Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask a simple question, get a simple answer: Vampire

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

  • Originally posted by Satchel View Post
    The purpose of the Addicted Condition is not to model an overpowering drive so much as a persistent distraction and detriment.
    Got anything from the source material to back up that assessment, or is this just your interpretation? If you want to play the (vitae) addiction as a minor inconvenience that requires no further roleplaying, then be my guest. It's your game, you can play how you want. But the lore does not back you up on that. The lore suggests the Vitae addiction is much worse than that, which is indeed exactly what my thread was about.


    Originally posted by Satchel View Post
    Spare me the invasive personal questions and the no-true-Scotsman argumentation, please.
    Spare me the smug attitude. I'm just pointing out to you that real addiction does not work the way you think it works. Nothing invasive about that. Again, you can roleplay however you want, but on my table we look beyond the mechanics, we take roleplay seriously, and addiction is a very serious subject that we want to do justice.


    Originally posted by Satchel View Post
    Is this the part where I point out that the Ghoul section has a one-dot Merit whose literal sole effect is "vampires get double the Vitae from feeding on you" and nothing else?
    How is that even comparable? That merit is super useful, for obvious reasons. double Vitae for your regnant means half lethal damage for you. It means a BP5 regnant in a hunger frenzy could feed from your ghoul character, get 15 Vitae, and your character might actually survive it while every other ghoul would be super dead. That's way more useful than anything Honey Trap has to offer.
    Last edited by Ventrue Life; 06-05-2018, 01:06 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tessie View Post

      1.) Yes.
      2.) No. (Technically yes, but vampires automatically downgrades it like any other lethal damage.)
      3.) It's honestly not that great, imo. The upgrade to lethal doesn't work on vampires and things that bypass armour does not bypass Resilience, leaving ignoring up to three points of Defense being the only reliable use for vampires. Personally I don't think that's enough to be worth the XP cost. I'd allow it, but have a hard time seeing anyone in my group take it.

      Thanks for the answer. Can you explain to me why exactly the "upgrade bashing to lethal" doesn't work on vampires? The Merit literally states that bashing damage inflicted gets upgraded to lethal. So one could argue that you shoot a vampire, inflict 6 bashing damage (because mundane weapons only do bashing to vampires), then upgrade it to 1 lethal + 5 bashing. No doubt that argument is false, but I'd like to know why that argument doesn't work in case the player brings it up.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ventrue Life View Post
        Got anything from the source material to back up that assessment, or is this just your interpretation?
        The effects of the Addicted Condition are that you take a Beat when you choose to get a fix rather than fulfill and obligation and that you may receive the Deprived Condition — i.e. become irritable, anxious, and unable to focus — if you are unable to feed your addiction. It does not compel you to act violently, burn bridges, or otherwise jump to the far end of "the addiction is not just slowly taking over your life, it has already taken it over" on its own. It makes those outcomes easier to get to, but as a ludonarrative element it is very clearly not the sole thing to use for a wholesale loss of control.

        If you want to play the (vitae) addiction as a minor inconvenience that requires no further roleplaying, then be my guest.
        Stop doing this terrible thing you're doing where you treat my awareness of the mechanics for Vitae addiction not mandating the furthest extremes of addict behavior as blowing off the narrative effects of a Persistent Condition modified to act as a widget for vampires to mess with people for leverage. The game allows broader manifestations of addiction than you prefer and that doesn't justify this passive-aggressive if-you-don't-wanna-be-a-roleplayer-then-fine line you're pushing.

        But the lore does not back you up on that.
        The lore says that normal blood contaminated with drugs doesn't fulfill the need for Kindred Vitae and that characters can tempt the addict with Vitae to contest their ability to resist gaining the Condition that incentivizes them to indulge, which is a more consistent vector than mundane addictions get but not otherwise worse.

        The lore suggests the Vitae addiction is much worse than that, which is indeed exactly what my thread was about.
        The lore suggests that characters with Vitae addiction are more susceptible to the leverage of a substance that they need in order to be active. Ninety percent of the mechanics for making Vitae addiction compel any particular action are part of the regular vampire template already.

        Vitae Addiction is there as a tool for vampires to use and a complication for them to encounter in the process of using blood to bind people to their will; at worst, it provides a narrative impetus for frenzy rolls and penalties thereon, but the worst elements of the supernatural addiction that vampires truck with are just "being a vampire." The inability of younger Kindred to safely handle processed Vitae is a problem of particular vulnerability more than general addiction symptoms.

        Spare me the smug attitude. I'm just pointing out to you that real addiction does not work the way you think it works.
        Which requires the presumption that I think "real addiction" works the way the Addicted Condition works.

        Nothing invasive about that.
        You asked me if I had ever had or dealt with people who had what you yourself describe as a very serious problem. The only way in which this is not an aggressive act of prying into my personal life is the clear presumption on your part that I haven't and therefore must not know better than you about the workings of a roleplaying game.

        Again, you can roleplay however you want, but on my table we look beyond the mechanics, we take roleplay seriously, and addiction is a very serious subject that we want to do justice.
        You were saying something about a smug attitude before?

        How is that even comparable? That merit is super useful, for obvious reasons. double Vitae for your regnant means half lethal damage for you. It means a BP5 regnant in a hunger frenzy could feed from your ghoul character, get 15 Vitae, and your character might actually survive it while every other ghoul would be super dead. That's way more useful than anything Honey Trap has to offer.
        The Merit in question can be held by non-ghouls and being a ghoul is of debatable value outside the context of having supernatural powers in exchange for courting addiction and enslavement on a regular basis.

        "Your mortal character might not die from a vampire attack" is about on par with "your vampire character has something extra to incentivize being a dealer for other vampires in this game where 'make it easier to tempt people' is a thing every character has access to from character generation."
        Last edited by Satchel; 06-05-2018, 02:01 AM.


        Resident Sanguinary Analyst
        Currently Consuming: Changeling: the Lost 1e

        Comment


        • First of all the Producer merit is Human only. And it doesn’t mean the human takes half damage, it means if a vampire decides to exsanguinate the human while in hunger frenzy, they’re still just as dead, but the vampire gets twice as much vitae for the same effort.
          But even if it did, there is absolutely no advantage for a human to be chained up in a vampire’s basement to serve as a blood battery.

          As for the upgrade to lethal bit. A while back the developers said that unless a fighting style or merit expressly called out as being applicable to vampires, the damage upgrade aspect doesn’t apply to them. The merit itself basically condenses the practice of studying a fighting style to analyze it for weaknesses in order to make more effective strikes to vital areas, like joints and nerve clusters or armor flaws into a single turn action. Since vampires can’t be rendered unconscious by the oxygen flow to their brain being cut off and don’t register pain the same way, it’s kind of pointless. From a game balance POV, it nullifies one of the innate advantages of being a walking corpse and being able to shrug off unarmed and weapons based attacks for awhile. But by all means go ahead and let every unarmed combatant beat your vampires unconscious with their bare hands if that’s the kind of thing you want going on in your games.
          Last edited by tsusasi; 06-05-2018, 02:38 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Satchel View Post
            The effects of the Addicted Condition are that you take a Beat when you choose to get a fix rather than fulfill and obligation and that you may receive the Deprived Condition — i.e. become irritable, anxious, and unable to focus — if you are unable to feed your addiction. It does not compel you to act violently, burn bridges, or otherwise jump to the far end of "the addiction is not just slowly taking over your life, it has already taken it over" on its own. It makes those outcomes easier to get to, but as a ludonarrative element it is very clearly not the sole thing to use for a wholesale loss of control.
            Irrelevant. I already pointed out that I'm of the opinion that from a mechanical point of view the Addicted (Persistent) condition does not mesh well with how real addiction works, which leads to a ludonarrative dissonance. Your argument does nothing to refute that.

            Originally posted by Satchel View Post
            Which requires the presumption that I think "real addiction" works the way the Addicted Condition works.
            No it doesn't. I know you don't, and neither do I. Which is entirely irrelevant to this argument. The whole point is that you handwave the serious repercussions of addiction based on how mild the mechanics of the Addicted condition are. Which to mean means you either don't understand how addiction works in real-life or you just don't care and decide to downplay the effects of being addicted in your game because the mechanics allow you to. Which again, is entirely fine if everyone at your table is cool with that, but that's not how we do things at my table.

            Originally posted by Satchel View Post
            The Merit in question can be held by non-ghouls and being a ghoul is of debatable value outside the context of having supernatural powers in exchange for courting addiction and enslavement on a regular basis.
            Double vitae for the Kindred = half Lethal damage for you" is really not debatable. That's how the Merit works regardless of whether you are a ghoul or not. If you cannot see the value of that, then well, it cannot be helped, it's your loss I guess. I won't try to convince you.

            Originally posted by Satchel View Post
            "Your mortal character might not die from a vampire attack" is about on par with "your vampire character has something extra to incentivize being a dealer for other vampires in this game where 'make it easier to tempt people' is a thing every character has access to from character generation."
            It really isn't and if you serously believe those two statements are equivalent then I dunno what to say. I think at this point this argument has ran it's course. No point in dragging this on further. We already went way of the original topic and this is a thread for questions and answers, not pointless internet arguments.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tsusasi View Post
              First of all the Producer merit is Human only. And it doesn’t mean the human takes half damage, it means if a vampire decides to exsanguinate the human while in hunger frenzy, they’re still just as dead, but the vampire gets twice as much vitae for the same effort.
              I'm sorry to say but you're way off base my dude. Simple math: If the vampire needs 10 Vitae to get filled up and decides to drink from you, he'll do 10 lethal damage to you, but if you have the Producer merit, you'll only do 5 lethal damage to you. The Producer merit will be the difference of 5 lethal damage. A normal human has 7 health on average so that normal human will be long dead even before this vampire who needs 10 Vitae had his fill. A human with the Producer merit though? That human will only get 5 lethal damage and survive.


              Originally posted by tsusasi View Post
              As for the upgrade to lethal bit. A while back the developers said that unless a fighting style or merit expressly called out as being applicable to vampires, the damage upgrade aspect doesn’t apply to them. The merit itself basically condenses the practice of studying a fighting style to analyze it for weaknesses in order to make more effective strikes to vital areas, like joints and nerve clusters or armor flaws into a single turn action. Since vampires can’t be rendered unconscious by the oxygen flow to their brain being cut off and don’t register pain the same way, it’s kind of pointless. From a game balance POV, it nullifies one of the innate advantages of being a walking corpse and being able to shrug off unarmed and weapons based attacks for awhile. But by all means go ahead and let every unarmed combatant beat your vampires unconscious with their bare hands if that’s the kind of thing you want going on in your games.
              No, I don't want that to happen in my games, so I am relieved that the Killer Instinct merit doesn't work that way. Thanks for the information, this is extremely useful.
              Last edited by Ventrue Life; 06-05-2018, 03:05 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ventrue Life View Post
                I'm just pointing out to you that real addiction does not work the way you think it works.
                You're still wrong. You've seen one way addictions can affect a life and for some reason have decided your anecdotal experiences is how all addictions work. You even think functional addicts is a myth when that's a classification used by actual rehab programs. That is a disservice to addicts by removing all nuances from addictions and forcing them to fit into a single mold.

                Also, your whole "take roleplay seriously" shtick is extremely elitistic. It implies how your group roleplays is better than other ways and is smug as all fucking hell. There are so many better ways to say that your group puts more focus on what's "realistic" rather than the mechanics (that, frankly, are designed to make the game fun rather than realistic).


                Bloodline: The Stygians
                Ordo Dracul Mysteries: Mystery of Smoke, Revised Mystery of Živa
                Mage The Awakening: Spell Quick Reference (single page and landscape for computer screens)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tessie View Post

                  You're still wrong. You've seen one way addictions can affect a life and for some reason have decided your anecdotal experiences is how all addictions work. You even think functional addicts is a myth when that's a classification used by actual rehab programs. That is a disservice to addicts by removing all nuances from addictions and forcing them to fit into a single mold.
                  Yes, I've seen just one way addiction can affect a life and that's what I base my entire point of view on... If only that was indeed the case...

                  The example for highly functional addicts you gave was alcoholism, and I wanted to point out that you often see highly functional alcoholics but not because alcoholism isn't fucking with their (mental) health, but because alcohol is legal, cheap and easy to get, so it's an addiction that is easy to indulge and thus doesn't have such an immediate or catastrophic impact as for example heroin or crack, which is illegal, expensive and difficult to get.

                  Thing is, with hard drugs, it will screw with your mental and physical health (and you're right that most addicts already have mental issues to begin with). So even a highly functional addict will suffer from his addiction to some degree and to write that off as a minor nuisance doesn't sit well with me.

                  Also, keep in mind that highly functional addicts usually are highly functional because they have otherwise relatively stable and mundane lives. Functional addicts will quickly become dysfunctional when stressful and/or dramatic situations get introduced into their lives. Guess what vampires and ghouls have to deal with almost all the time...


                  Originally posted by Tessie View Post
                  Also, your whole "take roleplay seriously" shtick is extremely elitistic. It implies how your group roleplays is better than other ways and is smug as all fucking hell. There are so many better ways to say that your group puts more focus on what's "realistic" rather than the mechanics (that, frankly, are designed to make the game fun rather than realistic).

                  If that's what you take away from what I said, then go ahead. That's not at all what I was implying though.

                  I literally said multiple times that you and everyone else are within their right to play however you want. You wanna play the Vitae addiction as just a minor inconvenience? Go ahead. I won't think any less of you. But it's not how I want to play VTR. I want to put emphasis on the dark, tragic and gruesome nature of the heavy topics that are covered by this game. I want to add some realism to my games, even though this is a game about supernatural creatures. I do think downplaying the effects being an addict can have on your character's already hectic life is doing a disservice to the actual subject, but if everyone at your table is okay with it, then bloody go for it, more power to you guys, you do you. No really, I mean it, this isn't even meant in a sarcastic way.

                  I do think meta-gaming is bad though (especially when the meta-gaming results in less actual roleplaying), but that's an entire different can of worms that really shouldn't be opened right here and right now.


                  I didn't want to continue this discussion, but I did want to reply to you to defend myself after being called "elitistic" (I think you mean elitist?) and smug.
                  Last edited by Ventrue Life; 06-05-2018, 07:02 AM.

                  Comment


                  • You said you didn't want to continue this discussion, but I have to reply to this part because I hope it can prevent future unintentional insults.

                    Originally posted by Ventrue Life View Post
                    If that's what you take away from what I said, then go ahead. That's not at all what I was implying though.
                    I believe that's not what you mean to imply, but it's what you do imply every time you word yourself that way, regardless of your intentions.

                    "But perhaps that's because I actually roleplay"

                    "but on my table [..] we take roleplay seriously"

                    What these two clauses are saying is that our way or roleplaying is not "actual roleplay" or "serious roleplay". That's extremely condescending because it straight out says our way of playing the game is not roleplaying; that we're doing it wrong. It seriously undermines your later explanations of our "right to play however [we] want" when you've already insulted those styles of roleplaying.


                    Bloodline: The Stygians
                    Ordo Dracul Mysteries: Mystery of Smoke, Revised Mystery of Živa
                    Mage The Awakening: Spell Quick Reference (single page and landscape for computer screens)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tessie View Post
                      You said you didn't want to continue this discussion, but I have to reply to this part because I hope it can prevent future unintentional insults.



                      I believe that's not what you mean to imply, but it's what you do imply every time you word yourself that way, regardless of your intentions.

                      "But perhaps that's because I actually roleplay"

                      "but on my table [..] we take roleplay seriously"

                      What these two clauses are saying is that our way or roleplaying is not "actual roleplay" or "serious roleplay". That's extremely condescending because it straight out says our way of playing the game is not roleplaying; that we're doing it wrong. It seriously undermines your later explanations of our "right to play however [we] want" when you've already insulted those styles of roleplaying.
                      The reason I replied that way is not because I think I'm better than you, but because I think "but the mechanics for being an addict isn't that bad" is a really poor counter argument when I try to explain why I take Vitae addiction so seriously and why I think most vampires (and players who aren't meta-gaming) would rather avoid getting addicted. It does sound to me like some people here aren't taking roleplaying seriously. And if that's the case: that's honestly fine! Really! Again, no sarcasm intended.

                      Some people have a 'beer, pretzels and casually rolling dice on a Friday night' approach to roleplaying. Some people don't want to take roleplaying seriously. And that's 100% fine. It's not how we do things at my table, but I won't think any less of you if that's how you decide to approach roleplaying at your table.
                      Last edited by Ventrue Life; 06-05-2018, 07:23 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ventrue Life View Post

                        The reason I replied that way is not because I think I'm better than you, but because I think "but the mechanics for being an addict isn't that bad" is a really poor counter argument when I try to explain why I take Vitae addiction so seriously and why I think most vampires (and players who aren't meta-gaming) would rather avoid getting addicted. It does sound to me like some people here aren't taking roleplaying seriously. And if that's the case: that's honestly fine! Really! Again, no sarcasm intended.

                        Some people have a 'beer, pretzels and casually rolling dice on a Friday night' approach to roleplaying. Some people don't want to take roleplaying seriously. And that's 100% fine. It's not how we do things at my table, but I won't think any less of you if that's how you decide to approach roleplaying at your table.

                        The thing you're implying though is that your way is the "roleplaying seriously" way and other styles or other views on roleplaying ain't serious. I myself consider the addicted rules to be drama based and used for story building, not to mimic the real nuance of addiction. The addiction rules are imho kind of 'meh', it let's you off the hook way to easy and does not reflect the deeper or darker ways of some addictions. But here the thing though, not all addictions are equal, not every person addicted nor every substance you can be addicted to. The Condition is not meant to portray the real world nuance of extreme and sad addiction, nor the social stigma and every other part of that sad thing. As a nicotine addict, i think the addiction rules seems to fit that state way better then say alcoholism or heroin addiction. I'm not comparing or saying what substance or Vitae for that matter is worse and what each of them should be like in a mechanical way, all I am saying is that the Rules are way to lenient if you compare many forms of addiction the rules apply towards, therefore I think, mostly because CofD is drama-focused, that the rules are there to inspire drama and story and make functional addicts, not to portray the worst and saddest kinds of addictions. If you actually wanted the darker parts of addiction to be portrayed through a mechanical lens, i recommend building on the addicted condition, make a tiered system of Conditions about addiction or something.

                        That being said, our group usually responds OOC with things like "oh, that doesn't seem so bad" or "well, this doesn't really effect me much" towards many conditions, addicted being one of them. The general thing being that Conditions should bring drama and story to the table, like the rest of the rules, not take away agency of the PCs. Although we portray in character and by descriptions things usually way worse then they are in a strict mechanical way. As another example, Leg wracked I'm looking at you. Although a Tilt, but same logic applies, the description says that one of your legs/feet are dislocated, strained or broken, and halves your speed and takes a -2 on physical rolls that require movement. Speaking out from own experience about strained feet, there is noooo way in hell i only got halved speed by that, or that i could run 2 km in double the normal time, with a athletics roll with a -2 penalty even by spending willpower unless perhaps, and that's really perhaps, my life depended on it. This is because this rule set is not meant for simulating reality, it's for drama, story and fun and allowing the player to keep it's power of agency over her PC and keep the PCs agency in-character. Same logic applies to being shot by a gun. Or Wound penalties etc etc.

                        tl:dr: the rules are not meant to simualte reality, the are for story, fun and drama, but you could tweak or layer on more penalties or get new Conditions to better simulate a part of the world closer to reality if that's what you want.

                        Edit: also, about meta-gaming and avoiding getting addicted. That's an ass-hat statement if I ever saw one. That's implying that people that get addicted want to be addicted. Most people like drugs because of how it makes them feel, and by a lot of psychological bias etc in action, people don't consider the risks involved as much as one perhaps should, but we humans are seldom rational and logical, we act out of emotion, feelings, affect and guide our world around bias and heuristics. Ergo "it will never happen to me"
                        Last edited by Poseur; 06-05-2018, 08:22 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Poseur View Post


                          The thing you're implying though is that your way is the "roleplaying seriously" way and other styles or other views on roleplaying ain't serious. I myself consider the addicted rules to be drama based and used for story building, not to mimic the real nuance of addiction. The addiction rules are imho kind of 'meh', it let's you off the hook way to easy and does not reflect the deeper or darker ways of some addictions. But here the thing though, not all addictions are equal, not every person addicted nor every substance you can be addicted to. The Condition is not meant to portray the real world nuance of extreme and sad addiction, nor the social stigma and every other part of that sad thing. As a nicotine addict, i think the addiction rules seems to fit that state way better then say alcoholism or heroin addiction. I'm not comparing or saying what substance or Vitae for that matter is worse and what each of them should be like in a mechanical way, all I am saying is that the Rules are way to lenient if you compare many forms of addiction the rules apply towards, therefore I think, mostly because CofD is drama-focused, that the rules are there to inspire drama and story and make functional addicts, not to portray the worst and saddest kinds of addictions. If you actually wanted the darker parts of addiction to be portrayed through a mechanical lens, i recommend building on the addicted condition, make a tiered system of Conditions about addiction or something.

                          That being said, our group usually responds OOC with things like "oh, that doesn't seem so bad" or "well, this doesn't really effect me much" towards many conditions, addicted being one of them. The general thing being that Conditions should bring drama and story to the table, like the rest of the rules, not take away agency of the PCs. Although we portray in character and by descriptions things usually way worse then they are in a strict mechanical way. As another example, Leg wracked I'm looking at you. Although a Tilt, but same logic applies, the description says that one of your legs/feet are dislocated, strained or broken, and halves your speed and takes a -2 on physical rolls that require movement. Speaking out from own experience about strained feet, there is noooo way in hell i only got halved speed by that, or that i could run 2 km in double the normal time, with a athletics roll with a -2 penalty even by spending willpower unless perhaps, and that's really perhaps, my life depended on it. This is because this rule set is not meant for simulating reality, it's for drama, story and fun and allowing the player to keep it's power of agency over her PC and keep the PCs agency in-character. Same logic applies to being shot by a gun. Or Wound penalties etc etc.

                          tl:dr: the rules are not meant to simualte reality, the are for story, fun and drama, but you could tweak or layer on more penalties or get new Conditions to better simulate a part of the world closer to reality if that's what you want.
                          I liked your comment because I 100% agree and you're basically making my argument for me. All I was ever saying is that "oh, the mechanics of the Addicted condition aren't that bad, therefor being addicted isn't that bad" is a horribly bad argument (not an argument you ever made, I know, but that's what this whole discussion about addiction started).

                          I'd like to point out that the books (VTR and Half-Damned) do say that Vitae is like a hard drug. Hence I compared being addicted to Vitae is like a hard drug. The book even says that many Vitae addicts often start using other hard drug substances as a substitute when they can't get their Vitae fix. Hence I pointed out that being addicted to a hard drug is not pretty and way more than just a minor nuisance. "But the mechanics for Addicted aren't that bad, so Vitae addiction isn't that bad either" is a horribly bad counter argument to that. There is a clear ludonarrative dissonance here, where the lore says X but the mechanics do not portray X accurately, as you also pointed out. And again, I'm fine with that. I'm just pointing out that using the mechanics of the Addicted condition as an argument when the other person (me) is arguing lore and the reality of (Vitae) addiction, is disingenuous at best. At that point you really shouldn't feel insulted when I point out that you (Satchel) aren't roleplaying seriously or don't seem to be taking the lore of the game very seriously.


                          But I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll just say that I agree with you, and leave it at that.


                          Originally posted by Poseur View Post
                          Edit: also, about meta-gaming and avoiding getting addicted. That's an ass-hat statement if I ever saw one. That's implying that people that get addicted want to be addicted. Most people like drugs because of how it makes them feel, and by a lot of psychological bias etc in action, people don't consider the risks involved as much as one perhaps should, but we humans are seldom rational and logical, we act out of emotion, feelings, affect and guide our world around bias and heuristics. Ergo "it will never happen to me"
                          You're misrepresenting my argument. I'm not implying that people who get addicted want to get addicted at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I said any person who is aware of the dangers of being addicted to a hard drug would try to avoid Vitae addiction like the plague. Emphasis on trying. In other words, if I'm a BP5 or lower vampire, I'd try to avoid drinking Kindred Vitae like the plague, given that I know damn well how addictive that stuff is. I sure as fuck would not even consider drinking from a Honey Trap. Saying "but that Willpower + Beat my dude, and the Addicted condition really isn't that bad either, it gives you more Beats my dude" is meta-gaming and a piss-poor counter argument.

                          Of course, if you want to play an addict because out-of-character you think the chaos and drama would be interesting, and you can find a good in-character justification for why your BP5> vampire would drink from a Honey Trap (perhaps your character is in a bad place and the Honey Trap tricks your character into drinking from her, after which your character realizes her blood makes him temporarily forget all his problems), then by all means, go for it, that's something I'd fully support at my own table if one of my players approached it from that angle.
                          Last edited by Ventrue Life; 06-05-2018, 02:07 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ventrue Life View Post

                            [Stuff..]

                            But I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll just say that I agree with you, and leave it at that.
                            Yes, I do feel that we share most of our view on this matter as well. As you pointed out, there is a faulty line of thought to argue that mechanics = reality and that you are advised to role-play toward said mechanics instead of grounding it in reality. I do agree with you, that it is quite weird to say "rules says it ain't bad, therefor it can't be that bad" for my character".

                            You're misrepresenting my argument. I'm not implying that people who get addicted want to get addicted at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I said any person who is aware of the dangers of being addicted to a hard drug would try to avoid Vitae addiction like the plague. Emphasis on trying. In other words, if I'm a BP5 or lower vampire, I'd try to avoid drinking Kindred Vitae like the plague, given that I know damn well how addictive that stuff is. I sure as fuck would not even consider drinking from a Honey Trap. Saying "but that Willpower + Beat my dude, and the Addicted condition really isn't that bad either, it gives you more Beats my dude" is meta-gaming and a piss-poor counter argument.

                            Of course, if you want to play an addict because out-of-character you think the chaos and drama would be interesting, and you can find a good in-character justification for why your BP5> vampire would drink from a Honey Trap (perhaps your character is in a bad place and the Honey Trap tricks your character into drinking from her, after which your character realizes her blood makes him temporarily forget all his problems), then by all means, go for it, that's something I'd fully support at my own table if one of my players approached it from that angle.
                            First of, I want to apology about calling your argument "ass-hat", and by doing that implying that you are one, for that I'm sorry.

                            I see from where you're arguing but I can only partly agree. Yes, it's rational to try to avoid such things, but most don't act rational. And given the rumors of how awesome a drug (vitae) is, many would more then likely try it out, even with the knowledge about it's slavemaking/addictive (supernatural)powers. Like, I'm pretty sure all addicts knew about the potential dangers with their drug of choice before taking it the first time (probably not realizing the whole scope of it, but still) because other reasons, feeling empty, sad, depressed or just wanting to try it for whatever reason.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Poseur View Post
                              I do agree with you, that it is quite weird to say "rules says it ain't bad, therefor it can't be that bad" for my character".
                              Here's the thing: outside of Ventrue Life's strawman, nobody said this. "The mechanics of the Addicted Condition do not at their baseline compel the full extent of possible drastic behaviors an addict might engage in, and therefore the degree to which a vampire is able to manage Vitae addiction is less narrow than the extremes mentioned in the writeup to illustrate the potential outcomes beyond those inherent in being a vampire who needs Vitae to live" is not "The mechanics of the Addicted Condition aren't that bad, therefore being addicted isn't that bad."

                              Honey Trap is a Merit that exists as a game mechanic whose narrative effects are not necessarily under the control of the character who has it. If someone makes a claim that the Merit — which does not inherently exist as a deliberate quality in the narrative — is "useless," counterarguments to that position proceed from the perspective of the mechanics that a character's player would use it with. Dismissing the possibility that players might willingly pursue Conditions for the resources they provide as "metagaming" is, yes, absurd.


                              Resident Sanguinary Analyst
                              Currently Consuming: Changeling: the Lost 1e

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Satchel View Post
                                Here's the thing: outside of Ventrue Life's strawman, nobody said this. "The mechanics of the Addicted Condition do not at their baseline compel the full extent of possible drastic behaviors an addict might engage in, and therefore the degree to which a vampire is able to manage Vitae addiction is less narrow than the extremes mentioned in the writeup to illustrate the potential outcomes beyond those inherent in being a vampire who needs Vitae to live" is not "The mechanics of the Addicted Condition aren't that bad, therefore being addicted isn't that bad."
                                I just agreed to the premise, I'm not arguing against anyone based on that premise. My agreement toward the difference between mechanical and reasonable differences are at a point I made earlier. In that I said that the mechanical side has a focus toward one thing, and the fluff another, if you want more nuance or guide a specific characters addiction, another home-brewed Condition might be more suitable for that. I don't think we are in disagreement here.

                                Honey Trap is a Merit that exists as a game mechanic whose narrative effects are not necessarily under the control of the character who has it. If someone makes a claim that the Merit — which does not inherently exist as a deliberate quality in the narrative — is "useless," counterarguments to that position proceed from the perspective of the mechanics that a character's player would use it with. Dismissing the possibility that players might willingly pursue Conditions for the resources they provide as "metagaming" is, yes, absurd.
                                Not sure if this is directed towards me, as I've yet to say anything about the Honey Trap merit but I'll say what I think of the merit. I personally, think that this merit is really, really good. It gives "free" willpower (willpower being quite hard to come by at our table) toward other people, even if the PC that has this merit don't have use for it, it's heavily implied that this is a better(stronger) drug then normal Vitae. It has interesting and real implications between characters and can be used for both building interesting concepts as well as with plots etc. I have no problem with this merit, i frankly quite like it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X