Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

is minds eye theatre canon to the tabletop lore?

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

  • is minds eye theatre canon to the tabletop lore?

    I'm interested in knowing, are the mind's eye theatre book's canon to the tabletop, or do they change a lot of what's in the tabletop?

  • Trippy
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
    V5 is more MET friendly. IE physical disciplines do very specific things rather than provide overall improvements, and Dominate waswas stripped down so that you can't bully RL people so cleverly.

    Obviously, I'm no great knowledge on the subject because I'm not terribly familiar with actual MET play (I've read some rules and have my prejudices) but they're very different and you should never ever under any circumstances dictate canon for such a rich IP through LARP of all mediums.
    This is possibly the first post I’ve read of yours where I find myself in some agreement. The way in which V5 was written, with the increased emphasis on diceless play actually lends itself better to live-action play than the current MET books.

    When the MET games first came out in 1993, noting that live action play had already been a part of the tabletop rules too, the new game system was possibly one of the most interesting things about it. Things like spending traits on contests between characters to determine outcomes, in my view, actually laid a lot of groundwork towards a lot of later ‘narrative’ games. Rock-Paper-Scissors was a bit different, but intuitive, and the smaller books managed to condense the lore down into an easily digestible way, while being portable enough to carry around a LARP.

    The current By Night books, by contrast are massive beyond comprehension - and lose some of their functionality because of it. Even if you use an electronic device, searching a 500+ page book isn’t easy.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    MET can never live up to the power of imagination, and has so many crutches as a result.
    I remember when 5th edition was announced, the official website suggested werewolves have dayjobs as the rule rather than the exception, which is Heresy. The whole deal with werewolves is that they live in the sticks with their cult communes and can't deal with normal people because of all that Rage but there we were with an official website using what I assume to be a LARP convention and applying it to the tabletop.

    V5 is more MET friendly. IE physical disciplines do very specific things rather than provide overall improvements, and Dominate was stripped down so that you can't bully RL people so cleverly.

    Obviously, I'm no great knowledge on the subject because I'm not terribly familiar with actual MET play (I've read some rules and have my prejudices) but they're very different and you should never ever under any circumstances dictate canon for such a rich IP through LARP of all mediums.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mister_Dunpeal
    replied
    MET always felt like it was 'truer' to creator's intent for the Storyteller system than the tabletop was, since it was more about role-playing and narrative and less about game mechanics. I doa gree they can have interesting ideas (partly because they take a different approach from tabletop) but it can be 'interesting' to adapt them (I still consider V5 to be a fusion of MET and tabletop for that reason.)

    Leave a comment:


  • False Epiphany
    replied
    MET has some cool ideas to scavenge if you care to. They've established who the Sabbat's previous regents before Gorchist were, which canon never did.

    I also like Temoch the Jackal a lot as the sect's current regent. He's the kind of diablerist zealot who feels very appropriate to its new incarnation.

    V20/V5 has yet to provide information on several of its justicars, so I just use MET's instead. There are a couple others who I prefer for the job. (Theo Bell exempted...)

    Leave a comment:


  • Mister_Dunpeal
    replied
    Yeah the latest MET version seems like it differed drastically from how V20 and V5 went with things. Doesn't mean its 100% incompatible, but might require kludging (then again that's true of most things in the ST system if you want to throw them together. It's very lose with canon even if it tries to apply a coherent continuity - assuming one treats those as separate things. Which I do.)
    The earlier iterations I think were more closely tied together but you still could have narrative differences as well as mechanical ones.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Gentleman Gamer
    replied
    V5 builds on metaplot established and expanded in V20 rather than the latest versions of MET.

    Leave a comment:


  • CajunKhan
    replied
    The history of the Gangrel clearly diverges, and that's just off the top of my head.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trippy
    replied
    I think that MET broadly followed the same meta plot and backstory elements when they were still published by White Wolf. The writers and developers involved were basically the same as the tabletop game. When By Night Studios took up the license, they may have deviated a bit because the writing team were different, but would have still been regulated by the terms of the license I’d imagine. I think V5 moved the timeline and meta plot forward a bit, and came out a few years after the MET: VTM book was released, so that could be different.

    Leave a comment:


  • Konradleijon
    replied
    No I think they Alternate cannons. Like some parts of the setting that work will in Tabletop wouldn’t go on will in LARP and vice versa so MET changes the lore a bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • JezMiller
    replied
    They share canon up to the appearance of the Red Star and the Week of Nightmares in the run-up to Gehenna.

    After that point, MET canon goes in one direction and V5 goes in another. (V20 is specifically designed to be metaplot-neutral so it's hard to say that it has "canon" as such).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X