Want to Playtest Vampire: The Masquerade 5th Edition (V5)?

Achan hiArusa · Jun 19, 2017

A few nitpicks:

1) The characters are not balanced against each other. The number of skill and temper (Composure, Willpower, and Humanity) dots seem to have been done at random.

2) The Health levels of the playtest characters don't follow the rules, all but one have too few health levels.

3) Amelia's Character Sheet: Child Connoisseur, really? You mean Pedophile. In this day and age there should have been a) a Trigger Warning or b) Maybe a totally different character that won't turn off a large number of people.

TrippyHippy · Jun 19, 2017

Achan hiArusa said:
3) Amelia's Character Sheet: Child Connoisseur, really? You mean Pedophile. In this day and age there should have been a) a Trigger Warning or b) Maybe a totally different character that won't turn off a large number of people.

A disclaimer should be included, and a parental guide/restriction too.

It is an uncomfortable issue. However, it should be clear that Vampire is a dark game from the offset. The entire central concept of playing vampires is meant to be uncomfortable - drinking the blood of anybody is hardly socially acceptable in normal society. The allegories of having children relationships in various vampire fiction has been used before too, but it is still fiction, lest we forget.

The theme of this scenario states "Survival for the player characters should come with a certain guilt and a question – do these characters really deserve to survive?". In horror fiction, you have to be aware of the level of discomfort you are willing to experience. "Personal Horror" doubly so.

PMárk · Jun 19, 2017

GMforPowergamers said:
I like the NwoD way of everyone having different health levels they brought over, and I assume that when merits and flaws come up we will see 'small' and 'large' players loose or gain a level, and maybe a thick skin too.

I liked the old health chart, but this NWoD way is also okay and has it's own merits. I do hope they will do merits more akin to how they worked in NWoD, because that was one of the parts I liked there more, though I generally prefer CWoD.

I like the new 3 attribute system (although wonder what character creation will look like).

I'm not, but it's a big world.

combat is both better and worse. I like the 2 types of damage superficial and aggravated (I don't know why that's not lethal) that are a / and an X that fill the boxes. I'm not sure if I like skipping soak rolls, but I do get that will speed up combats... but the 'counter punch' thing were a defender can damage the attacker seems to be really dangerus...

Agree and I already have a houserule for that particular problem. Simply, defending won't get you causing damage. If you want to do that, you need to declare that before rolling and then roll with -2 dice, since one-tempo counter-attacks-while-defending techniques are not the easiest thing to pull off IRL.

I also am super happy we did away with humanity. I disliked the entire concept (back in 97 I was saying 'humans don't have much humanity by the rules') and the idea of alternat roads/paths always felt cheap. The same way alignment always was weird the idea of humanity was too. I like the virtues and vices better.

Disagree. I liked those aspects of the game and btw, they didn't did away with Humanity, it's on the pregens' sheet adn the playtest mentions that it's simply not i the stage of playtesting right now.

I only read the rules not the adventure so far, but I will comment on what has been said here. I know that it may be jarring to see Issis or some other real world group used, but I think it can be ok...now since I haven't read it I'm totally not defending it. Its all to easy to miss use or abuse real world groups and names too.

It was just mentioned as a media cover-up for some vampire gang war with explosions and burning down buildings and such. The scenario happened in Berlin, it's 2017, I'm okay with it.

PMárk · Jun 19, 2017

TrippyHippy said:
I am going to have to run a game before I'm really able to analyse combat fully, but do you feel that there is a need to have seperate skills for Dodge (which was removed in V20), Brawl and Melee? I really have never seen why someone who knows how to fight would somehow go all to sea if someone put a weapon in his hand.

I did HEMA for 6-ish years. It's not the same at all. Having different skills for non weapon/weapon based fighting and firearms is the minimum level of realism I want from a game.

Dodge is a waste of a skill slot, as it's implicit as a manoeuvre in Brawl/Melee/Athletics anyway. Notably, there isn't enough room for Firearms or Drive as Physical skills in this new list.

Dodging in combat isn't the same as general athletics, but I'm okay with both versions.

With regards to Virtue/Vice vs Nature/Demeanour, my objection is simply that Nature/Demeanour was thematically tied to the idea of a 'Masquerade' - where everybody is hiding their true selves. I actually, think Natures could be designed through a Virtue/Vice combo anyway though, if people prefer the mechanics (which I agree are smoother in some ways).

Always preferred nature and demeanor over virtues and vices, I just think it does more for character portraying.

GMforPowergamers · Jun 20, 2017

PMárk said:
Disagree. I liked those aspects of the game and btw, they didn't did away with Humanity, it's on the pregens' sheet adn the playtest mentions that it's simply not i the stage of playtesting right now.

It was just mentioned as a media cover-up for some vampire gang war with explosions and burning down buildings and such. The scenario happened in Berlin, it's 2017, I'm okay with it.

I like your house rule for combat already... but really thanks for the heads up on this stuff. I mean using a real world terror group as a scapegoat seems fine to me.

Zak S · Jun 20, 2017

It would've been interesting if, in the scenario, the Anarchs turned out to be destroying the techno club not because it was Camarilla but just because they hated techno.

PMárk · Jun 20, 2017

GMforPowergamers said:
I like your house rule for combat already...

Thanks! The goal in my head is keeping things dirty simple, while providing options for tactical depth and some reality. I feel that simple addition could do both (and combat oriented characters won1t kill you just by defending...).

but really thanks for the heads up on this stuff. I mean using a real world terror group as a scapegoat seems fine to me.

Agree.

vongarr · Jun 24, 2017

Can someone be extremely specific with what is objectionable here? Chapter and verse? I'm asking for a page number. I looked over the document and did a search, the worst I saw was "one sided intimacy" which could be rape, if one is being uncharitable. Perhaps what I see is a revision, or perhaps I am blind. I haven't looked at the scenario packet much.

Vampire is a dark game. It says it on the tin--a game of personal and political horror. And if you're upset about trigger warnings, why isn't there one on this article?

Sunseeker · Jun 24, 2017

This is in no way a response to anoyone in particular, but a general response to what i see across many games as a knee-jerk answer to complaints about inappropriate content. That answer being "its dark" or "its horror".

Its important at this point to understand there is a difference between reading about horriple people who may or may not deserve to live, and playing horrible people who may or may not deserve to live. A lot of writing that includes sensitive subjects does so for very little reason other to shock the reader/viewer. Im not saying this is the case in this game, i am saying that calling into question the inclusion of shocking material can and should be done on a very simple test: does it add something meaningful to the work?

Including sensitive aubjects for nothing more than shock value devalues the subject in question. It removes what ia truly terrifying about it by making it meaningless. It is of course wow h nothing that it is very difficult to include sensitive subjects in a meaningful and respectful manner, but it is difficult for a very inporant reason.

You can make a dark horror game really without including much in the way os sensitive subjects, be that terrorism, rape, pedophilia, or anything like that. A dark setting is more about the chance of survival and what a character has to do in order to survive. That is a fairly long list even without numerous sensitive subjects.

So really i say this: if your answer to why a sensitive subject is included is "its dark" what you really have is no answer, and only the assumption that including sensitive subjects makes a setting dark, which is competely backwards. It the reasons for the inclusion of sensitive subjects is justifiable with reasons beyond "its dark" you likely have a sound argument in favor of inclusion. Is you do not, then you must question why a sensirive subject was included.

Sorry for typos and stuff, wrote on my phone.

TrippyHippy · Jun 25, 2017

shidaku said:
This is in no way a response to anoyone in particular, but a general response to what i see across many games as a knee-jerk answer to complaints about inappropriate content. That answer being "its dark" or "its horror".

Its important at this point to understand there is a difference between reading about horriple people who may or may not deserve to live, and playing horrible people who may or may not deserve to live. A lot of writing that includes sensitive subjects does so for very little reason other to shock the reader/viewer. Im not saying this is the case in this game, i am saying that calling into question the inclusion of shocking material can and should be done on a very simple test: does it add something meaningful to the work?

It's still a work of fiction, and unless you are prepared to also imply that fictional writers are sick for including the points of view of characters who are morally questionable, then it really isn't different to hold role-players to task for playing challenging characters also. They are not committing crimes for engaging in their imaginations.

Including sensitive aubjects for nothing more than shock value devalues the subject in question. It removes what ia truly terrifying about it by making it meaningless. It is of course wow h nothing that it is very difficult to include sensitive subjects in a meaningful and respectful manner, but it is difficult for a very inporant reason.

You can make a dark horror game really without including much in the way os sensitive subjects, be that terrorism, rape, pedophilia, or anything like that. A dark setting is more about the chance of survival and what a character has to do in order to survive. That is a fairly long list even without numerous sensitive subjects.

So really i say this: if your answer to why a sensitive subject is included is "its dark" what you really have is no answer, and only the assumption that including sensitive subjects makes a setting dark, which is competely backwards. It the reasons for the inclusion of sensitive subjects is justifiable with reasons beyond "its dark" you likely have a sound argument in favor of inclusion. Is you do not, then you must question why a sensirive subject was included.

'Dark' is just a convenient descriptor, but as said before, the very motif of a vampire includes a lot of unsavoury, antisocial aspects regardless. Bram Stoker's Dracula included such things also, but people seem to have become inured to the effect of having sanitised, sparkly vampires in the mold of Twilight these days. To try and reclaim the 'dark' descriptor in fiction as solely being about survival is simply untrue.

By all means, insist on having disclaimers and being forewarned, but the bottom line is that fictional writers shouldn't be restricted in what they do based upon individual taste.