Orogun01

Incidentally you could make the previous game level 30 your level one by keeping the same enemies and having base skills while subsequently escalating the difficulty.

They got the beard wrong. Can Ubisoft do anything right? On their defense, hair is very difficult to do.

Yes the world is a dreary and bleak place, that's why people have kittens and children.

I saw some classrooms adopt standing tables with some sort of pedal for the kids to let out nervous energy. They can of course sit down at their leisure when they feel tired.

Because a/ their disciplines allow for great build diversity, b/ they map well to the current pop culture image of vampires, c/ by being vanilla, they let us focus on the core themes of Vampire without the additional, more specific sub-themes of the clans you'd use, d/ they have wider mass-market appeal, easing the introduction of the brand, and e/ fixed protagonist means the "boring" aspect doesn't really have to stick; a decent Vampire character's Clan is the least interesting feature about them. That said, if the budget allowed for multiple protagonists (TOR-style), I'd definitely stick in non-traditional clans as well. Btw. I'd be curious about your reasoning how not having a fixed protagonist could possibly be less work than the alternative. Not less work but not as big as you would in other games, since there are shared disciplines across clans simply by creating 3 clans you could have another one clan in the game without the added workload. For example if you implement Brujah and Toreador then you only need Dominate to make a Ventrue. Also, you will have other clans in the game since I expect you're planning to have create fights with enemy vampires. It would actually be cheaper to create the Disciplines that to have different sets of enemy classes.

I don't find Toreadors all that appealing but i'm just kind of befuddled that you would miss out on the opportunity of letting people to experience the whole of kindred society just to favor a fixed character of one of the most boring clans ever. It's like having a gold mine and selling the rock, the potential of WOD would go wasted if you at least didn't try to have 3 alternative clans with definite different play styles. I would say Malkavian, Nosferatu, Tremere would be my top with Gangrel being close just because they are the more unique clans. Also the fact that you have clans that share disciplines makes it so that it is easier to incrementally implement more than one clan. Same with the story needs, I get that you thought that having a fixed protagonist would mean less work but I think WoD might be an exception. Although I would also change some Disciplines to make them more viable as either alternatives to skills or combat effective.

Paths are a definite no-no, partially because most of them sound like the ramblings of mustache-twirling villains and the bat**** insane, and partially because the game would need to introduce the brand to the wider gaming populace, which makes the Sabbat impractical for the designated protagonist faction. So I'd stick with Humanity (makes sense, our protagonist has to be a freshly-Embraced neonate anyway, because, again, we're trying to introduce the non-TT crowd to the brand, and freshly-Embraced neonates tend to stick to it unless prompted otherwise by outside forces). As for Disciplines, don't forget that dots beyond 5 have a Generation requirement. Since we're working with a fixed protagonist, Generation is already determined by the identity of the Sire; I'd personally go with something like 10 or 11. That makes it impossible to the player to ever learn anything beyond 5, so even if they, by some colossal ****-up on our part (a fixed-protagonist game introducing people to the brand starring a Malkavian protagonist? that could... actually work, in a Fight Club-esque story, but still, counter-intuitive), can learn Dementation, making one guy go insane for a night is pretty much the full extent of the powers that can be obtained. I'd pretty much do Willpower similarly to how Effort works in TToN. You can spend it to auto-succeed on tasks or to resist Frenzy, you regain it when you rest. I'd also have events happening independently of you in the game world, so sitting down to take a nap after every skill check would be impractical. Humanity would change based on the actions you take (my instinct says 100 point scale with reductions based on both the severity of the offense and how high your actual Humanity is), and current score would have an effect on actions you can take (influencing endings), NPC reactions, and Frenzy occurance. Frenzy wouldn't occur randomly, it'd have trigger events and Humanity thresholds (so, at low Humanity, you're going to Frenzy if somebody humiliates you in Elysium, f'rex, while at high Humanity, you can be starving and still experience no negative effects). Of course, this is just my first instinct on how things should be arranged, if playtesting proves the systems to not provide the desired outcomes, they should be reworked. Some Disciplines definitively have a higher development cost than others, so which clan/disciplines would you choose to implement? Also, would you enable Clan Curses/Weaknesses and if so, how?

Obviously I'm not advocating for a complete adaptation of the rules, that would be stupid. But maybe saying "this discipline that about half the clans has doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do, unless you're a member of a very specific clan", or "**** it, figuring out ways for investigative/social/utility disciplines to be actually useful in the game is hard, let's change them so they let you kill people even faster" is equally stupid. I mean, sure, I get why they did it (combat content is cheap to make and yields a better "time investment on part of the designer"/"time investment for the player to get through it" ratio, not to mention that the publisher would've thrown a ****fit of epic proportions if they saw they were making a proper Vampire game with a heavy focus on intrigue and social interactions at the expense of monster-filled sewer levels), but that doesn't make it a good adaptation. So you you're just cherrypicking? No, I'm saying they did a **** job of actually adapting the ruleset to the realities and needs of computer gaming while preserving the spirit of the original. I'm curious how would you have made it, keep in mind that every feature is a timesink and that you have limited production time and resources. I probably would've gone with a fixed protagonist in the vein of Witcher, which neatly sidesteps the issue of hard-to-adapt disciplines (just pick a clan with fairly straightforward stuff). The core idea of the game is extremely solid (there's a plot that kinda looks like it's going to have apocalyptic consequences, but in reality, it's very mundane and limited in scope). I'd probably have put a much bigger emphasis on factions, intrigue and social interaction (with the disciplines that heavily lean on those seeing a ton of opportunities for play), and the player's choices fundamentally shaping the outcome of events like in Alpha Protocol. Of course, back when Bloodlines came out, none of the games that pretty much introduced these concepts to CRPGs have existed, so realistically, most of them wouldn't have had occurred to me. I really don't want to give the impression that I think Bloodlines' production was fundamentally botched. But with the development of the medium and better tools at our disposal today, I'd definitely expect a more faithful adaptation if there ever was a Bloodlines 2. What would you bring from the tabletop? Paths, faithful representations of Disciplines? I find it that it would be kind of broken if I max out Dementation and in a global event make everyone in the world insane. Would be fun though... Also would you handle willpower, path, and frenzy checks.

Obviously I'm not advocating for a complete adaptation of the rules, that would be stupid. But maybe saying "this discipline that about half the clans has doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do, unless you're a member of a very specific clan", or "**** it, figuring out ways for investigative/social/utility disciplines to be actually useful in the game is hard, let's change them so they let you kill people even faster" is equally stupid. I mean, sure, I get why they did it (combat content is cheap to make and yields a better "time investment on part of the designer"/"time investment for the player to get through it" ratio, not to mention that the publisher would've thrown a ****fit of epic proportions if they saw they were making a proper Vampire game with a heavy focus on intrigue and social interactions at the expense of monster-filled sewer levels), but that doesn't make it a good adaptation. So you you're just cherrypicking? No, I'm saying they did a **** job of actually adapting the ruleset to the realities and needs of computer gaming while preserving the spirit of the original. I'm curious how would you have made it, keep in mind that every feature is a timesink and that you have limited production time and resources.

Obviously I'm not advocating for a complete adaptation of the rules, that would be stupid. But maybe saying "this discipline that about half the clans has doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do, unless you're a member of a very specific clan", or "**** it, figuring out ways for investigative/social/utility disciplines to be actually useful in the game is hard, let's change them so they let you kill people even faster" is equally stupid. I mean, sure, I get why they did it (combat content is cheap to make and yields a better "time investment on part of the designer"/"time investment for the player to get through it" ratio, not to mention that the publisher would've thrown a ****fit of epic proportions if they saw they were making a proper Vampire game with a heavy focus on intrigue and social interactions at the expense of monster-filled sewer levels), but that doesn't make it a good adaptation. So you you're just cherrypicking?

If you don't have an engine from a parent company or something, chances are you're gonna use cryengine for a tps action rpg game : p Don't know why so many devs are choosing cryengine, maybe it's cheaper than most? Why not license redengine from cdpr? : d CryEngine is easier to use than Unreal where you have to build lighting to see the changes; you just have to drop a light into the scene and that's it. I haven't worked much with CryEngine but I get the feeling that they just need to find their market, they're aimless and that's hurting them. Also, I don't get why so many gamers have a love for Onyx and an unfounded hatred of Unity. I literally could only find 2 games made on Onyx and both where made by Obsidian.

So you don't really want a Vampire RPG. What is the point of making a game with known IP if you just change everything? Just a money grab. You don't need to change anything to make the game balanced, you need to design your game around the diverging capabilities different clans bring to the table. Refraining from pointlessly changing how the system works in the name of maximized killing capacity for everybody like Bloodlines did would be a start. I don't think you would be a good game designer. I'm sorry, what? The changed disciplines in Bloodlines were a ****ing travesty, not to mention the gaping plothole it caused (namely that in-universe, pretty much every fledgling with Obfuscate 3 can replicate the "I am Nines Rodriguez" trick, thus making his appearance at the dead Primogen's estate an extremely flimsy casus belli). Bloodlines was a decent game (and more importantly, it worked as a horror rpg), but a good Vampire adaptation it ain't. I get that you're a fussy cat but you must understand that tabletop doesn't translate well to video game. Asking for it just shows a lack of understanding of game development and the limitations of production and the medium.

So you don't really want a Vampire RPG. What is the point of making a game with known IP if you just change everything? Just a money grab. You don't need to change anything to make the game balanced, you need to design your game around the diverging capabilities different clans bring to the table. Refraining from pointlessly changing how the system works in the name of maximized killing capacity for everybody like Bloodlines did would be a start. I don't think you would be a good game designer.

I die a little bit inside when I try to tell rap fans about how all their favorite stars rip off Tricky and they go "Who the hell is Tricky?"

No, I can't hope. It would hurt too much to be disappointed.

If he does it will look impressive to see a man of his size being completely overpowered by three tinier Chinese men and an old one.

Not really; a Paladin must have a God. You could easily roleplay in TEs a Warrior/Healer who is dedicated to Stendarr and isn't a follower of the Vigilants, but still communes with his God.

You really sound a bit whiny, no offense. If your problem with Skyrim is that there is no class system and that classless systems don't allow you to get in the mood then that's your deal. Plenty of players have no problem finding ways to justify behavior in the game universe, which is at the core of roleplaying either video game or tabletop. There is no mechanical or story reason as to why your argument is valid as it seem to come down to how you feel.

I'm going to guess she said boys have a **** and girls have a vagina. How dare he? I have a cloaca.

Then Bethesda have to make contents more meaningful for every factions and more restriction in joining factions, that's encourage replay, you just not play 300 hours once, but you may play fo 900 hours with 3 classes at least. But as we can see they only care to make money by pleasing whining kids who want everything in one playthrough Bioware now have lost their own identity, they no longer the original Bioware, now they are corporate and they only care about making money for EA. So they now like to create something look cool but have no soul in it. You don't seem to grasp the consequences of what design choices you propose. Making high level requirements actually discourages the player by creating an entry barrier that can only be overcome by grinding. Which is almost always considered a bad design choice; Bethesda and everyone making an open world game has to balance content against depth. Either you have a vast populated world or a small highly interactive one, making it both is a time sink and off putting to the player who might give up halfway through due to lack of progress. But we're digressing: Differentiating classes varies from game to game, there really isn't an unified standard for what a spellmage, arcane warrior, battlemage is. What lack of progress? If you play as a Warrior, would you want to join Mages Guild that is a guild for spell casters? Ok, i make it like this, let say you are a Christian, would you join Al Qaeda? The most important question is would Al Qaeda accept you into their group? Even Muslims are not so easy to join Al Qaeda and not all Muslims want to join Al Qaeda. There must be a restriction based on class, a Paladin wouldn't want to to join Assassin Guild and that guild wouldn't accept a Paladin. And so a Warrior cannot join Mages guild and Mages don't accept anyone who cannot cast spells or only know few spells. You're missing the point entirely, i'm talking about it from a mechanical standpoint and how those mechanics affect players. From a roleplaying perspective it makes sense, but then again so does being a scroll mage that continues to pass performance checks to trick everyone into thinking he's the real deal. The point was that a deep game experience is best provided in a small game world rather than a larger one where it would be more punitive.

FaceGen, thats how every face in that mod was made. Find some good reference pictures of the rock, download FaceGen and FaceGen exporter and DIY

Then Bethesda have to make contents more meaningful for every factions and more restriction in joining factions, that's encourage replay, you just not play 300 hours once, but you may play fo 900 hours with 3 classes at least. But as we can see they only care to make money by pleasing whining kids who want everything in one playthrough Bioware now have lost their own identity, they no longer the original Bioware, now they are corporate and they only care about making money for EA. So they now like to create something look cool but have no soul in it. You don't seem to grasp the consequences of what design choices you propose. Making high level requirements actually discourages the player by creating an entry barrier that can only be overcome by grinding. Which is almost always considered a bad design choice; Bethesda and everyone making an open world game has to balance content against depth. Either you have a vast populated world or a small highly interactive one, making it both is a time sink and off putting to the player who might give up halfway through due to lack of progress. But we're digressing: Differentiating classes varies from game to game, there really isn't an unified standard for what a spellmage, arcane warrior, battlemage is.

Last time I played Skyrim I went with a sort of peaceful assassin - only kill when you have to, only kill who you have to. I only accepted quests which asked me to target specific NPCs. I know of a lot more efficient ways of playing "my build", but I didn't. Why? That is just personal preference, that's not role-playing, the Assassin in TES are Dark Brotherhood faction, the only ROLE-playing as Assassin is becoming a ruthless murderer in Skyrim, if you join the faction. If you don't join the faction, then you are not role-playing anything, there is no Assassin class in Skyrim. It is like you are in the army and in assassin program/division, that's your role in the army, that's your class. Either you are a peaceful agent or ruthless agent is not your role, your role is an assassin. Understand? That is why i say role-playing in Skyrim is bollocks, players playing build not role-play because there is no role to play. TES:Oblivion at least have this even though it doesn't have any meaning, there is Assassin class, but it just a starting class to choose and have no meaning in role-play UNLESS you jon the Dark Brotherhood. It is because even if you choose the Assassin class, you don't belong in any Assassin faction to role-play, and secondly the skills are the same with any stealth class to make it a special class to role-play. Dark Brotherhood is a faction to role-play, but your build IS NOT, you can be an Assassin no matter what type of your build is. That is the problem of Skyrim and TES:Oblivion. You can become an Assassin, an Archmage, a Warrior champion while your build isn't related at all with the factions. TES tries to ground it with providing companion examples of atypical members, I don't see strict adherence as a good thing particularly in an open world game with hundreds of game hours. So I let them get away with it because its for the sake of their game experience. BW just has major problems with consistency due to the fact that they prefer style over substance, which is mild way of saying that they do what the **** they feel like without any regard.

This post is very insensitive to the follicaly challenged.

It kind of reminds me of Max Payne, be awesome if it was like Max Payne with the Kung Fu mod.