Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thoughts on future werewolf 5ed by looking at the BNS book

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thoughts on future werewolf 5ed by looking at the BNS book

    NOTE: This is not meant to be a hate piece or an attack on the future WtA content by White Wolf. It is to discuss and analyze it. It is also meant to showcase why some things it has would ill-fit WtA as currently stands.


    First of all, to not be unfair of the content, I'll start with the positives first;

    - The history section is not badly written and uses the content pretty well.

    -The splitting of the Nation has potential, if done right. I like that Shadow Lords headline the more tolerant faction, as well.

    -The Derangement rules are better and avoid fishmalky stuff.

    However, I have to be honest about the things that worry me;

    The Bitten: Yes, the 'bitten kinfolk turn to garou' has been kept.

    Furies and Males: In the history section, Furies suddenly start having male and female children equally and this makes them want to keep the male garou children. I have said this before and I say it again, the Furies shouldn't have to add males to the tribe. Their duty is to womanhood, and one has to respect sacred feminity a bit. Plus, it is like human Red Talons, going against the core ideals of the tribe.

    Glass Walkers and the Weaver: Glass Walkers are now happy for more Weaver things and being 'of the Wyld' is a negative thing to them. Glass Walkers, at least how I read the revised tb, knew Weaver was dangerous and tried to somehow help Gaia live in the cities. And yes, Wyld was a factor in that.

    Jobs: Yes, they are still listed with the auspices. Even to the Sanctum of Gaia tribes, for some reason.

    The thicker Gauntlet+fewer Caerns: Given how much the Nation was on its last legs with the Caerns and Gauntlet, this really does not feel like a good addition. While splitting of the Nation is a big thing, this entirely changes the core of the game. I'm not even bothered by the post-Apocalypse plot, but in general it takes away the feeling of keeping hold of what still remains and juggling between tradition and new ideas.

  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by Illithid View Post
    No need to internet-yell with Caps Willow.
    -.-

    Leave a comment:


  • Illithid
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
    What did I JUST SAY about using the Contact Us link?
    No need to internet-yell with Caps Willow.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by heinrich View Post
    Well, I too feel, on occasion, that newer books published by OPP and BNS are written in ways that I would describe as "fanboy/fangirl"-like. This might be the case, it might be attributed to an (for me) unsatisfactory editing process or other factors I can't imagine. Thing is, it is an impression I have, too.

    Your point is, that you assume that "as if written by a fanboy/fangirl" is disrespectful. Well, this could be argued. One might find certain characteristics in the works of fans who contribute to a shared universe, one would not find in work of people who aren't that invested. Whether or not that is a good or a bat thing is also up to personal taste. In any case, I don't see "fanboy/fangirl"-like as a disrespectful statement in and of its own.
    What did I JUST SAY about using the Contact Us link?

    Leave a comment:


  • Illithid
    replied
    heinrich
    There's also the other rule about questioning the mod's judgement in private instead of public. Even if you're right on the above, I'd suggest following that one.

    Leave a comment:


  • heinrich
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
    Critique is not a rule violation, but disrespect is. A disrespectful comment is not exempted from the rules simply because it is also critical. The rules also state that if you take issue with a moderator’s action, to use the contact us link rather than disputing it publicly.
    Well, I too feel, on occasion, that newer books published by OPP and BNS are written in ways that I would describe as "fanboy/fangirl"-like. This might be the case, it might be attributed to an (for me) unsatisfactory editing process or other factors I can't imagine. Thing is, it is an impression I have, too.

    Your point is, that you assume that "as if written by a fanboy/fangirl" is disrespectful. Well, this could be argued. One might find certain characteristics in the works of fans who contribute to a shared universe, one would not find in work of people who aren't that invested. Whether or not that is a good or a bat thing is also up to personal taste. In any case, I don't see "fanboy/fangirl"-like as a disrespectful statement in and of its own.

    Leave a comment:


  • Illithid
    replied
    Originally posted by Lian View Post
    CoD games are explicitly NOT punk? I mean not every interpretation of modern horror has to have punk baked into it and I think that's a solid defining difference between the two.
    I'm not quite sure of your message, since I'm a fan of full sentences to the point of being overly verbose to make sure that I have left myself clear!

    I Assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think I'm saying Requiem is not punk?
    I think they have less punk aspects because you can get out the the trap of being the oppressed more easily than in Masquerade. In Masquerade, being a Prince, Archon or even Justicar and you are still oppressed by the inner council. Hell; even the inner Council would likely have pressure from the elders behind the creation of the Camarilla, up to the Clan founders.
    I'm not saying that it's not punk...
    On the flip side; I'm not saying that Requiem is punk; I agree that gothic can be without punk: Otherwise it'd be advertised as "Gothic" instead of "Gothic Punk" since punk aspects would be implied by the use of "Gothic" automatically.

    What I'm saying is 1) I believe that the superstructures as discussed are a benefit to roleplaying because they give multilayered political roleplaying opportunities; getting to the top of a city is not the end of that roleplaying experience with peers and superiors, because you will always have peers and superiors.
    2) I don't actually care what Requiem/Forseaken etc is any more. It doesn't meet my needs, or the needs of those I play with; either in mechanics or themes; I'm completely talking about the WORLD of darkness instead of Chronicles of Darkness; as per the sorting of the forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    WtA had a lot of metaplot changes over the years, but WtA generally avoided messing with the base formula (at least until BNS WtA) No Tribes changing allegiances (yes the Stargazers did in Revised, but W20 undid that, and the smallest Tribe leaving was a blip), or being nearly wiped out, or things of that nature. Septs fell, NPCs died, whole groups of antagonists like the Seventh Generation were destroyed, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maris Streck
    replied
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Calling the supplement developers and authors fanboys/girls isn't a critique.
    Is that an insult on these forums? =P I thought we all were fanboys/fangirls.
    The way I took it he was simply complaining on the lack of coherence between supplements.

    Eh? I think for most WoD fans the point is far more the depth of the setting than the implications of the setting. High level NPCs aren't really there to cement specific realities on the setting; pissing off your local Sept doesn't mean Albercht is going send people to investigate.
    I think that Werewolf is less invasive than Vampire in this sense, since the Garou society is really fractured. But yes, my point was that so much background ends up binding you, apologies if I expressed it poorly. Not that you can't make your own personal campaign putting the Lasombra in the Camarilla and the Tremere in the Sabbat, but many players will complain if the setting is not respected and you certainly can't modify it to such an extent in open events (i.e. public RP tournaments must be respectful of the setting or they'll miss the point).

    Aka life is easier if the game is more how you like it.

    This is a bit of a false dichotomy. CofD vs. WoD is a lot more than metaplot vs. not, and plenty of people might like the WoD more despite the metaplot and would rather the metaplot be handled more like how Exalted or the 20th books do (that is, focus on backstory and where the metaplot might go, than on advancing the metaplot with new books) treats the setting. This is especially true of fans heavily invested in the existing lore, because metaplot shakeups around new editions tend to be the most disruptive.
    I was simply considrering the games from the metaplot viewpoint, didn't mean to imply there were no other differences between the IPs.
    And I totally understand your meaning. A lot of people took it badly when they removed the Tremere Antitribu or when the Avatar storm refocused Mage on the mundane world; on the very topic of V5 there were a lot of people unsatisfied with the second inquisition, too. I must say, though, that in the WtA setting very little changed between versions... maybe just the Stargazers position in the Garou nation but I can't recall any significative update on the metaplot in the years. What did we have, the crowning of Albrecht and the Skinner adventure serie?

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by Maris Streck View Post
    If critique is a a rule violation then some rule has to change. He believes that the books lack professionality, good, it's an opinion like any others. Feel free to defend the authors but censorship is disproportionate.
    Critique is not a rule violation, but disrespect is. A disrespectful comment is not exempted from the rules simply because it is also critical. The rules also state that if you take issue with a moderator’s action, to use the contact us link rather than disputing it publicly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by Maris Streck View Post
    If critique is a a rule violation then some rule has to change.
    Calling the supplement developers and authors fanboys/girls isn't a critique.

    The point is not having Etrius come to New Hope, Pennsylvania, to spank the neonate PC that insulted a local Tremere, but knowing that if you violate the local Camarilla you'll be hunted in the whole world by the Archons.
    Eh? I think for most WoD fans the point is far more the depth of the setting than the implications of the setting. High level NPCs aren't really there to cement specific realities on the setting; pissing off your local Sept doesn't mean Albercht is going send people to investigate. They're there to flush out the setting because it's designed as a top heavy setting where not knowing who holds positions doesn't make a lot of sense.

    Some people would argue this is a punk thing, though I do challenge the idea that punk aesthetics are so limited.

    It's a social power much different from the VtR one, where if you violate the rules of the local Prince you can safely find haven in every other city.
    Maybe, maybe not. The locals you're intruding on might not like you showing up; unlike VtM you can be killed on the spot for trying to settle in a new city without permission because you don't have a Camarilla to rely on to keep certain levels of mutual dealing intact. Fleeing to a new city in VtR is a big enough risk that despite how different social power is handled... the result for player characters is largely the same: respect the Prince's power because the alternatives are usually worse.

    And to be clear, I like the metaplot and how it evolved in the years (save some exception, like, how the hell did Theo Bell manage to kill Vitel, it makes no sense); but people who disliked it found their haven in the products of the new Chronicle of Darkness.
    This is a bit of a false dichotomy. CofD vs. WoD is a lot more than metaplot vs. not, and plenty of people might like the WoD more despite the metaplot and would rather the metaplot be handled more like how Exalted or the 20th books do (that is, focus on backstory and where the metaplot might go, than on advancing the metaplot with new books) treats the setting. This is especially true of fans heavily invested in the existing lore, because metaplot shakeups around new editions tend to be the most disruptive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maris Streck
    replied
    Originally posted by Darksider View Post
    This last line was unnecessary to an otherwise valid post and is at the very least insulting to the writers who have worked for both WW and OPP, which is a rules violation. I'm issuing a warning not to post comments like this again in the future, please and thank you.
    If critique is a a rule violation then some rule has to change.
    He believes that the books lack professionality, good, it's an opinion like any others. Feel free to defend the authors but censorship is disproportionate.

    We never felt restricted by the existence of elders of any kind or the larger factions and shadow nations among the supernaturals. The questions of why didn't King Albrect, Porthos, Leigh, one of the Death Lords, or Lucita not drop in to save the day instead of our player group never factored into the equation of our games. They only existed in so far as was needed for our stories
    The point is not having Etrius come to New Hope, Pennsylvania, to spank the neonate PC that insulted a local Tremere, but knowing that if you violate the local Camarilla you'll be hunted in the whole world by the Archons. It's a social power much different from the VtR one, where if you violate the rules of the local Prince you can safely find haven in every other city.

    And to be clear, I like the metaplot and how it evolved in the years (save some exception, like, how the hell did Theo Bell manage to kill Vitel, it makes no sense); but people who disliked it found their haven in the products of the new Chronicle of Darkness.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lian
    replied
    Originally posted by Illithid View Post
    I personally think that having the institutions and "superstructures" existing is a benefit to the roleplaying options of a game.
    Firstly, it imposes the gothic punk feel, it's hard to rebel against the tyranny of the system when the "system" is a couple of guys above you. It's also too easy to see the fallibility of individuals and empathize with their hard decisions when you can personally know them. When the people at the top are so far above you, it gives more of a menacing feeling from the unknown.
    The games never needed to explore that aspect in depth of course.
    But with CoD Vampires, you can too easily get in to the powerful elite, become prince, since they don't have the weight of a bureaucracy to back them against plays. There isn't the follow up since most cities are more independent.


    CoD games are explicitly NOT punk? I mean not every interpretation of modern horror has to have punk baked into it and I think that's a solid defining difference between the two.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darksider
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
    The more time goes by, the more professional supplements look, but in terms of content appear more like fan fiction - a pale imitation of the original taken into whatever weird way the fanboy/girl wanted.
    This last line was unnecessary to an otherwise valid post and is at the very least insulting to the writers who have worked for both WW and OPP, which is a rules violation. I'm issuing a warning not to post comments like this again in the future, please and thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Illithid
    replied
    Originally posted by Onkwe View Post
    We never felt restricted by the existence of elders of any kind or the larger factions and shadow nations among the supernaturals. The questions of why didn't King Albrect, Porthos, Leigh, one of the Death Lords, or Lucita not drop in to save the day instead of our player group never factored into the equation of our games. They only existed in so far as was needed for our stories. World building can be fun, but sometimes you want a setting ready to play in or at least serve as an example. Besides, to me at least, individual septs, vampire societies within individual cities, or chantries/contructs seemed independent enough in their canon set-up for their allegience to larger factions not to be an issue either. Overall, people should like what they like. It's just, taken as a whole, most of my friends didn't find CoD as engaging or compelling as a setting when compared to the CWoD. It doesn't mean that one game line is inferior to the other.
    I personally think that having the institutions and "superstructures" existing is a benefit to the roleplaying options of a game.
    Firstly, it imposes the gothic punk feel, it's hard to rebel against the tyranny of the system when the "system" is a couple of guys above you. It's also too easy to see the fallibility of individuals and empathize with their hard decisions when you can personally know them. When the people at the top are so far above you, it gives more of a menacing feeling from the unknown.
    The games never needed to explore that aspect in depth of course.
    But with CoD Vampires, you can too easily get in to the powerful elite, become prince, since they don't have the weight of a bureaucracy to back them against plays. There isn't the follow up since most cities are more independent.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X