its just in accordance to this all the vamps are bound to turn into shitty disillusioned bastards and if anything, you should be playing against them, which is the sentiment that was naturally evoked in this thread.
It all depends on what you're aiming for. VtM's approach made sense and offered unique way of playing, compared to most RPGs, because it is more objective-oriented (including personal goals) rather than combat-oriented. I am all for playing as a vampire if it is interesting. Same goes for playing against the vampires. However, the real problem lies in how to make it interesting for the people who are playing. Playing as Dracula would be way too straightforward and suits a boardgame/investigation game more than an RPG, because of how different the dynamic between the parties is (and how relatively flat Dracula is as a character). In contrast VtM you have way more objectives than just "hunt for vampires" and your motives for doing whatever at any given moment can be very diverse, resulting in less constrained narrative.
For once I actually think that a combat-based game with variety of vampire characters would be a better choice.
I'm not countersignaling the idea of playing as a vampire. Its just that I'm against this rigid idea of what a vampire is, in this specific case. Vampires are exciting, there's lots you can do with them in your particular rendition of the trope - Meyer used the image of a superhuman who's living on the verge of worlds - between the human world that does not understand them, and the core vamp world that's too old fashioned, cruel and rigid for the protagonist, who strives to be better than that. That is a good idea for a story, or a game - there's plenty of positive and human to it, it offers meaningful conflict and narrative possibilities, as well as opportunities for growth for the character, which is especially important in an rpg or a young adult novel(that this was used for a pixie girl story is not relevant to the subject). And that's just one of the options, as there's variety of possible framings.
But in this particular case we've been discussing earlier, the framing is just inadequate. A being that's bound to become inhuman can only be an antagonist. By definition it is not even human, as in: a typical character, but rather a mystic force, like a lovecraftian being. If the player were to be this, devoid of humanity, among other beings to whom the same applies, then the game would be equal to an abstract power surge: you play as a computer program that tries to control as many bytes as possible; other software disagrees, that turns into a battle of intrigue. This is how a proposed vampire, and vampire pc, would view the world. Its not exciting, due to its inhumanity. And I have a feeling that what drives people towards Vampire the tabletop game is also at odds with that picture. People like the promise of power, the mystique, the secrecy, the uniqueness and a little bit of implied tragedy. And people are right. Vampiric life is interesting insofar as it
enhances your
humanity, it gives you the tools to fulfill(some of) your fantasies and ambitions, that you've had before turning. The drawbacks are only acceptable due to those advantages; and as a narrative device.
If you'd try to turn that around by saying "well, the player character(and their acquaintances) is only becoming inhuman, they're
not there yet, then this is still bad, just slightly less so. That could fly in a specific narrative or a singular unique story, but is such a weird and constraining case for a setting meant for continuous use. But I already discussed that.
!
