Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

V5 General Discussion: Let's Keep It Civil This Time

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

  • Originally posted by Ideon View Post
    Because you've forgotten what else spooked the elders of the Dark Ages into tolerating giving up any of their power: the Inquisition.
    I didn't forget the Inquisition. The Inquisition provided the conflict in which the elders burned their childer for, which then caused the Anarch revolt.
    The Masquerade was previously upheld in the Dark Ages as the "Silence of the Blood". It wasn't an invention of the Convention of Thorns.

    The Camarilla's innovations were in wide-scale organization and enforcement, and elevating the Masquerade from common-sense rule to across-the-board lethal mandate.
    The Camarilla's innovation was doing publicly away with the differentiation between high and low clan and putting the facade up of leveling the field between childer and elders.

    The faction that split didn't do it because they went or believed "masquerade schmasquerade".
    The Anarchs, those who remained as such, split because they called bs of the actual leveling of the field.
    The Sabbat split because basically the same with some added aversion to the very concept of elders.

    The Camarilla reacting to the SI as it does is indeed a repeat of the mistake and does quite vividly the build-in challenge of the approach. Only difference being so far that with their attempt of having new conventions some called bs of doing it all the same again. In general, just because one was there, doesn't save one from repeating history, especially if that one might have amassed some hubris since 1493,..

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Teylen View Post
      The Camarilla's innovation was doing publicly away with the differentiation between high and low clan and putting the facade up of leveling the field between childer and elders.
      These... didn't really happen. The former largely due to the High/Low split being a later lore invention (and was effectively replaced with Camarilla ('Pillar') Clans/Everyone Else anyway), and there was explicitly no such thing as a leveling of any sort of playing field; that was what the Anarchs fought for, and they lost. Their surrender at Thorns specifically called for a return to the status quo (rebels had to return to their sires and Clans), but it did offer leniency for all but the worst offenders. That was the big takeaway from the Anarch Revolt for the elders; they found there was a breaking point and eased up ever so slightly on cracking the whip as often as they used to. The Camarilla is quite openly not an 'All Vampires Are Created Equal' ideology, and unlike the Sabbat or Anarchs doesn't even pretend.

      The Camarilla reacting to the SI as it does is indeed a repeat of the mistake and does quite vividly the build-in challenge of the approach. Only difference being so far that with their attempt of having new conventions some called bs of doing it all the same again. In general, just because one was there, doesn't save one from repeating history, especially if that one might have amassed some hubris since 1493,..
      I think I may have misspoke. V5's Camarilla isn't just repeating old mistakes, it's actively undoing 500 years of status quo to get there. Given that 'bucking the status quo' and 'ignoring their innate paranoia' are the two things most elders hate more than anything, the Camarilla's decisions as V5 describes them are utterly baffling.

      Comment


      • I might be mistaken but by the time the Convention of Thorns got explained in regards to what actually happened there was the High Clan/Low Clan split, and afterwards it was no more (explictly).

        In regards to the actual treaty, it was a treaty and not a surrendering of the Anarchs who didn't lose but forced a convention to happen. At least that is how I understood the Convention to have went down and how the Convention of Thorns is handled in the blockbuster Larp by the same name. It doesn't as well make sense that they lost as you described, as the Camarilla got a "acquiescence clause" - not sure if acquiescence is the correct word, I had to check the translator for options ^^; - for those Anarchs who didn't join. There are as well no executions of note, from what I remember.

        As for the V5 Camarilla, they ran a system in which everyone was part of their club, and it didn't either stop or help against the SI, thus it can be argued that for those who witnessed London and Vienna fallen it has been quite impressively proven that the status quo quite apparently it didn't work.
        More so if the Camarilla has been primarily seen as a measurement against the FI and not as an reaction to the Anarch revolt as you suggest.

        Comment


        • In a way, the withdrawal of the Camarilla almost reads like a continuation of the behaviour at First Inquisition times to me: Use the "lower classes" as lightning rods while hunkering down and cutting ties as much as possible so the proles can't reveal anything about their masters when caught.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Undead rabbit View Post

            ..Snip...
            Invictus is an organization that exist under one mandate : assuring the growth of power of the organization and its members.
            ...Snip...

            Doesn't sound a lot more like Invictus?
            I guess that is why I questioned it, I have always seen the two a similar and never had a problem with that. but to say that one is a direct cause of the other, to me was not seen. The snipped section sums up what I thought about the Invictus.

            From the Revised Guide ot the Camarilla page 12:

            "What the Camarilla is really about, though, is the status quo, and the preservation thereof. The elder vampires who dictate the Camarilla's policy like having power. They like having control over hundreds and thousands of younger Kindred. They like having wave after wave of subordinates there to protect them. And, most important of all, they want to keep things exactly the way they like them."

            This to me this was the Camarilla. They wanted to have power over others and keep it that way and it was not that you really had a choice to join them, you where Camarilla whether you liked it or not and you will follow our you will be destroyed.

            Though the invictus did not take it to the extreme of, "you are Invictus no matter what" they did want control always, that is why they are the first estate. and possible the purpose of the patronage system. You may not be Invictus but you will follow their rule if they have anything to say about it.

            Yes the Camarilla is more closed than in previous nights and they are more selective on who gets entry but they still will bring you to camarilla justice if you break their laws because they are their to protect their interests and that has not changed since the game came out.

            In any literary work you can draw parallels between different things or organizations but I don't think it is accurate it say that one caused the change in the other. or at least I feel it hurts the fanbase rather than helps it given the vitriol that some have towards Requiem.

            You could easily draw many parallels of house Carna and the Circle of the Crone but it does not make it bad nor does it mean that they are trying to mess up Masquerade or write clan Tremere into Circle of the Crone.

            Story evolves and can not stay stagnant. This is the purpose of meta plot. Sometimes we like the plot sometimes we don't. I am looking at you potion that cures vampirism. But in the end if you want a game that has a meta plot then the plot must move forward and it will take turns that are not always liked. Use what you like, toss the rest.

            Comment


            • That is the thing though, yes the meta plot goes forward, but why in this direction? There are tons of other things you can do, another Sabat crusade, this time in Europe, The second Inquisition can stay, but instead of giving power up, the Camarilla goes apeshit and tries to control everyone by bloodbonds, making the Sabbat propaganda true (again), create a Stalinist anarch movement that enforces a "you are with me or against me" policy, but is actually not impotent and controls several important countries, becoming an eerie mirror of the Camarilla, while other, real Anarchs, hate what they have done - in short there are so many things you can do!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Crytash View Post
                That is the thing though, yes the meta plot goes forward, but why in this direction? There are tons of other things you can do, another Sabat crusade, this time in Europe, The second Inquisition can stay, but instead of giving power up, the Camarilla goes apeshit and tries to control everyone by bloodbonds, making the Sabbat propaganda true (again), create a Stalinist anarch movement that enforces a "you are with me or against me" policy, but is actually not impotent and controls several important countries, becoming an eerie mirror of the Camarilla, while other, real Anarchs, hate what they have done - in short there are so many things you can do!
                Absolutely the story could have went in any direction that they wanted it to this is the one they chose. It doesn't make it bad though. Use what you like, have the story go in a different direction, or change only a few reactions. That is the power of telling your story, you get to make that decision. But they chose this one and that is their story. they didn't have to kill off most of the Ravnos. they didn't have to create a Camarilla in response of the first inquisition it could have just fractured and split into several covenants that still play a subtle game with each other even into modern times. one of which took the route to power by blood-bonding client to patron in a patronage system to enforce their views of hierarchy. This is just one of those possibilities.

                Instead of saying I don't like this because of X, tell me what you are going to run with in your game. Your story is much more interesting to me than a bunch of complaints. Not saying you are complaining, I just would like to hear your interesting story than what people don't like about your story or heaven forbid why they think you are stupid because of your story.

                Mayby your story is going to be focusing on the personal horror of being a vampire and the struggles against the oppression of those more powerful than my characters. I have been toying with the idea of making the split of House Tremere more divisive with House Carna becoming a Sect maybe that is trying to bring the power of the old gods to fight the curse of imposed on them form Cain's lineage. Basically Lilyth worshipers that believe that Lilyth who taught Cain his power will protect them from the ravages of Gehena. Doesn't matter to me if that is what you use.

                That is why I play Masquerade and Requeim is to see different stories and I will continue to support and read white-wolf books to see where their story evolves. Doesn't mean I will use it, but I also don't want to discourages others from doing so.

                Comment


                • No. I run gothics/political/moblike games. Up until now i never had an issue, but now i have to completely change chronicles, if i want to stay in the Metaplot, which is something i always did. I already create a whole city, why do i have to create my world now too.

                  edit: Wait, this isn't the sour grapes thread, my bad. deleted what should have been there.
                  Last edited by Crytash; 08-29-2018, 02:57 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Yeah, if I had to build the whole world and the whole metaplot I would have played Requiem. If I play Masquerade I expect to have a strong metaplot that allow me not to waste time. I expect a metaplot that allows different playstyles and do not force me into playing the game in the specific way some edgelord from Scandinavia thinks I should play. I expect a coherent world and setting fully developers, whit a strong identity.

                    I do not want a mere toolkit kit, I do not want to house rule the hell out of a setting. I want Vampire the Masquerade. Otherwise there is Requiem. But that isn't what I bought.

                    If you could Just house rule the hell out of a setting people would still play V1. Or maybe they would have jumped in 2005.

                    I came for the game, I stayed for the metaplot and the lore.
                    Last edited by Undead rabbit; 08-29-2018, 03:27 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Undead rabbit View Post
                      I expect a metaplot that allows different playstyles and do not force me into playing the game in the specific way some edgelord from Scandinavia thinks I should play
                      Surely you can provide your criticism without resorting to personal attacks against the developers, right? The title of the thread suggests we remain civil here.

                      Comment


                      • Looks to me like the Camarilla is now just a bit more honest about being what it has always been. The game has always portrayed its universalist propaganda as hypocritical, as it has always been an elitist establishment. The “Ivory Tower” was never a democracy. And it hasn’t stopped claiming control over all and sundry; its just not pretending that the rabble can actually climb the tower.

                        Yeah, it’s reflective of the current political zeitgeist, where the elites are no longer even bothering to sell the lie that everyone is theoretically equal.

                        It’s also freed up space for the Anarchs to be a proper sect, which has been needed for s long time. That idea itself is from V20 era, but it necessitates a less ostensibly universal Camarilla to give it breathing room as a game concept. It doesn’t change much in practice, as the Anarchs’ core complaint has always been that Hardestadt’s line was a lie.

                        Comment


                        • *checks updates*

                          ...huh. There's some new errata for V5 corebook. One a separate document and already incorporated into the book.

                          *checks book*

                          Well, they got rid of the infamous typo regarding Attribute dot distribution...but they still haven't fixed the PDF bookmarks.

                          Goddammit.

                          Comment


                          • What was the infamous typo?
                            ... also, where's the separate errata document?
                            Last edited by Cifer; 08-31-2018, 01:57 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cifer View Post
                              What was the infamous typo?
                              ... also, where's the separate errata document?
                              This.

                              Comment


                              • Wrong thread

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X