Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Handing v5 to modiphius was a mistake.

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

  • #31
    I hate hunger. I could see it appliying to rage and paradox, though I wouldn't like it. Banality is a hard no from me. Could you imagine it in action
    "you can't run in public" or "you have an urge to complain on the forums." . It's literally a roll to see if you do the boring thing.
    But really, as unsexy as bloodpool was, it made so much more sense than hunger and was actually much better for planned assaults. Maybe I'd accept a compromise where bloodpool has thresholds and you get penalties for certain things while you're hungry, same with rage.

    5e isn't a reinvention but more a streamlining of 3e. I think Vampire could do with a streamline. I have houserules to cut combat time in half without taking away the 'you can do any move from real life to effect the mechanics" which could be huge, and I think a few discipline powers are a bit off. (Dark age celerity was right, Shroud of Night could use a few nerfs, I think obfuscate 1 could be arcane, so on and so forth )
    Also, I think the xlevel xp costs really encourage you to minmax at character creation. Set costs for everything but disciplines, I think.
    Last edited by MyWifeIsScary; 11-18-2019, 02:55 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
      I hate hunger. I could see it appliying to rage and paradox, though I wouldn't like it. Banality is a hard no from me. Could you imagine it in action
      "you can't run in public" or "you have an urge to complain on the forums." . It's literally a roll to see if you do the boring thing.
      But really, as unsexy as bloodpool was, it made so much more sense than hunger and was actually much better for planned assaults. Maybe I'd accept a compromise where bloodpool has thresholds and you get penalties for certain things while you're hungry, same with rage.
      Yeah I don't know, we used it for a year, the hunger system was responsible for triggering all sorts of scenes that would never have transpired under the blood pool system. It had narrative strength that brought the experience of being a vampire to the fore front of the story, always intermingled with the core gothic horror on which the game is based. It worked out really well in our game, I hope they don't change back to a blood pool system, or at least offer it as an alternative system if they do. At this point I don't think I want to go back to blood pool.



      Comment


      • #33
        I would like to see it as an alternative system as well so others can use it. I would like to see many alternate systems to continue to explore the game as a whole. I probably won't go back as the hunger system drives the narrative for many of my games. I am really enjoying it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Agreed. While I think the Hunger system could use a bit of rebalancing (the sheer amount of messies and bestials is a little too high depending on how often you roll per scene), I absolutely love the basic concept. Compared to the previous editions' "gas tank" rules, this is a whole different Beast.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by xguild View Post

            Yeah I don't know, we used it for a year, the hunger system was responsible for triggering all sorts of scenes that would never have transpired under the blood pool system. It had narrative strength that brought the experience of being a vampire to the fore front of the story, always intermingled with the core gothic horror on which the game is based. It worked out really well in our game, I hope they don't change back to a blood pool system, or at least offer it as an alternative system if they do. At this point I don't think I want to go back to blood pool.
            We've already been told that 'no, V5's PG and further books won't revert those types of things' by the devs. For the PG, the things they've talked about are alternate rules and ways to tweak the standard playstyle, and rules ot use in conjunction with, not replace, the rules in the core book.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by xguild View Post

              Yeah I don't know, we used it for a year, the hunger system was responsible for triggering all sorts of scenes that would never have transpired under the blood pool system. It had narrative strength that brought the experience of being a vampire to the fore front of the story, always intermingled with the core gothic horror on which the game is based. It worked out really well in our game, I hope they don't change back to a blood pool system, or at least offer it as an alternative system if they do. At this point I don't think I want to go back to blood pool.
              We've already been told that 'no, V5's PG and further books won't revert those types of things' by the devs. For the PG, the things they've talked about are alternate rules and ways to tweak the standard playstyle, and rules ot use in conjunction with, not replace, the rules in the core book.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Murder-of-Crows View Post
                I think DAV20 is the most evolved the system got, and would be solid foundation if you continue with a rules kernel that at this time is almost 30 years old.
                Agree. Except I would extend this more or less to DAV (the revised, chronologically earlier setting). Obviously DAV20 is an outgrowth of the latter; I just think they were at their finest in that particular setting.

                Originally posted by Murder-of-Crows View Post
                Shadowrun re-invented its dice mechanics in SR4, D&D 5e (hugely successful) is a lot more innovative compared to the older core rules (AD&D 2nd Edition and earlier). Even Cthulhu 7th edition updated a couple of rules elements.
                I can't speak for CoC (never played it, sadly.) However, my rejoinder re- Shadowrun and D&D is that the changes made to those two systems over time were overwhelmingly procedural in nature, with some inevitable externalized substantive changes as a result. By contrast, V5's changes are radically procedural and substantive--and by "substantive," I don't mean the changes that happen in the story to the clans (though that's obviously part of it,) so much as I'm referring to the fact the fact that what the game is like totally different. Someone who only ever played the first or second edition of SR or D&D, and a person who has only played the latest edition of each respective, may not know how the other's edition of the game functioned on a nuts-and-bolt/crunch level to resolve skill checks and attacks, but they'll probably be able to exchange stories about shadowrunning or dungeon diving without either one wondering whether they're actually even discussing the same game.

                Specifically RE- SR, even when they changed the dice mechanics, the game would essentially still the same game from the perspective of an observer actually watching the events of the story transpire. In other words, if you were watching an impossible seamless actual play--one where the rules, and out of character discussions about rules, were completely invisible--what the characters are actually doing, the tone, and style of the game would be essentially the same across all editions. Sometimes new tech was discovered or invented as the timeline wore on, and that would introduce new gameplay mechanics and dynamics (i.e., Alpha-, Beta-, Delta-, etc.,) but it's not like there were sweeping and fundamental changes to what it means to be a Shadowrunner from one edition to the next. The incentives, leverage points, equities, and logical functioning of what it means and is to be a Shadowrunner are basically constant.

                The SR equivalent of what V5 did would be (to give just one example) that the fail rate for cyberware would be so much higher than before, and the ill-effects of lower grade cyberware would so much worse, that using cyberware in any quantify would all of a sudden be the equivalent of playing Russian roulette. Beyond just changing how SR played, it would make inexplicable any number of facets of the setting that presupposed that cyberware, in certain quantities, was safe and reliable enough that X% of individuals have it, thereby affecting the economy, culture, and history of that world in how many innumerable ways. In other words, a V5-scale change would essentially alter the game so much that someone who had been playing the game, reading the fiction, and steeped in the lore for years, would have to re-learn the game from the ground up--not just the out of game mechanics, but the very internal logic (even in-game per the common wisdom of the characters) of what is reasonably achievable by shadowrunner of X experience and cred in any given situation.

                RE- D&D, I think it's a little weird to say that AD&D, and older editions (especially older editions!) weren't innovative when you consider that D&D is largely credited as the first game that was no longer a miniature war game where you named some pieces, and were now playing a distinctly separate sort of game altogether. The importance of early editions of D&D to this hobby just can't be understated. We could posit that the hobby was going to have its moment no matter what, and if it hadn't been D&D and the d20 system, it would have been something else, but in the world we actually live in, what really carved this hobby off of wargaming was (I think) the first D&D. Having said that, I can see 3.0, 3.5 (and the entire old OGL) being susceptible to this criticism (for starters.) Examining D&D 5e, I think we run into the same sort of ill comparison as we have with SR/V5. What actually happens from moment to moment in an average D&D game is not that different now than from 4e, 3.5, Pathfinder, AD&D, etc. The mechanics are tweaked, or (to 5e's credit) streamline the process of determining who wins a particular mechanical contest... but if you were to drag a D&D fan from 30 or 40 years ago into the future, and ask them to play D&D, they'd probably have a very good idea of what the game is like. It would still be recognizably D&D in more than name.

                And none of this is to argue necessarily that the changes to V5 are bad (even though they're definitely not to my taste,) so much as to point out that they're so sweeping, and alter so much of the logic of how a game actually proceeds, and what a player can actually expect to happen from one scene to the next, that its not cognizably V:tM in the same way that D&D 5e is basically the same game as older editions of D&D, but with changes to how you determine whether you hit the monster in the crypt you're raiding. Someone who played D&D years ago could pick up 5e and, upon learning the new mechanics, would probably have that 30-year-old itch for adventure perfectly scratched by the 5e. With Vampire, if someone was like "I used to play V:tM during Second Edition and I really dug it!" you probably would not recommend V5 out of hand--I mean, you might ultimately recommend it, but you'd probably have to ask, "well... what about V:tM did you like when you played?" first just to make sure you'd not better off directing them to V20. I will submit to you that of the Top 5 "Family Feud"-style survey says... responses to the question of "what did you like about V:tM when you played", at a minimum 2 of those responses will be totally incompatible with what V5 has to offer. They made an entirely different game about vampires and tried to sort of make it work with the IP they bought off White Wolf.

                Originally posted by Murder-of-Crows View Post
                The dice system is solid, and the basic concept of Hunger can easily be applied to Rage, Paradox, Banality etc.
                I'm skeptical of a one-size-fits-all system. Having said that, I'll readily acknowledge that there were basically only 5 or 6 mechanics in Classic WoD for how people's special powers worked--they were basically a bunch of different Mana bars, and sometimes the permanent rating (i.e., the Max Quantity) of your mana operated as a static value that you would compare to stuff for determining if you had the juice to do XYZ. But even that seems like it was more diverse than slapping Hunger onto ever new splat and changing some of the graphics around it.

                Originally posted by Murder-of-Crows View Post
                But today it's easy to switch back to earlier editions of the game. The back catalog is vast.
                Yeah, I don't want to be ugly about my dislike of the game--or at least, I don't want to be ugly to people who like the new game. Nothing Paradox/Mophidius/whomever does is going to make my books evaporate into the ether, and my long-standing vampire and mage games will go on. My polemic is more about driving home the point that it really is an entirely different game and experience from before; almost as different from older editions as Redemption was.

                Originally posted by Murder-of-Crows View Post
                The only thing that I would have liked to see would have been OPPs version of the next edition of VtM.
                I would LOVE to see V:tM powered by the Storypath system.
                Last edited by CaptOtter; 11-19-2019, 12:25 AM.


                Sig

                Comment


                • #38
                  Modiphius has my confidence, given the quality of Chicago by Night (better than the Anarch and Camarilla books, in my opinion). Unfortunately, the delayings are very common in the industry, they often give a release date to feed the hype and then crush with unexpected problems.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Justycar View Post
                    Modiphius has my confidence, given the quality of Chicago by Night (better than the Anarch and Camarilla books, in my opinion).
                    ...Mophidius had no direct hand in the creation of CbNv5. That was all OPP.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Redwulfe View Post

                      That doesn't make it 5.5 it is just adding tools to the toolbox, it is not changing the base system which is already a toolbox edition. We should have more options however to tweak the system to each persons individual needs.
                      I guess it depends how you see a '.5' edition. Exalted 2.5 was just heaps of errata with a few tweaks. The V5 PDF has already been updated quite a few times (I keep getting emails notifying me of new versions) so there's already a body of errata. It's nowhere near as big as the Scroll of Errata yet, but we haven't seen the PG either.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by tasti man LH View Post

                        ...Mophidius had no direct hand in the creation of CbNv5. That was all OPP.
                        Really? I was wrong so. I use to buy the books translated, both brands are sell as one in my country. XD
                        Last edited by Justycar; 11-19-2019, 05:00 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          DAV20's kinda like a bethesda game.In some ways a step forward, in a lot of ways a step back or outright messed up.

                          The Good: Celerity, Diamonion,Presence, one of the suplement books gave more realistic weapon rules and improved combat further with alternative soak rules.
                          The bad:
                          Those combat rules came in the supplement and the corebook has silly nonsense like warhammers doing bashing damage because fantasy's given the perception that they're oversize mallets, Some offensive historical revisionism of mundane events and pagan belief systems, Obfuscate, Quietus, Vizier quietus. It's largely missing the high/low divide that made older editions interesting.
                          I would've liked something more timeless: You know, something that feels like it described the time period rather than something seeped in the influences of the last decade; A lot of "progressive" stuff felt like it missed the mark and landed on it's face" I think that's also one of the big problems with V5: A lot of "current" forced into a game about ancient monsters who're typically above the immediate. All the elders and sabbat going to Syria for Gehenna? Never mind the much bigger wars of the last century, this one's current! What a very shortsighted move. What do you do when the conflict subsides? Have all the elders and sabbat move on to the next war or go home? Does the world end when Syria stabilizes? What an exciting, pointless Gehenna

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by adambeyoncelowe View Post

                            I guess it depends how you see a '.5' edition.
                            Very true, I guess it is just a knee jerk reaction to hearing .5 edition. I do want to see a possible cleaning of the organization of the printed core rules and some wording changes for clarity as we have already seen. But I still just look at it as V5 not V5.5 and I would prefer that to be done with a subsequent printing of the core book.

                            My original comment was geared towards the PG bringing us a .5 edition which implied to me that we would have to have two separate books with one contradicting and changing the first, which to me sounds nightmarish.

                            I guess it comes from the other game I follow a lot. Shadowrun. in that game we have errata compiled into the next printing almost every printing of the book and it has become something that is standard in that game and not something we say is a .5 or so on. To be fair not including 6th world though, we would be on like version 5.85 or so if we kept iterations of printings in that game which sounds silly to me.

                            I guess that may be why I don't like iterating the edition, I would like them to constantly be evolving and adding errata fixes to the game though the printings of the core book. Which we already saw.

                            If you bought the book at release at Gencon and then bought it later from Modiphius you already have two different printed core books. This I don't mind so long as the errata document is all encompassing form the first printing of the book.
                            Last edited by Redwulfe; 11-19-2019, 01:03 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by CaptOtter View Post
                              Agree. Except I would extend this more or less to DAV (the revised, chronologically earlier setting). Obviously DAV20 is an outgrowth of the latter; I just think they were at their finest in that particular setting.
                              I completely agree. The DAV period was the best period of the Dark Ages game for vampires.

                              Originally posted by CaptOtter View Post
                              I would LOVE to see V:tM powered by the Storypath system.
                              I think that's the one thing we won't see. I think OPP had an additional reason for developing the Storypath system besides the "system requirements" for powering cinematic games. It's based in the Storyteller, and Storytelling system as well as the system originally powering Aeon Trinity and Exalted. But the Storypath system is its own game used on gamelines that belong to OPP exclusively. Both the Storyteller and the Storytelling system are tied up with properties that are licenses from another company. So presumably, any work that Onyx Path does with the World of Darkness or Chronicles of Darkness belongs with the license. I know that you cannot copyright game mechanics, but I think it's a lot easier for OPP to have it's own separate game system that is adjacent to Storyteller/Storytelling. Basically the same reason, why Paizo did Pathfinder as rules-adjacent to D&D 3.5. Storypath is still familiar enough to players used to Storytelling/Storyteller, but still it's own system with its own tweaks to rolling a handful of 10-sided dice. Mixing it up again with the Vampire IP would defeat the purpose of having designed Storypath in the first place.

                              So, Storypath meets a lot of requirements: it's a much needed innovation on an existing game system that has become dated, it's designed to power games like Aeon Trinity, Scion, and They came from Beneath the Sea, and last but not least, it's a separate system from the ones that are "just" licensed.

                              Although, I totally think that Storypath could be a way of powering Vampire. It's still the same system family.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
                                DAV20's kinda like a bethesda game.In some ways a step forward, in a lot of ways a step back or outright messed up.
                                ... It's largely missing the high/low divide that made older editions interesting.
                                I don't agree with everything you said, but I agree with those two statements. DAV20 was hit and miss, unfortunately. I would have liked to see a real anniversary edition instead of an evolved version of the rules and setting. Something a lot more like V20.

                                Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
                                I would've liked something more timeless: You know, something that feels like it described the time period rather than something seeped in the influences of the last decade;
                                VtM was never timeless. V3 especially was steeped in the millenialism of the 90ies. VtM captured perfectly the feeling of the last decade of the millenium. Today, you might not see that, but I think one of the reasons for the tremendous success of Vampire was that it built on the same themes as X-Files and other millenialist shows, as well as giving the Gothic movement of the 80ies a last hurray. Looking a VtM books from the 90ies gives a certain dated vibe. The hairstyles, the setting, etc. One thing, ironically, Vampire never was, is timeless. Back in the 90ies, WW pushed the envelope on representation, and other issues with their gamelines. Werwolf was one such bold statement. Changeling another. White Wolf pushed the boundaries on who was welcome at gaming tables, and on representing minorities.

                                Today, OPP is pushing the boundaries in welcoming and including minorities in a way that doesn't appropriate them, that doesn't make them into a carricature. Cudos.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X