Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

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

  • Red Eye
    replied to [V5] The Masquerade
    Thanks very much.



    That is a perfect way to actually make use of this system. As noted, overt violations should be treated as automatic breaches (or more) - it is 100% for those situations where there is a chance that even if the characters don't really take steps to cover their tracks after the fact (or be smart enough to take steps to avoid a violation to begin with) you can truly leave the results up to chance rather than being completely fiat based. I enjoy taking this approach often in games, but I'm really good at rolling with the punches as it were.
    ...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to [V5] The Masquerade
    Hey, that is absolutely respectable, and much the reason for considering this to be an "Advanced Optional Rule" to begin with - much more a tool to be available if the ST feels like it could help them out, but easily tossed out the window if it isn't your cup of tea.

    That said, thanks for the overall compliment. I'll be testing it out soonish when I run my next V5 session, so don't be surprised to see some tweaks happen too....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to [V5] The Masquerade
    So, to be sure that I'm following this correctly, you're proposing having the city level situation have an actual mechanical feedback into the Coterie level Masquerade tracking as opposed to the other way around as I currently have it laid out? That might actually be a better way of going about it, actually, as it would still leave a lot of the background to GM fiat (which it realistically is anyways), and just had that filter down to the Coterie. I'll probably fiddle with this idea some soon....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to [V5] The Masquerade
    I generally agree. My plan for this, from a usage perspective, is to simply keep it around to help remind me about things I should be considering based on player action. It is nice and loose, so I can deviate as much as needed, but it helps to keep large picture details in perspective as the water gets more muddy....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to [V5] The Masquerade
    Well, yea, I can see how that would be confusing if you interpreted it that way.



    Correct - you fill in the boxes from left to right to represent Breaches.



    That is correct. If there are no empty boxes left on the Tracker and another Violation happens it is an automatic fail on a Revelation.



    The Masquerade is the whole of the system. You can view the blank boxes as being the static noise of the World of Darkness (the terrible stuff not related to vampires but rather caused by other mortals normally or the BS Kindred...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to [V5] The Masquerade
    Ok, added a small extra bit to the whole deal - a method for the system to be expanded to a "global" view in a Chronicle if a Storyteller wants to get into that. I consider it an Optional Advanced System staked on another Optional Advanced System, so certainly not recommended by any stretch of the imagination.

    I'll put the main system into effect in my own campaign in the next session, so once I playtest a bit you might be able to expect a few more tweaks. I don't think I'll touch the "global" portion any further as I don't intend to use it myself, but if people...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to [V5] The Masquerade
    Oh, I agree, the implications of attacks in the guidelines are more that the ST should be considering getting things to this point - not that they need to drop an Encounter right out of the gate. As noted above, it is meant to inform the direction you should be leaning based on how things have been playing out (and essentially the bad behavior of your PCs as it pertains to the Masquerade and lack of trying to cover up the issues they cause). Truth be told, an ST who is on point with things will probably do everything this system describes naturally without the need for a prompt - but it is now...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Red Eye; 10-11-2018, 03:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to [V5] The Masquerade
    Fear not on that, I'm happy to have it. It is very much a derivative work, as noted in the OP, and also something I cobbled together in my free time rather than professionally developing it - certainly don't anticipate it being perfect. Heck, I didn't even playtest it.



    That is absolutely fair, and I think it would be reasonable for an ST to allow that. I also don't think this is something that should be hidden from the PCs, they should be well aware of the state of the Track at all times, much like they are with their individual Humanity Tracks.


    ...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to [V5] The Masquerade
    Truth be told, Bloodlines Masquerade Violations has always made me want to do this. Seeing the concept presented in V5 terms pushed me to go ahead and flesh it out some more and tweak it to my liking.

    I did just make a small tweak in the OP relating to the Cover-Up stuff, specifically I don't have it reduce Violations anymore but rather add bonus dice to the roll the ST makes. I think this simulates better what a Cover-Up actually is, obscuring the truth in misinformation as opposed to making the issue truly go away (doing that would have prevented the Violation to begin with)....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I continue to dig your stuff. I'm also tossing my vote for go for broke with an oh so rarely clearly defined evil.

    That said, I've decided to not include my own session stuff in your thread - doesn't seem right to hijack it. I did go through my Session 1 with my troupe a week or so ago, and it went well despite it ending up as mostly me giving exposition (though my players kind of wanted that so they felt more comfortable as we dive into the situation at large, lots of talk about their respective Preludes). I may consider running a thread on it aside from this one, but I've been...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to Potence
    I wouldn't think so, but to be honest I'm considering bringing back the 3 levels of Damage again from past Editions as Aggravated (*), Lethal (x), and Superficial (/) seems like a good setup to me still. Halve Superficial, don't halve Lethal or Aggravated. Allow Kindred to heal Lethal like it were Superficial. Treat Lethal like Aggravated for Mortals in regards to healing, and allow Aggravated to represent supernatural damage that can't be healed at all for Mortals (giving them a whole new realm of terror to deal with)....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    started a topic [V5] The Masquerade

    [V5] The Masquerade

    So, full disclosure up front, this is a modification of an idea presented by Jon Munger in his blog that I happened to find while looking around at some resources online. The objective here is to turn the Masquerade into something of a mechanic similar in effect to Humanity that is tracked by the Storyteller. The real trick is that it works in the inverse to Humanity, in that as more Breaches happen fewer Violations are required to make a serious impact giving a sense of escalation. I liked the general premise and most of the composition of the idea, but as with most things in games I ended up...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Red Eye; 10-11-2018, 05:46 AM.

  • This thread is all sorts of fantastic. Thanks for tossing this up (and continuing to do so). This is a great way to provide some perspective to the Predator Types and show the myriad of ways that they can be put into practice. Looking forward to seeing you eventually get around to the rest of them. I'll no doubt be showing this to my players before we dive too much further in and see if this gives them any different thoughts on the types they have opted for.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to V5 - Occult or Streetwise?
    Page 323 talks about Kindred tagging and suggests the Pool would be:

    Intelligence + Streetwise (street tags)
    Intelligence + Investigation (repeated patterns)
    Intelligence + Insight (double meanings)

    Mortals need Intelligence + Occult to identify Kindred tags.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I use a mix of mechanics and narrative. If an NPC is going to lie, though, I will simply lie. My players know they have the option to question anything, and if they do I let them make a check to see what happens. Failure always means they simply aren't sure, they can be suspicious if they like but they have nothing more than their hunch. If they pass, I'll tell them for certain.

    It is fun that way, sometimes players will question outright truths, sometimes they just take lies at face value, sometimes they catch people on their bluffs. Kind of like it should be.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Alright, Xander as X was the highlight of this episode for me. Again, bias at play here since I absolutely love Xander and I absolutely love Malkavians. These first three Chapters have been fantastic, and I continue to look forward to more.

    Was a little sad not to see Alex (Jasper) this time, but such is the way of things. Will be interesting to see what they had their local sewer rat up to.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I'm pretty open to where they want to take it really. Will be interesting regardless. That said, I'm most excited about getting the Lasombra because it is another of the "Big 13" back in action on an official capacity.

    That and the added perspective it should give us of where things really are at with some of the major plot developments going on like the Beckoning, SI, etc.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to Hunger Levels as Descriptors
    That sounds like a good option, though I think I'll lean more towards this as a couple of those terms don't immediately scream "hunger" to me and rouse is already connected to spending blood in the game:

    0. Sated
    1. Pangs
    2. Hankering
    3. Craving
    4. Rapacious
    5. Ravenous
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to Hunger Levels as Descriptors
    I think this is a good idea. I did something similar with Resonance by giving it flavor descriptors. The only thing is you need 1 more level technically. Sated is at 0 Hunger technically, if you have points you are at least somewhat hungry.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Eye
    replied to V1 Games With V5 Rules?
    I'm actually essentially doing exactly this right now with a group. Sadly it is slow going as the group I wanted for this are all very busy these days so we have only really progressed through character creation so far. Essentially, I'm running the Chicago Chronicles starting at Baptism by Fire in 1990/1991 (well, just before making use of something on the Storytellers Vault) and working forward but using the V5 rules for the whole thing. Thus far I'm finding it to be ok as I work through the process of converting NPCs and that jazz over. My take on the mechanics make me inclined to think...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Red Eye
Red Eye
Member
Last Activity: Today, 05:25 PM
Joined: 05-27-2015
Location: Columbus, OH
Working...
X