Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

V5 Players guide annouced

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post

    Well, I've had employees at the company tell me it's sold much better than V20 but take that for what it is.
    I remember you mentioning that in a few days back, but I forgot to answer, I think.

    So, it's tricky. Are we speaking about the selling of physical copies? If yes, that's, well, duh, V20 wasn't sold like that, mostly. If pdfs too, in what time frame, in comparison to what? First quarter after publishing in both cases, or the sum of all sales (that would surprise me)?


    I think V20 is a much more safe depiction of V:TM.
    Yeah, absolutely, because it's literally started as a compilation, not a new edition and even later, they didn't try to remake the game, though they re-wrote some things, like the TMR.

    Honestly, I regert we'll never see how OPP's next edition would have looked. Also honestly, some "playing it safe" would have helped V5 a lot.

    M20 and C20 is much more of a new edition.




    And I wish V5 would have dropped "The Sabbat think they did 9/11"
    I don't even know, why they needed that. It was best NYBN stayed the hell away from it.


    fiction and Predator types from the main book for some more clans.
    I must admit, V5 as a corebook, is a weird beast to me. It's long, much closer to V20 than Revised. Yet, somehow it contains less than the later, both in rules, setting depiction (lack of history chapter, for example) and playable options. I'm just being bewildered about it. There's lots of atmospheric writing and in-character stuff, but most of it is not vey informative. I'm saying this as someone, who likes that WoD always had ample in-character stuff (as I like that the books are mostly presented like that in SR too) and who always felt that the NWoD (and to some extent, a portion of V20) books are good, but somewhat dry. Then, there's the copious ammount of empty white space. It's just not effective, in bang for your buck terms, or in presenting the game to someone, whi didn't knew it earlier. But that's just my oppinion.


    Mind you, I would have it be the Twelve Clans and make the Ravnos a bloodline for later.
    Hmm. Since Ravnos don't have an ante any moe and quite few remained, I think it's fair to say they are practically a bloodline now. Still, many people like them and consider them core, so, you might include them as an example of bloodines? If you include thin-bloods in the core, I think that's not unreasonable.



    If nothing worked, then let's think!

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Neamhan View Post

      Yes, the original Player's Guide also included the Followers of Set and the Salubri.
      Thank you. It fascinates me how many groups and factions in the World of Darkness RPGs went from initially being included with the intent of them being NPCs, to being made playable. This phenomenon shows how subjective and arbitrary choices in game development and design can be. Also, it is an excellent example of how setting elements, concepts, and motifs can be refined.
      Last edited by Muad'Dib; 12-22-2018, 02:46 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Muad'Dib View Post
        Thank you. It is fascinating for me how many groups in the World of Darkness RPGs went from initially being included with the intent of them being NPCs, to being made playable. This phenomenon shows how subjective and arbitrary choices in game design and development can be. Also, it is an excellent examples of how setting elements, concepts, and motifs can be refined.
        I always liked that most groups are playable and that almost everyone have a point. I might not like every group, but I like that the opportunity is there. I like them being fully fleshed-out and nuanced, not two-bit monsters and bad guys. I like how it makes the world more of a "shades of gray (frequently very dark gray...)" than a pure "protagonists vs antagonists" one. I like that where a group is truly npc-only, like infernalists and Nephandi, they are really fucked up and scary. For some, the Sabbat should be that, for me, they are/became too big a part of the setting to be that.

        You can criticize it that the Anarch should fulfill most of the roles the Sababt did and that the Sabbat should be the original concept, but that was a long time ago and it is what it is, the Sabbat was not a fringe group, but one of the two biggest sects and playable for 26 of the 27 years since this game is existing.


        If nothing worked, then let's think!

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by PMárk View Post

          Yeah. For approximately a year of the game's initial existence before they've became playable. They were playable since then and most fans got introduced to the game with them being playable.

          Also, false equivalence with the other splats. Vampire is about playing vampires, that includes Sabbat, independents and elders, but not includes the other splats.
          No, The Sabbat were not playable within a year of the game dropping. They came after hunters, after werewolf was released. Sabbat and Independents were NOT treated as Core Experience in 2e. They were given much greater core status in Revised. And v20 had everything in it.. but that has nothing to do with whether or not V5 actively attempted to ape V2 for nostalgia factor. There is nothing in the 2e corebook that says "Sabbat are totally playable things coming" the whole idea of humanitless vampires was completely unplayable from the core. They were dangerous things that could swallow up your city.. that's it.

          Most of the Sabbat's development was in Revised.







          Yeah, Modiphius, which is probably the reason why Paradox gave them VtM now to handle. Regardless of that, Paradox, as the owner of Mutant Year Zero, probably had a reasonable picture about how well a successfull tabletop rpg would sell.
          Why? They haven't been doing anything but liscensing things out. I Mean Games workshop tried that with the orgional Dark Heresy game and their model is a hell of a lot closer, and they decided they couldn't do it after the first book.


          Well, I can agree with that. It had a feel somewhat like that for me too. I just wouldn't tie it to how well it sold during the '90s, since that'd include the most gonzo parts, since 1e got supplanted very fast. For me, it just feels more of a conviction that their preferred version of the game (which is more close to 1e and VtR) would sell well to a "serious and mature" audience. IMO, they've failed to realize two thigs:

          1. the game always had many people who didn't play it like their preferred playstyle
          2. there's no way that in the current climate, you could go as deep into political stuff than they did and come out unscathed, regardless of your intentions.


          Its not particularly requiem. Its very much a "Core 2e" experience... Yeah there were gonzo suppliments in 2e... Playing the Sabbat, playing Elders, playing every random bloodline.. but you look at V5 its clearly trying to pull the Model. It gives you a signficantly pared down experience from v20 WITH the expectation of selling you a whole bunch of suppliments. Except.. things aren't working out like that.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Lian View Post

            No, The Sabbat were not playable within a year of the game dropping. They came after hunters, after werewolf was released. Sabbat and Independents were NOT treated as Core Experience in 2e. They were given much greater core status in Revised. And v20 had everything in it.. but that has nothing to do with whether or not V5 actively attempted to ape V2 for nostalgia factor. There is nothing in the 2e corebook that says "Sabbat are totally playable things coming" the whole idea of humanitless vampires was completely unplayable from the core. They were dangerous things that could swallow up your city.. that's it.
            Oh, for f's sake...

            1e Player's Guide: rules for traits above 5, 1991
            2e Player's Guide to the Sabbat, 1992

            The effing Sabbat is playable since 1992. We're at year 2018 now.

            Even if the 2e corebook didn't say "they will be playable", they were there and they were playable for 26 years.


            Most of the Sabbat's development was in Revised.
            Revised somehow managed to put every major group into the corebook and it was better, IMO, it gave a much more complete picture of the setting.


            Why? They haven't been doing anything but liscensing things out. I Mean Games workshop tried that with the orgional Dark Heresy game and their model is a hell of a lot closer, and they decided they couldn't do it after the first book.
            Do you think they didn't see any numbers and charts about how the thing they are licensing out is selling?


            Its not particularly requiem. Its very much a "Core 2e" experience... Yeah there were gonzo suppliments in 2e... Playing the Sabbat, playing Elders, playing every random bloodline.. but you look at V5 its clearly trying to pull the Model. It gives you a signficantly pared down experience from v20 WITH the expectation of selling you a whole bunch of suppliments. Except.. things aren't working out like that.
            Requiem 1e was also an attempt of going back to the core experience of 1e and "core 2e".

            I'll maintain, they might just thought the same model would work again, but if yes, that was a serious miscalculation, since players grew accostumed to having those things for a long-long time, since they were there for 98% of the game's lifetime. Thing is, nothing in the books, or their comments, or even the presentation of the setting indicated that those things will be available in the foreseeable future.


            If nothing worked, then let's think!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by PMárk View Post
              I always liked that most groups are playable and that almost everyone have a point. I might not like every group, but I like that the opportunity is there. I like them being fully fleshed-out and nuanced, not two-bit monsters and bad guys. I like how it makes the world more of a "shades of gray (frequently very dark gray...)" than a pure "protagonists vs antagonists" one. I like that where a group is truly npc-only, like infernalists and Nephandi, they are really fucked up and scary. For some, the Sabbat should be that, for me, they are/became too big a part of the setting to be that.
              I like it as well that in WoD the factions differ through areas of interest and complex outlooks and philosophies, rather than a straightforward "protagonists and antagonists" division.

              I think that the Nephandi are a faction that is a too big part of the setting to be non-playable. They are one the three main sides in the Ascension War, and both the Traditions and the Technocracy treat them seriously. The Nephandi will get their own book, "Book of the Fallen" , sometime during the next few years. In the M20 Corebook they had seven very varied sub-factions added ( Or six, considering the Technepandi were in the setting before. ) .
              Also, on page 224 of M20 Corebook it discusses playing Nephandi. While it is recommended against, it also says that the choice is up to the gaming group.
              I don't think the Nephandi and Infernalists should be compared or listed together. Infernalists are described as serving infernal spirits ; while it is explicately written in the M20 Corebook that the Nephandi don't serve that beings that they associate with ( on pages 225-226 ) .

              Also, I would like to note that in the Nephandi section of the second "Book of Madness" there is some humour present.
              The the text box where a place where Widderslaintes are tortured and tormented into Awakening is titled "They'll leave the lights on" ( page 30 ) .
              In the description of the Shaytan rank : "They refer to seducers as "administrati," and cordially loathe the rules-mongers wherever they find them. There's more to the destroyers, than cute nicknames and bad attitude ; (...) " ( page 16 ) .

              I think the Nephandi aren't "fucked-up" . The fact that they are Mages does explain, to an extent, why they are the way they are, and act like they act. Considering how important Paradigm is for Mages, it makes sense that some group would choose ambition, antagonism, suffering ( to an extent ) , and sadism as concepts and interests to explore and associate with.

              Originally posted by PMárk View Post
              You can criticize it that the Anarch should fulfill most of the roles the Sababt did and that the Sabbat should be the original concept, but that was a long time ago and it is what it is, the Sabbat was not a fringe group, but one of the two biggest sects and playable for 26 of the 27 years since this game is existing.
              I think that the Sabbat should be playable and developed as a distinct Sect in V5.
              Last edited by Muad'Dib; 12-23-2018, 01:41 PM.

              Comment

              Working...
              X