The Bay Area Masquerade

Thanks to Glen (and others) who have asked for my perspective on rules. I will be answering that, plus saying a little about my plans for the future in regard to rules.

When I think about rules systems I am very much of two minds on the subject. The way I see things - Rules should either work to simplify mechanics as much as possible; essentially boiling things down to a pass/fail OR they should allow for a degree of success.

My favorite systems for LARPs are pass/fail systems. In my very favorite system nothing was assumed to be able to be done. You had a 'power' for literally everything. Most people had "Modern Adult - You can do most normal things including read, write, use the internet, and drive a car." Certainly not every character had this.

Combat was resolved with a very simple point your finger at the thing you want to hurt. Do damage. There was no chance of miss. If the other person had a dodge power, it was specific to the power. There never was a ro-sham-bo. Either it worked, or it didn't.

Conversely, I love Vampire tabletop as well. It allows for combinations of dice to suit the situation, includes risk, and (this is important) allowed for degree of success. Ok, so I hit the guy. Did I hit him in the toe or in the face? Degree of success also allows for people to know who really is better at something than someone else.

Our current system is really bad at this - Partly inherent in the system, and partly due to laziness of both the playerbase and the staff.

It is no secret that I hate our current system. There are so many inconsistencies, so many "well this one rule works this one way, sometimes." I dislike the Expert Abilities - Some don't even make systemic sense. Our combat system does either too much, or not enough damage. I loathe the magic system (and I am a huge Tremere fan!) and I don't even want to get started on the path/road stuff.

All of that aside - the one thing I hate, and I mean HATE, about our system is that 2/3 of the time, your actual traits do not even matter. I can have a 1 dex and 0 security and 1/3 of the time can crack a safe. Alternately, I can have 5 and 5, and 1/3 of the time be defeated by a qwikset doorlock.

It seems like every time I need to look at the system I find more and more flaws.

With all of that said, I've been thinking about ways to improve the system. Either make it more pass/fail, or allow for more degree of success. I looked at replacing the ro system with a card or dice system. I looked at removing challenges entirely.

And then I heard about By Night Studios. They are working on completely rebuilding the MET system from the ground up. So I decided to put all of my improvement ideas on hold until I heard more about what they are doing. I read everything they put out and I realized that what they are doing could work to address our system stuff.

Well, they had their first real public playtest this past weekend in LA. By all accounts I have heard, the system really stands up well and is enjoyable. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it better than what we've got? I personally think it is.

It allows for degree of success. Your traits matter. It is a standardized ruleset that (once it has been out for a while) anyone will be able to be familiar with easily. It even allows for Troupe specific customization.

I'll go ahead and say here that it is my intention to change BAM over to using this system within the next year. However there are a lot of qualifications to go along with that statement.

First of all, the system is not officially published yet. They have alpha slices out, and character generation packets and whatnot. (In fact, if you want to see it for yourself - you can get the most complete doc here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/497 ... %20PDF.pdf) Once it is fully published, I will reassess it and see if it is going to work for our group.

Second, we will need to write the custom stuff we are going to want in our group. I will avoid customizing it too much, but I have no doubt that there will be some things we will want that are not there yet.

Third, we are going to need to write conversion rules. This is huge. We want conversion to be as painless as possible and for everyone to end up with characters that still FEEL like the old system. I expect we are going to be very generous during conversion.

Fourth, we are going to run at least one, if not multiple, one-shots using the new system to let everyone get familiar with it.

There is going to be a lot of work involved in getting things ready for conversion. New Wiki entries, new character sheets, learning curve for both players and staff - I mean just a lot of work. I know there is also going to be some pain in the process, but I am willing to endure it because I believe that the game will really benefit from the change.

This is quite likely to be a controversial Perspectives posting. I know that my opinion does not match with some of our player base. I look forward to hearing your opinions as well.

As for the new MET system: I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is an underlying thing about the alpha slices that I don't really like. It's not out yet, and it might change. But so far, probably the biggest one for me is that currently, yes, there's some alpha slices, but no completed product to look at and judge as a whole. To me, it's hype. Hype tends to have an opposite effect with me, and the more I'm exposed to hype on something, the less I'm interested in, sometimes to the point of hostility towards the subject, even after the hype has turned to providing actual examples. I could go on for this topic, but I'd rather stay on the subject here.

I'm on the fence about drastic rules changes and conversion to a new system, largely due in part to the amount of work the conversion from frankensystem we have is somewhat headache inducing. I'm very hesitant in changing systems entirely, and have somewhat a mindset of "If there's goign to be a drastic change of rules (even for the better), then why not just start over from scratch, game wise?"

Regarding the example of the unskilled person having a chance to crack a safe, and the skilled person who can't get past the most basic of locks? I think that's up to staff there. Looking at their security rating and seeing this person's never in their life seen a lock? Don't even let them have the check in the first place. If there's someone who's an expert thief finding babbys first lock? Why should they throw a check for that?

As for degrees of success, that is something that i wouldn't mind seeing, largely because it can address some issues. In tabletop, soak wasn't an automatic thing like in our system. This meant that while fortitude could give you extra dice for soak, it didn't guarantee you immunity from damage up to a point.

I, for one, welcome our new MET masters.

Everything I've seen with the new rules looks pretty darn good. Once it's out out, I'll be working to see what I can find that will make our stuff turn into it well.

Conversions take work to do right. You risk people losing what they've worked on, you risk people getting confused, you risk losing the flavor you had before.

When done right, though, you can end up with a better system -- confusing things fixes, knots unraveled, etc.

I think it's no secret that I love writing one-shots. I'm expecting we'll have one soon to test the MET system, and I'm expecting that there will be headaches and triumphs in it.

I really like the idea of a total rewrite that gets all the pieces to work together like they are supposed to. Right now we have a jumble of things from various places that don't match up together and don't balance well. By balance I don't mean evenly matched, I mean working together as intended! Also, I am holding out hope that certain people who left because they were so frustrated by the current rules system will come back.

I've built, used, worked with, tweaked, and done endless games with a variety of LARP rules. My favorite are usually the ones that are fair, but don't impede the flow of the game. MET was built as a system for short term games, not these decade long monsters. Tabletop was built for dice. I look forward to the new design built for the now-seemingly standard years long monsters.

Ted is the MASTER of the one shot rules, and Rallie and I ran a one shot recently that flowed beautifully with a 2 page rules set based on a Ted-developed system. A one-shot system has one major advantage: No XP.

I find the biggest issues in ongoing LARP rules are quite simple:
1. RP Flow. 2. Experience points. 3. Balance

IMHO:
Our current system does decently with XP.
It has big flow issues.
It has arguably large balance issues.

Boiling down to it: I would love a change. I would be happy to help brainstorm, suggest, and help with a new system.

I am entirely ready to stop using BAM rules.

The core mechanics By Night has published so far work--they have a whole system that serves Everyone well, and the rest of the "Some People Powers" are reportedly coming. Neat.

Ours don't, our group efforts to fix them broadly as I have seen them are usually stymied by dissent, and the people who are in a position to radically change things (Staff) are generally busy all the time keeping a lot of the game-plates spinning (not all, but many).

So a nigh-total system switch to a book of rules some other group wrote saves us almost all of that effort. Yay, a compromise we might be able to make happen.

I have an issue with the Morality mechanics of By Night, and how they accrue their Beast traits. That's fine; I have an issue with ALL of the Vampire Morality mechanics I've seen, so changing to another system I will take issue with honestly isn't all that terrible a loss to me.

The thing that I have found about the LARP system of my dreams--in fact, ALL the systems of my dreams--is that they are incredibly difficult to articulate and make manifest. They are right-brained things that I must smash and pulp into a left-brained manifestation to use as rules and game by them.

I dream difficult dreams, and someday I might find I articulate them--some of them--better. But until a dream can flow effortlessly into a manifest work, I have to balance effort put in to make what I want with how much what I have is Good Enough For Now.

So I like this planned switch, because I think we can direct the energy to get this done.

And I think that, if enough of you are sufficiently averse to the By Night ship to be galvanized into fixing our own, then we should talk seriously about how we are going to run the process of fixing BAM. Give total creative responsibility and control to a small team? Decide everything by poll-based vote? Elect a dictator all pre-Ceasar Roman-style? (Thanks EC for teaching me (more) history!)

The haphazard repair efforts I have seen so far are not getting us to a place where our rules work as a unified, elegant whole. We can't fix BAM rules for all of us Sarah Winchester-style. We need a plan for how we will make those rules. If that's too much to ask of us, who are irritated by the rules we voluntarily play by, then converting to By Night is a wonderful alternative to unsatisfactory status quo.


[edit to add] TL; DR: "If you do not like the By Night solution, get us as a game group organized to find a better solution," said Dorian.

I've taken a glance at some of the clan blurbs, and I think some of it is a little lopsided. I think that if we were going to use it, it would take some serious re-working to make it work with our game.

A few things that stood out to me:

-There is a 2 point merit that allows Toreador to purchase the first two dots of Vicissitude
-Being a True Brujah is now a 4 point merit
-Giovanni have a 2 point merit that allows them to learn Celerity and Fortitude without a teacher, and a 4 point merit that basically says "you're a Cappodocian", but you need a 1 point merit to learn any Necromancy beyond Sepulchre path.
-It's a 2 point merit now to be a Dominate Malkavian.
-Nosferatu can have a fourth in-clan discipline for only 3 points
-For 5 points, anyone can take Protean, Dementation, Serpentis, or Quietus as an additional discipline.
-In this system you can spend 5 points in Generation and be 6th gen.
-Caitiff have a 2 point merit that allows them to stay awake all day, and take regular damage from the sun instead of aggravated.

There are also some things I have questions about that aren't answered in this version of the document, so I can't say whether or not I like it.

So while our current rules system needs work, I'm not sure I feel that this is a suitable replacement. I think it still needs a lot of work, and if I'm going to learn a new rules system, I'd rather be playing a new game.

So, I notice that the rules PDF as listed here is as much a culture rewrite for MET as it is a system rewrite; what I was able to glean from reading it suggests a lot of interesting things have happened to the setting. Push back Gehenna, the Gangrel rejoin the Camarilla, the Gargoyles are freed, all kinds of things.

This leans me slightly towards being amiable to a full game-reset sometime down the line, as some of the cross between culture and systemic stuff is absolutely fascinating to me and I'd love to play with it.

On the other hand, I'd be just as interested in watching game-story deal with interesting systemic changes as well. Not to mention the rarity rules - they seem to me to be a good way to go with special stuff while not making it freely available to everyone.

I am not personally averse to most of the new woogie clan-merits that I've seen in there; they may provide incentive to play some of the lesser-played clans, or balance out the clan flaws slightly.

Like Ralph, I want to see the finished product before passing final judgment - but I am liking what I'm seeing so far.

The Spirit wrote: [edit to add] TL; DR: "If you do not like the By Night solution, get us as a game group organized to find a better solution," said Dorian.

I have to take a moment here against this sentiment. I understand that there's problems, but to to me, it sounds like you're saying "If I am hesitant on switching rules systems, I either have to convince the entire group to my side or shut up."

Which kind of goes against the idea of discussing. I'm hesitant on this rules change because it's quite a jump in power level for BAM to one where I can play a 6th gen Cappadocian with 5 in clan disciplines.

I have checked the rules myself and most of the alpha slices. The staff can just not let certain merits not be taken since yeah all characters need approval and if something doesn't fit our game, I'd hope they wouldn't let it in. That being said the generation thing, there are pluses and minuses to being lower generation. Like increases in xp expenditures and being locked out of combo disciplines. As it stands in game now I don't think any characters would be all that effected by generation mechanics changes. In fact I think the new changes to generation mechanics makes being any particular generation just about even as far as the power you wield for the xp you have spent.

Something I just noticed about the MET rules that makes me laugh:

There is, as part of the Status system, rules for the status trait Cherry.

So people can give you their cherry status?

Alissia wrote:So people can give you their cherry status?

Looks at Sam and says nothing...

Dale wrote:

Alissia wrote:So people can give you their cherry status?

Looks at Sam and says nothing...

*sigh* Yes, once in this game someone who shall remain nameless *cough*Colleen Reed*cough* gave Gillian the personal status of Cherry because Lennet had gone into a snit and was removing people's status and there was some amusement at the idea of... well, yeah.

Back to the actual discussion of rules, however!

I've got to say, to get back to the very beginning of Ralph's post, that I tend to prefer systems which have degrees of successes available rather than a simple pass/fail. I think it adds more depth. Of course, I also dislike mechanics enough overall that I'm not going to fuss about any rules system as long as I can do a conversion (if we switch) and people are willing to put up with me while I fumble along and learn it.

Edited to correct: It wasn't Colleen, it was F M.

MikeLG wrote:I'm hesitant on this rules change because it's quite a jump in power level for BAM to one where I can play a 6th gen Cappadocian with 5 in clan disciplines.

Actually, you really can't do that in the new MET system. It would be too many merits.

Still, as both Adam and Drea(Prime) have pointed out, there are some things about the system that we will need to customize and define for our uses. The system MET is creating is to allow people to play in any form of WOD they want. Dark ages, modern, post-modern, Cam, Anarch, Sabbat - whatever. So yeah, they have rules for 6th gen and rules for being a Cappadocian.

As I mentioned in my first post, there is some level of customization we will need to do - including restricting what merits and flaws are available and putting a cap on how much you can spend in generation. (Here's a clue... it will be 2 points. 3 with special circumstances.)

So far as the culture stuff that Justin mentioned - the system does not require we adopt any of that culture change - I actually hadn't intended to. As much as possible I want to preserve the world we have created. I have been thinking about running a world event to account for the shift in the way certain mechanics work as well. (First I have to IDENTIFY all the changing mechanics.)

For the record, even I don't love everything about the new system. The new Status system they have outlined is particularly difficult for me to properly grok.

Anyway, I just wanted to respond to those two pieces of feedback. Please continue to comment. Hearing what you have to say on the subject is very valuable to me, perhaps especially when you disagree.

MikeLG wrote:

The Spirit wrote: [edit to add] TL; DR: "If you do not like the By Night solution, get us as a game group organized to find a better solution," said Dorian.

I have to take a moment here against this sentiment. I understand that there's problems, but to to me, it sounds like you're saying "If I am hesitant on switching rules systems, I either have to convince the entire group to my side or shut up."

...or leave*.

There, I said it. That's basically how it went down during the first split; that option's still there, and it appears more than one has taken it in the past... jeez... five years? Six?

Anyway, I see an valid ultimatum here:

Ultimatum wrote:If you're not okay with the direction of a change, speak up.

So far as I know, none of us are actually mind readers--or if we are, we have to pretend we're not so we can't act on the full breadth of things you're thinking.

In either case, all we know about what you think is what gets expressed--verbally, in writing and to a limited degree in action. That means talking.

Now.
My experience with the efforts to change the rules of this game in any way other than someone on Staff saying,

A Paraphrase wrote:I want things to officially work like this now. [React in some way while I observe and *maybe* adjust. Cool.] It works like this now.

is the ONLY way I have seen actual changes happen.

Reiterate:
I have only seen rules changes in this group work because GM fiat.

The reason I observe for this is a failure to organize and communicate, as a game group, to agree on how we're going to go about making changes.

So if we *aren't* going to change by GM fiat, we need to organize. If you think we shouldn't change by GM fiat, well, to express that, you should probably at least say "I think we shouldn't change by way of GM fiat" and offer up an alternative.

If you think there shouldn't be change and you want to resist all change... well... I want change. Please.

Let us dissect the things we want a little more so we can discuss how to achieve them, both yours and mine.

I'm not the only one who wants change, but even if I was, that should not matter to this basic process of "I want A; you want B; 'A' and 'B' conflict as wholes but may or may not have overlapping components; let us take a look at the parts of 'A' and 'B' and see if we can get most of our common wants/needs met."

If that is not what the process of discussion is about, then it might as well be "Agree whole-heartedly or shut up."

So...

MikeLG wrote: [my TL;DR which appears to have led you away from my points] kind of goes against the idea of discussing.

...no.
Sorry. Writing accurate, good TL;DRs is hard and I seem to have messed that one up.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding of where I stand.

______________________________________
*Okay. My saying "splitting up the game is okay" may stimulate upset in some of you. Acknowledged.

Splitting up the game is okay, I think.

In fact, I think leaving a game that does not give one what one wants is a healthy thing both for the individual and the group.

"I come slavishly to this thing every Friday and follow all of the online activities related to it that I can because it makes me unhappy" is a dumb thing to do, and dumb to keep doing--I have done both, which is why I have also left and come back and am now more mindful about gaming for the things I find fulfilling.

People are different from one another.

Different individuals will be fulfilled by different things.

Therefore, there will be no thing that can fulfill all people. The best we can hope for is that all of *US* who are here are fuliflled by what we're doing.
Seeing to that is the business of each of us, so I assume that we are all here because we want to be and if I see that a subset of us aren't, I will worry for that subset and generally feel like "WTF are you doing coming here to be unhappy?"
So, because I believe these things, I *HAVE* to think it's okay to let people who are unhappy with the game or how it is leave. May that suck? Sure! Plenty, even!

But in exchange for not being dissatisfied with what must average at least 5+ hours' a week investment out of the fininte time of one's life, that seems worth it.

So. If you're intent on biting my head off for saying "splitting the game over this is okay" please at least read this whole footnote first. I don't mis-spend these words.

The Spirit wrote: Splitting up the game is okay, I think.

In fact, I think leaving a game that does not give one what one wants is a healthy thing both for the individual and the group.

I have no problem with leaving a game I'm not enjoying. I've played here and in Campbell in the past and I've left both of them for different reasons. What worries me is that no one else seems worried about this.

We don't get a whole lot of new players at BAM, and the ones we do get, we have trouble keeping. If we don't recruit new players or work to keep the ones we already have, what's left? Will there be enough people left to run a decent game? Our community is already one that is suffering. Some of our long-time players have already quit or had to severely cut back on how often they go to game. Afters used to be a huge affair, and now only a few die-hards attend. Chat used to be lively and a fun way to talk to fellow gamers. Now you're lucky if more than 5 people are logged in at once. Even then, half of them are usually idle.

So if you're honestly that blasé about alienating part of the community when it's already ailing, have at it. Just don't complain when the game falls apart.

(For the record, I think we could easily implement degrees of success in our game by switching to something like a card-draw system and comparing traits. No need to change the entire system.)

Personally I do not want the game to split. I hope that enough people feel like "Oh there are those who are not happy with something? Well let's talk/work with them and figure out how we can at least try and fix it."

I have left LARPS before because I was not having fun...but I do not think (at least from my perspective) that it has reached that point.

Are there things that I do not personally agree with? Of course. You can not make everyone happy all of the time and it is not fair to Staff to expect that. We all have our own styles of RPing and that is fine. I feel that a game belongs to everyone that participates and not just Staff or only people who have been playing for X many years.

Speaking from personal experience I am amazed and loving how my PC has grown and changed since I brought him in and love the fact that I can share that story with everyone else and still be a part of their story at the same time.

In my time at Game I felt I have grown close to a lot of people that play. Some of my closest friends are people I have met through this Game.

The culture has changed...it often does when you are dealing with a group of people. Do I miss the days when Afters and chat is full of people talking excitedly about what is happening in the world we all helped create? Absolutely! I am hoping that it makes a comeback and is just on a lull.

Now that all that is off my chest; I will admit I am not a rules-oriented player. I tend to focus on character development and building the scene more than anything. It is my Stage Theater background showing I guess. In my humble opinion Rules should be helpful and keep things consistent and not be restrictive as to what my options are in a scene. I prefer settings where there is a degree of success and not just a pass/fail. It feels more real to me that way.

I do not expect everyone to 100% agree with me. I just saw things in this thread that I felt I needed to comment on.

I would be terribly happy to see a rules change in this game. I tend to avoid our rules for their sloppiness and tendency to break any immersion I've built up.

I also am of the opinion that rules should be supplemental to IMMERSION most of all. I don't want to stop for minutes at a time, pop way out of my character's headspace, to make a check. But I still want a rule system that will allow me to eventually be statistically powerful and will reward me for my persistence. I also dearly like the idea of a partial success. It allows so many more possibilities in a story.

In summary: Immersion = good; statistical reward = good; partial successes = good; FIRE = BAD!

Elanor wrote: So if you're honestly that blasé about alienating part of the community when it's already ailing, have at it. Just don't complain when the game falls apart.

Yes, I am. No, I won't, because I am doing my best to give my best to the conversation of changing the rules, and basically shouting, "If you care, take part!"

So.

I observe that, when we dive into unstructured Discussions threads, even threads that have some defined focus or start out that way, we get lost in purpose because we haven't explicitly agreed on the basic things we want our systems to do, and therefore what the problems with them are.

Meanwhile, the tact that Staff has been taking in the past year+ to propose changes, get feedback, adjust, watch us try to play with them, and then kick them live... has worked. Some of the changes, I disagree with, but it has gotten some stuff done.

So.

If we don't want to overhaul the rules in this way, I think we need to agree on:

• the scope of what we want to do and how much we will accept changing
• what does and does not work in our rules
• what is and is not clear in our rules (supplemental to the immediately above)
• what we do and do not want our rules to be and do in our game--how prevalent, how much time it takes to do them, all the things we want them to be and want them not to be--heck, even just listing them might be helpful

Heck, we should probably be doing this anyway, because from all the currents I can see our rules will be changing at some point and all that information is useful however that process gets done.

So...

COP-Tim wrote: Now that all that is off my chest; I will admit I am not a rules-oriented player. I tend to focus on character development and building the scene more than anything. It is my Stage Theater background showing I guess. In my humble opinion Rules should be helpful and keep things consistent and not be restrictive as to what my options are in a scene. I prefer settings where there is a degree of success and not just a pass/fail. It feels more real to me that way.

I do not expect everyone to 100% agree with me. I just saw things in this thread that I felt I needed to comment on.

I have dedicated a decent chunk of energy to this game's rules and some of the mistakes in them.

All of those failures have taught me that the above quoted maroon-colored text is how rules ought to be. I think the Holy Grail of rules does all of these things while simultaneously reinforcing all the themes of the game they govern, and we'd barely even notice them while they do it. This is a good start toward establishing a list of what we want.

Edit:

JRoyce beating me to it wrote: In summary: Immersion = good; statistical reward = good; partial successes = good; FIRE = BAD!

I hate mechanics.

Ask anyone who was ever on my staff, or anyone who has ever tried to teach me a board or card game - they will all verify to you how much I hate mechanics.

As a player, do I want to learn new rules?
Hell no.
It's taken me so long to learn the rules we DO have.

As someone who has had to make rules calls based on the rules we currently have in place - I understand why better clarity is needed to help make the game easier to run.
Making those sorts of rules calls is a big part of what burned me out in the first place as ST.

So.... I still hate mechanics.
But... will I do my best to try and learn a new set of mechanics?
Yes.
Yes I will.

As a player in this chronicle, I've already gone through a few major rules changes.
Yes, they're painful.
Conversion is a bitch.
Something ALWAYS gets lost in translation and for a while I feel dissatisfied, disoriented and confused - for months after I feel small and lost and stupid and like my beloved character is some alien creature tech that I simply can't get to work right.
I hate it.
I absolutely hate it.
No matter what, I always feel that everyone else seems to grasp the system and its nuances so much quicker than me and I spiral in to self loathing over my failings as a gamer and stop wanting to come to game until I can make the rules make sense in my head - let alone on their feet in my face in a combat or social scene.
It's an absolutely horrible experience really, and it makes me feel like shit.

So... even though I was in the premiere game of the new MET rules this last Saturday and really had lots of fun with them - will I every be EXCITED for a rules change?
No.
No, not really.
Because I know no matter how "simple" the change, I'll still have that period when I feel lost, and stupid, and useless, and completely uncomfortable in the once place where I feel safe and at home these days.

Still...
Once that crappy translation time is over, and I finally feel comfortable again, each rules shift has allowed me to figure out ways to create better stories with my beloved character in this world we've created that I have become downright addicted to.
So... I won't be excited for the change - but I won't dig my teeth in and growl and be pissy and tell you to take your new rules and shove em where the sun don't shine.

I'll suck it up - I'll face the change (whatever that may be) and I'll hope for the best.

I the mean time though, please don't expect much help from me in suggesting changes or tweaks or mechanics testing while you work it all out.
It's hard enough to get used to a new rules set - extending that period of time where I feel stupid beyond belief because I've now confused myself with beta rules pre tweak and polish is not something I'm up for.

Elanor wrote:We don't get a whole lot of new players at BAM, and the ones we do get, we have trouble keeping.

~snip~

...no need to change the entire system.)

Hi.

I'm a new player.

I joined the game in March of this year. I joined staff in August.

Since I joined the game, I've worked to understand the rules for every interaction I've had in the game, because that's the way I do things. I'm neither for or against more or less mechanics, I'm just process-oriented. As a general rule, I don't care what the rules ARE, I just want to understand them. With every game and every system, there are things I like, things I don't, things I disagree with. But as long as they're coherent and consistent, me and rules get along just fine.

I don't have a very strong opinion about By Night and the new ruleset (except for their Status - but that's a rant for another time.) I don't have a very strong opinion about the work necessary to convert to a new system, be it this one or some other one.

I do, however, have some pretty strong opinions and feelings about the current rules system.

It's broken.

The system is just broken. Part of that is poor implementation of the initial system. Part of it is poor tracking of changes. Part is poor documentation. Part is poor writing and lack of clarity.

Not a week has gone by since I started playing, where I didn't submit to staff something that needed fixing on the wiki.
Let me clarify that statement.
Since day one, if I have a question, I look it up in the wiki. Because the wiki is where the rules live, right? And then, inevitably, I'd have to ask Ralph to explain, because it didn't make sense to me or contradicted what I had read else-wiki. Often, I'm told it works like X. If the wiki says Y it gets added to the list of things to fix.

Since I joined staff, that list has grown almost daily. This is because I've been researching more, because I'm exposed to more and different interactions as Staff than I ever was as Emma. Some days (like when I'm doing a pile of downtimes) there are big, long lists of things that need updating, changing, clarifying.

EXAMPLES wrote:* Traits. Do a search for traits on the wiki. We don't use traits anymore, but you'll get hundreds of results.
* Kindred Politics. As written, let you do a check to find out EVERYTHING about ANYONE.
* Status + Kindred Politics. On what planet should it be HARDER to recognize someone with HIGH status??
* Weapons. Did you know that the damage matrix is tuned for HUMANS? You have to add modifiers to what's listed to figure out damage to kindred.
* Alacrity. As written, you get to interrupt any standard action. Take a bullet, dodge a punch, whatever. In play, you get an extra step at the top of the round. (or maybe not as written, it's possible we fixed that one).

I have pages and pages of things like this. Many of them have been addressed. Many have not, because it would require an entire re-vamp of the system.
And for every one I've found, there are a dozen more I haven't, because it is a wiki, and you can't just start at the front and read it cover to cover and make notes in the margins.

Anyway. The rules are broken. They're no longer cohesive, and patching them isn't the solution.

A new player cannot come in, read the rules, create a character, and play. I know, because I tried, and the information wasn't easily referenced. We pair new players up with experienced players not because it's nice to have a mentor (it is! but that's not why we do it.) We pair new players up with experienced players because the rules are so convoluted, esoteric, and incomprehensible, that the rules are totally inaccessible to the uninitiated.

Many parts of the system are less mechanics, and more group consciousness or tribal knowledge. You all know how it works, so no one bothers to check and see if that's really what the rules say. Like any living thing, the BAM rules have evolved - and that's a good thing. It's necessary. But they haven't evolved in a balanced way - and they've certainly not been documented. This is unbelievably frustrating for anyone not hooked in to that group consciousness.

This is (in part) why we lose new players.

The rules need to be re-written from the ground up. Then they need to be properly documented and carefully playtested and tuned and amended and re-documented.

I don't have time. None of staff has that kind of time.

So - either we change to New MET,
OR we change to some other documented, tested, functional, cohesive system,
OR the community needs to step up and help fix the one we've got.

To paraphrase Dorian's original TL;DR: "If you do not like the By Night solution, step up and lead the committee to fix the frankensystem we have now."

Ginger, in my experience, that was the most comprehensively correct summation of the current rules that I could have possibly written. Thank you.

If players that have been around for a ludicrous time in this game universe make mistakes generating new characters, (*puts a hand up* "Yo.") how can a new player stand a *chance*?

Many parts of the system are less mechanics, and more group consciousness or tribal knowledge

I laughed out loud at the truth of this quote.

To be honest, I am cool with just about anything so long as RP is emphasized and there is a marked degree of imbalance no mater how you cut it.

As the rules of language structure the rhyme and prose of poetry and music, game mechanics facilitate story telling and character growth. The mechanics shouldn't interfere with the ability to RP ("But there's no mechanic for that.") and it should allow the STs quite a bit of latitude to do what they need to do so they can sideswipe us form time to time.

But that's more of a side note, by real concern is the problem that comes with focusing too much on balanced mechanics.

To a degree balance is nice, I prefer long an protracted stalemates to quick victories.

But!...

I think one of the ways a good rules system can do this is that there is a marked unbalance between different powers. I don't like the Idea of trying to find a happy equilibrium of powers. Players should be given really hardcore power to wield. Because when you give someone power that isn't the only thing you give them, you also give them the choice to abuse that power and create consequences, be them good or bad. The greatest mistake that can be made (and something that should be guarded against during this revision) would be for us to water down the disciplines for the sake of balance and neuter the terrible responsibility and horror that comes with the ability to crush bones or end a life with your bear hands, to completely rewrite another person's thoughts, or destroy their mind.

Every player should have the ability to inflict incredible and terrible harm upon eachother's characters and the world around them and be able to do so easily. Using a discipline should be the easy way out of a situation and that ease should be seductive. The ease that comes with that power should fuel their character's decline even if the power is used with the best of intentions. While on the flip side, it makes the choice to exercise restraint that much more poignant.

Take superman, a being in incalculable power. No conventional force can coerce him. Save fore a tiny frailty that is quite rare an difficult to employ, mere mortals cannot contest with him. The only thing that keeps him check is an "RP choice." He has a dangerously fragile sense of duty and moral obligation. What makes superman interest is that he has that godlike power and actually uses it for good even though he is often tempted to abuse it. When shown the alternate reality of how things could've went down in Injustice, it is a sobering counterexample that puts his choice to act with temperance into perspective; and forces you to reflect upon yourself and ask what you would do with that same power. It's a common theme across all the post modern superhero stories that speaks very true to contemporary issues. In Vampire, disciplines should function in the exact same way.

If you have the powers or abilities too weak it guts it as a storytelling device for your characters and reduces those powers to toys for your Toons.

I notice that there are two topics within this thread. One with players discussing out of game culture and player recruitment/retention. Another discussing the rules. Suggest keeping on topic of the rules discussion within this thread, and, if parties are interested, opening a new thread discussing retention/recruitment/culture.

This subforum is a fantastic thing in that it allows us all to be a bit more open with how we see things in game, and honestly, I am a huge fan of this subforum, specifically for the opportunity to get a better look at perspective of play as gamers. Yeah, tangents happen as part of any discussion, but given the controversy of the tangent, I do not want it to deviate from the main topic, which is perhaps as controversial as every time it will come up.