So, what would you change in VTES?

I agree with Mewcat in that I think a reboot would be the way I would address the game as a whole. The problem of course is that the current game would "die" again and most current methusalah's would just keep playing the dead game. Let's pretend that's not the case.

Unlike Mewcat, I don't think we need to go too crazy with limiting the bleed. Games take too long as it is. I think we need better ways to punish big bleeds so people have to make a decision other than "maybe they bounce it", because archon investigating a 3-5 cap isn't a big deal.

I would want to streamline combat and political actions because they take too long. Politics should be more risk and more reward. Combat should be more grindy than swingy (the wearing down aspect is what I like, the enter combat disarm+amaranth I don't like). Less card intensive combat that is more flexible.

Reigning in bloat, generally speaking, would be great. More specifically, MMPA and open ended cards like taste and voter cap seem silly. Beads should be scarce. Resource management and risk/reward is what makes this game interesting. Highlight that shit.

Events and imbued are dumb. Allies in general are fine, but the additional layer of imbued and their rules, plus how little they fit into a game called VAMPIRE make me want to jettison imbued. Events are just a less interactive and more impactful master card you play in your discard phase. THEY BROKE NEW GROUND!

How would you streamline Political Actions ?

I once suggested that there be formalized rules for deal-making. As in, a player (me, for example) can only make one (1) offer / deal / promise / threat to whoever the acting minion's controller is (you) and then you could make a counter-offer to me. If neither option was accepted, then those players are done talking for the referendum. This would prevent a lot of dead-time during the "set terms" part.

I think having cards that restrict / control / effect the degree of social interaction between players would be interesting. Game already has predator-prey relationship and directed-undirected actions.

A majority of things you're talking about are what drove me into the game recently (diversity, complexity, powerful cards/vamps/combo, etc).

What are you guys looking for when playing this game ? Pure mechanics and very limited interactions ? (I left Magic because of that. ^^') Very confused by what seems veteran players talking about a streamlined version of the game ...

Rynkle wrote:

A majority of things you're talking about are what drove me into the game recently (diversity, complexity, powerful cards/vamps/combo, etc).

What are you guys looking for when playing this game ? Pure mechanics and very limited interactions ? (I left Magic because of that. ^^') Very confused by what seems veteran players talking about a streamlined version of the game ...

Well put. These are some of the things that make the game enjoyable to me.
It’s an ever-varied game, driven by player relationships and interactions rather than rigid mechanics. Don’t get me wrong, rules are necessary, but not for everything. Many players that introduced me to, or I introduced to, the game really enjoy this sort of informal deal-making.
They also enjoy thinking up powerful combos for their decks - or how to counter them. This is what drives a dynamic meta, and I think it’s (usually) healthy.
add: I also love complex games where knowledge is power, but this is a double edged blade. And I’m willing to cut myself now and then.

Rynkle wrote:

A majority of things you're talking about are what drove me into the game recently (diversity, complexity, powerful cards/vamps/combo, etc).

What are you guys looking for when playing this game ? Pure mechanics and very limited interactions ? (I left Magic because of that. ^^') Very confused by what seems veteran players talking about a streamlined version of the game ...

I think it's a cultural thing. The "Latin" way of playing the game is the exception, not the rule.

Actually, the game as it is now is good because we can have our way, and people who have different conceptions can also play the way that fits them.

In international tournaments, I have been frustrated by people who were only caring about ousting their prey... But it is their choice to make.

If you want a real-life example, I once played on the following table:

Una > Kindred spirit S/B > Kindred spirit S/B > don't remember but it's not very important > me (! Tremere Black Hand)

It told my predator that I would go all out on Una so that she won't rape us all. I would not block his bleed action, and let him lower my pool. So we did, but I could not finish Una, leaving her at 4 pool. One of the two Dementation bleed decks could oust her with 1 action. They chose not to, Una finally reached her 40 minute turn, then killed us all. During the long turn, the Dementation players were nothing but complain about how OP Una is. The truth is that they had an opportunity to prevent that, and chose not too, because they were focusing on their prey only. Una was not the problem, the problem is people letting her get out of hand. I could do nothing but advise them to play Nocturn if they were not willing to use Dementation's greatest strength.

But that's OK, every was very nice and friendly on that table. It's just that two different conceptions collided. And also, having the means to stop something, choosing not to do it, then complaining about it happening, I find it hard to understand. But it is their right.

What worries me a lot, is that some people here are trying to enforce their approach, by lobbying for more rigid rulesets about social interaction.
If you are not willing to negotiate, you can just say so. The rules actually allow you to play only with the cards and mechanics if that is what you want.
Just do it, and don't rob us pathological talkers of our fun.

Tldr; the current ruleset allows for very varied approaches. Don't try to change that.

LivesByProxy wrote:

How would you streamline Political Actions ?

I haven't formulated the exact system, but the general idea is that use of votes should be completely redesigned. Static vote manipulation should be part of a player turn and fixed there, then players can use dynamic vote bonuses/penalties to break throw "political landscape".

You still can make any deals, but it will be one time per player turn, not new window for total renegotiation after each card played.