active? Is it only "active when you actually use a charm to increse it? Or is that an adaptable defense?

Sorry I took it to mean how a game mechanic works when someone "actively" tries to dodge/defend themselves to the best of their ability.

 

[Imaro]

Uh... Again, with the responding to things I didn't actually say. I didn't say splitting your dice pool, I said splitting your action. Different mechanic.

You are absolutely right, I did read this wrong and I apologize for misinterpretting what you said.

You know I just realized something though...In oWoD you had to either take a passive defense score (I think 6) which was the number that scored a succeses to hit you...or abort your action(get no attack) to a defense maneuver...ie where you get to roll against incoming attacks. This all seems basically the same as nWoD...you have a "passive defense" or you can choose to Dodge and get a full defense. You can not use the multiple actions to defend actively. If you were this was a houserule.

The only difference is in oWoD you are rolling to defend, while in nWoD you have the maximum of the dice pool as auto-successes, instead of having to roll.

 

[mmu1]

You are absolutely right, I did read this wrong and I apologize for misinterpretting what you said.

You know I just realized something though...In oWoD you had to either take a passive defense score (I think 6) which was the number that scored a succeses to hit you...or abort your action(get no attack) to a defense maneuver...ie where you get to roll against incoming attacks. This all seems basically the same as nWoD...you have a "passive defense" or you can choose to Dodge and get a full defense. You can not use the multiple actions to defend actively. If you were this was a houserule.

The only difference is in oWoD you are rolling to defend, while in nWoD you have the maximum of the dice pool as auto-successes, instead of having to roll.

I don't know how older editions of old WoD worked, but I'm pretty sure that in the last one before nWoD you could split actions - you subtracted a number of dice equal to the number of actions you were taking in a turn from the die pool for the first action, and that number+1 from the second die pool. So if you, for example, had a melee pool of 9 and a dodge pool of 8, and decided to attack and dodge in the same round, you'd get an attack pool of 7 (9-2) and a dodge pool of 5.(8-3) It wasn't a very popular option, for obvious reasons - except for highly skilled characters.

As for "active defense", I mean things like what I just described above, or GURPS Parry, Block and Dodge rolls, or SR 3E use of "Combat Pool" to avoid attacks, or Riddle of Steel's... well, Riddle of Steel is complicated. I did, however, play a lot of systems which used both active defenses and die pools, and I think the better ones give you the kind of control over your character in combat that nWoD doesn't come close to matching. (and IMO, for all its simplicity, it still isn't especially quick)

 

[Jim Hague]

You may be right, but it would seem wrong for vampires to be afraid of guns, wouldn't it? I mean, they're not afraid of them in any significant source material I'm aware of.

If you've got a campaign in the modern world, why not? My main gripe is that it damages the versimillitude - the explanation for why is weak. Vampires are established as physical supernatural creatures that were once human, so torn muscles and broken bones ought to at least pain them and slow them down. Sure, there's only two vital organs, but if you look at stuff like Nancy Collins' Sunglasses After Dark and its sequels, which the WoD riffs heavily on, modern arms are a serious problem for the undead; they won't 'kill' them, but they cause problems with wounds, regeneration...

Mind you, this is mitigated somewhat in the nWoD - take a look at the Monster Hunter in the mainbook. So if Monte's take follows those general guidelines, I'll likely be happier with it. Then again, I'm the guy that thinks mortals should be a serious threat in any Wod-style game.

 

[Jim Hague]

but one good thwhack to the neck with a long sword, and you got one dead vampire.

Or any of several Asian weapons, hm? The Zombie Survival Guide addresses that. Of course, given the time period the WoD originally came out of, the whole 'sword over gun' thing is likely just part of the trenchcoat-and-katana fashion statement.

 

[Imaro]

I don't know how older editions of old WoD worked, but I'm pretty sure that in the last one before nWoD you could split actions - you subtracted a number of dice equal to the number of actions you were taking in a turn from the die pool for the first action, and that number+1 from the second die pool. So if you, for example, had a melee pool of 9 and a dodge pool of 8, and decided to attack and dodge in the same round, you'd get an attack pool of 7 (9-2) and a dodge pool of 5.(8-3) It wasn't a very popular option, for obvious reasons - except for highly skilled characters.

That's what I'm saying, this by RAW is wrong. The combat section specifically states that in order to do defensive maneuvers you must abort your actions. And yes I'm talking about VtM revised, Mage revised, etc.. You may have played it the way you describe, but defensive maneuvers are an exception to the multi-action rules