Author Topic: nWoD  (Read 32101 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #100 on: September 13, 2008, 01:12:08 AM »
The problem here is that I can't talk to you about what good games do, if you have no frame of reference. 

You can either learn about good games or you can believe my judgment.  I encourage you not to believe me and learn for yourself.

So, I can A) play games you think are good, or B) play game you think are good. Hmm.
Spoken like a person who has never seen a good game. 

You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

It's as simple as that. 


so, a person has never seen a good game because they disagree with you? Well then "Josh Almighty", I have determined that good games SUCK ASS. You see, I obviously can tell that because you don't like WoD you are a complete retard concerning games and therefore all games you think are good are really extremely horrible.

Seriously, when will you learn to NOT FORCE YOUR OWN OPINIONS ON OTHERS. I don't care if you are a moderator, I don't care how long you've played, I don't care if you have a gun to my head, opinions differ, that's what makes them opinions. I don't care how many people love/hate something, it's my life, I can play like I want to and you can play like you want to, but keep what you think separate from my gaming table.
I make little kids cry
Steady As A Goat
Warning: You may have already been set on fire

Bread does not need a reason

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #101 on: September 13, 2008, 02:56:41 AM »
The problem here is that I can't talk to you about what good games do, if you have no frame of reference. 

You can either learn about good games or you can believe my judgment.  I encourage you not to believe me and learn for yourself.

Trust me, I'm not going to just sit down and believe what someone tells me. I should hope this line of questioning had already proved that.

I've done my research on mechanics and I've come up with a fair amount of them myself. My current knowledge does not in any way preclude you explaining - I have the ability to understand new mechanics and determine their benefits and weaknesses - it helps that I've hardly forgotten my math, either.

The only difference between a ruleset and individual mechanics is synergy... an important part of game balance and flow, but I think we can agree there are very few instances where bad mechanics synergize to something good. So my lack of familiarity with those rulesets as whole entities isn't really an issue, not as long as we can bring out independent 'good' mechanics which completely trump n/oWoD - but you're going to have to also compare those to their analogous partners in n/oWoD.

So stop stalling and bring out proof, you're not talking to just me, this is for the whole thread and all its participants if you want it to have accomplished anything beyond you shaking your stick and grumping at those damn self-absorbed goths. You've provided less information than some customer reviews on Amazon. If you want to move game design from art to science, act scientific.
Part of my problem with this statement is how profoundly stupid it is.  

You have done a bunch of research?  Into what?  What mechanics?  Name a game.  What have you learned?  If you haven't read any on my list you are profoundly ignorant of game mechanics.

The only difference between a ruleset and...what?  What are you saying?  Of course rulesets are different.  Of course there is more to rules than synergy.

As for the rest of your claptrap, it is not worth discussing.  

If you want to be taken seriously, try harder.

As it stands I have offered a glimpse at why WoD is a failure.  Again we come to the crux of the matter.  How can you know what you are missing if you do not know what good is.

You are left with listening to the expert or learning yourself.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #102 on: September 13, 2008, 03:05:28 AM »
The problem here is that I can't talk to you about what good games do, if you have no frame of reference. 

You can either learn about good games or you can believe my judgment.  I encourage you not to believe me and learn for yourself.

So, I can A) play games you think are good, or B) play game you think are good. Hmm.
Spoken like a person who has never seen a good game. 

You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

It's as simple as that. 


so, a person has never seen a good game because they disagree with you? Well then "Josh Almighty", I have determined that good games SUCK ASS. You see, I obviously can tell that because you don't like WoD you are a complete retard concerning games and therefore all games you think are good are really extremely horrible.

Seriously, when will you learn to NOT FORCE YOUR OWN OPINIONS ON OTHERS. I don't care if you are a moderator, I don't care how long you've played, I don't care if you have a gun to my head, opinions differ, that's what makes them opinions. I don't care how many people love/hate something, it's my life, I can play like I want to and you can play like you want to, but keep what you think separate from my gaming table.
Yes.  If you want to play crappy games that is your prerogative.  If you want to remain uneducated and ignorant, also your prerogative.  I never said you could not do what you wanted and I apologize if that's what you got.

As for forcing my opinions on others...when did that happen?  You are just mad because someone pointed out WoD sucks.  Then you were furious when it started to look like they knew what they were talking about.  I'm sorry your favorite game sucks.
 
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

AstralFire

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Up the Ante
    • The Anteheroes
Re: nWoD
« Reply #103 on: September 13, 2008, 11:00:35 AM »
I'm already quite familiar with Spirit of the Century and I have cursory familiarity with Savage Worlds - that's two of the games off of your list, so, once again you prove that you don't really have much to say once you're done being condescending. Is the requirement now raised that I know all of the games off the list?

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to try harder. You haven't convinced a single person here that I have seen.

No, you haven't pushed your game or your views onto anyone, I'll say that much. Emissary's wrong. But you've completely made a fool of yourself in this discussion. You may very well know more about game design than the rest of us here combined, but all you do is sit in your chair and pronounce yourself so far above the rest of us that you cannot explain yourself. Do you have any idea how silly and pretentious you look?

And you keep seeming to think that I personally need to be convinced that WoD sucks. I don't like it. I don't know how much more often I need to state that. But it is a hell. of. a. leap. to move from "I don't like it" to "I know incontrovertibly that this is bad." How can you know it?

You can't, especially when you know WoD by your own admission about as well as I know 4th Edition D&D. Sorry, it's not possible.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 11:07:46 AM by AstralFire »


Avatar: The Last d20 Supplement
The Discussion Thread - Help!
Current Project: The Anteheroes System: 2nd Edition, a quick and tactical modern fantasy system.

Better to be stupid and humble than smart and arrogant. A humble man can change and improve. An arrogant man won't.

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #104 on: September 13, 2008, 11:09:11 AM »
The problem here is that I can't talk to you about what good games do, if you have no frame of reference. 

You can either learn about good games or you can believe my judgment.  I encourage you not to believe me and learn for yourself.

So, I can A) play games you think are good, or B) play game you think are good. Hmm.
Spoken like a person who has never seen a good game. 

You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

It's as simple as that. 


so, a person has never seen a good game because they disagree with you? Well then "Josh Almighty", I have determined that good games SUCK ASS. You see, I obviously can tell that because you don't like WoD you are a complete retard concerning games and therefore all games you think are good are really extremely horrible.

Seriously, when will you learn to NOT FORCE YOUR OWN OPINIONS ON OTHERS. I don't care if you are a moderator, I don't care how long you've played, I don't care if you have a gun to my head, opinions differ, that's what makes them opinions. I don't care how many people love/hate something, it's my life, I can play like I want to and you can play like you want to, but keep what you think separate from my gaming table.
Yes.  If you want to play crappy games that is your prerogative.  If you want to remain uneducated and ignorant, also your prerogative.  I never said you could not do what you wanted and I apologize if that's what you got.

As for forcing my opinions on others...when did that happen?  You are just mad because someone pointed out WoD sucks.  Then you were furious when it started to look like they knew what they were talking about.  I'm sorry your favorite game sucks.
 

WoD does not suck on the soul bases that sucking is a subjective thing. Also, you don't seem to know what you are talking about as you have only said that other games are better or asked for proof WoD doesn't. Let's see your evidence that it does suck
I make little kids cry
Steady As A Goat
Warning: You may have already been set on fire

Bread does not need a reason

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #105 on: September 13, 2008, 04:28:20 PM »
I'm already quite familiar with Spirit of the Century and I have cursory familiarity with Savage Worlds - that's two of the games off of your list, so, once again you prove that you don't really have much to say once you're done being condescending. Is the requirement now raised that I know all of the games off the list?

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to try harder. You haven't convinced a single person here that I have seen.

No, you haven't pushed your game or your views onto anyone, I'll say that much. Emissary's wrong. But you've completely made a fool of yourself in this discussion. You may very well know more about game design than the rest of us here combined, but all you do is sit in your chair and pronounce yourself so far above the rest of us that you cannot explain yourself. Do you have any idea how silly and pretentious you look?

And you keep seeming to think that I personally need to be convinced that WoD sucks. I don't like it. I don't know how much more often I need to state that. But it is a hell. of. a. leap. to move from "I don't like it" to "I know incontrovertibly that this is bad." How can you know it?

You can't, especially when you know WoD by your own admission about as well as I know 4th Edition D&D. Sorry, it's not possible.
OK good, now we get somewhere.  Focus slightly less on being a pompous ass and a little more on learning. 

Compare character generation in SotC to WoD.  Which is more "story like?"  which allows more creativity?  How much reading does a player need to do to play SotC (or verbal explanation)?   

Compare gameplay of SW and WoD.  Take into account that SW has a high success range and WoD has a grittier low sucess range.  Now compare playability.  You have largely the same toolsets, skills powers etc.  In fact the game play elements are very similar.  Now consider that SW is an action adventure game.  How is WoD a dramatic game if it is so similar?

Compare char gen SW to WoD, again see how closed chargen is in comparison.  The style of chargen choice is very similar (restricted point buy).  Yet in SW you can make a wide range of characters who are inevitably useful to play.  In WoD you effectively get to garnish your plate.  The book tells you how to play everything.  And in SW if you "must" do something a mechanic typically backs it up. 

Now gameplay in SotC.  Social encounters.  SotC, a pulp action game, has better social encounter rules than WoD.  And again look at how "story like" the gameplay is.  Scene framing, character empowerment, the use of aspects to drive the story both positively and negatively all story elements.


Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #106 on: September 13, 2008, 05:47:17 PM »
I have not played or even read the rules of SW or SotC. Can you give why you hate WoD in a non-comparative fashion?
I make little kids cry
Steady As A Goat
Warning: You may have already been set on fire

Bread does not need a reason

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #107 on: September 13, 2008, 07:56:32 PM »
I have not played or even read the rules of SW or SotC. Can you give why you hate WoD in a non-comparative fashion?
That's what I started with.  WoD does not fulfill the promise it makes about gameplay and it tries to do all of your thinking for you.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #108 on: September 13, 2008, 08:28:47 PM »
I want proof of that statement.
I make little kids cry
Steady As A Goat
Warning: You may have already been set on fire

Bread does not need a reason

AstralFire

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Up the Ante
    • The Anteheroes
Re: nWoD
« Reply #109 on: September 14, 2008, 09:06:08 AM »
Amazing, you managed to descend from your high horse long enough to speak. Sorry for the slow response; I've had to familiarize myself with the nWoD rules, but it seems you refuse to respond generally with elaborations, even though this conversation should be directed at everyone - not just me. For the record, I am not pleased that I had to once again look at what passes for 'insert art' at White Wolf.

For the system basics: Yes, SotC is inherently a simpler system, with a lot more assumption that the players and the GM are not there to menace one another. It has to, when you consider just how quickly broken the entire aspect system is if anyone is looking to power play at all. Nowadays, I run primarily with people who do not, but I've played games - plenty of times - with well-meaning, nice people who like to let their inner powergamer run free and unchecked. I've done it myself, though enough time behind the DM screen has limited that these days. Simplicity is a design choice that has its bonuses and its drawbacks, and that's one of them - it's easier to break.

That low success thing you discard? Yeah, that's kind of a big point. Let's take a piece of standard horror: oh, say, 'The Ring', since I'm actually familiar with its story. As a rule, I disfavor the genre. If we put Zatanna - Batman's ex-girlfriend, the magician in fishnets who talks backwards - in the story, the entire thing kind of goes to hell. She unhexes the videotape because she has an aspect of 'fix supernatural', calls in Batsy and the Outsiders, and they give our hermaphroditic villain her spiritual rest. And no one important dies.

Horror is predicated on optimism being thwarted consistently, allowing for a little success here and there to let it slowly bleed out of the protagonists.

Spirit of the Century bears a similar mechanic to WoD because the mechanic emphasizes quick resolution. Action emphasizes quickness, and action is a part of both the adventure and suspense genres. The issue is how much and how often; horror/suspense, interestingly, often revolves around sparing use of action and constructive dialogue, something that goes hand-in-hand with the oft-repeated statement in nWoD that rules are subordinate to the story.

Which one allows for more creativity? SotC, no shit. Gee, I wonder why. Is it because pulp is maybe a genre that is based around exceptions and plot that really makes no causal sense, which is something explained in the game bible itself? One day Doc Savage is busting heads in India and throws his nemesis over the cliff; next week he's in Europe, throwing his nemesis over the cliff again. The restricted freedom of nWoD is a mechanical support of the suspense genre, where you don't have many options.

I will agree that SotC has the better social combat system, since (startlingly) the aspect system allows for much better definition of a character's expertise. That's the only advantage of that system that seems clear and difficult to dispute to me.

So tell me, we're clearly starting with the assumption that SotC is the superior game, let's question that one a bit. How does SotC really back up the pulp genre?

You demand that nWoD invoke personal horror in a player, not just their character. How does SotC invoke personal fearreally kill the characters. So if you want to make something actually a permanent threat... you're using Rule Zero. And if you think that that is NOT an element of breaking the game's rules, then you've just destroyed your entire basis for using Spirit of the Century at all. See, Spirit of the Century is so dependent on the GM that if you want to evaluate it, you're going to have to consider its mood-comments to the GM as rules. Aspects as a mechanic are so loosely defined that I hesitate to even use the term 'mechanic' to describe them.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 09:12:09 AM by AstralFire »


Avatar: The Last d20 Supplement
The Discussion Thread - Help!
Current Project: The Anteheroes System: 2nd Edition, a quick and tactical modern fantasy system.

Better to be stupid and humble than smart and arrogant. A humble man can change and improve. An arrogant man won't.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #110 on: September 14, 2008, 11:29:30 AM »
Amazing, you managed to descend from your high horse long enough to speak. Sorry for the slow response; I've had to familiarize myself with the nWoD rules, but it seems you refuse to respond generally with elaborations, even though this conversation should be directed at everyone - not just me. For the record, I am not pleased that I had to once again look at what passes for 'insert art' at White Wolf.

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.

Quote
For the system basics: Yes, SotC is inherently a simpler system, with a lot more assumption that the players and the GM are not there to menace one another. It has to, when you consider just how quickly broken the entire aspect system is if anyone is looking to power play at all. Nowadays, I run primarily with people who do not, but I've played games - plenty of times - with well-meaning, nice people who like to let their inner powergamer run free and unchecked. I've done it myself, though enough time behind the DM screen has limited that these days. Simplicity is a design choice that has its bonuses and its drawbacks, and that's one of them - it's easier to break.
WoD is supposed to be rules lite.  SotC has less rules, does more and fosters the concept of storytelling better.

Quote
That low success thing you discard? Yeah, that's kind of a big point. Let's take a piece of standard horror: oh, say, 'The Ring', since I'm actually familiar with its story. As a rule, I disfavor the genre. If we put Zatanna - Batman's ex-girlfriend, the magician in fishnets who talks backwards - in the story, the entire thing kind of goes to hell. She unhexes the videotape because she has an aspect of 'fix supernatural', calls in Batsy and the Outsiders, and they give our hermaphroditic villain her spiritual rest. And no one important dies.
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.

Quote
Horror is predicated on optimism being thwarted consistently, allowing for a little success here and there to let it slowly bleed out of the protagonists.
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.

Quote
Spirit of the Century bears a similar mechanic to WoD because the mechanic emphasizes quick resolution. Action emphasizes quickness, and action is a part of both the adventure and suspense genres. The issue is how much and how often; horror/suspense, interestingly, often revolves around sparing use of action and constructive dialogue, something that goes hand-in-hand with the oft-repeated statement in nWoD that rules are subordinate to the story.
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.

Quote
Which one allows for more creativity? SotC, no shit. Gee, I wonder why. Is it because pulp is maybe a genre that is based around exceptions and plot that really makes no causal sense, which is something explained in the game bible itself? One day Doc Savage is busting heads in India and throws his nemesis over the cliff; next week he's in Europe, throwing his nemesis over the cliff again. The restricted freedom of nWoD is a mechanical support of the suspense genre, where you don't have many options.
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.

Quote
I will agree that SotC has the better social combat system, since (startlingly) the aspect system allows for much better definition of a character's expertise. That's the only advantage of that system that seems clear and difficult to dispute to me.
Again, story telling game supposed to be about more than combat.  Supposed to be social and supposed to be a dramatic game.  You are again indication how WoD fails.

So tell me, we're clearly starting with the assumption that SotC is the superior game, let's question that one a bit. How does SotC really back up the pulp genre?


Quote
You demand that nWoD invoke personal horror in a player, not just their character. How does SotC invoke personal fear in a player, not just a character? 'cuz see, even though pulp heroes always succeed, it was meant for children. People who couldn't rationalize it all out until they got older. They were supposed to be hanging on the edge of their seat. In a system with so little fatal or game-ending, how do you evoke that feeling?
Pulp is not about fear.


Quote
The game's own rules repeatedly tell you as the GM to basically not do anything that could really kill the characters. So if you want to make something actually a permanent threat... you're using Rule Zero. And if you think that that is NOT an element of breaking the game's rules, then you've just destroyed your entire basis for using Spirit of the Century at all. See, Spirit of the Century is so dependent on the GM that if you want to evaluate it, you're going to have to consider its mood-comments to the GM as rules. Aspects as a mechanic are so loosely defined that I hesitate to even use the term 'mechanic' to describe them.
OK?  SotC does require a GM, like WoD or most other RPGs.  Yes you consider the actions of the GM.  The thing is the mechanics empower and reinforce the game.  They don't get in its way.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

AstralFire

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Up the Ante
    • The Anteheroes
Re: nWoD
« Reply #111 on: September 14, 2008, 11:41:00 AM »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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. :eh This was your weakest parry yet.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 12:05:08 PM by AstralFire »


Avatar: The Last d20 Supplement
The Discussion Thread - Help!
Current Project: The Anteheroes System: 2nd Edition, a quick and tactical modern fantasy system.

Better to be stupid and humble than smart and arrogant. A humble man can change and improve. An arrogant man won't.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #112 on: September 14, 2008, 12:30:20 PM »
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.
You never compared the mechanics.  General-ness or lack thereof is irrelevant.  I did speak to specifics by-the-way reread my post.  Logically I can't point out mechanics in the negation very clearly.  I can show you what works in other games and then point out WoD lacks them.

Quote
Quote
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.
No it negates its quality as a rules lite system.  And SotC has social rules as well as aspects...QED.

Quote
Quote
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?!" You reduced one side of the equation and then not the other. I discarded for a direct comparison.
I shifted them as needed by genre to help them match. 

Let me be clear, this kind of logical comparison is how you compare games or anything for that matter.  If you don't understand the hows and whys here this is another one of those "learn for yourself or listen to the expert moments." 

Quote
Quote
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.
Horror movies are not considered a success if they crush optimism.  It is not necessary and sufficient and thus logically a poor choice.  It is a poor RPG choice because it is deprotagonizing and just seeks to crush players.

Quote
Quote
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.
Here you are both definitively wrong, basically by definition.  There is little argument that can be made for something so simple.
The point of an RPG is the Game, and a game is run by mechanics.  Fun, adventure, challenge and creativity from the rules.  It is also how the GM can not be considered as this jerk who makes you fail as per his whim.

Quote
Quote
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.
You are so off base here.  There is no room for creativity.  And SotC is the example of creativity via restriction.  You influence the world by making up science facts, that is creativity via restriction.  In vampire you are shown the factions told what they do and how to play them.  Then people will get all up in your box if you do it wrong.

Quote
Quote
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.

Go on sparky, give it another try. I'm sure you can do better than this. :eh This was your weakest parry yet.
[/quote]
I suggest reading the SotC book for a look at what pulp is, because you are just wrong here.

At this point you need to be learning something.  If you think that was weak from me, you vastly overestimate yourself.  Vastly. 

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

AstralFire

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Up the Ante
    • The Anteheroes
Re: nWoD
« Reply #113 on: September 14, 2008, 05:10:48 PM »
You never compared the mechanics.  General-ness or lack thereof is irrelevant.  I did speak to specifics by-the-way reread my post.  Logically I can't point out mechanics in the negation very clearly.

Then you lose this argument. Well, you've been losing it, but thank you for admitting it. If you cannot point to specific proof, then you cannot claim that you have an objective handle on the game.

The way to handle a negative comparison is to bring things out, point-by-point, and explain what you do not like about it. Because honestly, that's all this is. Liking versus disliking. Ex:

"I dislike the skill system in D&D 3 because it alternates between extremely specific and extremely general skills, varying their power largely in accordance. Not all skills continue being useful at high levels if they once were before, and it provides extremely simplified social combat in a medium-rules game. By comparison, [insert game] does..."

You did it earlier in the thread. I'm not bringing out specific examples because by and large, I do not have an issue with either system, nor am I in favor of either system. You're trying to argue WoD is a useless, redundant game because it is objectively bad; my point continues to be that you cannot say it is objectively bad as a whole, and I do not attach a figment of true objectivity to my prior evaluations - just that I did my best to be neutral. I don't play SotC because I don't really want to play pulp and same for WoD and suspense.

Quote
No it negates its quality as a rules lite system.  And SotC has social rules as well as aspects...QED.

I never said otherwise to the latter, and no it doesn't, to the former. You haven't proven anything about how SotC is supposedly objectively superior.

Quote
Let me be clear, this kind of logical comparison is how you compare games or anything for that matter.  If you don't understand the hows and whys here this is another one of those "learn for yourself or listen to the expert moments."

Right. You look at what makes them different. Not look at what makes them different and then say "but it makes them the same!"

Quote
Horror movies are not considered a success if they crush optimism.  It is not necessary and sufficient and thus logically a poor choice.  It is a poor RPG choice because it is deprotagonizing and just seeks to crush players.

The Cthulu extended mythos is based -entirely- off of this concept to name just one thing. Vampire is predicated around that struggle, a losing battle. Just because you think not does not negate what exists.

Quote
Here you are both definitively wrong, basically by definition.  There is little argument that can be made for something so simple.

The point of an RPG is the Game, and a game is run by mechanics.  Fun, adventure, challenge and creativity from the rules.  It is also how the GM can not be considered as this jerk who makes you fail as per his whim.

The point of the Role-Playing Game is to Role-Play and Game. One is not subordinated to the other, end of story.

Quote
You are so off base here.  There is no room for creativity.  And SotC is the example of creativity via restriction.  You influence the world by making up science facts, that is creativity via restriction.  In vampire you are shown the factions told what they do and how to play them.  Then people will get all up in your box if you do it wrong.

So because it's harder, it's impossible? Is that what I'm hearing here? Sounds like it.

Quote
I suggest reading the SotC book for a look at what pulp is, because you are just wrong here.


You think I'm overestimating myself, but you may wish to look in a mirror. I don't proclaim to be an expert - just that I'm making a much stronger argument than you. You know a lot about your systems, I'm not going to deny that; but your position that a system is objectively worse than another is basically indefensible. You may be able to provide some very detailed and thoughtout reasons why you like or dislike the system, but don't go around pretending that your cup of tea is the best damn cup of tea ever and those who do not like it need only smell its aroma.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 05:51:45 PM by AstralFire »


Avatar: The Last d20 Supplement
The Discussion Thread - Help!
Current Project: The Anteheroes System: 2nd Edition, a quick and tactical modern fantasy system.

Better to be stupid and humble than smart and arrogant. A humble man can change and improve. An arrogant man won't.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #114 on: September 14, 2008, 09:16:38 PM »
Ahh, the old "you're a doo-doo head defense."

What do you want?  Your arguments are at best foolish, you site the irrelevant, you don't have any understanding of debate or logic.  

What little you have said that is comprehensible is painfully juvenile and just plain wrong.  Your understanding of games and gaming is pitiful.  I don't think you get this thing here.  You are a learner here.  Do you want to learn or do you just want to be smugly satisfied with yourself?

My favorite part is your little kid "Oh you didn't say it right so you loose" tantrum.  I have been studying this stuff for years, I have read everything I can find on the subject.  You have very little of the background research done.

Learn things.  Either from me, from someone else or on your own.  Go learn about the topic, that'll show me whats what.  Way to stick it to me.

Or just throw tantrums.

You never compared the mechanics.  General-ness or lack thereof is irrelevant.  I did speak to specifics by-the-way reread my post.  Logically I can't point out mechanics in the negation very clearly.

Then you lose this argument. Well, you've been losing it, but thank you for admitting it. If you cannot point to specific proof, then you cannot claim that you have an objective handle on the game.

The way to handle a negative comparison is to bring things out, point-by-point, and explain what you do not like about it. Because honestly, that's all this is. Liking versus disliking. Ex:

"I dislike the skill system in D&D 3 because it alternates between extremely specific and extremely general skills, varying their power largely in accordance. Not all skills continue being useful at high levels if they once were before, and it provides extremely simplified social combat in a medium-rules game. By comparison, [insert game] does..."

You did it earlier in the thread. I'm not bringing out specific examples because by and large, I do not have an issue with either system. I don't play SotC because I don't really want to play pulp and same for WoD and suspense.

Quote
No it negates its quality as a rules lite system.  And SotC has social rules as well as aspects...QED.

I never said otherwise to the latter, and no it doesn't, to the former. You haven't proven anything about how SotC is supposedly objectively superior.

Quote
Let me be clear, this kind of logical comparison is how you compare games or anything for that matter.  If you don't understand the hows and whys here this is another one of those "learn for yourself or listen to the expert moments."

Right. You look at what makes them different. Not look at what makes them different and then say "but it makes them the same!"

Quote
Horror movies are not considered a success if they crush optimism.  It is not necessary and sufficient and thus logically a poor choice.  It is a poor RPG choice because it is deprotagonizing and just seeks to crush players.

The Cthulu extended mythos is based -entirely- off of this concept to name just one thing. Vampire is predicated around that struggle, a losing battle. Just because you think not does not negate what exists.

Quote
Here you are both definitively wrong, basically by definition.  There is little argument that can be made for something so simple.

The point of an RPG is the Game, and a game is run by mechanics.  Fun, adventure, challenge and creativity from the rules.  It is also how the GM can not be considered as this jerk who makes you fail as per his whim.

The point of the Role-Playing Game is to Role-Play and Game. One is not subordinated to the other, end of story.

Quote
You are so off base here.  There is no room for creativity.  And SotC is the example of creativity via restriction.  You influence the world by making up science facts, that is creativity via restriction.  In vampire you are shown the factions told what they do and how to play them.  Then people will get all up in your box if you do it wrong.

So because it's harder, it's impossible? Is that what I'm hearing here? Sounds like it.

Quote
I suggest reading the SotC book for a look at what pulp is, because you are just wrong here.


You think I'm overestimating myself, but you may wish to look in a mirror. I don't proclaim to be an expert - just that I'm making a much stronger argument than you. You know a lot about your systems, I'm not going to deny that; but your position that a system is objectively worse than another is basically indefensible. You may be able to provide some very detailed and thoughtout reasons why you like or dislike the system, but don't go around pretending that your cup of tea is the best damn cup of tea ever and those who do not like it need only smell its aroma.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

AstralFire

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Up the Ante
    • The Anteheroes
Re: nWoD
« Reply #115 on: September 14, 2008, 09:21:49 PM »
So, I take it by that tantrum that you're just not going to respond at all to the actual points?

If I am supposed to be a learner, then teach, for God's sake. You condescend constantly to everyone who disagrees with you and don't say anything of value, and now apparently hide when your game bible has just contradicted your own argument. All you have managed to do is derail an entire thread with your antics. I went back to the book, pointed out how SotC manages to trip itself up on its mechanics emphasizing the feel - a minor point, sure, but it's there and you have yet to actually establish how WoD fails to accentuate its setting aside from saying "well, it quickly resolves!"

You may have studied logic formally, but you don't seem to have much of your own, and your mastery of the written word is painfully lacking. You're probably older than me, but you know, I really don't care - you don't act like it, aside from putting on airs.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 09:26:46 PM by AstralFire »


Avatar: The Last d20 Supplement
The Discussion Thread - Help!
Current Project: The Anteheroes System: 2nd Edition, a quick and tactical modern fantasy system.

Better to be stupid and humble than smart and arrogant. A humble man can change and improve. An arrogant man won't.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #116 on: September 14, 2008, 09:23:59 PM »
So, I take it by that tantrum that you're just not going to respond at all to the actual points?
You are a piece of work.  Un-retard your post and try again and I may comment on it.

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

AstralFire

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Up the Ante
    • The Anteheroes
Re: nWoD
« Reply #117 on: September 14, 2008, 09:28:40 PM »
You are a piece of work.  Un-retard your post and try again and I may comment on it.

No. I am not here to serve you. Everyone else in this thread, and the "Kicking a Player Out" thread has had the decency to continue responding no matter how much you were an arrogant little brat to them, until they decided to cease the argument entirely.

All you are doing is hiding from the failure of your own arguments. As long as those points remain unanswered, you have conceded this debate.


Avatar: The Last d20 Supplement
The Discussion Thread - Help!
Current Project: The Anteheroes System: 2nd Edition, a quick and tactical modern fantasy system.

Better to be stupid and humble than smart and arrogant. A humble man can change and improve. An arrogant man won't.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #118 on: September 14, 2008, 10:24:04 PM »
You are a piece of work.  Un-retard your post and try again and I may comment on it.

No. I am not here to serve you. Everyone else in this thread, and the "Kicking a Player Out" thread has had the decency to continue responding no matter how much you were an arrogant little brat to them, until they decided to cease the argument entirely.

All you are doing is hiding from the failure of your own arguments. As long as those points remain unanswered, you have conceded this debate.
Spoken like a hero.

Are you done then?
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

AstralFire

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Up the Ante
    • The Anteheroes
Re: nWoD
« Reply #119 on: September 15, 2008, 09:18:09 AM »
No, I'm not done. That probably has something to do with the fact that I didn't throw a temper tantrum (sorry to break it to you, but that was projection on your part; your arguments have devolved so quickly that I'm really enjoying this of late, it's like watching a train wreck where the conductor screams "THE TRAIN IS FINE!") and I can see that you still have so much to learn about debating.

Here's logic for you: you are requiring me to prove a negative point (nWoD is not objectively lesser) by pointing at specific mechanics. You are trying to prove a positive point (that it is) - as usual, you had the situation all turned around. You seem to have the argument focused on me carrying nWoD around as a good system while you are disproving that. This argument was never that way - you have claimed nWoD is bad repeatedly (with a cynical modification to 'not-good' for a brief point) and thus has no value to its players, I have simply claimed that you cannot prove that.

I said I was willing to hear you out; that's not the same as saying "I am here to learn," and you seem to have gotten your wires badly crossed on the two. I can learn from everyone and everything, but I am my own teacher, especially when dealing with internet experts, and the learning is incidental. This discussion has sparked a few questions which I've begun probing about, but nothing has been learned directly from you. You have nothing to teach.

Your argument breaks down pretty fast in the face of the fact that there are people who have played your 'quantifiably superior' systems and went back to and still enjoy and even prefer what they've played before. I know one recent gamer who started out on SotC that loves WoD now. You can justify that however you want, but sane humans are rational, not irrational, beings. They may not have all the information available to them, but that is not the same thing.

There are more benefits to a system than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 09:35:16 AM by AstralFire »


Avatar: The Last d20 Supplement
The Discussion Thread - Help!
Current Project: The Anteheroes System: 2nd Edition, a quick and tactical modern fantasy system.

Better to be stupid and humble than smart and arrogant. A humble man can change and improve. An arrogant man won't.