file ReVamping VTES?

03 Jan 2018 02:40 - 03 Jan 2018 02:49 #84691 by LivesByProxy
ReVamping VTES? was created by LivesByProxy
The vote about "how to continue VTES" has about 1/16 of the voters (1000+) saying they'd like to see a new Vampire card game incompatible with VTES, and about 1/8th of the voters (3000+) asking for an overhaul of rules and cards, preferably compatible with VTES.

There has also been some sentiment that an entirely new card game, a spiritual successor to VTES, could be made following FFG's LCG model (as opposed to the CCG model). Given that pursuing that path would likely lead to a game incompatible with VTES, what would you like to see changed, assuming that was what the-powers-that-be opted for? With over 20 years worth of card game design to learn from, what changes would you make or like to see? How would you ReVamp VTES?

My initial thoughts are:

* Keep predator / prey relationship in some form. It's a really cool setup.

* Keep crypt deck & library deck as separate decks. I'm open to the possibility of having one deck though.

* Limit vampires to 1 copy per crypt, i.e all vampires are unique one-ofs. I think this would make the vampires all feel really unique, legendary if you will.

* Keep library cards to any number of copies or at least 5 copies. Preferably the former, since it acts as a mirror to the 'only one-of vampires' rule.

* Cut down on the number of clans. At last count there were 20+ and as flavorful as they may be, it kind of became the equivalent to having 20+ colors in MtG, kinda.

* Clean up, simplify disciplines (the vampire powers.) At last count there were 30 or so? Many were also incredibly narrow or useless.

* Clean up & simplify card types. There are 10+ card types including: actions, action modifiers, combat, reactions, retainers, equipment, allies, events, master cards, event cards, and political actions, not including the vampire cards in the crypt!

* Clean up graphic design (card layout) and improve artwork. IMO, the skin / framing / color of the cards are terrible, nevermind the actual artwork which wildly varies in quality.

* Clean up and simplify combat which currently has 6+(?) steps or windows for playing cards: 1) pre-range; 2) determine range; 3) pre-strikes; 4) determine strikes; 5) strike resolution; 6) additional strikes?; 7) repeat steps 4 & 5 for additional strikes if necessary; 8| press; 9) end combat round. It's kind of ridiculous.

> Compare VTES combat to MtG's combat: 1) Declare Combat; 2) Declare Attackers; 3) Opp Declares Blockers; 4) Resolve Combat. The important thing to remember here is that during each of these steps, each player has the opportunity to play cards or activate effects, so after each of these steps, you can mentally add two mini-steps: 1) Acting player gets the option to play cards or pass, 2) opponent gets the opportunity to play cards or pass. This applies to Vampire as well!

But yeah... enough of my ideas, what about yours? How would you ReVamp VTES?

:gang: :CEL: :FOR: :PRO: :cap6: Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean :PRO: until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex :AUS:, Obfuscate :OBF:, or Potence :POT: for the current action.
Last edit: 03 Jan 2018 02:49 by LivesByProxy. Reason: spelling, grammar; clarity

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2018 07:24 #84694 by Lönkka
Replied by Lönkka on topic ReVamping VTES?

* Limit vampires to 1 copy per crypt, i.e all vampires are unique one-ofs. I think this would make the vampires all feel really unique, legendary if you will.

Legendary?
Quite the opposite.

This will totally demolish so many deck ideas that it'll ruin the game. The gameplay will be more random as you can't stress the importance, and availability, of your most important stooges.


That aside, I don't mind the format how VTES will be sold in the future, but if it ain't compatible with the Old Skool '94 Jyhad, I fear it is time for me to close my door on this chapter in my life, but I'll most likely continue supporting the Ye Venerable Olde Format, though.

Finnish :POT: Politics!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Ezra

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Lönkka
  • Lönkka's Avatar
  • Away
  • Antediluvian
  • Antediluvian
  • War=peace, freedom=slavery, ignorance=strength
More
03 Jan 2018 13:54 #84700 by ur_vampire
Replied by ur_vampire on topic ReVamping VTES?
I agree 100% with Lönnka and as far as I know the very most people in Austria do so.

And MtG is another game, if I want to play it, I do(sometimes it happens ;-) ).

As far as I know, the most players like the many different possibilities and the complexity of VTES.

NC, Austria
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2018 14:17 #84701 by self biased
Replied by self biased on topic ReVamping VTES?
hello, LivingByProxy! Welcome to the forums. Do stay a while and chat, and don't get discouraged by opposition to your ideas (seriously, it can get a little hostile here some times).

I'm left wondering how many V:tes games you've played and how long have you been playing in general? Theme and atmosphere are important considerations to the more seasoned members of this community, and while we pretty much all agree that there is some fat that could be trimmed from the game (though we also disagree which bits to trim) it feels like your ideas boil down to "make it more like Magic: The Gathering."

In further detail: all vampires are already unique (except the handful that say they aren't) and only one can be in play at a time. The Contest mechanic works to reinforce the theme of ancient vampires expending resources to fight for control of a unique thing. Additionally limiting vampires to one copy of each per crypt makes it impossible to have a star vampire deck.

Though there's at least an argument (I'm not sure it's a viable one, though) for a per-card limit, but it involves some other significant rules changes and also assumes that all players have equal access to all cards like an LCG. This doesn't really change the fact that some interesting deck strategies evaporate if you impose a limit, and newer viable strategies don't appear to fill the gap.

While I agree that Vampire clans could be streamlined a little bit, I suspect that our reasoning is wildly different*. Be that as it may, the number of clans, disciplines, and card types are moot because of the way the game is played. Let's not forget that the game was successful enough in its heyday, and didn't get canned because it was no longer viable.

I'm a big fan of the LCG model for V:tes because it fits very nicely with how people play the game, but there are issues with distribution of such a large set of cards that would need to be resolved.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2018 15:04 - 03 Jan 2018 15:31 #84702 by LivesByProxy
Replied by LivesByProxy on topic ReVamping VTES?
@ Lönkka:

The premise of the OP was that the-powers-that-be would opt for a spiritual successor incompatible with VTES. It would mean some rules changes aimed at producing a refined VTES 2.0 of sorts. A spiritual successor.

So there would be no ruining the game, since it would be a different game (albeit with many similarities to original VTES.)

Also, I am surprised there aren't more VTES cards that let players manipulate the crypt - the master actions and minion actions that would emphasize the importance and availability of your most important minions.

:gang: :CEL: :FOR: :PRO: :cap6: Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean :PRO: until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex :AUS:, Obfuscate :OBF:, or Potence :POT: for the current action.
Last edit: 03 Jan 2018 15:31 by LivesByProxy.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2018 15:07 - 03 Jan 2018 15:31 #84703 by LivesByProxy
Replied by LivesByProxy on topic ReVamping VTES?
@ Ur-Vampire:

There is nothing wrong with that, but reviving interest in VTES should still be a topic of discussion.

The topic of this discussion is what should change assuming a spiritual successor to VTES was what nuWW opted for. I take it that you think nothing should change? There's nothing you would tweak or alter at all? Interesting...

:gang: :CEL: :FOR: :PRO: :cap6: Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean :PRO: until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex :AUS:, Obfuscate :OBF:, or Potence :POT: for the current action.
Last edit: 03 Jan 2018 15:31 by LivesByProxy.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.089 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum