Vampire without Personal Horror

[Bloodtomb]

To be honest, I'm rather getting tired of the whole personal horror theme surrounding Vampire games like Masquerade and Requiem not to mention finding the whole inner monstrosity and angst a waste of time.

So basically is there any other Vampire game that has none of the whole "inner monstrosity" aspects like the beast, frenzying, etc and how can vampires function without them or is it even needed with them at all? Even though I think the whole concept of Frenzying came from Bram Stoker's Dracula where the titular character goes into a instable hunger when Jonthan Harker cuts his finger while slicing a loathe of bread, is this correct or no?

Anyways, I think it should be possible for a specific type of Vampires who have total agency of their actions and not walking time bombs that put everyone in danger around them if it's even possible.

[LibraryOgre]

While not exclusively a Vampire game, you might check out Apocalypse Prevention, Inc. (which, full disclosure, I occasionally write for). They have a 2nd edition out (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/150480/Apocalypse-Prevention-Inc-2nd-Edition), a pay-what-you-want quickstart (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/192580/Apocalypse-Prevention-Inc-2nd-Edition-QuickStart), and a Savage Worlds edition. (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/106523/Apocalypse-Prevention-Inc--Savage-Worlds-Edition) Oh, and an anthology, with a link in my sig.

One of the core races is the Taylari, who are a kind of living vampire. They've got the usual sorts of houses for intrigue, a "vampire face" mode they can enter for more fangy goodness, and the classic vulnerabilities, but watered down some (they don't burst into flames in the sun... it just is uncomfortable and gives them penalties). When they die, they become ravening monsters with their vulnerabilities cranked up to 11, but until then, they can live for centuries.

[Knaight]

Any number of generics could probably do this okay, and Fudge actually had a vampire adventure published in the Fudge Factor ezine*. Said adventure consisted of a group of PC vamps searching for an elder vampire that had awoken in modern times after a several century slumber, wandered around confused, and ended up at a carnival - where they found an arcade. It has a more serious tone than the summary implies, but said summary gives you a good idea of how much angst and the like is to be found.

*The site is now down, but I could track down a link somewhere.

[Bloodtomb]

One of the core races is the Taylari, who are a kind of living vampire. They've got the usual sorts of houses for intrigue, a "vampire face" mode they can enter for more fangy goodness, and the classic vulnerabilities, but watered down some (they don't burst into flames in the sun... it just is uncomfortable and gives them penalties). When they die, they become ravening monsters with their vulnerabilities cranked up to 11, but until then, they can live for centuries.

Well actually I'm specifically looking for undead type vampires.

[Kish]

Can you explain more about what you're looking for? Undead=yes, monstrosity=no, angst=no. So, powerful, immortal, undead, with no mental or moral downsides; do I have it right?

[Bloodtomb]

Can you explain more about what you're looking for? Undead=yes, monstrosity=no, angst=no. So, powerful, immortal, undead, with no mental or moral downsides; do I have it right?

Yep, pretty much.

It would make the Kindred from both Masquerade and Requiem to be 'lesser vampires' compared to them as if they're the 'final product' that every Kindred would dream about sort of like how Volkihar Vampires from Skyrim are compared to ones contracted with Sanguinare Vampiris as one prime example.

Basically it would make the Kindred as some of failed and flawed result hence why they're monsters with angst while I'm proposing are actual immortal blood gods who have cheated their mortal death as if being a vampire is their own 'afterlife' they fashioned themselves.

[sktarq]

Yep-DnD vampires, Savage species for 3.5 at least.

Libre Mortis gets into it a bit with rules on what happens when blood is not available and skipping vampire spawn for favored mortals.

Compatible with D20 Modern if you want to play in today's world.

[Bloodtomb]

Yep-DnD vampires, Savage species for 3.5 at least.

Libre Mortis gets into it a bit with rules on what happens when blood is not available and skipping vampire spawn for favored mortals.

Compatible with D20 Modern if you want to play in today's world.

But aren't DnD Vampires meant to be NPC only however?

Also there's this thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/238673/dnd_5ehelp_dealing_with_a_vampire_pc/) from reddit.

[sktarq]

As I mentioned Savage species and Libre Mortis are two books with rules for playing vampire PC's. Theses are add on optional rules.

They are NPC only as a baseline.

[Bohandas]

But aren't DnD Vampires meant to be NPC only however?

I don't know about 2e, but in 3.5 nothing core is NPC only; the closest thing are things without precalculated level adjustments

[Bloodtomb]

As I mentioned Savage species and Libre Mortis are two books with rules for playing vampire PC's. Theses are add on optional rules.

They are NPC only as a baseline.

If vampires are NPCs as a baseline, then it's by default out of the question without optional rules which even then it would feel discouraged which is the main problem.

I don't want to feel my options are really running low at this point.

[Lord Raziere]

Well you can always build one in Mutants and Masterminds?

Or make one in Fate....probably build one in Dresden Files RPG with the right power allocation:

Living Dead, -1
Supernatural Speed, -4
Blood Drinker, -1
Feeding Dependency +1
Inhuman Strength, -2
Inhuman Toughness, -2
Catch (Black Court weaknesses), +2
Human Guise, -0
Domination, -2

Total: 1/13 Refresh


Drinks blood, is undead, stronger, faster, tougher than any human, and mind-control people with all the classic vampire weaknesses. However if you want something more magical vampire:

Blood Drinker, -1
Feeding Dependency +1
Living Dead, -1
Beast Change (Bat), -1
Domination, Master Dominator, -4
Evocation (Shadow, Ice, Blood) -3

Total: 1/11 Refresh


Costs less, can turn into a bat, cast magic relating to vampire stuff, dominate minds, and if you include Black Court weaknesses you can gain more powers. if you want no blood, just take out the Blood Drinker and Feeding Dependency stuff and they will work just fine, just don't let your remaining refresh drop below one.

I'm not sure how you feel about universal systems but I'm sure they would work regardless. But neither of these rampage out of control. I created both of these long ago to fix this very problem, and I am happy to at least find some way of trying to use them.

[sktarq]

If vampires are NPCs as a baseline, then it's by default out of the question without optional rules which even then it would feel discouraged which is the main problem.

I don't want to feel my options are really running low at this point.

:smallfrown: so the fact they made an adaptation to allow for it, and published it doesn't make you think it is encouraged? That they did it twice?

By that standard they don't encourage Dragon PC's - which in the baseline rules they don't encourage it. But that didn't stop them publishing Council of Wyrms.


If you want something that you can't find instantly then turning to plug in adaptations and build your own systems is not running low on options. There are lots of systems that can be tweeked for it.

Hell you could play it in the Paladium system just dandy (they are angst free IIRC if you choose the right kind (not enslaved to alien vampire chuthulu lord)). But only if you can find an expert in running that system-which is a challenge.

[Kish]

As far as "meant to be," wish-fulfillment fantasies RPGs aren't uncommon (most superhero RPGs immediately come to mind), but I suspect every RPG that emphasizes "undead vampire" is going to be about exploring the monstrousness. It would, of course, be easy to create an Aberrant or Champions character as a vampire.

[Dimers]

Can you explain more about what you're looking for? Undead=yes, monstrosity=no, angst=no. So, powerful, immortal, undead, with no mental or moral downsides; do I have it right?


Yep, pretty much.

Ahh, then what you want is a--


superhero RPG

...

Right, that. Just about any would do.

Also, you could use VtR or VtM for overall structure and types of abilities, and then throw out useless crap like Rotschreck and Humanity.

[fishyfishyfishy]

The easiest method is probably just using Masquerade or Requiem and just ignore the parts you don't like. Take out Humanity/Path and just be up front with your players about your changes to the system and why.

[sktarq]

Also are you looking to be a PC or and ST/GM/DM in this endeavor?

[Bloodtomb]

but I suspect every RPG that emphasizes "undead vampire" is going to be about exploring the monstrousness.

This doesn't always have to be true though, since there's the anti-hero aspect as well or basically what you can remember from "The Crow"....


It would, of course, be easy to create an Aberrant or Champions character as a vampire.

Which this is not what I want though...


Also are you looking to be a PC or and ST/GM/DM in this endeavor?

I've actually created this thread to ask a question, I don't have anything planned at the moment but let's say both just in case...

[The Glyphstone]

I'm tempted to suggest Requiem with heavy use of Dudes of Legend. It completely disrupts any sense of angst or gloom when you're pulling mono-molecular katanas out from underneath trenchcoats, and those are the two of the less weird things in that 'book'. Sure, it's supposed to be an April Fools joke poking fun at people who play their gloomy gothic-horror vampires like 90's edgelord action heroes, but when you actually want to be playing a gloom-free vampire action hero, it does the job brilliantly.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yep, pretty much.

Oh, it's you again. Didn't we have a thread on essentially this about a year ago?


It would make the Kindred from both Masquerade and Requiem to be 'lesser vampires' compared to them as if they're the 'final product' that every Kindred would dream about sort of like how Volkihar Vampires from Skyrim are compared to ones contracted with Sanguinare Vampiris as one prime example.

Going by the Ordo Dracul there is no'final product' that every kindred would dream about.

So as far as I can tell you want all the bonuses of a vampire with none of the penalities? What is allowed? Bloodlust? A weakness to sunlight? Death/paralysis by stake? Because when you get down to it VtM vamps are actually a step up from the standard.

Although these days I'm more partial to GURPS VtM myself, because I prefer the system. You could actually do a half decent 'blood god' vampire in GURPS, I'll whip up a template when I'm not afb but the basic bit would be Supernatural Durability with Vampiric Bite, Unaging and Unhealing, maybe with Regeneration (costs fatigue). The package gets into the realms of 200-300 points, especially once you add in Injury Tolerance.


Basically it would make the Kindred as some of failed and flawed result hence why they're monsters with angst while I'm proposing are actual immortal blood gods who have cheated their mortal death as if being a vampire is their own 'afterlife' they fashioned themselves.

It's all a matter of perspective. The difference is that a Kindred not only has to work at being a blood god, but is still human in mindset. Heck, remove Humanity and give players a bunch of free discipline dots (say 8 in-clan and 3 out of clan) and I don't see why this isn't just Masquerade.

Or again, just run A GURPS game where everyone has a Vampire Template. There was a book for it in 3e I'm planning to get.


I'm tempted to suggest Requiem with heavy use of Dudes of Legend. It completely disrupts any sense of angst or gloom when you're pulling mono-molecular katanas out from underneath trenchcoats, and those are the two of the less weird things in that 'book'. Sure, it's supposed to be an April Fools joke poking fun at people who play their gloomy gothic-horror vampires like 90's edgelord action heroes, but when you actually want to be playing a gloom-free vampire action hero, it does the job brilliantly.

Ah Dudes of Legend. I still remember the vagina of holding as the one that made me go wtf. I especially love the one that gives you XP and a random item for murder. I occasionally get the desire to use it for a one shot, give everybody a mortal with 3 random hacks (removing the XP for murder one) and go nuts as Hunter: the Action Movie.

[sktarq]

Well as the Crow was a revenant not a vampire that is a whole nuther kettle of fish to draw from. WoD darkness revenants could be a place to start....revenge powers them.

actually being a vampire doesn't seem to be part of your criteria. . . undead..immortal...self realized. . . actually I think there was a left handed Mage path built around this idea and they have vampiric theme even.

and dudes of legend.....I'd actually tried to forget that existed .....its like finding a mahjong tile when reading tarot....but may fit his criteria

and as for why I asked the question...If you are only looking to play you'd have to convince someone else to do the work to set it up which limits your options. If you were running the game then tweaking existing rule sets may well get you closer to what you want.

[Morty]

There's no RPG that fulfils your highly specific requirements all by itself, so yes - if you want your blood-fuelled undead superheroes, you'll have to make it work. But as others said, it's easy. You can take Masquerade or Requiem and remove all the personal horror mechanics, which in Requiem at least is trivial. Or you can take a superhero RPG like Mutants & Masterminds and make PCs with vampiric powers. Or GURPS, as per Anonymouswizard's suggestion. You do have options.

[Anonymouswizard]

Or GURPS, as per Anonymouswizard's suggestion.

I do plan to throw up some other hacks to this thread, including a Fate one, but for now I'm doing what I said and building a basic 'blood god vampire' template.

I'm going more off movie vampires than mythological vampires here, so I'm missing a bunch of weaknesses and only using the most well known ones. With that said, the basic template.:
146 points
Attributes: -.
Secondary Characteristics: -.
Advantages: Doesn't Breath [20] Injury Tolerance (unliving, no blood) [25]; Immunity to Metabolic Hazards [30]; Night Vision 5 [5]; Supernatural Durability (Achilles heel: wood) [150]; Vampiric Bite (1HP per second) [30];
Disadvantages: Dependency (human blood, weekly) [-20]; Dread (holy symbols, 5 yards) [-14]; Infectious Attack [-5]; Uncontrollable Appetite (blood, 12) [-15]; Weakness (sunlight, 1d per minute) [-60].

A very basic vampire, in a game where everyone is one of these I suggest giving them 250CP so they can take the template and still have 100CP left to build a character.

Lenses are simple, daywalkers lose the weakness to sunlight for 60CP, 'Vampire Lords' lose Infectious attack and gain Dominance for 25CP, or whatever you want (if you have a specific idea for your vampires which isn't represented I can look through the books and try to pick advantages out) and just buy various advantages for powers (I suggest looking into Shapeshifting, Speak with Animals, and even Magery for mystical vampires). For vampires more like those of folklore there's decent templates in the Basic Set, GURPS Fantasy, and even one in GURPS Banestorm that works as a generic fantasy vamp.

[Thrudd]

Pick any somewhat generic system, and designate the powers your players get to have. Obviously, there is no game system that is already about this exact, very specific creature from your imagination.

GURPS works great, per the above posts. Even has a Vampire splat.

D6 Adventure/Fantasy could be used in a similar way, it just will need you to come up with your own advantages and point values for some of the vampire-specific things.

I also don't see why using WoD Vampire doesn't work, just giving the players more points to start with or taking away/ignoring some of the disadvantages. Lots of people have played V:tM more like supernatural superheroes than as what it was intended to be, anyway. It really depends on how the GM wants to run it.

[kyoryu]

Katanas and Trechcoats seems to fit the bill.

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/146958/Katanas--Trenchcoats-Episode-1-Welcome-to-Darkest-Vancouver-PREMIUM-EDITION?src=hottest_filtered

[MeeposFire]

If vampires are NPCs as a baseline, then it's by default out of the question without optional rules which even then it would feel discouraged which is the main problem.

I don't want to feel my options are really running low at this point.

Generally speaking you could have a vampire PC in 3e but honestly you would not want to. The cost in LA is so high that it actually hurts you in terms of ability.

In D&D the best vampire as a PC is in 4e in that it is fully playable. It is not the strongest class if done as per RAW (overall it has a decent floor but a lowish ceiling) but it works and will fit in your standard 4e group.

[Kish]

This doesn't always have to be true though, since there's the anti-hero aspect as well or basically what you can remember from "The Crow"....

I remember absolutely nothing about vampires from the Crow, and I don't know what you mean by "the anti-hero aspect." I can think of stories and settings in which vampires are anti-heroes (the movie Innocent Blood comes to mind). In all of them*, the angst you explicitly don't want is present and central.


Which this is not what I want though...

In what way?

If you want a game specifically about good-guy, undead, no-angst vampires (and not as one of multiple superhero origins in a setting where you can justify your superhuman strength, speed, and other powers in any way you and the GM agree on, like Champions)...you're not going to find it. Obviously it doesn't "have" to be true in that if someone published such a game the cosmos would not smite them, but it remains that no one has. (Edited to add: Except for April Fools' jokes, like the aforementioned Katanas and Trenchcoats.)

*I can also think of one or two stories in which vampires are purely heroic. They make me think "Champions or Aberrant." Again. But you said that's not what you want, although not why.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Dreamscarred Press's Lords of the Night for Pathfinder has quite a fun playable vampire template. While the ideas you mentioned are present in the fluff, the mechanics on it are mostly limited, and certainly don't rub your nose in it like a dog that cra***d on the rug like WoD does. It would require some work for a modern setting, though.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Honestly you can easily play WoD Vampires as this - groups less into psychologically meditative roleplay and more into superpowers frequently do. However, since you're apparently looking for a no-houserules pre-existing setting, there's...basically nothing. I mean you could do a superhero RPG and play ersatz Blade, which would be my suggestion, but you already shot down that idea for reasons I'm not really clear on. Really, there's enough fiction about a heroic paragon super-vampire smacking down more emotionally-crippled or evil vampires (Blade and literally every anime starring a vampire that isn't a harem sitcom, although evil values may vary there) that it's really not hard to use a more general system and copy such a setting for your own use.

[Dimers]

... Huh. Anybody know how well Feng Shui would handle this? It's been years since I read the rules, but the 'feel' of the game seems about right.

Speaking of superheroes, anime and relative evil. :smallsmile:

[Thrudd]

... Huh. Anybody know how well Feng Shui would handle this? It's been years since I read the rules, but the 'feel' of the game seems about right.

Speaking of superheroes, anime and relative evil. :smallsmile:

Feng Shui wouldn't really work too well. I mean, you can make a supernatural creature with vampire-like abilities, or a custom archetype with tons of creature powers and sorcery. But I think the expectation of vampire god/super heroes won't be met, exactly. You'd be ignoring 90% of the game, with all the guns and fu and different types of characters thrown together. The feel is more tongue-in-cheek action movie homage, full of one-liners and cliches and over the top spectacles. Think Hong Kong action from the early 90's, not so much anime or superheroes (unless you're thinking of "Black Mask" or "Heroic Trio"). I don't think there's a serious bone in the game's body.

That doesn't seem like what is being asked for, and would be a waste of a fine system.

[Lord Raziere]

Yeah, Feng Shui is for like, improvised hastily thrown together action movie fun when you can't come up with any better characters. No good customization at all.

[Mordar]

So basically is there any other Vampire game that has none of the whole "inner monstrosity" aspects like the beast, frenzying, etc and how can vampires function without them or is it even needed with them at all?

There was a game released long long ago (1990?) called NightLife...pretty simple, as I recall, but allowed for a wide array of "monsters" to be played in modern-era settings - vamps, werewolves, wendigo, lots of stuff - without the personal horror aspect.

I think there's a free PDF around. Simple, but it may be what you want!

- M

[Bloodtomb]

There was a game released long long ago (1990?) called NightLife...pretty simple, as I recall, but allowed for a wide array of "monsters" to be played in modern-era settings - vamps, werewolves, wendigo, lots of stuff - without the personal horror aspect.

I think there's a free PDF around. Simple, but it may be what you want!

- M

Actually NightLife does have a humanity system (for all creatures actually) therefore the Personal Horror aspect is still there and it's even worse than the WoD's because even using your powers can lead to the loss of humanity.

[Mordar]

Actually NightLife does have a humanity system (for all creatures actually) therefore the Personal Horror aspect is still there and it's even worse than the WoD's because even using your powers can lead to the loss of humanity.

I recall that being more of a limitation on power use than the neogothic "oh, the horror of losing the last vestiges of feeling and compassion and meaning I ever had...woe is me, I must dress all in black and brood, and at least I have a system to quantify how much broody brood I must do"...but maybe that was just how young me viewed it...

- M

[Dimers]

guns and fu and different types of characters thrown together. The feel is more tongue-in-cheek action movie homage, full of one-liners and cliches and over the top spectacles.

Well, it makes sense, then -- that's exactly what I'd be looking for in a game of vampires-without-personal-horror :smallwink:

[Talakeal]

Yep, pretty much.

It would make the Kindred from both Masquerade and Requiem to be 'lesser vampires' compared to them as if they're the 'final product' that every Kindred would dream about sort of like how Volkihar Vampires from Skyrim are compared to ones contracted with Sanguinare Vampiris as one prime example.

Basically it would make the Kindred as some of failed and flawed result hence why they're monsters with angst while I'm proposing are actual immortal blood gods who have cheated their mortal death as if being a vampire is their own 'afterlife' they fashioned themselves.

You could just play V:tM and use the Golconda rules to represent your "greater" vampires.

[Anonymouswizard]

Actually NightLife does have a humanity system (for all creatures actually) therefore the Personal Horror aspect is still there and it's even worse than the WoD's because even using your powers can lead to the loss of humanity.

So what do you want? An undead vampire game where struggling to retain your humanity isn't a thing at all (as it is in most media where vampires are protagonists?) already fully built?

Because that isn't really a thing. I suggest you find whatever vampire game you want and just houserule out the morality stuff (for stuff like VtR2e you'll need something else to activate gaining Banes). I mean, I wouldn't run it like that, but considering that I remember you saying you wanted all the specialty disciplines in Vampire the Masquerade what I want is on the opposite end of the spectrum to what you want.

[Morty]

Yeah, pretty much. Games that focus on vampires are going to have some personal horror themes in play, because it's a major feature of vampires as protagonists. "Blood-powered superheroes" is going to wear thin pretty quickly if you try to build an entire system around it.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

When you get right down to it, even a pulpy-action Vampire still needs to do harm to others to survive, which is pretty much the root of the personal horror. Without that, are you really even a vampire anymore?

[Lord Raziere]

When you get right down to it, even a pulpy-action Vampire still needs to do harm to others to survive, which is pretty much the root of the personal horror. Without that, are you really even a vampire anymore?

Depends. What is undead like a vampire, turns into a bat like a vampire, has greater and strength and speed like a vampire, can dominate others like a vampire, is hurt by holy crosses, sun garlic and stakes like a vampire, can only go out at night like a vampire, has no reflection like a vampire, has to be invited in like a vampire.....but doesn't drink blood from humans like a vampire?

Well either one who can just drink it from animals and owns lots of farms....

one who runs an oddly successful blood bank....

or one who has somehow outdone scientists everywhere by figuring out how to synthetically replicate blood in consistent enough quantities to sustain them practically lifetimes without anyone knowing....

a vampire who has cheated and somehow used magic to get out of it somehow.....

or the "vampire" is some weird symbiotic creature rather than parasitic that somehow grants a benefit that makes up for draining blood or life force. Not sure what that would be though. I certainly haven't seen any "symbiotic vampires" in fiction ever. but it would a realistic take on friendly vampires- for the victim, there is a benefit but getting some blood sucked out is a price you pay for it.

[Bloodtomb]

Depends. What is undead like a vampire, turns into a bat like a vampire, has greater and strength and speed like a vampire, can dominate others like a vampire, is hurt by holy crosses, sun garlic and stakes like a vampire, can only go out at night like a vampire, has no reflection like a vampire, has to be invited in like a vampire.....but doesn't drink blood from humans like a vampire?

Well either one who can just drink it from animals and owns lots of farms....

one who runs an oddly successful blood bank....

or one who has somehow outdone scientists everywhere by figuring out how to synthetically replicate blood in consistent enough quantities to sustain them practically lifetimes without anyone knowing....

a vampire who has cheated and somehow used magic to get out of it somehow.....

or the "vampire" is some weird symbiotic creature rather than parasitic that somehow grants a benefit that makes up for draining blood or life force. Not sure what that would be though. I certainly haven't seen any "symbiotic vampires" in fiction ever. but it would a realistic take on friendly vampires- for the victim, there is a benefit but getting some blood sucked out is a price you pay for it.


When you get right down to it, even a pulpy-action Vampire still needs to do harm to others to survive, which is pretty much the root of the personal horror. Without that, are you really even a vampire anymore?

Actually, I'm more aiming towards more dynamic or rather a "Omnivore" vampire that feeds on humans, animals and even other supernatural beings/creatures alike.

As for humans though, I think it's where Vampires adopt alien mindsets in order to survive and being more practicable. Of course they can consensual feed on a willing human, but of course there's also combat situations with humans where the vampire just drains them dry.

Of course there's also the climbing into windows and feeding on sleeping people (and them causing wet dreams), stalking in the allyways waiting to feed jump and feed on unsuspecting persons, seducing and luring someone into a back allyway to feed on them, or the classic pursuing a victim to feed on them....I guess these are rape metaphors? Then again even though when a vampire does all of that, it's still not actual rape though but rather a act of blood feeding via practical means when they're hungry? I guess it's easier for Vampires to adapt a alien mindset at this point but maybe there's more 'civilized' and "proper" ways of human feeding?

Or rather having vampires treating anything that bleeds like stockpiling ammunition and health?

[Morty]

I would say that a protagonist who has normalized drinking blood to the point where humans become fuel sources dives into personal horror territory, even without mechanics for it. And, of course, makes them a classical horror antagonist for other people.

[Bloodtomb]

I would say that a protagonist who has normalized drinking blood to the point where humans become fuel sources dives into personal horror territory, even without mechanics for it. And, of course, makes them a classical horror antagonist for other people.

I think this is where things get interesting when playing as vampires which is all about manner of perspectives which at this point, a Vampire would adapt a viewpoint that is alien which they would be monstrous from a human perspective.

I think it gives further ideas having vampires who are complex compelling characters but are seen as classical horror monsters/antagonists from a human (especially hunter) perspective especially playing into the "Vampires are misunderstood" or "Humans fear and despise what they don't understand" territory.

Since it's all rooted in the fact that Vampires require Blood to survive which to get it means it's also the same reason why Carnivore animals prey on Herbivore animals for food. So yes, Vampires mainly feed or kill for food, not outright murder & rape like humans do for self-pleasure as in psychopaths, narcissists, serial killers, etc do which I think Hunter: the Vigil explores this theme especially Slashers where humans can turn out to be worst monsters of them all.

Then again though, I commonly like to treat vampirism as one aspect of transhumanism.

[Cluedrew]

murder & rape like humans do for self-pleasure as in psychopaths, narcissists, serial killers, etc do which I think Hunter: the Vigil explores this theme especially Slashers where humans can turn out to be worst monsters of them all.But that's really what vampires are. The worst in us. No I am not a fan of vampire romance, why you ask?

[Bloodtomb]

But that's really what vampires are. The worst in us. No I am not a fan of vampire romance, why you ask?

I think you didn't read the context of my post carefully enough.

Unless the Vampire already was a actual serial killer/murderer, rapist, etc in their mortal life before the embrace (which they very most likely degenerate into complete monstrosity very quickly), otherwise Vampires are undead fantasy creatures that are in the basis of requiring blood of the living to survive which turns them into classic horror monsters from the human perspective but pitting them up against human serial killers/murderers, rapists, psychopaths, abusers, etc to make them indistinguishable not only does a disservice but also completely misses the point due to fundamental differences between that I've pointed out already.

Also I'm not a fan of any type of romance at all but more like the erotica aspect surrounding vampirism especially I would rather prefer vampires being sexual promiscuous/Polyamorous/Pansexual than anything else.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think this is where things get interesting when playing as vampires which is all about manner of perspectives which at this point, a Vampire would adapt a viewpoint that is alien which they would be monstrous from a human perspective.

This is actually close to what Humanity is in Vampire the Requiem 2e. Humanity is a measure of how human you think, and so the scale includes a lot of Breaking Points that aren't moral (and the moral ones are interesting as they are related to a vampire's need for blood). Just change what the lowest levels mean, Humanity 1 and 0 aren't mindless, just an alien enough money that humans can't help but feel like there's something wrong.


Since it's all rooted in the fact that Vampires require Blood to survive which to get it means it's also the same reason why Carnivore animals prey on Herbivore animals for food. So yes, Vampires mainly feed or kill for food, not outright murder & rape like humans do for self-pleasure as in psychopaths, narcissists, serial killers, etc do which I think Hunter: the Vigil explores this theme especially Slashers where humans can turn out to be worst monsters of them all.

Vampire feeding can easily be a metaphor for rape (that's as far as I'll go on it), and if we're saying they can create Ghouls then they're literally twisting minds. It's hard to say who's ultimately 'eviller' here.


Then again though, I commonly like to treat vampirism as one aspect of transhumanism.

You'd like the Ordo Dracul.

Now if you'll excuse me I haven't finished reading the Transhuman Space corebook.

[Bloodtomb]

Just change what the lowest levels mean, Humanity 1 and 0 aren't mindless, just an alien enough money that humans can't help but feel like there's something wrong.

I actually like this idea better, Humanity 1 and 0 vampires are utterly alien and difficult for humans to comprehend or understand (which they would appear utterly monstrous them) but at least they can be still playable though in this way and the possibility of them gaining humanity back from even 0 might be possible making the game more fluid and interchangeable.


Vampire feeding can easily be a metaphor for rape (that's as far as I'll go on it)

Well I also heard that Vampire feeding is also of a metaphor for drug addiction as well...

Then again though, since vampires are not metaphors but rather folkloric creatures that people once believed and feared, vampire feeding is not actual rape like the real thing is since the latter is about power and domination over the victim rather than feeding for survival and sustenance or rather I tend to see rape as sexual abuse and domestic violence to enforce systematic male power over women i.e. patriarchy whilst vampiric feeding is not actual sex at all (although feels pleasurable), it's more like a predator hunting it's prey in various ways.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Aye, but mythical folklores are by their nature metaphorical. The first chapter of the fantastic piece of popular history, "The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History" does a fantastic job at showing how French fairy-tales were all in essence didactic, teaching children through metaphors about the horrors of the adult world. Vampires in folklore bear little resemblance to their modern counterparts anyhow, and the modern forms have more to do with the popular anxieties of the literature-consuming populace of England and Germany in the early 1800s. Early vampires were another form of bugbear, a supernatural punishment for sins committed, doubling as handy cover for murderers (Oh man, a whole pile of people in the village Arnold Paole lived in have started dying, soon after he died. He must have returned from the grave!). Literary vampires began as a metaphor for paganism, then as a metaphor for sexual lust in a sex-is-bad-for-you-because-men-are-violent kinda way. This latter theme is a constant in vampire literature up to the modern day, with varying subtle differences.

[Cluedrew]

I think you didn't read the context of my post carefully enough.I did head it carefully, but I was just trying to cut to the point that vampires seemed to (in the old stories) be representative of the darkest side of humanity. Those that make there life by destroying others. Like Vlad the Impaler (often cited as the inspiration for Dracula) who impaled some incredible number of enemy soldiers to strike fear into the enemy follows this kind of idea.

Of course there are plenty of variations, vampire as sexuality, vampires as addition or temptation and even vampires as the upper class.


Then again though, since vampires are not metaphors but rather folkloric creatures that people once believed and fearedAren't vampires relatively modern? I don't think they were ever an explanation for anything (I have seen the dead walking come up, but I can't remember a case were it was described as a vampire).

[Anonymouswizard]

Aren't vampires relatively modern? I don't think they were ever an explanation for anything (I have seen the dead walking come up, but I can't remember a case were it was described as a vampire).

AFAIK vampires and zombies both have the same situation, where there's a folkloric creature they may be based on, but the modern version is vastly different. The earliest I can find something I'd immediately say 'vampire' to is in Victorian literature, with the first being I'd call a modern vampire potentially being Count Orlok, and even then I believe it took another few decades to hit the modern agnsting version. Although I'll occasionally snark about how twilight vampires are 'magical golem creatures' I actually don't hate them as a variation on the modern vampire.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Depends on how closely you define "vampire". If one goes as simple as "Demon or Corpse that eats flesh or drinks blood", you could include the Pishacha, ancient Hindu demons that haunt cremation grounds and eat flesh, as well as the ancient Greek demigoddess Empusa, who seduced sleeping men and drank their blood. I would like to include the ancient Greek Strix, an owl-spirit that fed on the blood of children, even if it wasn't well known amongst the ancients, as the term would be remembered to form several warlock-vampire type myths, one we see below in the myth of Jure Grando, and another is as early as the Jewish 12th century text Sefer Hasidim mentions a blood-consuming female demon called the Estrie, which has its descendence from the Greek Strix. The Turkic Hordan also counts here, being the spirit of the deceased that feeds on blood, not the body of the deceased. If one counts "violent corpse risen from the grave", then you can go to 12th century Europe, or perhaps earlier, where they fall under such titles as english Revenants, norse Draugr may count.

The first Balkan tales of vampires have several similarities: The early signs of a vampire were simply a restless, malevolent corpse that did not decay in the ground that is destroyed by exhumation and beheading, staking, or cremation, bloated and ruddy in complexion (from consuming blood), and sometimes oozing or weeping fresh blood, especially when destroyed. Thus we may be able to include the Greek Vrykolakas, literally "wolf-haired", a kind of cross between a vampire and werewolf, who shared all these traits. The Vrykolakas was a man who died from eating the meat of a sheep who had been attacked by a wolf, and displayed wolf-like qualities after rising from the grave. They hunted by knocking on the door, and if you answered after a single knock, you would be cursed to die soon. They are first attested to in 1645, though we are told no specific cases. I think we could agree that the tale of Jure Grando, called a "Strigon", from Istria (modern day Croatia), is a vampire tale. His vampiric predations are said to have taken place between 1656 to 1672, and involved the sexual assault of his widow, and murdering people, but not before knocking on their doors, eventually driving his children far away into Italy. According to local tales, they tried to stake him while he was moving, and then stake his body when they disinterred him, but couldn't pierce his skin, until they decapitated him. His story was written in The Glory of the Duchy of Carniola by Johann Weikhard von Valvasor, which is considered the first written account of a vampire, published in 1689. At that time, even the 'first' death of Jure Grando would have been in living memory.

The "vampire" was a purely Balkan phenomenon until the Austrian Empire took over Serbia in the early 1700s, by which point the Serbian word vampir is attested to. Officials canvassing the area noted that the peasants had measures against vampires, and these were publicized broadly across the German-speaking world. The height of "vampire fever" was between 1720 and 1750-ish, as villages across Germany, Hungary, Romania and the Balkans feared the dead rising to murder them. It was in this time that drinking blood came to be associated with vampires. Two of the most famous at this time, Sava Savanovic, and Petar Blagojevich, both Serbians, were said to have drank blood. Those two, coincidentally, are also considered the first named Serbian vampires. Much has been written about the latter vampire especially, as his case was widely publicized at the time (1725). This led to a spate of mostly theological treatises on vampires, notably the Traite sur les apparitions des esprits et sur les vampires ou les revenans de Hongrie, de Moravie, &c of 1751 by Antoine Augustin Calmet, initially published in an abbreviated version in 1746. Most of the 2nd tome of this treatise dealt with vampires.

At about this point, it started to reach into literature, and transform. In literature, it quickly became a vehicle for erotic moralizing. One of the first literary treatments, the 1748 German poem "The Vampire", was about a Vampire seducing a young maiden to convince her that Christianity wasn't the right path. For a while after that, its treatment tends to be of love rather than sex (a loved one is turned into a vampire and then seeks to kill their husband/wife/lover), until it hits massive popularity in "penny dreadfuls" of England. The campy-sounding weekly pamphlet Varney the Vampire of 1845 brings the Vampire into the lamplight, including the classic "coming to the window of the sleeping maiden", with all the accompanying, ahem, subtext. Varney is the first occurrence of fangs, the puncture wounds in the neck, the super strength, and the hypnotism. Fear of the sun has not yet entered the vampire tale. Carmilla is obvious in its fantastic sexuality, again using the Vampire as a metaphor for sexual 'perversion', to use the mores of the time. But its not until Dracula that all of the aspects of the modern vampire come together in one. Carmilla and Dracula are both highly linked, despite the decades that separate them; the authors knew each other, and both grounded their lengthier, more serious vampire stories in research of actual myths. Much, of course, has been written about sexuality in Dracula, though it isn't as lurid as it is in other texts.

[Faily]

Lots of awesome history on the folklore about vampires.

<3 <3 <3

I love it whenever I stumble over such educational posts on a forum. :smallbiggrin:

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Psh, you should see me on medieval Islamic history... :P

[Anonymouswizard]

Yes, I admit I was paraphrasing horribly and inserting personal opinion because I only have a vague idea on the subject.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Yes, I admit I was paraphrasing horribly and inserting personal opinion because I only have a vague idea on the subject.

Oh, you were mostly correct, just a matter of a decade here or there in your dating, I was more expanding on what you wrote for those interested.

[Cluedrew]

That's pretty impressive. I don't think I have to clarify what I'm talking about.

[Faily]

Psh, you should see me on medieval Islamic history... :P

Are you trying to seduce me? :smallwink:

In all seriousness though, I am always happy whenever I see forum posts consisting of facts and knowledge. There's too much BS noise on the intrawebz (to which I contribute too, sadly), so it's like finding a gem in the dirt.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Are you trying to seduce me? :smallwink:

In all seriousness though, I am always happy whenever I see forum posts consisting of facts and knowledge. There's too much BS noise on the intrawebz (to which I contribute too, sadly), so it's like finding a gem in the dirt.

Hey, PM me with a question or starting point if you want, I always enjoy an opportunity to write, I don't get it as often nowadays.

[Bloodtomb]

Anyways my main aim here is to remove the christian morality play from VtM (especially what the humanity and golconda is about) and the game should be more about the necessities to survive as a vampire and night to night activities they do.

Or rather running a horror/thriller game with Vampire protagonists who happen to stumble across or run into or lead into something far worse than them.

Or a general "action/horror/thriller" game involving vampire and other supernatural politics and such.

[Morty]

Right, and people have provided several ways with which to do so. The easiest, perhaps, being "take Masquerade or Requiem and remove the unfitting elements".

[Faily]

Anyways my main aim here is to remove the christian morality play from VtM (especially what the humanity and golconda is about) and the game should be more about the necessities to survive as a vampire and night to night activities they do.

Play Vampire the Reqiuem/Masquerade and ignore the rules for Humanity and Frenzy.


Or rather running a horror/thriller game with Vampire protagonists who happen to stumble across or run into or lead into something far worse than them.

Play Vampire the Reqiuem/Masquerade and ignore the rules for Humanity and Frenzy. Set off the Gehenna-plot.


Or a general "action/horror/thriller" game involving vampire and other supernatural politics and such.


Play Vampire the Reqiuem/Masquerade and ignore the rules for Humanity and Frenzy. Go nuts with Sabbat vs Camarilla.

[Kish]

What you want seems straightforward enough, Bloodtomb. The puzzling thing is that it seems like you...don't actually want it unless it's also an official, no-house-rules-needed game.

[Bloodtomb]

Play Vampire the Reqiuem/Masquerade and ignore the rules for Humanity and Frenzy.

Perhaps one effective way for a Personal Horror story I could imagine is only if the game's story is personal and about the character's themselves and has less focus on what's going on in the outside world which maybe it's only suitable for fledgling vampires?

For example takes the plots of "Lost Boys" and "Near Dark" alter things around (like taking things I like best from them) and running things from there like for example, a young adult/eighteen or nineteen year old girl gets embraced and join a vampire gang which meanwhile her parents get worried and start looking for her which eventually they bring her back but soon discover that their daughter is a vampire and they try to treat her via medical means (like blood transfusions) but not only they're unsuccessful, their daughter then ends up in a blood hunger frenzy, killing her parents by draining them dry and then the gang returns back to her house and explains to her this is the reason why it's dangerous to mettle into mortal affairs no matter how much she wants a connection to her mortal life the protagonist now realize in horror of the monster she's become, with no place to go and not other choice she rejoins the gang hopefully to not only avoid repeating the same mistake but also anticipates eternal nightlife fun free of her her parents of course (although she graduated from High School before she got embraced).

However though, maybe to shift matters to the outside world, I guess either personal horror needs to be ignored or serve as a backstory for when the characters got embraced?


Play Vampire the Reqiuem/Masquerade and ignore the rules for Humanity and Frenzy. Set off the Gehenna-plot.

I wasn't really thinking of Gehenna at all actually (which BTW I don't want to use nor happen at all) but rather have a group of vampires investigating something leading to something like Silent Hill territory or rather Surreal Horror.

Or another idea would be a group of Vampires stumbling across a upon a actual Wendigo from Algonquian folklore, not the Werewolf tribe.


Play Vampire the Reqiuem/Masquerade and ignore the rules for Humanity and Frenzy. Go nuts with Sabbat vs Camarilla.

Or what about going up against both the Camarilla and the Sabbat while either siding with the Anarchs (or use them as pawns) and go autakris after that? Also what about Vampires attempting to set up a Masqueradeless world where humans and vampire coexist like in True Blood? In order to do that, both sects have to be destroyed in order to safely present vampires to the world without sparking a genocidal war which I think the goth culture, vampire blood fetishes, a culture where vampirism is welcoming not something to be feared and despised, etc would defiantly help especially with the help with the Hollowed One Mages to accept vampires into the consensus.

I think all of this is actually steps to prevent Gehenna since what if few Kindred discover that if they hide their existence for too long, they too would fade away from paradox in the form of Gehenna (especially the wormwood scenario) and perhaps Thin Bloods and the Withering are links to this. So in order to prevent Gehenna from happening, Vampires (and perhaps other Supernaturals) have to be accepted into the consensus or else they die sort of.

Or maybe Vampire Fiction and strong prevalence of the belief of vampires contributes to the threads to the existence of Vampires.

[Faily]

Well, now we're venturing into territory of plots to run in a Vampire game... and have left behind territory of a mechanical game.

Guess this means you've accepted that you can use Vampire: tR/tM regardless of what you want to play? Because you can run most of that stuff and more with the ruleset of Vampire, while ignoring the parts of the mechanics you don't like (Humanity).

That's the beauty of most systems, after all. Don't like it? Change it or ignore it.

[BWR]

Bloodtomb, do you even know what you want?
You say you want a game with certain mechanical elements removed, but don't want to do the easiest thing in the world, which is remove them.
People give good advice which is roundly ignored with some incoherent mutterings about 'that's not what I want' despite everyone else getting the feeling it is exactly what you want.
Then you completely jump on to plot elements as if it were the same thing as mechanics, and bring up an example which is very much about personal horror/humanity (Lost Boys) as what you want a game without those elements to be like.

Please, we are trying to help but we are getting conflicting messages.

[Particle_Man]

FWIW, Pathfinder has a Vapirish race with subraces (half living children of vampires birthed by human females) that you can play from level one:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-dhampir

[Kish]

Or what about going up against both the Camarilla and the Sabbat while either siding with the Anarchs (or use them as pawns) and go autakris after that? Also what about Vampires attempting to set up a Masqueradeless world where humans and vampire coexist like in True Blood? In order to do that, both sects have to be destroyed in order to safely present vampires to the world without sparking a genocidal war which I think the goth culture, vampire blood fetishes, a culture where vampirism is welcoming not something to be feared and despised, etc would defiantly help especially with the help with the Hollowed One Mages to accept vampires into the consensus.

Hollow One, not Hollowed One. It's supposed to evoke a T. S. Eliot poem and a sense of despair, not the victim of an extra-gruesome Tzimisce experiment.

If you start from that premise and don't want personal horror, I'd suggest you'd need to come up with an explanation for why every existing vampire government is so overtly vile.

(The short-lived TV show Kindred: the Embraced, which was loosely based on Vampire: the Masquerade, had pretty much exactly what you appear to be looking for; it deleted the Sabbat entirely and its very-vaguely-resembles-the-Camarilla Kindred society was benevolent.)

[Bloodtomb]

FWIW, Pathfinder has a Vapirish race with subraces (half living children of vampires birthed by human females) that you can play from level one:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-dhampir

Problem is, I don't want to be a Dhampir but rather the real deal.


If you start from that premise and don't want personal horror, I'd suggest you'd need to come up with an explanation for why every existing vampire government is so overtly vile.

Or rather the other alternative is not use the Camarilla and Sabbat at all (and no Gehenna, Noddest subplots and removing the beast entirely), hell what about no vampire government at all but rather vampires are extremely rare in between?


Bloodtomb, do you even know what you want?
You say you want a game with certain mechanical elements removed, but don't want to do the easiest thing in the world, which is remove them.
People give good advice which is roundly ignored with some incoherent mutterings about 'that's not what I want' despite everyone else getting the feeling it is exactly what you want.
Then you completely jump on to plot elements as if it were the same thing as mechanics, and bring up an example which is very much about personal horror/humanity (Lost Boys) as what you want a game without those elements to be like.

Please, we are trying to help but we are getting conflicting messages.

Sorry but I think my mind is all over the place and I think I'm just coming up with hypothetical scenarios (like the Lost Boys, the entire "Gehenna" scenario) that was in my mind but doesn't mean I'll use them.

Anyways to be more clear what I want, is simply a game without any personal horror elements (like the beast, frenzying, etc) or the threat of becoming a wight/dragur (otherwords a mindless beast) exists or at least a game that doesn't have any signs or hints of inevitability to them like Masquerade or Requiem may have.

Basically a setting where Vampires are not predisposed to do evil and they're free to choose any path they want and their blood drinking is simply how they maintain their undead bodies and of course using their powers of course and healing.

Or another idea would be downplaying the "Personal Horror" aspect especially making the beast something minor and more instinct based that helps the vampire survive and keep themselves alive something like blood hunger? But there is no humanity system however or any threat that the "beast" is going to take over, it's just there to help the vampire survive although they can easily control it when they don't "need it".

[Bloodtomb]

double post

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I again recommend DSP's Lords of the Night book. I actually had a dhampir character that was angling to be converted by his father into one of them.

[Cluedrew]

Problem is, I don't want to be a Dhampir but rather the real deal.Just re-flavour it if that is your only issue.

Although honestly the more I here the more I feel like you don't want to play a vampire, more a human with vampire themed powers.

[The Glyphstone]

Just re-flavour it if that is your only issue.

Although honestly the more I here the more I feel like you don't want to play a vampire, more a human with vampire themed powers.

Well that's the question, isnt it? Is a vampire defined by their powers+abilities, or by their genre?

[Cluedrew]

Considering how much both vary, it is hard to say. But the point I was making is that the vampire is a non-human (or a corrupted human). What this means varies, but it usually means something. Here it seems to mean nothing more than "drinks blood". Which is not invalid, but does not really seem to be doing much with it.

Actually I think the otherness is probably more important than the powers+abilities, because with out that they are just humans. ... "just" might not right word.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Anyways to be more clear what I want, is simply a game without any personal horror elements (like the beast, frenzying, etc) or the threat of becoming a wight/dragur (otherwords a mindless beast) exists or at least a game that doesn't have any signs or hints of inevitability to them like Masquerade or Requiem may have.

Basically a setting where Vampires are not predisposed to do evil and they're free to choose any path they want and their blood drinking is simply how they maintain their undead bodies and of course using their powers of course and healing.

Requiem doesn't have ANY hints of inevitability, especially in 2nd edition. Masquerade doesn't either if you don't want it to, it's just more prominent in fluff that you can just ignore. It doesn't require much work at all to take out Humanity and Frenzy, literally just ignore any sentence that mention them and you're fine. Done. Your system is there. Why aren't you taking this system? You're no longer penalized for being a terrible person, you don't have to worry about losing control, hell, you can play under a perfect Carthian democratic utopia where everyone is happy and rainbows! You can make it as un-angsty as you can possibly imagine, anything in between! If you don't want them to drink to survive, just say that you don't need to spend Vitae at the beginning of every day, then it's only used for power and healing even.

This doesn't require any actual WORK on your part. All you have to do is tell your players "We're playing Requiem, only no Humanity, no Frenzy, and no spending Vitae at the beginning of each day". Done. That's the extent of work it would require to get your perfect setting. That one sentence. Right there.

[Bloodtomb]

Just re-flavour it if that is your only issue.

Although honestly the more I here the more I feel like you don't want to play a vampire, more a human with vampire themed powers.

Actually, Vampires are undead that defiantly can be human, but only need blood requirement just like Zombies need flesh/brains.


Considering how much both vary, it is hard to say. But the point I was making is that the vampire is a non-human (or a corrupted human). What this means varies, but it usually means something. Here it seems to mean nothing more than "drinks blood". Which is not invalid, but does not really seem to be doing much with it.

Actually I think the otherness is probably more important than the powers+abilities, because with out that they are just humans. ... "just" might not right word.

Well actually, Vampires to me are the most powerful and strongest of the Undead that require only blood unlike Zombies who require flesh and brains (they require to kill their victims unlike vampires who can leave their victims alive), Revenants who only function to solve their unfinished business before returning back to their graves to finally rest in peace, Liches who are just robed walking skeleton mages, etc.

Basically the reason why I choose Vampires is because they're most ideal type of Undead to play as unlike the others who are either walking living corpses that are still rotting (Zombies) or walking skeletons and above all else, they're actually immortal. Basically I view Vampirism as legitimate immortality and cheating death and one way of transhumanism of becoming something greater and more powerful.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well that's the question, isnt it? Is a vampire defined by their powers+abilities, or by their genre?

I don't know, Fate has a setting that's 'Soap Opera with Witches', but it could easily be changed to a different kind of supernatural creature with just some refluffing or altering the spells to different powers. What happens when a newly embraced member of the five clans becomes a sure without permission (intentionally or accidentally)? What happens when a demon spies an angel and a fairy in a secret relationship? (Yeah, I don't actually enjoy soaps myself so the examples are poor)

Back on topic, I think we actually have two separate issues here, and I think The Glyphstone has come up with a good way to separate them.
Powers: vampires with vampire powers, but without the 'mental' drawbacks.
Genre: a lack of personal horror.

Of these issues I'd say the first is basically a nonissue as far as vampires go. There are many stories where vampirism doesn't cause people to become monsters, with them instead becoming monsters as they get used to being a vampire. I also personally dislike how Masquerade and Requiem deal with this, I think a Humanity meter is just wrong for this, although touchstones are great. I actually also dislike Draugr/Wights (although Requiem did come up with something interesting, that being Revenants), and even if running with humanity I'd probably run The Beast as closer to The Other from the old Chronicler's Guide, I love the 'Snowman' take on instinctual vampires.

I think what I'd do if running Requiem (these days I'm highly unlikely to run Masquerade) is I'd replace Humanity with a 'Attrocity' meter, and not have touchstones attached to ratings (this requires a rethink of the Ventrue Bane, but it needed one anyway*). Attrocity would build up with certain actions, and determine how bad your names are (although with no cap, meaning that you'd better have Touchstones to help you drop it). Dropping Humanity entirely also works.

You can also drop Clans from Requiem without too much change, and one of the 2e example settings is a city why large scale interaction between Kindred is very difficult, although not impossible. You could also remove Covenants and make Kindred rarer, but that would change the game a bit more.

EDIT 1: I love how Requiem 2e is set up so Kindred are slowly lured into using their powers. For all disciplines the basic uses are free, but more power (and higher level powers) require vitae. When you can already give people commands they can't refuse, is it massively worse to use a little Vitae and give them a more complex command.

EDIT 2: zombies don't automatically crave flesh/brains, plenty are mindless servitors, or ordinary people a tad vitally challenged.

* Always wanted to bring back the refined palate anyway, although now I think about it the Gangrel bane could also be updated.

[Faily]

Requiem doesn't have ANY hints of inevitability, especially in 2nd edition. Masquerade doesn't either if you don't want it to, it's just more prominent in fluff that you can just ignore. It doesn't require much work at all to take out Humanity and Frenzy, literally just ignore any sentence that mention them and you're fine. Done. Your system is there. Why aren't you taking this system? You're no longer penalized for being a terrible person, you don't have to worry about losing control, hell, you can play under a perfect Carthian democratic utopia where everyone is happy and rainbows! You can make it as un-angsty as you can possibly imagine, anything in between! If you don't want them to drink to survive, just say that you don't need to spend Vitae at the beginning of every day, then it's only used for power and healing even.

This doesn't require any actual WORK on your part. All you have to do is tell your players "We're playing Requiem, only no Humanity, no Frenzy, and no spending Vitae at the beginning of each day". Done. That's the extent of work it would require to get your perfect setting. That one sentence. Right there.


+1 to this!

[Kish]

Actually, Vampires are undead that defiantly can be human, but only need blood requirement just like Zombies need flesh/brains.



Well actually, Vampires to me are the most powerful and strongest of the Undead that require only blood unlike Zombies who require flesh and brains (they require to kill their victims unlike vampires who can leave their victims alive), Revenants who only function to solve their unfinished business before returning back to their graves to finally rest in peace, Liches who are just robed walking skeleton mages, etc.

Basically the reason why I choose Vampires is because they're most ideal type of Undead to play as unlike the others who are either walking living corpses that are still rotting (Zombies) or walking skeletons and above all else, they're actually immortal. Basically I view Vampirism as legitimate immortality and cheating death and one way of transhumanism of becoming something greater and more powerful.
Okay. And?

This is the puzzling thing. You seem to slip back and forth on whether you're looking for a system in which to run a game, or a system that validates your interpretation of vampires.

[Cluedrew]

Actually, Vampires are undead that defiantly can be human, but only need blood requirement just like Zombies need flesh/brains.That is not what I meant. I should have probably said this explicitly but I was referring to "human" not in the genetic sense but in the sense of... otherness. Or in opposition to otherness.

My favourite vampire story is actually is both has the most human vampires I have seen in any story. It is also the only one where vampires are not in any way humans, they look like humans but are actually a completely different race. (How this happened in evolution, I have no idea.) But they live like humans, think like humans and feel like humans.

Now that is the opposite of what I mean by otherness here (which is the point in that case, but I digress), which is why I say they are "human" despite the fact they are not human (without quotes). Otherness is a difference to... the mind, the spirit, the soul. Not only are they different, but they are different on a fundamental level. We are not talking about skin colour or hail colour here. What are we talking about then?

It varies, but in the case of vampires it is usually "dive". They have a drive for blood that makes them hurt (or want to hurt) the people around them. It is usually an allegory for some part of human nature, but amplified to a non-human level. They are a human who has given up or is desperately trying to be good.

I hope that gets my point across... I hope that is my point. I'm not a huge fan of vampire imagery so I don't spend a lot of time trying to get them "right".


Well actually, Vampires to me are the most powerful and strongest of the UndeadNope, definitely liches... oh you have comment on that. But I put liches higher for a number of reasons. (Note that what I have to say has to do with my personal imagery as well as general conventions and is not meant to be universal). First because they start higher, a lich has to been someone of already great power before they became undead. Vampires could be anyone. Also similar to your zombies comparison (by the way, I agree and put zombies at the bottom of the list of common undead) vampires require blood while liches require nothing at all. Or raw life force, which creates a different but similar chain as they get closer and closer to the heart as it closer to what keeps you alive. They also represent a more terrible evil in humanity. Vampires are across from criminals and people with poor impulse control. Liches, the evil king, the unfeeling business man, those that have given up their ability to feel for other human beings.

And of course I also see liches put above vampires in most situations where they both appear. Most straight forward example I can think of is that a vampire is the mini-boss in the dungeon ruled by the lich in Final Fantasy 1.

In conclusion, lichdom is a terrible price to pay but vampirism is a curse.


Basically I view Vampirism as legitimate immortality and cheating death and one way of transhumanism of becoming something greater and more powerful.... "legitimate"? What do you mean by legitimate?


Powers: vampires with vampire powers, but without the 'mental' drawbacks.
Genre: a lack of personal horror.So... Hard Sci-fi then?

I'm saying that isn't really a genre, it is "not this one" which is a very large group. I think we would have to narrow in quite a bit more to make it work.

[Anonymouswizard]

So... Hard Sci-fi then?

I'm saying that isn't really a genre, it is "not this one" which is a very large group. I think we would have to narrow in quite a bit more to make it work.

The point was that, as far as I could tell, the requirements given are actually two requirements, and the genre requirement was 'no personal horror'.

On the other hand, personnel horror is fine, so I'm waiting to hear of ideas on how to incorporate that into the game.

Really, you can include vampires in almost any genre, although I'm not certain on hard science fiction (which I love to pieces, my favourite sourcebook for any game is the main Transhuman Space book). However vampires as main characters do tend towards personal horror (although I'm personally much more interested in trying to use horror elements without the supernatural, making my games closer to thrillers than standard horror stories, as I find it hard to write the supernatural).

[Lord Raziere]

Well that's the question, isnt it? Is a vampire defined by their powers+abilities, or by their genre?

Depends on how much you want to pretend being a vampire is A Serious And Dramatic Thing With Lots of Themes And Meaning, and how much you want to pretend its an Awesome Thing That Allows Me A Bunch Of Cool Powers and Badassery.

[Bloodtomb]

\
You can also drop Clans from Requiem without too much change, and one of the 2e example settings is a city why large scale interaction between Kindred is very difficult, although not impossible. You could also remove Covenants and make Kindred rarer, but that would change the game a bit more.

Of course the only problem with removing the clans and covenants is that with the former then how do you have different variety type of Vampires (from normal human looking to Nosferatu types?) without them being the same? Also with removing the Covenants and making Kindred more rarer, then the only problem with that is how rapidly they reproduce via the embrace making it logical that Kindred would have large scale societies and their own government after all I mean what's stopping them?


Nope, definitely liches... oh you have comment on that. But I put liches higher for a number of reasons. (Note that what I have to say has to do with my personal imagery as well as general conventions and is not meant to be universal). First because they start higher, a lich has to been someone of already great power before they became undead. Vampires could be anyone. Also similar to your zombies comparison (by the way, I agree and put zombies at the bottom of the list of common undead) vampires require blood while liches require nothing at all. Or raw life force, which creates a different but similar chain as they get closer and closer to the heart as it closer to what keeps you alive. They also represent a more terrible evil in humanity. Vampires are across from criminals and people with poor impulse control. Liches, the evil king, the unfeeling business man, those that have given up their ability to feel for other human beings.

And of course I also see liches put above vampires in most situations where they both appear. Most straight forward example I can think of is that a vampire is the mini-boss in the dungeon ruled by the lich in Final Fantasy 1.

In conclusion, lichdom is a terrible price to pay but vampirism is a curse.

... "legitimate"? What do you mean by legitimate?

So... Hard Sci-fi then?

I'm saying that isn't really a genre, it is "not this one" which is a very large group. I think we would have to narrow in quite a bit more to make it work.

However one problem with Liches is that they defiantly don't look human and they're essentially walking skeletons that wear robes like the Grim Reaper that only wield great power while Vampires in the other hand are the most human of the undead at least they still have a connection towards it. Also Liches don't have the same Gothic aesthetic and elegance like a Vampire does.

Also Hard Sci-Fi you say? Thought we're talking about supernatural urban fantasy here.


Okay. And?

This is the puzzling thing. You seem to slip back and forth on whether you're looking for a system in which to run a game, or a system that validates your interpretation of vampires.

I thought I already made myself clear.

[Thrudd]

Problem is, I don't want to be a Dhampir but rather the real deal.



Or rather the other alternative is not use the Camarilla and Sabbat at all (and no Gehenna, Noddest subplots and removing the beast entirely), hell what about no vampire government at all but rather vampires are extremely rare in between?



Sorry but I think my mind is all over the place and I think I'm just coming up with hypothetical scenarios (like the Lost Boys, the entire "Gehenna" scenario) that was in my mind but doesn't mean I'll use them.

Anyways to be more clear what I want, is simply a game without any personal horror elements (like the beast, frenzying, etc) or the threat of becoming a wight/dragur (otherwords a mindless beast) exists or at least a game that doesn't have any signs or hints of inevitability to them like Masquerade or Requiem may have.

Basically a setting where Vampires are not predisposed to do evil and they're free to choose any path they want and their blood drinking is simply how they maintain their undead bodies and of course using their powers of course and healing.

Or another idea would be downplaying the "Personal Horror" aspect especially making the beast something minor and more instinct based that helps the vampire survive and keep themselves alive something like blood hunger? But there is no humanity system however or any threat that the "beast" is going to take over, it's just there to help the vampire survive although they can easily control it when they don't "need it".
You are just talking about the game setting, not the game system. Many game systems could be used to create and play in the setting you want.
There's nothing stopping you from having exactly what you want. There's already a game all about vampires that it sounds like you are very familiar with, which does exactly what you want with only very small changes. Don't like the clan politics, but want to keep the different character templates and powers? Don't call them clans, just say they are different sorts of vampires, or invent whatever sort of vampire-ecosystem-hierarchy you like.

Just because it says something in the book does not mean that's the only way you are allowed to play the game, change whatever you want. The meta-plot that White Wolf wrote for the game can be completely ignored. You can make your world a True-Blood sort of world where vampires are in the public, or whatever. Nothing in the game system stops you from making the setting anything you want.

Give beginning players more points to buy disciplines, or extra generations, change what they use humanity for, or scratch out the word "humanity" on the sheet and call it something else, or don't even use it at all.

A lot of people already play that way- like they are blood-drinking super heroes with various magic powers that fight bigger, scarier monsters. Nothing in the game system says you need to be evil, or struggle with morality, or be conflicted about being a vampire.

[Cluedrew]

how do you have different variety type of Vampires (from normal human looking to Nosferatu types?) without them being the same?Do you even want multiple varieties of vampires?


However one problem with Liches is that they defiantly don't look human and they're essentially walking skeletons that wear robes like the Grim Reaper that only wield great power while Vampires in the other hand are the most human of the undead at least they still have a connection towards it. Also Liches don't have the same Gothic aesthetic and elegance like a Vampire does.Well... going down the line: considering the amount of magic most liches have looking human from a skeleton shouldn't be a problem. Also in most lore I know of they are only skeletons because most do not care to maintain anything more than the minimum, which for them is the skeleton. This is for course this is ignoring the fact I am parstial to the grim reaper aesthetic myself (no personally, but for the appropriate character). I also think you are misusing either "only" or "great" power. As for the most human of the undead, of common ones definitely, I mean they are not even undead a lot of the time. I think liches are both Gothic and elegant. Especially since vampires tend to be more goth than gothic. The elegance require a bit of an explanation, because it is not something they are called to put on display very often. But liches move according to magical control of their bodies, so there physical dexterity is the same as their mental dexterity, which tends to be high.That thing I realized is what the question was, and the question was about the "strength and power" of two. And in that regard I have to say liches win 9 times out of 10 (or more accurately, in every case I can think of, but any particular instance could break from that). If we want to compare aesthetics there is nothing to rank. They are just different aesthetics. You seem to prefer vampires. I will use, or subvert, either depending on the effect I want. We could compare them in detail, but that isn't really the point of this thread so I say we move on. I will also point out that although I was pro-lich here, there are parts where I think vampires do better. Although they seem to be the parts you don't like so {shrugs}.


Also Hard Sci-Fi you say? Thought we're talking about supernatural urban fantasy here.I was making a joke. Hard sci-fi is not personal horror and so would qualify by that criteria. However, it is obviously does not quite match up with the other requirements. My main point was about narrowing down at exactly what "not personal horror" means. To me the blood thing is most of the way there by itself. Actually my main point was otherness, this was my second point, third liches and forth was the joke about sci-fi.

Oh and Anonymouswizard who I forgot to quote, does that answer your post as well? Uuu... the part before I went off on a tangent.


I thought I already made myself clear.Let me try. You are looking for a system to run a vampire game in and so you would like one that represents vampires as close to your own image of them as possible.

Also, what did you mean by "legitimate"?

[Bloodtomb]

Do you even want multiple varieties of vampires?

Yes I actually do, why do you even ask that? Different varieties and diversity makes the world less boring you say?


Well... going down the line: considering the amount of magic most liches have looking human from a skeleton shouldn't be a problem. Also in most lore I know of they are only skeletons because most do not care to maintain anything more than the minimum, which for them is the skeleton. This is for course this is ignoring the fact I am parstial to the grim reaper aesthetic myself (no personally, but for the appropriate character). I also think you are misusing either "only" or "great" power. As for the most human of the undead, of common ones definitely, I mean they are not even undead a lot of the time. I think liches are both Gothic and elegant. Especially since vampires tend to be more goth than gothic. The elegance require a bit of an explanation, because it is not something they are called to put on display very often. But liches move according to magical control of their bodies, so there physical dexterity is the same as their mental dexterity, which tends to be high.That thing I realized is what the question was, and the question was about the "strength and power" of two. And in that regard I have to say liches win 9 times out of 10 (or more accurately, in every case I can think of, but any particular instance could break from that). If we want to compare aesthetics there is nothing to rank. They are just different aesthetics. You seem to prefer vampires. I will use, or subvert, either depending on the effect I want. We could compare them in detail, but that isn't really the point of this thread so I say we move on. I will also point out that although I was pro-lich here, there are parts where I think vampires do better. Although they seem to be the parts you don't like so {shrugs}.

Although Liches are still walking skeletons and they don't have the same gothic aesthetic as vampires do nor are they relatable or human like nor do they capture the same eroticism that vampires have.

Hence I tend to see Liches as Undead walking skeleton mages and kings who are outright powerhungry whilist Vampires are supposed to be the "Lords/Ladies of the Night" hence why I originally viewed them to be most "powerful of the undead" especially applying Castlevania style Dracula.


Oh and Anonymouswizard who I forgot to quote, does that answer your post as well? Uuu... the part before I went off on a tangent.

Let me try. You are looking for a system to run a vampire game in and so you would like one that represents vampires as close to your own image of them as possible.

Perhaps something like that.


Also, what did you mean by "legitimate"?

I meant that a vampire not descending into complete utter monstrosity like Methuselahs and Antediluvians do making their immortality pointless and a waste.

[Anonymouswizard]

Of course the only problem with removing the clans and covenants is that with the former then how do you have different variety type of Vampires (from normal human looking to Nosferatu types?) without them being the same? Also with removing the Covenants and making Kindred more rarer, then the only problem with that is how rapidly they reproduce via the embrace making it logical that Kindred would have large scale societies and their own government after all I mean what's stopping them?

Oh boy, let's start from the beginning.

How do you have different types of vampires? However you want! In Return Clans are three cheaper disciplines and a Bane, so either just require every vampire to take a Bane and leave all disciplines at 'expensive', or do something else.

Without covenants why are Kindred rare? This is where removing Humanity from 2e is problematic, most Kindred didn't make lots of Childer because it cost them something. Which is a good idea, you can come up with a new cost for siring.


Also Hard Sci-Fi you say? Thought we're talking about supernatural urban fantasy here.

Don't assume, vampires can work in any genre!

Actually, we could easily be talking about historical or constructed world fantasy. Or science fantasy. Or horror. Lots of space for vamps.


Oh and Anonymouswizard who I forgot to quote, does that answer your post as well? Uuu... the part before I went off on a tangent.

Yes, honestly I was saying the same stuff. The genre but was less important than the two different issues in my original post. Maybe I should have gone with theme?

Anyway, we've just been assuming Urban Fantasy, but there's plenty of room for vampions in other subgenres. Vampire Superheroes in Medieval Venice! Vampire Superheroes on Mars! Vampire Superheroes in an Ancient Egyptian settlement on Mars!

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Of course the only problem with removing the clans and covenants is that with the former then how do you have different variety type of Vampires (from normal human looking to Nosferatu types?) without them being the same? Also with removing the Covenants and making Kindred more rarer, then the only problem with that is how rapidly they reproduce via the embrace making it logical that Kindred would have large scale societies and their own government after all I mean what's stopping them?

As for removing clans, tell your players "Pick a bane of your choice, and ignore all Clan prerequisites for merits and suchlike." If you like, you can either have ALL disciplines be expensive, ALL be considered in-Clan, or "Pick three disciplines to consider in-Clan". Done. Your players will do the rest for you. Just as much variation without the strictness of Clans.

As for removing Covenants, there are a few ideas here. One setting in 2e, Montreal, has a strange monster who has given the Kindred a handful of rules, including no meeting 5 or more at a time. Anybody who breaks laws gets killed. This cuts down on the population. Another setting in 2e, Swansea, is governed by Clans instead of by Covenant, to show the breadth of what is possible and encouraged in the game.

[Bloodtomb]

As for removing clans, tell your players "Pick a bane of your choice, and ignore all Clan prerequisites for merits and suchlike." If you like, you can either have ALL disciplines be expensive, ALL be considered in-Clan, or "Pick three disciplines to consider in-Clan". Done. Your players will do the rest for you. Just as much variation without the strictness of Clans.

Wait...wait, if there are no clans then how can disciplines be considered "in clan", which is quite contradictory there? I thought it would be logical that if there are no clans, any vampire can pick up any discipline they want.


Without covenants why are Kindred rare? This is where removing Humanity from 2e is problematic, most Kindred didn't make lots of Childer because it cost them something. Which is a good idea, you can come up with a new cost for siring.

I guess this is why I now rather have vampires being not so rare and have covenants and large scale societies.

[Anonymouswizard]

Wait...wait, if there are no clans then how can disciplines be considered "in clan", which is quite contradictory there? I thought it would be logical that if there are no clans, any vampire can pick up any discipline they want.

In-clan is a problematic term, because it sounds like clans are the only thing cheaper (not true in Requiem, because even RAW Bloodlines mess around with your in-clans), a better term would have been 'affinity', pick three 'affinity' disciplines' which you can purchase at an in-clan cost. While this might cause some people to take Celerity, Resilience, and Vigor, it'll a cause people to take say Dominate, Majesty, and Nightmare. This vastly increases the different types of vampire available.

Heck, the Clans in VtR might not even be the same kind of supernatural thing, but rather 5+ kinds of strangely similar beings. It's actually a really interesting setting once you get to the in-universe theories and speculation (like what was up with Dracula? He might have been a spontaneous embrace, they happen, but there's this stuff about him during Childer of multiple clans?


I guess this is why I now rather have vampires being not so rare and have covenants and large scale societies.

Feel free, I personally love the 2e takes off the 5 'core' covenants, bar the Circle (who I've never really liked that much), by use whatever vampire organisations you wish, and have a masked or unmasked world as you please.

...Now I'm thinking of trying to convert VtR to Fate Core, to make running it easier for me. Just make Discipline powers Stunts, maybe remove normal stunts (undecided there), and give players an extra 'Kindred' aspect. It could really work.

[Bloodtomb]

In-clan is a problematic term, because it sounds like clans are the only thing cheaper (not true in Requiem, because even RAW Bloodlines mess around with your in-clans), a better term would have been 'affinity', pick three 'affinity' disciplines' which you can purchase at an in-clan cost. While this might cause some people to take Celerity, Resilience, and Vigor, it'll a cause people to take say Dominate, Majesty, and Nightmare. This vastly increases the different types of vampire available.

Heck, the Clans in VtR might not even be the same kind of supernatural thing, but rather 5+ kinds of strangely similar beings. It's actually a really interesting setting once you get to the in-universe theories and speculation (like what was up with Dracula? He might have been a spontaneous embrace, they happen, but there's this stuff about him during Childer of multiple clans?

As for disciplines, I would like to have that at least vampires having the same powers that Dracula himself (and Carmilla) from the novel has and sunlight doesn't burn them but instead weakens them and their powers while moonlight would strengthen them. Or maybe sunlight 'burns' their bloodpool sending them to a short term torpor if exposed for long enough.

Of course I also don't mind vampires also being powerhouses or having Masquerade powers like Obtenabration (especially shadow tentacles).

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Ah, once you start doing that level of customization of powers, with a specific powerset you want shared and a specific powerset you want available, you're best doing a dramatic homebrew.

[Cluedrew]

especially applying Castlevania style Dracula.I had forgotten about Castlevania. Of course there Dracula is above even Death (the second to last boss) so is a demon/god as well. As for the rest... you are supporting something but I'm not sure what that something is. The aesthetic? The hierarchy?


I meant that a vampire not descending into complete utter monstrosity like Methuselahs and Antediluvians do making their immortality pointless and a waste.Is that World of Darkness? But vampires are monsters, that is part of the otherness, that's generally the point. Unless you are subverting it than the point is they are not monsters. The joys of interpretations.

Actually that is an important point, are you going for monsters or not monsters, narratively speaking?

[Lord Raziere]

I've been thinking:
what if to remove personal horror, you just have to change the bite drain and a need for blood, to a ranged attack of draining life force?

Like, vampires personal horror is all bound up in the blood imagery, of using the fangs to get up close and suck out blood. Its an impractical attack that doesn't have much use in combat, so the horrific aspect is that you basically have to subdue the opponent and dominate them in some manner that makes you a controlling monster in the process for the fangs to be any use to you living.

make it a ranged attack, then change blood to life force and suddenly its not horrific at all- life force is much more flexible and wide, and could be sucked out of anything you want, and from a range means you can more practically and easily sustain yourself, while using it in combat against a foe who can fight back suddenly make the attack look less bad.

at the same time, it keeps the vampiric concept intact- your still a thing that needs to drain life force from other things to live, its just more impersonal, more flexible with the potential to just suck out life force energy form random animals like any other person. and in some ways its more of a threat- when a vampire could potentially drain life force from anything, it suddenly becomes a threat to the entire ecosystem around it, not just humans. So it would take out the horror, while keeping vampires a threat that people would fight regardless.

[LibraryOgre]

I keep going back to "My Best Friend is a Vampire", where the main character's vampire mentor gives him the name of a reliable, all-night butcher, and that more or less solves the "drinks blood" problem.

[Faily]

Or you know, just have vampires set up charity blood-donation drives, where they take a portion of the donation for themselves and drink it like slurpees/fine wine.

Then we can have a whole generation of vampires who aren't able to even use their fangs to get a suckle because they're "too refined to do something so animalistic".

*coughTwinsEffect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d26BppzlhJU)cough*

[Anonymouswizard]

Then we have to ask ourselves a relatively common question when these come up in Vampire stories: is anything as nice as fresh human blood?

Because in Masquerade there is nothing stopping a vampire (barring Ventrue) from surviving only on the blood of animals, or preserved blood, however it's less efficient and tastes horrible. In Requiem this isn't the case indefinitely, because it's used as a limiting factor for the ability to spend XP directly on Blood Potency, but for young vampires it's still true (and you can survive for a good ~250 years on preserved blood, if you can stand the taste), so if you houserule it out you have to replace it with something.

It brings up an interesting divide in Vampire society, the 'monsters' who drink from living humans and the 'friendlies' who subsist on animal or donated blood. I see the former as being weighted towards older vampires for various reasons.

[Cluedrew]

Then we have to ask ourselves a relatively common question when these come up in Vampire stories: is anything as nice as fresh human blood?Yes tacos. I am speaking from a particular story where vampires needed blood because without it their digestion didn't work properly. But then they managed to figure out what the part of blood was that was required and put it into a pill. So it was pretty much an non-issue after that.

[comicshorse]

Even without the need for blood, or easily available True Blood, Vampires are still immortal. Humans are still temporary things, that impinge on your life and then die. That you can break with a swipe of your hand, or twist their minds with your will. Monsterdom still feels like a likely outcome of that

[Bloodtomb]

Then we have to ask ourselves a relatively common question when these come up in Vampire stories: is anything as nice as fresh human blood?

Because in Masquerade there is nothing stopping a vampire (barring Ventrue) from surviving only on the blood of animals, or preserved blood, however it's less efficient and tastes horrible. In Requiem this isn't the case indefinitely, because it's used as a limiting factor for the ability to spend XP directly on Blood Potency, but for young vampires it's still true (and you can survive for a good ~250 years on preserved blood, if you can stand the taste), so if you houserule it out you have to replace it with something.

It brings up an interesting divide in Vampire society, the 'monsters' who drink from living humans and the 'friendlies' who subsist on animal or donated blood. I see the former as being weighted towards older vampires for various reasons.

Actually I never said I wanted to feed on solely on animal/preserved blood at all which I'm honestly getting tired of the "Vegetarian Vampire" trope.

I honestly want a 'Omnivore' vampire that feeds on human blood along with animal, preserved, or even supernatural blood from werewolves, faeries, mages, demons, etc.

[comicshorse]

Actually I never said I wanted to feed on solely on animal/preserved blood at all which I'm honestly getting tired of the "Vegetarian Vampire" trope.

I honestly want a 'Omnivore' vampire that feeds on human blood along with animal, preserved, or even supernatural blood from werewolves, faeries, mages, demons, etc.

But, Generation allowing, a Masquerade Vampire can drink human, animal, faerie, werewolf and Mage blood. Not sure about Demons, never read up on them

[Anonymouswizard]

But, Generation allowing, a Masquerade Vampire can drink human, animal, faerie, werewolf and Mage blood. Not sure about Demons, never read up on them

A demon's blood is the same as a human's blood (because the fallen are weird). A demon has 10 BP and can be drained as a human can, although I don't expect the vampire to survive for long (even if they don't have a Lore that allows them to kill you Fallen are far more willing to make pacts than vampires are to ghoul, and usually maintain good relationships with a few cultists for various reasons*). A demon who isn't interested in social stuff still do it because Faith is hella useful, although they rarely have large networks they still have allies.

I need to fetch my copy of Demon: the Fallen at some point, I love that game.

* One being that it can be an easy route back to earth.

[Raimun]

Man, I haven't even played Vampire and I'm already tired of angsting over the unlife. Doesn't sound like a fun way to spend your free time, if you ask me.

Then again, the Vampire's mechanics that concern stuff like bloodlust seem to have their place. If you start removing stuff like that, you will eventually get sparkly and diluted "vampires".

I will possibly play Vampire one day and I will steer away from both deliberate angsting and sparkling. There's got to be a third option. And a fourth and a fifth, at least. Probably even more options.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Vampire isn't escapism in the same sense as fantasy. By design, it's not "Let's forget everything and go to a simple world where all we have is hammers and all we deal with is nails." It's a game for exploring deeper philosophical questions, not a game of escapism. It's a game of "how different am I the player from a monster". It's a game of "how monstrous do we get before we stop really being human." It's a game to make you think MORE about how you fit into the greater world, not less. That's by design.

[Thrudd]

Man, I haven't even played Vampire and I'm already tired of angsting over the unlife. Doesn't sound like a fun way to spend your free time, if you ask me.

Then again, the Vampire's mechanics that concern stuff like bloodlust seem to have their place. If you start removing stuff like that, you will eventually get sparkly and diluted "vampires".

I will possibly play Vampire one day and I will steer away from both deliberate angsting and sparkling. There's got to be a third option. And a fourth and a fifth, at least. Probably even more options.

There's a whole range of things that the game encourages one to explore through the archetypes presented by the various vampire clans. There is hedonism and exploring what it's like to pursue every physical pleasure and enjoying all the senses, pursuit of forbidden knowledge and secrets, embracing one's feral side and kinship with the predatory beasts that you now resemble, using the liberties of undeath to establish worldly success and power, even pursuing prestige through strength and warriorship. None of those things require angsting about being a vampire. That's just a personal character choice. It makes sense that some newer vampires will be conflicted and confused about the change they've undergone especially if it wasn't voluntary. But you don't need to play a brand new vampire, or a person who didn't want to become a vampire.

[Anonymouswizard]

Man, I haven't even played Vampire and I'm already tired of angsting over the unlife. Doesn't sound like a fun way to spend your free time, if you ask me.

Then again, the Vampire's mechanics that concern stuff like bloodlust seem to have their place. If you start removing stuff like that, you will eventually get sparkly and diluted "vampires".

I will possibly play Vampire one day and I will steer away from both deliberate angsting and sparkling. There's got to be a third option. And a fourth and a fifth, at least. Probably even more options.

To be honest, I suspect that the majority of Vampire games don't focus on angsting, and in fact playing an angster can be problematic (especially in Requiem 2e, where you'll lag behind on XP). Vampire's focus is meant to be politics, I don't think players should really have fledging characters for the average game (using VtR2e I'd say they should get between 5 and 10 Experiences to improve their characters), because it essentially limits their ability to impact the situation until a decent way into the game.

This is why I think Requiem is better than Masquerade and would recommend it, because older vampires tend to be both rarer and more adapted (because coming out of torpor now gives a boost to learning speed for a while) vampire society isn't as old fashioned as it was in Masquerade, and this allows players to more easily participate in kindred social gatherings (there was an interesting thread on the Onyx Path forums about vampire board gaming).

Really, unless you're playing early Masquerade then your character is more likely to deal with their unlife rather than angst over it. Angsting gets you nowhere in the great game of vampire politics, are you going to join the Carthians and attempt to change the system? Join the Lancea et Sanctum and attempt to become a priest? Or are you just someone who lurks on Invictus and Ordo Dracul forums occasionally posting snarky comments.

The big variations I see on vampire roleplaying are:
1) Vampire politics, as this is what Requiem (and Masquerade) are supposed to do.
2) Angsting, if you're boring.
3) Vampions, aka blood powered superheroes. It's fun, but I recommend a more generic urban fantasy game (or Mage).
4) Vampire archaeology? I dunno, tracking down sleeping elders and trying to get them involved in local politics sounds like an interesting Chronicle.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Vampire isn't a game about angst unless you want it to be. It's a game about former humans coming to terms with being something inhuman and what they do with their altered state of being. Some people strive to cling to their humanity by whatever measure they can. Others explore new options as noted above, with or without trying to keep a human viewpoint. Most people, or at least most player characters, are led by circumstance to mainly focus on finding a niche in Vampire society and either staying there or carving their way into bigger, fancier niches. When you unlive in a society where human morality is less important than whatever laws the local BMFIC is enforcing via staking and decapitation, it actually becomes more of a game of survival and adaptation. Which, you know, can be treated as horrible, or it can be treated as practical, transhumanist, or a number of other ways.

[Cluedrew]

Vampires are possible the most diverse narrative population under a single name. Elves are similar, although they have a stronger "base" they vary quite a bit as well.

So what they are about? Really that is up to you, but if the blood drinking, the horror, the monster within are not part of that image, I think you are throwing a lot away. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, but you will be calling to mind all the vampires people have already seen, so I say take advantage of that. Either because it gets the general information across, you want to contrast the images or whatever.

I will confess I am approaching this more from a story telling perspective, but I think it still applies here.

[Bloodtomb]

I've happen to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9BWRcbCnuM

Especially this part:


Lack of bonding hormones means most vampires can only feel companionship via the blood. However where does companionship end and possessiveness and jealousy take over?

The video also mentions that the beast basically makes them possessive and ultimately destroy it. I guess I just found the reason why I don't like VtM's beast because it defiantly makes the Vampires basically abusive which is what I'm trying to avoid in the first place (I guess the only option for a Kindred to prevent this is to have no companions at all, they're forever alone and drifters as perhaps they are meant to be).

You know I always wondered how can a Vampire without a beast can function? What other purpose is there for blood drinking? Maybe perhaps only to keep their undead bodies operating and I guess "bonding hormones" and everything else are just 'magical' for some reason?

Although the video also mentions from the get go that you're playing the "bad guys, villains" compared to the absolute heroes from D&D hence why Vampires were presented as unplayable antagonists in the first place in those games. Well to be honest this is also why I don't like the "Hero and Villain" dichotomy at all since it makes everyone into shallow cardboard cut out characters and I would rather prefer if things were Grey/Grey and there's no heroes and villains at all, just politics and worldviews.

[Faily]

Well, the minutes I managed to watch the incredibly monotone-delivery of that video felt like a huge waste.

What they present in the video though is not the "end all, be all" of Vampire. And you know, vampires, being fictional creatures, do not have factual physiology. Only what people apply to it. You can have immortal beautiful teenage-vampires who sparkle in the sun instead of being burned by it, and you can have the horribly mishapen creatures of the night a la Nosferatu.

As people have said again and again in this thread though, you can play Vampire without the Beast or Humanity mechanic JUST FINE and focus on the worldview and politics that you like. Or philosophy. Or whatever.