Thoughts on openness, canon

I think that's still a cool way to speed the attrition factor of contestation. it won't ever come back, but I think. princes, barons, and archbishops should be able to do that. its also cool for Canon reasons.

In other thread there's talk about the game already being too cumbersome.

While being a nifty minor detail adding the intercity rushing ability wouldn't really help making the game easier.

ReverendRevolver wrote: princes, barons, and archbishops should be able to do that. its also cool for Canon reasons.

Well, not at all.

When, say, François Villon contest paris with some scrawny sabbat vampire, Villon won't go by himself putting a knuckle sandwich to Marcel Debreau. What is cannon is that he send goon to put him in custody - and by "custody" we mean final death.

On reverse, while Marcel Debreau certainly want to do it himself, just about any sabbat vampire diablerizing the Prince of France is fine by him. And he certainly don't suddenly know where Villon is hanging simply because he call himself the archbishop of Paris. Camarilla don't give him a dueling right to the prince either.

So, it's more that, by canon, contested titleholder are more likely to get attacked, but by anybody of the opposite camp. And people don't have any reason to be easier to locate simply because they are contested. On the contrary, I would suppose they tighten their security.

So, like very often, something flavorful (like this rule is) have no special canon basis. It may still feel good and flavorful, but it is absolutely not canon.

On the topic of city titles.

Games should be fun. We play because we want to enjoy ourselves. Mechanics that does not add to the fun of any of the participating players are therefore bad mechanics.

Example:
Wall decks. If you're the wrong kind of deck and end up having a wall deck as your prey then you're kind of screwed. The game is more or less over for you from the start and you won't have any fun. However, the wall deck player is probably having the time of his life. So in this case, I would argue that wall decks are OK since at least one player is having fun.

Contesting anything, not only city titles, however does not qualify.
I play the game of thrones lcg a lot as well. In that game we have the concept of "unique characters" as well, however they are only unique per player. So if we play a mirror match (the same deck against a copy of itself) the game doesn't become any stranger than if I'd play against any other deck. (Lore-wise, it might look weird though, but I'd say that having a fun game would be more important)

In VTES this quickly becomes stupid though. Contesting city titles, contesting vampires...for gods sake, contesting dreams of the sphinx!
This is not strategy, it's pure luck. One could argue that this mechanic should encourage more varied deckbuilding (I know that someone else is will probably play Lutz in the tournament, so I play another deck to maximize my chances not to end up contesting), but look at the meta. This isn't the case. Every ahrimanes deck plays howler and the other girls from that crypt even though you'll get totally screwed if you end up with another ahrimanes deck on the table. Everyone plays dreams of the sphinx. Hell, people even play ivory bow just to protect against ivory bow! This is stupid! It doesn't add to the fun. It's just a random element where suddenly if you're unlucky you'll end up contesting cards and have to choose between a chicken race to the death or not getting to actually play your deck at all.

I say that one of the best rule changes that could happen to this game would be to remove contesting. Completely remove it from the game. Lore/Canon be damned. This is a game, not a vampire novel (and as a disclaimer, I love the lore/canon). Remove all contestng, except with yourself (so one ivory bow/lutz/dreams per player, if you get a second it's a dead card).

I suspect that this change would cause two things. 1) Plenty of people calling me an idiot and telling me how horrible this change would be. 2) The game actually becoming more fun and no one even remembering the contesting rule after a month or two.

wastaz wrote: 1) Plenty of people calling me an idiot and telling me how horrible this change would be.

Count me as the first of them.

wastaz wrote: 2) The game actually becoming more fun and no one even remembering the contesting rule after a month or two.

It would become more competitive (since it would be less random). Fun ? I don't think so, and nothing in your post seem to let think the opposite. Don't forget that contesting is actually a factor improving deck diversity. No contesting lead to deck becoming less diverse lead to less fun.

wastaz wrote: In VTES this quickly becomes stupid though. Contesting city titles, contesting vampires...for gods sake, contesting dreams of the sphinx!

Contesting is in integral part of the game and an important balancing factor.
E.g. Dreams of the Sphinx is one of the most powerful cards in the game. Top players often include more than 1 copy in their decks. Contesting makes sure that it's not too easily abusable. Powerful effects should always have some risk attached to them, otherwise it would be a bit boring.

I agree though, that contesting vampires in very early turns is a bit of a bummer, but then again, later on it can be strategic move if I contest my prey's Greger Andersen when he has no other ready vampires to deflect my bleeds...