what if YOU rebooted VTES?

brandonsantacruz wrote: I actually prefer being ousted to hanging around in a lost position for hours. Board games that do that leave me feeling trapped into some shitty dynamic where nothing I do matters, but that I have to play it out.

Well, good boardgame don't let this happen either

Well... good boardgames kinda have to do this to some extent.

If being crippled in the earlygame doesn't matter in the long run because you can still win, the entire early game doesn't serve any purpose other than lengthen the game. It's extremely hard to make a board game (or any game for that matter) where all phases of the game matter and still have all stages being relevant. For example, the popular Settlers of Catan and to a lesser extent Power Grid board games are just a total bore to play if you get a bad start, while on the other end it's fairly pointless to even play the first 10 turns of Carcasonne because they are almost completely irrelevant to the outcome of the game.

Probably the best board games to alleviate this problem are a few of the incarnations of the 18XX series. A bad start puts you at a significant disadvantage, but clever and/or sneaky play can in the end result in a win. This is because the game is actually three minigames rolled into a bigger one, where in each stage of the game all subgames play a role, but the different subgames change in importance as the game progresses. As such you can get screwed in the early train-purchasing game, have a terrible midgame as a result, but in the end pull off a win because you played the stockmarket like a genius.

Lech wrote:

miketheknife wrote: Agree with 2 and 3, i just would change 1 in the opposite way: make antitribu independent clans and redesign some cards to work on tribus and antitribus (like hunting grounds).

I just would like to remark juggernaut's point 1: KEYWORDS, along with a clear statement of card secuence (combat chain, referendums, action mods vs reactions), not that is not already 99% clear, but declare a basic rule that gives directions to card design.

About antitribu, what if said antitribu change the sect to the opposing one ? From thematic point of view (and balance point of view) it make no sense that !brujah who changed sect cannot play regular brujah cards.

So i would axe antitribu clans and just make sect requirement on some clan cards.

What you say is what has more lore-wise sense.
I just think that more clans gives more choices to create different expansions and cards.

miketheknife wrote:
What you say is what has more lore-wise sense.
I just think that more clans gives more choices to create different expansions and cards.

Merging tribu and antitribu does not make more sens lore wise than the opposite. Merging Nosferatu and !nosferatu can be argued very easily ; merging brujah and !brujah make me laugh. The very worse being merging tremere and !tremere

I would put a capacity requirement on disciple levels. Say 5 cap to have superior. I liked the idea of having a higher level of discipline say 9 cap for that. I don't know much about the OWoD, but from the novels I read Antitribu were refereed to as Antitribu regardless of clan.

I don't think people are talking about a "merge". What they're talking about is making each bloodline a clan for the purpose of mechanics and then different members of the bloodlines can belong to different sects. The designers have felt free to assign variant sects to the Independent clans, Lasombra, and Tzimicsce, but not the antitribu and their Camarilla equivalents.

The clans of the antitribu and their Camarilla equivalents are treated mechanically different than the other clans, since, unlike the other clans, their sects are invariable.

Camarilla, Laibon, Sabbat, and Independent Followers of Set are already "merged" for example.