Vampire: The Masquerade

[astralpwka]

We had tons of episodes with vampire where we did nothing but role-play. There were even times when we let the role-playing dictate combat, just to keep the story going strong.

Alas... I purged my collection through ebay...

 

[Cedric]

Edit: Just mu personal opinion by the by..no flame intended..and so long as you had fun then cool.

I didn't think you were being inflammatory at all. I welcome opposing opinions.

monsters shoulsn't be having soirees.

Ahh...but the beauty of vampire, at least how it's supposed to be played (imo) is that you were just a person, who became a monster. And you are trying as hard as you can to keep that monster at bay, to fight it off and just be as normal as you can be and still thrive and survive.

*shrugs*

Cedric

 

[mistergone]

I would be fine with a session like that, except, in every storyteller game, i always played "the problem child" character who would go poking around, or start a fight, or get in trouble somehow, either by shirking a silly etiquette rule, or something. I guess that was more of a rebelling against the pretense of it all. Of course, I was always more comfortable playing a werewolf or mage, so maybe that was another part of it. When I ran, I think I did have a few sessions of relatively diceless play, but I never had that as a goal. In fact, I always find it kind of snobbish when I hear about people who seem to cherish and prize the whole "Oh oh well we didn't roll ANY dice at all! Therefor, we are cool." But, I understand, really, the appeal of a more freeform game or style. I really do. In fact, rules systems these days, I just have trouble with, they seem to get in my way a lot when I try to run a game, and it gets frustrating. I think I'm just out of practice.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind getting into a Storyteller game again, it would be a nice change of pace.

 

[Tsyr]

Ahh...but the beauty of vampire, at least how it's supposed to be played (imo) is that you were just a person, who became a monster. And you are trying as hard as you can to keep that monster at bay, to fight it off and just be as normal as you can be and still thrive and survive.

That is also, of course, true about most of the WoD characters... From Vampires (Embraced later in life), to Werewolves (Don't 'awaken' until puberty or later), to Changelings (Same) to Hunters (Same) Mummies (Have to die first), to Wraiths (Same), to Exalted, and more.

"Monsters" in WoD aren't, unless they become so of their own free will. A few noteable exceptions... Black Spiral Dancers, Technocracy Hunters, Abyssyal Exalted, etc... Though even in some of those, there is the gimmer of hope for redemption.

 

[Thresher]

I quite like the WoD setting, its some of the best written material around to set a scene and its brought out some of the best roleplaying amongst my friends. I really enjoyed the Vampire- Dark Ages setting they did, it was indeed very 'dark' and it spawned some truly evil PC's and NPC's mixed in with a few saints.
However, its probably one of the worst systems out there, always seemed the more D10's I chucked the worse I did at anything, so in some sense it forces you to play your way around rather than huck dice. Damn rule of "1's"
Want to enjoy the game, dont throw dice

Ive seen a lot of derision from some people about playing WW games, dont really know why to be honest but I suspect they didnt try to make the most of the game and instead tried to make something of it which it isnt. Like most things I guess.

 

[Tsyr]

However, its probably one of the worst systems out there, always seemed the more D10's I chucked the worse I did at anything, so in some sense it forces you to play your way around rather than huck dice. Damn rule of "1's"
Want to enjoy the game, dont throw dice

This is a problem of the Storyteller system... I've seen the mathmatical explanation for this before, but I can't find it right now, but essentialy the flaw is that just giving you more chances to do something doesn't really help as much as you would think, because it also gives you more chances to fail. If I understood the explanation, anyhow... I probably didn't, probability theory isn't my strong point.

 

[Zappo]

IMO, dicerolling in any given session must be balanced. Using as much dice as possibile, or as little as possible, are both wrong ways.

The first impedes roleplaying; that's what you get when you make full use of the myriad of Storyteller System mechanics that attempt to determine what your character thinks and feels.

The second, however, is just as much of a problem. See "high CHA player vs. low CHA character" (or the opposite), for example. The mechanics are what represent the character in the world; if they are ignored, it is much more difficult to properly play that role.

 

[Fanog]

This is a problem of the Storyteller system... I've seen the mathmatical explanation for this before, but I can't find it right now, but essentialy the flaw is that just giving you more chances to do something doesn't really help as much as you would think, because it also gives you more chances to fail. If I understood the explanation, anyhow... I probably didn't, probability theory isn't my strong point.

An easy way to see it is to think of a difficulty 10 task. For every die you roll, chances of sucess are 10%. Chance to roll a 1 is equal to that. So, regardless or the number of dice you roll, the chance for success is equal to the chance of a botch.
With difficulty 9 or 8, the problem is less pronounced, but it's still there. In short, the Difficulty rating doesn't really work, because it's not (by far) lineair.

To avoid derailing the thread completely:
I've played (nearly) diceless sessions, I kind of like the 'change of pace' occasionaly. If it was actually announced before the campaign started, I wouldn't have a problem eve if the majority of the sessions had no dice-rolling at all.
I do think that players and DMs have to keep an eye to the actual stats of characters, even if the role-playing takes a more important part than the dice-rolling.

Fanog

 

[Afrodyte]

At the risk of veering off-topic, I'll post my own ideas about dice-rolling.

It's not so much how many times I roll dice or how many dice I roll, the bottom line for me is this: why do I care about what's going on? Is the situation relevant enough to my goals and values to make me care about the outcome of events? With combat, it's easy. Most people want to save their own hide. However, in social situations it becomes a bit blurry, and it would take more work on the part of the players to create that connection.

I think, personally, that World of Darkness games tend not to address this. They just sort of reason that because I am Critter X, I am compelled to give a you-know-what about Issue or Situation Y. I could imagine that if I were a neophyte vampire, I would be more concerned about dealing with my insatiable bloodlust than with what some Toreador harpy thinks about my fashion sense. Likewise, if I were a newly changed werewolf, I would focus most of my time trying to figure out a way to keep my loved ones safe without resorting to suicide. I probably would not take kindly to some religious zealot telling me, "It's a good thing. Really."

I completely agree with mmu1:

I think investigation and social interaction are integral parts of anything but the most rudimentary game of hack'n'slash, but I also think that structuring a session so that it consists of nothing but talk is as dull as an endless series of combats... The use of dice at least introduces a random element and spices things up.

The reason for this (at least for me) is due to how players commonly think of character-based and story-based roleplaying. Just because I like to spend a great deal of time developing a three-dimensional character does not mean I want to spend an hour of real time talking with a random shopkeeper about the weather. It does mean I would like to get a chance to act and react as my character would, whether that means talking things out or punching someone in the face. It does mean that I would rather not waste my time on situations that do not reveal or develop character in meaningful ways.

Now, to bring this back on topic, I think this is the crux about the dice-rolling dilemma. The secret is not to have more or less situations that involve rolling dice, but how to incorporate events that are significant for the characters yet are still subject to chance (modified by the characters' abilities).

 

[Henry]

I don't think I have ever played an RPG where no dice are rolled for the whole session; mainly it's because we use gaming as both story medium and for stress relief from the weekend. As a result, it doesn't matter if you set up the ultimate role-playing encounter in my group, SOMEONE is going to want to let off steam. And for some reason, once one person does, the rest fall like dominoes.

I had a rather extreme example of this recently: I set up a horror-themed d20 Modern session where the heroes were supposed to infiltrate a cult. The best course of action would have been to join the cult incognito, or sneak in, scout out the compound, and perform the rescue of two ATF agents that they were supposed to.

Instead, they charged in headlong, grenades and bullets and rocket launchers flying, in a combat orgy of unprecedented proportions. As a result, out of six characters, two characters died, and a third was almost mortally wounded. They succeeded in removing the threat that the cultists presented, but they killed every single combatant cultist, and the remainder committed suicide via explosives, and took the captives with them.

I gave half the hero team Psych Evaluations after that.