Jaesun said:
One of the biggest decisions a Storyteller ever makes is when she first decides to ignore the rules. This is completely legitimate, provided it is done for the right reasons and in the right way. In fact, we encourage you to break the rules, it is your prerogative as a Storyteller.
Yes, and then the players can call bullshit, which is what we are doing and what happens more than a little bit in a setting with such an extensive metaplot. It's the natural cycle of RPG settings. The same happens with the Fallout setting, where there isn't an extensive metaplot of any kind yet people can't decide whether the setting died with the original Fallout and the sequel was an abomination, or the sequel was actually a worthy successor to the setting's themes and mood and everything that came afterwards was an abomination, or, hell, why are BoS and Supermutants on D.C?! OMG!!! Heresy!!! Burn them, burn them all!!!
I'll let you into a secret, actually: I'm not a Vampire GM, nor I'm not a Werewolf GM. I have played a bit of vampire (tremere, toreador, and a Kiasyd being the only ones i have played more than once or twice) and almost nothing of Werewolf. I'm a Changeling GM. Why do I bloody know so much about the other settings? Because with a group of White Wolf players you better have a very good excuse about why there's a wereshark bossfight but they can't actually choose
hey, he turned into a monstrous giant bat monster above fucking downtown L.A? Ok, LOL, this is one easy boss fight: I start running before the Black Helicopters come in and turns us all into ashes. as a valid pick at the end.
It is forgiven, and ignored, if you are limiting yourself to a single sub-setting. Once you call crossover, though, you'll have to explain why your bloody campaign all of a sudden is happening outside the borders of a pure Vampire (or Mage, or Changeling) campaign, after the Week of Nightmares, in a major city and none of the shit
expected to be happening was. It's not forbidden and ignored in a crossover campaign, much less in
canonical material. Every single mistake on Canonical Material usually began a bloodbath not diferent than the Fallout 3 butthurt here. Just, you know, worse since more people care about WoD than it will ever care about Fallout.
And if anyone here is calling
but i like Fallout and i don't like Vampire so i don't care an actual argument that should be cared about then that's a lesser being right here and should be put out of its misery. And, surely, not given the bloody right to vote or choose a life of its own, that's for sure.
Radisshu said:
INTERNAL COHERENCY. Those are the keywords, okay? I don't give a shit about the source material, because the source material is retarded. Sure, you may be right in that Bloodlines doesn't do a very faithful adaption of WoD, BUT THAT'S A GOOD THING.
Then why people gets so worked up about us mentioning it really isn't a faithful adaptation, when we both have said as a game in and out of itself is either good for what it is, as have I, or good, as did he, or anything in between, as did others? You people aren't being
internally coherent about it.
Also, I have already mentioned the presence of several cases where the game breaks it's own internal coherency
for teh lulz, so it doesn't really add up. What's the answer to that? That I have to excuse them for it because it's Troika, or that I should imagine an explanation myself? Since when it's acceptable to
make oneself things up that would explain the game's fucks up in The Codex?
Radisshu said:
The difference being that the FO setting isn't retarded, and doesn't feature elements that would completely break the game were they introduced. FO3 is a sequel to F1 and F2, while Bloodlines is a computer game adaption of a PnP setting.
No, it isn't. Bloodlines isn't actually a game of it's own. Bloodlines' an official White Wolf metaplot canonical product, and as such it following the lore and the setting to the least detail is expected. Just as a game bearing the Fallout 3 title was expected to do some things and to follow the setting's lore closely and, by not doing it, got a not small part of the Codex calling bullshit on it? That's it. People liking or disliking the setting doesn't make the behaviour any less pathetic and any less of an evidence of retarded fanboyism, double standards, and people praising this and that because
Troika did it and nothing more.
This is just another case of
Fair Codexia talks out of it's butt, as shown by this little argument. Carry on, nothing to see here, etc.
Jaesun said:
Bloodlines is actually Canon, as stated by White Wolf.
Indeed.
So is Fallout 3.
* totally unnecesary cheap shot for teh win *
Glyphwright said:
Troika removed all non-hostiles from the area, and had all the doors to the buildings locked or inaccessible. It's not as good as throwing us into a completely new area where human activity would not be expected in the first place, like a locked down warehouse or mansion on the outskirts, but it still works. You're the one who's making things up, I'm just relating to you what the game gives to the player - a street full of pedestrians becomes void of them right after we are warned everyone is at our throats.
A street just
in front of a hospital. Last time I checked hospitals
do not close down. So by having Vampires going all out in front of a hospital, a nightclub, and an open all day long cafe with huge windows they are risking a major Masquerade breach, yes. If there is any reason given
in game why it doesn't matter at this point, sure, please tell me.
Glyphwright said:
It is the point of this thread, dum-dum. Being faithful to the original is not the point of anything, except for your ramblings (again, nobody cares).
You do care, since I said
on my original post that it's a good for what it is game, and, after a
full stop, said it was not a good adaptation of the setting. People, then, came out to say it was a good adaptation of the setting, not to discuss whether it was a good game instead of a
good for what it is game. If you, or them, assumed i was saying
it was a good for what it is game because of it being unfaithful to the setting i'm calling
retard,
illiterate, and
moron, given there was a
full stop between both parts, the part about it being unfaithful to the setting being a passing comment and not the answer to the topic, that being the first paragraph itself.
Finally why, if the point is whether it is or not a good game, have you tried so many times to actually justify the mistakes from a setting perspective, hm?
Retard. And a flip-flopper one at that.
Glyphwright said:
Like you can't have a pen-and-paper game session with all this.
Sure. You can have P&P sessions with the Galactica crashing down in downtown L.A after a fierce high orbit battle with a tie fighter swarm sent by the Zerg overmind to stop them from stoping the Prince of Persia of giving the dagger of time to the Order of Hermes and score a final victory against the Tremere, too. What's your point, again? From the perspective of the setting it wouldn't be faithful to it's themes, ideas, elements, etc. Nor would it be a faithful adaptation.
And you would get lynched in both cases if you tried to add either to a canonical campaign you are running, too.
Glyphwright said:
Yes, exactly. Of course, you can also rape the setting if you prefer. You can do anything, as long as something worthwhile and enjoyable comes out of it.
Sure. So you are saying that as long as the game is enjoyable for a great majority of the player base nothing done to the setting matters? Then shit will hit the fan in three... two... one...
