Vampire's are Killing Me!

[furashgf]

Ron's brilliant chapter in Sword about Story Now set me over the edge.  That was exactly what I was looking for.  I wanted a great character with cool stories that meant something - and was ready and able to do it.  Instead - I'm not sure what the heck we were doing.

[xiombarg]

This idea struck me in response to the wiff machine comment (so true, so true) about the storyteller system.  I think a quick and easy way to rewrite the rules to drastically speed up the game and cut way down on the wiff factor is that if the characters dice pool (stat+skill) is equal to or higher than the target number, they get a number of auto-successes equal to the differece between their pool and the target number.  Rolling only comes into play if success is in doubt.

That isn't that different from the standard (but optional) Storyteller rule that if your dice pool equals or is greater than the difficulty, you can automatically get a single success instead of rolling. The rules actually encourage STs to use this mechanic to speed up play, especially in situations where the number of success doesn't matter. Look under the misleading heading of "Diceless Play" in any Storyteller game and you'll find this excellent, but rarely-used mechanic.

Also, for people who want to be more of a protagonist in a "straight" Storyteller game, buy up your Willpower. This way when it's important to the scene, you can always spend a Willpower to get an automatic success, even if you have to roll. Also, a high Willpower often makes it difficult for NPCs to use supernatural powers to de-protagonize you.

Storyteller actually contains some good tools for avoiding the "wiff problem" -- it's just that most ST players/GMs never think to use them.

[Epoch]

Here's one of Ron's foretold Vampire apologist posts.

1.  Uh, okay, folks, I don't know what system you've been playing, but Storyteller doesn't lead to incompetent characters.  The odds of getting 0 successes with a 7 die pool at difficulty 7 with the Vampire: Revised system are roughly 2.8%  Since a 7 die pool is eminantly achievable for any att+abil combination you choose to specialize in (and 8 dice is also achievable), you can have a 97% chance of success.  Even in the (less stable) Vampire2 system, your odds of failure only hover around 10% or 15% at that die pool size (the math's not easy, since it's ternary).

2.  In no version of Vampire, outside of some very odd extremal cases, did adding dice to your pool increase your odds of failure.  Maybe going from one to two dice at difficulty 10, but that's just about it, kids.  In both Vampire2 and Vampire Revised, some die-pool-increases will increase your chance of botching (critical failure), but your total chance of failure (ie, simple failure + botch) will decrease.

3.  Just because people play Vampire does not mean that they want to play in a Narrativist mode.  Yes, I realize that the game book encourages "storytelling," but what a lot of people understand that to mean (regardless of what the arguable intent of the creators was) is "rules-light simulationism."  Canonical Vampire works well as rules-medium (yeah, well, can't win 'em all) simulation of personal horror or intense politics.

4.  There's nothing wrong with using canonical NPC's, or wanting to stick to canon or meta-plot.

5.  The existance of mega-powerful NPC's is not de-protagonizing.  They may be used to de-protagonize, but they are not, prima-facia, a problem.

[furashgf]

Just because people play Vampire does not mean that they want to play in a Narrativist mode. Yes, I realize that the game book encourages "storytelling," but what a lot of people understand that to mean (regardless of what the arguable intent of the creators was) is "rules-light simulationism." Canonical Vampire works well as rules-medium (yeah, well, can't win 'em all) simulation of personal horror or intense politics.

Yes.  You can play Vampire, or any system, any way you want, with any style.  However the rules, settings, books, etc. for Vampire fit a very simulationist/actor play style well and other things not as well.

I started this thread mostly because learning about this whole other approach, then playing a traditional Vampire game, really cast everything clearly for me.  There was no way for me to really reach any of my goals playing this way.  Even wierder - I could understand how they were playing, and how I wanted to play, but they couldn't think outside their box and even imagine that there was another way of playing.  Not a criticism, but surely wierd.

. There's nothing wrong with using canonical NPC's, or wanting to stick to canon or meta-plot

Absolutely, unless you've just figured yout that you want a real character who gets to do cool things - who is important to the storyright now.

[contracycle]

Yes.  You can play Vampire, or any system, any way you want, with any style.  However the rules, settings, books, etc. for Vampire fit a very simulationist/actor play style well and other things not as well.

I disagree.  In fact I have always found the rules too fuzzy to be taken seriously as simulation; furthermore I have observed distinct changes in playe postt exposure to Vamp, away from simulationist play.  I personally doubt that it is a coincidence.

Absolutely, unless you've just figured yout that you want a real character who gets to do cool things - who is important to the storyright now.

In what way?  Why are they contradictory?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Now might be a good time to examine the purpose of this thread. Armed with a purpose, it could yield much worthwhile discussion. Without one, it holds the deadly potential of degenerating into a "But I played Vampire and the GM was great and it rocked," and "Vampire blows," and "But Vampire brought style to RPGs," etc, type discussion.

Possible purposes include analyzing the mechanics of the game, or discussing forms of functional drift, or perhaps the very notion of "character" in role-playing ... or anything else that someone can come up with ... the real problem, of course, is that to be useful, such a discussion really needs a broad spectrum of instances and not a series of anecdotes and what it "felt like" for Tom, Dick, Harry, Sue, Ezekiel, Ling, Bob, and Maisie-Jo respectively.

Anyway, I think Gary's primary purpose has been articulated, and one may either go "H'm, makes sense," or go "That doesn't work." Both are legitimate responses and both have been aired. I'm not sure that much more can be done with the thread unless a secondary purpose is proposed.

Best,
Ron

[xiombarg]

Anyway, I think Gary's primary purpose has been articulated, and one may either go "H'm, makes sense," or go "That doesn't work." Both are legitimate responses and both have been aired. I'm not sure that much more can be done with the thread unless a secondary purpose is proposed.

Far be it for me to defy the Cult of Ron, but I'm not so sure Gary's primary purpose has been fully articulated. What do you feel that is, exactly? (Gary, of course, is welcome to pipe up as well...)

[Ron Edwards]

I'd based my claim on Gary's post of 21 Feb 2002 21:49, which seems to me to be a good re-cap or orientation of his purpose. But hey, it's his thread - Gary, you tell us.

Best,
Ron

P.S. "Defy the Cult of Ron," indeed. If this were the Cult it's purported to be, I'd spend a lot less time explaining myself ...

[xiombarg]

I'd based my claim on Gary's post of 21 Feb 2002 21:49, which seems to me to be a good re-cap or orientation of his purpose. But hey, it's his thread - Gary, you tell us.

Well, I think several of us "Storyteller Apologists" have covered how the mechanics don't neccessarily move against the goal listed in said post. It's just a matter of handling them right. Or am I confused?

[Ron Edwards]

Maybe I'm not making myself clear.

You are not confused, you are correct. The point you are referring to has been made. Gary's point has been made. Everyone has stated his respective position. Hence, I say, let's call it a day unless we can come up with something concrete to discuss.

Otherwise, a thread like this one just becomes a matter of one person pushing another to "agree" (ie knuckle under) and not a matter of discourse at all.

If you have such a concrete thing to discuss, or thought that it was already available to discuss, then, excellent. Please articulate it so the discourse can start.

However, "Vampire does too [fill-in-the-blank]" and "Vampire bloody well does not" are not good enough. If that noise gets going, the thread gets killed.

Best,
Ron