Author Topic: nWoD  (Read 32100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Zeke

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Bi-Curious George
  • *
  • Posts: 540
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2008, 05:25:04 PM »
The limiting  factor of having a range of 5 and the irritiating nature of counting dots don't really have a lot to do with one another. As has been explained above, the low range leads toa lack of subtlty, whereas counting dots just leads to me swearing at the book.

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2008, 06:19:26 PM »
I was merely pointing out something that seem contradictory to me
WoD is such a pile of garbage I stopped after getting the basics down. 

So you admit you never read the rules? Or are you saying that you gave up on them in your first sitting?
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 #62 on: September 09, 2008, 05:00:14 AM »
I was merely pointing out something that seem contradictory to me
WoD is such a pile of garbage I stopped after getting the basics down. 

So you admit you never read the rules? Or are you saying that you gave up on them in your first sitting?

The most superficial read of the rules demonstrates the lack of quality in the system.  Like if you get in a car and it wont turn over, it does not matter if a headlight is out.

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2008, 08:54:23 AM »
A car is a mechanical object that can be universally recognized as broken and only requires a few tests. RPG rules are a set of guide lines that are subject to personal opinion.
If a car can't turn over, then yes, I would not be too worried about a headlight. But, rules are a compilation of different smaller rules. to use a very strange simile, rules are like Jenga. Some can easily be removed and everyone continues to have fun, some will cause the whole the to collapse and you have to do a lot of tedious work to put it back together.
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 #64 on: September 09, 2008, 12:25:56 PM »
RPG rules are a set of guide lines that are subject to personal opinion.
Well there is the misunderstanding then.  That's incorrect. 

Games are knowable and quantifiable.  It is actually basic logic.  If such a thing as good play exists it must be possible to quantify it. 
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

AstralFire

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Up the Ante
    • The Anteheroes
Re: nWoD
« Reply #65 on: September 09, 2008, 02:51:05 PM »
RPG rules are a set of guide lines that are subject to personal opinion.
Well there is the misunderstanding then.  That's incorrect. 

Games are knowable and quantifiable.  It is actually basic logic.  If such a thing as good play exists it must be possible to quantify it. 

Well.

Go on.


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 #66 on: September 09, 2008, 06:56:15 PM »
RPG rules are a set of guide lines that are subject to personal opinion.
Well there is the misunderstanding then.  That's incorrect. 

Games are knowable and quantifiable.  It is actually basic logic.  If such a thing as good play exists it must be possible to quantify it. 

I don't mean that a horrible game can be a good game. I am saying that nWoD suffers in no way from a lack of rules or has any rules which are completely necessary and game killing. Any thing concerning quality must be impossible to disprove before it can be accepted as good.

A car can have the best gas milage
An RPG cannot have the best rules

Anyone who argues against this is proving themselves to be an egotistic idiot. Before I argue anymore I just want Josh to agree that quality must be proven in a form everyone can understand before one can argue that it is the best or the worst.
I make little kids cry
Steady As A Goat
Warning: You may have already been set on fire

Bread does not need a reason

Zeke

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Bi-Curious George
  • *
  • Posts: 540
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2008, 08:03:21 PM »
Here's a question what rule dos NWoD have that is Good?

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #68 on: September 09, 2008, 09:39:19 PM »
No, the question is what does nWoD have which is undeniably bad. From that point, nWoD is a universally bad game, as Josh suggests. If I was to bring up what is undeniably good about nWoD, then Josh would have to stop his crusade against the game.

What I was saying is that you cannot say a game is good or bad without it being an opinion unless you have absolute proof. Otherwise, you are being a self-imposing douchebag, just like the Catholic/Mormon idiots (not any Catholic or Mormon, just the stereotypical redneck version.)
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 #69 on: September 10, 2008, 12:08:27 AM »
RPG rules are a set of guide lines that are subject to personal opinion.
Well there is the misunderstanding then.  That's incorrect. 

Games are knowable and quantifiable.  It is actually basic logic.  If such a thing as good play exists it must be possible to quantify it. 

Well.

Go on.
That's pretty succinct if I do say so myself.

What do you need to know?  Preface with what you do know.

No, the question is what does nWoD have which is undeniably bad. From that point, nWoD is a universally bad game, as Josh suggests. If I was to bring up what is undeniably good about nWoD, then Josh would have to stop his crusade against the game.

What I was saying is that you cannot say a game is good or bad without it being an opinion unless you have absolute proof. Otherwise, you are being a self-imposing douchebag, just like the Catholic/Mormon idiots (not any Catholic or Mormon, just the stereotypical redneck version.)
Incorrect.  Completely.

Difficult to even comment.  But it should be easy to point out something nWoD does well.  Either in absolute or compared to another game.  I know almost every modern RPG so feel free to use an example you know well.
 
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #70 on: September 10, 2008, 09:34:20 AM »
I am not arguing that nWoD is good. I am arguing that it is not bad. I do not need to say what is good. I only need to disprove the bad.
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 #71 on: September 10, 2008, 10:31:13 AM »
That's pretty succinct if I do say so myself.

What do you need to know?  Preface with what you do know.

You made the statement that good gaming can be quantified, and that is a rather bold idea. It is generally accepted that entertainment is primarily a subjective experience, with only some elements that can be considered objectively. Take a look at any Top __ List of films (the Library of Congress' list of culturally significant films is probably a good start) and no matter how painstakingly constructed, I guarantee you that there will be major, peer-respected, well-educated critics who do not care for multiple entries - some of which will even state that an entry is a bad movie, not merely something that they do not care for. It is easy to characterize good or bad entertainment, but characterization is much less complete and absolute than quantification.

I do not like World of Darkness. I do not like the setting, and what I know of the mechanics ranges from rarely interesting to sometimes off-putting, and generally a lot of its fanbase puts me off. But you're making very aggressive claims with little backing, and the onus is on you - not them. You're the one going strongly against two commonly accepted opinions (one of which I would venture to argue is a majority accepted opinion - that gaming cannot be completely quantified).

It's succinct. It's witty. But it hasn't moved the argument anywhere, and if you want to move it somewhere beyond "I dislike the system" and into "this system is objectively crap" then you are going to have to actually back that up with more examples than you have. Your response post on page 3 was a good start, but that's all it is - a start.

I'm willing to hear you out, but you have to have something to say first. Maybe you're right - maybe it can, indeed, be quantified. Let's see.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 10:52:06 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 #72 on: September 10, 2008, 12:27:49 PM »
That's pretty succinct if I do say so myself.

What do you need to know?  Preface with what you do know.

You made the statement that good gaming can be quantified, and that is a rather bold idea. It is generally accepted that entertainment is primarily a subjective experience, with only some elements that can be considered objectively. Take a look at any Top __ List of films (the Library of Congress' list of culturally significant films is probably a good start) and no matter how painstakingly constructed, I guarantee you that there will be major, peer-respected, well-educated critics who do not care for multiple entries - some of which will even state that an entry is a bad movie, not merely something that they do not care for. It is easy to characterize good or bad entertainment, but characterization is much less complete and absolute than quantification.

I do not like World of Darkness. I do not like the setting, and what I know of the mechanics ranges from rarely interesting to sometimes off-putting, and generally a lot of its fanbase puts me off. But you're making very aggressive claims with little backing, and the onus is on you - not them. You're the one going strongly against two commonly accepted opinions (one of which I would venture to argue is a majority accepted opinion - that gaming cannot be completely quantified).

It's succinct. It's witty. But it hasn't moved the argument anywhere, and if you want to move it somewhere beyond "I dislike the system" and into "this system is objectively crap" then you are going to have to actually back that up with more examples than you have. Your response post on page 3 was a good start, but that's all it is - a start.

I'm willing to hear you out, but you have to have something to say first. Maybe you're right - maybe it can, indeed, be quantified. Let's see.
It can so clearly be quantified that it is difficult to prove, but you do show how you are confused.  A "top 10" list is clearly not going to work in terms of absolute measure.

Does this mechanic do what they claim it will?  Does the game foster the genre it represents?  All quantifiable.

If you would like to learn more, go to the gameology board and ask any specific questions you may have.

I am not arguing that nWoD is good. I am arguing that it is not bad. I do not need to say what is good. I only need to disprove the bad.
If that's the case then it does not matter.  Good RPGs exist, there is no reason to play "not-good" ones.  WoD is bad, but there is no need to prove it because it is so clearly "not-good"
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

AstralFire

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Up the Ante
    • The Anteheroes
Re: nWoD
« Reply #73 on: September 10, 2008, 12:59:37 PM »
It can so clearly be quantified that it is difficult to prove, but you do show how you are confused.  A "top 10" list is clearly not going to work in terms of absolute measure.

Does this mechanic do what they claim it will?  Does the game foster the genre it represents?  All quantifiable.

If you would like to learn more, go to the gameology board and ask any specific questions you may have.

A top X list will not work? That much was obvious, since that was why I used it: an easy reference to show how there will always be lack of absolute consensus, even among the respected, which casts significant doubt on the claim that a game ruleset's value as a whole can be quantified.

Does this mechanic do what they say it will? Quantifiable, as long as "what they say it will" is in reference to relative speed, a measure of probability, or something else which can be measured. Does this game foster the genre it represents? Maybe quantifiable. How do you handle the inevitable disagreements? People react in different ways emotionally to the same things. Because it invokes a feel for a large set of the population, does that make it absolutely the case?

D&D 3.x's rules as a whole foster a feel of a tactical wargame to me, not a high fantasy action-adventure. I am reminded more of firing artillery across a distance in a battle that is clearly either easy or lethal than clashing sword and spell in a life-or-death encounter. Things take too long and there's too much discussion, not enough kick-in-the-door. Has D&D 3.x, then, failed? Or is my response to its feel irrelevant? Is there, perhaps, some objective measure to determine how one's subjectively described mood should be? Did you have something else in mind entirely when you said "foster a genre"? That's plausible. If I am confused, it is only because you are brief yet unclear to someone who does not know your usual subjects of discussion and demeanors.

Parts of something being quantifiable, sure, something as a whole? Well, you're going to have to drag out every part of it (or nearly) to convince someone of that.

Now, explain to us how WoD fails to do these things. You brought 'gameology' into this discussion of WoD, so use gameology to finish it.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 01:17:41 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.

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #74 on: September 10, 2008, 03:23:27 PM »

If that's the case then it does not matter.  Good RPGs exist, there is no reason to play "not-good" ones.  WoD is bad, but there is no need to prove it because it is so clearly "not-good"
[/quote]

You are confusing the point. I did not say nWoD was not good. I said that I was not arguing that it is good. To say an RPG is "not-good" requires proof that it is undeniably "not-good"
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 #75 on: September 10, 2008, 10:14:58 PM »

If that's the case then it does not matter.  Good RPGs exist, there is no reason to play "not-good" ones.  WoD is bad, but there is no need to prove it because it is so clearly "not-good"

You are confusing the point. I did not say nWoD was not good. I said that I was not arguing that it is good. To say an RPG is "not-good" requires proof that it is undeniably "not-good"
[/quote]

Oh then you will have no problem coming up with a reason then.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #76 on: September 10, 2008, 10:26:33 PM »
I am saying that unless a system can be proven universally bad, there are no bad RPGs. There are ones that a majority of people dislike, but there are no bad ones. My reason for playing WoD is that it is a good game to me, and no one should ask me why. Each and every person has their own opinions and views and to even try to fight them is useless. The only reason to fight over opinions is when one tries to force on opinion onto someone else.
I make little kids cry
Steady As A Goat
Warning: You may have already been set on fire

Bread does not need a reason

Shadowhowler

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • Email
Re: nWoD
« Reply #77 on: September 10, 2008, 10:36:17 PM »
This whole debate is strange to me...
 
I mean, to me, oWoD is a great game. Why? Because it did for me exactly what it was ment to do... provided me with over 13 years of great gaming fun with my friends. We played and enjoyed the game for those 13 years. So... if it did that for me, how can it be a 'bad game'?
 
This is why I think this whole good game/bad game thing is subjective, not quantifiable.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 03:15:10 AM by Shadowhowler »

AstralFire

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Up the Ante
    • The Anteheroes
Re: nWoD
« Reply #78 on: September 10, 2008, 10:47:36 PM »
Oh then you will have no problem coming up with a reason then.

Will you?

This whole debate is strange to me...
 
I mean, to me, oWoD is a great game. Why? Because it did for me exactly what it was ment to do... provided me with over 13 years of great gaming fun with my friends. We played and enjoyed the game for those 3 years. So... if it did that for me, how can it be a 'bad game'?
 
This is why I think this whole good game/bad game thing is subjective, not quantifiable.

To take a more neutral stance, Rule 0 in the hands of any group of sufficient talent can counter a game's inherent qualities significantly. My issue is that Rule 0 is extremely difficult to effectively divorce from a game for any overall evaluation of the game, if it's possible at all, so claiming that a popular game is quantifiably poor and then providing little support for that statement is bold, fresh, and completely unconvincing.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 11:01:19 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 #79 on: September 10, 2008, 11:28:23 PM »
I am saying that unless a system can be proven universally bad, there are no bad RPGs. There are ones that a majority of people dislike, but there are no bad ones. My reason for playing WoD is that it is a good game to me, and no one should ask me why. Each and every person has their own opinions and views and to even try to fight them is useless. The only reason to fight over opinions is when one tries to force on opinion onto someone else.
No.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009