ReVamping VTES?

Damnans wrote:

In my experience as someone who has been teaching to play V:TES for ages, the complexity of the game is one of the main reasons why people get attracted to this game.

In fact, the first thing I say to them when they ask me for information about V:TES is: "You may not be ready for this game, because it may be too complex for you to handle". This reverse psychology technique has been working great so far.

Interesting. Whenever I've mentioned VTES (talking to MTG players) I frame it as being the 2nd CCG ever made, a year after MTG was made i.e. 1994, based on a game that was made before MTG in 1991, which is the game that gave MTG it's name (lol) which usually gets a couple of inquisitive responses. But alas, I have no cards to show or play with, so me Embracing new players ends there.

---

thelonius wrote:

Or at least, luck involves little about cards but regards mainly your seating.

I would consider this a a failure in design IMO. It is understandable that the predator-prey relationship would skew things one way or another, but getting a predator or prey that you basically can't or don't interact with is a failure in design IMO. I've read where VTES at its worst is just 3-5 player solitaire, since each player's deck is non-interactive with their predator//prey.

For example, a Ventrue Vote deck, a Malk stealth-bleed deck, and a Gangrel rush Combat deck sit down at a table. Are these decks / players likely to change their tactics / strategy based on what their predator-prey is playing? Can they even do that? It would seem to be a race for who can oust quickest. The Malk stealth-bleed is going to play cards that neither player can really do much about, aside from the Ventrue Vote guy bouncing the bleed. The Gangrel rush combat deck is going to get in fights that the Vote deck and Stealth-Bleed deck can't interact with because their decks aren't built for combat - they just get beat up and torporized. The Vote deck can't really interact with the other two, because what it wants to do - pass referendums like KRC and Parity Shift - is something the other two can't do anything about since they have no votes.

I would love to have someone tell me how I'm mistaken and break it down for me, but this is what it seems to be like just reading about and watching VTES games.

---

Bloodartist wrote:

ps. I want to give my ten cents on this topic at some point, but I know the posts will be very lengthy and I just haven't had the time to concentrate on the matter. At some point though I will do it.

I am looking forward to it.

---

Kraus wrote:

a more board-gameish card-kinda game to illustrate VtES lite, so to say, isn't far fetched as an idea at all. It doesn't need to replace VtES though. There are many fun board games to WoD, like Prince of the City, and it's not to replace VtES. Rather those complement it's existance.

So I'm beginning to be with anyone who said that if you want to revamp VtES, you could, but you should probably make it a game of it's own altogether. There's no harm in that.

That was the premise of the OP. To make a spiritual successor to VTES, one which complimented and payed homage to its existence.

Also, I'm looking forward to the Prince's Gambit game by Justin Achilli.

Oh, as for not having cards, check out Amaranth deck builder. If you haven't already.

I'll tell you that even though plenty of our people have been playing the game for, like, ages, the tournament legalization of proxies sparked a whole new deal of interest and (un)life into our meta.

Having no cards to use shouldn't be a problem, it's more than fine to print proxies.

And the seating thing is one of the most random things, and does influence strategies a great deal. But, the more you play, the more you might find that Govern+Obfuscate stealth bleed gets fixed on a single VP, maybe two, each game before that rush player from cross table learns to finish him off before they get too powerful, the voter learns to use more Banishment than KRC, and the bleed and combat builds learn to use titled vampires to do their thing instead of non-titled to have a say in votes.

Seating is random. There's always some discussion about that, but not yet any worthwhile ideas on how to deal with it. Rather, the players have to deal with it with their politics and tactics (strategy coming in with including interactive cards in your deck). Lot of dealing.

You really should play the game more, you'll know why it's so awesome. Print the cards! It might take plenty, plenty of work to get even a few people to try, but it'll be worth it.

Krausedit\\ But yeah, sorry, now I've been derailing the original topic of getting ideas for a new game, to which I don't exactly have so much to say - or, rather, I'd have way too much to say. Can't at the moment. Just came in for those few cents of mine about getting a game in and what I think about the counters.

Sry for not being much more helpful in your design ideas.

Bloodartist wrote:

thelonius wrote:

The thing I love in this game is that it's very hard to have lucky as an excuse.

You must be joking.

ps. I want to give my ten cents on this topic at some point, but I know the posts will be very lengthy and I just haven't had the time to concentrate on the matter. At some point though I will do it.

My point is that any other card game I played is far worse in giving you the chance to control and reduce the chance to draw dead cards in bad moments. Of course it's a card game and of course luck in drawing card is involved at some level. But after 3 or 4 a got tournament you will see what I mean

Kraus wrote:

This goes to say that VtES as it's core isn't really too complex. It just isn't. It's multi layered, but it's not too complex. The abundance of card interactions is what makes it 'complex' at times, and that's true. That could be sorted out by not reprinting Forearm Block, but Target Vitals. I mean that's the only combat card people are playing anyways.

(@Kraus: First, I like the look of those demo decks you mentioned, not quoted here. Second, also not quoted here, VTES has some very good art in some instances... and some questionable art in others... so getting on par with FFGs production and graphic design would be amazing.)

But about complexity, I disagree that it is the card interactions that make VTES complex (assuming I understand what you mean by card interactions). Rather, I think it is such things like the wording, templating, layout, use of keywords or lack there-of, some rules in particular, and the general graphic design which make VTES artificially more complex than it really is.

So let me explain:

@:Anyone / Everyone / All VEKN Users

REVAMPING VTES (WITHOUT DUMBING IT DOWN), PART 1:

COMPLEXITY VS DEPTH

There's a lot of talk about complexity vs depth in game design, and from what I've read (being a casual gamer) the goal is to get the maximum amount of player engagement i.e. fun, which is usually done via having a high depth-to-complexity ratio. Depth and complexity are intertwined, but complexity without depth is generally bad while it is difficult to achieve depth without some complexity. Fortunately, VTES has a lot of depth (or seems to, remember I've never played, only observed) but the complexity I dislike and desire to reduce is that which doesn't add much to the depth to the game (IMO.)

FEWER CARD TYPES
For example, the overabundance of card types. As previously stated, there are a lot of card types in VTES. There are Masters, Actions, Political Actions, Combats, Action Modifiers, Reactions, Allies, Retainers, Equipment, Events, Convictions, and Powers, not including the Crypt cards.

So why are there all of these different types of cards? Well, call me crazy, but I think it is a hold-over from the early days of MTG / VTES where Richard Garfield conceived of all these card types (yes, I know there were no Convictions and Powers in the base Jyhad set.) The point of a 'card type' though, is that there were built-in rules associated with the timing and abilities of certain cards. (In MTG for example, its the difference between Sorcery and Enchantment. The one is played, its effect happens, and it is discarded. The latter remains in play. Creatures remain in play, but have an additional rule associated with them: Summoning Sickness. They can't attack the turn they are played. Instants are like Sorcery cards, but you can play them at any time, etc.)

What do all of these below have in common? They had very specific card types, but MTG eventually simplified things (i.e. they cleaned up) which eased the learning process and made the game more elegant in its appearance.


Ironically(?), Richard Garfield had these worded like this because it was for purposes of clarity: Of course Animate Artifact would be 'Enchant Non-Creature Artifact', that is what it functionally does. Of course Counterspell was an 'Interrupt' - it had to be "faster" than Instants in order to counter Instant spells. Why is Black Lotus a 'Mono Artifact'? Because you had to {T}ap it, which meant it could only be used once per turn, nevermind the whole "and then is discarded" clause.

The real kicker is that the majority of card types could basically just be 'Actions' or, if we were trying to modernize VTES, just 'Event' cards (different from what VTES Event cards are). Basically, these are the "You play it, do what it says, and then discard it." I think ALL of FFG's LCGs have used 'Event' cards in this way.

Things get weirder. The whole point of having different card types was the associated rules and timing restrictions and play restrictions, right? But in VTES, there are tonnes of cards that ignore the conventions / reasons for having card types in the first place. Tonnes of cards have very specific timing instructions written on the card, resulting in very... unelegant (not aesthetically / visually appealing) and wordy cards.

PART 2, tomorrow evening

@Kraus: I love Amaranth deck builder, I just don't know if the deck I'm putting together will be good or terrible. XD

Also, what matters is not really a spiritual successor to VTES, but helping nuWW get back on their feet and making Vampire a pop-culture force to be reckoned with.

thelonius wrote:

My point is that any other card game I played is far worse in giving you the chance to control and reduce the chance to draw dead cards in bad moments. Of course it's a card game and of course luck in drawing card is involved at some level. But after 3 or 4 a got tournament you will see what I mean

60-80% of my VTES games seem to be decided by me not drawing the cards I need from my deck. (Usually cards that comprise 10-15% of my deck, ie. not singleton cards or anything)

I would say that luck is a bigger factor in VTES than in any other CCG or LCG I have played, because not only is there the random element of card-draw, there is also the randomized seating that affects the game.

This is further augmented by the fact that certain cards and situations have a higher impact in VTES than in many other games, Probably because VTES is modeled after 'old' Magic the gathering, where strong hoser cards were prevalent (think Fall of the camarilla). Its worth noting that Magic the gathering has moved away from narrow high impact cards in its modern design for the most part. (By this I mean cards that have a very narrow window of application, but when they do work, they win you the game instantly) Wizards noticed during the years that its not fun to be locked out of a game. "You play this card and the opponent can't do anything? Well thats not very fun for the opponent." Thus they moved away from this kind of design.

As an example I give a game from last week, where our local playgroup was playing at a restaurant.

One unlucky person had:
- His 11-cap star vampire was not in his starting crypt.
- His prey was a weenie wall which got out 3 minions quickly with bowl, ivory bow and heart of Nitzchetus.
- His predator was me, with Unnamed boosted out quickly with the help of Zillah's valley.

Combine this and he was basically a non-factor in the game thanks to a combination of luck-related events. You can say that playing a star vampire deck makes you prone to this sort of thing happening, but ultimately it was still pure luck that caused him to be a pile of pool waiting to be devoured.

Some people like their games decided entirely by luck, some don't. I belong in the latter group.