Modiphius is bo longer the publisher of vtm,Renegade studios is.

[Trippy]

I purchased Vampire first edition in 1991, and started playing almost immediately. I did VLARP for several years. I ran and played in several tabletop chronicles.

I don't see any problem with rejuvenating the game with new ideas, new assumptions, new clans, and new takes on the old material.

The excellent Vampire 20 material published over the past several years is intentionally meant to appeal to fans of any of the first three editions, they're not really the authority to appeal to for precedent.

I don’t really see how it is rejuvenating anything. The Salubri were already well established - they were just presented as a Bloodline having a backstory as a deposed Clan.

You don’t need to track down anything about the Book of Nod, merely acknowledge that nobody is arguing it has ‘factual content’. It is a reference in the game that has always been present, and has been used since V1 as a means of presenting game lore. 13 Clans has always been present too, as a reference point, including V5 that states this throughout.

[blailton]

Well, TO ME, even if they promote Salubri to Clan, I would consider the existence of only 13 clans still... Because Tremere is not a Clan. Only a half-assed Tzimisce bloodlines or trashy fallen mages... They don't even have a antediluvian. Lmaooooooo

Death to all Tremeres.

[Resplendent Fire]

Nah, there are 14 clans. It's just that three of them have no Antediluvian and are significantly reduced in numbers.

There were 15, but then the Giovanni and the leftover Cappadocians had to become the same clan.

[Resplendent Fire]

I don’t really see how it is rejuvenating anything. The Salubri were already well established - they were just presented as a Bloodline having a backstory as a deposed Clan.

You don’t need to track down anything about the Book of Nod, merely acknowledge that nobody is arguing it has ‘factual content’. It is a reference in the game that has always been present, and has been used since V1 as a means of presenting game lore. 13 Clans has always been present too, as a reference point, including V5 that states this throughout.

I didn't mean the Salubri specifically. One of the good things about V5 was that it was an attempt to bring Vampire: The Masquerade up to modern RPG standards, as they've evolved considerably since Revised. That is, an attempt to rejuvenate the game line. It's perfectly fine to assess the game as it existed then and exists in V20, bring forward the good stuff, and add more good stuff. Since, as you keep correctly pointing out, it's a fictional setting, that means the fiction can evolve over time, change over time, even be retconned over time. I'm not sure why you ascribe such a rigid metaphysics to it while also acknowledging it's fiction and thus malleable, but that's your prerogative.

In-game lore often means in-game facts. Things that are facts within the setting itself. You're asserting that 13 clans is a mandatory fact of the setting. You can have facts about fictional settings. Obviously they're fictional facts because it's not real and vampires don't exist. The Book of Nod is not infallible or one hundred percent accurate within the setting. Anything in it could turn out to be wrong - in V5, it's clear that Gehenna didn't turn out as the prophecies stated, after all.

I meant track down every time you've appealed to the Book of Nod to make factual assertions about the setting. Right now all I see is flying goalposts, so maybe this is as good a place as any to end this discussion.

[Trippy]

I didn't mean the Salubri specifically. One of the good things about V5 was that it was an attempt to bring Vampire: The Masquerade up to modern RPG standards, as they've evolved considerably since Revised. That is, an attempt to rejuvenate the game line. It's perfectly fine to assess the game as it existed then and exists in V20, bring forward the good stuff, and add more good stuff. Since, as you keep correctly pointing out, it's a fictional setting, that means the fiction can evolve over time, change over time, even be retconned over time. I'm not sure why you ascribe such a rigid metaphysics to it while also acknowledging it's fiction and thus malleable, but that's your prerogative.

In-game lore often means in-game facts. Things that are facts within the setting itself. You're asserting that 13 clans is a mandatory fact of the setting. You can have facts about fictional settings. Obviously they're fictional facts because it's not real and vampires don't exist. The Book of Nod is not infallible or one hundred percent accurate within the setting. Anything in it could turn out to be wrong - in V5, it's clear that Gehenna didn't turn out as the prophecies stated, after all.

I meant track down every time you've appealed to the Book of Nod to make factual assertions about the setting. Right now all I see is flying goalposts, so maybe this is as good a place as any to end this discussion.

The last comment is factually wrong. I have merely pointed out to somebody arguing that the Book of Nod could be interpreted as suggesting 30 Clans - that in fact it mentions the 13 Clans by name, so there is no issue of interpretation. That is not asserting that the Book of Nod is factual itself - it is a work of fiction in reality and a book of myth in the setting. It’s a strawman argument to suggest that I said anything otherwise, because I didn't.

In game lore is just that - it is not a list of 'facts'. However, I am saying that the game’s symbolism has always made use of the same symbolism contained in things like the number 13, and indeed the Book of Hod, as Biblical references or occult references. The game lore creates its atmosphere by doing so. If you contradict that lore, you alter the atmosphere accordingly and in my view that is detrimental to the game. That is it. That is my argument - everything else is a misrepresentation of my statements.

And yes, V5 introduced a lot of excellent things into the game that rejuvenated the line. One thing they kept, however, was 13 Clans of Vampire - explicitly stated in the text. So has all the other editions. They were right to do so.

[jamiemalk]

One of the good things about V5 was that it was an attempt to bring Vampire: The Masquerade up to modern RPG standards, as they've evolved considerably since Revised.

RPG standards: you say evolved, i say fallen to ruin. The only "new" rpg that's impressed me in the past decade was Pathfinder, because it was a cleaned up version of a good system. Not a slash and burn or reinventing the wheel to have three points so the ride is much less smooth.

[Resplendent Fire]

RPG standards: you say evolved, i say fallen to ruin. The only "new" rpg that's impressed me in the past decade was Pathfinder, because it was a cleaned up version of a good system. Not a slash and burn or reinventing the wheel to have three points so the ride is much less smooth.

The past decade has produced better RPGs than anyone in the 90s had ever dreamt of.

[jamiemalk]

The past decade has produced better RPGs than anyone in the 90s had ever dreamt of.

Y'know a couple of years ago, my group spent six months trying out new games at our weekly sessions. None of them were good enough to make us want to try them long term, and we just stuck to our 90's rpgs. The modern way seems to be at the same time gimicky faff while removing as much crunch as possible. Dull and frustrating to play.

[Resplendent Fire]

Y'know a couple of years ago, my group spent six months trying out new games at our weekly sessions. None of them were good enough to make us want to try them long term, and we just stuck to our 90's rpgs. The modern way seems to be at the same time gimicky faff while removing as much crunch as possible. Dull and frustrating to play.

I can't account for your group's tastes. I've only played RPGs since 1980 and the stuff that came out in the 2010s took RPGs to more interesting, more imaginative, and more flexible places. Give me Monsterhearts over the 90s any day.

Also, crunch is not something to universally aspire to.

Finally, I'll always love V:tM, regardless of era.

[Val_Nir]

Tge same references can be found in the latest edition of the game, released just a couple of years ago. Nice bit of disparagement over the origins of the game though. We’re you actually born in the 1990s, may I ask?

And in response to your second post, the current development team were not actually the original creators, and your aren’t their spokesperson. Like I say, if they turn around in a couple of weeks and say something that reestablishes 13 Clans again, all these arguments will look silly.

When I first encountered WoD/VtM in 2004, I was both fascinated by the maturity and grittiness of the setting compared to everything else RPG I've encountered, and then imagine my amusement when I found out that people thought having 13 (!) clan progenitors back thousands of years ago was a great idea which could lend to the narrative weight and atmosphere of the game. But then, I proceeded with reading on my native region, and laughed even harder. Having a Nosferatu Methuselah named Baba Yaga is somewhere near having 13 clans in terms of seriousness and atmosphere. To be honest, I don't think VtM origin was a fairy tale.

Origins of the game are not a sacred cow to be guarded and worshipped at all costs, especially since the game grew much larger than it's original audience in the 90s. It all sounds like 'well well don't upset your grandma with your crazy progressive ideas now'.

I'm not their spokeperson but it looks like I'm the only one who bothered checking on their opinion on the matter and staying in touch with their media accoutns to know of their ideas and suggestions on the setting development.

[MyWifeIsScary]

DnD 5e is a good modern game. It's very streamlined. Yet I completely believe I'm playing an edition of DnD with it.

5e... what about this game is modern, other than how 'current' it is with events and how much it wears it's politics on it's sleeve? (note: It's good that a game is political, it's not good that the game presents it's political ideas so fucking badly that people want to dissociate it. A Bad argument is worse than no argument, and V5 is filled with bad arguments)
The Game hasn't been streamlined, or made better, or otherwise improved. It's just Different. It's very different, and most compelling arguments would say it's worse.

Also, I don't know about you guys, but the original game is just... genius. Secretly genius. Some of it's deliberate, some of it's accidental, but it's genius. I've never seen such a compelling setting before. Maybe I've got the benefit of hindsight because I get to look back on it and avoid products like Gypsies but the OG makers of the setting must've been IRL wizards or something. There's just so much unstated that just comes together and just... works. It's difficult to fully articulate how... hollistic they wrote everything. It's got me into all sorts of esoteric stuff as a result (please help me, I have a problem, it's only a matter of time till I find the real Tremere) The latest edition seems to be picking things apart without care or understanding for the greater whole. A good portion of changes seem to be "I personally don't like this faction so I'll change them more to my liking" and that's... how you make the setting feel artificial. V5 seems more like a 'just a game' than ever before. DnD 5e by contrast feels more organic with it's reduced and simplified mechanics.

[Resplendent Fire]

D&D is largely its own thing on an entirely different level from the rest of the industry, and 5e was the result of fans wanting it to be like it was in 3e all over again. The rest of the industry is a bit separated from the kinds of assumptions and sensibilities that inform D&D's design. 4e wasn't a bad game, but it wasn't the D&D everyone wanted to play, and WotC followed the money.

And yes the original Vampire was great for its time, outsold AD&D for a year or so, before WotC purchased TSR, and continues to hold some popularity. Given the success of the V20 line, Paradox bringing V5 about was probably a very good move. It doesn't feel like "just a game," and it still benefits from past lore, even if not slavishly held to it (thankfully).

[Val_Nir]

The amount of time, effort and, let's be honest, at times even talent some people put into pounding on V5 in their every single post is simply anecdotal at this point.

[jamiemalk]

I can't account for your group's tastes. I've only played RPGs since 1980 and the stuff that came out in the 2010s took RPGs to more interesting, more imaginative, and more flexible places. Give me Monsterhearts over the 90s any day.

Also, crunch is not something to universally aspire to.

Finally, I'll always love V:tM, regardless of era.

Sweet Budda, it's like weaponised cringe...

[Vamps Like Us]

The way I feel about VTM is first edition was mind blowing and addictive, second edition cleaned up some rules but added A LOT of power creep, revised was both interesting and a turn off on a lot of levels, but some of the people I played with LOVED it even if I thought it was too much of a box, when it was nuked from orbit to bring us Requiem everyone I know stopped buying new books, it wasn't VTM. I think the 20th books are great and I use the PDF's. If they had put the 20th books in stores I would own them. 5th edition like Requiem isn't VTM to me, I haven't spent a dime on it despite flirting with the idea of getting CbN just to read. I don't mind the second inquisition, I nuked the Tremere years ago, Making Anarchs a real thing is fine just not at the expense of the Sabbat if you want to keep a large portion of your fanbase.

I do however find the massive rule changes so off putting even with the free companion I signed up for I can't see how it could possibly fix what has been broken in my eyes. I remain hopeful for 6th edition but news of coming changes has got me checking the site several times a day to read posts. Maybe it's just because we don't get into lots of combat all the time we just don't find soak rolls so time consuming. I would love new books to read and hopefully get inspired to take things from, but if they don't figure out how to undo most of the game altering changes it just seems like too much work I will have to do converting things to pay money for.

Best case? I'm hoping the Companion rules errata will be sweeping, bringing back virtues roads blood pools, while dropping things like hunger and touch stones, the promise to soon fix disciplines that were dramatically changed and the first fifth edition book I buy --- the core rule book 5.5... I doubt this will happen but I'm looking forward to my free Companion PDF and seeing just how they try to bring me back.

The biggest problem with "modernizing" games to be the cool new thing is I still have my basic D&D and AD&D books and my friends are happy to play them and not spend a small fortune. If I was still a big D&D player I would no doubt have some third and fifth edition modules, some new PH and DM's Guides, maybe a bunch of MM's, maybe I switch all in on fifth edition I hear it's so wonderful. I played 4th edition D&D at a comic book shop because they were trying to convince people to buy it. It wasn't D&D and I would never have bought any of it. Boy I hope the coming changes make me good with fifth edition VTM but I have my doubts. At least the announcement has given me hours of fun reading message boards I had been paying little attention to for awhile now if nothing else.

What a rambling post I just wrote...