It's because I've seen this sort of thing happen. A lot. Not by any GM here, of course, but by bad GM's over the years. There was one game where a midrange NPC was using a belt-fed machine gun. He had trouble hurting us, so "magically", he switched to belts of APDS. Which was bad enough, but when we beat hi,m he coincidentally had just fired his last belt, and didn't have any ammo left to loot. That's what I mean.

Fudging is a tool for the GM, but you have to be fair about it. And I'm sure everyone here is, but at the same time, there are those who aren't. And that's why you need to be doubly sure you're being fair when you make adjustments like that.

Anyway, tjn has it right. By the rules, we're supposed to craft every NPC from scratch. 4.5 in particular specifies that every named, recurring NPC is supposed to be built with BP, which is a time consuming process. Now: I cheat and fudge that all the time. I'm sure everyone else here does. Which is great, because that works. But the actual rules themselves? They *don't* work. That's not saying anyone is doing it wrong-- the opposite in fact. Those who make it up are doing it *right*, and the rules are just bad.

It depends on which rules you are reading (inconsistency? In Shadowrun? Inconceivable!). Sure, the section on building prime runners on page 385 of SR5 advocates creating them similarly to PCs (with adjustments for comparative power level), but earlier, on page 346, it talks about three ways of statting up NPCs - full build, story build (the NPC is simply assigned logical values for skills, etc. - and the text even admits that this "will probably be the one most commonly used."), and improvised build (making up stats on the fly).

Fudging is another matter. I think that a bit of metagame fixing for a blatant mistake (not writing down ammo for an NPC guard, etc.) is fine, just as I would not be a dick GM if the players made a similar obvious mistake (sure, your character wouldn't show up to explore the sewers without a flashlight). I disagree more with adjusting stats on the fly; forget "challenge". It will come up occasionally, naturally, but this is a game where characters can range up and down the power scale, tactical decisions can give huge advantages (or disadvantages), lateral thinking can let you bypass problems altogether, and combat tends to be quick and lethal. Not to mention that a TN of 5 makes dice rolls very unpredictable. Just remind the PCs that they can always run, and be glad that Edge is there to smooth out unlucky rolls. I think there is some text in the game explicitly giving GMs sanction to do tweaking as needed. That really gets more into playstyles, though. Some GMs tweak encounters or even fudge dice rolls, while some have encounters set in stone and let the dice fall where they may; some GMs are story-oriented, and some have character-driven plots instead.

But if you really read the entire NPC chapter in the SR4.5 basic book, it states that it is absolutely RAW just to assign numbers to the NPC - for every kind of NPC, from squatter to CEO and great old dragons. Only in one very specific case it is recommended to use the BP/karma system. Again, only "recommanded", not "must be build". Saying that it is not RAW to just handwaive numbers etc is simply *wrong*. It has nothing to do with the role play police, but with the constant claim that in SR 4.5 every major NPC has to be built using the BP system by RAW - which is a false claim. Look some postings above you, I marked the corresponding part in the basic book in big letters ...

Again: it is completely RAW to just handwaive anything for any NPC in SR. It is only *recommended* to use the BP system for a very small, very specific type on NPC.



They are not rejecting RAW. They are using RAW, because it is RAW that you as a GM can (if you want) just assign the numbers (or use the BP system if you want that). But as a GM you have a choice, and both choices are RAW and correct.

SYL

You quoted one small section, when there are several relevant ones. You referred to one part of fluff text, which in full, reads as follows:



So, even though you *can* make up whatever you want, GM's aren't supposed to-- they're supposed to stay in line with the rules, and the rules say you should use BP for recurring characters.



And again: if the rule is "Make it up", what the heck did I just pay $60 bucks for? I can make things up without spending that much money, I buy rulebooks so I have help to make things. "Make it up" isn't a rule, it's a cop-out.

That is not a fluff text, its a cruncy rule. One you do not like as it seems but a rule nontheless. Fluff is the intro story for a chapter for example.

And yes, you pay 60$ for it (as the basic book really so expensive in the US?). Because it is not only filled with one rule on how to stat NPCs and 400 empty pages, but for a lot of other rules, combat, magic, initiation, skill usage, attribute test, world introduction, matrix hacking etc. And to be honest: this specific rule is enough. I have enough example NPCs and description in the book to estimate which level is appropriate for which situation (from veteran street crops to multi billion Ares CEO) to create NPCs on the fly if I really need them. Yes, sometimes I have to improvise and yes, sometimes I forget things and yes, I often go in the direction of "Would it make sense that this NPC have item x or ability Y" and introduce it on the fly (we know that you do not like this kind of gamemastering), but I still stay inside the rules, as"on the fly" is still RAW. But usually not the RAW you like.



For that, Cain, you have the rest of the book, Grunts, Archetypes, critters, spirits, dragons etc. I am quite sure such an experienced GM as you can use these example npc and adapt them to your specific style of playing / gamemasterting.

##############################################################################

On the other side: what would *your* best/perfect NPC contruction rules be? Where you would say "Woah, thats totally awesome how I can build NPCs here!"?

I mean in the course of a run (one evening) a player can ancounter dozens of NPCs, from very unimportant (Mike, the McHughes sales representative) to very imporatant (Johnson), from easy combat challenges (low level ganger) to elite combat (veteran SWAT knocking on the door). Do you create dozens of NPCs every gaming night? What do you prepare for a campaign? Hundreds of NPCs?

Do you improvise at any level in any kind of roleplaying game? Not only SR12345 or DnD/Pathfinder or Star Wars or whatever.

How do you create the thousands of NPCs, both important and not important during all roleplaying games both SR and non-SR (if you play other RPGs besides SR)? For may part, I can only say "i look at example characters and improvise and make stuff up".
SYL

If a system does not allow you something, you can't do it within its confines. Simple as that.


Unless you're building an NPC for a set amount of BP and not a BP more, and you forgot to fit non-conductivity into that; and unless the players have observed the NPC's armour in detail and you never mentioned it's apparently non-conductive, what difference does it make? Okay, you're writing stuff into the NPC's stats not before the session but during it. So? You just have to keep it consistent: if your NPC has that armour upgrade or uses APDS or whatever, you mark it down for when the players loot the guy. Otherwise, it's all behind the curtain stuff that the players have no way nor reason to know about.

For me, that's a strong indicator that Shadowrun is not about fights at all, and these mustn't necessarily be a part of adventure (much less every gaming session like I've seen people boast). A single good roll by an NPC punk and a single bad defense roll incapacitates your character; a single spell against one of your weak attributes puts your character under control of the opposition's mage. The system is purposefully designed to be highly lethal and highly random; so using it should be an emergency.


Yep, that's how I do it, too. Instead of a set scenario path I usually just write up a plot intro ("a new AI fit into a fist-sized nexus was stolen from MCT lab") and then draw a relationship network: this actor did this and that, wants this and that, has these and that powers ("the researcher stole the stuff at the anarchist's urging; now as the corpsec is catching up to him he's looking for an extraction"; "the anarchist believes AIs sentients with equal rights; he had the AI stolen and now hides with it in the trid pirate community in Genericville", etc); then I visualize the links between the actors, and as the runners act, the world reacts. So whatever it is they decide to do (and at the end of it, roleplaying is about making decisions), a consistent, believable reaction is presented, even if it represents a challenge too hard ("we walk into the secret MCT research center in the middle of the day, guns at hand, to extract the scientist") or too easy ("we mind-control a girl living with the trid pirates to steal the AI's nexus for us"). Moreover, it allows for unexpected consequences that the players can in a way foresee ("the anarchist's grandma is a corporate bigwig, and she just wants her wayward grandson safe; she'll pay if he is captured or send a hit squad after the runners if he is killed; that will come up if the runners run a background check on the anarchist").

No, a crunchy rule is one with numbers and actual rules. That section is a guideline, part of an introduction, and clarified in later paragraphs to say you should use BP.



What a silly question.

Roleplaying games are all about improvising and making things up. The rules are there to *help* you make things up. When a rule actively hinders you from being able to make things up, as in Sr4.5, it's a bad rule. And that's evidenced by the fact that people here are almost universally ignoring the rules, instead of using them to help.

In other words, if I'm making a NPC by strict 4.5 RAW. Because then, you *do* only get so many BP, and not a BP more.

See the problem?


Despite the claims, Shadowrun has never been that lethal of a system. Runner deaths are decently rare.

Above and beyond this is the fact that no system should force a single-approach method. I've known GM's who love making combat scenarios, and force players to fight, even when they come up with other solutions. On the flip side, I've known GM's who hate combat, and brutally punish players who choose the combat option. Shadowrun in particular encourages lateral thinking and problem solving, so there should be no pressuring players into choosing any one way of winning.

But the rule is "make up the stats". Its a very basic rule and perhaps not for every GM (certainly not for you as is seem), but still ... its a rule. Rules are always crunch and never fluff. I would like you still to answer the question regarding on what rule system you find good for NPC creation/administration? How does it work? Because you criticize both the "make stuff up"-rule and the "use the normal character system to create NPC"-rule.

Which rule system / RPG is your perfect "NPC creation" system? And how does it work?

SYL

Somehow I have the feeling that - once again - the ongoing discussion is not about the thread's topic but certainly serves as an example to demonstrate what happened to Dumpshock ...



Your initial inference didn't sound like you were talking about the system but rather about what Demonseed Elite can or cannot do with regards to the individual ability of performing as GM as well as the involved player's ability to handle the system (opposed to the willingnes of doing so). As such your remark could easily be mistaken as a direct insult ... and your general 'tone' certainly helped with making exactly that interpretation.

And this certainly can be viewed as one of the main problems this board suffers from. Posters - and I can't exempt myself there - way too often choose to act antagonistic just for the sake of being "right" within the confines of their respective roleplaying preferences in general and their understanding of what SR is "supposed to be".

That's not a rule, that's a cop out.

Look, any GM can make up whatever they want. If someone wants to make a Shadowrun version that runs on d12's, that's fine! But after a bit, you have to ask yourself: "If I'm not getting any useable ideas from the Shadowrun books, why am I paying for them?"

Try it this way: why are there rules for building PC's? Why not just let every player make up whatever they want? So, one guy can play Al the street rat, and the other guy can play Clark Kent, the flying adept?

Second, introductions aren't rules. Rules are things like:

It's a very specific rule, and refers back to a complex chart full of numbers.


There isn't one. No such perfect system exists. That said, some are worse than others. The ideal system would provide a strong guideline for the desired outcome, provide consistent results, is easy to use with very few fiddly bits, and can be prepped quickly. The SR4.5 version fails on all of these: there are no guidelines for default power levels, BP provides wildly inconsistent results, has way too many moving parts, and takes forever, even when making stuff up, because there's too many essential pieces to consider.

Challenge and Fairness between players. Its like Monopoly: everyone starts the same. From there, its your ambition, luck and experience on how far you get.



Which one? Please give examples. Which were the good ones?

@mods: perhaps the part of NPC creation / interaction should be brought into a new thread.

SYL

I have the exact same feeling.



Well said.

The whole side conversation on building encounters and NPCs and improvising is getting into the weeds, but in some way I think it does have a point. Some of the methods of building encounters in Shadowrun can be very time consuming and have a lot of variables to keep track of that a GM may forget about (ex: APDS ammo or non-conductive armor mods that might just be a given in your campaign). Sometimes a GM has to fudge things to cover up that they forgot some detail and in order to keep the encounter fun or challenging, but if it happens too often, you have to wonder if there's just too much involved in creating the encounters to begin with.

Personally, when I was a freelancer, I absolutely dreaded building encounters in Shadowrun adventure books. It was difficult because power level is such a sliding scale in Shadowrun; the freelancer just doesn't know whether a given group has to worry about commonplace APDS ammo or non-conductive armor mods or whatever. Beyond that, it was just too easy to miss things, which I know many people on this forum have noticed and called-out various books for. It pretty much meant that an individual GM was going to have to tailor my encounter for his group anyway, so was it worthwhile to fully stat the encounter up or is it more worthwhile to provide guidelines to that GM?

apple, Cain: move that to PM.

I second that.

I don't think it should be 'forbidden'. I'd hate to have tone police floating around. But yeah, there are some people who are way too eager to "win" Dumpshock.

Weren't you the one who came up with a great story idea, submitted it, and had someone look at it and say: "It's a great story, but it goes against this really obscure rule hidden in this really old book?" That tale bothers me to this day.

Hmm...honestly, I don't remember. It wouldn't surprise me much.

But the first book I was a freelancer on was Brainscan, which is a campaign adventure, full of encounters. Mike Mulvihill was really supportive when I pitched the book and loved it enough to add it to the product line and make me a freelancer, but he also made the smart decision to have Rob Boyle mentor me on the book and clean up all our writing. Because I can promise those encounters I built in my part of Brainscan would have been terrible if not for Rob's work.

Brainscan was my favorite campaign adventure of SR3. Nothing can replace Harlequin in my heart, but Brainscan was the adventure where I perfected the mind fuck. I spent months laying down plot threads, only to have them all suddenly tie together in the climax of Brainscan.

You know that otaku who betrays the team and gets them all captured? Four months before I started the adventure, I had a player's girlfriend ask to join the game. I gave her a free-roaming NPC: she could act as she saw fit, but I reserved the right to tell her what she had to do. She was playing an otaku named Bit, and she charmed everyone.

See where this was going?

These guys would have spotted an NPC traitor, or at least been more suspicious. But when little Bit started crying, and then tossed the troll though a wall, they didn't know what to do. They couldn't even fight her, because she was their friend! It was a hell of a mind screw, and it all came together so nicely.

Anyway: I'm pretty sure they don't do the mentoring part anymore for Shadowrun freelancers. If nothing else, I wonder who has enough experience to mentor, anymore. Certainly none that have the experience of you, or the other longtime writers.

Hah, that's awesome! I love it.

I don't even know if that sort of mentoring was a tradition or just something they did in my case. But it was certainly valuable. I never formally mentored any new freelancers at FanPro or CGL, but I unofficially did when we were put on books together. Sometimes even on books I wasn't part of, a new freelancer would email me his drafts before he submitted them and I would offer a sort of first-pass advice. And while it wasn't mentoring, it was pretty common for Bobby, Peter, and a few others of us to share our drafts between us before handing them in, which I think benefited everyone involved.

I can answer this one...

NPC's in the FATE system are a breeze to make (but then so are the PC's). BEST, Most Ideal NPC construction model ever... Minor NPC - A few skills and a description and done, Significant (Minor + a few extra descriptors), all the way to a Whole Character sheet (Major NPC - which still only takes a minute or two, certainly no more than 5 minutes). Happy New Year, and Have a nice day.

Fudging something has one guideline. If the players enjoy it, its fine.

I prefer 7th Sea, in which only the plot-important named NPCs are statted, and everything else is just a Brute Squad that requires a certain number of successes to defeat. However, they're explicitly simulating swashbuckling action movies, so nameless mooks just there to be defeated are the flavor of the day.

Don't worry, it's not just you.

Basically there is nothing here now of interest to either most old players or new players. Threads derail constantly, new rules are argued over rather than discussed, old rules have entrenched camps, there's nothing new added. Any inquiry devolves into a flame which the OP needs to trawl through to ultimately choose what ever aligns best with their needs, if their lucky.

The same things are said to the same old questions peppered with personal venom. And grudges seem to be held. New rule set comparison now means ed wars from about half a page in. RAW and RAI arguments result in a sentiment of," why dont I just make a descision and avoid the 2nd hand abuse of raising a question.".

I come here out of habit because am too stupid to quit and give up hope. There has been one idea in a, no, two years that I found interesting that didn't come out of a new suppliment. And that was from a poster I have the home phone number for, for crying out loud!

Politeness, innovation, actual help and relevence. You disagree with something fine, one post is enough 99% of the time. Mostly, and as a SR3 player I dont like to say it, target the Editions that are still throwing up new ideas and issues.

Having a crowd that can answer virtually any question about the background is great. But sadly, again relevence, when there is maybe one question a month?

I think newbies do get their questions answered when they post here, it's just that the newbies tend to gravitate more towards the "official" forums when they want an unclear or contradictory rule explained, or help creating a character.

For quick NPCs, the existing full build/story build/improvised build guidelines are fine. Two things - first, for quick NPCs, you won't often need stats for everything, just a few numbers and relevant dice pools. Secondly, there are lots and lots of stock characters ready to be used; not just the grunts, but the character archetypes (good for non-optimized characters comparable to, but not as powerful as, the PCs) and contacts. I dislike using the "full build" approach for most NPCs for two reasons. One, NPCs range from far inferior to far superior to the PCs. Two, build points (or any of the other creation systems) are a horrible way to approximate power level. Shadowrun's character creation systems offer a lot of choices and options, but as a result, characters created with the same rules can vary greatly in power, skill, and experience.

I would like to echo this post. Personally, one of the big things that I originally found cool and intriguing about Dumpshock was how knowledgeable and creative the community felt. When I say knowledgeable, I mean knowledgeable about aspects of the real world that have strong connections or parallels with aspects of Shadowrun. It was here on Dumpshock where I originally learned the first examples of abusive and morally questionable behavior on the part of real-world corporations, starting with a link in an older thread that discussed how a pharmaceutical company essentially made up "chronic shyness" as a disorder so that it could sell their own prescription drug to "treat" it. It was here on Dumpshock that I learned just how much of the politics of the 6th world are impossible or unlikely (like corporate extraterritoriality, because no state in its right mind would ever yield territory to companies), and how much of it is likely (too damn much, especially in the areas of racism, political abuse, work culture/wageslavery, etc). It was here on Dumpshock that I've learned (somewhat) how to be strategic about planning hypothetical criminal operations. It was here on Dumpshock that I learned about a con artist who successfully scammed hundreds of thousands of dollars out of people by setting up fake charities, and about how it really can be important and useful not to leave a data trail in the real world (and ways to do that). And so on.

And when I say creative, I mean an ability to be innovative and expand on the setting with new material. And it wasn't just Ancient History who did that, although he had a big role in it and his stuff was always impressive. I saw threads with wonderful ideas for 6th world conspiracy theories; I saw a few threads with some pretty cool original fiction; I saw a whole bunch of threads over the years with very creative ideas for new equipment, spells, metamagics, creatures, contacts, the works. Knasser's stuff was great; the less-than-canon contact ideas thread was great; Neraph's writings were always intellectually stimulating and fun to read (sometimes in an absurd way); Umidori's very analytical ideas about the Infected were always interesting; the threads theorizing about what could be happening with Aztechnology's Horror-marked dragon and Harlequin and Dunkelzahn's many plots and possible connections between Deus and Horizon were all really cool. Heck, I even enjoyed the frequent arguments/discussions that used to happen between Yerameyahu and Tymaeus J. These things did a lot to draw me to this community - I was so impressed with how creative and how intelligent the people of this board were.

But like Pendaric, I feel like that innovation and flow of ideas and lively discussion has almost dried up here. That's one of the reasons why I stopped posting on the Shadowrun board and now primarily lurk here and post in Welcome to the Shadows. I get tired of the same old arguments about the same old rules, and I think the negativity about 5th edition has started to go too far. It just feels like the negativity about everything has started to crowd out the other factors that were really cool about this community. There isn't much generation of new ideas and new discussions (with the BIG BIG BIG exception of this thread). That isn't entirely Dumpshock's fault - I too have felt disappointed and stymied by the lack of Catalyst presence and communication here since Jason took over (Synner was better about that, IMHO), and I too have really felt the loss of engaged, really knowledgeable freelancers like Ancient History*. I want this community to regain its spirit and its sharpness. But I feel like Dumpshock itself needs to do something to try to make that happen, and the current atmosphere of complaining without action is not going to help it do that.



*Although I do feel that the presence of Patrick, Critias, Neurosis, and a few others has helped a lot in maintaining our confidence and morale.

I keep having to say this, and I hate doing it, but it needs saying. People here are negative about SR5 because it is actively hostile to the kind of game they want to play, and Catalyst has not acted to improve the quality of the products they are producing. Kicking around ideas is fun and interesting, but it really kills the motivation to do so when the next sourcebook comes out and it's more of the same problems.

We can't even really speculate about future products anymore, because Catalyst's idea of pre-release advertising lately has been 'It'll be out next month!' on products that come out six months later with major issues. We have no idea what's next, or when it'll be out.

And I understand that. From the reviews I have seen here, there is quite a bit to be desired in SR5, and I too have not been encouraged by these problems at Catalyst. To clarify what I said above, the issue that I take with the negativity here is that it now feels too much like do-nothing complaining. It's kind of like a dog who moans and groans because he's laying on a nail, but it doesn't hurt badly enough for him to get up. In the past, when dumpshockers were unhappy with a product, there were some efforts to create and share their own ideas and content to replace the product. Frank Trollman wrote (I hear) some very nice rules for the 4th edition Matrix before he got banned, for example. And there's a very nice fan-made rewrite of 4e's Attitude over in Community Projects, which happened after people felt that Catalyst's Attitude was pretty disappointing. That is what I liked seeing on Dumpshock before - even when a crappy product was released, portions of the community banded together and created something themselves. I have not seen that spirit at all here since shortly before 5e was released. That was more what I was trying to refer to.

Binarywraith nailed it. 5th edition really got my hopes up and introduced some great new ideas to Shadowrun, finally brought the new mechanics to a polish equal to 3rd edition. However, CGL just doesn't have the dedication to quality or listening to its customers to make me care for their products. On the fiction side its just moved too far from the setting I recognize as Shadowrun and Cyberdecks aren't enough to bring me back. I am thoroughly enjoying what Harebrained Schemes is doing with reviving the more traditional setting at least.

What do you want us to do? We're not (with a couple exceptions ) employed by the company who makes the game, and as has been kicked around here several times, getting a satisfactory 5e is going to require what is essentially a full-on rewrite from the base gameplay concepts up. That is a hell of a lot of work to expect out of anyone who's not getting paid to do it, and if you ask any five people will generate a dozen ideas of just how to go about it. The Attitude patch you mention only worked because it was a matter of bringing a bad sourcebook up to the level of SR20A and in line with already well developed core mechanics.

There's some pretty decent houserule discussion going on in other threads as for how to patch parts of 5e into a better game, but I think that getting the overall system working is just such an intimidatingly large amount of work that nobody's willing to take it on.

And I don't blame them.

But that is sort of the point of the recent threads.

Trying to take some parts, like talking about Edge or the matrix, and come up with better ideas on how to tweak them.

Hearing other players experiences and ideas they have tried, even if they don't match what I might have in mind, still gives food for thought and sometimes gives new insight on how they can be played.

Yeah, a full blown SimulcRun™ may be a bit of a stretch at the moment, but if we are not trying to look at ideas or tweaks and we are not enjoying it,why are we here?

We're here for the NERPS™

Those recent threads won't help if they devolve into One-True-Way-ism, which I would flag as the main reason I don't spend more time here.

Well, they didn't so far.
The thread about Edge for example presented about 6 different methods of handling Edge in alternate ways.

Part of the reason behind this and similar threads is because we are making an effort to re-engage the Dumpshock community and improve the issues that have lead us here. As an example: thread derailment has been identified as an issue and we have begun a new policy of splitting out such conversations to help with that. If people have other suggestions we are happy to hear them.

That's because 3e was a refinement on 2e's rules and setting (as your own signature notes). Generally speaking, if you liked 2e, you were pretty OK with 3e. Then 4e came along and tried to modernize cyberpunk away from its roots. This isn't unique to shadowrun, this is happening pretty much across the entire cyberpunk genre. Then these people have the gall to wonder why cyberpunk is dead...

Cyberpunk isn't Dead, it just moved on...

Shadowrun doesn't really depend on the cyberpunk - it's just part of the overall backdrop. The main driving force is the romanticized criminal/rebel/outlaw narrative that is older than dirt, from Robin Hood to Pancho Villa to Bonnie and Clyde. It got away from its roots when SR4 tried to make it more like a heist movie, less like an action movie, getting the game bogged down too much in picky details despite simplifying some game mechanics.

It wasn't just the cyberpunk, or grittiness quotient. 4th edition was a complete setting reboot that was counter-productive because Fanpro couldn't manage the license. They were trying to just copy World of Darkness as the top selling RPG at the time and it worked as well for Shadowrun as it did for WoD.

Actually the SR security systems were all introduced in SR2/3 IIRC (CorpSec book). And yes, it worked for Fanpro really well (SR was the single product line keeping the company alive for awhile when the rest hit the bottom).

SYL

Actually, it started earlier than that. Corp Sec mostly expanded on stuff that was first introduced in the Neo Anarchist's Guide to Real Life, which was a SR1 product.

Back when I were a lad we had to walk uphill both ways through the snow for our runs .

Without shoes, of course!

In WW defense, they had hit metaplot saturation craziness. They felt a reboot would help rather than split everyone. The new 20th editions timeline sets them before Revised edition but after 2e in most cases. It would be like if SR5 had been set in 2057. It was sorta the thing to do for awhile (reboots) WOTC did it to Forgotten Realms to, anyone with lots and lots of metaplot was doing it. The claims by some were new players couldn't get into a game. I think they meant new writers though I didnt see players complaining about it as much as I saw new writers ignoring previous cannon.

White Wolf's 'reset' might have gone better if they hadn't outright poisoned the well for Werewolf by making it the antithesis of the game it was previously, and then settled for not making Vampire different enough to be a real change. At least Changeling was a much better game to play in nWOD...

To be honest, I don't agree with you on the metaplot saturation issue. They had run into a problem that the metaplot had been building towards a cataclysmic end of the world, and thus they were really left with just the option of either having the "end of the world" keep being somewhere in the coming future, having it turn out to be false, or actually ending the setting and starting afresh with something new. They opted for the last thing and then proceeded to drop the ball IMO. IMO, if you've build a metaplot into a setting, I'll argue that it is a bloody rubish idea to suddenly start messing with it, or removing it. It waters down the setting and detracts from it's feel. The existence of a metaplot doesn't make it more difficult for new players to get into a setting (unless you make it affect everything to an extend that makes it impossible to ignore, which I have yet to see a setting do). But it probably does make it harder for new writers to get up-to-date on things.

White Wolf screwed it up with nWoD (though I'll grant that I too find that Changeling the Lost became superiour to Changeling the Dreaming), and I have to admit that I really didn't like what WoTC did to Forgotten Realms. I can see what they tried to do, but they messed it up, and with 5th ed. they appear to be trying to fix some of their screw-ups from 4th ed. by bringing back NPCs that died or got changed, rather than simply moving things forward and creating new NPCs for people to become engaged with. Basically they are fumbling around with the ball again IMO, though it hasn't hit the ground yet.

See, that is all opinion, though...

I far prefer nWOD's Werewolf the Forsaken over cWOD's Werewolf the Apocalypse. It plays better and makes far more sense than Apocalypse ever did. Requiem too... The system is far smoother and runs way better than cWOD as well. Changeling the Lost is indeed an awesome product and FAR better than the Dreaming ever was, in my opinion. .

It runs different I would say. I dont see much benefit out of combat but combat is way faster in the nWOD if your blowing through willpower just due to the trimming of # rolls. If your not using willpower to gain 1 damage aprox each turn you can end up with alot of whiff and miss with non combat characters which really slows it down, maybe not to the oWOD crawl but much slower than it could be. For skilled characters in nWOD for non-combat stuff its actually slower because you dont just auto success anymore but for lower skill non combat runs about the same just smaller die pools in oWOD. I'll say this nWODs cleaned up combat and lack of 1s removing successes has me lean nWOD rules even if I'm running an oWOD setting frequently. nWOD could use some defense rolls though, I know it would slow it down but two vampires having a sword fight on top of a stadium is less satisfying with the nWOD streamlined combat. As for setting I'm with you on Werewolf but its a personal preference, Spirit warriors are just more interesting to me than Eco warriors. Vampire... yeah well limiting to 5 clans is dumb, bloodlines make it even dumber. Requiem for Rome was cool but I think they ended up with a luke warm game that had some interesting ideas but never pushed them so it ends up with Masquerader minus (most) metaplot and 1001 ideas for your world. And I think we all agree on Changling...



Maybe I should have stated it better, that was the CLAIM coming out of a few game companies. I never saw it myself, I get it when it comes to new writers though. I didnt get into Shadowrun until the end of 1e and there was quite a bit of metaplot by then, I saw new players take to 3e no problem so I dont think it exists from a player stand point. I'm also not sure Fanpro ever claimed the reboot was from metaplot saturation I just recall hearing it from several companies at a time when people were reboot happy.

Sales aren't a matter of opinion. nWoD was bad for sales.
As was everything Fanpro.

Exactly. W:TF sold like a butt-flavored lollipop, despite the systems having been cleaned up. I believe the 20th Anniversary version of W:TA has already outsold it.