Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade

message: How does one avoid erroneous redirection? I wanted to enable a possible link from the Maasai to the Laibon, the healer shamans of this ethnic group, but it ended up here... --Xact (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad redirection 

message: A seemingly well-meaning editor has replaced a conservative screed with a counterargument instead of reverting to a more neutral version.  The most recent neutral version was from August 9, but I can't figure out how revert to it. JDspeeder1 (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editwar under ''Concept''

message: I have a bit of an issue with the listing of the Antediluvians in the clan section.  For one thing, it could be considered a bit of a spoiler and I don't feel it's information that belongs on the main V:tM article.  Shouldn't we be sticking to the core book instead of combing supplements for the true names of the antediluvians and every obscure bloodline?  For another, I haven't even heard of some of these guys and I've been keeping up with Vampire for several years now.  So I checked Gehenna, specifically the "official" list at the end of the Introduction, and found no reference to Ilyes, Laro Somi Barra or Mekneth.  While I could have missed something in the Brujah or Lasombra clanbooks, Clanbook: Tzimisce purposely avoids giving any name to the founder.  Veddartha and Dacian are also absent from the list of "canon" antediluvians, though I recall those names at least being tossed about in suppliments at some point.
Essentially my complaint is that a) some of this stuff is unsupported and does not exist in published sources to the best of my knowledge, and b) the clan proginators and the list of bloodlines are unusually specific for this page - it's similar in principle to including a complete list of the saints on Christianity.
--70.161.56.58 05:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Antediluvians

message: Some of the bloodlines information is just flat wrong and even more is supposition that wasn't actually printed anywhere. It should be removed or re-done.
:The biggest thing that should be deleted (or at least explained) is the reference to the Sons of Discord.  The Sons of Discord have never actually appeared.  They were a fan creation, and one or two books (mostly LARP supplements, which aren't considered canon) contain references only to their destruction.  This might be just me, but I really don't think they should be mentioned in the article.--MythicFox 11:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MET books are canon for MET games.  However, beyond the one book they're mentioned in for MET, they're never mentioned anywhere else.  They were adapted for MET use, but not tabletop.  But, this would have to begin a discussion about "what is canon" and what's considered canon, and who decides what canon is, which has been a long-running debate/discussion/argument/flame war on the White Wolf forums.  --Amokk 12:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloodline info

message: I think the fact that the Daughters of Cacophony keep getting changed every other day suggests that "Debated" is the best answer for their parent clan.  --Amokk 19:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: bloodlines

message: I moved the clan/bloodline/founder page to the WoD clans page as they really belong there and are full of spoilers.  Tried to clean up the look of the page a little.  Hopefully it all went well.  Cameronmurtagh 11:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Clan Descriptions

message: "Many maintain that the game's "moral play" aspects have been overlooked or discarded in favor of an action-horror style of play, especially facilitated by the strange, dreadful and dangerous powers of Disciplines."
The additions by 209.63.2.253 are all right, except the "many say" part and such are POV without any evidence supporting it.  Many could be "my 3 friends and I" but that doesn't belong on wikipedia. --Amokk 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concept and Moral Play POV

message: People interested in / contributing to World of Darkness articles please add to the current debate; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravnos regarding the page Ravnos concerning the Vampire: The Masquerade clan being nominated for deletion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  People interested in / contributing to World of Darkness articles 

message: Target article is subject of AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Methuselah_(World_of_Darkness)). Probably better served to be here? Vulture19 (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Methuselah (World of Darkness)]] proposal 

message: The Japanese link went to a minor sourcebook's page (It was for Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom). Japanese Wikipedia DOES have a page for World of Darkness which covers VTM, but because it's already linked to on the WoD page, I can't make it link there. I saw no place to note that when removing the link, so I'll note it here. --68.202.59.244 (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese link 

message: Hello,
 who seem to be main contributors of this article, but also to anyone interested in:
In the article Character race#Race-driven campaign, I mentionned Vampire: The Masquerade because it seems to have changed the way races were handeled in tabletop RPGs. Especially, with VTM, the race is not only a flavour or a list of capabilities, but the real core of the plot.
However, I never player VTM, so I would like some "specialists" to have a look at this assertion.
Regards
cdang|write me 08:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Character race is a funny thing in oWoD that doesn't map neatly from earlier games (eg D&D) however the description in the article seems accurate to me. Vampire: The Masquerade is a game I know very well. If one is playing Vampire everyone is playing a vampire (or something vampire related). Same went with the other supernatural templates. They all had insular worlds that didn't get on well with the other insular worlds. It was possible to play a game with the various races as they all used the same system but they were designed to be played separately.Sugarcoma (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear here, there are no real races in WoD games (barring werewolf, where you can be human or wolf born, or metis which is full werewolf, kinda). Everyone plays a human with a template on top of them (some other exceptions exist, but that is certainly true of the main games). Vampire, ghoul, werewolf, kinfolk, faerie, mummy, were-raven/bear/crocodile, mages, ghosts all exist in the same setting and do interact at various levels, but not generally in positive ways. For one thing no one gets along with anyone else, politically or spiritually, for another the balancing is way off. A new werewolf can murder a coterie of vampires, an elder vampire can slaughter a pack of veteran werewolves, a mage with time can erase anything from existence and kind of do whatever he wants. People certainly have played campaigns with mixed groups like that however, it tends to take a lot of effort in storytelling to get a werewolf to have a reason to work with a vampire when they believe on a deep spiritual level (the same level that gives them their magic and shapeshifting, they have fairly concrete evidence of their religion, even if they interpret it wrong at times) that vampires are spiritual servants of the Devil that wants to destroy everything about them and Gaia (and their whole thing is to defend Gaia). Werewolves have wiped out several other were creatures in the setting because of misunderstandings of their place in the world (believing werebats to be evil for instance, which is also why they don’t get along with any other werewhatevers, except wereravens, grudgingly). Inter-tribal conflict is already a fairly big thing in WoD. Still, there is always at least one group that has some kind of connections, Gangrel are percieved to be able to get along with whatever weres, Tremere ARE former mages, there are various sorcerer types that are interested in whatever group, there are a type of faerie vampires and the Fianna (Irish werewolves) are friendlyish (while not trusting them and thinking they are kinda crazy) with faeries. Uktena (a Native American werewolf tribe) have internal organizations that interact with vampires and mages (with differing degrees of violence, and both magic and tech mages), Glasswalkers (techy werewolves) willingly interact with said Uktena and tech mages. Everybody has some necromancer wraith types. So possibilities exist, depends on the groups. Spells meant to interact with the undead generally specifically mention how they interact with Wraiths if that is relevant, similarly for other relevant groups, so mechanics are already setup and little work needs to be done.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.127.152.5 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please have a look to ''[[Character race]]'' 

message: I'm nominating Masquerade_society to be merged with this page. Masquerade_society's content is excessive and only of interest to a small portion of the RPG fanbase. This content would be better served as a summary in the maine V:tM page.Sugarcoma (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I've attempted to address some of the issues on this page:
* Additional citations for verification. (October 2012) - Before my draft of this page the article didn't even ref the original source book. I've added numerous sources. I think this can be removed now. I'll remove it in a month unless anyon objects.
* Improper references to self-published sources. (October 2012) - I think these were cleaned up prior to me touching the page. I'll remove it unless anyone objects.
* Written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. (August 2011) - I think this was also already addressed. Unless anyone objects I'm going to remove it.Sugarcoma (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Issues

message: If people don't object, prior to the 5th edition coming out I intend to restructure this article, putting some of the more "enclyclopedia-friendly" info about the history of the game and its importance, near the top of the article, and the more "gamer-friendly" info about WoD mechanics and milieu later into the article. This is part of a general project I'd like to do on the articles for White Wolf games, which are highly variable in their quality and encyclopedia-friendliness. Does anyone have objections or advice, or even (shudder :P) would like to help? Newimpartial (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed restructuring

message: Is there a particular reason why this page (or any of the other WOD games pages) is not included in the Category:Role-playing game systems?--66.235.23.229 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Role-playing game systems 

message: There was a fair bit of controversy around various elements of the WoD stuff before that should probably be mentioned (although not all of it directly applies to VtM, some of the Gypsy stuff certainly does). However, 5th Edition itself has been so controversial it actually destroyed White Wolf as a publishing company so that their current owners (Paradox) has removed most (if not all of the management) and restructured them to be solely existing to license their IP out. Chiefly this is related to the 5th’s framing of the ongoing, real-life, issue of the Chechnyan government murdering homosexual citizens as part of a vampire thing (this from the same people that had previously decided to not make 9/11 part of the plot). Paradox had press releases and things, they have stated all future publishing will be done by Morphius and Onyx Path, this should be mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.127.152.5 (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy