ReVamping VTES?

Once you play vtes for a bit, you will see that both frustrations for your 11cap burned at turn 1 and your killing machine getting s:ce are just part of the game. If you want to play an 11cap, you expose to the early burn frustration. If you play rush deck you can't hope that every combat will torpor or burn something. Again, it's in the player, not in the game. If a player just rush everything on the table and then gets ousted with 0 vp, that's a bad player and hopefully will learn that some well aimed disruptive rush is better, or that relying on attrition combat instead of the burn burn burn will pay on a longer game strategy.

Tl;Dr. Just remove a bunch of too wordy and convoluted combat cards (twisting the knife, anyone? ) and reprint same old fashioned combat cards and everything will be ok

Kraus wrote:

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.
[...]
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.
[...]
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.

I would support some cards not being reprinted again, particularly if the goal is to have a self-contained core set of around 400 cards in a big box product.

If we're not going to reprint the cards that deal with healing damage, is it necessary to have the rules refer to healing damage? (The rules could just be that X damage burns X blood, and that X aggravated damage burns X and sends to torpor, which is slightly simplified from the current rules of X agg damage being X+1 blood burned [the 1 blood from the vampire becomes wounded. Coincidentally, there are no cards that interact with this 1 blood from becoming wounded.])

I've often thought that the combat model in VTES is strong enough and interesting enough to be a game in its own right. It is fascinating that Richard Garfield chose to include it in Vampire and not make a separate game out of it.

If I were to rework combat (in a spiritual successor) I would have both players pick which combat cards (if any) they want to play, place them face-down, and them simultaneously reveal them. Everything resolves simultaneously. Strikes beat Presses, Presses beat Dodges, and Dodges beat Strikes.

By default, combat resolves with both players Striking for 1 damage. However, combat continues indefinitely until both players decline to play any cards or use effects.

To simulate ranges and maneuvers there would be cards like "Press: You get an optional Press next round." (Which means your opponent's Dodge card has no effect, since Press beats Dodge, but also their Dodge cards become ineffective next round, since you have an optional Press - the implication being that they were maneuvering to long range and you were pursuing them.)

To simulate a gun like the Saturday Night Special we would have: "Dodge: Deal 1 damage to the opposing minion. (Limit: 2)" Because you use guns at long range, which is simulated by Dodging (that is, fleeing or putting distance between you and your enemy.) And since Dodge beats Strike, the opponent's Strike is ineffective. The "Limit: 2" is to signal that this effect cannot be used more than 2x per combat but you could, for example, use the effect on different rounds.

To simulate the AK-47, we'd have: Dodge: Deal 2 damage to the opposing minion. Presses do not cancel this effect. (Limit: 2)" Trying to run up to or chase after someone with a gun is a bad idea, but it is conceivable that a vampire could do it quickly (like before they draw the weapon, or them missing their shots) but trying to get into melee range of someone with an AK-47 would be difficult.

Personally, I really like the format of [KEYWORD]: [Bonus Effect]. Here is how I would do Immortal Grapple in a spiritual successor:

<inferior> Strike: The opposing minion cannot Dodge for the remainder of this combat.
<superior> Press: As above, and you get an optional Strike this combat.

Anyways, combat in this manner would likely include a more bluffing and trying to read your opponent. ("Will they suspect me to Strike on the 1st round? If they do I need to Press. But if they think I'm going to Press, what if they Strike? Do I try to Dodge until they run out of Strikes to play, then I can Strike repeatedly and they won't have a response...") I was actually inspired by the game Yomi by David Sirlin (and the concept that game is based on) which when I realized how combat in VTES worked I thought the similarities uncanny. It's interesting how Richard Garfield got so close to the gameplay of Yomi (and the concept) way back in 1994 (or put another way, how Yomi's gameplay is so similar to combat in VTES!)

Bloodartist wrote:

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

Personally, I'd rather stick to the topic.

You the one who started it.
So no need to try to paint yourself as a martyr here.

thelonius wrote:

Once you play vtes for a bit, you will see that both frustrations for your 11cap burned at turn 1 and your killing machine getting s:ce are just part of the game. If you want to play an 11cap, you expose to the early burn frustration. If you play rush deck you can't hope that every combat will torpor or burn something. Again, it's in the player, not in the game. If a player just rush everything on the table and then gets ousted with 0 vp, that's a bad player and hopefully will learn that some well aimed disruptive rush is better, or that relying on attrition combat instead of the burn burn burn will pay on a longer game strategy.

Tl;Dr. Just remove a bunch of too wordy and convoluted combat cards (twisting the knife, anyone? ) and reprint same old fashioned combat cards and everything will be ok

I think the point Brett Scho was making is that it is often one extreme or the other with very little middle ground. Certain strategies effectively remove any semblance of choice from your opponent and greatly limit their ability to respond and interact, which is arguably a bad design philosophy, since gameplay is primarily about player interaction. In Magic: The Gathering, land destruction and blue control decks have basically been depowered because the amount of fun you got out of playing them was not surpassed by the amount of unfun your opponent got from playing against it. Yes they were both part of the game, but Wizards of the Coast realized that the health of the game depended on these things being fixed.

Your example is also very extreme - I don't even think new players would be quite so foolish as to indiscriminately rush combat random vampires around the table. But assuming they did, their target would likely not be able to respond at all (they don't play combat cards), or would have an answer that completely shuts down the rush combat player (like Presence S:CE.)

I would support removing wordy and problematic combat cards in favor of basic old-fashioned combat cards, as you suggest.

Ankha wrote:

I can't see why randomizing combat would make it more interesting. A combat deck wouldn't have any advantage over a political deck, because the number of combat cards doesn't matter. Just throw in a mix of presses, strikes, and dodges, and try to guess what your opponent will play.

You must have misunderstood me.

LivesByProxy wrote:

Combat continues indefinitely until both players decline to play any cards or use effects.

The number of combat cards would most certainly matter. Each combat round consists of a player playing a card or using effects, so if an opponent could not or did not play any cards or use any effects, then you could play your combat cards with impunity. Assuming you had 4 combat cards in hand (not counting the replacement draws), each round you would play one and, if your opponent played nothing, the effects resolve (your card effect vs the opponents default Strike for 1 damage.)

The power of a combat deck (like how VTES currently works) would come from stacking combat effects that increase your damage with each Strike, or make your opponents moves ineffective. Using the example above, lets assume that our 4 combat cards are:

* 1 copy of "Press: +1 damage on all Strikes this combat.";
* 2 copies of "Strike: +1 damage.";
* 1 copy of "Dodge: You get an optional Strike this combat."

You would probably Press, Dodge, Strike, Strike, Strike. And since Strikes have a default of 1 damage, your minion would deal 0 on the 1st round, 0 damage on the 2nd round, 3 damage on the 3rd round, 3 damage on the 4th round, 2 damage on the 5th round. Maybe an extreme example, but hopefully it makes sense?

And combat decks would most certainly have an advantage over political / vote decks. Currently, most VTES political decks play Majesty to S:CE. In my hypothetical spiritual successor, that would most likely be "Dodge: Combat Ends." Knowing the Vote deck had Majesty then, would you use your Strike on the 1st round of combat? Or do you Press? What do you think your opponent thinks you think?

That's the concept of yomi, which is Japanese for "reading" as in "read the mind of the opponent" - it is a sort of guessing game, but it is not random. Both players are rational actors, so we can assume they will choose what they believe to be the best move for them to make. With this setup there is more bluffing and mind-games. There is also the metagame aspect, which is a big deal in VTES. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of other players, their mannerisms, their decks, all factor in to your choice of what card to play and when to play it. This sort of combat model would also make effects that let you see cards in your opponent's hand or library, even more valuable.

That's not so say the idea is perfect for VTES, or that it can't be improved on, but I think it captures the essence of combat in VTES, maybe.

LivesByProxy wrote:

@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.

All that, especially the C&E, is good but nothing comes close to hands on experience.

Here is a good example why experience beats new out of the box ideas:

Ankha wrote:

LivesByProxy wrote:

If I were to rework combat (in a spiritual successor) I would have both players pick which combat cards (if any) they want to play, place them face-down, and them simultaneously reveal them. Everything resolves simultaneously. Strikes beat Presses, Presses beat Dodges, and Dodges beat Strikes.

I can't see why randomizing combat would make it more interesting. A combat deck wouldn't have any advantage over a political deck, because the number of combat cards doesn't matter. Just throw in a mix of presses, strikes, and dodges, and try to guess what your opponent will play.

LivesByProxy wrote:

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?

Don't know about my abilities in trying the evaluate or fix (or "fix") the game.

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 ). 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.

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.

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.