What the hell is wrong with White Wolf's fluff writers?

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:10 am

sabs wrote:in oWoD telling if someone is a Diablerist requires someone with the right power. Unfortunately, over half the clans have said power. It's pretty trivial to tell if you're a Diablerist. This makes you punishable by death, unless you have a lot of political clout.

That pretty much sums up the situation in the campaigns I've been in. Rolling into town with black veins in your aura isn't cause for an immediate execution in most domains, but it puts everyone on edge. All of the major players will put you under surveillance and start digging up as much dirt about you as humanly possible. Unless you have a really good reason for having those veins in your aura, you're in for a world of hurt.

Windjammer · Post by **Windjammer** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:57 pm

Thread Raise on the oft rehearsed issue of whether or not

(P) VtR (and nWoD more generally) has been made too Christian by virtue of (sic) the introduction of the Catholic virtues and vices as a core component of the game.

I think there are two questions to be distinguished here:

(a) First, the question whether P is actually true - whether it really made the game too Christian, and
(b) Even if P was actually false, whether the introduction of Catholic virtues was perceived to be true of the game by a significant part of the fanbase to be turned away from the game (as Frank claims)

I think we can reasonably say yes to (b), in that WW itself catered to those who yearned back for the oWoD days of going back to Nature and Demeanor in their nWoD supplement Mirrors (pp.23-56). The rationale given is little short of the things Frank has been pointing out above:

Mirrors, p23, 24 wrote:
Absent Morality

Some people object to the idea that the basic elements of character can be summed up by a couple words. They will argue that humans are too complex for such simplistic evaluations or that what drives any particular person changes on a daily (or even hourly) basis. Buddhists would agree with both arguments. As a philosophy, Buddhism notes that the world and everything in it is in a constant state of change. We aren’t the same people we were even 10 seconds ago, let alone one year ago. If our characters are to be as real as possible, given the backdrop of the World of Darkness, it seems as though assigning hard rules of behavior prohibits character development, rather than encouraging it. (...)

Optional Rewards

For troupes whose members find that they don’t care for the constraints of Virtue and Vice, we suggest dropping the elements completely, rather than chang�ing those elements every other chapter. In place of gaining Willpower by fulfilling a Virtue or Vice, characters can be rewarded with Willpower for overcoming challenges. By way of example, a character might regain Willpower by:
• Tracking a monster back to its lair (1 Willpower)
• Finding a useful bit of information while researching a problem (1 Willpower)

The book then goes on to outline further alternatives, including Nature and Demeanor. A different supplement, WoD:Innocents (2009) also foregoes virtues and vices in favour of something else, which it calls assets and faults (p.87 and following).

The reason I bring this up is because I think Frank is right to say that a part of the fanbase perceived the introduction of Catholic vices and virtues to be uncongenial to their nWoD etc games, and wanted something else. At least, it seems to me that WW perceived that need to a sufficient degree to address it in several of its splats. A little too late, perhaps, in that it doesn't help the game's reception in 2004, but certainly wonderful to those who (like myself) got into VtR only recently.

----

Now onto question (a), which is a philosophical one, not a sociological/empirical one. In particular this bit upthread stirred me:

souran wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: That's great, but nWoD doesn't use the cardinal virtues, it uses the Seven Heavenly Virtues from Catholic teachings.
The seven heavenly virtues are just aristotles 4 cardinal virtues plus the three theological virtues. The monks stole aristoles philsophical explanation of positive action wholesale because unfortuanely the new testament is heavy on doctrine and whose in/whose out and while it offers a metaphsyiscs (do it or god is mad) it offers very little epestimeology and only a nuiance of ethics.

First of all, the cardinal virtues are not Aristotle's as much as they are Plato's, whose fifth virtue was piety or fear of (and rendering due service to the) Gods. (So much for revisionist history in saying it was Christians who added 'faith' to the virtues.)

But the key point in this discussion is this. For Plato and Aristotle the virtues were your best shot, as a human, to find human happiness. The virtues expressed what it means to be human; Aristotle had a whole argument for that which we nowadays call the function argument (NE, book I). The idea is that like other organisms humans have a certain biological function, which in their case is to act well in line with their most noble of capacities, which is to think and act intelligently and with a good eye on their own good. And the virtues are the high road to fulfil that (human) function.

That's the point I"d like to emphasize. For a pre-Christian thinker virtues are intimately bound up with what humans already ARE. As such, it's actually not a bad fit for the VtR theme at all; in which case you'd do well to not so much read Aquinas as to go back and see how Aristotle defines the virtues. That's important in e.g. how anger and wrath is handled. There are situations where, according to Aristotle, turning the other cheek would make you LESS noble, LESS virtuous and - hence - less human. On the other hand, you got to have moderation over your instincts and drives, the type of things which don't set you (and your 'functioning') apart from lower animals. As stated, perfect fit for VtR, and much, much better than the Catholic inspired drivel you get in the VtR gameline.

By contrast, the way I understand virtues to function in a Catholic framework is this - they are meant to get you onto a path where you TRANSCEND your current human nature, and go beyond that. To re-attain a state which humans had before the Fall (if you wish, 'humanity in its PURE form', to give the VtR narrative extra force - more on which shortly). Think of Dante's Purgatory here and the idea how virtues are something you develop to CLEANSE yourself and prepare yourself for a blessed afterlife.

In other words, on that angle (which I'd call the Catholic) the virtues are expressive not of your actual human nature but of something beyond it. As such they are a very poor fit for the VtR theme. In a nutshell,

- on the Aristotelian reading, clinging to virtuous behaviour means to cling to what it means to be truly human, in a possibly mundane and this-worldly sense ---> cling to ACTUAL humanity

- on the Catholic reading, virtues are vehicles of REDEMPTION, of delivery into another afterlife ----> attain "PURE humanity", the type of thing historical humans have never experienced

And that seems to be a terribly important distinction, because it means not just the way a VtR player defines the CONTENT of the virtues (e.g. whether you define piety by reference to Plato or Christ) but also the way he defines their FUNCTION will make a huge difference to how he plays the game. On the Aristotelian reading, we get a story of trying to cling to the sociality of other human beings, to a fundamentally human life AS IS, whereas on the Christian reading, playing VtR becomes a narrative of redemption.

I think either of these could be interesting things to explore in VtR games (the latter, while not my cup of tea, certainly less offputting than the Lancea Sanctum drivel), and the best thing to be said at this point is to keep the game completely open as to how players define the content and function of virtues. The initial intent of VtR seemed to be to be as open as possible about everything, and the mistake of going for a very particular narrative and for a particular spin on the virtues made the game a lot narrower than it needed to be. That Mirrors and Innocents came years after that initial glitch won't ever help to set that right.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:22 am

Yeah, even the fact that they used the words "virtues" and "vices" had an inherently judgmental nature to them. You obviously weren't supposed to be going between them like they were Aristotelian ideals, because one of them was a virtue and the other one wasn't.

The ideas in Mirrors were better, but it was too little too late to get people on board.

-Username17

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:49 pm

We have After Sundown, which is an objectively better game than either WoD, and tweaking it to work with the WoD fluff is likely going to be a lot easier. I confess that I kind of see WoD as no longer relevant as an actual TTRPG. Though I loved Bloodlines and hopeful about the MMO.

Don Strudel · Post by **Don Strudel** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:30 pm

The Nature and Demeanor system in Mirrors doesn't actually replace the Virtue and Vice system. It supplements and reverses it.

In the Mirrors system, Demeanor consists of an Archetype and a Virtue, and earns one Willpower. A Nature consists of an Archetype and a Vice, and refills the Willpower pool.

So the system essentially rewards you more anytime you act selfishly than when you act selflessly.

I don't have high hopes for the MMOG, though. It's going to have both a subscription fee and a ridiculously overpriced cashshop that will charge you US$20 for the privilege of renting a virtual skirt that the devs can take away from you at any time.

I don't understand how people here can defend Masquerade over Requiem when they've proven that Masquerade has plenty of horrible flaws of its own.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:04 pm

Don Strudel wrote: I don't understand how people here can defend Masquerade over Requiem when they've proven that Masquerade has plenty of horrible flaws of its own.

Just stop...

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:07 pm

Don Struedel wrote:I don't understand how people here can defend Masquerade over Requiem when they've proven that Masquerade has plenty of horrible flaws of its own.

Imagine you have a choice between being shot in the leg with an AK 47 on full auto, or in the head once with a desert eagle. Being shot in the leg with an automatic weapon has horrible flaws of it's own, but it's still preferable to being shot in the head even once.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:24 am

Prak_Anima wrote:
Don Struedel wrote:I don't understand how people here can defend Masquerade over Requiem when they've proven that Masquerade has plenty of horrible flaws of its own.
Imagine you have a choice between being shot in the leg with an AK 47 on full auto, or in the head once with a desert eagle. Being shot in the leg with an automatic weapon has horrible flaws of it's own, but it's still preferable to being shot in the head even once.

I'm no doctor, but I think you're asking us to choose between a quick death or a slow one, there. All else being equal, I'll go with the option that has less pain, thanks.

EDIT to say something relevant: Masquerade has really good fluff. I mean, not all of it, but the good parts are seriously incredible.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:39 pm

Actually I'm proposing a choice between almost certain death, or a crippling, but survivable event. (yes there are major arteries and such in the leg, but with medical intervention I think it's more survivable than a direct head shot.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:45 pm

I've treated a man who was shot in the leg with an AK. It's bad, but it's not end of the life bad.

-Username17

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:55 pm

Thank you for more or less confirming, Frank. I'm essentially an art major so my grasp of biology is.... yeah.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:31 am

Also... Masquerade had metaplot. A lot of it sucked, but a few things here and there didn't, and the idea that you were being manipulated by powers far beyond your reach was one of the central themes.

Requiem went so far out of it's way to strip metaplot out that they stripped out much of what made the setting enjoyable. They also pulled all the themes out of the game that dealt with the metaplot.

In the end it just... fizzled. For me it was the money grab of the blue book plus the core book, and then all of the main splat books for the first few years were released in hardcover. I wasn't going to spend 35-40 bucks on what should have been a softcover.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:16 am

FrankTrollman wrote:I've treated a man who was shot in the leg with an AK. It's bad, but it's not end of the life bad.

I knew someone who got shot up badly by an AK in Afghanistan. Completely shattered his arm. That didn't kill him. The medivac whipped up so much contaminated dirt that he wound up with a resistant infection that basically got the upper hand while he was recovering from the successful surgery.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:54 pm

Don Strudel wrote: I don't understand how people here can defend Masquerade over Requiem when they've proven that Masquerade has plenty of horrible flaws of its own.

Masquerade actually had some decent flavor. Requiem (and anything else nWoD) doesn't have any redeeming qualities.

For example, in Mage the Awakening, I can't even figure out what you're even supposed to do. All your enemies are these millenia old uber dudes living in the spirit world who really don't do anything. The storyline is just terrible.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:58 pm

What I like about OWoD is that Mage is actually a fun game (if you only play mage). The New World Order, the Men in Black, the Technocracy. Those are seriously fun bad guys. It makes for cool games.

Werewolf is also fun, with interesting plot lines. Vampire had some interesting fluff in the original pre-splat book stuff.

Changeling is just crap in any edition, and Wraith while a cute concept, just doesn't play out.

But in NWoD, it's all just crap.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:48 pm

OWoD is all about flavor (and that clan supplement that got treated like a porn rag; hidden behind the counter). But I really only found Masquerade interesting and then becuse it was mostly novel at the time. OWoD+; the later released settings like Wild West for Werewolf and Dark ages for Vampire, although the later needed a whole lot more stuff to really make it pop. Constantinople seemed to be a good suplement.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:35 pm

what is wrong with ww's fluff writers is that they are catering to their audience

souran · Post by **souran** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:06 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Yeah, even the fact that they used the words "virtues" and "vices" had an inherently judgmental nature to them. You obviously weren't supposed to be going between them like they were Aristotelian ideals, because one of them was a virtue and the other one wasn't.

The ideas in Mirrors were better, but it was too little too late to get people on board.

-Username17

This is total bullshit. The virtues and vices were not judgmental, in every game I ever saw played people bounced from scene to scene playing to either their virtue or vice because those became a characters stage traits.

Further playing to your vice was usually superior in outcome.

NWOD made some really stupid choices, and the games only saving grace is that it is slightly mechanicaly superior to OWOD.

However, the virtues and vices system is just about the only alignment/morality/personality system that even comes freaking close to working.

It encourages you to play to toward your positive trait AND your negative trait. You get a real tangible reward for "acting" your characters bad habbits.

The only people this system hurts are people who want to be bi-polar sociopaths who are not stable enough to have a real personality but instead are just a collection of random emotions played with pure escapist malevolence.

Anyway, just having this conversation seems to prove that regadless of how the rules work they shouldn't be called virtue and vice even if they ended up being called something much less gothic like "personality trait and personality flaw"

I guess "flaw" doesn't work because its also judgmental....

For all the reasons not to like the crap that is NWOD pinning the editions failures on the virtue and vice system being to christian still seems so jaw droppling stupid that I just can't come to grips with it.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:19 pm

It's totally irrational to say that the vice system is too Christian because it's based off of sins associated with Christianity. What makes White Wolf's fanbase magically immune to irrationality?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:38 am

cry fucking more, you live in a christianized culture, the entire point of wod is darkbad and yes being a greedy, fornicating, alcoholic pig is something that is considered bad in our culture. just because it's judgmental doesn't mean it's wrong, only a limping, mincing relativistic libertine would whine about it.

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:15 am

If they used a different religion's morality system, would it be less stupid? (Barring obvious troll religions like Wicca and Scientology. I don't take Wiccans seriously after realizing that I have living relatives that were alive before Wicca existed).

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:38 am

The only people this system hurts are people who want to be bi-polar sociopaths who are not stable enough to have a real personality but instead are just a collection of random emotions played with pure escapist malevolence.

The problem is that you described the White Wolf's fanbase. Oh, and they would have bought that shit with Wiccan morality instead of Christian morality.

I could go in a long rant about how is fucking bullshit that Christianity is the butt of all jokes but nobody dares to critizice Islam, the "religion of peace", but that's off-topic.

PR is right. WW games appeal to their most fervent fanbase. Which happen to be a bunch of deviant creeps.

K · Post by K » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:05 am

Has everyone forgotten that White Wolf games are about being hip and edgy and counterculture and Christianity is the opposite of those things?

Seriously. People don't want to play their Mom's vampire game.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:36 am

ww is about playing pedophile werewolves: the rapening

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:34 am

K wrote:White Wolf games are about being hip and edgy and counterculture

and is an emo-sue wank-fest that is drowning in contrived melodramatic melancholy.

and this isn't just WoD -- it was the same with Aeon and Scion .... I don't even want to look at anything else they might have ever done (if there is anything).

It's sad, really. Their base game engine is pretty cool, and has a lot of potential. It's just too bad that the writers pathologically can't get over themselves.