I played a lot of the WoD stuff back in the 90s and early 2000s, and while I liked the edgy goth settings, the rule mechanics were a ton of awful.  A basic combat took an entire night.  The now-misnamed new World of Darkness rolled out, and while I wasn't a big fan of most of the new setting stuff, the rule mechanics had been significantly streamlined.  It's head and shoulders better than the original stuff.  So now there's 5th edition Vampire, with I assume the other settings coming sooner or later.  Is there anyone here who's used both nWoD and the 5th edition stuff who can say if the rule improvements have remained?  If they've gone back to the clunkier rules, I'd really rather just house-rule the nWoD system into the original settings.

One of my players had all 5 versions at some point and didnt seem to think much of it past 2nd ed No clue what the particulars were to that dislike though. At a guess they did not like the streamlined rules. For the same reasons they dont like 5th ed D&D and prefer 3rd Ed.

While you may or may not wish to support Onyx Path, the 20th Anniversary Editions have done about as good a job cleaning up the system and incorporating more 21st century elements to it as could reasonably be expected without making it NOT the World of Darkness.

And while I don't particularly appreciate the political slant in the new Mage, they did include all older content and the revamp of the magic system (particularly the Supplement "How Do You Do That?" which dropped all the pretentious in-character subjective reality fluff for a solid mechanical discussion) was a huge improvement over previous versions so credit where it's due.

My group played a bunch of the nWoD.  We liked it in general.  While some of the setting material was hit or miss (most preferred Masquerade to Requiem but liked Forsaken over Apocalypse) the rules were seen as a general improvement.

When they updated to the God-Machine version of the WoD rules we dumped out.  The whole conditions and social maneuvering stuff lost us.

Vampire 5e though, is a pretty big hit for my group.  The back to basics nature of the setting combined with a nicely streamlined rules set won us all over.  After playing for a couple months now I can say the Hunger mechanic works great and is a much better mechanic than counting Blood Points.  We were pretty disappointed that White Wolf got shafted and lost control of the game.  What we've seen since from OPP has been a let down and we're pretty much just going to stick to the core book.

I'm currently running Vampire. I've run and played every edition up until 5th (but I do own it).

I've happily settled on 20th Anniversary edition as the best choice for me for these reasons -

1) Classic cosmology is the best.
2) While I *really* like the mechanics of NWoD (now Chronicles of Darkness) the updates they've done to 20th Anniversary really brought it in close contention
3) 5e left me cold. Fluffwise it's interesting (to a point), but the mechanics I found were clunky, even though I understood what they were trying to emphasize (Hunger dice for instance). I felt it could have been done with less of a footprint. Overall - it didn't impress me much systemically.

NWoD mechanics are solid up to God Machine. They are very consistent and if you like crossover stuff it's plug and play. Mage gets a little weird in its implementation - but it's playable. That cosmology blows tho. There are splats that specifically shine brightly: Changeling and Hunter (in fact I'm converting Changleing to my V20 game). They are *by far* imo the best games and worth the price for entry. Vampire is good (cosmology is eh). Werewolf is under-powered but easily fixable - the cosmology is weak, but fixable.

God Machine... felt like pretentious crap.

nWoD 1e hands down has the most elegant implementation of the ST/d10 mechanics, though they aren't without flaw. The biggest flaw is that you apply all bonuses and penalties to rolls before the roll is made, so the player is always aware of the bonuses and penalties even if their character shouldn't be. Some people like to whine and complain about personality mechanics like virtue, vice, morality, etc. I consider those things window dressing myself.

V5 hands down has a much better superpowers mechanic. Rather than one power at each level, you can select one of many. The flaw here is that you can't buy powers out of order even tho most of the time they aren't logical progressions of the same effect. As such, getting new powers can often feel like filler.

All in all, I cannot in good conscience recommend any World of Darkness game. The rules are always terribly designed, so you're always better off playing a different systems entirely like BRP or Mutants & Masterminds or something. The only useful aspect of World of Darkness games would be the settings, and only Hunter: The Vigil and Changeling: The Lost are particularly creative in that regard. Otherwise, the settings don't really provide any useful information to the GM or players like you would expect from say, the indie scene's love of random generation tables.

I would recommend playing any other urban fantasy game, like Dresden Files, Liminal, Feed, Urban Shadows, Monsterhearts, Actual Fucking Monsters, Nephilim, Everlasting, Invisible War, WitchCraft, yadda yadda depending on precisely what kind of experience you're looking for.

If you're into playing vampires with superpowers and deteriorating humanity, then your best choice would probably be Feed. Feed is a toolkit game that gives you guidelines for making your own rules for vampirism, and only comes with some limited sample settings to get your creativity flowing. So if you like the setting of Vampire: The Masquerade, then you can use it with Feed's rules.

If you're into playing a monster mash with a similar irreverence for life as a typical Call of Cthulhu campaign, then you're best off playing Actual Fucking Monsters. There's even a conversion of Nightlife (which isn't available at any e-retailer) called Actual Fucking Nightlife.

If you like politics in a game that bothers to provide any mechanics to support it, then you're probably best off playing Urban Shadows or Monsterhearts.

If you like playing reincarnating immortals embroiled in occult conflicts with secret societies, then I recommend Invisible War, Nephilim, or WitchCraft.

All in all, you're better off writing your own setting rather than letting World of Darkness fanboys dictate to you the "right" way to play. Part of the reason I left the fandom years ago was largely in part due to their religious obsession with the lore.

V20 is worth a look if you're looking for that trademarked romantic goth-angst. You can drive really big trucks through the rules without worrying about scratching the paint, but it is intuitive, flexible and comprehensive. Much of the wonkyness is easily houseruled if you're so inclined. Sadly you cannot houserule some of the horrendous art direction.

For those of you with experience with nWoD 1e Vampire, is the game pretty playable with just the core Vampire book (plus the World of Darkness book, of course) or would you say some of the many, many sourcebooks were needed? I have a lot of experience with WtF and picked up the Vampire book and screen on a whim back when I used to run a Forsaken campaign, but I never had a chance to give it a really close look as far as planning a vampire campaign. It's something I've always considered but I was wondering if trying to make a go of things with just the core book would be too much trouble.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTalesIf you like politics in a game that bothers to provide any mechanics to support it, then you're probably best off playing Urban Shadows or Monsterhearts.

In this same line, Undying is also very good.

Quote from: Brand55;1125333For those of you with experience with nWoD 1e Vampire, is the game pretty playable with just the core Vampire book (plus the World of Darkness book, of course) or would you say some of the many, many sourcebooks were needed? I have a lot of experience with WtF and picked up the Vampire book and screen on a whim back when I used to run a Forsaken campaign, but I never had a chance to give it a really close look as far as planning a vampire campaign. It's something I've always considered but I was wondering if trying to make a go of things with just the core book would be too much trouble.

All you honestly need are the core books.  Perhaps the bloodline books for more "prestige class" options.  You might dig the Khaibits as much as I do.

Quote from: Brand55;1125333For those of you with experience with nWoD 1e Vampire, is the game pretty playable with just the core Vampire book (plus the World of Darkness book, of course) or would you say some of the many, many sourcebooks were needed? I have a lot of experience with WtF and picked up the Vampire book and screen on a whim back when I used to run a Forsaken campaign, but I never had a chance to give it a really close look as far as planning a vampire campaign. It's something I've always considered but I was wondering if trying to make a go of things with just the core book would be too much trouble.

Here's the thing about nWoD: It's got basically nothing to do.  White Wolf was so desperate to distance itself from the dumpster fire that was the whole time of judgment metaplot fiasco that when it re-wrote the settings it left out basically any kind of urgent antagonists.  Vampire spends maybe four pages mentioning that there are probably some weird or evil vampires out there, and they might be bad or something.  There is nothing on the scale of the Sabbat, the Technocracy, the Wyrm.  So it's entirely on the GM to work something out if they don't want the players just aimlessly wandering around.

So, more specifically to answer your question: Vampire and the nWoD core book provide everything you need, mechanically, to run a perfectly good vampire game.  They do not, however, provide even a barely-sufficient setting.  If that makes sense to you.

Quote from: Valatar;1125362Here's the thing about nWoD: It's got basically nothing to do.  White Wolf was so desperate to distance itself from the dumpster fire that was the whole time of judgment metaplot fiasco that when it re-wrote the settings it left out basically any kind of urgent antagonists.  Vampire spends maybe four pages mentioning that there are probably some weird or evil vampires out there, and they might be bad or something.  There is nothing on the scale of the Sabbat, the Technocracy, the Wyrm.  So it's entirely on the GM to work something out if they don't want the players just aimlessly wandering around.

So, more specifically to answer your question: Vampire and the nWoD core book provide everything you need, mechanically, to run a perfectly good vampire game.  They do not, however, provide even a barely-sufficient setting.  If that makes sense to you.

"Nothing to do"? Sure it doesn't, if you think "something to do" always equates to violent murder fantasies. It's entirely feasible to play adventures where you don't go around killing people. You could solve mysteries, fall in love, perform odd jobs, accumulate wealth and power, go on a quest for the holy grail, search for shangri-la...

Color me puzzled with the "nothing to do" too. There are a dozen rival clans whose members are vying for control inside the clan and for the Camarilla as a whole. As a political intrigue game that seems more than enough to me. And going further, I think having clear antagonists actually detracts from that setup, because it sacrifices the nuance that the clash of clans philosophies and outlooks bring in lieu of a simplistic "fight the evil guys" view.

And 5th edition is the best one for me, due to the streamlined rules and "back to the basics" setting.

As Valatar has said above once they wrote themselves into a complete corner with the time of judgement meta-plot they wanted a fresh start with NWOD with none.

I prefer NWOD for it being generic and allowing one to build the setting as is. Yes their is no setting yet once can build it to suit their own tastes. They released enough equally generic sourcebooks that one could if they wanted too and had the time to craft their own preferred version.

I never truly understood the old WOD meta-plot. It was such a strange thing to put into an rpg. The world ends, nothing and no one can stop it, everyone is screwed. It may have been flavorful yet also very limiting as well.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125367"Nothing to do"? Sure it doesn't, if you think "something to do" always equates to violent murder fantasies. It's entirely feasible to play adventures where you don't go around killing people. You could solve mysteries, fall in love, perform odd jobs, accumulate wealth and power, go on a quest for the holy grail, search for shangri-la...

Very much agreed and seconded. If the GM and players only want to play a certain way then yes it can be boring. If not so much potential gaming ideas for a group to do. With WOD Innocents sourcebook one can play the kids from the new IT movie having to fight monsters only they can see and almost no adults do.

Quote from: sureshot;1125377I prefer NWOD for it being generic and allowing one to build the setting as is. Yes their is no setting yet once can build it to suit their own tastes. They released enough equally generic sourcebooks that one could if they wanted too and had the time to craft their own preferred version.

Technically there is a setting, it's just scattered across the books rather than conveniently gathered into one great history.

The setting is only really generic for Lost and Vigil. The others are much more limited in terms of their creativity with the concept, since they usually have a quasi-metaplot (e.g. Father Wolf, Atlantis, Strix, God-Machine) and/or needlessly restrictive rules (e.g. all vampires follow the same quasi-Ricean logic aside from clans).