My general feelings on White Wolf

[Seraph]

Look, even now in your attempts to defend yourself, you are doing little but repeating yourself.  You say to those who criticize that they are missing the point (multiple times) and then repeat the point, without really even explaining it in a different way.  For example:  Advertising.  You have said that they were being snobbish and egotistical in their advertising for promoting their product as better than the alternative.  People here have told you that that's just simple advertising and common practice in marketing, so you respond that they've missed the point: that while you understand that it is advertising they're still being snobbish about it.  You haven't refuted their points, you have merely given a nod that you read them and then reasserted your own point.  I haven't seen anyone else here who thinks that the White Wolf advertisements were out of line.  

Also, your arguments that you will go into more detail when you get to the specific games does not really address the point that people have been making.  What you have written does not stand alone as an essay, or as a complete piece of writing.  This is due largely to the already mentioned fact that you do not support your points with evidence.  Evidently, you are holding back on evidence until you discuss specific games, but the result is that this essay is rather empty.  What you have here, in a condensed form, could make a decent introductory paragraph to an essay, but truly does not warrant an essay's length piece that talks in circles.  

[Scholar]

4) I'm not saying Sword and Sorceries are better than 3E in terms of specific settings, I like Ebberon and FR. I just like them in terms of fluff when it comes to non setting specific books. I also like there settings[sic]

1b) Is being insulting really necessarily? [/quote]
Nope. This is not me being insulting, this is me being scathingly direct. If I had wanted to troll you, I could have just written TL;DR. Instead, I point out some fallacies in your text. As I see it, this board is for having other people take an honest look at your work and honestly tell you if they like it or don't and for what reasons.

[Epic Meepo]

I am not going to respond directly to any statements made earlier in this thread, but I do want to contribute a few opinions to the dialog. As I say, these are merely opinions, so feel free to disregard them as incorrect and/or irrelevant.

Firstly, a critique of a product line should talk about a product line; a critique of a marketing campaign should talk about a marketing campaign; and a critique of a clique within a fan base should talk about a clique within a fan base. Anything that covers two or more of these topics at the same time should be split up into independent critiques. It is a critic's task is to single out a specific, well-defined subject and to discuss its relative merits, not to paint a full picture of the larger environment in which that subject exists.

Secondly, a critique of an essay should be a statement of one's opinions regarding that piece. A back and forth exchange in which one defends one's own points and refutes another's points is not a critique, it is a debate, and rarely constitutes constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is only constructive so long as the author welcomes it. If an author decides to refute a critic's points, no matter how valid they may be, it is not the responsibility of the critic to convince the author of their inherent value.

[Nomadic]

Secondly, a critique of an essay should be a statement of one's opinions regarding that piece. A back and forth exchange in which one defends one's own points and refutes another's points is not a critique, it is a debate, and rarely constitutes constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is only constructive so long as the author welcomes it. If an author decides to refute a critic's points, no matter how valid they may be, it is not the responsibility of the critic to convince the author of their inherent value.

A debate within a critique only happens when the author refuses to acknowledge the critics advice. Does this mean the critic should keep at it? Not necessarily. Does this mean the critic is at fault. Hardly (in fact I would say it is quite the opposite). It is not the critics responsibility to argue with the author. However, it is the authors responsibility to accept that the critic could be right.

As this pertains to me, I am not critiquing. I don't have the knowledge of white wolf, nor of writing practices to do this. Mine was a simple pointing out of a fact that was incorrect.

On that note, EE, don't think that I am hating on Wizards. In fact the only systems I have played outside of custom are all Dungeons and Dragons (other than a single day I played VtM). I love 3.5e, I am just not offended by the ad because I have been in the marketing environment and know what they are actually thinking.

[Kindling]

Could I maybe suggest bringing a halt to posting in this thread? I think everyone's made clear where they stand on the subject, and also that they're not going to be easily persuaded.

While I'm aware that people aren't flaming EvilElitist, just giving brutally frank critique of his work (work that I too, see my first post in this thread, was initially provoked to an extreme reaction by), I do feel that this thread's tone is moving away from the spirit of friendly advice and helpful critiquing that I like to see on the CBG.

Once again, I think we've all made our views clear by now, can we just let the subject lie?

[EvilElitest]

Nomatic, i think your missing two things
1) As i said, there reasoning for doing so doesn't change there attitude.  Yeah, your right, of course they are doing it for more money and fame, but that is still part of there "we are better than you attitude"
2) I realize that i have a personal bias here, but i think your missing a point.  I'm not defending my article out of some adolescent vehement defense of anything i write.  Personally, i don't think its a very good article either, its clunky and lacks detail, but i wrote it more out of an obligation to make my bias towards white wolf clear before reviewing the books rather than letting it crop up in my reviews a few hundred times.  So i don't mind criticism, and some of it here has been quite useful.  But in the same way that you might call any criticism i have of white wolf flawed, so can being critical of my article be flawed.  There are ways of handling criticism, absurdly hostile attacks and odd strawmen aren't the way to do it.  It is much more effective to simply ask a question directly and address an issue rather than simply attack quotes out of context.  The former actually can lead to some very valid and useful notes on improvement, the latter seems more like a slap in the face.  Which is ironic, because LC actually wrote something on the topic, "it doesn't matter what you say if you don't get people to listen. Being antagonistic in your communication will alienate your intended audience, so that even if your ideas are absolutely wonderful, your readership will be less likely to take them to heart. I am of the opinion that no matter what you want to say about another's work, there is a way to say it tactfully and respectfully (and therefore, usefully.)"
Thats seems much more reasonably.  I'm not against criticism, i'm opinionated and have some strong views, so its understandable.  It can just be handled in a civilized manner.  

SH
1) Because the reasoning behind the advertisements doesn't change my point.  I mean, i know why sex is used so often in modern american advertisement, because sex sells.  That doesn't change the fact that a lot of advertisiments are still sexist.  Or i know why fear is often used by politicians, its an effective way to make people do what you want them to do.  That doesn't change the fact its fear mongering.  I know i'm using extreme examples by my point still stands
2) True, it does make it seem somewhat dead, and as a standalone essay it would be very bad.  Think if it more as an introduction, because i'm going to be highlighting elements of the things i mention in this essays when i read through later books.

Scholar
Until 4E, that actually wasn't totally true.  Remember, fluff doesn't have to be setting specific.  the PHB, DMG, and MM are chalk full of fluff that really isn't setting specific (greyhawk really doesn't count, because you really don't need to know about it to play D&D).  Thats good, that makes the game have life and depth to it rather than being a wargame in denial (or if it was 3E.....a really bad stimulation game in denial).  Crunch doesn't >fluff, they are both very important essential parts of the game. 4E is just a collection of mechanics, with some of the most generic fluff i've ever seen thrown in as a topping (the MM is really guilty of this).  So yeah, you can role play with it and add fluff, but i could just fix up 3E mechanically and play that, that doesn't fix 3E's mechanical problems.  4th edition is really just a combat game at heart, there is very little else in it as written (Rollplaying you might call it).  Now, ironically enough, it would be a damn good niche game.  If it was just another game based on D&D published by Wizards, that would be fine.  You'd get a very well balenced combat system.  But as a new edition it fails, because its just cutting out the complexities and simplifying it down to the base elements, and by that standards, White Wolf's claims of being more storytelling based and more maturely written suddenly become true.
2) Sure. I'm not talking about campaign  settings made for 3E by WW.  I'm talking about the books they make that aren't designed soley for a specific game but have a lot of fluff in them.  In terms of setting games, i put FR (pre 4E) as my all time favorite.  However in there non setting games, they still put a lot of fluff into there work, which i like.  That doesn't automatically make them better than Wizards, but they tend to do it more than wizards, so very good for them there.
3) No, your defending a game that you like, that's slightly different.  You don't have to be a troll to seem insulting.  

Kindling, i'm fine with discussion, and i'm fine with criticism.  But lets keep it constructive, not defensive

from
EE

[SDragon]

I agree with kindling on this one. There's a lot I could say in this thread, but not a lot I could really add. Although, before i completely give up on saying anything at all, I'd like to toss this out:

because it was directed at 3E, not 4E

why[/i] in this thread, and I think they would like to see more of that first word in there. This is a good start. When we ask "why..?", tell us "because...". I really hope this helps.

[Lmns Crn]

You know, you've got a very good point. My previous post in this thread, though well-intentioned, was certainly overly blunt, indelicate in tone, and peppered with ill-chosen attempts at levity ("Call me crazy," "Don't tempt me.", etc.) that can only be read as nettlesome. That shit is out of line, yo, and for that, I apologize.

Perhaps the driving force behind that attitude of mine was a frustration with the perceived tone of your earlier responses. Perhaps it was a sleep deprivation-related issue, or a vitamin deficiency. None of these are acceptable excuses.

What a cranky crayon! Clearly it is my nap-time.

No hard feelings, I hope.

[EvilElitest]

Well, they realize the add when 4E edition was coming out. A lot of people (myself including) were not very happy about it, and wouldn't buy.  Some went to paizo, some went to 3rd parties, some stoped playing altogether what have you.  And some would start looking into 3rd edition.  

now when this was realized, if it was directed at 4th edition i could get that.  4th edition's main focus design wise is well, combat and having a balanced rule basis (to be fair, it does do that really well), while Exalted has a lot more about storytelling and what not.  So they could legitimately say "yeah, we focus on storytelling" because where Exalted has two chapters dedicated to it, 4E has very little fluff at all.  

But they don't.  Instead they attack 3E for being an inferior game storytelling wise, and implying its a combat only game, which seems very silly. It has lots of fluff, and tries to me a "everything you want" game more than anything....it doesn't do it well but still.
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

Thank you LC.  That was very mature of you.  I can certainly understand the sleep thing, Mid terms are coming up for me, so i'm not getting very much sleep either (and I'm an insomniac so......yeah).  So that is a very civil way to handle things.  I apologize if i've insulted you in my responses, or if i took offense where none in intended.  So why don't we just put this all behind us and try again.  

Thank you very much
from
EE

[Lmns Crn]

So why don't we just put this all behind us and try again.

Agreed. Delightful!

[beejazz]

Addressing your concerns about fluff in 3e/4e, and D&D overall...

In 3e, I primarily used the rules books rather than the setting information, and while you say these things lack fluff, I tend to disagree. Dungeons and Dragons, just by virtue of its rules and (equally important) its content, has a very specific feel in terms of how things play out. Yes there is a lack of explicitly stated setting content, pregenned NPCs, maps, and what have you, but the assumptions about any setting you might run with it are fairly clear. Now, you might want that specific kind of fluff, with the pregenned NPCs, a starting town, or what have you, and I can't say I'd blame you if you did, but... saying there's no fluff at all just strikes me as a little much.

Now, 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). So 4e does have lots and lots of fluff. Fluff I don't happen to like, but still fluff. Conversely, the rules include some occasional awesome fluff. I love the idea of the ritual rules, and how anyone can learn to cast certain utility spells. They could have gone further with the idea, but I love the implications for the setting. Likewise, certain cosmology changes (for the assumed setting) I like as well.

Oh, and I'd also note that there's probably a little less fluff in the content than there once was... monster stat blocks once included stuff like when they were awake (some things were specifically nocturnal, so you could try and race through the woods before nightfall to avoid the ogres). I think 4e might've also gotten rid of the entry on how many of a given monster would typically hang out together too, but don't quote me on that. Oh, and random harlot tables. Excellent fluff in the old school stuff. Lots of random tables brought pregen content without being as predictable in a way.

As for why D&D would leave out specific setting detail and leave you only with a "specific feel" for the kind of fantasy it was built for... It's mainly so GMs and groups don't feel tied down. A high priority with D&D was always versatility, from the simple flexible rules of D20 to the constant generation of "alternate rules" and custom content in all generations of D&D. Dungeons and Dragons has always been about being *your* game. I feel that a little less with 4e, but it might be that I'm just less familiar with the rules (fans say they're easy to modify... I don't see it) or because nothing like Unearthed Arcana has come out so far, or because third party support is rare thanks to the killing of Dungeon, Dragon, and the more restrictive GSL. Crap... I'm drifting.

So while I see what you're saying, I think you might have said it better. The perceived dichotomy between rules and fluff seems kind of inaccurate to me, and their specific approach, while it may not be your thing (and I can't blame you), is probably what's helped them stay on top so long.

Until 4E, that actually wasn't totally true. Remember, fluff doesn't have to be setting specific. the PHB, DMG, and MM are chalk full of fluff that really isn't setting specific (greyhawk really doesn't count, because you really don't need to know about it to play D&D). Thats good, that makes the game have life and depth to it rather than being a wargame in denial (or if it was 3E.....a really bad stimulation game in denial). Crunch doesn't >fluff, they are both very important essential parts of the game. 4E is just a collection of mechanics, with some of the most generic fluff i've ever seen thrown in as a topping (the MM is really guilty of this). So yeah, you can role play with it and add fluff, but i could just fix up 3E mechanically and play that, that doesn't fix 3E's mechanical problems. 4th edition is really just a combat game at heart, there is very little else in it as written (Rollplaying you might call it). Now, ironically enough, it would be a damn good niche game. If it was just another game based on D&D published by Wizards, that would be fine. You'd get a very well balenced combat system. But as a new edition it fails, because its just cutting out the complexities and simplifying it down to the base elements, and by that standards, White Wolf's claims of being more storytelling based and more maturely written suddenly become true.

I see you've addressed some of my points already. However, I still hold that mechanics and content are (or can be) fluff in their own way, and I completely disagree on the "generic" point. The races section, for example is anything but generic, and this is exactly why I dislike it so much.

I'm not even sure what you mean by 3x being a simulation game in denial. If it's GNS you're referring back to... well it makes as little sense as anything Ron's said. If not... then I'm just stumped as to what you're getting at.

I wouldn't go so far as to call 4e a niche game either, though it's hard to deny the mechanical focus has narrowed considerably.

And when expressing distaste for White Wolf's smug superiority, the word "rollplaying" might be a bad choice. I'm pretty sure they coined that phrase.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Dungeons and Dragons, just by virtue of its rules and (equally important) its content, has a very specific feel in terms of how things play out. Yes there is a lack of explicitly stated setting content, pregenned NPCs, maps, and what have you, but the assumptions about any setting you might run with it are fairly clear.

Absolutely. Hence spawn many of the houserules we see, when people want make the game fit their world.

[brainface]

And when expressing distaste for White Wolf's smug superiority, the word "rollplaying" might be a bad choice. I'm pretty sure they coined that phrase.

Whoa, whoa, White Wolf coined that term?

Pretty sure I'm gonna have to boycott them then. God I hate that word. :P

[Moniker]

I've never played or read anything about White Wolf with exception of Exaulted. Which is a POS, seriously.

It has a terrible backbone for the way they handle the mechanics and combat resolution, and the world they present is way, way over the top. It'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.