Vampire The Masquerade 5th Edition Playtest

[fishyfishyfishy]

The "pre-alpha" playtest material used at the recent convention in Berlin has been released. White Wolf is looking for feedback. Nothing really solid on Humanity or Generation. This seems to be specifically to test out the new hunger mechanics.

https://blog.white-wolf.com/2017/06/15/v5-pre-alpha-the-curtain-rises/

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Thanks, I'll try to take a look at this and fill out the survey.

[fishyfishyfishy]

No problem. Keep in mind the survey assumes you've played the game and has an open ended portion at the end to insert whatever feedback you want to give. I typed out 7 pages of notes in a word document as I read through it and pasted them in that box in the survey.

[Friv]

I read the playtest.

Discussing most of the problems with it will run up against Inappropriate Topics in about six different ways, so to summarize:

The rules are a mess and the scenario is a nightmare garbage fire that is bad decisions all the way down. This is, like, nearly a FATAL-level bad scenario.

[BayardSPSR]

Anyone who is interested in reading the scenario should be warned that it's both very bad as far as being a game is concerned, and has some stomach-turning behavior forced upon one of the players. Not in a "horror game" way.

Honestly, I would be surprised if anyone has actually tested it using that scenario. No one I game with would choose to play that if they knew what was in it, and I have no intention of being the one to expose them to it.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I highly encourage you to submit your feedback to them in the survey. The best way to get things done is to be involved.

[CharonsHelper]

I highly encourage you to submit your feedback to them in the survey. The best way to get things done is to be involved.

Or just vote with your wallets and not buy their stuff. That is the #1 way to affect a business.

[Friv]

I highly encourage you to submit your feedback to them in the survey. The best way to get things done is to be involved.

Oh, believe me, I did. Politely and at length. But if there's any response to that beyond "But it's mature", I will be frankly shocked.

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh, believe me, I did. Politely and at length. But if there's any response to that beyond "But it's mature", I will be frankly shocked.

What is mature? Does it grapple with hard themes or simply go 'look at me, I'm so edgy'.

Yes, I already know it's the latter, with the p-ventrue as the number one culprit. Being mature and having wacky cool fun stuff aren't exclusive, Unknown Armies managed to do that with Adepts (who are cool, but have the same variance in functionality that most insane people do). Not that it manages it everywhere, and it's not always trying to be mature, but Adepts were handled very well (heck, ours was the second sanest member of the group for various reasons, our shrink failed every stuff check we came across and my characters are unstable at the best of times).

I'm generally not liking what I'm hearing about the playtest, I'll have a look myself once I have a working computer.

[comicshorse]

So is that scenario consistent with the new background for 5th Edition ? 'Cause if the Masquerade is that screwed I'm not seeing any Vampires surviving beyond the year. Which would kinda impact on any campaign lasting longer than...........say, three sessions

[fishyfishyfishy]

Or just vote with your wallets and not buy their stuff. That is the #1 way to affect a business.

Well considering they don't have a product to sell yet, and you still have the opportunity to be involved with shaping the product before it is released, I think a better course of action is to submit your feedback in every variation of their Playtests. Complaining and saying "I just won't buy it if they don't do it the way I like", while simultaneously not telling them what exactly you dislike is not going to get you anywhere. Clearly they are oblivious that a line was crossed so say something to them.

[CharonsHelper]

Complaining and saying "I just won't buy it if they don't do it the way I like", while simultaneously not telling them what exactly you dislike is not going to get you anywhere.

It won't affect this product in particular - but the #1 way to affect an industry is with your wallet.

There are plenty of TTRPGs out there that I do like. Why do I need to put in effort to fix try to help them fix this bad one?

[fishyfishyfishy]

It won't affect this product in particular - but the #1 way to affect an industry is with your wallet.

There are plenty of TTRPGs out there that I do like. Why do I need to put in effort to fix try to help them fix this bad one?

If you aren't interested in the play test of VtM, why are you even here commenting on it? This thread is intended for those who want to discuss this new version being made. In general I would agree with your position that if you don't like a product simply don't purchase it. However, this product is in a "pre-alpha playtest" phase, which one can assume means it's not even close to a final version. Additionally the company making it is completely new to this industry and has no previous products to draw comparisons from. -No, old white wolf doesn't count. They have the same name but it's a whole new company.- They're asking for feedback from fans of the old system to help guide the production of their product through feedback. If it turns out they ignored that feedback then by all means, vote with your wallet and don't support them by purchasing it.

[CharonsHelper]

If you aren't interested in the play test of VtM, why are you even here commenting on it?

I was mildly interested before I heard how horrible it is.

[Anonymouswizard]

It won't affect this product in particular - but the #1 way to affect an industry is with your wallet.

There are plenty of TTRPGs out there that I do like. Why do I need to put in effort to fix try to help them fix this bad one?

This is something I agree with 100%, at the end of the day, when the final product has come out, vote with your wallet. I've supported games I like even when I don't have to (PWYW and similar), so if I don't like VV I won't give nWW any money (just like how I'm not overly fond of what I've seen for Forsaken 2e, so I haven't bought it yet, maybe I'll change).

As it is I'm following the playtest at least vaguely, finding some bits I like (simplified dice mechanics, although I'd have gone for successes at 7+) and some bits I dislike (I'm not sold on hunger compared to Blood Pool), so I've come to the following conclusion:
-I will follow the playtest iterations as they are and join in stone discussions, but I won't provide feedback unless I come across a major dealbreaker.
-When VV comes out I'll take the money for the corebook and say it to one side. If I like what I'm seeing and hearing I will order the core book, otherwise I'll take the money and spend it on Requiem 2e supplements (and I need to fix the convey on my copy of Blood and Smoke when it gets out of storage).

Because I like vampire roleplaying and like Requiem 2e (although I majorly disliked 1e), as well as liking Masquerade 2e (not got any of the later editions). I'll see if VV convinces me it's worth investing in, but at the moment I don't feel strongly either way and so won't reply to the playtest survey.

[BayardSPSR]

Guess they didn't really want feedback after all? Link (https://blog.white-wolf.com/2017/06/28/vampire-the-masquerade-a-storytelling-game-of-personal-and-political-horror/) to WW's response to the playtest.

[Braininthejar2]

What about the game mechanics? Is it any good?

[BayardSPSR]

What about the game mechanics? Is it any good?

That depends. As a player, do you like having your character's actions decided by a random table?

[Ignimortis]

I've gone through those with my ST, and we're both quite disappointed. The rules are overly simplified in places they shouldn't be (let's be honest, even oWoD is not rules-heavy), the scenario is just bad, and it doesn't feel like Vampire I like at all. Then again, I've been told time and time again by some people from outside my group that I play Vampire wrong. V5 looks like those people had been listened too, really.

[Anonymouswizard]

Guess they didn't really want feedback after all? Link (https://blog.white-wolf.com/2017/06/28/vampire-the-masquerade-a-storytelling-game-of-personal-and-political-horror/) to WW's response to the playtest.

Please tell me I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell it begins off with them basically saying 'it's my game and I can do what I want'.

Which I mean, is true. But it's my money and of I decide I don't like how VV deals with the Middle East or whatever I don't have to buy it. So the feelings of their fan base should at least be considered.

Also, ouch. 'This is how you're​supposed to vote these characters' is one of the worst things to say. If nothing has changed from 2e and Revised than the Camarilla's main problem is being too restrictive and conservative, it's an organisation that needs reform from within rather than being turn down. That's my view, and I'd really like to not be told 'you're wrong, this is how you're supposed to look at the Camarilla.

Also, did they just explain Humanity to me? This seems like a very narrow view of a game. Also it doesn't feel very mature for all of this explaining what the game is supposed to be like and how I'm meant to view certain factions (I tend I've been glad to see dying down and relaxed with 'these guys can be heroes or villains*), it feels more mature to say 'the Camarilla is bad but might be with saving' than 'the Camarilla is evil and filled with evil vampires'.

This is making me less and less optimistic for the game of undead politics (not political horror) that I enjoy.

* Yes, my favourite oWoD have is Mage. Both sides being right to an extent Nantes for a much more interesting conflict.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I was also disappointed with their response. It was dismissive of the concerns levied towards them and the direction they're taking this edition. Hopefully the future content they provide for the playtest materials is less focused on edgy grimdark storytelling and more focused on the mechanics, as a playtest should.

[Max_Killjoy]

Guess they didn't really want feedback after all? Link (https://blog.white-wolf.com/2017/06/28/vampire-the-masquerade-a-storytelling-game-of-personal-and-political-horror/) to WW's response to the playtest.

Sounds like the same self-important edgelord love-their-own-fragrance garbage we've seen from WW since the 90s -- is this the same team they had back then, come back to turn their noses up at the gaming "unsophisticates" again, or just a new bunch of guys who want to capture that same arrogant hauntiness?



That depends. As a player, do you like having your character's actions decided by a random table?

No, and I don't see why anyone would like any mechanic that seizes control of the PC away from the player.



Please tell me I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell it begins off with them basically saying 'it's my game and I can do what I want'.

Which I mean, is true. But it's my money and of I decide I don't like how VV deals with the Middle East or whatever I don't have to buy it. So the feelings of their fan base should at least be considered.

Also, ouch. 'This is how you're​supposed to vote these characters' is one of the worst things to say. If nothing has changed from 2e and Revised than the Camarilla's main problem is being too restrictive and conservative, it's an organisation that needs reform from within rather than being turn down. That's my view, and I'd really like to not be told 'you're wrong, this is how you're supposed to look at the Camarilla.

Also, did they just explain Humanity to me? This seems like a very narrow view of a game. Also it doesn't feel very mature for all of this explaining what the game is supposed to be like and how I'm meant to view certain factions (I tend I've been glad to see dying down and relaxed with 'these guys can be heroes or villains*), it feels more mature to say 'the Camarilla is bad but might be with saving' than 'the Camarilla is evil and filled with evil vampires'.

This is making me less and less optimistic for the game of undead politics (not political horror) that I enjoy.

* Yes, my favourite oWoD have is Mage. Both sides being right to an extent Nantes for a much more interesting conflict.

Sounds like they really have inherited the old WW's "you're having badwrongfun" and "you're not doing it right" attitude.

It's a shame, really... I was kinda hoping we'd get a grown-up version of the game instead of a "Mature" (warning sticker) version of the game, made by people who aren't smug angry bitter absolutists, and understand the difference between "difficult" and "hopeless", and between "morally grey" and "shades of poop"... with mechanics that cleaned up some of the bizarre imbalances and unstoppable / no-defense Disciplines.

[Anonymouswizard]

It's a shame, really... I was kinda hoping we'd get a grown-up version of the game instead of a "Mature" (warning sticker) version of the game, made by people who aren't smug angry bitter absolutists, and understand the difference between "difficult" and "hopeless", and between "morally grey" and "shades of poop"... with mechanics that cleaned up some of the bizarre imbalances and unstoppable / no-defense Disciplines.

The thing is, I own actually mature games. Requiem at least tries to give everyone multiple interpretations, so if you don't like the Invictus being good guys you can pay then as power hungry villains. I don't think Requiem was 100% mature, but there was a lot of effort put into making sure that the player factions we're all morally grey.

It's like, you can have a mature game that is bright and hopeful as long as you admit everything's not perfect. Sure, I did once associate maturity with grimdark and angst, but then I realised that a focus on that can stop you from actually talking about issues. It's like how sex and violence is significantly less mature than 'during the Holocaust people did horrible things, because that is something humans can do, and the ghosts that exist because of that have likely been psychologically affected'. Sure, that's dark, but it's a very different kind of darkness.

FWIW I was hoping the same thing as you, and if the WW treehouse has to be painted black and launch water balloons at passing conservatives then maybe I don't want to be in it. There's plenty of games companies out there, and sure have much superior treehouses for me to hang out in. Plus those treehouses aren't made out of this held together by twine.

Maybe I shouldn't have continued the treehouse analogy.

[Friv]

Sounds like the same self-important edgelord love-their-own-fragrance garbage we've seen from WW since the 90s -- is this the same team they had back then, come back to turn their noses up at the gaming "unsophisticates" again, or just a new bunch of guys who want to capture that same arrogant hauntiness?

It's the latter, and I think they're really painfully aware that they aren't the originals and thus feel the need to be even more arrogant and edgy than the old crew at their worst.

This is, almost word-for-word, what I expected the response to the playtest would be, but it really sucks to be right.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's the latter, and I think they're really painfully aware that they aren't the originals and thus feel the need to be even more arrogant and edgy than the old crew at their worst.

This is, almost word-for-word, what I expected the response to the playtest would be, but it really sucks to be right.

Yeah, their response to any criticism or suggestion is going to be "Well you just don't understand what we're trying to do here, the depth and sophistication that we're trying for, that no other game has ever ever had."

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, their response to any criticism or suggestion is going to be "Well you just don't understand what we're trying to do here, the depth and sophistication that we're trying for, that no other game has ever ever had."

And while it's good to have depth, I don't always want complex flavours. Sometimes is just prefer a beef stew with Pearl Barley (I should make that more often).

[BayardSPSR]

And while it's good to have depth, I don't always want complex flavours. Sometimes is just prefer a beef stew with Pearl Barley (I should make that more often).

It's not even deep, though... The scenario name-drops some serious business, but how do you engage with that when it's offset by a sex club full of Spartan cosplayers and a SWAT team in a helicopter that shows up whenever you try to do anything? It's not exactly a critique of the European response to the refugee crisis; it's just another joke in the background for seeing how long you last until a TPK.

It's hard to set aside all the tone problems and bothersome background details, but even if we did, the way it sets up "horror" as "GM inflicting arbitrary inescapable punishment because you deserve it" is just... bad. Isn't that one of the classic examples of what not to do while GMing? And it seems like they're building the whole game around it...

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh, I want saying it's deep, just that in my mind if it was it wouldn't automatically make it good.

[Max_Killjoy]

And while it's good to have depth, I don't always want complex flavours. Sometimes is just prefer a beef stew with Pearl Barley (I should make that more often).

To be clear, my assertion wasn't that they're actually doing anything like depth -- it's that they're claiming "you don't understand how deep we are" when faced with criticism or unglowing feedback.

In fact, the more I read, the more it sounds like they're making the typical teenager's mistake of confusing shallow edginess and shock with "depth".

And if they're claiming to be engaged in allegory, then they need depth. Shallow "allegory" is usually just juvenile caricature.

[Anonymouswizard]

To be clear, my assertion wasn't that they're actually doing anything like depth -- it's that they're claiming "you don't understand how deep we are" when faced with criticism or unglowing feedback.

In fact, the more I read, the more it sounds like they're making the typical teenager's mistake of confusing shallow edginess and shock with "depth".

And if they're claiming to be engaged in allegory, then they need depth. Shallow "allegory" is usually just juvenile caricature.

Yep, and my point was 'they can wine about trying for depth ask they want, but they should realise it's not the primary measure of a good game'. I've played games with zero depth that were much more mature and engaging that what nWW is showing, and they expect me to believe this attempt at maturity and depth that uses only the bad methods of American comic story writing and none of the good ones is worthwhile? I have with depth at '60 meters below sea level' as well as ones which are effectively hills, this is looking like the latter. Which isn't bad if it's handled well.

[BayardSPSR]

Oh, I want saying it's deep, just that in my mind if it was it wouldn't automatically make it good.

Sorry, I didn't mean to direct my rant at you. I got a bit frustrated.

[Anonymouswizard]

Sorry, I didn't mean to direct my rant at you. I got a bit frustrated.

That's fine, a mixture of university and my phone's autocorrect taking a dive in quality were causing me to operate stressed for months, I've been unusually confrontational and bad grammared.

[Cluedrew]

Sounds like this one has exactly enough depth to be 6 ft. under.

[Ovakalla]

I found the characters very lack luster, and the forced roles were a bit twisted. The rule set was not as robust as I would have liked, but a pre-alpha is a first attempt essentially... Hopefully the next incarnation has a much more robust rule set!



Anyone who is interested in reading the scenario should be warned that it's both very bad as far as being a game is concerned, and has some stomach-turning behavior forced upon one of the players. Not in a "horror game" way.

Honestly, I would be surprised if anyone has actually tested it using that scenario. No one I game with would choose to play that if they knew what was in it, and I have no intention of being the one to expose them to it.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I should note that there has been another version of the play test (Alpha version) available for a while now. This one seems to have cleaned up a bit and many are saying is an improvement over the pre-Alpha. I highly recommend checking it out.

[Anonymouswizard]

Just read through the latest playtest.

This system is a worse version of nWoD. The bits that are different, such as Hunger and You Are What You Eat are just bad. Although I do like spending Willpower to reroll dice, the rest is just bad.

I see no reason to use d10s on anything bar Frenzy rolls, and Hunger just feels broken and clunky. In previous editions of Masquerade and Requiem it was simple, you used up blood/Vitae to use powers, and you started being hungry when you got low (about 3, although I like vampires feeling peckish at 5) in-fiction vampires only had a rough knowledge of their Vitae, and in Requiem 2e many low level discipline powers didn't cost Vitae, which tempted your characters into using them.

Plus continually checking my Hunger dice, rolling a die whenever I do anything vampiric, just to see if I gain a point of hunger, just seems like a lot of work compared to crossing off a Vitae box. It feels like the writers wanted to move away from tracking blood, but didn't want to lose the 'being vampiry makes you need blood angle', leading to a system that's clunky and ends up with the same result as Blood Pool did, just less predictable.

[Max_Killjoy]

Just read through the latest playtest.

This system is a worse version of nWoD. The bits that are different, such as Hunger and You Are What You Eat are just bad. Although I do like spending Willpower to reroll dice, the rest is just bad.

I see no reason to use d10s on anything bar Frenzy rolls, and Hunger just feels broken and clunky. In previous editions of Masquerade and Requiem it was simple, you used up blood/Vitae to use powers, and you started being hungry when you got low (about 3, although I like vampires feeling peckish at 5) in-fiction vampires only had a rough knowledge of their Vitae, and in Requiem 2e many low level discipline powers didn't cost Vitae, which tempted your characters into using them.

Plus continually checking my Hunger dice, rolling a die whenever I do anything vampiric, just to see if I gain a point of hunger, just seems like a lot of work compared to crossing off a Vitae box. It feels like the writers wanted to move away from tracking blood, but didn't want to lose the 'being vampiry makes you need blood angle', leading to a system that's clunky and ends up with the same result as Blood Pool did, just less predictable.

I'd bet the randomness is more intentional, "because personal horror", and they're pushing back against the way many players rationally managed the blood pool to avoid PC loss of control. :smallconfused:

[Anonymouswizard]

I'd bet the randomness is more intentional, "because personal horror", and they're pushing back against the way many players rationally managed the blood pool to avoid PC loss of control. :smallconfused:

Oh, I get that they're incompetent designers, they've made that clear.

But pushing back against player rationally managing blood pool... wouldn't a Vampire semi-rationally manage their blood pool? Player: I only have five blood points left, better swing buy a bar to top up. Vampire: I'm feeling a bit peckish, better swing by a bar and get a drink.

[CharonsHelper]

Oh, I get that they're incompetent designers, they've made that clear.

But pushing back against player rationally managing blood pool... wouldn't a Vampire semi-rationally manage their blood pool? Player: I only have five blood points left, better swing buy a bar to top up. Vampire: I'm feeling a bit peckish, better swing by a bar and get a drink.

You and your logic! We're too busy being dramatic over here for that nonsense!

[Max_Killjoy]

Oh, I get that they're incompetent designers, they've made that clear.

But pushing back against player rationally managing blood pool... wouldn't a Vampire semi-rationally manage their blood pool? Player: I only have five blood points left, better swing buy a bar to top up. Vampire: I'm feeling a bit peckish, better swing by a bar and get a drink.


I agree.

They want horror uber alles, and rational characters are anathema to horror. So they're introducing randomness to ham-handedly shove the hunger down players' throats.

[Anonymouswizard]

I agree.

They want horror uber alles, and rational characters are anathema to horror. So they're introducing randomness to ham-handedly shove the hunger down players' throats.

Lets be honest, real life gaming groups are anathema to horror. The one time I tried to run a horror game the players reacted by having a higher joke content. No amount of 'you have to act this way' will stop players from putting chicken in toasters or peeing in the toilet. Or in one case holing up in a church and just ignoring the horror all together.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I mean, I kinda get the concept of the randomized possibility of gaining hunger over the planned spending of BP; it's to introduce an element of risk and unpredictability. It's similar in a way to M:tAw 2e's paradox rolls, but I'm not sure whether it strengthens their themes in the same way.

Awakening 2e is all about hubris and overreaching your power, so the mechanics encourage you to overreach in casting spells, with added risk of bringing down a paradox on you and your surroundings. That makes sense. VtM 5e seems to be trying to introduce a similar mechanic, which makes sense in one sense (the vampire losing control is a common meme) but it doesn't really strengthen the greater themes. Plus, you already have other tools to strengthen the vampire-losing-control stuff.

[Max_Killjoy]

My personal experience is that most players will treat the blood pool like a medical condition or portable battery charge to be rationally managed... not as an element of horror.

There's no way to force horror, and trying to do so with added randomness will just encourage greater caution and more elaborate preparation on the part of the sort of player I'm most familiar with.

[CharonsHelper]

There's no way to force horror, and trying to do so with added randomness will just encourage greater caution and more elaborate preparation by the sort of player I'm more familiar with.

I will say - it is possible to have a mechanic add tension. Dread does a pretty good job of adding tension to a game session, though I still wouldn't call it horror.

But - the tower is its only real rule, and while unpredictable, it's not random.

Plus - I wouldn't want to play Dread for anything but the occasional one-shot.

[Anonymouswizard]

I will say - it is possible to have a mechanic add tension. Dread does a pretty good job of adding tension to a game session, though I still wouldn't call it horror.

That's the thing, you can add tension, not horror. While tension can cause horror, it isn't certain.

I personally am planning to experiment with 'skill pools' for my next horror game. It'll be based on 2d6, on each roll you add your relevant Attribute (which never go down), and can spend points from a relevant Skill Pool to get a bonus on the roll. These skill pools also act as your health (damage will force you to spend skill points to negate it), leading to skills ticking down as the session goes on. There's no penalty to a skill hitting zero, but a character who takes any damage when all their skills are at zero are out. Less certain than Dread, but still a movement towards failure.