Many a critical thought ( REQUIEM VIOLENCE)
What to say... I agree with the hope, the hope this seems to be seeking to accomplish. I agree that vampires, in all reason, would not be as actively violent as they are being played in the current games. But much else I strongly disagree with. I mean, simply looking over the game, what was expected? The game, systematically is built to be exploited in that way.
Lets look at potential sources to the violence? Combat is lethal and rare... rare because it is lethal I would assume, in this current vampire system is the assumption? I can't say that's intirely true. It has the potential to be, but mainly only when taken advantage of. The way the system is designed, in almost every aspect, DRASTICALLY encourages maxing out key stats for whatever the characters aim. Let us take a slight example, im hoping this will also show the lack of realistically deadly combat the game offers. You have a mortal with dex 2, firearms 2 (which is above average for most I would think) with a light pistol, If they draw a 6, every round (which would be generous), they will do 1 round of damage to another mortal per round... So it would take 7 shots to kill them. However if a mortal with certain merits and very high stats were to do the same, they could fire two guns in a round and easily do 4-6 per shot.. and with such combinations they probably have a higher initiative is well so they do this first... When you have a system, that can get this hopelessly inbalanced, how can you not suspect it to be exploited? especially if the attack is suprise so the physically weak defendent can't get a chance to use their maxed social power that as long as they don't draw a 1 they will be safe. Another creepy thing to consider, is as far as combat goes, the distinction between effectiveness of a vampire and a mortal is not that terribly much (if maxed in key areas once again). The way its built, to be a balanced character is almost absurd, simply because they are not effective( i mean balance in attributes/abilities/merits).
Further adding to this slight absurdity is the factor that you can even see it being encouraged as far as practical realms of rp and xp systems. Using combinations of dominate and majesty don't give you any sort of free social merits, they must still be bought with xp. This realistic vampiric warfare that is spoken of, is to be fought with these, amidst other things. Why, in terms of efficiency, would a player buy several potentially expensive social merits, especially when you can lose them (like if your company goes bankrupt or your allies are harmed, ect.). If you purchase combat stats and merits, you do not lose them, they will always be affective, and no worry about losing them. Especially when considering the difficulty in doing intricate between games down times actions with social/mental powers (added onto the fact many st's are busy and have trouble working great amount with players on getting through these), it almost seems not worth. Just show up, be buff, and do what you want, it seems social powers have been mainly reduced to being a way to settle combat without killing the other person (giving them a chance to try again next game). I know that last statement was an overgeneralization but I think the point is something to think about.
I full heartedly agree that one form of ... of.. encouragement? Should be to hurt them where it hurts, XP. But to do this there has to be a better way to manage it than is currently done. Just taking xp when a obscenely and unnecessarily violent character does something, or adding xp to a good rp will only probably add up to a small handful over a year. Its really not a terribly encouragint mechanism or concept(kind of like werewolves used to lose renown for being horrifically evil, wasn't a true effective deterrent because it was so minescule). This definately needs to be slightly tampered with. Even more so, I think players of very combat focuses characters should lose xp or just be reminded by st's routinely " Hold on... What are your stats? Your character isn't that smart...", and either take away xp, warn, or just ask them to rethink something. Its far to easy for characters to rp a glorified version of themselves with high combat stats. You just show up to game, stand around knowing you could chop things really well if it came up, and then you get to get the same xp at the end of the night (maybe one less depending, but probably tehsame) as everyone else, and can still stomp everyone.
There is agreement on that vampiric warfare is fought differnetly than series after series of bloody messes. However... Once again we need to consider some things. Two good things to look at are "how does it often work that way for mortals?" and some issues about ic vs. ooc.
Mortals have alot of reason they don't always kill each other (though they do VERY often, often as a matter of policy, depending on which media you observe). One reason, that ties back into this flawed/unrealistic system is the equality of risk. The single greatest person in any combat form in the world, could still be not paying attention for a split second and get shot and die without a terrible amount of difficulty. As earlier noted, the current system in no real way offers a fair representation of this. I mean, you would just quick draw and shoot them twice, whats the deal? You can take 1 lethal a turn... People also love to be subservient to authority, especially far reacing and/or potentially violent authority. The new city to city focus of vampire, dillutes this a bit. If you have the power to do what you like in your city, you don't have terribly amount of external threat to worry about. So why not seize and destroy what you want? People also have a general need for each other, for their own benefity (protection, markets, co-operative efforts, food/shelter and all that lovely stuff). Occasionaly protection may fall under that, but given their inherently exploitive and capitalist nature.. vampires don't really need each other. If one was the only vampire in existance, I doubt that would be suffer away and die unless it was from lonelyness/emotional issues which might not apply to all.
Now to the ooc vs IC sillyness. This has always bugged me beyond belief. If your a vampire, living centuries, and you decide you want to sire someone. Why on earth, would you sire a mentally unimpressive swordmaker/swordsman or gunbunny? What possible stimulation/reason would there be for that? You could just ghoul them. I mean, "My sire looked over the earth for decades looking for someone who inspired him enough to sire... He found me. I was a mercenary" doesn't that make you want to laugh? I don't know, maybe I would just be more picky. I just find having trouble believing anyone was sired unless they were pretty or had mental stats other than 2/2/2. That shows a real lackof effort on the part of the sire I think.
This ties into the warfare.. Alot of those elements that keep mortal conflict in check don't exist for vampire (and/or dont exist in the current system). But even so, you would think vampires would shy from violence. Not just because "its so not the thing to do..." but simply out of survival (which I think was mentioned). However I think two things have to make this effective. Enforcement, and maturity. Despite distaste of violence, if PC's feel one pc is being to actively violent without reason (or IC their characters just see this insane vampire as a danger) I think they would be put down. Ideally you would think, in a game when a combat oriented character gets out of control (or even just slightly) they are then crushed. This would also extend characters who kill to much in general (use influence to kill other players, ect.). To show such behavior isn't tolerated. The problem then goes to maturity. Which can touch several areas. First, living for hundreds of years, one would think, would make one behave differently than a child who is thrilled they get to bite people and have superpowers. The problem is not all pc's (when icly appropriet) take this route. I think probably the single largest prohibitor of violence (fatal violence anyway) in a vampiric society would be understanding the consequences... And when one can just make a new character, and try again. This is iffy. That and many players just often get on ego trips, can you realistically image what it would be like if every time a slightly questionable comment was made about a vampire they pointed a gun or used a social power on the one who did it? They would be laughed out of the city, or just staked and stuffed somewhere gross for a few hundred years until they learned. Unfortuantely this has to have some sort of systematic affect or guidline to be appropriately done, or just some very compitent/reasonable st's.
I think thats a satisfactory rant, though much more can still be said. I don't think all is lost, I think there are many possible solutions. I didn't list them here for obvious length reasons, but I would be very very up for talking about them if any one cared to do so. The key is just being able to realistically tell why these problems are occuring, what encourages them, and what can be done to help. I felt the original essay/post didn't do that to any significant degree though I still very much appretiated the concern for something to change. We just have to be critical, and continue working towards progress.
Lets look at potential sources to the violence? Combat is lethal and rare... rare because it is lethal I would assume, in this current vampire system is the assumption? I can't say that's intirely true. It has the potential to be, but mainly only when taken advantage of. The way the system is designed, in almost every aspect, DRASTICALLY encourages maxing out key stats for whatever the characters aim. Let us take a slight example, im hoping this will also show the lack of realistically deadly combat the game offers. You have a mortal with dex 2, firearms 2 (which is above average for most I would think) with a light pistol, If they draw a 6, every round (which would be generous), they will do 1 round of damage to another mortal per round... So it would take 7 shots to kill them. However if a mortal with certain merits and very high stats were to do the same, they could fire two guns in a round and easily do 4-6 per shot.. and with such combinations they probably have a higher initiative is well so they do this first... When you have a system, that can get this hopelessly inbalanced, how can you not suspect it to be exploited? especially if the attack is suprise so the physically weak defendent can't get a chance to use their maxed social power that as long as they don't draw a 1 they will be safe. Another creepy thing to consider, is as far as combat goes, the distinction between effectiveness of a vampire and a mortal is not that terribly much (if maxed in key areas once again). The way its built, to be a balanced character is almost absurd, simply because they are not effective( i mean balance in attributes/abilities/merits).
Further adding to this slight absurdity is the factor that you can even see it being encouraged as far as practical realms of rp and xp systems. Using combinations of dominate and majesty don't give you any sort of free social merits, they must still be bought with xp. This realistic vampiric warfare that is spoken of, is to be fought with these, amidst other things. Why, in terms of efficiency, would a player buy several potentially expensive social merits, especially when you can lose them (like if your company goes bankrupt or your allies are harmed, ect.). If you purchase combat stats and merits, you do not lose them, they will always be affective, and no worry about losing them. Especially when considering the difficulty in doing intricate between games down times actions with social/mental powers (added onto the fact many st's are busy and have trouble working great amount with players on getting through these), it almost seems not worth. Just show up, be buff, and do what you want, it seems social powers have been mainly reduced to being a way to settle combat without killing the other person (giving them a chance to try again next game). I know that last statement was an overgeneralization but I think the point is something to think about.
I full heartedly agree that one form of ... of.. encouragement? Should be to hurt them where it hurts, XP. But to do this there has to be a better way to manage it than is currently done. Just taking xp when a obscenely and unnecessarily violent character does something, or adding xp to a good rp will only probably add up to a small handful over a year. Its really not a terribly encouragint mechanism or concept(kind of like werewolves used to lose renown for being horrifically evil, wasn't a true effective deterrent because it was so minescule). This definately needs to be slightly tampered with. Even more so, I think players of very combat focuses characters should lose xp or just be reminded by st's routinely " Hold on... What are your stats? Your character isn't that smart...", and either take away xp, warn, or just ask them to rethink something. Its far to easy for characters to rp a glorified version of themselves with high combat stats. You just show up to game, stand around knowing you could chop things really well if it came up, and then you get to get the same xp at the end of the night (maybe one less depending, but probably tehsame) as everyone else, and can still stomp everyone.
There is agreement on that vampiric warfare is fought differnetly than series after series of bloody messes. However... Once again we need to consider some things. Two good things to look at are "how does it often work that way for mortals?" and some issues about ic vs. ooc.
Mortals have alot of reason they don't always kill each other (though they do VERY often, often as a matter of policy, depending on which media you observe). One reason, that ties back into this flawed/unrealistic system is the equality of risk. The single greatest person in any combat form in the world, could still be not paying attention for a split second and get shot and die without a terrible amount of difficulty. As earlier noted, the current system in no real way offers a fair representation of this. I mean, you would just quick draw and shoot them twice, whats the deal? You can take 1 lethal a turn... People also love to be subservient to authority, especially far reacing and/or potentially violent authority. The new city to city focus of vampire, dillutes this a bit. If you have the power to do what you like in your city, you don't have terribly amount of external threat to worry about. So why not seize and destroy what you want? People also have a general need for each other, for their own benefity (protection, markets, co-operative efforts, food/shelter and all that lovely stuff). Occasionaly protection may fall under that, but given their inherently exploitive and capitalist nature.. vampires don't really need each other. If one was the only vampire in existance, I doubt that would be suffer away and die unless it was from lonelyness/emotional issues which might not apply to all.
Now to the ooc vs IC sillyness. This has always bugged me beyond belief. If your a vampire, living centuries, and you decide you want to sire someone. Why on earth, would you sire a mentally unimpressive swordmaker/swordsman or gunbunny? What possible stimulation/reason would there be for that? You could just ghoul them. I mean, "My sire looked over the earth for decades looking for someone who inspired him enough to sire... He found me. I was a mercenary" doesn't that make you want to laugh? I don't know, maybe I would just be more picky. I just find having trouble believing anyone was sired unless they were pretty or had mental stats other than 2/2/2. That shows a real lackof effort on the part of the sire I think.
This ties into the warfare.. Alot of those elements that keep mortal conflict in check don't exist for vampire (and/or dont exist in the current system). But even so, you would think vampires would shy from violence. Not just because "its so not the thing to do..." but simply out of survival (which I think was mentioned). However I think two things have to make this effective. Enforcement, and maturity. Despite distaste of violence, if PC's feel one pc is being to actively violent without reason (or IC their characters just see this insane vampire as a danger) I think they would be put down. Ideally you would think, in a game when a combat oriented character gets out of control (or even just slightly) they are then crushed. This would also extend characters who kill to much in general (use influence to kill other players, ect.). To show such behavior isn't tolerated. The problem then goes to maturity. Which can touch several areas. First, living for hundreds of years, one would think, would make one behave differently than a child who is thrilled they get to bite people and have superpowers. The problem is not all pc's (when icly appropriet) take this route. I think probably the single largest prohibitor of violence (fatal violence anyway) in a vampiric society would be understanding the consequences... And when one can just make a new character, and try again. This is iffy. That and many players just often get on ego trips, can you realistically image what it would be like if every time a slightly questionable comment was made about a vampire they pointed a gun or used a social power on the one who did it? They would be laughed out of the city, or just staked and stuffed somewhere gross for a few hundred years until they learned. Unfortuantely this has to have some sort of systematic affect or guidline to be appropriately done, or just some very compitent/reasonable st's.
I think thats a satisfactory rant, though much more can still be said. I don't think all is lost, I think there are many possible solutions. I didn't list them here for obvious length reasons, but I would be very very up for talking about them if any one cared to do so. The key is just being able to realistically tell why these problems are occuring, what encourages them, and what can be done to help. I felt the original essay/post didn't do that to any significant degree though I still very much appretiated the concern for something to change. We just have to be critical, and continue working towards progress.