Hi

Although I like the genre of Vampire, and I am happy to run it (you never have trouble finding players for this game), some of the rules bug me and I tried to make a couple of changes.

Change 1. I wanted characters to choose abilities that defined their characters rather than choosing the abilities that support your disciplines. For those who do not know, in the game, generally speaking, when using a discipline (a vampire power) you roll the number of d10 dice (your dice pool) against a given resistance. Your dice pool is determined usually by a number of dots in an attribute (strength, inteligence etc...) and the number of dots in an ability (drive car, acting, etc...) added together. This leads to players profiling their skills (in most cases I have seen) to support their disciplines. To obviate this I suggested that we use the attribute and the number of die in the discipline.

This generally had a warm reception, and we are using it in play.

Change 2. I wanted to attempt to fix the humaniy mechanic, in a way that it was much more possible to make humanity loss relevant. For this I wanted to use the Sorcerer model. The players were very unhappy with this. Rightly they said that the humanity mechanic has an effect on a number of game systems, and that changing the way it worked would probably unbalance another aspect of the game. They were all united on this point and I felt compelled to agree that it would remain unchanged. This I was happy to do. It seemed very important to the guys, and I didn't want to ruin the game for them. As possibly the least familiar with the whole vampire genre I obviously have less of an attachment to the rules.

Regards
Rob

Hi Rob,

Did you suggest the change after they had already turned up to play? I think the 'unbalanced' thing is a red herring here - you can present whatever game you want and if people don't want to play it, they simply don't come to play - there's no such thing as unbalanced. Just a game you do or don't want to play. But if they had already arrived with the other system in mind, that essentially stops any changes - they bought into play because of the other system.

Hi Callan

Callan wrote:
Hi Rob,

Did you suggest the change after they had already turned up to play? I think the 'unbalanced' thing is a red herring here - you can present whatever game you want and if people don't want to play it, they simply don't come to play - there's no such thing as unbalanced. Just a game you do or don't want to play. But if they had already arrived with the other system in mind, that essentially stops any changes - they bought into play because of the other system.

'What is it exactly that you are afraid of Rob?' is a tell (perhaps the spore) of a socio polictical game that spring up when someone feels what they bought into play for is being taken away. Like games, it draws on resources, just like hit points in D&D - here he's drawing on fear and its use as a currency. But lets not get into that uglyness - even if for many of us its been part of our gaming history for years (well, okay I should just speak for myself - I'm starting to see now where this has been in my own history).

The key to killing that socio political game is to not threaten player buy in to begin with. Then it has no 'victimisation' currency to thrive off (though I think there are some people who want that victim game. Scary).

I think the method is fairly simple. I'll quickly define 'final reward cycle' - it's like the checkmate rules for chess. They determine what ends the game. Ummm, I don't have a perfect grip on humanity in sorcerer, but when a character gets zero humanity, that's the end of the game for that character. Same thing.

WELL before game night, inform players of the rules being used, specifically the final reward cycle rules. Also list the features that you'd play the game for, so they know what's supposed to be 'the hit, good thing' to play for. Those who turn up have bought into that. Then just use the rules you said you were going to use.

"What if no one turns up?". Personally I'd weigh up the difference between no players and having to play that socio political game. I mean really 'what are you afraid of?' - its so over the place a question, and each of those places just seems ewwww. See how it weighs up.

Hi Callan

Callan wrote:

'What is it exactly that you are afraid of Rob?' is a tell (perhaps the spore) of a socio polictical game that spring up when someone feels what they bought into play for is being taken away.

Hi Rob,

I'm sure you can cope with that - I'm not sure why you would, but I'm sure you can.

If they've shot down your faith any of them would like a humanity style vampire, you have to remember their dislike came from the thing they bought into play for, being changed.

Pitching it again, a week ahead, but in a "Instead of you coming and then me changing things after you've arrived, here are the changes I have for next weeks game (list its features). Whoever's excited about it, get in touch so we can talk about it more. If it's not your cup of tea and aren't coming, get in touch so we can line up (whatever social activity you guys do outside of roleplay)"

Your idea didn't get a genuine airing - don't put it back in its box yet when you have absolute control over what you want to run, before anyone has signed up for it. No one has to turn up, of course - that's what gives you absolute control! :) Use it, I say! :)