RAVENLOFT vs. VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE

[MadStepDad]

I’m a loyal soldier. It’s part of my nature.

I’ve always preferred one over another for sometimes no other rational explanation other than “I liked it first”. Marvel Comics over DC. WWE over WCW. One thing that has defined D&D for me since I was knee high was TSR. To me, TSR WAS D&D. There was nothing else.

I think that’s another one of the main reasons that drew us all to RAVENLOFT in the first place. RAVENLOFT as a realm draws on all levels of existence in the TSR multiverse. Like a Marvel Comics crossover adventure. Guys from Dragonlance, Birthright, Darksun, Forgotten Realms, Kara Tur – all made appearances in RAVENLOFT. Kids stuff. Dark, gothic horror – but kids stuff in the vein of all TSR releases.

For years now, my Q-Monstah has been hounding me about VAMPIRE: The Masquerade. He’s showered me with books in the past and begged me to look into it more. I’ve always overlooked it because, well… I loved RAVENLOFT first. But now – with my attempts at a d20 Modern/RAVENLOFT/MASQUE of the RED DEATH millennium version – I’ve taken a new interest in their product. I’m dropping y’all a note here cuz I’m curious to know what’s your take on the whole V:TM genre.

I’ve only known stereotypes and cheap clichés – they’re all emo whiners, gothic wannabes, L.A.R.Pers and serial killers (seriously – read that one at True Crime.com). It also seems to dabble more in modern times than medieval times. The rules are lame too, but the fluff is top notch. Far darker (and dare I say “more mature”) than our hardest RAVENLOFT products. The main difference I see between the two though could be summarized by the blurb that appears at the end of VAN RICHTEN’s GUIDE to VAMPIRES under “Why Not PC Vampires?”

V:TM encourages embracing the darkness while RAVENLOFT is a battle against that darkness. I enjoy running campaigns with that theme much better than all monster/True Blood type things. But I’m wondering what everybody elses take on the game is? Do you like their source books and attention to detail? Seems like a lot of this stuff meshes perfectly with RAVENLOFT. Your thoughts?

Peace,

MSD

[Dion of the Fraternity]

Both settings have obvious similarities, but one of the most subtle ones is the fact that they both have an apocalyptic metaplot: RL is headed twoards the Time of Unparalleled Darkness, while VtM is on its way to Gehenna. Now that Ravenloft has been retconned in 4e, I too am returning back to White Wolf's brand of mature gaming.

I however prefer the Dark Ages line (Vampire, Werewolf, Inquisitor, Mage and Fae). It's indeed dark and strange, and is the closest as White Wolf can be to Gothic gaming. Plus, the senseless power plays of VtM's Camarilla/Sabbat are instead replaced by the much more appropriate High Clans/Low Clans struggle.

And yes, my character is BAALI.

[JinnTolser]

I've never actually played Vampire. Part of the reason for that is because the d10 gaming system makes no sense to me. It seems to be "roll a bunch of d10's, count how many came up 7 or above, and then make up the rules to the game yourself." No wonder so many VtM players LARP, it's because there's no friggin' rules in that system anyway.

As for the setting, it seems like it doesn't HAVE to be a bunch of wannabe goths trying to act out Anne Rice novels. I picked up the core book for it back in 1997 or so (before I was even into D&D actually), and the story seemed interesting, but since I couldn't make heads or tails of how you actually go about playing the darn thing I've never actually done so.

[Dion of the Fraternity]

It seems to be "roll a bunch of d10's, count how many came up 7 or above, and then make up the rules to the game yourself."

This is a hasty generalization. For each number of successes (or failure) there is a succeeding effect. The Old World of Darkness system, despite its preliminary flaws, "makes up rules" just as much as other game systems "make up rules" in the context of the game being played.

Honestly, the Storytelling System of games as a whole has gotten so much flak from gamers who think that the system has too little in the way of rules and too much in the way of fluff.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

This is a hasty generalization. For each number of successes (or failure) there is a succeeding effect.

It's not so much different from the first couple of editions of Shadowrun, in that respect.

[Georg Kristianokov]

To actually answer your question, I will have to go with Ravenloft. While the Vampire games are interesting, they seem to be to "up-to-date" for me. Ravenloft never gets old, so it never really gains any pop culture.

P.S.: With all of the buzz about those books (and movie) that even Cthulhu abhors, how long is it before they have:

TWILIGHT: The Glimmering-NOT-BURNING-in-Sunlight-No-Blood-Drinking Buffy-Angel Rip-off?

[Lord_Pruitt]

I've gamed and ran games in both systems, each with pros & cons. But I did enjoy borrowing some material for each from the other. The White Wolf games have great fluff and some very interesting NPCs. Not to mention that I loved taking the different clans from V:tM, along with their bloodline disciplines, and dropping them into my old Ravenloft game. Talk about some surprised PCs! And I also like bring ideas and character over from Ravenloft and placing them in my V:tM game. Helped to make it more gothic I believe.

In my modern day V:tM game, I brought over the Vistani, as well as Hyskosa's Hexad (conbined with the gehenna) and some of the NPCs from the demi-plane. Made for a fantastic game, just wish it could have been finished (life happens, as they say).

The things I didn't really enjoy about V:tM was all of the politics and the angst and all of the back-stabbing. Not to mention that there seemed to be so many vampires out there in WW's published materials, that being a vampire was common place. The ideas of the Werewolf and the Mage lines are cool to use as well, it just took a while for me to wrap my mind around the magic system of Mage (nothing like good ole D&D magic).

The Dark Ages was much more to my liking, had a better feel to mesh with Ravenloft gaming, less politics, less angst - but the down side is that, depending on your storyteller, the future may already be written and your character is just along for the ride.

I think that you, if you can find the time, should read through the 2nd edition books (I've checked out their new World of Darkness, but haven't played in it, but didn't really like what I saw), because they contain a wealth of ideas and fluff that, in my opinion, make a good Ravenloft game even better.

[alhoon]

V:tM has many flaws IMO. Also the old world of Darkness isn't good for crossover. If you want to try WWolf, try the new world of Darkness.

[Lucien Doomdark]

I have to say I agree with alhoon on this issue; in addition, I have to admit I came from the other side of the fence. I always looked down on D&D players as social lepers whose only enjoyment derived from their ability to do vast amounts of mental arithmetic and fantasise about being Conan (after all, stereotypes work both ways). However, having the benefit of hindsight and gaming experience under my belt and nearly eight years after buying my copy of V:tM, I can say that both games have flaws.

Don't get me wrong. Ravenloft introduced me to the possibilities of D&D, and while I love the new edition, I'm still scratching my head over keeping the game world and its moods and themes. However, I think that both the AD&D and 3rd Edition versions can have more in common with Hammer Horror movies than 'Gothic Horror' as I read it: Radcliffe, Walpole and their contemporaries. However, I also think that Vampire the Masquerade suffered from suffocating new players in canon as well as potentially turning into either a) pretentious angst fest or b) shoot-outs between gangstas and trenchcoat clad immortal superheroes.

So yeah, they have some damning flaws. I, personally, don't think of it in terms of Versus. I like Ravenloft for the struggle against the night and the Mists, and I like Vampire the Masquerade because of the wacky powers and the interesting philosophical ideas it puts forward. I prefer Vampire the Requiem because sometimes I want to play a vampire without the heavy-handedness of Masquerade.

Sometimes I just want to kill monsters, make dry comments and drink and eat sh*t that's unhealthy without having to either dance or make sensible small talk. And that's why I play LFR...

A game for every mood.

[crazybantha]

In my country, you're introduced to RPGs either by D&D or VtM. If D&D is the King, VtM is the Queen.

So I've played both.

Two of your stereotypes are somewhat accurate - they are LARPers and gothics - at least the hardcore ones (and I don't mean this in a derogatorying manner).

Vampire is cool if you want to heavily emphasize your character's traumas, memories and world view. It's a game that accurately depicts characters as tragic figures and that gothic feeling of repentness.

The way I see it, the book says you should roleplay your vampire the way RL depicts the dark lords - you're tormented by your traumas, except you're not at the end of the road (but you can get there... cause the beast hungers). And that's the whole point. It's like watching Brad Pitt fighting against himself and bloodsucking rats every game session.

This would be the "average" way to play it, I believe, although gaming tables vary greatly, for better or worse. I've played under GMs that made the game pretty much like what Lucien Doomdark said - immortal superheroes shooting and using disciplines at each other - as well as GMs that took an Anne Rice approach (more drama, downtoned combat).

Ultimately, I think the main differences are:

. RL is much more cooperative gaming, while VtM emphasizes individuality in a greater extent. It would mean the difference between Bram Stoker's Dracula and Interview with the Vampire movies, if you look at them from a gamer's perspective.
. RL is about fighting/surviving/escaping/accepting the monsters that lurk in the dark, while VtM is about an average person (this way or another) and having to live with being a monster that lurks in the dark.
. In its 2nd and 3rd edition incarnations, VtM sometimes forgets its gothic nature and goes strictly punkish - it's punk overdose. The 4th edition is more pallatable to other audiences, in this regard.
. 3.x RL is heavy on rules, wich may be cumbersome. VtM 2nd is plagued by rules inconsistencies - wich is manageable, but you'd certainly prefer the 4th edition in this regard.

Vampire the Requiem is almost about playing Stahd. Vampires can no longer feel new sensations, learn new emotions, grow, evolve in an emotional manner. They are cursed to relive their memories, good and bad, forever. It's the dark lords' curse perfectly translated to a modern setting. I see you're a hardcore RL fan, and I'm willing to bet you'll enjoy VtR. Gothic-wise, it's almost the same game.

[Jester of the FoS]

V:tM (and V:tR) are both systems that emphasize story and role-playing over combat with the Storyteller's judgement put well above any rule.
It's really anthem to the miniature wargaming that is 3e and 4e, so you can see why there's alot of hate and stereotypes.

That said, I've had some pretty heavy combat-heavy sessions of the game. You can play Vampire as a hard, rough and tumble game. The combat system is smooth and simple which makes combats and fights (with a good GM) smooth and fast. Turns go quickly and the control is all in the player (as the Storyteller needs to seldom roll dice).

Really, combat-wise, D&D is the exception in RPGs, not the rule. There's alot more games that push away from hard, lengthy combat rules than with the D&D-style encyclopedic-length fight legislation.

[crazybantha]

Far darker (and dare I say “more mature”) than our hardest RAVENLOFT products.

That's a point where I forgot to add. If we're talking about an average game, I would call RL more mature because it deals with human psyche losing it's structure in a more clinical, psychiatric and twisted way, whereas Vampire tends to focuse on the psyche itself and its intricacies.

Judging by the books alone, RL advises the GM to make a dark, suspenseful and shocking game more intensively then Vampire.

From my experiences, RL has taken me on far trips from my confortable zone more often then Vampire.

[BigBadQDaddy]

I have only played VtM once and the taste it left in my mouth was sour.

In the session I played in I felt that the group got together to roll dice and ignore each other's characters as they paraded about in their self-absorbed fantasy personifications.
It was like having to sit in a room full of teenager's "Discovering" aspects of puberty. But of course, I could have just been playing with a really crap group.

No offense to anyone who plays the game and doesn't use it as a tool of personal pseudo sexual discovery.

[Algaris]

Personally I'm a fan of both games though I prefer Ravenloft. The Vampire game I played in was an amazing story of political intrigue. Our characters had a hard time working out who we could trust as we we're torn between three factions. The sting we pulled off at the end by ripping off the Sabbat and making it look like it was the work of the Prince took a huge amount of planning and was an awful lot of fun to play out.

No matter what game system you play I'm of the opinion it can only be as good as its GM and players

[Dreamornaut]

I have only played VtM once and the taste it left in my mouth was sour.

In the session I played in I felt that the group got together to roll dice and ignore each other's characters as they paraded about in their self-absorbed fantasy personifications.
It was like having to sit in a room full of teenager's "Discovering" aspects of puberty. But of course, I could have just been playing with a really crap group.

No offense to anyone who plays the game and doesn't use it as a tool of personal pseudo sexual discovery.

In part that is because VtM is in essence a dark metaphor of adolescence and highschool politics. Dark Ages isn't so bad but that element never appealed to me despite the great fluff. I love horror so give me RL any day.