ReVamping VTES?

Bloodartist wrote:

b.) I consider your post to be unrelated to the topic and poor taste(like most of your posts, tbh). LivesbyProxys posts appear constructive in nature so I don't see why you feel the need to police him. Whether he is new or old is irrelevant, he has the same right to post on these forums as any other. If you don't like the topic, don't read it.

Out of courtesy I'm not saying what I consider of your posts.
Or opinions.

You have played the game for a very very short while, LivesbyProxys keeps on claiming he hasn't played the game at all (appears to show way more understanding of the game though which is rather strange, hence my suspicions).

Both of you are keen on tearing down what you now perceive to be problems with the game. Fiddling with fundamentals with little wisdom accumulated during the years is a pretty darn sure way to bungle things up. (not that even years of being around will necessarily give much wisdom to everyone).

You are voicing opinions on changing plenty of stuff. I am advocating on the opposite view
so that people in the power do not perceive that your opinions are universally accepted.

@Lonkka: I've been interested in VTES for years, I've just never played nor owned any cards. I've read the rules and read many blogs and watched Cause & Effect and gameplay videos on YouTube.

Since you have played the game for so long, it would be great to get your insight into what the best attributes of VTES are. You've already pretty much stated that everything is sacrosanct for you, but what is the holy core of VTES in your opinion?

Can you PLEASE not put walls of text into quotes? The thread will become very annoying to read. Just quote the part that is important.

LivesByProxy wrote:

Very interesting. I'm curious, why do you note that the two reasons are independent of each other? They seem linked to me.

What I consider to be faults in the game and how to make the game more interesting to the wider audience are two very separate things. Addressing the former requires making some changes to the game, the latter may be achieved by making changes to the game, but not necessarily. I don't claim that I know how people think, but I have some ideas after playing CCGs for couple decades.

Also very curious to know what aspects of VTES you consider to be design errors. I have my own list, but I'm looking forward to your thoughts. It is known that I would support a new version of the game that featured cleaner cards and some simplified or cleaned up mechanics.

I will post these thoughts of mine in manageable doses. I can't even remember them all at the same time, but I wanted to get started.

Let it be said that I do not mean VTES' general rules are faulty. What bothers me are several cards being worded in a way that is less than optimal. Because of Richard Garfield's golden principle ("If game rules and card text contradict, you obey the card") rules complexity issues directly follow.

As someone said earlier, complexity and depth are two different things. Games that have low rules complexity but high strategic depth are considered 'good' games. Example of such a game: chess. Example of a bad game: any board game that has too many moving parts for players to keep track of, but these moving parts overall don't improve the strategic depth.

We should consider rewriting the problem cards (what is perceived as a 'problem' may vary) in a way that makes them more understandable but maintains the games strategic depth.

Much of the unnecessary complexity in VTES revolves around combat. Once upon a time there may have been a step structure for combat in VTES. Then somebody started writing cards that purposefully did not adhere to it.

We have off the top of my head:
- cards that are played before pre-range "about to enter combat" (obedience)
- cards that are played after obedience-window but before pre-range; "If this vampire is blocked" "successfully blocks". (Dawn operation, mental maze)
- Damage that is dealt in pre-range (outside the hourglass)
- Cards that are played after maneuvers but before any strikes (immortal grapple)
- Strike cards that resolve outside strike phases (most of strike: combat ends), which are very common cards but are defined in a non-intuitive way. Since you can play combat end to your opponents combat end, its basically a step of its own yet not defined as such. To further confuse the issue, we have hand strike: combat ends which work differently. Also combat ends in pre-range for some reason (alpha glint)
- damage inflicted by combat ends (catatonic fear). How does this work with dawn operation btw? Since we have combat cards played after combat ends (taste of vitae) makes me think this step is still part of combat
- cards with very confusing timing (Rotschreck). I was about to write "after strike:combat ends would resolve but before actual strikes", then realized I'm not actually sure if this is correct. Can you negate combat end with Rotschreck?
- Cards can be played during the resolution of another card (Psyche vs Rotschreck interaction). I still can't wrap my mind around the fact that you allow this.
- We have first strike (its very lonely in here since its an underused keyword, yet defined in rulebook)
- We have two different strikes rolled into one (stutter-step)
- We have cards that can be played at pretty much any time after combat has started but which can create confusing situations in combination with other cards (claws of the dead for example. Dealing aggravated damage outside normal strike step ends the combat prematurely, and creates confusion involving cards that are played once combat ends. See rotschreck)
- strike resolution is handled in a non-intuitive and confusing fashion. Mainly because we have strikes that don't have a strike resolution apparently (strike:combat ends negates carrion crows for example).
- Multiple different uses for same words create confusion, particularly "strike resolution" (resolving actual cards/strikes vs a step in combat) and "combat ends" (which can mean both the strike and a point of time in combat; ironically not defined as a step in combat sequence despite having several cards playable during it)
- We have press step which I'm not convinced needs to be a step of its own, similar to maneuver step. Btw I consider the ordering of presses vs taste of vitae non-intuitive.
- We have combat cards that are played basically after combat ends (taste of vitae) and when combat is about to end (psyche, telepathic tracking) I don't think end of combat is defined very well. It is not a step of its own defined in the rulebook, but
in my opinion it should be.

Now.. Does anyone else think that this could be streamlined a little? Is it just me? Is all of this necessary to keep the game deep and enjoyable to play? Personally I felt nothing but frustration trying to understand how combat cards work in combat. We still regularly come across rules issues in weekly games.

Notice that all of the above issues stem from having a card text that contradicts the rulebook in a problematic way. Errata:eing and then reprinting the these cards could be a way to weed out some of the unnecessary complexity in my opinion. To make a new version of the game from this would solve the problem of people playing with wrong versions of the cards (all those jyhad cards..)

Certain issues are probably a result of not having a lead designer or someone to oversee card development as a whole. At least thats what it looks like. For example:

VTES has (according to my lackey) 1475 vampire cards. Out of these, number of vampires that have the keyword "first strike" unconditionally is... ONE. (Elimelech the twice-damned)
Five other vampires have or may gain first strike conditionally.

Does anyone else think that first strike is underused? First strike is a real keyword, defined in the rulebook even. Do you think that it was worth the inclusion in the rulebook (as opposed to its effect just defined in card text) when its used by 0.4% of vampires? In my opinion first strike would be a good way to make vampire A 'slightly' stronger than vampire B in combat, particularly useful when you want to represent specific clans who are traditionally considered better in combat than others in RPG such as gangrel or brujah. Did anybody designing vampires for the new sets consider the option of giving them first strike?
(btw: yes, I'm aware that there are combat cards that grant first strike. Theres slightly less than 20 of them)

A real "big box" product would go a long way, but I have to mention: If we must have a lot of counters, then I think it imperative that "taking from the blood bank" and assorted bloat cards / strategies be kept to a minimum. The game is, at its heart, about diminishing resources and collapsing game state, no?

In my opinion "hoarding stuff" in games is cool. This includes counters. What else would make you feel rich in-game than a big pile of counters?

My main and pretty much only issue with VTES counters is how blood counters tend to cover the face of a high-cap vampire card completely. I use red plastic counters that are smaller than the glass beads most VTES players use, despite this I feel the blood pile on a vampire is cumbersome, especially since vampires need to ta...lock and unlock. In my opinion vampires are really cool cards and I want to keep looking at their artwork, not cover them with counters.

I don't have a solution to this problem though. If someone has, I'd be interested in hearing it. We could potentially use dice, but the way blood counters move from pool to cards and back works great as is. If only I didn't have to keep the counters on the vampire..

Lönkka wrote:

Out of courtesy I'm not saying what I consider of your posts.
Or opinions.

You have played the game for a very very short while, LivesbyProxys keeps on claiming he hasn't played the game at all (appears to show way more understanding of the game though which is rather strange, hence my suspicions).

Your attempt at avoiding the classic internet ad hominem arguments is admirable.
Wait.

Personally, I'd rather stick to the topic.

Now.. Does anyone else think that this could be streamlined a little? Is it just me?

Oh no, it's more or less clear that combat is the most convoluted and kind-of-a-mess in the game. I wouldn't drop any phases as such (but rather introduce the pre-range as a a real thing), but I'll admit many things you said are really all over the place.

That's mostly what I was thinking about when I talked earlier about card interactions making the game too complex for it's own right. No one even uses Stutter Step. Or some might, but no one's going to cry any tears if Acrobatics just replaced that when reprinting the new set.

To be honest though, some combat cards could be rewritten for clarity, but many problems in there are solved just by never reprinting those cards again. As opposed to some decisions I can't just understand, like never reprinting strong staple combat cards for Obtenebration from late 90's.

Those things are not problems in written rules or game design at the moment though, I'd say. Many of them are actually remnants of bad design choices, but their impact on the game anymore isn't that meaningful.

I'd say that the issue of healing damage is very similar. Just never reprint those few cards that reference it, or rewrite them and rebalance them. The whole healing damage thing seems like a lore reference that could be rewritten once we know more about V5's terminology.

Then again, I don't think there are problems in ALL of the situations you mentioned. Some are features, not faults, like pre-range damage. It's all right actually. Just needs a couple of entries in the FAQ, but hey, it's a must in any game.

But I do agree that combat is the most all-over-the-place of any VtES mechanics. It would require a rewrite of sorts.

Of course any other new game of your choosing that you might be making could handle combat in any way you want. But some of it's complexity and detail is integral to Vampire, as no other game goes to such depths with it. Interesting stuff happens in combat. People love it.

Bloodartist wrote:

Much of the unnecessary complexity in VTES revolves around combat. Once upon a time there may have been a step structure for combat in VTES. Then somebody started writing cards that purposefully did not adhere to it.
[...]
Now.. Does anyone else think that this could be streamlined a little? Is it just me? Is all of this necessary to keep the game deep and enjoyable to play?
[...]
Does anyone else think that first strike is underused?
[...]
In my opinion "hoarding stuff" in games is cool. This includes counters. What else would make you feel rich in-game than a big pile of counters?

My main and pretty much only issue with VTES counters is how blood counters tend to cover the face of a high-cap vampire card completely. [...] In my opinion vampires are really cool cards and I want to keep looking at their artwork, not cover them with counters.

Copied from Gaming With Brett S. WordPress Blog (because it is relevant):
"So the first and most damning problem is that combat results in wild swings of power. By which I mean that it either does very little (Rush, Torn Signpost, Slam… oh, you played Majesty…), or it utterly prevents a player from playing the game (Oh, did Arika just come out? Rush, Acrobatics, punch for 1, Disarm, Decapitate… hope you are ok with losing your first minion and 11 pool!). Neither extreme is any fun and any redesign of the game is going to need to seriously consider how to help nudge combat back into the middle ground.

One element at play here is the arms race between defensive and offensive combat, and Strike: Combat Ends lies at the heart of the issue. It’s the ultimate trump and if left uncountered, it allows a deck to completely ignore combat. Given that combat is one of the central elements and strategies to the game, I think we can all agree that this is a bad thing. But many of the counters have created more problems than they solve. Take Immortal Grapple as a prime example – it introduces yet another combat phase (did we really need a “before strikes” step?), kills off melee weapons, and creates yet another situation where only one party wins. Either I play Immortal Grapple and make you powerless to resist me, or I don’t and you escape unharmed. It creates a “winner take all” scenario that I think it unhealthy. Don’t even get me started on cards like Charismatic Aura that cancel grapple cards. Do we really want special counter cards to counter the other special counter cards designed to deal with the ultimate combat counter?

I stated earlier how I think combat can be simplified into being Strikes, Dodges, and Presses, with the 'Range / Maneuver' steps being functionally and thematically included into Dodging or Pressing. I said that this created a sort of rock-paper-scissors gameplay but was told that VTES combat should not be R-P-S. But it seems to me that this is already the case. A vampire 'rushing' another vampire will lose (have combat be meaningless) if the opponent maneuvers to long and he can't maneuver back to close, or the opponent plays S:CE (and as per the rules, the acting vampire plays combat cards 1st, so it is like rock-paper-scissors but with you showing your opponent your choice rather than a simultaneous reveal.) I also think many of the weird timings you mention can be included in the effects of the strike itself.

Lets look at Immortal Grapple. (Assume S:CE is less prevalent and / or more costly to use, so it is less of the ultimate defense.) Immortal Grapple could read:

<inferior> Strike: Non Hand Strikes cannot be used this round of combat.
<superior> Strike: As above, with 1 optional Press. If combat continues, Manuevers cannot be used for the remainder of this combat.

Functionally, I think this mostly turns out the same, but I could be wrong. The reason Immortal Grapple has "only useable before strikes are chosen" is because of the prevalence and abundance of S:CE.

I do think First Strike is under-used, but I think it is counter-intuitive to have it be called First Strike when Strike: Combat Ends resolves first, and until S:CE is powered down or the cards it is seen on are fewer, First Strike remains lackluster.

Hording stuff is fun, and maybe the number of counters wouldn't be an issue if the "big box" product was big enough. Ben Peal's concern was that he would be selling an aquarium's worth of glass counters, which is a legitimate one, but marketed properly as a table-top board game, I guess that would make up for having most of the components and weight be counters. High quality card-board counters would also help, obviously.

One solution (maybe not ideal) to having counters cover-up the high-cap's artwork would be having all vampires whom you influence out return half of their blood to your pool (rounded up.) This would mean that the weenies come out exceptionally weak and low on blood, with the smallest weenies being required to Hunt before doing anything else. It would also mean that the high-caps wouldn't be quite so painful to get out, and contribute to the feeling of being rich, since you'd have more pool to spend overall (because half of that 10 or 11 cap would be reinvested back into your pool), which means getting more vampires into play over the course of the game, which creates a more interesting board state and more interaction, I think. Oh, and because they come out with fewer counters on them, you get to see their art. IDK just an idea (influenced from the same Gaming With Brett article I linked to.)