Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reasons to run 1st edition Vampire

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

  • Reasons to run 1st edition Vampire

    Now here is my conundrum.

    I have been a collector of nWoD (CoD now) all my RPGing days, the largest part of the collection has always been VtR. Despite this and my love for the material I never got an opportunity to run or play in a VtR game, it has always been either straight up blue book games or HtV. So those books have been sitting on the shelf, read but never played.

    Now however I've got a group that is finally interested in playing Vampires and I'm at a crossroads. I've been running the 2nd edition CoD rules for the last few years and have the VtR 2nd edition ruleset. I've been loving changes to the core system but I feel a longing to play the 1st edition ones and use them at least once.

    In the end I'll probably just run the 2nd edition rules, as this group are used to the CoD system, but I'm interested in hearing from those who have run and played both version.

    In your opinion, are they any reasons to play 1st edition over 2nd edition beyond simple nostalgia?



  • #2
    Not really. The second edition is such a great improvement it seems weird anyone would have both and consciously decide to run first edition instead.


    I'm So Meta Even This Acronym

    Comment


    • #3
      "Because I feel like it once in awhile" is a perfectly good enough reason, I'd say.

      I could see wanting to get away from the bookkeeping of Conditions once in awhile, or to introduce the base system to a group of new players without that level of detail.

      Comment


      • #4
        But for someone who's already familiar with the general 2E changes I'd say that VtR 2E is the better choice for everything except the nostalgia factor. All the vampire specific changes between the editions are just improvements.


        Bloodline: The Stygians

        Comment


        • #5
          While I get the feeling this is a loaded question fishing for an edition war, I'll answer. Yes, there are many reasons to play 1st edition over 2nd edition. It's called personal preference, not nostalgia. Developer bias started creeping in the 1st edition publishings but it is blatant and in your face with 2nd edition. I don't like their "fixes" to the things I considered a problem or could see how/why others considered it a problem. And in fact, they ended up making those problems worse. The power disparity between clans and covenants is wider now to where I can't suspend disbelief. I had to make changes to a lot of the mechanics and ideology. There's also default themes and elements. 2nd ed. is a lot more about rapidly plunging down a nihilistic spiral of self destruction and gaining as much instant temporary gratification along the way. Whereas 1st edition is more about slowly moving toward that end but trying to avoid it while amassing power. I personally liked spending over 8 years of real life gaming time rising from city hound to city regent as did the others I gamed with who moved to similar positions of power but I also realize most people today don't have that kind of attention span. Powers that wear off at the next sunset or get pulled apart by a fledgling Mekhet experimenting with Auspex aren't really conducive to that sort of game play.

          My personal preference also leans toward minimalism. I don't like maintaining a cache of 10 plus dice, five books, charts, cards, tokens, and Excel sheets just to PLAY a character and I don't like having to increase the totals of those things exponentially to RUN a game. Second edition has more rules. You only needed two books for first edition. You currently need four books (one of them technically being 1st edition) if you want to maintain a semblance of balance. Second edition is not very backwards compatible but first is forward compatible. Most of the stuff in 2nd was already in 1st as optional alternative mechanics. They just went from optional to mandatory.
          Last edited by tsusasi; 04-09-2017, 10:50 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            It really is up to you. One kind of objective reason would be that the immense amount of books that came out for Requiem are for the 1e system, so you can pretty much use them without worrying about compatibility issues. On the other hand, the difference in the systems aren't that big that you can't change minor things to make it fit 2e. All the stuff about the bloodlines is still valid if you use the 1e bloodline system instead of 2e with the boon thingie.

            Personally, my favourite system is a combination of the two editions. I love the little subtleties 2e introduced in the core system, especially the combat, which is now more interesting than a matter of who gets more dice (and defence is now worth investing in). What I don't like is the social maneuvering which I find simply unnecessary and artificial, the touchstone system, which... well it's not so much that I don't like it rather that it simply didn't seem to gel for my players, so we more or less forgot it was there and treated it more as a box on the character sheet to write important NPCs for the PCs. And then there's the conditions. Interesting and pretty good idea, but way too much micromanagement for me and I like to hand out XP at my own rhythm anyway, so I kind of kept it at a minimum (for those conditions that are actually essential to the powers or vampiric condition, like everything linked to disciplines, addiction, frenzy...) and it worked just fine that way.

            So yeah, my suggestion is, since you have both versions, use both to brew the system that really suits your game. They're different enough that each can offer its own advantages, but close enough that it's easy to make the fixes you need.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tsusasi View Post
              While I get the feeling this is a loaded question fishing for an edition war, I'll answer.
              No loaded question here, was just looking for personal input from those who have experience playing/running both. The minimalism point makes sense, played in a few games of Shadowrun 4th edition where you had to have a spreadsheet for each character to deal with all the calculations and tracking. Really used to put damper on games at times. For CoD I've not had to do much more tracking than I did for 1e, at least for mortals. I'll have a look further into 2e and see what I'd have to be using from an ST position.

              Originally posted by S. Brechen
              So yeah, my suggestion is, since you have both versions, use both to brew the system that really suits your game. They're different enough that each can offer its own advantages, but close enough that it's easy to make the fixes you need.
              I might end up going this route if I go with 2e, since a lot of the 1e sourcebooks have some material that I'd want to leave open for myself and my players. I actually like the idea of touchstones as an alternative to just using integrity (which, as is, makes sense for humans but less so for vampires after a certain stage) and the old morality system.

              I guess for the most part I won't know what will work and what won't until I try them out. Hopefully any teething issues won't put the group off trying Vampire in the long term.


              Comment


              • #8
                I've run a chronicle off and on since around 2009. When 2nd ed came out, I started porting some changes in. Over all I like both Werewolf and Vampire 2nd ed much better than their initial editions. That said, my setting has a lot of the old stuff-- mostly fluff, particularly in terms of the covenants. Thus far I've used social maneuvering, conditions and such very little -- mostly use it as guidelines behind the scenes; the players don't like additional fiddly system stuff. (That said, I like the idea conceptually).

                If you want to play it, play it. But for me, a hybrid of mostly 2nd system and largely 1st setting works pretty well.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jin Keota View Post
                  Now here is my conundrum.
                  In your opinion, are they any reasons to play 1st edition over 2nd edition beyond simple nostalgia?
                  Lack of books.

                  If you like something from the 1st edition more you can change the rules. I play Vampire since Dark Ages and Masquerade (more or less 15 years) and IMHO CoD has the best game balance.
                  I like most of the changes that have been made, but if you are not sure check yourself.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    ironically, my friends and I played a 1st edition Vampire game last weekend because the ST and I went to school together (haven't seen him in years) and we used to play Requiem 1st edition together and he hasn't played CofD since, so he wasn't as familiar with 2e/Blood and Smoke. So the chief reason is pretty much nostalgia, or unfamiliarity.

                    That being said, we did use some 'house rules' for fun's sake based somewhat loosely off 2e, like 'you can choose to get a dramatic failure in order to recover a willpower' but the disciplines were all 1e and there were no conditions.

                    CofD/NWoD is extremely plug-and-play. Take what you like from 1e and from 2e and mash it together. It still works.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The reasons to run 1e Requiem are the same reasons to run a non-current edition of any game. You already have the books, you are more familiar with the rules, more supplement support, nostalgia for the old rules or style, personal preference for the old rules or style. Ultimately, the only reason you need is that you want to. Personally, I significantly prefer 2e, but for those who want to run 1e, for any reason, more power to them.


                      Onyx Path Forum Moderator

                      My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

                      Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I agree wholeheartedly with tsusasi .

                        There's a very real addition to the 'rules density' that require more bookkeeping and subsystem detail in 2E than 1E that offer a tangible reason to choose 1E over 2E. Setting fluff and power scope* are arbitrary to personal preference, but a 1E game is just more streamlined. However, if as you stated you and yours are already familiar with 2E systems, then there's no reason to play 1E, and probably a strong argument for 2E if it means learning 1E rules.

                        * Bailey theirself said that the power and cost metrics were shifted mid-way through 1E development when dev leadership changed hands, making half of the 1E books designed with shifted goal posts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by grey_goose View Post
                          * Bailey theirself
                          FYI Rose prefers feminine pronouns (she, her, herself, etc).



                          Onyx Path Moderator
                          Mod Voice is RED*
                          *All other colors should be read aloud in the voice of Don Knotts.
                          Hacks and House Rules Hub Thread

                          CofD Hacks By Splat: Vampire | Werewolf | Mage | Mummy | Demon

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by grey_goose View Post
                            * Bailey theirself
                            It is public and common knowledge on these forums that Rose Bailey's preferred pronouns are she/her/herself/hers. Do not misgender her, or anyone else who makes their preferred pronouns publicly known.


                            Onyx Path Forum Moderator

                            My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

                            Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Firstly, I go for months and even years without posting on these forums. What you consider 'public and common' may not necessarily be. If a person changes once, they can change again, including moving to third person (which some people do). I didn't realize a neutral pronoun was considered an 'attack' or that I was responsible for digging up the last post where someone referred to themselves.

                              Secondly, I referred to a post made on the old forums and material (1E) written when a different name was used, and not everyone knows that the names are one and the same person. I deliberately chose a neutral pronoun to side-step any confusion or need to explain/open a discussion as to why it would be different.

                              A reminder would have been welcome. An accusation over a neutral term without the benefit of the doubt is just as intolerant as what you've accused me of. I have never, on this forum or previous iterations, been intolerant of anything other than stupidity. I've run a board/game for nearly a decade that has a large percentage of LGBT players who are all respected as they choose.

                              I didn't mis-gender anyone, and if you choose to read a neutral pronoun that way, it says more about you than it does about me.

                              As a minority myself, I find it offensive in the extreme to be accused of intolerance.
                              Last edited by grey_goose; 04-11-2017, 01:34 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X