When I run a role-playing game, it is just that, a game in which we assume roles and we have fun with the way the dice roll. With WW, its more about the story. So in essence, DND is a collective game in which the GM decides to the plot and the encounters and impartially alters the game according to the actions of the players and hence the players are telling their own story and making their own legends happen. With say Werewolf or any of the other games in the WW stable, its more about the GM (or quite rightfully Storyteller) telling the rest of the players stories about their character, with little or NO real valid input from the player.
Its almost childish in its simplicity. The player creates a monster/character that they want to play, give it to the Storyteller to come up with a fun and exciting and dangerous and epic adventure about their character.
Well I have news for you. As the GM I'm too fucking busy running the game interpreting the rules to be babysitting for a bunch of werewolves.
animalball (64.234.17.78)
18th Mar, 2008 17:43 (local)
I think that's a pretty simple division that I think I agree with. Granted, different systems can be played different ways. But generally I think you're correct in the differentiating game play styles of 3.5 and WW.
evilref (86.41.97.203)
18th Mar, 2008 21:46 (local)
The question of how much the "storyteller" tells a story is not really about White Wolf. It's just down to personal style. I prefer to tell a story myself -- but not about immature teenage vampires, thanks.
lawbag (83.104.27.178)
19th Mar, 2008 14:54 (local)
the observation came out of running a pure fantasy game (Rolemaster/Freeport campaign) on the back of running Werewolf The Apocalypse and the comparison in the amount of in and out of game work required.
