Brother Ben and I have given the fifth edition Vampire: the Masquerade pre-alpha rules a coat of looking at. Here are some key thoughts from our diatribe.
Of Target Numbers and How To Reach Them
Ben: At first glance, sixes to succeed plus Willpower offering a whole reroll plus the option to Succeed At A Cost (and choose not to if you don’t like the cost) seems very forgiving to the player.
Von: I think it’s a bit less forgiving than a guaranteed no-cost bare-bones success for the low low price of one Willpower point, and at first I wasn’t quite sure how necessary it was to have both.
Ben: That’s a very powerful mechanic right there. “Hmm, Ranulf needs to really really survive this fight with Urbicus, but I don’t think I rolled enough successes on that melee to break out of his grapple/bite. I will spend a point of willpower, keep all the successes from the previous roll and re-roll all the failures.”
Ben: I like Succeed At A Cost too. Not sure the player should know the price of failure and have the chance to opt out… but not sure they SHOULDN’T have that choice either. But with both in the game I wonder – could critical dice rolls bog down into market style haggling?
Von: Yeah. That’s what I thought: always, always look for ways to eliminate stages from resolution.
Ben: Agreed there. Streamline play. I like the GM mechanic for Take Half – it streamlines stuff.
Von: I don’t think you need a reroll mechanic and a GM-taxing-potential-to-haggle-analysis-paralysis mechanic. It seems to me that “succeed at a cost” is one of those rules which is dependent on a given GM’s ability to invent and balance consequences on the fly, i.e. the sort of rule which is very dependent on the Trust Tree, i.e. the opposite direction from most modern RPGs, which are all about insulating players and GMs from having to make that kind of unreliable call.
Ben: TRUST??? TRUST? THAT HAS NO PLACE HERE! WE WILL INSTEAD SURROUND OURSELVES WITH BLOAT AND CRUFT SO THAT I NO ONE EVER HAS TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES, BUT CAN INSTEAD HIDE BEHIND AN AUTHORITARIAN “IT’S IN THE BOOK!”
Von: Yes, quite. Now stop working for Paizo.
Von: Oh, hang on, I’ve just caught something about Succeed at a Cost – it only triggers if you’re ONE success short.
Ben: That makes a difference.
Von: Yeh. I guess it’s there to create drama around a near miss?
Ben: This gains support from me.
Von: “You don’t hang on to the ledge yourself but you DO grab Nico’s hand, now you can have a contrived moment of friendship and heroism while dramatic music plays.”
Von: I don’t like losing the botch/10-again rule though. I like that some possible outcomes on a d10 have more significance. At the moment it doeesn’t need to be d10s – it could be done with coin flips. The probability events being used don’t need ten different outputs, so it’s pointless having ten different outputs.
Ben: All you have done there is stated something in its favour – WE CAN PLAY EVEN IF NO-ONE BRINGS DICE.
Von: We could… although I find coins physically harder to manipulate and read than dice. *flips coin, it flies off, lands in someone’s drink/on the floor/in the soup etc.*
Ben: Was thinking along those lines myself.
Von: It’s more that – OK, if WW want us to use the d10 artifact, for nostalgia’s sake/because IT’S GAMING SO POLYHEDRA, they need some gradation in the outputs to justify that artifact. Some of the backlash I’ve seen indicates that people instinctively understand that.
Of Character Stats
Ben: Character attributes have been folded riiiiiight down by the look of it? The 9 attributes vs. 3 attributes + specializations? At the moment I am not quite sure I see why they made this change. They say it’s to allow for characters to customize and personalize their characters, but it seems to actually REMOVE some flexibility to me.
Von: I think they’ve gone a bit too far there. There WERE some obvious dump stats on the old sheet, but I thought Requiem did a decent job of fixing those and making the 3×3 something sensible and useful, like a look up table for what Attribute you should use. BUT: Physical, Social, Mental, with specialities, is all I’ve ever bothered with for my NPCs, and it seems to work.
Ben: Hmm. The higher your physical stats, the more damage you can take in a simple ‘you have more boxes to fill’ system. And from what I saw of combat in ‘how you roll to hit’ above, I gather there are no Soak rolls now. You make an opposed roll to hit, and the loser of that roll takes the difference between winner and loser as damage. COMBAT MIGHT BE FAST.
Von: Yeah, they’ve stripped that sixteen stage “getting punched in the face” process down a bit.
Ben: I also like that the character whose turn it is can LOSE to their target and have the tables turned on them.
Ben: I see the damage track no longer has stunning/bashing/bullshitting/burning/whatevering all being counted separately. It’s just ‘this could worry a mortal’ and ‘this could worry a vampire’.
Von: Like Second Edition. The Sensible Edition.
Ben: It states that all superficial damage taken is halved before being applied to the damage tracker. Is that for vampires only, or mortals too? Or is the difference simply that a vampire considers far FAR more types of attack to be superficial?
Von: I think you’re right – vampires can walk off a lot more. I see several layers of granularity here: types of damage that can be halved, but those convert when you fill the track and loop around again, damaging an impaired target.
Ben: That sort of makes sense to me – and we’re already doing it after a fashion. “Ranulf jumped that badly burned (aggravated) Tremere in the sewers. His tackle would only have been superficial damage, but that guy was so badly chewed up already that the damage looped round and converted – meaning Ranulf’s tackle broke some bones and knocked the Tremere into torpor.”
Von: Exactly. It’s mostly about eliminating the bash/lethal split and the damage/soak rolls. Speeding fights up – which we kind of half do anyway by using attack rolls to modify damage rolls.
Ben: I have to admit, so far I like this system. I mean, I need to actually PLAY it, but so far I like it.
Von: There are a few places where I think it could stand to streamline more (any time I have to roll some dice, find a difference, convert one of those to a different significance, then do some halving, I’m sensing too much granularity) but it’s… close?
Ben: Hmm… we no-longer have blood pools? Interesting. Brings in the idea that Vampires can… ‘fast’ for want of a better term.
Ben: Is the new Hunger system LESS book keeping than the old Blood Pools? We’re not tracking each point of Blood anymore, but we are now having to track how many times we do something that SHOULD be a Blood Point. Functionally identical? And then on TOP of that, we have to make another set of bookkeeping rolls at the end the scene to see how much our hunger changes…
Von: There’s a huge difference between Blood and Hunger that I think you’ve missed. It comes down to what WW want the core of the vampire game experience to be.
Von: IF it’s ‘how much blood you have on you’, the actual act of getting the blood is decentred. Blood points lead to that mindset where you have blood packs in your pockets as “magic potions” like in the PC games, or magical bullshit blood gems like the Tremere use.
Von: So let’s re-engineer. Vampire. Creature that preys on the living. Ergo, preying on the living should be a core, fundamental, unavoidable, unelidable part of a game about being a vampire.
Von: Here’s Hunger. It’s a drawback that doesn’t go away until you feed. It gets worse the more stuff you do. NOW: I think the end-of-scene book-keeping may have its drawbacks, if it’s executed coldly right on the heels of something highly dramatic, BUT I think I prefer it to tracking and fretting during every action where blood may come into play. Want to do a thing? Do a thing. Give yourself a hunger tick. It may come back to bite you afterwards, but that’s cool. Stride out of a confrontation, full of rage and thirst, go hunt to slake it. It… feels vampiric.
Ben: Agreed. I’m liking the clan-specific reactions to Hunger too…
Von: Same. ‘specially the Gangrel ones.
Ben: Actually I thought the Gangrel get off a bit more lightly than everyone else. Their most basic Tell is the same as a far FAR lower level one from the generic chart.
Von: They tickle and amuse me is all I mean. The Toreador ones are… asking for trouble though.
Von: Why is Aura Perception still there? It’s a pain in the ass, always has been.
Ben: Because it’s fairly central to Auspex? What would you have instead?
Von: I would streamline almost all Disciplines along the lines of VTM Bloodlines. “It basically does one thing, maybe picking up another dimension along the way, but essentially it modifies dice pools for particular things.”
Ben: I see some like Celerity are no longer just more dots = more of the same. I like the changes they’ve made to the ‘more, but better’ powers.
Von: I’m not sure I do, BUT I think if you’re going to do the “each dot represents a new power” thing, then extending that to the physical disciplines is only fair.
Ben: Indeed. All powers should progress the same. Not… “Brujah: one new dot? oh, you’re a little bit stronger. Tremere: one new dot? Here’s a whole raft of new bullshit auto-magical things you can do…”
Von: Yeah. I would personally prefer “Everyone: one new dot? OK, you get a bit better at that thing you do, and maybe a new element to that thing you do”, but you’re right.
Ben: Just read Potence – THAT’S changed a lot an- HOLY SHIT – USING THIS SYSTEM RANULF COULD PUNCH STRAIGHT THROUGH PLATE??? and it’s only a 1 dot ability use to gain his FULL Potence rating on damage rolls?
Ben: I can’t see anything saying it works this way, but: Ranulf with his Potence 3 could put his fist straight through a knight’s breastplate…. would activating Potence 3 ALSO activate the lower levels of it? Specifically, would he still gain the enhanced damage of Potence 1 IN ADDITION to negating armour? Can’t see anything that says this is the case, but I have been sort of skimming.
Von: I think it’s one Rouse, one power. You want to do three Rouses for all your Potence effects, you be my guest fam.
Von: Think about Presence; would you want to trigger Awe, Dread Gaze and Entrancement all at once? (I can think of case where you might, actually, or at least to trigger them in that order…)
Ben: Given that I’ve seen at least one example where it explicitly stated that you also received the benefits of lower levels, this is what I expected.
Ben: I’m wondering if Disciplines don’t go beyond 3 dots or is that simply not written yet.
Von: My guess is what’s here is “enough to test the waters around the major, sensitive, bedrock-level changes like Hunger and Rousing and not needing four rolls to give someone a clip round the earhole.”
Ben: I assumed the same – ‘heres enough of the rules to test the core stuff. the rest either isn’t relevant or we haven’t included it in order to avoid muddying the test waters’. although to be honest… theres a LOT to be said for slimming down disciplines to Less Than Ten dots. can we remove needless complexity?
Ben: Using Potence as an example: the very first tier allows for near open ended actual ability. The more levels of Potence you have, the more auto-damage you actually DO. Not sure other powers have the same sort of flexibility though – in depth reading required. Some powers would lend them selves to a simple ‘you have more than three dots? then gain extra dice on your dice pool’ style stuff. But others, I suspect, definitely DON’T.
Von: Depends how you’re going to do the generation/elder mechanics, I suppose? I mean – YES, those eight or nine dot powers were seldom used, BUT those eight or nine dot powers quantify an element of the lore and atmosphere, namely “Methuselahs are running the world in their sleep”. IF that aspect is being toned down THEN the high-end powers can go.
Actual Play Review to follow. More on this as details emerge.