• Welcome to The Campaign Builder's Guild.
 

My general feelings on White Wolf

Started by EvilElitest, January 12, 2009, 04:02:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

brainface

QuoteIt's definitely "inspired", and not in a good way - it seeths of Westernized anime "creep"/fanwank, similar to Book of Nine Swords but to a whole different level.
It's... probably a lot of fun if that's what someone is looking for though. Aren't a lot of rpgs tolkein-derived "fanwank" anyway? :)
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

beejazz

I really wouldn't knock something for appealing to obsessive and enthusiastic fans... a category that would include all of us at some point or another.
Beejazz's Homebrew System
 Beejazz's Homebrew Discussion

QuoteI don't believe in it anyway.
What?
England.
Just a conspiracy of cartographers, then?

EvilElitest

LC- Wonderful.  So that aside, what do you generally think of white wolf

Beejazz- I think your misinterpreting me a few times.  I actually agree with you on quite a few things, you just seem to realize it.  
1) Not quite.  I said that 3E at least doesn't have setting specific fluff, it still has fluff along with its rules and what no, not that they don't have fluff.  I think 3E is good when they include fluff, and they should do more of that, hence why i like S&S.  3E isn't setting specifics, not really, its just could focu more on that
2) 4E has very little in terms of fluff and what not sadly.  Its just kind a massive rule base
3) The Dragonborn in 3E were a great idea, they were these cool original creations that nobody else had thought of and yet now they are just a boring "Dragon nut" monster folk..........boring.  Its just arbitary changing and pandering to the masses.  Same with Tieflings
4) I dislike all of those others changes, almostall of 4E's changes were ether simplicity, or abitary.  
5) That is hardly fluff through.  Thats just them changing the rule basis.  4E has almost no rules actually, its just a few sentences with a bunch of rule
6) The rituals rules are kind a good idea in theory, but 4E just uses them as part of the whole "combat central" theme they have going.  they are just these kinda added in details more than anything selse
7) Isn't everybody having magic even more fluf specific than race details?  Like a lot more
8) 4E hates explaining anything in detail, good luck finding cosmology changes explain with anything other than platatudes or "we felt like it"
9) The new MM is one of the worst books i've ever seen, its just a bunch of random states with a few sentences of generic disrciption.  Its a video game monster guide more than anything else.  Its primative
10) The races really aren't that setting specific, its just general details and what not.  Can easily be adapted for any game, or tweaked/altered if you feel hte need.  Its not that overly demanding.  Its good for a game to have details and explanations, other wise you just got a boring rule book, which is just essentially a text book.  
11) I've always find the idea of 3E being too easy to get "Tied down to" kinda silly.  I could see that argument with say, exalted where there is a setting, but with D&D there isn't a setting really, apart form a general cosmology (and that is important in understanding how the magic/souls works) and the creators.  I'd much rather have a game that has a lot of details on how things work rather than one that leaves everything in vague "meh we don't want to do the work" sort of haze.  The latter is just being lazy.  You can change a setting without a problem, it doesn't limit you.  Hell, even the cosmolgy isn't that limiting, unless your doing a monothesistic setting
12) Races are again, extremely generic.  there details, but nothing you can't tweak/adept.  You could run them Japanese, Persian, or Russian from the get go.  Mechanics are only the brinks in a setting, the setting is the morter, design, and what it is used for. That only limits your creativity if you don't like changing already existing things....which is a bit odd
13) 3E attempt (fails) to try to appeal to all types of play styles.  It fails horribly but it certainly makes the attempt to be adepted to anything
14) 4E is perfeclty designed as a combat game.  If your not into endless dungeons run through, as written, it provides very little sadly
15) Hmmmm?  No i was refering to 4E as Roll playing, not White Wolf. And i think they did coin that phrase.


Moinker- I'm doing Exalted next so keep an eye out. It is very anime styled yes, for better or for worst.  
from
EE
my views here evilelitest.blogspot.com


Elemental_Elf

Quote from: beejazzNow, with 4e I see a continuation of that trend... I just happen to also hate both the content and the rules that support it. I don't like dragonborn (content defines setting), tieflings (again), eladrin (and again), the nixing of half-orcs and gnomes (and again and again), the nixing of various fun and flavorful classes, the changes to the alignment system (they feel arbitrary), or some of the silly new monsters (I think I saw electric scorpions or some silliness like that).

How do Dragonborn, Tieflings and Eladrin define a setting any more than Humans, Dwarves, Elves or Gnomes, beyond the virtue of the latter 4 being stereotypical tropes.

Llum

Because there something that the previous edition didn't have or were completely different.

Dragonborn are a symptom of dragoncreep, something D&D suffers from quite a bit.

Steerpike

I've always found the way race has been handled in D&D rulebooks a little annoying.  I'd much prefer an emphasis on non setting-specific race design, with detailed race-building rules.  For example, instead of writing up rules for half-orcs, dwarves, and halflings, you might have broader racial tropes: Strong Race, Hardy Race, and Agile Race, or something similar.  A selection of templates (subterranean, woodland, arcane, desert-dwelling etc) could be provided - "packages" of special abilities - to be placed over the broad racial trope.  Then you could have a second "cultural template": nomadic, urban, agrarian, etc.  This way instead of binding DMs to a default array of races and forcing them to tinker endlessly with balancing scratch-built races there'd be a much more accessible race-building mechanics.  So you might conceive of a Wise, Nomadic, Subterranean beings - scholars who wander the underdark, or something; or a race of Strong, Urban, Marine creatures, perhaps a caste of beings who defend an amphibious city, etc.  At the end of the race section of the rulebook the standard races could be quickly defined according to these packages.  I think a system like this would emphasize the creative side of the DnD hobby more...  there are lots of gaming systems that already do this sort of thing, of course, I just think that DnD is going in rather the opposite general direction (towards a combat-oriented miniature game).  Not that you have to play DnD as a hack-and-slash game, just that that's the sort of game that 4E seems to present itself as - there's even a line in the rulebook somewhere that says something to the effect of "detailed character backgrounds aren't necessary, just some basic motivations" (made me very angry).

brainface

Quotejust that that's the sort of game that 4E seems to present itself as - there's even a line in the rulebook somewhere that says something to the effect of "detailed character backgrounds aren't necessary, just some basic motivations" (made me very angry).
not[/i] necessary. Seriously, some groups don't even play with that, I'm sure. No need to get angry about it. :)
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

Steerpike

What made me angry was the implication by the writers that the game wasn't really about backgrounds or story.  It felt like the rulebook had an agenda, that it was pushing a specific sort of game - one that didn't encourage developed roleplaying so much as hack and slash.  I don't have the book handy but it wasn't so much a line like "you can have as little or as much detail as you like"; it was more "don't bother with a complex background, its not important."

SDragon

Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Quote from: beejazzNow, with 4e I see a continuation of that trend... I just happen to also hate both the content and the rules that support it. I don't like dragonborn (content defines setting), tieflings (again), eladrin (and again), the nixing of half-orcs and gnomes (and again and again), the nixing of various fun and flavorful classes, the changes to the alignment system (they feel arbitrary), or some of the silly new monsters (I think I saw electric scorpions or some silliness like that).

How do Dragonborn, Tieflings and Eladrin define a setting any more than Humans, Dwarves, Elves or Gnomes, beyond the virtue of the latter 4 being stereotypical tropes.

beyond that virtue? None, really. That's what humans, elves, dwarves and (to a lesser extent) gnomes from being definitive to a setting. Do you think, say, Eberron could be appropriately defined as "a setting that has elves"?
[spoiler=My Projects]
Xiluh
Fiendspawn
Opening The Dark SRD
Diceless Universal Game System (DUGS)
[/spoiler][spoiler=Merits I Have Earned]
divine power
last poster in the dragons den for over 24 hours award
Commandant-General of the Honor Guard in Service of Nonsensical Awards.
operating system
stealer of limetom's sanity
top of the tavern award


[/spoiler][spoiler=Books I Own]
D&D/d20:
PHB 3.5
DMG 3.5
MM 3.5
MM2
MM5
Ebberon Campaign Setting
Legends of the Samurai
Aztecs: Empire of the Dying Sun
Encyclopaedia Divine: Shamans
D20 Modern

GURPS:

GURPS Lite 3e

Other Systems:

Marvel Universe RPG
MURPG Guide to the X-Men
MURPG Guide to the Hulk and the Avengers
Battle-Scarred Veterans Go Hiking
Champions Worldwide

MISC:

Dungeon Master for Dummies
Dragon Magazine, issues #340, #341, and #343[/spoiler][spoiler=The Ninth Cabbage]  \@/
[/spoiler][spoiler=AKA]
SDragon1984
SDragon1984- the S is for Penguin
Ona'Envalya
Corn
Eggplant
Walrus
SpaceCowboy
Elfy
LizardKing
LK
Halfling Fritos
Rorschach Fritos
[/spoiler]

Before you accept advice from this post, remember that the poster has 0 ranks in knowledge (the hell I'm talking about)

Elemental_Elf

Honestly, D&D has always been a wargame with a roleplaying game attached for those that want to use it. If you don't like it, play Exalted.

it makes me sick to see people constantly complain about how 'combat oriented' 4E is. Honestly, I've never played a D&D game that didn't have a significant focus on combat. Every choice you make in character creation is about combat, in some form or another, whether in 3.x or 4E.

Roleplaying should be a choice, not a forced enema from holier-than-thou people.

And furthermore, I really love how most people were in general agreement (prior to 4E) that Wizards spent WAY too much time detailing out fluff that, in many cases, would not be utilized by many. The fluff was seen as filler. What does WotC do? They minimize fluff, maximize crunch and those same people that derided 3.x as being giant books of fluff, now condemn 4E because it's 'too crunchy.' Honestly, there is no pleasing people. I would rather pay $30 for a book filled with lots of crunch AND a $30 for another booke filled with lots of fluff, than spend $60 on 2 books that attempt to find balance between the two. Why? Because with the former, I know what I am getting and I will buy them because I want them. The latter will just be filled with mediocre, under-developed fluff that eats up precious page after precious page, thus diluting the entire product.

The inherent problem with D&D is that it has a dual focus. On the one hand it wants to create a standard set of rules that everyone uses. On the other, D&D does not want to tie your hands into a single world and encourages DMs to make their own worlds. This leads to many, many problems when it comes to creating supplements. The first being, which hand do you focus on? If you make a crunch book, the fluff fans will be angry. If you make a fluff book, the crunch guys (and even some fluff fans) will be angry. If you create a book that attempts to moderate between the two, you run the risk of making a book no one will buy. In the 3E era, WotC attempted many books that catered to these 3 concepts. Eberron books were made for fluff junkies, the early completes for Crunch lovers and books like Heroes of Horror and the later Complete books for the mixed crowd. Unfortunately, the '˜appealing to both sides' strategy really did not pan out (and either became niche books (HoH) or were universally disliked (later complete books). Thus WotC obviously concluded that separation of books along the crunch heavy and fluff heavy axis was the way to go.

IMO, it's the best solution to the problem as a whole simply because a) it appeals to me (conceded, I know) and b) appeals to more people.

At any rate, I just wanted to add that I may have a better feel for '˜the current generation of gamers' than many on these boards as I have only been gaming since late '05. My group (all new to Table Top RPGs) did not need an instruction guide on how to role play. It simply came out as we became familiar with the rules. We never needed rules or an explanation on how to Roleplay but, we did need 3 book with rules telling us how to play the game. And that's really the crux of why I simply do not understand all the 4E hate. Roleplaying is instinctive and natural, rules and mechanics are not. I would rather spend my money on books dedicated to giving me rules and options for the game, than waste too many pages telling me '˜well this is how we role play.' The same thing goes for Fluff. D&D tells me to create my own world (utilizing its implied setting) and that's what I do. I don't need long winded paragraphs telling me about the Purple Dragon Knights, or the Red Wizards. As a DM (and as a player) I want the fluff to tell me what the class is and how its mechanics can be used as to understand the class. I would rather have basic fluff (when it comes to classes, feats, PrC's, Paragon Paths, etc.) that can be easily molded to fit into the implied campaign setting and at the same time allows the DM enough freedom to change things (and thus eliminate the inevitable player reaction of '˜Well the class fluff said THIS and that's what I want,,' after finding out the DM changed the fluff of a class).

To put this in terms of cereal, I want my Crunch Flakes and my Fluff Puffs in two different boxes so I don't waste money on Crunch Puffs.


P.S. I love 3.5 and play almost exclusivly with that system (only deviating into Star Wars and L5R on occassion).

Steerpike

[blockquote=Elemental_Elf]Honestly, D&D has always been a wargame with a roleplaying game attached for those that want to use it. If you don't like it, play Exalted.[/blockquote]Ha yeah, you're right on that, and I probably shouldn't be as annoyed; really the game is just being true to its roots.  I suppose I'd felt that for awhile with some books, campaign settings, and articles in Dragon/Dungeon the focus was shifting to immersion and detailed storytelling - not that combat isn't incompatible with storytelling, or that DnD ever stopped having a heavy combat element - but I liked that change in focus.  I'm thinking of products like Eberron and Arcana Unearthed that felt more setting-driven or fluff-driven, that emphasized the whole "different world" aspect of DnD rather than tactics and power-gaming, and I felt that the 4E rulebook, and the edition's general vibe, seemed to be going away from that trend towards story and setting.  You're spot on about the Exalted comment: while I used to be quite into DnD (and still appreciate 3.5) I'm increasingly drawn to alternate systems, particularly very flexible systems, that might offer a richer roleplaying experience.

Just my 2 cp.

Loch Belthadd

Quote from: Elemental_ElfP.S. I love 3.5 and play almost exclusivly with that system (only deviating into Star Wars and L5R on occassion).

Me too except that I deviate to VtM and my friend's homemade system.
a.k.a. gnomish cheetos
[spoiler=siggy]
[spoiler=gnomes]
Rock Gnomes:good
Lawn Gnomes:Evil[/spoiler]
 [spoiler=have a smiley]                    [/spoiler]
My Unitarian Jihad Name is Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discussion.

I am a (self-appointed) knght of the turtle. Are you?

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons...for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup...

 Make something idiot-proof and someone will invent a better idiot.
 [spoiler]Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55% of plepoe can.
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

fi yuo cna raed tihs, palce it in yuor siantugre.
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
  [spoiler=badges]= Elemental Elf's kamalga and the murkmire badge
 = Nomadic's quick play badge [/spoiler]

EvilElitest

QuoteHow do Dragonborn, Tieflings and Eladrin define a setting any more than Humans, Dwarves, Elves or Gnomes, beyond the virtue of the latter 4 being stereotypical tropes.
Honestly, D&D has always been a wargame with a roleplaying game attached for those that want to use it. If you don't like it, play Exalted.
[/quote]
it makes me sick to see people constantly complain about how 'combat oriented' 4E is. Honestly, I've never played a D&D game that didn't have a significant focus on combat. Every choice you make in character creation is about combat, in some form or another, whether in 3.x or 4E.
[/quote]
Roleplaying should be a choice, not a forced enema from holier-than-thou people.
[/quote]
And furthermore, I really love how most people were in general agreement (prior to 4E) that Wizards spent WAY too much time detailing out fluff that, in many cases, would not be utilized by many. The fluff was seen as filler. What does WotC do? They minimize fluff, maximize crunch and those same people that derided 3.x as being giant books of fluff, now condemn 4E because it's 'too crunchy.' Honestly, there is no pleasing people. I would rather pay $30 for a book filled with lots of crunch AND a $30 for another booke filled with lots of fluff, than spend $60 on 2 books that attempt to find balance between the two. Why? Because with the former, I know what I am getting and I will buy them because I want them. The latter will just be filled with mediocre, under-developed fluff that eats up precious page after precious page, thus diluting the entire product.
[/quote]
Actually wizards problem was that it segregate fluff and crunch.  While the fluff was cool, all of the societies they created had no real correlation with the actual information presented.  I mean a D&D 3E society wouldn't function the way the fluff imagined, and the balance only made it worst.  So Wizards cut out at least 50% of there game and focused on making the combat work.  Which essentially makes the game a simply a glorified wargame
QuoteIMO, it's the best solution to the problem as a whole simply because a) it appeals to me (conceded, I know) and b) appeals to more people.
At any rate, I just wanted to add that I may have a better feel for '˜the current generation of gamers' than many on these boards as I have only been gaming since late '05. My group (all new to Table Top RPGs) did not need an instruction guide on how to role play. It simply came out as we became familiar with the rules. We never needed rules or an explanation on how to Roleplay but, we did need 3 book with rules telling us how to play the game. And that's really the crux of why I simply do not understand all the 4E hate. Roleplaying is instinctive and natural, rules and mechanics are not. I would rather spend my money on books dedicated to giving me rules and options for the game, than waste too many pages telling me '˜well this is how we role play.' The same thing goes for Fluff. D&D tells me to create my own world (utilizing its implied setting) and that's what I do. I don't need long winded paragraphs telling me about the Purple Dragon Knights, or the Red Wizards. As a DM (and as a player) I want the fluff to tell me what the class is and how its mechanics can be used as to understand the class. I would rather have basic fluff (when it comes to classes, feats, PrC's, Paragon Paths, etc.) that can be easily molded to fit into the implied campaign setting and at the same time allows the DM enough freedom to change things (and thus eliminate the inevitable player reaction of '˜Well the class fluff said THIS and that's what I want,,' after finding out the DM changed the fluff of a class).
[/QUOTE]
Making fluff is like writing a book.  It actually isn't that easy (and most of the D&D fluff isn't setting specific, it shouldn't bother you.)  It is easy to change it, but making a distinctive and actually good is not that difficult.  I mean, other wise you get a mass of clichés and platitudes like Eragon.  Providing Fluff doesn't hinder role playing, it offers more back ground and ideas, helps with making the game more compatible for other people and styles, and makes the world feels cohesive and logical rather than just a video game in denial

from
EE
my views here evilelitest.blogspot.com


beejazz

Quote from: EvilElitestBeejazz- I think your misinterpreting me a few times.  I actually agree with you on quite a few things, you just seem to realize it.
1) Not quite.  I said that 3E at least doesn't have setting specific fluff, it still has fluff along with its rules and what no, not that they don't have fluff.  I think 3E is good when they include fluff, and they should do more of that, hence why i like S&S.  3E isn't setting specifics, not really, its just could focu more on that[/quote]2) 4E has very little in terms of fluff and what not sadly.  Its just kind a massive rule base[/quote]3) The Dragonborn in 3E were a great idea, they were these cool original creations that nobody else had thought of and yet now they are just a boring "Dragon nut" monster folk..........boring.  Its just arbitary changing and pandering to the masses.  Same with Tieflings[/quote]4) I dislike all of those others changes, almostall of 4E's changes were ether simplicity, or abitary. [/quote]5) That is hardly fluff through.  Thats just them changing the rule basis.  4E has almost no rules actually, its just a few sentences with a bunch of rule[/quote]6) The rituals rules are kind a good idea in theory, but 4E just uses them as part of the whole "combat central" theme they have going.  they are just these kinda added in details more than anything selse [/quote]7) Isn't everybody having magic even more fluf specific than race details?  Like a lot more[/quote]8) 4E hates explaining anything in detail, good luck finding cosmology changes explain with anything other than platatudes or "we felt like it"[/quote]9) The new MM is one of the worst books i've ever seen, its just a bunch of random states with a few sentences of generic disrciption.  Its a video game monster guide more than anything else.  Its primative[/quote]10) The races really aren't that setting specific, its just general details and what not.  Can easily be adapted for any game, or tweaked/altered if you feel hte need.  Its not that overly demanding.  Its good for a game to have details and explanations, other wise you just got a boring rule book, which is just essentially a text book.  [/quote]11) I've always find the idea of 3E being too easy to get "Tied down to" kinda silly.  I could see that argument with say, exalted where there is a setting, but with D&D there isn't a setting really, apart form a general cosmology (and that is important in understanding how the magic/souls works) and the creators.  I'd much rather have a game that has a lot of details on how things work rather than one that leaves everything in vague "meh we don't want to do the work" sort of haze.  The latter is just being lazy.  You can change a setting without a problem, it doesn't limit you.  Hell, even the cosmolgy isn't that limiting, unless your doing a monothesistic setting[/quote]12) Races are again, extremely generic.  there details, but nothing you can't tweak/adept.  You could run them Japanese, Persian, or Russian from the get go.  Mechanics are only the brinks in a setting, the setting is the morter, design, and what it is used for. That only limits your creativity if you don't like changing already existing things....which is a bit odd[/quote]13) 3E attempt (fails) to try to appeal to all types of play styles.  It fails horribly but it certainly makes the attempt to be adepted to anything[/quote]14) 4E is perfeclty designed as a combat game.  If your not into endless dungeons run through, as written, it provides very little sadly[/quote]15) Hmmmm?  No i was refering to 4E as Roll playing, not White Wolf. And i think they did coin that phrase.[/quote]
I realize that. I was pointing out that it might be hypocritical to use White Wolf's own arrogance to define a game you don't like in the same thread where you criticize White Wolf for being arrogant. Unless it was your intention to be ironic.


EDIT: Turn off the caps lock in your quote tags. They're in lower case on this forum.
Beejazz's Homebrew System
 Beejazz's Homebrew Discussion

QuoteI don't believe in it anyway.
What?
England.
Just a conspiracy of cartographers, then?

Elemental_Elf

Quote from: EvilElitestNot them in theory, its the fact they ravaged pior fluff in order to insert races that were obviously there simply for the "Look, these guys are so cool" vibe.

Take dragon born.  In 3E they were a really cool idea, you are reborn as a dragon being with all of this baptism sub text.In 4E they become......dragon people......wow you really are looking deep for originality there aren't you.    Its just them tapping into the whole dragon thing without any consideration or respect for there own material.

IIRC, Dragonborn were originally called Dragonborn of Bahamut, not simply Dragonborn. If this is the case, then the two races can co-exist together with relative ease. Personally, I would rather have a race of Dragon Men than be stuck with the implied setting telling me a Dragon God chose humans and gave them draconic powers. From an implied setting standpoint, it's hard to justify only 1 god creating Dragonborn and, in the case of Bahamut, those with the gift would most likely be locked into a good alignment. This would only lead to a string of 'Dragon Drizzts' anti-heroes which, IMO, is far worse than Dragon Men.

Quote from: EvilElitestTielfings are worst.  In 3E, they are like the great grandsons of demonic beings, and as of such are mostly human with a few slight traits.  That was kinda cool, it gave them this kinda subtle evil sort of vibe.  But the new guys are fool out demonic.  Are they bad?  well maybe if they were there own race, yeah.  But they are just an obvious marketing attempt to tap into the popular name with a new imagine

This is a very similar problem to the Dragonborn. In previous editions, Tieflings were nothing more than 'My Graddaddy got it on with a Devil.' Tieflings never had a civilization, since they were discreet occurrences. Little united the Tiefling race as a whole other than their shared extra-evil-planar heritage (which could come from Demons or Devils, any type). 4E changed this to make Tieflings feel more like a race of people rather than a handful of bastards. I'm not a fan of the implied heritage of the Tieflings but that can be easily changed to fit my ideas.

Quote from: EvilElitestElidaron are kinda cool on there own, but are just a crop out for the elf problem.

Actually I think D&D has cured that particular problem. there were FAR too many Elven (and Dwarven) subraces in 3.5. WotC made a good call limiting the Elves to their 3 most iconic forms - High, Wood and Dark. You don't need any more than that, 3 is perfect. Plus, in the implied setting, Eladrin really bring the concept of the 'Planes are places you can go to at any level' to the forefront of the game much more succinctly than many of the directions WotC could have gone.

Quote from: EvilElitestok, E-Elf, i'm sorry, your a generally good person from what i know of you, but this is the exactly same kind of annoying attitude that White Wolf fans have.  This kinda condescending "more mature than thou" view when it comes to white wolf vs. 3E (or 2E, or 1E).   Here is the thing, yes D&D came from war gaming roots, but it is far from a wargame with some addeded fluff (again, until 4E, which glorifies in this ideal).  If you read the 1E-3E source books, best with 2E, you will find plenty of back story and details within there, at least as much as the WW books offer.  I mean, really, when you get down to it, what does Exalted do that is more "story telling?"  they have a few chapters on story telling, but most of that information is found in the three 3E D&D books, or is setting/rule specific.  Don't get me wrong, Exalted is actually a pretty good game, and I give the 1E version a pretty good review (I haven't finish the article yet due to midterms, but my conclusion is positive) but it isn't brining anything new to the table we haven't seen apart from rules to making your more powerful, or the Storytelling system from WoD, which doesn't seem really that much more story based.  I mean, you this Story book formula, but it just is replacing once per day sort of magical affects with once per scene or once per act ect ect, and personally I find a system that relies upon a focused metaplot really limiting.  Again, its not bad, but I certainly wouldn't say its better than 3E or more story built.  

Just curious, have you ever played Warhammer 40k? if you haven't I like you to read some information on that game. 40k is a honest-to-god hardcore Wargame set in the distant future. The amount of flavor Games Workshop has generated for the game rivals FR, and much of it is better than the bog standard stuff generated in fantasy these days. At any rate, the point I am trying to convey is that Wargames are not flavorless hack and slash events played between 2 (or more) uber-nerds; wargames can be filled with just as much excitement, adventure and fun as any role playing session. In all honesty, there is more flavor in 40k than the implied setting of D&D (no matter the edition). D&D is a wargame but a wargame enhanced by the addition of a Dungeon Master and the toning back of combat to 1 person, 1 character. What I'm trying to say is that, just because D&D is a wargame with the Role Playing add-on, does not lesson the value and the contribution D&D has given to nerd-dom.


Quote from: EvilElitest4E is focused entirely upon the combat.  It is balanced based upon combat, the system of recover is centered around combat (IE, once per encounter vs. once per day) and the fact that everything in terms of story and back ground has been cut more than the Bush environmental budget.  

Once again, the Implied Setting is nothing more than a template on which DMs can create their own worlds. It is not a true setting in and of itself and should thus be limited to the basics. And there's nothing wrong with making classes equal in power. There is no reason, in game terms, to say why a Wizard should be akin to a commoner (frail and boring) until higher levels when he eclipses all other mortals (save the 3.5 Druid and Cleric, for obvious reasons :P ). At any rate, as I stated, D&D (IMO) is a Wargame with a very fun RPG attatched to it. I would rather the rules for the wargame be as succinct as possible so as to  limit the number of rules debates and get back to what's important - killing monsters and roleplaying.

Quote from: EvilElitestBy that argument why should Exalted bother having fluff then? I mean, couldn't you just have Exalted rules without any back ground or storytelling chapters?  
 
That makes no sense. You are equating Role Playing (the thing people do with one another) and the Fluff (the story of the world) to a much larger degree than I am. Fluff is always necessary for RP, I never said you shouldn't have fluff. I'm simply saying people that believe the only true aim of D&D is to roleplay are fooling themselves worse than those 'White Wolf Posers' you hate so much.

Quote from: EvilElitestActually, prior to 4E people wanted more fluff.  The world 3E made didn't make any internal sense, there were massive plot holes in germs of how the cosmology worked, many things had been left unexplained (Is necromancy evil?  WFT is with Poison), creatures had unrealistic backgrounds, and more and more monsters were just being nothing more than random encounters.  Consistency and some basic logic were wanted, with a more understandable and logical game, rather than a massive hack fest.  See also the massive negative feed back towards it
 

I never saw that on the WotC boards. The people decried the needless filler present in the most of the D&D books, especially the latter half the 3.5's run. The fluff we're discussing are two separate fluffs. You are referring to the fluff pertaining to the structure of the implied setting where as I am discussing the hundreds of pages WotC wasted with 'how other classes see this class' and 'A day in the life of this class' and all the other needless text WotC bloated their books with.


Quote from: EvilElitestActually wizards problem was that it segregate fluff and crunch.  While the fluff was cool, all of the societies they created had no real correlation with the actual information presented.  I mean a D&D 3E society wouldn't function the way the fluff imagined, and the balance only made it worst.  So Wizards cut out at least 50% of there game and focused on making the combat work.  Which essentially makes the game a simply a glorified wargame  

If you disagreed with WotC's interpretation of how societies would work under the 3.5 system, then you should be jumping for joy that WotC segregated fluff and crunch, thus allowing you the freedom to develop the type of societies you envision, thus creating a stronger, more focused world that you yourself enjoy.  

Quote from: EvilElitest1)   Its simplified, and dumbed down.  
2)   See also pandering to the masses.  That should never be equated with quality
These are two things that make me light WW because they don't do this

1) streamlined and made easy, so the game flows easier and allows more time for the DM to focus on what he and his players want (be that RP, Hack-n-Slash or both).
2) if your consumer base dislikes the game you created, you do not obstinately continue down the same path, like a dog in heat. You compromise between what you want and what your consumers want and hopefully create a product most can be satisfied with.

Quote from: EvilElitestMaking fluff is like writing a book.  It actually isn't that easy (and most of the D&D fluff isn't setting specific, it shouldn't bother you.)  It is easy to change it, but making a distinctive and actually good is not that difficult.  I mean, other wise you get a mass of clichés and platitudes like Eragon.  Providing Fluff doesn't hinder role playing, it offers more back ground and ideas, helps with making the game more compatible for other people and styles, and makes the world feels cohesive and logical rather than just a video game in denial

The Ironic part of this is believing that D&D is actually a product designed to be original. D&D is full of 'cliches and platitudes' because, believe it or not, that sells. WotC slips the unique flavor in with its flavor books and hopes it catches on, all the while maintaining a status quou fileld with Cliches. Ironically, IMHO, it is because WotC deviated from the cliches (Dragonmen!? Dwarves not living underground!? no Bard!? No Gnome!?) that angered so many fans and made them into spiteful creatures that spew an unending torrent of anti-4E commentary over the web (obviously not you yourself but those trolls exist every where).