Also, I had a thought, after hearing some things over in the Exalted thread, and based on what I've seen in some Quests.

Would WoD work well with styles? LIke, because it seems that they'd add some differences that are often missing, and the three-dot/rank, unique and flavorful stuff (maybe that's because the Exalted clique here is just that good) that has been come up with seems pretty fun. Hell, stuff like this could be almost used straight out, with just a few modifications, or ditching a few concepts that don't exist in nWoD (this is from a Quest):


Even-handed Magistrate Style (Presence, Investigation)

Even-handed Magistrate Style is a style that is used to find the truth when it is being hidden, and to mediate fairly between parties that are attempting to cheat each other. It is commonly used by judges, leaders, and policemen.
1: +1 dice while attempted to mediate fairly.
2: +1 dice when acting according to the law.
3: +1 dice when resisting corruption.

Flowing River Disputant Style (Presence, Politics)
Like the river, it is often easier to say and go where one is expected to go - and only rarely expand beyond one's banks. Practitioners of this style remain within the bounds of social propriety and divert conversations to their goals rather than outright dam them. It is the reasoned arguments of one lacking in power who explains what they did was what was ordered all along and the excuse justified by social mores. Without knowledge of what is expected, this style is much less effective.
1: +1 to convincing others that one's actions are or will by justified based on cultural expectations.
2. +1 to reading another party and working out what they want from the practitioner
3. Ignore one dice provided by negative Principles, provided that the practitioner conforms to their perceived social role.

Tiger Style (Melee)
Created in China by Shaolin Monks, this style emulates the ferocity of the Tiger. It can be used in light armor, and it's form weapons are Tiger Claws, Brass Knuckles, twin swords, and unarmed attacks.
1: +1 dice against prone opponents.
2: +1 dice against enemies that have an intimacy of fear towards you
3:+1 dice to called shots.

Gangland Lord Style (Politics, Subterfuge)
Gangland Lord Style is not formally taught, though it is known by criminals from every corner of the earth. It covers the general running of a criminal organization, including how not to make enemies of other gangs, the etiquite of the street, and how to avoid law enforcement when performing illegal activities.
1: +1 dice to avoiding police attention while on the street.
2: +1 dice to knowing what each gang holds as territory.
3: +1 dice to selling illegal goods, such as sex, drugs, and other contraband.
 
Styles work well in any storyteller system, yes.

The only problem (And is a really minor one) Is that it allows to surpass nWOD dice caps a little. ( Since specialties there give only one dice max normally)

Also, note that un Exalted, the styles system is paired with limiting ability dots un mortals to three instead of five. (Exalts still use the normal cap)
 
Last edited:
Styles work well in any storyteller system, yes.

The only problem (And is a really minor one) Is that it allows to surpass nWOD dice caps a little.

A point, but I think there are some real advantages in allowing more customized characters. I mean, if one Presence 4, Persuasion 3 character has a style that focuses around being rational, and another has some sort of "Is an Internet Troll" style, then despite having the theoretically same stats, they'd play different, which is a good thing :)
 
Last edited:
Also, I had a thought, after hearing some things over in the Exalted thread, and based on what I've seen in some Quests.

Would WoD work well with styles? LIke, because it seems that they'd add some differences that are often missing, and the three-dot/rank, unique and flavorful stuff (maybe that's because the Exalted clique here is just that good) that has been come up with seems pretty fun. Hell, stuff like this could be almost used straight out, with just a few modifications, or ditching a few concepts that don't exist in nWoD (this is from a Quest):

For a Quest, I've basically found that it's better to just simplify rather than complexify. So instead of Abilities, you have Professions which let you roll that rating whenever something falls under that profession. I should probably get to converting Panopticon to those in full at some point.

For WoD tabletop play in general, having those fun fiddly bits is definitely a thing, but like, the game either has better balanced merits (nWoD) or is already so unbalanced you might as well go wild (oWoD), so...

Ask me about playing a character with Strength 8, Stamina 11. :V
 
For a Quest, I've basically found that it's better to just simplify rather than complexify. So instead of Abilities, you have Professions which let you roll that rating whenever something falls under that profession. I should probably get to converting Panopticon to those in full at some point.

For WoD tabletop play in general, having those fun fiddly bits is definitely a thing, but like, the game either has better balanced merits (nWoD) or is already so unbalanced you might as well go wild (oWoD), so...

Ask me about playing a character with Strength 8, Stamina 11. :V

Okay, what about playing a character with Strength 8, Stamina 11? :V

Edit: On your other point, I think you have a point. Or I might just stick to what I was doing before, and doing bonuses/penalties. Which is something I was doing because OMG Crafts. Like, in a game, I completely understand that breaking off an Art Skill would just make it so nobody takes this new 'Art' and this new 'Crafts' as much as they took the combined Crafts, but it does wonky things.

Or how being an Expression 3 (Singing) singer also makes you a skilled pianist who could form a rock band. Reasonable in a game where, well, what are you supposed to do? For the Quest, I just slap penalties on that. 'Singer who also learned a bit of piano when she was a little girl' would have -2 to Expression for playing the piano, or whatever.

...if it ever comes up. Or how it's possible for Occult to do screwy things...anyways.

See my question above :p
 
Last edited:
I've finally run a pure GMC rules game, no houserules or patches, and it was interesting.
Specifically, it was a two sessions Hunter one-shot, based on the introductory adventure for d20 Dark Matter.

So my experience: base combat hasn't changed much, despite my misgivings about the adding of Athletics to Defense making it essentially the oWoD Dodge; I wonder how it would work with 1e style Mage Armors. Maybe that's one of the reasons they aren't straight up bonuses to Defense/Armor in 2e.
I still don't like the new Dodge action: it makes sense, but it adds extra rolling, with following slow down of the action. The Intent stuff lasted about one session before it was unanimously thrown out, alongside the WP relating to surrender rules. Conditions were a mixed bag, mostly tending towards bad: the Tilts and some of the Conditions that make sense as such were good to have on hand to adjudicate without having to do it on the fly, we all disliked how they were tied to Beats/XP and a couple of my players laughed outright at "Conditions" like Informed and Bonded.

Overall, I think that a few of the rules change of 2e aren't outright terrible as some in this thread had led me to believe, but I also have to admit that it honestly doesn't feel worth of being called WoD 2e, because I haven't found it to be enough of an improvement across the board like say, 5e D&D was on 3.5 (IMO, of course).

I guess I'll keep what I like from 2e rules while still mostly running my "1.5" rules.
 
but I also have to admit that it honestly doesn't feel worth of being called WoD 2e, because I haven't found it to be enough of an improvement across the board like say, 5e D&D was on 3.5 (IMO, of course)
Ignore it being an improvement or not, is it as different as 5e was vs. 3.5? Because, as an example, 4th was horrid, but it is definitely a different edition to 3/3.5
 
Conditions are a mixed bag but I feel that the splats have been greatly refined in 2e. As far as the core rules are concerned I love that weapon ratings no longer add dice and that multi-attacks got thrown out. I'm really excited for NWoD 2e core, so I have a complete resource and the other nice things like a revamped monster building system.
 
I've finally run a pure GMC rules game, no houserules or patches, and it was interesting.
Specifically, it was a two sessions Hunter one-shot, based on the introductory adventure for d20 Dark Matter.

So my experience: base combat hasn't changed much, despite my misgivings about the adding of Athletics to Defense making it essentially the oWoD Dodge; I wonder how it would work with 1e style Mage Armors. Maybe that's one of the reasons they aren't straight up bonuses to Defense/Armor in 2e.
I still don't like the new Dodge action: it makes sense, but it adds extra rolling, with following slow down of the action. The Intent stuff lasted about one session before it was unanimously thrown out, alongside the WP relating to surrender rules. Conditions were a mixed bag, mostly tending towards bad: the Tilts and some of the Conditions that make sense as such were good to have on hand to adjudicate without having to do it on the fly, we all disliked how they were tied to Beats/XP and a couple of my players laughed outright at "Conditions" like Informed and Bonded.

Overall, I think that a few of the rules change of 2e aren't outright terrible as some in this thread had led me to believe, but I also have to admit that it honestly doesn't feel worth of being called WoD 2e, because I haven't found it to be enough of an improvement across the board like say, 5e D&D was on 3.5 (IMO, of course).

I guess I'll keep what I like from 2e rules while still mostly running my "1.5" rules.

This is generally my opinion too. I scavenge whatever I want from 2nd edition and add it to my house rules.

But then again, it's three years since I actually ran with pure Core rules.
 
It is an opinion shared by many others in this thread.

Personally, I prefer parts of Second Edition.

As well as parts of First Edition that is.

So you might say that I use something in between,

Personally I like 1e better because of the mechanics and I don't like the Strix or the God-Machine (I know the Strix were introduced late in 1e, but it wasn't until 2e that they became the main antagonists of Requiem's modern setting). The only things I don't use in 1e Requiem is the idea that vampires are emotionally or creatively dead. It's a pet peeve of mine, so I exclude it from my games along with the Strix, God-Machine, and the gamelines Beast and Demon. (I don't like what I have seen of Beast and Demon can only work with the presence of the God-Machine, so it's gone as a consequence).
 
Personally I like 1e better because of the mechanics and I don't like the Strix or the God-Machine (I know the Strix were introduced late in 1e, but it wasn't until 2e that they became the main antagonists of Requiem's modern setting). The only things I don't use in 1e Requiem is the idea that vampires are emotionally or creatively dead. It's a pet peeve of mine, so I exclude it from my games along with the Strix, God-Machine, and the gamelines Beast and Demon. (I don't like what I have seen of Beast and Demon can only work with the presence of the God-Machine, so it's gone as a consequence).

Well, Demon isn't really fitting in atmosphere for a World of Darkness game anyway.

It's pretty cool alone though.
 
Well, Demon isn't really fitting in atmosphere for a World of Darkness game anyway.

It's pretty cool alone though.

but isn't that the point?

part of being a Demon is that you can't trust anyone with what you are, not even other supernatural creatures. telling the local mage government that you're really a biomechanical monster will get the God Machine on you just as fast as if you'd strutted around the parliament building with you're metal parts sticking out.

it's not meant be crossed over with over things, except maybe as a one-off "there are more thing on heaven and earth then you know about" scenario.
 
Personally I like 1e better because of the mechanics and I don't like the Strix or the God-Machine (I know the Strix were introduced late in 1e, but it wasn't until 2e that they became the main antagonists of Requiem's modern setting). The only things I don't use in 1e Requiem is the idea that vampires are emotionally or creatively dead. It's a pet peeve of mine, so I exclude it from my games along with the Strix, God-Machine, and the gamelines Beast and Demon. (I don't like what I have seen of Beast and Demon can only work with the presence of the God-Machine, so it's gone as a consequence).

I don't like the God-Machine either, but only in a somewhat shared World of Darkness. On it's own, and with Demon, they make a pretty ok standalone game, but still not my cup of tea.

I don't have strong feelings on the Strix, but I did feel like the chapter dedicated to them in Blood&Smoke was completely separate from the rest of the book; you could very likely rip it out wholesale, and the book wouldn't lose much. Which makes me think about what that wordcount could have gone towards instead, like write-ups of VII or Belial's Brood, or maybe a few Bloodlines.
 
I don't like the God-Machine either, but only in a somewhat shared World of Darkness. On it's own, and with Demon, they make a pretty ok standalone game, but still not my cup of tea.

as I said, isn't that the basic premise? I seem to remember a line somewhere saying that even most supernaturals, if they don't have the proper GMC merits, can't even perceive the God Machine. Demons, on the other hand, are directly disinclined by their mechanics to reveal themselves to anyone. the way it's set up, it's already stand alone in that it distances itself from the rest of the World of Darkness, such that if it weren't for the GMC and D:tD they'd be nothing more than vague shadows in the dark, and still remain as such to PCs.
 
I've thought about starting up a Requiem role-play on these forums using the 1e rules. It would take a more minimalist approach. No Strix, No God-Machine, and we'd only use the base materials from the 1e WoD corebook (AKA the Mortals Book) and the 1e Requiem corebook. However, as the role-play would advance, we'd include more material from more nWoD books.
 
I've thought about starting up a Requiem role-play on these forums using the 1e rules. It would take a more minimalist approach. No Strix, No God-Machine, and we'd only use the base materials from the 1e WoD corebook (AKA the Mortals Book) and the 1e Requiem corebook. However, as the role-play would advance, we'd include more material from more nWoD books.

Huh, well I'd play it. Though, to be honest, I liked Requiem 2e a lot better than Requiem 1e. I mean, on the other hand I'm literally preparing myself to probably dislike Changeling 2e, so it's not some particular like of GMC or anything, but I think Requiem 2e is less utterly overcluttered and weird than 1e. Part of that is scraping away all the silly cruft of 1e and the fifty powers and thirty different clans, sub-clans, and sub-sub-clans, but it's also just damn well-written, IMO. I also like the Strix, but I think even ignoring them, B&S is a great book...

I mean, all that said, you should go ahead and do it if you can run it.

Minimalist would solve some of the problems I mentioned with 1e, though some of the aesthetics of 1e are a bit...odd. You've mentioned the 'vampires can't create' thing, of course.
 
Last edited:
This is generally my opinion too. I scavenge whatever I want from 2nd edition and add it to my house rules.

But then again, it's three years since I actually ran with pure Core rules.
I'm actually curious: what kind of house rules do you run nWoD with?

I ask because while I'm good at adjuticating on the fly and getting the feel right for my group, I'm not really good at discerning mechanics outside of actual play.
 
Back
Top