Open letter to Black Chantry Productions

Tadori wrote:

Is it good for VTES "rpg" feel - No

This right here is, in my opinion, is an extremely underrated reason to not pursue any changes to the contest rule. The way I understand things, the intent behind changing the contesting rule fundamentally is because the current number of crypt options has allowed the the impact of the rule to "be more severe with larger numbers of “key vampire decks” now in existence". While I trust this is true at the tournament level, it is much, much less so in a casual environment, where house rules can easily be made to avoid the contest issue, if it even is an issue (which in my experience, it is not).

The way I see things, the only reason for this change is to see if there is any beneficial effect at the tournament level, even though the rule change is being sold as a way to fundamentally accommodate a large amount of crypt options more elegantly at all levels of play. I don't buy that. It's only people who play in tournaments who would ever gripe about the rule, so changing contesting to work better at the tournament level seems to be an ulterior motive.

The rule was in existence in the Jyhad rulebook to reflect the V:tM source material. As a casual player, I would not be enthused to see a fundamental rule change that directly undermines a mechanic based on the source material because a handful of people feel like their precious little tournament experience is negatively affected because of the existence of that rule.

If that's the prevailing sentiment, then by all means, make a tournament rule that allows players to control contested vampires. But I implore anyone reading to think very carefully about changing any rule that was originally included to add flavor from the source material.

People seem to forget that the game was originally designed to have players roleplay ancient vampires during the course of the game. Thus, if more than one copy of the same vampire came into play and was contested, the players were given the opportunity play out the situation taking a cue from the source material (picture players roleplaying stubborn Muthuselahs hurling insults at each other and fighting over who has the right to take control and who must yield). You remove this rule, you remove that optional roleplay opportunity for casual players.

And this is even before getting into the less esoteric issues of the card changes necessary to accommodate any change to the contesting rule. Again, why should casual players have to play Hardestadt, Sonja Blue, Jimmy Dunn, et al differently because some tournament players wanted their tournament experience to be better?

Again, go ahead and make a special rule for tournaments. But please keep any rule change at least 6 feet of social distance away from any game I might play.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

but please keep any rule change at least 6 feet of social distance away from any game I might play.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

it is much, much less so in a casual environment, where house rules can easily be made to avoid the contest issue, if it even is an issue (which in my experience, it is not).

So, if you are a casual player, just make a house rule about it? If this is the easy solution for playgroups to change rules to their liking, do the rules actually matter?

TwoRazorReign wrote:

People seem to forget that the game was originally designed to have players roleplay ancient vampires during the course of the game.

Personally, I like V:TES because it offers me a more abstract but concentrated Vampire: The Masquerade experience, but I vehemently dislike people who use V:TES as a substitute for a Vampire: the Masquerade roleplaying group. If someone wants to roleplay, that's cool and I'm all for it, but they should play the roleplaying game (I hear there's a new edition out).

Having sat a table with a player with Malkavians making bad plays because he was roleplaying being crazy, or a player with Brujah or Gangrel vampires rushing my Ventrue cross-table because "roleplay" not only had a bad effect on my game, but a bad effect on most everyone's game at the table. Except for the eventual winner, none of which were the people roleplaying, one of whom had the audacity to complain that he lost. I realize that this is an anecdote and not data, but making direct comparisons comparisons between a card game based on a roleplaying game and an actual roleplaying game seems like a reach to me.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

And this is even before getting into the less esoteric issues of the card changes necessary to accommodate any change to the contesting rule. Again, why should casual players have to play Hardestadt, Sonja Blue, Jimmy Dunn, et al differently because some tournament players wanted their tournament experience to be better?

I'm pretty sure that Hardestadt, Sonja Blue, Jimmy Dnn, and all of those problematic corner cases are the reasons why Black Chantry has asked for an 'open playtest' rather than just changing the rule out of hand.

Also, why should tournament players be punished by rules that casual players can just agree to change with house rules?

TwoRazorReign wrote:

The rule was in existence in the Jyhad rulebook to reflect the V:tM source material. As a casual player, I would not be enthused to see a fundamental rule change that directly undermines a mechanic based on the source material because a handful of people feel like their precious little tournament experience is negatively affected because of the existence of that rule.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

it is much, much less so in a casual environment, where house rules can easily be made to avoid the contest issue, if it even is an issue (which in my experience, it is not).

So by your own statement, casual players can just make a house rule about it and not worry what Tournament players have to face.

Throughout your post, I get the impression that you personally don't like tournament play. Which is totally fine, by the way! But I don't understand why a change to the main rules that would open up tournament play a little more and (allegedly) have very little effect on casual games and gamers, who could also just house rule the contest mechanics back in if they wanted to, is seen as so threatening to some people.

Palamedes wrote:

Ke. wrote:

...the rule change has been positive.

Most of the players playing two same star vampires without problems on the same table do not see it as "positive". Therefore, so far when testing the net effect of the rule change has been totally negative.
I hope that this will never ever become a rule, more precisely, I hope that the rule will remain exactly as it has been so far.

can you explain to me how two players having increased engagement results in a lack of engagement from the players who are not contesting at the table?

Also, which game has the least amount of player interaction between these situations?

[one]
Five players sit down a table to play a game of V:TES. No player contests vampires the game proceeds and there is a winner after 2 hours.

[two]
Five players sit down a table to play a game of V:TES. Two players contest vampires and are hosed off the table. the player between the two contesting players is able to sweep the table because they not only had a weak prey, but a weak predator as well. The game ends with a winner after two hours.

[three]
Five players sit down a table to play a game of V:TES. Two players contest vampires under the proposed rules, but are still able to maintain the balance of the table and play the game. The game ends with a winner after two hours.

If i'm a designer of a multiplayer game, it feels like I would want players to be able to play the game instead of not being able to play the game. I realize that V:TES is a game of elimination and not everyone is going to make it to the end, but in a two-hour game, I'd like to see players being actively engaged with the game for at least half of it before being ousted.

It feels like forcing two players to sit for an hour or more before being ousted because they're contesting vampires seems counterproductive and punitive. I also would have a hard time taking any kind of enjoyment that someone had a bad time in a game i was playing through no fault of their own.

self wrote:

So, if you are a casual player, just make a house rule about it? If this is the easy solution for playgroups to change rules to their liking, do the rules actually matter?

I'd like to point out again that in my experience, a house rule is not necessary. I was speaking for the hypothetical person that may have an issue with the rule in casual play and thinks it needs to change. I'm not sure that person actually exists.

Personally, I like V:TES because it offers me a more abstract but concentrated Vampire: The Masquerade experience, but I vehemently dislike people who use V:TES as a substitute for a Vampire: the Masquerade roleplaying group. If someone wants to roleplay, that's cool and I'm all for it, but they should play the roleplaying game (I hear there's a new edition out).

Totally understand your viewpoint. But, the crux of my argument is what you "vehemently dislike" is how the game was originally designed to function. I don't really have much evidence to back this claim up other than my understanding of the game and how it could be played when it first came out (I do remember the Jyhad rulebook being a little loosey goosey with describing the role of methuselahs and how to play the game). So it's definitely an opinion, and I happen to have a different viewpoint than you on that.

[qoute]Having sat a table with a player with Malkavians making bad plays because he was roleplaying being crazy, or a player with Brujah or Gangrel vampires rushing my Ventrue cross-table because "roleplay" not only had a bad effect on my game, but a bad effect on most everyone's game at the table. Except for the eventual winner, none of which were the people roleplaying, one of whom had the audacity to complain that he lost. I realize that this is an anecdote and not data, but making direct comparisons comparisons between a card game based on a roleplaying game and an actual roleplaying game seems like a reach to me.[/quote]

I have to say that, other than the person complaining that they lost, this sounds like my idea of a fun game. So again, different viewpoints here. I do have a strong opinion that what you describe is how the game was originally intended to be played (other than the party pooper complaining about losing). But it's just an opinion.

I'm pretty sure that Hardestadt, Sonja Blue, Jimmy Dnn, and all of those problematic corner cases are the reasons why Black Chantry has asked for an 'open playtest' rather than just changing the rule out of hand.

I wasn't doubting that. I have no issues with how the proposed rule changes are being explored. I just don't want any rules or cards to end up changing, that's all. In terms of exploring the idea, I think that's a worthwhile thing to so.

Also, why should tournament players be punished by rules that casual players can just agree to change with house rules?

Apparently not everybody thinks they are being punished? I've seen split opinions on whether the rule needs to change. But that's beside the point. Tournament players already operate under a different set of rules to not be punished by design choices (eg, play to win rule). If this framework already exists, my question is why not just change that framework? Is it really necessary to affect those casual players like me who want to act out being a Malkavian and make questionable in game choices? (Please don't hate me too much!)

So by your own statement, casual players can just make a house rule about it and not worry what Tournament players have to face.

Again, a house rule has not been needed in my actual experience. Sorry for the confusion. I was approaching my argument to include the point of view of someone who may want this rule changed outright to make casual play better. That obviously led to confusion and muddied my argument.

Throughout your post, I get the impression that you personally don't like tournament play. Which is totally fine, by the way! But I don't understand why a change to the main rules that would open up tournament play a little more and (allegedly) have very little effect on casual games and gamers, who could also just house rule the contest mechanics back in if they wanted to, is seen as so threatening to some people.

Well, "threatening" is way too strong of a word here. We are discussing a silly card game about vampires. I would say I feel like there's no reason to make a change except at the tournament level, so why make the change at a fudamental level? But your point about just adding back in contesting as a house rule is a good one I was not thinking about. The only thing I would say to that is causal players would still have to deal with any changes to cards that would be needed to accommodate a change to the rule. But you are absolutely right that any rule change could be "house ruled" back to the original, and old cards could be used.

self wrote:

I don't understand why a change to the main rules that would open up tournament play a little more and (allegedly) have very little effect on casual games and gamers, who could also just house rule the contest mechanics back in if they wanted to, is seen as so threatening to some people.

I can say that all this is just an opinion. My opinion is this will not open anything (except Pandora's box), it will actually narrow down the choice of the decks. The existing rule works well, I don't see a problem. Also, a casual game can be played by an "old" house rules, but what if you want or happen to play in a playgroup other than your own? You will probably have to play by "unacceptable" official rules or accept some bad version of their house rules. This is that threatening thing. And why all this? Just because some people in tournaments want to play only the "best" decks/vampires, and it is hard for them if someone came up with the same "idea" (TWD list).

But that's it. Test your games, see what happens, decide whatever you want, go report "objectively" and "positive". But please, don't say that it is for the benefit of the game and the community, because it's really not. Well, yes, it is also my opinion, I haven't tested this rule, except once upon a time, something similar, but who cares. See you when all this is over, I'm out.

what's this? two people who disagree with each other having a civil conversation on the internet? say it ain't so!

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Totally understand your viewpoint. But, the crux of my argument is what you "vehemently dislike" is how the game was originally designed to function. I don't really have much evidence to back this claim up other than my understanding of the game and how it could be played when it first came out (I do remember the Jyhad rulebook being a little loosey goosey with describing the role of methuselahs and how to play the game). So it's definitely an opinion, and I happen to have a different viewpoint than you on that.

It was much the same way with Magic the Gathering, which the early rulebook had a pretty loose interpretation of what its own rules were as well. Near as I can tell (I accept that I may be hugely incorrect in this conclusion) it was the tournament scene that helped tighten rules up. It's pretty clear in hindsight, that at the time the design team thought the game functioned differently than how it actually does in the early days. When I look at where V:TES is now in terms of design and designers who understand how the game works, I am not at all inclined to point to those early, wild-west times and say "that's how the game is supposed to function/be played."

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I have to say that, other than the person complaining that they lost, this sounds like my idea of a fun game. So again, different viewpoints here. I do have a strong opinion that what you describe is how the game was originally intended to be played (other than the party pooper complaining about losing). But it's just an opinion.

Maybe it's just me, but having my game dunked on 'because roleplaying' isn't very fun for me. Even if it was how the game was originally intended to be played, I'm not sure that's how the game has been intended to be played for many years now. But it's totally fair that different people play to get different things out of the game. Difference of opinion, i guess.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Apparently not everybody thinks they are being punished? I've seen split opinions on whether the rule needs to change. But that's beside the point. Tournament players already operate under a different set of rules to not be punished by design choices (eg, play to win rule). If this framework already exists, my question is why not just change that framework? Is it really necessary to affect those casual players like me who want to act out being a Malkavian and make questionable in game choices? (Please don't hate me too much!)

[...]

I would say I feel like there's no reason to make a change except at the tournament level, so why make the change at a fudamental level?

Bear with me on this, but why can't we have just "the Rules?" It's hard to play a game competitively that has "loosey-goosey" rules. Hell, it can be hard to play a game casually if there's any kind of strong disagreement on how something works. But it's not hard to play a game with "air-tight" rules casually. Even if 'play to win' was hard coded in the game's rulebook, casual playgroups can just house-rule it to their liking. Your group could continue to make questionable plays with your malkavians and cross-table assault ventrue with Brujah because it's thematic and it won't bother the tournament scene at all.

An added benefit of this is that casual players end up getting a better game out of the deal. Because when rules arguments come up there's a clear, concise answer. Yeah, I know that's a stretch of an outcome for V:TES but one can dream, right?