PDA

View Full Version : Vampire: The Requiem - Has Anyone Tried This Game?



Talmek
07-26-2008, 03:16 PM
About two years ago, I purchased the NWoD game Vampire: The Requiem. After realizing that I needed the NWoD rulebook as well, I purchased it, and really studied the rule system. I've never gotten to actually play this game, but I've read quite a bit about it.

The question's in the title, folks. Have you played this game, and if you have...what were your opinions of it?

MortonStromgal
07-28-2008, 10:37 AM
Yes, its a fantastic game for people who have never played VtM. For the most part it moves as fast as its predecessor VtM and the rules don't get in the way of the story. For VtM players the game can be hit and miss as for most of us the new rules are better but metaplot of the old is far better.

Some things I like about VtR
Quick Combat
Humans can resist against Vampire Powers
Static target number

Some things I don't like
The way Bloodlines work
Preditor's Taint
No defensive rolls

Bearfoot_Adam
08-01-2008, 12:00 AM
Agree with Morton. System is wonderful but I do at times miss the metaplot. Another big differance with all the NWOD is that the supers are far more squishy. No longer can a newly minted vamp or even werewolf go up against a group of moderately armed humans and expect things to be so one sided in your favor. This is not bad or good just differant.

"You're superior intelligence is no match for our puny weaponry" Simpsons tree house of horror #?

Talmek
08-08-2008, 01:32 AM
Thanks for the replies.

death666life
08-14-2008, 01:38 PM
played it once and then left it alone. i like VTM way better the VTR but that just me im not saying you shouldnt play.

placebosonly
10-18-2008, 02:31 PM
ive played it and love it infact the whole nWoD system is far supperior and all my players agree(they played oWoD too) there is just far more invention to the game instead of everyone knowing before hand whats going on and just playing dumb for the sake of the game, each campaign can truely be different so yes i have played it and love it

Webhead
10-20-2008, 01:58 PM
I haven't played Requiem myself but I've heard some good things about it. But then, even with all the "metaplot" that White Wolf tried to cram down the throats of V:tM players, we never really payed attention to any of it. In fact, the only V:tM book I ever owned was the corebook. Everything else about our Vampire games was cooked up straight from the 'ole noodle. We had fun playing it the way we felt it should be played.

I always preferred Mage anyway. But the nWoD Mage? No thanks...

boulet
10-20-2008, 02:01 PM
I always preferred Mage anyway. But the nWoD Mage? No thanks...
Because of the game system ? or because of the setting ?

Webhead
10-20-2008, 05:56 PM
Because of the game system ? or because of the setting ?

Setting.

I'm not very clear on how the nWoD system is implemented with the new Mage game, but it's mostly the new setting that doesn't appeal to me. That and the fact that the magic system seems much more "linear" (i.e "spell list" style) than the original magic system. The "open-ended" nature of magic in the original game is part of what made it interesting.

Question for those who know: Does the new Mage even have the concept of Paradox anymore?

fmitchell
10-20-2008, 06:15 PM
Question for those who know: Does the new Mage even have the concept of Paradox anymore?

I have the book, but I've only leafed through it. I believe Paradox is in there somewhere, although the character sheet doesn't include Paradox points on it. There's a space for paradox effects, though.

placebosonly
10-22-2008, 01:54 PM
i have the new mage it does have a concept of paradox the highest of which is accidently summoning a demon from the void or whatever its called havnt actually played the game with my group we mostly use it for NPCS

GoddessGood
10-31-2008, 01:56 PM
Can anyone tell me how combat works in NWoD? I got my hands on the Armory book (which is fantastic for a person like me who know carp about guns) and I'm wondering if someone can give a description of how combat works since I don't have the NWoD core and can't fully interpret some of the systems they refer to.

I'm used to the Exalted (also d10) system where you roll your attack against the target's static defense value. Extra successes on this attack combine with your Strength score and the damage rating of the weapon, less the soak of the target's armor, to make up the damage dice pool. This is then rolled to determine how many damage health levels the target takes.

How is NWoD different?

MortonStromgal
10-31-2008, 03:55 PM
How is NWoD different?

Quicker in that they combined it all into 1 roll.


Strength+Brawl or Weaponry+Weapon Damage+Willpower(if you choose to spend it)-Defense-Armor vs TN 8, success = damage to apply

Dexterity+Athletics or Firearms+Weapon Damage+Willpower(if you choose to spend it)-Armor vs TN 8, success = damage to apply

Webhead
10-31-2008, 06:17 PM
One of the few changes that I did not like about nWoD is how a weapon's damage code directly adds dice to your attack roll. Therefore, the more damage a weapon does, the more likely your character will be to successfully attack with it. I know it takes an extra step out of combat and thus speeds things up, but I don't care for it...

Thankfully its easy enough to house rule nWoD weapons back to the oWoD style system. I like the oWoD idea of accuracy (aka, extra successes) affecting the damage on an attack but I don't like the idea of more powerful weapons granting more dice on the attack roll. What about the big, heavy battle axe that is slow and cumbersome to wield but chops folks in half when it hits? Bah...

It's one of the few (but easily correctible) gripes that I have with nWoD.

MortonStromgal
10-31-2008, 06:37 PM
So are you using a static damage tacted on after the "to hit" role ala shadowrun style? or something else

Webhead
10-31-2008, 11:14 PM
So are you using a static damage tacted on after the "to hit" role ala shadowrun style? or something else

Well, I haven't actually played nWoD yet, but after reading those rules, I considered just porting in the oWoD system:

Dex + Weapon Skill = Attack roll

Weapon Damage Dice + "extra" successes from attack roll = Damage dealt

Of course, that would also require some fiddling with Defense scores and armor rules, but I would probably just import those from oWoD as well. Then again, I'm in no rush as I probably won't be playing nWoD in the near future.

Adding damage dice to your "to hit" roll just bugs me. I can see where they were going with the idea, but it just doesn't grok with me.

TAROT
11-01-2008, 12:53 AM
Thankfully its easy enough to house rule nWoD weapons back to the oWoD style system. I like the oWoD idea of accuracy (aka, extra successes) affecting the damage on an attack but I don't like the idea of more powerful weapons granting more dice on the attack roll. What about the big, heavy battle axe that is slow and cumbersome to wield but chops folks in half when it hits? Bah...

I tone back the equipment bonus for some of the weapons, but I am freer with the 9-again and 8-again.

boulet
11-01-2008, 11:16 AM
The significant improvement of nWoD is the fixed target number IMHO. It's quite difficult to realize the implication in terms of probability when you're toying with the TN. But I'm with Webhead when it comes to not encouraging 150 pounds battle axes in the game.

MortonStromgal
11-01-2008, 01:09 PM
The whacky thing the storyteller needs to remember about nWOD combat is its not a "to hit" roll its a "damage caused by the results of your actions" roll. So even if you do 5 or more damage with a pistol you may have missed but the guy tried to dodge and fell off the roof. This is cool and horrible on the storyteller all at the same time. Frankly static damage + "to hit" roll would have been easier :rolleyes: theres a bunch of minor tweaks like that I do when running a mortals game.

GoddessGood
11-02-2008, 02:38 PM
Why not just roll the damage rating against a target number? Successes on that roll could add to the actual "damage" roll rather than the direct damage rating. Damage-as-Accuracy could give you some of the feel you're looking for without the massive rules tweakage.

Thanks for the responses, guys :cool:

MortonStromgal
11-03-2008, 11:36 AM
Why not just roll the damage rating against a target number? Successes on that roll could add to the actual "damage" roll rather than the direct damage rating. Damage-as-Accuracy could give you some of the feel you're looking for without the massive rules tweakage.

Thanks for the responses, guys :cool:

Some people don't like low damage scores. Its one of the big common complaints with nWOD is that you can scratch a guy to death with shotgun. This isn't a problem with the system so much as a problem with particular players who feel that if you score a point of damage you should have hit your target. nWOD focuses on your action caused X damage as compared to say shadowrun where your action hit for X damage. nWODs handling of it is not for some folks. Technically its the exact same as oWODs system but they raised the target number and removed the to hit roll. The raised target number makes the shotgun scratch far more likely. They also designed nWOD around the idea if you want to do something your going to use willpower to boost your pool. oWOD players tended to horde their willpower pools for the BBEG where as nWOD you gain 1 back per day (plus alot of other ways) so they expect you to use it all the time. The other big mistake oWOD players make is using defense in gunfights.

oWOD players who complain (not all, usually those who played once and then never again) about broken combat tend to have this
dex+firearms+pistol-defense-armor
3+3+3-2-1=6 dice probably 2 successes for 2pts of damage

nWOD rules and design do the following
dex+fireams+pistol+willpower-armor
3+3+3+3-1= 11 dice probably 4 successes for 4pts of damage

for a reference point most people have about 8pts of damage they can take.

However I can completely agree with the minimum damage on a hit thing Webhead is refuring to. But oWOD didn't have that either. Shadowrun has a minimum damage on its weapons there by never making a GM explain why a shotgun blast only cause 1pt of damage. Having to figure that out all the time, while more freeform, can be really rough on a GM.

Webhead
11-03-2008, 01:33 PM
...However I can completely agree with the minimum damage on a hit thing Webhead is refuring to. But oWOD didn't have that either. Shadowrun has a minimum damage on its weapons there by never making a GM explain why a shotgun blast only cause 1pt of damage. Having to figure that out all the time, while more freeform, can be really rough on a GM.

While I think having a "minimum damage" for a weapon might be a good idea, I wasn't referring to that specifically, just more to the effect of rolling the damage die pool seperate from the "hit" pool.

Then again, my favorite oWoD game was Mage where the PCs were mortal and couldn't roll to soak lethal damage. Not to mention it made "dodging" bullets very difficult if you didn't have cover close by. I liked that. That made a knife or a gun truly threatening, but an unskilled user could still flub the shot and miss completely, even (or perhaps especially) if he was using an elephant gun. Compare that to nWoD via example:

Joe Schmoe (Dex 2, Firearms 0) fires a pistol (3 damage dice) at Jim Bob. Joe Schmoe's combat pool would be 5 dice (2 + 0 + 3). Jim Bob has no armor, so during an average round of combat, Joe will inflict 2 levels of damage with the pistol thanks to his die pool.

Joe Schmoe, getting really ticked off at this point, drops the pistol and picks up an elephant gun (6 damage dice, estimate). Now Joe's combat pool jumps to 8 (2 + 0 + 6). Now, on average, Joe will deal 4 levels of damage to Jim per round.

In this way, characters are rewarded for carrying the biggest weapon they can, not just in terms of sheer stopping power (which makes sense), but in overall combat effectiveness. So, the bigger the weapon, the more "effective" the character is whether he knows what he's doing or not.

Don't get me wrong, these are just my small, conceptual gripes. I don't mind the concept of "total combat effectiveness" as one die result...in fact, I own (and enjoy) more than a few games that do this. It's just not something that I find particularly supportive of a game like WoD which strikes me as trying to be a little more "gritty" and less "pulpy" in its action.

MortonStromgal
11-03-2008, 06:24 PM
I stand corrected. I also agree, getting a bigger dicepool "to hit" for having a bigger gun is silly, 90% of the time anyway. If you want to factor in its harder to avoid that is cool but sorry dodging a 22 and a 45 would be about the same. Though honestly I'm best with a 45 but I think that more falls under specialization rather than generic dice from gun.