I think his comment about Christianity is in reference to the Vampiric origin story and not True Faith.
It was indeed. The Caine story as I understand it is presented as Truth, and it means the Abrahamic story is true.
Additionally, I prefer the decoupling of political allegiance and clan in VtR. Seems more natural than Clan being both family and political allegiance, especially in the modern day.
I agree, and I'm more in favor of Requiem than Masquerade in most circumstances. Though I do prefer Ascension over Awakening, if only by a smidgen.
russdm it really comes down to preference and what type of game you like to run. They both have their merits and strengths. I find that Masquerade excels at the Ghenna/Apocalyptic type scenarios that the canon follows. It was made for it. If you want to run the official story you can provide a really fun experience for your players. When it comes to creating your own story Requiem is more adaptable, and offers more opportunities for in depth character development and personal experiences. It really exemplifies the "personal horror" aspect of Vampire. You could take the fluff of one setting and adapt it to the other, but then why not just play that game instead?
Can't argue with clan politics, they're still there. But the Caine story is also suspicious and has lots of counter-proof in later editions.
Eh. To each his own, I guess.
To those who do play VtM: Do your STs use secondary abilities? Like...Camarilla lore, clan lore, masquerade as a skill, hunting, and so on.
So is the Whitewolf nWoD books on amazon for V:tR all from the first edition? Is there really any reasons that make buying the 2nd edition more worth it than picking up the first edition?
How much change occurred? Were there only minor changes? Or major ones? How much changed between editions occurred and how important are those changes?
I believe so.
Better experience system, a social manuevering system has been added, use a different system instead of virtues and vices, the disciplines have all been rewritten and made more useful, it's less "V:tM but different" and more it's own thing, vampires don't frenzy just because they are meeting someone for the first time, clan weaknesses are different meaning the clans act a bit different in 2e to 1e, fluff has vampires seem less "one origin" where even each clan has multiple potential origins, humanity is based around measuring how inhuman you are rather than just being "moral code" (none of the "Morality bars" are about morals now), vampires don't have magic memory loss, you can take banes which give you folklore-vampire abilities, sunlight damage is variable depending on your humanity and blood potency, all vampires have better senses rather than needing separate powers for it, vampires are stronger when in frenzy and frenzy is no longer split into "Fear/Hunger Frenzy" instead being more general to fit with the situation that's occurring to the vampire.Quote:
Is there really any reasons that make buying the 2nd edition more worth it than picking up the first edition?
How much change occurred? Were there only minor changes? Or major ones? How much changed between editions occurred and how important are those changes?
Demon is weird. I mean, I don't hate layered reality, but to keep any mystery as to what happened 6000 years ago you have to ignore it.
I would also like to say that for Masquerade itself, the Caine story actually gets more true in some ways as the line goes on and Gehenna approaches. I mean, I love VtM, but it is extremely Christian in it's worldview (moreso than Demon).
Probably, 2e is all Onyx Path and Print on Demand, so it's unlikely to have turned up on Amazon.
[/QUOTE]Is there really any reasons that make buying the 2nd edition more worth it than picking up the first edition?
How much change occurred? Were there only minor changes? Or major ones? How much changed between editions occurred and how important are those changes?[/QUOTE]
The changes are deceptive. At the core all that changed its optional stuff, the core system is the same. However, at least for Requiem, pretty much all the additional stuff has changed.
Kindred got a massive power boost in 2e, with their physical disciplines vastly increasing in strength and their psychic disciplines also getting a reworking (Nightmare now deals with illusions a lot more, for example). The fluff has also been taken even further from Masquerade, although I'm afb and so can't say exactly how.
Oh, and there's a new experience system, a mechanic to make sure you never lose experience from Merits getting attacked (Sanctity of Merits), plus many of the core systems have been tweaked. It's highly worth getting 2e over 1e.
To answer the other half of the question, the only books specifically written for 2e are the main Vampire the Requiem 2e book, and Secrets of the Covenants. Both are available only by Print in Demand, its incredibly unlikely you'll find any elsewhere and if you do it'll be second hand. Several first edition books are recommended. The various Clan books are about 90% fiction, most of which still is valid, and a tiny bit of crunch, which may require some tweaking. I used to sat the Covenant books too but now Secrets of the Covenants is better and more Modern, at least from what I've heard. The last two books are Sacraments and Blasphemies, which allows for more freeform blood sorcery (the example rituals in 2e are designed with this book specifically in mind), and Damnation City, for building the city.
I'm not going to argue one way or the other about the criticisms. But I definitely feel that Eukie presents the reasons for my visceral dislike of the Chronicles edition (I should definitely make my stubborn alternate terminologies for the editions my signature). Having read Dresden Files RPG I know that FATE is cool, but I don't think Onyx Path should have written something which at a glance is very reminiscent of FATE.
Thing is, the "fate-like" parts of the game are just "1) We've modified the conditions system so status effects don't reduce player agency and instead make the game function more like a horror game. 2) you can turn a failure on a roll to a dramatic failure for 1/5th of an XP. 3) You have a list of three goals that you (the player) would like to meet eventually in the game, and if they are meet you get 1/5th of an XP.". That's.... nothing to be honest.
Whenever I see people complain about the "Fate-like" parts of the game they act as though it's some major things that's throughout the mechanics. For godsake, Mutants and Masterminds & D&D 5e are more FATE-like.
It's really not that different though, is it? All you do is instead of having the effect of the drug or power or spell or whatever mechanic listed in the mechanic itself, where you have to refer to specific mechanics scattered across the book to see what is affecting you, rather you have all the effects listed and names in a single area of the book, designed such that you can hand out cards to players to help remember what effects are what.
Other than that, all they really do for the basic Conditions is make them a primary source for XP. But otherwise it's all information you'd have to track anyways, it just would have been more scattered and using several different systems or mechanics to remember all of it.
Working on an oWoD Fallen character and need some clarification.
The book seems to say that Fallen take over a body after the mortal has died. However, I swear I read somewhere in the book that the Fallen can make a bargain with a mortal to take over the body without the mortal actually dying. (They share the body.) That kind of scenario makes more sense for the character I want to build. However, I don't want to put the effort into it if that is not actually an option.
Spoiler: The BackstoryThe mortal is a social worker who works with kids and families in the courts. He's seen way too many bad situations and is frustrated with all the times the innocent get messed over. One night while ranting, he says "I would give anything to be able to fix what is wrong with the system." That is just the opening the Demon needs, and offers a bargain. The Demon gets a body, and the mortal gets the power to take matters into his own hands. He becomes a Dexter-like killer, "removing humans who do not deserve to live."
Yes it is different. They are different editions. The two are not compatible. They do tell similar types of stories with a lots of the same terminology, thus they are different editions of the same game. To say they are strictly improvements is an opinion presented as fact.
There are the whole conditions thing, the tilt things, the viture/vice thing, the god machine, the clans, the covenants were deeply philosophically changed though they kept much of the same overall shape.
Frankly I find the whole GMC horrid, but that's my personal opinion.
And a bunch of people telling me to "get over it" or "it is better" doesn't help. You like that game fine but don't tell me to like something I don't. I don't find it fun, so I don't play it.
D&D edition wars *jaw jaw jawjajawjajaw**snarl**jawjawjaw**statistics paper**jawjajwjajawjaw**snap**jawjawjaw*
WoD edition wars *silence* *angsty starring* *silence* *silence* *explode with rage* *silence* *silence*
Alright, I've been staying out of this discussion because honestly, my favourite edition of WoD is the old GURPS books (followed by CofD, but it's not close), but this has been annoying me.
Actually, the only big difference is the Conditions, and even then it's mainly a streamlining of a concept from most games. Now, when it comes to the setting side I can see the disagreement, I didn't feel for Requiem 1e while I love Requiem 2e (conversely I don't care for Forsaken 2e but Forsaken 1e is tied with Apocalypse as my favourite WoD game). The core system is all the same, and mortals work almost exactly the same (the only changes being one character creation tweak, Sanctity of Merits, and a better XP system*), so I don't know why you see this massive difference between nWoD1e and CofD (now the individual games I do understand, they've all had massive reworkings).
* Remember the old one that made realistic starting characters hilariously suboptimal? I'm not sad that it's gone.
To go through these in order:Quote:
There are the whole conditions thing, the tilt things, the viture/vice thing, the god machine, the clans, the covenants were deeply philosophically changed though they kept much of the same overall shape.
Conditions: yeah, these could have been handled better. Half of them don't even tell you what they do, and a bunch of things that should be conditions aren't. I also don't like XP being given for them, it pushes them front and centre in character development where I'd rather have Aspirations. I like them as a concept, but they turn almost everything into 'roleplay this once and get XP', when them just being an easy way of tracking bonuses/penalties would have been fine.
Tilts: In all honesty I've never been bothered by them, but that's because I always forget they're a thing. Really, I should not be able to forget about a key part of the combat system (really because the first thing that springs to my mind is 'condition').
Virtues/Vices: There has literally been no change for mortals since 1e. The rules in 1e didn't limit you to seven Virtues and Vices, although it might as well have as far as I know. I do agree that some personality archetypes for Supernaturals need work, but really why are we still doing this when we have less subjective vectors for regaining Willpower.
Clans: eh, personally I prefer the 2e Clans to the 1e ones, except maybe for the Ventrue's weakness (seriously? At least the Nosferatu one costs 4XP to overcome), but I agree that it's subjective.
Covenants: really, this is where we get into the fact that 2e fluff is really more of a reboot than a continuation. There's a lot of common themes, and the covenants still follow the same core archetypes, but there have been significant enough changes that it's really a case of new covenants (this is definitely not the old CoC).
That's fine, you're entitled to it.Quote:
Frankly I find the whole GMC horrid, but that's my personal opinion.
The thing is, from a rules stand point it's the best WoD has been (which is not saying a lot). But if you don't want to play it, that's fine, better doesn't always mean more fun (heck, I'm certain there are still people out there playing oWoD 1e, even with some of the really strange ideas [specific focuses for each Tradition!?]).Quote:
And a bunch of people telling me to "get over it" or "it is better" doesn't help. You like that game fine but don't tell me to like something I don't. I don't find it fun, so I don't play it.
Oh I didn't mean the editions were the same, I meant conditions were tracking things that you were supposed to be tracking anyways, but in a more consistent manner that encouraged greater player buy-in. There are a few other changes that I would consider net positives, and strongly so.
You missed, for Vampire, the removal of the Predators Taint (every time you met another vampire you had a chance to flip out and either run, cower, or attack) and the replacement with Predatory Aura, an active effect that allows you to seduce, scare, or challenge others supernaturally. I consider this a fairly objective improvement. It takes an annoying social impediment out of a primarily social game, and replaces it with a social TOOL. That rule was one I often saw house ruled out.
Additionally, changing how weapons work so shotguns aren't better long range weapons than sniper rifles anymore, by separating the damage bonus from the dice roll. Another common house rule I saw.
Also removed the archaic, problematic, and insulting link between morality and mental illness. Used to be you could gain a mental illness if you shop lifted. Sure, it fit a theme, but at the cost of implying that the mentally ill deserve their illness because they're bad people. That was a major issue hard to simply house rule away but I can objectively say it was a right choice. Unless you think that there's nothing wrong with insulting the mentally ill at your table. This is responsible for screwing up the Ventrue curse, which they never did come up with a suitable replacement for.
As for curses, I would argue that the Gangrel also have a disappointing curse. Mekhet, Nosferatu, and Daeva all reinforce their stereotypes whether they accept the curse or go out of the way to avoid it arising. The other two go against stereotype if they try to avoid the curse. Daeva are the best example: either accept that you have a tight knit herd that you are obsessed with, or become promiscuous to avoid the curse. Either fits the stereotype. Gangrel on the other hand are merely punished for having low self control so are incentivized to have... Overly high self control? Not exactly fitting their stereotype.
Not a fan of the way experience is presented, but that's fixed by saying a beat is an experience and multiplying all costs by five. Simpler.
Even though it's a different game, I must point out how Mages spell casting improved imho with "reach". Before Mages only had to avoid casting certain "vulgar" spells jn front of Muggles, or the Abyss twould leakthrough. Now, it's rather that they are encouraged to "reach" for more power in their spells at the cost of the Abyss possibly leading through. Fits the theme of "hubris" so much more strongly
Edit: also re the god-machine, that's no different than saying I really hate ghosts in the first edition. They're the featured antagonist in the mortal line and a major role in one other line, and have references here and there in other lines, but little more. You can play a game without ghosts very easily. In fact, you can play a game without the God machine much easier than you can without ghosts.
On the god-machine thing. I dislike it because of the same reasons I dislike the Cain/Jyhad parts of oWoD. It took a fundamental mystery and put something there. I thought what nWoD did best was often in what it chose to leave blank or missing.
And I liked predator's taint. It was a powerful ST tool. How groups of vampires delt with it could deeply shape their actions...So getting rid of it wasn't a positive for me. And while I was hopeful for Aura on paper
Remeber that 1e DnD thief who was always stealing everything that wasn't nailed down because it gave him XP? Well conditions seem to turn people into that in the storytelling arena. No if you had hypermechanically focused players who avoided and minimized any flaws their characters may have had I could see this being a plus. But frankly it turned many of the parts of playing a complex character in a point reward system instead of a fun reward system (doing something because it brings enjoyment). This more than anything is why I loath this edition.
As for the link between falling humanity and mental illness I agree with you. I just don't find the replacement functional.
It isn't like all the changes were bad, (Obfuscate, weapon issues, the idea of breaking points etc) but the bad ones outweighed the good to a large degree for me. The behaviors that the changes incentivise at the table are different enough to make it a different evening. It has felt more like a combo of legal contract negotiations mixed with 1990's style Kings Quest games (with conditions being inventory objects) than cooperative storytelling (what it says on the tin). Both the games I've run and the games I've played in have been comparatively joyless affairs because of it. Much less laughter for example.
Realistic starting characters been deeply suboptimal? I actually thought of that as a feature not a bug. It had to be taken into account for as an ST but it drove lots of fun stories.
Having never enjoyed any of the mage games I don't follow them and I'll take your word on the improvement there was enough room for it.
Final thought-I could hand the blue and red book to someone who had never played when they sat in on a session and they all could follow along (I put labeled bookmarks in to help but not much else). I considered this a huge improvement to oWoD. I don't find the game on ramps well. I could teach VtR after only a couple sessions (and it made bigger changes from VtM than VBS does from VtR) the poor presentation has practical consequences which have been replicated by those of my friend who did make the switch-they have found it hard to get interested parties to become new players.
I'd say that, for someone who hasn't played, it's probably better to go with Blood and Smoke/2nd edition. It's only one book rather than two, and the text feels much more evocative. There's also the fact that 2e Kindred have been massively buffed, mainly due to the boosted physical disciplines and stronger Frenzy (although not entirely, most psychic Disciplines were already buffed). I also think that 2e sets out the book a lot better for someone like me, who may have skimmed Requiem 1e but never read it deeply (it was just sort of dull for me), as well as potentially completely new people, but YMMV and I don't think it's brilliant for old players.
To be honest, I get entirely why some people might not want to play 2e. Although I love the 2e changes, I've recently realised that I don't need them, especially as I don't like all the changes to the splats. I'm actually planning to grab a copy of 1e Forsaken (the only copy I've read belongs to a friend) because a lot of major changes aren't as I hoped. I loved how Forsaken 1e suggested having the hunt as a constant theme, but not as the focus of every session, and not as the only key theme. I actually like the level 1-5 gifts where you can buy them out of order. I hate how each Tribe has a preferred enemy. The only change to Forsaken I do like is increasing the power and role of Wolf-Blooded.
In my personal experience, 2e/CoD is the same kind of experience as 1e, but better. It produces the same kind of stories, but is much better equipped to do it. It's not so apparent in a mortal game, but Vampire works much, much better. Everything runs smoother - the Disciplines have much more of a bite to them, especially. The two things that gave me trouble when running Vampire 2e were conditions and aspirations. The former were hard to remember about and keep track of; the latter just didn't come up in play.
Eh. My ST decided he wants to nerf Celerity (I have my suspicions that I shouldn't have just willy-nilly murdered six elite dregs with AK-74s last session, but he says it's mostly to protect the players from being oneshot by a Sabbat Celerity user with 3+ dots, which also makes sense, since I'd be about the only one who'd be able to even fight such a guy), and at first looked at the DA20 version, but it still wasn't good enough for him. It seems like he wants to abolish multiple actions altogether for the first 5 dots. After a while he came up with the following version:
He's still unsure whether it should disable the dicepool boni while in active use, though.Quote:
Celerity adds its' rating to all DEX dicepools, including initiative, grants the ability to ignore multiple opponents up to its' rating, allows to burn 1 BP for an x2 burst of movement speed for a scene, and also to burn 1 BP for Celerity rating in dodge/parry/block dice for the rest of the turn to all incoming attacks.
I'm pretty sure this is balanced, but does it really hold up to the old one? I love all the physical disciplines (hell, Fortitude allowed me to tank like 20 headshots that day, the dregs were uncannily lucky with their split rolls), but celerity is what makes my character a one-man army.
Single piece of fiction even mentioning it in the entire game (which isn't very mysterious) doesn't make it a "Fundamental Mystery".
Except the best way for vampires to deal with it is to not be social creatures at all.... which is rather stupid in a game about social intrigue. Imagine if everytime an Adventurer meet another adventurer in D&D their is a chance they go psycho, there wouldn't exactly be many adventuring parties and trying to create organizations like adventuring guilds is just asking for everyone to murder everyone.Quote:
And I liked predator's taint. It was a powerful ST tool. How groups of vampires delt with it could deeply shape their actions...So getting rid of it wasn't a positive for me. And while I was hopeful for Aura on paper
Have you actually seen it used in play, because that doesn't describe what I've seen at all.Quote:
Remeber that 1e DnD thief who was always stealing everything that wasn't nailed down because it gave him XP? Well conditions seem to turn people into that in the storytelling arena. No if you had hypermechanically focused players who avoided and minimized any flaws their characters may have had I could see this being a plus. But frankly it turned many of the parts of playing a complex character in a point reward system instead of a fun reward system (doing something because it brings enjoyment). This more than anything is why I loath this edition.
As a person who has mental illness, I have to say I am rather hostile to the idea I have my illnesses because I did evil actions.Quote:
As for the link between falling humanity and mental illness I agree with you. I just don't find the replacement functional.
How could someone think "not being able to make non-ridiculous character" is a feature of a game that is trying to focus on making stories and is a system specifically called Storyteller.... :smallconfused:Quote:
Realistic starting characters been deeply suboptimal? I actually thought of that as a feature not a bug. It had to be taken into account for as an ST but it drove lots of fun stories.
How is handing 1 generally organised book harder than handing 2 disorganised books that you have to repeatedly cross reference?Quote:
Final thought-I could hand the blue and red book to someone who had never played when they sat in on a session and they all could follow along (I put labeled bookmarks in to help but not much else). I considered this a huge improvement to oWoD. I don't find the game on ramps well. I could teach VtR after only a couple sessions (and it made bigger changes from VtM than VBS does from VtR) the poor presentation has practical consequences which have been replicated by those of my friend who did make the switch-they have found it hard to get interested parties to become new players.
Probably has more to do with the 2nd Ed Core Book than a bit of fiction in the 1st Ed Core Book.
The complaint of 2e giving an answer to a fundamental mystery of the God-Machine requires it to have been a fundamental mystery. Which it wasn't (and the God-Machine is still 99% mystery so it's an odd complaint anyway).
If they are saying 2e says God-Machine is a fundamental mystery, and then answers it by giving info on how to run God-Machine games as a storyteller, then I sort of want to know how they want the game to discuss anything. 2e gives basically no answers on the God-Machine because anything close to an answer we get is always presented with contradictory answers, and just gives plot fodder.
How is any mystery meant to treated as fundamental if apparently writing information on it is a bad thing now?
It is fundamental because it hangs in the background of the whole setting. Bloodlines that interact with it (which yeah you can skip but)...any other mystery an ST wants to create has to take it into account. And just like the Abrahamic God was 99% mystery in oWoD it still deeply slanted and effected the nature of the stories told in that game.
And I don't want it explained .... that wouldn't help either. I find it an unnecessary limiting agent on storytelling or at least strong disincentive to the breadth of ideas involved.
In part yes. And again I considered that a good thing-actually one of the high points of the system IMO. When I built cities how they dealt with that issue was part of what defined the society of that city vs other cities. It drove people to REALLY want obfuscate 2 or ghouls to use a messengers. I drove the use of proxies in general-which opened up lots more characters especially if population recommendations where followed at all . . allowed expendability of such characters and because the PC's were less physically dominant could still be a threat. And putting the inherently conflicted nature of vampire as social animals who feel regularly that they want to flee or claw the eyes out of their neighbors was a regular driver of highlight moments and logically poor decisions that made for a more fun game. And I did and do play up the fact that just because a character can't fail a frenzy check of meeting a character a second or a hundredth time they still get a reaction. Watching new (either to PCs or just the players) vampires react to their own fealing of the predator 's taint was a great way of giving first impressions. The concept also covered why there was a vampiric hermit wherever who would seem to cause an effect on nearby social scenes but didn't really seam to..... It really added to the game for me as a powerful tool.
Yeah about 20-ish games. ran 8-ish. Say ish because due to low engagment they (both mine and others) had a far higher rate of breaking up into a general social night than normal.
I agree it is a weak point. I can't say I minded with humanity (didn't like it but insanity as a vampiric punishment as one became less human was plausible) but had huge issues with it as the baseline for mortal morality. Then again I thought I would really like the Breaking point system but it worked better on paper than in play for me.
So it made them more humans than vampires. . . which since I usually played starting characters as only a few years dead that is what I wanted. They had hobbies and stuff. And people who didn't sink a point into things like academics or drive were a great source of fun for the whole table. It was generally they people who did focus on optimization that brought the least to game in terms of how much fun we all had. I think what we would call a ridiculous character is probably very different.
By apparently having different experiences and definitions of organized, clear, and well actually giving an idea of what things actually do. I will say that VBS was a more entertaining read....less useful as a reference.