I wonder how many Vampre: the Requiem reviews are going to begin \"Vampire rises from the grave\"...
In short - it's definitely not Masquerade, it definitely is Vampire.
Post originally by Norman Rafferty at 2004-09-06 14:00:24
Converted from Phorums BB System
You really vocalized a lot of my own opinions about this product.
I'd played Ars Magica, 1st edition. I thought it was great. However, I was disappointed with its conceit of "there are all these houses, and they have global reach, but for some reason you have representatives from any or all of them in your personal coven." This made little sense, given how hard it is to get around in medieval times. One of Ars Magica's co-writers, Mark Rein-Hagen, later went on to work on Vampire, where he implemented the same darn system. And thus it's gone on for over a dozen years...
Like you, I've always had a problem with how the "storytelling" conceit is at odds with the "characterization" conceit. The players should be the stars, not some bigger, grander design! Our crew has just started with WoD v2, and if we play V:tR, I would hope to see more of the Bloodlines, which (like you) I found to be more interesting than the "ooh, mysterious!" Clans.
Oh, and if you're looking for marketable lines in the game, check out the FAQ in the beginning, where they "debunk" the myth that vampires can't have sex for pleasure.
Post originally by Penny at 2004-09-06 22:20:55
Converted from Phorums BB System
Seconded. I've already bought the book (haven't had a chance to go over it thoroughly yet though) but your review has actually solidified a lot of thoughts I had on it, as well as alleiviated some of the issues I had with the token bloodlines taken from WoD1.
Post originally by RJ Grady at 2004-09-06 22:21:09
Converted from Phorums BB System
"The one addition to the system I am not sure of is the statement that Vampires appear in mirrors and on film with their features distorted. From a “so why has nobody ever just videoed a vampire” point of view it makes absolute sense. From a style point of view it just feels a bit odd. I am at a loss as to why they did not simply say that Vampires do not reflect in mirrors and appear on film at all."
My first guess would be that the authors had just seen The Ring.
Post originally by Justin Achilli at 2004-09-07 10:51:00
Converted from Phorums BB System
Rather, it's because a photograph of a hat and suit walking around by themselves with nothing to support them would be a bit obvious. As it stands, the Masquerade can be blamed on bad photography, human error, etc., which makes for much more reasonable suspension of disbelief.
Post originally by Tom Pigeon at 2004-09-07 11:58:32
Converted from Phorums BB System
That's funny. That's the first thought that occured to me too. That was implemented in such a creepy way in that movie ... seeing a strange distortion like that is perhaps creepier than seeing nothing at all.
Post originally by Dan Hemmens at 2004-09-07 12:34:27
Converted from Phorums BB System
Why would it be a hat and coat walking around by its self?
Since there is no physiological effect that could *possibly* lead to vampires not reflecting in mirrors, it doesn't make any sense for the effect only to apply to their flesh.
And I'm not convinced that one guy, and only that one guy, being out of focus at all times can be easily passed off as "human error". Particularly not if the medium in which they are showing up blurry is a mirror
Linear Mode
