Important poll about the future of the game.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

See, I think the game is solid enough for a two-player format to work without changing mechanics/rules too much. One necessary change is having alternate ways to play certain cards in two-player games, such as Kine Resources Contested (assign all 4 points to the opposing Methuselah) and Deflection (reduce the bleed amount to 1). Alternate texts for these cards would need to live somewhere (maybe online?) The other necessary change is related to regular constructed play not always working for two-player games. Certain strategies are just totally dominant (weenie swarm). One solution is to simply unblind decks before play. This way, strategies that would normally dominate in two-player games should be matched up with a foil strategy.

People have tried to cram V:TES into a two-player format before, and it's not at all simple.

Strong weenie combat often does exceptionally well out of it, because it can act very quickly and kill all your vampires almost immediately. Unlike in the 'normal' game, this is very effective because you can often just bleed someone out - you don't have to be thinking about balancing your actions against your prey with defending (but not annihilating) against your predator, or amassing table hate etc. Clearly, the dynamics of which decks were good would be different in a two-player format - but if you need to be able to withstand that sort of thing regularly, it makes your deck very, very different.

One of the most V:TES-y things about V:TES is that for most of the game, you have to very carefully think about balancing offence against defence - sure, you can spend a flurry of pool and tap yourself out to oust your prey, but will your predator be able to take advantage of that? That collapses entirely in a two player format. Going all out to nobble your prey also protects you from your predator.



Returning to:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Alternate texts for these cards would need to live somewhere (maybe online?)

If part of the idea of a two-player format is to enliven the game with new players (either actually new, or returning players), having them play with cards that say one thing and do another is fundamentally horrible. Certainly, there are cards in the game that don't do what they say because errata has been necessary that genuinely changes the card text in significant ways, but there are a heck of a lot of cards out there that just do what they say. Sure, they might have been clarified in later printings, but the older printing isn't fundamentally wrong in the way that turning Deflection into a bleed reduction is.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

combat is a more winning strategy

This probably isn't the positive you think it is without some very heavy changes to the game.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

voting becomes a simple numbers game

That sort of destroys the point of V:TES politics. It's there because it's a multiplayer game.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

See, I think the game is solid enough for a two-player format to work without changing mechanics/rules too much. One necessary change is having alternate ways to play certain cards in two-player games, such as Kine Resources Contested (assign all 4 points to the opposing Methuselah) and Deflection (reduce the bleed amount to 1). Alternate texts for these cards would need to live somewhere (maybe online?) The other necessary change is related to regular constructed play not always working for two-player games. Certain strategies are just totally dominant (weenie swarm). One solution is to simply unblind decks before play. This way, strategies that would normally dominate in two-player games should be matched up with a foil strategy.

People have tried to cram V:TES into a two-player format before, and it's not at all simple.

Perhaps it doesn't need to be so complicated? I've played lots of two player games and, while very different, the games are still fun and entertaining.

Strong weenie combat often does exceptionally well out of it, because it can act very quickly and kill all your vampires almost immediately. Unlike in the 'normal' game, this is very effective because you can often just bleed someone out - you don't have to be thinking about balancing your actions against your prey with defending (but not annihilating) against your predator, or amassing table hate etc. Clearly, the dynamics of which decks were good would be different in a two-player format - but if you need to be able to withstand that sort of thing regularly, it makes your deck very, very different.

One of the most V:TES-y things about V:TES is that for most of the game, you have to very carefully think about balancing offence against defence - sure, you can spend a flurry of pool and tap yourself out to oust your prey, but will your predator be able to take advantage of that? That collapses entirely in a two player format. Going all out to nobble your prey also protects you from your predator.

Right. The way I play two-player games is very different than what you describe above. The decks are unblinded, so obviously lots of great aspects of standard constructed multiplayer V:TES will drop out. My argument it remains a great game regardless.

Returning to:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Alternate texts for these cards would need to live somewhere (maybe online?)

If part of the idea of a two-player format is to enliven the game with new players (either actually new, or returning players), having them play with cards that say one thing and do another is fundamentally horrible.

I have zero interest in "enlivening" the game. I am not a game designer, and I do not have a vested interest in the game doing well. I just want to play V:TES with two players because it is easier to find one other player than 4 other players.

Certainly, there are cards in the game that don't do what they say because errata has been necessary that genuinely changes the card text in significant ways, but there are a heck of a lot of cards out there that just do what they say. Sure, they might have been clarified in later printings, but the older printing isn't fundamentally wrong in the way that turning Deflection into a bleed reduction is.

You're talking about errata. I'm talking about alternate ways to play cards that can be completely ignored by people who are not interested in a variant two-player format. These alternate ways to play cards can be kept online and out of sight of anybody not interested.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

combat is a more winning strategy

This probably isn't the positive you think it is without some very heavy changes to the game.

Again, I am talking about playing with unblinded decks. This completely changes the paradigm of deck strategies in V:TES. I would argue playing with unblinded decks qualifies as a "heavy change."

TwoRazorReign wrote:

voting becomes a simple numbers game

That sort of destroys the point of V:TES politics. It's there because it's a multiplayer game.

I think it's been well-established over the years that playing V:TES with two players sort of destroys the point of V:TES. I'd argue that voting in two player, while way different, becomes a fun (and simple) numbers game.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I have zero interest in "enlivening" the game. I am not a game designer, and I do not have a vested interest in the game doing well. I just want to play V:TES with two players because it is easier to find one other player than 4 other players.

Wow. You know that if the game had more players that you would actually have a way to play VTES with a full group? If the game is reprinted (or rebooted!) and the company / players like you and me actually promoted the game, you could have a real play group again. Then you wouldn't need a 2 player variant. Plus, if we rebooted the game, it could be designed to allow for 2 player games.

My point is that your statement is insanely short sided. Your interests in the game (which presumably including the ability to play the game) are best served by a game that helps to bring in new players.

brettscho wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I have zero interest in "enlivening" the game. I am not a game designer, and I do not have a vested interest in the game doing well. I just want to play V:TES with two players because it is easier to find one other player than 4 other players.

Wow. You know that if the game had more players that you would actually have a way to play VTES with a full group? If the game is reprinted (or rebooted!) and the company / players like you and me actually promoted the game, you could have a real play group again. Then you wouldn't need a 2 player variant. Plus, if we rebooted the game, it could be designed to allow for 2 player games.

My point is that your statement is insanely short sided. Your interests in the game (which presumably including the ability to play the game) are best served by a game that helps to bring in new players.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think you are misinterpreting the meaning behind my words (or perhaps I wasn't being clear, which is the more likely scenario). I love that there are other people who have a desire to enliven the game and who strive to do so. However, I am not one of those people. I want to play the game, not discuss the future of the game ad nauseum. I just don't care about that part of it. It would be great if the game goes back into production, but getting that done is for somebody else to do, not me. My real interests in this game are (1) how the text on the cards interacts with the rules as a whole (I'm an editor), and (2) playing the game using some two-player house rules I use with friends/family. I am not a big fan of the multiplayer aspect of V:TES, believe it or not, so I don't play the game that way. Which puts me in the minority I suppose.

By the way, love your blog!

Fair enough! I had indeed interpreted your words more along the lines of "I don't want to see this game enlivened." I appreciate you explaining in more detail what you meant. I'm very glad that you enjoy the blog!

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I have zero interest in "enlivening" the game.

This was rather unfortunately worded statement. Expect backlash when posting stuff like this. You could also have presented your point without above statement. It is rather unrelated to anything.

However, the concept of a two-player game is an important one for modern games. It is a rather large hurdle to require multiple people before the game can even start. If you imagine a situation where a person comes across this interesting vampire card game in the store, and decides to buy a starter and test it out; If they would need only one other person for a game, it would be much easier to talk one of their friends to try it out, as opposed to needing a minimum of 4 for a meaningful game.

Or like how I started android netrunner: I knew about old netrunner and love cyberpunk, so I asked about the game in my local game store. One of the storekeepers (its a huge store) demoed the game to me 1v1. I liked it and bought more cards, started playing in earnest. This couldn't be done as easy with a game that requires multiple people.

Now I love VTES as the multiplayer that it is. I like the strategic aspect and the whole "methuselahs vs each other" thing makes a lot of sense lore-wise in a multiplayer enviroment. Still, one cannot ignore how big a benefit the possibility of a two-player game is. Basically every other big card game that I know of (admittedly its not that many) have a 2-player variant: Magic started as 2-player, over time multiplayer variants developed for casual games. Android netrunner is exclusively 2-player game. (The asymmetric nature of corp vs runner forces it to be though). Game of thrones LCG is supposed to be a multiplayer game, but a 2-player variant exists.

I also have a feeling that at modern times, a card game being exclusively multiplayer is rather strange idea for people. It might drive away potential customers. To counteract this, what if the possible new version of VTES could be marketed as a boardgame instead? Boardgames are probably more acceptable as multiplayer games.

Fantasy flight games' somewhat successful living card games android netrunner and game of thrones do this. The basic sets come in a large box reminiscent of a board game, even though they are essentially card games. I mean, only thing that would change would be the packaging. The VTES starters could come in one big box with blood/pool counters, the edge and possibly some other colorful accessories. The rest of the cards could be sold in 'booster packs' as 'expansions'.

Other thoughts:

- I don't think VTES yields itself very well to a 2-player game with current rules and cardpool. At the very least decks would be utterly different in 2-player and huge amount of the cardpool would be essentially unplayable.

- I want to keep VTES' multiplayer game as is. But if a possibility of parallel 2-player variant exists, it should be pursued.

- 'Living card game' format is really nice for new games, especially from the standpoint of a beginning player. It allows people to get the whole of cardpool rather cheaply and securely. Android netrunner and game of thrones have this format and it seems to work well for the publisher Fantasy flight games.

(For those not familiar with the term: It means the products always contain the same predetermined set of cards, rather than random cards from a given pool. So it doesn't have booster packs, it has 'expansions'. The emphasis in a LCG is in playing rather than collecting.)

LCG doesn't however work very well with the VTES idea of not restricting the amount of a specific card in a deck. Or it might?

- I am somewhat inclined toward rebooting the game from scratch with most of the same mechanics and cards, but rewriting and streamlining the card texts and maybe some of the rules. VTES cards could use a lot of rewriting and errataeing even if they would work the same afterwards. Theres lots of illogical things, awkward and unnecessarily long wordings. Things that plague a lot of new card games. Whoever wrote the card didn't quite think the rules all the way through, or just sucks at writing card texts. Two or more cards that do almost the same thing but wording is slightly different for no good reason etc.

The early magic the gathering cards had the same issue. Android netrunner has the same issue now.

As an example the recent 'seeds of corruption'. Card that was banned cause it was too confusing ruleswise Or things like vast wealth: acting vampire equips with the first equipment you find in your deck working down from the top. You DON'T have to show the cards to other players until you find the equipment, so an unnecessary possibility for cheating exists. In any modern game this would be worded either so that you reveal cards until you come across an equipment (so other players could confirm youre not cheating), or that the action would simply search for any equipment in the deck without having to show the other cards. So many examples of cards with awkward, silly or stupid design. These could be 'fixed' in a reboot of the game.