In this whole response I want to point out how you do not discuss the mechanics of WoD you just talk about the game. You could be using any system for all of your discussion. Hence the entire argument breaks down because you could simply sub in any of a dozen systems and you have negated the need for WoD.
Then don't speak so generally and point out specifics. I've been asking for that this whole time, and you refuse to point to specific issues. You spoke generally, I responded generally. You didn't talk about any mechanics either, you said "compare these two games in these very broad areas!!!" and so I did. I've actually gone more specific than you by actually quoting areas of the game text, so don't get on me for being general.
By the way, last I checked, I spoke for a good bit about WoD's mechanics versus SotC's inasmuch as 'grittiness' and speed of resolution due to simplicity. I didn't label what we were talking about specifically because it was in a direct response to a section I quoted from you. I would expect you to have comprehended that I was merely staying on the subject you began.
WoD is supposed to be rules lite. SotC has less rules, does more and fosters the concept of storytelling better.
WoD -is- rules-light. SotC being less rules-heavy doesn't negate WoD as a rules-light system. I learned the mechanics in about as much time as it took me to learn SotC in the first place. So far, I haven't seen that it does more.
This is where you really show your lack of understanding. You discard that difference in the logical comparison sense. Looking at the two systems they have a big difference. That difference comes from the needs of the genres. If SotC was a gritty game it would have a low chance of success. The discarding allows for a direct comparison of the two.
No, you didn't discard for a direct comparison. You discarded and then said "look! look! It's exactly the same! How can it be exactly the same?! Clearly nWoD is an action-adventure game!" You reduced one side of the equation (remove the chance of success from the mechanic) and then not the other (which genre that influences, adventure versus horror).
I discarded for a direct comparison.
If what I said was your intent all along, then why did you even bring it up? Or do you somehow think that grittiness in no way adds to horror?
I disagree with this concept. Even if it were true it is not necessary or sufficient (the qualities required in logic). And it makes for a poor roleplaying mechanisim.
And why do you disagree with this concept? What makes it a poor roleplaying mechanism? Why do you think that slowly bleeding out optimism isn't a sufficient quality of horror? Necessary, no, you can build horror without it - sufficient, yes, entire good movies and literature are predicated on the concept. Back up something you're saying for once in this thread.
That is completely stupid. I am glad that nWoD said something so moronic. The mechanics are the world, the game is utterly dependent on them. The most important part of any RPG is the rules. They are the factor that makes it an RPG rather than a game of lets pretend.
The rule that there is an absence of rules for a specific sector is... a rule, still.
The mechanics and story are not subordinate to one another, they are equal. I also disagree with White Wolf here, no surprise to anyone.
Again, WoD bills itself as the storytelling game, the creative game. The opposite of a dungeon crawl. You say no shit, but that is one of the promises they imply and fail to fulfill.
It is a sonnet, if you will. Creativity within restraints. SotC is anything goes as long as it's not magic.
Pulp is not about fear.
If the audience has not really come to fear the heroes' mortality, there is no enjoyment. Pulp is about fear - or rather, its flip-side, hope. Hope implies uncertainty. If there is no uncertainty, no fear that there will be consequences for failure, then you have failed to inspire hope. Instead you have gone for secure belief. The book specifically mentions that our heroes should have more last-minute chances to stop whatever it is, before it's too late. Certain success.
Go on sparky, give it another try. I'm sure you can do better than this.
This was your weakest parry yet.