Regarding the Locked Driocht proposal

[Thornstar]

Good evening, all!

I have some concerns about this that aren't related to the powers in the post about the powers.
First, these comments are in regard to the post: HERE


My first issue is that this is over 24 thousand words to take in, and the vote is slated for this Saturday. Many people won't even have time to read through this by then, let alone assimilate what any or all of it means to them before casting their vote. I think that's unduly burdensome, and since it has been mentioned many times that a significant portion of the game does not use the boards every week to even see this, that players have a chance to review this in hard-copy form, as well.
I would ask in regards to that issue that the vote be postponed at least a week, preferably two, to give time to take in all this new information you're asking them to make a decision on. Further, I would ask that accomodations be made (Either by printed copies being made available to players to take home and read, or at least peruse while at game) to be sure that everyone does have a chance to go over it, and doesn't just have to rely on someone elses summary or retelling of what the post says.

My second issue is that you're calling out no "no" option, regardless of how the vote goes. Since it's incumbent upon the staff to make sure that rules are introduced properly, I would ask that there be the following options on the vote:

1. Yes.
2. Needs Work.
3. No.

Since this will be more useful to you in finding out if this home-brew is something that the player base wants to become a part of our game. If "Yes" or "No" wins, you'll have a definitive answer. If "Needs Work" wins, then it would seem that an overhaul would be necessary.

One of the big reasons I bring this up is that between long player waits for responses to their emails, direct admission of short-staffed-ness, and the fact that this rules proposal is an incredibly significant amount of system to overhaul, it would be best for the game if the vote allowed for a way to help you guys cut out what might be otherwise wasted effort. If you can avoid having to draft and re-draft and re-draft versions of this rules set, everything else should be easier to handle and keep up with.

I understand that people have already put a great deal of effort into creating this document, but I'm sure those people would not want to have it go sailing into play unwanted, as well. I think that between not making an unduly hasty decision on rules people haven't even read, and by offering the player base a chance to fully pass on this new rule set, you'll be doing a much more thorough job of supporting the game instead of simply supplementing it.

That's my thinking, at least. I'm interested in hearing what other people have to say on the topics.

Thanks!

[Oberon Gault]

+1 to what Aaron said.

This is a ton of content to review with an extremely short timeline, if staff intends to keep this to being voted on this weekend. I have some misgivings about the content I'll write up in a bit, but introducing several new paths of magic (regardless of content) and accompanying scores of ritual is a great deal of content to review.

And, as Aaron stated, continuing to preclude a 'no' option doesn't really engender a feeling of choice, regardless of actual inclination.

[Katie Hester]

I can certainly print out a few copies for people to look over at game.

[user/874]

That certainly is a thing.

I think my senior thesis only clocked twenty five thousand words. I am definitely going to need more than five days to review and process the whole proposal. Let me add my voice to the, "More time!" request.

[Kevin K]

I see a tension between two things:

We had an event to introduce this power, let's get the happenings to happening.
vs
This power isn't well defined or figured out

Why do it in one big batch? Let's focus on the teaching/learning, and powers at level 2 and below.

Higher levels should necessarily take some time, since many practitioners are working this out for themselves. Let's take them off the board for now.

This would get us some action, some breathing room on higher powers, allow us to give feedback in smaller parts, and get some experience in actually using it in gameplay. Heck, the higher powers could even be defined somewhat by roleplay and character archetypes.

[Mike Lohmann]

The thought process of the group that came together and made the changes, was as follows:

"If we argue about something in this Gangrel magic, for even a second, throw it out..." And believe me, we argued about a fair bit of things, and chopped a fair bit out.

I am going to attempt to speak on this, without being mistaken as anything other than speaking a counter point to this.

There is not a no option, because its not a matter of IF the magic is going to happen, but if this revision is acceptable. If someone wants to vote in a way that may signify no, I feel that they should explain their reasonings for saying no in some detail,personally, so that the concerns can be viewed and neutralized. I personally feel that voting no, without giving reasonable constructive input, is completely counter productive to the point of all this and should be a dismissed vote... but that is JUST ME.

As for needing more time to read it, while it would seem like it is an appropriate thing to ask, at the same time... I dont feel it is. Not that I dont feel that the players shouldnt fully be aware of what is on the document, or anything like that, but its been 4 months. Most of this information has been on the boards for 4 months, already, just in a different state. The homebrew powers arent radically different, they are toned down to acceptable levels. If they hadnt had time to check out the topic, in 4 months, another month of waiting isnt going to help the situation. All were made aware, and there will be copies to read, once there.

As for Kevin, that is a nice thought, but very crippling and unfortunately Gangrel are sitting on this for nearly half a year, with like 12 backspends saved up. There are characters that already had and used this in game, then were frozen. Characters fully build around this magic and have been waiting patiently for 4 months. That wouldnt be fair to them.

I guess the thing I wish to relay here, is you guys are looking at the full document. Its not about the full document. This has been coming for many months, and an extra week or two isnt going to get individuals who were not that interested, to be interested. A full week with this, is more than enough time to find concerns that have valid and explained reasoning for being a concern. I could sit and read this all, within 30 minutes. Sure, there are new rituals you need to read on, in there. There are changes to what nature gets what path. And there are revision to the home brew stuff. Thats it. The rest is just showing you all the stuff we took away from the original proposal. There have been alot of changes, but it hasnt changed much in the scope of it all.

But the group came together and said we are making this so that players see that ALL of their concerns were met, even ones that were silly enough to only say "I dont like this, so this power or ritual is a no". We addressed and fixed every single thing that was asked to be fixed, essentially. I literally dont see how or why anyone would need more time in this.

Please, stop the injunctions. Please.

[David Price]

Nov 12, 2013 13:37:22 GMT -8 Mike Lohmann said:

But the group came together and said we are making this so that players see that ALL of their concerns were met, even ones that were silly enough to only say "I dont like this, so this power or ritual is a no". We addressed and fixed every single thing that was asked to be fixed, essentially. I literally dont see how or why anyone would need more time in this.

My concerns over the original version were here - vampst.proboards.com/thread/15386?page=2&scrollTo=98087 and I see very few of my concerns met at all. In fact, most of my concerns have grown- from "Teleportation but requires a tree" we now have "Level 2 ritual- instant tree". From "Can never use a different season's power" we have "Here's a ritual that lets you use another season's power."

Sure, Rego Mentem is now written up and posted... but it involves the ability to summon "all but gods", so this isn't exactly something that cheers me up.

I'll try to find some time to write up a full response at some point here, but I don't really see any changes at all to the things that concerned me.

[Katie Hester]

I see no reason not to give the players an extra week to review the material. There is a lot there and stopping people from being able to read it through in full is not going to guarantee that it will pass. In fact, it may hurt it's chances.

I also see no reason not to allow a yes, no, needs work vote. Brendan's platform was one of voting anything and everything in. So in all fairness, a vote to allow it in at all should be permitted. I truly believe that the net result will be a yes or needs work rather than a no.

There may be players who are anxiously waiting for this to come into play, but to be fair, no one should have been permitted to buy it, build characters around it or allowed to use it until after it was voted in by the player base. It is a hefty change to the game. Sucks for the players who were given promises to or allowed the contrary, but that is not a reason for the player base at large to vote in something they disagree with.

I would suggest that should the staff be willing, the players that vote "needs work" be permitted to form a group to consolidate their suggested changes and work with the think tank that has already been formed to figure out where the problems currently lie and get a new one hammered out.

Yes, more time may be needed to get it right if it doesn't go through this time, but it's better than nothing.

Also! If anyone chooses to critique it, please include constructive criticism and/or point out areas where you disagree in specific. Simple stating that you don't like it doesn't really help in taking those comments into consideration. There were several comments with the first presentation that we would have liked to take into consideration, but couldn't because it was too vague.

[Shah-Khohr of Ventrue]

If 'needs work' is voted in, I think it should be three people. Just three people. One staff, one of the gangrel and one of the opposition. Having a think-tank of all guys that want this shit is entirely too biased in favor.

In unrelated news: +1 to a Yes/No/Not As Is voting arrangement. Saying that something will be regardless of what we have to say about it is sorta date-rapey and I'll have none of it.

[Katie Hester]

The think tank was not comprised of only those in favor of it.

[Just Evan]

For transparency, the think tank group was comprised of the following people:
Jarron
Sean
James
River
Evan
Paul
Sheena
Ben (tpo Geist)
Josh
Kevin S (AST)

[Shah-Khohr of Ventrue]

Yeah, I suggest three. Ten guys have a hard time agreeing on lunch much less policy.

[Katie Hester]

Sabrina (AST)
And Mike was invited by Sean I think?

[Thornstar]

Nov 12, 2013 13:37:22 GMT -8 Mike Lohmann said:

There is not a no option, because its not a matter of IF the magic is going to happen, but if this revision is acceptable. If someone wants to vote in a way that may signify no, I feel that they should explain their reasonings for saying no in some detail,personally, so that the concerns can be viewed and neutralized. I personally feel that voting no, without giving reasonable constructive input, is completely counter productive to the point of all this and should be a dismissed vote... but that is JUST ME.

As for needing more time to read it, while it would seem like it is an appropriate thing to ask, at the same time... I dont feel it is. Not that I dont feel that the players shouldnt fully be aware of what is on the document, or anything like that, but its been 4 months. Most of this information has been on the boards for 4 months, already, just in a different state. The homebrew powers arent radically different, they are toned down to acceptable levels. If they hadnt had time to check out the topic, in 4 months, another month of waiting isnt going to help the situation. All were made aware, and there will be copies to read, once there.

Mike,

I recognize that there was data posted about this previously, but this is billed as a revised addition, and with no change log, so that means going through the entire document for a once over, then reflecting on the interactions between powers, balancing against existing abilities held by the Gangrel, and many other factors intrinsic to altering a game's rule set.

If this wasn't about Gangrel getting Thaumaturgy, if it was about, say, the Ventrue getting Necromancy as part of an In-Character plot where the Giovanni agreed to teach it to buy themselves more time to bring about hell on earth like they do, it would require the same diligence.

In going back and re-reading the original posts, I can see that some player(s) bought in immediately, to a system not yet approved. I understand that the waiting period between then and now might seem particularly onerous. However, RIGHT NOW is when the players are being introduced to the proposed system changes for vote. I'm sorry you've had to wait for a thing you've been excited for.

What I don't think has ever been made clear to a lot of people, some of whom have joined since the event that brought this about, is that the reason any of this is coming up is because of an In-Character event we held where:

1. The majority of characters were NPCs.
2. The VAST majority of characters were Gangrel (There were also werewolves)

It makes all the sense in the world that the event would have gone that way. I applaud the players who took part in that event for portraying the interests of the characters they were handed in the manner they were told to portray them.

Beyond that successful even night, though, It's realistically the same as watching congress vote themselves new pay raises while the country languishes in a recession. In short, the motivating factor for this to even be brought up is that the people who would benefit from it were the only people voting.

Now that it's time for a vote on the part of the people who are not a grove full of Gangrel and their werewolf allies, it benefits the game most to not simply allow hand-waving and rhetoric to push forward a system that has very little intrinsic value to the setting and theme of Vampire as a whole. Adding more magic availability and more access to the spirit world is more in line with Mage and Werewolf, respectively. OUTSIDE of the context of a single event night, I'd like to see people step back and think long and hard about whether they want to add that set of flavors to a game that isn't fully exploring the themes that it already encompasses.

I'd like to know that I play in a game where we are still taking the time and effort to make the choices that are best for the game. To ensure we are doing that, the people voting need to know what they're voting on. To further ensure that, the players need to know that their vote matters, and if they don't want this rule set to enter play, it shouldn't.

If the vote for something like this is manipulated in a way which only offers the appearance of choice, but is otherwise ramming further unbalance into play, I would say that method is an irresponsible and divisive way to simply get one's way.

I don't think that mindset is what anyone administering the creation or assembly of this collection of magic powers is operating under. I think that they are trying to provide the best follow-through they can with a work in progress which was handed to them. I believe that they're trying to work with what they're hearing from the people involved. It's just proper, however, that what they come up with at the end should have an opt-out before assuming inclusion.

Once I finish reading over the document and its collected rules and powers, I fully plan on starting another thread to discuss how I feel about it. At this point, I just want to make sure that the administrative, long-term planning, health of the game concerns get covered.

I would ask that a staff member please respond to these concerns as soon as is possible.

Thanks!

[Vincent]

Its a big document and one more week isn't going to hurt and it wont feel like we are trying to rush anything through.

A yes/needs work/no option for the vote I feel is needed. Yes a lot of work has gone into this, yes a lot of time and effort was spent, but when it all comes down to it at the end of the day its a game we all play and love and to force a new set of rules on players that may or may not want them I feel isn't right. letting the peoples voice be heard is best for all.

+1 to one more week
+1 to yes/needs work/no

[Mike Lohmann]

Can we be honest, for a moment? If you want a no to the system as a whole, option, its because you want to vote no. You already have your answer, no matter what revisions are made unless they meet EVERY SINGLE thing you feel needs to be met, in order to change your mind. THe issue with doing that, is some of you want it so watered down, it would render it pointless... and you know that.

As for "this is impacting stuff and we should question and have votes and groups and delay as long as possible". How much other magic stuff, that is worse than what is being proposed, passed through without a single discussion or even chirp from players? Not just magic... but ..well.. many things?

If you guys want a yes/need work/ no systems, then it needs to be voted this week. If you want more time, then it needs to be Yes/ needs work. The reason I say this, is if you want EVEN MORE TIME to review/stall this out, then I am cool with that as long as NO isnt an option. If you just wanna get rid of it, like some of you do, then just go for the vote and try your hand at getting it removed.

I dont say this out of venom, or trying to rush anything. This has NOT been rush, in the least. The think tank that originally came together, took 2-3 months and got LITERALLY -nothing- done. They ran out of time, by a couple of weeks past their due date. I was also told that some of those that were apart of it, that were so vocal during the initial release, said nothing during the time. Then, another group was made, that I was allowed into. We did in two days, what the previous group didnt do in over two months. We didnt do a rush job, either. We spent like 4 straight hours revising the homebrew stuff, and put in no less than 6-7 hours both of those days.

The only concerns that were not addressed at all, were the ones that were not constructive. If you sent in something that just said "MEH, I DONT LIKE IT. NOT OKAY WITH THIS" but didnt give a why.... it was looked past, because we were they there to address constructive opinions...

Some things, that you may feel were a concern that we did not address was because the WHOLE GROUP, 100% majority, did not agree with the concern. On the flip side, some things that were NOT addressed as a concern, we met and got rid of or changed before they could be a concern. Some things that were a concern, were cut out.

The idea that a vote could be placed, to end the half year the previous invested in making this, then the 4 months of injunctions the voice of a few placed on it, and all the hours invested in it to meet the concerns of a few.... is unacceptable. Not just as a frustration, but as a respect level to all those involved, from start to finish.

But if you want that option to just get rid of it... fine. Vote it next week. If it passes, at least those that have been effected by this for the 4 months it has been out, can finally reroll their characters and not be frozen by a design that is unable to be used fully or at all, really. Just dont hide behind trying to make those that are pushing it forward, as the reason for you voting no. That is not okay, to blame others as an excuse. Be real.

If it is ACTUALLY about taking more time, and NOT about getting rid of it, then take away the wanting of the no vote, vote on it this week, and if the majority rules, then we will go back and address any constructive criticism, again. If it IS about you not wanting it, then vote no, but for the love of fuck... stop rending parts or all of someones character useless with the stalling.

As for the staff not outlining the changes made, yeah... they dropped the ball on that. I told them multiple times to do such, but ... it is what it is.

Have the vote as is scheduled. Add the no to options, for those upset. Be done with this, one way or another. We have tried jump every hoop set forth, but some just keep adding more hoops... then show their real perspectives on the matter, after saying "its not about getting rid of it" then bringing up "do we even want this?" There are not other revisions to make. WE chopped off over half the paths, a quarter of the rituals, made the system accessable for those that try hard enough out of clan, fixed every single aspect of every level of the new paths... there is nothing left to fix, really. Not without diluting it to pointless levels.

[Just Evan]

Nov 13, 2013 9:49:57 GMT -8 Mike Lohmann said:

I was also told that some of those that were apart of it, that were so vocal during the initial release, said nothing during the time.

Can you please cite sources here?

[Katie Hester]

Mike, there's a number of misleading and/or false statements in that last post.

[Mike Lohmann]

Beyond that successful even night, though, It's realistically the same as watching congress vote themselves new pay raises while the country languishes in a recession. In short, the motivating factor for this to even be brought up is that the people who would benefit from it were the only people voting.

You do realize that not a single person who was apart of that staff, made a Gangrel or has access to the stuff, right? Most went the route of thaum on their sheets, or 8th gen, or other possibly more outlandish things. Both subjects not up for debate, anywhere... because storytellers get cookies, right Aaron?

You do realize that the Gangrel players that already have and have used the magic in game, had no idea that it would be an option when they made their Gangrels? The magic wasnt what brought the players together, nor does it hold them together, but it DOES cripple character that rebuilt for a system the whole game was aware was coming for a month after its announcement.

Also... I personally find that bringing in a 5th circle reagent at character creation and a character that has been shelved for like...4+ years, more unacceptable and debate worthy. The last thing you should do, is throw jabs, as you so frequently do, or throw stones. There is no issue with debate, but... yeah...

[Mike Lohmann]

Nov 13, 2013 10:21:40 GMT -8 Katie Hester said:

Mike, there's a number of misleading and/or false statements in that last post.

There is only opinions based on facts that have been seen and expressed, first hand experience, and opinions based off of what has been seen and expressed. If you wish to call them misleading or false, that is in the eye of the beholder.