Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's with all the V5 sour grapes?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's with all the V5 sour grapes?

    I can't help but notice a trend of 3 common complaints about V5 so far, and I frankly don't understand any of them:
    •Culling of Elders
    •Hunger mechanics getting in the way
    •Preference for cWoD disciplines

    Re: Elders - How is this an issue? There's basically two types of Elders in Vampire; the active kind who are basically unstoppable, and the inactive/newly active kind who are also basically unstoppable but give you a sliver of hope in that you're educated on modern tech/politics/etc.
    For active Elders, they totally dominate the story of a game even though the game is supposed to be about the players. Active Elders of low Gen (let's say 4-7) are such unbelievable powerhouses compared to players (let's say Gen 10-13) that there's basically no winning; they have more personal power, more experience, and through blood bonding and sycophants, greater influence/numbers. The only avenue you have to make up the difference at all is the one thing that the entirety of "civilized" vampire society will hunt you down for (or to start as an elder yourself).
    For inactive Elders, they're still individually too powerful to contend with, but modern knowledge can give you a way to "break even" and that can make for fun storytelling experiences - but not over and over. It's a great "chapter" or a great individual game, but not a great meta consideration for overall plot lore.
    tl;dr - Elders may make for interesting storytelling, but they make for *terrible* gaming - and this is, after all, a game. The existence of so many active elders in the lore makes it basically impossible to compete as a player. Getting rid of many of them is frankly the right move.

    Re: Hunger - I've noticed one thing in common in basically all VtM gaming I've been a part of, seen from others, or even heard about on the internet: Feeding is hand-waved. The phrase, "okay, everybody tops up on blood," is sooo common and basically skips the entire "vampire" part of the Vampire game. "Blood-Mage, the Masquerade" is not the game I was sold on, but it's basically the game everyone has been playing.
    So we *finally* get an edition that gets the struggle with hunger right, and tons of complaints pop up about it being inconvenient and getting in the way of what the players' want to do. Uh, duh! THAT'S. THE. STRUGGLE. lol

    Re: Mechanics - I get it, power-gaming is popular and cWoD rules were great for power-gaming. If you prefer old-style Celerity, well, you still have your V20 or Revised or whichever edition and no one can stop you from playing that. Frankly though, I'm quite happy to play in an edition that gives me the Masquerade lore with the Requiem balance and get to play vampires that don't feel like if I don't take specific disciplines I just auto-lose.
    Celerity broke the old game. You may like it, you may think it's a ton of fun, and you could even be right, but I'm also right. It (among others) was just objectively bad for the game.

    Feel free to respond, agree, disagree, whatever you like.
    Just consider this a rant from a fan of the game/lore that's just tired of all the complaining.
    Last edited by Schwann145; 08-13-2018, 01:10 AM.

  • #2
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this and while I don't want to discount the opinion of long time Vampire players, which may very well end up being right about the system, to me the big three that you mentioned are the three things that actually surprised me as "problems" pointed out by veteran players.

    I mean for no 1., this is meta plot. I have been playing Vampire and other world of darkness games for as long as white wolf has been writing books and I don't recall a single chronicle or storyteller EVER who actually used the meta plot in anything but a back drop, nore have I ever met a storyteller who didn't simply change the parts of a meta plot he didn't like at the drop of a dime. On its best day the meta plot is there for inspiration.

    As for the Hunger mechanic, I'm also stumped on this. I have never played or ever heard of a Vampire game in which "blood pool" was anything more than an MMORPG like energy bar, it had virtually zero impact on story or how scenes would play out. The only time it had any relevance was when you ran out which had the equivalent effect of your healer running out of Cure Light Wound spells... aka... time to rest for the day. It was boring and uninspired and no system/mechanic in the world of darkness games was house ruled more often than how blood pool worked.

    I also agree on the power gaming concept. It always struck me as odd that a player base playing a game so heavily focused on story would want to play a game mechanic that was so crunchy and easy to break. D&D is often accused of being the "Munchkin" paradise, but if I was to name a system from the hundreds of RPG's I have played over the year that had the most likely chance of a munchkin power gamer showing up to play, Vampire The Masquerade would be at the top of that list. To see it trimmed down to make space for more free form role-playing is brilliant and while I will say that it's very easy to go overboard in this department (and this may very well be the case in V5), for me personally as a storyteller its always easier to work to increase rules weight from a simple system than it is to simplify a complex one.

    I reserve judgement until I have had a chance to run a chronicle using the rules as written, I think its really important to judge a game on its merits not on its edition history or differences in edition, but to me right now given what I know about the game and just reading through the complaints, I find very little to discourage me from trying it. Most of the complaints I would categorize as superficial and not really relevant to how I approach RPG's.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Schwann145 View Post
      Re: Elders - How is this an issue? There's basically two types of Elders in Vampire; the active kind who are basically unstoppable, and the inactive/newly active kind who are also basically unstoppable but give you a sliver of hope in that you're educated on modern tech/politics/etc.
      For active Elders, they totally dominate the story of a game even though the game is supposed to be about the players. Active Elders of low Gen (let's say 4-7) are such unbelievable powerhouses compared to players (let's say Gen 10-13) that there's basically no winning.
      The game is not about winning - and players and the ST are not opponents who are battling each other. I loathe to say it, but if that is your attitude to the game, you're doing it wrong.

      Elders are the fabric in the game which gives players/neonates a bearing and limitations. They are what makes the surroundings of the players intelligible in terms of social constructs and aspirations. Without them the players are merely monsters without a clue, who roam a bleak world of food that looks like yourself.

      So taking them out of the equation is a pretty bad idea.

      V



      "I used to wear purple"

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Vincent View Post

        The game is not about winning - and players and the ST are not opponents who are battling each other. I loathe to say it, but if that is your attitude to the game, you're doing it wrong.

        Elders are the fabric in the game which gives players/neonates a bearing and limitations. They are what makes the surroundings of the players intelligible in terms of social constructs and aspirations. Without them the players are merely monsters without a clue, who roam a bleak world of food that looks like yourself.

        So taking them out of the equation is a pretty bad idea.

        V
        Like the Week of Nightmares before. It's up to the ST how many are gone if any are gone.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Vincent View Post

          The game is not about winning - and players and the ST are not opponents who are battling each other. I loathe to say it, but if that is your attitude to the game, you're doing it wrong.

          Elders are the fabric in the game which gives players/neonates a bearing and limitations. They are what makes the surroundings of the players intelligible in terms of social constructs and aspirations. Without them the players are merely monsters without a clue, who roam a bleak world of food that looks like yourself.

          So taking them out of the equation is a pretty bad idea.

          V
          I wasn't intending to suggest that the game is "Players vs ST, and ST always wins."
          Rather, good storytelling is driven by compelling conflict. When the balance of power between NPCs and players is as drastic as it is between low gen Elders and high gen players, there's no real sense of conflict - you're pushing against the immovable object, and the story will suffer; either because your success feels contrived (ie: PIS, to steal a comic book acronym), or because you will have no way to find any success.

          In other words, the antagonist Prince of the story (pulling a random plot thread out of nowhere) should be scary to contend with based upon their political power and the vast influence he/she can wield as well as potentially being strong in the blood, not because they're an unstoppable blood god whom you can't possibly contend with (now or ever) in any meaningful way.

          Edit to add- There's nothing at all wrong with making sure players know that there are always scarier things that go bump in the night than them, and as high as they can climb the power structure, there's always someone higher. The problem is the lore is saturated with those individuals to the point that player characters are pushed out of the limelight on the regular (or said elders are just ignored, in which case their existence didn't matter anyway).
          Last edited by Schwann145; 08-13-2018, 04:23 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Schwann145 View Post

            I wasn't intending to suggest that the game is "Players vs ST, and ST always wins."
            Rather, good storytelling is driven by compelling conflict. When the balance of power between NPCs and players is as drastic as it is between low gen Elders and high gen players, there's no real sense of conflict - you're pushing against the immovable object, and the story will suffer; either because your success feels contrived (ie: PIS, to steal a comic book acronym), or because you will have no way to find any success.

            In other words, the antagonist Prince of the story (pulling a random plot thread out of nowhere) should be scary to contend with based upon their political power and the vast influence he/she can wield as well as potentially being strong in the blood, not because they're an unstoppable blood god whom you can't possibly contend with (now or ever) in any meaningful way.

            Edit to add- There's nothing at all wrong with making sure players know that there are always scarier things that go bump in the night than them, and as high as they can climb the power structure, there's always someone higher. The problem is the lore is saturated with those individuals to the point that player characters are pushed out of the limelight on the regular (or said elders are just ignored, in which case their existence didn't matter anyway).

            I can agree to some extend that many of the books have been clustered with low gens and that much of the attitude has been "you can't mess with them". As an ST I have given the meta plot little consideration, as I prefer to create my own "universe", in which elders and neonates interact in a - granted - unequal way, which moves the players in different directions. Had they been on equal levels (combat wise), my players would have eaten all of them, so the low gen aspect actually serves a purpose.

            Incidentally, I once ran a campaign where my players were Ventrue elders running a city (Dark Ages), and they soon realized how little a prince actually knows about what's happening, despite a vast network of spies and minions.

            V




            "I used to wear purple"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Vincent View Post


              I can agree to some extend that many of the books have been clustered with low gens and that much of the attitude has been "you can't mess with them". As an ST I have given the meta plot little consideration, as I prefer to create my own "universe", in which elders and neonates interact in a - granted - unequal way, which moves the players in different directions. Had they been on equal levels (combat wise), my players would have eaten all of them, so the low gen aspect actually serves a purpose.

              Incidentally, I once ran a campaign where my players were Ventrue elders running a city (Dark Ages), and they soon realized how little a prince actually knows about what's happening, despite a vast network of spies and minions.

              V

              It was kind of the point I was making about the concept of Elders in V5. I don't really see how creating a metaplot where Elders have been beckoned somewhere changes anything at all about the game. You can, as you put it "create my own universe", which is precisely what everyone, always, does to some extent. As storytellers we read the material and pick and choose what parts of it become "the universe" for our players. I don't know of any GM that hands the core book to the players and says "read this" and then adheres to the meta plot as written in their chronicles and I have been at this for a very long time. What you describe is more in line how all ST's I have ever met do it.

              Comment


              • #8
                I've never seen a Vampire game where "you top up on blood" was ever a thing and in those where that has been done exactly how will the new Hunger mechanic not just be ignored the same way? Feeding is a fairly major part of Vampire and so was maintaining self control when doing so if "hungry" was also important. Sure I've had players that tried to exclusively rely on Herd or wanted to avoid the "hassle of hunting" but more often than not it was a great tool for introducing the occasional new NPC, adding elements to the Story when somebody overfed and exsanguinated someone or when people got careless in hunting habits and maybe risked the Masquerade. A lot of the time when they were only hunting for a quick drink then yes, we did scenes quickly but with all of the above in mind, but if a Vampire was desperate and/or Hungry then the risks went up, this is all without considering the Roads and Paths of Morality. The fact that this essential act could impact so heavily on a given vampire also led to interesting circumstances.

                The new blood system is a very different beast and lends itself to very different things, for example there is a requirement to kill to get certain benefits but this seems to be without personal consequence to most vampires. Or to put it another way, in the original renditions of VTM the base character inspiration for the game was Louis where as in V5 that's switched to Lestat or Armand.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Schwann145 View Post
                  Re: Hunger - I've noticed one thing in common in basically all VtM gaming I've been a part of, seen from others, or even heard about on the internet: Feeding is hand-waved. The phrase, "okay, everybody tops up on blood," is sooo common and basically skips the entire "vampire" part of the Vampire game. "Blood-Mage, the Masquerade" is not the game I was sold on, but it's basically the game everyone has been playing.
                  So we *finally* get an edition that gets the struggle with hunger right, and tons of complaints pop up about it being inconvenient and getting in the way of what the players' want to do. Uh, duh! THAT'S. THE. STRUGGLE. lol
                  I think this one is debateable. There's a good tradition of media that are firmly set in one setting, but are actually about something else. Take zombies for example: How many zombie movies/comics/tv series are there where the primary conflict is actually provided by the zombies? I'd say less than half. In the rest of them, the zombies are merely the catalyst that brings humans into stressful situations where their own flaws threaten to tear a group apart. The same holds true with vampires: You can explore different topics - loss of humanity, politics and intrigue, eldritch powers and all the rest - with a game that purports to be about vampires, but doesn't actually spend much time doing the core blood drinking because the other stuff is so much more interesting.
                  Whether that's your cup of vitae is up to you, but I find "I preferred another topic in the game, now I've got to concentrate more strongly on this one" to be a legitimate criticism.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Schwann145 View Post
                    Re: Elders - How is this an issue?
                    Because VtM has spend 27 years as a setting where taking on the elders head on wasn't how things worked. 27 years of setting and lore, and all that built on the backbone of a society with elders running the show.

                    Of course, how "invincible" are they really when the Second Inquisition is responsible for some of this? You seem to be overstating how powerful the elders really are against clever PCs (esp. those willing to play elders against each other).

                    Feeding is hand-waved.
                    Feeding is still going to end up getting hand-waved most of the time, just with slightly longer sentences to make sure you're getting your Blood Resonance and following your Predator archetype. The new Hunger rules doesn't actually make the act of feeding on people any more interesting to play out than they were before.

                    The phrase, "okay, everybody tops up on blood," is sooo common and basically skips the entire "vampire" part of the Vampire game.
                    Sleeping during the day is an essential part of being a "vampire" that we always hand-wave the vast majority of time. Vampire fiction generally fast forwards through feedings... because feedings aren't actually that interesting. "Sitting around eating," isn't something a lot of people actually look for in an RPG, even if eating is more "interesting" because of being a vampire. People want to play character that do stuff, and eating isn't doing stuff, it's consuming so you have energy to do stuff.

                    So we *finally* get an edition that gets the struggle with hunger right,...
                    See, right there's a reason why you don't understand the complaint. A lot of us don't think this edition gets the struggle with hunger right in the slightest. If you don't think this mechanic actually does what people want (making feeding and hunger a more interesting part of playing VtM, so that people actually play more with it in mind) then it makes a lot more sense to be annoyed at the way things work (like Hunger dice having very good chance of influencing the outcome of any roll, since they apply to all rolls, and thus get in the way).

                    Re: Mechanics - I get it, power-gaming is popular....
                    Yeah, sure, this really shows that you care about what people are complaining about: calling them names.

                    I've seen very few complaints that amount to "OMG they nerfed it!" and most people actually think the multiple option Disciplines was decent idea.

                    The problems with the Disciplines are:

                    1) It's clear they didn't really have enough ideas for some of them to have all these different powers, making them seem lack luster as a whole.

                    2) The compression of Disciplines together is already abundantly clear in being unevenly applied. Dementation is already the poster child for "basically doesn't exist despite supposedly being a flip side to Dominate of Malks," in people's minds. Making Serpentis part of Protean will probably go well, but Assamite fans aren't exactly looking forward to Quietus being made a form of blood magic and making the internal Clan politics less sensible.

                    ...well, you still have your V20 or Revised or whichever edition and no one can stop you from playing that.
                    Having the old editions to play doesn't mean the new edition's flaws magically disappear, and it doesn't make the complaints about them less valid, and it doesn't really demonstrate you care about anything more than people not loving what you're excited about... which didn't need a rant.

                    Originally posted by xguild View Post
                    As for the Hunger mechanic, I'm also stumped on this. I have never played or ever heard of a Vampire game in which "blood pool" was anything more than an MMORPG like energy bar, it had virtually zero impact on story or how scenes would play out.
                    Please stop saying this. MMORPGs borrowed things like Blood Points from TT RPGs not the other way around. The both use them because it's easier for most designs compared to things like Vancian style controls on using powers. Energy meters, gas tanks, or whatever biased terms you want to use to describe them miss the simple fact that they've been a staple of RPGs for almost four decades because they work, and most attempts to supplant them don't work.

                    The only time it had any relevance was when you ran out...
                    Nope. Frenzies were affected by low BP before running empty.

                    It was boring and uninspired and no system/mechanic in the world of darkness games was house ruled more often than how blood pool worked.
                    This is patently false. Blood points are something that saw extremely little house ruling over the years because the "boringness" of it is due to that fact that it's as utilitarian as it is. I have literally seen hundreds of combat hacks for the WoD for every Blood Pool alteration, and almost all of those were only to make Generation less stupid as a trait instead of any other reason.

                    Originally posted by Godforsaken View Post
                    It's up to the ST how many are gone if any are gone.
                    Yes, V5, the game that gave up halfway through development and tries to hide all its flaws under the carpet of, "just let the ST decide."

                    Originally posted by Schwann145 View Post
                    Rather, good storytelling is driven by compelling conflict.
                    Go play VtM: Bloodlines, and get back to us on how really powerful Elders that you can't hope to do anything about personally get in the way of it having a compelling conflict.

                    When the balance of power between NPCs and players is as drastic as it is between low gen Elders and high gen players, there's no real sense of conflict - you're pushing against the immovable object, and the story will suffer; either because your success feels contrived (ie: PIS, to steal a comic book acronym), or because you will have no way to find any success.
                    Not really, because the games never really placed, "beat the Elders in direct conflict" as a main focus of the game. They games have always had a strong focus on deciding if you want to find success as part of the power structures the Elders have constructed, with your successes tied to defeating rivals of your own status and power for further position and rank, and/or trying to pit the Elders against each other because they all despise each other and are always looking for ways to screw each other over that a canny group of younger vampires might be able to take advantage of to their own benefit.

                    To paraphrase MRH himself, VtM is the lovechild of Rice's Vampire Chronicles and the Godfather stories. Both of those sources have pretty strong generational conflict as part of their narrative,s but neither put much focus on trying to actively depose those above you in the power hierarchy... and yet remain compelling conflicts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      As someone who admittedly has not bought V5 yet, my main gripe with the new hunger system isnt the idea, but the overly punishing implementation.

                      If I read things correctly, even at hunger 2, which is for any non-murdering vampire, the default setting after exertion, messy criticals can arise. That is too much.

                      The secondary gripe is that hunger can now only be eliminated via murder.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Schwann145 View Post
                        I can't help but notice a trend of 3 common complaints about V5 so far, and I frankly don't understand any of them:
                        •Culling of Elders
                        •Hunger mechanics getting in the way
                        •Preference for cWoD disciplines

                        Re: Elders - How is this an issue? There's basically two types of Elders in Vampire; the active kind who are basically unstoppable, and the inactive/newly active kind who are also basically unstoppable but give you a sliver of hope in that you're educated on modern tech/politics/etc.
                        For active Elders, they totally dominate the story of a game even though the game is supposed to be about the players. Active Elders of low Gen (let's say 4-7) are such unbelievable powerhouses compared to players (let's say Gen 10-13) that there's basically no winning; they have more personal power, more experience, and through blood bonding and sycophants, greater influence/numbers. The only avenue you have to make up the difference at all is the one thing that the entirety of "civilized" vampire society will hunt you down for (or to start as an elder yourself).
                        For inactive Elders, they're still individually too powerful to contend with, but modern knowledge can give you a way to "break even" and that can make for fun storytelling experiences - but not over and over. It's a great "chapter" or a great individual game, but not a great meta consideration for overall plot lore.
                        tl;dr - Elders may make for interesting storytelling, but they make for *terrible* gaming - and this is, after all, a game. The existence of so many active elders in the lore makes it basically impossible to compete as a player. Getting rid of many of them is frankly the right move.

                        Re: Hunger - I've noticed one thing in common in basically all VtM gaming I've been a part of, seen from others, or even heard about on the internet: Feeding is hand-waved. The phrase, "okay, everybody tops up on blood," is sooo common and basically skips the entire "vampire" part of the Vampire game. "Blood-Mage, the Masquerade" is not the game I was sold on, but it's basically the game everyone has been playing.
                        So we *finally* get an edition that gets the struggle with hunger right, and tons of complaints pop up about it being inconvenient and getting in the way of what the players' want to do. Uh, duh! THAT'S. THE. STRUGGLE. lol

                        Re: Mechanics - I get it, power-gaming is popular and cWoD rules were great for power-gaming. If you prefer old-style Celerity, well, you still have your V20 or Revised or whichever edition and no one can stop you from playing that. Frankly though, I'm quite happy to play in an edition that gives me the Masquerade lore with the Requiem balance and get to play vampires that don't feel like if I don't take specific disciplines I just auto-lose.
                        Celerity broke the old game. You may like it, you may think it's a ton of fun, and you could even be right, but I'm also right. It (among others) was just objectively bad for the game.

                        Feel free to respond, agree, disagree, whatever you like.
                        Just consider this a rant from a fan of the game/lore that's just tired of all the complaining.

                        .
                        In the world of Darkness, there have always been upper echelons who manipulated you and you couldn't do a thing about it.
                        It's one of the themes of the setting: you are a small fish. Maybe it's your Technocrat boss, or Control, maybe is your hermetic master, or your Thanatoic Guru, maybe is your pack leader or the sept elder, in any case you can't do a thing, they are not there to be beaten, they are there to use you.
                        World of Darkness is not Dungeon's and Dragons, the dragon lv 18 you see there is not there to be killed, the lich is not the next thing that will give you exp. The big things are the things that runs the setting and makes sure that the chtonic horror of being a small pawn in a giant chessboard of titans is enforced.
                        One of the first adventure ever made for Vampire (it was in the Succubus club book, 1991) was about the Methuselah Critias using you party as chess piece in a game against a friend of his named Dmitri.
                        And when I say chess piece I mean LITTERALY chess piece. This is what vampire has always been about. When Chicago by Night came out in 1991 it was the direct sequel of Ashes to Ashes, an adventure where you were drawn in the power games of Menele and Helena, and you were involved in some crazy high stakes (like deciding if Lodin the prince of CHicago would survive or not).
                        Chicago by night was built around this premise: everything is a game between elders, and the game between elders is a game between Methuselah, everyone is being manipulated by someone. Evene the Methuselah do not act of their own free will. The whole premise of the whole city (the basic toolbox for creating any city after that) was that you are a pawn, the one above you is a pawn and so on.
                        It's not about your personal advancement,even becoming prince would have been useless, because the Prince was nothing but a pawn of the Primogens Council. Wod is not about you getting to level 20, it was never about it, it was about you being stuck at level 5 and being shaken by chtonic gods. You don't punch chtuluh in the face.
                        Which by the way is not a trait that only WoD has, it was somewhat of a common trait in 90s RPG, look at shadowrun: you will not fuck Lofwyr, he will fuck you. You will not destroy Renraku, maybe you can achieve some little victory, but you are not tearing down the Megacorps, or the Dragons, or the Black Lodge, or whatever. The world is what you have, and you can only live in it and surviving its tides.
                        The reason I quote Succubus Club, Chicago by Night and so on is because these entries where out in 1991, the really start of Vampire.
                        With time this angle has prevailed against the Personal Horror angle, which became less and less important through 2ed. Or we could say it just changed from personal horror to cosmic horror, it shifted from the personal perspective of "I'm a monster, what have I become" to "They are monsters, what I am going to do?". The horror moved to the setting very quickly, from your inner fights with the beast to your struggle amidst the whims of ancient entities you could not comprehend.


                        The pyramidic structure of lies, intrigues and power play has been the core of Vampire for too long, changing it simply makes Masquerade something that Masquerade never was.


                        This is even more true for one reason: It does exist an alternative, which is Vampire the Requiem.
                        Vampire the Requiem is all about personal struggle, personal advancement, the night to night life of a Vampire, with much less focus on the political side and the deep intrigues. It's a game that has been created just for that, and it's a beautiful game. But if someone is in thise section of the forum, the Masquerade section,and not in the Requiem one, you must suppose that many people where simply into those things.




                        As for Hunger Dice this goes on the same direction of what I said above. Hunger dice (along with Touchstones) enforce the narrative direction of personal horror, of the struggle of feeding and the fight againts your inner beast.
                        Many players of vampire the masquerade couldn't care less about those things.
                        Again, if you find those things interesting I can't stop to suggest you to give a try at requiem, which is all about that.
                        Since 2ed Vampire is not really a personal horror game anymore (or at least is not its main angle), but an elaborate political/urban fantasy/cosmic horror game. And that's the way most people played vampire.

                        Now,if most people play vampire this way since late 1ed, and since 2ed made the final jump into this angle, and has been so for Revised and V20 too, maybe it's not the players who are playing the wrong way, but are the others who are playing the wrong game.
                        This is not an accusation, but a suggestion to see the thing from another point of view: if people wanted persona horror they would have jumped on the Requiem ship; those who wished to do that already did it in 2005, and if people wanted this V20 books would not be platinum sellers on Drivethrurpg.
                        People do not want this because this is not what they embarked for, people embarked on the Masquerade for other things, that V5 seems to lack.
                        And when I say "play the Requiem" it's not a provocation like "Out of the garden kid! Go play requiem". It's a sincere suggestion, because maybe the requiem has the things you are looking for in a Vampire game, and is a wonderful game, even better than Masquerade in many regards. But if people are playing the Masquerade they are playing the Masquerade for the reason Masquerade has always been played for. Take those things away and you have just an empoverished iteration of Requiem.



                        If you go in the thread "will you stick to 20 or go with v5" you have 29 people who will stick with v20, and just 14 people who will go with V5.
                        If you convinced only 1/3 of the players the problem is not with the remaining 2/3 of players.
                        Last edited by Undead rabbit; 08-13-2018, 07:40 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Herbert_West View Post
                          As someone who admittedly has not bought V5 yet, my main gripe with the new hunger system isnt the idea, but the overly punishing implementation.

                          If I read things correctly, even at hunger 2, which is for any non-murdering vampire, the default setting after exertion, messy criticals can arise. That is too much.

                          The secondary gripe is that hunger can now only be eliminated via murder.


                          A non-murdering vampire will at minimum be a Hunger 1. This means messy criticals are always possible.

                          A messy critical is if you roll the dice, you get a pair of 10s, and at least one of those dice is a Hunger die.

                          So I reroll on 5 dice with hunger 1, a 10,9,8,4 and a 10 on the Hunger die. That is a Messy Critical. It is also 6 successes.

                          If I rolled 10,10,4,2 and a 10 on the Hunger die that is still a Messy Critical (I got a critical, and of all the tens, 1 is on a hunger die). It is also worth only 5 success (you get 4 successes for every pair of 10s).

                          Of course if I only need 2 successes to succeed, I could just take half rounding down, which would be 2 successes but no risk of Hunger dice.

                          In play so far I am not finding Messy Criticals that frequent.

                          As for fully draining someone to remove Hunger, I quite like the idea that in effect the Beast is only fully satisfied if it also causes death/eats a soul.
                          Last edited by Dr Ether; 08-13-2018, 08:02 AM.


                          www.darker-days.org - The Premier World of Darkness Podcast
                          Co-designer and miniature painter for Noble Armada 3e

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                            Yes, V5, the game that gave up halfway through development and tries to hide all its flaws under the carpet of, "just let the ST decide."
                            Yep, exactly. I love it.

                            I don't think that giving liberty to decide how to create your own story is giving up. Many game systems work like it. And with V5 both kind of players can enjoy the metaplot. Some will take the things they like, others will play it to the letter, and other won't play the game at all. All are valid IMO.
                            Last edited by Godforsaken; 08-13-2018, 08:29 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                              See, right there's a reason why you don't understand the complaint. A lot of us don't think this edition gets the struggle with hunger right in the slightest. If you don't think this mechanic actually does what people want (making feeding and hunger a more interesting part of playing VtM, so that people actually play more with it in mind) then it makes a lot more sense to be annoyed at the way things work (like Hunger dice having very good chance of influencing the outcome of any roll, since they apply to all rolls, and thus get in the way).
                              Here's the thing though - Hunger, as a mechanical concept, never existed in past editions. Never. The developers are even on record stating that it was a flaw of the old system that they specifically felt needed fixing. There was absolutely nothing to distinguish between "full/peckish/hungry/starving" other than being totally out of Blood Points.

                              If you don't think V5 is getting the struggle right, that's fine. But say how you think it's flawed; let's not pretend that any of the older editions addressed hunger at all.


                              Yeah, sure, this really shows that you care about what people are complaining about: calling them names.
                              Power gaming isn't a negative thing, and it's hardly an insult. It's just one (rather popular) style of RPG gaming. Take a breath. :P


                              2) The compression of Disciplines together is already abundantly clear in being unevenly applied. Dementation is already the poster child for "basically doesn't exist despite supposedly being a flip side to Dominate of Malks," in people's minds. Making Serpentis part of Protean will probably go well, but Assamite fans aren't exactly looking forward to Quietus being made a form of blood magic and making the internal Clan politics less sensible.
                              I could go on for days about the problems with Dementation (and Malks in general; too many Fish Malks, not enough serious ones) but to keep it short, it was an abomination of a Discipline. I'm all ears as to how any role-player is supposed to accurately portray a character suddenly, and out of the blue, picking up five new derangements. Dementation being rolled into Dominate the way it is, is about the best idea ever IMO - it allows Malks to have their own "brand" of Dominate without being the train wreck of the old system(s) version of the Discipline.
                              This is all opinion, obviously, but I'd be incredibly surprised if someone could actually make a solid argument, mechanically, for Dementation as it was.


                              Having the old editions to play doesn't mean the new edition's flaws magically disappear, and it doesn't make the complaints about them less valid, and it doesn't really demonstrate you care about anything more than people not loving what you're excited about... which didn't need a rant.
                              But what it does mean is that if you're not happy with the new version of the game, and you liked the old version of the game, you're not SOL.
                              Serious question to anyone who feels like answering: If you don't like the new version, what would you have done differently to make a new version worth printing/selling? Or are you in the "it wasn't broke, didn't need fixing" camp?


                              Go play VtM: Bloodlines, and get back to us on how really powerful Elders that you can't hope to do anything about personally get in the way of it having a compelling conflict.
                              Apples to oranges. Did you play Bloodlines? Are you denying that, as you progress through the game, you basically skyrocket in power in a way that is pretty much impossible to do in the TTRPG? It's a railroad computer game that plays fast and loose with basically everything, and last I played it, you do end up overpowering pretty much anyone that gets in your way.



                              To paraphrase MRH himself, VtM is the lovechild of Rice's Vampire Chronicles and the Godfather stories. Both of those sources have pretty strong generational conflict as part of their narrative,s but neither put much focus on trying to actively depose those above you in the power hierarchy... and yet remain compelling conflicts.
                              Interesting to point this out, considering the plot of Queen of the Damned - for those who haven't read it, a minor spoiler: it's the NPCs who save the day because the PC(s) are nowhere near powerful enough to.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X