Wraith: The Oblivion?
masqueradeball:
So, I have been a lot time White Wolf player, I started, I think, the same year Vampire 2e came out, but it might have been later. At one time I owned all the core line's main books with at least a few of the supplements. I never bought demon, but Hunter (for me) was a fantastic game. I picked up Requiem as a Justin Achili fan boy and then immediately changed gears. This new vampire was a weak hack of the old game that some how managed to fix almost nothing that was actually broken (IMO) about the original. So there it is folks, the backstory.
So besides dabbling in Exalted right up the release of 2e I haven't really done much with WW besides running a semi-long lasted game of Masquerade (the Vampire LARP), but that I ran almost entirely from memory. So, after a very long stint of not actually looking at a White Wolf book except maybe to reference a rule I just re-read Wraith 2e in preparation for a Wraith: the Great War game I'm about to run and I find myself really shocked by how bad the whole thing is and wondering how I figured it out in the first place.
The terms are thrown around the text out of order, the history makes references to events and action that would be impossible with the modern cosmology without actually explaining how and when changes happened. How the non linear nature of the Underworld is supposed to be presented in play is never explained let alone discussed. The majority of the advice about Shadow Guiding equates to "don't be a dick," so on and so fourth.
I was wondering what sort of experiences people have had with game text in retrospect, particular with the world of darkness stuff. One of the most profound things the Forge has done for (to?) me is to really change the way I look on all of these games that I used to think were really great. I find the more I go back and the more I look into it, the more I realize how much of what I thought was provided by the game was actually provided by me and how much actual play differed from the play I think the books would "encourage."
This has created a lot of questions as to what I'm going to do with the Wraith game itself and I also just wanted to share this sense of shock and see if anyone out there could provide some insight. I know reading the game book isn't quite actual play, but its similar...
masqueradeball:
Also, some changes I've made to the rules as written: the Shadow Guides are actual going to create their Psyche player's shadows with out revealing what they've done. I'm hoping this will create a lot of play in which the psyche struggle to better understand their dark sides. I'd also like to clean up all the rules about Transcendence, since so much of it is simply the author repeating "must be determined through role playing." If anyone out there has experience running/playing Wraith I'd love any thoughts they'd have about the changes I'm intending to make or more generally about running the game itself.
FredGarber:
I ran Wraith several times, and these are the problems that showed up.
1. Because each player is playing a contagonist for another player, the relationship between those players becomes important. The way the books described it, you would play the Shadow of the player on your left during character creation: making who got to the game table in what order crucially important.
In my group, the way to play it was that Shadows were randomly reassigned at each session. By the time of the nth session, whenever a character had a moral quandry, enough players knew the Shadow that the group advised the current Shadow player, and it made each player the victim of the group, not a victim of a specific person. That helped with OOC feelings.
2. Because each player is playing a Shadow, I had to watch to make sure that each player spent the majority of his time playing his PC, not playing the Shadow. The temptation was strong to keep playing a Shadow, and have your own character sit on a bench.
3. Transcendence was explained as an option for the PC, but a Transcended PC was out, and you had to GNC. Without any sort of roll-over points. Because my group was, um, "aggressive," there was an awareness that if you came in to the Wraith world as a new PC, you were going to be another player's pawn, probably for the rest of the game.
But the guideline I was going with was that if a PC wanted to Transcend, he needed to lose what held him to the mortal and ghost worlds, emotionally and physically, and be ready to move on. That meant I needed to tailor the Quest to each PC in order to make it emotionally resonant to that PC. It depended on what objects a player chose for his background and his attitudes during play.
With regards to the WWGS (1-2e) My summary is this: I modified the rules to support (in all WW games) a certain sort of play: a highly immersive, Narrative group, where the continual theme was "Is it worth the price you must pay?" I was aided by the fact that the core of my players were all English/Theater/Psychology Majors, all were creative writers or actors in their non-gaming hobbies/jobs. The risk of PC death was rarely in the SIS frequently, but the risk of PC emotional trauma was there. Most of the consequences had little or no mechanical effect by the rules, but it was all in how the PCs interacted with the world and each other.
IMHO, all of the WoD really depended on the level of story creation ability a "Person who would be Storyteller" brought to the table . It needed an ST who was skilled at creating a story framework and weaving the player's contributions into his/her own story. It required a gaming group who was willing to only supply contributions that their ST could weave. All the players and the ST had to agree on trying to achieve "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast," and the constraints that brought to play.
I have a million stories about Actual WWGS Play, and they usually revolve around a player adding something unexpected to the SIS, and the consequences of that action.
Callan S.:
Hi Nolan,
Quote
This has created a lot of questions as to what I'm going to do with the Wraith game itself
It's created questions? Why is it raising questions rather making you not want to play? Is it raising questions like a novel with the last page torn out would - ie, you keep thinking 'what happened' rather than 'I got sold a lemon!'
masqueradeball:
Fred:
Thanks for the insight. I definitely could foresee those kinds of problems coming up for anyone with the whole shadow thing... I think I trust my group enough in that PVP won't be much of an issue, but will see. If it becomes one I think I'll try for some mechanical penalty/control, instead of simple discussion, like, you get so many shadow scenes a session or some such. I know that these kinds of solutions are sort of artificial, but hey, whatever works (if it does work) right...
Callan:
I really like Wraith. I think the game's high points are definitely worth trying to fix it's low ones. Its like seeing a car you really like and finding that the air condition doesn't work and that the engine might stall out on you. At that point you can say, screw this, and ditch the car, but I'm gonna try giving it a run at the mechanics first.
As to why? Well, because of Nicky Rhea and Jackie Cassada I guess. They're a writing team that did a lot of the source books for Wraith that I remember being remarkable. I don't actual own very many of the source books now (my parents sold my original Wraith collection, which contained Ends of Empire, which is worth 75+ dollars now). Also, the Great War setting is really intriguing and ripe with potential... I like the idea of doing ghost stories and I like a lot of Wraiths core conceits, and to be honest, I'd rather play Wraith than not play a ghost game... and I know my player pool (also known as my friends) will play the game, in part on the merit of it being part of their comfort zone (i.e. the old World of Darkness' setting and systems).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page