Sell me on Vampires: The Masquerade V5

[Aergentum]

As per title, whay should I buy VTM V5?

I have absolutely no idea what Vampires is (never played before), but I have played various other games and systems (Kult, 7th Sea, Witcher, Call of Chtuluh, Shadowrun, Starfinder) or how it plays out.

Is it more narrative like 7th Sea or action packed like Shadowrun?

[fishyfishyfishy]

VtM is part of the "Storyteller System". The concept of story based role playing games pretty much began with VtM. V5 attempts to modernize the system and make it more newbie friendly as well. It was successful in some of it's goals and less successful in others. It split the fandom unlike anything before it. You will get some conflicting information about it.

[The Jack]

I refuse; Get V20 instead. V5 is the worst edition written mostly by people with no clue on what the hell they were doing. They've flipped everything on it's head to be exciting... only that everything being the right-way round was what made the series so interesting (and believable)

V20 is modern and backwards compatible with earlier editions; It's rules work well with 1st, 2nd and revised editions, and they all have a wonderful setting,

you can speed up combat by 'take half' when it comes to damage and soak, negating it's worst issue.
V5 has a couple of good ideas, but beyond that it's worse in every way. Get any-other edition. V5 isn't "masquerade".

[Aergentum]

It split the fandom unlike anything before it. You will get some conflicting information about it.

This is why I was asking. I found a V5 hardbook copy in my local shop, and the shopkeeper was blabbing about how the setting is amazing and how fun is it to play. But not even mentioned once on "mechanics" or how the actual game is played (d20? d10? d6?).
I thought he just wanted to sell me that one copy he had left in the corner but I got somehow intregued abot VTM. And here I am asking why sould I buy it.

About buying V20 instead, IF (and that's a pretty big IF) I menage to find a copy at a good price (in local shops and convenctions they sell it about on 100 $) I might think about it.

[The Jack]

PDFs are the future, dude.



Edit: also, nice thing about V20 is that it gives you near everything. There's very little missing. If for some foolish reason you go with v5, you're stuck with like, six or seven of the 13 clans and hundred bloodlines. V20 gives you all the sects, whilst V5 gives you crude outlines of the camarilla and anarchs. V20 gives you every vampire-power ever though some variations are in other books. V5 gives you the most common disciplines in the game and that's it; they seem to be wanting to deliver extra clans/disciplines through supplemental books so they can make the most money out of it. To get clan lasombra, you need to buy the chicago book... Such nonsense doesn't occur with V20.

[Gauntlet]

This is why I was asking. I found a V5 hardbook copy in my local shop, and the shopkeeper was blabbing about how the setting is amazing and how fun is it to play. But not even mentioned once on "mechanics" or how the actual game is played (d20? d10? d6?).
I thought he just wanted to sell me that one copy he had left in the corner but I got somehow intregued abot VTM. And here I am asking why sould I buy it.

About buying V20 instead, IF (and that's a pretty big IF) I menage to find a copy at a good price (in local shops and convenctions they sell it about on 100 $) I might think about it.

Vampire (and other World Of Darkness) games use a 'Pool of D10s' system.

Your character has Attributes (Strength, Intelligence, etc) and Abilities (Firearms, Investigation, Stealth, etc).
Attributes range from 1 (noticeably bad) to 5 (the peak of human ability). Vampires can sometimes exceed these values in both directions. The human average is 2.
Abilities range from 0 (completely untrained) to 5 (as good as it gets). Again, Vampires and other supernaturals can occasionally get above 5, but it's rare. A human will generally have one dot in the Abilities they use in their everyday life but don't focus on, two in the Abilities they spend most of their time using, and three dots in any specific things they focus on. A delivery driver probably has two or three dots in Drive, while a professional airline pilot probably has four and an experienced military test pilot likely has five.

To do a thing, you roll a dicepool which is usually a number of D10s equal to the appropriate attribute + the appropriate ability. So if you're trying to sneak past someone, and you have a Dexterity of 3 and a Stealth of 2, you'd roll five D10s and count up the number of times your dice exceeded the target number as your total number of successes. The GM/ST (Storyteller) determines how tough tasks are by presenting a different target number or changing the number of successes you need to succeed.

Depending on the edition there are a few extra rules - rolling a 10 on your D10s can get a bonus, like rerolling the die as an extra possible success or counting as two successes, and rolling a 1 can count as a negative success or enable the possibility of a botch (a critical fumble). These rules tend to get modified a lot by each individual storyteller, though.

The game is not really about the dice system, though. The important things to think about in Vampire - and in any WoD game - is that the game is generally pretty political and social but with very deadly violence possible at any time. Getting into fights is risky because they tend to end quickly and have long lasting consequences (both physically and socially). Even if you're in a more combat heavy game, the setting is relatively lethal and it's very possible for a badly resolved fight to end a character's life in a single round, so it usually leans somewhat towards the gritty side.

[Silva]

Vampire 5 is more focused than older editions in the personal struggles of predators living among human society. If this is good or bad will depend on personal taste. I like it.

[The Jack]

...at the complete cost of impartiality and the great political horror of past editions. VTM was all about the struggle to rise up in a ****ty system. V5 is identity politics with one side being good and the other evil.

[fishyfishyfishy]

About buying V20 instead, IF (and that's a pretty big IF) I menage to find a copy at a good price (in local shops and convenctions they sell it about on 100 $) I might think about it.

Your rules question was answered already so I'll just focus on this part. You will be hard pressed to find physical copies of V20 in stores. It was never mass produced. The only way to get a physical copy printed is through the drivethrurpg website and having it printed on demand. I have the standard copy and it's quite nice. Premium color is not necessary.

[Silva]

...at the complete cost of impartiality and the great political horror of past editions. VTM was all about the struggle to rise up in a ****ty system. V5 is identity politics with one side being good and the other evil.
...which you can completely ignore to focus on your local neighborhood and your personal drama in it, which the game gives plenty of substance to back up (something older editions never got quite right, amid it's politics & katanas urges).

P.S: by the way, if one is interested in vampires politics, I suggest a look in the Undying rpg. It is much better at politicking and intrigue than VtM ever was IMO, while using the same trappings.

[Anonymouswizard]

This is why I was asking. I found a V5 hardbook copy in my local shop, and the shopkeeper was blabbing about how the setting is amazing and how fun is it to play. But not even mentioned once on "mechanics" or how the actual game is played (d20? d10? d6?).
I thought he just wanted to sell me that one copy he had left in the corner but I got somehow intregued abot VTM. And here I am asking why sould I buy it.

About buying V20 instead, IF (and that's a pretty big IF) I menage to find a copy at a good price (in local shops and convenctions they sell it about on 100 $) I might think about it.

Mechanically V5 is the best of the editions. It takes a lot of the lessons from nWoD/CoD, incorporates more narrative mechanics as well as simulationist, and streamlines times while making disciplines more diverse (but fewer in number). The basic mechanics have been explained well enough.

In terms of seeing, V5 is a lot more newbie friendly. This is partially due to the fact it's more of a soft reboot than a continuation, the setting had explicitly been demolished to focus more on the Watlr of Ages than the machinations of ancient vampires, with a more explicit focus on blending into mortal society. At the same time there are some weird decisions (the treatment of the Philosopher-Kings as Anarchs over 'The Prince's Loyal Opposition', anything to do with House Varna). On the minus side it downplays elements like the Sabbat, intentionally casting away your humanity to keep the Beast at bay, and the Thin Bloods being a sign of the end times.

[Aergentum]

Thank you all for you replies. Now I got a better Idea of what VTM is and if I shoud (or should not) buy V5.

I think I'll give it a try if thek run a game at my local shop (they will sometimes set up a one shot for new releases and older games) and then decide.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I would also recommend checking out Vampire: the Requiem, the new-millenium "reboot" as it were of VtM. The relationship between the two games is difficult to explain succinctly, but I'd say that V:tR is a more versatile but less focused version of a vampire RPG, using a system developed based on that of VtM. The best way of thematically describing the difference is that V:tM is 90s punk (rage against the system, a sense of millenarianism from the impending apocalypse, though the last aspect isn't as present in V20, and I think completely gone in V5) with a well-defined world-spanning setting of ancient nigh-unstoppable monsters who pull every string, while V:tR is 2000s goth-horror (more about different ways that people handle a fundamentally horrific change) with a tool-box approach to world-building: they give you a pile of potential settings and factions and ways to combine them, but ultimately there's no "canon" version of any given city.

Older VtM editions had some serious racism running through them (entire vampire clans based on racist stereotypes), but V20 I believe has handled most of those well. V:tR is, to my recollection, mostly devoid of such issues.

Ultimately, what game I would recommend comes down to your personal preferences and what you're looking for. I think it comes between V20 for the "classic" V:tM experience updated for the modern day, or V:tR for a full modern take on the vampire RPG.

[The Jack]

V5's like... The Last Jedi of VTM, 343's take on Halo, Predator's 'The Predator', The Ori sections of Stargate SG1, Spiderman III, Matrix Revolutions. It just tactlessly apes aspects that it thinks worked without knowing why they worked and wants to ride on the brand.
V5 is a bastardization of VTM that wants to be VTR; You'd be much better off going full VTM or full VTR. You diminish both by the half measure.
If you're new, you won't know what you're missing. Some ideas might even come across as good to a layman; but they're a shallow misappropriation of better ideas that came before.

Either play VTM (The traditional editions) or VTR; don't start with their incestuous baby.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I mean... it's a White Wolf game. It's an imaginative, interesting, occasionally hamhanded, somewhat-flawed setting, paired with a crunchy high-density ruleset and all the mechanical fun and frustration that comes from that. You'll either really enjoy it or hate it.

[Anonymouswizard]

V5's like... The Last Jedi of VTM, 343's take on Halo, Predator's 'The Predator', The Ori sections of Stargate SG1, Spiderman III, Matrix Revolutions. It just tactlessly apes aspects that it thinks worked without knowing why they worked and wants to ride on the brand.
V5 is a bastardization of VTM that wants to be VTR; You'd be much better off going full VTM or full VTR. You diminish both by the half measure.
If you're new, you won't know what you're missing. Some ideas might even come across as good to a layman; but they're a shallow misappropriation of better ideas that came before.

Either play VTM (The traditional editions) or VTR; don't start with their incestuous baby.

And here we have the inevitable 'other people having fun is bad if you don't do it my way'.

OP: if you like V5, don't worry about the naysayers. V5 still needs time to grow, despite the whiners who think it should be as developed as V20 right off the bat. It's a new thing, and some people want the old (and more power to them, but V20's rules work about as well as a sugar bath, I'm glad somebody willing to write decent mechanics gave it the soft reboot).

[The Glyphstone]

I mean... it's a White Wolf game. It's an imaginative, interesting, occasionally hamhanded, somewhat-flawed setting, paired with a crunchy high-density ruleset and all the mechanical fun and frustration that comes from that. You'll either really enjoy it or hate it.

You forgot the atomic-grade-intensity levels of divisiveness within the community regarding which edition is the 'best'. Masquerade vs. Requiem, Masquerade Revised vs. V20, or (as we see here), V20 vs. V5.

[Ignimortis]

And here we have the inevitable 'other people having fun is bad if you don't do it my way'.

OP: if you like V5, don't worry about the naysayers. V5 still needs time to grow, despite the whiners who think it should be as developed as V20 right off the bat. It's a new thing, and some people want the old (and more power to them, but V20's rules work about as well as a sugar bath, I'm glad somebody willing to write decent mechanics gave it the soft reboot).

While pretty much all the White Wolf games, IMO, have rather terrible mechanics (I find that they're overly reliant on the GM being a very good GM for the game to actually work), I don't see how V5 is anywhere better than V20. I'd have to agree with Jack here. V5 checks off on most points in the "why would you do this" list. More narrativism, less solid foundation on how exactly vampiric powers work by the numbers, removing a lot of clear-cut strength from most disciplines...

My takeaway from V5 is that it's more about the hunters becoming the hunted (human hunters are explicitly more powerful and dangerous by the V5 ruleset), trying to force the personal horror narrative even harder than before (which might be someone's cup of tea, but I ditched Vampire eventually for that exact reason), and rebels without a cause, since Anarchs now seem to be the prime PC candidates, but they don't have anything powerful yet actually opposable for them - Camarilla is in shambles, the Sabbat is off to war far away, and fighting for scraps among yourselves feels dumb when there's a real Inquisition about. And you can't really beat the Inquisition.

V20 is more flexible narratively and mechanically. It does need quite a bit of patching up (mostly around disciplines and maybe write out some rules WW outright forgot or mention in weird places, like "draining blood from a mortal deals 1 lethal damage per BP"), but you already have all the content you would ever need just from two books - the Core and Lore of the Clans.

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh noes, the game that claims to be about telling a story oxides mechanics based on using a story! How will we ever be able to tell stories with that hurdle!?

[The Jack]

V5 actually damages a lot of rules and breaks common sense to tell that story. So yeah, I'm not keen on it.


If it was logical, I wouldn't mind the difference and some of the upsets, but it isn't.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Yes yes, you don't like V5. You keep repeating that over and over in myriad of ways without any actual arguments in multiple threads. You're not contributing anything of substance Jack. It's just...opinions framed as facts.

[Anonymouswizard]

V5 checks off on most points in the "why would you do this" list. More narrativism, less solid foundation on how exactly vampiric powers work by the numbers, removing a lot of clear-cut strength from most disciplines...

Talking of opinions presented as fact...

Okay, cards on the table. I hate simulationist systems, and have a marked preference for narrativist systems over gamist ones. Take the following post as coming from this viewpoint.

My last post was overly dismissive, so let's go into more detail. Vampire has from day one declared itself to be able narrative gaming, but always presented a stimulatonist system. So it was an abject failure at delivering what they promised, and relied heavily on GM-fiat to have narrative elements.

And when vampire first came out, that was fine. Narravitist systems weren't a thing, merely clearly stating the intention was relatively big. But we're not in the early nineties anymore, and while V20 mainly got by due to being an explicit anniversary edition trying to do a relaunch of Vampire, with the same claims to nartativism, in a post-Apocalypse World industry? It would be laughed at (in the exact way I laugh at people who call D&D a 'storytelling game').

Part of that is vampiric powers being a little less clear on how they work. It allows a bit more freedom when it comes to nativist elements, while still allowing dice pools to form gamist elements. The powers could be a little bit better written.

There, that's why they did that. As to weaker vampires, I don't know. I quite like it, bit out does cause setting changes.

[Silva]

Count me in on the "original VtM was a mess thematically" train. It never knew what it wanted to be both mechanically and from a playstyle standpoint:

A game of personal horror (as advertised on the tin)?
A game of politics & intrigue (as was promoted by it's setting)?
A game of superpowered martial artists by night (as promoted by the bazillion disciplines, rules and other combat paraphernalia)?

Vampire 5 has a much clearer vision of it's goals, and how to achieve them IMO.

Tangent:

in a post-Apocalypse World industry?
Have you look at Undying and Urban Shadows? Pretty good PbtA hacks that get inspiration from Vampire. Just sayin. :smallsmile:

[Psychoalpha]

Full disclosure, I don't really like any of the Vampire games that came out of the various World of Darkness iterations. I've played a few, even had fun doing so, but of the various options available (Mage, Werewolf, Changeling, etc) Vampire only really ranks above Wraith in oWoD and... I guess maybe Beast or whatever it was that came out in nWoD that I didn't pay much attention to, so can't really say.

That said, this is pretty spot on from what I've looked at:


V5's like... The Last Jedi of VTM, 343's take on Halo, Predator's 'The Predator', The Ori sections of Stargate SG1, Spiderman III, Matrix Revolutions. It just tactlessly apes aspects that it thinks worked without knowing why they worked and wants to ride on the brand.

It does seem like the worst iteration of one of the worst of the WoD lines (again, Wraith, ugh).

That doesn't mean it might not be somebody's cup of tea, but like... there are people who like FATAL, I guess? Somebody else having fun with something isn't a super compelling argument for that something being good.

I'd second (or third or whatever) the V20 recommendation. The 20th Anniversary Edition versions of the games have all been pretty solid so far, for what they are (which others have already explained better than I would). 20th versions are what's referred to as oWoD (Old World of Darkness) as opposed to nWoD (New etc), with both game lines having only really a very superficial relation to one another, but I'll always recommend oWoD over nWoD. The mechanics of the latter are often more solid (again, for what they are), but frequently at the expense of sacrifice setting elements that were more or less butchered in the transition (Mage: The Awakening is an absolute damn travesty compared to Mage: The Ascension).

[Anonymouswizard]

Tangent:

Have you look at Undying and Urban Shadows? Pretty good PbtA hacks that get inspiration from Vampire. Just sayin. :smallsmile:

While PbtA isn't really my 'thing' (bit lighter than my preference), Urban Shadows looks interesting. Undying unfortunately turned me off because 1) claimed it was diceless and 2) £40 price tag, when I got Burning Wheel Gold for less than £30.

But yeah, my point was less 'PbtA is awesome' (it is, but it's not the point), the point was 'PbtA was successful enough that a game Vampire being released today wouldn't be taken seriously'. I'm sure if I was more familiar with PbtA I could make a hack for it, the Clans already give great Playbook fodder, and I could probably do it for Forged in the Dark, but I'm not saying that's what the V5 designers should have done.

Actually, that might be a fun project. Nabbing the best bits from the oWoD and nWoD, and putting them on either Powered by the Apocalypse or Forged in the Dark (probably the latter for now).

[The Jack]

Yes yes, you don't like V5. You keep repeating that over and over in myriad of ways without any actual arguments in multiple threads. You're not contributing anything of substance Jack. It's just...opinions framed as facts.

Do we need to go into dialectics. Let's go with just facts (and opinions surrounding them)

The logical blood pool was replaced with an abstract hunger bar that I feel is far too arbitrary.

In VTM, you could choose your morality. In V5 your morality is ordained and for some reason the authors explicitly tells the readers that they can't conceivably play a genuine bastard; Even the given criminal archetype is a nice guy who needs wholesome interactions. I suppose if you embraced a genuinely warped dude they'd shrivel up and die. Guess my backlog of killer capitalists are invalid.

Compulsions are A thing in v5. They threaten the validity of the masquerade and make me wonder why more cainites don't kill themselves for the lack of self control. Combine this with what they've done with dominate, and there's genuinely no reason to add The Masquerade to V5; It's not sustainable and it can't have been a recent thing.

In VTM, most disciplines were free from blood expenditure, you might even notice some metaphysics playing into why some powers use blood and others don't. In V5, those metaphysics don't exist, and rousing the blood is purely a balance feature.


In vtm the thinbloods were supposed to be weak embarrassments. in V5 they've got unique powers and are special.
Also completely changing someone's physical gender is a mere level one ritual for thin bloods... I can't look at that and not be cynical.

The VTM Camarilla were never the bad guys (as far as vampires go) and the anarchs weren't good, instead you've got a juxtaposition of ideas. In V5, the cam are very frequently the bad guys and the anarchs are the good. Look at the Brujah writeup, it's insightful.

Throwing away all your technology for fear of goverment surveillance is a drastic measure (IE stupid). Just don't use key words. Objectively 'a few guys got into our phones now we ban all phones' is just a dumb play.

V5 radically reworked the dominate discipline, Objectively making it significantly worse for the masquerade. Subjectively, I'd say the change makes the masquerade unworkable and the problem of v5's timeline is largely possible due to this nerf.

The elders and the Sabbat all leaving to fight in the levant is an unorthadox choice; Vampires have always piggy-backed on wars and the past hundred years has had plenty; why should the arab spring be special? More people are dying in mexico. Subjective opinion time: it seems like a desperate and short sighted move to seem relevant and current when vampires are ageless monsters from another time.

V5's House Carna doesn't work with VTM's tremere on a scale beyond Lord; The tremere are smart bastards who don't recruit the carna demographic and you can't change your blood magic into a different paradigm without rebuilding everything you know (doing so grants a significant time for the tremere to crush you)

In VTM, the perspective is mostly neutral; it's critical of left and right wing practices, some things get more attention to others which might suggest the leanings of the writer, and older editions go a bit racist; but the authors never openly say they're X or Y, they just criticise everything and the reader decides what sticks.
In V5, the authors are unapologetically pro-X and anti Y, so if you're not exactly with the diatribe it comes across as toxic. The authors mock lizard conspiracy theory (in a book about vampires, how rich) and tell their opponents to put the book down and rethink their lives...

Look, my ideals are more aligned than not with the authors', but I find them embarrassing to be associated with. V5's a social burden that does more harm than good in tactlessly espousing it's values.

Now please, Tell me I don't have arguments. Because to me, VTM almost entirely worked. V5 almost entirely doesn't.

[Morty]

I've never really cared about V5 one way or the other, since I picked CofD when it was still nWoD and stuck with it. But the quality of arguments against V5 have successfully made me develop some sympathy for it. I'll continue to stick with Requiem, but nonetheless.

Also, could we, like, try to avoid political discussions about V5 for once?

[Ignimortis]

Talking of opinions presented as fact...

Okay, cards on the table. I hate simulationist systems, and have a marked preference for narrativist systems over gamist ones. Take the following post as coming from this viewpoint.

My last post was overly dismissive, so let's go into more detail. Vampire has from day one declared itself to be able narrative gaming, but always presented a stimulatonist system. So it was an abject failure at delivering what they promised, and relied heavily on GM-fiat to have narrative elements.

And when vampire first came out, that was fine. Narravitist systems weren't a thing, merely clearly stating the intention was relatively big. But we're not in the early nineties anymore, and while V20 mainly got by due to being an explicit anniversary edition trying to do a relaunch of Vampire, with the same claims to nartativism, in a post-Apocalypse World industry? It would be laughed at (in the exact way I laugh at people who call D&D a 'storytelling game').

Part of that is vampiric powers being a little less clear on how they work. It allows a bit more freedom when it comes to nativist elements, while still allowing dice pools to form gamist elements. The powers could be a little bit better written.

There, that's why they did that. As to weaker vampires, I don't know. I quite like it, bit out does cause setting changes.

Ok, yeah, I might've not presented my opinions as opinions, posting in a bit of a hurry at work. But personally, I'm pretty much for the opposite - I prefer both simulationist and gamist structures to narrative ones, and in fact tend to mix them together to get what I would consider the best outcome. As such, I prefer systems that at least in their core mechanics can simulate how the world works, even if the PCs break that later on, and I prefer systems I can always have reasonable expectations about.

To that end, V5 is immensely worse for me personally than V20, because I can't play around the blood pool/frenzy risk anymore and I get less clear-cut and more GM-dependent benefits from most of my disciplines. So I consider it mechanically inferior. I also consider it thematically inferior, because of the following:


Count me in on the "original VtM was a mess thematically" train. It never knew what it wanted to be both mechanically and from a playstyle standpoint:

A game of personal horror (as advertised on the tin)?
A game of politics & intrigue (as was promoted by it's setting)?
A game of superpowered martial artists by night (as promoted by the bazillion disciplines, rules and other combat paraphernalia)?

Vampire 5 has a much clearer vision of it's goals, and how to achieve them IMO.


While this is true, I was far more attracted to Vampire as an urban fantasy game of vampire politicking and superhuman powers. I take no interest in Humanity and I would be absolutely fine with it being removed from the game. And since Vampire is pretty much the only mainstream game dealing with vampires in particular, I feel that it should be more universal in what it does with vampires. I actually stopped playing Vampire at some point, in part because I was tired of dealing with Humanity. But I liked the politics of the immortals and the superpowers that allow a lone well-built vampire to steamroll a SWAT team in ten seconds.

P.S. Also I've read Jack's post, have to agree with pretty much everything again. Don't care much for the sexchanging rituals or whatever, but V5 has upset the setting to the point it's not really the same anymore and in doing so ditched the majority of the old possible themes.

[The Jack]

Humanity's there so you can change to a road/path, which are curiously absent from V5, and I don't think the new humanity mechanics are particularly good for how a road works.

Honourable accord/Chivalry is the embodiment of how you should play vampire.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Now please, Tell me I don't have arguments. Because to me, VTM almost entirely worked. V5 almost entirely doesn't.

Now this is more like it :smallwink:

I can only criticize 2 things.

1) The Camarilla being "good guys" is not accurate. Protagonists, yes. Good? No way. You're playing monsters in VtM.
2) The first few dots of disciplines do not rouse. This is different, but it's not necessarily any less thematic or flavorful than previously. Especially when you have the weird circumstance where Dominate doesn't cost blood but Presence does, even though they're both mental influence on others.



Honourable accord/Chivalry is the embodiment of how you should play vampire.

Path of Blood and Path of Caine are right up there with it imo. Some people don't like Honorable Accord, and it doesn't fit all characters.



To that end, V5 is immensely worse for me personally than V20, because I can't play around the blood pool/frenzy risk anymore and I get less clear-cut and more GM-dependent benefits from most of my disciplines.


It's fine to prefer blood points but I don't see how it's less clear. More hunger means the beast is more likely to surface, and due to hunger being gained by a 50/50 chance roll you are able to use more advanced powers much more often before it gets maxed out. Not only that, you can keep using your powers after it's been maxed. The blood point minigame was kind of weird, and managing your hunger is more thematic and elegant and less gamey than the previous system.



I take no interest in Humanity and I would be absolutely fine with it being removed from the game.


You can absolutely still do this, if that's your preference. It's against the point of the game but I get that personal horror is not a thing everyone enjoys.

[Satinavian]

For me Dark Age Vampire is the best Vampire so far. The setting makes so much more sense than standard Masquerade. Mostly because Masquerade was there first and they had time for some refinement. But mechanically Dark Age and Masquerade are nearly identical.

V5 ... I don't have it, but what i read about it does not want me to actually play it. Mostly the Hunger mechanic both for 10s and for 1s seems utterly horrible.

[Silva]

I get that personal horror is not a thing everyone enjoys.
And this right here is the crux of the matter, no?

I mean, the group who likes V5 does so because it's the best edition for delivering the Personal Horror that old editions always promised but struggled with. While the group who hates it does so because V5 trumps all the other aspects (less combat paraphernalia, less "simulation" mechanics, simpler politics/local focus, etc) to promote that same Personal Horror.

Makes sense? :confused:

[Ignimortis]

And this right here is the crux of the matter, no?

I mean, the group who likes V5 does so because it's the best edition for delivering the Personal Horror that old editions always promised but struggled with. While the group who hates it does so because V5 trumps all the other aspects (less combat paraphernalia, less "simulation" mechanics, simpler politics/local focus, etc) to promote that same Personal Horror.

Makes sense? :confused:

Precisely. Which is why I would recommend V20 for a more generic vampire game, and I guess V5 is fine if you want to focus on the vampiric condition itself instead.

[Silva]

Precisely. Which is why I would recommend V20 for a more generic vampire game, and I guess V5 is fine if you want to focus on the vampiric condition itself instead.
The way you put it previously seems spot on: V20 lets you explore a more wide "urban fantasy"; V5 lets gives more teeth to "personal horror".

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, V5 has terrible Humanity mechanics. They really need to be tied more to reminders you're not human, with the moral element being more tied to the character rather than the chronicle (maybe violating your character's beliefs? I'll need to think on this).

Also, the problem with Camarilla games is that it fairly quickly devolves into personnel horror.

[The Jack]

See, I play characters mostly for the ladder. Often I'll deviate from that and play an idealist or something exotic, but half or more of my characters are there to carve out a comfortable existence for themselves. I'll lean into the parasitic nature of vampires because I think it makes fascinating story, even if it's against my IRL values. Sometimes I'll go for something modest, but other times I'll play something get-rich or get-powerful. I'm here for economic and political savagery; it's an art.

V5 isn't good for that. The absence of elders and ascension of thin bloods lowers the bar. Because of idealist writers separating anarchs and the camarilla further it's more difficult for a pragmatist to flirt with and take advantage of both, and because the anarchs are more successful the struggle is too easy.

Vampire's about the struggle, the Jyhad, but it seems like, apart from humanity, they've really weakened that sense of struggle.


RE: camarilla the good guys
Of course they're not the good guys, but relative to vampire society they're the nicest option.

Dominate vs presence/Rouse checks.
Dominate's metaphysically all about authority and it costs no blood because people are sheepish things which obey perceived authority without compensation and often at their expense. It's why you can't dominate someone with better generation than you; you can only go down or across. Obfuscate was similarly free because us humans can get wilfully ignorant.
Presence uses blood because it's emotional bribery which can go up/down or sideways.

[Anonymouswizard]

Relative to vampire society the morally good option is to walk out into an empty field, break both your legs, and wait for sunrise.

The Camarilla might be the mature option. Might. It focuses on hiding the existence of Kindred from mortals and sustainability. At the same time it indulges in heavy institutionalised abuse of mortals, of fledglings, and really anybody who isn't old enough to have snagged a high level position when it was being founded ~500 years ago (awww, it's so young).

What the Camarilla does have is a relatively reasonable goal, the resources to achieve it, and a philosophy that'll help stave off the beast, at least for a time. The problem is that if you join you'll be stuck trading favours and running errands for Elders all in the hope that you'll get a position that doesn't exist, won't exist, and is wanted by twenty kindred a hundred years older than you.

The Sabbat can in no way claim to be the morally good, mature, or reasonable option. At the highest levels they're exactly as bad as the Camarilla. At the lower levels they're significantly worse.

Now the Anarchs might appear morally good on the surface, but in essence the only way they really differ from the Camarilla by being a lot less centralised. When you remove 'overthrow the elders' from the equation they have the exact same goal as the Camarilla, they've just never had as many resources.

And we all know where the Anarch Revolution is heading. We've seen it before. Does anybody actually think that most Barons are going to step aside and let somebody else take over? Do we think that without the Camarilla to fight against that there aren't going to be anarchs trying to centralise as much power in themselves as possible? Say hello to the new Camarilla, same as the old Camarilla (that's assuming that they don't go the way of the Sabbat, which is more than reasonable with the state in V5). Plus without regulations on the Embrace you're really up Thin-blood Creek without a paddle.

So yeah, no option is relatively morally good. The Camarilla being in power is just more pragmatic if you're not looking to meet the sun any time in the next few hundred years.

[The Jack]

The cam is small goverment; they leave you alone if you're playing by the rules. Issue is, most games aren't set in a well-oiled city where things are going as planned, because that'd be boring. Problems of the Camarilla are typically problems of the municipality.

The Camarilla institutionally abuses mortals, sure, but it's the only sect that actually regulates interaction with mortals. The Anarchs have no such regulation; sure a few neonates will want to be kinder to people (at the expense of how easy it'd be to feed) but all the psychos and weird paths that the camarilla would repress if not stomp out are present with the anarchs. A few flag-waving idealists and the vocal minority do not represent the movement at large. What V5 fails to understand is that an anarch presence is nice when the prince is abusive, but a camarilla city is nicer for everyone to live in.

[Kish]

The Camarilla has explicitly been supposed to be utterly evil way, way back to 1ed. 3ed, even while it explicitly said even louder that the Camarilla was not supposed to be the good guys, introduced a lot of unfortunate stuff about the Sabbat not merely disregarding humans but being obsessively focused on torturing and raping humans, and went out of its way to eliminate most of 1ed and 2ed's stuff that showed anarchs in a more positive light.

And as for "See, I play characters mostly for the ladder. Often I'll deviate from that and play an idealist or something exotic, but half or more of my characters are there to carve out a comfortable existence for themselves," well:

"Your characters are expected to be heroes--they must care about what they are and what they become." --the 2ed Vampire: the Masquerade core book (may be a slight misquote as I'm going from memory)*

You're not complaining that V5 messed with age-old themes and introduced bizarre unprecedented ideas--you're complaining that it went back to the game's roots after Justin Achilli turned the game into "Vampire: the Pointless Cynicism" in 3ed.

* Edited to add a link: 1ed, too (http://oneyardhex.blogspot.com/2017/03/lets-read-vampire-masquerade-1st_14.html). I was just going to make sure I had the quote right, but it occurred to me, reading that, that I had the answer to that person's question; it's in the previous paragraph.

[Anonymouswizard]

The cam is small goverment; they leave you alone if you're playing by the rules. Issue is, most games aren't set in a well-oiled city where things are going as planned, because that'd be boring. Problems of the Camarilla are typically problems of the municipality.

We have rather different ideas of the Camarilla.

I mean, a 'well oiled' Camarilla city is simply one that puts down every Anarch revolt before they do anything stupid and spend the rest of the time competing to control the mortals


The Camarilla institutionally abuses mortals, sure, but it's the only sect that actually regulates interaction with mortals. The Anarchs have no such regulation; sure a few neonates will want to be kinder to people (at the expense of how easy it'd be to feed) but all the psychos and weird paths that the camarilla would repress if not stomp out are present with the anarchs. A few flag-waving idealists and the vocal minority do not represent the movement at large. What V5 fails to understand is that an anarch presence is nice when the prince is abusive, but a camarilla city is nicer for everyone to live in.

I think I didn't make myself clear. I don't find the Anarchs any better than the Camarilla. At best an Anarch-held city centralises is power in a couple of Barons and becomes like the Camarilla. At worst it descends to the level of the Sabbat. It also possibly becomes locked into a cold war between different gangs of kindred, with no written rules but more than enough unspoken ones.

The Anarchs talk the talk, but the only ones with a sustainable plan are basically looking to be "the Camarilla, but with fewer elders'. Of course you can't say that when the loudmouths are waving their flags, but even before the Camarilla are fine somebody has got to be making sure that feedings go unnoticed and nobody questions why somebody hasn't agreed in fifty years. The kindred who believe they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart have nobody else to blame when the boot is pursuing their face into the pavement.

You join the Camarilla because they at least have contingency plans in case of a worldwide Masquerade breach (even if that plan is 'throw the Anarchs under a bus'). You join the Anarchs either because they're the fast route to power, or because you believe getting rid of the Elders will magically since everything.

[The Jack]

The Camarilla has explicitly been supposed to be utterly evil way, way back to 1ed. 3ed, even while it explicitly said even louder that the Camarilla was not supposed to be the good guys, introduced a lot of unfortunate stuff about the Sabbat not merely disregarding humans but being obsessively focused on torturing and raping humans, and went out of its way to eliminate most of 1ed and 2ed's stuff that showed anarchs in a more positive light.

"Your characters are expected to be heroes--they must care about what they are and what they become." --the 2ed Vampire: the Masquerade core book (may be a slight misquote as I'm going from memory)*



I read the main book of 1ed not a long while ago to understand where the roots were.

Firstly, I can't recall it explicitly stating the camarilla as evil. Elders? Sure. Evil from the anarch perspective? sure. But the entity on the whole was not evil beyond standard vampire bull****.

Second, revised was obviously more reasonable if that's the case.


This is my favourite quote from the first two editions:
"...Morality is chosen, not ordained"

My favourite book by far's been Midnight Seige. I can't remember what edition it's for, but screwing a city up is just completely reasonable vampire practice that everyone engages in. If Anarchs want to be wholesome people who clean the cities up, they're just making it hard on themselves. Vampires need huge wealth divides, corruption and ignorance for an easy and safe feeding environment; it doesn't matter what sect they're from.

[Kish]

*shrug* I'd say I'm sorry the game moved away from the one edition you liked, but considering how much I utterly hated that edition, I'm not.

It remains: You're not complaining that V5 messed with age-old themes and introduced bizarre unprecedented ideas--you're complaining that it went back to the game's roots after Justin Achilli turned the game into "Vampire: the Pointless Cynicism" in 3ed. You'll likely find a lot more traction with "I want to play a selfish, amoral vampire in an edition designed for that, so I want to play 3ed" than you're ever going to with ranting about how everyone should recognize that 5ed messed everything up.

[The Jack]

V5 is a poorly written requiem with the name recognition of Masquerade. I'd hardly call it a return to form.

[Kish]

Yes, but that's because you're clinging to the notion that the crap Justin Achilli introduced in 3ed, because it appealed to your personal playstyle, was somehow the way the game always really was.

[The Jack]

I don't think your assertions are very accurate, nor do I think you read the 1ed I did.

[Aergentum]

I didn't mean to start an epic-scale debate on V5 vs other editions, but all these comments made me want to try first the other editions just to understand how the setting (over mechanics) and focus changed.

One of my D&D players has the 1st edition of VtM and offered to run a game since he palyed it before. Then I'll go to the store and ask when they'll do a demonstration game of V5 and then decide which is the best choice for me and my players (sadly I get to be the DM in most games T.T)

[Kish]

I don't think your assertions are very accurate, nor do I think you read the 1ed I did.
And I think exactly the same of you, but of the two of us, you're the one who brushed off a direct quote (from the blog I linked, that is) with "revised was obviously more reasonable if that's the case." (Because apparently the only way to be reasonable is to be focused entirely on short-term self-interest.)


"The characters in Vampire are expected to be heroes—they must care about what they have become and about what they may soon be. … [F]or the Vampire character to find some way to "win," they must somehow become heroic. They must defeat the monster within by exerting self-restraint, nurturing the impulses of human virtue, and displaying genuine courage. Sometimes the tragedy of Final Death is the Vampire's only hope of heroic escape."

L.A. By Night, a 1ed sourcebook which was created to detail the Anarch Free States of southern California, was unambiguous that the anarchs, while they had a lot of vampiric selfishness, also had...something that neither the Sabbat nor the Camarilla understood, with Jeremy MacNeil being overtly heroic and the general mood in the Anarch Free States being to revere him, even while a few of the barons schemed to increase their own power; the worst thing ever said about any of the barons was that she wanted to run her domain like a Camarilla prince (not a particularly brutal prince, not any qualifiers at all; this was unambiguously a massive, horrifying moral step down from an anarch baron). The book paid lip service to letting the players play Camarilla or Sabbat infiltrators, but the introductory adventure was unambiguously aimed at full-blown Anarch Free State patriots.

(And yes, I'm aware Justin took pains to dismantle all of that later. If you want me to be surprised by anything you can cite, or for it to shake "You're not complaining that V5 messed with age-old themes and introduced bizarre unprecedented ideas--you're complaining that it went back to the game's roots after Justin Achilli turned the game into 'Vampire: the Pointless Cynicism' in 3ed," you'll need to make sure that citation is actually from 1ed or 2ed.)

[The Jack]

"The characters in Vampire are expected to be heroes—they must care about what they have become and about what they may soon be. … [F]or the Vampire character to find some way to "win," they must somehow become heroic. They must defeat the monster within by exerting self-restraint, nurturing the impulses of human virtue, and displaying genuine courage. Sometimes the tragedy of Final Death is the Vampire's only hope of heroic escape."

But there's a lot of room for interpretation right there. Set/Caine/Haqim/mithras are all admiral fellows with heroic qualities, not to go into all those complex historical figures of legendary stature. Classic heroes were all deeply flawed.

In no edition was VTM to play like DnD with ethical characters and a lack of violence.


"revised was obviously more reasonable if that's the case." (Because apparently the only way to be reasonable is to be focused entirely on short-term self-interest.)
-Let me rephrase that; Revised pessimism was more realistic.
-Long term, obviously. Vampire's about the long game. Keeping mortals disenfranchised blood bags is the long game.

[Satinavian]

So V5 talks up Anarchs again and the Camarilla is evil ?

Another reason to skip it.

[Morty]

I really do prefer Requiem's default five Covenants and however many regional ones, that can all be arranged into different relationships, than the three-way tug-o-war between Camarilla, Anarchs and the Sabbat.

[Anonymouswizard]

I really do prefer Requiem's default five Covenants and however many regional ones, that can all be arranged into different relationships, than the three-way tug-o-war between Camarilla, Anarchs and the Sabbat.

Sabbat? They're still a thing? :smallconfused:

[Satinavian]

I really do prefer Requiem's default five Covenants and however many regional ones, that can all be arranged into different relationships, than the three-way tug-o-war between Camarilla, Anarchs and the Sabbat.
As i said, i prefer Dark Ages with its many many factions and complex relationships more than the modern age lore.

But if it has to be Masquerade, i don't need that spupid "Authority = the Man = evil / Anarchy and Punk are Freedom and good" mindset. It is not the 80s anymore.

[Lady Tialait]

I ran a short V5 chronicle with my group who mostly play V20. The group were Camarilla, and appointed by the, now gone, primogen council to take over for them. The Prince was missing, and the only one who knew was his seneschal, and the party. They were forced to run the city during this crisis while trying to keep the secret that there was no Prince. A story I could not easily run in V20. They had to overcome several things.

- A crumbling Ivory Tower
- Anarchs riding into town disrupting the Masquarade
- Vampiric backbiting and machinations
- There own individual natures.

The putting of all the elders on a bus to the middle east was a great way to throw a wrench into the machine. The end times are upon us! The time of thin bloods has arrived! If you wish to hold onto the old ways you'll find it difficult.

Oh, and on the topic of the sects, I always saw it this way:

Sabbat: Right and Stupid
Camarilla: Wrong and Smart
Anarch: Wrong and Stupid

A lot of how the End Times should play out is due to the Camarilla not preparing for it, instead playing pretend like it wasn't coming. The Sabbat tried to prepare for the End Times, but upset far too many people. The Anarchs miss the point completely. It is too late in V5 for any of that, the End Times are upon us. We are living in Gehenna, the sands that cover Enoch are stained red with the blood of Ancients. Caine will rise, and the young are not prepared, they don't even know to be prepared.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Isn't V:TM as a whole kind of...tainted, since one of the head writers for White Wolf was a creepazoid, and even wrote Beast: The Primordial as a justification for his creepazoidness? After learning about that and seeing that guys name in so many writing credits for White Wolf's stuff it's hard for me to find it fun or safe to enjoy. :smallyuk:

[Anonymouswizard]

Isn't V:TM as a whole kind of...tainted, since one of the head writers for White Wolf was a creepazoid, and even wrote Beast: The Primordial as a justification for his creepazoidness? After learning about that and seeing that guys name in so many writing credits for White Wolf's stuff it's hard for me to find it fun or safe to enjoy. :smallyuk:

Wait, what? Can somebody point me towards this so I can read up on it?

But that would explain a lot about Beast (...you know I prefered it when the core idea was 'you're a monster, try to be the best monster you can be'). Actually, hold up on that, I want to go on a minor tangent.

Now some parts of the Worlds of Darkness, especially the three iterations of Vampire, feature the idea of 'player as villain'. That is to say that the games are specifically set up in such a way that being a good person is hard, with the idea that the struggle to either remain a good person or become a pragmatic and sustainable bloodsucking parasite would create drama. It works quite well, but only if the group is on board with it.

Beast could have been an opportunity to delve further into that idea. No need to worry about losing your humanity, you were never human to begin with, just worry about dealing with your goals that are at inherent odds to human society without being a complete jerk. Instead it got retooled into being a complete jerk so that 'Beasts have something to do' (like they didn't have things to do originally? No possible Chronicles about delving into the origins and connections of things that go bump in the night? No Beasts trying to determine why Demons aren't family?). I don't own Beast entirely because it's no longer 'you're the villain of the story, how do you deal with this' to 'humans aren't scared of you, go abuse them'. Plus, as people have already pointed out, other splats have included better takes on this whole idea. The Lancea et Sanctum, just to pick the example I know best, include the idea that vampires are supposed to 'scare mortals straight', but it's just one aspect of them.

[Morty]

The guy was fired (http://theonyxpath.com/about-matt-mcfarland/) and Onyx Path spent some time removing his influence from their material; I know Changeling 2E was pretty much rewritten on this account. Hunter 2E was set back considerably as well.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I think that Zousha is also combining two different people: Matt McFarland was the writer at Onyx Path who Morty linked to, and who had all of his pending projects redone.

Zak S was the guy who was fired from working on V5 for White Wolf. Or, at least I'm pretty certain he was fired, I can't remember when though.

Moral of the story, I guess when you're making RPGs about terrible people and abuse, you need to be doubly sure about the people who you hire, because there's sure to be terrible abusers attracted to that kind of game. Same thing with a lot of historical games: war games about Nazis or crusades tend to attract fascists, or at least people parroting racist memes without thinking about their origins. In my historical strategy game circles, we have to be very careful about who we vet, and the same has to happen with these kinda games.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

The guy was fired (http://theonyxpath.com/about-matt-mcfarland/) and Onyx Path spent some time removing his influence from their material; I know Changeling 2E was pretty much rewritten on this account. Hunter 2E was set back considerably as well.

I think that Zousha is also combining two different people: Matt McFarland was the writer at Onyx Path who Morty linked to, and who had all of his pending projects redone.

Zak S was the guy who was fired from working on V5 for White Wolf. Or, at least I'm pretty certain he was fired, I can't remember when though.

Moral of the story, I guess when you're making RPGs about terrible people and abuse, you need to be doubly sure about the people who you hire, because there's sure to be terrible abusers attracted to that kind of game. Same thing with a lot of historical games: war games about Nazis or crusades tend to attract fascists, or at least people parroting racist memes without thinking about their origins. In my historical strategy game circles, we have to be very careful about who we vet, and the same has to happen with these kinda games.
Does that mean these games are safe to buy now? I thought that they were inescapably tainted, that buying them would be stabbing those creeps' victims in the back, metaphorically.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I mean, a lot of McFarlands work still has his name on it, the stuff published before he was fired. Not sure how the money gets divvied up.

[Anymage]

Does that mean these games are safe to buy now? I thought that they were inescapably tainted, that buying them would be stabbing those creeps' victims in the back, metaphorically.

This gets philosophical and edges up close to the political, but you have to ask yourself how much the artist can be separated from the art. Would reading Sauron's autobiography cause some form of harm to everyone ground beneath his wars of conquest, despite the physical act of reading a book being widely considered non-harmful?

[Friv]

Does that mean these games are safe to buy now? I thought that they were inescapably tainted, that buying them would be stabbing those creeps' victims in the back, metaphorically.

It's up to you, but I will note that if you want to stop buying books from a company because they had a major sexual predator on their staff or have deliberately contracted out work to known predators, you're pretty much accepting that you won't buy anything from Wizards of the Coast, Paizo, Green Ronin, White Wolf, Onyx Path, Green Ronin, Magpie Games, Mongoose Publishing, Steve Jackson Games, and Pinnacle Entertainment, plus a lot of smaller presses.

My personal feeling is that Onyx Path handled their own crisis as well as a company can. Freelancers also don't generally get royalties, so it's not like buying these books will bring that author extra money, and Onyx Path books are written by a lot of people, so it's not like it's one person's oeuvre.

[DMJack]

I run V5, fairly simple for new players to grasp. Originally was a test run for how we felt for the system but so far everyone in my playgroup enjoys it. I guess the term Ymmv sums it up best.

[Aergentum]

My girlfriend decided to gift me the V5 Rulebook for my birthday since we've been talking about it lately. I'll let you know how it plays out for us since it's our first experience with WoD.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Please do!