[possibly controversial]What is wrong with Vampire the Masquerade 5E?

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
Just noting that lumping together properties here doesn't always do the discussion much good.
Speaking of nuance, what are you saying here? That the world building in the books make more sense than the movies or that some of the movies are better than the others or what?

I saw all the movies and the parts of the world-building that didn't seem to be lifted from a skim of Vampire the Masquerade in a bookstore (something she denies, much like everyone involved in True Blood denies knowing about VtM) seemed to not really make any particular sort of sense.

There are two things I'll say in defense of Twilight, though:
  1. If you're a vampire (sparkly or otherwise), a perennially overcast place like the Pacific Northwest is a pretty good choice of where to hang out, assuming you can get enough to eat, and
  2. Twilight (and True Blood) deserve a lot of the credit for making it "socially acceptable" for non-geeky women to start openly liking geeky stuff. The Lord of the Rings, MCU and the Walking Dead did a lot of the heavy lifting for society at large, but Twilight and True Blood definitely helped kick down the door for women in particular.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
As Night’s Black Agents correctly recognized, spy stuff threads all through the fields for modern vampires, too. In the service of most secret conspiracies and against them, every mix of slamming glamorous violent action and bitter weary disillusioned moral exhaustion seems viable, and the existence of constant deception is really applicable. People knew that before the ‘00s but we mostly didn’t realize Just How Much it’s true.
I finally got to play NBA at GenCon Online this year and while the setting is fantastic (and I'm really interested in the GM tools to build vampires and conspiracies), it feels very much like a product of its time, with way more crunch than seems to be needed for the game (or at least the game I played in). It's one of the world's best ideas ever for an RPG, though.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Speaking of nuance, what are you saying here? That the world building in the books make more sense than the movies or that some of the movies are better than the others or what?

That the VD TV shows at least (I can't speak of the books because I've never read them) made some effort to have the nature of vampires be such that their tendency toward monstrousness was baked in, but not strictly mandatory; that someone motivated enough could avoid being a monster, but it required walking a fine line between "I'm almost paralyzed by how strongly my emotions run" and "I can easily deal with that problem by turning them completely off, but then my empathy goes with them". That seems to include a considerably greater thought than is usually baked into such settings.

(Again, remember, this is about the Vampire Diaries setting I'm talking here; it appears you're talking about Twilight, which is a different, and to my view, much more simplistic setting. TW vampires are only monstrous because they can't be arsed to be otherwise, far as I can tell).
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I finally got to play NBA at GenCon Online this year and while the setting is fantastic (and I'm really interested in the GM tools to build vampires and conspiracies), it feels very much like a product of its time, with way more crunch than seems to be needed for the game (or at least the game I played in). It's one of the world's best ideas ever for an RPG, though.

The problem is how much crunch is "needed" is always going to be in the eye of the beholder. There are few games that can't be made simpler, but not everyone finds simpler is better.
 

MGibster

Legend
I finally got to play NBA at GenCon Online this year and while the setting is fantastic (and I'm really interested in the GM tools to build vampires and conspiracies), it feels very much like a product of its time, with way more crunch than seems to be needed for the game (or at least the game I played in). It's one of the world's best ideas ever for an RPG, though.

You say a product of its time like we're talking about 1993 or something. NBA was released in 2015. It's younger than 5th edition D&D. And I suppose crunch is in the eye of the beholder because I don't consider the Gumshoe system, or the version used in NBA, to be particularly crunchy. The biggest difference between NBA and Trail of Cthulhu is that the former allows for more super spy action than you'll get in Trail.
 

Reynard

Legend
You say a product of its time like we're talking about 1993 or something. NBA was released in 2015. It's younger than 5th edition D&D. And I suppose crunch is in the eye of the beholder because I don't consider the Gumshoe system, or the version used in NBA, to be particularly crunchy. The biggest difference between NBA and Trail of Cthulhu is that the former allows for more super spy action than you'll get in Trail.
NBA's biggest mechanical problem is that it has too many investigative skills. Way too many. Also, the combat is a little wonky. But overall it is a good game despite those faults.
 

teitan

Legend
Revised was an incredible mixed bag.

I don't think I've ever seen a successful RPG do this before or since, certainly not intentionally (arguably 4E D&D did it unintentionally). They literally wanted to chase away or at least profoundly change the play style of (in an unlikely way) perhaps the vast majority and I suspect definitely the majority of their player base. It wasn't just a vibe either - a couple of the designers explicitly talked about it in that rather aggressive (not quite the right word) way that was common with all sorts of game designers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Later Revised books seemed to backpedal on this a bit though.
The era of "badwrongfun"! Most of the games I played were heavy politics, very little action though. We rarely touched dice when we played. I quit playing around 1997 and got revised about a year before the suicide attempt that was nWoD which was an incredible line really. SO well thought out and designed but essentially a write off of their old fan base. I preferred it to VtM in the long run to be frank.

I have friends in Cleveland who absolutely loathe VtM because they watched the more prominent "real Vampire" movement grow out of the local goth club's LARP group and the toxicity of it all.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
You say a product of its time like we're talking about 1993 or something. NBA was released in 2015.
And the state of the art has changed a lot since then, in part due to the unexpected success of 5E bringing a ton of focus back to the RPG space.
It's younger than 5th edition D&D.
5E, even at the time, was not at the cutting edge of design. The last time D&D was at the cutting edge was probably 1974.
And I suppose crunch is in the eye of the beholder because I don't consider the Gumshoe system, or the version used in NBA, to be particularly crunchy.
🤷‍♂️

Like I said, I played once, one of the Dracula Dossier adventures that had us trying to protect a journalist in North Africa, as I recall, before going to a dig site in Eastern Europe. Most of the stats on the character sheet, as far as I could tell, were irrelevant to the game as we played it.

I imagine for other scenarios more of them may be used. But in my single experience, it seemed a little crufty.
 

The-Magic-Sword

Small Ball Archmage
I'm probably late to the party and I wasn't following it too closely, but they were most recently in hotwater for some repeat offenses of using photographs of native activists without their permission and not only did it happen, it then also happened in another book way after they were called out for it, with the second being a Maori person with really distinctive cultural tattoos IIRC so it was somewhat exoticizing in context. That was their most recent release (the core book for the new Werewolf the Apocalypse) so they haven't managed to do better with that yet.
 

The era of "badwrongfun"!
Exactly so!
I quit playing around 1997 and got revised about a year before the suicide attempt that was nWoD which was an incredible line really. SO well thought out and designed but essentially a write off of their old fan base. I preferred it to VtM in the long run to be frank.
Looking back it's kind of amazing how many decisions TT RPG companies took in the 1990s which were sort of obviously perverse or likely to cause them harm, and how an awful lot of them were seemingly motivated by artistic or sentimental concerns, rather than professional or business ones.

Revised was business-y in that it was a product refresh and stood to make money, but also very sentimental in that "badwrongfun" was a major part of it, and instead of leaning in to what made their games genuinely popular, they leaned out to try and make them more the way they wanted them. You just wouldn't do that today.

nWoD as you say, was a sort of elegant suicide attempt, because it just wasn't the right time, in the middle of the whole d20 thing, to essentially say "All your investment is worthless". It was also a mixed bag in terms of whether the new products reflected the '00s zeitgeist better or were better games. V:tR was incredible, and honestly I think probably better than V:tM in all ways by the time the line essentially ended, whereas the new Werewolf... I know a few people liked it, but it didn't have the base appeal of the mayhem-filled Apocalypse. The new Mage was just dull and bad frankly, a totally unworthy successor. Was it a bit more zeitgeist-y? Well no, not really, that's the sad thing. It actually felt kind of more dated than Ascension, despite Ascension having some hilariously dated elements by then. And later games often bordered on the unplayable - Promethean was a great concept hamstrung by various design decisions seemingly taken without reference to whether this would make the game more fun/workable.

Palladium vanished up its own bum due to a sentimental attachment to a terrible system, when there was a point in the 1990s where they could have leveraged what they had into tremendous success - and again a point the early '00s, where, had Rifts done d20 version, it might have been "born anew" (esp. if they got good artists).

Mike Pondsmith, god bless him, and I do love and respect him, decided to put personal annoyance ahead of a pretty successful RPG, and just cut off Cyberpunk 2020 in 1997, seemingly very much for similar reasons to Revised - i.e. "badwrongfun" - if you read the generally excellent Listen Up, You Primitive Screwheads! GMing book for 2020, you can see Mike ran a very different game to 90% of Cyberpunk players, were much more RP-heavy, romance-heavy, street-level-oriented and so on (he used Streets of Fire as an example, and I have to admit, it took me until I was like 30 to understand what was good about that movie - now I love it!). And the big gun book having one new gun in it was such a contemptuous "You slavering hogs!" sort of deal. Even before ending the setting with the Stormfront books you could see he was wobbling, with CyberGeneration being such a weird thing (the ideas it had about childhood seemed to me profoundly 1970s, too, even in the 1990s, and very much still do to me re-reading it today), and also seemingly an attempt to "end" Cyberpunk 2020 (by essentially saying most/all edgerunners would be dead/in jail/in hiding by 2027 and a safe and boring Night City would have replaced the one we knew). The less said about Cyberpunk V3.0 the better. Honestly though if RTG, even with someone other than Mike in charge had just kept making Cyberpunk books, maybe a Cyberpunk 2030 and so on that was very much a continuation of the setting rather repudiation (as V3.0 was - 3.0 being intensely post-cyberpunk, genre-wise), I think they'd have done well. I guess he got his redemption with 2077, Edgerunners, and to a lesser extent Red (setting is fine and very much a return to 2020-style, but the rules are a mess).

I could go on, but I should probably shut up lol.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top