Talk:Werewolf: The Forsaken
|This page was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|WikiProject Role-playing games||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Horror||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Idigam vs. Acamoth
In the Idigam blurb there was some text on how they might Acamoth (from Mage: the Awakening). This is an unsubstantiated claim, and is likely false. The Idigam were powerful spirit-gods, much like the Spinner Hag that created the Azlu Host, that were banished beyond the sight of the Luna. See pg. 37 of the core book. Acamoth, on the other hand, are abyssal spirits that want to go back to the Abyss. Furthermore, the power level of the Idigam seem to be of Incarnae rank that do not need a mage vessel to do their dirty work. Acamoth are portrayed as being much weaker (pg. 323 of M:tAw core has one at Rank 4 - a mere Jaggling). --126.96.36.199 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The entry really doesn't need every other line to refer to Werewolf: the Apocalypse and how the game is just a copy of it. This is a new game with new ideas, let's just deal with it instead of constantly comparing it to the past. The old game is mentioned, more really isn't necessary. --Amokk 07:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- The recycling of concepts and ideas from Apocalypse is what makes the repeated comparisons necessary. If a game is created in the manner of rehashing previous concepts, than those ideas and concepts deserve to be addressed in the light of its altered setting and those seeking to learn more about Forsaken should be fully informed concerning the source material.
--Polaroidskyline 13:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but changing the entire entry to point out "this is like X in Apocalypse" is really pointless and only makes the "controversy" seem bigger than it really is. Since White Wolf doesn't make any connection between the games, and only a certain class of fans have any "controvery" anyway, I really don't see the point in cluttering up the wikipedia page by creating something that just doesn't really exist. If you want to have a real discussion about some controvery, make a page for it and link to it, there's no need to have it here. Especially since your "controversy" is more about the World of Darkness as a whole, not just Forsaken. Take it up there, not here. Not every fan agrees with you, and not every fan is "I hate NWOD/OWOD" and that's the only opinions. A lot of people like both, a lot of people hate both.--Amokk 03:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Conflict with other Werewolves of different ideologies was present in Apocalypse; though the Pure in Forsaken are far more prevalent, numerous and morally ambiguous than the diabolical Black Spiral Dancers of the prior game. It has been speculated, but not confirmed, that the Pure are a subtle yet intentional parody of the Garou in the original Werewolf: The Apocalypse setting."
- I'd consider this to be confirmation of the opposite.
- Conflict with others is a theme that is across all games ever. It is not a similarity between Werewolf the Forsaken and Werewolf the Apocalypse that does not exist between WtF and VtM or D&D or Discworld. Also, the person who added the similarities did so (either intentionally or not) in a biased manner. Offering "Werewolves in both games struggle to interact with humanity while maintaining their spiritual and animalistic sides and defending their turf." The second clause of the sentence is tautological with the second subclause of the first clause. Defending your "turf" is the behaviour of a wolf. Adding this as a tautology makes the list of comparisons seem bigger. Akari no ryu (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I somehow agree to Amokk. If we really need a page comparing the two systems with no official statements except for some mentions in forums, we should build an extra page for a detailed comparison. I don't recommend that, to be honest. I think it's better to flesh out the theme of this article than enduring references to an all different world. The world of WtF is very different to WtA and different aspects come into play. We should focus on these aspects rather than searching for WtA-themes in a non-WtA game.--StalkerAT 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe the reason we keep coming back to the original was because there was rich heritage that was involved with the previous game. We have lost many well defined elements such as the Pentex corporation and werewolf hunters. These two examples were some of the best ways of keeping werewolves in the industrialized areas which made them easier for players to relate to. After all, the Red Talons, Wendigo and Uktena tribes were some of the least picked for characters in my W:tA games. W:tF has seen a trend towards makeing wwerewolves more rustic and less identifiable from a player's perspective. The proliferation of the Pure is a direct result of tearing out some of the best villians and leaving the tribes of W:tF less distinguished from each other then W:tA. As a storyteller running W:tF seems like playing half of W:tA. The less popular half at that. —Preceding J.T.G. comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Lesser popular" half; rich heritage, rich schmeritage. Any perspective that attempts to portray as W:tF as a diminshment of W:tA is strongly POV. Aprogressivist (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Changing Breeds vs Uratha
New Auspices in Signs of the Moon?
I don't want to add them myself, but has anyone considred adding the new auspices in Signs of the Moon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsolutGrndZer0 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)