I found a great group of guys to game with locally, and, as usual, they picked the "best game they know of that doesn't suck" - VtM. As many others have pointed out, if you don't know jack about Indies or Narritivism, then thats the game you always try.

The pre-play activites are already driving me crazy. The soon-to-be GM, obviously _very_ talented, shared that he didn't mind killing characters if that's the way the dice fell, and that he was very proud of the fact that he had found a "signature" NPC in one of the VtM books that had never been used elswhere, "freeing" him to use the NPC in his campaign. Struggling to create a character, I was thinking along the lines of Dennis Leary in Suicide Kings, but unless you get the right mix of disciplines and stats, your characters won't survive long in combat. Arrgh! I feel like I'm in that Twilight Zone episode where everyone else has pig-noses but doesn't know it.

I'm sure it will still be fun, everyone's enthusiastic, but I think you could craft a better Vampire game with a different set of rules.

You know what I said to my friend Emily this very morning? I said, what I really want to make is a vampire game, because Vampire the Mess sucks so bad, but the only people I know who would be interested are me.

Thank you, friend. You just added another to my list of projects I really oughta be thinking of other things than.

-Vincent

Edited in after Ron's post below (rather than wasting a whole new post on kind of a nothing-burger remark):

I don't know anything about running or playing V:tM. It could be great gaming for all I know, pure gaming satisfaction. I just think it makes lame vampires.

Uh oh. Cue chorus of:

- "Vampire's not so bad!"
- "We played for a long time before it fizzled!"
- "It's totally unfair to pick on a game like that!"
- "You are so prejudiced against White
Wolf. How narrow-minded!"
- "If it sucks, why does it sell so well?"
- "Vampire deserves respect for contributing [fill-in] to role-playing!"

So. Gary, do me a big favor. Identify exactly what you are criticizing among the group, especially insofar as you think it will contribute negatively to play. Also, everyone, instead of merely providing gut-reaction opinion-fest, please provide examples of successful or unsuccessful play of the game in question, with an eye toward helping Gary.

Best,
Ron

But... isn't a Vampire supposed to suck?

Er, yeah. Anyway, I've enjoyed Vamp as a GM when I let go of trying to run a linear plot and just let the players' plotting and issues drive the game. The last VtM game I ran went in a completely different direction right from the Preludes, and I have to say it was pretty cool. The players reached the kind of ending they liked, a resolution that flowed directly from their own decisions and themes. I tend to run fast and loose, rules-wise, so I don't really have any suggestions for Gary in that regard. Were I to run Vampire again, I'd strip down the rules to focus on the humanity and virtues over the skillz and attributes. Who the hell needs to know someone has Drive 2 anyway?

As a Vampire player, I've found a lot of satisfaction in pursuing the theme of degradation. Take a relatively vanilla character, a decent person, and then push him/her gradually into the abyss. For instance, my mild-mannered graduate student in anthropology became a tattooed death machine by the end, not particularly powerful in Vamp powers or combat skills, but by virtue (?) of his descent into a cunning and utterly conscienceless madness. It was great fun, and it consistently took the other players and the GM off-guard. To follow this approach, I suggest you ignore the rules and focus on how you handle the hunt, moving through the mortal herd, etc. You also have to view the character as doomed right from the start. Take a Dark Fate flaw -- that puts the GM on notice the character is going to go down by the end of the chron. Paradoxically, it encourages GMs to keep the character around to face a cool and gruesome fate. At the same time, it actually *is* liberating for you, since it commits you on paper to push the character into the abyss.

Hope this was helpful.

Best,

Blake

I've played some Vampire in my time, and we just got done playing some Mage, so maybe these comments will be relevant.

My biggest problem with Storyteller is the way it consistently deprotagonizes characters right from chargen. If you're playing by the rules, and I assume you are, you're basically stuck with the fact that beginning characters are not that effective. Certainly you can conceive of a character that seems pretty cool, fairly protagonistic, and you can put your dots in your Attributes and Abilities and think you've pulled it off, but the only reference for comparison you have is the text itself, and it's going to lie to you and tell you you're an "expert marksman" while the system allows you to whiff time and time again.

The Storyteller system is a whiff machine, especially in combat (which you should avoid if at all possible - it shouldn't really be a major part of the game anyway). Of course, it used to be worse, back when the math was all messed up and more dice meant less chance to succeed, but it's still pretty bad. The Abilities are too important to the front end of any given resolution roll to allow it to be Fortune-in-the-Middle, and Fortune-at-the-End is awful in this game except when dealing with your one or two okay Attributes+Ability.

My suggestion - find another game to play. Since that's not likely, do your best to work the mechanics in a FitM sort of way, or convince the GM to give you extra points. Or pump Blood alot. Or something. I dunno...there's no great fix that I can think of without seriously altering the game.

- Scott

My personal experience with White Wolf isn't a gigantic tirade about the mechanics as being bad, as much as they do not encourage the mode of play that the background and setting seems to encourage. Most of the system boils down to power lists and effectively becomes Vampire: My powers' are better than yours. While political scheming seems to play a big role in the setting, very little machiavellian advice is given in the books.

Then comes the general type of player who ends up playing WhiteWolf games. For the "experienced gamer", you get the player who effectively runs Vampire like a group of Lawful Evil characters vying for control("hey, I found an npc/beholder drow lich no one has used before!"). For those who started with Vampire, you get, "Look at how spooky/gothic/tragic/cliquish I can get!" some sort of ego trip, validation, and escapism for the goth kids. Now certainly either one of these could be a worthwhile thing within itself...but...I can go play D&D if that is what I wanted, or be a goth without needing rules if that's what I wanted as well.

Most Vampire becomes an adolescent excuse to abuse power upon the herd and each other, usually without consequence, certainly not the attitude the setting preaches. My Masquerade would be hyperparanoid and terribly terribly secretive, as much as an Israeli group living in Pakistan, not a "party of darkness".

Personally, I've found no gaming is better than bad gaming. I believe Ron summed it up as an abusive relationship that you keep coming back to even though you know it isn't quite hitting the mark. Perhaps you should look at what kind of game you're interested in playing and what the group actually acheives(not claims) before you join.

Chris

My personal experience with White Wolf isn't a gigantic tirade about the mechanics as being bad, as much as they do not encourage the mode of play that the background and setting seems to encourage. Most of the system boils down to power lists and effectively becomes Vampire: My powers' are better than yours. While political scheming seems to play a big role in the setting, very little machiavellian advice is given in the books.

Then comes the general type of player who ends up playing WhiteWolf games. For the "experienced gamer", you get the player who effectively runs Vampire like a group of Lawful Evil characters vying for control("hey, I found an npc/beholder drow lich no one has used before!"). For those who started with Vampire, you get, "Look at how spooky/gothic/tragic/cliquish I can get!" some sort of ego trip, validation, and escapism for the goth kids. Now certainly either one of these could be a worthwhile thing within itself...but...I can go play D&D if that is what I wanted, or be a goth without needing rules if that's what I wanted as well.

Most Vampire becomes an adolescent excuse to abuse power upon the herd and each other, usually without consequence, certainly not the attitude the setting preaches. My Masquerade would be hyperparanoid and terribly terribly secretive, as much as an Israeli group living in Pakistan, not a "party of darkness".

Personally, I've found no gaming is better than bad gaming. I believe Ron summed it up as an abusive relationship that you keep coming back to even though you know it isn't quite hitting the mark. Perhaps you should look at what kind of game you're interested in playing and what the group actually acheives(not claims) before you join.

Chris

Well, as a Vampire fan who's played many games without it descending the way that has been described above I guess I should be miffed but I can't really be bothered getting worked up about it.

All I can suggest is that you are playing the wrong game. If Vampire grates so much with the way you want to play then you shouldn't be playing it. The game isn't a bad game, it's just bad for what you want to do.

Whoa! Talk about emergent order - you start a thread and who knows where it goes.

Great comments, all. I actually was just sharing what seems to me like an odd phenomena, now that I have a copy of Sorcerer. You've got 3 guys, all of whom are smart, creative, and know something is wrong with RPG's. However, they don't notice anything weird with a creative GM, with a notebook full of probably very interesting backstory, saying that he "found" a "signature" NPC character which he feels he needs permission to use. The "pig-nose" comment wasn't about Vampire or these guys, but just how wierd it seems when you think you know a truth that others don't. On the other hand, that's probably how guys in cults feel right before they pass around the kool-aid.

I'm thinking it might be a fun thread (in another forum) to experiment with sketching out the rules and background for a more Narritivist Vampire game. For those that are into supernatural characters, Prophecy-style plots, etc., it might be a lot of fun. It would be interesting to see how we'd translate different ideas and themes into mechanics.

My Masquerade would be hyperparanoid and terribly terribly secretive, as much as an Israeli group living in Pakistan, not a "party of darkness".

Furashgf-

An intelligent, creative, resourceful ST feeling like he could only use a VtM signature PC that wasn't in the sourcebook metaplot because his own chronicle could not have a contrary premise or plot to published 'canon' is unfortunately something I'm so used to hearing about that it didn't even make me bat an eyelash. Its a phenomena really particular to a certain section of the WW fanbase and I deal with them every day :)

I'm not going to diss on VtM/the ST System or advocate it; the first would be biting the hand that feeds me (literally) and the second goes against the spirit of Independant game making & the Forge.

What I will say is that I agree there's room for a new game about movie/book inspired vampires and returning to a premise about the hunter/hunted relationships between a vampire (monster) and mortals (victims).

I took the initiative and started a thread over in Indie Game Design:

Narrativist Vampires

Hop on over if you like...

Lon[/code]

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.

I know, I know, you have no idea what I mean by all that. Lets try an example: You are trying to hit some goon. your stat+skill =8 so under the original system you roll eight dice. Add up the successes versus a target number, say for the purposes of this example a 6. Well, I propose you just say. "Okay, your total dice is 8 and the traget number is 6. You get 3 auto successes (dice # 8,7 and 6). If that's not enough you have five dice left that were not auto successes to roll against the target number and see if you can rack up some more successes." I think this works out pretty well because the only time fortune or chance comes into it is when it would actually be difficult for your character to accomplish the task. Under the storyteller system your "Clint Eastwood" marksman (dex4+firearms 5=pool 9) has a suprising chance of missing a point blank shot (target number 4) this is clearly rediculous. With this method you don't really have to tweek the rules or character creation and that same marksman character would blast that punk with 5 auto successes, the way it should be. I think you would be better off playing a better game but, for those of you who just want to limp that ol' horse along this might help you out.

Must...resist...urge to...make...awful...pun....

Damn. Failed my Willpower roll.

I'm not going to diss on VtM/the ST System or advocate it; the first would be biting the hand that feeds me (literally)

I ended up severing my relationship with the group. I had a good first scene (parking lot, told a fellow to leave, fellow decided not to leave, I recommended a cab, still did not leave, so I recommended an ambulance an shot him in the kneecap) - barely missed a whiff dice wise.

After that, we were just extremely minor characters wandering around looking for clues. The rules aren't the problem, the group just did not have the same agenda I did. I wanted to make a really nifty character, the kind that would be good in a movie, some dramatic adventures, etc., but didn't fit.

I'll keep looking for another group more in line w/ my interests.

This all reminds me of an exercise that I went through recently with my girlfriend--a GNS post-mortem of her (failed) Vampire campaign.

To make a long story short, we eventually came to the conclusion that the campaign died because the GM and one of the players were in a Sim/Situation mode, two more players were Sim/Character, one (me) started out as Sim/Character but succumbed to Narrativist drift early on, and the last was a Gamist who defined his personal contest in terms of "points for originality." Not to mention that the GM doesn't like the Storyteller system.

Boy, was that ever a mess.

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.

BPetroff93 wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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

furashgf wrote:
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.

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.

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

Ron Edwards wrote:
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.

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 ...

Ron Edwards wrote:
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.

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