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 original reason I made the first post was because I think this is something that helps the ST run the setting. It is something I feel can be easily overlooked while running the game, but adds a lot to it.

    For example, if there is a significant number of vampires that never become neonates and are destroyed while fledglings, it helps set the mood of the game. The players know their PCs succeeded in ways other new embraces did not. It also provides the ST with any number of plots that might not be appropriate for released Kindred. One thing I like to run is for the new PCs in one of their first games is to help someone hunt down an errant fledgling so the sire can destroy her (for any number of reasons - deteriorating humanity, failure to be able to feed on their own, inability to master Disciplines, violating the Masquerade, etc.) I find this helps creates a mentality in the PCs to better follow the Masquerade and really defines the setting. So the assumptions of whether 10%, 50%, or 90% of such fledglings are destroyed, creates really different tones on what one you picked.

    It also lets me know that a significant number of NPCs might need to be "recycled" during the game to help note the passage of time. I take an NPC off the board and replace the NPC with another. I don't even need to explain why sometimes because maybe nobody knows. It could be the NPC went to another city, but more likely a Lupine or hunter destroyed him, or perhaps even another vampire. But the simple fact that someone is gone and eventually a new neonate is there helps define the setting. I also found that doing this often creates an interest in the PCs to get to learn the the NPCs than before.

    At times, I don't even need to come up with a "new" NPC as the players knew absolutely nothing about that character's background. But rather than having that character gone to waste, I just rename the character and slightly update the back story (new sire, maybe new generation). "Bob" is now dead, but since no PC ever bothered to learn anything about Bob, there's no reason I have to come up with a new backstory for the new character. When "Joe" shows up, I just give Joe the old back story for Bob. So it's not even a hard switch to make. Obviously, it's best to do this with the "disposable" NPCs of the setting rather than anyone critical to the city.

    Using the original Chicago characters as an example, I wouldn't do this to key characters like Maldavis, Juggler, the Primogen, etc. But I could easily replace less important (and more generic) characters like Genghis, Damien, Gordon Keaton, Dickie, Rose, Paula and Ben Smith, Nathaniel, Elucid, Schumpeter, etc. There are some interesting things in their backgrounds, but if the PCs never bothered to learn them in the first place, I can easily just change the backstory. Damien, rather than being the secret childe of Critias, just becomes some random Brujah with an unknown sire. While the replacement "Gabriel" is the secret childe of Critias. (This assumes, of course, that the PCs never interacted enough with Damien to learn of his potent blood or become interested in his secret sire. If they did, I'd just kill off some other character they never interacted with.)

    I do this because of pure laziness. While I want to show significant turnover, I don't want to come up with entirely new original backstories, or to lose the interesting aspects of previous characters from the game. The TV show Babylon 5 did something similar as actors left and new ones joined. Binge watching the series makes it very obvious that the stories of the main characters were passed on to the new character played by a new actor, despite some significant, but superficial changes to the new character's back story and personality.

    For a long time, I didn't do this. NPCs didn't die unless the PCs did something because I didn't want to create new characters. But as I grew dissatisfied with such a static setting, I eventually gave myself permission to recycle certain characters in order to create the illusion of change, but keep work for me at a reasonable level.

    I wanted to crowdsource to determine if people's thoughts on percentages matched mine, or if their expectations were wildly different. That would tell me if I was meeting the expectations of the player base, as I didn't want to use numbers that my own players might think were very wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • CajunKhan
    replied
    We're not talking about getting shouty here. We're talking about slaughtering a tavern because someone said the wrong thing about Socrates.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kammerer
    replied
    Originally posted by CajunKhan View Post

    It does sound hard to believe that Brujah could have been a clan of philosophers back when their rage was so much greater. Though not all clan banes are created equal. The Nosferatu bane doesn't really scale much. Once you are ugly enough to be attacked on sight, getting even uglier doesn't matter much.


    There's really no correlation between being a philosopher and keeping your emotions in check.

    Leave a comment:


  • CajunKhan
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post


    Am I the only one that gets iffy about people using V5 mechanics for the rest of VTM? like, clearly vampires didn't have the problems V5 vampires have, or they would've been wiped out long ago. Blood potency over 5 makes you an unplayable wreck at the mercy of the Beast. You can't survive thousands of years on that. V5's system only functions under the assumption that vampires have been changed in the past decade, it doesn't retroactively work.
    It does sound hard to believe that Brujah could have been a clan of philosophers back when their rage was so much greater. Though not all clan banes are created equal. The Nosferatu bane doesn't really scale much. Once you are ugly enough to be attacked on sight, getting even uglier doesn't matter much.



    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    Originally posted by CajunKhan View Post
    I actually think fledgling death would be lower in modern times, simply because the blood is thin enough that most can drink animal blood. There's really no reason for a blood potency 1 character to go around drinking humans. If you're drinking humans at blood potency 1, it's because you are powerful enough that that deliciousness is worth the risk. Back when vampires were born with blood potency 3+, that would not have been an option.
    Meta I know but literally every generation could drink animal blood pre-v5, and, well, that's a 4:1 ruling before we include dark ages games. You should also note that a thousand of years ago, putting no dots into generation meant that instead of starting at generation 13 you'd start at... generation 12. So, perhaps, a thousand years before then you might start at gene 11. At 1000bc, we're now talking gen 10, and anyone who puts five dots in is a 5th gen. This is of course assuming that this is a linear development; it's probably not. As in the DA, being of the 13th gen was considered a flaw worth points, you could probably still buy a few points of flaw as generation.

    Am I the only one that gets iffy about people using V5 mechanics for the rest of VTM? like, clearly vampires didn't have the problems V5 vampires have, or they would've been wiped out long ago. Blood potency over 5 makes you an unplayable wreck at the mercy of the Beast. You can't survive thousands of years on that. V5's system only functions under the assumption that vampires have been changed in the past decade, it doesn't retroactively work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ventrue Busboy
    replied
    My rule of thumb is that the first decade of undeath is the first hurdle, which most fledgelings don't clear. The myriad pitfalls of Kindred society---offend the wrong Elder and you're done---combined with the personal horror of coming to grips with what you are, mean most young Kindred meet final death either by their own hand or someone else's. Past that initial culling, most Kindred find a niche and manage to survive for decades at least. Hunters, rival predators, and the myriad other denizens of the World of Darkness always present a risk, but Kindred who survive the first decade outside their Sire's tutelage generally have their shit on lock and know how to avoid fatal mishap. The destruction of an Ancilla, let alone an Elder, is an event which makes the whole city at least sit up and take notice. Of course, who's an Ancilla and who's an Elder varies widely depending on region. On the West Coast, a vampire just 50 years dead is a serious player, and one a century dead may call themselves an Elder. In the Old World, the bar is much higher. In a city of real power players like London or Milan, a century-old Kindred is lightly regarded and their unlife held far cheaper.

    Obviously, I'm speaking from a Camarilla perspective. In the Sabbat, the attrition rate is much higher, though Shovelheads aren't even treated as "real" Cainites. While the Camarilla isn't really less Darwinian, it works much slower. Rivalries within the Sabbat tend to bear out much more quickly, either through Monomacy or through the tradition of sending disfavored packs out on suicide missions.

    It's impossible to judge how many truly ancient Methuselahs there are. They spend centuries in torpor, separated by time and distance and layers of opaque machinations from the waves of Kindred Society. The tier of Elders below them, still powerful beings who measure their age in centuries, are far more frequently undone by their rivals than reach this plateau, however.
    Last edited by Ventrue Busboy; 04-10-2021, 03:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Originally posted by CajunKhan View Post
    I actually think fledgling death would be lower in modern times, simply because the blood is thin enough that most can drink animal blood. There's really no reason for a blood potency 1 character to go around drinking humans. If you're drinking humans at blood potency 1, it's because you are powerful enough that that deliciousness is worth the risk. Back when vampires were born with blood potency 3+, that would not have been an option.
    I think it goes beyond deliciousness. It's an actual addiction.

    1. It's better than sex
    2. It's better than heroin
    3. Animals are less easy to come by in the big city.

    How many people will drink and even kill as a vampire just because it feels good? Probably most vampires. To feed on animal blood, which even if you're a 13th generation loser, tastes bland and appetizing at best, requires a strong moral conviction.

    Leave a comment:


  • CajunKhan
    replied
    I actually think fledgling death would be lower in modern times, simply because the blood is thin enough that most can drink animal blood. There's really no reason for a blood potency 1 character to go around drinking humans. If you're drinking humans at blood potency 1, it's because you are powerful enough that that deliciousness is worth the risk. Back when vampires were born with blood potency 3+, that would not have been an option.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    Before you are presented to others, your sire is free to kill you, and you don't count against his request to embrace. - How I imagine most princes interpret things.

    Undead rabbit
    While the Lasombra no-doubt are going to have one of the highest rates of dead childer, that's a pep-talk; it's propaganda, and can hardly be considered a definitive source for Lasombra attrition rates.



    Funny enough I imagine their Rivals, the Ventrue, probably have the lowest possible attrition rates among the clans; Pier reviewed selections for a limited number of slots, heavy education, potentially 50 years of patience while you work things out, chance of a complete mind-wipe or pre-embrace murder if for whatever reason you aren't good enough, (generally speaking) a highly supportive clan environment, and you're neither saddled with the looks of the nosferatu or the workload of the Tremere.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    I have a very simple view that each age category gets less and less likely to destruction but getting to the final age category is almost impossible.

    If you reach Methuselah status, being destroyed is almost impossible.

    Marcus Vitel took dozens of dragon breath blasts to the fire and was stabbed with the Ainkurn Sword. It turned out it was just a shadow copy.

    It's why I hope Matthew Dawkins reverses the death of Mictlantecuhtli and possibly Tiamat.

    There's almost no way in hell a bunch of Anarchs took out even sleeping 4th generation vampires. I also liked the implication that Baga Yaga survived.

    Leave a comment:


  • Undead rabbit
    replied
    The Lasombra's Clanbook does give an attrition rate for Lasombras.


    P45

    Most new Lasombra don’t survive. By making it this far you’ve already beaten the odds, to some degree, but never for a moment think that your existence
    is now secure.
    More than half of the kine we choose to Embrace fail to survive their testing period. They despair and commit suicide, or break under the strain, or survive but show that they’re crippled by unworthy personality traits. At least one in a hundred, and sometimes more than that, fail to survive the Embrace itself, either simply dying or emerging so totally mindless and compulsive that they must be destroyed immediately.
    So of a thousand mortals who seemed worthy after initial investigation, we now have about 450 to 500. Look around you, and notice that where there were ten of you on that first night, now there are only eight. We lose ten to twenty percent of new recruits in the training interval before formal acceptance into the Sabbat. In times of crisis, the percentage can double or even triple, and it’s never much less than ten percent. Too many new vampires retain more humanity than is good for them. That gets us down to perhaps 350 to 450 of the original thousand.
    In the next five years, experience says, at least half of you will have gone to your respective unmarked graves. You will perish in battle, or offend your superiors and warrant judgment by the Courts of Blood or the bishopric. Some of you will fall in Monomacy. Some of you will destroy yourselves in accidents. One of you may attempt to join the antitribu, and may even survive to do so. If more than seven or less than three of you stand together five years from now, you will be a most unusual pack indeed. Of our initial thousand, as few as 200, or as many as 300, survive. Those of you who make it to five years will continue to face challenges. Of the five or so of you likely to last that long, at least one and perhaps as many as three will perish in the next five years. The pace of this
    brutal winnowing slows further and further for those of you who endure. Another halving takes place between 10 and 25 years, another between 25 and 50, another between 50 and 100. Your instructors and I face the same challenges. Perhaps one of you will win the right from a Court of Blood to destroy me and enrich your standing in the ladder of generations. Perhaps then
    in turn one of your current peers will win the right to destroy you

    Leave a comment:


  • Koronus
    replied
    From my opinion the rates are following
    50% of the Fledglings get destroyed. Because I think it is not so hard doing as you are told and getting Whelp protection.
    But I would say arround 70% of the Neonates do not survive until they are Ancillae. I would go even further saying that the 70% mortality is for those surviving 10% that made it through the first decade. Or mayby I just overblow it.

    With Ancillae only having 30% losses I go confirm.
    About the Elder I would say they have 99% destruction rate. Because while they survived all those years below they are now not food for fellows but other sharks and they are the rulers that get targeted by other big shots. I put the number so high because there are only so few elder and they need to survive for 1000 years to get called Methuselah.

    About Methuselah I would say only 1% of them is dying each year because either an elder want their blood or they turn wight or after all this years mayby they have no more desire to live and/or some lucky vampire hunters stumble upon one.
    They are only so few of these Megalodons so when one of them dies it is either a big event or it happens far away from other eyes.

    Leave a comment:


  • 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:

Working...
X