ReVamping VTES?

LivesByProxy wrote:

So what would I change? (I asked what you guys would change, if anything, but since most people implied "nothing" . . . brace yourselves, its about to get heretical! Keep in mind that this is for a spiritual successor to VTES.)

I would borrow some aspects from Vampire: The Requiem.

1. There are only 7 clans or "species / types / kinds" of vampire. Requiem had 5, Masquerade had 13 (both settings had 20+ bloodlines, but I would just include characters from the bloodlines as being members of the main clan.)

2. I would make all instances of 'intercept' -> 'stealth' because I think the two are conceptually similar and work the same way. Stealth represents the measures that the acting vampire is taking to conduct his business discreetly, to avoid attracting the attention of those who would oppose him BUT stealth can also represent a vampire’s efforts to secretly discover the plans of another, to stalk or pursue him in order to detain or delay him. Stealth works both ways, thematically. The prey hides, the predator prowls.

3. I would make all instances of 'blood' -> 'pool' because, like stealth & intercept, it is a false dichotomy. Both are conceptually similar. Pool is blood, but also wealth & assets, favors owed, status and prestige with the community, etc.

4. I would make all instances of 'strength' or 'damage' -> 'bleed'. Bleed is an abstract term, so it can be used to in many different situations. Conceptually, taking a bleed action represents the efforts of your minion to undermine the power and influence of the target Methuselah or another vampire. You might picture bleeding as armed robbery, changing bank records, planting incriminating evidence, etc. Or you might picture bleeding as a fist fight, car chase, or shoot-out. In the case of political actions, bleeding might be considered exposing dirty deals, spreading rumors, or delivering an argument winning quip or speech. If it is something that thematically make another vampire expend resources or harms them (physically, mentally, or socially) it can be / should be a bleed.

5. I would not have werewolves, mages, demons, wraiths, changelings, mummies, or imbued. I might be Red Listed for this, but I think Vampire can adequately explain away all of the other supernaturals. Or, put another way, all of the other supernaturals are encompassed in the vampire myth. The legends of werewolves were sightings of the Gangrel. Stories of mages and witches and sorcerers were inspired by the Tremere. Accounts of angels and faeries? Those were the Toreador (or Daeva, to borrow from Requiem.) Wraiths, ghosts, and spectres? Merge the Lasombra with the Ventrue, giving them the power of Obtenebration, and say that was them. Demons? The Tzimisce. There is a trope known as the 'fantasy kitchen sink' which WW helped perpetuate: basically, all the myths and legends are real and exist. The problem this gets into is: how is this a secret from anyone? How can you maintain the Masquerade when all these supernaturals are present? I think it requires a level of suspension of disbelief that undermines the 'gritty mature urban realism' that nuWW is going for.

6. Drop the Camarilla-Sabbat War. I don't get how the Masquerade can be maintained if significant numbers of Vampires are determined to break it or don't care to maintain it. To me, it would make much more sense if there was, in fact, ONE vampire government, and the Camarilla and Sabbat and Anarchs were all different political parties within that government. It makes no sense that a Sabbat Archbishop would be able to vote against a referendum called by a Camarilla Prince if - according the VTM - the two operate within completely different power structures. (I mean, I guess we could abstract it to thematically mean the voting Sabbat ~doing things~ that ultimately undermine the Prince's rule, but that seems like a disconnect gameplay-wise.) If they were political parties, then there is room for more intrigue and machinations since they can be bipartisan on some matters, but also work to backstab their colleagues on other issues and matters of policy.

7. I would have rules for deal-making. Basically, rather than players spending 5 minutes discussing the details of an agreement or terms of a vote or something of the sort, only for another player to then play Delaying Tactics, I would include a rule about deal-making. It goes like this: Each player may make ONE deal with one other player on their turn and one deal out-of-turn. The player says the terms of the arrangement and the other player can choose to 1) accept the offer, 2) make a counter-offer, or 3) decline. If a counter-offer is made, the acting player may choose to 1) accept it, or 2) decline. That way players are encouraged to think carefully about the offer they will make and not hold up the other player's as they beg for votes or allies. The rule for deal-making may or may not be legally binding via the game rules (i.e. if a player agrees to terms, that player MUST follow through.) Maybe this is a good idea, IDK.

8. I would make all 'allies, retainers, & equipment' cards -> 'attachment' or 'support' cards. They are played 'on' a minion and they stick with that minion. The terms ally, retainer, and equipment can be sub-types.

9. Remove 'range' and 'maneuvers' from combat and reduce the moves to Strike, Dodge, Press. I understand, I think, the idea behind 'determine range' and 'maneuvers' it is thematic, only certain things work 'at range' like guns, etc, but I think it could be simplified and expressed with a very similar vocabulary to what VTES already has. Strike is the actual attempt to hit and damage your opponent (i.e. to bleed them) by whatever means; Dodge, rather than be something done through a Strike, can be its own move and thematically takes the place of Maneuver and Range. Vampires would Dodge to End Combat, avoid damage, or do other neat effects. Press is thematically like Maneuvering and determining Range in a way, but is used to continue combat usually. I think this gameplay of strike->dodge->press is pretty clean and simple, mirrors the three snakes symbol of VTES, and makes for a rock-paper-scissors dynamic. Strike beats Press, Press beats Dodge, and Dodge beats Strike.

Am I the only one who think that most of this makes absolutely no sense ?
Even for a reboot.

First of all: Requiem is no longer supported by White Wolf.
So trying to take concept/name/power etc... from it is not relevant.

1/ I just don't get it. If White Wolf makes a reboot of VTES, they will probably want all of the 13 base clan in it, while gradually adding bloodlines. Beside that, the numbers of clans is not that important, you play mostly with disciplines not clan cards.
Vampires clans are not MTG colors, L5R clans...

2/ 3/ and 4/ LOL.

5/ Werewolves, mages, demons, wraiths, changelings, mummies, or imbued are all parts of World Of Darkness. If anything, WW would probably wants more of them.

6/ Dropping Camarilla/Sabbat/Anarch war while it's one of the main story in Vampire: The Masquerade ? Yeah, not going to happen.

7/ Imo, deal making is on of the greatest thing about this game. Any rule like this would be dumb.

8/ Whatever, doesn't change anything.

9/ Yeah no, fight is not and should not be a rock papper scissor game.

Ezra wrote:

Am I the only one who think that most of this makes absolutely no sense ?
Even for a reboot.

No you're certainly not.

To sum it up :

- This guy wants to revamp VTES, without any request from WW on that account, and without being a part of the design team, or holding any sort of position which would allow him to know what WW wishes ;

- He makes suggestions that are akin to throwing in the trash the game we love and making a totally new one ; but not really ;

- The said suggestions don't take into account any reality of the WoD, old or future (yeah, sure, Auspex allows you to hide, Garous don't exist, etc etc)...

- And based on the suggestions above it wouldn't even be a good game : it would be VTES Zero, without any sugar and leaving a bad taste in the mouth. But it wouldn't hold the advantages of a brand new game, like, I dunno being a fast duel game different from VTES and adressing a different players niche.

In short, and to put it nicely, that's a complete and utter waste of time.

Man, if you want to create a game, go for it, you'll see if some people buy it or not.

But please stop trying to fix the best game in existence when absolutely nobody asked you to (Malkavian multiple personnalities don't count).

Ankha wrote:

It's complicated to convince people that love the current game that the future of their game is a different game. It doesn't mean that people should get rude, or that there's no interesting ideas that could be included in the current game.

This is a great response. I fully agree with it.

Orpheus wrote:

This guy wants to revamp VTES, without any request from WW on that account, and without being a part of the design team, or holding any sort of position which would allow him to know what WW wishes

First, none of the stuff you mention above is a requirement to post here. While you may not necessarily agree with the poster's suggested changes, you should realize that you can stop reading the suggestions at any time. You should also realize that you do not have to reply to those suggestions. What I don't understand is why you would read these suggestions, log in, hit the reply button, and write something trashing a complete stranger on the internet over their views of a card game about vampires. Let's settle down just a little bit and realize the scope of what is being discussed here. And let's also realize that if you don't like something you see here, you don't have to read it, and you certainly don't have to reply.

Second, the original poster did get input earlier in this thread from someone who I believe is the current game designer. So there was input given.

- He makes suggestions that are akin to throwing in the trash the game we love and making a totally new one ; but not really ;

To some people, the game that you love is already trash. Including whoever officially releases the game, as evidenced by the game being inactive with no plans to become active. That's the reality. While you may not agree with this, it might behoove you to have an open mind to the opinions of those with this viewpoint. Change just might be a good thing for the game.

In short, and to put it nicely, that's a complete and utter waste of time.

Man, if you want to create a game, go for it, you'll see if some people buy it or not.

But please stop trying to fix the best game in existence when absolutely nobody asked you to (Malkavian multiple personnalities don't count).

Again, getting permission from someone to post here is not a requirement. It's 100% fine that nobody asked for these suggestions. You are acting like you have some authority over what is being posted here. You are not the VEKN police. What's the harm in someone posting their ideas, even if you don't agree with them?

I’ve been playing V:tes since ’96, Vampire: The Masquerade since ’98, and from 2010-2013 was a part of what is now the Mind’s Eye Society (which is the current White Wolf supported Live Action Roleplaying network) for its Vampire: The Requiem chronicle. I love the Requiem setting, and frankly it is a better fit to the way V:tes plays than the Masquerade setting. Using the Requiem setting would make politics in V:tes more believable, as well as how Bloodlines are still a part of their parent clans. There’s quite a bit of really good things about Requiem, and I personally like the setting better than Masquerade.

But the heart of the matter is this: There’s a significant nostalgia for Masquerade; it’s inescapable.

It’s one of the reasons why White Wolf has licensed out Chronicles of Darkness to Onyx Path and now we’re getting Vampire: The Masquerade V5. It’s also the reason why V:tes will, with almost every certainly, continue to be set in the Masquerade setting. Additionally, if White Wolf decides to renew production of V:tes it makes sense to create a product that dovetails with its flagship setting.

@LivesByProxy Some of your suggestions show your unfamiliarity with Vampire: The Masquerade’s setting, but thanks for sharing nonetheless. For starters, a vampire’s clan isn’t analogous to color in Magic: The Gathering, or even Faction in Android Netruner or Clans in the classic Legend of the Five Rings CCG. A vampire’s clan tends to be more of a means to an end with regard to Sect and Disciplines rather than the other way around. My opposition to anti-tribu clans stems from the fact that clans have what amounts to a default sect and how that interacts with a few cards. It also opens up a big can of worms rules wise; seriously, go search for Clan Impersonation rulings. Smiply put, I don’t think the overall game benefits from that particular complexity, and I feel that the game would be better if Clan and Sect were completely separated from each other mechanically.

For your points 2-4, I understand that you’re trying to streamline how things are done, but part of V:tes’s charm is tied to its complexity. While a certain amount of abstraction is used in the game and could be applied to the game in terms of restructure, I think your suggestions go a bit too far for me.

Point 5: Other supernatural creatures are woven into the fabric of Vampire: The Masquerade. Mages, Wraiths, Hunters, Garou have all played their part in the setting. Indeed, how the kindred interact with these other supernatural creatures breaks up the monotony of the near-constant infighting. I like your justifications: they’re creative enough, but when you take into consideration the greater setting, it’d be extremely difficult to justify eliminating the supernatural creatures, and not eliminate the mortals/ghouls as well.

Point 6: I actually agree with you wholeheartedly and this is the biggest reason I think that Requiem is the better setting for V:tes. That being said, there are all kinds of rationalizations and abstractions a player can use to continue to suspend disbelief. With the assumption that the setting remains Masquerade, we’ll just have to try to not think too hard about it.

Point 7: I feel like codifying deal making in the rules is going to result in more arguments about the rules of deal making, and slow down the game further. Vampires are also notoriously unscrupulous and betrayal is commonplace.

Point 8: Allies are minions in their own right and can take actions. Retainers and Equipment are already sort of the same thing, but Retainers can be removed from play a little more easily than equipment. The benefit of streamlining these card types into one seems small, but I could at least envision a generic “Asset” card divided into different types as the way Allies, Equipment, and Retainers are put into play the same way (i.e. a +1 Stealth Action).

Point 9: Speaking of hard to rationalize abstractions, how does supernatural speed help someone fire an automatic weapon faster? According to the background, guns are supposed to do less damage to vampires than say, a machete or sword. I have to think some more on this, but I’m wondering if we couldn’t eliminate Maneuvers and make melee weapons viable in one fell swoop. It would require all guns to be completely rewritten, though, on top of figuring out what to do with all of the cards that currently provide maneuvers.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

. What's the harm in someone posting their ideas, even if you don't agree with them?

more to the point, where is the benefit in being rude and dismissive to someone who has an interest in the game and is trying to discuss things in good faith? I don't agree with all of his ideas, but tersely shitting all over them doesn't actually gain me anything and could serve to push this guy's away from the community.