Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

destruction rates for vampires per age category

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

  • Black Fox
    started a topic destruction rates for vampires per age category

    destruction rates for vampires per age category

    What is the average destruction rate for vampires (of any causes) for each age group? It is OK to give a range, and to distinguish different rates between sects and clans.

    I am very interested in hearing everyone's opinions as I think a lot can be justified given people's assumptions about the setting.

    Fledglings: I think this is quite high. Not every person is cut out to be a vampire and can make the transition. I think a high number of these are destroyed by their sires before they are even released (and if so, they don't count against the Prince permitting them to embrace, they get to do it again to find a childe who can hack it). Others end up destroying themselves by walking into the sun, or fall prey to hunters or supernatural predators. I think perhaps anywhere from 20-50%. Higher rate of destruction in the Sabbat than Camarilla. Varies wildly between clans.

    Neonates: These guys have made it to being released which means they are able to live as vampires. Unfortunately, now they need to survive against other vampires, as well as other creatures, on their own. They also have to survive a lot longer than Fledglings to "age out" of this group. 100 years is a long time. I think after all the causes are out there, it's at least 50% destruction rate. Again, much higher in the Sabbat than Camarilla. Anarchs are also destroyed at a much higher rate. Not as much variation between clans at this point, but there are probably two general tiers of differing survival rates.

    Ancillae: These guys are the survivors. Unfortunately for them, they're also generally responsible for carrying out the elders' wishes, and still need to be on the frontlines of things. Still, I think they have much better survival rates over all than the younger folks. It just seems higher because ancillae are almost always recognized by name, so when they fall it is noticed. The vast majority of fledglings and neonates don't get noticed when they're destroyed. Maybe 25% in the 200-300 years it takes to age out. I don't think there is much variation between clans at this point. But the Sabbat are supposed to have very little ancilla. I think that's mostly because few neonates make it this far.

    Elders are a special category because they can be so for so long. I think in any given century, the survival rate is quite good. Maybe only 5-10% destroyed. The problem is that elders can exist theoretically forever, so they keep getting dwindled. After a thousand years, that 95% success rate means less than 60% of elders have made it. After two thousand years, it's around 35%. After 4000 years it's around 12%. If it is 90% survival every century, those numbers fall to 35%, 13%, and less than 2%.

    I think the numbers for elders get skewed though, because many elders fall into voluntarily torpor at some point. So they drop out of vampire society and are effectively "dead", but who knows when they'll wake up?

  • Black Fox
    replied
    The thread has drifted far enough. Back to the point, who has alternate percentages for what they think the death rate is for vampires per age category?

    Are these percentages based on your view of canon, or what you think benefits the game (and if so, how)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluecho
    replied
    The process of retraining a feeding restriction, as described in Lore of the Clans, isn't the Ventrue changing it "whenever he likes". It's a process, and hardly a pleasant one.

    Technically, it's two processes, neither are something a Ventrue would want to do on a regular basis.

    The first is to enter Torpor due to hunger frenzy. Starving oneself until torpid, and hoping to get blood later, is risky at the best of times, and potentially lethal at worst, depending on the context.

    The second is to hit zero blood, and then go an entire night - dusk til dawn - without drinking anything. Making Self-Control rolls and avoiding getting even a drop of blood. Only then does the character get to pay a point of Permanent Willpower to "reset" the restriction. That's a steep cost for anything in WoD.

    You are still allowed to have your drama involved with rapidly dwindling vessel supplies. You'd rather track down the last remaining member of your potential herd - or go to great lengths to cultivate more - than go through all that and pay that price. Nor is this something a Ventrue character - PC or otherwise - can just DO at the drop of a hat. It takes set-up, and a lot of help from individuals the Ventrue can trust (that, incidentally, would be in danger from the Ventrue in frenzy).

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Fox
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluecho View Post
    I see not allowing Ventrue to "re-spec" their feeding preference when the old one becomes impossible to be needlessly antagonistic Storyteller behavior.
    I don't think this is that case. My gaming groups (and all STs whether myself or others) have always played Ventrue as their feeding restriction is set in stone. And none of us have ever felt it made the ST antagonistic. It's just how the game is.

    The simple fact is that the vast majority of Ventrue PCs will never have a restriction so limiting that it means the PC can't feed. And if it is, it is likely some special story where this constraint will be removed. Not because vast historical changes in a chronicle taking place hundreds or thousands of years prevents a Ventrue (or anyone with the equivalent Flaw) from being able to feed ever. It's simply a non-issue. Not evidence the ST is a jerk.

    At the most, I see this as a discussion the ST would hold with their players in the beginning to make sure everyone understands the rule. But as I said, this has been something every player and ST I've known has assumed to be true. If I was playing with someone who said this was a matter that needed clarification, I'd be very surprised. This thread is the first I'm hearing of players not doing this.

    I think at most, the ST would discuss with the player a way to redefine the feeding restriction so that while past behavior continued to be "correct", that there were indeed similar vessels the Ventrue could feed upon, but which were never known since the PC actually did not understand the true nature of the restriction and inadvertently left some vessels out. Not that the Ventrue can simply "reset" things whenever he likes.

    But I think the idea of a Ventrue being forced to deal with a steadily declining feeding restriction, or perhaps elimination of it entirely, is entirely within reason for the clan, and makes for an excellent tool by the ST in his chronicles. It would be something great to explore with an NPC. Although I agree very few players would want to experience it for their PC, as overly restrictive feeding restrictions gets in the way of what most players would find fun. But I'm sure some players would love that as a challenge.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Fox
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluecho View Post
    One must never forget that while it will certainly differ from game to game, the standards of how permission to Embrace works is also going to vary from city to city in-universe.

    While the (vampiric) Traditions are consistent across all Camarilla domains (and to a lesser extent among Anarchs and Sabbat), how they are applied is up to the Kindred who unlive there. In particular, who the ruling Kindred is/are and how much power they possess matters a great deal.)
    I think that is true to a degree, but I also think it's important that certain things are bounded by tradition (small "t", not the Six) and thus are legitimate in the eyes of the greater vampire population. Some things probably have a lot less room for individual interpretation because it isn't a matter of evaluating unique circumstances, but a general principle. I think something like "Do I hold it against the sire if their fledgling can't hack it (in a world where 50%, 80%, 90%, etc. don't)" is more likely to have some sort of general consensus. This is different if the failure rate of fledglings is extremely low.

    And there are precedents set by Conclaves, general policy determined by the Inner Circle and enforced by Justicars, etc. Now Princes often resent these, and there has always been tension between Princes and Justicars on their personal prerogatives.

    So while it's an important point, I do think there is also room to say Princes and local domains may also be constrained in some areas. So is this one of them?

    I think whether the expectation of whether a sire loses his chance to embrace because his childe couldn't hack being a vampire really depends on what that normal destruction rate is. If it's low, then it becomes something individual domains decide. If it is high, then virtually every vampire is affected, and this is going to become a huge issue where I think consensus somehow forms. And in the 500 years of the Camarilla, has probably become a standard rule (along with any caveats and accepted leeway).

    Leave a comment:


  • DrHappyAngry
    replied
    On Ventrue, some of the editions specifically say the player should work with the storyteller to come up with their feeding restriction. This is partially to make sure it's not too broad, like "I can only feed from men." In others it's important for the storyteller to broadcast that their restriction might historically disappear or that where they're traveling to it would be completely unavailable in the chronicle. If it's explained that they're going to not be able to feed at some point, and they still want to role play it, it's on them, but it should be a collaborative effort to come up with the feeding restriction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Koronus
    replied
    Though Lore of the Clan is saying, that Ventrue can take it even decades preparing the child. I would say problematic would it become, if it goes to (half) a centurie long. And the other problem is it says even after the first introduction he can still kill it later it it emberassed it to much on the second one. (Though it gives of explenation that some Ventrue exist where they send in their child not full prepared on the second test because of the growing (self)pressure to deliver something)

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluecho
    replied
    RE: Sires get a "do-over" on an Embrace they were given permission for...

    One must never forget that while it will certainly differ from game to game, the standards of how permission to Embrace works is also going to vary from city to city in-universe.

    While the (vampiric) Traditions are consistent across all Camarilla domains (and to a lesser extent among Anarchs and Sabbat), how they are applied is up to the Kindred who unlive there. In particular, who the ruling Kindred is/are and how much power they possess matters a great deal.

    If a city has a strong Prince, their word carries more weight, as do their decisions. If they want to be strict about whether permission to Embrace only applies to the Embrace itself, there may be little that can be done. But maybe that's not so true, and even the strong Prince must tread carefully about how punitive they are, lest they foster (more) resentment that could spark open revolt. Half of a Prince's strength is in the willingness of her subjects to obey; soft power props up every ruler's hard power, and soft power shreds like tissue paper if the governed are angry enough to fight back.

    Even a strong Prince walks a tightrope in this regard.

    If the Prince is weak or nonexistent - if the domain is controlled by a ruling Primogen council more than anything - the standards for everything, including whether an Embrace "mulligan" is allowed, is the product of consensus and politicking. In every ruling council there are alliances, and alliances by definition must work for each other's benefit, at least in public. If someone gets shortchanged - like being denied a "mulligan" when others got it, or watching a "mulligan" be given to others when yours was previous denied - creates a lot of bad blood between Kindred of power, especially when permission to Embrace has a price. Moreover, whenever someone gets slighted in this manner, it'll cause a stink, and may even cause alliances to shift. A formerly strong, overpowering alliance might break, and those not in power have incentive to foster these breakages wherever possible, to even the playing field.

    Any Primogen-run domain that is at all stable will probably have a consistent standard, established decades or even centuries ago. Either everyone gets a "mulligan", or no one does, and those in power will fight vehemently to maintain it (either to keep their individual options open, or to deny it to someone else). If there's a Prince present, who has the authority to give permission, it's in the vested interest of the Primogen to keep the Prince weak by limiting their ability to play favorites in exchange for favors.

    If the council-led domain is wildly out of balance, the standard may be inconsistent or even fluctuating. (Though in this case, who gets to "mulligan" may be the least of anyone's worries, unless they are sufficiently petty (which vampires frequently are)).

    Whether the domain is controlled by Prince or Primogen, they all need to consider how strictness of the rules could result in deliberate, secret rule-breaking. If a Kindred gets frustrated by having to put down a childer and not being allowed to sire another (being denied the "mulligan"), they may decide to make a new childer anyway. Laws being too punitive doesn't stop people from breaking them, it just makes them more determined to do it secretly, outside of any controls. Do you want Anarchs? Because this is how you get Anarchs.

    This is also, I think, why Ventrue keep their childer locked away for so long. They can be highly secretive. Not just to make sure the fledgling's edges are "sanded off", but so they can possibly replace them at any time and not have it be noticed. I would wager many Ventrue are fully cognizant of this, and politely refrain from discussing it unless the deception is too blatant to ignore. For the good of Clan Ventrue, of course.

    (This, by the way, is a great explanation for any Ventrue PC being in some way "off-brand" - or, if you prefer, "PC-worthy". The PC's sire originally had another fledgling, or multiple of them, but had to dust them all. Problem is all the other Ventrue knew that the sire was preparing a childer, and have known for a decade. It would get too suspicious to keep the PC back any longer, so they were given the bare minimum of preparation for the release and let out. A situation that may justify having any number of Flaws, or could put the PC under pressure to conform to Ventrue standards, even when that's not what they really want.)

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    Originally posted by Kammerer View Post

    How could you propagate a successful bloodline if your neonates can't walk down the street at all because they are inhumanly ugly? How could you propagate a successful bloodline if some of your vampires get a debilitating mental illness and can't handle the vampire lifestyle?.
    People are united by weakness and threats more than they are strengths. Religious communities have been observed stay together longer when they have more debilitating restrictions and notions of self sacrifice. Jewish people average as the highest earners when looking at religious groups in the united states because the adversity they've faced has lead them to co-operate more.

    If clans didn't have weaknesses, just in-clan disciplines, they'd kill eachother; individual people of the same clan would be their biggest competitors. Instead, having a weakness turns clans into a community rather than just a bunch of people with the same skills. You create sympathy, you create community care; There's a functioning, sociological need to have clan weaknesses, otherwise kindred society would look completely different. How could you propagate a successful bloodline without clan weaknesses?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluecho
    replied
    I see not allowing Ventrue to "re-spec" their feeding preference when the old one becomes impossible to be needlessly antagonistic Storyteller behavior. People don't come to a game to find out that the character they've worked on for years is suddenly completely non-viable and doomed to die, for reasons entirely beyond their ability to control. Not because they made bad decisions, or because of a plot by a rival (that, were the ST being fair, the PC could have prevented), but because of population-wide changes that could ONLY be the result of ST fiat.

    It's the Vampire equivalent of "rocks fall, everyone dies". It's the ST telling the player that their character is dead, solely because the ST said so.

    Say what you want about the always abstract and problematic term "Realism", that's just mean from a "we came together to play a game" standpoint. Especially since it ONLY punishes Ventrue characters, specifically.

    Yes, Life can be unfair. That doesn't mean a collaborative storytelling game needs to be.

    Leave a comment:


  • DrHappyAngry
    replied
    Maybe a category that wind up dying at the hands of the cops or a mob, ie non-hunter mortals, who catches them feeding? "Wow that guy was high on PCP and bath salts running around biting people, he sure took a lot of bullets to go down." Maybe some of them get intercepted in the morgue by the local Cam, but others sit there until they're cremated as a John/Jane Doe. Maybe some of them get buried in torpor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Fox
    replied
    Originally posted by Kammerer View Post
    There is undoubtedly going to be a lot of variance based on people's perception of the setting. For example, my take on VtM is that killing a vampire of the same sect is incredibly rare, because even the freshest, shittiest fledgeling represents years of someone's effort and passion. Ghouls are expendable. Mortal mercenaries are expendable. Vampires are rare and precious and killing someone is a declaration of war against their sire and however many allies the sire has.
    I think we can divide destruction of vampires in several broad categories.

    1 - Suicide as vampire decides their existence is not wanted. Somewhat common among fledglings, but very rare afterwards.
    2 - Approved destruction as a result of crimes (especially danger to the Masquerade). This also includes sires destroying flegdlings who obviously can't hack it.
    3 - Destruction as a result of coups/praxis seizures. I tend to think in general, Camarilla cities are peaceful but blow up in paraxoyms of violence every so often in brief times when someone finally attempts to remove the Prince, and people use the chaos as cover to eliminate their enemies.
    4 - Destruction as a result of sect conflict.
    5 - Destruction at the hands of mortal hunters.
    6 - Destruction at the hands of other supernatural creatures.
    7 - Destruction as a result of approved means (more common in the Sabbat and Independent Clans than Camarilla). I'm thinking of things like monomacy and the Lasombra Courts of Blood.
    8 - Criminal action (murder/unsanctioned killing) by other vampires
    9 - Accident/Happenstance (you haven burns down, and you along with it).

    If there is another useful category, let me know.

    So I think even if you think destruction as a result of conflict within the sect is low, you may still have a high destruction rate as a result of these other factors.

    In my chronicles, I portray it that mortal vampire hunters are actually fairly successful in killing neonates. But it happens to be more of a background thing that happens to NPCs because I've come to the conclusion it is hard to run a good hunter plot with PCs. It either causes bad blood and frustration with players, or you end up making the mortal hunters stupid. But I think it is an important element that should be present in the setting. And while official hunters like the Inquisition is out there, what I really like are the classic hunters of books and movies - ordinary people who get involved in vampire intrigue as a result of a vampire killing or embracing a loved one and friend.
    Last edited by Black Fox; 08-04-2020, 10:01 PM. Reason: Added more categories

    Leave a comment:


  • Kammerer
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
    That's pants. If you haven't noticed, all the curses have good sides to them; The Malkavians come together, the nosferatu get really good at hiding, the toreador can wank about how in touch they are with beauty. The Ventrue curse is there to encourage Ventrue to build empires; They need a special herd, and to maintain and grow that herd they need money and influence.

    If they couldn't reset their curse, it'd mean they could never go into torpor, because the time spent in torpor is time not managing things, and time not managing things mean you're dooming yourself if you've got a herd that might actually need some working on. Welsh speakers? If you go to sleep for a hundred years at any point and you're not around to foster welsh, you'll doom yourself forever. Not to mention, say, something you can't possibly control without being a methuselah, like an invasion.

    Enter torpor= Doomed forever has got to be one of the most idiotic weaknesses a vampire could have. How could you propegate a successful bloodline if a third of your members are Doomed to fail? (moreso than regular vampires)
    How could you propagate a successful bloodline if your neonates can't walk down the street at all because they are inhumanly ugly? How could you propagate a successful bloodline if some of your vampires get a debilitating mental illness and can't handle the vampire lifestyle?

    Malkavians who survive to grow old are those who lucked out into manageable illnesses. Ventrue who survive to grow old are those who lucked out into manageable palates. And things like an invasion or a plague absolutely should be cripplingly bad times even for the methuselahs.

    The "good sides" you described aren't benefits of the curse - they are adaptations to living with the curse. By the same merit I would expect most Ventrue to have highly developed ranks in Empathy and Alertness, because scoping out the right prey is something every Ventrue will do every single week for their entire unlifetime.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    Originally posted by Kammerer View Post

    This might be RAW, but I resent it. You don't get mulligans on a curse. Food ran out? Tough.
    That's pants. If you haven't noticed, all the curses have good sides to them; The Malkavians come together, the nosferatu get really good at hiding, the toreador can wank about how in touch they are with beauty. The Ventrue curse is there to encourage Ventrue to build empires; They need a special herd, and to maintain and grow that herd they need money and influence.

    If they couldn't reset their curse, it'd mean they could never go into torpor, because the time spent in torpor is time not managing things, and time not managing things mean you're dooming yourself if you've got a herd that might actually need some working on. Welsh speakers? If you go to sleep for a hundred years at any point and you're not around to foster welsh, you'll doom yourself forever. Not to mention, say, something you can't possibly control without being a methuselah, like an invasion.

    Enter torpor= Doomed forever has got to be one of the most idiotic weaknesses a vampire could have. How could you propegate a successful bloodline if a third of your members are Doomed to fail? (moreso than regular vampires)

    Leave a comment:


  • Koronus
    replied
    Originally posted by Kammerer View Post

    This might be RAW, but I resent it. You don't get mulligans on a curse. Food ran out? Tough.
    It is not like you choose what blood you desire. Such a thing is hard and only changeable, if you awake from torpor or had a frenzy because of hunger. Of course you can say for your game, that those Ventrue are the source of Methusalem thirst rumors because those feed from vampires instead.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X