Old design choices that proved to be non-optimal

Looking over another multiple-master-phase deck i figured out that it's about time to start a debate about design choices that were good but not best. First candidate: Master phase. IMO, if the game would be redone, there would be only three phases: Unlock Minion Influence And most cards would be played in Minion phase (including current master cards), reasoning is, in many cases cards would be better balanced. Also, there are many cases where players draw master cards too late and are denied master card power spike, or they draw too many master cards and are stuck with it. Moreover, there would still be possibility to apply (at the start of minion phase) or (at the end of minion phase) on those neo-master cards, if it's suitable. There could be increased limit on master cards out-of-the box to two, and power adjusted. Second candidate: Actions The most glaring problem nobody will agree with me about is that actions have only two outcomes: full success and failure. It's quite ok for most cases but the action that suffer the most about no partial success is bleed and stealth modifiers. If the game would be redone, there could be place for partial success (just 1 stealth over intercept, as opposed to full success with 2+ stealth over intercept or no block attempts), which would decrease benefits from successful actions (especially bleed actions, and modifiers would not give plain stealth but some kind of stealth that increase partial success range). Third candidate: No vanishing returns from single discipline Prime candidate here is mono-discipline (insert: combat, +bleed, +stealth, +vote). As the game is constructed, it's most of time better to go mono/duo-discipline than decrease crypt quality for triple+-discipline crypt, as you can stack a lot of similar effects with just single discipline. As game progressed, the amount of different action modifiers for say auspex/obfuscate increased and you can mix/match them for very good +stealth/intercept package. There were not a lot of lost in crowds/into thin air look-a-like cards which is real shame. When it comes to combat, prime offender here (design wise, not balance wise) is animalism with it's carrion crowds that have "A vampire can play only one Carrion Crows each combat." The game would be better if it would get a generic trait (animal summon) and text "A vampire can play only one animal summon each combat.", opening more design space for similar cards that wouldn't stack with it (it should also be killable retainer, but it's another story). Similar case would be with Torn Signpost-like cards an "blood buff" trait. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

I like the idea of having 'partial success' or greater rewards for succeeding with more stealth. It doesn't even have to be 2+ stealth for full success, or just 1 for partial, it can be done on a card-by-card basis. For example, one card could reward succeeding by 4+ stealth, and even let you contribute stealth-modifiers (even if not needed) to reach that 'full success'. I also think the game and deck-building should be based on using a variety of Disciplines. Unfortunately, the current card designs suffer from 1) the grouping rule limiting crypt options; 2) partly because of the grouping rule, every new group needs a core bunch of vampires with the same Discipline spreads - inferior out-of-clan disciplines are generally not very useful, and creative and interesting Discipline spreads are rare; 3) the Library cards requiring Disciplines don't ask for particular spreads - most are mono-Discipline, and the few that are dual-discipline follow the "[inferior][inferior] OR [superior][superior]" model. There are no Library cards requiring three Disciplines, or others following the Elemental Stoicism model. About the phases: I was thinking about how the game could be redone in a way that necessitated less beads, and the solution I came up with was changing the phases and separating age from capacity. Basically, have two phases: Master & Minion. You can take them in either order. During your Master Phase, you get Influence Points to spend. You spend these playing cards, activating effects, and untapping them. _________ But none of this or that matters, because the game won't change. It won't get a reboot or update or patches or sweeping errata. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

How do you express "partial success" when doing an action such as : burn a location? Also, it's weird to simplify the phases to reduce them to 3, and then suggest a change that overcomplicates action resolution which is already complex. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Wait, there were mistakes in a game that failed 3 times? Or was it 4? So hard to keep track.

> Ankha wrote: > How do you express "partial success" when doing an action such as : burn a location? > > Also, it's weird to simplify the phases to reduce them to 3, and then suggest a change that overcomplicates action resolution which is already complex. > 1)For example, burn location unless controller burn 3 pool? When it comes to bleed action, it might be reduce bleed amount to half (rounded up or down) 2) It's not about simplification per se, it's about better flow and flexibility. Besides, it's not vastly different if there are three different outcomes instead of 2 if stealth/intercept mechanics is keep nearly as is. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Lech wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > How do you express "partial success" when doing an action such as : burn a location? > > > > Also, it's weird to simplify the phases to reduce them to 3, and then suggest a change that overcomplicates action resolution which is already complex. > > > 1)For example, burn location unless controller burn 3 pool? > When it comes to bleed action, it might be reduce bleed amount to half (rounded up or down) > > 2) It's not about simplification per se, it's about better flow and flexibility. Besides, it's not vastly different if there are three different outcomes instead of 2 if stealth/intercept mechanics is keep nearly as is. > There is an underground vtes scene near me that consists of 8+ player games in a garage with no time limits, 50 starting pool, alternate rules, and massive amounts of weed. One of the rules they made was that if you exceeded the intercept of the acting minion there was no combat. You also could add intercept to be over the stealth. The concept of different levels of success was something I have kicked around with on political actions. blah blahs blahed political action: worth 3 votes - do 1 damage to 2 blahs or worth 1 vote - do 4 damage to blahs or worth -1 vote do 6 damage to blahs Needs tuned but you get the idea. voting has always seemed like mostly a fail to me. play with titles, hope to get vote lock and do whatever you want.

> Mewcat wrote: > The concept of different levels of success was something I have kicked around with on political actions. > I think the scope for this on political actions is much better than on a lot of other cards, because there's only one level on political actions. When you have at least two levels, possibly three with a fallback level, handling partial success and full success (or whatever else) eats into a lot of space for card text. This gets particularly acute where different levels can be almost entirely unrelated. e.g. just picking the first random card I can find with three unrelated levels: Frozen Object +1 stealth action. A Methuselah can have only one Frozen Object in play. [ser] Look at a Methuselah's hand and burn all equipment cards found there. [tem] Put this card on the acting vampire. If this vampire successfully blocks a action, you may burn this card to do 2 unpreventable damage to the acting minion before combat begins. [TEM] Put this card in play. You may burn this card when a bleed against you is successful to do 2 unpreventable damage to the acting minion (inflicted after the action is complete). Defining partial and full success for each level would be painful in terms of requiring a magnifying glass, or mean that you have to alter cards to do fewer things in the first place, which is also annoying.

As I see there are three types of posts in the forum: 1. Tournament reports. Usually containing just decklist because nobody really cares what have happened at the table. 2. Rules questions - even after 25 years there are countless rule holes. 3. Suggestions to change design of the game somehow. Why is it so? Lol NC Russia

> LivesByProxy wrote: > I like the idea of having 'partial success' or greater rewards for succeeding with more stealth. It doesn't even have to be 2+ stealth for full success, or just 1 for partial, it can be done on a card-by-card basis. For example, one card could reward succeeding by 4+ stealth, and even let you contribute stealth-modifiers (even if not needed) to reach that 'full success'. > > I also think the game and deck-building should be based on using a variety of Disciplines. Unfortunately, the current card designs suffer from 1) the grouping rule limiting crypt options; 2) partly because of the grouping rule, every new group needs a core bunch of vampires with the same Discipline spreads - inferior out-of-clan disciplines are generally not very useful, and creative and interesting Discipline spreads are rare; 3) the Library cards requiring Disciplines don't ask for particular spreads - most are mono-Discipline, and the few that are dual-discipline follow the "[inferior][inferior] OR [superior][superior]" model. There are no Library cards requiring three Disciplines, or others following the Elemental Stoicism model. > > About the phases: I was thinking about how the game could be redone in a way that necessitated less beads, and the solution I came up with was changing the phases and separating age from capacity. Basically, have two phases: Master & Minion. You can take them in either order. During your Master Phase, you get Influence Points to spend. You spend these playing cards, activating effects, and untapping them. > > _________ > But none of this or that matters, because the game won't change. It won't get a reboot or update or patches or sweeping errata. > 1. Sure, some cards would have binary success model, some cards would require more stealth to get full success and it should be on per card basis. 2. This one is unfortunate, but still salvageable. I'd like to see more cards with inf/sup/sup inf or inf/ inf inf/sup inf spread. Sadly, it's mostly inf inf/ sup sup for no real reason. Perhaps even inf/ sup inf/ sup other inf. 3. Sadly it's not really feasible in current card pool due to various reasons. 4. It won't. However pointing out flaws is good to do. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

Looks like the suggestions would heavily complicate the game. The only thing that sort of appealed to me with 1st reading was merging of master and minion phases so you could play master cards bit less narrowly. However the master cards are already so strong that on second thinking I do not think they should be made even stronger. Finnish Politics!

It should be obvious for everyone that none of those design choices can be used at the moment ( and can only be used in some form on new cards that have it in mind, for example on masters that have playable also in minion phase text). The only thing that could be perhaps done is making master and minion phase interchangeable (full master then full minion or full minion then full master), and even then we have things like millicent smith that by design intend should affect your turn too. Masters are strong, but they are strongest in decks that get full mileage out of master cards each turn anyway. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

@James: It's perfectly feasible and reasonable to have cards with 1 effect like Army of Rats, 2 effects like Govern, 3 different effects like Undue Influence, or the inf/inf/sup model of the Temporis and Melpominee cards. Frankly, I don't understand why we don't have cards like: Card 1 [effect 1] [effect 2] Card 2 [effect 1] [effect 2] Card 3 [effect 1] And your point about the space for card-text is mostly fixed by using keywords for commonly used game-phrases like: --"Put this card into play." --"A methuselah can only have 1 of [card name]." --"Put this card on the acting vampire." --"A minion can only have 1 of [card name]." For example, just off the top of my head: --Permanent. --Singular. --Attachment. --Restricted. That condenses 22 words on Frozen Object into just three words... Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > @James: > It's perfectly feasible and reasonable to have cards with 1 effect like Army of Rats, 2 effects like Govern, 3 different effects like Undue Influence, or the inf/inf/sup model of the Temporis and Melpominee cards. > Err, yes, we have all of those things in the game. That's not the point I was making. The point I was making was about full and partial success. Having to define full and partial success, giving you potentially six different outcomes, is massively more complex. > LivesByProxy wrote: > And your point about the space for card-text is mostly fixed by using keywords for commonly used game-phrases like: > Yes, because what V:TES really, really needs is even more terminology for new players to have to understand. Making players have to understand another bunch of keywords to interact with huge amounts of cards is not a "fix", it's exacerbating a problem V:TES already has in spades. > LivesByProxy wrote: > For example, just off the top of my head: > Important game design decisions shouldn't be made off the top of anyone's head.

@James: > > Lech wrote: > "Sure, some cards would have binary success model, some cards would require more stealth to get full success and it should be on per card basis." > Which IMO, is the best way to go about doing it. The 'partial success' mechanic could be / should be on select cards. It could be an interesting design going forward, the same way playing with Discipline requirements (as shown previously) could be explored going forward. > James wrote: > Yes, because what V:TES really, really needs is even more terminology for new players to have to understand. Making players have to understand another bunch of keywords to interact with huge amounts of cards is not a "fix", it's exacerbating a problem V:TES already has in spades. > In my opinion, the terminology that's actually a barrier to entry for this game is all of the VTM specific stuff. Words like 'damage', 'steal', 'votes', 'stealth', 'intercept', etc. are all basically explanatory. The keywords I proposed: Permanent, Singular, Attachment, and Restricted are all easy to grasp because they adhere closely to their real-world definitions. But then you have the VTM terminology like "diablerie", "torpor", "antitribu", "chimerstry", "black hand", "liabon", "priscus", "ghoul", etc. Words that - if people have even seen them before - don't coincide with a dictionary definition because WW is fond of using obscure and archaic words and changing them to mean something else entirely. I'm surprised you're arguing against the usefulness of keywords in the game - their functionally mnemonic devices. Also, the words themselves were off the top of my head. The concept or 'game design decision' has been present in Magic since its inception, and FFG has used keywords like that since they started their LCGs in 2010 (since their inception). Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

The title misled me to believe this would be a thread on Imbued and MMPA enablers. My mistake..... The most productive ideas pointing out problems tend to be the ones addressing a solution that enables different decks and playstyles, as those relieve potential stagnation as well as experience less backlash than "ban govern" style arguments. The second most productive are the pre-argument parts of addressing overpowered, as of yet unfixed things, such as..... MMPA enablers exceeding 1 at any methuselahs disposal and Imbued. I can still dream....... (Can we go back to "this card should be like this per the fluff" threads? Those were fun, right?)

I think there is plenty options to design new cards. Maybe: +1 bleed. If the action is blocked and this minion is ready, your prey lose 1 pool. as above with +1 stealth ( even if not needed yet ). If no one attempt to block, gain 1 pool. A minion can use more then one effect during this action. + 1 hand size during this action + 1 bleed + 1 stealth I liked the new keywords, but maybe we can stick to "unique" keyword and add a modifier: Unique ( Methuselah ) - Unique PER Methuselah Unique ( Minion ) - Unique PER Minion Unique ( Vampire ) - Unique PER Vampire Unique ( Combat ) - Unique PER Combat Unique ( Action ) - Unique PER Action Unique ( Turn ) - Unique PER Turn Archbishop of Itaocara Prince ID #510

[Note from Ankha]: I am very sorry, but I made a mistake and edited your message instead of quoting it. I'm leaving as much of the original message] <message lost> Therefore, use of parentheses in "(limited)" is divergent from use in normal English because parentheses normally indicate a nonrestrictive element (which is done on many cards). In the case of "(limited)," parentheses indicate restrictive text, meaning it can't be removed without the meaning being altered (one could play more than one card if "(limited)" does not appear). <message lost>

> Sambomb wrote: > Therefore, use of parentheses in "(limited)" is divergent from use in normal English because parentheses normally indicate a nonrestrictive element (which is done on many cards). In the case of "(limited)," parentheses indicate restrictive text, meaning it can't be removed without the meaning being altered (one could play more than one card if "(limited)" does not appear). > Wrong. You can remove them, and bleed modifiers would still be restricted per the rule: "No more than one action modifier card can be played to increase a bleed during a bleed action. Some bleed action modifiers explicitly state that they do not count against this limit; those can be played before or after modifiers that count against the limit." Previously, some text between parentheses was optional, and sometimes not. We aim at consistency: all text between parentheses is optional. We also decided to add the "(limited)" reminder text to all the bleed cards because the special rule for bleed modifiers was moved from the cards to the rulebook, and we wanted to help old players to make the transition. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Sambomb wrote: > I think there is plenty options to design new cards. > Maybe: > +1 bleed. If the action is blocked and this minion is ready, your prey lose 1 pool. > as above with +1 stealth ( even if not needed yet ). If no one attempt to block, gain 1 pool. > > A minion can use more then one effect during this action. > + 1 hand size during this action > + 1 bleed > + 1 stealth > > I liked the new keywords, but maybe we can stick to "unique" keyword and add a modifier: > > Unique ( Methuselah ) - Unique PER Methuselah > Unique ( Minion ) - Unique PER Minion > Unique ( Vampire ) - Unique PER Vampire > Unique ( Combat ) - Unique PER Combat > Unique ( Action ) - Unique PER Action > Unique ( Turn ) - Unique PER Turn > We can just drop parentheses and use the full description. Unique per Methuselah Unique per Minion Unique per Vampire Unique per Combat Unique per Action Unique per Turn Maybe we can use Unique text for once per game cards too like Giants Blood. > Original wrote: > Name: Giant's Blood > [Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R, LoB:PG, Third:R, LotN:PG, KoT:R/PM] > Cardtype: Master > Master. > Fill a vampire to full capacity with blood from the blood bank. Only one Giant's Blood can be played in a game. > Artist: Richard Thomas; Edward Beard, Jr. > > Revised wrote: > Name: Giant's Blood > [Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R, LoB:PG, Third:R, LotN:PG, KoT:R/PM] > Cardtype: Master > Master. Unique per game. > Fill a vampire to full capacity with blood from the blood bank. > Artist: Richard Thomas; Edward Beard, Jr. > Archbishop of Itaocara Prince ID #510

Unique means something very specific in VTES: Only one copy of a unique card can be in play at a time. If another Methuselah puts a copy of the card into play, the copies will be contested (and out of play) until all but one is yielded (see Contested Cards, sec. 4.1). What your proposing is giving several different VTES definitions to the word Unique. Currently it only has one making it easy to remember. It also adheres closely to the dictionary definition, requiring little mental effort to draw the connection and remember the rule. I think assigning common game rules to different, specific words is simple and clean. Limited ("No more than one action modifier card can be played to increase a bleed during a bleed action.") is a good keyword. The only mystery to me is why it is in parenthesis at the end of the card-text, rather than being foremost like how Trifle and Unique on Master Cards, and how Titles and other Traits are presented 1st on the Crypt Cards. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

Unique and Limited in VTES in my point of view has the same meaning. The only difference is that Limited could receive a numeric value, something like: Limited to 2 Limited ( 2 ) Limited 1 Limited When no number is listed, you implies a value of 1 and the meaning is the same as unique language-wise ( as a foreign language). The "Unique" as a keyword that enable contest and the "unique" that I proposed would be confusing, the Limited could be used instead or any similar word like "restricted" Restricted per Game / Limited per Game / only one "Card Name" can be played in a game. Name: Kevlar Vest [KoT:U/B2] Cardtype: Equipment Cost: 1 pool Limited per minion./Restricted per minion. Once each combat, the bearer can prevent 2 damage from gun strikes or 1 damage from any other source. A minion can have only one Kevlar Vest. Artist: Juan Calle Archbishop of Itaocara Prince ID #510

> Sambomb wrote: > Unique and Limited in VTES in my point of view has the same meaning. The only difference is that Limited could receive a numeric value, something like: > Limited to 2 > Limited ( 2 ) > Limited 1 > Limited > When no number is listed, you implies a value of 1 and the meaning is the same as unique language-wise ( as a foreign language). > > The "Unique" as a keyword that enable contest and the "unique" that I proposed would be confusing, the Limited could be used instead or any similar word like "restricted" > > Restricted per Game / Limited per Game / only one "Card Name" can be played in a game. > > Name: Kevlar Vest > [KoT:U/B2] > Cardtype: Equipment > Cost: 1 pool > Limited per minion./Restricted per minion. > Once each combat, the bearer can prevent 2 damage from gun strikes or 1 damage from any other source. A minion can have only one Kevlar Vest. > Artist: Juan Calle > This is an example of introducing shorthand language that's more harmful than helpful. If the expectation is for the reader to read "limited per minion", which looks like a short hand way of saying "limited to 1 per minion", and understand it as "A minion can have only 1 [x]", this is not likely to be the case. People will misunderstand this to mean any number of things, the most likely being "only one of your minions can have [x]", or "only 1 minion in the game can have [x]," or "Only minions and not methuselahs can control [x]", or even "You can only have a number of copies of [x] in play equal to the number of minions you control." There's no such misunderstanding with the existing language.