Topic: Sorcerer: Vampire
Started by: Remko
Started on: 10/10/2005
Board: Adept Press
On 10/10/2005 at 9:14am, Remko wrote:
Sorcerer: Vampire
Loosely based on V:tM. I wanted to bring in the real horror of being a vampire, instead of playing a person with cool powers and no real horror.
Idea
Players play Vampires, trying to transcend (think Golgonda). But, they have to give up their powers and their loved ones in the process.
Premise: Do you sacrifice your former loved ones for your own transcendence?
System
Players are Demons, which are vampires. Their need is blood of someone with whom they had a bond with in the past (a personal or family bond). Only when they sustain their need, they are able to Transcend (see Desire).
Desire: Transcendence: Vampires try to linger their powers. But, it’s a dogma that only one Vampire may transcend. Naturally, other vampire try to destroy the vampires which are close to transcendence.
Mechanically: a Power versus Power roll: when successful, the vampire who used this power knows how much Power the other vampire has left.
Comments, ideas and critics are welcome, naturally.
On 10/10/2005 at 12:05pm, Victor Gijsbers wrote:
Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
Demons having no Humanity score, how would playing Sorcerer as a Demon work? It seems as if the central reward-mechanic would be taken right out.
On 10/10/2005 at 12:14pm, Paka wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
I'd make vampirism, the hunger for blood the demon. It could work.
I'm sure there must be a ton of old threads on this topic if you limit your search to the Adept Press forum and look up terms like vampire, masquerade and such, you should come across 'em.
On 10/10/2005 at 12:30pm, Remko wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
Victor wrote:
Demons having no Humanity score, how would playing Sorcerer as a Demon work? It seems as if the central reward-mechanic would be taken right out.
Well, the idea is to use the power score as a type of humanity score.
Perhaps as an option: Power is used as a reversed humanity score: when a vampire chooses to use his power, his Power will highten, but he won't get further towards transcendence.
I'll search in the archives, Paka, thanks.
On 10/10/2005 at 12:38pm, Remko wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
Paka wrote:
I'd make vampirism, the hunger for blood the demon. It could work.
By the way: the reason for me to use the demon option, is to get the possibility to actually transcend (by using the process of becoming human from demon as described in &Soul, if I'm not mistaken).
On 10/14/2005 at 6:16pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
This gets brought up regularly. Really, do a search on it, and you'll find a lot of good info. That said:
1. Judd is right. I think that the way to go is to have "Vampirism" be an internal demon (mental block on the term), that has needs like drinking blood, and a desire for mayhem. Or whathaveyou.
2. For some strange reason, this gets proposed a ton, but I've never seen it actually get played. I don't know why that is, but I'm pulling for you to do it. This isn't just a thought experiment, right?
Mike
On 10/15/2005 at 1:20am, Lamorak33 wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
Mike wrote:
This gets brought up regularly. Really, do a search on it, and you'll find a lot of good info. That said:
1. Judd is right. I think that the way to go is to have "Vampirism" be an internal demon (mental block on the term), that has needs like drinking blood, and a desire for mayhem. Or whathaveyou.
2. For some strange reason, this gets proposed a ton, but I've never seen it actually get played. I don't know why that is, but I'm pulling for you to do it. This isn't just a thought experiment, right?
Mike
I've spoken to you about this myself Mike. I have also thought quite a bit about it, and I can see how the V:TM version of the Vampire genre lends itself very well to protaganist play, which of course is supported by the Sorcerer rule set.
The thing is, I think that you would just need a fundemental re-engineering of the game framework. I don't find the 'demon' paradigm very satisfactory here. I haven't done any work on this because to be honest I was thinking that I would use Heroquest rules. However, I would be interested to contribute to a design, but maybe this is best done in another forum?
I'd love to GM another vampire game for my old rpg buddies, but only with a different ruleset to the WoD set. This could be great for bringing some old friends out of RPG retirement - I'm on for that!
Regards
Rob
On 10/15/2005 at 11:18am, Remko wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
Mike wrote:
This gets brought up regularly. Really, do a search on it, and you'll find a lot of good info.
I've sought for information about Vampire on this forum, Mike. I have found some information, but not really directly usable 'out of the box'.
That said:
1. Judd is right. I think that the way to go is to have "Vampirism" be an internal demon (mental block on the term), that has needs like drinking blood, and a desire for mayhem. Or whathaveyou.
Yeah, I guess. Problem is: one of my players is extremely gamism and thinking he's simulationistic. This means, I'll probably get the question:"Well, how could I transcend?"
Also, I thought the horrific aspect of being a vampire would be better adressed when being a vampire and getting the choice: either try to live as a vampire without powers and to transcend or suck the blood of your former loved ones and go for those inhuman powers, but live with the thought that you've killed your loved ones in the process.
2. For some strange reason, this gets proposed a ton, but I've never seen it actually get played. I don't know why that is, but I'm pulling for you to do it. This isn't just a thought experiment, right?
Well, I think the thought of humanity in V:tM and V:tR is apalling, but isn't brought in too well. As said above: I thought Vampire should be about horror, not about "I'm a human with super powers and sometimes I have to suck blood, which is pretty bummer." But I'll really post an actual play, when I have fixed things right, be sure of that.
On 10/15/2005 at 11:22am, Remko wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
Remko wrote:Mike wrote:
This gets brought up regularly. Really, do a search on it, and you'll find a lot of good info.
I've sought for information about Vampire on this forum, Mike. I have found some information, but not really directly usable 'out of the box'.
But, I must admit, I haven't searched before you guys mentioned it. *stomps himself on the forehead for thinking someone else could maybe use this and for not thinking about the search-engine*
On 10/15/2005 at 1:52pm, Paka wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
Remko wrote:
But, I must admit, I haven't searched before you guys mentioned it. *stomps himself on the forehead for thinking someone else could maybe use this and for not thinking about the search-engine*
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=7268.0
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=10381.0
I'm sure we could figure out a way to transcend without having the PC's be Demons.
Shouldn't be hard at all with Humanity.
But...much to do today...another time.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 7268
Topic 10381
On 10/17/2005 at 5:49pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
Paka wrote:Personally I think having a mechanical place for transcendance is not a good idea. First, if I get transcendance, it's very likely that it's a pipe dream. Nobody ever seems to actually get it, and it sounds to me like just a rationalization for staying a vampire: "If I just keep on working on it, I'll be both in control and a immortal at the same time." I'd say just make this a matter of player decision as to how in control he is, and let the GM tempt him away from it with worldly concerns. Like any form of mysticism, it's a matter of ignoring your worldly situation. Just make that a player choice. If he wants to make a statement that he's gotten to that place, simply retire the character at the end of that plot arc, and start a new one. As GM the challenge is to make that very, very hard.
I'm sure we could figure out a way to transcend without having the PC's be Demons.
If you make it like "10 Humanity = Transcendance" or something, that simply doesn't have enough downside to counterbalance it. Given a high enough humanity, however, the character may have some semblance of transcendance via the existing rules, however.
Some other notes: I'm thinking that your first demon only can be obtained by being "sired." That is in keeping with the "no accidental sorcerers" idea, you have to state for your character just what reason they had for wanting to become a vampire, and how they convinced another vampire to sire them. Basically the binding ritual in this case creates a new internal demon that probably has some filial matching to the original. Just to keep with the interesting parts of the WOD background.
Anyhow, once you have that demon, however, the only way to get another is to kill another vampire and drink it's blood (diablerie!). You get it's demon then. Of course now you have to feed twice as much to keep them both satisfied...
I love the idea that players can simply become a normal human again by banishing their last demon. So there is a mechanical way to resolve this, unlike in WOD where they (as far as I know) never revealed how to do it. Given demons with a minimum power based on the sire's abilities however, banishing is easier said than done. You probably have to neglect it for a while, leading to it revolting and causing all sorts of problems for you as it tears you up inside, making you weak to defend against vampire hunters and other vampires looking to collect your demon...
Yeah, I think it's got legs. :-)
Mike
On 10/17/2005 at 6:38pm, Remko wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
Mike wrote:
Personally I think having a mechanical place for transcendance is not a good idea. First, if I get transcendance, it's very likely that it's a pipe dream. Nobody ever seems to actually get it, and it sounds to me like just a rationalization for staying a vampire: "If I just keep on working on it, I'll be both in control and a immortal at the same time." I'd say just make this a matter of player decision as to how in control he is, and let the GM tempt him away from it with worldly concerns. Like any form of mysticism, it's a matter of ignoring your worldly situation. Just make that a player choice. If he wants to make a statement that he's gotten to that place, simply retire the character at the end of that plot arc, and start a new one. As GM the challenge is to make that very, very hard.
Exactly. But this is also the thing I missed in Vampire. Conspiracies and all... pretty cool, but no real horror.
Some other notes: I'm thinking that your first demon only can be obtained by being "sired." That is in keeping with the "no accidental sorcerers" idea, you have to state for your character just what reason they had for wanting to become a vampire, and how they convinced another vampire to sire them. Basically the binding ritual in this case creates a new internal demon that probably has some filial matching to the original. Just to keep with the interesting parts of the WOD background.
Anyhow, once you have that demon, however, the only way to get another is to kill another vampire and drink it's blood (diablerie!). You get it's demon then. Of course now you have to feed twice as much to keep them both satisfied...
I love the idea that players can simply become a normal human again by banishing their last demon. So there is a mechanical way to resolve this, unlike in WOD where they (as far as I know) never revealed how to do it. Given demons with a minimum power based on the sire's abilities however, banishing is easier said than done. You probably have to neglect it for a while, leading to it revolting and causing all sorts of problems for you as it tears you up inside, making you weak to defend against vampire hunters and other vampires looking to collect your demon...
Yeah, I think it's got legs. :-)
Mike
Whoow... Thanks, Mike. Great ideas... I really have to think this one out... And I'll definitely playtest.... But I'm not entirely sure about Humanity. Originally, I thought about it as how 'human you are'.
Examples of Humanity gains: Resolving conflicts without using Vampiric powers to back them up.
Example of Humanity loss: using Vampiric powers to resolve conflicts.
I think those are a bit flat, and I guess they should be more narrow... Any ideas?
On 10/17/2005 at 10:00pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
I don't think gains and losses should be about using vampire powers. I think you should be able to save a child from being trapped under a car using your vampire strength, and gain humanity. What drives a character to do inhumane things? Same thing as in all Sorcerer play, the situation, most notably the inclusion of a demon in it. The demon will have a desire like "bestiality" or "mayhem" or something else vampiric, and when it doesn't get it's way, it'll refuse to allow the abilities to be used. So maybe it shuts off when trying to lift that car off the child. Where's the mayhem in that? The vampire only gets his strength when doing bad stuff, or when it can use it's will to command the demon to obey (which causes it to become more and more recalcitrant...).
Just use the humanity definition from VtM. Not the mechanic, the definition. Meaning the player always has control no matter how close to zero he gets. But what causes gains and losses? How much he gives in to the beast and does the sort of bad things that the beast does, or resists those urges and does the human thing.
Mike
On 10/17/2005 at 10:22pm, Remko wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
Mike wrote:
Just use the humanity definition from VtM. Not the mechanic, the definition. Meaning the player always has control no matter how close to zero he gets. But what causes gains and losses? How much he gives in to the beast and does the sort of bad things that the beast does, or resists those urges and does the human thing.
Mike
Indeed much better. It does remind me of the Urge thought... First, I was thinking to use that adaptation of Clinton Nixon. But this will work perfectly.
On 10/18/2005 at 6:17pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Sorcerer: Vampire
I think Urge is pretty much the inspiration for this for me. Though it's been a while so I can't say for sure.
Mike