Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fixing what I dislike about the Gangrel Clan Bane

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Phersus View Post
    Nice thread and interesting points all around. And how about about giving a cumulative penalty each time a Gangrel succesfully avoids a Frenzy? This way, you could emphasize the need the Gangrel has to give into the Beast, and making the character to choose very carefully which battles against the inner monster needs to fight and which ones needs to let go.
    That's actually already a rule. It's called the Tempted condition, and you get it when you succeed (without exceptionally succeeding) on any Frenzy roll.

    But, again, I really don't want Frenzy to be the ultimate result. I want them to act bestial without necessarily being forced to Frenzy. Frenzy sucks--it's not fun for the player, it's awful to lose control.

    ‚Äč
    Originally posted by WHW View Post
    And give them ability to reset the penalty to 0 with Willpower expenditure. "Do I Willpower it immediately, or can I take it for little longer?" Obviously, this works better in games where Willpower management is real.
    Willpower management in my game is pretty harsh, actually. Without anchors, you don't basically always have full Willpower. You have to actually conserve it, because you mostly just get it back 1/day. There are a few other circumstances where they regain it--awesome triumphs and victories, for example, but yeah, it's tough, instead of, "Yeah, you pretty much always have +3 to everything."

    Originally posted by Elfive View Post
    The Daeva curse write up mentions them either tending towards promiscuity or cultivating "massive harems and herds" which indicates that feeding from a mortal you're pseudo-bonded to isn't an issue. That aside the bond requires a failed humanity roll to establish, so you could potentially feed from the same mortal all you like and never get Dependent.
    It's true, you can avoid Dependency. But I can't imagine why you'd risk it. That said, the write up says "massive harems and herds." It doesn't say that they also don't face constant Humanity 3 breaking points. Or, maybe, if your herd is large enough, you can minimize how often you have to drink from the same person, reducing the chances of the Dependency? I don't know, it never seems worth risking, though. Cultivate feeding grounds in a tourist area instead of a herd--it's safer.

    But, look, I'm not here to police people's games. If other GMs want to rule that dealing health boxes of damage to someone isn't "harm" because it feels good or whatever, they can do that. No big deal. But at my table, I wouldn't feed from the same guy twice as a Daeva.

    Comment


    • #17
      I think this is pretty clearly one of those cases where you have to remember that Breaking Points are guidelines, not absolute lists, and are meant to be edited and manipulated on the fly.

      And yeah, I'm not sure I buy the concept that 'harm' equates purely to health levels. Would I force a level 3 sin for a Daeva with a BDSM herd every time they get little deep? Would I force the same for consensual or 'soft' feeding scenes? No to both. I can think of other cases, too. A bonded Childe-to-sire pair in the Circle who engage in blood rituals w/ blades or implements? Not gonna force a check when they are doing their Cruac stuff together. Ghoul gets shot with an arrow, Daeva has to push the arrow out causing more pain/damage so the wound can be cleaned and disinfected. Not gonna force a check. I don't think Kindred face a Level 3 check every time they bite their Regnant to be fed again, for that matter.

      But I would force a check for the creepy Daeva who takes by force just a single drop of blood from their obsessee, even if they never technically cause a full health level of damage.

      Once again, Breaking Points are very much one of those story-mechanics that you prefer not to use. It's meant to be enforced only when dramatically important to the narrative. If you are going to convert it to an exhaustive list of checks that should occur every time they happen regardless of circumstances, I really don't think you do that correctly by just porting everything over and saying that equals true simulation. There are things missing on that list, and things that shouldn't trigger every time.

      I would not recommend porting over a rule that forces Daeva to make a breaking point every time they feed on an obsessee. But in a world where that rule is in place, of course it doesn't make any sense for Deava to risk obsession if they have any care at all for their Humanity.
      Last edited by Holy; 03-20-2016, 01:49 PM. Reason: typos

      Comment


      • #18
        On a condition - my (still Vampire-uninformed) ballpark would be something like:

        Cornered Beast
        You feel trapped and feel an urge to break through the fetters placed on you, whether metaphorical or literal. You take a -2 penalty to all actions that aren't directly intended to breach the restrictions placed on you - breaking or unlocking the door of a prison cell or flouting rules of etiquette and politeness would not be penalised, for example, but talking to the inhabitants of the other cells (except to order them to help you escape) likely would.
        Resolution: Escape the fetters, at least for the immediate future. This might mean breaking out of a locked room and escaping the alerted guards, or finding solitude after a formal social event's rules of etiquette became too much for you.

        I don't know enough about Clan banes to judge when the Condition should be gained, but this is my first stab at throwing something together that encourages the sort of direct approach you were looking for - some of the ideas on the previous page may feed in to get the right feel. It's likely to boil down to "if you act too reserved, indirect and polite, your Beast gets restless and you start getting quite bad at doing that until you flip out and leave."

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MorkaisChosen View Post
          On a condition - my (still Vampire-uninformed) ballpark would be something like:

          Cornered Beast
          You feel trapped and feel an urge to break through the fetters placed on you, whether metaphorical or literal. You take a -2 penalty to all actions that aren't directly intended to breach the restrictions placed on you - breaking or unlocking the door of a prison cell or flouting rules of etiquette and politeness would not be penalised, for example, but talking to the inhabitants of the other cells (except to order them to help you escape) likely would.
          Resolution: Escape the fetters, at least for the immediate future. This might mean breaking out of a locked room and escaping the alerted guards, or finding solitude after a formal social event's rules of etiquette became too much for you.

          I don't know enough about Clan banes to judge when the Condition should be gained, but this is my first stab at throwing something together that encourages the sort of direct approach you were looking for - some of the ideas on the previous page may feed in to get the right feel. It's likely to boil down to "if you act too reserved, indirect and polite, your Beast gets restless and you start getting quite bad at doing that until you flip out and leave."
          Yeah, that's a good start. I like it. I will work on refining it, too.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Elfive View Post
            The Daeva curse write up mentions them either tending towards promiscuity or cultivating "massive harems and herds" which indicates that feeding from a mortal you're pseudo-bonded to isn't an issue. That aside the bond requires a failed humanity roll to establish, so you could potentially feed from the same mortal all you like and never get Dependent.
            I ruled that as long the Daeva is feeding non-forcefully from a healthy person and taking only 1 Vitae (or 2, or 3, from mortals with high Stamina), it doesn't count.
            After all your Ghoul isn't going to freak out because you're offering him the opportunity to drink from your wrist, isn't him? Same thing.


            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Ophion View Post

              I ruled that as long the Daeva is feeding non-forcefully from a healthy person and taking only 1 Vitae (or 2, or 3, from mortals with high Stamina), it doesn't count.
              After all your Ghoul isn't going to freak out because you're offering him the opportunity to drink from your wrist, isn't him? Same thing.
              That's pretty much been how I handle it as well. As long as you're using the Kiss, don't take so much that you cause the Drained Condition, and don't fill up their rightmost hit boxes it doesn't count as harm, at least as far as the Daeva clan bane is concerned. So a Daeva still has to have a pretty sizable herd, simply because it takes a while for people to replenish that much blood (heal lethal), but the Daeva don't have to take a shotgun to their Humanity just to do what they do.
              Last edited by Ashenrogue; 03-21-2016, 03:53 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                I'd try and keep it easy, but still related to the frenzy.
                If you successfully resist a frenzy, lose 1 Willpower.
                There, done.


                MAKE LOVE, NOT SPAM!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ophion View Post
                  I ruled that as long the Daeva is feeding non-forcefully from a healthy person and taking only 1 Vitae (or 2, or 3, from mortals with high Stamina), it doesn't count.
                  After all your Ghoul isn't going to freak out because you're offering him the opportunity to drink from your wrist, isn't him? Same thing.
                  Like I said, other people can do it as they like. To me, though, it's not the same thing, because vampires take no harm, no lethal damage, from giving blood to someone, nor do they take lethal damage from various ways to release that blood.

                  Originally posted by The Boz View Post
                  I'd try and keep it easy, but still related to the frenzy.
                  If you successfully resist a frenzy, lose 1 Willpower.
                  There, done.
                  I'm glad that works for you, but I'm trying to avoid encouraging frenzy. Frenzy isn't a fun game mechanic, at least not for me or any person I play with. It's a loss condition. It's "you done fucked up, now you lose control!" It's bad. Riding the Wave is using this obviously bad thing for a little bit of good, but, no, frenzying sucks. I have a couple of players, actually, who wish it wasn't even in the game at all (though, no, I and the rest of us like it and explained to them that it's totally avoidable for the most part, short of supernatural powers).

                  So, the idea that the Gangrel just have to frenzy a lot is not satisfying to me. It's especially problematic because my city is run by a Gangrel Bloodline, and, while they have the hint of the wild about them, they are not rampaging lunatics. It doesn't fit.

                  I really want to play with this idea of Confinement and the Cornered Beast suggestion above. It's extra ironic because the city's founder became a vampire/his own bloodline as a result of a deal made with a true fae. For them to become a vampire bloodline that hates being bound to have been created via binding contract is very intriguing to me.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Then why not remove the Beast, altogether? There's a system floating around in this forum which replaces it with the Hunger. Check it out, it might be more to your liking.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Justin Sane View Post
                      Then why not remove the Beast, altogether? There's a system floating around in this forum which replaces it with the Hunger. Check it out, it might be more to your liking.
                      I don't know that I want to remove the Beast. Most of us like it being there. Just because frenzying isn't fun, because it's a loss condition, doesn't mean I don't want it there. That said, I am intrigued enough that I've been looking to find it. I tried the forum search and the google search, but came up with nothing useful. Most of the google searches came up with Beast: the Primordial posts, since there's apparently a Hunger mechanic in there.

                      Do you, by chance, know where this system is? Do you have a link?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        It seems it isn't completely fleshed out, but this should get you started:
                        Originally posted by Barachiel View Post
                        While working on that, I realized, watching some related media, that I was never very fond of "The Beast". So I replaced it with "The Hunger." Instead of having to constantly worry about frenzy and rotshreck, a vampire instead has to make an effort of will to pull off a victim when feeding. They also gain a new stated called "Hungry"if their Blood Pool is less than half full. Normally, in my games, vamps all have Blush of life when sated, and when they get Hungry, they start to degrade.At Hungry, they look like classic WoD vamps, pale, cold to the touch, no pulse. At 1/4 or less, they gain "Starving", and start to look more like Cappadocians. Each state has penalties to the Hunger checks when feeding. A botch means they go on a feeding rampage.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Ok, no, I still like the Beast. That Hunger thing is for a different kind of vampire, and it still involves Frenzy, which is the thing I'd be tempted to remove anyway.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by The Storyteller View Post
                            It's true, you can avoid Dependency. But I can't imagine why you'd risk it. That said, the write up says "massive harems and herds." It doesn't say that they also don't face constant Humanity 3 breaking points.
                            The rule book doesn't say that, but the FAQ does. Feeding, in of itself, doesn't count as harming the target of Daeva's Dependent Condition. You're free to run it differently of course, but I think the chance of a lifetime bond to the mortal is risk enough.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Why do you consider frenzying a loss condition?
                              EDIT
                              To elaborate, I can see oWoD Frenzy as a loss condition (i didn't really care enough for 1st ed Requiem to remember it's rules), but in 2nd ed, you as a player are still in control of your character by default, you get a power boost, and most importantly, apparently you still get benefits of the Frenzy while spending willpower points to ride it, without the drawbacks.
                              EDIT 2
                              Penalize Gangrel's ability to resist frenzy, but make sure that their ability to Ride the Wave is untouched and better choice due to being non penalized, so Gangrels start Riding the Wave more often and thus create a gameplay pattern you are looking for?
                              EDIT 3
                              While book is unclear on it, and I didn't consider it being a thing while reading it, one of devs here said that attempting to Ride the Wave is already giving you the benefits of the frenzy; you get the full package while trying to accumulate 5 successes. Apparently that's the desired state of rules, and it changed my perception of frenzying and riding the wave dramatically.
                              Last edited by WHW; 03-22-2016, 09:38 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by WHW View Post
                                Why do you consider frenzying a loss condition?
                                EDIT
                                To elaborate, I can see oWoD Frenzy as a loss condition (i didn't really care enough for 1st ed Requiem to remember it's rules), but in 2nd ed, you as a player are still in control of your character by default, you get a power boost, and most importantly, apparently you still get benefits of the Frenzy while spending willpower points to ride it, without the drawbacks.
                                None of that changed from 1e or even the classic WoD. You always controlled your character (sort of...your character is out of control and you just get to say the things they're forced to do). You get a power boost in all editions, and it's actually a weaker boost in 2e for starting characters.

                                Hmm, riding the wave is really different than I remember, now that I'm re-reading it. Was there a change between Blood and Smoke and Requiem 2e? I could have sworn there was a coil specifically that let you ride the wave instead of involuntarily frenzying, but now, it seems like riding the wave is a default thing you can do while involuntarily frenzying. That's...really weird. That certainly helps frenzying be less awful, but you character is still out of control. You're just barely directing them.

                                And it's a loss condition because frenzies are 90% avoidable. Unless someone is using powers like Animalism 4 on you, or someone is particularly cruel for basically no reason and tries to humiliate you just for fun, frenzies are totally within your grasp to stop. You can just not get hungry. Major source of frenzy closed. Avoid fire and sunlight--again, duh. Don't let your friends/lovers get hurt. Don't cause waves such that people target you for mockery and humiliation. Don't screw up so that your superior insults you. Don't screw up so badly that your inferior does. And when all else fails, roll Resolve + Composure, so, you know, have a bunch of dice in that pool. The sources of provocation are mostly in your hands--so when you frenzy, it's because you blew it.

                                The whole purpose of frenzy is that it's a bad thing, Thematically, it's the reminder of what happens when you screw up, it's the beast rising to the surface when one of the goals of the game is to suppress the beast and hang on to your humanity. Losing humanity, giving in to the beast, is losing yourself, losing you. Of course a manifestation of that is a bad thing.

                                Originally posted by WHW View Post
                                EDIT 2
                                Penalize Gangrel's ability to resist frenzy, but make sure that their ability to Ride the Wave is untouched and better choice due to being non penalized, so Gangrels start Riding the Wave more often and thus create a gameplay pattern you are looking for?
                                That's a better gameplay pattern than the current one, but it's not what I really want. I don't want to force anyone to frenzy, though, in an ideal circumstance. I'd like to keep it a bad thing. I'd like for the Gangrel to be wild without embracing the Beast. Like, their wildness keeps the Beast in check as much as someone else's stoicism.

                                Hmm, maybe I can do something with forcing them to Lash Out, rather than forcing them to frenzy more?

                                Maybe the Kerberos flaw could work as a general Gangrel flaw? I don't know if I only like it in theory, though. I wonder if it might get annoying to have every Gangrel lashing out constantly.
                                Last edited by The Storyteller; 03-22-2016, 12:59 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X