Talk:World of Darkness
Okay, no matter WHAT we do, this page is not going to turn into an oWoD vs. nWoD bitchfight. Discussing the differences between the games is fine, but none of this LOL METAPLOT SUXX or LOL U FAIL, NO TECHNOCRACY!!! shit. So far so good, but the wiki is not for whining. --MShI 21:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, one 4e is bad enough. - Ahri 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- As long as both viewpoints are covered and neither is presented as solid fact, it doesn't really matter. --Carcer 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, as long as we put only facts and not opinions, to the best of our ability, it will be much, much better. If an argument comes down to preference, which honestly, nWoD vs. oWoD does, then it has no place here. --MShI 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Surely you can agree that some sort of addressing of the differences between New and Old World of Darkness would be helpful. I'm not saying it should state "nWoD takes everything from the above and rapes it with a condom made of panda bears," but that just a simple list of changes could help the reader. BloodyWanker 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Some people prefer nWoD to oWoD because they consider that oWoD blah blah fucking blah" is what I mean. That's fine. If someone is wondering "whoah, why the fuck are all those guys in that thread saying oWoD is shit" and he comes over and has a look at this page it should at least explain why many people think that. "Fans of oWoD rebut these criticisms, saying ..." is fine too. --Carcer 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I said "discussing the differences" is a good idea! But I honestly don't think it's a good idea to have an entire section devoted to why people bitch about both systems-- one sentence for each, maybe, but nothing too extensive, would be good. I've been in lots of these fights, and there actually isn't much to talk about.--MShI 21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would recommend doing what I did with the D&D 4th page - a bulletted list under 'criticisms', simply reporting things people have said. Obviously substantial arguments only, 'It has been suggested that the factions in new mage are less compelling and relevant than those in old mage' is a good example of criticism, 'they fagged up vampires' isn't.--Destro
- I said "discussing the differences" is a good idea! But I honestly don't think it's a good idea to have an entire section devoted to why people bitch about both systems-- one sentence for each, maybe, but nothing too extensive, would be good. I've been in lots of these fights, and there actually isn't much to talk about.--MShI 21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Some people prefer nWoD to oWoD because they consider that oWoD blah blah fucking blah" is what I mean. That's fine. If someone is wondering "whoah, why the fuck are all those guys in that thread saying oWoD is shit" and he comes over and has a look at this page it should at least explain why many people think that. "Fans of oWoD rebut these criticisms, saying ..." is fine too. --Carcer 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Surely you can agree that some sort of addressing of the differences between New and Old World of Darkness would be helpful. I'm not saying it should state "nWoD takes everything from the above and rapes it with a condom made of panda bears," but that just a simple list of changes could help the reader. BloodyWanker 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, as long as we put only facts and not opinions, to the best of our ability, it will be much, much better. If an argument comes down to preference, which honestly, nWoD vs. oWoD does, then it has no place here. --MShI 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- As long as both viewpoints are covered and neither is presented as solid fact, it doesn't really matter. --Carcer 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this wiki looking for some dice rolling mechanics from the oWoD system that I couldn't remember anymore, but WOW was this article ever poorly written. I would say it was biased, but there was inflammatory commentary on almost every book entry in here, o- or nWoD. I did what I could to quickly clean it up by deleting as much of the garbage as I could - and had to completely rewrite the M:tA entry, as it was nothing but - but I don't have time to make clear cut, factual outlines of all these books right now. One way or the other, though, this article needs some serious, heavy handed revision. 174.101.88.221 09:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Removing obvious trolling and such is fine and all...but this isn't wikipedia you know. So chill. --Rodwell
So NWoD is now Chronicles of Darkness[edit]
It seems like Onyx Path renamed nWoD to "Chronicles of Darkness" somewhere along the line in order to distinguish it from the original WoD more. On the other hand, it's not enough to completely split the article since the basic systems are similar enough. Perhaps it would be a good idea to note the name change somewhere?--Newerfag (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- With any luck they'll get the urge to rebrand all their PDFs and it will result in another slight revision of GtSE. It looks like they've changed the main book this way, I was expecting an entirely new one like the GMC. Should probably wait and see what books they publish under CoD: Maudlin Ren-faire. --SeekerVII (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
