Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Handing v5 to modiphius was a mistake.

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
    Given there was only a badly regarded supplement for London in the Victorian Era, why is everyone upset about it being destroyed?

    Assuming you are asking in good faith (which gets harder and harder to grant), it's not about London per se being destroyed, it is about a major city with a major population of vampires (and some very old ones to boot) being destroyed in the most contrived, hackenyed manner, largely off-screen.

    Imagine, if you will, that is was not less-explored London, but the ground zero of Chicago, that got wiped clean by verisimilitude-breaking fiat. Would you, then, acknowledge why it is a sore point?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
      Given there was only a badly regarded supplement for London in the Victorian Era, why is everyone upset about it being destroyed?
      A World of Darkness (both editions) also had plenty of info on London (well, England in general). But as someone mentioned, it's not really about London specifically and more about the comic book event-like way the SI was presented using London, Vienna, etc. "We got this brand new enemy organization, and they are BAD!!! Like, dude, in no time at all, they took out the mutan-err, vampires in all these major cities!! They blew up the Tremere secret base!! They are everywhere, including hiding under your bed right now!! Second Inquisition!!! So metal!!!"

      Again, it's about implementation. The Second Inquisition took out the vampire population of all these major cities, and now they're gunning for you with drone strikes and foot soldiers. That's not gothic punk personal horror. That's Lex Luthor's Secret Society of Supervillains in the second issue of the six issue story arc. I don't begrudge people like you who can ignore the arguably poor presentation of the SI (and a lot of other setting changes) and focusing on the parts you like. For me, the presentation is too poor for me to see anything of value here. It's a matter of personal tastes.


      Writing up Clanbook: Aabbt

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post

        It's like that except replace kinda dumb with great.

        I feel like you lucked out because all that wish fullfillment I was complaining about seems tailored to you.
        V5 totally changes the shades of grey thing to a black'n white struggle. Whilst VtM has good and bad for every faction; The Camarilla of v5 are cartoonish,inept villains and the Anarchs are a force for good. It feels like the book was authored by single minded idealists who can't see or understand other perspectives
        Whilst VtM (1st through to V20) mostly did political satire by showing you what was wrong with the world, V5 tells you what's wrong. We all know it's better to show rather than tell when it comes to fiction. I mean, my politics are not adverse to what the writers are seemingly advocating, but they ham-fist so hard that it actually looks repulsive. V5 tries it's hardest to state that all progressive ideas are good and all reactionary ideas are bad; Progressive people are champions of good and conservativism is for evil morons. In a book about vampires running the world, it mocks people for believing in lizard people overlords. The book goes out of it's way to tell a reader that, if they're 'alt right' they should rethink their lives, and while I agree with the sentiment it just completely kills the power of literature's ability to influence change minds.It's like the left-wing equivalent of having the KKK and Neo-Nazis vocally support your political ambitions and having them call your needed swing voters a bunch of cucks. (don't point out that radical extremists are nicer than reactionary extremists; you're missing the point there) As bad as 20th gets sometimes, it never goes so far.

        Oh, yeah, and you can't make a character that isn't nice. Seriously; You need to go attach your character to mortal ideals and people to retain humanity, but you can't take 'bad' mortal ideals. If you wanna take the criminal set of attachments it gives you a Hollywood style noble-rogue archtype, there's no common-criminal motivations available. The book even goes on to tell you that you're a bad person for wanting to play someone bad and that you're not allowed to do it if memory serves. As someone who enjoys exploring all kinds of characters, I really hate this.

        Other character creation gripe:
        Lots of loan words for some reason. Instead of a Mentor, which is self explanatory, you've got a... I think it was mentor in Arabic? Why would American/European kindred use the word in Arabic? Why do I need to learn 30 new and unintuitive words from fifteen different languages when I got an english copy? Look, Vampire's always loaned words, but back then they made sense and they were rather limited. Here it's just confusing, especially if you've got new players at the table. I gotta go through the list of backgrounds they can take, but now I gotta translate too?

        Other mechanical gripe.
        - The Disciplines feel like they run on Larp Rules.
        -Several disciplines stopped progressing in a logical incremental patern and instead offer highly specific powers, which is why I find them gamey. Potence doesn't just increase your strength each level, each level gives you a power that's benefial for one application of strength. For Celerity you've got one power that improves initiative and one power that has you super-speed to a location and one power that gives you another attack and... I feel this is especially damaging for the physicals because, y'know, a lot of players really liked their simplicity. Also dominate got wrecked and Obtenebration is now necromancy and quietus is thaumaturgy because fuck those clans, apparently.

        Comment


        • #64
          Actually technically it's creating a character that is "nice" that is not allowed in V5. The Book constantly reminds you that you are playing a "monster" and that you can no longer be humane or act as if you were still human. Only with the help of touchstones can you keep some ties to humanity and mimic being human.

          That's one of the first thing that the Player Guide is set to change apparently by the way. Modiphus, it seems heard that particular complain that V5 does not support playing characters with morals and will allow alternate rule so you can play "humans with a beast inside".

          You know for the guys who wrongly thought that you could play Vampire in WoD as a human tragically cursed by God to prey on their brethren because of the sins of Cain instead of playing as the Big Bad Wolf who hunts little red riding hood which is apparently how we should have always have played Vampire.

          Although I agree that there are certain forms of "evil" that are openly discouraged in the corebook. Just one more confusing aspect of the game.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Morbus View Post
            Although I agree that there are certain forms of "evil" that are openly discouraged in the corebook. Just one more confusing aspect of the game.
            To be honest, the "evil monster" aspect always struck me as a bit, well, adolescent, or more properly, adolescent-stereotype. Like rich and privileged teenage Goths going in for pentagrams and goat skulls and "hail Satan" tattoos and saying how cool evil is and how you have to make an evuul character.

            Then people started talking about neo-Nazi characters and the like, and it belatedly dawned on the developers that this was what real evil was, and it wasn't "interesting and emotionally meaningful", and it wasn't something to "play" with, just sordid and frankly rather boring. Although really, I wonder what on earth they were expecting. It's not as though the possibility wasn't obvious; it's a modern cliche. "Select bad guy type; if no value selected, defaults to Nazi".I think the current official position is along the lines of "It's fine to play a serial killer but absolutely verboten to select your victims on the basis of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation". Or something.

            Whatever. They've done fine and interesting work in V5, focusing on the vampire condition, consolidating the Disciplines but making them more flexible and diverse, adding a mechanic for exploring a vampire's long, long past, and so on. The setting changes went too far for my personal taste, but the Second Inquisition, the fragmentation of the Tremere, and the renaissance of the Anarchs are all things with a lot of potential if you don't over-egg the pudding. I can use all that and ignore the Poundshop-Noir posturing.

            Comment


            • #66
              Having played with a few people that share the same philosophy on V:TM as the V5 writers have on vampirism (and as you can guess where pretty exhilarated by V5) I believe it's neither but probably closer to "neo-Nazi" than "Goth dude".

              They believe that being vampire innately makes you a bad person. A parasite that only exist to cause suffering and misery to others but on yourself as well. That Humanity is but a downward spiral that WILL get you to hit wassail. Probably.

              So Requiem Vampires basically.

              The new mechanics in V5 reinforce this theme. Touchstones, Hunger Dice, Blood Potency. They all work in tandem to make your Character feel more alienated from Humanity. More of a Beast.

              Understandably some people like it, some people don't.
              Last edited by Morbus; 12-02-2019, 03:54 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                You've gotta remember that Neo-nazis and libertarians both see themselves as the good guys. The former genuinely clutch to the idea that they're superior and under threat because of it, The later often juxtapose Christian values with snake "don't tread on me" logos and don't connect the dots. Many people, despite all the evidence pointing otherwise, genuinely believe Mass Immigration will destroy a nation, and as they're constantly being fed by the same sources of information.

                And to them, "the left" wanna do any combination of:
                -Undermining/Attacking their beliefs and morality.
                -Undermining/destroying society and the communities and families that build it with the inclusion/acceptance of outsiders and outsider beliefs.
                -go against God with their perversions,
                -Increasing their taxes or otherwise getting the state to disadvantage them for the benefit of others.
                -Subjugate men.
                -Not do any work and receive benefits for it.
                -Distract people from the 'real' threat.
                -and more!

                Now yeah, you might dismiss these beliefs as quack because you're right and they're wrong, but there's few people that think they're being evil and there's method to the madness. Besides, I don't like the players having to use different rules from the NPCS; What? The prince and all the primogen get to be driven as cut-throat capitalists or typical thugs but us players need to tragically juxtapose the horrible beast with our innate human niceness? The thing with personal horror is that it doesn't work if you make it mandatory for everyone. We could go the other way and have everyone, including the big bad prince, play bleeding hearts, but at that point why haven't all the vampires commited suicide?

                I dunno, I rollplay because I like to explore radically different concepts and explore what it's like to be a different person. I can be an idealist, a venture capitalist, mafioso,conman, religious leader, religious follower, abuse survivor, fugitive, artist, biker, researcher, man-out-of-time, escort, fringe political, martial enthusiast, plumber, officer, lawyer, landlord, femenist, fascist, batman, butler, vagabond, rich kid, A wizard, or a sociopathic little girl that just wanted to survive.

                Under V5, my options are halved if we're being generous because the writers had a childish idea of good and evil.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Herbert_West View Post
                  Assuming you are asking in good faith (which gets harder and harder to grant), it's not about London per se being destroyed, it is about a major city with a major population of vampires (and some very old ones to boot) being destroyed in the most contrived, hackenyed manner, largely off-screen.

                  Imagine, if you will, that is was not less-explored London, but the ground zero of Chicago, that got wiped clean by verisimilitude-breaking fiat. Would you, then, acknowledge why it is a sore point?
                  It's more the issue of the fact that London is a place that hasn't been detailed as a campaign area and I was wondering if it was because people had been using it as their basis for vampire games (presumably by British players) and they just felt that their home bases was railroaded. I was trying to get a sense of whether or not it was a popular U.K. vampire game location or if it was more just the principle of the thing that a major Camarilla city with lots of presumed methuselahs was wiped out by....*puts in monocle* mortals.

                  Where, exactly, would you have the Second Inquisition prove their awesomeness and that they're a threat to vampiredom? If the answer is, "Nowhere" then I suspect that there's no room to compromise here.

                  Originally posted by Vysha View Post
                  A World of Darkness (both editions) also had plenty of info on London (well, England in general). But as someone mentioned, it's not really about London specifically and more about the comic book event-like way the SI was presented using London, Vienna, etc. "We got this brand new enemy organization, and they are BAD!!! Like, dude, in no time at all, they took out the mutan-err, vampires in all these major cities!! They blew up the Tremere secret base!! They are everywhere, including hiding under your bed right now!! Second Inquisition!!! So metal!!!"

                  Again, it's about implementation. The Second Inquisition took out the vampire population of all these major cities, and now they're gunning for you with drone strikes and foot soldiers. That's not gothic punk personal horror. That's Lex Luthor's Secret Society of Supervillains in the second issue of the six issue story arc. I don't begrudge people like you who can ignore the arguably poor presentation of the SI (and a lot of other setting changes) and focusing on the parts you like. For me, the presentation is too poor for me to see anything of value here. It's a matter of personal tastes.
                  The War on Terror is something that was going to be adapted to changing urban fantasy interests so I don't have much problem with the idea that vampires are now the sorts of people that are hunted by the public. I have my own issues with the Second Inquisition and I have numerous suggestions for how Modiphus and Onyx Path Publishing could correct them but it's not in the concept as a whole.

                  Admittedly, I also have nothing against UNDERWORLD 4: FANGS VS. SEAL TEAM SIX



                  Sometimes your games are going to be silly overthetop action movies.

                  Last edited by CTPhipps; 12-02-2019, 06:48 PM.


                  Author of Cthulhu Armageddon, I was a Teenage Weredeer, Straight Outta Fangton, Lucifer's Star, and the Supervillainy Saga.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
                    I feel like you lucked out because all that wish fullfillment I was complaining about seems tailored to you.
                    I have a decent number of complaints about V5 but my issues are the presentation rather than the central concepts. It's just I often seem to be playing the defender of the concepts that I never get to share my issues with the setting. If anyone wants to know what I dislike about V5, I'd be happy to answer.

                    V5 totally changes the shades of grey thing to a black'n white struggle. Whilst VtM has good and bad for every faction; The Camarilla of v5 are cartoonish,inept villains and the Anarchs are a force for good. It feels like the book was authored by single minded idealists who can't see or understand other perspectives
                    I dunno, I actually feel like the Anarchs get a major level in jerkass. They've taken a bunch of the qualities of the Sabbat like being diablerie-hungry psychopaths, hypocrites, and conquering Gehenna Crusaders. Probably because a bunch of actual Sabbat have defected to join the Anarchs. I do note that the Camarilla was always meant to be a bunch of assholes and that VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE: BLOODLINES actually confused a lot of players because the central antagonist was the Prince.

                    Which was always the case at my games. Even then, I think the Camarilla has benefited from being much more streamlined as they're now removed of a bunch of deadweight. They're the smart, rich, cultured snobby vampires.

                    Whilst VtM (1st through to V20) mostly did political satire by showing you what was wrong with the world, V5 tells you what's wrong. We all know it's better to show rather than tell when it comes to fiction. I mean, my politics are not adverse to what the writers are seemingly advocating, but they ham-fist so hard that it actually looks repulsive. V5 tries it's hardest to state that all progressive ideas are good and all reactionary ideas are bad; Progressive people are champions of good and conservativism is for evil morons. In a book about vampires running the world, it mocks people for believing in lizard people overlords.
                    I'm not sure what book you're referring to, to be honest. There's three out that have been highly controversial and none of them have shown a "right" form of politics. THE ANARCHS identifies them as a bunch of hypocrites, communist authoritarians, allied with the Setites (who are close to pure evil), diablerists, and also Matthew Dawkins got into trouble for pointing out that there'd be Alt-Right as well as Neo-Nazi Brujah. The Camarilla is a bunch of 1% assholes but they're not conservatives. They're 12th century not 1950s. Every Democrat and Republican would be allied against the Camarilla if they're fighting for ideals rather than safety because the Camarilla doesn't believe in democracy or rights. It's not particularly judged either because you're playing a predator.

                    Oh, yeah, and you can't make a character that isn't nice. Seriously; You need to go attach your character to mortal ideals and people to retain humanity, but you can't take 'bad' mortal
                    ideals. If you wanna take the criminal set of attachments it gives you a Hollywood style noble-rogue archtype, there's no common-criminal motivations available. The book even goes on to tell you
                    that you're a bad person for wanting to play someone bad and that you're not allowed to do it if memory serves. As someone who enjoys exploring all kinds of characters, I really hate this.
                    I feel like the Ambitions, Convictions, and Touchstones write-ups could have used a lot more handling, Mind you, I believe they could have removed 90% of the Predator types section, given three examples, and used the rest to detail the missing Clans. They could have also taken away the majority of opening fiction and added a history of vampiredom.

                    Lots of loan words for some reason. Instead of a Mentor, which is self explanatory, you've got a... I think it was mentor in Arabic? Why would American/European kindred use the word in Arabic? Why do I need to learn 30 new and unintuitive words from fifteen different languages when I got an english copy? Look, Vampire's always loaned words, but back then they made sense and they were rather limited. Here it's just confusing, especially if you've got new players at the table. I gotta go through the list of backgrounds they can take, but now I gotta translate too?
                    Yes, I think the previous words were fine.

                    -Several disciplines stopped progressing in a logical incremental patern and instead offer highly specific powers, which is why I find them gamey. Potence doesn't just increase your strength each level, each level gives you a power that's benefial for one application of strength. For Celerity you've got one power that improves initiative and one power that has you super-speed to a location and one power that gives you another attack and... I feel this is especially damaging for the physicals because, y'know, a lot of players really liked their simplicity. Also dominate got wrecked and Obtenebration is now necromancy and quietus is thaumaturgy because fuck those clans, apparently.
                    I feel like Disciplines are a lot more flexible with powers functioning more like Rotes from Mage: The Ascension. I always felt Celerity, Fortitude, and Potence were somewhat boring before.


                    Author of Cthulhu Armageddon, I was a Teenage Weredeer, Straight Outta Fangton, Lucifer's Star, and the Supervillainy Saga.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Morbus View Post
                      Actually technically it's creating a character that is "nice" that is not allowed in V5. The Book constantly reminds you that you are playing a "monster" and that you can no longer be humane or act as if you were still human. Only with the help of touchstones can you keep some ties to humanity and mimic being human.

                      That's one of the first thing that the Player Guide is set to change apparently by the way. Modiphus, it seems heard that particular complain that V5 does not support playing characters with morals and will allow alternate rule so you can play "humans with a beast inside".

                      You know for the guys who wrongly thought that you could play Vampire in WoD as a human tragically cursed by God to prey on their brethren because of the sins of Cain instead of playing as the Big Bad Wolf who hunts little red riding hood which is apparently how we should have always have played Vampire.

                      Although I agree that there are certain forms of "evil" that are openly discouraged in the corebook. Just one more confusing aspect of the game.
                      My take on the subject is that they're attempting to emphasize the fact that being a vampire is a curse and you have to worry about frenzying and eating your friends/loved ones/babies. The thing is that this isn't remotely different from the way V:TM was written before. Frenzies over anger and hunger were always a thing. The fiction was also always about the fact you were a monster and the danger you posed to regular mortals. The big change has been that you can't survive on Animal Blood if you're a lower generation and the triggers.

                      But all of this was in every addition.

                      And if you are going to be a "good" vampire then you have to fight against your nature. That was always true with superhero vampires as otherwise what's the point?

                      If you don't believe me, here's a favorite quote from the FIRST book.

                      "A monster I am, lest a monster I become."

                      Originally posted by JezMiller View Post
                      To be honest, the "evil monster" aspect always struck me as a bit, well, adolescent, or more properly, adolescent-stereotype. Like rich and privileged teenage Goths going in for pentagrams and goat skulls and "hail Satan" tattoos and saying how cool evil is and how you have to make an evuul character.
                      I'm not trying to criticize you here but it's a game about playing a VAMPIRE. This is a bit like playing a wizard and wondering why everyone keeps harping on spells. That's the game's entire niche. It's like playing Call of Cthulhu and getting annoyed by all the alien inhuman monsters. The whole point about being a vampire is playing a cursed monster. What separated V:TM from the other games of the time was the fact you weren't playing a goody-two-shoes here but a thing that was traditionally the villain.

                      Then people started talking about neo-Nazi characters and the like, and it belatedly dawned on the developers that this was what real evil was, and it wasn't "interesting and emotionally meaningful", and it wasn't something to "play" with, just sordid and frankly rather boring. Although really, I wonder what on earth they were expecting. It's not as though the possibility wasn't obvious; it's a modern cliche. "Select bad guy type; if no value selected, defaults to Nazi".I think the current official position is along the lines of "It's fine to play a serial killer but absolutely verboten to select your victims on the basis of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation". Or something.
                      Bluntly, this is flat out not true because I was there in the 90s and V:TM is THE reason that roleplaying demographics changed as a whole from white heterosexual men to something a little more diverse. Chicago by Night remains one of the most diverse books ever produced for an RPG and was a mixture of gay, black, white, Asian, and other cultures working together in a single fun setting. It was THE friendly LGBT community before that became a thing in open circles.

                      People didn't play vampires because they were EVIL Nazis, they played them because they were evil and SEXY bi predators like Lestat or True Blood.

                      Remember, it was founded in the Goth culture of Atlanta, Georgia where if you wanted to be a Nazi you had RL Neo-Confederate groups to join.

                      Whatever. They've done fine and interesting work in V5, focusing on the vampire condition, consolidating the Disciplines but making them more flexible and diverse, adding a mechanic for exploring a vampire's long, long past, and so on. The setting changes went too far for my personal taste, but the Second Inquisition, the fragmentation of the Tremere, and the renaissance of the Anarchs are all things with a lot of potential if you don't over-egg the pudding. I can use all that and ignore the Poundshop-Noir posturing.
                      Out of curiousity, where exactly is the line for you? I'd like to know because, again, the rules system with:

                      * Frenzy
                      * Humanity checks
                      * Hunger

                      I mean, it's all about making you a guy cursed with an unnatural hunger to eat the people around you.

                      Originally posted by Morbus View Post
                      Having played with a few people that share the same philosophy on V:TM as the V5 writers have on vampirism (and as you can guess where pretty exhilarated by V5) I believe it's neither but probably closer to "neo-Nazi" than "Goth dude".

                      They believe that being vampire innately makes you a bad person. A parasite that only exist to cause suffering and misery to others but on yourself as well. That Humanity is but a downward spiral that WILL get you to hit wassail. Probably.

                      So Requiem Vampires basically.

                      The new mechanics in V5 reinforce this theme. Touchstones, Hunger Dice, Blood Potency. They all work in tandem to make your Character feel more alienated from Humanity. More of a Beast.

                      Understandably some people like it, some people don't.
                      This was all in every edition of the book. That's why Golconda was a thing. You wouldn't need it if you could be a good vampire without it.
                      Last edited by CTPhipps; 12-02-2019, 07:14 PM.


                      Author of Cthulhu Armageddon, I was a Teenage Weredeer, Straight Outta Fangton, Lucifer's Star, and the Supervillainy Saga.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                        Where, exactly, would you have the Second Inquisition prove their awesomeness and that they're a threat to vampiredom? If the answer is, "Nowhere" then I suspect that there's no room to compromise here.
                        Clearing out cities isn't proof of their awesomeness. Clearing out cities makes them an earthquake, tornado, tsunami, forest fire or other natural disaster.

                        Attacking the Vienna chantry made them awesome. If it had been that, followed by some high profile takedowns of important kindred, preferably named NPCs, then they are a deadly threat, but still a relatable threat (though I'd argue we'd still need more names associates with the SI). But when they can list multiple cities cleared out of kindred, they're not a relatable threat; they're an environmental one that you can't predict or understand, only avoid.

                        If blowing up the Tremere HQ isn't enough to show how dangerous they are, if killing a bunch of elders isn't enough, if you need something bigger... You don't need to just skip a bunch of escalations. You can clear out a city as proof of your awesomeness. Sure, take London. But show that it's not such an easy task that the SI is averaging a major city every two years or so since it got started. When you overstate a threat, it stops being something people can relate to. It stops being an organization of people dedicated to wanting your head and turns into a natural disaster that might hit your city, might not hit your city, but you're utterly powerless either way and so is everyone else in the area. After all, London had been presented as home to some powerful Cainites in A World of Darkness 1e and 2e. And the SI cleared that out apparently without too terribly much trouble, because they went on to hit more.

                        So if it had been me building up the reputation of the SI at the cost of pre-estabished crap, I'd detour after knocking out the Tremere. Pop a bunch of prominent kindred, names like Sascha, Hardstad (I never get that name right), Theo, etc. Add in a bunch of unnamed guys and gals, maybe still take out Vegas. Mention a Second Inquisition strike hitting London and taking out a bunch of kindred, but have them withdraw before finishing the job. Leave the whys and what their reasons for leaving were as a mystery. Throw in mentions of major SI activity in the other cities they hit up, but have it be surgical strikes on some havens. Maybe in later supplements advancing the plot, they clear those cities, maybe they don't. Now they have some mystery and maybe a hidden agenda because of London, now they don't seem as overwhelming, but they took down Sascha, Hardstan and Teddy Bell. You're not playing a Sassycha, Harrystad or Tedco Bell, so they can probably take you. But you might be able to help your prince pull a London withdrawal if they arrive, so you know they're not impossible to push back. Or maybe you just hope they're not.


                        Writing up Clanbook: Aabbt

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Vysha View Post

                          Clearing out cities isn't proof of their awesomeness. Clearing out cities makes them an earthquake, tornado, tsunami, forest fire or other natural disaster.

                          Attacking the Vienna chantry made them awesome. If it had been that, followed by some high profile takedowns of important kindred, preferably named NPCs, then they are a deadly threat, but still a relatable threat (though I'd argue we'd still need more names associates with the SI). But when they can list multiple cities cleared out of kindred, they're not a relatable threat; they're an environmental one that you can't predict or understand, only avoid.

                          If blowing up the Tremere HQ isn't enough to show how dangerous they are, if killing a bunch of elders isn't enough, if you need something bigger... You don't need to just skip a bunch of escalations. You can clear out a city as proof of your awesomeness. Sure, take London. But show that it's not such an easy task that the SI is averaging a major city every two years or so since it got started. When you overstate a threat, it stops being something people can relate to. It stops being an organization of people dedicated to wanting your head and turns into a natural disaster that might hit your city, might not hit your city, but you're utterly powerless either way and so is everyone else in the area. After all, London had been presented as home to some powerful Cainites in A World of Darkness 1e and 2e. And the SI cleared that out apparently without too terribly much trouble, because they went on to hit more.

                          So if it had been me building up the reputation of the SI at the cost of pre-estabished crap, I'd detour after knocking out the Tremere. Pop a bunch of prominent kindred, names like Sascha, Hardstad (I never get that name right), Theo, etc. Add in a bunch of unnamed guys and gals, maybe still take out Vegas. Mention a Second Inquisition strike hitting London and taking out a bunch of kindred, but have them withdraw before finishing the job. Leave the whys and what their reasons for leaving were as a mystery. Throw in mentions of major SI activity in the other cities they hit up, but have it be surgical strikes on some havens. Maybe in later supplements advancing the plot, they clear those cities, maybe they don't. Now they have some mystery and maybe a hidden agenda because of London, now they don't seem as overwhelming, but they took down Sascha, Hardstan and Teddy Bell. You're not playing a Sassycha, Harrystad or Tedco Bell, so they can probably take you. But you might be able to help your prince pull a London withdrawal if they arrive, so you know they're not impossible to push back. Or maybe you just hope they're not.
                          Honestly, I think that would have ticked me off because beloved NPCs are better kept in the game as a way to use them versus the impersonal nature of a city that is becoming the basis of a chronicle THE FALL OF LONDON (which I have high expectations for) as well as a nebulous threat. The Council of Seven had been linked to the whole "White Worm" thing and needed to be resolved as a plotline. Having the Second Inquisition blow it up was a crude way of resolving Saulot/Kupala/Tremere/Tzimisce but it at least allowed a rather silly plotline to be done so the game could move on.

                          But that's just me.

                          Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
                          Now yeah, you might dismiss these beliefs as quack because you're right and they're wrong, but there's few people that think they're being evil and there's method to the madness. Besides, I don't like the players having to use different rules from the NPCS; What? The prince and all the primogen get to be driven as cut-throat capitalists or typical thugs but us players need to tragically juxtapose the horrible beast with our innate human niceness? The thing with personal horror is that it doesn't work if you make it mandatory for everyone. We could go the other way and have everyone, including the big bad prince, play bleeding hearts, but at that point why haven't all the vampires commited suicide?

                          I dunno, I rollplay because I like to explore radically different concepts and explore what it's like to be a different person. I can be an idealist, a venture capitalist, mafioso,conman, religious leader, religious follower, abuse survivor, fugitive, artist, biker, researcher, man-out-of-time, escort, fringe political, martial enthusiast, plumber, officer, lawyer, landlord, femenist, fascist, batman, butler, vagabond, rich kid, A wizard, or a sociopathic little girl that just wanted to survive.

                          Under V5, my options are halved if we're being generous because the writers had a childish idea of good and evil.
                          I'm not sure exactly what you feel has been restricted here. The Camarilla is still a player option and indeed there's more opportunities to become Prince, Primogen, or other important power-players in the city than there were in the previous ageocracy. Vampirism is only a curse if you actually try to hold onto your humanity and almost all of the vampires are trying to--but not so muich that it interferes with their power.


                          Author of Cthulhu Armageddon, I was a Teenage Weredeer, Straight Outta Fangton, Lucifer's Star, and the Supervillainy Saga.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post

                            Honestly, I think that would have ticked me off because beloved NPCs are better kept in the game as a way to use them versus the impersonal nature of a city that is becoming the basis of a chronicle THE FALL OF LONDON (which I have high expectations for) as well as a nebulous threat. The Council of Seven had been linked to the whole "White Worm" thing and needed to be resolved as a plotline. Having the Second Inquisition blow it up was a crude way of resolving Saulot/Kupala/Tremere/Tzimisce but it at least allowed a rather silly plotline to be done so the game could move on.

                            But that's just me.
                            See, this is a matter of personal preference (well, all of this has been) but as much as I have my own personal favorite canon NPCs, I use them as templates rather than including them in my game. Losing them doesn't have the same impact to me as someone who utilizes them. But I'm someone who is very invested in the scale of things; when running a game about saving the world, you should see the world, a game about personal horror will take place in a small region. Things like that. So seeing a bunch of cities I'm not using getting taken out by an organization clearly labels that group not as a threat for a game about personal horror; they're a threat that should be in a different game, because their scale is aimed for a different genre. One where the fate of an entire city is the threat.

                            Again, this is how it informs me, as a reader, as a storyteller, and as a player. I fully understand others are taking it differently. But this is the answer to why London, specifically, keeps getting brought up (by me, not speaking for others); it's just a magnifier for my other issues regarding the SI, which is just one of my issues with V5.

                            LAST MINUTE EDIT:
                            Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                            The Camarilla is still a player option and indeed there's more opportunities to become Prince, Primogen, or other important power-players in the city than there were in the previous ageocracy.
                            Gotta admit, this one's a mixed bag for me, and one of the few areas where I honestly can't decide if the good outweighs the bad.

                            On the one hand, pre-V5, struggling your way up the ranks to an actual titled position in a city had a certain weight to it that is lost when the status quo is upturned and everyone has (relatively speaking) equal footing. On the other hand, the idea of playing in a city where all the elders got Beckoning'd, everyone's scrambling for whatever they can get their hands on, chaos reigns, and when things settle down the real danger begins as people jockey for an even more advantageous position? I can get behind that. Some days I prefer the former, others the latter. It's easily the V5 change that has me truly torn between both sides. And if the whole Beckoning or SI issue weren't issues, I'd be firming in the "mad scramble for power" camp.
                            Last edited by Vysha; 12-02-2019, 08:57 PM.


                            Writing up Clanbook: Aabbt

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post

                              My take on the subject is that they're attempting to emphasize the fact that being a vampire is a curse and you have to worry about frenzying and eating your friends/loved ones/babies. The thing is that this isn't remotely different from the way V:TM was written before. Frenzies over anger and hunger were always a thing. The fiction was also always about the fact you were a monster and the danger you posed to regular mortals. The big change has been that you can't survive on Animal Blood if you're a lower generation and the triggers.

                              But all of this was in every addition.

                              And if you are going to be a "good" vampire then you have to fight against your nature. That was always true with superhero vampires as otherwise what's the point?
                              I have read the first edition thank you. And even if you're going to ignore everything that came in between. Vampires in 1E and V5 are very different beast indeed. Here's another quote from that book:

                              Utimately, hard, as we may strife against it, madness awaits us. The flame of Humanity burns lower and lower until it finally extinguished. Then the Beast is victor and we truly become monsters. The Beast resides within the heart and directs us towards evil, but when it overtakes the halls of soul, then shall we be evil.
                              I call that fits the "Human cursed with a Beast" mantra perfectly like the Mophidius CEO said perhaps sarcastically. Not monsters. Not at first as long you keep you Humanity.
                              You know when Humanity governed how moral you character was. Good old days.

                              It's not supposed to be easy and the game reitarate that maintaining your Humanity will be difficult but it's not impossible either.Far from it as we know.


                              I'm not trying to criticize you here but it's a game about playing a VAMPIRE. This is a bit like playing a wizard and wondering why everyone keeps harping on spells. That's the game's entire niche. It's like playing Call of Cthulhu and getting annoyed by all the alien inhuman monsters. The whole point about being a vampire is playing a cursed monster. What separated V:TM from the other games of the time was the fact you weren't playing a goody-two-shoes here but a thing that was traditionally the villain.
                              That's certainly what V5 writers think Vampires ought to play like. And how the game is meant to played unless you apply heavy house ruling.

                              But that's not the only way V:TM can be played. Playing someone who resist the Beast the actual monstruous part of the Vampire as per 1E is a totally acceptable way to play the game heck that's what the NARRATOR in 1E does and plenty of NPC introduced later in Chicago by Night.

                              You may fail. Probably even but that does not mean that there was no purpose in fighting the Monster. In fighting the Beast.

                              Look I am not criticizing you for wanting to play Monstrous Vampire but don't make the disingenuous argument that was all VTM was about before V5 or more accurately before Requiem. This is not true and you know it.

                              And we already have a whole sect that cater to people who wants to play evil Vampire. The one that got canned in V5 because it forces other sects to look "good" for the contrast.

                              This was all in every edition of the book. That's why Golconda was a thing. You wouldn't need it if you could be a good vampire without it.
                              Tell that to all vampire who have humanity 7 or above. Should I read you the description of Humanity 7-8-9-10 perhaps?

                              Also Golconda in 1E was just about avoiding degeneracy. Which apparently was enough to defeat the Monster in Vampire. And as per 1E was achieved by a number of Vampire. Albeit uncommon apparently there are numerous enough that the NARRATOR met quite a few if he is to be trusted.
                              Last edited by Morbus; 12-03-2019, 04:42 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Morbus View Post
                                Tell that to all vampire who have humanity 7 or above. Should I read you the description of Humanity 7-8-9-10 perhaps?

                                Also Golconda in 1E was just about avoiding degeneracy. Which apparently was enough to defeat the Monster in Vampire. And as per 1E was achieved by a number of Vampire. Albeit uncommon apparently there are numerous enough that the NARRATOR met quite a few if he is to be trusted.
                                Yes, you maintain that until the ages or frenzies or Hunger degenerates you.

                                I don't think you're arguing with my point really.


                                Author of Cthulhu Armageddon, I was a Teenage Weredeer, Straight Outta Fangton, Lucifer's Star, and the Supervillainy Saga.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X