|
|
Early in the creation of Venture, it was determined that violent resolution of conflict could not be tolerated in any truly civilized gathering of vampires. While it was understood that occasional bloodshed was inevitable, philosophizing Kindred set out to create a ritualized system of disagreement and debate that could substitute, thereby providing an alternate means to victory over a foe (and laying the groundwork for a society ruled by socially adept vampires, in which those with physical might alone could be subjugated). Now it is unseemly for Status-holding vampires of Venture to do open battle in civil dispute. Simple bloodshed is how barbarians settle their differences. The bared fangs and flashing eyes in Venture are gestures, used to underscore a particularly vivid turn of speech or a salient point. None of this is to say that the Kindred never just drop the pretense of civility and go for the throat. It's just that killing another rightful member of Venture with your own hand doesn't get respect in the corporation. In fact, it can get you killed. However, proving that they deserve to suffer Final Death before a jury of peers, and convincing them to destroy him for you &mdash that's the proper way to do things. Human & Kindred Affairs and the Master of Elysium both have formal means of requesting and arranging an official gathering of witnesses for determining the outcome. Personal disputes can be witnessed by any number of Status-holding Kindred, while debates to determine official policy require the satisfaction of specific criteria (numbers, levels of Status and the presence of certain officials).
The Nature of the Dispute Each style of debate is conducted as an extended contested challenge between competitors, and each has its own method of calculating the base target number to defeat a participant. Anyone seeking to beat the participant must accumulate a number of successes against him that equal or exceed the target number. In the case of multiple participants, a target number is associated with each involved. A vampire is eliminated from the debate when all others have equaled or exceeded the target number associated with that vampire. If a single participant defeats the vampire, he can no longer win the debate, but can still attack those participants who have not yet accumulated enough successes to defeat him. A vampire cannot attack a participant who has defeated the vampire, even if he is not completely eliminated from the debate. Personal Debate Personal debates can be held for a number of reasons. They are most common when attempting to decide who should fill an official role (as, say, a priest for the Lancea Sanctum, or the Prefect for the Carthian Movement), but can also come into play when two vampires are comparing their accomplishments, competing for recognized responsibility in official victories or just looking for popular approval. Formal personal debates are often scheduled for Elysium gatherings, but are just as likely to break out in spontaneous gatherings of any Covenant. The base target number to defeat a participant in Personal Debate is calculated as follows: the participant's highest Status rating + Intelligence or Presence rating (whichever is higher). Philosophical Debate They are usually regarded as relatively frivolous endeavors, although this perception couldn't be further from the truth. In many cases, the arguments presented are deadly serious to the participants (as, for instance, in the case of a proselytizing member of the Lancea et Sanctum defending his religion to an assembly of pagan Kindred). Often, a victory in philosophical debate can profoundly affect the members of the audience, changing their approach to the Requiem forever after. Arguments of this type do tend to take much longer than any other, though, so they tend to be frowned upon in legislative gatherings. The base target number to defeat a participant in Philosophical Debate is calculated as follows: 10 + the participant's highest relevant Status rating + Wits or Manipulation rating (whichever is higher). Procedural Debate Procedural debates are almost always the central feature of an official assembly, and are almost always treated as solemn, important affairs, since the outcome can directly manifest in far-reaching future strategies. Arguments of this type don't often take as long as philosophical ones, but can stretch out if presented to a large enough audience (or are witnessed by enough Kindred willing to interfere or contribute to their outcome). A debate cannot be considered procedural unless a body empowered to make or change law (such as the Board of Directors, or the high-Status inner circle of one of the Covenants) declares that it is so. Otherwise, the subject of the debate is considered philosophical. The base target number to defeat a participant in Procedural Debate is the participant's highest relevant Status rating + Intelligence or Manipulation (whichever is higher). The Audience Audience Size It's the mid-sized groups that are the difficult ones. If a body of witnesses is large enough to draw out a vote, but small enough that individuals are easy to pick out (and may be asked to defend their choices), it can be problematic for those participating in the debate. The modifiers for the size of the audience are as follows:
|
Predisposition of the Audience
An audience can be have reason to speed a debate
toward its conclusion or draw it out, depending on its
vested interests and the general emotional state of its
membership. The modifiers for the predisposition of
the Audience are as follows:
Modifier |
|
Audience is prejudiced in
favor of the speaker. |
+3 |
Audience is frightened or
otherwise in a hurry. |
-3 |
Audience considers the
subject very serious. |
+5 |
Audience considers the
subject frivolous. |
-2 |
An Audience of Mortals
Mortals are profoundly affected by a difference in
Humanity among participants in a debate. They may not
realize it consciously, but a vampire with low Humanity
will always repel them, and their tendency will be to
vote against him. Mortals will also be quicker to judge
vampires, if only because the mortals instincts are telling
them to end the debate and get away from the predators
as soon as possible.
If at least half of the audience is composed of mortals, then a modifier of (10 - participant's Humanity) is subtracted from the target number to defeat the participant. Example: Septimus of Nosferatu is participating in a debate before mortals. He has a Humanity of 6. A modifier of (10-6) = 4 is subtracted from the target number required to defeat him.
An audience of mortals also restricts the Social rolls of any participant. As with all vampire-mortal interaction, all non-Intimidation Social dice pools for the Kindred involved are capped by their Humanity ratings.
Integrity
A participant in formal debate automatically makes
argument more difficult by virtue of his poise and the
resilience of his statements. This response is a reflexive action
and applies even if a character's position is attacked
before his place in the formal order. This reaction is the
character's Integrity, a trait equal to the lowest of his Wits
or Composure. The character's Integrity is subtracted
from a speaker's dice pool. In essence, the foe's arguments
miss the point of the character's quick-witted statements,
or he is cowed by the character's impressive bearing.
A target must, of course, be conscious to apply his
Integrity to a debate, but he need not be fully mobile or
even capable of speech.
If multiple arguments are leveled at the character in the same turn, his Integrity suffers temporarily. Each statement after the first diminishes the character's Integrity modifier by one. So, if four arguments are leveled at the character (who has Integrity 3), the first argument suffers a -3 penalty, the second suffers a -2 penalty, the third a -1 penalty and the fourth suffers no Integrity penalty. You cannot choose to apply a character's Integrity to specific attacks in a turn his Integrity is applied to all incoming arguments.
Spending a Willpower point increases the character's Integrity by two against a single statement, representing a special effort to stave off the argument. If his Integrity is normally 3, it increases to 5 for the incoming argument.
At the start of each new turn, the character's full, normal Integrity trait is restored.
The character's automatic Integrity does not interfere with any actions that he performs during the turn.
Integrity is not reduced by the character's wound penalties.
What's At Stake
The witnessed debates of Venture aren't idle
entertainment. Kindred who want to sharpen their wits
for fun or practice do so without arbitrators. The moment
another vampire is called upon to determine the
victor, no matter how facetiously, the endeavor becomes
deadly serious. In general, the Status of both opponents
is at stake. A vampire who frequently loses challenges is
diminished in the eyes of his contemporaries.
The basic rule is this: every time a vampire loses a witnessed debate, he risks losing a dot of Corporation Status, Covenant Status or Clan Status (depending on the nature of the audience and the nature of the debate, at Storyteller discretion). Formal debate is serious business at Venture, and if you're not willing to risk your reputation, you're not treating the subject matter with the solemn weight it merits. Even a playful dispute will have an impact on reputation, no matter how frivolous the characters are about it, because the vampires of Rome treat skill in debate as no less important (and no less threatening) than skill in physical combat.
By default, the winner of a Debate gains an amount of Primacy equal to the number of successes their opponent needed to beat them. For example, If Demetri was debating Yellow Dan, and defeated him, and Dan still needed 3 successes to beat Demetri, Demetri would gain 3 Primacy. Similarly, if Demetri beat Dan, but Dan only needed 1 more success to defeat Demetri, then Demetri would only get 1 Primacy.
But a vampire can raise the stakes of an argument, making it more difficult for her opponent to win. She can, essentially, say that her belief is so firm, that she is willing to risk more on the outcome of the debate forcing the opponent to either do the same (evening the ground) or play it safe (indicating that he is not so sure of his position and letting the audience know that).
Target Number Modifier |
|
Resources, Haven, Herd, or Retainers |
+ dots risked x2 |
Sum total of all possessions |
+ additional 5 |
Viniculum, or Final Death |
+10 |
Extra Primacy |
+1 per point spent |
Assets |
Value of Asset x2 |
Once these stakes are named, they cannot be withdrawn. The vampire naming them understands that if he loses the debate, he must sacrifice everything he put on the table. In general, the winner of the debate is allowed to claim the sacrifice and take possession of any materials risked. The winner is free to disburse his prize any way he chooses (so, for example, a winner who claims two dots of Resources from the loser could either raise his own Resources rating to two dots or he could raise anyone else's rating in the Merit to two dots). However, the receiver of the merit must purchase it using their own xp.
Even if the stakes are not raised, the winner of a debate stands to gain on several fronts. He may or may not gain Status, at the discretion of the Storyteller. A Status gain is most likely the result of a Personal Debate. Philosophical Debates provide a less concrete, but much more valuable benefit for the winner: the chance to dictate sway the opinions and operating attitude of every member of the audience. Likewise, a Policy Debate may or may not involve a Status benefit, but has a direct benefit: the winner guides the legislative policy of the body on the subject at hand. The stakes of a debate could be determined by outside factors. A participant accused of a crime may be arguing to prevent the loss of material possessions, his freedom or his life. In these cases, the stakes are set by the circumstance, and the target numbers are changed appropriately.
Wagers In The Audience
It is possible (and, in some cases, expected)
that members of the audience may be so moved
by an argument that they choose to stake their
own possessions or Status on the outcome of
the debate, throwing their support behind one
of the Kindred involved.
If members of the audience chooses to add to the stakes, the target number for defeating the vampire they support is modified just as if the vampire herself had raised the stake. An enthused member of the audience could, for example, add 2 to the target number by throwing in a single dot of Resources.
Sometimes, particularly in coliseum debates, the audience may bet for or against a candidate without influencing the modifier. This bet is handled separately, with a scale of payout determined by the book keepers.
Friendly Discussions
Two or more participants could enter into a
"friendly discussion" that relies upon the rules
of formal debate just to provide a structure
that everyone involved can agree upon. These
discussions must be held before a small audience
(any more than 10 witnesses and the discussion
is no longer considered "friendly", no matter
what the participants say), and the participants
do not go out of their way to publicize the
results once they are done.
If a formal debate is considered "friendly", the Status of the participants is not at risk. Just as a boxing match where two friends agree to spar lightly, the consequences are not serious so long as nobody loses his cool.
Rhetorical Technique
There are four basic styles of formal debate recognized
by the instruction of Kindred society. Each is associated
with particular body postures and stock gestures, and
educated vampires will easily recognize the styles in use.
It is assumed that a vampire who enters into debate with
a particular approach will maintain that strategy throughout
the argument. In fact, those who switch tactics in the
middle of the discussion will provoke a negative reaction
from the audience. Unless special circumstances allow
for it, changing tactics always immediately adds +5 to
the target number of successes required for success, and
substitutes the new bonus or penalty for the one that
was in place previous.
• Aggressive Logic
Adopting a stance of intellectual superiority, the vampire
attempts to calmly outline the logical strength of
his own argument, while pointing out the flaws in his
opponent's. The debate roll is based on the vampire's
Intelligence + any Ability relevant to the conversation.
Calling upon the teachings of elders would be represented
by an Intelligence + Academics roll, while turning
to one's expertise in hunting to underscore a particular
point would mean an Intelligence + Survival roll.
The recognized, proper posture of a vampire employing Aggressive Logic is strong and firm, with slow, deliberate movements. All of the gestures of the hand and head are coordinated to add to this impression of unassailable strength and confidence. The conveyance of cool-headed rationality is critical to success in this mode of debate. Educated intellectual audiences favor an aggressively logical argument. A +2 modifier is added to the target number of successes required to defeat the speaker if the majority of the audience is composed of sophisticated thinkers. A -2 dice modifier is applied if the majority of the audience is uneducated.
• Deft Maneuvering
Relying on clever turns of phrase, the vampire attempts
to manipulate and reverse the apparent meaning of his
opponent's statements while making his own appear unassailable.
The debate roll is based on the vampire's Wits
+ any Ability relevant to the conversation. Employing
wordplay to trip an opponent up would be represented
by a Wits + Expression roll, while cleverly calling upon
the jargon of warriors to create an illuminating metaphor
would require a Wits + Brawl roll.
This approach is accompanied by more mobile gestures — the speaker usually covers more ground than one employing Aggressive Logic. Pointed gestures often underscore the arguments of the speaker, hammering home particularly clever statements, and indicating a reversal of an opponent's weak debate.
Deft Maneuvering is better received by less solemn audiences, looking to the argument for impressive entertainment, not the resolution of life-and-death policy. A +2 modifier is added to the target number of successes required to defeat the speaker if the majority of the audience is relaxed, believing that the issue at hand is not gravely serious. A -2 dice modifier is applied if the majority of the audience believe that the affair is solemn and important.
• Playing to the Audience
The vampire eschews the intellectual approach completely,
opting instead to win the argument by embodying
correctness that is, by seeming to be better than
the opponent, regardless of the actual content of each
individual's statements. The debate roll is based on the
vampire's Presence + any Ability relevant to the conversation.
Selecting a posture that is likely to impress the
audience would be represented by a Presence + Empathy
roll, while calling upon one's own achievements in
scholarship to tip the scales against an upstart opponent
would require a Presence + Academics roll.
The gesture and posture of a vampire Playing to the Audience are much more bombastic than those of the intellectual strategies. The speaker strides confidently about, facing members of the audience in turn, and making grand, sweeping gestures with his arms and hands. The speaker seems larger, by way of his motion, and the attention of the witnesses is attracted as fully as possible.
This tactic works best in front of an audience of compatriots. A +2 modifier is added to the target number of successes required to defeat the speaker if the majority of the audience is composed of individuals who identify as colleagues or compatriots with the speaker (i.e., are in the same Wing, or hold the same profession, etc.). A -2 dice modifier is applied if the majority of the audience do not see themselves as colleagues or compatriots of the speaker.
• Appealing to Emotion
This technique circumvents logic and relies upon the
speaker's ability to stir the emotions of the audience.
It's a "hot" style, in direct opposition to the "cold" approach
of Aggressive Logic. The debate roll is based on
the vampire's Manipulation + any Ability relevant to the
conversation. Invoking the sympathies of the audience
by demonizing the opponent would be represented by
a Manipulation + Intimidation roll, while ridiculing
the opponent's lack of expertise in the proper forms of sculpture would be represented by a Manipulation +
Crafts roll.
Vampires appealing to emotion make use of theatrical gestures and posture, exaggerating their own emotions to ensure that everyone in the audience can receive the intended message clearly. The stride is generally less enthused than that used for Playing to the Audience.
This tactic works best with large crowds. A +2 modifier is added to the target number of successes required to defeat the speaker if there are more than 15 witnesses in the audience. A -2 dice modifier is applied if the audience is made up of fewer than 15 individuals.
Circumstantial Complications
No debate is just a simple matter of on-topic statements
following on one another before a passive audience. Complications
can always arise in a formal debate, brought
forward by the participants and the witnesses, and many
of them present the potential for significantly affecting
the outcome.
•Defensive Argument
At any time during a debate, a speaker can opt to refrain
from attacking his opponent's position, instead spending
time and effort shoring up his own argument. Since
no advances can be made against the target number in
defensive argument, this is purely a stalling tactic. Some
vampires choose to make Defensive Arguments just to
draw out a debate, hoping to frustrate the opponent or
just occupy him for a given length of time. Others may
do so out of a sense of cruelty, knowing that they are on
the verge of defeating the foe and satisfying an urge to
prolong the opponent's struggles.
The character's action for the turn is spent anticipating argumentative attacks and deflecting them, so her Integrity trait is temporarily doubled. Thus, if the lowest of her Wits or Composure is 3, her Integrity trait for the turn is 6. That number is subtracted from incoming arguments instead of the normal Integrity rating.
Defensive Arguments operate outside of the normal order of statements in a turn. A Defensive Argument can be declared at any time during at turn, even before the character's action comes around, assuming she hasn't acted yet. Her action for the turn is dedicated to the Defensive Argument for the whole turn.
Multiple attacks still impose a cumulative Integrity penalty, as normal. A character can do nothing else in a turn in which she makes a Defensive Argument except to move as normal. She cannot perform any action that requires a roll in the same turn.
As with ordinary Integrity, a character can expend Willpower to add two to her Integrity against a single attack. So, if her Integrity is normally 3, and she performs a Defensive Argument action (raising it to 6 for the turn), she can also expend a point of Willpower to bring it up to 8 against a single attack.
• Humiliating Attack
If a vampire senses a weakness in his opponent's position
(or if he's hoping to throw him off and create a
weakness), he may opt to launch a humiliating attack on
his argument, throwing everything he's got into a pointed
statement. The attack is risky it's an obvious move, and
a cool-headed opponent might be able to take advantage
of the attack. An audience is guaranteed to notice it as
well, and repeated use of the Humiliating Attack can
actually damage a vampire's position in debate.
In general, a Humiliating Attack is an attempt to "play the man and not the ball" that is, to turn the focus of the audience on the failings of the opponent, not his argument. It's dirty pool, but it does tend to work.
The character performing a Humiliating Attack gains three bonus dice on his attack for this turn, but loses his Integrity trait for the turn. In addition, his Integrity is reduced by one for the remainder of the debate. Further Humiliating Attacks are cumulative: it is possible for a character to reduce his own Integrity to zero for the whole of a debate with sustained use. So, a character with an Integrity of 3 who performs a Humiliating Attack does not subtract his Integrity from incoming attacks that turn, and is treated as though he has an Integrity of 2 for the rest of the debate. If he were to perform another Humiliating Attack later in the same debate, his Integrity would reduce to 1 until the debate ends.
A character cannot perform a Humiliating Attack if his Integrity has already been used that turn. If his Integrity is lowered to zero because of previous Humiliating Attacks, he can no longer perform this maneuver.
• Limited Time
Circumstances may impose a limited time on a formal
debate. In such a case, the Storyteller determines how
many turns are available, and the debate is ended when
those turns are complete. The character that accumulates
the number of successes closest to the target for victory
at the end of the set time is considered the winner.
• Frustration
If a character fails to garner a single success on three
consecutive arguments, he is considered "frustrated" and
may have to check against a rage frenzy. Any character
fighting off frenzy suffers a -2 dice penalty on attack rolls
until the threat of frenzy is eliminated.
In frustrating circumstances, three successes on a Resolve + Composure roll are required to overcome the urge to frenzy, as described in Vampire: The Requiem. A Storyteller may opt to modify this number based on the continued performance of the vampire; one who must make a second frenzy check within the same debate might need four or five successes to stay calm.
Succumbing to a rage frenzy and assaulting an opponent is always considered failure in debate, and grounds for forfeit. Kindred engaged in formal debate are well advised to shore themselves up against potential provocation and maintain control.
• Outside Contribution
The vampires standing at the center of the forum
aren't the only ones who actively participate in a debate
they're just the only ones who are making formal
arguments and setting their reputations on the line.
Friends and allies can assist a speaker, either by aiding
in participation or by using subtle tactics to manipulate
the audience and make things easier for her.
Each character who wishes to contribute to an ally's performance in formal debate can be handled with one of the following options:
• Assisting in Preparation - a "flashback" scene can reveal how a character assisted in preparation by research, investigation, or Discipline-fueled espionage. The Storyteller can run a short intermission scene, allowing the contributing player to make a relevant roll (for instance: Wits + Academics to find a helpful logical precedent). If the roll is successful, the scene returns to the present, and the Storyteller can add a +1 bonus to the speaker's argument for the turn.
• Stacking the Audience - another "flashback" approach, allowing characters to establish manipulating the audience before the debate begins to eliminate any hostile predisposition toward the speaker. The Storyteller can run a short intermission scene, allowing the contributing player to make a relevant roll (for instance: Manipulation + Subterfuge to convince the listeners that the speaker is a vampire of virtue). If the roll is successful, the target number for the speaker's victory is reduced by two. This should only be allowed once per debate.
• Supporting Gesture - during a turn, characters allied to the speaker can verbally agree, applaud enthusiastically or make other demonstrations of support intended to bolster the argument. The Storyteller can allow a relevant roll (for instance: Presence + Persuasion to inspire the speaker with hoots of support). If the roll is successful, the Storyteller can add a +1 bonus to the speaker's argument for the turn.
• Signals or Telepathic Aid - less honorable types may wish to actually provide information to a speaker during the debate, sending messages intended to strengthen her position. The characters assisting this way will have to be careful; if they're caught, they may be escorted out of the forum or publicly humiliated. If they are able to escape notice, a success on a relevant roll may allow for a +1 bonus added to the speaker's argument for the turn.
• Outside Interference
Just as characters may choose to bolster an ally's arguments,
they can also employ malicious tactics to undermine
and weaken an opponent's position. They may be
underhanded, but some Kindred will do anything to get on
the winning team, and ignoring these possibilities is cutting
off half of the available arsenal in a formal debate.
• Sabotaging Preparation - another "flashback"
option, revealing a character's attempts to ruin an opponent's
attempts at research before the debate began, by falsifying evidence, interfering with an investigation
or using Disciplines to damage the opponent's plan.
The Storyteller can run a short intermission scene, allowing
the contributing player to make a relevant roll
(for instance: Manipulation + Academics to upset the
opponent's confidence in the facts). If the roll is successful,
the scene returns to the present, and the Storyteller
applies a -1 die penalty to the opponent's argument for
the turn.
• Souring the Audience - one more "flashback" option,
allowing a character to establish manipulating the
audience before the debate can begin to create a hostile
atmosphere toward the opponent. The Storyteller can
run a short intermission scene, allowing the interfering
player to make the relevant roll (for instance: Strength +
Intimidation to bully the audience into voting against the
opponent). If the roll is successful, the target number for
the opponent's victory is increased by two. This should
only be allowed once per debate.
• Undermining Gesture - during a turn, characters
opposed to the speaker can voice their disapproval,
stamp their feet and hiss or make other demonstrations
of animosity intended to diminish the strength of the
argument. The Storyteller can allow a relevant roll (for
instance: Wits + Expression to humiliate the speaker
with mockery). If the roll is successful, the Storyteller can
impose a -1 die penalty on the opponent's arguments
for the turn.
• Distraction Tactics - just as Signals or Telepathic
Aid, this is a less-than-honorable tactic of interference.
Characters interfering in this way ought to be careful, lest
they get spotted and ejected from the forum or publicly
denounced. If they are able to escape notice, a success on
a relevant roll may allow for the imposition of a -1 die
penalty on the speaker's argument for the turn.
• Arguing to Lose But throwing an argument isn't just a matter of stepping
into the circle and refraining from attack. If the
audience feels that a debate isn't really being carried
out, they may call for a speaker with true intent to step
forward and take up the argument. To truly guarantee
an opponent's victory, a speaker has to carefully deceive
the audience into thinking they're watching a serious
debate ideally, the best they can hope for.
When Arguing to Lose, a character willingly reduces his
own Integrity to zero and his player makes an extended
Wits + Subterfuge or Manipulation + Subterfuge roll
each turn of the debate, instead of his normal attack rolls.
A -1 penalty is imposed on these rolls. If the character
accumulates a number of successes equal to his target
number for victory on these rolls before the opponent wins
the debate, the audience is fooled and the outcome is
considered genuine. If not, the attempt
to deceive the audience is noticed,
and the attempt is failed.
• Debate Style Merits Resolving the Dispute Victory in an open-ended debate is achieved when a
majority (or totality) of the audience is obviously siding
with the speaker and no longer willing to consider alternate
viewpoints. This occurs as soon as one participant in
the debate accumulates enough successes on his extended
rolls to defeat every opponent. At this point, the winner
is declared by official witness.
Nobody Wins The Final Statement A vampire of particularly good graces may wish to make
a display of his goodwill after losing a debate, conceding
and acknowledging the winner's skill. It won't mitigate
his loss (or defer the attendant loss of Status), but it can
warm the audience and the victor to the speaker
and make things less difficult for him in the future. A
Storyteller may wish to allow a Presence + Expression or
Manipulation + Expression roll to represent these final
statements, making a note of the result and applying a
+1 bonus to later social interactions with the members
of the audience (or the opponents in the debate) if the
roll is successful.
Example of Formal Debate: Philosophical The target number to defeat Phineas is 10 + 3 (his
Manipulation) 6 (10 minus his Humanity) = 7. His
Social rolls are capped at four dice.
The two debaters flip a coin to decide who goes first.
Phineas is the winner.
Phineas knows the old man quite well, and understands
that he will appreciate a logical argument. Phineas also
knows that winning the old man over socially won't
be easy, because of the influence of the Beast. Phineas
decides use the Aggressive Logic strategy. Since the senator
is a well-educated, serious man, the Storyteller adds
a +2 to the target number to defeat Phineas, bringing
it to 9. Phineas opens with a statement about human
psychology and the tendency to seek escape from (or a
strategy around) fear. His argument is represented by an
Intelligence + Science roll (seven dice + 1 for his Science
specialty: psychology) Septimus' Integrity (2). Phineas
scores four successes.
Septimus realizes that his strength is his Wits. He
knows that the mortal may not appreciate the approach,
but Septimus decides to use Deft Maneuvering anyway,
confident that he can win. The Storyteller decides that
the situation is too serious for the old man for him to
react well to wit, so the Storyteller applies a -2 penalty
to the target number to beat Septimus, bringing it down
to 8. Septimus responds to Phineas' opening statement
with a joke, playing on his words and indicating that Phineas
is theorizing that fear is escapable. The roll is Wits +
Intimidation (six dice + 1 for his Intimidation Specialty:
indirect threats) Phineas Integrity (2). Septimus scores
two successes.
The next turn, Phineas elaborates, referring to history
and showing the failure of leaders who terrorize their
citizens. The roll is Intelligence + Academics (six dice for
him) Septimus' Integrity (2). Phineas manages to get
three successes, bringing his total to seven. He's doing
well. He needs only one more to win.
Septimus has a clever idea. Rather than attack this
round, he decides to employ the Discipline of Nightmare,
invoking Dread. He listens to Phineas' words,
nodding gravely, and throwing a significant glance at the
old senator. Septimus' roll is Manipulation + Empathy
+ Nightmare (nine dice) vs. the Composure + Blood
Potency of both of his victims. (For Phineas, that's six
dice; for the old man, it's three.) Septimus gets three successes.
Phineas gets none. The old man gets one. Thus,
Phineas and the old man feel a creeping, oppressive fear
throughout the rest of the scene. The old man cowers in
his sheets, and Phineas takes an involuntary step back.
Septimus smiles. His total for the debate remains at 2,
so he still needs seven successes to win.
Phineas frowns, trying to tie the two statements he's
already made together with straight logic. The roll is Intelligence
+ Academics (six dice) -2 (for Dread) - Septimus'
Integrity (2). Phineas gets no successes.
Septimus replies with a witty remark about Phineas'
stuttering, noting that he seems to be failing in the face
of fear, perhaps? Septimus' joke is represented by a
roll: Wits + Expression (seven dice) - Phineas' Integrity
(2). Septimus scores three successes, bringing his total
to five.
Phineas is struggling. He tries a Humiliating Attack,
pointing out that Septimus is unable to conduct the
discussion without attempting to cow the audience an
obvious admission of weakness in his position. The roll
is Intelligence + Expression (five dice) + 3 (for the attack)
- 2 (for Dread) - Septimus' Integrity (2) for a total of
three dice. Phineas gets no successes.
Septimus calmly follows up with another deft statement:
perhaps Phineas is afraid, not because of Septimus'
power, but because of the weakness of Phineas'
own argument? Septimus expends Willpower on this one,
pushing to make his point. The roll is Wits + Empathy
(six dice) + 3 (for Willpower) - 0 (Phineas sacrificed his
Integrity this turn for his gambit). Septimus scores two
successes, bringing his total to seven. He needs only
two more to win. The old man applauds this statement,
indicating his growing support for Septimus.
Phineas reacts poorly. He flashes his fangs at the old
man, trying to intimidate him (and taint the audience).
The Storyteller rules that this is a change in tactic from
Aggressive Logic to Appealing to Emotion so he adds
+5 to the target number required to defeat Septimus,
bringing it to 13. Phineas' action is represented by a Manipulation
+ Intimidation roll (five dice) - 2 (for Dread)
- Septimus' Integrity (2). Phineas gets no successes. The
old man is no more frightened than he was before — or
at least no more so of Phineas than of Septimus.
Septimus puts a hand on Phineas' shoulder, hoping to
reassure him (and keep him from flipping out). Septimus
attempts to quell Phineas' growing frustration with a bit
of light banter, reminding him (and the old man) that this
is just a simple discussion. Septimus spends Willpower
again, knowing that things are actually growing more
serious than he intended. The roll is Wits + Empathy (six
dice) + 3 (for Willpower) - Phineas' Integrity (reduced
to 1 by his previous Humiliating Attack). Septimus gets
three successes, raising his total to 10: more than he needs
to bring this debate to a close. The old man strenuously
agrees with Septimus, making an eloquent statement of
his own.
Phineas is at the breaking point of frenzy because of
his failure to accumulate any successes three times in a
row. A Resolve + Composure (eight dice for him) roll is
required to keep from losing control. He scores four successes,
fighting the urge to unleash the Beast. Septimus
claps Phineas on the back, and the two of them walk
away into the night.
Since this is technically a "friendly" discussion, Phineas
won't lose any Status over the result. However, he
must concede that Septimus' position is stronger, and
is thoroughly convinced. In the future, Phineas is likely
to side with Septimus in promoting this philosophy (and
likely to apply it himself).
Example of Formal Debate: Personal, Three Participants The three draw lots to determine the order of the debate.
Cassius speaks first, then Antonia, then Tiberius.
Cassius is a Witty vampire, and he believes that the
debate is not that serious, so he decides to use the Deft
Maneuvering tactic. The Storyteller, however, deems that
the audience won't treat the debate frivolously, whether
or not Cassius does so the Storyteller imposes a -2
on the target number to defeat Cassius, lowering it to
5. Cassius opens with a rousing tale of his accomplishments,
which is represented by a Wits + Expression roll.
He constructs his argument so that it attacks Tiberius,
whom Cassius believes is the greatest threat. The roll is
Cassius' Wits + Expression (six dice) Tiberius' Integrity
(2). Cassius gets three successes.
Antonia follows. She knows she'll never get anywhere
with an intellectual argument, so she decides to Play to
the Audience. The Storyteller rules that the majority of
the witnesses, as fellow members of the Loss Management Team, consider
themselves Antonia's compatriots, so he applies a +2 to
the target number to defeat her, raising it to 9. She strikes
a powerful pose, inviting the witnesses to look upon her
and listen to her tales of conquest (which are peppered
with fighter's jargon, to demonstrate her impressive battle
experience). The attack is leveled at Cassius, whom she
knows has a weaker appearance. Her argument is represented
by a Presence + Brawl roll (eight dice) Cassius'
Integrity (2). She gets five successes! She has defeated
Cassius; he can no longer attack her. The assembled
listeners hoot and holler, deriding Cassius and making
it clear that he can't win.
Tiberius has an even stronger Presence than Antonia,
so he decides to use the same tactic: Playing to the Audience.
He also gets a +2 added to the target number
to defeat him, bringing it to 10. Tiberius struts before
the witnesses, flexing and showing off his muscles as he
speaks. He's attacking Antonia, since Cassius is already
out of the running. Tiberius' argument is represented
by a Presence + Athletics roll (seven dice + 1 for his specialty:
displays of fitness) - Antonia's Integrity (2). He
gets four successes.
Cassius may not be able to win any more, but he isn't
out of the debate yet it still may be possible to prove
that he's Tiberius' superior. Cassius senses that he won't
last long, so he throws everything he's got into it, going
for a Humiliating Attack. He makes a pointed joke about
Tiberius' vanity, suggesting that he'd rather be showing
those muscles off than actually killing the enemy. The
argument is represented by a Wits + Expression roll (six
dice) + 3 for the attack - Tiberius' Integrity (2). Cassius
gets four successes.
Antonia is next. She needs only to defeat Tiberius to
win, so she attacks him too, and she opts for a Humiliating
Attack as well. She invites the witnesses to recall
the last battle they all fought together, and compare her
performance, which she knows was spectacular, with
his which she claims was less than stellar. Her attack
is represented by a Presence + Expression (six dice) +3
for the attack - Tiberius' Integrity (1, since he's already
suffered an attack this turn). She gets three successes
not as much as she'd hoped.
Tiberius doesn't want to be ganged up on, but he's
got a real opportunity with Antonia. He responds with
a normal attack, noting that his performance in that one
battle shouldn't be all that he is judged by. He invites the
audience to recall several others in which he was the very
model of a conquering soldier. His attack is represented
by a Presence + Expression roll (five dice), and Antonia
has no Integrity this turn. He gets two successes, bringing
his total against her to six. He needs three more to
defeat her.
Cassius keeps the pressure on. He's got no reason to
hold on to his Integrity in this debate, so he goes for another
Humiliating Attack. Since it will reduce his Integrity
to zero for the rest of the debate, it's the last one he can
perform. He constructs a quick pun associating Tiberius
with the worm-ridden excrement the team scattered
the ashes of their last foe over, hoping to knock him
out of the running with scathing laughter. The roll is Wits
+ Socialize (six dice) + 3 for the attack - Tiberius' Integrity
(2). Cassius gets four successes again, bringing his total to
eight. He still needs two more to take Tiberius out.
Laughing heartily, Antonia hopes to keep the audience
(who are already in stitches) going. Her roll is Presence + Socialize
(five dice) - Tiberius' Integrity (1, since he's already
suffered an attack this turn). She gets one success, bringing
her total to four. She needs five more to defeat him.
Tiberius is within striking distance. However, the
Storyteller rules that the sustained mockery is pressing
Tiberius' buttons, and that he's going to have to resist
a rage frenzy. The requisite Resolve + Composure roll is
made, easily accumulating the three successes needed
to quell the Frenzy. However, because he was fighting it
off, he suffers a -2 penalty on his debate roll this turn.
He grits his teeth and growls, showing fangs and making
it clear that friends might joke with him in safety, but
enemies fall cowering before him. The argument is a Presence
+ Intimidation one (eight dice for him) - Antonia's
Integrity (1 because of her previous Humiliating Attack)
- 2 for the frenzy check. He gets four successes one
more than he needs to defeat her.
Since Antonia has already defeated Cassius, overcoming
her proves that Tiberius is superior to her and
Cassius. The debate is finished, and the audience shout
out their approval, making it clear that Tiberius is the
greatest among them, and making it that much easier for
him to calm down.
There were no additional stakes, so Antonia and Cassius
each gain five (5) points of Inferiority. Five (5) more and they will permanently lose a dot of Status. Tiberius in turn earns five (5) points of Primacy. Five (5) more and he will permanently gain 1 dot of Status.
It is conceivable that a participant in debate may attempt
to ensure his opponent's victory without making
it obvious to the audience. Most commonly, this happens
when a formal debate is engaged by a vampire in
an attempt to pre-empt a better argument, hoping that
he will lose and allow his opponent to push a policy
decision or philosophical statement through without
genuine opposition.
There are two schools of argument that allow a character
to perform specialized "maneuvers" in formal debate:
Debate Style: Rhetoric and Debate Style: Reason. They are
covered in the Merits section of this book, on p. 108.
Victory isn't an abstract in the formal debates of Necropolis.
As arguments are made, the audience responds,
showing their support for the winning side and derision
for the others. In the Senex, the witnesses vote, while a
debate rages, by Division of the House actually standing
up and moving over to sit around and behind the speaker
they support, or applauding after each agreeable statement.
In less lofty settings, the behavior of the audience
may be more crass, but it has the same effect: everyone
can tell who's winning.
Not every debate ends in a clear victory. If a
debate is taking too long, seems overly frivolous
or just doesn't present arguments that anyone
in the audience fi nds interesting enough, the
whole of the audience can just choose to shout
down all participants or get up and leave.
If a formal debate is brought to a close by
the derision of the audience, every participant
involved loses a single dot of Status. Obviously,
then, it's a good idea to stack the audience with
friends and supporters, if only to guarantee that
someone gets to walk away a winner.
It is not technically required for any of the participants
in formal debate to make a final statement after the declaration
of the official witness brings the arguments to
a close. Vampires are passionate creatures, after all, and
final statements would lead to embarrassment in more
cases than not.
Septimus of Nosferatu and Phineas of Mekhet are
having a friendly dispute over the nature of fear as a
legitimate strategy of rule. They decide to take it to an
authority they trust: a mortal senator by the name of
Caius Aemilius Marcellus, a man they both respect. They
sneak into his home late one night, wake him and tell him
that they need him to witness their debate and judge the
victor. Frightened and intrigued, the old man agrees.
Septimus has Covenant Status (Invictus) 2,
Wits 4, Manipulation 1, Composure 2 and Humanity 6.
Phineas has Covenant Status (Invictus) 2, Wits 2,
Manipulation 3, Composure 5 and Humanity 4. There
is one member in the audience, and he is mortal.
The target number to defeat Septimus is 10 + 4 (his
Wits) 4 (10 minus his Humanity) = 10. His Social rolls
(except those that involve Intimidation) are capped at
six dice.
Antonia of Gangrel, Tiberius of Gangrel and Cassius of Nosferatu are exchanging war stories. The conversation
evolves into a comparison of their relative prowess
in battle, and that grows into a challenge: to establish,
before fellow members of the Loss Management Team and the Chief of Security, who is the most
accomplished soldier. It is agreed: the three will abide
by the decision of the five fellow members who are with
them at the time of the discussion.
Antonia has Corporation Status 4, Presence 3, Intelligence
1, Wits 2 and Composure 3. Tiberius has Corporation
Status 4, Presence 4, Intelligence 2, Wits 2 and
Composure 2. Cassius has Corporation Status 4, Presence
3, Intelligence 3, Wits 4 and Composure 2.
The target number to defeat Antonia is 4 (her Status)
+ 3 (her Presence) = 7.
The target number to defeat Tiberius is 4 (his Status)
+ 4 (his Presence) = 8.
The target number to defeat Cassius is 4 (his Status) +
3 (his Presence or Intelligence) = 7.