[NWOD] First Impressions

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

I'm about 2/3 of the way through with the core book and, overall, feel that
it does a fairly decent job updating the overall rules. Aside from a few
nitpicks detailed below, I think the book is an improvement over the
previous WoD (which was, of course, the object of the new edition). I can
already picture using the book as the basis of a Call of Cthulu-esque humans
vs. the unknown type of campaign.

Nitpicks and Rules Whining:

A) Character Creation -

1) Overall, very good and straightforward. Starting characters are nowhere
near as over the top as the last edition. It is utterly impossible to give a
character more than a single Attribute rating or 2 Skill ratings of 5; and
doing that would leave the character dangerously deficient in other ways. On
the other hand, the same factors which make it impossible to start your
character as some sort of hyper-death-ninja retard many legitimate character
options. Without freebie points for individualization, starting characters
may turn out a bit anemic.

For example, say I wanted to create a character named Ted who is a college
student who got an athletic scholarship as a male cheerleader. I leave Ted's
mental attributes as tertiary with one dot placed in each (he is an utterly
average student who only got into the school because of his scholarship).
Social attributes are secondary; one dot goes into manipulation and
composure while two go into presence (reflecting the enthusiastic nature
that makes him a competent cheerleader). Physical attributes are primary;
two dots go into strength (he'd sure hate to accidentally drop a female
cheerleader) and dexterity (because of the acrobatic routines). I want to
add two dots to stamina (to make carrying cheerleaders easier) but only have
one dot left. Ted apparently hasn't been jogging as much as he should.

The Advanced Characters (Option) section suggests that the Storyteller allow
starting characters with 35, 75 or 100 experience points if you want them to
start out more competent than normal; but this brings things right back into
the realm of powergaming as even 35 points can go a very long way towards
creating a combat monster. I'd personally suggest giving all starting
characters 15 experience points. About the best that a character could
manage with 15 points would be to raise an attribute from 2 to 3; which
would certainly help poor Ted but is hardly a game buster.

2) The number of traits derived from combining a bunch of different numbers
is a bit annoying, but nothing too serious. It is probably a good thing that
all of the info is dealt with in one place at character creation rather than
having to dig through the book every time you need it.

3) The morality system is screwed up. By giving EVERY starting character a
morality of 7 you wind up treating the 17 year old seminary student from an
Amish home the same way you treat the 60 year old ex-con who has spent over
2/3 of his life in prison for a brutal multiple homicide. This is messed up
in a major way.

B) Breaking Stuff -

1) According to the rules, every time a person hits an object he takes a
point of damage. Ergo, punching a boxing weight bag bare handed for five
minutes will put you into a coma.

2) According to the rules, anything that deals aggravated damage ignores an
object's durability and the damage that it inflicts CANNOT be repaired
without supernatural power. Ergo, if a werewolf scratches obscene graffiti
into the hood of your car, then no mechanic can possibly repair the hood
without resorting to magic.

3) An individual with total cover cannot make ranged attacks. Ergo, if you
are hiding in an alley dumpster to avoid enemy (or friendly) gunfire, then
you cannot toss a grenade (or a rock) over the side at the people in the
alley.

-Essex
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Essex wrote:

> The Advanced Characters (Option) section suggests that the Storyteller allow
> starting characters with 35, 75 or 100 experience points if you want them to
> start out more competent than normal; but this brings things right back into
> the realm of powergaming as even 35 points can go a very long way towards
> creating a combat monster. I'd personally suggest giving all starting
> characters 15 experience points. About the best that a character could
> manage with 15 points would be to raise an attribute from 2 to 3; which
> would certainly help poor Ted but is hardly a game buster.

I'd just let PCs start with 35 and be done with it, myself. No XP is
basically appropriate for highschool-aged characters. Anyone with any
life experience should get the 35.

> 3) The morality system is screwed up. By giving EVERY starting character a
> morality of 7 you wind up treating the 17 year old seminary student from an
> Amish home the same way you treat the 60 year old ex-con who has spent over
> 2/3 of his life in prison for a brutal multiple homicide. This is messed up
> in a major way.

Vampire covers this pretty well, and the rule could easily be adapted
back to standard WoD -- you can trade Humanity dots for 5 XP each, for a
maximum of 10 extra XP at start.

> B) Breaking Stuff -

> 1) According to the rules, every time a person hits an object he takes a
> point of damage. Ergo, punching a boxing weight bag bare handed for five
> minutes will put you into a coma.

Yeah, this rule is nuts. It almost feels like they wrote it when they
were still using soak, and then deleted soak but didn't change the
hitting stuff rule.

> 2) According to the rules, anything that deals aggravated damage ignores an
> object's durability and the damage that it inflicts CANNOT be repaired
> without supernatural power. Ergo, if a werewolf scratches obscene graffiti
> into the hood of your car, then no mechanic can possibly repair the hood
> without resorting to magic.

Werewolf claws don't do aggravated damage by default anymore, but the
impossibility of repairing it with mundane effort certainly feels off.

> 3) An individual with total cover cannot make ranged attacks. Ergo, if you
> are hiding in an alley dumpster to avoid enemy (or friendly) gunfire, then
> you cannot toss a grenade (or a rock) over the side at the people in the
> alley.

This is represented in the rules by exposing yourself for a brief
moment, going from full cover to the almost-full cover that grants -3
dice to attacks against you.

That said, for situations where you're throwing a grenade blind, I think
smart STs would just allow you to toss it over the cover. That's one of
those moments where the rules have a blind spot, which is excusable --
all rule systems have a few blind spots. The cover rules are really
supposed to represent people with guns. No rule system that I've ever
seen deals with indirect-fire weapons very well.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

>> 3) The morality system is screwed up. By giving EVERY starting character a
>> morality of 7 you wind up treating the 17 year old seminary student from an
>> Amish home the same way you treat the 60 year old ex-con who has spent over
>> 2/3 of his life in prison for a brutal multiple homicide. This is messed up
>> in a major way.
>
> Vampire covers this pretty well, and the rule could easily be adapted
> back to standard WoD -- you can trade Humanity dots for 5 XP each, for a
> maximum of 10 extra XP at start.

My friend Sean and I have also discussed making a Merit to handle
characters with Humanity of 8 at character creation, or perhaps even higher!

Though I'd note, this isn't really a problem with the Morality System
so much as it's a problem with character creation. You're not objecting
to the way /morality/ works, your objecting to how it's assigned to
starting characters.




Brandon,
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

"Stephenls" <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2r6m1sF164oebU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Essex wrote:
>
>> The Advanced Characters (Option) section suggests that the Storyteller
>> allow
>> starting characters with 35, 75 or 100 experience points if you want them
>> to
>> start out more competent than normal; but this brings things right back
>> into
>> the realm of powergaming as even 35 points can go a very long way towards
>> creating a combat monster. I'd personally suggest giving all starting
>> characters 15 experience points. About the best that a character could
>> manage with 15 points would be to raise an attribute from 2 to 3; which
>> would certainly help poor Ted but is hardly a game buster.
>
> I'd just let PCs start with 35 and be done with it, myself. No XP is
> basically appropriate for highschool-aged characters. Anyone with any
> life experience should get the 35.

As I wrote, I think 35 points may be a bit too much. With that many points
you can raise an attribute from 4 to 5 & still have 10 points left over.
Alternately, you could raise 2 skills from 4 to 5 and still have 5 points
left. This winds up negating the built-in difficulty of gaining a fifth dot
that is built into the character creation process.

<SNIP>

>> 2) According to the rules, anything that deals aggravated damage ignores
>> an
>> object's durability and the damage that it inflicts CANNOT be repaired
>> without supernatural power. Ergo, if a werewolf scratches obscene
>> graffiti
>> into the hood of your car, then no mechanic can possibly repair the hood
>> without resorting to magic.
>
> Werewolf claws don't do aggravated damage by default anymore, but the
> impossibility of repairing it with mundane effort certainly feels off.
>

Really? I thought info on the new werewolf game wasn't supposed to come out
for a few more months.

<SNIP>

>
> That said, for situations where you're throwing a grenade blind, I think
> smart STs would just allow you to toss it over the cover. That's one of
> those moments where the rules have a blind spot, which is excusable --
> all rule systems have a few blind spots.

True. And since I've now finished with the book, I've found a few more cute
blindspots.

According to the falling rules, a fall from 30 yards (terminal velocity)
automatically inflicts 10 lethal damage, which is enough to start any human
without both a stamina of 5 and the giant merit into unconsciousness and a
quick slip into death. The rules go on to say that there is no possibility
of a "soft landing" (ie. reduced damage) from this height. Ergo, there is
no such thing as cliff diving in the WoD (or, alternately, all cliff divers
are supernaturally empowered).

Also, according to the rules, any human adult who comes within moments of
horrid death (all but 1 health box marked with aggravated damage) can fully
recover within about 5 to 9 weeks. Also, the smaller and less healthy you
are, the faster you recover from near fatal wounds (ie. a child with a
stamina of 1 who lost 3 of his 4 wound boxes to aggravated damage would
recover in about 3 weeks). I think it would work better if you had to make a
stamina roll each healing period to recover.

-Essex
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

"Essex" <mopperma@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message news:<iOo3d.2475$Ae.939@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>...
> I'm about 2/3 of the way through with the core book and, overall, feel that
> it does a fairly decent job updating the overall rules.
<snip>>
> Nitpicks and Rules Whining:
>
>

Just wait, everything will probably be fixed in 11 months with the
release of WoD 2.0 2nd Edtion (or would that be WoD 2.1?). ;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Stephenls wrote:

> That said, for situations where you're throwing a grenade blind, I think
> smart STs would just allow you to toss it over the cover. That's one of
> those moments where the rules have a blind spot, which is excusable --
> all rule systems have a few blind spots. The cover rules are really
> supposed to represent people with guns. No rule system that I've ever
> seen deals with indirect-fire weapons very well.

I agree, although the roll would probably be reduced to a chance roll,
or at least take a hefty -5 penalty if the character is throwing
completely blind. I'd rule that poking your head out far enough to get
one eye on the target counts as "mostly covered" rather than "full
cover" just to keep things clean.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:07:08 -0400, Stephen Williams
<steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote:


> Also, we're talking about 30 yards. That's 1,080 feet.

90 feet. I don't think you could read terminal velocity from only
90 feet up.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

mdf wrote:
>
> Actually, that's 90 feet, or 27.4 metres. It's a heck of a drop, but it
> sure isn't skyscraper height.

Oh, my bad. Like I said, not good with Imperial measurement.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Essex wrote:
>
> As I wrote, I think 35 points may be a bit too much. With that many points
> you can raise an attribute from 4 to 5 & still have 10 points left over.
> Alternately, you could raise 2 skills from 4 to 5 and still have 5 points
> left. This winds up negating the built-in difficulty of gaining a fifth dot
> that is built into the character creation process.

Just out of curiosity, why is it so darned important to keep people from
being amazingly competent at something? I don't think it's really the
genre, after all. I'm not sure it's because it's unrealistic (it's not).
So...why stress about it?

You seemed Quite Concerned about the previous version's ease for
starting characters to have five dots in anything. What makes it a bad
thing?

> According to the falling rules, a fall from 30 yards (terminal velocity)
> automatically inflicts 10 lethal damage, which is enough to start any human
> without both a stamina of 5 and the giant merit into unconsciousness and a
> quick slip into death. The rules go on to say that there is no possibility
> of a "soft landing" (ie. reduced damage) from this height. Ergo, there is
> no such thing as cliff diving in the WoD (or, alternately, all cliff divers
> are supernaturally empowered).
>
> Also, according to the rules, any human adult who comes within moments of
> horrid death (all but 1 health box marked with aggravated damage) can fully
> recover within about 5 to 9 weeks. Also, the smaller and less healthy you
> are, the faster you recover from near fatal wounds (ie. a child with a
> stamina of 1 who lost 3 of his 4 wound boxes to aggravated damage would
> recover in about 3 weeks). I think it would work better if you had to make a
> stamina roll each healing period to recover.

Eh, Murphy's Rules-style nitpicking requires one to ignore sensible
applications. It's not World of Darkness: The Cliff Diving. Cliff diving
is not the central facet of the game. If someone wants a cliff diving
character, then the ST can and probably will adapt to handle it.

Also, no game has realistic healing rules. It's probably better to go
with something simple. Your rule penalizes low-stamina characters twice
(easier to get near death, harder to ever heal from it) for no real
benefit.

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

"Stephen Williams" <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:7Ce4d.14251$bL1.827601@news20.bellglobal.com...
> mdf wrote:
>>
>> Actually, that's 90 feet, or 27.4 metres. It's a heck of a drop, but it
>> sure isn't skyscraper height.
>
> Oh, my bad. Like I said, not good with Imperial measurement.

Just remember that there are about 3 feet in 1 yard.

-Essex
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

"Julie d'Aubigny" <kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:415189BB.3BF3C227@comcast.net...
> Essex wrote:
>>
>> As I wrote, I think 35 points may be a bit too much. With that many
>> points
>> you can raise an attribute from 4 to 5 & still have 10 points left over.
>> Alternately, you could raise 2 skills from 4 to 5 and still have 5 points
>> left. This winds up negating the built-in difficulty of gaining a fifth
>> dot
>> that is built into the character creation process.
>
> Just out of curiosity, why is it so darned important to keep people from
> being amazingly competent at something? I don't think it's really the
> genre, after all. I'm not sure it's because it's unrealistic (it's not).
> So...why stress about it?
>
> You seemed Quite Concerned about the previous version's ease for
> starting characters to have five dots in anything. What makes it a bad
> thing?

There's nothing inherently bad about extremely high stats; especially if you
work towards them during the length of the chronicle. It is the possession
of these stats at character creation that can be unbalancing. People wishing
to start play with well rounded characters will often end up getting stomped
storywise by the combat/ social/ intellectual monsters that dump five points
into their preferred stats and thereby make themselves among the planet's
foremost experts in their given fields before the first session has even
been started. The system as written goes a long way towards specifically
preventing this kind of abuse (yay system, you da man!). By requiring a
character to pay double points for a 5th dot at character creation, the
system makes those 5th dots truly special (A starting character can get only
one 5th level attribute and then only by dumping all 5 of his primary dots
into it while leaving his other 2 attributes in that field at 1. Similarly,
a starting character can only max out one skill in his primary and secondary
fields and then only by using over half of his primary and all but one of
his secondary starting skill points). This closely models the concept that
in order to become the best in a field, you likely have to dedicate yourself
to that field to the exclusion of all else. By giving a starting character
35 experience points to toss around you negate the purpose of doubling the
cost to get that 5th dot.

> Also, no game has realistic healing rules. It's probably better to go
> with something simple. Your rule penalizes low-stamina characters twice
> (easier to get near death, harder to ever heal from it) for no real
> benefit.

Well, I consider verisimilitude to be a bit of a benefit, but I do concede
the point. I just think that allowing a relatively unaided human to spring
back within weeks from the worst possible mauling that you could conceivable
suffer and still survive is a bit silly; especially in a gothic horror
setting. Those wounds should fester!!!

-Essex
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

In the borning days of the third millennium, Essex wrote:
>
>"Stephen Williams" <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:7Ce4d.14251$bL1.827601@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> mdf wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, that's 90 feet, or 27.4 metres. It's a heck of a drop, but it
>>> sure isn't skyscraper height.
>>
>> Oh, my bad. Like I said, not good with Imperial measurement.
>
>Just remember that there are about 3 feet in 1 yard.

Or, since you are metric by nature. 1 yard = 1 meter.
(It's actually about 91 cm, but close enough)

--
Brian Merchant (remove 'remove' and 'example' from email)

Puritanism didn't keep the puritans from sinning, it just kept
them from enjoying it.
--Father Joe Breighner
Country Roads
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

rgormannospam@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in message news:<4151069a.50199958@news.telusplanet.net>...
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:07:08 -0400, Stephen Williams
> <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > Also, we're talking about 30 yards. That's 1,080 feet.
>
> 90 feet. I don't think you could read terminal velocity from only
> 90 feet up.

After a quick check of the internet, it takes about five seconds to
reach terminal velocity. Assuming 10/m/s/s acceleration to make things
easier, five seconds of fall would be 150 m of falling. I also don't
think this takes into account fluid resistance which creates terminal
velocity. Thus you'd probably take longer to reach terminal velocity,
but you'd probably reach 90% of it within that distance. It also
doesn't take into account body position. Terminal velocity for a
person spread out horizontally with arms and legs out, maximum drag,
is about 120 mph (193 kph). Terminal velocity for arms in tight
pointing straight down, like a diver, is around 200 mph (321 kph),
IIRC.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

> Also, we're talking about 30 yards. That's 1,080 feet.

Actually, 30 yards is 90 feet. Still more than enough to kill anyone
except under very unusual circumstances.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

"mdf" wrote in message:
> Actually, that's 90 feet, or 27.4 metres. It's a heck of a drop, but it
> sure isn't skyscraper height.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure in the real world most humans in most air densities
hit terminal velocity at about 55 meters per second (just over 100 mph).
Since you're accelerating at 9.8 meters per second per second, you hit
terminal velocity after only about 6 seconds of falling, or 150 meters total
distance. 90 feet would only take you 2 seconds and up to around 20 meters
per second (or around 1/3 of terminal velocity). It's one of those
simplifications to make the game go faster, I imagine.

Anyone with a better knowledge of physics should feel free to correct me.

~Stephen
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

"marc17" wrote:
> After a quick check of the internet, it takes about five seconds to
> reach terminal velocity....

Whoops. That'll teach me to read the other branches of the thread before
delurking.

~Stephen
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Essex wrote:
>
> "Julie d'Aubigny" <kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:415189BB.3BF3C227@comcast.net...
> > Essex wrote:
> >>
> >> As I wrote, I think 35 points may be a bit too much. With that many
> >> points
> >> you can raise an attribute from 4 to 5 & still have 10 points left over.
> >> Alternately, you could raise 2 skills from 4 to 5 and still have 5 points
> >> left. This winds up negating the built-in difficulty of gaining a fifth
> >> dot
> >> that is built into the character creation process.
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, why is it so darned important to keep people from
> > being amazingly competent at something? I don't think it's really the
> > genre, after all. I'm not sure it's because it's unrealistic (it's not).
> > So...why stress about it?
> >
> > You seemed Quite Concerned about the previous version's ease for
> > starting characters to have five dots in anything. What makes it a bad
> > thing?
>
> There's nothing inherently bad about extremely high stats; especially if you
> work towards them during the length of the chronicle.

That's not what my question is about - why is it important for starting
characters to not be very competent? It's not about the dice, because
five dice isn't really that much better than 4.

> It is the possession
> of these stats at character creation that can be unbalancing. People wishing
> to start play with well rounded characters will often end up getting stomped
> storywise by the combat/ social/ intellectual monsters that dump five points
> into their preferred stats and thereby make themselves among the planet's
> foremost experts in their given fields before the first session has even
> been started.

That sounds like a problem with how players behave or STs run more than
the mechanical benefits, though.

> The system as written goes a long way towards specifically
> preventing this kind of abuse (yay system, you da man!). By requiring a
> character to pay double points for a 5th dot at character creation, the
> system makes those 5th dots truly special (A starting character can get only
> one 5th level attribute and then only by dumping all 5 of his primary dots
> into it while leaving his other 2 attributes in that field at 1. Similarly,
> a starting character can only max out one skill in his primary and secondary
> fields and then only by using over half of his primary and all but one of
> his secondary starting skill points). This closely models the concept that
> in order to become the best in a field, you likely have to dedicate yourself
> to that field to the exclusion of all else. By giving a starting character
> 35 experience points to toss around you negate the purpose of doubling the
> cost to get that 5th dot.

So what?

This isn't D&D, and there isn't any moral value in starting at "first
level."

I never understood the idea that new characters should never excel at
their chosen fields right off the bat. The idea that it must always be
earned in the game strikes me as a bit strange.

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Julie d'Aubigny wrote:

> I never understood the idea that new characters should never excel at
> their chosen fields right off the bat. The idea that it must always be
> earned in the game strikes me as a bit strange.

I think his point is that the system seems to assign great importance to
the fifth dot, and intentionally makes it difficult to acquire them.
The fifth dot wouldn't cost double otherwise.

As such, 35 experience points negates that. If it's assumed that 35 XP
is the default, then why bother making the fifth dot cost double?

It's two elements of the design that seem to ideologically conflict.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

In article <2rkncvF1b9eonU1@uni-berlin.de>, Stephenls
<stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:

> It's two elements of the design that seem to ideologically conflict.

Sounds like the solution is to make the fifth dot cheaper.

--
Tyler

u d e t o d r y s t a n o i d f t

Bac>|wards
 

william

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
474
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Julie d'Aubigny wrote:

> So what?
>
> This isn't D&D, and there isn't any moral value in starting at "first
> level."
>
> I never understood the idea that new characters should never excel at
> their chosen fields right off the bat. The idea that it must always be
> earned in the game strikes me as a bit strange.
>

What if the game concept was "normal joes"?

No one with a fifth dot can be considered a normal man-on-the-street.
The fifth dot represents mastery, with ability matched by only a few
others in the world. Anyone with one is, by definition, a very
exceptional individual. Literally world-class. Someone who probably
shouldn't be a character in, say, a game about soccer moms worried about
why their kids are coming home tired and pale after evening practice.

I must admit that the mechanical advantage of having the fifth dot
doesn't really match up to the IC description, though it is closer in
nWoD than the old. From a power/odds point of view, there really isn't
any reason to deny it to people.

William
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:49:18 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
<kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:

>So what?
>
>This isn't D&D, and there isn't any moral value in starting at "first
>level."
>
>I never understood the idea that new characters should never excel at
>their chosen fields right off the bat. The idea that it must always be
>earned in the game strikes me as a bit strange.
>

According to the fluff, 4 IS excelling at your chosen field while 5
makes you world famous. If you don't want to run the League
Of World Famous Gentlemen then you may not want a lot of 5s.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:49:18 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
<kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:

>Essex wrote:
>> his secondary starting skill points). This closely models the concept that
>> in order to become the best in a field, you likely have to dedicate yourself
>> to that field to the exclusion of all else. By giving a starting character
>> 35 experience points to toss around you negate the purpose of doubling the
>> cost to get that 5th dot.
>
>So what?
>
>This isn't D&D, and there isn't any moral value in starting at "first
>level."

I've never thought that there was any moral value in starting at 1st level
in D&D either....


--
Hong Ooi | "I like snowballs."
hong@zipworld.com.au | -- CA
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |
Sydney, Australia |
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

In the borning days of the third millennium, Hong Ooi wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:49:18 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
><kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:
>>So what?
>>
>>This isn't D&D, and there isn't any moral value in starting at "first
>>level."
>
>I've never thought that there was any moral value in starting at 1st level
>in D&D either....

We almost never do. First level characters are too fragile to be interesting
in a heroic fantasy setting. They work okay in a social setting, but third
or fourth level characters work exactly the same way in those situations.

--
Brian Merchant (remove 'remove' and 'example' from email)

Puritanism didn't keep the puritans from sinning, it just kept
them from enjoying it.
--Father Joe Breighner
Country Roads
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

William <wilit0613@postoffice.uri.edu> wrote in message
news:2rlh89F19o3n3U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
>
> > So what?
> >
> > This isn't D&D, and there isn't any moral value in starting at
"first
> > level."
> >
> > I never understood the idea that new characters should never excel
at
> > their chosen fields right off the bat. The idea that it must
always be
> > earned in the game strikes me as a bit strange.
> >
>
> What if the game concept was "normal joes"?
>
> No one with a fifth dot can be considered a normal
man-on-the-street.
> The fifth dot represents mastery, with ability matched by only a few
> others in the world. Anyone with one is, by definition, a very
> exceptional individual. Literally world-class. Someone who probably
> shouldn't be a character in, say, a game about soccer moms worried
about
> why their kids are coming home tired and pale after evening
practice.
----------
WoD characters are not "normal joes" either. They all have 3 dots more
from the outset than Mr and Mrs Average. They may be kung fu experts
or crack shots or highly skilled forensic scientists or uber-1337
hackers. You're going to have to rewrite character creation anyway if
you want everyday unremarkable people (if such people exist).

--
You are Not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
All important political action should be
aimed at persuading people of the
necessity of further sacrifices.
- Ardian Vehbiu, "Handbook for
Aspiring Stalinists"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Certic wrote:

> WoD characters are not "normal joes" either. They all have 3 dots more
> from the outset than Mr and Mrs Average.

What?
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike