Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

V5 in Top 5 latest icv2 charts

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

  • Originally posted by Bluecho View Post
    And if you absolutely love the Camarilla or Anarchs, that's all well and good. If you enjoyed the Sabbat - including their gonzo, hypocritical faction politics - V5 has nothing to offer.

    Maybe that will change with the release of the Sabbat book. Maybe not. If "ephemeral antagonist" is what V5 is going for with the Sabbat, I highly doubt it.

    The issue that V5 proponents seem to not get is that it doesn't matter if YOU are enjoying what's on offer. That doesn't detract from a lot of other players/storytellers/fans being deprived of stuff THEY liked about previous editions. THAT is why we're talking about it. If you were a Sabbat fan, V5 not only takes away stuff those fans might have liked, but seems dismissive of the idea that ANYONE could like it, compared to V5's vision of what a "proper" Vampire game is like.
    Well, then I guess the game as it stands doesn’t appeal to you then - actually, that much is obvious! - and we await to see what any new Sabbat book will bring. I’ve no idea what the writers will do with them in any prospective supplement as of yet, because they haven’t announced anything as far as I’m aware.

    However, I do think that the way the Sabbat were handled in previous editions was non-sensical in many ways. Their preeminence undermined the premise of the game - that vampires existed, hidden amongst us. That is, the Sabbat were meant to be this group that opposed any notion of The Masquerade, were horrendously alien and violent and apparently controlled large cities in the WoD. How did this not just blow the whole Masquerade wide open? To me, this just doesn’t make sense. Secondly, by making the Sabbat as playable characters, the game shifted from being about playing monsters trying to cling onto their humanity, and just made something that what supposed to be alien and exotic into just another bog standard character choice, with new powers and no real consequences for actions taken.

    So for the modern V5 game, it makes perfect sense that The Second Inquisition would be able to quickly wipe them out as an objective, but by doing so scattered remnants of the Sabbat make ideal antagonists operating from the dark corners of the Earth again. I do like that the Lasombra have found their way back into the Camarilla again though, as I like the Clan themes.
    Last edited by Trippy; 01-08-2020, 10:15 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by blailton View Post

      I did not have read the clanbook Lasombra entirely, just some pages, but from what I saw it explain why vampires literally have souls. Many v20 and revised disciplines affect the soul of the vampire target. In my personal opinion if you remove the beast the vampire continues unliving. The 5th dot of animalism give a hint, too. You would no more regain willpower, if I remember well.

      Personally, I, as you, like the idea of vampires beign souless creatures more... sadly, only headcanon-ish =S
      They have souls since they can be diablerized. I'm just saying the Beast is a part of that.

      Originally posted by Trippy View Post

      Well, then I guess the game as it stands doesn’t appeal to you then - actually, that much is obvious! - and we await to see what any new Sabbat book will bring. I’ve no idea what the writers will do with them in any prospective supplement as of yet, because they haven’t announced anything as far as I’m aware.

      However, I do think that the way the Sabbat were handled in previous editions was non-sensical in many ways. Their preeminence undermined the premise of the game - that vampires existed, hidden amongst us. That is, the Sabbat were meant to be this group that opposed any notion of The Masquerade, were horrendously alien and violent and apparently controlled large cities in the WoD. How did this not just blow the whole Masquerade wide open? To me, this just doesn’t make sense. Secondly, by making the Sabbat as playable characters, the game shifted from being about playing monsters trying to cling onto their humanity, and just made something that what supposed to be alien and exotic into just another bog standard character choice, with new powers and no real consequences for actions taken.

      So for the modern V5 game, it makes perfect sense that The Second Inquisition would be able to quickly wipe them out as an objective, but by doing so scattered remnants of the Sabbat make ideal antagonists operating from the dark corners of the Earth again. I do like that the Lasombra have found their way back into the Camarilla again though, as I like the Clan themes.
      Well the Sabbat's thing were they were also massive hypocrites. They held to the Masquerade, they just lied about it. Basically, "Yes, we clean up after ourselves and cover up our existence but SOMEDAY we'll rule humans openly like in Enoch with them serving as our cattle." They're a freedom obsessed sect that is also all blood bound to one another and under strict orders of Bishops as well as other parts of a military heirarchy. They're very much about enlightenment and post-human morality but most of them are just a bunch of Low Humanity animals. They're able to get away with as much violence and random horror as they are because the Sabbat live in the World of Dakrness so that dozens of people disappearing every year is just how things go.

      I don't think the Sabbat is meant to be wiped out either and is actually pretty strong from what we've seen in the books. A large chunk of the Sabbat buggered off to the Middle East, yes, and are there instead of in their home cities but those guys have gorged themselves heavily on Elder blood and become much more powerful as well as terrifying. Yes, they've lost two major cities and their largest Clan had a Civil War. It's been a crappy few years for all vampires.

      However, the Sword of Caine has survived worse.

      It's just one faction among many now and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if we finally get the playable option in....*drum roll* THE PLAYERS GUIDE.

      Originally posted by Bluecho View Post
      And if you absolutely love the Camarilla or Anarchs, that's all well and good. If you enjoyed the Sabbat - including their gonzo, hypocritical faction politics - V5 has nothing to offer.

      Maybe that will change with the release of the Sabbat book. Maybe not. If "ephemeral antagonist" is what V5 is going for with the Sabbat, I highly doubt it.

      The issue that V5 proponents seem to not get is that it doesn't matter if YOU are enjoying what's on offer. That doesn't detract from a lot of other players/storytellers/fans being deprived of stuff THEY liked about previous editions. THAT is why we're talking about it. If you were a Sabbat fan, V5 not only takes away stuff those fans might have liked, but seems dismissive of the idea that ANYONE could like it, compared to V5's vision of what a "proper" Vampire game is like.
      A bit like, "The Elders are all Beckoned!" I think the Sabbat are not wiped out. It is, IMHO, a flaw the Sabbat haven't been detailed. On the other hand, we're getting bits and pieces every supplement.
      Last edited by CTPhipps; 01-09-2020, 04:56 AM.


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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post

        They have souls since they can be diablerized. I'm just saying the Beast is a part of that.
        .
        You were exaggerating eh? No you weren't, you were very explicit and you used this deliberate misinformation as a counter argument no less. You're really not very credible

        Originally posted by Trippy View Post

        Well, then I guess the game as it stands doesn’t appeal to you then - actually, that much is obvious! - and we await to see what any new Sabbat book will bring. I’ve no idea what the writers will do with them in any prospective supplement as of yet, because they haven’t announced anything as far as I’m aware..

        "game as it stands doesn't appeal to you..."
        Kinda reminds me of "if you don't like it, don't play" from someone who made a recent WW2 shooter
        Which is like, the worst fucking thing a marketing team could say.

        A series is supposed to expand it's base, not trade parts of it.
        Look, you can play a warlock without the Tremere bagage attached now. You can play a thin blood who can actually benefit society if you wish. There are certainly new options available in V5; But by God did they cut down on options. Two sects rather than three, both having lost some of what made them magical, no alternate moralities, a theme of "I suck" which overshadows everything else, only a handful of clans in the corebook...
        Vampire has always been a game of strong themes, and you could choose to emphasize some more than others. Fundamentalists, Underdogs, ladder climbers in a fascist system, Get rich/ get human/ get powers. Eat the rich, kill the poor, eat the enemy, eat nobody at all. Sect/Clan/Self.
        VTM was a robust sandbox with thousands of options and strong themes for every one of them.
        V5 is give and take, and I feel it's a lot more take.

        Look, It would've been entirely possible for WW to have made V5 a game that kept everything that made VTM great. It would have been entirely possible for V5 to have been entirely uncontroversial and well regarded by everyone here. Instead they've turned everything on it's head for shock, cleaned away a lot of the things we liked and have missed a lot of the nuance that we were hooked on. The fact is, V5 could've played it safe and took in everyone. They played it dangerous and got divisive and they would've made better sales if they hadn't.

        Also, I'm entirely ignorant as to how Sabbat work
        The Camarilla propaganda machine at work.


        V5 is not VTM

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
          You were exaggerating eh? No you weren't, you were very explicit and you used this deliberate misinformation as a counter argument no less. You're really not very credible
          What the hell are you talking about?

          Mind you, I'm confused at your position as the Beast as a separate thing from a vampire. They're absolutely a part of you. That's completely noncanonical that they're not.

          That's like saying your libido isn't a part of you, which is why I used that as a example.


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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
            Good responses, MyWifeIsScary
            Touchstones aren't actually something that makes you good. They're more like attempts to replicate that element of vampire mythos where the undead become obsessed with their prey and specific mortals. I think they should be an optional element but I think as an optional rule they add a lot to the storyline as they not only increase the presence of humans in the game but they open a great deal of opportunity for vampires to roleplay out some genuinely fucked up relationships. I liked it with the GHOULS supplements as they helped broaden the relationship with them as mind-controlled, blood addicted slaves.
            This is also something already discussed a lot in the past, but I'd like to add two things for the sake of the recent discussion:

            1. The "vampire mythos indeed contained the trope of vampires being obsessed about their prey. But Touchstones aren't that. What Touchstones try to replicate is a much newer addition to the modern vampire myth, brought in with works like Twilight and Vampire Diaries and, arguably, Buffy at first. These works pushed the idea, that the vampires who have meaningfull relationships with humans are "good", because well, they needed protagonists that could appeal to the mainstream audience. The source material that VtM was built upon didn't had this element. If anything vampires tend to have each other, or their obsessions as "touchstones", not humans. This is tru for many newe works too.

            2. I just still think that forcing this kind of thing on the player is not a positive thing. I don't like it since it first appeared in Requiem 2e. I don't like the connection to convictions at all. Yes, it should be optional, to have a mortal or two, who are anchoring you to the here and now, but it should be removed from the character's morals. Also, I'm still saying that if a rule has to force a specific kind of NPC on the player, that's BAD. If you want more human NPCs in the game, write more and more interesting human NPCs with actually meaningfull roles into the stories, damnit. And for the sake of Cain, if a player or group don't want to deal with human pets constantly, let them!


            If nothing worked, then let's think!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
              Look, It would've been entirely possible for WW to have made V5 a game that kept everything that made VTM great. It would have been entirely possible for V5 to have been entirely uncontroversial and well regarded by everyone here. Instead they've turned everything on it's head for shock, cleaned away a lot of the things we liked and have missed a lot of the nuance that we were hooked on. The fact is, V5 could've played it safe and took in everyone. They played it dangerous and got divisive and they would've made better sales if they hadn't.
              Well, that happens, when a team approaches a long-standing IP not with the intention of making a new edition that appeals to the whole fanbase, building on everything that people loved about the actual game that is/was, but with the mindset of making the game that "always should have been", according to them.



              If nothing worked, then let's think!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PMárk View Post

                Well, that happens, when a team approaches a long-standing IP not with the intention of making a new edition that appeals to the whole fanbase, building on everything that people loved about the actual game that is/was, but with the mindset of making the game that "always should have been", according to them.
                I feel that they made the game with the intent of making it the best it can be both artistically as well as entertainingly.


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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post

                  I feel that they made the game with the intent of making it the best it can be both artistically as well as entertainingly.
                  Indeed. and considering it is selling well, it looks like it has found its market too.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PMárk View Post

                    Well, that happens, when a team approaches a long-standing IP not with the intention of making a new edition that appeals to the whole fanbase, building on everything that people loved about the actual game that is/was, but with the mindset of making the game that "always should have been", according to them.
                    And always people ignoring the statements about being made more easy for new players coming from their other media to get into. Yes, they had a vision for vampire. Because it's tied to other media, specifically video games, where a vision is a MUST for it to feasibly make money.

                    Comment


                    • Three statements in a row
                      1-Not a contradiction
                      2-Not support
                      3-Not a contradition

                      Conclusion: PMark is right on the money.

                      Oh, yeah, while we are here, V5 not easier for new players to get into. It is really obtuse for new and returning players. Character creation is at like, five different sections of the book. Clans are near the start, abilities a little later, predator types, convictions, legacies and morality requires you to skip to somewhere near the end. And while VTM had a pretty intuitive Dot system, V5 has arrays to choose from, which is difficult to get your head around.

                      You could have just took v20 and gave flat improvement rates rather than "X level" for maybe everything but disciplines if you wanted to fix powergaming. I feel only the 1/2/0 discipline spread is a good inclusion, if you wanna keep that a "x level" type thing. V5 character creation is intense crunch compared to prior editions, and it should not be so. I think its rather offputting.


                      V5 is not VTM

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post

                        I feel that they made the game with the intent of making it the best it can be both artistically as well as entertainingly.
                        Those two are in fact the same, because best version for who, according to what vision of the game?

                        They had a very specific picture of the game and tried to make the best version of Vampire according to that vision.


                        If nothing worked, then let's think!

                        Comment


                        • Let me just get the mandatory caveat out the way, lest anyone feel that I’m attacking them personally or something: the bottom line is that the differences we’re discussing in how feeding and the beast operate are not small differences between the older editions and V5. I mention below that these are aesthetic choices, neither good nor bad; and what I mean by that is that because there is no one objectively correct or accurate way of depicting vampires a (hopefully) fictitious monster, they can be as high or low-powered as anyone desires. The vampires in The Vampire Diaries are no more or less valid and interpretation of vampires as Anne Rice’s vampires, old V:tM, Forever Knight, Moonlight, Twilight, Dracula, Vampire Hunter D, etc. Hell, in Kindred the Embraced, mother fuckers were walking around in the day (no magic rings, motorcycle helmets, or whatever required—just need to have fed “recently”). Whether vampires are made very easily, with just a bite (see Blade), or only through deliberate effort (V:tM and True Blood), or at great cost (V:tR)—there are no wrong answers. Hell, the difference between the vampires in most of the media I just mentioned, and the movie/graphic novel A Hundred Days of Night are staggering. It’s just a matter of taste.

                          V5 is just a different flavor of vampire entirely. Less in control of, and less insulated from their beasts (as demonstrated by the way it leaks out so much); far less able to flex super natural muscle before they need a snack; less able to assume they can get through the night (or even a contentious scene,) without the beast reminding them once or twice in some unsubtle way that it’s right there waiting; less able to avoid killing people (dovetails back with support).

                          Certainly the vampires in V5 are closer to older editions of V:tM than any edition is to, say, Twilight—but there’s not getting away from the fact that V5 and classic V:tM depict vampires different enough from one another that you could potentially really like one, and really not like the other. My response to anyone saying that the changes make the game better or more interesting is, “well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.”

                          Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                          1. I don't think that resource management actually is a 100% solution in Vampire: The Masquerade's previous editions. In fact, I would argue that it's a much bigger thing in V5 and that it is a far more interesting system for this because Hunger Dice are things that you can keep track of. For the most part, vampires are only going to need to keep that down to 1 dice and while that means they're hungry, they're not actually people who are going to flip out and kill everyone unless they have 3 or 4. That's going to be something that requires starvation from a inability to hunt or something like healing aggravated damage.
                          To be fair, I never claimed it was a 100% solution (that would be an indefensible position). A 100% solution would be boring, and I agree that no edition of this game could ever be said to be “safe”.

                          I agree that the hunger system in V5 is about a thousand percent more prominent than it used to be (and it was already central to the game,) but I disagree that that’s ipso facto better or worse; it’s a perfectly valid aesthetic and creative choice, but that’s all it is (see above). I’m not bemoaning the loss of a resource management system—if I really wanted to play a resource management game, I’d play Kindred of the East, or Eve Online. I’m bemoaning a loss of control and reliable outputs.

                          This is about risk management, and the fact that in older editions, even if you could never eliminate the possibility of the beast rearing its head (and, again, I wouldn’t want that), a vampire’s ability to mitigate this risk of the beast affecting their minute-to-minute and night-to-night actions was vastly more effective—particularly if they were willing to expend a great deal of effort, be meticulous in their planning, or sacrifice a great deal in the way of temporal power and resources. A more predictable system is a more reliable system—to the extent that you could form a plan as to what you were going to do in any given situation, you could plan around blood expenditures and consumption (and potentially even your political/social/marital opponents’); obviously no plan survives contact with the enemy, but if you at least had a baseline as to what you minimum expected to use or need, you could at least try to pad in some buffer. Once again, I’m not claiming that there is no value in planning in V5; only that you’re going to get far less “bang” for your “buck”, and what’s more, that the maximum “bang” that can be reasonably and consistently achieved is meager compared to older editions.


                          Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                          2. I don't think the system is substantially more dangerous for frenzying and Hunger actually with Hunger Dice to the point that vampires are going to be dropping bodies left and right.
                          Even assuming, arguendo, that that’s the case, the fact remains that messy criticals and bestial failures mean that you simply have less overall control of your character. It used to be that if you killed someone because of the beast, it’s because you frenzied—period. Now, you can just punch someone a little too hard because you did too well on the roll, and that’s sometimes bad now.

                          Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                          In fact, I'd actually argue that vampires probably kill LESS people in the long run under V5.
                          I’m interested to know what makes you say that. As you point out, outright homicide is now mechanically incentivized (not so before—in prior editions, totally draining a single person, taking two points each from five people, goring on a mess of rats or squirrels, and eating a bunch of blood bags, all had the same result.) Moreover, vampires can kill people accidentally without frenzying now (as I point out above). Not only that, taking blood violently and quickly (which is not only more harmful but also a greater breach of the masquerade, either one of which could result in the person’s death) is much faster than going slowly and carefully. Vampires are overall more of a hazard now than they were before

                          Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                          In the previous edition, if you go into a frenzy you can end up killing whole rooms of people and rampaging through a place.
                          The actual frenzy check itself is seemingly easier in V5, but you can still go into frenzy and kill a room full of people. And even if it was more difficult in prior editions, you often had several turns to withdraw from the room even as you made the extended check, in order to avoid going buck wild on everyone in the immediate vicinity. And the fact is that the same stuff that theoretically provoked frenzy checks before still provoke frenzy checks. At least in V20 the part of the book that describes frenzies drives home the point that rules are purposefully vague, open-ended, abstract, and particularly subject to ST fiat. Obviously anyone can change any rule they want in the game (The Golden Rule,) but if you play V5 as written, when to check for frenzy is nowhere near as discretionary as it used to be.

                          Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                          If you drain someone to death in V5, however, the Hunger dice goes down to 0 and you're effectively free for the rest of the night.
                          Until a Rouse roll doesn’t go your way—and Rouse rolls are ubiquitous. Murder really only gets you so far where hunger is concerned.

                          Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                          3. The morality of being a vampire is something that I'm not saying, "the only moral option is self-destruction" (as opposed to suicide since I feel it's important to draw a distinction between someone killing themselves in RL that many of us have friends victimized by versus someone killing themselves because they are a literal supernatural monster). I am saying, however, that one of the main themes of the game is the fact the Beast is a curse. It's something that means that a lot of vampires, perhaps most, have some innocent blood on their hands and must deal with. Either because their sires didn't care during their early days or something happened. Its an addiction you must learn to manage or simply give into.
                          Okay, you acknowledge that the morality of vampire is a complex thing—but if that’s the case, I think you could have done a better job of addressing the point made by MyWifeIsScary (which is ultimately what prompted my last comment).

                          Vampires (and really any creature that remembers and retains some sense of having been human) are probably going to feel different degrees of responsibility for bad acts depending on the degree to which they feel/felt that they could reasonably have prevented the bad acts. A good example is the case of a vampire with a single hunger die who tries to rough up a bouncer just a little, but ends up killing them because of a messy critical. The fact is that that the vampire didn’t mean or try to kill the person, but they could have prevented the death… but it would have required killing someone else. The fact that they only had ONE hunger die (in-game terms: were only a little hungry) means that they were already at the lowest possible non-zero percentage chance of killing someone accidentally. People will often rationalize an out for themselves when they feel out of control. In classic V:tM, on the other hand, this is just not going to happen. It’s easier to be “not hungry” in classic V:tM, and you can actually get “not hungry” humanely. Killing people accidentally in classic V:tM just isn’t as much of a thing. Which means that if you do kill someone accidentally, it’s either because of a statistical outlier (law of averages is a bitch,) or, more likely, because you were playing fast and loose with feeding, which makes the taking of that human life (assuming the vampire still cares about that sort of thing) cavalier.

                          Moral philosophy is complicated and heady stuff on its own without bringing out something as confounding as a moral agent that eats other moral agents for survival. And it looked to me like you dismissed the whole thing with out of hand seemingly based on the notion that anything short of self-destruction (an act so baffling and contrary to the wired-in desire for self-preservation, that even its mere ideation constitutes grounds for immediate restraint) was morally indefensible, and didn’t merit being addressed.

                          Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                          4. I think the uncontrollability of the Beast is something that has always been in part of the game. People who think that the beast is something they can reign in easily and not have to worry about are the ones most likely to be murderers in V:TM because it's a very arrogant and foolish statement. Vampires have to be very wary about it and I think the ones most afraid of it and aware it's a constant danger are the ones most likely to be less of a threat to their fellow humans.
                          I mean, I think this is all true—but about classic V:tM. But again, I don’t frame it as ease, but rather, whether a certain result is even possible in the first place. In V5, the absolute best you can do to avoid accidentally hurting someone (via hunger frenzy, messy criticals, or bestial failures) is to deliberately kill someone else first! So if you really think about it, in V5, the people with the MOST respect for how dangerous the beast is are more likely to be murders, because the only way to achieve maximum (but still not perfect!) control is to kill someone.

                          Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                          5. Predator Types actually are an important way of showing how "moral hunger" plays a role in the game. They're not just something that's flavor text. A vampire who feeds entirely on bagged blood is not going to have the same habit of flipping out and killing people. This is because their Predator type shows how they have adapted to the nightly struggle.
                          I was never going to take the position that literally everything in the system or game is bad—this is probably one of the better concepts brought it. But it basically just codifies something that most seasoned vampire players developed on their over time anyway. If you play the game for any appreciable length of time, and your ST doesn’t categorically handwave feeding, your character is simply going to develop a go-to style for munching on people. Giving it a label and baking in some implications is a fine idea, but then, one of the great things about the frenzy rules in classic V:tM is that they deliberately didn’t include a laundry list of situations in which you’d have roll for frenzy or whatever (more like types of very general scenarios), and they continually drive home the point that it’s all highly discretionary. Thus V5, not only makes the beast by default different, it also (as written) takes away substantial discretionary power from the ST.


                          Sig

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X