ReVamping VTES?

I'll admit those are pretty sexy.

Cardboard tokens spring first to mind when thinking about the counters, packing and weight. Distribution of 5 and 1 counters is elegant and widely used, and suits any board gamy approach. Old timers will always use onsies and glass beads could be sold as accessories. Omg, they would sell so well if the core product took wind...

Otherwise i think the fuss about the counters is just silly. If we do agree that vtes is kind sorta similar to boardgames, it's true (as someone said) that vtes has a really simple set up and uses a very reasonable amount of different counters (i mean no one insists u use different tokens for blood, pool and life...). The whole token debate becomes a problem only of u make it one i feel.

Of course all ideas are valuable when discussing the new distribution model. It's THE most important topic on vtes at the moment after all.

self wrote:

TL;DR: I think V:tes is a board game that masquerades as a card game.

Yes, yes, a kajillion times yes. Most complaints about this game outlined on these forums, both current and past, stem from the fact that the game is too random and swingy. In other words, it's too much like a card game. Perhaps it should be redesigned into something other than a card game?

I have no idea how people picked up the notion that he thought counters were bad.

Because he said " I could just imagine someone new to the game opening the box and wondering what on earth was up with all the counters." That's bad.

Kraus wrote:

Otherwise i think the fuss about the counters is just silly. If we do agree that vtes is kind sorta similar to boardgames, it's true (as someone said) that vtes has a really simple set up and uses a very reasonable amount of different counters (i mean no one insists u use different tokens for blood, pool and life...). The whole token debate becomes a problem only of u make it one i feel.

My view is the board game aspects (eg, the large amounts of counters that are moved around during play) distract from an otherwise excellent card game. Remove all the accounting that happens via counters, and the focus will shift to the mechanics of the card game. VTES will benefit as a result, because it has great card game mechanics.

self wrote:

There's a lot of elements that could be streamlined or folded into others and if we came away with a game that could be 60% compatible with the old cards, that'd be good enough for me. The problem with this is that would require sweeping errata and reprinting of cards. I'm wondering: does the game need some kind of soft reset after twenty-five years?

I've been thinking about it: So long as the core themes and gameplay don't change, I'd support a new V:tes even if if my entire collection were rendered invalid.

TL;DR: I think V:tes is a board game that masquerades as a card game.

_____
* has anyone else noticed just how thematic this is? Five Methuselahs sit down to a game with an equal amount of resources and work to manipulate their minions to oust their opponents. Think about it: Pool isn’t your physical life in this game, just the agreed-upon resources to be used in the game. When you’re ousted, you’re not dead, just out of the game. This also explains why each player starts with the same amount of pool. It’s a beautifully elegant meta explanation.[/i]

Does VTES need a soft reset? To many here the answer would be "no," but I think that doing one would breathe new life into nuWW and I think the pros outweigh the cons.

(To emphasize what you said:) For one, players' old sets wouldn't be rendered obsolete, as nuVTES would be a different game, despite all the many similarities. It doesn't need to be compatible, as like you said that would likely cause a ton of errata and create a weird environment for new players vs old players. Secondly, it gives WW free-reign to make nuVTES fit into whatever their aesthetic / vision is for the 1WoD / VTM 5E. Thirdly, related to the 2nd, it could let them avoid more licensing nonsense from WotC. 4th would be the opportunity to market / present itself properly as a "board game" and attract that crowd and do all the GenCon promo stuff as though it were a new IP.

Also, while we're showing off graphics and such, I'm going to show you the ReVamped discipline icons I've made:

self wrote:

"There's a lot of elements that could be streamlined or folded into others [...]" & "I've been thinking about it: So long as the core themes and gameplay don't change, I'd support a new V:tes even if if my entire collection were rendered invalid."

So what are VTES core themes and gameplay?

For me this would be:

1. Terms:
   • Pool / Blood- the games main resource, it is super thematic.
   • Stealth - vampires are predators and they are stealthy, physically and socially, again very thematic
   • Bleed - an amazing term for the abstract actions the vampires take to undermine and foil each other, but also super thematic
   • Burn - love this term, which is VTES' term for 'discard' and it works for any card in any zone and is very thematic
   • Hunt - wish there were more cards that made hunting worthwhile or more exciting, but this is a cool action, and flavorful
     
   • Prey / Predator - this relationship that the players have is core to VTES, obviously
2. Clans - every card game has its "colors" or factions with different strengths and weaknesses
3. Voting - has to stay, its a really cool aspect of VTES and encourages deal-making
4. Combat - who doesn't love vampires fighting each other?
5. Card Cycling - playing cards feels good, drawing cards feels better
6. Disciplines - the vampire powers, these are mostly all cool, and it is interesting and challenging to build a deck that works with certain disciplines.
   
7. Vampire Uniqueness - almost all the vampires are unique, which is to say, they follow the "legend rule" from MTG. This is very cool and makes them feel like real characters and not just random dudes.
   
8. Limited Actions - having your vampires determine (in most cases) the number of actions you can take during a turn is really interesting IMO.
   
9. World of Darkness - the setting being our world but more dark, dismal, depressing, decayed, and decadent is very cool.

So what would I change? (I asked what you guys would change, if anything, but since most people implied "nothing" . . . brace yourselves, its about to get heretical! Keep in mind that this is for a spiritual successor to VTES.)

I would borrow some aspects from Vampire: The Requiem.

1. There are only 7 clans or "species / types / kinds" of vampire. Requiem had 5, Masquerade had 13 (both settings had 20+ bloodlines, but I would just include characters from the bloodlines as being members of the main clan.)

2. I would make all instances of 'intercept' -> 'stealth' because I think the two are conceptually similar and work the same way. Stealth represents the measures that the acting vampire is taking to conduct his business discreetly, to avoid attracting the attention of those who would oppose him BUT stealth can also represent a vampire’s efforts to secretly discover the plans of another, to stalk or pursue him in order to detain or delay him. Stealth works both ways, thematically. The prey hides, the predator prowls.

3. I would make all instances of 'blood' -> 'pool' because, like stealth & intercept, it is a false dichotomy. Both are conceptually similar. Pool is blood, but also wealth & assets, favors owed, status and prestige with the community, etc.

4. I would make all instances of 'strength' or 'damage' -> 'bleed'. Bleed is an abstract term, so it can be used to in many different situations. Conceptually, taking a bleed action represents the efforts of your minion to undermine the power and influence of the target Methuselah or another vampire. You might picture bleeding as armed robbery, changing bank records, planting incriminating evidence, etc. Or you might picture bleeding as a fist fight, car chase, or shoot-out. In the case of political actions, bleeding might be considered exposing dirty deals, spreading rumors, or delivering an argument winning quip or speech. If it is something that thematically make another vampire expend resources or harms them (physically, mentally, or socially) it can be / should be a bleed.

5. I would not have werewolves, mages, demons, wraiths, changelings, mummies, or imbued. I might be Red Listed for this, but I think Vampire can adequately explain away all of the other supernaturals. Or, put another way, all of the other supernaturals are encompassed in the vampire myth. The legends of werewolves were sightings of the Gangrel. Stories of mages and witches and sorcerers were inspired by the Tremere. Accounts of angels and faeries? Those were the Toreador (or Daeva, to borrow from Requiem.) Wraiths, ghosts, and spectres? Merge the Lasombra with the Ventrue, giving them the power of Obtenebration, and say that was them. Demons? The Tzimisce. There is a trope known as the 'fantasy kitchen sink' which WW helped perpetuate: basically, all the myths and legends are real and exist. The problem this gets into is: how is this a secret from anyone? How can you maintain the Masquerade when all these supernaturals are present? I think it requires a level of suspension of disbelief that undermines the 'gritty mature urban realism' that nuWW is going for.

6. Drop the Camarilla-Sabbat War. I don't get how the Masquerade can be maintained if significant numbers of Vampires are determined to break it or don't care to maintain it. To me, it would make much more sense if there was, in fact, ONE vampire government, and the Camarilla and Sabbat and Anarchs were all different political parties within that government. It makes no sense that a Sabbat Archbishop would be able to vote against a referendum called by a Camarilla Prince if - according the VTM - the two operate within completely different power structures. (I mean, I guess we could abstract it to thematically mean the voting Sabbat ~doing things~ that ultimately undermine the Prince's rule, but that seems like a disconnect gameplay-wise.) If they were political parties, then there is room for more intrigue and machinations since they can be bipartisan on some matters, but also work to backstab their colleagues on other issues and matters of policy.

7. I would have rules for deal-making. Basically, rather than players spending 5 minutes discussing the details of an agreement or terms of a vote or something of the sort, only for another player to then play Delaying Tactics, I would include a rule about deal-making. It goes like this: Each player may make ONE deal with one other player on their turn and one deal out-of-turn. The player says the terms of the arrangement and the other player can choose to 1) accept the offer, 2) make a counter-offer, or 3) decline. If a counter-offer is made, the acting player may choose to 1) accept it, or 2) decline. That way players are encouraged to think carefully about the offer they will make and not hold up the other player's as they beg for votes or allies. The rule for deal-making may or may not be legally binding via the game rules (i.e. if a player agrees to terms, that player MUST follow through.) Maybe this is a good idea, IDK.

8. I would make all 'allies, retainers, & equipment' cards -> 'attachment' or 'support' cards. They are played 'on' a minion and they stick with that minion. The terms ally, retainer, and equipment can be sub-types.

9. Remove 'range' and 'maneuvers' from combat and reduce the moves to Strike, Dodge, Press. I understand, I think, the idea behind 'determine range' and 'maneuvers' it is thematic, only certain things work 'at range' like guns, etc, but I think it could be simplified and expressed with a very similar vocabulary to what VTES already has. Strike is the actual attempt to hit and damage your opponent (i.e. to bleed them) by whatever means; Dodge, rather than be something done through a Strike, can be its own move and thematically takes the place of Maneuver and Range. Vampires would Dodge to End Combat, avoid damage, or do other neat effects. Press is thematically like Maneuvering and determining Range in a way, but is used to continue combat usually. I think this gameplay of strike->dodge->press is pretty clean and simple, mirrors the three snakes symbol of VTES, and makes for a rock-paper-scissors dynamic. Strike beats Press, Press beats Dodge, and Dodge beats Strike.

self wrote:

Most CCGs follow set blocks for competitive play. Cards are rotated in and out of the current base set periodically effectively limiting the card pool for what is considered legal for tournaments.

I'm under the assumption that not that many CCGs actually rotate cards.

A couple surely, but hardly "most"...

I think all comes to what target audience VTES wants to aim for.

Do they want to bring back and fidelize all the players VTES used to have or do they want to make the game accessible to a broader audience?

In the first case scenario I´d just try to remove redundant cards and game mechanics, improve the rules wherever is necessary and try to give some unique flavour to every clan and sect. I´ve always found odd how similar all win conditions are regardless of the deck you´re playing (vote, bleed and attack).

In the second case scenario I´d try to make the game sessions shorter (30m - 1h), I´d redo a mayor portion of the game ruleset, keeping some of the well design cards intact and simplify what game mechanics that are cumbersome. I´d also create more than one game mode. Playing only with the last expansions is something that would help new players to hop in and join the player base (Crypt 5-6 only).

I think honestly that the best place to be is in the middle. There are several examples of successful ccg out there. It´s just a matter of growing the player base while keeping what makes VTES so special.