Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

thoughts on how V20 disciplines should work when targeting Garou in a W20 game

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

  • thoughts on how V20 disciplines should work when targeting Garou in a W20 game

    Consider a W20 game, where all the PCs are Garou, and there are NPC vampires that the storyteller has created with full V20 character sheets. Are some of the V20 mind-affecting disciplines overpowered when used against W20 Garou in a WtA game? Keeping in mind that the V20 rules were written for a VtM setting, do you think some disciplines should be more difficult to use against W20 Garou in a WtA setting? I'm thinking specifically of Presence and Dominate, most especially of Presence, which in my opinion is game-breaking when a vampire targets a WtA Garou with it.

    These reviewers seem to share my opinion about these disciplines being overpowered in the VtM setting:
    https://guidetothemasquerade.weebly.com/presence.html
    https://guidetothemasquerade.weebly.com/dominate.html

    Caitiff Prince's opinion expresses my sentiments exactly, but I'm coming from a WtA game where the mind-affecting disciplines used against werewolves with the exact same effectiveness that they have against the user's fellow vampires.

    In the spirit of offering a solution, not merely a complaint, here's my suggestion: give the PC Garou in a WtA setting a roll to resist the effects of mental disciplines uses against them by vampires, even where the VtM rules as written declare that the discipline simply works, no chance to resist.

    I justify that change in the VtM RAW when used in a WtA setting by calling attention to the visceral HATRED that Garou have against vampires. Presence, which manipulates the target's emotions, should be FAR more difficult to use against a species of half-spirit creatures who harbor a deep, ancient hatred and commitment to KILL ALL LEECHES than it is to use against relatively weak-minded mortals or other vampires. Majesty, in particular, I've found to be particularly scene-breaking: the targeted Garou gets NO chance to resist becoming totally enthralled by the vampire, even when he knows it's a vampire, and he's instantly reduced into a fawning puppy who's happy to lick the vampire's feet. Presence can even pull a frenzied Ahroun out of frenzy and into its thrall. It's literally an "I win" button that doesn't even have to be rolled to activate. Dominate isn't nearly so broken, at least at lower levels, since there are ways to avoid being "caught" by it if you see it coming, and since its effect is to redirect the target's mind, rather than to force the target to literally love you. I still think a Garou, specifically, should be given the opportunity to resist the Dominate effect with some use of Willpower.

    But what do y'all think? Should V20 disciplines apply towards W20 Garou PCs in a WtA setting as they are written for the VtM setting?

  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by Ambrosia View Post
    Ahh, yes, I see. So essentially the supernatural extra actions are not really extra actions, but simply a removal of the penalties for the multiple actions the supernaturals do.
    The depends sligtly on the specific iteration of the system and how many actions a character could do without supernatural effects; there are plenty of ways you could not have enough dice to perform X actions, but you could with Celerity/Rage/etc. But realistically the difference between 6 dice split between 3 actions, and spending 2 Rage for 3 actions is more than big enough to represent supernatural actions however we want to classify them.

    So in a way that's more a simultaneous multi-action kinda thing that should probably be handled within the same turn of a player/NPC, vs. a sequential one. I'm just not sure if differentiation those overcomplicates things or not.
    It's possible to do without radically changing how the rules work in action, though it requires being much more precise in your language than the WoD books tend to be.

    Something I came up with awhile ago on this matter is:

    "Compound Actions" as what you're calling simultaneous multi-actions. They count as one action for the purposes of multiple actions. They involve one rolled action, and any number of normally unrolled actions as the character is willing to/can handle (the standard stipulation that some of these things should be rolled in tense situations can be waived, though the ST can call for a Sequential Action if they feel circumstances dictate it). Each unrolled action added to a compound action imparts a -X penalty to the final dice-pool of the Compound Action. Failures only apply to the rolled action, but botches apply to all actions included. The total penalty also applies to any action taken in any subsequent Sequential Action. Compound Actions cannot be part of any supernaturally generated extra actions.

    "Sequential Actions" follow the standard multiple action rules. Players can choose to roll a Compound Action as a Sequential Action at the risk of being interrupted by other character actions; generally done with supernatural multiple actions for better dice-pools.

    The value of X needs to be adjusted for which edition's multiple action rules you're using, and how harsh you want to be (1 or 2 is generally plenty for me).

    So if you're character is trying to drive and shoot once in their turn, it's a simple Compound Action (shooting is a rolled action, driving is normally unrolled even if rolled under stress), and you simply take a -X for trying to due both. A failure just means the shot misses but the car is still on the road. A botch is bad news for both shooting and crashing.

    If the ST decides the driving part includes something that should be rolled separately, such as keeping the car steady after being rammed into by a pursing car, it becomes a Sequential Action and is handled as such.

    If the player wants to drive and shoot twice, it's two Compound Actions as part of a Sequential Action, with the second shot having the -X penalty from the first applied to it as well.

    If the player wants to roll to maintain control after getting rammed, and drive and shoot, it's a Sequential Action with a Drive action first, and then a Compound Action second.

    As a general guideline on whether or not to invoke a Sequential and Compound action: a Compound Action should consist of either things that are happening at the same time (ex: ducking behind cover to avoid being shot at while hacking) or be part of one smooth series of events that have to rely on each other to succeed (ex: running at someone to tackle them, drawing a weapon and firing). Sequential Actions don't depend on each other working to be possible; even if situational order might matter. Whether you hit or miss with an attack doesn't matter to whether or not you can take a defensive action as well.

    IME this works better with a Revised or DAV20 approach to multiple action penalties but hits a snag with splitting dice pools and players allocating dice to each action.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ambrosia
    replied
    Ahh, yes, I see. So essentially the supernatural extra actions are not really extra actions, but simply a removal of the penalties for the multiple actions the supernaturals do.
    That's how DAV20 does it as well.

    Personally I think it kind of depends on the multiple actions you do, or rather their timing - an example that stuck with me was one from...the M20 books I think, where an example of multiple actions was driving and shooting at another car in a car chase at the same time.
    So in a way that's more a simultaneous multi-action kinda thing that should probably be handled within the same turn of a player/NPC, vs. a sequential one. I'm just not sure if differentiation those overcomplicates things or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    OK, yeah, missed that passage that W20 has Rage happen at the end.

    Neither text though, specifies that you split Rage/Celerity actions into multiple series of initiative cycles. The way it's phrased is that if you have 3 Rage actions and the highest init, you do your normal action, everyone else goes, you get your 3 Rage actions if you didn't spend any on defense, and then anyone else with Rage actions takes theirs.

    Additionally, none of them do what I use, which was the DA Revised method, where the source of actions doesn't matter. You figure out how many actions you get, and the initiative cycle goes around until everyone is out of actions. If a highly skilled mortal declares three actions, a werewolf declares one regular action and two Rage actions, and a vampire declares two normal actions and one Celerity action:

    RAW:

    Mortal does all three,
    Werewolf does one,
    Vampire does two,
    Werewolf does two,
    Vampire does one.

    How I do it:

    Mortal does one,
    Werewolf does one,
    Vampire does one,
    Repeat two more times.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ambrosia
    replied
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    RAW, W20 only: You resolve all a character's actions on their turn in the initiative roster baring defensive actions.
    RAW, W20 and V20 if you feel like each doing their own thing: Rage actions happen on a character's turn, but Celerity actions happen in a second Initiative go at the end of the main round.
    How it should be done: Everyone takes one action (normal multiple actions or magical ones) in Initiative order until they're out of actions.
    Actually, W20 also does extra Rage actions after the normal turn(s), just like V20 celerity (and revised werewolf). See page 266, 'spending Rage'. And yes, it sadly does *not* get specifically explained like that in some more obvious spots that also explain extra actions, like Page 233 / 234 :|
    Usual WoD-corebook problems.

    Edit: Even more "actually", the W20 extra actions pretty much match your 'How it should be done' section, with initiative order and everything.
    Edit Edit: So does V20. See page 272 in V20 core. Your "how it should be done" is the V20/W20 rules
    Last edited by Ambrosia; 08-04-2020, 10:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    RAW, W20 only: You resolve all a character's actions on their turn in the initiative roster baring defensive actions.
    RAW, W20 and V20 if you feel like each doing their own thing: Rage actions happen on a character's turn, but Celerity actions happen in a second Initiative go at the end of the main round.
    How it should be done: Everyone takes one action (normal multiple actions or magical ones) in Initiative order until they're out of actions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wilson
    replied
    Okay next question: in combat, in what order should actions be resolved, when the werewolf is using rage for extra actions and the vampire is using celerity for extra actions?

    And feel free to answer with "rules as written" or with "how it should be done". I'd like to hear about both.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Spend a WP and make a diff 8 WP roll.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wilson
    replied
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Well, the Presence write-up completely skips that anyone can use (with difficulty) WP to at least temporarily overcome it.
    Is it actually true that you can spend a Willpower point to resist the effects of Presence? If this is true, it's not an option my pack was given the last time a leech used Presence on them. I'll have to remember it the next time it comes up!

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Whether you like the mechanics of a given Gift or not (and it's clearly evident you feel a specific Gift* should be house ruled on its own merits not because of crossover rules issues), if a Gift keys off the target's Rage or Gnosis, it only works on Garou/Fera/Spirits/etc., or it has another option. I'm sure there' an exception or so, but that's clearly an error as the default is for such to be the case because WtA assumes you will deal with characters without Rage or Gnosis, while VtM doesn't assume you'll face characters without Virtues.

    "Bullshitting," Virtues isn't hard (though as this thread illustrates, doesn't have a simple single answer), but if you're running WtA, why should you bend to VtM's rules instead of bending VtM to WtA when you have to resolve a mechanical conflict? If I'm running W20, and a PC Ragabash sneaks up on a vampire successfully, they get a -2 difficulty on their rear attack, not +2 dice on a rear attack because that's how V20 does it. Likewise, even if I'm using VtM stated vampires in my W20 game, if a Discipline targets a trait Garou don't have, I should change the Discipline to fit WtA, not WtA to fit the Discipline.

    If we're talking about a bigger project of crossover play or just a general unified WoD20 ruleset that eliminates these sorts of inconsistencies? I'm more than happy to be less one-sided in my perspective.

    ---
    * - AFAIK, the only Gift in W20 Core where low Rage makes you inherently easier to target than a normal human is Mother's Touch... which is a good thing for the low Rage less combat focused Auspices, not a bad thing. There's no default "if they don't have Rage, the diff is 5," as most of the time this occurs the Gift just targets Rage or Willpower. The only even remotely screwy Gift in W20 Core in this regard is Infectious Laughter, and that's not because normal humans can be harder to target than Garou.
    Last edited by Heavy Arms; 07-31-2020, 07:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Frankly, house ruling VtM is probably the better approach here, esp. in a W20 based game, rather than trying to make WtA fit to it; esp. since VtM is worse about targeting traits other splats don't use without any guide for what to do instead (CtD obviously targets Banality a lot, but there is a guide to assigning Banality to characters that don't use Banality as a trait).

    No way. WTA is way worse for that. At least with VTM you can bullshit someone's Virtues. With WTA, many of your opponents explicitly do not have Rage or Gnosis, yet that's what you're targeting. (and rulling that you use difficulty 5 if they don't have rage is ,story wise, total nonsense: Because of course Joe Bloggs is a more resiliant individual than our Theurge, of course.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Frankly, house ruling VtM is probably the better approach here, esp. in a W20 based game, rather than trying to make WtA fit to it; esp. since VtM is worse about targeting traits other splats don't use without any guide for what to do instead (CtD obviously targets Banality a lot, but there is a guide to assigning Banality to characters that don't use Banality as a trait).

    Leave a comment:


  • Saur Ops Specialist
    replied
    Originally posted by Matt the Bruins fan View Post
    I have no objection to werewolves using a trait that goes above 5 in place of Courage, but a substitute for Self-Control in a species highly prone to impulsive self-sabotage and violent outbursts is another ball of wax entirely.
    It can go to 10 because Garou and Fera aren't spiritually empty blood addicts, even if their culture encourages them to act first and think much later. Meanwhile, vampires are only really calm if they're topped off on the red stuff. Any other time, and, well...



    Though the starting Willpower value based on tribe looks appropriate. And I'd think starting Gnosis should be inversely proportional to Conscience.
    That's a hard sell on both counts, there. Starting Willpower is like a soup of two or three different Virtues that can't be readily divided into discrete parts, and Gnosis doesn't compel you to be an asshole like Conviction, which vampires often use as a numerical "equivalent" to Conscience in many capacities. Gnosis is also what Garou worry over if they get embraced and it takes, so there's that mechanical intersection to keep in mind as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt the Bruins fan
    replied
    I have no objection to werewolves using a trait that goes above 5 in place of Courage, but a substitute for Self-Control in a species highly prone to impulsive self-sabotage and violent outbursts is another ball of wax entirely. Though the starting Willpower value based on tribe looks appropriate. And I'd think starting Gnosis should be inversely proportional to Conscience.

    Leave a comment:


  • Saur Ops Specialist
    replied
    Werewolf: the Dark Ages (not DA: WW) suggested using Willpower or Rage for Courage, Gnosis for Conscience and Humanity, and Willpower, Gnosis, or Primal-Urge for Self-Control.

    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post


    ...That's pretty good actually. I might do that.

    Other than that, I had the idea that Werewolves should just have invisible starter virtues (default willpower of a tribe suggests what courage to use) and then add +1 to everything (using gnosis or rage would mean a most garou would be weaker than mortals)
    But the Fianna are known for being recklessly brave and have a lower starting WP because of the same reason (i.e. low self-control, which W:tA also figures in as a low WP thing).

    If you, A Garou, want to avoid Dominate/Presence
    1: Kill the leech before he has a chance to use it
    2: Have high willpower.
    3: Hope that the leech will give a command that's at +2 difficulty and needs 5 successes... and doesn't succeed.

    That's the best I can give.
    Resist Temptation exists as the first option for more active resistance at Rank 2; Stargazers are the primary users, but it's a common Beast Courts Gift. Alternately, one might wear many layers of gasoline-soaked clothing and use Master of Fire in the hopes that the vampires won't want to try to meet your gaze if you're fully immolated (a sun mask fetish, among other spiritual items, would probably be a better choice, but not everyone has one of those).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X