No announcement yet.

"Best" edition?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Best" edition?

    I'm well aware of the subjectivity of the topic, but I want to know everyone's opinions on which edition of Werewolf is the best, in two categories in particular.

    Which is the best, in your thoughts and experiences, in terms of gameplay? That is, where the rules and mechanics were at their tightest or most functional, when you and your players and storytellers could make a good chronicle without having to add too many houserules.

    Which is the best, in terms of where in the metaplot and setting? Like, did the events of revised leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, like in mage or vampire, or is W20's more hands off approach to plot preferred?

  • #2
    I'd say W20 for both.

    The rules in W20 aren't a huge improvement over 2e and Rev. but overall there's more improvements than backslides. WtA has some of the least impactful changes over editions after 1e to 2e, so it's a very tight race, but W20 squeaks to the top on metrics like least house rules.

    I prefer the 20th's lines approach to metaplot in general, but I've been playing WtA for over 25 years. I own physical or pdf copies of almost the entire original run. I don't need more metaplot, if I want any I have a decades worth of books to reference. Though I can appreciate how there are lots of people that are in a different situation.


    • #3
      2nd Edition for both.

      I like the Setting on 2nd edition that leaned in my opinion more on a local sept focus rather than a global scale of events and world wide tribe networks...
      Certain metaplot events have not happened by then.

      2nd Edition didn't have "stepping sideways" wherever you want, but besides that, it was mostly the same system. It had a guidline (and a roll) to determine longterm effects of the Curse.


      • #4
        W20 for both but with a couple of caveats.

        I keep Reviseds Stepping Sideways rules.

        Ethan tended to have a very light touch when it came to Metaplot with WtA compared to other lines so its no biggie but I prefer the 'agnostic' approach of W20.


        • #5
          I find that W20 isn't as agnostic as V20 was. V20 clearly stated 2nd edition setting, with sidebars as to what revised changed. W20 is it's own version, new material was added, like Gifts and Fetishes, not just old ones reworked like in V20. It was not, like V20 was, a book that housed all that came before, as many Gifts and other elements didn't make it into W20. And while it didn't detail lots of new Metaplot it was imo on the revised state of things - but it wasn't 2nd Edition with sidebars detailing the changes to come, like V20.


          • #6
            I'm with W20 on both counts. Brought me back to the WoD in a big way.


            • #7
              In terms of rules, I like 2e or Revised the best. If I had to pick only one rule set, I'd pick 2e because I always override the change in Revised that said Garou don't need a reflective surface to step sideways. The 2e materials also had some rites that weren't included in Revised for some reason. But I do like Revised and W20 for including more Gifts in the corebook. In how I actually run the game, I use Revised as the base set of rules, but include a lot of Rites and Gifts from 2e and W20 that aren't there and change stepping sideways. I'd use W20 as the base except I prefer Dodge to remain in the game instead of using Athletics.

              In terms of the setting, I prefer a blend of the setting from all editions as I'm not truly happy with any one version. I don't like the metaplot of Revised. Some 1e and 2e material is just bad and was replaced with better material during Revised. W20 incorporates everything, and therefore includes a lot of material I don't like. However, I prefer the general approach of 1e/early 2e the best. I think later editions of the game excised certain material and depictions I think is essential to a good Werewolf chronicle. I like the presence of Old Ones and Lunatics among the Garou. I like how Stargazers are NOT just a "Far Eat Asian" tribe, but have representatives everyone. I like how many tribes are morally corrupt in certain ways. That the Bone Gnawers are mostly terrible scum bags that aren't heroic and protective of Garou who are criminals according to the Litany. That the Shadow Lords are engaged in all sorts of villainy. That the Silver Fangs are clearly failing as leaders. That many tribes practice a form of human sacrifice. My one major complaint is that the 1e era was the one most obnoxiously left wing in politics - I don't think that was needed. All politics have their good points and bad points. Allow players to bring in such biases to their own chronicles if they want.

              If I had to pick one thing I changed the most of any settings in general, is that I use a lot of fomori of my own creation and revised PENTEX and some other Wyrm factions heavily. I've always been most disappointed in the game in the kind of antagonists they have. So I've worked a lot at creating ones I think are better.


              • #8
                I'd go with W20 being the ultimate version. However, I do feel Revised is a more manageable bite for new people. Most of the rules are interchangeable, and the general feel of the setting is the same, even though some W20 books make it slightly more modern.

                What doesn't kill you, makes you... stranger.