ReVamping VTES?

Lönkka wrote:

Now if such long time players, most of whom have been with the game since day one, with plenty of hands on experience with the game, have problems in understanding how to tweak the game (me included),

Well it depends on what you mean by tweak and what goal you have in mind. The ultimate goal is to get VTES back into people's hands and get people playing it again, and build up Vampire's popularity and such, yes? How would you do that?

First and foremost on my list is new / better artwork and new / better graphic layout.
2nd would be having a core set based around the Camarilla that keeps things simple.

it is pretty safe to bet that those with still limited experience, or no hands on experience at all, have even less chance.

I'm sure this is one of the logical fallacies, but I understand.

Plenty of inconsistencies have already been addressed but the unified card text changes haven't been implemented.

Where can I find these changes? Amaranth appears to show updated card text, but the text appears inconsistent in some instances.

Lönkka wrote:

VTES is a solid game designed by a solid designer, Garfield, to which talented people later on added plenty of material that mostly works (LSJ) or works really well (B. Peal et al ).

I agree with this. The game is definitely solid and I don't think any of the suggestions in this thread are needed. I will say, however, that the reason why we see threads like this is directly related to the rulebook, detailed play summary, and rulings. As you mentioned, there are people who are in the process of fixing problems, which is great. These fixes have not made it into the official rules. If fixes are happening, but they aren't being communicated within the official rules, then people may start to assume there is something mechanically wrong that needs fixing. For example, take the combat fixes proposed in this thread. Combat has long been a target for those who wish to fix something with the game. Had the rulebook and detailed play summary really mapped out all the timing windows, phases, and sequencing rules in combat, I'm willing to bet the amount of threads discussing changes to combat may be much less.

Some years ago before we got any of the new PDF sets out a group of experienced players (actually part of the design team) independently put out cards that they though were brilliant and what the game needed as they were frustrated in the design team's slow progress. These were mostly rather bad designs and their whole planned coup fizzled up into oblivion especially after the actual design teams sets started coming out.

If I remember correctly, support for cards produced by that team fizzled partly because the text on the cards was so, so dense. That tells me maybe the complexity in the game should be taken seriously, as there appears to be a certain point of overkill people don't want to deal with.

Now if such long time players, most of whom have been with the game since day one, with plenty of hands on experience with the game, have problems in understanding how to tweak the game (me included), it is pretty safe to bet that those with still limited experience, or no hands on experience at all, have even less chance.

That's an interesting stance. What if those long-time players couldn't see the forest for the trees, but a relative newcomer can?

We have amazing design team as well as rules team. Plenty of inconsistencies have already been addressed but the unified card text changes haven't been implemented. Before that happens I'd stay away from the mob rules -like attempts in changing (most) anything with he game. I trust that the people who have already done a stellar job with design and rules will keep on delivering similar stuff. If we start thinking that this is some sort of democracy where everyone's voice is equal the game's quality will plunge into downward spiral.

Changes to the game have always been a "democratic" process. Take a look at rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad and count how many posts there are trying to fix the game through redesign since 1995. Also, I know you've seen the rules team responding to ideas posted in this thread. Did you also see the current designer's posts in this thread, expressing a willingness to hear ideas from new players? That has fostered some of these posts. The current designers don't seem to have the same stance you do.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

The game is definitely solid and I don't think any of the suggestions in this thread are needed. [...] Combat has long been a target for those who wish to fix something with the game. Had the rulebook and detailed play summary really mapped out all the timing windows, phases, and sequencing rules in combat, I'm willing to bet the amount of threads discussing changes to combat may be much less.

If there is one takeaway from my opinion / thoughts on combat, let it be this:

I think that many of the clauses and qualifiers for timing windows such as "before range" (Carrion Crows, Alpha Glint), "before strikes are chosen" (Immortal Grapple, Death of My Conscience), "after strikes"(?), "only usable at the end of round" / "end of combat" (Taste of Vitae, Telepathic Tracking, Psyche!), and so on and so forth, could be simplified by following the [Keyword]: [Effect] model that virtually all strike cards do.

For example, Carrion Crows becomes:

Manuever: The opposing minion takes 1R damage each round this combat. A vampire may play only one Carrion Crows each combat.
As above, but for 2R damage.

Taste of Vitae would become:

Press: This vampire gains blood equal to the amount lost by the opposing vampire this round. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going to torpor. A vampire may play only one Taste of Vitae each round.

This would very likely be a buff to those cards, but I really don't understand why the [keyword]: [effect] format is only used for strikes. I think the consistency across the combat cards would at least look cleaner, and reduce the wordiness. I'd also try to figure out a more elegant way to phrase: "can only play one of X each round" and "not usable by a vampire burned or going to torpor". Those qualifiers seem extraneous, even if necessary.

I'm also not sure why some cards are marked as Frenzy or Grapple when those words don't appear to be keywords (i.e. they don't appear to be words that have rules associated with them.) They seem to follow the sub-type rule that other games (like MTG and the LCGs) use, since their only purpose is to be referenced by other cards that depend on them for an effect. Maybe Grapple, Frenzy, and IMO Dodge could / should also follow the [keyword]: [effect] model?

So for example:

• Maneuver: [Effect]
• Strike: [Effect]
• Dodge: [Effect]
• Grapple: [Effect]
• Frenzy: [Effect]
• Press: [Effect]

Alternatively, maybe Grapple and Frenzy should be specific Strike effects, like how we have Strike: Dodge, we would also have Strike: Grapple and Strike: Frenzy.

As a side note, why are so many combat cards discipline-less? In fact, why are so many cards discipline-less?

@LivesByProxy I’m on the fence with regard to your Strike/Press/Dodge mechanic. I really like it conceptually, but I don’t think it would work for V:tes due to the sheer momentum of legacy the game has. That legacy is likely the culprit as to why Master cards still don’t have an icon like every other library card in the game. Why don’t Master cards have an Icon? Because they’ve never had one. The other thing is that things get really weird when you take keywords and change what they do. It’d be utterly alien to play a Press card as a “strike” for most seasoned players.

Like Bloodartist said, Combat is a hot mess and could really use some more precisely described timing windows for cards, followed by volumes of errata. For example, the phrase “play before range is determined” is misleading. In practice each player plays “Before Range is determined” cards before maneuvers are played, however that’s not that what that phrase literally means. Range isn’t determined until after each player passes when maneuvering, and I know my group played it incorrectly for years until one of us spotted “Note: Effects that are played “before range is determined” must be played before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver at the start of this phase.” in the rulebook.

@Kraus “Just never reprint those few cards that reference [healing damage]” This would only work for a full-scale, oh-Jibbers-Crabst-my-entire-billionty-thousand-card-collection-is-worthless-now reboot, because otherwise these problem cards are still in the card pool, and get discovered by new players who then go through the five stages of confusion.

@LivesByProxy You’ve mentioned card layout a few times, and I agree that the card frames could definitely use a facelift. I did some work a few years ago (holy hell, it really has been almost four years) with the Full Bleed project that’s mentioned in the blog you linked to. This sparked a lively series of conversations about V:tes’s layout. Overall the Full Bleed vampires were well received, but Full Bleed Library cards were problematic because of the size of the text box. I still have some notes for similar full-art Library cards that have no actual game text on them and maybe a truncated text box with some flavor text in it. The idea being this style of card could be used as promotional versions of staple cards like Govern the Unaligned, Conditioning, Taste of Vitae, &c, much like how basic Land cards in Magic no longer have text.

When I first saw Legend of the Five Rings being played at a local game store back in ‘97, it was the lavish card frames that drew me in and made me want to play this game about samurai. More to the point, however, I did a lot of goofing around with the layout in those threads and it inspired Ke to create the Amaranth Layouts with the intention of giving a more modern look to the game. I really like what he did with most of the vampire clan backgrounds, but the overall design is too austere for my personal taste. The trend right now seems to be these very simple layouts with backgrounds that are subtle in their texture. I am very much not a fan of this trend, probably because of nostalgia. As evidenced in some of these old threads, people seemed to want a mix of the two: a recognizable texture that evoked a ‘dark’ or ‘gothic’ feel, but wasn’t so busy that it overwhelmed everything. However, personal preference plays a huge part in this, and each person is going to draw the line somewhere different.

There’s even a thread where I took the current backgrounds, made some alterations, and removed the green bar. The results were overall pretty positive (though I think some people didn’t realize the skins were directly derived from the current ones), and they’re the default for when I print my personal proxies. In conversation with Ben, we realized that the way the current layout is structured is very effective at conveying all of the needed information, and it’s pretty hard to escape that orbit. While redundant, the card requirement space that’s used for disciplines becomes necessary when there’s a clan requirement (side note: why aren’t there clan-specific discipline cards? The closest we get is something like Aire of Elation where a clan gets a bonus. Come to think of it, why aren’t there more cards like that, too?), otherwise the card just looks weird without it.

Lastly, you mentioned simplifying stealth and intercept to a single term “stealth” and making the process a little more abstract. Mechanically the abstraction works well enough, but it struggles thematically; “why does Auspex, the discipline focused on heightened senses and sight give me stealth? Auspex is for finding things, not hiding from them!” Again, legacy issues related to the background get in the way of having more succinct/abstract mechanics.