All Things World of Darkness

"Fear is the mother of morality", and "Power corrupts"

Power does not automatically turn the story into a superhero fantasy. Power is a necessary part of the moral decay the game is built around. Remove enough power, and it becomes less ‘personal horror’, and more ‘survival horror’ game.

Power facilitates the slow erosion of humanity, values, and personal identity that comes with the realization that a vampire can casually overpower or kill any individual mortal (or small group of them). Humanity as a whole still poses a threat, but there should always be this seductive call to not bother restraining yourself. Why should a vampire care about human laws, or social contracts, or morality in general, when he can just reach out and take whatever he wants? Their wealth, their blood, their very lives? A vampire can kill a human just for annoying them without facing consequence. There is no reason to hold back. That’s how you become a monster.

I also wasn’t a fan of removing the elders from V5. We need Elders around because they are the image of what every fledgling vampire will one day become (if they live long enough). It’s like staring at your future reflection in the mirror. Cynicism. Casual comfort with murder. A creature that outlived anyone they personally cared about; siblings, children, lovers. Their original language is dead. The streets they knew are paved over and a Costco built on top of it. Wearing modern clothes feels like someone poured itching powder down your shirt. Elders should be terrifying, but pitiable at the same time. They are the longer arc of what your character will become one day. We need them in the setting.

Having said that, I don’t think V20 handled elders any better either. Lots of chronicles are pure political campaigns, with focus on personal schemes for personal power vs the more entrenched elders. That distracts from the ‘personal horror’ the writers claim the game should be focused upon. I can definitely understand why they made the decision to remove them in v5.

Then again, I’m not really convinced that ‘personal horror’ is actually what most players want out of a Vampire the Masquerade game to begin with. So maybe start by asking what your players expect from such a game, then pick the right edition for you. Or throw away half the rules so you can focus on the type of game you want!

It's a mechanic that comes up for vampires because the situations call for it more often for them. Which duh, of course it does. We don't seem to be in disagreement about vampires being more often in situations where it's relevant.
You quote the part where I accuse D&D of divorcing the system from what's going on in the game world (i.e. gamist abstraction), while repeating the claim that I consider it a more narrative system. A claim that I find rather puzzling in its origins - it seems to be a very loose reinterpretation of my objection against purely gamistic abstractions displacing meaningful descriptions of in-setting phenomena. Of all the RPGs I played, time I spent with D&D is a tiny footnote, so it would be an overextrapolation to attribute to me such strong assertions about it.

In fact I think these kinds of extrapolations and assertion-attributions and statement-reinterpretations ('you said X, I think you actually mean Y') are not constructive for exploring the topic of 'what some people dislike about V5'.

But here's the thing, you asserted that V5 was the less "narrative-leaning game", critically, invoking how "narrative-leaning" is the kind of system that WoD (says it) is.

Indicating that (a narrative-leaning game) was important to you.

But by every objective understanding of mechanics and of traditional game design vs. narrative game design theory, that is wrong . Incorrect. A misrepresentation of reality.

V5 is the more narrative-leaning, less mechanically traditional game.

Hunger is the more narrative leaning mechanic (compared to BP, which is a very traditional resource management mechanic).

There are other more narrative-leaning principles and mechanics in V5 as well. Such as Tenets and Touchstones, the "3 Turns and Done" guidance which includes classic narrative (fail forward, change the challenge, etc) principles, Blood Potency and more.

So what we arrive at is the one thing that you don't like about V5 that has an objective measure (that didn't just equate to "I liked the old way better"), you're objectively wrong about it.

That's important for when and how ppl weigh your input.

You're making an assertion about a thing that has an objective measure, your assertion is objectively wrong by any common or even professional understanding, so I'm testing your assertion, asking you to clarify why your assertion runs directly counter to all common and professional understanding.

That's not a personal attack.

That's how you debate something that has an objective measure/definition.

I was thinking of maybe pointing out the sidestep from the narrative-traditional dichotomy (which almost inevitably risks being interpreted with Forgeite connotations of those terms) towards the 'third option' of divorced/abstracted gamification/gamblification, and elaborate why I have objections to some mechanics and not as much to others, but seeing this word below, I'm not sure if this will just result in us chatting past each other:
Which is to say, I wasn't really intending to turn this into an edition war/debate about objective measures of our likes and dislikes, and started out by outright admitting that '[those are the things] that made me shake my head' (emphasis added now).

Understood. But when you outright misrepresent something that.... tends to matter a lot for decision making purposes... to people familiar with those terms of comparison?

Crunch vs Not-, Narrative vs Trad(itional)

I would argue that it's important to not misrepresent them.

And V5 is pretty universally understood to be the less-crunchy, less-traditional, more narrative system.

Lots of ppl prefer more traditional games, so that's not some dig, but trying to represent it as more traditional and that equating to being "more narrative" as understood by the community? That's wrong.

That's definitely an interesting perspective, to work through NPCs. I was more locked in on trying to make the city itself feel like an NPC, like it's a character with its own character. But I do like the NPC angle, will try to use it in my game, see how it goes.

I've also been contemplating running an LA Anarch chronicle (among thousand of other ideas), so I was wondering, what did you use as base (if anything): "LA by Night" book, VTMB game or the "LA by Night" actual plays streams?
It's great the players are up for that, but I also wanted to set the tone, so to speak, give them a good starting point, both in general and for different scenes. I think like V mentioned above, some players might be a bit reluctant to paint the picture themselves if they are not familiar intimately with the locale.

V6 is officially a go at Paradox's WW. Alpha playtest is also available. WW site announcement - link, Variety article with interview - link. Playtest Aplha - link Proper, drivethru stuff: Players guide: link; ST guide link; Scenario link; reddit chatter - link



List of core rules changes they mention:

Ooo thanks reversia, reading the Reddit drama, seems like just about no one is happy with what they're seeing lol

But if there's anything I've learned over the decades about new editions of old ttrpgs?

It's that you just need to play the game to actually know if you like it or not.

Thanks for the links, Reversia! Was afraid I was going to have to create a demiplane account to read the playtest.

Might try running it if I manage to finish the "packets" this weekend. We'll see.

I'm seeing a replay of strong edition war sentiments accompanying the announcement of V6 (the kind that D&D used to suffer / still suffers from). Agree with emsquared that there's no point in violently reacting, always best to just play it when it comes out and then decide whether I like the latest version.

But wow, that's totally one of the things being intensely discussed here, whether Hunger or Blood Pool is the mechanic that better simulates what we think compels vampire behaviour. (My very late and simplistic two cents worth: BP feels like a resource, Hunger like a risk, so I think they simulate different things).

I object to the claim that my response misrepresented things.
I maintain that adding more rolls with significant outcomes in place of approaches that previously were not as rolly does make the game more roll-centric. I maintain that Storyteller was one of the ur-examples of highly-popular narrative games (in the normal sense of the word, not as a forgeite opposition to 'trad', which is a whole other can of worms).

Not part of the initial post, but I object that there is no divorcing between the in-game-world facts and game-mechanics when a mechanic that closely follows the fiction is replaced with an abstraced and diced one. Which gets very obvious when applied to other fields, like 'how much money did the fence ask for the revolver', 'how many friends do you have', or 'how many days of vacation do you have left', or hell 'how many rations does the battalion have' (for a literal case of hunger/sustenance) - replacing any of those with an abstracted roll always means getting handwavy in the narration and at times risking a loss of the sense of scale.

Though I suppose Bedzone is onto something about tracking dice vs. tracking pints of blood being two different things. And I think 'a risk' is less appropriate for something that is described by the word hunger, while 'a resource', while commonly a dirty word, is more apt for describing something associated with hunger and sustenance.

I'll grant vicky_moloch's point that V5 Hunger is more roll-centric. Hunger die-rolls are built into almost every significant and necessary roll. Hence my term: what drives the narrative is risk. There's always a rouse check, a messy roll, that inches one towards the consequences of being hungry and both its gamified and narrative effects. It drives players to narrate its consequences, whether narrowly succeeding, or describe the tension of their next roll in hunger terms.

I've played less V5 than all the earlier editions, but from all my experience with V20 and before, blood pool is honestly a resource management mechanic. It doesn't motivate players to engage with it narratively. You hunt to replenish your pool so that you can use the blood to power abilities. The rolling is something to get out of the way, 'have you fed tonight, if so let's get on with the game proper'. The rolling isn't central to gameplay; it's not roll-lite, it's roll-diminishing.

Perhaps the ongoing debate is because of this irony. One would expect the roll-heavier version to be less narrative in nature, but it isn't.

Quick one on reveria's thoughts on making a city come alive. My quick two cents: something must always be happening at any time at any part of the city, or seem to be happening. The description of a scene cannot only have physical location description and mundane activity. Because the PCs are visiting wherever they are visiting for a purpose. Something must be happening in that scene that makes that purpose interesting to pursue.

I also read this somewhere, but can't remember where to credit: treat your city as a character in its own right!

Doubling down? Cool.

Still a misrepresentation. Hunger is not the whole system.

For one, the act of rolling =/= crunch. And in the case of Rouse+Hunger, indeed, rolling = narrative. The roll (potentially) causes story elements/narrative to emerge.

Second, V5 is not at all a more "roll-centric" system. I addressed this a bit in a previous post (3 and Done guidance), but let's expand on it:

1. The V5 chapter about the Rules literally begins with a highlighted section called "Dropping the Dice" lol The ultimate guidance from that pop out directs you to roll the dice sparingly. One roll being an explicit option, with the core mechanics following.

2. The core mechanic (Simple Test) steps/rules direct you to check for "Automatic Success" (no roll) as a part of the resolution. And this is without even getting into how V5's "count success" mechanic is fundamentally less crunchy than V20s "variable target+count successes" mechanic. You have to pay more attention to/derive more mechanical information from the dice in V20 - that kind of crunch is actually what makes a game more dice centric.

3. The V5 core mechanic guidance includes explicitly "Succeed At Cost" guidance. Paving the way to roll less, as the result of a roll very rarely be "nothing happens". Just about every roll, should move the narrative to a new place. That is again, the sorry of thing that ACTUALLY makes a game less dice centric and a more narrative system. Whereas V20 would direct you to failure, and roll again with +1 Difficulty.

4. In addition to Automatic Success being core to the resolution system, "Taking Half" is also core to it. That guidance is specifically there to reduce the number of rolls, it's the first words under the heading. And I believe it was in this thread where possibly numerous folks declared how rarely (never) they used the analogous guidance on V20. So again - V5= less roll centric, V20 = more roll centric.

5. Core guidance of V5 under the "Conflicts"/combat section is to not roll initiative, and instead follow a single/consistent series of procedureal steps. This ofc speaks for itself. But - just to be clear - way less roll centric in V5.

6. From there we get into the specifics of combat. Which core V5 guidance is again, 3 Turns and Done. V20 would have you play it all the way out. Again it's obvious which is the less roll centric system (it's V5).

7. But wait! We didn't even get into the actual specifics of combat yet! In V20, you may need to make as many as 4 different rolls to resolve a single attack. V5 is 1 per attack. Again we see, V5 = ACTUALLY less roll centric.

8. Since fewer rolls is so important to you for a narrative system? V5 has "One Roll" guidance as well.

And this is all just regarding how V5 is the less roll centric system, it is also less crunchy (fewer iterations on a similar thing that actually has little difference) in an equal number of ways.

And it also introduces more narrative-facing gameplay elements in other ways unrelated to rolls or crunch, that provide ways for narrative to energy where V20 just had, often, nothing.

V5 only "sounds" like a more roll centric system if you're speaking a complete and utter misrepresentation.

So what would be an example of this? The only thing the initially came to mind is some sort of event. Like that scene from Montreal scenario from "Nights of Prophecy" book, where PCs are pursuing someone in the midst of a Jazz Festival. Or did you mean paint the scene with not only immovable physical descriptions, but also some movement ("homeless are shuffling", "drivers angrily yell in traffic", "patrons move around the bar")? Though I suppose that would constitute "mundane activity"..

You are accusing me of misrepresentation, yet I am having trouble finding where I stated what you are trying to debate in 'my' post. I am not finding myself use the word crunch/crunchy until this post (according to search), yet somehow I got manoeuvred into a position where you are disproving a claim of an equivalence between rolling and crunch that was not posted by me. (In fact, that I brought up Undying, which has non-zero crunch but zero dice, might be an indication that I do not consider dicedness and crunchedness equivalent.)

The rest seems to go into into the many various counterweights to balance off against the specific thing that I commented on. Less roll-centric combat? That might be cool (I'm not versed enough to know about V5 combat, as was implied by my initial disclaimer). But my comment was not about combat (or other areas in the hefty list), it was about specifically changing the mechanics of need for sustenance from diceless to a more diced one, and in a way that makes it depend on how often rolling happens.

Your assertion was that "more roll-centric... seems misplaced for a narrative-leaning game like WoD".

You did not limit that assertion to "sustenance". You cited broadly "resource management" and happily engaged in that principle on other terms until now, after I've demonstrated beyond doubt how the thing you claim to dislike - roll-centric (lots of rolls?) - is disproportionately found in the system you like.

And that's fine! You can like roll-centric! Lots of ppl do. But it shows us that your dislike for V5 is not actually about that. It's not about rolling lots.

It's about having to roll at all for the Beast. It's about control. Which you long ago conceded on, so I'm not sure why you're continuing to dispute it.

Next time just say "I don't like having to roll randomly to see if the Beast will come out."

That's not a misrepresentation.

I got nothing to say about that personal preference except more power to you!

In case my previous post still hasn't made it clear, I do not know the degree of roll reduction in actual play in other areas of V5. I know that a subsystem which I previously expected to be diceless became diced. I don't like that. I like how games like V2e, or Undying, or say Golden Sky Stories, handle such a subsystem. But somehow my dislike got nitpicked by walls of text and debated and rephrased into terms that put words in my mouth (like 'crunch').

The 'not actually about' bit is an indication that you hold a strong and confident opinion about what I do and not have certain emotional reactions to, and are now telling me, the reaction-haver, what I think and experience.
Because it's doing a lot of conflation and equivalence, like the implication that having a like for control in one field automatically means automatically doing things objectively wrong in another field.

Hmmm nope. Here's the actual conflation:
And that vague sweeping conflation caused this whole conversation, that was needed to get back around to "yup, for me it's about control".

I spent this whole time trying to de-conflate "red dice" and "roll centricity" and "what is more or less narrative", which you tried to Missouri's [misrepresent] as all being conflated together.

Look in the mirror before you go pointing at me.