No announcement yet.

Reasons to run 1st edition Vampire

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Maybe, but the fact that this was their general feeling tells me something about how different a game NWoD and OWoD are perceived. What i'm saying is it seems to be more a semantics thing, really, and not a particularly important one at that. I mean, maybe this is an exactly science, to say what is and isn't a totally different game but somehow, I don't think it is. Mostly, though, if we call it a different game, you gotta admit it's a hell of a weird case. 1e is kinda of a strange buffer zone for a lot of things between Masquerade and 2e, there are all those terms that got brought over, groups that were directly inspired by Masquerade (maybe one of the reasons Belial's Brood hasn't appeared yet in 2e is so people don't see it and go "oh, so that's what the Sabbat/Baali look like now ?"). To me, yes, both games are two different to be called the same (since editions of each brought fewer changes and the transition from Masquerade to Requiem), but to say you can't talk about changes between the games, that they're completely different ? I don't follow that. Not when Requiem 1e brought back Nosferatu except it said "but our Nosferatu are different, they're not all physically ugly, and they have a new unique discipline", or "So there's the Malkovians, with an "O", don't forget that important detail, they're crazy because people loves Malkavians from Masquerade, but they're not the same (and they suck, so just wait until the Ventrue book to have something actually fun where it's going to be a blood sickness called Malkavia)", or "So here are the Khaibit, they use shadows, because manipulating shadows is cool since the Lassombra did that too and people dug them, but now, they're just a bloodline and their seemingly useless powers may or may not give them way to fight the strix from that other supplement, although we're never gonna confirm that". And I'm making fun or 1e like that, but don't misunderstand. I love that game. I wouldn't have GM'd it twice (once for 3 years, and once for 1 year and a half) if I didn't, but it's a clusterfuck and pretty much the RPG equivalent of a tsundere in it's relationship to Masquerade. And you know what ? That's okay, I don't mind that. It was the first game of the new line, it ddidn't really know what it wanted to be so it shot in all directions until something stuck, and it played on the Masquerade nostalgia to tell players "See, we're the new Vampire, but don't worry, you can still play a Ventrue and be and asshole, and it'll be just like old time". Hell, it took a while until the Night Horrors : The Wicked Dead came out and provided a major splat antagonist that was strong enough to stand on its own without having to reference Masquerade.

    And again, it's completely fine. They wanted to make the line more of a toolkit to make your own game and I have to say they succeeded at that (only problem is when you have that many tools, it's hard to have them all and it's easy to be confused, but that's part of gaming). A good game isn't necessarily a neatly self contained game with no loose ends that has to be perfectly defined in a single book (although money-wise, that last part is always appreciable), it's a game you can have fun with. And you could have a LOT of fun with 1e, but the lineage with Masquerade ? It's there, it's part of it's identity and I don't think it's wrong to point it out and comment on how some of the many elements that appear in both games were adapted or, yes, changed

    Like I said, the argument I could understand is if the people who made/published the game WANT it to be labelled a different game because it makes things unclear otherwise and because, in this particular case, there seem to be a weird silent war between the newer editions of OWoD (now called "Classic" WoD I guess) and NWoD/CWoD (although Onyx Path owns both).

    I should also note that I'm puzzled as to why Classic WoD is seeing new editions yet. I thought Time of Judgement was a way to close that game once and for all. I thought 20th anniversary was just a way to issue a neat book that compiled all the important information of the previous books, but I guess that was a new edition altogether, and I don't really see the point (well, that's not true, I can guess fans asked for it, there was profit to be made and so it was made, because rpg publishing houses don't exactly fund themselves). It's still super weird to have these two games hanging around at the same time, like two alternate reality versions of the same person.


    • #47
      Oh for sure, it is fine to say that they are related games, or as has been said a 'spiritual successor'. No one is denying that.

      Personally, I was just saying that people who call Requiem the second edition of Masquerade are not the people who would really now since they don't seem to know that there were those other editions (by that logic, Requiem would be the 4th edition of Vampire, not the second). That tells me that the only they they count as a new edition IS the nomenclature and large-scale rules changes despite that not being the case as far as the publisher and owner are concerned.

      To your last points, a few clarifications. Both World of Darkness and Chronicles of Darkness are owned by White Wolf Publishing not Onyx Path. Onyx Path has the license to create table top games based on them. World of Darkness was called Classic while the 20th Anniversary editions were coming out because it was no longer 'old', it was current. White Wolf wants to push it because it is a larger, more well known property and we will likely see more and more things with that name, while it seems Chronicles will, for the moment at least, stay a tabletop only product.

      This actually lends further evidence to the idea that Requiem should not be seen as an edition of Masquerade, since they will both be coming out concurrently without any connections at all.


      • #48
        And like... to be fair, a lot of this is pretty obscure behind-the-scenes knowledge that the average fan wouldn't have cause to know. And even for those who are interested the language can be downright obfuscating. White Wolf Publishing, Crowd Control Productions, Onyx Path Publishing, Paradox Interactive, White Wolf Publishing again, (old) World of Darkness, (new) World of Darkness, Classic World of Darkness, (new) World of Darkness Second Edition, (one) World of Darkness Chronicles of Darkness, and what the heck is a "Chronicle Book" anyway? Unfortunately, the whole thing is doomed to be confusing as hell for ever. Still, treating the intellectual property formerly known as World of Darkness, currently known as Chronicles of Darkness as an edition of the intellectual property formerly known as World of Darkness, then as Classic World of Darkness, and now known as World of Darkness again is still a pet peeve for me.
        Last edited by Charlaquin; 04-19-2017, 11:59 AM.

        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.


        • #49
          Oh certainly, I think that the last points about companies and rights and such is a confusing mess that is really a separate issue from whether or not people identify the editions of either game set correctly.


          • #50
            I don't think the legal aspect is a completely separate issue from what the readers perceive. There's probably a lot to get from that info about what was intended in given game and how that intent either got fulfilled or changed through editorial shenanigans.

            About the people I talked to and made the comment about OWoD being the old edition, they knew the game pretty well and are much more familiar with it than I am. It's still possible they didn't identify various editions to Masquerade, but it's also possible they used the term "edition" loosely (which i don't really have a problem about).

            How the OWoD got brought back and became CWoD certainly makes it more confusing. I mean, ok, 2e and the, now, Chronicles of Darkness are decidedly trying to be independent from the OWoD, but then you have Requiem 1e that really felt, at the time, like the continuation of Masquerade except changed since the OWoD had blown up (one way or another) with a new identity. Then 20th anniversary edition comes up like a resurrected Jason Todd and it's all starting anew. Seems to me Requiem was retroactively put in the position of a branching entity, rather than a successor. Now, yes, compared to 20th Anniversary Edition, Requiem (even 1e, but especially 2e) is absolutely a different game since they both coexist develop separately, but I don't see how that cancels out how Requiem 1e was basically made from the ashes of Masquerade (also with the lessons from other games like exhalted too I guess) as its "sequel" after Gehenna (and Time of Judgement in general) officially ended the old line.

            Also, a lot of this has to do with what you can and cannot (or decide you can and cannot) call an "edition", and really, I don't know. We talk about editions of D&D, which Rose described as different games (and of course, there is D&D and AD&D, D&D3 and Pathfinder), but then you have games were editions only describe minor changes and you can still use old books for a bunch of things. So what constitutes a game from a edition ? Publisher intent ? Book compatibility ? The way I see it, a little bit of both, but in the end, it's what you're willing to call an edition, not something written in stone.


            • #51
              So, after all of that, we're right back to "I get why they're often seen that way, since CofD 1e was originally written to replace WoD, but it still bugs me that people continue to treat it that way now that they're billed as two separate entities."

              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.


              • #52
                I understand confusion. I don't get comparing apples to oranges. Any two things can be compared and contrasted. Going back to the origin of this mess, in this section of the forums saying Werewolves were nerfed means in Forsaken 2e Werewolves were nerfed compared to 1e unless another context is provided. I mean if I had started going on about how wrong this nerfing suggestion is because in D&D werewolves were much weaker in response to the question, people would think I was mental. D&D woofs came before Apocalypse woofs. You might say but they are completely different games. Yeah, so are Apocalypse and Forsaken. I don't know what to say to someone that wouldn't see that. The name thing doesn't give it away?

                Apples to oranges all the way. Before we go down that road, tell me we are comparing fruit first or provide another appropriate context. Otherwise, I don't understand. The apple has a reddish color, with a smooth, thin not very orange-like peel. The shape is...well, the shape is like an apple because it is an apple and not an orange so this whole comparison is moronic. Comparing an apple as if it was an orange is where people start to walk.

                Keep it clear. nWoD and oWoD are two separate game lines and not versions of the same thing even when referencing similar supers. Talking about them as if they were the same is incorrect. I'm not objecting to the comparisons, but I will roll my eyes when people try to say Requiem is a version of Masquerade. I think the timeline would be something like Masquerade, Revised Masquerade, Masquerade (mine has no edition stated other than the print), Requiem, V20, Requiem 2, then whatever the new WW is coming out with. I have an easier time keeping track over who owns the license than that garbage timeline. Masquerade was dead when Requiem appeared. Somebody dug Masquerade back up and the rest of the oWoD with it. Plenty of confusion with all the different names but it isn't difficult to keep different games straight.

                Requiem 1 is a transition between Masquerade and Requiem 2 in the same way Masquerade is a transition between D&D and Requiem. The transition covers less between Masquerade and Requiem. There is the big difference between the two comparisons. They are all different games.

                Reason for Rant: People that say something like Requiem is a later version of Masquerade don't know what they are talking about so are unreliable sources about WoD games. Maybe they are right about other things, but they sure got that one wrong. If someone can't tell the difference between an apple and an orange, don't trust them to buy your fruit. That's all I'm saying.
                Last edited by Diggs; 04-20-2017, 09:08 PM.


                • #53
                  Unfortunately, comparing apples to oranges is something that a lot of us Requiem STs have to do. There are a lot of people who remember Masquerade very fondly(and often, distantly), who can be mistrustful of Requiem for all the stock reasons. If somebody looks at Requiem and notes sourly that it looks a whole lot like Masquerade, you can't tell them that Requiem is as different from Masquerade as it is from D&D, because that is clearly not the case. You have to learn how to compare their apples to your oranges, and to continue the metaphor, you've got to be able to explain (in a favorable way, this is important) why that orange tastes so appley.

                  Often, it's just a matter of breaking down negative hype. Most of my Vampire table is made up of former Masquerade LARPers, almost none of whom arrived at the table with postive preconceptions of Requiem until experiencing it firsthand and thus being able to appreciate it objectively, without the knee-jerk reaction that many of us have come to expect. Today, my players all very happy with the state of Requiem 2E and looking forward to more, but not all of us would have been if I hadn't been able to translate fruits.

                  I draw things! Wanna check it out? Click on the link below!

                  YES! I do commissions!


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by JTroy View Post
                    You have to learn how to compare their apples to your oranges, and to continue the metaphor, you've got to be able to explain (in a favorable way, this is important) why that orange tastes so appley.
                    See, I've had much more success explaining why oranges don't have to be appley to be good. If what you want is an apple, an apple will always be more satisfying than an orange will be, so convincing someone who wants an apple that an orange is like an apple will only ever convince them that oranges aren't as bad as they thought. Convincing them that oranges are good in their own right, and that their similar taste to apples is just an artifact of both containing fructose will be far more effective at getting them to actually eat and enjoy oranges sometimes.

                    And that, in a nutshell (or maybe in an orange peel?) is exactly why treating CofD as an edition of WoD is a pet peeve for me. It's counter-productive to getting WoD fans to appreciate CofD for what it is, instead of accepting it in spite of what it is.

                    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.


                    • #55
                      Neither of you are actually comparing apples to oranges as the metaphor suggests. You maintain that an apple is an apple which is a distinct fruit from an orange. If it is Masquerade and Requiem then it would be more like a grapefruit to an orange, but it isn't really too important which fruit we use. They are always distinct things and any comparison assumes that. If you buy a bag of oranges and try to compare the oranges to each other, you really hope someone didn't slip in a few apples. Requiem was written in Masquerade terms, if you will, at the beginning. WW was recreating Vampire so Masquerade was the starting point for a new game. Lots of similarities and points of comparison exist. Requiem 2 is a new version of Requiem created with the first edition as the starting point. Nothing in any version of Masquerade is relevant to changes in Requiem.

                      Conflating Masquerade and Requiem brings to mind statements like the Camarilla is really weak and disorganized in Requiem. Really? I imagine it would be since it ceased to exist in Requiem hundreds of years ago. The Invictus is not the Camarilla. The Camarilla is not even what we imagine the Masquerade's Camarilla to be. We can compare the two Camarillas, but we need to keep them separate which with the names becomes more difficult. The Invictus is irrelevant to the comparison unless we are talking about the roles they play in their respective games. Yet, we always have apples and oranges rather than oranges to oranges. The metaphor has always been to say don't compare two different things as if they were the same.

                      Saying the Camarilla has really fallen apart in Requiem since Masquerade makes no sense, apples to oranges. Saying the Camarilla-like organization in Requiem is not the far-reaching power that is in Masquerade does, oranges to oranges.

                      This is an old argument. All I would ask is people keep their comparisons clear, keep the terms of the comparison clear. Anyone that won't do that will have a hard time being understood. How can someone else know you mean the Invictus when you say the Camarilla? With all the overlapping terms, it is confusing enough when people don't start mixing games deliberately.


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                        So, after all of that, we're right back to "I get why they're often seen that way, since CofD 1e was originally written to replace WoD, but it still bugs me that people continue to treat it that way now that they're billed as two separate entities."

                        "Now that they're billed as two different entities. That's the thing. So now that the publishers has stated that those games are totally different, it invalidates the fact that they sold it as the replacement for Masquerade ? This is what I'm talking about here. All those ridiculous comparisons with D&D (a game from a different publisher, with an independent publishing history, which is about playing in a medieval fantastic setting, with character classes, and all the things that make it entirely different from anything White Wolf has ever been doing with either the OWoD or the CoD) are a nice straw man argument, except the OWoD was never sold as the sequel to D&D, which the NWoD was.

                        Diggs' argument that "They're just different games and that's it" is nothing more than publisher fiat. "They're different games because we say they are". Well, great, that solves the problem, but that's a perfectly arbitrary view. It's not wrong, because there's no essential truth about what a game is and what makes it different, so yes, I agree with Charlaquin on that post that it's a question of how the publisher advertised it. It used to be advertised one way, now it's advertised another way, but just because the publisher says it doesn't mean I have to see it that way since there are also very good arguments for the other view that Requiem and Masquerade are closely related and while calling them editions (in the way that 1e and 2e differ) is not quite right, calling them unrelated game is also not quite right.

                        I don't know, but i'm very disturbed by this retroactive thing right here. It happened and it's part of the game's identity, and I'm not going to forget it just cause the publisher says so, I find that super creepy.


                        • #57
                          A replacement doesn't necessarily mean a sequel.

                          And you know about these games, and while your posts are focusing on the similarities between them for the purpose of your argument, you are clearly aware of the differences in mood, theme, scope and scale. You've been part of the board since 2015 and while I'm not sure how often you've posted you must be aware that Requiem, Forsaken and Awakening aren't considered continuations of Masquerade, Apocalypse and Ascension by any but those who really want there to be a connection, to enjoy an extended metaplot, similar to those who try to connect movie or TV universes together.

                          The difference between lines should be more obvious by the others. Geist, Changeling, Promethean are nothing like classic's Wraith, Changeling, and nothing, and clinging onto some idea that they must be the same, that things do not change over time, that similar terms were used for some reason beyond them being established among a desired customer-base, seems to have no purpose other than allowing you to post things like this.

                          Simple fact is these games were always meant to be different. They have some of the same subject matter and share much terminology, or artifacts that writers in New thought players of Old would like or that the writers liked enough to warrant a new variant of. But Requiem was never Masquerade v4.


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by the Vampire: Requiem 1st Edition Acknowledgement
                            Thanks to the visionaries who broke boundaries and redefined roleplaying with the previous incarnation of Vampire: Mark Rein•Hagen, Stewart Wieck, Steven C. Brown, Tom Dowd, Andrew Greenberg, Jennifer Hartshorn, Robert Hatch, Lisa Stevens, Josh Timbrook and the unsung contributors whose names were never mentioned but who nonetheless know who they are. We couldn’t have done it without the trail you blazed before us. Special thanks to you, whether you’re joining us again after 13 years of thrills and chills or just showing up for the first time. Game on!
                            I am unconvinced by the arguments that Requiem is not the spiritual successor to Masquerade. They share focus, they share themes, they share mechanics, and they share terminology. The semantic argument over 'sequel vs. replacement vs. version vs. incarnation' is splitting hairs. Every Vampire gaming table had to make a decision when Requiem came out - play in the new version, or keep playing with the now unsupported version (v20 was not on the radar). These were not the same arguments that a table would have over whether to play D&D or Shadowrun.

                            CofD is it's own thing now because of licensing issues and the resurrection of White Wolf after CCP. If Onyx Path had acquired the license/rights from CCP instead of Paradox would they be different things? I'm not so sure they would. Anyway, my point is you can say they are different and point out the big changes and evolutions that are still ongoing without pretending that Requiem wasn't a replacement for Masquerade. It certainly felt like and was advertised as being the successor/replacement at the time.

                            edit: I feel as if this conversation is like people saying it isn't fair/correct to compare Star Trek: Wrath of Khan to Star Trek: Into Darkness because ST:ID isn't a sequel or replacement for ST:WoK.
                            Last edited by Holy; 04-21-2017, 12:37 PM.


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Holy View Post
                              edit: I feel as if this conversation is like people saying it isn't fair/correct to compare Star Trek: Wrath of Khan to Star Trek: Into Darkness because ST:ID isn't a sequel or replacement for ST:WoK.
                              Comparing them is entirely valid. The various Translation guides point out the differences between the games, and explains things people might prefer to see in one or the other.

                              But are you really going to say Into Darkness is Wrath of Khan Part 2?


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by nofather View Post
                                But are you really going to say Into Darkness is Wrath of Khan Part 2?
                                Except for the hair-splitting semantics of it not being a linear continuation of the previous Wrath of Khan movie, yes - I would in fact say that. It is the same characters, the same conflicts, the same universe - retold by a different director and creative team (writers, actors, etc).

                                But yes, if you want me to say it isn't a direct continuation - I guess you win that one. Requiem wasn't meant as a 'direct continuation' either - i.e. After the Gehenna plotline all the characters in Masquerade didn't suddenly find themselves ported to the Requiem timeline/universe for a redo.

                                I honestly have no idea the relevance of that argument, though, to this thread.