Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Remember when they said there is gonna be a tv show.?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Konradleijon
    replied
    I know your fear I hate shows with a large focus on interpersonal drama. Especially love triangle shot

    Leave a comment:


  • Strangelove
    replied

    Originally posted by Thoth View Post
    True Blood, Twilight, and Vampires Diaries are about love triangles and relationship drama, not being a monster. If we look back at some of the biggest tv series over the last couple decades, it boils down to humanizing monsters just enough that they are relatable but not excusable. The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, etc. all have this premise that the characters are monsters first, then humanity comes in as a second or distant third place.
    A big interesting part of shows such as The Sopranos and Breaking Bad is the insight on the characters. It is not that they are bad first and then human... they are both and their problems are mostly related on how to juggle with it.

    Tony Soprano is a mob boss that has anxiety problems because he is afraid that he will loose his family (the famous ducklings).

    Walter White has a family and a normal life, then his illness prompts him to become a gangster to a point he enjoys it.

    So, these are great examples on how to deal with humanity, characters that are or expected to be monsters and eventually become them, unwillingly or not.

    Not sure if the VtM show will go so deep though! Lately I am rewatching Dexter (which imho should be a Banu Haquim obsessed with his code rather than a Malk) that deals with similar subjects in a much more lighthearted way!

    Another good non-vampire example for VtM would be The Wire, with many paralel but interconnected storylines where characters doesn't always interact with each other but are different aspects of the same main character, Baltimore, with the characters being just cogs of the machine. David Simon did something similar with The Deuce.

    If love triangles and relationship drama are used to reinforce these topics and all the monstruosity of the monsters and their city, I don't see why not have them. After all I see Vampires as sexy manipulative creatures as well, it just fits!

    Just as everything, it can be done slopily or masterfully.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Originally posted by Thoth View Post

    I have to say that this statement is both true and misses the point entirely.

    When V:tM was released it wasn't just the notion you could play dracula, it was a major departure from the Tolkien inspired morality and storytelling that had been used in games like Dungeons & Dragons or Call of Cthuhu. Those systems assumed you were the good guys, trying to rescue the princess or save the world. If your character was ever turned into a monster, you stopped playing that character. WoD game design flipped everything on its head and said "let's have character gen start where other games stop". Of course games like D&D also suggested that game balance would broken by having characters which had all the monster benefits, so they never supported it. Just like CoC doesn't support the PCs being the cultists that the are trying to awaken the old ones.

    True Blood, Twilight, and Vampires Diaries are about love triangles and relationship drama, not being a monster. If we look back at some of the biggest tv series over the last couple decades, it boils down to humanizing monsters just enough that they are relatable but not excusable. The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, etc. all have this premise that the characters are monsters first, then humanity comes in as a second or distant third place.

    RPGs by design are supposed to allow you to slip into a different characters skin for a bit, gain a different perspective in given situations, but most importantly regardless how dark or dangerous that perspective is, at the end of the game you go back to being you and you can shrug off any ill affects. Its the same reason people like horror movies, they like being unsettled but only in the safety of movie theater or their own homes.
    I think the relationship trouble, love triangles, and so on is every bit as important to some games as the idea of being an antihero or villain protagonist but it's really up to the storyteller and player.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thoth
    replied
    Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
    Like I said, I don't think people who go, "Oh this vampire show is DERIVATIVE" are going to be fans of Vampire: The Masquerade to begin with. The appeal of Vampire: The Masquerade in the 90s was that it could allow you to play Anne Rice, Lost Boys, Dracula, and Nosferatu.

    The appeal was that it mixed up and allowed you to play almost all the vampire archetypes.

    The NEW V:TM should allow you to play True Blood, Twilight, and Vampire Diaries.
    I have to say that this statement is both true and misses the point entirely.

    When V:tM was released it wasn't just the notion you could play dracula, it was a major departure from the Tolkien inspired morality and storytelling that had been used in games like Dungeons & Dragons or Call of Cthuhu. Those systems assumed you were the good guys, trying to rescue the princess or save the world. If your character was ever turned into a monster, you stopped playing that character. WoD game design flipped everything on its head and said "let's have character gen start where other games stop". Of course games like D&D also suggested that game balance would broken by having characters which had all the monster benefits, so they never supported it. Just like CoC doesn't support the PCs being the cultists that the are trying to awaken the old ones.

    True Blood, Twilight, and Vampires Diaries are about love triangles and relationship drama, not being a monster. If we look back at some of the biggest tv series over the last couple decades, it boils down to humanizing monsters just enough that they are relatable but not excusable. The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, etc. all have this premise that the characters are monsters first, then humanity comes in as a second or distant third place.

    RPGs by design are supposed to allow you to slip into a different characters skin for a bit, gain a different perspective in given situations, but most importantly regardless how dark or dangerous that perspective is, at the end of the game you go back to being you and you can shrug off any ill affects. Its the same reason people like horror movies, they like being unsettled but only in the safety of movie theater or their own homes.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
    Eh. Some interpretations of the setting are vastly different from others. For me, that 'rich vs poor angle has always been young vs old, but never Cam Vs Anarchs, because most Anarchs are wealthy and have better living standards than an average human, and some cam are poor. Counterculture isn't always set up by the poor. The Camarilla are the moderates in some interpretations.

    But then you've got, say, the Ctphipps stance where perhaps everything is Anarchs VS Evil, or the V5 reimagining of the setting where each faction is more... exaggerated than before, and the cam are religious social darwinists. Some people focus on "personal horror" and trenchcoats and katanas while others are into political or theological horror and make the combat a gritty sim Hell.

    One big point of contention over the editions seems to be if vampires enjoy sex or not. There's the "ew absolutely not" camp, the moderate "well yes but the Kiss is incomparably better" camp and then there's the "what do you mean we can't enjoy sex? aren't we playing an erotic adventure game?" lot.
    I think that vampires should have sex and enjoy it! *shakes fist*

    Funny fact, I actually have a bit of cogniitive dissonance with my love of Anarchs. I am 100% an Anarch fan, I wear the T-shirt, and I am "fuck Elders" 100%. I am also 100% aware that in canon, Anarchs are every bit as big a group of assholes as the Camarilla. They have no plan, their motivations are primarily selfish, and the reason that I believe Elders are always assholes and the Camarilla is that I actually believe MyWifeIsScary is correct.

    What do you call a 200 year old Anarch?

    A Camarilla Elder.

    Eventually, with the exception of Smiling Jack and Jeremy Macneil, Anarchs sell out when they get old enough to be Elders. The Sabbat is pretty much what happens when you have the Anarchs stick to their principles, the Beast turns them all into crazed monsetrs shouting FREEDOM controlled by a bunch of Elder puppetmasters identical to the Camarilla. It's even canonically the correct answer.

    The first Anarch and Camarilla NPCs we meet (Juggler and Modius) are deliberately mirror images.

    What does this have to do with the TV show?

    I'd love to have an Anarch vs. Camarilla focus but I want the Anarchs to be assholes.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Like I said, I don't think people who go, "Oh this vampire show is DERIVATIVE" are going to be fans of Vampire: The Masquerade to begin with. The appeal of Vampire: The Masquerade in the 90s was that it could allow you to play Anne Rice, Lost Boys, Dracula, and Nosferatu.

    The appeal was that it mixed up and allowed you to play almost all the vampire archetypes.

    The NEW V:TM should allow you to play True Blood, Twilight, and Vampire Diaries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gubenyochi
    replied
    Originally posted by adambeyoncelowe View Post
    Back onto the originality thing, I agree with others that people don't care too much for originality. Fans of vampire things like other things with vampires in. I think it'll get loads of fans of True Blood, Vampire Diaries, etc, and it will take them no time at all to Google VTM/WoD and find out this was a trope codifier for many things.
    I for one Hate True Blood. I Love the Originals and probably would have quit watching Vampire Diaries a couple of seasons in, if I hadn't watched the Originals first. VD was Meh. I mean I am not everybody but "Vampires" isn't enough a reason to like a show for me.

    Or to put it another way I am picky about my vampire shows and if people are too lazy to google the truth about social media articles I don't see them doing for shows that seem like a knock-off to prove who did it first.

    If they do Werewolf I hope they set it in Europe, I feel like it set in the US will devolve into a one sided political endorsement show. (see Idaho wolf killing law)

    Leave a comment:


  • Omegaphallic
    replied
    Originally posted by Garygeneric View Post

    I was going to voice similar concerns but with Star Trek: Discovery as an example rather than Mulan. Inclusivity is great. Inclusivity for its own sake brings things down. Please don't be Michael Burnam with fangs.

    However, I would love a V:tM show in the same vein as any show listed in the article. Writing, characters, production value, all pretty much amazing. So, while I do have reservations, I also hold out a lot of hope.
    The wokeness of Star Trek: Discovery is radically overstated by both sides, yes it has a diverse cast, but it never takes on the lecturing tones and its minority characters are individuals, not simply political statements and none end up Mary Sues (and no Michael Burnham is not a Mary Sue). Think on this, Michael Burnham has never once mentioned being black and its never been a plot point, where as race came up in episodes of both TOS and DS9, its never come up in ST: D. It got the rep of being hugely woke because of Brian Fuller bragging about its diversity of its cast, he treated his cast and characters like a woke check list instead of assembly of extremely talented people it is. Some of the Actors OOC also gave folks the impression that the plot was very anti Trump, in practice it wasn't. In summation ST: D is not political.

    Anyway as for this new show WoD and Scion showw I'll judge it when I see it.

    I hadn't read the warning about posting about wokeness when I quoted this post yet, my post was more about disgreeing with the idea that ST: D is highly political, its not, its diverse but largely apolitical.
    Last edited by Omegaphallic; 04-29-2021, 03:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omegaphallic
    replied
    https://deadline.com/2021/04/world-o...nd-1234744965/

    Hope its good. Given Scion and WoD are getting TV deals 8 wonder if CoD and Exalted or Scarred Lands could be next.

    Leave a comment:


  • adambeyoncelowe
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
    Eh. Some interpretations of the setting are vastly different from others. For me, that 'rich vs poor angle has always been young vs old, but never Cam Vs Anarchs, because most Anarchs are wealthy and have better living standards than an average human, and some cam are poor. Counterculture isn't always set up by the poor. The Camarilla are the moderates in some interpretations, But then you've got, say, the Ctphipps stance where perhaps everything is Anarchs VS Evil, or the V5 reimagining of the setting where each faction is more... exaggerated than before, and the cam are religious social darwinists. Some people focus on "personal horror" and trenchcoats and katanas while others are into political or theological horror and make the combat a gritty sim. Hell. One big point of contention over the editions seems to be if vampires enjoy sex or not. There's the "ew absolutely not" camp, the moderate "well yes but the Kiss is incomparably better" camp and then there's the "what do you mean we can't enjoy sex? aren't we playing an erotic adventure game?" lot.
    I'm in the category that they can but it's a pale imitation of the Kiss. But then, I don't see sex as necessarily penetrative or requiring an orgasm.

    From what I recall, you can go through the motions, but can't produce the right bodily sensations without Blush of Health. Fluids are replaced with blood, though, so... it gets messy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Konradleijon
    replied
    Yeah Masqrade vamps can’t walk into the sun! Unless their thin bloods.

    And the Camarilla vs Anarchs was always a political thing and more complex.

    It has political dimensions with the old ass Camarilla Eldars being consecutive dicks that have all the power in vampire society. They to quote a socialism have the means of production amd power.

    Leave a comment:


  • Frontline989
    replied
    If we have vampires who walk around in the sunlight I'm going to flip a table. This is a common trope with most vampire media now a days.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    Eh. Some interpretations of the setting are vastly different from others. For me, that 'rich vs poor angle has always been young vs old, but never Cam Vs Anarchs, because most Anarchs are wealthy and have better living standards than an average human, and some cam are poor. Counterculture isn't always set up by the poor. The Camarilla are the moderates in some interpretations, But then you've got, say, the Ctphipps stance where perhaps everything is Anarchs VS Evil, or the V5 reimagining of the setting where each faction is more... exaggerated than before, and the cam are religious social darwinists. Some people focus on "personal horror" and trenchcoats and katanas while others are into political or theological horror and make the combat a gritty sim. Hell. One big point of contention over the editions seems to be if vampires enjoy sex or not. There's the "ew absolutely not" camp, the moderate "well yes but the Kiss is incomparably better" camp and then there's the "what do you mean we can't enjoy sex? aren't we playing an erotic adventure game?" lot.

    Leave a comment:


  • adambeyoncelowe
    replied
    Originally posted by Grumpy RPG Reviews View Post

    But will they care? Fans of most vampire themed shows will want a VtM show to be tawdry, filled with cheep sex and stupid relationships, and callow melodrama. They will not want nuances to the world, or depth of lore, or explored morality. (shrug) c'est la vie.
    I don't know how true that is. I don't want a vampire show full of cheap sex and stupid relationships. Vampire media can be Buffy or Blade, True Blood or Twilight. It's an enduring genre that doesn't need to be too narrow.

    Besides, as others have said, this production company's past experiences prove they can do a faithful adaptation. The new writers are already gamers themselves, so they should, in theory, be familiar with the setting and what makes it unique.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grumpy RPG Reviews
    replied
    Originally posted by adambeyoncelowe View Post
    ...it will take them no time at all to Google VTM/WoD and find out this was a trope codifier for many things.
    But will they care? Fans of most vampire themed shows will want a VtM show to be tawdry, filled with cheep sex and stupid relationships, and callow melodrama. They will not want nuances to the world, or depth of lore, or explored morality. (shrug) c'est la vie.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X