Post originally by Wood at 2004-09-06 06:20:53
Converted from Phorums BB System
Before people come along and start kicking you, I want to say: Good review, man.
I don't think that it's necessarily wrong for White Wolf to completely reboot the setting and start from scratch. Given the insane amount of metaplot the old WoD had and the increasingly hokey additions to the settings that proliferated over time, it got to the point where they HAD to scrap it all and start from scratch in order to get new players in (and continue to sell books). It makes good business sense.
That the new WoD is as good as the old (so far - hard to tell), only without the shedloads of accumulated backstory that made it feel increasingly like players were actually spectators in someone else's story, can only be a good thing.
Oh, and one point on which you're wrong. I will be buying the new one. Your review only strengthened that resolve.
Post originally by Ezekiel Black at 2004-09-06 07:11:24
Converted from Phorums BB System
A few things I disagree with our reviewer about:
The Clans and Covenants. You pick a Clan which is your undeath-born, and then a Covenant, which is like a religion. These together seem to be about the same as the old stats for a Clan, but now you have more variation (old WoD=13 clans, new WoD=30 clans). Can a Nosferatu and Ventrue hang out because they're both Carthian? Yes. The old WoD had absolutely no way to justify the Malk hanging with a Bruj and Vent other than "they feel like it". While he stated Covenants were more like the paths of VtM, they actually play more into game mechanics than that, and therefore are just extensions or possibilities for character variation. The Coils of the Dragon discipline he mentioned? Don't plan on playing with that unless you're Ordo Dracul. Can you be Ordo Dracul as a Ventrue? Yes. How about Ordo Dracul and Daeva? Yes. Can I go on? Yes.
The Clans are different too. While Gangrel share the name of their former existence in VtM, they now have a different feel: Wise savages, not just the alternative to Brujah. Same goes for Nosferatu and Ventrue: they feel just a little different, and that is good. They had five stereotypes they used to make the new Clans: Sexy Vampires, Beastial/Shapechanging vampires, Creatures of the Night, Monsterous/Scary vampires, and Noble vampires. Each has an italicized discipline which makes this fact relatively clear. Then you can (but don't have to) tweek this by picking a Covenant (which were clearly detailed
The mechanics of Potence(Vigor), Fortitude(Resilience), and Celerity are greatly improved, and the clean up of the other disciplines was greatly needed (Example: Protean's 2nd and 3rd tier swapped places in the new edition, the first tier was replaced entirely)
Humanity is no longer about what you believe, but about being human! No matter what Covenant or Clan you're in, Humanity's rules remain the same.
He also didn't say that the new book is much more pretty than the old book, better art, layout, etc. It's also six pages shorter than the old VtM, but has 0 core game mechanics wasting space (that's what the WoD book is for).
Anyhow, I think a Vamp player would be doing himself a disservice not getting Vampire: the Requiem. The feel is actually much less angsty and action-movie-esque, more choose your path and realistic.
But don't take my word for it, after all, I like Vampire the Requiem and hate the guts of Vampire the Masquerade. It only took about 2008 words for Funksaw to mark out all the changes, and then say they were all for the better, and then say the book was still the same. I happen to believe that the games are quite different in mechanics and setting, and the numbers don't lie.
But that's just my opinion. I would suggest taking a read before you jump to someone else's conclusions.
Post originally by Word at 2004-09-06 10:43:40
Converted from Phorums BB System
"If you're playing Vampire: The Requiem, there's no real reason to play Vampire: The Masquerade - or vice versa. Perhaps Requiem was meant for more sweeping changes when the “end of the World of Darkness” was announced, but it got lost under the rug as the game was actually developed and moved away from imagination into practicality. In the end, however, I get the feeling that this move wasn’t really to update the system, though it did that. I get the feeling that this move wasn’t really to introduce new factions and character types, though it did that.
I get the feeling that this was done in order to sell more books."
These sort of "I feel" statements dilute any critical impact of your review. Furthermore, the foundation of your review seems to be that the designers have done good things (you repeatedly say the book is "well done") for the wrong reasons. Then you imply that the wrong reason in question is the sales of books. This doesn't make sense.
Are you arguing that because the creators of this book rebuilt the familiar Vampire game to better appeal to what fans have wanted the game to be doing for years, it is a bad purchase?
Your brief review teaser (which should be your thesis) says you're going to save the reader money, presumably by telling her why she doesn't need to buy this book. Your argument is: The book resembles what was good about the game before, but with quality new material added. I don't see why that's a reason *not* to buy the book.
In fact, your true argument is: people shouldn't buy this book because you think it's shitty that White Wolf is selling another iteration of their popular game to people. That their method consists solely of creating a quality product that responds to fan feedback to create a more enjoyable game experience doesn't seem to even dent your personal ire.
"The bastards made a good game, but they did it for money... how dare they," is what I read above.
Consider this: This is how sequels work in the RPG business. If an RPG company wants to improve upon a previous game and let the market determine it's success, they don't release Vampire: The Masquerade 2. They do this.
Would you argue that a gamer shouldn't buy the new, improved sequel to their favorite video game title because, while it's new and improved, it was released with the intent to sell it for profit?
Post originally by Chris Safruik at 2004-09-06 11:56:47
Converted from Phorums BB System
....anyone who is not already very familiar with the game.
In the future, please do not assume that everyone has the same level of familiarity as you do.
Referring someone to a review of a previous edition of the game and saying "it's basically the same as this" is poor form, and basically makes you look like a waste of time.
Post originally by Wood at 2004-09-06 12:18:01
Converted from Phorums BB System
Of course they did it for money. Why is that so bad? They'd reached a point where it was impossible to run games without a deep knowledge of the background, and this was inevitably going to harm sales. They did the only sensible thing.
Post originally by camazotz at 2004-09-06 13:28:26
Converted from Phorums BB System
Well, just a quick aside that I am one of those "disdn't like V:TM" people who went and bought in to V:TR and am pleased with the changes. I am as excited that the WOD rules are in one affordable book and will receive independent support as I am that the new iteration of the game feels less derivative exclusively of Anne Rice and reflects broader changes and currents in the nature of modern Vampire fiction. Oh, and I like that I don't have to buy in to elaborate metaplots to keep up....and I like that the goth influence in the art (90's style goth, anyway) has been toned down and the book has a more horrific edge and feel to it.
Kudos to WW...they did what they set out to do, make a book that appealed to a broader group of players. Thanks!
Linear Mode
