Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Playtest, Fifth Edition Pre-Alpha Rules: Aftergame Thoughts

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

  • Originally posted by Teylen View Post
    I wrote another "actual play" report. This time how I remember the second playtest of the V5 playtest "The Last Night" went.
    Next to the actual play, the action itself, I tried to elaborate the background of the various scenes, my thoughts as well as the players and STs actions.
    [Actual Play] The Last Night – 2nd V5 Pre-Alpha Playtest [Part 1]

    I'm glad you guys had fun.
    The idea of giving them the option to bucket-chain vitae was a nice attempt to get them to hunt a lot. Still, the scenario feels lurid and exploitative as heck.
    (BTW: When did they introduce this mutual-bloodbond-lover thing? I don't remember it in revised and Guide to the Camarilla was pretty clear that bbs are a big faux-pas for Cams. Did they add it in V20?)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Davesknd View Post

      (BTW: When did they introduce this mutual-bloodbond-lover thing? I don't remember it in revised and Guide to the Camarilla was pretty clear that bbs are a big faux-pas for Cams. Did they add it in V20?)
      Is it mutual? If I remember correctly, every character was blood-bonded to André, but not the other way around and nobody knew about the others and thought he/she's the only one, no?



      If nothing worked, then let's think!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PMárk View Post

        Is it mutual? If I remember correctly, every character was blood-bonded to André, but not the other way around and nobody knew about the others and thought he/she's the only one, no?
        It's mentioned in the introduction, quote, "Kindred feel lonely among the kine and their surrogate family of monsters soon becomes their only release from isolation. In the Camarilla, beloved and obedient childe or a mutually blood-bonded spouse is the ideal."
        And now excuse me, that sentences made me hurl so much!

        Comment


        • The idea isn't new, but previously it was something most vampires recognized as idiotic because they know the blood bonds aren't healthy and two vampires bonded to each other is a ticking time bomb of drama and worse.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Davesknd View Post
            It's mentioned in the introduction, quote, "Kindred feel lonely among the kine and their surrogate family of monsters soon becomes their only release from isolation. In the Camarilla, beloved and obedient childe or a mutually blood-bonded spouse is the ideal."
            And now excuse me, that sentences made me hurl so much!
            Ah, okay, I misunderstood the question then!

            Yeah, it got me thinking too. I remembered vaguely that such thing is frowned upon in the Camarilla and something of a scandal and, a Heavy Arms said, generally not a good idea, but not prohibited as is. It's also a hazy memory, but I think kindred in prominent positions (like a Prince) were like that, in the fiction.

            I could come up with several different explanations why it could have changed, becoming an "ideal" condition, but yes, it seems like a bit of a shift.


            If nothing worked, then let's think!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
              The idea isn't new, but previously it was something most vampires recognized as idiotic because they know the blood bonds aren't healthy and two vampires bonded to each other is a ticking time bomb of drama and worse.
              I like how in Requiem this is called "perversion."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Resplendent Fire View Post

                I like how in Requiem this is called "perversion."
                I think the Ventrue clan book mentioned that the Ventrue blame the corruption of Carthage on the Brujah elders there doing these kinds of blood-bonding, so this concept of the Camarilla awarding members the right to "marry" like that seems really weird. Hope this is just fit for this scenario.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Davesknd View Post
                  I'm glad you guys had fun.
                  The idea of giving them the option to bucket-chain vitae was a nice attempt to get them to hunt a lot. Still, the scenario feels lurid and exploitative as heck.
                  Thanks
                  In general, after adjusting to my needs and style, the scenario did grow on me. At least a bit.

                  (BTW: When did they introduce this mutual-bloodbond-lover thing? I don't remember it in revised and Guide to the Camarilla was pretty clear that bbs are a big faux-pas for Cams. Did they add it in V20?)
                  I think it got mentioned in third as well as second edition.
                  As something that "lovers" might consider. Though with the caveat that the emotion aren't love but more like mutual obsession.
                  It does, on top, add the benefit that those, mutually, three-step blood bonded kindred effectively can't be bonded to anyone else. [Thus I consider it a kill mark for Tremere]

                  Some challenge with me, offering the players a road to rise André is the continuation.
                  I considered André keeping a blood bond as protection or being just immune to blood bonds. Though it feels bulky.
                  Then there is the challenge that André hasn't got any description safe from "8th gen Malkavian who likes to blood bond a metric ton of kindred".

                  Comment


                  • I think I wasn't clear, sorry. My point wasn't about a mutual blood bond being possible but about it being an "ideal" in the Camarilla. It is mentioned in Revised as a throwaway line about how dangerous and ultimately foolish the whole ordeal is. Something that sad losers do to feel anything. I mean, back in Guide to the Camarilla, it's stressed how much the Cams dislike blood bonds because it's a lot like Vaundilerie and it can be used as a punishment for moderate crimes (and not even a full one).
                    I just find it baffling that it is so prominently mentioned in this scenario. I kinda skipped V20, so I only know about Revised et al and in them, the idea of blood-marriage and loving childe was preposterous. So I'm just curios if it's V20 or V5 where it came into being.

                    Comment


                    • Vampires casually engage in so much perversion that them considering this to be perversion feels like a developer kludge to block on obvious solution to vampire backstabbing and the fear of being bonded.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CajunKhan View Post
                        Vampires casually engage in so much perversion that them considering this to be perversion feels like a developer kludge to block on obvious solution to vampire backstabbing and the fear of being bonded.
                        It's not a developer kludge, it's a Camarilla kludge. Because it makes sense that the Cams want everyone open to be potentially bound to the prince as punishment.And "perversion" is pretty myopic concept. It makes only sense that a society with their own traditions would have their own concepts of perversion.
                        I mean, if you played an Inconu, Anarch or Sabbat, I wouldn't have asked. But it being a Cam ideal baffles me

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by CajunKhan View Post
                          Vampires casually engage in so much perversion that them considering this to be perversion feels like a developer kludge to block on obvious solution to vampire backstabbing and the fear of being bonded.
                          It's not a developer kludge, it's a Camarilla kludge. Because it makes sense that the Cams want everyone open to be potentially bound to the prince as punishment.And "perversion" is pretty myopic concept. It makes only sense that a society with their own traditions would have their own concepts of perversion.
                          I mean, if you played an Inconu, Anarch or Sabbat, I wouldn't have asked. But it being a Cam ideal baffles me

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Davesknd View Post
                            I think I wasn't clear, sorry. My point wasn't about a mutual blood bond being possible but about it being an "ideal" in the Camarilla. It is mentioned in Revised as a throwaway line about how dangerous and ultimately foolish the whole ordeal is. Something that sad losers do to feel anything. I mean, back in Guide to the Camarilla, it's stressed how much the Cams dislike blood bonds because it's a lot like Vaundilerie and it can be used as a punishment for moderate crimes (and not even a full one).
                            I just find it baffling that it is so prominently mentioned in this scenario. I kinda skipped V20, so I only know about Revised et al and in them, the idea of blood-marriage and loving childe was preposterous. So I'm just curios if it's V20 or V5 where it came into being.

                            I can't find it in V20 so I'd guess its, yet another, change thrown in for V5.

                            Comment


                            • Mutual blood bonding being perversion isn't a thing in Masquerade. It's in Requiem. I just commented on that here because it seemed a bit relevant.

                              I don't think it's a kludge, though. I think it's accurate - mutual blood bonds are risky business.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X