Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roleplaying fully Blood Bound PC's

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Lys View Post
    ... and it never fades away (i don't like this part, but that's what the rules are)...
    The metaphysical underpinning for it not fading/weakening over time is that whereas the Blood Bond, proper, may be more intense/powerful, the Vaulderie has the advantage of a broader "anchoring", so to speak, of mystical influence. The multi-faceted bonding has more of a hold/tangent-touch on the vampire in terms of duration vs. the deeper emotional power of the singular bond. It makes sense when you step back and think about it...


    I have been around here for waaaayyyy too fucking long...

    Comment


    • #17
      Yeah it isn't in any sense of the word metagaming, unless you are creating 0 xp neonates that have no idea about anything and just got turned. Then yes it would be meta gaming bc your characters wouldn't know about the blood bond or its effects. People who metagame in our games tend to get very stiff warnings and exp penalaties if it continues up and including removal from the game. We don't tolerate childish behavior in a setting that is supposed to be played by adults at the very least.

      ~edit and it isn't all honky dory either. I've been bound to another player that has messed up stuff on purpose and accident and had to cover their butts in order for me to enact the blood bond. Comes with the territory. Either way the bond is not to be taken lightly, and should be able to be snuck up on people, especially with merits like sweet vitae and the like. Clearly the creators wanted it to be used surreptitiously.
      Last edited by Asssassin; 06-08-2015, 02:02 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        I just started in a new game and wanted not an easy life for my new character. So, I chose for her the loathsome regnant flaw! How do I roleplay it? I have roleplayed blood bound characters in previous games but in general the regnants treated me pretty decently and now I'm confused. How an abused thrall reacts when her regnant show up just to torture her? She knows that every time she'll ask for blood he'll ask something nasty in return, so how often does she want to be fed? I'm thinking the correct way to go, is to justify his actions: "He treats me like that because I'm not good enough." "It's not his fault, it's mine", "I love him so I'll do everything he asks me and hope he'll change the way he treats me". I guess the "love" will turn into hatred eventually. How my character will react then? She will search for ways to break the blood bond? Or the addiction is so strong she wouldn't even think about it?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Matt the Bruins fan View Post
          Ideally, a good roleplayer should make their character as insufferably focused on the regnant as friends tend to get when they're first falling in love with a significant other. Have them blow off normal responsibilities and social appointments in order to spend time around that NPC, mention them constantly in conversations, etc.
          I would echo this. Someone dedicated to getting into the character should go with the text and do the best they can to fulfill that. The character has overriding devotion towards their sire, in some regards. They are likely the most important person to them going forwards.

          Originally posted by Bluecho View Post
          Wait, isn't that exactly what the Vaulderie is?
          Some other people kind of noted the differences. The Vaulderie lasts indefinitely, the Blood Bond can fade. The Vaulderie is also less intense. Thirdly, it can break prior blood bonds.

          Comment


          • #20
            If you have access to cheap letter bracelet material you could make a set for the players that says "WWMRD?" (What Would My Regent Do?) --That's the question that constantly sits in the back or front of the mind, in each conversation or action.

            And ideally, the character will seek to get close to them to bask in them and what they are doing, saying, thinking. If that fails, staring at them might help a little. Perhaps making rolls to maintain concentration when things are boring.

            But yes, seducing the player with the NPC while the character is falling at the same time is most ideal.

            --Khanwulf

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Asssassin View Post

              Because that's a part of Vampire...?
              I'll counter that with this: https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php...ot-My-Guy-quot and this https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...do-i-handle-it

              Players having fun should by the whole point about playing RPGs - if you're forcing something not fun onto a player then you're being a total jerk, and probably venturing into abusive territory.
              Last edited by Dogstar; 04-13-2018, 03:34 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Dogstar View Post

                I'll counter that with this: https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php...ot-My-Guy-quot and this https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...do-i-handle-it

                Players having fun should by the whole point about playing RPGs - if you're forcing something not fun onto a player then you're being a total jerk, and probably venturing into abusive territory.
                On the other hand, Vampire is just as much about avoiding a bad end as it is self-attainment. Failing a mission or dying in battle or because of political machinations isn't fun either, but those are what gives the game stakes. After all, what comes after that? Not allowing a scenario where the players die, or even fail? I'm not saying that every arbitrary storyteller decision is a good one (it should be an organic evolution of the story being told), or that, if OP feels tenuous about his players participating in a game where there's a chance of them being bloodbound, he should force the issue when there are alternatives.

                I'd recommend to OP just explaining to his players what is involved in being blood bonded before the session and the absolute loyalty it forces the character to play, and that this possibility exists based on the decisions their characters make (emphasis on this). And if they don't see themselves playing a character that is blood bonded, that they are totally welcome to roll up a new character as their old PC becomes an NPC.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Lian View Post


                  If the player doesn't want to be blood bound and will find the experience unfun why should someone push it?
                  I'm halfway on this. Absolutely I'm not going to push some goofy storyline that results in characters being bound that don't want it. But if a character screws up royal and a blood bond is an established punishment for that kind of fuck up, they're probably going to have to deal with it. Not that it will be impossible to get out of or resist, but consequences are an important part of the game.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I've run two games with blood bound PCs, and in both cases it worked out pretty well, but I'm not sure how applicable they are to your situation because in both cases it was initiated by the players of those PCs.

                    The first was a Malkavian who took the "Blood Bound" flaw at character creation. Like the rest of the players in that game, the Malkavian's player also created her own character's sire with my input. There was obviously a power imbalance in the relationship, but those two were pretty much just friends and lovers, an older vampire siring the PC for companionship. The player roleplayed it really well in my opinion, always making up reasons to visit her sire, bringing him up in unrelated conversations with other people, losing all concept of personal space whenever he was present and generally acting the fool in love in a way that felt very authentic. The game didn't last very long unfortunately, so there was no time to inject any real drama or tension into the relationship to explore it in more depth, but it was handled well for what it was.

                    The second was a bit more unusual, because that was a PC developing a serious attraction to an NPC in the course of play, and pretty much volunteering in-character to be blood-bound by them. The PC in question was a newly-fledged neonate and rather naive to boot, so it wasn't as far-fetched as it might sound, and they were also lucky enough to have fallen for one of the few NPCs in that game who was moral enough to want to handle the situation responsibly and not take advantage of the PC.

                    The character did end up blood bound, but this relationship was a bit more conflicted because the domitor was a much more dispassionate and cautious person than the PC, and took it upon themselves to be a kind of "surrogate sire" since the PC, in their eyes, was nowhere near ready to be fledged and the character's real sire had been very irresponsible in letting them go.

                    This was roleplayed with a great deal of nuance in my opinion, with the player expressing very well the PC's conflicting desires to please and impress their domitor, to be seen as an equal partner and lover by them instead of a precocious child (the PC was an adult, but had only been a vampire for about a year, and the domitor almost a century) and in some cases, to get their own way when they felt the domitor was being too old-fashioned or impractical.

                    The one thing that was less than ideal in that case was that while the PC would always give the domitor the last word, and acted clearly devoted and subservient to them in general, they would often act in a casually disrespectful or inconsiderate way, doing things or bringing up arguments that they knew the domitor disliked. In a few cases I made the PC spend willpower for this, but mostly I let it slide because I didn't want to be too heavy-handed in playing the PC for them. (The domitor encouraged the PC to speak their own mind and said they didn't want the PC to become a servile doormat towards them, but had said that would gradually happen anyway -and I had confirmed that point OOC. So I wanted to get more into that side of it, but that doesn't really work unless you and the player are on the same page.)

                    In conclusion I guess I would have to say it works fine as long as the players are interested in playing a character in that position, and that the spesific details of the relationship between PC and domitor are very important to what the RP of the blood bond will actually be like.I suggest having an OOC conversation with your players about that to make sure your expectations are all compatible, but it's not necessary to get overly spesific -relationships, even between regnant and thrall, evolve over time and it's more interesting around the table, too, when you're not just going through the motions.

                    I personally wouldn't force a blood bond on a PC unless the player was on board with it -or rather, if I did, I would be prepared to treat it as a "game over, make a new character" failstate rather than expect the player to keep playing that character. But if you're willing to let that happen and you don't think your players will object to losing their characters, I wouldn't necessarily ask ahead of time for permission to blood bond their characters, just like I don't ask for permission to kill them in combat -I would make sure to talk with them once it happened about their expectations for what playing a blood bound character entails though. Both so the resulting play is satisfying for both players and ST, and so they have an informed chance to opt out and make a new character if they'd rather that.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X