Talk:World of Darkness/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Merging & fixing of Vampire: The Masquerade pages

I am going to attempt to rewrite & merge articles that should be put together like I did tonight with Frenzy. I think other articles should be created like "Kindred Law" or "Laws of Camarilla" and have items such as "The Masquerade", "Blood Hunt" & such merged together.

I will not have Internet access beginning next week until June so there is not a lot I can do, and my knowledge concerning somethings isn't great (Clan Lasombra for instance). I do believe that the Vampire pages need work, but that they should not be constantly be nominated for deletion until effort has been made to edit & fix them. Noremon (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Allegations of anti intelleculism against the games are POV. Arguably the game promotes a different kind of intellectualism ( i.e postmodern.) See Mage: The Acenssion for fairly clear evidence of this, note the Kuhnian talk of of paridgims.

I am a native English speaker but I know nothing about the games. I think I managed to preserve the meaning but I can't be sure.

There doesn't appear to much on some "older" (and new-ish) computer games set in this universe. So far I can only see the latest Vampire Masquerade (Bloodlines) with an article.

Hunters on X-box kicked ass. --ZayZayEM 08:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do we really need that tag above all the pages related to the White Wolf 'universe'? It seems rather redundant to put it on all pages containing information about such a fictional setting, since that's probably why it's noteworthy in the first place, and usually stated in the first part of the article. If there's been a discussion about this already, kindly point me to the correct page. gifkip 22:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was discussion on it on template's talk page. Forseti 23:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New and old WoD

As White Wolf named its new setting just the same as the old one - World of Darkness - I think there will be a lot of confussion, especially when the new WoD expands more. Wouldn't it be better to mark the articles that are about the old WoD? Dunno how much work that would mean, but I am sure it could spare people a lot of confusion, especially with subjects like the clans where similarities and differences exist while the names are the same (e.g. the Brujah, which were a clan and now are a bloodline and of course got quite a different history). Genesis

I just knew that it would be a problem but I thought that giving, say, (Mage: the Ascension) suffix will be sufficient as the new set of games has different full names. But one day somebody just moved every Tradition (Mage: the Ascension) to Tradition (World of Darkness) and so on and hence imminent confusion.

So we should develop consistent naming pattern for things of old and new WoD and apply it rigorously. As I said there is no problem with things pertaining to a single game, because their full names across WoD version differ. Problem would be with things such as Umbra (World of Darkness) that belongs to the whole setting. Also, I'd prefer using Template:Fiction to writing hundred times "from fictional setting of World of Darkness Role-playing game". See template's Talk: for other reasons.

So what if we simply change every World of Darkness/White Wolf from the old world to Old World of Darkness/White Wolf (old)? Also we might want to add a comment on those pages that it's NOT the new WoD. Genesis

yes renaming the normal world of darkness things to old world of darkness might be useful, the question remains how much that appeals to the hardcore white wolf junkies, their terminology should be most important i feel. also please sign messages here Boneyard

Okay, I know two kinds of terminologies so far: One is the Old/New thingie I mentioned above, the other is to name it World of Darkness 1.0 or 2.0. IMHO the first one is more specific though, as version numbers could be confused with edition numbers (like Vampire: The Masquerade had reached it's 3rd edition). But how do others think about it? Are there other terminologies in existence and which is accepted most by the community? Maybe this could be worth a poll? PS: Corrected and signed my messages now. Genesis

I think it's best to keep them named according to official naming convention. White Wolf's forums has a section for the oWoD called Old World of Darkness. The new stuff is simply World of Darkness. If they ever reboot the setting again, versioning might become easier to keep three versions straight, but for now "old" for the old stuff and just WoD for the new stuff seems the best course. WildElf 08:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

White Wolf Wiki

The White Wolf Wiki, official wiki of the World of Darkness and all other WW-related games, is obviously superior to this horrible Wikipedia. It has more complete information and if you want to have concrete info on the World of Darkness, go to http://whitewolf.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page and ignore this crap called Wikipedia. - User:Jesse Mulkey

Whew. For a minute there, I thought your apparent bias might wind up on the article page. Fortunately, it did not. Thanks. The Bearded One 05:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Specialised single-subject encyclopaedia in "more detail than generalised reference encyclopaedia" shock? Never. Tohya 09:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As horrible as that post was, the fact remains that the White Wolf Wiki is far more extensive and informative than what's on Wikipedia. Is there someway that all related articles might point there, such as a template or a link at the top of the article? Moogle001 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

don't forget the World of Darkness Wiki on White-Wolf.com. it's not that big though.--Yamavu (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

World of Darkness Metaplot & Exalted

I would love to see a condensed summary of the World of Darkness metaplot (well as far as it got...anyway) with the tie-ins that wove between it and Exalted. I'd be more than happy to contribute some, but so far the page looks great and I'd hate to just drop a jumble of info right in the middle without knowing where you'd want it. It would be a great addition though--especially since the World of Darkness is linked to the page on Metaplot, at least to give a nod to it. Thanks!

I second this idea. There's no good composition of the metaplot on the internet right now and considering that this was one of the most controversial aspects of WoD 1.0 and that it was simply epic in scope it deserves recording here. - Sammy D. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.50.17.95 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Why not six?

Resolved

From the current (1-3-07) article:

In addition to the main three games, there will be an additional game each year. Like Orpheus for the old World of Darkness, each of these "fourth games" will have a limited series of only five books, including the core rulebook [1]

Well, looking at the source of this cite it mentions six and not five books, including core rulebook. What am I missing? 89.1.253.192 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I replaced it with "approximately six", which is backed up by both the publication history and the cited source. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Monte Cook's WoD

I believe that at this point Monte Cook's WoD deserves a section of its own. It is anticipated to not be a part of either the oWoD or nWoD, instead it is a expected to be a completely new game entirely. Judging by the previews provided on White Wolf's homepage this appears to be true. Instead of going out and doing this I figured I'd raise the discussion since it's still a few weeks before the book goes into print. Cadwal 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Monte Cook's WoD is kinda based on the nWoD but still deserves to be mentioned an to get its own paragraph. Heinrich k (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Complaints about nWoD

I've heard that there have been lot of complaints about the nWoD, ever since it came out. Does anyone know what these specific matters are? It might merit a new heading in the entry. Fujiarmu 02:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many people who do not like the NWoD for reasons I could go into length on, just as there are many people who do not like D&D3E or 3.5E. And while I consider myself among them, to my knowledge there hasn't been any level of backlash that would really deserve mentioning. Moogle001 20:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I missed some critisism of the nWoD-System too. In fact not everyone wants to combine settings like Vampire and Werewolf in one rpg game. Crossovers in the nWoD work far better but the single systems are more single headed than in the old WoD. It's not just a new rulesystem or different clans. The feeling of the WoD has changed a lot, some say watered down since the new system does not yet allow epic tales of powerful ancient beings as the old WoD did. I think this article definitely takes a pro-nWoD point of view. --Yamavu (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the point to the new one is that you can still add your own ancient beings if you want to. In the old version your players would come to expect that anything written in the books would be true, and it made it more difficult to change the setting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.8.243 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course some people naturally prefer the original game, that's to be expected, and while they did have some criticisms, it mostly comes down to personal preference. However, there was no notable backlash and its not worth mentioning it in the article. 92.20.115.171 (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Scion

i see it isn't mentioned, and i don't see where it fits in the types of game-lines as they are outlined here. Snafu25 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really fit in here, as it isn't part of any of the three "World(s) of Darkness", but a seperate product in it's own world, like Exalted. - US2002021583 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.30.148 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article Scion_(role-playing_game) is not part of the World of Darkness even though it used similar rulesets. Streetfighter the Roleplaying game also was made with rules similar to the Storyteller System, but is undeniable part of the WoD or the nWod. (There are only 2 WoDs out there btw) --Yamavu (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Merges and / or transwikis of more specific content and short articles.

I noticed Masquerade (World of Darkness) on WP:PRODSUM recently. A quick look at new redlinks in some articles and templates shows that some of the more specific content has been prod'ed off, things like Blood point (probably rightfully so) and Marauders (Mage: The Ascension) (Which probably had content worthy of keeping and/or merging, at least). Even the very worst of this information deserves a transwiki, the mediocre could probably be merged into a single article for more coherence, and the best can probably use more references. Is anyone willing to start work on this? I'm not really a WoD expert.

I will say that tenatively, a lot of the articles linked in {{WoD vampire}} could probably be merged to two articles in Setting of Vampire: The Masquerade and Setting of Vampire: The Requiem. Some minor clan / organization type articles elsewhere could also probably be merged to a unified "Traditions of Mage: The Ascension" or the like. Any thoughts? SnowFire 02:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably for the best, provided there are links to more in depth articles to the White Wolf Wiki. I can help with this. Moogle001 20:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Kinfolk

Kinfolk redirects here but is not explained in the article. Why? bbx (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully, Kinfolk should redirect to Family. Web Warlock (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a term for humans with werewolf ancestors in Old Werewolf. New Werewolf calls them Wolf-blooded. The default meaning of Kinfolk is Family, so I will change the redirect. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

messy comparisons

First off, is this an article on settings or mechanics? Or both?

1) the differences in setting/history/background between nWoD and oWoD could be made much clearer.

2) the oWoD section is completely rules-free, yet the nWoD section discusses rules changes

My own suggestion is to keep setting and mechanics separate, and concentrating on the setting on this page, leaving the rules for other (related & linked) pages. CapnZapp (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the ghouls?

This page doesn't mention ghouls at all, despite the fact that "Ghoul (World of Darkness)" redirects here. This is a very interesting aspect of the game that's being overlooked, people... 68.205.68.57 (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fanon cosmology?

Is Image:NWOD Cosmology.jpg inaccurate or speculative? If not, the caption should be changed to reflect its' accuracy. If so, it should be replaced with a non-speculative cosmology diagram. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no non-speculative diagrams that cover all of the material in question. White Wolf has never produced such a diagram other than one in the Mage book which is much more limited in scope and this does not contradict that one. It is an individual artist's interpretation, but it's the closest one we have with regards to the setting. That said, however, the image does contain speculation and inaccuracy. It's fundamentally a stylized interpretation of the aforementioned diagram in the Mage book with a few bits added in, but some of those are clearly guesswork cherry-picked to maintain the yin-yang motif (the 'location' of the Underworld, which the books have revealed next to nothing about, and the listed 'location' as the Astral Plane is vague and potentially confusing) while other things are arbitrarily added (the Lower Depths, which we know less about than the Underworld) or left out (the Hedge, as seen in Changeling). I was originally going to say "you really can't call it strictly innaccurate or speculative" and argue that it's fine as-is, but over the course of typing this response I've come to realize that the caption really does need changed. I'll go ahead and do it now while I've got it on my mind.--MythicFox (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I think it should be replaced with a network diagram showing confirmed connections. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the {{diagram needed}} tag. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw, man, I thought that was making a really good meta-point about the undefined nature of the WoD cosmology left up to each individual game! 128.36.156.138 (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Publication history

Does this page really need a list of every book published by White Wolf pertaining to the World(s) of Darkness? Especially when that list is outdated, even on the old stuff, and is missing several books? It doesn't need to be here, and I'm sure it could be replaced by a link to another page that has such information. For instance, a PDF of a complete list of the old WoD publications can be found here, and providing a link to it would probably do just fine.--MythicFox (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed that it be split off. IMO the main World of Darkness article's publication history should only cover the main rulebooks. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why this list is here, in the first place. Every "nWoD" setting has its own publication history, in its own article. The same could be done in the "oWoD" articles. The way it is, the list only confuses the reader.--Lord Metatron (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

People interested in / contributing to World of Darkness articles

People interested in / contributing to World of Darkness articles please add to the current debate; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravnos regarding the page Ravnos concerning the Vampire: The Masquerade clan being nominated for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"the World of Darkness became riddled with discrepancies and contradictions in the cosmologies of each system"

This was NOT fixed in the Revised edition as the article says. Most of the games had mutually exclusive cosmologies all the way to the end. This is why there's been no unified end to the World of Darkness. Instead each game had completely different end-of-the-world scenarios tailored to their own specific cosmology. 110.174.166.224 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on World of Darkness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on World of Darkness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on World of Darkness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)