Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

That which I dislike the most about V5: The absence of the Elders

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cifer View Post
    The Famulus is the only I would have to think about for a longer time, the rest I think I could make up a judgement on the spot that would probably get accepted by most players at the table.
    Not trying to be that flippant, but Cifer , I am geunively curious as to what your solutions would be.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post
      Lys
      Hunger and Rousing together replace a simple additive trait pool with a complex, inelegant procedure that has to be managed with every single dice roll, and can result in some strange side-effects. If a vampire decides to stay home and do a crossword puzzle, they use just as many Hunger dice for the Intelligence+Academics roll as they would if they were roaming the streets killing innocents. With a Messy Critical, they... what... write the answer to 7-down on the wall with the viscera of their disembowled ghoul?
      Do you really imagine that any ST is asking for a roll when a character does a crossword in a leisurely manner? Rolls are for when there is reason to believe the character might fail and sufficiently interesting consequences if they do. That will typically mean that there is some element of pressure and/or risk, in which case it makes sense for hunger to be a factor in generating unexpected outcomes.

      Absolutely any RPG system breaks down if applied in sufficiently absurd circumstances or if the GM is trolling the players. I don't think anyone can design around that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herbert_West View Post
        Not trying to be that flippant, but Cifer , I am geunively curious as to what your solutions would be.
        Going through disciplines one by one and skipping those where the powers have no lingering effects at all:

        Animalism:
        Bond Famulus: I must say I'm not quite sure what the difference between a Bond Famulus and a simple animal ghoul is except for the interaction with certain disciplines (which the Thinblood can't get anyway), but I would assume the Famulus becomes a simple ghoul.
        Sense the Beast: Obvious.

        Auspex
        Heightened Senses: Obvious.
        Sense the Unseen: Obvious.

        Celerity:
        Cat's Grace: Obvious
        Rapid Reflexes: Obvious.

        Dominate:
        Cloud Memory: That one's a little tricky, but I'd be inclined to say the memory stays gone. After all, you wouldn't regain it by killing the dominant vampire either.
        Compel: Unproblematic, since "it must be possible to complete the command in a single turn".

        Fortitude:
        Resilience: Resilience seems to represent actually being able to take more damage rather than just averting the damage as it happened in prior editions (via iron-hard skin or the like) - if you've got 5 additional health levels and get them shot off, you need to actually heal them before they're available again. Thus, by losing the power, you're treated as if you didn't have the additional health levels, but the damage doesn't go away - if you suddenly have more damage than health levels, you can become Impaired, Superficial damage may wrap around into Aggravated, Torpor beckons, etc. Sucks to be you.
        Unswayable Mind: Obvious.

        Obfuscare:
        Cloak of Shadows: Obvious.
        Silence of Death: Obvious.

        Potence:
        Lethal Body: Obvious
        Soearing Leap: Obvious

        Presence:
        Awe: The power wears off immediately. (See text)
        Daunt: Obvious.

        Protean:
        Eyes of the Beast: The transformation ends immediately.
        Weight of the Feather: The effect ends immediately.

        Thaumaturgy:
        Corrosive Vitae: Spilt blood continues to be acidic until it's run its course, though that seems unlikely to come into play.
        A Taste for Blood: Obvious.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PMárk View Post
          Ah, so you prefer having social combat and influence/relationship rules in as much detail as combat? That's fair, though I never felt the need for them, to be fair, but it's up to preferences and taste. These things were roleplayed out in the games I've participated, in any system and the simple checks were plenty enough to handle the mechanical part them. Having detailed rules for a conversation, or social stuff is just weird to me.
          Game design and my personal preferences tend to point in significantly different directions since i prefer freeform games, and telling the players to throw the rules in the garbage and go play pretend is not exactly good game design. No the issue here isn't about the detail of the rules so much as their balance. The mechanics you write into a game tell the player what the game is about as much as the actual text of the game does. When you write extensive rules about how to fight, but dedicate less than two pages to influence people you are communicating that this is game in which players are expected to solve most of their problems with violence.

          This is not to say that the solution is to write a social system that is a crunchy and complicated as the combat system, frankly that would be pretty awful. No instead what is needed is more guidelines on how to adjudicate results using the already existing system. It already has some guidelines in the Social Feats section, but they're very bare bones, and i think the game would benefit from expanding on them, and indeed on the Physical and Mental feats sections as well. Meanwhile the combat system itself could stand to be pared down and simplified some, not too much, RPG players do love their fighting rules after all, but still some. That would go a long way towards addressing the imbalance without having to actually write a whole new system for resolving social conflict.



          Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post
          However, my concern is that there have been many systems added, including: Hunger dice, Rousing, Predator types, Amalgam powers, Social combat, Compulsions, Clan banes that scale with potency, Willpower damage, Multiple choice disciplines, the new Humanity suite of tools, Blood Potency, Resonance, and the turning of Thin-bloods, mechanically, into a whole new species. Most of these are more complex than the systems they replace, and carry early version bugs of their own. They were introduced without a significant decrease in complexity elsewhere, so the over-all impact is a considerably more complex game. Don't get me wrong. Some of these changes were long over-due, and quite welcome. (Thank God! They clarified the Gangrel weakness!) I'm just concerned that in many cases, the medicine is worse than the disease.
          These concerns are precisely why i'm not bothering with V5 at present.



          Originally posted by Beckett View Post
          For instance, the main issue with Appearance is that it doesn't really have any other major role/rolls for it, not that it reduces initial social encounters.
          You misunderstand, i'm not saying the rule is the cause of the problem with Appearance, i'm saying the problem with Appearance is the cause of the rule. The game writers noticed that Appearance was a weak stat, and rather than try and address the problem at the root, they instead applied a sloppy patch by making Appearance limit your successes in some social situations. Then when that didn't work, they doubled down and made it limit your dice pool instead. That didn't work either, because it's a bad rule that doesn't fix any problems and creates new ones to boot.

          I see a lot of "most people don't", "many tables didn't" comments in your examples and I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as I disagree with at least some of them [...] not really saying you are wrong as much as wondering where these amounts come from.
          The correct form of the statements i made are more along the lines of, "nobody i am familiar with". This includes over the course of many years of playing and participating in discussions about the game. You are maybe the second person i have encountered whom i recall claiming to use the non-reflexive healing rule. Literally nobody i have encountered has as of yet has claimed to actually use the Appearance dice pool cap rule, or even bothered defending it. Nor for that matter have i heard of anyone claiming to have stuck with the reverse initiative order action declaration phase for more than the first few combat sessions.



          Originally posted by Aleph View Post
          That sounds as a complaint about Appearance role/rolls to me (what other actual use does a Trait have?), even when the meat of the argument was against the way authors tried to fix it (which was heavy handed and punitive. All stick and no carrot).
          No, i find their bad patch attempt far more annoying than Appearance's inherent weakness as a stat. Though i will say one thing, if you are playing a Presence user it is absolutely worth it to buy up to four dots (five is too expensive) in Appearance solely on the strength of the incredibly powerful Entrancement ability. Obtain Appearance 4 plus Empathy 5, and get ready to roll 9 dice toward turning people into your adoring servants.

          Comment


          • Something else to consider. In the old Gehenna sourcebook, the vampires of clans whose Antediluvians were presumed to be dead had an easier time resisting the other Antediluvian's attempts to consume them. I wonder if the same is true of the Beckoning and more Elders of, say, the Ventrue are left behind than those of the Toreador.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Lys View Post
              Okay here's a few:

              In combat everyone is supposed to roll initiative first, then declare actions in order of lowest to highest, then resolve actions in order of highest to lowest. This is clunky, slow, and widely ignored. The more common resolution method is for everybody to simply declare actions as their turns come up after rolling initiative. This is faster, smoother, much more intuitive, and has little disadvantage over the method actually in the rules.​ Many people think it is the actual rules.

              From V20 Pg. 98-99: "In situations in which first impressions are paramount, or that involve people who view Appearance as very important, a character may have no more dice in a Social dice pool than her Appearance rating."

              This is a bad rule. Dice pools in WoD are on a scale of 1-10, and yet in this one circumstance you are limited to a maximum of 5 dice because the game designers couldn't figure out how to make Appearance actually useful. This means the most charismatic and beautiful socialite in the world is less effective at charming people who prize beauty than people who don't. How does that make any sense? Not that it matters because nobody even uses it. There are entire game tables where no one is even aware this rule exists.

              V20 Pg. 258: "Vampire characters may spend blood to heal themselves. To do so, the character must concentrate and do nothing else for one full turn. A character may attempt to heal while performing other actions, but this requires success on a Stamina + Survival reflexive roll (difficulty 8). Failing this roll means the vampire loses all expended blood points with no effect, while a botch causes the vampire to lose both an additional blood point and an additional health level."

              Yeah nobody uses this one either. The whole system is built around the idea that Vampires can freely spend blood up to their Generation limit, except for this one weird exception, tucked under "Automatic Feats" of all places. What's more, combat is lethal and dangerous enough without forcing players to give up a turn or make a roll in order to heal. Reflexive healing is both more fun and more efficient. It's very common for players and even ST's to not know about this rule because so few tables enforce it.

              Then there's the multiple action rules, which everybody uses, but are pretty much the epitome of clunky, inefficient, and poorly balanced. They've been one of the most glaring problems with the system since the day it was published, and no iteration of the classic rules ever came up with a satisfactory solution.

              Another big legacy problem is less about keeping bad or poorly implemented rules, and more about the rules that were never implemented in the first place. For game that is supposed to be heavily about politicking and manipulation, Vampire has damn few guidelines on how to handle social influence. In fact what the games rules actually support is solving your problems through violence, because it's very clear what violence can or can't do, whereas making friends and influencing people is just "roll dice and ask your ST". This has caused many game groups considerable difficulty over the years because the game claims to be about one thing, and then proceeds to provide very little support for actually doing that thing.
              The only one of these i haven't seen used in every game is the Appearance one, just to let people know...

              Comment


              • I miss the old days of V1 and V2, and I wish VTM would go back to that style rather than the direction they went with in V5.

                Yeah, V5 claims to be in the vein of V1, but it's really just lip service and overall the game is more reminiscent of Revised (with its strict adherence metaplot and One True Way-ism) and Requiem 2e (with everything else about it)

                The reworked mechanics and the drastic setting changes were too much for me in my opinion, and as clunky as V1's mechanics could be at times, V5 strikes me as even worse and more limiting, basically V5's mechanics seem to only exist to enforce thematic purity and pigeonhole players into NuWW's approved play style rather than letting ST's and players decide for themselves what kind of Vampire game they want to run,

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Camilla View Post
                  I miss the old days of V1 and V2, and I wish VTM would go back to that style rather than the direction they went with in V5.

                  Yeah, V5 claims to be in the vein of V1, but it's really just lip service and overall the game is more reminiscent of Revised (with its strict adherence metaplot and One True Way-ism) and Requiem 2e (with everything else about it)

                  The reworked mechanics and the drastic setting changes were too much for me in my opinion, and as clunky as V1's mechanics could be at times, V5 strikes me as even worse and more limiting, basically V5's mechanics seem to only exist to enforce thematic purity and pigeonhole players into NuWW's approved play style rather than letting ST's and players decide for themselves what kind of Vampire game they want to run,
                  I disagree with literally all of that.

                  Well, to be fair there are some influences from Requiem 2e, though Requiem was based on Masquerade to begin with, and the concepts V5 takes from it are meant to mechanically represent things that Masquerade fiction went on about since the beginning but there never was working mechanical support for, so I'd call it fair game.

                  But otherwise, no, can't find a single assertion I can get behind. For example, no edition of Vampire has ever spent so much page count suggestion ways to adapt the game to suit your own preferences, right up to going diceless if you want. I also don't recall an edition of Vampire that let you decide as a group what actions would lead to humanity loss instead of just handing you a list of sins. It's the most modular and customizable edition yet, and the only one (unless you count Requiem 2e) to offer multiple optional rules in the core for those who want to fine tune their experience.

                  Comment


                  • I'll at least agree that V5 has little in common with 1st Ed.


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cifer View Post

                      Fortitude:
                      Resilience: Resilience seems to represent actually being able to take more damage rather than just averting the damage as it happened in prior editions (via iron-hard skin or the like) - if you've got 5 additional health levels and get them shot off, you need to actually heal them before they're available again. Thus, by losing the power, you're treated as if you didn't have the additional health levels, but the damage doesn't go away - if you suddenly have more damage than health levels, you can become Impaired, Superficial damage may wrap around into Aggravated, Torpor beckons, etc. Sucks to be you.
                      Unswayable Mind: Obvious
                      I agree with Cifer on this. So will someone explain to me in no uncertain terms: Why the hate for soak rolls?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gangrel44 View Post

                        I agree with Cifer on this. So will someone explain to me in no uncertain terms: Why the hate for soak rolls?
                        Things like that have been out of fashion for a long time in game design. The main thing is that it's another roll to add to the mix. People generally feel that fewer rolls is better, but there's also the problem that more rolls multiply the probability swing in a big way, and then there's the fact that the only purpose of the roll is to negate the results of a previous roll. Players may like that last bit when they do it, but they're not likely to feel good when they manage to do damage against an enemy and that enemy then undoes it. Insofar as there is any consensus in game design, it's that it's better to have things modified on the front end instead of running through the whole system and then changing the results on the other side.

                        The one exception would be Savage Worlds, wherein Soak rolls are something only main characters get, they cost a finite resource, and there is no attribute-modified health track on the front end to begin with.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Black Flag View Post
                          Things like that have been out of fashion for a long time in game design. The main thing is that it's another roll to add to the mix. People generally feel that fewer rolls is better, but there's also the problem that more rolls multiply the probability swing in a big way, and then there's the fact that the only purpose of the roll is to negate the results of a previous roll. Players may like that last bit when they do it, but they're not likely to feel good when they manage to do damage against an enemy and that enemy then undoes it. Insofar as there is any consensus in game design, it's that it's better to have things modified on the front end instead of running through the whole system and then changing the results on the other side.

                          The one exception would be Savage Worlds, wherein Soak rolls are something only main characters get, they cost a finite resource, and there is no attribute-modified health track on the front end to begin with.

                          Well, Shadowrun 5e uses soak rolls as well. It has practically three rolls per attack: attacker attacks, defender defends, you calculate damage from the disparity between the two, then defender soaks with Body+armor.



                          Originally posted by Gangrel44 View Post

                          I agree with Cifer on this. So will someone explain to me in no uncertain terms: Why the hate for soak rolls?
                          I'd argue that soak and damage and appearantly initiative rolls are out of fashion in some circles. Primarily because some people just doesn't like to roll dice, which I never understood as well as the complaint for"needing to roll bucketloads of dice". I like to roll dice and I'll choose a dicepool game every day over a one-dice one.

                          In the classic WoD system, I can get the complaint, that factoring in extra actions via Celeritey/Rage/Time magick and so, having potentially four rolls for deciding the outcome of every attack is a bit tedious yes. But on itself, I don't hate soak rolls, on the contrary, I like how the three types of damage and soak added granurality to the game (and how attack used DEX, while damage rolls used STR), however, having two types of damage and halving the ones coming from non-supernatural sources is not the end of the world, regarding simplification.


                          If nothing worked, then let's think!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Godforsaken View Post


                            In Rev Ed, it is written just under the title of the game (pg. 17, "a storytelling game of personal horror&quot, after the end of the intro story. Same with V20 (the first page of both books, "a storytelling game of personal horror&quot. Are you suggesting that they are misleading on purpose? Or should it appear a certain amount of times in order to count? maybe, if it appeared in the book 13 times, then and only then it was truly a game of personal horror otherwise we can't really take it seriously.
                            I guess you misunderstood. What I was saying is I did a word search on those three books, and the phrase "personal horror" came up a total of that many times per edition. Granted, word search is not perfect, but I think you are incorrectly assuming the game has ever been sold as personal horror over things such as "gothic punk"


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Black Flag View Post
                              Things like that have been out of fashion for a long time in game design.
                              Fashion has nothing to do with it. You might be confussing it with lazy.


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Black Flag View Post
                                The one exception would be Savage Worlds, ...
                                What is that?


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X