There is a ongoing issue with the tagging of the various Editions of the World of Darkness Lines. See:

I want to tackle a new small part of that problem, now. While it is still in infancy.

There are two tags: and .

To quote the tag except, which I wrote (to be fair).

"God-Machine Chronicle Rules Update" is a rules revision for the new World of Darkness games that serves as an in-all-but-name new edition. Its differences from the New World of Darkness line are more pronounced than from dnd 3.5 vs 3.0. Questions should not be tagged with both nwod and nwod-god-machine, unless specifically about both.

I did not get any concesus before I put that in the tag wiki, but I thought it was reasonable as I had seen similar done in other tag wiki. Now I want to confirm that I was correct. Or be shown I am not, so that the wiki can be made straight/

I would like to see questions only tagged with one or the other. nWoD:God Machine is a new and incompatible edition, in all but name. Because of what I believe to be licensing restrictions, it was never marketed as a new edition.

CCP (which merged with White Wolf) owns the Intellectual Property, but Onyx Path now does all the publishing and writing.

It is no more the same game then nWoD is oWoD, or dnd3.0 is dnd3.5.

Because of the weird licensing the core book replacement makes some references to the old book, but not many. It is highly incompatible, see this answer.

They are different enough that many people, myself included, look at them as a new thing we could play. At the start of the campaign making the choice of which edition to use. Even once everything is converted, I expect it to persist like oWoD has.

Due to the high amounts of incompatibility an answer that is correct for base nwod is quiet likely wrong for nwod:god-machine.

On the other hand, at the moment there is not a huge ammount of contend for nWoD:God-Machine-Chronicles (About 6 books), compared to nWoD, so some content has not been ported, so sometimes the best answer is "here is a old nWoD book that did similar, you can use its content with [these adaptation]/directly" I don't think that changes how the question should be tagged though.

Some examples:

Questions that should use both:

Questions that a primarily about the differences, or asking about how to convert content.

Questions that should only be tagged :

Questions that should only be tagged nWoD

Questions that are about nWoD. Many of them would be valid, if asked again for nWoD: God Machine Chronicles. The answers would normally change though.

Questions that are Awkward to Fit, and currently use both tags:

  • Bringing the Team together

    • the asker seems to be from his comments, house-ruling/converting content to run a game using both sets of rules.
    • Question is almost
    • I am less certain about this question using both tags. In that it must have so many houserules, it could almost be a unique homebrew system -- but I guess both tags it probably for the best.
  • Should availability be altered for non-US settings?

    • It asks about the availability mechanic from nwod:GMC, which is very similar (but not quiet identical to) the cost mechanic in nwod.
    • I believe it should be tagged just with nwod:GMC
    • but not certain since, that answer (largely by coincience) are all also true for old nWoD.

What do people think? Is splitting them up now good?

I'm happy to go on / continue my retagging everything to follow what I suggest above.

Or if community disagrees, I guess I'll go sulk abit then get over myself. :-P

I would like to sort this, without bring oWoD, cWoD, 20th annivery, Storyteller, Storytelling etc etc into the equation. Low hanging Fruit.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I know tags can be given synonyms. Can they be either effectively or actually renamed? Perhaps renaming "nwod" to something like "nwod-basic" would help clarify the intended difference. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 8:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ They can be renamed, but the renaming would only stick if the old name was blacklisted (an option, but not one i am keen on. I suggest if you think something like this is a good idea then make an answer.) nwod-basic doens't quiet fit, but I can't think of a better one. I guess nwod-original. Man I wish WoD had of just gone down the WoD 1.0 =owod, WoD 1.5 = revised editions of owod lines, WoD 2.0 = nwod, Wod 2.5 = nwod-gmc, WoD 1.75 = 20th anniversary oWoD. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 8:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Oxinabox yeah, calling something "new" and renaming the original to "old" pretty much locked them to exactly two nicely distinguishable versions... I agree on not blacklisting, though making nwod a synonym to nwod-original after renaming nwod to nwod-original might work. \$\endgroup\$
    – MrLemon
    Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 8:58
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This seems fine to me, given how it works pretty well for D&D 3.0 vs 3.5. Answers to 3.5 questions can even use 3.0 material if it was never ported up to 3.5 (and is mentioned as being from 3.0), which could also be the case here for nWoD things that don't have an equivalent in God Machine. \$\endgroup\$
    – Tridus
    Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 11:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ Lots of comments that should be answers because we don't know nwod specifically? \$\endgroup\$
    – GMNoob
    Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 11:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Oxinabox specifically the traps question, imho should only apply nwod, I didn't know when asking if there were updates specifically regarding this, it does not appear that there are, rather conversion rules apply lacking canonical god machine. Sure tilts/conditions might happen, but that's not necessarily explicitly laid out. This is another example why I think that retagging is simply going to convolute and make the site more complicated for users. I personally don't want to have to know, does this only apply to X. The answer also includes relevant information for just nwod people. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 14:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ it might also be worth saying, vampire and hunter, for example are "completely different games" according to some, so should those be tagged nwod? after all someone interested in vampire isn't necessarily interested in hunter. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 17:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ if someone is only interested ion hunter then they focus (/filter) on the hunter tag etc. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 18, 2014 at 1:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ NWoD 2nd edition announcement is relevant: forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?734320-NWOD-Second-Edition \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 16, 2014 at 16:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think perhaps we need a follow up question on this, that also addresses whether we should have vampire-the-requiem-2 \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 25, 2014 at 2:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ vampire-the-requiem-2 is vtr:blood-and-smoke, same book new cover. Thus we should have a tag synonm. this seems pretty obvious to me. Create a meta on it if you like though, if you think there is room for clarification \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 25, 2014 at 4:03

6 Answers 6


As @SevenSidedDie points out, as the very recent news about nWoD 2nd Edition.

To summerise:

  • nWoD 2nd Ed is the same rules as introduced in the God Machine Rules Update
  • a new Core book with the revision incorperated is coming out
    • so the core rules for mortals will no longer be predicated on only the old nwod core rules
  • Blood and Smoke will be receiving basically cosmetic changes only.
  • the publishers are calling it World of Darkness Second Edition, and referring to it as "the second edition of the new World of Darkness."

With this in mind, I suggest the following additional clarifications be taken (in addition to those suggested in the question.

When the new books come out a drive is done to edit all old questions to make sure they are clear, and that they show up in google searches for both terms. (I am happy to do this myself)

  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't like the idea of nwod being nwod-1e without changing, it's very confusing in my mind, esp from the world-of-darkness tag. I think it should be just changed to 1e, this is more consistent and makes the distinction clear. To be fair it is hard to tell by tag alone if world-of-darkness includes cwod or not. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 18, 2014 at 23:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ Here we go again. Onyx path just renamed it, for the 3rd time. theonyxpath.com/announcing-chronicles-of-darkness Chronicles of Darkness = (CoD?) = nwod-2e = nwod-gmc I should edit the question and this answer to reflect. This is what synonyms were made for... \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 12, 2015 at 12:54

I like your proposal with one exception: the settings of nWoD and GMC are mostly compatible, so a question like "Is Twilight a separate place you can step into or just a different aspect of being?" would apply to both. Likewise, a question about the Angel on the Moon would apply to both; the story is in the original World of Darkness book, but it's directly related to the God-Machine.

So to the "both" category, add setting questions.

  • \$\begingroup\$ where as I think the setting hasn't changed at all thereby all setting questions are just nWod unless mechanics are asked. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 13:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ Twilight is possibly a bad example. it is still a state of being, but the mechanics of being in twilight has changed (Subtly, but meaningfully). So being in the twilight state of being means some thing different. You would get a much clearer and better example for either by posting them with one tag or the other. (Infact I am tempted to ask both questions) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 16:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ I have run a original nwod game that used the god machine setting before. Possibly we need a WoD Setting page? I actually expect the Setting to continue to diverge more and more books come out. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 16:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Oxinabox - Twilight isn't the best example, you're right, but the answer to that basic question is still the same (and a good answer would bring up any subtle distinctions but be useful for both rulesets). \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 17:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ I can't vote this down, but I no longer agree with this answer, after the 2.0 announcement, and reading some of the more severe changes to werewolf 2 (like harmony) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 24, 2014 at 1:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree some setting elements have changed too much. and it is hard for the question asker -- who may be familar only with one of the systems, to know which. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Sep 9, 2014 at 22:50

Current tags (nwod and nwod-godmachine) are fine. Retag away per your proposal.

  • \$\begingroup\$ So you are agreeing with the statement made in the question post here? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 16:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes. Yes yes yes yes \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 19:04

Onyx Path has answered your prayers we should update nwod-god-machine to be nwod-2.0 and imho, nwod to nwod-1.0 allowing for nwod to be used for any questions that apply to both since the setting hasn't really changed, and for the time being it seems they're trying to keep most/all fluff alive.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ +1: This also works. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 19, 2014 at 0:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ Does that actually make nwod-god-machine === nwod-2.0 though? NWOD 2.0 might contain God Machine, but God Machine would not be the same as 2.0. It sounds like there's room for people to ask questions about God Machine but not in a NWOD 2.0 context. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 19, 2014 at 6:13
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener for the purpose of the nwod-god-machine tag, yes. It might be reasonable for there to be a god-machine tag that is thematic in the sense that it's specifically about the god machine or it's angels, but that hasn't been what that tag is for, and I'd reserve judgement on needing that if more books come out specifically in regards to the god machine itself. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 19, 2014 at 12:36

If there needs to be a renaming of the tags — and I'm not convinced that simply retagging isn't sufficient — I'm going to lobby for for the games before the GMC rules revision and keeping for those afterward. I know the first one looks redundant, but if you're talking about "the new World of Darkness games relying on the core book entitled 'The World of Darkness'," I think it's not a bad idea. Plus, it has "world-of-darkness" in it, which means people looking for World of Darkness questions will find it, just as they will find .

  • \$\begingroup\$ What about [nwod-classic]? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 13:21
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @GregoryAvery-Weir I don't think that's a thing yet -- I haven't heard anyone calling the earlier games "nWoD classic" the way that OPP is branding the new-oWoD stuff as "classic WoD." At least nwod-wod refers to the name of the book you need. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jadasc
    Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 13:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ NWoD is going to see a second edition, which complicates and simplifies things: forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?734320-NWOD-Second-Edition \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 16, 2014 at 16:33

The clear answer:

  • ooWoD: The original classic World of Darkness releases.
  • onWoD: The new World of Darkness games, starting with 2004's The World of Darkness and going until the God Machine Update.
  • noWoD: The 20th Anniversary editions and the Classic World of Darkness revival.
  • nnWoD: Second edition new World of Darkness games.
  • \$\begingroup\$ To be pronounced "ooh-WoD," "on-Wod," "no-WoD," and "hnnn-WoD." These will replace "oh-WoD" and "en-WoD." \$\endgroup\$
    – Jadasc
    Commented Aug 22, 2014 at 13:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ Are these abbreviations used by the WoD community? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 22, 2014 at 16:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Not even close. :) They were proposed on RPG.Net a day or so ago, with the announcement of the 2nd edition nomenclature change. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jadasc
    Commented Aug 22, 2014 at 16:18
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ So this is more of a joke answer? :) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 22, 2014 at 16:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ More "ha ha only serious." It's the kind of thing that could catch on or sink like a stone--and would fit in very few characters. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jadasc
    Commented Aug 22, 2014 at 16:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .