Speaking as someone who's since written a fair amount for the Wolf and has changed a lot of my opinions about RPGs, I don't think that Vampire is really all that narrativist. I'd actually call it an unfocussed simulationist game with narrativist tweaks.
Which is not a bad thing, since it means you can play any sort of game with it, from dark superheroes, to innocent public-munching monster, to that whole thing with the trying to remain human and having the moral quandaries and personal horrors and stuff.
Speaking as someone who's since written a fair amount for the Wolf and has changed a lot of my opinions about RPGs, I don't think that Vampire is really all that narrativist. I'd actually call it an unfocussed simulationist game with narrativist tweaks.
Which is not a bad thing, since it means you can play any sort of game with it, from dark superheroes, to innocent public-munching monster, to that whole thing with the trying to remain human and having the moral quandaries and personal horrors and stuff.
But that's by the by.
And i do agree with you, Wood (with the caveat that it doesn't try to simulate reality but a certain kind of stories, so personally i'd rather use the term "emulationist").
__________________
----
"I'm from Greece so i can say 'Tzimisce' with ease."
Re: [RPG]: Vampire: The Requiem, reviewed by Venger Satanis (4/5)
I tend to agree with Wood as well. I've never been all that interested in all the Gamist/Simulationist/Narrativist business, but if I had to pin it down I'd say Vampire (like most WW games) tries to give you a set of tools to represent a kind of umbrella genre of dark adventure with horror trappings.
Like a lot of people, I found the original release of Vampire to be so defiantly different from D&D that it struck me like a lightning bolt. I quickly abandoned D&D and all "lesser" games in favor of a new (terribly important, it seemed) "Storytelling" game. Of course, the enormous, angst-ridden ego of my teenage years was probably a significant factor in all this.
After a while, I realized that Storytelling games, at least the way I played them, weren't all that different than D&D (which was also a storytelling game, just one with a smaller 'S' and less high falutin' jargon). It was at this point that I began to relax and actually have fun with RPGs again. The reason I left Vampire had more to do with it's player base than the game itself. I was never able to find a group that didn't take itself too seriously.
Anyway, I don't know why I felt compelled to share this, except to say that I'm glad Venger Satanis chose to review this game. I like seeing a heartfelt review that simply describes why someone enjoys a game, especially for a game that already has several informative reviews on RPG.net. This review, along with several recent threads, have convinced me to finally pick up a copy of V:tR and explore it for myself. I am very satisfied with the core mortals game and Hunter: the Vigil (and I'll run some combination of these if I ever end up running a nWoD game), but it's high time I checked out the Requiem.
Which is an annoyingly long way of saying "thanks for the review".
Re: [RPG]: Vampire: The Requiem, reviewed by Venger Satanis (4/5)
Not a bad review, although the "omg, WoD is about *role*playing not *roll*playing" is best kept back in the 90s where it belongs.
Also:
Quote:
nteracting with non-player characters is more than just rolling dice and saying, “Ok, you got two successes, you convinced your enemy’s sire to accompany you to the mausoleum, roll again… and she’s dead. Nice job.” That would be the gamist way of negotiating the system. See how I can get the best bonus which means the greatest mathematical potential for doing X. Invariably, X is about maximizing firepower and resistance to enemy firepower. All I’m saying is that World of Darkness games are a completely different way of roleplaying.
That does great disservice to the many clever games that combine mechanics with role-playing - ie Social Combat and such. I could easily describe Narrativist play as, "Ok, I convince the enemy's sire to accompany me to the mausoleum where I kill her, and then everyone is happy! The End!" Please try to have an informed opinion of other methods before bashing them.
__________________
--
Learn by going, where to go.
My Auctions! Alternity, Dark Matter, Shadowforce Archer, Riddle of Steel, and Iron Kingdoms: CG
Last edited by Gilbetron; 10-10-2008 at 12:30 PM..
Re: [RPG]: Vampire: The Requiem, reviewed by Venger Satanis (4/5)
This review may have been heartfelt, but it wasn't really much use to me as a review.
I do so wish people who would do reviews would be more objective. I know we are human beings and as such it's difficult to be thus - indeed I will accept that nobody can be COMPLETELY objective but Jesus...
V.S. after the first four times where you shook your pom-poms we got it...you like WW. Nothing wrong with that, but your grand enthusiasm for the game IMO got in the way of you actually REVIEWING it.
Check out the way C.W. Richeson writes a review. And hey, he's another guy who pretty much thinks WW can do no wrong so emulating him will not merely provide structure for your review so it won't look like a hodgepodge of "OMFG this is TEH AWEZUMMS!"
The so-called Storyteller rules-set is not especially, nor even partly, facilitative toward Narrativist play. Furthermore, I have observed only a decided minority of White Wolf play that can be called Narrativist, usually involving considerable rules-Drift.
Re: [RPG]: Vampire: The Requiem, reviewed by Venger Satanis (4/5)
Quote:
someone else mentioned that on the rpg.net thread, but i beg to differ with you on the narrativist/simulationist front. because the characters can heavily influence the story through their interaction with the NPCs and setting itself. i think players have the opportunity to narrate how the chronicle progresses using the Storytelling system. now, with narrative indie games, you have the whole meta-game, breaking the 4th wall type of player narrative rights... and i believe this to be such an extreme example, that games like this almost stop being RPGs. what do they become instead? i'm not sure... maybe a shared drama experience?
and this is why i don't think WoD games can be lumped in with simulationism, because all RPGs simulate a certain genre and like to emulate various trappings of a setting. Vampire is going to have blood drinking, D&D is going to have monsters in a dungeon to fight, Deadlands is going to have gunfighting, etc. however, a few games like Call of Cthulhu are totally dependent on simulating a particular aesthetic: that of Lovecraft's stories. that's why if you are having duels at high noon and drinking blood, then you are most definitely not playing Call of Cthulhu. however, if you have gunfighting and tentacles you could technically still be playing Vampire. just like adding tentacles, lasers, and starships to D&D could still be considered a D&D game. only CoC is totally genre dependent. WoD games are not, they are dependent on story or narrative, which is why i see them as narrativist RPGs.
that's all i'm going to write for now. i'm sure that we could have a book-length discussion on RPG theory and practice if we wanted to, so i'll wait and see if you want to really get into it.
I've seen Venger post on the GD forum before, not sure if he posts anywhere else. I know he can't post here at rpg.net.
Quote:
re: Use of Narrativism in your review. You might want to check this out:
So, Blue, would you agree with Ron Edwards that World of Darkness is more simulationist than any other classification? Just wondering what your opinion is if you disagree with Venger's opinion? Thanks.
Linear Mode
