World of Darkness versus Chronicles of Darkness

[Iguazu]

While I too also prefer Blood Potency, I'm obliged to ask if you've thought about the consequences of that.

Generation in V:tM is there as the main implement of Masquerade's stagnant hierarchical positioning, the rotting edifice the curdles at every level and drips down. Power is exercised from on ancient high, and the modern low just have to deal with it (well, "just"), diablerie is the only way to inherently grow in power, and thus is more societally condemned but is more personally relatable and even sympathetic. It softly enforces the notion that the modern All Night Society is suffering from millenia old biases and prejudices that rots the world around it.

Blood Potency in V:tR, by contrast, is a lot more fluid, and centrally reinforces the notion that vampirism as a state is a lot more mutative and subject to change than in Masquerade. Elders no longer have a monopoly on power they can just sit on, they have to work, play, and keep up with the times, and the bloodlines of clans have power flow up and down the chain, and with that diablerie is more heinous but also no longer a threat to the entire structure of Kindred society. It's less related to the Kindred's existential threat, but it still helps to inform the notion that the biggest threat to them is the inclusion/intrusion of differing strains of vampirism that will change what it means to be Kindred if not properly excised or otherwise isolated.

In my limited experience of adjusting Masquerade with Requiem ideas, I tend to make Generation operate more like Blood Potency at it's lower tiers, allowing for the threat of a stagnant hierarchy to still be present, but to have a more organic threat in the lower generations because, in theory, the lower generations have an innate ability to rise in power the older generations don't have. Of course, I also had a system that for vampires getting locked into a generation as they rose up in it, so power still had it's association with stagnancy.

Anyways, the point is you want to think about the way Blood Potency would radically change the whole setting of Masquerade, because that singular aspect is one of the big reasons Requiem is so wildly different from Masquerade.

That's really not that much of an issue. In most vamp.-games, players won't live or last in game, for 50 years or be in torpor for 25 years unless I using their immortality in game, and run, say a story that runs the entire Middle-Ages. The beauty is, most of my players have never read Requiem and have no idea of what Blood-Potency is. Honestly, I think they'll like the fact that when they reach 7th generation, they can no substance from mortals.

[ArcaneArts]

That's really not that much of an issue. In most vamp.-games, players won't live or last in game, for 50 years or be in torpor for 25 years unless I using their immortality in game, and run, say a story that runs the entire Middle-Ages. The beauty is, most of my players have never read Requiem and have no idea of what Blood-Potency is. Honestly, I think they'll like the fact that when they reach 7th generation, they can no substance from mortals.

It's less a matter that'll affect the players personal play directly (in terms of what they choose and do) and more one that matter for the context of the setting, particularly for Masquerade, where so much of it's society functions and is shaped the way it is because the pyramid of power is a fixed structure- the rot and stagnation and archaicism of Masquerade's world gets to persist because it has the raw power to enforce it's continued presence over humanity and lower generations. That doesn't work with Blood Potency, that basically demands that vampires adapt, change, and grow with the times to maintain power.

Requiem elders are incentivized to be dynamic and have every reason to relish change, where the Masquerade elders are incentivized to be static and have every reason to hate change. Requiem neonates have a lot less to be desperate about in terms of their position in society-if you bide your time and shore up your resources, eventually you'll be one of the top dogs. Masquerade neonates are a lot more desperate and bloodthirsty-if you aren't willing to rip the person above you on the ladder down, you're going to just get shit on forever. So on and so forth

And it's kind of worse that you're players don't know Requiem but seemingly know Masquerade, because it sounds like you might be fucking with them by getting them to play your game with faulty assumptions. It doesn't sound like you're interested in their enjoyment with the way you put it.

[Iguazu]

It's less a matter that'll affect the players personal play directly (in terms of what they choose and do) and more one that matter for the context of the setting, particularly for Masquerade, where so much of it's society functions and is shaped the way it is because the pyramid of power is a fixed structure- the rot and stagnation and archaicism of Masquerade's world gets to persist because it has the raw power to enforce it's continued presence over humanity and lower generations. That doesn't work with Blood Potency, that basically demands that vampires adapt, change, and grow with the times to maintain power.

Requiem elders are incentivized to be dynamic and have every reason to relish change, where the Masquerade elders are incentivized to be static and have every reason to hate change. Requiem neonates have a lot less to be desperate about in terms of their position in society-if you bide your time and shore up your resources, eventually you'll be one of the top dogs. Masquerade neonates are a lot more desperate and bloodthirsty-if you aren't willing to rip the person above you on the ladder down, you're going to just get shit on forever. So on and so forth

And it's kind of worse that you're players don't know Requiem but seemingly know Masquerade, because it sounds like you might be fucking with them by getting them to play your game with faulty assumptions. It doesn't sound like you're interested in their enjoyment with the way you put it.

Elders are elders and whatever the Storyteller wants. Whether or not they are what they say they are on paper is a different-story. When we play V:tM, it's simply, "Vampire". We tweak the rules so much, it won't matter. And WoD games aren't the only vampire-games we've played.

[ArcaneArts]

Elders are elders and whatever the Storyteller wants. Whether or not they are what they say they are on paper is a different-story. When we play V:tM, it's simply, "Vampire". We tweak the rules so much, it won't matter. And WoD games aren't the only vampire-games we've played.

Enjoy your version of GURPS, then.

[Lysander]

One of the things I liked about VTR was the lack on generation and that when you reached a certain age and blood potency you could rival some of the most potent members in VTM.

[TwoDSix]

Enjoy your version of GURPS, then.

Honestly CofD is actually my version of GURPS, in that it's the system I can bend to pretty much any concept given prep time. Not that I do that much, I've got many specialized systems that'll do specific things better, but for really niche ideas it's not a bad default and hits my preferred power scale.


There are things I legitimately love about WoD, but very few I can't do in the more Functional CofD, and if it's not WtA I just can't be asked to deal with the mechanics. CofD is brimming with lore, tends to be more archetypal with options, and has an air of mystery that WoD at this point seems to lack. But a big personal draw for CofD for me is the way the game did historical settings. For WoD it was Dark Ages Everything, whereas CofD 1e had more breadth before 2e went all out with Dark Eras (the Sundered World is excellent, at least in part for making it clear everybody's history is at least somewhat corrupted). Plus sometimes the lore is genuinely just more interesting than WoD these days, I adore what Requiem 2e did with the Brood and various Lost Clans.

Plus CofD has a book dedicated to playing 200 year old vampires, which is IME what most people actually want to play. Part of me wants to run a Requiem Chronicle starting with Elders in the middle ages and then ending up with the players having legendary Methuselahs in the modern day.

[ArcaneArts]

Honestly CofD is actually my version of GURPS, in that it's the system I can bend to pretty much any concept given prep time. Not that I do that much, I've got many specialized systems that'll do specific things better, but for really niche ideas it's not a bad default and hits my preferred power scale.


There are things I legitimately love about WoD, but very few I can't do in the more Functional CofD, and if it's not WtA I just can't be asked to deal with the mechanics. CofD is brimming with lore, tends to be more archetypal with options, and has an air of mystery that WoD at this point seems to lack. But a big personal draw for CofD for me is the way the game did historical settings. For WoD it was Dark Ages Everything, whereas CofD 1e had more breadth before 2e went all out with Dark Eras (the Sundered World is excellent, at least in part for making it clear everybody's history is at least somewhat corrupted). Plus sometimes the lore is genuinely just more interesting than WoD these days, I adore what Requiem 2e did with the Brood and various Lost Clans.

Plus CofD has a book dedicated to playing 200 year old vampires, which is IME what most people actually want to play. Part of me wants to run a Requiem Chronicle starting with Elders in the middle ages and then ending up with the players having legendary Methuselahs in the modern day.

I think we might approaching the idea of GURPS from different angles, particularly since I mean it as a dirty word.

[TwoDSix]

I think we might approaching the idea of GURPS from different angles, particularly since I mean it as a dirty word.

I have issues with GURPS but it does fill an important space in the RPG landscape. It's not a bad game, but it's definitely not for everybody, in many ways it's a less flexible HERO.

Of course treating WoD as GURPS is not good, WoD is much more focused, but GURPS really shouldn't be a dirty word. If only because those sourcebooks are amazing.

[Spencer from The Hills]

What does that even mean? CofD have consistently built up on core world developing foundations and frequently fantastically. Both Night Horror and Dark Era books have deeply enriched the overall setting alone. The only distinction of note is Paradox's attitude on future 5e books vs CofD books, which is not an indictment of CofD in the slightest.

My biggest complaint is the rate of publication, which I assume has nothing to do with the writers' vision and abilities. But parts of Dark Eras Companions and Dark Era 2 felt thinly spread to me, especially compared to both Dark Eras I and books of the middle to late first edition.

[Dataweaver]

I have issues with GURPS but it does fill an important space in the RPG landscape. It's not a bad game, but it's definitely not for everybody, in many ways it's a less flexible HERO.

Of course treating WoD as GURPS is not good, WoD is much more focused, but GURPS really shouldn't be a dirty word. If only because those sourcebooks are amazing.

On the other hand, Chronicles of Darkness has Deviant as a gameline; and I get strong GURPS vibes (in a good way) off of Deviant. It's the “kitchen sink” of the Chronicles of Darkness. And that's something the World of Darkness lacks.

Incidentally, I got into tabletop roleplaying through Champions and GURPS, way back in the 1980s before there even was a World of Darkness. I also don't see GURPS as a dirty word; though I do understand where those who do are coming from.

[TwoDSix]

On the other hand, Chronicles of Darkness has Deviant as a gameline; and I get strong GURPS vibes (in a good way) off of Deviant. It's the “kitchen sink” of the Chronicles of Darkness. And that's something the World of Darkness lacks.

Incidentally, I got into tabletop roleplaying through Champions and GURPS, way back in the 1980s before there even was a World of Darkness. I also don't see GURPS as a dirty word; though I do understand where those who do are coming from.

Deviant is amazing, and probably the closest CofD will ever get to Gothic Punk. I love that it's one of the literal couple of CofD books I have that isn't PoD, although Geist 2e might join it soon. But it's definitely amazingly flexible while still keeping to the 'results of a lab experiment' theming.

My RPG experience is weird in that I started with BECM D&D in the noughties before playing stuff like Unknown Armies and GURPS in the early 2010s. GURPS is fine, and great for the people who actually want what it does (and I know someone who loves it).

[TyrannicalRabbit]

My biggest complaint is the rate of publication, which I assume has nothing to do with the writers' vision and abilities. But parts of Dark Eras Companions and Dark Era 2 felt thinly spread to me, especially compared to both Dark Eras I and books of the middle to late first edition.

Paradox's fault. *Shrugs*

[ShadowcatX]

I was a hard core fan of WoD back in the mid 90s, WtA was the game that got me into Roleplaying, which has remained a lifelong hobby. When NWoD came out I wanted to love it, and I just couldn't, everything about it felt wrong. So I moved on to other systems, but remained a NWoD hater.

When I got burned out on D&D esque games 20ish years later, I came back to WoD and brought my hatred of NWoD with me. I didn't care it had been updated and called CofD. And then I realized I was being closed minded and decided to give Deviant a chance, and I fell in love. Fell in love with mortals, Forsaken, and Geist as well. They are, IMO, all far better than their WoD counter parts, even before W5 basically ruined WtA for me.


ETA: Geist may not be better than Wraith but it seems much more approachable as a game. I love Wraith.

[Iguazu]

I was a hard core fan of WoD back in the mid 90s, WtA was the game that got me into Roleplaying, which has remained a lifelong hobby. When NWoD came out I wanted to love it, and I just couldn't, everything about it felt wrong. So I moved on to other systems, but remained a NWoD hater.

When I got burned out on D&D esque games 20ish years later, I came back to WoD and brought my hatred of NWoD with me. I didn't care it had been updated and called CofD. And then I realized I was being closed minded and decided to give Deviant a chance, and I fell in love. Fell in love with mortals, Forsaken, and Geist as well. They are, IMO, all far better than their WoD counter parts, even before W5 basically ruined WtA for me.


ETA: Geist may not be better than Wraith but it seems much more approachable as a game. I love Wraith.

Whereas I don't really hate NWoD, I must say that Requiem and Forsaken are vast improvements over Masquerade and Apocalypse in terms of gaming material; it's like every question you had in Masquerade was answered. I still love the OWoD games, NWoD is OK, and I'll play it, but I also like to play a mortal straight out of V:tPG rules or Hunter's Hunted. My first vampire game was in Cyberpunk's Night's Edge rules; then, we played V:tM, so, I have no set in stone ideals of what a vampire, should, be. I even like Van Richten's Guide to Vampires and I don't like D&D's version of vampires.

CoD, has some things I like, which I use, like sunlight-damage being dependent on humanity and blood-potency, which makes sense. Beast is awesome and the Dark Eras series. But I'm not going to throw out NWoD or OWoD books and only play CoD.


And the best Vampire I've seen played was Able Cain.

[Heavy Arms]

You do that that the "nWoD" and the "CofD" are just different editions of the same game right? Switching from "nWoD to CofD" is just moving from the first edition of the game to the second edition of the game; it's not nearly on the same level as cWoD vs. nWoD/CofD.