W5 QA

[Technoma]

It's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD7vNsVtY9E"]this video[/URL] and the time-stamp is 30:32 where the section on Gifts and Rites starts and 32:28 where Justin talks about the "volatility" of Garou. Rites become easier the more Garou participate but if you have like 30 of them, some of them will freak out due to the Rage according to Justin Achilli.

But...such a thing changes the nature of Garou fundamentally. They earned so many of their victories by coming together as entire Tribes and Garou Nation. From War of Rage to Storm Eater.

Why would you do that? It's like taking Mages and saying "More than 30 Mages in an area makes reality unstable and gets you Paradox" to split up Mages.

[Knightingale]

How much was JA involved with VtR 1ed? Might this be a return to a mechanic he liked?

Because the other option still is to punish the players for trying to fix things on a larger scale than their own turf. At this point, all the stopgaps overshadow everything else. And make the game sound more and more one-note.

Justin Achilli was the main-developer for VtR 1E and considering his design-decisions for H5 and W5 so far, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Predator's Taint was his idea:

Vampires instinctively know other Kindred upon sight, as the Beast seems to call to other Beasts in its vicinity. Hackles rise, fangs distend and a sense of fear or territoriality overtakes a Kindred upon meeting another vampire for the first time. The urge is primal and bestial — the Kindred with more potent blood sees the interloper as a threat to his superiority, while the vampire with less potent blood instinctively feels a desire to flee this greater predator. Both Kindred potentially risk frenzy at the overwhelming surge of instinct, the aggressive vampire feeling the urge to attack the lesser to assert his dominance, and the “subordinate” vampire feeling a pressing urge to flee. Kindred of equally potent blood both feel the desire to attack each other and settle the matter of primacy once and for all. True, such compulsions abate once two Kindred are familiar with each other, but the initial experience can be terrifying — or perversely thrilling.

Personally, I never liked Predator's Taint. It's one of those extreme things that make you wonder how any sort of vampire-society could even exist in this setting.

Predator's Aura, the 2E version of this idea is much less extreme and that was a welcome change compared to 1E (Justin Achilli wasn't involved with 2E):

Every step she takes, every corner she turns, a Kindred’s Beast stands ready to face threats, to defend territory, and most importantly, to feed. To the Beast, everything is a challenge, a potential conquest, a meal, or a combination of the three. To other predators, the Beast is a palpable thing, something that identifies another monster.

This presence, the predatory aura, builds a paradox in Kindred society. On one hand, it guarantees vampires will never truly be civil, as all remain one misstep away from each other’s throats. On the other hand, it forces Kindred to hold tight to traditions and propriety, in order to keep the Beast at bay and force a modicum of nicety.

Without a Discipline or other ability to mask or suppress the predatory aura, Kindred perceive other vampires as their own kind. If they can smell the vampire, they know it’s a vampire. If they touch a vampire, they know it’s a vampire. Note that this is one-sided: One character may not notice the other. It’s not just the aura, it’s all the right cues. Kindred notice the shallow or nonexistent breathing of their kind. They notice the subtle, predatory tones in a voice. They smell multiple victims’ blood on another.

Further, a vampire can voluntarily intensify her predatory aura to elicit a reaction. Against other Kindred, this escalates the encounter, forcing fight or flight instincts. Against mortals, this asserts power and cows the lesser creatures. Lashing out with the Beast takes an instant action, and against Kindred costs a point of Willpower. It’s free to use against a mortal.

[Ana Mizuki]

But...such a thing changes the nature of Garou fundamentally. They earned so many of their victories by coming together as entire Tribes and Garou Nation. From War of Rage to Storm Eater.

Why would you do that? It's like taking Mages and saying "More than 30 Mages in an area makes reality unstable and gets you Paradox" to split up Mages.

The same reason you can no longer be a hunter from and org or a low generation vampire; Because JA wants the setting to be 'street' and 'punk' and so the characters have to be constantly struggling.

[Knightingale]

But...such a thing changes the nature of Garou fundamentally. They earned so many of their victories by coming together as entire Tribes and Garou Nation. From War of Rage to Storm Eater.

Why would you do that? It's like taking Mages and saying "More than 30 Mages in an area makes reality unstable and gets you Paradox" to split up Mages.

At the beginning of that same video, Justin Achilli also makes the strange assertion that with epic storytelling you can't tell personal stories. Therefore cutting out the epic stuff will enable players to focus more on the personal stories of their characters. He corrects himself later but it's still telling where Justin's priorities lie.

[MrNatas]

It's like taking Mages and saying "More than 30 Mages in an area makes reality unstable and gets you Paradox" to split up Mages.

You say that as a joke but I'd imagine that is exactly what is going to happen.

[Ana Mizuki]

You say that as a joke but I'd imagine that is exactly what is going to happen.

Which once more makes me ask; WHO is this for? Who wants to play a game where the scale is artificially limited and the game has a 30+ year history of being MUCH wider?

One shots I get, but a RPG book that costs 30+ dollaroos cannot just be a series of one shots.

[Newb95]

One of the things I dislike the most about V5 and Hunter so far is how static the characters are, it is evident that Achilli didn't want you to up your game and move the stakes too high but how boring would it be playing a campaign where nothing ever change with the characters? The xp rate is ridiculous and you are unlikely to ever get better, you will remain the underdog forever, where is the fun in that?

[TwoDSix]

Which once more makes me ask; WHO is this for? Who wants to play a game where the scale is artificially limited and the game has a 30+ year history of being MUCH wider?

I'd say Unknown Armies fans, but I'm not sure it actually limited the scale that much. 'Become a motherfucking god' is still a completely legitimate Objective*, and will still have every group aware of you throwing their resources into taking you down.

Also, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if M5 becomes a UA knockoff. People already compare the games a lot, and UA provides a ready model for street-level mages. Hell, Adepts have a really hard time fitting into society due to their self-destructive obsessions, which seems to fit Justin's idea of what a WoD chronicle should be.

Also, wasn't this exact thing an issue with CofD1e (and specifically Justin's vision of it)? It took the global scale of WoD and reduced it to the local level, and some people hated it. It only really started to grow its own feet when the designers started exploring different themes. Then of course Danse Macabre came along and added some of the global scale back into Requiem, and Awakening really just begins at the cosmic level and scales upward. But even at the beginning the games didn't strictly default to Street level, so W5 is going beyond what he did last time

* Although one the discerning occultist should reword.

[MrNatas]

Which once more makes me ask; WHO is this for? Who wants to play a game where the scale is artificially limited and the game has a 30+ year history of being MUCH wider?

One shots I get, but a RPG book that costs 30+ dollaroos cannot just be a series of one shots.

I don't really have a good answer besides PbtA fans.

I don't think there is a problem with having games be a series of one shots but, I don't think WoD is a good fit for that kind of game.

Also, wasn't this exact thing an issue with CofD1e (and specifically Justin's vision of it)? It took the global scale of WoD and reduced it to the local level, and some people hated it. It only really started to grow its own feet when the designers started exploring different themes. Then of course Danse Macabre came along and added some of the global scale back into Requiem, and Awakening really just begins at the cosmic level and scales upward. But even at the beginning the games didn't strictly default to Street level, so W5 is going beyond what he did last time

It was my problem with the game that is for sure. It's really funny how 1e CofD sold itself as "The New World of Darkness" and now with WoD5e its "The New World of Darkness." I just wonder how many times Justin is going to make "The New World of Darkness."

[Saur Ops Specialist]

As many times as it takes until the Stormwind Fallacy sinks in.

[Knightingale]

Which once more makes me ask; WHO is this for? Who wants to play a game where the scale is artificially limited and the game has a 30+ year history of being MUCH wider?

One shots I get, but a RPG book that costs 30+ dollaroos cannot just be a series of one shots.

Well... Justin Achilli just tweeted this:

Don't feel like you need to have a years-spanning chronicle of four-hour weekly sessions to tell your troupe's story. Three sessions of one hour each (or whatever else suits everyone's availability) can make an awesome story. Stories have ends, and planning for them is wise!

Of course, a good game helps the people at table with adjusting the game's framework depending on whether you want to run something closer to a oneshot in terms of length or a campaign. But instead I guess this is just another one of Justin Achilli's strange ideas where he now believes campaign-play is overrated.

[Ana Mizuki]

Well... Justin Achilli just tweeted this:

"Don't feel like you need to have a years-spanning chronicle of four-hour weekly sessions to tell your troupe's story. Three sessions of one hour each (or whatever else suits everyone's availability) can make an awesome story. Stories have ends, and planning for them is wise!"



Of course, a good game helps the people at table with adjusting the game's framework depending on whether you want to run something closer to a oneshot in terms of length or a campaign. But instead I guess this is just another one of Justin Achilli's strange ideas where he now believes campaign-play is overrated.

Welp, straight from the horse's mouth.

[MrNatas]

Whelp, pack it in. As long as Justin is behind the wheel and that philosophy is at the helm then any WoD5 game will never be for me.

[Newb95]

Yet another nail in the coffin for V5 and most likely the rest of WoD as long as Achilli is in command, I'm sorry because the guy set the basis for some really good stuff but I guess he never understood why people like WoD in the first place.

[11twiggins]

A big appeal of V20, W20, M20 etc. for me is that you can tell a tale of scrappy kids struggling to find their place in the world, or you can tell a tale of professionals at the zenith of their power, or both, or neither, or anything in between.

It can be a story of personal horror, action comedy, a war game, a romance, a serial drama, anything at all. Monster of the week. Slice of life. PVP. Unified party. Anything.

His issue is that he is making a System, a Corebook, a *game line* which gives instructions on STing and playing in the Justin Achilles style. It isn't a broad church. It is a very narrow club.