Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reasons to run 1st edition Vampire

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Holy View Post
    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).
    Do you think Requiem and Masquerade share the same conflicts, universe and characters? The World of Darkness itself is different between classic, where the focus was on the evil horrors of the world, and new, which shifts the topic down to the common person and the darkness is representative of mystery, not evil.

    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.
    S. Brechen's argument is that these games are direct continuations and that them being 'different games' is a falsehood, and some sort of spin on behalf of the publisher that attempts to cover that up.

    I honestly have no idea the relevance of that argument, though, to this thread.
    The thread has derailed from its original topic into arguing over S. Brechen's views of what is and is not different between editions. The original topic was 'is there any reason to play first edition over second, other than nostalgia.'

    This is all off topic from that.
    Last edited by nofather; 04-21-2017, 01:11 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by nofather View Post

      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?
      I wouldn't call it a sequel but I would say to anyone trying to claim Into Darkness wasn't a half assed rip off to the Wrath of Khan that they're ignorant.

      If they wanted to differentiate themselves from the original Star Trek movie and television series, then they should have told a different story. Instead they decided to rip off the plot and dialogue wholesale of the single best Star Trek movie in the entire movie line up.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by nofather View Post
        Do you think Requiem and Masquerade share the same conflicts, universe and characters? The World of Darkness itself is different between classic, where the focus was on the evil horrors of the world, and new, which shifts the topic down to the common person and the darkness is representative of mystery, not evil.
        Are you saying they don't share conflict, setting and character features? It's pretty clear to me they do, even when some of them have evolved and changed. And don't get me wrong, I like those evolutions. It takes me a bit to adjust my mindset to play Masquerade as I feel like it's going backwards. And that's not meant as a dig to anyone who prefers Masquerade over Requiem, people should use the tools they enjoy most. So I don't think anyone is denying real differences.

        Originally posted by nofather View Post
        S. Brechen's argument is that these games are direct continuations and that them being 'different games' is a falsehood, and some sort of spin on behalf of the publisher that attempts to cover that up.
        Are they? I think it's possible to both recognize that Masquerade & Requiem don't share IC-continuity, while also being able to recognize they are continuations as a game line.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Holy View Post
          Are you saying they don't share conflict, setting and character features? It's pretty clear to me they do, even when some of them have evolved and changed.
          Masquerade was focused on being thrust into the conflict between age old vendettas, summed up in the Jyhad, while Requiem is focused on the immediate concern of what to do when you're dead, the Requiem. The setting is Earth, but different. Masquerade's World of Darkness is 'the real world, but evil.' While Requiem is, 'the real world, but more mysterious.' And I obviously wouldn't say they share characters, beyond maybe Dracula, and that's more of a nod to the book than classic's version. Despite names, the clans are different, the covenants are different from the sects. Things do share similarities, but saying something like Belial's Brood is the same as the Sabbat is not understanding one or the other.

          It takes me a bit to adjust my mindset to play Masquerade as I feel like it's going backwards. And that's not meant as a dig to anyone who prefers Masquerade over Requiem, people should use the tools they enjoy most. So I don't think anyone is denying real differences.
          Someone liking one thing or another shouldn't have any bearing on this situation except to possibly take sides. But the idea of 'going backwards' seems to be a perception based on your past experience. I played Requiem first, never had to make a decision about which to play, because I wasn't interested in Masquerade. My experience could offer me a lot of arguments that, vary from yours or whoever elses, so its probably best to deal with the games as they are, rather than our own experiences with them.

          Are they? I think it's possible to both recognize that Masquerade & Requiem don't share IC-continuity, while also being able to recognize they are continuations as a game line.
          That's what a continuation means, though. You're carrying one thing on to the other. My life now is a continuation of my life yesterday. My child's life is not a continuation of my life, though it would be a continuation of my genetic heritage, as those genes are being carried on. If Requiem was a continuation, it would be carrying over more than the superficial aspects already noted, it would be continuing on with Gehenna, one way or another.

          A remake or homage, like with Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness. A spiritual successor. A new or different World of Darkness. All these things fit. Continuation doesn't beyond talking about the continuation of White Wolf publishing, or 'modern horror,' 'playing monsters,' 'storytelling games,' the major commonalities.
          Last edited by nofather; 04-21-2017, 01:40 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            A continuation of publishers. A continuation of concepts. Of many themes. Of many rules. Of many terms and many definitions. Some things changed, some more than others. Some things remained. The timeline did not remain.

            You seem able to see the above and conclude that you can't use the word 'continuation' in an accurate manner when discussing Requiem and Masquerade. I see the same words and conclude the exact opposite. Thank you for expressing your viewpoint (truly, I do like game theory discussions and I'm bored at work), but I think we're at that agree-to-disagree impasse as I don't think I'll ever see the carry-over between the two lines as simply superficial.

            Comment


            • #66
              Chronicles is absolutely a spiritual successor to World. What it is not is an edition of World. I know people don't like the D&D comparison, but it's more relevant than the Star Trek comparison because of conventions unique to the RPG genre. Pathfinder is a spiritual successor to D&D, as is 13th age, but neither are Editions of D&D. If you really want to compare to film though, The Amazing Spider-Man is not a sequel to Spider Man 3.

              EDIT: Or better yet, video games! Overwatch is not a sequel to Team Fortress 2. It doesn't make sense to say that Heavies got nerfed or buffed from TF2 to Overwatch, because while Overwatch has tank-style heroes (I would assume), which may be stronger or weaker in Overwatch's metagame than Heavies were in TF2, they are not Editions of the same franchise, so the differences in meta game impact are not called nerfs or buffs. Likewise, while World of Darkness and Chronicles of Darkness both feature werewolves, it doesn't make sense to say CofD's werewolves were "nerfed" from WoD's werewolves because they are not Editions of the same franchise. The Forsaken are not the Garou, and differences in their "power level" are not nerfs or buffs.
              Last edited by Charlaquin; 04-21-2017, 02:12 PM.


              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.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                Chronicles is absolutely a spiritual successor to World. What it is not is an edition of World. I know people don't like the D&D comparison, but it's more relevant than the Star Trek comparison because of conventions unique to the RPG genre. Pathfinder is a spiritual successor to D&D, as is 13th age, but neither are Editions of D&D. If you really want to compare to film though, The Amazing Spider-Man is not a sequel to Spider Man 3.
                I don't agree with your Pathfinder analogy, because that was done by a 3rd party under an open publishing license with particular requirements not to replace the original work. (I'm not familiar with 13th Age).

                Requiem and Masquerade are different editions of the Vampire game line. If you want to argue that they are different franchises of the line, yeah - that's true.

                "Hey, you guys interested in a game of Vampire this weekend?"
                "Which edition - Masquerade, Requiem?"

                The answer here should probably be one of the many editions of the Vampire game line (Requiem, Masquerade, End Times, v20, Dark Ages, New Wave Requiem, etc). It probably shouldn't be...

                "Well, those are different franchises so I'm not sure it's accurate to refer to them as editions like that."

                It kind of breaks down for me on the common sense angle. I continue to concede the semantics angle, and add my support to the following statement being an incorrect language usage, "Vampire: The Requiem is one of the editions of Vampire: The Masquerade."

                Originally posted by S. Brechen View Post
                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.
                S. Brechen seems to be conceding that they are different games with real changes that mean they cannot be called the same thing. Others don't seem to be conceding that it's reasonable someone see them as different editions of the same base game at all.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                  Likewise, while World of Darkness and Chronicles of Darkness both feature werewolves, it doesn't make sense to say CofD's werewolves were "nerfed" from WoD's werewolves because they are not Editions of the same franchise. The Forsaken are not the Garou, and differences in their "power level" are not nerfs or buffs.
                  Except from my experience this is what happened in reality and it made perfect sense. I participated in long discussions about these things when talking about switch-over between the editions. "Ventrue lose Presence and gain Animalism? What a rip." These were real world legitimate conversations and I don't see how they are invalidated by the semantics of: 'Technically, they are different franchises, so we shouldn't even be comparing them.'

                  Talking about or comparing Masquerade Nosferatu vs. Requiem Nosferatu is not the same conversation as talking about or comparing Pathfinder Elves vs. Warhammer Fantasy elves.

                  Last edited by Holy; 04-21-2017, 03:00 PM. Reason: edited for tone

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Holy View Post

                    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.
                    We were able to make the change to Chronicles of Darkness when WWP suggested the option for the name change because we were already repositioning those game lines further from WoD than they originally were. So if we had somehow, don't ask me how, fallen into ownership of nWoD, rebranding would have been the first thing we would have explored.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Holy View Post
                      I don't agree with your Pathfinder analogy, because that was done by a 3rd party under an open publishing license with particular requirements not to replace the original work. (I'm not familiar with 13th Age).
                      To me, who published it is less relevant to the distinction between the games than the fact that they are set in different fictional worlds.

                      Originally posted by Holy View Post
                      Requiem and Masquerade are different editions of the Vampire game line. If you want to argue that they are different franchises of the line, yeah - that's true.
                      "The Vampire game line" that you refer to isn't a thing that exists. They are different game lines that are both about vampires. Granted, they share a great deal of DNA but ultimately one is a spiritual successor to another, not a direct continuation of the other.

                      Originally posted by Holy View Post
                      "Hey, you guys interested in a game of Vampire this weekend?"
                      "Which edition - Masquerade, Requiem?"

                      The answer here should probably be one of the many editions of the Vampire game line (Requiem, Masquerade, End Times, v20, Dark Ages, New Wave Requiem, etc). It probably shouldn't be...

                      "Well, those are different franchises so I'm not sure it's accurate to refer to them as editions like that."
                      Well first of all, I would say "Are you guys interested in a game of Requiem this weekend?" to avoid that particular ambiguity, and second of all, if I did say Vampire instead of Requiem and my friend responded in that way, my response would probably be something along the lines of, "Requiem. But it's a pretty different setting from Masquerade, do you need to brush up on it before we start?"

                      Hypothetically, anyway. My friends I play CofD with were introduced to it first, and most of them haven't played WoD, but that's beside the point.

                      Originally posted by Holy View Post
                      It kind of breaks down for me on the common sense angle. I continue to concede the semantics angle, and add my support to the following statement being an incorrect language usage, "Vampire: The Requiem is one of the editions of Vampire: The Masquerade."

                      S. Brechen seems to be conceding that they are different games with real changes that mean they cannot be called the same thing. Others don't seem to be conceding that it's reasonable someone see them as different editions of the same base game at all.
                      Because I don't think it is reasonable to see them of different editions of the same base game. Frankly, I don't think it's ever been reasonable, but at least there was an excuse before WoD started getting active support again.

                      Originally posted by Holy View Post
                      Except from my experience this is what happened in reality and it made perfect sense. I participated in long discussions about these things when talking about switch-over between the editions. "Ventrue lose Presence and gain Animalism? What a rip." These were real world legitimate conversations and I don't see how they are invalidated by the semantics of: 'Technically, they are different franchises, so we shouldn't even be comparing them.'
                      I had those conversations too. I humored them then, because the people who were making those complaints had lost their game. Support for it was stopping in favor of support for my game, so I understood the frustration and the need to treat the "new" World of Darkness like a 3rd edition that made significant setting changes. But as each gameline that came out drifted further afield of its spiritual predecessor, it became more clear that this way of looking at it was not consistent with the developers' intent. They were meant to be completely different settings, not just updates to the same one. The x20 editions and the official branding of "old" World of Darkness as Classic World of Darkness was for us the final nail in the coffin. They were different games, both getting active support, there was no longer any point in making these comparisons because they existed parallel to each other. When the CofD Second Editions started coming out, the differences between the two Worlds of Darkness started be celebrated rather than lamented. When the "new" World of Darkness got re-branded as Chronicles of Darkness, we all breathed a sigh of relief, glad that they would finally be called different things like they should have been all along.

                      Originally posted by Holy View Post
                      Talking about or comparing Masquerade Nosferatu vs. Requiem Nosferatu is not the same conversation as talking about or comparing Pathfinder Elves vs. Warhammer Fantasy elves.
                      No, but it is a very similar conversation to comparing Golarion's elves (from Pathfinder) with Faerun's elves (from D&D). They share the same name, and the settings share a lot of tropes, but they do not have continuity between them, so it's weird to talk about "nerfs" or "buffs" between 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.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Jin Keota View Post
                        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?


                        Considering I bought the 1E book and didn't find out until later it was outdated, I too would like an answer to this!


                        Originally posted by tsusasi View Post
                        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.

                        Oh, there we go!
                        Last edited by Nyrufa; 04-22-2017, 08:11 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          There's no real comparison or metaphor other than a reboot, because that's essentially what it was.

                          Both Vampires share the same basic setting; the real world plus some supernatural gloss. The gloss is a different shade in each, but it's still the same world until you get to the details of supernatural societies.

                          Vampires, throughout other media and history, have huge variation. Both Requiem and Masquerade, however, share blood points/pool, blood bonds, The Kiss and general feeding methods, torpor, bloodlines, Clans (down to names and themes for some), disciplines (down to names and themes and powers for some to most), (some, if not all) weaknesses, (some, if not all) strengths, (some, if not all) themes, (most, if not all) inspirations, blood sorcery (if different styles of it), and other things I've probably missed.

                          Calling them different editions really isn't all that far-fetched. They're more similar than they're different, in the end. The only reason they would look very different would be because you're already a fan. From the grand perspective of all vampire fiction and how incredibly varied that can be, they're basically the same.

                          The closest equivalent I can think of would be Traveller, which has editions published from like seven different publishers, two of which are concurrent. Admittedly, the differences between those settings are less than between the *oD lines.

                          In the end, it doesn't matter whether you call them different editions or not, so long as you just let people play their preferred setting in peace.

                          It might be better to open a new thread if people want to continue this, though. As stated by others, we're far off course here.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                            To me, who published it is less relevant to the distinction between the games than the fact that they are set in different fictional worlds.
                            Yeah but D&D doesnt really have a "World" it has setting elements.....and thats about it. I think you were more on point with the Amazing spiderman & Spiderman 3 analogy.


                            Originally posted by nofather View Post
                            Someone liking one thing or another shouldn't have any bearing on this situation except to possibly take sides. But the idea of 'going backwards' seems to be a perception based on your past experience. I played Requiem first, never had to make a decision about which to play, because I wasn't interested in Masquerade. My experience could offer me a lot of arguments that, vary from yours or whoever elses, so its probably best to deal with the games as they are, rather than our own experiences with them.
                            I started with NWoD and i didnt read any of OWoD until Werewolf 20th was announced and yes it does feel like going backwards sometimes as there are some..... interesting design choices in the rules, on the vein of "OH GOD WHO THOUGH THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?" that would just not fly in more modern games. Example look up the regeneration rules in Apocalypse, is a convoluted mess that it could just be bypassed so easily (Also, whoever said werewolves regenerated more in apocalypse is plain wrong) that is just morbidly fascinating reading that mechanic, like watching a caveman invent a oval shape rock to not use the wheel. Or things like Pure breed which was indicator that "Balance" was a foot note on the suggestion box back them.

                            Or other choices that were so good that is kinda makes you shake your head that following version didnt carry them on. And for all the talk of NWoD/Chrod being a tool box, mage the ascension was the true tool box game of all the history of the WW/OPP games, never meet a game that told me:

                            "Hey dude, ever wanted to play amateur game designer?"
                            "Not really but...."
                            "Though luck kiddo!"

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by LokiRavenSpeak View Post
                              Yeah but D&D doesnt really have a "World" it has setting elements.....and thats about it.
                              Have you never heard of the Forgotten Realms? Its lore is more in-depth and convoluted than the WoD metaplot by a significant margin.


                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                                No, but it is a very similar conversation to comparing Golarion's elves (from Pathfinder) with Faerun's elves (from D&D). They share the same name, and the settings share a lot of tropes, but they do not have continuity between them, so it's weird to talk about "nerfs" or "buffs" between them.
                                Alright, then I think we are just arguing over semantics.

                                For these two statements:
                                1. "Masquerade Celerity felt more powerful as it gave you extra actions per turn, while in Requiem, Celerity concentrates more on defense and movement, with active use being just an initiative jump."
                                2. "Celerity is one of the disciplines that got nerfed in Requiem from Masquerade."
                                The first one is fine, but the second one peeves your pets, as it were? As long as you're not actually invalidating comparisons between Spheres and Arcana or Requiem Blood Potency and Masquerade Generation, then I think we are good. Don't call one a sequel, call it a reboot or a spiritual successor.

                                If we're not arguing semantics and you are arguing that there isn't any continuity between Requiem and Masquerade, and that there isn't any continuity between Pathfinder elves and Forgotten Realms elves - let me put it this way.

                                There is no direct continuity between chimpanzees and humans. Humans did not evolve from, evolve into, or replace any of the chimps living today. No chimp is going to naturally birth a human kid. But humans and chimps do have a common ancestor and share a significant chunk of DNA. If you don't recognize those connections you are leaving out a major element of their relationship. Humans and chimps do have a connection that is closer and a relationship that is more statistically important than the connection between humans and crocodiles or humans and trees. Pathfinder and Forgotten Realm elves have similar common ancestors and DNA. Earlier D&D editions for sure, Tolkein elves before that. 'The evolution of elves in fiction and gaming' is probably a paper out there somewhere.

                                To come back around, you can trace the changes to the Fighter character class between editions / retellings / versions / successors / incarnations / reboots / franchises of D&D, including everything from Chainmail to Spelljammer to Pathfinder. You can then argue the pros and cons for which one you think is the most powerful or best version. That's a legitimate conversation about mechanics in games with at least a common ancestor but also including sequels and new editions. I don't think it's fair to discount the mechanical, literary and creative continuities of these game lines just because there might not be timeline or direct-setting continuity.

                                If one person says that the Gangrel Clan Flaw isn't as limiting in the Requiem edition as opposed to Masquerade - you can either argue the point (Actually, it's more limiting because X), or you can argue semantics (by saying we should really call it more of a successor than an edition).

                                In the end, its coming across to me like you are saying that Requiem Ventrue are no more connected to Masquerade Ventrue than Pathfinder Elves are to Keebler Elves. That's what I'm having a hard time with. When someone says "Chimps and humans are different species," followed by "Tomatoes and humans are also different species." they have stated two true facts. But they have left out a very significant part of the story.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X