|
Yawgmoth posted:So D&D makes you both an edgy loner and too willing to work as a team. I would think "A group of people all trying to brag about how much of an uncaring loner they are" is a problem that would explain itself in a social group roleplaying setting. That said, again, my info is all second hand.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 20:32
|
|
And these are both bad for a LARP because
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Mister Olympus posted:The best way to talk about it I've found is that there are a few really distinct player types with some room between them in LARP. Ideally, a group is big enough to satisfy all of those types--people who like using weird builds, say, or people who want to collaboratively solve a plot, or people who want to play politics. I would actually love to run a Mage game with about a dozen people. That's enough for 3 cabals easily, and you don't have to stick to cabal lines when someone can't make it. Much better than only having a few people and then not getting to play when someone can't make it. But I also borrow heavily from a Westmarches DnD perspective. I have a world, there are many things in it. You tell me what you want to explore and then we'll go and do that. There's still a metaplot, but I have a lot of things that feed into it in different ways that shape how it progresses. It's a big sandbox really, and I'm still running my single table game this way. Took a little adjustment for a couple of the players, but now it's moving pretty well and they're coming up with ideas and it all just feeds on itself. They've become more invested in the story this way when compared to past experiences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Here's my larp story: Aeons ago, I was invited to a Vampire larp by a guy I was playing Magic with at a comic shop. I went and made my character, a Brujah rear end in a top hat. Nobody told me it was solely a game about sitting around Elysium and looking goth and being smug, so my character wanted to actually do stuff, and pushed for it. I was in the middle of explaining why we should totally rob a bank when I was taken aside by the ST and the player of the local Sheriff, told I offended the sensibilities of the other players and as a result, my character had to die now because I was too disruptive, and it was an open question whether I would be granted the privilege of continuing to play. That phrasing isn't an exaggeration btw. I understand this was different sensibilities clashing poorly, but they could have done a better job explaining the tone of their game, what the expectations for players were, and been more newbie friendly. It's my understanding that the majority of groups are like that, so I got the message that it's a subcategory of the hobby that's not for me. I never larped again. Well, except for at a convention when a girl I was into thought a Werewolf game sounded like it would be fun. It wasn't. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
There are people in New Zealand who still get a thousand yard stare whenever anyone brings up Vampire larp. But in the past couple of years there's been a pretty successful Hunter campaign, and the Werewolf game currently running is by all accounts quite fun. There's also the Vampire game that's been running since the early 90s, but that only has like six dudes playing it. I know the STs and I think they're pretty good about making it a decent balance between "sitting around Elysium sniping at each other" and "going out and doing poo poo". Though I've never played it, because at least half their players are grognardy shitlords, and the half that I like don't really make up for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:Linked WoD LARPs have all the same problems as random pick-up tabletop games: Lack of player-trust, plot/screen time as a commodity, natural favoritism, PvP is taken personally. They also have a lot of problems early MMOs faced: PvP Disparity, Lack of Playstyle Balance, Permadeath. They also have all the bureaucratic problems an interstate / international org faces - including criminal cases of corruption and harassment. I mean I ran a LARP once where nobody got sexually harassed and I considered that a kind of victory and it was invite-only so I guess you're right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Mage Familiars - is acquiring the Familiar merit really something that's basically only done by a Spirit Master who really really likes you? I assume a Master rather than adept because they want a bit of reach to bump up the duration to Advanced and up the Potency, and then after all that, I say "really really likes you" because then they need to spend a dot of willpower to relinquish the spell safely. In the 'causing this condition' bit in the table it says that creating the Familiar condition is only caused by the spell and spirits can't do it innately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:Mage Familiars - is acquiring the Familiar merit really something that's basically only done by a Spirit Master who really really likes you? Yes. Buying the Familiar Merit in character creation indicates that someone in your Order decided you were worth the effort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Captain_Person posted:1. LARPers always want to be cool and play against type. Yeah, I dread having to make PVP moves. Some folks have zero problem with going right up and torporing a PC, but too often it results in babyrage, because they got busted out of whatever plan they made, and try to weasel their way out of it OOC. No one wants to feel like they got played in a game like this, but the game is set up such that, if you buy into the story and antagonistic systems, there's nothing stopping you from totally screwing someone, or just pounding their characters into the dirt. It's easy to take it personally, because it can shatter someone's self-image to get played like a fiddle, or as is more often the case, browbeaten into the corner during the course of play. That being said, it's important to be a team player, and offer your strengths so that other people on your team can cover your weaknesses. It also lets you diffuse feelings of self-blame upon defeat, because everyone can shoulder a loss together. In Masquerade, or at least how I elect to play it, your Clans, lineages, Domains and coteries are different affiliations you can base a team upon. Teams should screw other teams over, and while internal betrayal can happen, it's often due to things like boons getting called up. There's no real end-state win scenario either, at least, there shouldn't be if a group gets to be tyrannical. Vampire should be a crab bucket.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
MC Smoke Sensei posted:No one wants to feel like they got played in a game like this, but the game is set up such that, if you buy into the story and antagonistic systems, there's nothing stopping you from totally screwing someone, or just pounding their characters into the dirt. It's easy to take it personally, because it can shatter someone's self-image to get played like a fiddle, or as is more often the case, browbeaten into the corner during the course of play. LARPing for WoD stuff is pretty much like playing Diplomacy for an extended period of time. There may be less frequent double crosses, but that probably only makes it harder for people to deal with. Look at it this way. PvP happens because of some conflict in interests. The problem of course is that the PvP probably started before the actual combat, but people tend to not look at social/political maneuvering as PvP. So you're right about the babyrage, but it only happens because of the conflicting interests in the first place. I mean really, who wouldn't hate to play for a chapter trying to accomplish something only for the tables to turn, and find out your allies weren't really your allies and you end up on the losing end instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Jhet posted:LARPing for WoD stuff is pretty much like playing Diplomacy for an extended period of time. There may be less frequent double crosses, but that probably only makes it harder for people to deal with. You're right, it's not usually fun to be on the receiving end of that. It may also just be that, in practice, it really is more beneficial to everyone involved to take the risk of placing trust in someone else, at least to a point. The whole boon economy thing seems to be exactly for that purpose, to set up rules for no-fault double-crossing. Going outside of boons is where it can get silly, though. In the end, people at least cooperate in enforcing the system of IOU currency as their trust buy-in. Does that make sense?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
I mean, to me this is the Vampire LARP model in a nutshell and no game has ever followed it perfectly but most games seem to orbit it fairly regularly. This applies more to Requiem than to Masquerade and it gets broken when people are allowed to make 500+xp characters but is otherwise fairly consistent: 1.) It is possible to make a single character who can torpor or kill most other equal XP characters. 2.) Any given character, no matter how combat focused, can be brought down by superior action economy. In general, 4 or more characters can take down any one character once initiative is drawn. 3.) Therefore, a character with friends is stronger than one who puts all their XP into combat. So a 'well played' Vampire PvP is more about making allies and playing games of lies than it is about staking people. Masquerade sort of broke point number 2 with Celerity but Requiem evened it up quite a bit. Making someone not want to stake you in a dark ally - either because they're your friend or because you have enough friends that it makes getting away with it unlikely - is sort of the point of the game. Punctuated moments of violence do and should happen, but they really shouldn't catch anyone terribly by surprise. I think one of the stupidest things that happens in LARPs is an attempt to formalize boons through registry systems and literaly currency exchanges. Trading a boon owed to you to someone likely to abuse the boon is one of the most important choices in Vampire. You would probably only do that if you owed someone more powerful than yourself or if you got something better out of the deal than was already owed to you. It's going to cheese off the person who issued you that boon in the first place, but maybe you don't care - you're choosing to let poo poo roll down hill. Or not. Maybe you're more of a populist and choose to reinforce your Status as a straight dealer by using the boon on something direct and sensible. That's the game. In a solid game of Vampire people should be dicks, but they should be trying to be dicks to some people and not others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think one of the stupidest things that happens in LARPs is an attempt to formalize boons through registry systems and literaly currency exchanges. Trading a boon owed to you to someone likely to abuse the boon is one of the most important choices in Vampire. You would probably only do that if you owed someone more powerful than yourself or if you got something better out of the deal than was already owed to you. It's going to cheese off the person who issued you that boon in the first place, but maybe you don't care - you're choosing to let poo poo roll down hill. Or not. Maybe you're more of a populist and choose to reinforce your Status as a straight dealer by using the boon on something direct and sensible. That's the game. I like formal style boon systems, personally. The transfer issue can be a problem, but I've seen it solved by requiring the Harpies to sign off on all transfers, with the original debtor able to challenge things. The Harpy can declare a given transfer unsound, or can even degrade the value of the transferred boon. Another advantage of this system is actual adjudication. If you trade a minor boon for some influence support, then the dude comes back and wants you as part of a combat party - make your pitch that it's not a fair repayment. This also makes the choice of harpy important for the boon economy - how will this person enforce transfers? Does that person value politics or combat more as a commodity? Etc. But - I tend to lean Invictus, so love all the Oath Contracts and hierarchies and stuff like that, so YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:I like formal style boon systems, personally. The transfer issue can be a problem, but I've seen it solved by requiring the Harpies to sign off on all transfers, with the original debtor able to challenge things. The Harpy can declare a given transfer unsound, or can even degrade the value of the transferred boon. Another advantage of this system is actual adjudication. If you trade a minor boon for some influence support, then the dude comes back and wants you as part of a combat party - make your pitch that it's not a fair repayment. This also makes the choice of harpy important for the boon economy - how will this person enforce transfers? Does that person value politics or combat more as a commodity? Etc. I truly wish people were more reasonable about this. There was a recent row over whether boons were transferable or not in the MES. National's office initially ruled "no unless specified", but then BNS weighed in with a rules clarification stating "yes they are". Technically BNS overruled it, since their rules FAQ counts above the National office. Regarding PVP overall though, I just am not that confrontational in real life, and I don't want to get into a situation where people start reeeeing at me for making a move against their characters. I really resent it when they do, because I expect people to know what they're getting into, to understand the social contract these sorts of games have. Yet it's also true that different people play for different reasons, and it's really not practical to try and tell people that there's only one valid reason to play these games. Does that make sense?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
MC Smoke Sensei posted:Regarding PVP overall though, I just am not that confrontational in real life, and I don't want to get into a situation where people start reeeeing at me for making a move against their characters. I really resent it when they do, because I expect people to know what they're getting into, to understand the social contract these sorts of games have. Yet it's also true that different people play for different reasons, and it's really not practical to try and tell people that there's only one valid reason to play these games. Does that make sense? Right. Public LARP is an odd duck because there are a lot of different reasons to play, and this isn't always addressed by the group. So what happens when you have a hardcore PvP person start confronting someone who is mainly there for the social aspect of a community? Or because they'd rather be playing Werewolf, but don't have an ST - so this Requiem is at least WoD. How do you square those playstyles successfully? It's tough without a robust social contract and an ethical staff. PvP especially is subjective, and I find myself often going to that same trough - when is a move (or response to a move) unreasonable? I've lost characters for a variety of reasons - including "Well, we were bored" and "Sorry, my character is a psychopath and you quipped an insult at my IC girlfriend" - Are those reasonable? You can point to prose in the books where it is. Is it reasonable for a LARP? When any magnitude of PvP - from getting the better end of a deal to status loss to losing an argument can be met with violence/torpor/death - it suppresses a lot of desire to do anything on the PvP level. It's not crabs in a bucket, it's whack a mole. The only 'safe' move is PvE, and then that starts the monster/badguy of the week cycle which can be frustrating for its own reason. Part of the social contract should directly address character death. When is it appropriate to escalate to that level? What's the difference between a rival and an enemy? And once you start seeing (what I consider) abuses in this process, it can really jade you. Press Gangs (As Mendrian points out, 4 PCs > Combat PC. So why not get three buddies to roll starting characters when things are about to go down?) Retirement Sprees (I'm moving tomorrow, so might as well kill some characters before I go, yeah?) White Knighting (Ever notice how PvP against the cute person or golden child is retaliated against more harshly?) But for all the above, it's not that hard to find a plausible way to say, "It's what my character would do." - and if someone is called on the behavior - which is easier - to admit you were off base, or complain to your friends that staff is biased against you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:
This. In my experience, the other side of "monster of the week" is effectively a battle royale. When anything in PVP results in this disproportional response, then violence becomes the only effective response remaining to anyone. When a game overescalates straight to violence, and does so consistently, your only remaining option (besides eating poo poo) is to prepare for violence yourself. Hence in a lot of large-scale LARPs, you'll find people telling new players to min/max the poo poo out of their sheets, because it is how a character survives against people who only build optimized sheets for combat. This scenario played out in my home domain in Requiem from about 2004-2012, straight through, to the point where we were one of the more famous "meat grinder" Requiem games. Requiem became a kind of "Wild West" venue, where people would run around, sometimes literally flying cross-country, to personally kill other players' characters. I knew a guy who flew around to burn down the Havens of people who wronged other Carthians in-game. He'd show up to kill player characters, too. This set the tone for nearly a decade of Requiem. It met some resistance in Masquerade, when a lot of those hyper-aggro players wound up getting run off for trying the same poo poo all over again, and many were having none of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
do NOT jack off posted:This scenario played out in my home domain in Requiem from about 2004-2012, straight through, to the point where we were one of the more famous "meat grinder" Requiem games. Requiem became a kind of "Wild West" venue, where people would run around, sometimes literally flying cross-country, to personally kill other players' characters. I knew a guy who flew around to burn down the Havens of people who wronged other Carthians in-game. He'd show up to kill player characters, too. And I'm actually okay with this as long as it's honestly advertised that this is the game. Then I can judge if it's first a game I want to play, and second what kind of character will maximize my fun. You don't want to show up with a Downton Abbey intrigue character to the Battle Royale venue nor vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
PVP requires a lot of OOC trust that OOCly, the player will not gently caress you over, even though their character is going to gently caress your character over. Understandably, this is not a common commodity in LARPs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:And I'm actually okay with this as long as it's honestly advertised that this is the game. Then I can judge if it's first a game I want to play, and second what kind of character will maximize my fun. You don't want to show up with a Downton Abbey intrigue character to the Battle Royale venue nor vice versa. Yeah, no game will please everyone, and that's a valid direction for Requiem to take. Letting one group set the tone for everyone else creates problems, though. One Domain might be Downton Abbey, and try to pull some political PVP on Murder Battle Domain, expecting them to respond like Downton Abbey. When Murder Battle shows up to Downton Abbey to respond like Murder Battle does to everything else, Downton Abbey is ill-prepared, and quickly succumbs. In a way, brute force is the only real "safe" option in PVP, from what I have seen. Since things like intrigue depend on STs, most of whom you've never even met, there's a definite lack of trust that they will go along with your plan, assuming that your plan is actually sound and has a chance of working. There is only one system that people can really trust to be impartial on behalf of players and staff, and that's combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
do NOT jack off posted:In a way, brute force is the only real "safe" option in PVP, from what I have seen. Since things like intrigue depend on STs, most of whom you've never even met, there's a definite lack of trust that they will go along with your plan, assuming that your plan is actually sound and has a chance of working. There is only one system that people can really trust to be impartial on behalf of players and staff, and that's combat. Race to the Boot Squad, yeah. Not that combat is actually impartial in an approval-based or staggered XP game - but people accept it as the most impartial. And when you are aware of this violence escalation and impartiality problem, what can be done to address? Either you make brute force less effective or you make intrigue just as deadly. I'd personally prefer the former, but that's playstyle choice. Still, it's tough to come up with a good solution to address both styles. There's two ways I'd experiment with if I ever get back into staffing: I've thought about opt-in violence - you choose at CharGen if you are a political or a combat character (story mode vs. ironman mode analog). PvP death is only an option against other opt-iners. I've also considered a paired on/off Elysium setup. Every other game is an Elysium game, where no combat occurs. Game goes twice a month and players only show up for the game style they like. If you like both, perfect. If not, stick to the one that's fun for you, or volunteer for narration/NPCs in your off-style time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
I know how I solve it in a game which I alone GM, but it gets harder when you have multiple GMs, because the easiest solution to the Break Things Problem is social consequences. Cops, the city turning against you, other vampires shutting down your feeding opportunities, general community enforcement of the Do Not Murder Other Vampires laws. The second easiest, I guess, is rebalancing vampires to be default harder to kill, but that applies to the combat guys too so it's not like they got any easier to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:I've also considered a paired on/off Elysium setup. Every other game is an Elysium game, where no combat occurs. Game goes twice a month and players only show up for the game style they like. If you like both, perfect. If not, stick to the one that's fun for you, or volunteer for narration/NPCs in your off-style time. You know, this is a good idea. I'm gonna suggest this to my local VST! Thanks! I recall that our Guardian of Sacred Places hasn't seen any use (Independent Alliance Keeper of Elysium) yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
do NOT jack off posted:You know, this is a good idea. I'm gonna suggest this to my local VST! Thanks! I recall that our Guardian of Sacred Places hasn't seen any use (Independent Alliance Keeper of Elysium) yet. Note that I haven't tested it yet, but if you do implement some version of this - post (or PM me) how it goes so I can learn from your experience. Mors Rattus posted:I know how I solve it in a game which I alone GM, but it gets harder when you have multiple GMs, because the easiest solution to the Break Things Problem is social consequences. Cops, the city turning against you, other vampires shutting down your feeding opportunities, general community enforcement of the Do Not Murder Other Vampires laws. Yeah, solo ST has a lot of advantages. But it just isn't feasible for a longer term game or a high player count game. And usually staff are less inclined to let players kill each other through influence spends than with Vigor/Claws. And then there's the fact that in most LARPs the 'city' is composed of other players - so there's some ethical question on how much staff can really push one group of players to enforce social consequences on another. Mors Rattus posted:The second easiest, I guess, is rebalancing vampires to be default harder to kill, but that applies to the combat guys too so it's not like they got any easier to deal with. A more extreme idea is to say something like, anyone can knock anybody into torpor. But only the Prince can destroy Kindred through a public execution of the Right of Destruction. I'd probably pair it with a fantasy-larp method I've seen - where if your PC is killed out on a plot killing orcs or whatever, you can go to the main tavern and RP until you're resurrected. Kindred in "torpor" can still go roleplay in the main room, but have limited or no pools to roll - so it still sucks, but doesn't mean you just have to go home. The death moratorium can even be done by book with Req2 Carthian Law mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Yeah, it's much easier at the table where you can just be like 'okay, the cops arrive on the scene' or 'the Prince has sent the Sheriff around to have words with you and suddenly a bunch of NPCs keep showing up to scare people out of your hunting grounds.'
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
I think part of the issue is that PvP does not need to result in combat. If you lie to somebody that you're going to support their bid for Primogen or whatever and then don't, that's a form of PvP. I think there's a perception issue here that the only way to be adversarial is to roll on characters for giggles. I think that's kind of the lowest form of PvP tbh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think part of the issue is that PvP does not need to result in combat. If you lie to somebody that you're going to support their bid for Primogen or whatever and then don't, that's a form of PvP. I think there's a perception issue here that the only way to be adversarial is to roll on characters for giggles. I think that's kind of the lowest form of PvP tbh. That's a part of the problem, and I yeah - I hate for-the-lulz deaths. But even when the social/political PvP is in good supply, the deadly solution is appealing for a few reasons. -> It's permanent. And there are often Inigo Montoya rules that specifically prevent a player from getting you back with a new PC. Those rules aren't around when you do non-deadly PvP - you know the person is probably gonna come for you, so why not end that? -> STs can't just decide your Claws don't work. But they can decide your setting/ST reliant machinations don't work. -> Appropriate escalation is hard even among those who are socially proficient. Another short-supplied resource. -> I've found many players have a hard time seeing bullyism/betrayal in game as okay, when every instinct as a modern human is to say its not okay. And for some reason, while they might get into the social embarassment and defeats in a novel or on the screen - it's much more personal in LARP. That makes sense from the body-as-prop perspective, but it interferes with the viability of anything like a mean girl harpy or an obviously corrupt Prince. -> The consequences for murder irl are massive. They are not equivalent in LARP even when the murderer gets bloodhunted for example. *Shrug* "I'll just reroll a character before you can finish the bloodhunt." I've seen that multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
One problem you run into in very long running LARPs is the question of high end PvP becoming EvP. Basically, someone gets 400 points, they're going to be annoying to kill. Aegis, Majesty, Fleetness, Puissance, a couple of fetishes or whatever, and it gets tough to kill someone before they fair escape, even if you have 3 or 4 guys with 400 points. But then there's nowhere to really go up from there. Your traits and disciplines are maxed. Meanwhile, people with Thaum or Necromancy in clan can keep getting more and more stuff to up their max traits, to give them new one-shot kill powers or things to cancel Aegis and Majesty. Once you've got a group of people at 600, the Tremere is vastly more powerful than all the other Camarilla people. So, what do those other Camarilla people do? They either have to accept that the Tremere run things and can kill them at will, or they have to do other things. Often, "doing other things" means getting elders to kill the Tremere. You do a bunch of IC and OOC politics and get a Justicar or two or three to kill them. Get a conclave called, get them put on trial and rig the trial. The other option for "doing other things" basically involves getting thaum/necro yourself, going infernal, or otherwise getting access to some other power source. So, if you're a hardcore PvP guy, you go infernal, go Setite Apostate and get Setite Sorcery and cut a deal with the Giovanni to get Necromancy, and then you can keep up with the Tremere until they start making up their own rituals because "they're wizards and wizards can do that". If you're not a hardcore PvP guy, you get in good with the coordinators in charge of the clans or the sect, and get your PC in good with their NPC, and then have their NPC kill them with elder powers. Either way, the Tremere, and the people who are at 400, complain, because they're upset you're using cheesy non-genre powers, or because they're upset you're using OOC politics to get NPCs to kill PCs. I don't really know what the solution is, other than not minding when NPCs kill PCs, because political shenanigans and getting your elder sugardaddy to inflict consequences is totally genre. It's just the OOC aspects of it that get sketchy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:That's a part of the problem, and I yeah - I hate for-the-lulz deaths. But even when the social/political PvP is in good supply, the deadly solution is appealing for a few reasons. These are actually great points and are all great reasons for why Requiem makes for a better LARP environment than Masquerade. First of all any vampire court worth calling itself a court probably has rules that make violence against other members not only gauche, but illegal. This is one of the reason why vampires snipe at each other politically or through proxies; not only is it safer personally, it's safer politically. Vampire courts don't give a poo poo somebody's favorite police retainer dies but they do care if you kill their great-grand childer. It's also the reason why the Blood Hunt is basically political death; because the rules have been revoked with regard to the character. That's why you play nice with the court; so they don't revoke your right to live. Requiem insulates various perspectives by offering Covenant affiliation. Don't care for bullying and backstabbing? Join the Carthians and bully others through mass action and accord. Prefer to maintain the status quo? Join the Invictus. And so on. I think a soft rule requiring character death to be consensual is probably the safest route to take, unless you're blood hunted, in which case your character 'dies' by exile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Yessod posted:One problem you run into in very long running LARPs is the question of high end PvP becoming EvP. Basically, someone gets 400 points, they're going to be annoying to kill. Aegis, Majesty, Fleetness, Puissance, a couple of fetishes or whatever, and it gets tough to kill someone before they fair escape, even if you have 3 or 4 guys with 400 points. But then there's nowhere to really go up from there. Your traits and disciplines are maxed. Meanwhile, people with Thaum or Necromancy in clan can keep getting more and more stuff to up their max traits, to give them new one-shot kill powers or things to cancel Aegis and Majesty. Once you've got a group of people at 600, the Tremere is vastly more powerful than all the other Camarilla people. So, what do those other Camarilla people do? They either have to accept that the Tremere run things and can kill them at will, or they have to do other things. The answer here is clearly to rework or delete Tremere, because each one functionally has 40 or 50 clan disciplines rather than 3 like everybody else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The answer here is clearly to rework or delete Tremere, because each one functionally has 40 or 50 clan disciplines rather than 3 like everybody else. Well if you want to go down this path, the real answer is to not larp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Thank you to whoever upthread mentioned the Demon BoH. As a random aside, I thought it would be fun to run my CoD oneshot with some OG nWoD dice but apparently they go for hundreds of dollars now, what the actual gently caress? I think I might just take some ink and color the target numbers on some regular D10s - as simple as the basic system is, I find people are still less likely to bounce off it if you can just say "count the red numbers" or whatever for the first few rolls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
food court bailiff posted:Thank you to whoever upthread mentioned the Demon BoH. On this note, is there a good place to buy 8-9-10 colored d10s?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The answer here is clearly to rework or delete Tremere, because each one functionally has 40 or 50 clan disciplines rather than 3 like everybody else. BNS attempts to partially solve this by making Path of Blood their in-clan and requiring a 1-point merit for every additional path you want to learn. Which doesn't sound like much, but there's a hard cap of 7 merit points total and there's other stuff virtually all characters are going to want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Yeah, and the recent BNS rules have basically nerfed all blood magic to Effective But Not Ultimate in exchange for making the Masquerade Camarilla even more Elders Only, Neos Need Not Apply. But they're going to release a new book within five years of the big book that promises to add more Magic, sooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
I believe the new MET VTM is due out just next year. Which, oh poo poo, how has it been four years already?! Seems like just yesterday I was running seminars for my then local domain to teach the new rules and get people up to speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I believe the new MET VTM is due out just next year. Which, oh poo poo, how has it been four years already?! Seems like just yesterday I was running seminars for my then local domain to teach the new rules and get people up to speed. I hope they do! It's gonna be good getting more Necromancy. As an otherwise avid Giovanni player, I really hope Necromancy gets better for us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
I disliked how they included paths that are not traditionally Tremere paths, like Elemental Mastery and Corruption, and said nothing about who should have what. I mean the book is huge as it is, and nobody wants it to be the monstrosity that MET Werewolf is, but still.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Four years, my goodness. I still haven't finished with the content BNS put out - but it's hard to take serious when they say William the Conqueror built a fort to stop the Harrying of the North.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
01011001 posted:On this note, is there a good place to buy 8-9-10 colored d10s?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:You can get a pack of x10 d10s in various colors on Amazon for fairly cheap What he wants is the d10s where the nWoD successes are colored differently, White Wolf made sets of them when the 1st edition books came out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
01011001 posted:On this note, is there a good place to buy 8-9-10 colored d10s? Not that I've ever been able to find. Chessex won't even do it as a custom order.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 01:59
|
|
