Vampire the Masquerade

[Doctor Doom]

with 3rd edition V:tM the gun trick won't work. Guns do impact damage which vamps only take half damage from. They reworked all the mechanics so that the prefered method of combat is swords or claws, and that definitely does give the vamp some advantage over human opponents.

V:tM as munchkiny? Are you talking about possible munchkin potential? I don't think it's any higher than other games. Munchkin potential has two components, the game, and the DM. A lot of the stuff in V:tM is balanced by roleplaying considerations, which isn't surprising as the entire first half of the book is about story and setting and is definitely the focus. There is more pressure on the GM to keep things balanced in the world.

For example, with the new combat mechanics claws or fangs are the best weapons. They do aggravated damage which means the vamp can only use ranks of Fortitude to soak them. hardly any vamps have Fortitude, and having mroe than 1 or 2 ranks in Fortitude means neglecting other disciplines. But a vampire with a claw attack get's to add extra successes from the attack roll to damage so it's entirely possible the vamp could do 5-6 points of damage per attack. Then add celerity for multiple attacks, and Potence to increase the strength (and thus damage) of the attack. Also, aggravated damage cannot be healed by spending blood points.

Now, part of the game balance for this is that only certain clans get celerity, other clans get protean (protean rank 2 gives the claws), and others get celerity. But you could choose to make a caitiff vampire and then you can choose all your disciplines and get that combo.

Yes, in combat, that character is gonna kick butt. He is the vampire equivelant of the mercurial greatsword in DnD, someone has gotta be the best.

The story balance is that vampires like this do exist, but they are rare. When one shows up in a vampire community you can bet all the other vamps are going to be wary of physical combat, and instead try to work together to offset the character in other ways. Vampire relies on political alliances for a alot of it's game balance. Not all vamps get all powers, and they tend to focus on a few areas and get really good. To really ensure survival vamps have to work together to take out another vamp, but while your doing that, who is planning to take yourself out? Welcome to the politically charged world of V:tM.

 

[Sejs]

*nod* I'll admit I'm not as fully familiar with the 3rd edition of the WW games as I'd like to be. I stopped playing shortly before they were released. That aside, I like what you said about the political side of VtM, and really that's one of the things about playing a vampire under that system that I liked the most.


Just because you have all these neato supernatural powers, doesn't mean you should necessarily go around using them all the time. Temperance was a real virtue in that game. As was forethought.

 

[Tsyr]

Doom and Sejs on on the right track.

Yes. In Vampire you can create an unholy terror (pun intended) who can tear through people like wet tissue paper.

Once.

Maybe, if they happen to be excessivly lucky, twice.

As someone else in this thread said... in Vampire (Or, really, any of the games), there is always something bigger. Break the masquerade too bad, for example, and you are in DEEP kimshi... and I assure you, laying waste to the mortal contents of a subway station for cash counts as breaking the masquerade.

And there are threats other than other vampires out there, too.

Werewolves? Blood enemies of Vampires. And even a combat-machine vampire might think twice about tackling a raged garou... much less two or four of them. Maybe one of those people in the aformentioned subway massacre was the kin (perhaps even mate) of a glasswalker or bonegnawer werewolf.

Kui-jin... the eastern vampire. Similar, but not the same animal. And they hold no love for kindrid, or Kin-jin as they call them. No indeed. Maybe you killed the wrong random Yakuza member in that massacre.

Demon Hunters... Not the ones from Hunter, but from a vampire supplement... I've PLAYED demon hunters verses vampires... If the demon hunter has the advantage in terrain, or gets the drop on the vampire... goodbye vampire. Now, the only problem with using demon hunters is A) They work alone, as a rule (Except the Zero group, but they are something else) and, B) A single Demon Hunter is toast against multiple targets, as a rule. But if they can catch them alone... And demon hunters only go after the worst offenders (Again, except for Zero), so they would be well justified for hunting down a monster like that.

And if the crimes are against other vampires? Oh, I assure you... The players are never the biggest fish in the sea. You never know who sired that vampire you killed, and what connections he may have...

 

[Darkness]

I've played a short vampire-hunting chronicle in Vampire - specifically, in Dark Ages.

If the characters are smart, and the vampires not too powerful (read: no elders or the like), it's certainly doable. (Besides, in Dark Ages, a vampire hunter easily can - and one of ours did - use a sword, or even a greatsword.)

Useful tactic: Attack during the day. (Or else set fire to their haven if you're sure that you won't destroy half the surrounding countryside. Better yet, set fire to their haven during the day.)

 

[Knightcrawler]

Hunters and the Hunted

Now I've played all the main White Wolf storyteller games and most of their spinoffs. I spent about six months in a Hunter campaign. Yes its a bit different because you are limited in what your abilities are but thats half the fun.

You want to know what beats a vampire? Dragonsbreath rounds (Incendiary) at close range or a couple of thermite gernades. Massed firepower is the word of the day boys and girls.

 

[Humanophile]

A word of warning before you play Vampire. Be really, really careful who you play with. In a Werewolf or Hunter game, you have mostly sympathetic protagonists who have a good reason to work together. In a Sabbat game, you have reasons to work together and act like typical PC's, but if you're not careful someone will end up offending someone else. But in a typical Vampire game, you'll have less a party and more a collection of individuals, and that can be really rough on your game. That kind of artistic focus on characters meant to be individual stars can be a tough juggling act.

And depending on how you run the game, hunting vampires can either be impossibly easy, or overly difficult. If you play the game realistically, your average vampire will be about as armed and combat-trained as your average human; that is to say, not at all. Even a single younger vampire with combat training aren't a match for a skilled, trained group who's in the know, and that's before you consider the weaknesses you can play against them. But when you want to go up against the big, bad boys, you'll need heavy artillery, which actually works well as a climax.
If you play the game where every vampire knows how to physically take care of themselves and has that whole "cooler and better than you" edge, things'll get one-sided fast.

And while the system has flaws to it, most of them seem more intended than accidental. So while I'd want to houserule the game before delving into it, I don't see anything inherently broken with it as stands. Especially if you enforce the consequences that are a built-in part of the setting.

 

[Zappo]

Mage is easily the most abusable game, if the DM isn't ready to put his feet down. At least in the 2nd edition, which is the one I'm familiar with, the Spheres descriptions are so generic, that a munchkinized Mage with a DM who doesn't really get it can easily lay waste to anything else unless taken by surprise. Even paradox isn't really a problem if you're careful; you can take a few paradox points to blast five vampires to ashes in a round if need be and not suffer much consequences.

Mage is an extreme example of what you get by balancing mechanical bonuses and roleplaying restrictions. The burden of balance is entirely on the DM.

 

[Umbran]

Mage is an extreme example of what you get by balancing mechanical bonuses and roleplaying restrictions. The burden of balance is entirely on the DM.

Not really. Don't confuse "balance is entirely on the DM" with "balance by roleplay restrictions".

Mage is easily abuseable, if the GM isn't on his toes, yes. But the balance is not in roleplay restrictions. In fact, there are darned few roleplay restrictions in Mage. The balance is in careful application of the rules they do give you.

 

[Cedric]

I didn't read the whole thread, but wanted to offer my 2 cents that Champions is the most munchkinable game...and still probably one of the best RPG's there is.

Champions requires the GM to seriously consider characters before approving them though.

Cedric

 

[Zappo]

Not really. Don't confuse "balance is entirely on the DM" with "balance by roleplay restrictions".

Mage is easily abuseable, if the GM isn't on his toes, yes. But the balance is not in roleplay restrictions. In fact, there are darned few roleplay restrictions in Mage. The balance is in careful application of the rules they do give you.

Correct, but what I said is correct too. You can make any character. But then, you cannot do what doesn't suit him, no matter your ranks in the spheres. That is a roleplaying-based restriction on a mechanical part of the game. Mage mechanics alone - the rules - are not balanced at all.