World of Darkness versus Chronicles of Darkness

[ArcaneArts]

You don't.

But you did.

[Iguazu]

Then why the need to clarify between nWoD and ChroD/CofD/etc.?

You don't.

[ArcaneArts]

Yeah. I know.

Then why the need to clarify between nWoD and ChroD/CofD/etc.?

I don't mind Vampire The Reqium, but I'm a bigger fan of Vampire The Masquerade, Mage The Awakening, Promethan The Created & Changeling The Lost myself.

I feel like there was probably a unintended bit of communication, give you mention not minding a Chronicles game, than mention being a bigger fan of it's World counterpart, and then go back to listing Chronicles games. Are you saying, with the exception of Masquerade, more a fan of Chronicles games than World, or something else?

[Iguazu]

You do that that the "nWoD" and the "CofD" are just different editions of the same game right? Switching from "nWoD to CofD" is just moving from the first edition of the game to the second edition of the game; it's not nearly on the same level as cWoD vs. nWoD/CofD.

Yeah. I know.

[Lysander]

I don't mind Vampire The Reqium, but I'm a bigger fan of Vampire The Masquerade, Mage The Awakening, Promethan The Created & Changeling The Lost myself.

[Dataweaver]

You know, I don't think they did. In context, it looks like they were using “nWoD” to refer to V5 and the like. Thanks for pointing that out; I was having trouble making sense of their post until I realized that.

If that's what Iguazu was doing, please don't; as Heavy Arms pointed out, “new World of Darkness” is what the Chronicles of Darkness was (unofficially) called way back in the early 2000s when the original World of Darkness was retired and games like Requiem, Forsaken, and Awakening were introduced as their replacements. In fact, the Chronicles of Darkness only became the Chronicles of Darkness (namewise) very recently, after Paradox acquired the World of Darkness IP and insisted that what up until then had been called the new World of Darkness needed to be rebranded. Using “new World of Darkness” to refer to what Paradox has done with the IP goes counter to over a decade of usage of the term.

[Heavy Arms]

You do that that the "nWoD" and the "CofD" are just different editions of the same game right? Switching from "nWoD to CofD" is just moving from the first edition of the game to the second edition of the game; it's not nearly on the same level as cWoD vs. nWoD/CofD.

[Iguazu]

I was a hard core fan of WoD back in the mid 90s, WtA was the game that got me into Roleplaying, which has remained a lifelong hobby. When NWoD came out I wanted to love it, and I just couldn't, everything about it felt wrong. So I moved on to other systems, but remained a NWoD hater.

When I got burned out on D&D esque games 20ish years later, I came back to WoD and brought my hatred of NWoD with me. I didn't care it had been updated and called CofD. And then I realized I was being closed minded and decided to give Deviant a chance, and I fell in love. Fell in love with mortals, Forsaken, and Geist as well. They are, IMO, all far better than their WoD counter parts, even before W5 basically ruined WtA for me.


ETA: Geist may not be better than Wraith but it seems much more approachable as a game. I love Wraith.

Whereas I don't really hate NWoD, I must say that Requiem and Forsaken are vast improvements over Masquerade and Apocalypse in terms of gaming material; it's like every question you had in Masquerade was answered. I still love the OWoD games, NWoD is OK, and I'll play it, but I also like to play a mortal straight out of V:tPG rules or Hunter's Hunted. My first vampire game was in Cyberpunk's Night's Edge rules; then, we played V:tM, so, I have no set in stone ideals of what a vampire, should, be. I even like Van Richten's Guide to Vampires and I don't like D&D's version of vampires.

CoD, has some things I like, which I use, like sunlight-damage being dependent on humanity and blood-potency, which makes sense. Beast is awesome and the Dark Eras series. But I'm not going to throw out NWoD or OWoD books and only play CoD.


And the best Vampire I've seen played was Able Cain.

[ShadowcatX]

I was a hard core fan of WoD back in the mid 90s, WtA was the game that got me into Roleplaying, which has remained a lifelong hobby. When NWoD came out I wanted to love it, and I just couldn't, everything about it felt wrong. So I moved on to other systems, but remained a NWoD hater.

When I got burned out on D&D esque games 20ish years later, I came back to WoD and brought my hatred of NWoD with me. I didn't care it had been updated and called CofD. And then I realized I was being closed minded and decided to give Deviant a chance, and I fell in love. Fell in love with mortals, Forsaken, and Geist as well. They are, IMO, all far better than their WoD counter parts, even before W5 basically ruined WtA for me.


ETA: Geist may not be better than Wraith but it seems much more approachable as a game. I love Wraith.

[TyrannicalRabbit]

My biggest complaint is the rate of publication, which I assume has nothing to do with the writers' vision and abilities. But parts of Dark Eras Companions and Dark Era 2 felt thinly spread to me, especially compared to both Dark Eras I and books of the middle to late first edition.

Paradox's fault. *Shrugs*

[TwoDSix]

On the other hand, Chronicles of Darkness has Deviant as a gameline; and I get strong GURPS vibes (in a good way) off of Deviant. It's the “kitchen sink” of the Chronicles of Darkness. And that's something the World of Darkness lacks.

Incidentally, I got into tabletop roleplaying through Champions and GURPS, way back in the 1980s before there even was a World of Darkness. I also don't see GURPS as a dirty word; though I do understand where those who do are coming from.

Deviant is amazing, and probably the closest CofD will ever get to Gothic Punk. I love that it's one of the literal couple of CofD books I have that isn't PoD, although Geist 2e might join it soon. But it's definitely amazingly flexible while still keeping to the 'results of a lab experiment' theming.

My RPG experience is weird in that I started with BECM D&D in the noughties before playing stuff like Unknown Armies and GURPS in the early 2010s. GURPS is fine, and great for the people who actually want what it does (and I know someone who loves it).

[Dataweaver]

I have issues with GURPS but it does fill an important space in the RPG landscape. It's not a bad game, but it's definitely not for everybody, in many ways it's a less flexible HERO.

Of course treating WoD as GURPS is not good, WoD is much more focused, but GURPS really shouldn't be a dirty word. If only because those sourcebooks are amazing.

On the other hand, Chronicles of Darkness has Deviant as a gameline; and I get strong GURPS vibes (in a good way) off of Deviant. It's the “kitchen sink” of the Chronicles of Darkness. And that's something the World of Darkness lacks.

Incidentally, I got into tabletop roleplaying through Champions and GURPS, way back in the 1980s before there even was a World of Darkness. I also don't see GURPS as a dirty word; though I do understand where those who do are coming from.

[Spencer from The Hills]

What does that even mean? CofD have consistently built up on core world developing foundations and frequently fantastically. Both Night Horror and Dark Era books have deeply enriched the overall setting alone. The only distinction of note is Paradox's attitude on future 5e books vs CofD books, which is not an indictment of CofD in the slightest.

My biggest complaint is the rate of publication, which I assume has nothing to do with the writers' vision and abilities. But parts of Dark Eras Companions and Dark Era 2 felt thinly spread to me, especially compared to both Dark Eras I and books of the middle to late first edition.

[TwoDSix]

I think we might approaching the idea of GURPS from different angles, particularly since I mean it as a dirty word.

I have issues with GURPS but it does fill an important space in the RPG landscape. It's not a bad game, but it's definitely not for everybody, in many ways it's a less flexible HERO.

Of course treating WoD as GURPS is not good, WoD is much more focused, but GURPS really shouldn't be a dirty word. If only because those sourcebooks are amazing.

[ArcaneArts]

Honestly CofD is actually my version of GURPS, in that it's the system I can bend to pretty much any concept given prep time. Not that I do that much, I've got many specialized systems that'll do specific things better, but for really niche ideas it's not a bad default and hits my preferred power scale.


There are things I legitimately love about WoD, but very few I can't do in the more Functional CofD, and if it's not WtA I just can't be asked to deal with the mechanics. CofD is brimming with lore, tends to be more archetypal with options, and has an air of mystery that WoD at this point seems to lack. But a big personal draw for CofD for me is the way the game did historical settings. For WoD it was Dark Ages Everything, whereas CofD 1e had more breadth before 2e went all out with Dark Eras (the Sundered World is excellent, at least in part for making it clear everybody's history is at least somewhat corrupted). Plus sometimes the lore is genuinely just more interesting than WoD these days, I adore what Requiem 2e did with the Brood and various Lost Clans.

Plus CofD has a book dedicated to playing 200 year old vampires, which is IME what most people actually want to play. Part of me wants to run a Requiem Chronicle starting with Elders in the middle ages and then ending up with the players having legendary Methuselahs in the modern day.

I think we might approaching the idea of GURPS from different angles, particularly since I mean it as a dirty word.