Vampire: The Masquerade made by Obsidian?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

 

You mean that game in which they changes how some of the core mechanics of P&P version work because they didn't find way to make them work in CRPG environment?

 

 

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.

Edited October 31, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[ShadySands]

You had me until fixed protagonist

[aluminiumtrioxid]

You had me until fixed protagonist

 

It worked in the Witcher series, in Alpha Protocol, in Mass Effect, in PST... making a C&C-heavy game with lots of factional intrigue that sells itself on the strength of its writing (which it would need to, otherwise the whole factional intrigue/social interaction focus simply doesn't work) is already hard enough without having to worry about ways to plug the PC into the whole mess and how to make certain disciplines work.

[HoonDing]

You had me until fixed protagonist

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean that game in which they changes how some of the core mechanics of P&P version work because they didn't find way to make them work in CRPG environment?

 

 

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.

[ShadySands]

 

You had me until fixed protagonist

 

It worked in the Witcher series, in Alpha Protocol, in Mass Effect, in PST... making a C&C-heavy game with lots of factional intrigue that sells itself on the strength of its writing (which it would need to, otherwise the whole factional intrigue/social interaction focus simply doesn't work) is already hard enough without having to worry about ways to plug the PC into the whole mess and how to make certain disciplines work.

 

 

I was mostly just being a ****

 

Obviously, it's my personal preference but it's the main thing that I do not like about those games. Witcher and PST most of all since they have the least customization

[aluminiumtrioxid]

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.

 

 

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.

[Orogun01]

 

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.

 

 

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?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

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?

 

 

- Brujah is straightforward enough, you have superstrength (also useful for a variety of out-of-combat applications), superspeed, super-charisma. Brujah have a tendency to be anarchs, which is in support of the game's core themes. Their clan weakness would also be easy to implement. They're a strong candidate.

 

- Gangrel I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, Protean's 3 and 5 dot effects are hard to make useful, same with pretty much the entirety of Animalism, and their clan weakness is terribly impractical to work around. Also, the clan structure makes it hard to involve them in the main plot.

 

- Malkavian wouldn't be my first choice (again, introductory game), but it could work. Auspex is a kickass investigative Discipline, Obfuscate is great for sneaking around, and if we set the game during the time period where they had Dominate, we'd even have a third Discipline that's fairly easy to handle. Weakness is great story fodder.

 

- Nosferatu is also in the "wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole" territory. Animalism is hard to handle, Nosferatu are generally not great socialites, making them hard to slot into a game of factional intrigue, their curse is so debilitating it all but mandates having to take Obfuscate 3 right at the start, thus limiting build diversity... it could be an interesting challenge to design a Nosferatu RPG, but to introduce the brand with them, hell no.

 

- Toreador is an excellent choice. If you want to emphasize vampires as sex symbols, hard to go wrong with Toreador. They also have Auspex (yay investigative gameplay), Presence (yay social superpowers) and Celerity (yay actual combat competence), so they bring strong build diversity to the table. Their clan weakness is frikkin' idiotic but if we make time management an essential component of the game, could be interesting. Or it could just be rewritten/ignored.

 

- Tremere is decent. Auspex is awesome, Dominate is awesome, Thaumaturgy is awesome with a side order of double awesome. Also, their clan structure strongly facilitates stories centered around backstabbing and intrigue. Their weakness is pointless but this pointlessness makes it easy to adapt. I'd probably save them for the sequel though, fiddling around with the nuances of Thaumaturgy while the core systems aren't fully hammered out might be a bad idea, while reducing Thaumaturgy to Path of Blood only is severely limiting.

 

- Ventrue is the third strongest candidate for main character. Presence and Dominate have a slight conceptual overlap, and as far as combat-focused disciplines go, Fortitude is not nearly as flashy as Potence or Celerity. The clan weakness would be a great pacing mechanism, though (fixed main character means fixed prey exclusion, which means you could restrict feeding to a small number of strongly-characterized NPCs, making resource management balancing fairly easy on the designer side, and opening up the possibility of actually making it a personal affair).

 

 

So, depending on the story's needs, Brujah, Toreador or Ventrue could all work. I'm leaning towards Toreador.

[Orogun01]

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.

[Oner]

are hard to make useful, same with pretty much the entirety of Animalism

 

Why would you even add that useless thing.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

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. 

 

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.

Edited November 1, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Gorgon]

 

 

Balance is for multiplayer. If there is a class or a skill tree that is better than the others in a single player game I couldn't care less. Well maybe a little. It's way down on the list anyway.

in a multiplayer game, balance is making all character types equaly combat proficient. in a single player rpg, balance is making all character builds able to reach the end of the game without hitting a wall that says "oh, you do not have X points on that skill? sorry, roll a new character and try again"

 

 

Like for example Wasteland 2 that seems to suffer quite much from syndromes "Oh you have wrong build though luck to you" and "Oh you have right build there is no challenge for you" when you add fact that it is also quite buggy and suffers from performance and stability issues, I would not necessary take it as example how I want future RPGs to look. This is not to say that Obsidian's games don't have issues, but that there is no perfect game maker or game and that is strengths of the games that make them memorable and enjoyable not their weaknesses. Also I would not mind to see Vampire game from Obsidian, inXile, or  both, because I think they both are great. Although if I had to choose I probably would choose Obsidian as their proven track record for heavily story focused games is much more impressive than inXile's.

 

To clear the point: Balance matters, even in single player games, but how, where and why depends on fully on game, genre and personal preferences. There is no perfect game, no perfect developer, no game without weaknesses. Game's strengths play much bigger role in how enjoyable and  memorable they are than their weaknesses. I want new Vampire game. I think both inXile and Obsidian are great studios, but I favor Obsidian bit more because of their history. 

 

I don't mind if one build/class is harder than the other, they are supposed to be different experiences. if it's unplayable obviously that's a problem. Worry enough about it so you can play satisfactorily with any class and not much beyond that I'd say. Definitely don't streamline everything warhammer/starcraft races style though. You will sand down all the bumps. Bumps are good. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I don't mind if one build/class is harder than the other, they are supposed to be different experiences. if it's unplayable obviously that's a problem. 

 

 

Yeah, basically this. Not every build needs to be equal, but every build needs to be viable. Also, the game should clearly signal what you're getting into.

[Orogun01]

 

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. 

 

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.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

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. 

 

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.

 

 

Minor nitpick: if you implement Brujah, you only need to implement Auspex to make Toreador, but if you have both, you still need Fortitude and Dominate to make Ventrue.

 

More importantly, since we're starting out with an existing social structure in the game, into which our main character gets slotted instead of the blank slate of Bloodlines, every additional clan we implement would necessitate a ****ton of unique dialogue depending on the nature, allegiance and social standing of the Sire. Now, if the writers' time and VA budget is no object, it can be done, but I'd argue if it isn't less work, per se, it definitely is a lot more expensive than in other games. There was a reason Bioware decided to go with a fixed protagonist in subsequent Dragon Age games instead of offering a choice between different origins.

 

As for fights with enemy vampires, I wouldn't worry too much about that. Enemies don't need to play by the same rules as PCs, and anyways, implementing just the combat-relevant dots of certain disciplines (*cough* Protean *cough*) is way less hassle than trying to balance effects like "you can meld into earth for an indefinite duration" or "you can transform into a gaseous form that makes you pretty much invulnerable and lets you squeeze through any opening gas could conceivably diffuse through".

[Lexx]

I thought Bloodlines was p.cool until approx half of Hollywood. Then the game kinda went downhill.

[FlintlockJazz]

I thought Bloodlines was p.cool until approx half of Hollywood. Then the game kinda went downhill.

Think that was the point they ran out of money heh.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Obsidian could do it. A shame Avellone isn't around. He could do some great story telling.

[Qistina]

So will it be like Underworld or Twilight?

[FlintlockJazz]

So will it be like Underworld or Twilight?

Well White Wolf seemed to think Underworld was enough like their games to sue them...

 

http://www.geeknative.com/3773/rpg-news-white-wolf-sues-sony-for-underworld-echoes-13/

[BloodDeath]

I think the best way if you're going to do a "fixed" protagonist (well in the style of the Fallout games where you can create your character) under these circumstances properly, then the main character would most likely be a Caitiff whose Generation happens to be very..very low as if you're sired by a very powerful Vampire and they just abandoned you there left you to your own devices as if your sire is testing you for something....

 

Otherwise, since modern era (compared to Dark Ages) Vampire games are very difficult to do due to sect based and I'm sure I don't want a another game following the same path that Bloodlines did with the whole concept of being a "Camarilla game" and being restricted to only 7 clans and the biggest flaw in Bloodlines you couldn't learn new disciplines without console commands. I hope Obsidian is listening and I hope they don't repeat the same mistake as Troika did with Bloodlines which I hope all clans are playable not to mention out of clan disciplines are able to be learned and any sect can be joinable without forcing you into the Camarilla vs Sabbat right from the start....

Edited January 27, 2016 by BloodDeath

[BloodDeath]

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).

 

 

Then again this is also the biggest reason why I don't like the whole "Camarilla vs Sabbat" setting of Masquerade which this is where the main flaw lies.

[Chilloutman]

 

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).

Then again this is also the biggest reason why I don't like the whole "Camarilla vs Sabbat" setting of Masquerade which this is where the main flaw lies.

 

every game have some limitations, you cant expect all those aspects in game and still have same depth as they have in eg. Masquerade

[Blodhemn]

Eh, there comes a point where too much choice just doesn't work for a video game. If a team focuses too much on the sim factor, then the game will more likely consist of bulk bland quests/characters as a tradeoff. Bloodlines had the perfect balance of fun quests/characters/story/choice for me.

 

I thought Bloodlines was p.cool until approx half of Hollywood. Then the game kinda went downhill.

Think that was the point they ran out of money heh.

 

That, and the game is so top heavy in content, which was a welcomed change to the slow crawl to start most RPGs. I can't imagine being able to carry out that level of quality to the end.

every game have some limitations, you cant expect all those aspects in game and still have same depth as they have in eg. Masquerade

Exactly... Edited February 2, 2016 by Blodhemn