...so that we don't keep cluttering up this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3864) with them.
Quote from: ValamirSo the starving vampire would be more likely to not have narrative control...meaning the GM is free to narrate his out of control bestial behavior that ends up in the slaughter of innocent people...while the satiated vampire would be more likely to get narrative control, meaning he can be just as smooth and "normal" or whatever as he wishes.
When the character is "in control", the player is "in control"
When the character loses control, the player loses control.
For no especially good reason, how about the reverse? The hungrier the vampire, the less the player has to negotiate with the GM. Like what if the GM gets to moderate the PC's behavior by, um, 1 per blood point? So the GM is playing the PC's conscience, not the PC's beast.
Personally, I'm digging Christoffer's suggestion that it be like Shadows. I'm thinking:
You have red dice for violence and white dice for restraint.
When you do something, declare a violent action and a restrained action.
You always roll 8 dice. When you've just fed, you roll 7 white and 1 red. When you're ravenous, you roll 1 white and 7 red.
The red successes are the successes you get if you do the violent action. The white successes are the successes you get if you do the restrained action. You get to choose which to take.
Something like that.
-Vincent
Quote from: lumpley
You have red dice for violence and white dice for restraint.
When you do something, declare a violent action and a restrained action.
You always roll 8 dice. When you've just fed, you roll 7 white and 1 red. When you're ravenous, you roll 1 white and 7 red.
The red successes are the successes you get if you do the violent action. The white successes are the successes you get if you do the restrained action. You get to choose which to take.
sounds good, actually.
in terms of group dynamics, it eases a lot of tension between player and GM, because the GM doesn't take control of your character: instead, the GM is a referee who determines whether your your suggested violent action and restrained action really meet the spirit of the rules.
plus, like Elfs, it encourages the player to dissociate enough from the character so that the player can appreciate the story being built.
I see what you're saying Vincent. I'd be more inclined to keep it the other way though, especially if its hunger that drives power.
For instance, the vampire has a certain level of normal vampiric abilities. He's a little bit stronger, faster, tougher...whatever than the normal human. But then he has the more powerful "calling on the beast within" type power. We see this alot in Buffy/Angel, as well as the old Forever Knight show.
Thus the REAL kick ass power comes from calling on the beast within. The level of hunger vs satiation then becomes the ability or inability of the vampire to control this beast once called upon. A well fed vampire can call upon the beast and then let it go without issue. A hungary vampire is going to have trouble letting it go until he's used it to feed...and thus become well fed. A starving vampire may not have a choice to call up the beast or not, becoming the beast may be entirely involuntary.
This sets up (for me) the really powerful dichotomy of: If I'm hungary, I lose control and do REAL nasty things. In order to stay in control I need to feed...but feeding involves doing nasty things too (especially if combined with the concept of feeding on relationships is more effective than feeding on strangers).
Where the GM controls during hunger and player controls during satiation comes in for me is a couple of issues...both acknowledgly "traditional" in thinking. First, is that the kind of things that a vampire might do when "frenzied" are the kind of things that are likely to cause a great deal of trouble. While I'm a big fan of players dealing their own trouble, in this case I think its more effective if its the GM who springs it on them rather than something the player plans for effect. In other words, when the character gets control back he looks and says "oh crap what have I done". That's the sort of feeling I'd want the player to have to "oh crap, what have I done"...which would be absent if the player chose the "what"
Secondly, its kind of in line with the traditional "lose control of your character for failing a fear check, or a sanity check, etc" mechanic that most people are already familiar with. Lose control of the beast...lose control of your character...when you get control back, have fun picking up the pieces.
This would tend to make "the hunt" (i.e. the process of getting food regardless of form) the central feature of the game as players contantly have their next meal in mind to minimize the chances of losing control.
Of course turning control over to the GM doesn't have to mean you frenzied and just killed 30 people in broad street light...but it might...and there in lies the danger.
Hi Vincent,
Perhaps you could provide the links to your three (!!) tries at a Narrativist vampire game, from Indie Design? I thought one of them in particular was brilliant (the Hunger/Intimacy one).
The last time I looked for those links, I got a headache.
Best,
Ron
Sure thing: Hungry Desperate and Alone (http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/hungry.html).
They're only sort of three tries, though. You can play them all at the same time. And both of the prey ones are based on Intimacy.
We actually played a session of it/them, and it was disappointingly whiffy.
Edit: Oh, did you mean the threads? Jeez. I'll poke around when I get a chance and edit links in here. Thus:
More Narrativist Vampires (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1294)
Another Stab at Narrativist Vampires (http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1341)
Another Sad Little Narrativist Vampire Game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1437)
And here's the surrounding discussion:
Narrativist Vampires (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1285)
Even More Narrativist Vampires and The Uber Kicker (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1336)
Rereading those, it's starting to look to me like the land of I think about this way way way too much.
-Vincent
Hey! You could do the red dice white dice thing, but the GM could be the author of the red action!
That way, the GM gets to create the grief, which is good, but it's still on your head if you choose it.
-Vincent
Okay...I'm not talking about my game here, so don't take this as if I were...
I think the red/white die thing is really cool. I especially like the idea of separating player from character as in Elfs.
I would actually avoid the beast to some degree...it seems like a lame excuse to be bad to me. If I'm bad, it's on *my* head, not some beast that lives within (but that isn't really me). What makes beast mechanics not work (to me) is the lack of control. I think a vampire is *all* about control, and that it's even scarier when the bad things he does are by-products of his choice to control, not his loss of it.
Jake
Hey Jake,
I think a vampire is *all* about control, and that it's even scarier when the bad things he does are by-products of his choice to control, not his loss of it.
Anyone who's ever dated a girl with control issues knows just how scary control can be. I think it's a fantastic notion. The kind that makes the lack of control notions in Vampire games seem gauche in comparison. We fear a lack of control in ourselves. But we fear control in others.
Paul
Quote from: Paul CzegeAnyone who's ever dated a girl with control issues knows just how scary control can be. I think
it's a fantastic notion. The kind that makes the lack of control notions in Vampire games seem
gauche in comparison.
Or a guy, too, true. When Vincent first showed me Hungry/Desperate/Alone, my reaction was that it would scare people off because it was too true to life! Few of us relish looking at the ways we torture and manipulate (emotionally) those we love.
That is, also, what makes these games so fascinating. Looking into the abyss and all that.
--Emily Care