Author Topic: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?  (Read 9071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?
« Reply #40 on: March 27, 2009, 02:28:24 PM »
The problem, as others have pointed out, is that it doesn't usually quite work out in practice.  Most characters will drop to a certain level of Humanity and then stay there, unless they go out of their way to do really gratuitously horrid things.

Typically, that's a level where the penalties are quite minor.  More to the point, the penalties don't really do much to facilitate the roleplaying aspect of losing humanity; the player's more-or-less left to his or her own devices for that.

The mechanics don't get in the way of telling that sort of story, but they don't really do much to facilitate it, either.  The question is: can we do better than that?

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?
« Reply #41 on: March 27, 2009, 03:29:16 PM »
A more interesting question, to me, would not be "Does Vampire do a good job of X?" but rather, "How could X be done better?"

The first thing to do is to look into good social games.  Burning Wheel, Spirit of the century, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc and see how they work.

Basic research, stand on the shoulders of giants.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?
« Reply #42 on: March 27, 2009, 06:59:01 PM »
But...and here's the thing, Josh...one of the things all of those games do is eschew a "One size fits all" approach to mechanics.  The reason they're good games is that they know what they're supposed to be and what sort of play they're supposed to facilitate, and the mechanics reflect that.

That's not to say that there aren't useful ideas that could be adapted, mind you, but I think it's better to start with those two questions and then proceed to system, rather than start with "This is a great system, make it like this."


Insanodag

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • Email
Re: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?
« Reply #43 on: March 27, 2009, 08:32:50 PM »
The problem, as others have pointed out, is that it doesn't usually quite work out in practice.  Most characters will drop to a certain level of Humanity and then stay there, unless they go out of their way to do really gratuitously horrid things.

Typically, that's a level where the penalties are quite minor.  More to the point, the penalties don't really do much to facilitate the roleplaying aspect of losing humanity; the player's more-or-less left to his or her own devices for that.

The mechanics don't get in the way of telling that sort of story, but they don't really do much to facilitate it, either.  The question is: can we do better than that?
Josh...one of the things all of those games do is eschew a "One size fits all" approach to mechanics.  The reason they're good games is that they know what they're supposed to be and what sort of play they're supposed to facilitate, and the mechanics reflect that.
Quote
...one of the things all of those games do is eschew a "One size fits all" approach to mechanics.  The reason they're good games is that they know what they're supposed to be and what sort of play they're supposed to facilitate, and the mechanics reflect that.

And there you have it. Just because Vampire posits the gradual descent to the Beast as one of its central themes, does not mean that it has to happen. If it did, Vampire would fail in its aims. The heavy handedness of Burning Wheel and to some extent the Fate point economics of SotC disassociates the player from the setting through a layer of mechanics. Dogs in The Vineyard conflict resolution has a tendency to run like "Ho-hum...lets have an argument about this thing..."Right, we are now arguing about this thing and my aims are this and your aims are like this." It lacks the directness, the visceral feel of the responsive ad-hoc system facilitating the players interaction with the world.

For this, the system needs a wider focus, it needs to be "one size fits all".

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2009, 05:24:35 AM »
But...and here's the thing, Josh...one of the things all of those games do is eschew a "One size fits all" approach to mechanics.  The reason they're good games is that they know what they're supposed to be and what sort of play they're supposed to facilitate, and the mechanics reflect that.

That's not to say that there aren't useful ideas that could be adapted, mind you, but I think it's better to start with those two questions and then proceed to system, rather than start with "This is a great system, make it like this."



The problem, as others have pointed out, is that it doesn't usually quite work out in practice.  Most characters will drop to a certain level of Humanity and then stay there, unless they go out of their way to do really gratuitously horrid things.

Typically, that's a level where the penalties are quite minor.  More to the point, the penalties don't really do much to facilitate the roleplaying aspect of losing humanity; the player's more-or-less left to his or her own devices for that.

The mechanics don't get in the way of telling that sort of story, but they don't really do much to facilitate it, either.  The question is: can we do better than that?
Josh...one of the things all of those games do is eschew a "One size fits all" approach to mechanics.  The reason they're good games is that they know what they're supposed to be and what sort of play they're supposed to facilitate, and the mechanics reflect that.
Quote
...one of the things all of those games do is eschew a "One size fits all" approach to mechanics.  The reason they're good games is that they know what they're supposed to be and what sort of play they're supposed to facilitate, and the mechanics reflect that.

And there you have it. Just because Vampire posits the gradual descent to the Beast as one of its central themes, does not mean that it has to happen. If it did, Vampire would fail in its aims. The heavy handedness of Burning Wheel and to some extent the Fate point economics of SotC disassociates the player from the setting through a layer of mechanics. Dogs in The Vineyard conflict resolution has a tendency to run like "Ho-hum...lets have an argument about this thing..."Right, we are now arguing about this thing and my aims are this and your aims are like this." It lacks the directness, the visceral feel of the responsive ad-hoc system facilitating the players interaction with the world.

For this, the system needs a wider focus, it needs to be "one size fits all".

Ah, one size fits all is completely and utterly impossible.  Games cannot do everything.

Also worth noting that I said the starting point is to see what has been done before, not the ending point. 

And this:
"The heavy handedness of Burning Wheel and to some extent the Fate point economics of SotC disassociates the player from the setting through a layer of mechanics. Dogs in The Vineyard conflict resolution has a tendency to run like "Ho-hum...lets have an argument about this thing..."Right, we are now arguing about this thing and my aims are this and your aims are like this." It lacks the directness, the visceral feel of the responsive ad-hoc system facilitating the players interaction with the world. "

Would be better translated as "I have decided that while I know nothing about BW, SotC and DitV I can construe 4th hand information to make them look bad and then make incorrect assumptions about how they compare to WoD."

You can say anything when you just make stuff up.

The level of immediacy and mechanics in BW and SotC make them stand head and shoulders above WoD.  As well as numerous mechanical and social constructions in those games.  As for DitV, if it was run incorrectly yes, you will have problems. DitV facilitates exactly to opposite of what you would like to prove with this statement.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Insanodag

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • Email
Re: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2009, 03:33:20 PM »

Would be better translated as "I have decided that while I know nothing about BW, SotC and DitV I can construe 4th hand information to make them look bad and then make incorrect assumptions about how they compare to WoD."

You can say anything when you just make stuff up.

The level of immediacy and mechanics in BW and SotC make them stand head and shoulders above WoD.  As well as numerous mechanical and social constructions in those games.  As for DitV, if it was run incorrectly yes, you will have problems. DitV facilitates exactly to opposite of what you would like to prove with this statement.

Riiight....so to paraphrase: BW and SotC are the best games evaR and anyone who levels any criticism against them must obviously have never read them, because the minute understanding of the game occurs, the reader becomes instantly transformed into a true believer in the rightness of these games.

Obviously the experience of those who find aspects of BWs play lacking is completely irrelevant and the result of some flaw or other in their character.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2009, 05:17:14 PM »

Would be better translated as "I have decided that while I know nothing about BW, SotC and DitV I can construe 4th hand information to make them look bad and then make incorrect assumptions about how they compare to WoD."

You can say anything when you just make stuff up.

The level of immediacy and mechanics in BW and SotC make them stand head and shoulders above WoD.  As well as numerous mechanical and social constructions in those games.  As for DitV, if it was run incorrectly yes, you will have problems. DitV facilitates exactly to opposite of what you would like to prove with this statement.

Riiight....so to paraphrase: BW and SotC are the best games evaR and anyone who levels any criticism against them must obviously have never read them, because the minute understanding of the game occurs, the reader becomes instantly transformed into a true believer in the rightness of these games.

Obviously the experience of those who find aspects of BWs play lacking is completely irrelevant and the result of some flaw or other in their character.


I never say that.  I say they are significantly better that WoD.  You are applying the "slippery slope" fallacy. 

If you run burning wheel it is possible to find it lacking.  It lacks lots of things. And if we are looking at it with a dramatic, social, political. action yard stick you still might find it lacking.  But if you find BW lacking, get a microscope to find WoD.


Proving a better game, not good enough does not magically make WoD better.  A person who honestly tries BW may not find it to their liking I never said otherwise. 

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Insanodag

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • Email
Re: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?
« Reply #47 on: March 31, 2009, 12:19:02 PM »

I never say that.  I say they are significantly better that WoD.  You are applying the "slippery slope" fallacy. 

If you run burning wheel it is possible to find it lacking.  It lacks lots of things. And if we are looking at it with a dramatic, social, political. action yard stick you still might find it lacking.  But if you find BW lacking, get a microscope to find WoD.


Proving a better game, not good enough does not magically make WoD better.  A person who honestly tries BW may not find it to their liking I never said otherwise. 



Good point, and to be honest before I read Shoggothts original post, I had more or less discounted the WoD series completely as something I wanted to play. However, reading the discussion that followed I realised that I may have been wrong.

Last year I played in a Burning Wheel Campaign at a local games club. Good times were had by all.  The  system was a hurdle to overcome for some of the players who felt that the level of buy-in to  master the rules was a bit too high.  Other players(myself included) loved the way that drama was funneled through the system.  The first combat was an eyeopener for me, it was exciting, crunchy and required tactical decision making while not being minis-based.  Compared to my experiences with other games, it was great. However, other players found it slightly tedious. While the use of Beliefs and Instincts did give us a solid handle of the characters(in the sense that the characters were truer to our initial conception of them in terms of personality and behaviour) they sometimes felt a bit like our pet literary creations rather than alter egos. 


The Duel of Wits system is where the group struggled the most. While most certainly one of the best approaches to the whole character/player dichotomy in social interactions, the majority of the group felt that this constrained and broke up their flow in what has been referred to as 'the bad acting' that is interspersing the tactical combat in other threads on these boards. These players felt that the system disconnected them from the events in the game-world, and from the actions of their character.

Now, in the very same game-club, two games were running using oWoD games(Mage and Vampire). Now these people had fun and enjoyed themselves greatly. Some of them had even played Burning Wheel before, but still chose to play Vampire. Now, the question is what does vampire do so well, that these players would choose to play it?

My impression is as stated earlier, the accessible, ad-hoc stat-skill task resolution combined with an evocative setting and a holistic character creation system in which the whole character is created at once and the background of the character is fully reflected in their stats(ideally).

This is in contrast to games like Burning Wheel or GDW games(Twilight, Traveller), and to a lesser extent FATE games where the character is created by following a guided chronological exploration of the game. It also differs from D20 games where the tactical role of the character defines it, and games such as GURPS, BESM or HERO which are complicated,

A more interesting question, to me, would not be "Does Vampire do a good job of X?" but rather, "How could X be done better?"


Now this is probably what we are all interested in, and my polemicism caused me to ignore it. What I want from Vampire is a sense of immediacy, which means I want the game to be simple enough to play, through a quick flexible system. I want to identify with my character, and I want to experience the conflict of Humanity vs the Beast.

If possible I also want to mope around in New Orleans and spout puerile poetry about my lost innocence, but that is a bonus.


I want an implicit social contract that allows for quite a lot of GM fiat(which is a problem for some, I know). The world should be big scary and unpredictable, as if some capricious god hates me. I don't want to worry about inserting things or controlling outside events that are not controlled through my character. I want the GM to do this. I want the system to allow the GM to make decisions on the fly that through easily communicable game-mechanics.

Now, how do we go about this? My approach takes the oWoD Vampire system at its base and suggests ways of tinkering with the system.

I have very few problems with the task-resolution as a whole. I also feel that the list of skills and stats ground the character into the world quite well, so I am not touching them. My primary concerns are how humanity is handled as how the characters background and personality is done.

To start with the last bit, I think a more formal prelude would be in order. I would not like it to determine the stats and skills of the character(You grew up in an inner-city ghetto: Get one dot in firearms etc.), but I would like the choices to have some tangible impact on the gameplay, as constant reminders of the characters previous (human) life.

I think something along the stages Diaspora(FATE3 Scifi) outlines might be good especially as they are based on events that were defining for the character rather than along an arbitrary chronological history. The more difficult question is how to mechanically integrate them. One way could be to sideline most of the Willpower statistic and introduce a series of passions(a la pendragon) related to each stage. In situations that relate to the particular passion, the character could tap the passion to gain the same effect as if they had spent a willpower point. This could then be combined with a revamped humanity system in which humanity loss could be resolved by the loss of these passions (actually come to think of it, this works a bit like Wraith's Fetters...all my long-lost WoD knowledge is flooding back.), possibly replacing them with vampiric ones(thus making eeevil behaviour easier and more human grounded behaviour more difficult), this would have a subtle yet hopefully important impact on the way the descent is modelled.

Hopefully this approach would retain the flexible and immediate feel of vampire, while introducing a more credible loss of humanity.  One potential problem with this approach is of course that there is no beatstick involved. Of course, depending on your preferences, the lack of beatstick might be a feature, not a flaw.

However, this system would clearly justify angsty, horrible poetry about being hollow inside that my character can spout at a moments notice:

Hollowness inside
painful memories of school
bullies have dulled

Hollowness inside
loving touch of my mother
tugs no heartstring.




Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?
« Reply #48 on: April 01, 2009, 07:05:48 AM »
Insanodag

I think the key thing here is that while your insights are correct your interpretation is a little off.

You have two literal games one using WoD and one using BW.  They differ in dozens of ways more than the system.  Who's playing, the senario, the characters and so forth. 

If simplicity and ease of play are the most desired quality then why not jumo to PDQ, over the edge or heck Savage worlds or Fate?

The real situation is much more complex.  You see, for example, BW has payouts in empowerment and creativity that are nonexistant in WoD.  And the qualities that WoD has, are so much better executed elsewhere.

Quote
I want an implicit social contract that allows for quite a lot of GM fiat(which is a problem for some, I know). The world should be big scary and unpredictable, as if some capricious god hates me. I don't want to worry about inserting things or controlling outside events that are not controlled through my character. I want the GM to do this. I want the system to allow the GM to make decisions on the fly that through easily communicable game-mechanics.

OK, you want to play gumshoe (essoterrorists, fear itself, trail of cthulhu) or dread(the jenga game)

.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

tsuyoshikentsu

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
    • For My Mother: An Internet Serial
    • Email
Re: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?
« Reply #49 on: April 03, 2009, 08:34:27 AM »
Can I point out something here?  People aren't differentiating between nWoD and Vampire.  Vampire -- and many other nWoD games, particularly Mage -- fail horribly at what they're trying to do.

However, there are three really big successes in terms of goals in nWoD.  In order of increasing size, they are Promethean, Hunter, and Slasher.  (Yes, it's its own game.)  I know you all didn't like the looks of Promethean -- and there are a lot of things I don't like about it visually as well -- but in terms of gameplay mechanics, it works/.  You are supposed to be (unless you're that weird Pygmalion one) a beatstick, and a beatstick you are.  Compared to everything else in nWoD, you, to quote the book itself, "just... keep... going."  You are recommended to a Merit called "Combat Style: Brute Force," and in a system where healing the lightest of damage costs eight minutes for more than half your starting "merit" points, you can stick your finger in a wall socket and b ready to go in a few seconds.  There's still the tortured existence, and your goal isn't to kill shit, but let's face it: you'll be killing shit.

On the other hand, you're going to be quite happily killing shit in Hunter.  That, in fact, is the entire point of the game: you hunt down supernatural stuff and introduce it to your friend Stabby McStab, and his brother Stabbity.  Considering that Josh mentions several times that nWoD is suited to being an action-adventure game, well, hey, this is exactly what you're looking for.  Only downside is, even though this isn't oWoD, to a degree you're still playing Mortal: the Fucked.  Especially if you're hunting Promethians.

Of course, slashers don't run into that problem.  Slashers are very, very good at killing.  Very.  Scary good.  I actually was unable to believe some of the perks that they get.  I would put them up against anything, including a Promethian.  Look, it's in the name of the game.  And not only that?  You are playing a murderous psychopath.  If the game works for combat, well, good, because if your character isn't in combat then you're playing him wrong.  I mean, this is the nWoD game that doesn't let you burn Morality for XP because you can start at 0!

So... yeah.  Vampire fails if you want a talky-talky, grimgrimdarkgrimdark game, but the system itself doesn't.
Anyway, this cake is great!  It's so delicious and moist.

Stalk me on Twitter!  Validate my existence!  Maybe Even Get An Optimization Tip!

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: What kind of game is Vampire trying to be, and does it succeed?
« Reply #50 on: April 04, 2009, 01:52:25 PM »
The nWoD Vampire has a good social combat system in Requiem for Rome and a good city ruling mechanic in Damnation City. If they included these IN THE FUCKING BOOK Vampire would be better suited toward it's goal. If Mage was about doing whatever the fuck you want, it would succeed. If Werewolf didn't turn into Captain Planet and instead tried to explore the existence of being half wolf half man, it would succeed. If Changeling had better mechanics, writing, and goals, it would succeed.
I make little kids cry
Steady As A Goat
Warning: You may have already been set on fire

Bread does not need a reason