Currently there are several topics in the VtES Usenet Newsgroup where VtES players discuss the issue of self-ousting in the game. There some (but in my opinion not too many) situations in past games where this was an issue, and therefore I am not for any radical changes to the existing rules (including the rules changes that have been proposed in the newsgroup, although I haven't read all of the posts).
Personally, I would just like to see a little rule additions in the game. That is, that you cannot deliberately reduce your pool to zero (or less); that is a player cannot transfer out himself, or pay cards that would cost him all of his pool. Yes, there's Dragonbound, Army of Rats, etc. as "loopholes", but in the end some other player has (or had) to take a deliberate effort to oust the player in the "lost position" (whatever that exactly is). This might only result in an additional full round around the table (or more likely somewhat less), but this can still make a difference for course of the game without changing the rules radically.
The proposal of the other participants in the discussion are often too complicated and/or require the intervention of a judge (e.g. to declare whether a player is a "lost position" or not). Both alternatives are not really acceptable for me. And in the end, you cannot really prevent people from being idiots, morons or just suicidal in the game with a written set of rules.
To get an estimation, what the players think about the self-ousting issue, I have created a poll with some basic opinions about self-ousting in VtES.
10 comments:
maybe -1 victory point will be a nice rule?
I used to play Magic, (am I allowed to say the M-word here) and still do to an extent, and at any Magic tournament, in any round, of any game, at any time, you are allowed to simply say "forget it, this game's over, there's no way I can win," and pick up your cards and concede that game. Now, granted, it's slightly different because conceding one game in a Magic tournament still meant there were others to be played, and it didn't give any sort of benefit to any other player (besides having slightly more time to play the next game or two I guess) the way ousting does in Vampire, but still, I do not see the problem with allowing someone to simply pick up their cards and walk off at any point in the game. If you're not having fun, (and for me, if I feel like there's no possible way I can get a GW for more than a couple turns, then I'm *not* having fun) then why keep playing?
Well, if you just concede in the middle of the Vtes game the whole table will be affected with your decision. Your predator will gain VP without taking effort to actually oust you. Besides, there is time limit in VTES tournament games. If you concede the game you will put some players in really good situation and some in equally bad.
And next time, it might be you who looks to gain, when someone decides to up and selfoust himself.
Or, to put it in a slightly different way, in Magic conceding a game makes sense, because the reason your game is trashed is because the one other person that your concession affects is the one who trashed you. Since VTES is a multiplayer game, it's entirely possible that the person who gets rewarded for your concession (your predator) had little or nothing to do with your game being trashed.
LSJ's proposal was just a joke. It is too subjective whether or not someone is completely lost. Add to that the prospect of a player being forced out of a game and you have a rule that does more harm than good. Judges are usually not needed in a game and I like it that way.
I definitely understand that they're different games with very different repercussions for one player deciding to leave, but on the other hand, how often do you think people would concede if they had the option? I think the number is a LOT lower than the anti-conceding people would think. Because of its multiplayer nature, Vampire is a game with lots of sudden reversals of fortune, and it's hard to say when someone is well and truly completely beyond winning; I've played games where I've thought that I'm completely screwed, only to manage to pull out a game win by not being a priority target for long enough. That being said, I want the option. If I think that this game is going to be a waste of time for the rest of the duration, I want the option to pick up my cards and go get lunch or whatever.
Basically, TLDR: give me the option. It will be infrequently used at best, and I guarantee it won't be used without significant resources aimed at ousting the conceding party first.
What about killing yourself with a last archon investigation while burning your predator's minion? I think that's self ousting too, but also part of the game.
The problem is to decide whether you feel yourself in a totaly lost position. When i feel like hopeless, like all of my minions are burned and i dont have enough poot to bring out a new one, and i dont feel like watching the endgame, i just sit up, leaving the remaining pool there to be bled. (with the exeption if i have an archon in my hand :D )
What is the current rule on a player leaving a table? What is the proposal for rule change? I linked to the newsgroup but was not directed to the article/comment being discussed.
I think the unpredictability of multiple opponents on the table make VtES the great game it is. Self-ousting caters to this theme of multi-player chaos. 9/10 it is the really tense, excitable person who announces a self oust. I prefer to let them leave them leave the table instead of making them stay with all the weird emotional passive aggressive baggage they bring to game play.
I think the best solution would be to just forbid to take transfers down to 0 pool.
- Johannes. Master of the Self-Oust-Threatening-Technique also called the Suicide-Move
Post a Comment