Vampire vs. Nightlife -- for a D&D adventure gamer

[painandgreed]

Like any game, it's not about the system but the GM. Vampire can be run combat or not. I've run games where combats typically only happen at the end of story arcs and I've had them where they happened every game. True,t e game is not realy built for that much combat because everything goes to Wolves Claws, Celerity, potence, fortitude pretty much in that order. It's a bad game for that because characters that aren't built for combat tend to do very poorly at it. It's alright because even begining characters who are built for combat have a chance against some pretty heavy stuff with a lucky roll. It's more complicated than that because a character min-maxed for combat is still at a disadvantage if they other guy doesn't want to fight. one rather low level power can make you run away in fear and with another he can simply stand there and you'll never find him unless he does something stupid.

Still, it all goes back to the GM. Talk to the GM about what sort of game he wants to run and what sort of game you want to play.

 

[eyebeams]

In reality I ran the game only once. In reality 'trading 10s' is exactly what happened - players hoarded their Willpower, and both the PC and the NPC had the same basic (ie cheap) equipment. The players created the term. This happened in both the fistfight, and in the debate with a minor funtionary of the prince. Neither time did the conflict escalate to the point where equipment (ie weapons) was called into play. Perhaps if the conflicts had been more lethal the PCs would have spent Will, but since it was not they did not, nor did they feel like spending Will just to save time.

So, if I decided that I didn't feel like choosing decent weapons and armour for my fighter, would that mean D&D sucked? If I intentionally choose never to max any rogue class abilities and the character keeps failing challenges appropriate for his level, does that mean D&D sucked?

By your standards, apparently it does, since that's the logic you're applying to the Storytelling system.

Reality is what has happened, not conjecture.

Having run the game dozens of times before, during and after publication, I am well aware of the reality of how it plays out, thanks.

Did the PCs hoard their precious Will to tightly? Perhaps.

Yes. Yes you did. All in all, it looks to me like you're transferring blame from unfamiliarity with the rules to the rules themselves, since the rules address your primary issue and do so prominently. It's very hard to miss the fact that trading chance dice is avoidable.

Did we have fun? No, we did not. Did we have fun playing the older version? Yes, indeed we had. The decision was made to go back to the original version of the game. We may convert the newer version's clans and disciplines to the older game, since those actually seemed better. (Not more powerful, in general things were a tad weaker, and Celerity had been downright gutted. (Which it needed.))

Multiple action powers were one of the most abused facets of the old game.

Yes, this is anecdotal, but it is what happened in my game, and we just plain did not have fun. I find that I greatly prefer having both an active defense and an active attack to having the attacker do the rolling. It also adds in more variables, which I like.

This is more reasonable, but it's really a matter of taste. I do prefer active defenses myself, but I can't deny the smooth, quick play of the new system, either.

 

[Seeten]

You know, this isnt really the greatest place to ask this question, as the replies are by the sites nature biased, but I have a more cosmopolitan look, having played a lot of werewolf(and thus, knowing much of vampire.)

Vampire is a game of personal horror, or so they say, but what it really is, is a game where your group of players plays a group of vampires who struggle to make their mark on the world, or, to survive a harsh environment. There are enemies to kill, and if your group enjoys that sort of game, there can be police, hunters, FBI, other supernatural beings, etc, to cut your teeth on. Just like we know even on these boards, people who run D&D with huge emphasis on story, I know lots of Vampire games that are fights from start to finish, werewolf games with huge expounding story, etc.

Roleplaying Games are what you make them. Vampire can be little more than munchkins with pointy teeth, or as deep as aspiring actors/philosophers telling a metaphysical story, depending on you, your GM and your group.

 

[Darkness]

What kind of adventures can you have in Vampire?

Killing vampires who are not on your side and taking their stuff.
Killing vampires who technically are on your side and taking their stuff.
Killing werewolves and taking their stuff.
Killing humans and taking their stuff.

That about covers the basics. More complex plots:
Becoming vampire ruler of your city instead of the current vampire ruler, usually by killing him. (Or other holder of office.) That's usually kind of a long-term goal.
Killing the vampire who made you and taking his stuff. (And also gaining/increasing your freedom, in many cases.)
Killing a vampire rival or other dude who stands in the way of your goals.

Note: Since your friend seems to have the "theater" aspect covered, this post focuses on the other side (only).

 

[TheAuldGrump]

So, if I decided that I didn't feel like choosing decent weapons and armour for my fighter, would that mean D&D sucked? If I intentionally choose never to max any rogue class abilities and the character keeps failing challenges appropriate for his level, does that mean D&D sucked?

By your standards, apparently it does, since that's the logic you're applying to the Storytelling system.

No, I am not implying that at all, if you read my example equipment did not enter into the actual conflicts at all, at all. One was a fistfight, the other was an argument. The cheap equipment was because they had not put points into the Wealth merit.

Having run the game dozens of times before, during and after publication, I am well aware of the reality of how it plays out, thanks.

Yes. Yes you did. All in all, it looks to me like you're transferring blame from unfamiliarity with the rules to the rules themselves, since the rules address your primary issue and do so prominently. It's very hard to miss the fact that trading chance dice is avoidable.

I was running not playing, but when I suggested spending WP the players decided not to, as they did not feel it necessary in a conflict that was not likely to be lethal. Had it been a firefight they might have spent them, as it was they did not. In other words they did not feel that paying the price to avoid 'Trading Tens' was worth it. They knew it was avoidable, they chose not to do so, and I rather agree with their reasoning. It was not merely unfamiliarity, they had already started disliking the system.

Multiple action powers were one of the most abused facets of the old game.

When I said that Celerity needed to be gutted I was not beng sarcastic, it was overpowered. I took to charging more experience and freebie points for Celerity than for any normal discipline.

This is more reasonable, but it's really a matter of taste. I do prefer active defenses myself, but I can't deny the smooth, quick play of the new system, either.

Except for the long, long, long argument scene I might agree with you. Would you in truth spend WP when arguing with a minor functionary? As it was the 'argument' went on for twelve or thirteen rolls until one got a success and the other did not. The system might work fine when the players feel threatened enough to spend WP, but when they aren't the system can drag. I started hoping that the PC would give up, but he got stubborn.

The length of time the fistfight lasted was also longer than it would have likely been in the older system, characters have a lot more wounds, but do not deal any greater damage. Again, they did not feel the need to escalate matters, knowing that they could heal very quickly after the fight was over. They also preferred the more flexible older system, and being able to split die pools between attacking and dodging.

I found the system overly simplified, and prefered the more flexible system of the older edition. There were more things to fiddle with, and continuing actions in particular were better handled with the older version, since the number of successes and the difficulty were both variables that could be adjusted.

For whatever it is worth I have spoken with others who also hold these opinions, so it is not just me. There may well be people in my area who prefer the newer edition, there may even be a majority, but I have not talked to any of them. I asked, and I know a fair number of Vampire players. I did not ask 'Wow, that new edition sucks, don't it?' I asked 'So, what do you think of the new system?' And nobody I asked liked it. This was around a dozen people or so.

This may well be caused by how long these people played the older version, since I asked people that I knew had played both versions. It could be caused by the fact that they were all older (30+) gamers, I don't know. I do know that none of them liked it.

Some of them did not like the character generation (which I don't mind - it does the job). Some did not like the combat (which I agreed with). Some thought that characters were underpowered (which I think is a good thing). Some said they liked the fact that it was easier to succeed in the older system (I am neutral on that one). But none of them liked it. Some simply wanted more skills (I lean slightly that way myself). A few prefered the older trait names.

The biggest complaint was 'overly simplified' or 'dumbed down'. This last I disagree with, I just think that it was adjusted too far in regards to ease of play, overly simplified, yes. Dumbed down, no. I heard the same complaint about 3E before it was released, though play proved that one false very quickly.

Did these opinions, on top of attempt that I had made it color my feelings? Perhaps it did, or at least strengthened the opinion I was already leaning towards. But I asked after playing it as well as before, and ended up wishing that I had listened to the naysayers.

Also for whatever it is worth, most agreed that the new setting was at least as good as the old WoD, several were glad that generations had been done away with (another thing that was way too cheap in the older system) there was about an even split about getting rid of Caine, everyone seemed to like the new version of the Crone in the new Vampire. Most people had good things to say about the game, just not the system. Many were glad to see the end of the meta plot.

But a lot of people were upset that WW scrapped the old line, feeling ripped off that their old stuff was now 'useless'. (I disagree with this one, but then I stopped paying attention to the WoD metaplot and new material ages ago.) The gameshop owner in particular was quite vocal about being left with a shelf of stuff that he would have to discount to get rid of. He went so far as to barge into the conversation over that point, interupting the other speaker.

Several expressed interest in the new LARP rules, and wanted to try comparing old and new for those as well. I suspect that the newer version might well win in this case.

Please do not take this as trolling or flaming, you are welcome to your opinion, but there are others.

The final arbiter will be sales, and I do not know, beyond a local level, how well those sales are doing. Locally, sales on the game are not so good, how much is the economy and how much is the game I do not know. Part of this may be animosity toward the system from the local gamestore. But neither the local Borders nor Waldenbooks plan to maintain the line either. Then again, they are thinning down D20 stuff as well, still getting in a bit, but they definitely trimmed down their orders.

The Auld Grump, and your friend the parentheses.

 

[painandgreed]

Killing vampires who are not on your side and taking their stuff.
Killing vampires who technically are on your side and taking their stuff.
Killing werewolves and taking their stuff.
Killing humans and taking their stuff.

I think the biggest paradigm shift between D&D and Vampire is that money is worthless or at least not nearly as valuable as in most games. You can start as a multimillionare and it doesn't take much role playing to amass a huge fortune (just bloodbond a few millionaire humans of no notable power). Once you have it, the cars, clothes and houses are fun but not all important. The true "coin of the realm" tends to be majic items which tend to be rare in a Vampire game or social items such as boons, status, and other things that can get other vampire to do things for you. The things that make you really powerful, disciplines, are pretty much only granted through experience.

In D&D terms, this means the only thing worth getting are levels. There are few magic items and not enough to equip everyone with some let alone worry about upgrading. Experience is also not tied to combat so there is no great motivator to start it ...except for boredom. I think half of all conflicts in my chornicles pertty much happen because players want a fight. That's about as hard as walking up to somebody and punching them. The trick is finding the right victims.

 

[Darkness]

I think the biggest paradigm shift between D&D and Vampire is that money is worthless or at least not nearly as valuable as in most games. You can start as a multimillionare and it doesn't take much role playing to amass a huge fortune (just bloodbond a few millionaire humans of no notable power). Once you have it, the cars, clothes and houses are fun but not all important. The true "coin of the realm" tends to be majic items which tend to be rare in a Vampire game or social items such as boons, status, and other things that can get other vampire to do things for you.

Well... You can do a whole lot with money. You just don't put 95% of it in personal equipment.
For starters, humans like money. So if you need a few bodyguards, a mob hit on a vampiric rival (or some human enemy), a secret sanctum built beneath your house, defenses for the same, a politician on your side, or whatever, it's handy to have money (the right connections are handy in some cases, too). You can also use it to do select favors to other vampires who aren't wealthy.

Further, "stuff" in Vampire includes a lot of things besides money. Buildings, territory you are allowed to feed in, influence in the human world, office among vampires, retainers, allies, books of occult knowledge, etc. are all things you can take theoretically take from someone. (Magic items, too, but as PnG said, they're kinda rare.)