# Monte Cooks WoD is for 3.5



## Imaro (May 25, 2007)

Here's a cover posted at Amazon

 (Deleted the link since it's posted below and mine was wrong)  

If you enlare the image you can see in the right hand corner that it's for 3.5 edition rules.  So what do you guys think, does this encourage you to buy it more or less...and what about the cover?


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 25, 2007)

Please fix your link.  It is truncated and redirects to the amazon main page.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 25, 2007)

http://www.amazon.com/Monte-Cooks-W...4627626?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180106009&sr=8-1


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2007)

It's hard to tell what we're looking at. Is it modern day? Is it fantasy? Who are those black-robed guys? Who's the dude with the sword?

I want to know more before committing. I always assumed it'd be for 3E, though.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 25, 2007)

The house in the background looks modern, so it will probably be the same WoD as in WoD - modern, present day.

I'm interested whether Monte can pull off this stunt: The WoD with d20 rules, the fusion of the two biggest RPGs (which are quite different from each other). I'll certainly keep an eye on it.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (May 25, 2007)

It's for 3.5!?!??

The WoD forums must be in uproar!


----------



## Crothian (May 25, 2007)

It's World of Darkness so it is modern day and fantasy (horror) elements.  Black robes guys are obviously the bad dudes maybe ghoul or other traditional mortal WoD enemies.  The dude with the sword is the hero.  

I feared it was going to be d20.  It makes me not that interested in it.  I already have WoD and I think the rules for it are great.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 25, 2007)

I wouldn't go near any WoD fanatic right now. I think they're assembling in lynch mobs even as we speak.


----------



## Voadam (May 25, 2007)

I am more likely to get it because it is 3.5 compatible rules.


----------



## rgard (May 25, 2007)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> It's for 3.5!?!??
> 
> The WoD forums must be in uproar!




Yep, mass suicides and the like.

I'll pick it up because it is 3.5!


----------



## Wombat (May 25, 2007)

The WoD rules work great for a WoD game.

Why would I want to graft D20 rules onto a setting that already has an appropriate rules set?

I mean, I like Monte's work, but this is a non-starter for me.


----------



## Alzrius (May 25, 2007)

I'm also going to get this because it's for 3.5. While I've been speculatively looking at the WoD ever since I got into role-playing, I never had any interest in learning another rules system. This is the answer to that.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 25, 2007)

Wombat said:
			
		

> The WoD rules work great for a WoD game.
> 
> Why would I want to graft D20 rules onto a setting that already has an appropriate rules set?




Because it's d20?

People who don't want to learn another ruleset can get this. People who want to try another take on the game can get this. 

It's not like the first game that has its own rules, but gets a d20 treatment.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2007)

If it can even REMOTELY be canabalized for regular D&D, I'm in.

Heck, if it CAN'T and its still good, I'm in.

Go Monte!


----------



## MojoGM (May 25, 2007)

Is it really D&D 3.5?  Aren't the WOD rules on version 3?  I seem to think they are, so maybe they are a revision of those, and not D20...

The more I look at the picture, the more I am convinced that my guess is correct.  Nowhere does it actually say 3.5 or D20, it says "Revised 3rd Edition Rules" which I think refers to the WOD system.

I don't think D20 would be right for WOD


----------



## Henry (May 25, 2007)

So far, the RPG Net posters aren't sure WHAT to make of it. 

This is for my "wait and see" list. And coincidentally, it comes out RIGHT at Gencon... Hmmm....


----------



## Nepenthe (May 25, 2007)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> It's for 3.5!?!??
> 
> The WoD forums must be in uproar!




They already were a couple of months ago when Sean K Reynolds said that the book is based on the d20 mechanic 

Source: http://seankreynolds.com/boardskr/viewtopic.php?t=2146&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

/N


----------



## GreatLemur (May 25, 2007)

Wow, I've never seen an RPG developer's name so huge on the cover of a book, before.  Does Gygax even get this kind of billing?  Interesting.

Are we entirely certain that "Revised Third Edition Rules" means D&D?  You'd think they'd pay the liscensing fee to get a logo on there, somewhere.

At any rate, if this _is_ going to be d20, I'll definitely be interested in cannibalizing it.  I like the existing World of Darkness mechanics quite a bit, so I don't think I'd actually run a WoD game with this thing, but I can always use more mechanical toys for d20 projects.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 25, 2007)

I knew it was going to be d20, but. . .

Gah. Why not _d20 Modern_? 

That strikes me as a really odd decision.

Supplementary question: is/was d20 Modern a failure?


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 25, 2007)

MojoGM said:
			
		

> Is it really D&D 3.5?  Aren't the WOD rules on version 3?




Yes, it's D&D 3.5e. It has been said before. 

As far as I know, the current WoD is the second edition. Before that, they were only revisions and the like. The current WoD is often called WoD 2.0. And there is no revision for it as far as I know.


----------



## Nepenthe (May 25, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I knew it was going to be d20, but. . .
> 
> Gah. Why not _d20 Modern_?
> 
> ...




Not really, if they are just using the very core stuff (with possibly new skill systems and classes and the like), there might be no difference between the two...

/N


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2007)

Gary Gygax's World of Darkness would certainly be interesting. He's got the antiquarian voice down cold, which could be a lot of fun.


----------



## MojoGM (May 25, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Yes, it's D&D 3.5e. It has been said before.
> 
> As far as I know, the current WoD is the second edition. Before that, they were only revisions and the like. The current WoD is often called WoD 2.0. And there is no revision for it as far as I know.




Weird...WOD just doesn't fit with D20...but I'm sure the fluff will be worth it.

The old WOD books I had I thought were called 2nd edition, but I could be wrong...


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 25, 2007)

Nepenthe said:
			
		

> Not really, if they are just using the very core stuff (with possibly new skill systems and classes and the like), there might be no difference between the two...



Er.

I'd say there's rather a lot of difference between D&D 3e and d20 Modern, going by my own experiences. . . in fact, even from just looking at the two systems side-by-side, for that matter.

I guess "3rd edition" or "3.5" has so much more selling power that the more 'logical' choice just ain't.


----------



## Sammael (May 25, 2007)

SKR posted on his forum that it was d20 months ago.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2007)

MojoGM said:
			
		

> Weird...WOD just doesn't fit with D20...but I'm sure the fluff will be worth it.
> 
> The old WOD books I had I thought were called 2nd edition, but I could be wrong...



The four main oWoD books did get a second edition and then three of them (everyone but Changeling) got a Revised edition after that. Wraith and Mummy never got a second edition, as I recall.

The nWoD is called the Storytelling (instead of Storyteller) System and is 1.0.


----------



## Crothian (May 25, 2007)

In old world of darkness each of the core games (Vampire, werewolf, and Mage) got a second and a revised edition.  Everything was Wold of Darkness and there was a few books that were just Wod.  But now the WoD line is a mortal game and it is called a second edition.  The other lines (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, etc) all build of the mortal game.


----------



## hexgrid (May 25, 2007)

MojoGM said:
			
		

> Is it really D&D 3.5?  Aren't the WOD rules on version 3?  I seem to think they are, so maybe they are a revision of those, and not D20...
> 
> The more I look at the picture, the more I am convinced that my guess is correct.  Nowhere does it actually say 3.5 or D20, it says "Revised 3rd Edition Rules" which I think refers to the WOD system.




"Revised 3rd Edition Rules" is code for "OGL-based game that doesn't use the d20 license." (usually so that character creation rules can be included.)


----------



## Mystaros (May 25, 2007)

Hmmm...

Looking at the ruins of the modern world, and mixing that with the fact that it is apparently d20 Fantasy and not modern, and adding in the whole Time of Judgment/Gehenna/Apocalypse/Ascension concept, I'm going out on a limb to say that the setting will probably be a post-Magical Apocalypse setting, World of Darkness style. Technology fails during the magical apocalypse, and vampires, werewolves, mages, changelings, etc. rule a magically ravaged Earth. Perhaps even more traditional "high fantasy" elements invade Earth... that looks like a planar gate to me.

Characters can either be standard d20 Fantasy mortal humans or the more powerful vampires, werewolves, "true magi," Changeling-style demihumans and humanoids, and so forth. Vampires would rule the ruined cities trying to rebuild a sort of civilization (they need lots of people to comfortably subsist), and werewolves and changelings rule the wilds, with the rural/suburban area now true battlegrounds. The Antediluvian vampires have ascended to godhood, the old gods return, and so on.

Read S.M. Stirling's "Dies the Fire" and Steven Boyett's "Ariel" to get the basic idea, then add in the World of Darkness elements, and teh core fantasy elements from D&D... and that's probably Monte's WoD...


----------



## MojoGM (May 25, 2007)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> "Revised 3rd Edition Rules" is code for "OGL-based game that doesn't use the d20 license." (usually so that character creation rules can be included.)




Ah, I didn't realize that, ignore what my above posts then   

I may have to at least take a look at it with Monte being the author...


----------



## Nifft (May 25, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It's hard to tell what we're looking at. Is it modern day? Is it fantasy? Who are those black-robed guys? Who's the dude with the sword?




It's modern. Things looked totally different 20 years ago. That energy vortex is clearly newfangled.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## mcrow (May 25, 2007)

It will be interesting to see what Monte does with d20. 

Seems to be a new d20 modern to me.


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (May 25, 2007)

I tried crossing the streams back in AD&D 2nd ed/old WoD days.  Called my little homebrew Darkness & Dragons.  I used the WoD rules, AD&D generic fantasy setting and characters from both.

So, if Monte's version is a fantasy-esque setting with the WoD critters reinterpreted for the setting, I'd be all over it like white-on-rice.


----------



## Talath (May 25, 2007)

Finally, White Wolf releases a gaming book that inspires true horror and fear into it's fanbase!   

I'm picking this up so I can shove it in every WW fanboy's face and then dance madly like a leprechaun clutching my pot of fake gold and candied pears down shattuck avenue in Berkeley!


----------



## Psion (May 25, 2007)

I scooped this by about 20 minutes over in the (now known to be) CORRECT forum. 



			
				Wombat said:
			
		

> The WoD rules work great for a WoD game.
> 
> Why would I want to graft D20 rules onto a setting that already has an appropriate rules set?




For me: so I can import World of Darkness bits into my other D20 games.

Not to mention that, despite nWoD being the most sensible take on the Storyteller system yet, I still prefer the d20 system to _any_ dice pool.


----------



## Psion (May 25, 2007)

mcrow said:
			
		

> Seems to be a new d20 modern to me.




Right. It's a supplement for D20 Modern, Spycraft, Traveller D20, etc.


----------



## Voadam (May 25, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I scooped this by about 20 minutes over in the (now known to be) CORRECT forum.




I saw, but this thread asks a question so I responded.


----------



## Asmor (May 25, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Wow, I've never seen an RPG developer's name so huge on the cover of a book, before.  Does Gygax even get this kind of billing?  Interesting.
> 
> Are we entirely certain that "Revised Third Edition Rules" means D&D?  You'd think they'd pay the liscensing fee to get a logo on there, somewhere.
> 
> At any rate, if this _is_ going to be d20, I'll definitely be interested in cannibalizing it.  I like the existing World of Darkness mechanics quite a bit, so I don't think I'd actually run a WoD game with this thing, but I can always use more mechanical toys for d20 projects.




Monte Cook's practically a brand name, at this point.

Put me in the "interested-because-it's-3.5" camp. I love the WoD settings, but good god I hate the rules. Doesn't stop me from having a small library of old and new WoD stuff.


----------



## mcrow (May 25, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Right. It's a supplement for D20 Modern, Spycraft, Traveller D20, etc.




Not exaclty what I meant. More like "Could Monte's take be better than the current d20 Modern?" sure it's going to have some setting and stuff, but I wonder how usefull it will be outside of the WoD.


----------



## Gothmog (May 25, 2007)

Nah, this has very little appeal to me.  The NWoD is pretty darn good, and the mechanics fit it perfectly.  I have a really hard time seeing how a d20 version of WoD could work- d20 certainly didn't work very well for Call of Cthulhu IMO, and WoD is more character-driven than CoC is (and I wasn't too impressed with Monte's CoC D20, which was basically D&D with Cthulhu mythos beasties- completely the wrong feel for the Lovecraft Mythos).  You'd have to find a way to take into account Humanity, Willpower, and the various supernatural attributes that didn't just seem like they were tacked on for the hell of it like Sanity was in CoC d20.  Plus you'd need to take into account Bashing, Lethal, and Aggravated damage, which would be a HUGE pain using hit points (its complicated enough using wound levels in WoD).  Even still, d20 isn't the right ruleset for WoD- does a PhD in a given field really need to be 10th level, with oodles of hit points and moderately high BAB in order to get his knowledge skills high enough to be considered an expert?

Its good they are doing a WoD D20, since hopefully this will get some folks who only play D20 games to try the WoD stuff.  It honestly is a good world and system, and not anywhere near the angsty goth crap that was characteristic of the 90s.  However, personally I'm very skeptical of WoD D20, and unless I hear of some way these issues were dealt with to be quick and easy, I'm not interested.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> This is for my "wait and see" list. And coincidentally, it comes out RIGHT at Gencon... Hmmm....




Movies these days often use fake names when they are in pre-production to prevent leaks and fan curiosity. Obviously this is.... 4E!   

*ducks*


----------



## Nebulous (May 25, 2007)

This sounds EXACTLY like what Monte did for Call of Cthulhu d20.  I had never played CoC before D20, but after buying it, i went and bought a bunch of the Chaosium sourcebooks also, although the campaign i run is d20. 

I will probably get this because i really like Monte's work. Hell, i bought Ptolus and i don't even run it. Haven't even finished reading that freakin' huge thing.


----------



## Kesh (May 25, 2007)

Wombat said:
			
		

> The WoD rules work great for a WoD game.
> 
> Why would I want to graft D20 rules onto a setting that already has an appropriate rules set?
> 
> I mean, I like Monte's work, but this is a non-starter for me.




Star Wars
Traveller
Call of Cthulhu

Shall i continue?


----------



## Nebulous (May 25, 2007)

What is the premise for WoD? Is it like Cthulhu or d20 Modern, with fantasy overlaid on a modern setting, or is it eldritch gods in a modern setting? For that matter, how would this crossover with Delta Green d20?


----------



## Henry (May 25, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> What is the premise for WoD? Is it like Cthulhu or d20 Modern, with fantasy overlaid on a modern setting, or is it eldritch gods in a modern setting? For that matter, how would this crossover with Delta Green d20?




The World of Darkness is, ostensibly, our world, but with slightly darker tones, and the inclusion of beasties just under the veneer of normalcy. In our world, a serial killer is somewhere between evil and pathetic, and in the WoD, the serial killer is possibly a vampire struggling with keeping his bloodthirst in check, and an organization of vampires struggling to find him, kill him, and replace him with a patsy so their secret won't get out.


----------



## GreatLemur (May 25, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Gary Gygax's World of Darkness would certainly be interesting.



I'm picturing a four-man party consisting of a vampire, a werewolf, a mage, and a changeling, Greyhawking their way through a nightclub full of supernatural monsters.


----------



## Alnag (May 25, 2007)

Actually to me it seems pretty apocalyptic... see the destroyed buildings and dead people. World of Darkness is brutal in more subtle way. This seems to be WoD after some catastrophy.


----------



## DM_Jeff (May 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> The World of Darkness is, ostensibly, our world, but with slightly darker tones, and the inclusion of beasties just under the veneer of normalcy.




And, really, in a nutshell isn't that what *Dark*Matter * is hinting at? And that's pretty much the basics of the *Urban Arcana * d20 setting? And it also sounds like the world described when my buddy ran us through some *d20 Cuthulu * material. Truth be told, I'm had enough with "X-Files: The Roleplaying Game" that, despite having a great respect for Monte's work, I really have no need for this.  :\ 

-DM Jeff


----------



## sckeener (May 25, 2007)

I am _so _getting this!   I bought CoC d20 immediately because it was d20.  If he can pull this off...wohoo!


heck I might be able to pull some of CoC over to it!  This is awesome....

now if someone wouldn't mind doing this for Ars Magica, I'd be very happy.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 25, 2007)

I'm happy - not because I would run WoD with d20 rules, but because I expect it will provide d20 rules for vampires, werewolves and mages much superior to the current core rules versions.  Not that it would be hard to have superior rules, but... 

I'm disappointed that it's not d20-Modern-based (i.e., using the Modern generic classes), although conversion between the systems is essentially effortless.  Perhaps the werewolves and vampires are 20- (or 25-?) -level racial classes?  That would excuse not using the Modern generics.

I'd still use NWoD if I wanted to run a game in the actual WoD setting, but I probably wouldn't buy Monte Cook's WoD if I wanted to do that, anyway.   This is really the only way I'd want to pick it up, and I certainly do.

On the flip side, if, as the cover seems to indicate, this is a post-apocalyptic WoD, perhaps based on characters somehow surviving the apocalypse at the end of the OWoD, that would be pretty cool.


----------



## hexgrid (May 25, 2007)

Mystaros said:
			
		

> Hmmm...
> 
> Looking at the ruins of the modern world, and mixing that with the fact that it is apparently d20 Fantasy and not modern, and adding in the whole Time of Judgment/Gehenna/Apocalypse/Ascension concept, I'm going out on a limb to say that the setting will probably be a post-Magical Apocalypse setting, World of Darkness style. Technology fails during the magical apocalypse, and vampires, werewolves, mages, changelings, etc. rule a magically ravaged Earth. Perhaps even more traditional "high fantasy" elements invade Earth... that looks like a planar gate to me.
> 
> Characters can either be standard d20 Fantasy mortal humans or the more powerful vampires, werewolves, "true magi," Changeling-style demihumans and humanoids, and so forth. Vampires would rule the ruined cities trying to rebuild a sort of civilization (they need lots of people to comfortably subsist), and werewolves and changelings rule the wilds, with the rural/suburban area now true battlegrounds. The Antediluvian vampires have ascended to godhood, the old gods return, and so on.




This would be pretty cool, I think.

And it brings up a good point- we don't even know what the setting IS, exactly, so it's way to soon declare that d20 isn't right for it.


----------



## GreatLemur (May 25, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I'm happy - not because I would run WoD with d20 rules, but because I expect it will provide d20 rules for vampires, werewolves and mages much superior to the current core rules versions.



If Monte can actually work out a d20 magic system that effectively emulates the flexibility of the Mage magic system (oWoD, prefereably) while maintaining some kind of reasonable balance, I'm pretty much sold on this book.


----------



## mcrow (May 25, 2007)

This is the description WW gave out at GTS:



> A World in Darkness
> One year ago, eldritch horrors of cosmic malevolence called the Inconnu attempted to destroy our reality. They failed, but the attempt left the world in rapidly-darkening shadow. Dead souls returned to claim living bodies, creating blood-drinking undead fiends: vampires. Bestial spirits came as well, to create werewolves, and demons formed bodies from worldly matter. Magic crashed back into the world, and mages wield its power for whatever purpose suits them. Humans called the Awakened unknowingly keep the darkness at bay. These supernatural creatures struggle against each other and clash in the shadows, most attempting to destroy the world, but some few fighting to preserve it. And over it all, the Icconu {sic} still lurk, squeezing the world like an eggshell.
> 
> The World of Darkness Re-Imagined {tm}
> ...


----------



## Psion (May 25, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> If Monte can actually work out a d20 magic system that effectively emulates the flexibility of the Mage magic system (oWoD, prefereably) while maintaining some kind of reasonable balance, I'm pretty much sold on this book.




AFAIAC, ENPub has already published that book.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (May 25, 2007)

Sounds like Urban Arcane mated with Shadownrun and done in d20.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2007)

If that's what the product turns out to be, it'll be worth getting just to pull stuff from.


----------



## Nebulous (May 25, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> now if someone wouldn't mind doing this for Ars Magica, I'd be very happy.




Hell yeah. I'd love to see a d20 Ars Magica system.


----------



## Nebulous (May 25, 2007)

mcrow said:
			
		

> This is the description WW gave out at GTS:




Well, that sells it for me. For one, i was completely unfamiliar with the setting, and having a familiar ruleset from an author i trust, that is a no-brainer for me. So, i am now eagerly awaiting to run a campaign with vampire and werewolves. And i never, never thought it would say that.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 25, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I am more likely to get it because it is 3.5 compatible rules.



I was completely hoping for DnD compatability. Know that I know it is, I've already placed my pre-order for it.


----------



## Mystaros (May 25, 2007)

mcrow said:
			
		

> This is the description WW gave out at GTS:




Dang, I missed that at the show... of course, every time I was at the PSI booth I was either checking out Battlestar Galactica or talking with the guys from Valley Games about the new Titan...

Kinda close to what I figured it would be, though without the High Fantasy. Sounds like high technology is probably still around, too...

Interesting...


----------



## CaptainChaos (May 25, 2007)

I'm kind of curious about this, but not $50 curious.


----------



## francisca (May 25, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> So what do you guys think, does this encourage you to buy it more or less...and what about the cover?



Neither.  Not interested either way because:
A) Not interested in WoD
B) After a few of Mr. Cook's products, I decided his stuff wasn't for me.

Cover is kinda cool.


----------



## rowport (May 25, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I'm also going to get this because it's for 3.5. While I've been speculatively looking at the WoD ever since I got into role-playing, I never had any interest in learning another rules system. This is the answer to that.



I feel generally the same way, but truthfully, I would rather it be d20 Modern than D&D3.5.  That will make it lots harder to just graft onto other modern setting books (like Delta Green-- yay!) especially if it adds more high-magic as in D&D.

Still, I have heard enough about WOD to be interested in the setting, and with Monte Cook for setting material and Sean K. Reynolds for crunchy bits expect it will be a great book on its own merits, well worth a look.


----------



## mcrow (May 25, 2007)

rowport said:
			
		

> I feel generally the same way, but truthfully, I would rather it be d20 Modern than D&D3.5.  That will make it lots harder to just graft onto other modern setting books (like Delta Green-- yay!) especially if it adds more high-magic as in D&D.
> 
> Still, I have heard enough about WOD to be interested in the setting, and with Monte Cook for setting material and Sean K. Reynolds for crunchy bits expect it will be a great book on its own merits, well worth a look.




Well, it's most likely going to be OGL, which doesn't imply full compatability with either d20 modern or D&D 3.5.


----------



## Thaumaturge (May 25, 2007)

A think of all of the Wuxia-esque moves your vampire can perform with Bo9S.  That's pretty cool. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 25, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I want to know more before committing. I always assumed it'd be for 3E, though.




I think everybody did, despite suggestions to the contrary. For better or worse, Mr. Cook _is_ d20.


----------



## DaveMage (May 25, 2007)

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> I'm kind of curious about this, but not $50 curious.





Hey - Monte's got bills to pay, ya know!


For some reason I am finding this whole thing hilarious.    

I'm picturing groups of confused goths that don't know how to react.....


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 25, 2007)

From the description, I'm more interested in the details of the re-imagined WoD--since that's nothing like the WoD as written--than I am in the system, be it D20, Storytelling, or coin-flipping.

But as someone else said, I don't think I'm $50 interested. Maybe if it's available on Amazon...

*EtA:* Honestly compels me to admit that there's also some ego tied up in my curiosity. I'm interested in seeing what Monte does with the concepts I worked on for _Vampire: The Requiem_... If any.


----------



## Alnag (May 25, 2007)

francisca said:
			
		

> Cover is kinda cool.




Actually, the cover is the only thing, that holds me back, to preorder it right now. It is so... poor. Compare it to average nWoD cover. Or even worse... compare it with D&D covers. It has this kind of technique I really dislike. One cover artist in our country paints the fantasy books covers similar way and it is the reason I don't buy them, because I seriously can't watch it. It looks somehow wrong or something.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 25, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> What is the premise for WoD? Is it like Cthulhu or d20 Modern, with fantasy overlaid on a modern setting, or is it eldritch gods in a modern setting? For that matter, how would this crossover with Delta Green d20?




It's our world, except that many nursery tales - the more grim ones - and legends are real. There are ghosts, vampires, werewolves, magi, and other supernatural beings. They're not coming out into the open, for that would probably spell their doom (a nice line about that is: "a vampire might be 100 times stronger than a mortal man, but the mortals outnumber them 10.000 to one. And they have napalm, nuclear weapons and the like."), they do everything to keep their existance from (most) humans. In fact, the old Vampire was named after that Masquerade (and it's still in the game, even more than before, because now it's a blood rule no vampire can break). They don't stay apart, though, of course.

Now, the WoD core rules have rules for playing mortal characters, and the other games (you could call them "Campaign Settings"), extend the rules to enable you to play Vampires, Werewolves, Magi, and so on, complete with extensive settings about their nature, behaviour, supernatural powers, and so on.

It's quite a neat thing really, and I do like the ruleset. Still, I'm interested how it plays as d20.


----------



## Voadam (May 25, 2007)

> The World of Darkness Re-Imagined {tm}
> This book includes a complete setting: a new vision of the World of Darkness.
> * Characters play as vampires, mages, werewolves, demons, or Awakened. They wield frightening supernatural powers against their own kind.
> * The world is the one we know, but now much darker: destruction in the central US, nightmares coming to life, and beasts roaming shattered cityscapes.
> ...




I will be very interested in the pdf.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 25, 2007)

mcrow said:
			
		

> This is the description WW gave out at GTS:




Sounds nice. In addition to d20 rules for WoD, we get a third take at the concept, this time rather more different from the other two.


----------



## boerngrim (May 25, 2007)

Hmm. Interesting. I haven't played any WoD since the 90's. I'd give this a look at least. I thought Monte wasn't doing any game design any more though...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2007)

boerngrim said:
			
		

> Hmm. Interesting. I haven't played any WoD since the 90's. I'd give this a look at least. I thought Monte wasn't doing any game design any more though...



This was his last project, which he described as an offer he couldn't refuse.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 25, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> Actually, the cover is the only thing, that holds me back, to preorder it right now. It is so... poor. Compare it to average nWoD cover. Or even worse... compare it with D&D covers. It has this kind of technique I really dislike. One cover artist in our country paints the fantasy books covers similar way and it is the reason I don't buy them, because I seriously can't watch it. It looks somehow wrong or something.




Don't judge a book by its cover!


----------



## boerngrim (May 25, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> This was his last project, which he described as an offer he couldn't refuse.




Oh cool. Thanks.


----------



## blargney the second (May 25, 2007)

I just had a neat thought: we're going to get a slew of variant vampires.  This book isn't a setting... it's a monster manual in disguise!


----------



## ShadowDenizen (May 25, 2007)

Said it before, and I'll say it here: "Not everything needs to be D20."
The WoD rules work fine for the setting, and they've had YEARS to tweak them.

Especially where (like Deadlands and CoC), WoD is (essentially) skill-based, as opposed to Level Based.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But as someone else said, I don't think I'm $50 interested.




Agreed.
It does seem a bit on the steep side for an unknown quantity. (Sure both systems are popular in their own right, but how big will the crossover audience be?)


----------



## Dire Bare (May 25, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> And, really, in a nutshell isn't that what *Dark*Matter * is hinting at? And that's pretty much the basics of the *Urban Arcana * d20 setting? And it also sounds like the world described when my buddy ran us through some *d20 Cuthulu * material. Truth be told, I'm had enough with "X-Files: The Roleplaying Game" that, despite having a great respect for Monte's work, I really have no need for this.  :\




The World of Darkness (any of the three versions), Call of Cthulu (modern day), Urban Arcana, Dark Matter, X-Files, and, heck, Buffy the Vampire Slayer are all modern day dark fantastic settings.

But to say they are all simply the same thing is like saying that Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Eberron and the Forgotten Realms are all the same thing.

They are all definitely within the same genre and pull from the same tropes, but each has a unique flavor and themes that set them apart.

The main difference that sets the World of Darkness (at least the current two versions) apart from, say, Urban Arcana, is that you play the monsters.  And it isn't simply playing powered up furries, but real monsters that prey upon humanity, each other, and themselves.  The World of Darkness books so far have been very dark.

Some people dig it, some don't.  I'm very interested in Monte's reimagining of the WoD, but it seems it will be very different than previous versions.

I'm not familiar with the current Storyteller WoD, but the original was set _just before _ the apocalypse.  Apocalypse with a capital "A" all biblical style.  Monte's version seems quite post-apocalyptic.  Can't wait.


----------



## GreatLemur (May 25, 2007)

mcrow said:
			
		

> This is the description WW gave out at GTS:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Huh.  Interesting.  They're talking about the Inconnu as if they're Lovecraftian monster gods, while I always thought they were just a bunch of old, powerful vampires.  And it's odd that "mages" and "Awakened" are two separate things.  I'm guessing that the Awakened are Monte's take on the monster-killing _Hunter: The Reckoning_ characters.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> GreatLemur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know, I've really got to give _Elements of Magic_ a chance, some day.  But from what I've heard, it's not particularly similar to what I'm hoping to see in this WoD d20 book.  Maybe it could be adapted to it, I guess, if somebody spent enough time beating the elemental theme out of it, and restructured it around the somewhat more logical Mage "spheres".


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 25, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> while I always thought they were just a bunch of old, powerful vampires.




In the old WoD, that's all they were. It's one of the details changed for the "reimagining." I think judging _anything_ in the new version by its identity in one of the older versions is a mistake.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 25, 2007)

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> I'm kind of curious about this, but not $50 curious.




$32.99 on Amazon.com.  I'm $33 curious!


----------



## Dire Bare (May 25, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> Actually, the cover is the only thing, that holds me back, to preorder it right now. It is so... poor. Compare it to average nWoD cover. Or even worse... compare it with D&D covers. It has this kind of technique I really dislike. One cover artist in our country paints the fantasy books covers similar way and it is the reason I don't buy them, because I seriously can't watch it. It looks somehow wrong or something.




I too LOVE the cover.  Love. It.  I can't remember the artist's name, but I recognize his style.  He's got illustrations in many of the current line of D&D books.  Love his (or her) stuff!


----------



## Dire Bare (May 25, 2007)

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> Said it before, and I'll say it here: "Not everything needs to be D20."




No, not everything has to be d20.  But everything also doesn't have to be NOT d20.

d20 is a versatile rulset that works for many games.  It's also the most popular ruleset on the market (no data to back that up, but try and deny it).

You're right when you say the Storyteller system works just fine for the WoD.  However, the d20 system will work fine too, this is a variant WoD setting in addition to being a variant ruleset, and . . . people WANT it!

This is absolute genius on White Wolf's part to release this, pairing the WoD and one of the biggest names in gaming today.  Brilliant!  They've sold a copy to me.

If you don't feel d20 and WoD mix well for you, that's fine.  But don't poop on our parade for those of us who feel this is an exciting product.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 25, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I know, I've really got to give _Elements of Magic_ a chance, some day.




Yes you do! Do it today (they're in need of some extra funds, anyway, so get yourself a hell of a magic system and help these boards at the same time!)



			
				Dire Bare said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with the current Storyteller WoD, but the original was set _just before _ the apocalypse.  Apocalypse with a capital "A" all biblical style.  Monte's version seems quite post-apocalyptic.  Can't wait.




Just before, and then during. A certain EN World poster that is involved in this very thread was involved in that part of the old World of Darkness. (let me give you a hint: His name sounds kinda vampirish)   

The End actually arrived - werewolves called it Apocalypse, vampires Gehenna, and so on. 

The new WoD doesn't have those kinds of portents built in.


----------



## paradox42 (May 25, 2007)

I find it interesting that they're including demons (Demon: the Fallen returns), but not Changelings or Wraiths. Maybe they are in there, and WW just didn't feel they were important enough to advertise their presence.

And regarding the Inconnu, there *was* that one supplement for Vampire: the Masquerade right before Gehenna (I've forgotten the name, and don't have a copy myself, but had a chance to read through somebody else's) that took the PCs to the home of the Inconnu sect, and revealed there that they apparently worship or are closely tied to a malevolent spirit-being. Now, I think Demon supplements hinted that that was one of the Earthbound, and in the supplement itself it's hinted that it could just be a Methuselah or Antediluvian, but who's to say it wasn't a true Lovecraftian Horror that merely lent its name to the vampire sect? If that's the case, then we have our tie to the old World of Darkness and this truly is a "what comes next" for the setting blown up with the Time of Judgment.

I'll definitely plan to pick up a copy at Gen Con if I can snag one.


----------



## Shining Dragon (May 25, 2007)

Interesting.

I like the work of the artist who did the cover so that's a bonus in my mind.

The Iconnu? That is from the old Vampire: The Masquerade game (what people now call the Old World of Darkness). 

The setting as described bears no resemblance to the old or new games. I know I'll flick through it at the local game store. The $50 price tag really puts me off (it'll be over $90 AUD despite the better exchange rates dictating that it should really be closer to $65).

But if its pretty, self-contained and deals with Awakened magic nicely then I may get it.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 25, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> If that's the case, then we have our tie to the old World of Darkness and this truly is a "what comes next" for the setting blown up with the Time of Judgment.




Doesn't sound like it. The part about the wall of reality becoming thin so supernaturalness seeps into our world doesn't sound like vampires and the bunch having been there before this WoD's Ragnarok.


----------



## Psion (May 25, 2007)

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> Said it before, and I'll say it here: "Not everything needs to be D20."




Fortunately, you don't need to buy everything.

nWoD is out there. Those who like the storyteller style dice pool system should be happy with it... it's a fine system. Nothing is being denied them.

But obviously, this book is intended for a slightly different audience. Sorry you aren't in it.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 25, 2007)

This book sounds awesome. Just what i needed to get interested in wod. I loved the vampire games for the computer. I really like d20, and am not a big fan of dice pools so i think I'm this books target audience.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2007)

Sorry about the broken link guys, I posted on my way out the door for work.

Have to say...color me curious.  It does seem to have a Vampire Hunter D type of aesthetic, and if that's the case I think the d20 rules will work better than the Storyteller system for that type of game.  Until I read that it was a "new" setting I was going to stick to my nWoD since I think White Wolf is doing an excellent job with this line( especially the books for mortal games.).

Now I'll definitely be getting this, it will give some of my d20 only players a chance to experience some White Wolf goodness, and I'm sill supporting their company.  Win win for me anyway.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 26, 2007)

Hurray. But totally. I like the cover, and WoD had some bits of interesting flavour, but never enough to pull me to buying something.

But 3.5-based? WoD-flavour? Monte's work? Totally great, I'll snag a copy, and even if it's only a big stealbox for D&D. 

Plus: After Ptolus and related Malhavoc Press-stuff, as well as his work on CoC, and his older work on Planescape... I can see that this re-imagination of WoD has several degrees of awesome.


----------



## Satori (May 26, 2007)

I'm in.

Way in.

The only thing keeping me from playing WoD is the clunky d10 system.  It makes doing anything a drag, and slows down interaction a great deal when rolls are involved.

I think this is huge for people who enjoy both genres, but enjoy the quicker pace of d20.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2007)

Technically, I'm not _more_ inclined to buy the game because it is 3.5. 
I'm considering buying this because its _MC's_ take on WoD- one of the few times a game designer's name has made me interested in a product.

I enjoyed the 1st Ed WoD stuff, and bought most of it...for source material, not as games themselves.  I didn't like how imbalanced the games were versus each other when the implication was that they were all somehow interrelated.

I didn't buy the revised stuff because it would mainly change the mechanics...but I'm already used to running WoD-style campaigns in other systems, so that's not as important to me.

(I have, however, bought Scion- looks good.)


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 26, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> If Monte can actually work out a d20 magic system that effectively emulates the flexibility of the Mage magic system (oWoD, prefereably) while maintaining some kind of reasonable balance, I'm pretty much sold on this book.



Hmm... given the fact, that he wrote this, I can now totally envision the rotes as daily spells, with more freeform-effects at will... *crosses fingers for Monte-fu*

PS.: Isn't it a bit suspicious, that Monte writes articles about his beefs with d20...?


----------



## teitan (May 26, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Well, that sells it for me. For one, i was completely unfamiliar with the setting, and having a familiar ruleset from an author i trust, that is a no-brainer for me. So, i am now eagerly awaiting to run a campaign with vampire and werewolves. And i never, never thought it would say that.




That is a new setting, not the WOD or new WOD... looks cool though and I trust Monte with my dollars.


----------



## jefgorbach (May 26, 2007)

Definately looking forward to this becauses "obviously" the Spheres are the mythical 10th+/Epic level spells first developed in ancient Netheral, rediscovered at last !! 

Honestly, it only makes sense given all the various spell-casters loose in the world that -someone- would seek to push the envelope and seek to understand WHY/HOW magic works at its most basic level, learning to maniupate the raw magical force underlying the universe instead of recasting the same tired static spells everyone else does.


----------



## The Lost Muse (May 26, 2007)

The only other WW products I have purchased have Monte Cooke's name on the cover, and while I may not get this one, it looks like something I'd be interested in.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (May 26, 2007)

Cool. WoD20. I look forward to reading some reviews and then deciding if I purchase.


----------



## Malacoda (May 26, 2007)

I wonder how much of the rules for each splat will appear in the book, and also, how close each will be to their nWoD counterpart. Will there essentially be all the rules for vampires and their disciplines? Werewolves and auspice and rites and gifts? The full nWoD Mage magic system? And how similar will this stuff be to the nWoD versions?

It would be cool if the rules matched the nWoD books as closely as possible with a conversion, allowing people to play the normal World of Darkness with the mWoD rules.


----------



## theredrobedwizard (May 26, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> Actually to me it seems pretty apocalyptic... see the destroyed buildings and dead people. World of Darkness is brutal in more subtle way. This seems to be WoD after some catastrophy.




I was hoping this was going to be oWoD, post Time of Judgment.  I thought that would be pretty cool.  Seems to be going in a slightly different direction, but it's cool too.



			
				GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I'm picturing a four-man party consisting of a vampire, a werewolf, a mage, and a changeling, Greyhawking their way through a nightclub full of supernatural monsters.




I would play that game in a heartbeat.  I call dibs on the Pooka.

-TRRW


----------



## Kanegrundar (May 26, 2007)

I'll at least look at it because it's D20.  If it does happen to be Monte's look a modern gaming with WoD draped over it, then I'm certain to check it out and possibly buy it.  If it's simply D&D with Vampire PC's, then I'll pass.  I've never been that big of a fan of the WoD anyway.


----------



## ssampier (May 26, 2007)

M.c.WoD, 3.5 Served.


----------



## Hussar (May 26, 2007)

Funnily enough, most of the Vampire:TM games that I played years ago were surprisingly close to D&D anyway.


----------



## Storyteller01 (May 26, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Because it's d20?
> 
> People who don't want to learn another ruleset can get this. People who want to try another take on the game can get this.
> 
> It's not like the first game that has its own rules, but gets a d20 treatment.





Yea, but L5R dropped d20 to go back to its original system. Not sure that helps the cause.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 26, 2007)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Yea, but L5R dropped d20 to go back to its original system. Not sure that helps the cause.



There's also Traveler and CoC.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (May 26, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> In old world of darkness each of the core games (Vampire, werewolf, and Mage) got a second and a revised edition.  Everything was Wold of Darkness and there was a few books that were just Wod.  But now the WoD line is a mortal game and it is called a second edition.  The other lines (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, etc) all build of the mortal game.




Except that the WoD line is NOT called a second edition.  The new WoD has NOTHING to do with the oWoD, except for a few core concepts and a few names that got carried over.  It's simply the World of Darkness; not WoD 2.0 or WoD second edition.  It's a complete re-imaging.

(Also, Changeling comes out this year..Changeling:  The Lost)

That perhaps pedantic bit aside....

I'm not sure how I feel about a d20 WoD.  I'm kind of of the mind of "if it ain't broke don't fix it*"  As a retailer, I'll carry the book but I doubt it will be worming its way into my personal library.

*Yes, I know, we can argue whether WoD as it stands is broken or not, but IMO, it's an excellent system.


----------



## teitan (May 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, most of the Vampire:TM games that I played years ago were surprisingly close to D&D anyway.




Kinda sad that that was how most games went in my opinion considering how rich a universe Mark Rein*Hagen created for intensive roleplaying as opposed to bullets and fangs... sigh. I loved Vamp in 1993-1997


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 26, 2007)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> The $50 price tag really puts me off (it'll be over $90 AUD despite the better exchange rates dictating that it should really be closer to $65).



I have no idea what your opinion of Amazon is, but - FWIW - you could pre-order it from there for about $55 AUD (shipped. . . _slowly_), should you feel so inclined.

Just sayin'. 


Regarding the book itself, I can see now that it's going to be 'OGL', so yeah, probably quite different from either D&D or d20 Modern. Neat.

I was quite keen on this before. It sounds even better now, what with the apoc setting too.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (May 26, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Wraith and Mummy never got a second edition, as I recall.



Actually Mummy has been around the block several times. It was first printed in 92 (WW2221), got a Second Edition in 97 (WW2224), and then came around yet again as Mummy: The Resurrection in 01 (WW2380)


			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Regarding the book itself, I can see now that it's going to be 'OGL', so yeah, probably quite different from either D&D or d20 Modern. Neat.
> 
> I was quite keen on this before. It sounds even better now, what with the apoc setting too.



I've got the d20 CoC book, and my understanding is that it's pretty close to d20 Modern. I don't have Modern, so I can't really compare it for myself. I'm guessing he'll probably take it another step further than what was done in d20 CoC, at least in terms of what the system looks like. It'll be interesting to see what (if anything) is done in regards to playing non-humans (Vampires/Werewolves/Whatever).

I think it's going to occupy a bit of a niche, much like d20 CoC does/did. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was the only book done. WW seems to be fine with doing limited lines (like Prometheus), and it's hard to imagine there being a huge demand for more books after this one.


----------



## Kanegrundar (May 26, 2007)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> I've got the d20 CoC book, and my understanding is that it's pretty close to d20 Modern.



Not really at all.  They are pretty different systems.  However, if WoD used either system or a merge of the two, I would be totally happy with that.


----------



## Hussar (May 26, 2007)

teitan said:
			
		

> Kinda sad that that was how most games went in my opinion considering how rich a universe Mark Rein*Hagen created for intensive roleplaying as opposed to bullets and fangs... sigh. I loved Vamp in 1993-1997




Oh, I agree.  It was more just a sign of the times.  Getting a bunch of D&D gamers to switch out of the kill/loot/kill routine is sometimes tricky.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 26, 2007)

teitan said:
			
		

> Kinda sad that that was how most games went in my opinion considering how rich a universe Mark Rein*Hagen created for intensive roleplaying as opposed to bullets and fangs... sigh. I loved Vamp in 1993-1997




I owned so many oWoD books that never got used for lack of people interested in anything other than Gothic Supers: The Power Fantasy (which I was not at all interested in)


----------



## Gundark (May 26, 2007)

I'm curious as to why it's monte cooks wod? Did monte buy the rights of something?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2007)

I'm pretty sure its just a "Monte Cook's (version of) WoD."


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (May 26, 2007)

Well, I like Monte's stuff. And I'm very interested in his interpretation of d20 Modern -- especially since WotC doesn't seem very interested in supporting it.

But I'll probably pass on this one until I can get it for around $25. Unless, of course, my gamers all want to play it.

Agreed that the cover is awful. But that doesn't make or break it for me. Heck, I hated the PHB cover too


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (May 26, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I have no idea what your opinion of Amazon is, but - FWIW - you could pre-order it from there for about $55 AUD (shipped. . . _slowly_), should you feel so inclined.




Or you could pre-order  it from the Elysium at 30% off and much better, faster and more reliable shipping than Amazon....

I'm just sayin'.  :-D


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (May 26, 2007)

Gundark said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to why it's monte cooks wod? Did monte buy the rights of something?




Dannyalcatraz is right.  It's just Monte's re-imaging of the World of Darkness.  White Wolf still owns the WoD, they just hired him kinda as a one-off sort of deal to redo the WoD in his own image, as it were.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (May 26, 2007)

As Monte stated, this is the project he just could not refuse.
Having most Monte products, especially Chaositech and Ptolus and knwoing he did CoC d20 I know that he loves Lovecraftian Horrors.
I know too that h likes to fiddle with the Core D&D rules and always tries to improve them or opne new optione for GMs and Players (his Arcana Evolved is a good example).
Rurthermore Sean K. Reynolds states that he was responsible for some of the mechanics (one of the former posters had a link).
Monte and SKR did Ghostwalk for WoC. Ghostwalk is a campaign setting where you can play a Ghost.

The Inconnu from the description WW gave out at GTS have many similarities with the Galchutt from Ptolus/Chaoitech which where derived by Monte from Lovecraftian "Gods".

I do not believe that Monte had to fit this project into the WoD Canon. I think he mentioned somewhere that he could almost do as he liked with this setting.

I do believe that this product will not be compatible with WoD. Sure it takes the idea of Vampires and other Monsters roaming through the streets but I do not think that we will see Brujah (or however the Vampire Clans are called in WoD today). I believe we will see a very dark setting. After all Monte also did Book of Vile Darkness.

I believe thate Monte bent the d20 rules to fit his needs for the setting. He is very outspoken about the Vancian mechanics for spellcasters. Soe he will probably invent something new. Maybe along the lines of Arcana Evolved. But it is also likely that he will design something along 
this line. As this book has 300+ pages and has to contain the complete setting, I believe the other mechanics will be all about giving the Players a lot of choices to built their Character. It will also strive to give the DM mor options. After all, why should Monte take a step back from his   belief how games should b designed?
I think that this will be a product will surprise us with the mechanics.

That said I will surely but the book as soon as it is available.


----------



## Darrell (May 26, 2007)

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> Said it before, and I'll say it here: "Not everything needs to be D20."




Maybe not; but it does if you want _me_ to look at it.  I have d20 _Call of Cthulhu_ and d20 _Conan_, and several other things that have piqued my interest over the past few years...all of which I picked up solely because they were d20 compatible.

The only non-'D&D-ish' system I currently use (Greywulf's _microlite20_, FWIW) is pretty much a trimmed down 'd20' system.

I have no interest whatsoever in learning a new system, so any non-d20 products published will go absolutely unnoticed, regardless of how much someone pimps them.  

Monte's d20/OGL take on WoD however, is a strong possibility for me..._because_ it's d20 based.

Rhetorical:  Could it be that WW is putting this book out for people like me, and not for those people who are content with the WoD system?

Regards,
Darrell


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 26, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Hell yeah. I'd love to see a d20 Ars Magica system.




Yeah, I'd like to see a d20 take on the magic system from that game. For the rest of it, I'd use the d20 NPC classes for grogs and "everyone else," regular PC classes for companions and special NPCs, and the UA Gestalt rules for the Mages.


----------



## Wombat (May 26, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Star Wars
> Traveller
> Call of Cthulhu
> 
> Shall i continue?




I didn't say it _hadn't_ been done, just that there is no reason.

And at least out in my neck of the woods both _Traveller_ and _Call of Cthulhu_ in their D20 versions were pretty much no-starts.


----------



## rgard (May 26, 2007)

Wombat said:
			
		

> I didn't say it _hadn't_ been done, just that there is no reason.
> 
> And at least out in my neck of the woods both _Traveller_ and _Call of Cthulhu_ in their D20 versions were pretty much no-starts.




It's all personal taste.  D20 versions of Star Wars, Traveller, CoC, and Conan (OGL) were all hits with my circle of gamers. 

For the companies who do release D20 versions of their games, there is an upside:

For Traveller and CoC, some folks picked up the game because it was D20 and then got into the original system versions, because they like the settings.

It's a good way for a company to get people interested in their products.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## DJCupboard (May 26, 2007)

Exactly (to those who, above, have already stated the sentament I am about to state below ;-p),  This isn't White Wolf telling all their WoD fans to do it d20 or to undo the officialness of the current nWoD Storytelling System, but rather a way to get more people into their setting (or a setting in the same vein as theirs).

I don't think we need to worry that one will cancel out the other, after all planes have been transversing the globe for a long time, but I can still take a train to Jersey if I want.

~Dave~


----------



## Nepenthe (May 26, 2007)

DJCupboard said:
			
		

> Exactly (to those who, above, have already stated the sentament I am about to state below ;-p),  This isn't White Wolf telling all their WoD fans to do it d20 or to undo the officialness of the current nWoD Storytelling System, but rather a way to get more people into their setting (or a setting in the same vein as theirs).




Yep, definitely. And it's working for me, at least. It's not even the fact that it's d20, more like the possibility of a self-contained system without the extra baggage a complete line carries. I was always somewhat interested in the oWoD, but the sheer amount of books just turned me off, after a fashion.

/N


----------



## Ycore Rixle (May 26, 2007)

I enjoyed Monte's d20 Cthulhu several years ago, and I imagine I'll enjoy this WoD as well. I also enjoy both settings with their original rules (CoC more than WoD in that regard, though). I think there's room for both.


----------



## Gentlegamer (May 26, 2007)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> It's for 3.5!?!??
> 
> The WoD forums must be in uproar!



I wonder how they felt when the GURPS versions were done?


----------



## teitan (May 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I wonder how they felt when the GURPS versions were done?




Vampire was a much, much smaller game back when those were released so it was a non-issue to us (then) hardcore (serious roleplayers, not Underworld wannabes) White Wolf fans who believed in what White Wolf was trying to accomplish. I don't think any of us really even bothered to look at it. Ahh the good old days when it wasn't about having guns and blowing stuff up. *sigh*


----------



## Ipissimus (May 26, 2007)

Yawns.

Why would anyone want to trade in one of the simplest and richest story-based systems on the market for one of the most complex yet shallow combat-based systems? It's not like WoD is hard to learn, if you can remember all your modifiers for d20 and keep track of your skills, nWoD's easy to pick up. Heck, you only use 1 type of dice and there's a fixed DC, you're laughing.

Number of books? You only have to buy 1 to play nWoD, 2 if you want a particular monster race rather than humans. One flat if you want oWoD. DnD requires 3 minimum.

What exactly does this product bring anyone? DnD already has Vampires, Werewolves, Golems, Faeries, etc. it's not like they need to be imported or altered to be PC races. d20 Modern handles the dark modern setting already.

Personally, if this really is a d20 version of WoD, I think it's a waste of paper and money. The only real effect it will have is to enable WOTC to scab WoD's humanity system like they did with CoC's insanity system.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 26, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Yawns.
> 
> Why would anyone want to trade in one of the simplest and richest story-based systems on the market for one of the most complex yet shallow combat-based systems? It's not like WoD is hard to learn, if you can remember all your modifiers for d20 and keep track of your skills, nWoD's easy to pick up. Heck, you only use 1 type of dice and there's a fixed DC, you're laughing.




Some people just like kiling things and taking their stuff. I've played through several WoD games (Vampire, Werewolf and the Ghost one) where we did mostly combat. I've also been in richly detailed WoD games and D20 games.

Dice pools take a lot of time. I've just gone through an Exalted campaign; we need a dice rolling computer program. My character was the worst offender - four attacks per round with a magical throwing dagger and he could use an Excellency on all of his strikes! Other players with stronger, slower weapons still had to use up a lot of time.

(I'm glad I took Shadow on the Water so I didn't have to apply mods to my defense several times per round.)

The math was easier than d20, but rolling so many dice is a timekiller.



> Number of books? You only have to buy 1 to play nWoD, 2 if you want a particular monster race rather than humans. One flat if you want oWoD. DnD requires 3 minimum.




No you only need the only book to play DnD; one book and the SRD to play a monster in the MM.



> What exactly does this product bring anyone? DnD already has Vampires, Werewolves, Golems, Faeries, etc. it's not like they need to be imported or altered to be PC races. d20 Modern handles the dark modern setting already.




D20 Modern doesn't do modern monsters well, actually. It's one of the weakest parts of the system, which isn't surprising because it works best without any of the settings in the book! Furthermore DnD/D20 Modern vampires are some of the worst monster translations I've ever seen. Sean K. Reynolds, not to mention a number of posters at the WotC boards (and, I presume, elsewhere) have all come up with *much* better ways of doing vampires.

There is no D20 World of Darkness setting yet. To play it, you would need to buy a World of Darkness book and then translate the setting, which just costs more for those who are interested in a d20 World of Darkness book.



> Personally, if this really is a d20 version of WoD, I think it's a waste of paper and money.




Same here actually, but I don't think people who want to play d20 WoD should be deprived.



> The only real effect it will have is to enable WOTC to scab WoD's humanity system like they did with CoC's insanity system.




That's using the crystal ball that no one else has.


----------



## Ipissimus (May 26, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Some people just like kiling things and taking their stuff.




Same here. I'm not really down on d20, they're different approaches to roleplaying and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. However, I still don't see the need to cross over, play style is something that happens at the table, not in a book.




			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> The math was easier than d20, but rolling so many dice is a timekiller.




I bought a packet of 100d6 just so the Wizards and the Rogue in my party could roll all their damage dice at once while I still had some left for the monsters. I heartily recommend a dice cup and several rolling trays.   (j/k)




			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> No you only need the only book to play DnD; one book and the SRD to play a monster in the MM.




The SRD has several problems. It doesn't actually have everything you need in it for one and for the second, it reads like stereo instructions. Some of the rules in it are even misleading.




			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> D20 Modern doesn't do modern monsters well, actually.




I'd go much further and say that d20 simply doesn't do monsters well. But, it is internally consistent and provisions are made for monster characters in the rules, so there's no reason why you can't. The only thing I'd do to Vampires is rip out level drain whole and -2 to the LA for it.




			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Same here actually, but I don't think people who want to play d20 WoD should be deprived.




They aren't. Everything you need is already in the existing systems.




			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> That's using the crystal ball that no one else has.




Not actually sure what you're saying with that comment, but this isn't the first time we've seen the tactic. The d20 lisence is a nightmare, you'll notice companies like Green Ronin cover their intellectual property rights 6 ways from sunday in all of their books. -shrugs- You just can't be too paranoid when it comes to contractual agreements.


----------



## Nepenthe (May 26, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Number of books? You only have to buy 1 to play nWoD, 2 if you want a particular monster race rather than humans. One flat if you want oWoD. DnD requires 3 minimum.




I wasn't arguing facts, I was arguing impressions. And I have already bought the 3 minimum books, + some 50 more 2e and 3e books (I hesitate to count them), so it's obvious that I will approach any new system with a certain amount of trepidation (as I wasn't able to stick with the core book for D&D, either).

And, to be honest, I have also always been turned off by the overwhelming snobism of the WoD gamers 

/N


----------



## coyote6 (May 26, 2007)

I'm curious -- has anyone (Monte, SKR, someone from WW, or anyone who _knows_) said that it actually has anything to do with either of White Wolf's Worlds of Darkness? The title is "*Monte Cook's* World of Darkness"; that could just mean that it's a modern dark fantasy/horror game, with possible thematic & setting similarities to WoD and/or nWoD (e.g., vampires, werewolves, etc., probably available as PCs). You could say GURPS Voodoo & WitchCraft were "C.J. Carella's World of Darkness", as they certainly had similarities to WW's setting. But they weren't the same settings. 

So has any one said "it's a d20 adaptation of White Wolf's World of Darkness"?

Even if it is, which WoD is it? New or old?


----------



## Banshee16 (May 26, 2007)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Yea, but L5R dropped d20 to go back to its original system. Not sure that helps the cause.




In all honesty, they produce *a lot* of D20 supplements for L5R....I wouldn't exactly call it a failure.

And 7th Sea went down entirely....both R&K and D20.

Banshee


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 26, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> I bought a packet of 100d6 just so the Wizards and the Rogue in my party could roll all their damage dice at once while I still had some left for the monsters. I heartily recommend a dice cup and several rolling trays.   (j/k)




No good, at least not in Exalted.

In Exalted, you need to quickly separate the 1, 2-6, 7-9 and 10s. If we had dice colored the right way things would have been faster, but we only had (lots of) regular d10s. We used rolling trays but that only marginally sped things up.

We did have a player try to create dice like that, but without a factory we didn't end up with balanced dice  I wonder if you can buy dice like that somewhere.

IIRC Shadowrun had variable target numbers, which would mean you basically have to use a computer. But I haven't played Shadowrun in literally years.



> I'd go much further and say that d20 simply doesn't do monsters well. But, it is internally consistent and provisions are made for monster characters in the rules, so there's no reason why you can't. The only thing I'd do to Vampires is rip out level drain whole and -2 to the LA for it.




On this I disagree. D20 does monsters a lot better than Alternity, and I think it does non-sentient monsters better than Exalted. (I think d20 does non-sentient monsters better than most systems, actually.) Sentient monsters aren't done so well, at least not if the monster is very big or has racial Hit Dice; WoD does that a lot better in part because it doesn't use Hit Dice.

Vampires have lots of problems in DnD/D20 Modern, however, such as the silly restrictions (not all vampire stories agree on these restrictions), the turning into gas (some vampires were said to have that ability, not all), the ability to summon creatures (again only some vampires had that ability, and the ability doesn't scale with ECL), the "required" charm/domination gaze ability (not all vampires were said to have this ability) and yeah the energy drain really does need to go  WoD made sure to make individual vampires have differing abilities, many of which were based on "real-life" vampire stories and IMO is a necessity if you're going to have a setting based largely around vampires.

I think the fast healing would do weird things to the level adjustment no matter what you do, too.



> They aren't. Everything you need is already in the existing systems.




Not if they want d20.



> this isn't the first time we've seen the tactic.




You're suggesting they'll "scab the humanity system" or whatever, but none of us are in a position to know, unless we're playtesters. I know I'm not a playtester. If such a tactic was used before, it might not be used again, especially if it's unpopular.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 26, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> The SRD has several problems. It doesn't actually have everything you need in it for one and for the second, it reads like stereo instructions. Some of the rules in it are even misleading.



Seen the CoC-book? Everything you need in one neat book, including monsters. The reason why the core rules are excessively thick is the magic system - four full-casting classes with overlap... half of the PHB is full of spells, close to the half of the DMG is stuffed with magic items. Without such an extensive system, D&D neatly fits into a single book.

I can totally see a free-formish system in MCWoD, making it a simple book 

And for d20: I'm happy, not because of thinking that any system is superior... d20 is just more familiar. I can bring the book to the table, everyone can skim it in an hour and get the idea of the entire system... WoD? Not so much. I don't want to be able to stat up NPCs in D&D in 10 minutes, then start at zero.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2007)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Yea, but L5R dropped d20 to go back to its original system. Not sure that helps the cause.




For perspective, recently over on RPGnet (it may even still be on the front page), someone was soliciting opinions for D20 vs. House System for a Rokugan game. Considering how much smack talk I hear from the house system loyalists, there was a surprising chorus of voices that related their good experiences with Rokugan D20.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> What exactly does this product bring anyone? DnD already has Vampires, Werewolves, Golems, Faeries, etc.




You can't be serious.

I've seen multiple riffs on the WoD idea of different clans or types of these creatures, with varying degrees of playability and success. WoD obviously, by design intent, has more depth and breadth in these creature types.

Bringing this to D20 from a designer with demonstrated talent is a GOOD THING[tm].


----------



## Crothian (May 26, 2007)

While I have no interest in this the best thing it will do is get players who refuse to play anything but d20 to at least have a look at World of Darkness.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 26, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> For perspective, recently over on RPGnet (it may even still be on the front page), someone was soliciting opinions for D20 vs. House System for a Rokugan game. Considering how much smack talk I hear from the house system loyalists, there was a surprising chorus of voices that related their good experiences with Rokugan D20.




Rokugan d20 was actually a pretty good port. It was the Swashbuckling Adventures port of 7th Sea that was absolute dreck (I'm not a big fan of straight-up 7th Sea but SA wasn't even a contender).


----------



## blargney the second (May 26, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I've seen multiple riffs on the WoD idea of different clans or types of these creatures, with varying degrees of playability and success. WoD obviously, by design intent, has more depth and breadth in these creature types.



Yah.  Like I said earlier, this thing is going to be a monster manual in disguise. 
-blarg


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (May 26, 2007)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> I'm curious -- has anyone (Monte, SKR, someone from WW, or anyone who _knows_) said that it actually has anything to do with either of White Wolf's Worlds of Darkness? The title is "*Monte Cook's* World of Darkness"; that could just mean that it's a modern dark fantasy/horror game, with possible thematic & setting similarities to WoD and/or nWoD (e.g., vampires, werewolves, etc., probably available as PCs). You could say GURPS Voodoo & WitchCraft were "C.J. Carella's World of Darkness", as they certainly had similarities to WW's setting. But they weren't the same settings.
> 
> So has any one said "it's a d20 adaptation of White Wolf's World of Darkness"?
> 
> Even if it is, which WoD is it? New or old?




It's neither new or old.....it's a re-imaging of the World of Darkness through Monte Cook's eyes.  From what I understand (and this is obvious from the description of McWoD), it has about as much in common with either the oWoD or the nWoD as the oWoD has with the nWoD..that is...some of the themes and a few of the terms have crossed over; otherwise it's completely different.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 26, 2007)

It's interesting they mention the Iconnu, as it was a mysterious vampire sect from V:tM that either "didn't really exist" or no one really knew much about.

Granted this version of the WoD only seems includes vampire, werewolf, mage and demon.  Except a lot of the supernaturalness doesn't seem to be as covert, as there does seem to be some overt differences from our world.


----------



## JustKim (May 27, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I wonder how they felt when the GURPS versions were done?



D&D and the d20 system have always been the most popular and prevalent in the market. Almost everyone who plays has had some experience with it, and when you play any other game, you're almost guaranteed to have someone else in the group who has made a conscious effort to _avoid_ D&D. For many reasons, the dislike for D&D is especially acute among WoD groups. Over the years it's developed into a kind of sports team rivalry and there are mutual harsh feelings all around..


			
				Nepenthe said:
			
		

> And, to be honest, I have also always been turned off by the overwhelming snobism of the WoD gamers



.. as you can see.

GURPS has never earned the kind of venom that flies between WoD and d20 players.


----------



## Nepenthe (May 27, 2007)

JustKim said:
			
		

> .. as you can see.




Yeah, that might have come off a bit stronger than I intended. What I meant was that I don't believe in "my system is better than yours" pissing contests or "let's smash the other system" matches. I've only seen these from the WoD people, but that's probably just me managing to avoid the right (or wrong, as it may be) places 

/N


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 27, 2007)

Most of the venom from WOD players about D&D comes from the perceived style of play that typical D&D groups do.


----------



## blargney the second (May 27, 2007)

I think they're just jealous that D&D players get to steal loot once they've killed the monsters. ;P


----------



## jdrakeh (May 27, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I think they're just jealous that D&D players get to steal loot once they've killed the monsters. ;P




You obviously haven't played any of the WoD games with people that I know -- in all the years that I was a WoD player, I only found _one_ group that was into the high-concept angle (Hi, Harry!). _Many_ professed to be interested in story creation and/or character acting but at the end of the day, it was urban dungeon crawls with supernatural protagonists. Loot included. Not that this couldn't be fun but it's not what I signed up for (I will always prefer D&D for goal/reward-oriented play).


----------



## Imaro (May 27, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I think they're just jealous that D&D players get to steal loot once they've killed the monsters. ;P




Nah, we just play Exalted and Scion if we're in that mood.


----------



## blargney the second (May 27, 2007)

Interesting!  My experiences with WoD games were really not equipment-oriented.  I think we found a total of 4 magic items over an entire campaign.


----------



## scourger (May 27, 2007)

This has certainly been an interesting read.  To answer the two original questions: 

1) I am more interested in it because it's d20.  I hope that it will be as portable to 3.5 as possible.  Monte or Sean wrote about the loss of mastery when 3.5 came out, so I hope I can use as much mastery over 3.5 as I have when reading MC's WoD.  I've gotten rid of _many_ d20 & OGL books that weren't very portable to d20 (and even some that were) because there just isn't time for all the great games that are easy to run to keep those that require me to learn and work at it.  Here's hoping that MC's WoD is a little more d20 and a lot less OGL, if you take my meaning.  

2)  The cover really doesn't do anything for me one way or another.  At first, I tought it was a woman, which might have been a little more intriguing.


----------



## Psion (May 27, 2007)

Heh... I've been sitting here saying to those down on D20 saying that it's not really targeted at the present WoD fans...

Then I wander over to the WoD forums, and the split doesn't look much different. The smack talk about d20 is, naturally, more petulant and ignorant, but there seem to be just as many folks over there that are eager to see what Monte turns out.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 27, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Interesting!  My experiences with WoD games were really not equipment-oriented.  I think we found a total of 4 magic items over an entire campaign.




Well, I didn't say "equipment-oriented" -- I mentioned dungeon crawls (i.e., linear adventures that consisted of killing lots of enemies) and loot (i.e., rewards gained as a result of killing enemies). Those rewards weren't always _equipment_, but that doesn't change the basic dynamic any. The basic equation still functions the same. PCs kill X to gain Y (Y, in this case, was usually a special ability of some sort, though magical weapons seemed to abound in Werewolf).


----------



## Set (May 27, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Interesting!  My experiences with WoD games were really not equipment-oriented.  I think we found a total of 4 magic items over an entire campaign.




In years of Vampire games, I don't think I ever saw a single magic item.  My Nosferatu hacker did however take wallets off of those who suffered unfortunate accidents as a result of the nights events and drain their credit cards.

Poaching the ghouls and resources of fallen rival Kindred was high sport among the Ventrue players (not mine, 'though, he was above that sort of thing, besides, he already had all the money he could possibly ever need or want...).

The World of Darkness already has experience, already has 'monsters,' already has a lame alignment system (and by 'lame' I mean every bit as 'lame' as the D&D enforced morality system) that straightjackets roleplaying, already has 'classes' that do better or worse at certain defined roles than other 'classes' (Tremere - spellcaster, Brujah or Gangrel - warrior, Nosferatu - rogue, etc).  It's just a game.  It's not like 'purer roleplaying' than D&D, since it's got the same dice-rolling of Ability+Skill pools replacing social interactions, unlike say, an *actually* 'purer' role-playing game like Amber Diceless or LARPing.

White Wolf's strongest point, IMO, was the often beautifully written, evocative and compelling background material and internal fiction that D&D didn't really get into as much, at least not into the core products (Ed Greenwood's Dragon articles and the Dragonlance novels being cases of evocative descriptive 'fluff' that made their respective settings stronger, but not so much things you would find in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardcover).  Once White Wolf-style writers started working on d20 product, such as the Scarred Lands setting, and then started crossing over to work directly for WotC (Ari Marmell being one fine example), that advantage of WW's started creeping over into D&D product as well, leaving very little for a WW fan like me to get all snobbish about.

Very similar rules mechanics, often written by the same darn people.

The only qualitative difference that matters here as to whether the game is a 'role-playing' or 'roll-playing' game, whether it is 'deep' or 'shallow,' is the quality of the DM and players, and *nothing else.*

The d20 system with it's occasional straightjacket classes like the Paladin, restricted to one style of role-play doesn't discourage role-playing anymore than the ST system with it's mandatory psychological flaws based on Clan (oh, you're a Brujah?  You *must* be psycho!  Oh, you saw a fire?  Roll dice.  You don't get to roleplay being brave, if you fail, you shriek and fly about hands in the air like a punctured ballon, oh great bad Gangrel who firedances on the weekends...  The new Requiem rules have even *more* role-play restrictive mechanics!  Oh look, half the Kindred in town are together for a fancy dress party and a new Kindred enters the room, *everyone* roll for a Beast freak-out, and if you fail the debutante ball turns into bloodbath of frenzied mayhem, with more and more tux and gown-clad jaded 400 year old socialites flipping out as the bloodshed continues and they have to make more and more dice rolls to avoid picking up a serving platter and joining the carnage!).

It's the players / GM who choose whether or not to avoid being slaves to the system, *either* system, and move into a 'deeper' roleplaying experience.  And sometimes, they just want to kill stuff and take their loot, and in that case as well, there's no reason to look down upon *gamers having fun,* since that's the friggin' point!

I've seen intense role-playing in Star Fleet Battles, the *least* role-playing conducive game in the universe.  I've sat frustrated as Werewolf game after Werewolf game degenerated into 'My rank 2 Black Fury can kill three Antediluvians in a single round by popping in from the Umbra during the day and dishing out 35 Aggravated wounds with each of my half dozen claw hits, and they can't soak more than 20, and can't have more than 8 HT...'

System is a tool.  If the players want to role-play, they will, and they'll discard or modify the role-playing restrictive rules (like Lawful Good Paladins, or the Humanity trait, or Rotschroek) in the process.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 27, 2007)

Set said:
			
		

> already has a lame alignment system (and by 'lame' I mean every bit as 'lame' as the D&D enforced morality system) that straightjackets roleplaying



You make some good points in this post, but this is just stupid. Nothing about either _D&D_'s alignments or any of the various morality systems used by White Wolf games "straightjackets" roleplaying. Only misunderstanding of them and misuse of them, *by players and GMs*, does that.

Don't blame the rules for a bad result which is caused by the people at the table getting it wrong.


----------



## The Cardinal (May 27, 2007)

hmmm... so it'll be something like an almost-postapocalyptic scenario using the basic features of the xWoD... 

...sounds ok, but since I use GURPS for most of my games and I've always felt that GURPS Cabal is "the WoD done _right_", and since _this here_ is a postapocalyptic version of it that's been available for years, I'll probably stay with my old campaign...


----------



## Ipissimus (May 27, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> You can't be serious.




Rarely, but this time I am.




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I've seen multiple riffs on the WoD idea of different clans or types of these creatures, with varying degrees of playability and success. WoD obviously, by design intent, has more depth and breadth in these creature types.
> 
> Bringing this to D20 from a designer with demonstrated talent is a GOOD THING[tm].




I bow to your capitalization but not to your content. The breadth of creature types in WoD can be solely attributed to their backgrounds rather than their powers. You can handle all the different powers and vamp types using Racial Character Classes, as I suspect would be the subject of this book.

Do we really need another different take on Vampires in d20? Between Ravenloft and all the Green Ronin and other 3rd Party stuff on monsters? Sure, you can play WoD as hack and slash or DnD as a high-brow RP but the way both work the best is the other way around. Personally, I'd use the system that works best for what you want to do. d20 players don't need this sort of book, we've got all the tools we need to do it already.

You know, it occurs to me that we all may be making a huge assumption that this is WoDd20. You'll notice that the cover of this product does not sport the d20 logo. 3rd edition could refer to nWoD, considering that it is the 3rd iteration of the setting. V:tM and its siblings had a 1st and 2nd Edition, V:tR could be said to be 3rd edition. So, theoretically MC's WoD could be Monte's take on the WoD using the nWoD rule set. Considering how good a job he did on Arcana Unearthed, his take on nWoD could make an interesting book.




			
				Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Seen the CoC-book? Everything you need in one neat book, including monsters.




Yes, I even have the book. I will also point out that the lisence has expired, so it's not like it's as easy to get your hands on as the SRD is but my original point was that the SRD isn't really good enough to run the game without supplimentery material, it's designed that way. Heck, if everyone could legally dl the complete rules for free why would anyone ever buy a DnD book ever again?


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 27, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> You know, it occurs to me that we all may be making a huge assumption that this is WoDd20. You'll notice that the cover of this product does not sport the d20 logo.



"It uses the familiar d20 mechanics (six stats, hp, "classes," skills, feats), but I'm not sure if it's going to have a d20 logo on the cover." - Sean K. Reynolds, 22/2/07 (D<->M for you Americans  ) -> link here, as was posted earlier in this thread.

Of course, he might've been fibbing or what have you, but honestly I doubt it.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (May 27, 2007)

Has anybody of the pro WoD or D&D posters given a thought WHY Monte Cook took over this project?

Was it because he desperately needed cash?
I do not think so, he is one of the Bestsellers of non WoC D20

Was it because he had nothing elseto do?
Nope, he has a lot of non RPG projects going, this was his last project.

So why did he take this project?
He just couldn't resist!

But why I ask you should he take the WoD and just convert the mechanics to D20 while working under the constraints of the offical WoD setting?

I think he was given full freedom to realize HIS ideas of the WoD (after all it is called Monte Cook's World of Darkness, isn't it?).

So I say it again:
I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS A CONVERSION OF THE OFFICIAL WOD.
THIS IS WOD IMAGINED BY MONTE COOK DONE IN THE SYSTEM HE KNOWS BEST.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 27, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS A CONVERSION OF THE OFFICIAL WOD.
> THIS IS WOD IMAGINED BY MONTE COOK DONE IN THE SYSTEM HE KNOWS BEST.



Dood! Yer hurtin' my ears.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (May 27, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Dood! Yer hurtin' my ears.




I have to scream to make myself heard.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 27, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> I have to scream to make myself heard.



Eh?


----------



## Tharen the Damned (May 27, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Eh?




I SAID I HAVE TO SCREAM!


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 27, 2007)

oh.


----------



## jaerdaph (May 27, 2007)

Six pages already and nobody has Photoshopped Monte Cook going Emo?

You people are losing your touch!


----------



## Imaro (May 27, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Has anybody of the pro WoD or D&D posters given a thought WHY Monte Cook took over this project?
> 
> Was it because he desperately needed cash?
> I do not think so, he is one of the Bestsellers of non WoC D20
> ...




I totally hear you, and agree with you.  I think it'll be based on the (hopefully new) WoD, very losely, like Arcana evolved was for D&D.  Still, arguably, all the tropes of dark fantasy/horror that White-Wolf's WoD excels at with a different packaging for it.

I also want to bring another point up...those lumping the system & world of oWoD and nWoD together are really talking about two different game lines with two different asthetics.  

oWoD was pretty meta-plot heavy, had a very detailed and succinct "world" it transpired in and was sort of restrictive.  The system, while ok, had some bugs(especially with some of the powers and Mage) that caused some hiccups in the game.  And the supernaturals weren't balanced against each other.

nWoD has no meta-plot,  no set world except in the same broad sense that D&D has a world, and is really a tool-box type game.  The mechanics are streamlined with very few, if any, hiccups.  The supernaturals are balanced agianst each other and in general use the same mechanics.  Basically, IMHO, an all around better game.  

If you aren't giving the nWoD a try because of it's past incarnation...well it's sort of like judging what D&D 3.5 is by reading an AD&D PHB.


Oh yeah, the nWoD is not a "third edition" it's a new game and new world, White Wolf has stated as much.  It's like saying Exalted is the third edition of oWoD because it's mechanics are based of of the oWoD.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 27, 2007)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Six pages already and nobody has Photoshopped Monte Cook going Emo?



Something like this?


----------



## jaerdaph (May 27, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Something like this?




YES!


----------



## Psion (May 27, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> I bow to your capitalization but not to your content. The breadth of creature types in WoD can be solely attributed to their backgrounds rather than their powers. You can handle all the different powers and vamp types using Racial Character Classes, as I suspect would be the subject of this book.




Sure does. Sounds interesting. And not (competently) done yet.



> Do we really need another different take on Vampires in d20? Between Ravenloft and all the Green Ronin and other 3rd Party stuff on monsters?




The Green Ronin book was weak sauce.

Ravenloft is not intended to feature the PCs and protagonists, and the 3e Ravenloft material doesn't live up to the variety in the 2e incarnation.



> Sure, you can play WoD as hack and slash or DnD as a high-brow RP but the way both work the best is the other way around.




I think that the assumption that either D&D is purely hack-and-slay and that WoD is purely high brow doesn't bear out in the real world, having been exposed to plenty of counter examples of both.

Taking it further, I find the notion that _D20_ apart from D&D is solely for hack-and-slash pretty much laughable.



> You know, it occurs to me that we all may be making a huge assumption that this is WoDd20. You'll notice that the cover of this product does not sport the d20 logo. 3rd edition could refer to nWoD, considering that it is the 3rd iteration of the setting.




 

Would you care to make a wager on that? 

I take it from this, coupled with your negative stereotype of d20, you don't play many third party D20 products, do you.

Many use just this sort of statement when they don't want to put the D20 logo on the front because they don't want to operate under the restrictions of the D20 STL. White Wolf among them.

An immediate example I have sitting right here... by Monte Cook, published via White Wolf. Arcana Evolved. "Compatible with 3rd Edition and Revised 3rd Edition Rules." "Revised 3rd Edition Rules" is third-party D20 publisher "wink wink" speak for D&D 3.5 when they don't want to use the d20 STL.


----------



## Acid_crash (May 27, 2007)

I am so gettinng this book, I don't care if its d20 or Storytelling system or what...

I'm a gamer and I'm not all that picky so I'm all for this.  Plus its Monte, and he does well with taking a standard trope and twisting it so its different and yet enjoyable.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (May 28, 2007)

I'll take a look at this.

I generally enjoy Monte's work, I don't care for the Storytelling/teller system, and d20/D&D is my second favorite system. The setting looks interesting, and it will be interesting to see what rules/classes/ect could be stolen for a monsterbased D&D game.


----------



## EditorBFG (May 28, 2007)

*RE: Too many dice, WoD, and Exalted*

I just wanted to chime in on what some people are saying about the number of dice required for the White Wolf system. 

Note that the guy who says he needs a dice roller was talking about Exalted, not WoD. The revised Exalted is a very different system as a whole than WoD-- much more different than, say, True20 is from D&D. Exalted still requires a pain-in-the-@$$ amount of dice-rolling, while the new WoD rules successfully streamline the system as much as possible. In general, WoD resolution is as quick as in D&D.

Why the revised Exalted did not update to a version of the new WoD rules-- instead of a partially-fixed version of old Exalted-- I don't know. Scion uses the same slow mechanics as Exalted, and so Scion is not for me (though setting- and flavor-wise it looks wonderful).

But the new WoD rules are a thing of beauty. The only reason I don't play them is that the new WoD's attendant game settings (especially Vampire the Requiem and Werewolf the Forsaken) do not appeal to me.

Just wanted to state, once and for all, that the current WoD ruleset is anything but slow and clunky.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (May 28, 2007)

I'm sure this will be interesting, and I'll give it a look over to see if there's enough cool stuff in it that I can snag for other games to justify buying the book. However, I was kind of hoping for a game that took a traditional D&D style fantasy world and overlaid it with World of Darkness tropes. Oh well.


----------



## Drowbane (May 28, 2007)

I have only played WoD a handful of times.  Each was under a talented GM and I enjoyed it immensely.  However, WW's mechanics are horrible and I would never actually buy a normal WoD book to try to run myself.

That said, if Monte somehow manages to retain WoD's flavor while incorporating it to d20... I'll buy it.

Hell, I'd buy two.

edit: evidently WoD's mechanics have been revised since last I played it...


----------



## trancejeremy (May 28, 2007)

Vampire (or all the WoD, really) is one of those games I never really "got", because I had no idea what exactly the PCs are supposed to do. 

Like in D&D, PCs explore dungeons, go on quests, etc. In CoC, they foil supernatural plots of Cthulhu and company. In Shadowrun, they get hired to do criminal stuff. (Same with Traveller, actually,heh).  

In Vampire, it seemed more that they just sit around in a vampire club all night, acting angsty. Like a goth version of a John Hughes movie.  (Edit: Just as a note, that's just how I think of it, I'm being somewhat hyperbolic, my point is that I miss the point of WoD completely, so don't be offended by my description   )

OTOH, this, seems like there is more focus on "adventure" for lack of a better word, with the PCs apparently being those that fight the darkness



> Humans called the Awakened unknowingly keep the darkness at bay. These supernatural creatures struggle against each other and clash in the shadows, most attempting to destroy the world, but some few fighting to preserve it.




So I'll probably end up buying it.


----------



## Shining Dragon (May 28, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Do we really need another different take on Vampires in d20? Between Ravenloft and all the Green Ronin and other 3rd Party stuff on monsters? Sure, you can play WoD as hack and slash or DnD as a high-brow RP but the way both work the best is the other way around. Personally, I'd use the system that works best for what you want to do. d20 players don't need this sort of book, we've got all the tools we need to do it already.




Technically this isn't just "another take on Vampires" in d20.

This is a take on the setting "World of Darkness" which just happens to have Vampires in it. I'd be interested if it contains "clans" (or "tribes" in the case of Werewolves etc...).

But with regards to "d20 players not needing this sort of book" due to having "all the tools" already, you've ignored one thing: a lot of gamers are lazy and like a book that does all the hard work (especially us gamers with plenty of cash but little time).


----------



## Nepenthe (May 28, 2007)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> But with regards to "d20 players not needing this sort of book" due to having "all the tools" already, you've ignored one thing: a lot of gamers are lazy and like a book that does all the hard work (especially us gamers with plenty of cash but little time).




I'd like to point out that "d20" is hardly just one game. (Well, bad example, as "d20" as per the license is closer to being just one game, but what I mean is that OGL-based is definitely just not one game). I assume this will be a (completely) stand-alone system in the vein of Spycraft 2.0... And since they did Modern a lot better than Wizards every did, I don't see why mr. Cook wouldn't make WoD better than anybody has ever made it before   

/N


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 28, 2007)

Hm. . .

"The best non-d20 non-WoD d20 WoD in all the world!"


----------



## Brennin Magalus (May 28, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> SKR posted on his forum that it was d20 months ago.




I rolled a 17.


----------



## Nebulous (May 28, 2007)

I'm just curious: Does anyone know if Monte has every played the old WoD rules before converting them to d20? I wonder how familiar he was with the system.


----------



## Odhanan (May 28, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> I'm just curious: Does anyone know if Monte has every played the old WoD rules before converting them to d20? I wonder how familiar he was with the system.



I think I remember him telling he played with the White Wolf guys when he went for some Ptolus signing before the book released. I assume it was a WoD game, but I'm not sure of that. 

I also know for sure that he bought Vampire: The Requiem at GenCon when it released. It was one of the products his summary of that year focused on (very positively, at least on the books layout, I might add).


----------



## davidschwartznz (May 28, 2007)

Geez, I've been thinking for years how I would do the WoD if I were in charge. Who do I need to talk to to about writing David Schwartz's World of Darkness?


----------



## EditorBFG (May 28, 2007)

davidschwartznz said:
			
		

> Geez, I've been thinking for years how I would do the WoD if I were in charge. Who do I need to talk to to about writing David Schwartz's World of Darkness?



Tell me about it. There could be a whole site, "What's Your World of Darkness?" or something, for those of us who scratched our heads at various missed opportunities over the years-- a site filled with separate versions of what the WoD should have become. Like all the Changeling freelancers who put up their own version of Changeling that was clearer and acknowledged the non-universality of Changeling's cultural inflections-- that was wonderful.

Even if McWod isn't a Post-Gehennapocalypse version of the old WoD, that's what I'll be buying it to use it for.


----------



## mmu1 (May 29, 2007)

This looks interesting.

It's my honest opinion (not an attempt to troll) that the new WoD game is the _worst_ RPG system I have ever played. I'm fine with rule-light gaming, but as long as you have rules of any sort, they'd better work. I've always been a marginal fan of WoD at best, but the recent revision lost me entirely.

So this is actually a good sign, from my point of view. A system that works, adapted by a competent designer.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 29, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> It's my honest opinion (not an attempt to troll) that the new WoD game is the _worst_ RPG system I have ever played. I'm fine with rule-light gaming, but as long as you have rules of any sort, they'd better work. I've always been a marginal fan of WoD at best, but the recent revision lost me entirely.



That's interesting. I had an opportunity to play in a brief nWoD campaign, fairly recently, and was glad I did. That was just core + Second Sight (player-side).

Which subsystem was it that you found wanting?


----------



## glass (May 29, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Please fix your link.  It is truncated and redirects to the amazon main page.



...which for some reason has pictures of women in their underwear. Actually, don't fix it, just post a NSFW notice! 


glass.


----------



## glass (May 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> If it can even REMOTELY be canabalized for regular D&D, I'm in.



Yep, this is why I am interested. Same as with CoC d20 (anyone see a pattern forming... )



glass.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> That's interesting. I had an opportunity to play in a brief nWoD campaign, fairly recently, and was glad I did. That was just core + Second Sight (player-side).




Yeah... I'm not a big fan of dice pool systems, but as far as that goes, nWoD seems to me to be the cleanest and most playable iteration of the system yet.


----------



## Imaro (May 29, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> This looks interesting.
> 
> It's my honest opinion (not an attempt to troll) that the new WoD game is the _worst_ RPG system I have ever played. I'm fine with rule-light gaming, but as long as you have rules of any sort, they'd better work. I've always been a marginal fan of WoD at best, but the recent revision lost me entirely.
> 
> So this is actually a good sign, from my point of view. A system that works, adapted by a competent designer.




 What?  I think the nWoD rules are some of the easiest to grasp and coherent rules I've ever encountered. If you don't like dice pools, that's one thing...or even rules-light game systems.  But I'm curious because I've run 2 campaigns and they went great, so how exactly do they not work?  I could see this complaint leveled at oWoD to an extent, but I'm really baffled on what exactly is broken about nWoD.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 29, 2007)

This thread is the first time I've ever seen it suggested that the Nature/Demeanor system is anywhere near as artificial or restrictive as the alignment system. Since it's actually based on a (somewhat outdated) real world psychological system of modeling actual personalities, I think it's really only as restrictive as your GM is. (And even then, the GM should lighten up, since the system uses a mechanical award for behaving in accordance with your personality and if people don't want to, then no harm, no Willpower regeneration.)

Frankly, I wish D&D had something similar available.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 29, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> ...which for some reason has pictures of women in their underwear. Actually, don't fix it, just post a NSFW notice!



Amazon's front page is dynamically generated and based in large part on the cookies on your computer and your account there. If you're seeing women's lingerie there, you're not typical.


----------



## mmu1 (May 29, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> That's interesting. I had an opportunity to play in a brief nWoD campaign, fairly recently, and was glad I did. That was just core + Second Sight (player-side).
> 
> Which subsystem was it that you found wanting?




My biggest issue? The fact that many of the conflict resolution mechanics pit the attacker's attribute+skill pool vs. the defender's single skill or attribute. Who went first and how many re-rolls your Willpower allows you to make matters more than relative skill levels.

I know this issue definitely comes up in combat and when using vampiric disciplines (I only played in a Vampire game that used the nWoD system) but I'm not sure if it comes up in opposed contests of skills. 

Second, while I actually like die pools, I don't think a system as simplistic as nWoD actually has any need of them. 

Most die pool systems that use _variable_ Target Numbers produce results that are very difficult to replicate using the simple die roll + modifier system, but the nWoD, with its set TN, could have safely converted to d20 or 3d6, or 2d10 (+mods) - the only reason they kept the die pools is because they're a sacred cow... and all that really accomplishes is the slowing down of the gameplay by greatly increasing the amount of time it takes to make and read each roll.

Third, based on my recollection, the system was - because of its precarious balance - extremely susceptible to abuse, powergaming and min-maxing. I make an effort to play with people who avoid that sort of thing, so it's usually not an issue, but I'd much rather play a _good_ system with people who won't try to absue it.

Fourth, physical combat itself was dull and slow. It seems to me like anything involving two opponents that weren't wildly mismatched ended up playing out as an endless series of flesh wounds as the damage tracks got whittled down a point or two at a time, and any tactical options you might choose were just window dressing. Again, who went first seemed to be the most important thing.

There were more, but it's been a while since I played...


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (May 29, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Fourth, physical combat itself was dull and slow. It seems to me like anything involving two opponents that weren't wildly mismatched ended up playing out as an endless series of flesh wounds as the damage tracks got whittled down a point or two at a time, and any tactical options you might choose were just window dressing. Again, who went first seemed to be the most important thing.




As opposed to two opponents inflicting a series of flesh wounds as their hit points get whittled down a few points at a time?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 29, 2007)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> As opposed to two opponents inflicting a series of flesh wounds as their hit points get whittled down a few points at a time?



You weren't supposed to notice that.


----------



## mmu1 (May 29, 2007)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> As opposed to two opponents inflicting a series of flesh wounds as their hit points get whittled down a few points at a time?




What game are you referring to? AD&D 2E? Because that's certainly not how 3E or 3.5 plays, most of the time. Characters routinely take massive amounts of damage, these days, even if the HP system is specifically designed to slow down the rate at which they get maimed / incapacitated, allowing for high surviveability and high fantasy-style heroics.

Which is beside the point, anyway. (Even if it were true, d20 is not D&D. Also, how many different d20 damage models are there, some of them quite lethal?) The issue is that games like Shadowrun 3E, old WoD - and presumably, nWoD - use damage tracks instead of HP for a reason... Usually to make combat _more_ lethal and grittier - you're either uninjured, or something quite bad has happened. 

When a game like nWoD ends up with combat that's slower paced than in most systems which use HP, and combat in which gunfire results in lots of small injuries rather than outright incapacitation, you have a problem.


----------



## findar (May 29, 2007)

Very interesting.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 29, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Even if it were true, d20 is not D&D. Also, how many different d20 damage models are there, some of them quite lethal?) The issue is that games like Shadowrun 3E, old WoD - and presumably, nWoD - use damage tracks instead of HP for a reason... Usually to make combat _more_ lethal and grittier - you're either uninjured, or something quite bad has happened.



The new D20 Star Wars is using a damage track system that I suspect will show up in Unearthed Arcana II or something like it.


----------



## EditorBFG (May 29, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> When a game like nWoD ends up with combat that's slower paced than in most systems which use HP, and combat in which gunfire results in lots of small injuries rather than outright incapacitation, you have a problem.



This is absolutely counter to my experience. Are you sure we've played the same nWoD?

(I will say the D&D has a separation between PCs and monsters, where lower CR monsters are designed to die more quickly, is that the slow-down you mean? Because in nWoD, if you are a human investigator, you are not physically more difficult to kill than a human janitor. So the same amount of time it takes to kill you is roughly how long it takes to kill somebody else. Is this part of the problem you have?)


----------



## Felon (May 29, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> d20 players don't need this sort of book, we've got all the tools we need to do it already.



I don't have the time or interest to muck around at a wrok bench with all those tools. I'll take a polished final product any day.


----------



## Felon (May 29, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Most die pool systems that use _variable_ Target Numbers produce results that are very difficult to replicate using the simple die roll + modifier system, but the nWoD, with its set TN, could have safely converted to d20 or 3d6, or 2d10 (+mods) - the only reason they kept the die pools is because they're a sacred cow...



That occurred to me right away as well. 

Of course, i old WoD darkness games I played, characters were perfectly willing to try anything with a skill they could roll five or more dice on--after all, a zero ain't that hard to get on that many dice.


----------



## johngamermage (May 30, 2007)

I'm encouraged to buy it because Monte Cook & Sean Reynolds.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> My biggest issue? The fact that many of the conflict resolution mechanics pit the attacker's attribute+skill pool vs. the defender's single skill or attribute. Who went first and how many re-rolls your Willpower allows you to make matters more than relative skill levels.




Yeah defense is based on Dex or Wits, but it can be doubled by actively dodging...increased through spenditure of Willpower, etc.  I think what your missing is that it's only one attribute because it's like having automatic successes, ie it is always active and there is no chance to be left totally defenseless(except in special circumstances) or to get a dramatic failure on your defense, an attacker can roll no successes or even a dramatic failure.



			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> I know this issue definitely comes up in combat and when using vampiric disciplines (I only played in a Vampire game that used the nWoD system) but I'm not sure if it comes up in opposed contests of skills.




No opposed skills are almost always attribute+skill(Dex+Stealth) vs. attribute+skill(Wits+Stealth or Composure).



			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> Second, while I actually like die pools, I don't think a system as simplistic as nWoD actually has any need of them.
> 
> Most die pool systems that use _variable_ Target Numbers produce results that are very difficult to replicate using the simple die roll + modifier system, but the nWoD, with its set TN, could have safely converted to d20 or 3d6, or 2d10 (+mods) - the only reason they kept the die pools is because they're a sacred cow... and all that really accomplishes is the slowing down of the gameplay by greatly increasing the amount of time it takes to make and read each roll.




Okay, how do you replicate the Dramatic Failure rule, the Chance Roll & the 10 again rule without dice pools?



			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> Third, based on my recollection, the system was - because of its precarious balance - extremely susceptible to abuse, powergaming and min-maxing. I make an effort to play with people who avoid that sort of thing, so it's usually not an issue, but I'd much rather play a _good_ system with people who won't try to absue it.




Never had this problem with my group, the caps on attributes(through double cost) and abilities (through double cost) at character creation +no bonus points really didn't allow  a min max build that wasn't fairly deficienct in other areas.



			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> Fourth, physical combat itself was dull and slow. It seems to me like anything involving two opponents that weren't wildly mismatched ended up playing out as an endless series of flesh wounds as the damage tracks got whittled down a point or two at a time, and any tactical options you might choose were just window dressing. Again, who went first seemed to be the most important thing.




Once again my experiences differ.  Firearms are deadly, combat was usually quick and painful... all it took was one or two tens to end a fight real quick.  In fact I have to say IMHO the combat system fit the horror genre great.  There's only 7 damage levels and as you take damage you're taking increasing penalties to actions as well


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 30, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I don't have the time or interest to muck around at a wrok bench with all those tools. I'll take a polished final product any day.



ditto.


----------



## Campbell (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> When a game like nWoD ends up with combat that's slower paced than in most systems which use HP, and combat in which gunfire results in lots of small injuries rather than outright incapacitation, you have a problem.




In the case of a Vampire against Vampire gun fight this is the expected result. Vampires take bullets like ordinary people take punches since their organs are no longer vital. It is an altogether different story if knives or swords are used since those weapons actually tear through flesh.


----------



## Jim Hague (May 30, 2007)

Campbell said:
			
		

> In the case of a Vampire against Vampire gun fight this is the expected result. Vampires take bullets like ordinary people take punches since their organs are no longer vital. It is an altogether different story if knives or swords are used since those weapons actually tear through flesh.




Uh, no.  Bullets, particularly large-caliber ones, rip tunnels and holes in flesh.  Moreso if you're dealing in crazy stuff like hollow-points and Glaser rounds, doubly so if you have something like large-ought shot in a shotgun.  Automatic weapons do this _quickly_.  The idea that, somehow, the undead are immune (effectively) to bullets but not knives and swords is...amusing.  

It's easy to cripple someone, anyone, by dint of the fact that those 'non vital' muscles and bones get broken, torn and reduced to pulp by little slugs of metal.  Sure, they wouldn't bleed, but that's a relatively small concern when a bullet blows a hole the size of a saucer in you.

It's a conceit of the world that exists pretty much to ensure that vampires can laugh at the mortals they're supposedly afraid of, and it's weak sauce.  Even _I Am Legend_ had a better (if still ridiculous) explanation of why bullets don't work.


----------



## EditorBFG (May 30, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> It's a conceit of the world that exists pretty much to ensure that vampires can laugh at the mortals they're supposedly afraid of, and it's weak sauce.  Even _I Am Legend_ had a better (if still ridiculous) explanation of why bullets don't work.



You may be right, but it would seem wrong for vampires to be afraid of guns, wouldn't it? I mean, they're not afraid of them in any significant source material I'm aware of.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 30, 2007)

but one good thwhack to the neck with a long sword, and you got one dead vampire.


----------



## EditorBFG (May 30, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> but one good thwhack to the neck with a long sword, and you got one dead vampire.



Exactly. Vampires allow modern guy to use sword instead of gun, and is good.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (May 30, 2007)

So as soon as someone explains why this can't blow a vampire's neck (and head) completely off I'll buy it. I'm with Jim Hague, modern firearms DESTROY. I'm all about a vampire hunter taking a greatsword to some necks, but the cold reality is that 50 caliber sniper rifles will decapitate ANYTHING. The vampire's advantage lies in magic, speed, skill, trickery, and things like that, not actually having flesh capable of withstanding this level of force.

I'm not especially excited about this game. Trying to play core D&D with level adjustments is already wonky and unbalanced. Compare a level 5 pixie fighter to a level 9 human wizard, and there's really no comparison. A vampire's got a what, +8 level adjustment? So level 4 vampire fighters are rolling with level 12 human sorcerers? I figure there won't be D&D style magic, but still. Unless there's a few big changes in how the LA system works, this game is going to flop on its face. I'm not about to drop $35 just to hope to be able to cannibalize it.

Hopefully it'll be better than I think.

On a scale of suck to awesome, I give it a meh.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 30, 2007)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> A vampire's got a what, +8 level adjustment?



In D&D 3e, the answer will often be "yes".

I expect they'll be _quite_ a bit different in this book, though. More varied, more interesting, more detailed, and yes, far more playable. After all, the general idea seems to be that players will be playing vampires, demons, werewolves, whatever. And I imagine Monte Cook has therefore put some thought into the playability of said beings (plus whatever else is available for PC use).

Vampires in D&D, on the other hand, are very much not recommended (in the core books, or anywhere else that I've seen, in WotC sources) as PC material. So comparing them is probably not going to prove fruitful.

But I suppose we'll still have to wait and see, with regards to that, and any other issues people might be concerned about.


IME so far, nWoD makes a very good system for playing humans, or slightly augmented humans, in a modern supernatural setting. I haven't had a chance to try out VtR, WtF, MtA etc., but I am of the mind that Monte Cook's take on the WoD will appeal to me more than any of those would. And for "modern D&D", I'd much rather stick with d20 Modern (especially with the supplement 'Postmodern: Fantastic Classes' and a couple of others), or maybe True20. Hey, I'd even dig out Shadowrun if someone was to insist.

So, I remain hopeful that the McWoD will turn out to be something pretty much unique, and fun too.


----------



## mmu1 (May 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yeah defense is based on Dex or Wits, but it can be doubled by actively dodging...increased through spenditure of Willpower, etc.  I think what your missing is that it's only one attribute because it's like having automatic successes, ie it is always active and there is no chance to be left totally defenseless(except in special circumstances) or to get a dramatic failure on your defense, an attacker can roll no successes or even a dramatic failure.




Doesn't dodging mean you use up your action to do it? That effectively makes it worthless for every situation in which you're actually trying to fight, instead of running for your life.

Which just reminded me of something else I had an issue with - because active defense is really worthless, and the attacker rolls so many more dice, generally, than the defender, you virtually always hit. That doesn't really do it for me in a non-D&D setting...

And for the record, my combat experiences involved both humans and vampires going at each other with guns and melee weapons. I'm also certain that a more experienced GM could have ran the combats better than in the game I played in, but a lot of the things I had problems with are, IMO, intrinsic to the system.


----------



## hexgrid (May 30, 2007)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> I'm not especially excited about this game. Trying to play core D&D with level adjustments is already wonky and unbalanced. Compare a level 5 pixie fighter to a level 9 human wizard, and there's really no comparison. A vampire's got a what, +8 level adjustment? So level 4 vampire fighters are rolling with level 12 human sorcerers? I figure there won't be D&D style magic, but still. Unless there's a few big changes in how the LA system works, this game is going to flop on its face. I'm not about to drop $35 just to hope to be able to cannibalize it.




Kinda weird to review and reject a rules system before you have any idea what it will involve. You noticed that these issues would exist just through casual observation of the product's subject matter - do you really think the people who worked on it for months aren't smart enough to figure it out themselves? (Especially since Monte has addressed the +LA issue previously, way back in Arcana Unearthed.)


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Doesn't dodging mean you use up your action to do it? That effectively makes it worthless for every situation in which you're actually trying to fight, instead of running for your life.




Yes it does...just like in most rpg's. You also realize any Vampire power that increases the trait this is based upon should increase the defense as well.



			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> Which just reminded me of something else I had an issue with - because active defense is really worthless, and the attacker rolls so many more dice, generally, than the defender, you virtually always hit. That doesn't really do it for me in a non-D&D setting...




I think this has more to do with your assumptions than on the rules themselves.  A gunfight, knifefight, brawl, etc. is dangerous.  It is a non-D&D setting and there are penalties to getting whacked, that get worse as you get whacked more.  No you can't take 55 hit points worth of damage and still fight like your fresh, because the tropes of the genre are different.  Most protagonists in horror games are hurt both brutally and quickly.  It's this type of thing that leads them into desperate and morally questionable acts to survive, and it's the crux that the morality mechanic in nWoD is built upon.  It almost feels like you wanted a modern adventure/action game instead of horror.



			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> And for the record, my combat experiences involved both humans and vampires going at each other with guns and melee weapons. I'm also certain that a more experienced GM could have ran the combats better than in the game I played in, but a lot of the things I had problems with are, IMO, intrinsic to the system.




Well, I will throw this out there...willpower does not, unless it's a houserule or Vampire power??, allow rerolls.  It adds a +3 to a roll or +2 to a resistance.  Not exactly sure where your GM got that from.


----------



## mmu1 (May 30, 2007)

Oh yeah, one more, but it's a big one - I'm surprised I forgot it.

Fighting with two weapons or any other discipline/style/merit that allows multiple attacks in any shape or form is completely broken, despite being relatively pricey to get. Very nearly doubling your attack dice simply can not be made to work in a balanced way. Hell, it's better than high-level Celerity.

That, and it also doesn't make sense given the abstract die pool mechanic nWoD uses - it'd make a lot more sense for dual-wielding to simply add a die or two to your pool. (which is what some other combat-realted abilities already do, and it's the basic nWoD mechanic)


----------



## mmu1 (May 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yes it does...just like in most rpg's. You also realize any Vampire power that increases the trait this is based upon should increase the defense as well.




Can you give some examples of those RPGs? Because I have an easier time thinking of ones where using an active defense doesn't mean you give up your ability to act for a round. Old WoD, Shadowrun (all editions besides 4th), GURPS, Riddle of Steel, the d6 System...



> I think this has more to do with your assumptions than on the rules themselves.  A gunfight, knifefight, brawl, etc. is dangerous.  It is a non-D&D setting and there are penalties to getting whacked, that get worse as you get whacked more.  No you can't take 55 hit points worth of damage and still fight like your fresh, because the tropes of the genre are different.  Most protagonists in horror games are hurt both brutally and quickly.  It's this type of thing that leads them into desperate and morally questionable acts to survive, and it's the crux that the morality mechanic in nWoD is built upon.  It almost feels like you wanted a modern adventure/action game instead of horror.




Hehe... It's not a bug, it's actually a feature? It's really a mechanic designed to force people into moral quandries? I think that's... pretty thin.

I really don't see how a system in which you'll almost always get hit if someone fires a gun at you, but that one hit will almost never kill you, represents the horror genre. Or any other genre. Or reality... It's a lousy mechanic that provides results which feel contrived.



> Well, I will throw this out there...willpower does not, unless it's a houserule or Vampire power??, allow rerolls.  It adds a +3 to a roll or +2 to a resistance.  Not exactly sure where your GM got that from.



No, I think you're right. I remembered using Willpower to boost the chances of making resistance rolls, and mistakenly thought it allowed you to re-roll your failures. (the influence of all the Shadowrun I've been playing, probably) The effect is still the same, though - you burn Willpower to improve your chances of success.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, one more, but it's a big one - I'm surprised I forgot it.
> 
> Fighting with two weapons or any other discipline/style/merit that allows multiple attacks in any shape or form is completely broken, despite being relatively pricey to get. Very nearly doubling your attack dice simply can not be made to work in a balanced way. Hell, it's better than high-level Celerity.
> 
> That, and it also doesn't make sense given the abstract die pool mechanic nWoD uses - it'd make a lot more sense for dual-wielding to simply add a die or two to your pool. (which is what some other combat-realted abilities already do, and it's the basic nWoD mechanic)




Uhm...this is just not true.  First to get to the point where you can actually attack more than once with Fighting Style:Two Weapons is a 3/4 dot merit.  
1.) It does not double your attack dice...it's 2 seperate attacks against one character(Focused Attack) or two seperate(Fluid Attack).

2.) The first attack is at your normal die pool...the second is at a -3 penalty(-2 off hand & -1 maneuver penalty) ex. 4 str +4 brawl= 1st attk(8 dice) 2nd attk( 5 dice).  You then still subtract the defense of your opponent from the totals, let's say avg 3 so 1st attk(5 dice)46% chance of 2 or more successes & 2nd Attk(2 dice) 9% chance of 2 or more succeses

3.) When using these maneuvers your defense is at a zero.  Which means anyone who attacks you automatically rolls their full dice pool and every successes they get is a level of damage.  That's alot of damage with a pool of 8 dice(same as you above) an attacker has  over a 70% chance of getting two or more successes on you(and this isn't taking into consideration the ten again rule).

Note: I realize you could take ambidexterity to counteract the -2 off hand but that's all your merit dots.  And the opposite end is the attacker above having  Iron Stamina at 4, thus suffering no penalties as his health is reduced in the battle and Fresh Start, thus allowing him to attack first when your character has a zero defense or force you not to use the two weapon style.

I'm starting to get the impression your GM may not have been applying the rules correctly in both this and the willpower situation.


----------



## Midknightsun (May 30, 2007)

My nWoD-Fu may be rusty, but in response to large calibre guns taking heads off vamps, I believe head shots are considered lethal on them, and so a heavy calibre weapon shot has a pretty good chance of doing just that . . . if you hit their head. 

Of course, between celerity, obfuscate, and fortitude, good luck getting the chance if you're a not a supernatural.

I've also never found the WoD system to be slow and clunky . . . especially compared to 3.x (which despite its super slowness, I love).  It usually resolves much more quickly.

Different systems, different takes.  Both have their charm.  Though I am really interested to see Monte's take on this.


----------



## DJCupboard (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Can you give some examples of those RPGs? Because I have an easier time thinking of ones where using an active defense doesn't mean you give up your ability to act for a round. Old WoD, Shadowrun (all editions besides 4th), GURPS, Riddle of Steel, the d6 System...




I'm not speaking here out of a delusion of authority, but I remember needing to make the dicision to actively defend OR attack quite frequently when I played oWoD Vampire in High School and Abberant in College, as well as in the smattering of other storyteller games I played in that timeframe.

All that being said, I can't wait until this new version comes out!  It will be like when they got their peanut butter in my chocolate.

~Dave~


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Can you give some examples of those RPGs? Because I have an easier time thinking of ones where using an active defense doesn't mean you give up your ability to act for a round. Old WoD, Shadowrun (all editions besides 4th), GURPS, Riddle of Steel, the d6 System...




Now let's look at some games that are actually designed for this genre...Unknown Armies, Witchcraft, Seventh Seal, Armageddon, Buffy & Angel.  All of them sacrifice your attack actions for a "full defense". 




			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> Hehe... It's not a bug, it's actually a feature? It's really a mechanic designed to force people into moral quandries? I think that's... pretty thin.
> 
> I really don't see how a system in which you'll almost always get hit if someone fires a gun at you, but that one hit will almost never kill you, represents the horror genre. Or any other genre. Or reality... It's a lousy mechanic that provides results which feel contrived.




No, a lousy mechanic in an rpg would be either
 (after 10 min of play)
BANG!...DM:"go roll up another sheet."
BANG!...DM:"You to Bob."
How often does the actual protagonist die in a horror novel...as opposed to being bruised, beaten, tired and scared? 


DM:"You guys should be fearful for your lives, desperate to survive, hurting and scared..."
Player:" I ain't scared bring on round 2 I still got 65 hit points left."
Ok how often does the protagonist feel great and keep on truckin after he's faced the horrors in the dark?

Instead nWoD keeps you alive but the fear is through your increasing dice pool penalties due to injury and fatigue.  You ain't dead but round two willprobably be worse unless you do whatever it takes to survive.  How is this not "morality horror"?

Just aquick note I decided to throw in here after rereading my post: I do not mean, by using the second example that D&D's hit point system is bad...only that I don't think it fits a horror(unless it's action horror) game very well.


----------



## mmu1 (May 30, 2007)

DJCupboard said:
			
		

> I'm not speaking here out of a delusion of authority, but I remember needing to make the dicision to actively defend OR attack quite frequently when I played oWoD Vampire in High School and Abberant in College, as well as in the smattering of other storyteller games I played in that timeframe.
> 
> All that being said, I can't wait until this new version comes out!  It will be like when they got their peanut butter in my chocolate.
> 
> ~Dave~




Well... Yes, old WoD would often force you to choose between one or the other, but a competent mundane combat-oriented character _usually_ could decide to split his action and do both (with enough dice left over to make it worthwhile). And once you got into the realm of supernatural critters (which is, after all, the WoD bread and butter) it got relatively commonplace.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Well... Yes, old WoD would often force you to choose between one or the other, but a competent mundane combat-oriented character _usually_ could decide to split his action and do both (with enough dice left over to make it worthwhile). And once you got into the realm of supernatural critters (which is, after all, the WoD bread and butter) it got relatively commonplace.




Splitting your dice pool is the same as defense, only done staticly for speed of play.  Note where I metioned if the trait defense is based on goes up, it goes up as well.  In fact it's better because you're getting a split dice pool of auto successes(plus you get to roll your full pool for attack) as opposed to maybe rolling no successes + the additional time to resolve it and getting only your partial pool to roll for attacks.  

Is it that you want to decide how many dice to alot yourself?  I think the speed and fluidity of play is more important, but that's just my oppinion.


----------



## Odhanan (May 30, 2007)

> Uh, no. Bullets, particularly large-caliber ones, rip tunnels and holes in flesh. Moreso if you're dealing in crazy stuff like hollow-points and Glaser rounds, doubly so if you have something like large-ought shot in a shotgun. Automatic weapons do this quickly. The idea that, somehow, the undead are immune (effectively) to bullets but not knives and swords is...amusing.




That was not Campbell's point, Jim. His point was that, in the context of nWoD rules, vampires regenerate from bullet wounds very easily. Which they do.

After you can make all the criticism you want about the power of firearms, but the bottom line is, undead don't exist in the real world. We're talking about a game element within the specific context of its rules.


----------



## mmu1 (May 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Now let's look at some games that are actually designed for this genre...Unknown Armies, Witchcraft, Seventh Seal, Armageddon, Buffy & Angel.  All of them sacrifice your attack actions for a "full defense".




First of all, you didn't say "most horror RPGS" - you decided to make a blanket statement to make your argument look stronger, and now are backpedaling. But ok...

Second, all those games you bring up have more differences than commonalities - you have something based on a (slightly goofy) comedy/horror TV show, a game about the occult and everyday weirdness, and one about the end of the world when devils and angels walk the earth - the fact they all use a similar mechanic proves nothing, in this case. 

Third, and finally, I didn't actually say "full defense" - I said "active defense". There's a difference...


----------



## mmu1 (May 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Splitting your dice pool is the same as defense, only done staticly for speed of play.




Uh... Again, with the responding to things I didn't actually say. I didn't say splitting your dice pool, I said _splitting your action_. Different mechanic.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> First of all, you didn't say "most horror RPGS" - you decided to make a blanket statement to make your argument look stronger, and now are backpedaling. But ok...
> 
> Second, all those games you bring up have more differences than commonalities - you have something based on a (slightly goofy) comedy/horror TV show, a game about the occult and everyday weirdness, and one about the end of the world when devils and angels walk the earth - the fact they all use a similar mechanic proves nothing, in this case.




Uhm so they have less in common with each other than say D6(which doesn't even have a horror book) than nWoD.  Your grasping at straws here, if they we're all the same game they'd be nWoD...They're all based around the same theme horror/occult roleplaying.

Wasn't trying to "prove" anything, you asked for examples and I gave them to you...the fact that each one of these games has the same basic theme (horror/occult) roleplaying was just icing on the cake 




			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> Third, and finally, I didn't actually say "full defense" - I said "active defense". There's a difference...




Whatever...now whose reaching? Please tell me in what way are you using the word "active".

 What's the difference, is D&D an "active defense" you don't get to roll for it, but it's always active?  

What about Exalted...do charms that affect it make it active? Is it only "active when you actually use a charm to increse it? Or is that an adaptable defense?

Sorry I took it to mean how a game mechanic works when someone "actively" tries to dodge/defend themselves to the best of their ability.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Uh... Again, with the responding to things I didn't actually say. I didn't say splitting your dice pool, I said _splitting your action_. Different mechanic.




You are absolutely right, I did read this wrong and I apologize for misinterpretting what you said.

You know I just realized something though...In oWoD you had to either take a passive defense score (I think 6) which was the number that scored a succeses to hit you...or abort your action(get no attack) to a defense maneuver...ie where you get to roll against incoming attacks.  This all seems basically the same as nWoD...you have a "passive defense" or you can choose to Dodge and get a full defense.  You can not use the multiple actions to defend actively.  If you were this was a houserule.

The only difference is in oWoD you are rolling to defend, while in nWoD you have the maximum of the dice pool as auto-successes, instead of having to roll.


----------



## mmu1 (May 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right, I did read this wrong and I apologize for misinterpretting what you said.
> 
> You know I just realized something though...In oWoD you had to either take a passive defense score (I think 6) which was the number that scored a succeses to hit you...or abort your action(get no attack) to a defense maneuver...ie where you get to roll against incoming attacks.  This all seems basically the same as nWoD...you have a "passive defense" or you can choose to Dodge and get a full defense.  You can not use the multiple actions to defend actively.  If you were this was a houserule.
> 
> The only difference is in oWoD you are rolling to defend, while in nWoD you have the maximum of the dice pool as auto-successes, instead of having to roll.




I don't know how older editions of old WoD worked, but I'm pretty sure that in the last one before nWoD you _could_ split actions - you subtracted a number of dice equal to the number of actions you were taking in a turn from the die pool for the first action, and that number+1 from the second die pool. So if you, for example, had a melee pool of 9 and a dodge pool of 8, and decided to attack and dodge in the same round, you'd get an attack pool of 7 (9-2) and a dodge pool of 5.(8-3) It wasn't a very popular option, for obvious reasons - except for highly skilled characters.

As for "active defense", I mean things like what I just described above, or GURPS Parry, Block and Dodge rolls, or SR 3E use of "Combat Pool" to avoid attacks, or Riddle of Steel's... well, Riddle of Steel is complicated. I did, however, play a lot of systems which used both active defenses and die pools, and I think the better ones give you the kind of control over your character in combat that nWoD doesn't come close to matching. (and IMO, for all its simplicity, it still isn't especially quick)


----------



## Jim Hague (May 30, 2007)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> You may be right, but it would seem wrong for vampires to be afraid of guns, wouldn't it? I mean, they're not afraid of them in any significant source material I'm aware of.




If you've got a campaign in the modern world, why not?  My main gripe is that it damages the versimillitude - the explanation for _why_ is weak.  Vampires are established as physical supernatural creatures that were once human, so torn muscles and broken bones ought to at least pain them and slow them down.  Sure, there's only two vital organs, but if you look at stuff like Nancy Collins' _Sunglasses After Dark_ and its sequels, which the WoD riffs heavily on, modern arms are a serious problem for the undead; they won't 'kill' them, but they cause problems with wounds, regeneration...

Mind you, this is mitigated somewhat in the nWoD - take a look at the Monster Hunter in the mainbook.  So if Monte's take follows those general guidelines, I'll likely be happier with it.  Then again, I'm the guy that thinks mortals should be a serious threat in _any_ Wod-style game.


----------



## Jim Hague (May 30, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> but one good thwhack to the neck with a long sword, and you got one dead vampire.




Or any of several Asian weapons, hm?  The _Zombie Survival Guide_ addresses that.   Of course, given the time period the WoD originally came out of, the whole 'sword over gun' thing is likely just part of the trenchcoat-and-katana fashion statement.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I don't know how older editions of old WoD worked, but I'm pretty sure that in the last one before nWoD you _could_ split actions - you subtracted a number of dice equal to the number of actions you were taking in a turn from the die pool for the first action, and that number+1 from the second die pool. So if you, for example, had a melee pool of 9 and a dodge pool of 8, and decided to attack and dodge in the same round, you'd get an attack pool of 7 (9-2) and a dodge pool of 5.(8-3) It wasn't a very popular option, for obvious reasons - except for highly skilled characters.




That's what I'm saying, this by RAW is wrong.  The combat section specifically states that in order to do defensive maneuvers you must abort your actions.  And yes I'm talking about VtM revised, Mage revised, etc..  You may have played it the way you describe, but defensive maneuvers are an exception to the multi-action rules


----------



## eyebeams (May 30, 2007)

In the old system, you had the following options:

1) Attack with your full pool.
2) Defend with your full pool.
3) Combine attacks and defenses, or just attacks at a penalty equal to the total number of actions for the first, -1 for each additional action.
4) Defend only, at -1 per attack.

You resolved attacks with opposed rolls. Extra attack successes added dice to a separate damage roll. You rolled soak against some results. The total number of steps was:

1) Attack
2) Defend
3) Damage roll
4) Soak roll

The new system gives characters a Defense score that subtracts from dice pools and a damage rating that adds to dice pools. Attackers roll the modified pool. This reduces the number of dice rolls to:

1) Attack.

There are no multiple actions without special abilities. Yeah, that saves a few steps

One thing to consider is that while single shots/blows are designed to be basically survivable, rolls of 10 explode (and so do 10s rolled on those rerolled dice) so that all attacks can inflict any amount of injury.

So, let's discuss KOOL BARRET GUN LOLZ:

A sniper with a Barret Light 50 attacking an unaware target (who isn't running or seeking cover) inflicts a horrendous amount of damage. If he's pretty skilled he has 8 dice. He gets a die for sighting, 3 dice for aiming and 3 dice for spending a Willpower. One dot in the Sniping Fighting Style and Composure 3 (the minimum) increases the Aim bonus to 4. The Barret itself inflicts 5 damage (8 again). 8+4+3+1+5=21 dice, and you roll all successes again.

So our skilled military sniper attacks inflicts an average of 9 lethal damage. This instantly incapacitates and eventually kills everybody but the toughest person in the world (with Stamina 5) and badly injures a vampire.

Alternately, you could inflict lethal damage to a vampire with a headshot. Taking the penalty into account, average damage (7) knocks an average vampire Stamina 2) into torpor instantly.

If you want to compare the baddest dudes, we can compare the best sniper and toughest guys. The best sniper in the world has 5 Composure (his max Aim becomes +6) and a base pool of 10 -- 11 with a specialty. 11+6+3+1+5=25 dice. Oh yeah -- maxed out sniper means that his rife bonus dice automatically succeed. He inflicts 15 points of lethal damage.

The toughest mortal in the world (with 10 HL) is instantly incapacitated and dies in 2 minutes without medical intervention (average people are merely instantly killed). The toughest Blood Potency 5 vampire around, with Stamina 5 and Resilience 5 (active) has 15 HL and is as badly wounded as Average Vampire. Funny how that works out, eh?

Oh, at 6 points of armor piercing, the gun effectively makes body armor a waste of time.

Basically, this situation exists because of playtesting and the desire for a balance between danger and playability. There was a point in playtest where damage was brutal and too awful, and a stage where it was trivial. My group suggested that what we found the most fun was where one hit *might* kill you, but you could bet on surviving a handful of attacks in a single scene. This means that instant death doesn't happen too often, but there are dangerous outliers in any roll. This requires some adjustment in thinking when you're used to D&D, where damage propagates more predictably and even critical hits have maximums.

Now in typical combat with small arms (2 dice) and average-skilled people (4 dice) running around (-2 dice), you're looking at typical dice pools of 4 and 1-2 points of damage a shot. An average guy goes down in 4 shots or so and bleeds to death in 7 minutes. He can go down much faster or much more slowly. A vampire takes twice as much time to fall into torpor. Again, the idea is that realistic results are possible, but that the largest block of results will tend to allow a few turns of action.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2007)

Maybe we are talking apples and oranges I am talking about "desperate defense" in oWoD vs. Dodge in nWoD. In which you get your full dice pool vs. attks.


----------



## eyebeams (May 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Maybe we are talking apples and oranges I am talking about "desperate defense" in oWoD vs. Dodge in nWoD. In which you get your full dice pool vs. attks.




They're not really similar as basic nWoD Defense works against multiple attacks, though at a penalty. In the old game aborting to defend uses up your action and only applies to a given attack. If you're acting more than once, it's one of your multiple actions. If you only defend this penalty isn't too high, though. nWoD characters are a bit more robust versus multiple attacks at the cost of not being able to get in multiple attacks without some specialized abilities.


----------



## Set (May 30, 2007)

> I'm not especially excited about this game. Trying to play core D&D with level adjustments is already wonky and unbalanced. Compare a level 5 pixie fighter to a level 9 human wizard, and there's really no comparison. A vampire's got a what, +8 level adjustment?




I'm guessing that WoD vampires won't have level drain, or any of the other pricey stuff, since WoD vampires tend to have to pick and choose from a menu.  The one who summons swarms of rats to attack his enemy isn't likely to also be able to charm gaze humanoids, and the one who has a +8 strength won't likely be the same one who can turn to mist, since they specialize in different areas.

Monte, along with Sean Reynolds, managed to make LA+0 ghosts for the Ghostwalk setting, while keeping them faithful to the concept, so I would not be surprised if he did the same for this setting, starting as newly fledged / sired / whatever vampires and moving up through a racial class that grants greater attributes and access to 'vampire feats' or some sort of powers tree that allows one to control animals, or people, or weather, or whatever.

Frankly, I'd be shocked if Monte's WoD was some sort of lame attempt at making Monster Manual-style vampires and werewolves into monster classes, since *that's already been done.*  Monster classes for these critters can be found in Libris Mortis, or even online.

About the only major issue I'd have with a d20 adaptation to the WoD would be the use of some of the, IMO, dumber aspects of d20.  The idea of the blood-fueled superhuman metabolism of a vampire being replaced with a Con score of zero, just because they are undead, or of a Nosferatu no longer being able to control bugs because they are 'mindless' vermin, conveniently immune to mind-affecting powers, detracts from the genre.  These are problems Monte could avoid completely, by ignoring the Con 0 thing, or making Vermin Int 1 in the setting and therefore trainable, like real-world insects, or end up having to make the usual sort of hand-wave exceptions that d20 is forced to make around such nonsense rules (uh, use the Charisma score for Con-based variables, since we belatedly realized that the creature was unworkable without such a score...  uh, Summon spells allows one to control vermin, even if they are technically immune to being controlled, 'cause they're alien vermin from another dimension, yeah, that's the ticket...  Unless you're a Druid, in which case, I got nothing, and oh look, is that Elvis?  [runs off to avoid further questions]).


----------



## painandgreed (May 30, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Uh, no.  Bullets, particularly large-caliber ones, rip tunnels and holes in flesh.  Moreso if you're dealing in crazy stuff like hollow-points and Glaser rounds, doubly so if you have something like large-ought shot in a shotgun.  Automatic weapons do this _quickly_.  The idea that, somehow, the undead are immune (effectively) to bullets but not knives and swords is...amusing.




Not really. While bullets do cause damage in primary cavitization, they are primarily peircing weapons. Death is caused by blood loss when the damage isn't to the brain or spinal column. In that vampires don't bleed unless very singnificant damage is done to them, taking half damage from guns when not a head shot, would be fairly accurate for verisimilitude. In a system without hit location and special effects of damage the death spiral and associated penalties are a decent approximation of physical damage taken. The large caliber weapons you speak of do enough damage that even after halved, it is still significant.


----------



## Felon (May 30, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> That was not Campbell's point, Jim. His point was that, in the context of nWoD rules, vampires regenerate from bullet wounds very easily. Which they do.
> 
> After you can make all the criticism you want about the power of firearms, but the bottom line is, undead don't exist in the real world. We're talking about a game element within the specific context of its rules.



The remark by Campbell that drew the rebuttal about ballistic fallacies was likely "vampires take bullets like ordinary people take punches since their organs are no longer vital". Whether it was his point or not, it is true that there are plenty of plenty of ways to inflict heavy tissue damage with firearms. Bullents aren't deadly just for their ability to poke little holes in vital organs.

Undead don't exist in the real world, but the game tells us how vampire physiology, so we do have something to critique and criticize. If they wanted vamps to be resistant to bullets, they probably just should've gone with a full-on magical explanation, rather than something pseudo-scientific which opens itself up to deconstruction. Ballistic damage can indeed shred and explode meat and bone.

Now, it's been a while since I played WoD, but I don't recall firearms being especially weak. Just the opposite, acutally. In the very first version of the Vampire rules, any extra successes on an attack counted as extra damage. Like a lot of WoD rules, the min-maxing strategies were obvious: strength was of secondary value if dexterity served both attack and damage. I had a 13-year-old kid gangrel that had minimal strength and maxed-out dexterity, and he did ridiculous damage with his claws.

Then a revised rulebook came out, it had those extra successes only counting as extra damage with ballistic weapons. Little Billy faced sudden, brutal nerfing. It was just another one of those discrepencies you get when game designers intend for Strength to add into melee weapons, but then they wind up without an adder to apply to firearm damage. 

D20 has this very issue as well, it should be noted. Strength adds to melee damage, and to muscle-powered might longbows, but nothing adds to firearm damage. Try introducing .45 automatics into your D&D campaign, and you will find your fellow gamers seriously underwhelmed.


----------



## Jim Hague (May 30, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Not really. While bullets do cause damage in primary cavitization, they are primarily peircing weapons. Death is caused by blood loss when the damage isn't to the brain or spinal column. In that vampires don't bleed unless very singnificant damage is done to them, taking half damage from guns when not a head shot, would be fairly accurate for verisimilitude. In a system without hit location and special effects of damage the death spiral and associated penalties are a decent approximation of physical damage taken. The large caliber weapons you speak of do enough damage that even after halved, it is still significant.




Actually, IIRC (at work, no books), doesn't nWoD have effective hit location in that there's a penalty to hit but increased damage for individual body parts?  You make a good point here, and it's the same one I was going at - big bullets make big holes.  I wouldn't expect an undead horror to run screaming from a gang member with a .22 zipgun, I _would_ expect them to be afraid of discovery by the mortal authorites, who have significantly more firepower and manpower to bring to bear...

It's a verisimillitude issue with me, one that got really bad at the end of the OWoD - mortals are supposed to be what the supernatural is afraid of, inverting the usual horror trope in that regard.  But when the supernaturals have nothing to mechanically fear, then it breaks down.


----------



## Felon (May 30, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Not really. While bullets do cause damage in primary cavitization, they are primarily peircing weapons. Death is caused by blood loss when the damage isn't to the brain or spinal column.



"Death" and "damage" are not the same thing, in either reality or the game. Who cares if a creature is dead if it's actually been rippsed to pieces? Blow big holes in a vamp's torso, take off its arms and legs, and the mess left over won't like it was done with a piercing weapon.

I've yet to see a game system where anyone bleeds out and dies after a fight.


----------



## EditorBFG (May 30, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I expect they'll be _quite_ a bit different in this book, though. More varied, more interesting, more detailed, and yes, far more playable. After all, the general idea seems to be that players will be playing vampires, demons, werewolves, whatever. And I imagine Monte Cook has therefore put some thought into the playability of said beings (plus whatever else is available for PC use)



This is what I expect as well. I think Monte is too smart to have LAs and all that for a large group of playable characters. He and Sean Reynolds are smart guys, who know their crunch backwards and forwards and are not afraid to screw with d20's holy bovines-- as someone else pointed out, tehy did Ghostwalk and made PC ghosts with no LA.

That said, as you say (in the part I didn't quote), I will wait and see. I'm pretty sure I want this book, but like most of us I'm gonna flip through it in the store to see how the handled things. If it just reprints D&D vampires, I'll leave it on the shelf.



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> IME so far, nWoD makes a very good system for playing humans, or slightly augmented humans, in a modern supernatural setting. I haven't had a chance to try out VtR, WtF, MtA etc., but I am of the mind that Monte Cook's take on the WoD will appeal to me more than any of those would. And for "modern D&D", I'd much rather stick with d20 Modern (especially with the supplement 'Postmodern: Fantastic Classes' and a couple of others), or maybe True20.



Thank you for the kind words on Fantastic Classes-- I worked hard on that thing! 

Depending on how McWod handles humans, I imagine modern stuff might be worth porting in. Also, I think playing things like the Shadowborn Hero and the Zealous Hero in a WoD-type setting would be a kick in the pants... which is part of why I am looking forward to a d20 take on it.


----------



## mmu1 (May 30, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> They're not really similar as basic nWoD Defense works against multiple attacks, though at a penalty. In the old game aborting to defend uses up your action and only applies to a given attack. If you're acting more than once, it's one of your multiple actions. If you only defend this penalty isn't too high, though. nWoD characters are a bit more robust versus multiple attacks at the cost of not being able to get in multiple attacks without some specialized abilities.




So what you're saying is that you actually _can_ split your action into two or more, then abort one of them in order to Dodge, yes?


----------



## mmu1 (May 30, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I've yet to see a game system where anyone bleeds out and dies after a fight.




I know of one off-hand, _Riddle of Steel_. It's the sort of game where, if you want someone taken alive, you wrestle them down to the ground and punch them out / tie them up. Actually hitting people with weapons tends to (surprise, surprise) result in a great deal of trauma and bleeding. 

(Fun game, but deeply flawed in some respects, and not nearly polished enough for a retail product. Hoping they'll get around to a heavily revised 2nd edition...)


----------



## painandgreed (May 30, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> It's a verisimillitude issue with me, one that got really bad at the end of the OWoD - mortals are supposed to be what the supernatural is afraid of, inverting the usual horror trope in that regard.  But when the supernaturals have nothing to mechanically fear, then it breaks down.




They stil have plenty to fear. I've never seen vamps shug off gunfire in oWoD as they do in movies. Those hits, even if halved, add up quick. They may be able to take a calculated risk and figure they can take a hit or two in the combat, but I've also seen them fail that soak roll and be put out of the action way before they expected. I see nothing wrong with verisimilltude.

You really want to talk about how mortals or ther vampires would take out vamps, talk about bombs. Pack a bomb and add an incenerary element to it, and it should prove plenty fatal to vamps and humans. If you go for military weaponry such as white phosphorous gernades or 500# napalm bombs, there isn't really a way even a powerful vamprire should survive. Upper level vampire combat should all be about manipulating their government controled contacts into blasting their enemies.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> I've yet to see a game system where anyone bleeds out and dies after a fight.




The Morrow Project


----------



## eyebeams (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that you actually _can_ split your action into two or more, then abort one of them in order to Dodge, yes?




Yes. FWIW, I don't know *anybody* who ever imposed the penalties for aborting another action to defend, even in officially sanctioned chats.

It's just awkward to decide to defend against a single attack before knowing what the attack is. This doesn't apply to just decided to  improve your all-around defense for a turn.

Incidentally, in nWoD playtest our group did try a more flexible option where you had tactical points you could split into attack and defense boosts. It was more trouble than it was worth.

Ultimately, the most decisive thing in combat is the desire to prevail. If you go all out/aim and spend Willpower, you get 5 or 6 extra dice, but you're opening yourself up to attack and reducing your chances of success in subsequent actions -- unless you satisfy a Virtue or Vice.


----------



## rgard (May 30, 2007)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> This is what I expect as well. I think Monte is too smart to have LAs and all that for a large group of playable characters. He and Sean Reynolds are smart guys, who know their crunch backwards and forwards and are not afraid to screw with d20's holy bovines-- as someone else pointed out, tehy did Ghostwalk and made PC ghosts with no LA.




You could still do LA for vampires and have humans in the game.  Just give the vampires a level adjustment of 4 and one class level and start all humans at 5th level.  Or something along those lines.

How many first level plebes are hunting vampires anyway?

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Felon (May 31, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> You could still do LA for vampires and have humans in the game.  Just give the vampires a level adjustment of 4 and one class level and start all humans at 5th level.  Or something along those lines.
> 
> How many first level plebes are hunting vampires anyway?



That would have the same awful net result that you get with LA's in D&D. Your human starts with far more hit points than the supposedly superior vamps, along with more BAB, skill points, better saves, and so on. But the hit points are where folks tend to go "OK, this isn't worth it".

It's probably a better option to simply have the equivalent of racial levels for supernatural creatures, similar to Arcana Evolved.


----------



## mmu1 (May 31, 2007)

I'm not sure how the LA would work out like for WoD vampires exactly, but it's a given that it's going to be much different from D&D.

For one thing, they won't be getting any attribute bonuses by deafult. (assuming they're sticking relatively closely to the current WoD background) They also don't actually get many of the standard undead immunities - they have a quasi-physiology, and still have some vital spots (the head and the heart) Finally, they don't get many of the standard vampire abilities - energy drain, gaseous form, dominate...

Considering all the immunities a non-LA race like the Warforged gets, I don't see why a WoD-style vampire would necessarily have to have a LA at all. Certainly not a high one, anyway.

For that matter, when were the various WoD games ever designed to have mundane humans as baseline playable characters? That, and the various magical character types were never balanced vs. one another, either... A vampire was much, much tougher than Hunter, would get its butt kicked by a werewolf, and a Mage, while occasionally insanely powerful, could be incredibly weak and fragile most of the time when compared to any of them. 

Whatever the setting ought to have as a baseline starting character, it shouldn't be a normal human... we already have rules for playing that. Also, it's WoD, not D&D - there's no need for rules that makes humans playable alongside vampires. In fact, the flavor of the setting pretty much requires that they are _not_ a balanced match for vampires and other supernatural nasties.


----------



## rgard (May 31, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> That would have the same awful net result that you get with LA's in D&D. Your human starts with far more hit points than the supposedly superior vamps, along with more BAB, skill points, better saves, and so on. But the hit points are where folks tend to go "OK, this isn't worth it".
> 
> It's probably a better option to simply have the equivalent of racial levels for supernatural creatures, similar to Arcana Evolved.




Yes it could, but only if the designers let it be an awful net result.  Just have to beef up the base creature so that the LA is worth it.

That said, I like your suggestion of racial levels.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 31, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> Yes it could, but only if the designers let it be an awful net result.  Just have to beef up the base creature so that the LA is worth it.



Or give scaling abilities, combined with a HP-boost. Problem of LA is: Reduced HD/level, meaning less HP (fragility) and massive loss of caster levels and BAB (and thus multiple attacks).

In a WoD, mages will probably get a LA as well, so this could get rid of the caster level problem. And for the BAB - some juicy boosts can compensate for this, especially with scaling templates.

Or it will just have less character classes, like: Hunter, Mage, Vampire and Werewolf, the rest is then probably tied up in specific feats, to allow heavy customization without changing classes.


----------



## rgard (May 31, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Or give scaling abilities, combined with a HP-boost. Problem of LA is: Reduced HD/level, meaning less HP (fragility) and massive loss of caster levels and BAB (and thus multiple attacks).
> 
> In a WoD, mages will probably get a LA as well, so this could get rid of the caster level problem. And for the BAB - some juicy boosts can compensate for this, especially with scaling templates.
> 
> Or it will just have less character classes, like: Hunter, Mage, Vampire and Werewolf, the rest is then probably tied up in specific feats, to allow heavy customization without changing classes.




Agreed.  We just have to wait and see what Monte did with it!  I'll be buying it!

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Felon (May 31, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Or give scaling abilities, combined with a HP-boost. Problem of LA is: Reduced HD/level, meaning less HP (fragility) and massive loss of caster levels and BAB (and thus multiple attacks).
> 
> In a WoD, mages will probably get a LA as well, so this could get rid of the caster level problem. And for the BAB - some juicy boosts can compensate for this, especially with scaling templates.



Well, LA's were never more than a patch for creatures that simply weren't designed from square one to be balanced with player classes. WoD isn't likely to incorporate that since it can do square-one balancing. It'll make a lot more sense to have racial class levels that provide HP, skill points, BAB, save bonuses, and so forth.


----------



## Felon (May 31, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Whatever the setting ought to have as a baseline starting character, it shouldn't be a normal human... we already have rules for playing that. Also, it's WoD, not D&D - there's no need for rules that makes humans playable alongside vampires.



The need is created by players who want to play humans, and that need existed even before they had the hunters sourcebooks.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 1, 2007)

Monte Cook's used racial/template levels before, so I think it'll probably be his method of choice, unless he seriously reworks the base system.

I also have a feeling that the rules for supernatural powers will not resemble the WW rules set much.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 1, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> For that matter, when were the various WoD games ever designed to have mundane humans as baseline playable characters?




1995. It was the theme for an entire year of releases. I played in a great RCMP-based Project Twilight game.

The new system uses normal humans as the default.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 1, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Monte Cook's used racial/template levels before, so I think it'll probably be his method of choice, unless he seriously reworks the base system.
> 
> I also have a feeling that the rules for supernatural powers will not resemble the WW rules set much.



I think both of these are likely spot-on.


----------



## Ipissimus (Jun 1, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Sure does. Sounds interesting. And not (competently) done yet.




Sorry, I can't agree with you here. Vampires? Done. Werewolves? Done. In both systems. This isn't flogging a dead horse, it's masticating the bones before steaming the meat off.

Monte Cook's name on the cover does nothing for me and I see no reason to spend hard earned cash for a name.




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> The Green Ronin book was weak sauce.
> 
> Ravenloft is not intended to feature the PCs and protagonists, and the 3e Ravenloft material doesn't live up to the variety in the 2e incarnation.
> 
> ...






			
				John McLane said:
			
		

> "EEH! Sorry, Hans, wrong guess. Wanna go for double jeopardy where the scores can really change?"




Please re-read my last posts. To reiterate my position: Both systems can be played either as a hack and slash or as so-called 'real roleplaying', gaming styles have more to do with the group around the table than the system they're using. However, nWoD encourages and supports roleplaying with the Humanity/Vice/Virtue and descriptive combat mechanics while DnD largely ignores roleplaying mechanics. Instead, DnD boils combat down to several rolls of the dice which supports fast and large-scale combats by sacrificing detail and also introducing elements from wargames and facilitating small unit tactics.

WoD does descriptive combat better. You don't just roll a d20 and wish for the best, you choose if you want to throw a punch, a kick, etc. Of course, this level of detail usually means that the GM has more work playing even the henchmen, making combats smaller. In DnD the players can take on a hundred goblins and kick ass in under an hour. But WoD characters tend to be deeper and more fleshed out. The number of times I've been playing DnD with a new player and they've described to me a cool move, leaping off walls while throwing a hail of daggers say, and I've had to turn around and say "Ok, you're 1st level, you've got one attack, roll a d20" and they miss and that's the end of that. It's anticlimactic for the player, just rolling the dice is boring comparably.

Different strokes, my friend. DnD's a faithful old hound, WoD's the kitten that sits in your lap and purrs. WoD d20 feels to me like a dog/cat crossbreed, I've got the other two pets, I don't need to add some sort of mutant version.

As for Green Ronin's vampire book being weak sauce, I must admit that my first reaction was that you've never actually used it. I have and weak is not the way I'd have described the content at all, the Vampire Scion is a wonderful replacement for the SRD vampire. Infinitely more balanced and, with the powers allotted as feats, easily meshed with the class system. I've also used the Bastards and Bloodlines book, Advanced Bestiary, several Mongoose books, BESM d20, Unholy Warrior's Handbook, Witches' Handbook... they're all quality products.

I have Arcana Unearthed but I've never really gotten into it. The advanced racial classes interested me but I could never see my characters actually taking them over more class or PRC levels, and alot of the options seemed too esoteric for my tastes.




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> An immediate example I have sitting right here... by Monte Cook, published via White Wolf. Arcana Evolved. "Compatible with 3rd Edition and Revised 3rd Edition Rules." "Revised 3rd Edition Rules" is third-party D20 publisher "wink wink" speak for D&D 3.5 when they don't want to use the d20 STL.




Yes, and technically illegal. Try pulling that trick as a small publisher and watch the lawyers descend to pick at your carcass.


----------



## EditorBFG (Jun 1, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Sorry, I can't agree with you here. Vampires? Done. Werewolves? Done. In both systems.



Yeah, but not playable by any stretch of the imagination in one system and wandering around in a world I can't force myself to care about in the other.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 1, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Try pulling that trick as a small publisher and watch the lawyers descend to pick at your carcass.




Has that happened to anyone? Big or small?

It seems to me that "Revised 3rd edition rules" have been used as a short hand for D&D for a long time. Admittedly, when I think of it, it's mostly from reading it on WW products.

/M


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 1, 2007)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> Kinda weird to review and reject a rules system before you have any idea what it will involve. You noticed that these issues would exist just through casual observation of the product's subject matter - do you really think the people who worked on it for months aren't smart enough to figure it out themselves? (Especially since Monte has addressed the +LA issue previously, way back in Arcana Unearthed.)




Notice my caveat of "unless they don't screw it up". I didn't review and reject anything. I'm also not a Monte Cook fanboy and I don't keep up with what rules he has or hasn't addressed, but it's good to know that he's on top of it. Just because someone is in power doesn't make them smart, and being smart doesn't necessarily mean you can't make mistakes. Look how bugged and clunky 3.0 was. Also look who wrote it...


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 1, 2007)

Good to know that most people are confident the vampires and humans in the same party using d20 rules will be handled well at the least.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> So, let's discuss KOOL BARRET GUN LOLZ:




I don't recall getting all that worked up about it, but ok. My argument is "oversized ultra-power sniper rifles that are designed to rip through tank armor and kill the people inside those tanks should be at the very least reasonably and consisntently effective in blowing an undead body completely apart." It's not "LAWL I GOTZ A GUN BOOM HEADSHOT!!!111oneoneonetwo".

This doesn't account for vampire powers, or speed, or anything like that. This accounts for a 50 caliber slug severing a head by exploding the neck and upper torso. I just didn't understand why swords can do it, but a massively powerful gun couldn't. 

If you shoot a vamp with a rocket launcher is it considered decapitated?


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 1, 2007)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> I don't recall getting all that worked up about it, but ok. My argument is "oversized ultra-power sniper rifles that are designed to rip through tank armor and kill the people inside those tanks should be at the very least reasonably and consisntently effective in blowing an undead body completely apart." It's not "LAWL I GOTZ A GUN BOOM HEADSHOT!!!111oneoneonetwo".
> 
> This doesn't account for vampire powers, or speed, or anything like that. This accounts for a 50 caliber slug severing a head by exploding the neck and upper torso. I just didn't understand why swords can do it, but a massively powerful gun couldn't.
> 
> If you shoot a vamp with a rocket launcher is it considered decapitated?




If the rocket explodes around its head? Sure.

f you want to get into the gory details of the .50 BMG, the whole point of it is to fulfill an anti-material role. The bullet is not in fact smart enough to zip through the wall of a building, hit a person and then "decide" to spin around.

In humans, trauma is caused by temporary cavitation (tissue being pushed aside) and permanent cavitation (direct tissue destruction). Only explosives make things and people explode unless they're exceptionally brittle (watching videos of .50 BMG effects on Youtube, the only thing that "exploded" was a porcelain toilet; even dry the wood of the seat was elastic enough to only suffer a 2" wide hole). The most common effect of temporary cavitation is severe bruising, unless the effects intersect an organ or bones. Nerve damage might also result. If vampires don't suffer any ill effects from temporary cavitation, this seriously reduces the effects of firearms on their bodies. If the bullet misses bones (vampires probably need them for leverage) and doesn't completely severe the head of a muscle, it doesn't mean much.

Of course a bullet that tumbles on impact will cause more traumatic effects, but there's not a lot of evidence that the round in question will actually do this reliably. So while I would say total destruction of the brain would kill a vampire, even a big hole might not do much more than  impair his vision -- where it would definitely kill a human. The head and heart are "vital organs," to a vampire, but don't need to have the same delicate structures intact. Rules for things like ripping out the heart and wooden bullets have, over the years, made it clear that even a remnant chunk of ruined tissue is good enough to keep a vampire "alive."

Conversely, people underestimate the effects of edged weapons. Knife instructor Michael Janich does a neat demo called the "pork man" where he surrounds a wooden dowel with 3-4" of pork roast and 1/8 of an inch of saran wrap to simulate the resistance of skin, fat and muscle tissue. Even a 2"-3" blade  can cut right to the wooden "bone," with the handle actually entering the wound in a small folding knife to penetrate deeper than the blade length. Cutting weapons typically make transverse cuts across muscles, making it far more likely to sever a muscle head than a piercing attack, even one with a large wound diameter (which in part displaces instead of destroys tissue). ARMA demonstrations show the cutting power of properly constructed and maintained swords, though admittedly, these are not the kinds of things you can pick up without carefully looking for them.

So if I wanted to hurt a vampire, I'd want something that primarily destroys tissue instead of displacing it, at a transverse angle to the length of the bone or orientation of muscle fibers. Edged weapons really are pretty good at this.


----------



## painandgreed (Jun 1, 2007)

It'll be interesting to see how he does it and what he comes up with. I've been working on WoD type vampires for my homebrew D&D world. I was going with a template gained when turned into a vampire and then a choice of taking levels in a vampire PrC and feat chains of the typical discipline powers. I don't think that LA would have to be all that bad as vamps gain lots of disadvantages: no daylight activity, rotschreck, frenzy, blood addiction, and probably some others. This could also depend on what advantages you give them or make them pick up later. Could a neonate automatically blood bond or ghouls somebody or would it require a Knowledge (blood lore) or even a feat to do. Just by requiring an extra feat of "Basic Vampire Powers" would tame down their power a bit and not be beyond various monster classes presented in Savage Species.


----------



## Ipissimus (Jun 3, 2007)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Yeah, but not playable by any stretch of the imagination in one system and wandering around in a world I can't force myself to care about in the other.




By any stretch of the imagination? I beg to differ. Fang and Fury stretched the imagination pretty conclusively. If everyone has the Vampire/Werewolf/whatever template, who cares about experience point penalties? Everyone's in the same boat. If you're using the Racial Character Classes, just use d20 Modern and allow them to multiclass freely.

On the second point... I have to ask, if you can't force yourself to care about the WoD world, why would you care about the same world using d20 mechanics? Ok, ok, so all you want is the crunch. -shrugs- personally, I don't see what's so 'unplayable' about what we've already got without shelling out more money.




			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Has that happened to anyone? Big or small?




Honestly, I don't know. Would you like to be the first to find out? Not me and not quite a few other people. Whether it has happened or not, the possibility is there and you are taking a risk, after all the d20 license was introduced to stop just that sort of abuse of WOTC's intellectual property. TSR was plagued by products that were 'for use with the DnD system'. If you don't enforce your licenses, why have them?

White Wolf can afford to take the risk and WOTC has nothing to gain getting into a nasty legal battle with one of its distant competitors.


It occurs to me that I'd have no problems with this if it were entitled 'Monte Cook's Supernatural Horrors' or some such, I cartainly don't have any objections over Arcana Unearthed. d20 Modern could certainly use a boost and I'd be interested in his take on the genre. Monte Cook's World of Darkness, however, makes me think 'sheesh, let's chew over some old ground again'. A clean sweep would be much better, no leftover baggage.


----------



## Set (Jun 3, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> I don't think that LA would have to be all that bad as vamps gain lots of disadvantages: no daylight activity, rotschreck, frenzy, blood addiction, and probably some others. This could also depend on what advantages you give them or make them pick up later.




Word of Darkness style vampires aren't inherently any stronger, faster, etc. than humans, and, as you state, have a ton of weaknesses as well.

In Masquerade rules, there was some attribute advantage, but they toned that down pretty severely in Requiem and the average human (or, as in the demo games, *dog*) can pretty much own a beginning vampire.

What a WoD style vampire template would mostly do is transform lethal damage from piercing into non-lethal damage, and to heal damage via an expenditure of precious blood, confer some immunities (suffocation), add a bunch of weaknesses (fire, sunlight, fear, frenzy, torpor) and open up the *option* of picking up various supernatural feats, or taking levels in the 'vampire' monster class, that would grant additional powers, such as a charming gaze, or supernatural stealth, or superhuman strength.  The further up the 'monster feat' trees one goes, the better one's charming gaze gets, at the expense of not being able to spend those feats on super-strength, or turning into bats.

Despite the D&Dism of undead not having a Con score, WoD vampires definitely have some sort of supernatural metabolism going on, being able to get diseases, be poisoned, suffer environmental harm from extremes of heat, cold and pressure, and, obviously, starve from lack of blood.  Not having a Con score would be somewhat counter to the nature of the setting.


----------



## EditorBFG (Jun 3, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> By any stretch of the imagination? I beg to differ. Fang and Fury stretched the imagination pretty conclusively.



To each his own. _Fang & Fury_ was not what i was hoping for. Big Green Ronin fan, but not that particular book.







			
				Ipissimus said:
			
		

> If everyone has the Vampire/Werewolf/whatever template, who cares about experience point penalties? Everyone's in the same boat. If you're using the Racial Character Classes, just use d20 Modern and allow them to multiclass freely.



I just don't think the current d20 versions are all that interesting, yet alone playable. I look forward to someone rebuilding them from the ground up-- that's part of what I'm hoping for in this product.







			
				Ipissimus said:
			
		

> On the second point... I have to ask, if you can't force yourself to care about the WoD world, why would you care about the same world using d20 mechanics?



I can't get into the new WoD, but the old one was a world I played in for years. I was running old WoD as recently as 2004, but the campaign bogged down in bad mechanics.







			
				Ipissimus said:
			
		

> It occurs to me that I'd have no problems with this if it were entitled 'Monte Cook's Supernatural Horrors' or some such, I cartainly don't have any objections over Arcana Unearthed. d20 Modern could certainly use a boost and I'd be interested in his take on the genre. Monte Cook's World of Darkness, however, makes me think 'sheesh, let's chew over some old ground again'. A clean sweep would be much better, no leftover baggage.



This last bit strikes me as just the same-old knee-jerk Internet naysaying, but as a fellow fan of Modern I do hope the material is easy to convert.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 3, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Honestly, I don't know. Would you like to be the first to find out?




Sure, why not? At least then I could talk with complete authority on the subject.

Until it happens, it hasn't happened.

/M


----------



## rgard (Jun 3, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> The Morrow Project




Yep, and Phoenix Command.


----------



## EditorBFG (Jun 3, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> Yep, and Phoenix Command.



Ah, yes, Phoenix Command. One of those ultra-simple, narrativist systems, right?


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 4, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Yes, and technically llegal. Try pulling that trick as a small publisher and watch the lawyers descend to pick at your carcass.




you must be thinking of tsr. It does not mention wotc, d&d or d20 system

technically its not illegal because its a technicality. It does not directly name wtc, d&d or d20 system. they could mean the revised 3.5 open gaming  license for all we know. really going after a small publisher like that even though they haven't broken the ogl agreement would be a nightmare for wtc. watch the fans descend and pick at the carcass of wotc.


----------



## Psion (Jun 4, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Sorry, I can't agree with you here.




Oh well.



> Vampires? Done. Werewolves? Done.




As I have said, done and done in a manner acceptable for playable PCs are two different things.



> However, nWoD encourages and supports roleplaying with the Humanity/Vice/Virtue and descriptive combat mechanics while DnD largely ignores roleplaying mechanics.




Some of us happen to feel that "roleplaying mechanics" are intrusive and let players do lip service to roleplaying.

Though WoD is not as bad as some, I still don't find it especially good either. Under the much vaunted virtue/vice pairing, a poor role player can (and in my actual experience, does) typically go for the all too convenient "I'm a vampire sex fiend".

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.




> As for Green Ronin's vampire book being weak sauce, I must admit that my first reaction was that you've never actually used it.




You are quite right. I think I have a pretty good judgment of what is going to work in my game and what will not, and I found Fang & Fury to be not of the same caliber as other books in the series. It doesn't so much add any depth to vampires and parse out the same old D&D vampire over several small meals. Overall, weak and uninteresting, not comparing to the depth that WoD applies to vampires at all.



> Yes, and technically illegal. Try pulling that trick as a small publisher and watch the lawyers descend to pick at your carcass.




White Wolf is not a small company among gaming companies. They doubtless retain an IP lawyer, and have used this technique before. If there were legal troubles, they would have been notified and desisted by now.

So I'll trust that over internet armchair lawyering.


----------



## rgard (Jun 4, 2007)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Ah, yes, Phoenix Command. One of those ultra-simple, narrativist systems, right?




   Too funny!!!  You could probably call it elegant as well.

All that said, it was great when LEG released the Dinosaurs supplement right about the time Jurassic Park was coming out.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Ipissimus (Jun 4, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Until it happens, it hasn't happened.




Very true. I do, in fact, know a bit about IP laws, being in a creative industry, so I'm not just speaking out of my hat. I also remember reading several articles about the OGL and why it was instituted.

All I'm saying is that it is a risk. White Wolf can mitigate that risk to close to 0%. If you want to roll the dice, go right ahead, I'll be cheering for you.




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Some of us happen to feel that "roleplaying mechanics" are intrusive and let players do lip service to roleplaying.




And some of us have found that roleplaying mechanics bring a new level of realism to PC reactions and break players out of their moulds and stereotypes. nWoD does this elegantly in my experience by giving rewards in the form of Willpower points for social interaction. Of course, like anything, this only works if the players are prepared to do so.

Different strokes, dude.




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I think I have a pretty good judgment of what is going to work in my game




No argument, it's your game after all. I'm just saying it has worked for me and my players.

Of course, so has the SRD templates, I just can't understand what people have against them. I've found that they're no worse than powerful magic items and easily compensated for even if you ignore the experience penalties.




			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> This last bit strikes me as just the same-old knee-jerk Internet naysaying, but as a fellow fan of Modern I do hope the material is easy to convert.




I try not to do knee-jerk reactions and in honesty, I did think long and hard about my opinion on this. Why do the same-old same-old when you can start afresh? Why drag WoD into d20? I'm sure the business side loves this idea, they get to whack Monte's name in front of a popular franchise and sell books. I just don't see any need for it on the player's end of the equasion, it fills a need that's already filled.


----------



## RedFox (Jun 4, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> I just don't see any need for it on the player's end of the equasion, it fills a need that's already filled.




For you, perhaps.  Not for everyone.

Like it or not, there simply isn't a "post-apocalyptic WoD game using 3rd Edition mechanics put out by Monte Cook" on the market right now.  Some folks will be all over that.  I must admit that I'm intrigued myself, despite my utter disgust with the company that's publishing it.

Intrigued enough to purchase?  Well, we'll see how the implementation is.


----------



## Nepenthe (Jun 4, 2007)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Very true. I do, in fact, know a bit about IP laws, being in a creative industry, so I'm not just speaking out of my hat. I also remember reading several articles about the OGL and why it was instituted.




I was under the impression that the "revised third edition rules" thing is an accepted form of describing your product as being 3.5e compatible. Doesn't interfere with trademarks and gets the point across in a way that even a normal human being can understand (at least I assume so, I'm a lawyer and thus have the Vermin type). 

Maybe I've just seen too many S&S products and thus think of it as being perfectly normal.

/N


----------

