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

[alleynbard]

Since the core rulebook has virtually no setting information whatsoever, there is no real default setting.

I think a more accurate statement would be the new WoD has a bare bones setting. There is a little bit of history, some setting themes, etc. The default setting for 3.x is a watered down version of Greyhawk but the PHB contains almost no setting info. Similar case here. As new books come out (V:tR, Mage, etc.) I can add as little or as much as I like.

Now the WoD can be however I want it to be. There is no metaplot infringing on my game. I think that is pretty cool.

 

[alleynbard]

I plan on running a mortals game in a Lovecraftian style or maybe something more "Dark Matterish", more likely a blend of both. If the PCs later gain supernatural templates then great. Otherwise, I am not going to allow supernaturals at the beginning of play.

 

[scranford]

I've got three possibilities I'm running past my players now.
1. 1960's Spy type game with supernatural plots slowly working ther way in.
2. Early 1950's US government cover-up game. Aliens etc. B-movie style
3. Just before WWII, Race between axis, and allies for supernatural aid.
I can finally use the WOD system since they now allow you to be a normal human.

 

[teitan]

I plan on doing a couple of different games with it. I used to play a ot of Vamp back when the 2e book came out but got out of it and when I played in a Dark Ages game I couldn't believe how clunky and slow the mechanics were, really took me out of the experience a good bit. We never really used dice in the game I played way back when, so I really loved the setting and hated the mechanics.

So I left White Wolf in th dust, it was my last constant gaming experience for YEARS until D&D3 came out and now that I am getting burnt out on 3 years with D&D I see I am falling for the Vamp stuff all over again especially with the new rules... no matter 3 hour battles with 8000 D10s being rolled several times for one action. I love it, probably better than D20 (woah, I am so D20s bitch even).

So I have a campaign I was going to use Modern for and I'll be damned if I don't use WOD for it because its perfect. Anybody here read Sword of Dracula? Awesome omic book. Well its about a UN endorsed anf funded organization that hunts Vampires. Don't think Vampire$, its better and less over the top. Dracula is pretty wicked, he controls blood, he can make things like swords, lances, pikes, horses and carriages, dogs and FRICKING CASTLES out of the stuff! Imagine a villain where every character he kills makes him that much stronger, providing more fuel for his power... Now imagine having to hunt these sons of bitches...

I am hoping Mage isn't like the previous version. I thought it was kind of flakey and not at all what I wanted in a magick/occult based game and I pray it isn't similar to Unknown Armies, which I didn't like. I want occult orders having magickal wars while all the members focus on their personal development, y'know, like real life. Unknown Armies was ok, but I want Kaballah and Taoism etc. SOmething resembling the occultism I have studied for 13 years...

Jason

 

[reanjr]

As a proud new owner of the World of Darkness core rulebook and Vampire: The Requiem after Gencon, I thought I'd take a moment to pick the brains of my fellow EN Worlders. Although I haven't really had a chance to pick my way through the books just yet and it will probably be awhile before I have a chance to run a campaign using the new system, I thought it would be interesting to see if any of my fellow EN Worlders plan to start up any World of Darkness games. So if you have any such plans I'd like to hear what sort of games you plan on running.

The core book looks really cool on its own. I'm not a big fan of World of Darkness, but I'd probably use the core book to run a modern horror campaign and not bother with Vampire. Though I really want to see what they do with Werewolf (always been my favorite).

 

[Umbran]

I think a more accurate statement would be the new WoD has a bare bones setting. There is a little bit of history, some setting themes, etc. The default setting for 3.x is a watered down version of Greyhawk but the PHB contains almost no setting info. Similar case here.

I don't think it is very similar. It is true that the 3.X rulebooks contain little setting information, but they containmore hard info than the WW core book does. Especially if you include the DMG, which has a lot of suggestions on worldbuilding and such.

The WoD Core rulebook has no "hard" history. It has a couple of pieces of fiction that may or may not be history. It has some suggestions on how to build adventures, but little in the way of suggestiosn for what might exist in the world. In fact, they go out of their way to suggest that the world has "anything and everything", from Angels to Aliens. Saying, "the world has anything you can imagine" isn't helpful for someone looking for a bit of focus. Having too many optiosn tends to make people waffle.

This is all well and good for an experienced GM, who is ready and willing to make up everything himself. It isn't at all good for a novice. Nor is it good for someone who wants to start up mortals in preparation for a Werewolf or Mage game (where the details of powers are not necessarily impoprtant for that, the major set-pieces would be darned helpful).

 

[Welverin]

I'm sure there were other sections, but those are the major ones that spring most immediately to mind.

That'll do, gives me an idea of what to look at.

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. )

I make sure to lay the blame where it belongs, i.e. at Justin's feet (after all he's a WW big wig and doesn't have to worry about getting more work).

I was also thinking about a Toon crossover, though.

Freakazoid! Zoidberg, maybe?

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.

I take it, explaining to him that he doesn't have to be a villain is fruitless?

 

[Tiberius]

I take it, explaining to him that he doesn't have to be a villain is fruitless?

Yeah, I've tried that tack. He likes playing the Big Damn Hero, and being a lifestealing creature of darkness seems in his mind to exclude that. Also, such a concept would tend to run afoul of the other characters, who would probably be designed more around the socio-political aspects of the game, increasing intracoterie tension. "Imbued-with-fangs" clashes with "vampiric socialite". While the resultant mistrust and paranoia may be thematic to the game, it makes for (for him) an unenjoyable party.

Interestingly, his favorite WoD game was Hunter. I think I've tried the "Hunters are just as monstrous as vampires" angle, but it didn't work. Ultimately, I shrug, chalk it up to a stylistic difference, and get back to Exalted.

 

[Welverin]

Yeah, I've tried that tack. He likes playing the Big Damn Hero, and being a lifestealing creature of darkness seems in his mind to exclude that. Also, such a concept would tend to run afoul of the other characters, who would probably be designed more around the socio-political aspects of the game, increasing intracoterie tension. "Imbued-with-fangs" clashes with "vampiric socialite". While the resultant mistrust and paranoia may be thematic to the game, it makes for (for him) an unenjoyable party.

I can understand most of that, I have a bit of a goody two-shoes mentality myself, I just don't see any reason he couldn't do it in Vampire as well. Of course it would end up conflicting with what the rest of the players do, then it's for the best.

He must love Exalted.

 

[Nifft]

What will I do with the new WoD?

I'll lurk. Duh.

-- N