Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

A Loose Vampire "Design Doc"

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Justin R. Achilli

unread,
Jul 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/30/99
to
I thought some people might get some mileage out of this. It will soon
supplement the old submission guidelines.

--

Vampire is a game of personal, gothic horror. That's "gothic," not "goth."
Some vampires are goths, sure, but we're more concerned with the intricacies
of becoming a monster and the literary meaning of gothic than we are with
lyrics from Apoptygma Berzerk songs.

(Somewhere, right now, youÄ…ll find a goth screaming, "That's not goth,
that's industrial! Idiot!" To that goth, I say: Shut up. Somewhere, right
now, a European is laughing at you for confusing industrial with darkwave
electro. Get over it.)

Vampire is about normal people who have been Embraced into a World of
Darkness and turned into predatory monsters. It is a game of horror, of both
the internal and external varieties. Each vampire is only half man -- the
other half is a ravenous, bloodthirsty Beast. Vampires' worlds fall apart:
Mortals they love die, things they held dear now linger out of reach, they
prey upon what they once were. They have been utterly cursed. To ease the
pain -- or to escape what they have become -- they pretend to be mortal.
They place elaborate social rules and grand Jyhads before themselves, hoping
to divert their attention from their own bestial natures. They cling
desperately to the vestiges of their humanity. Their unlives are tragic,
doomed attempts to stave off the unnatural forces that lurk within them all.

(Vampire, to some people, is about blowing shit up, hurling bolts of flame
and vicariously getting back at a world that shuns them for their geekdom. I
don't publish books for those people. It's fine for them to play in that
idiom -- as long as they're having fun, the game works. They're going to
play Vampire like that anyway, but I'm not going to encourage them.)

So, with all that in mind, you want to write for Vampire, eh? Well, before I
hire you, we'll have to see if you can take it. Part and parcel with Vampire
writing comes criticism, and it comes in greater volume than with any of our
other games. To see if you're up to the task, complete the following mock
letter using the choices presented and gauge your reactions.

"Hello,
(1) Jackass;
(2) Idiot;
(3) Bonehead;
(4) Moron;

I am
(1) an generic Internet chump hiding behind an anonymous handle
(2) a lonely, frustrated student with nothing better to do
(3) an illiterate dullard with vociferously spoken opinions
(4) a rabid fan who thinks White Wolf owes him something

and I just want you to know that your last book really
(1) sucked.
(2) blew.
(3) stank.
(4) should have been fed through a chipper-shredder.

Why was it so bad? Well,
(1) you didn't do exactly what I would have done with it, which proves you
are stupid.
(2) you left out several details in the interests of creating mystery, but I
wanted to know the exact Traits or reason behind [Event X], which proves you
are stupid.
(3) I'm incapable of understanding in-character bias in printed material,
which results in my confusion and also proves you are stupid.
(4) just because, stupid.

In fact, White Wolf has put out consistently crappy books since
(1) you started writing for them.
(2) Justin Achilli took over Vampire.
(3) they stopped using Sisters of Mercy quotes to open every subsection of
text.
(4) they came into existence, yet I still buy every book, if only to give me
new reasons to complain and find a surrogate victim for my own feelings of
inadequacy and self-loathing.

I hope
(1) wild jackals tear out your liver for writing this thing.
(2) you are assimilated by the Borg, decapitated by Highlanders, hamstrung
by my Celtic ancestors and defiled by cape-wearing LARPers.
(3) real goths taunt you when you go to the nightclub, you Manson-loving
wannabe.
(4) you get fired and they hire me, even though I have no idea how to write
a cogent sentence, let alone prepare a book for publication.

Sincerely,
(1) DarkRavy...@aol.com
(2) Kevin Collegebritches, State University
(3) Nethraxis Zomb, Crimson Master of the Eternal Night
(4) Eugene Fenster, by way of my parents' basement

P.S.:
(1) Which book explains Baba Yaga's death?
(2) Enclosed is my character. Please make it official.
(3) I didn't type my letter legibly or even bother to send a SASE, but I'm
going to get all uppity if I don't receive a response from you.
(4) Rot in hell, you bastard."

If you're prepared to deal with crap like this, you've got the fortitude to
work for us. (On a lighter note, you should know that the people you're
actually working for are the silent majority -- the ones who accept the game
for the entertainment pastime it is and "get it" on a larger scale. They
just don't write as often, because they tend to be better acclimated to the
world. Not everyone in this hobby is a wailing, sociopathic lunatic. Just
the loud ones.)

Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about how to write for Vampire.

Most importantly, a writer must have a grasp of English. Grammar,
punctuation, solid mechanics and a good voice are paramount. One of many
people's common misperceptions involves the belief that writing is easy --
not everyone can draw well, it's hard to lay out a book to given graphic
design specs, but any monkey can sit in front of a keyboard and type pretty
words. Not true. In fact, writing is the hardest thing many people will be
expected to perform in their entire lives, and doing it well is even more
difficult. A writer must be a good communicator before I hire her, as our
production schedule doesn't offer enough time to piece together a flaw-heavy
manuscript. You may have the best ideas in the world, but they're worthless
to me if I can't make heads or tails of them. If you're a good idea guy,
team up with a competent writer and submit a joint proposal. Just don't send
me "I like alot of vampires and the diablerie in the sabbot of Mexico. But
mithris was wetching and a Lupine. Attack!" and expect to have it published.

Vampire's core theme is a tripartite concept: It is a Storytelling game of
personal horror. Storytelling involves taking a concept and doing something
with it. We all know the Ventrue are wealthy powerbrokers nonpareil, but
what do they do to garner that reputation? How do the Nosferatu manage to
maintain their vast information networks? How does a twisted Tzimisce
acquire that reputation among others of her kind? Tell a story worth the
words. Show us "memorable antagonists, prizes worth fighting for,
fascinating settings, believable goals, plot twists, betrayals, redemptions,
heroism, tragedy, triumph, horror and general weirdness." If you expect me
to pay you, and you expect others to buy your book, you'd best make sure
it's worth our dollar-two-ninety-eight.

The personal aspect rests upon the role of the characters. We don't need
books in which clans/sects/coteries are faceless, monolithic entities that
exist only to serve the greater agenda. Sure, the Toreador involve
themselves in the worlds of art and mortals, but what motivates them
individually? Clans are not fraternities that gather for Spring Rush or to
take over the Brujah primogen's crime syndicate. Sects are not giant
companies or armed forces that unite to war with the infidels or "control"
(damn, I hate that word) cities (even though they may say otherwise, as is
the case with some particularly fervent Sabbat or Assamites). Rather, clans
are more like families and sects are more like social societies, and when
was the last time the Achillis or the goths banded together to drive the
Methuselahs from the city? Focus on the individual -- the intent is to show
the unique nature of being a vampire, not to join an eternal, undying
corporation as a pathetic servant. Nothing inherent to clan or sect
membership ties a vampire to a "party line," and it's more likely for a
conniving Ventrue to plot against other Ventrue than it is for him to shake
his fist at a cadre of black-biker-jacket-wearing Brujah gangstaz. Princes
don't just "hang out" on velvet thrones, and not all Sabbat are
molotov-tossing psychotics.

Concerning horror, your submission had better seep with it. Without horror,
this may as well be a superhero game, and that's not what we're after.
Consider: All characters are dead, yet exist in a fragile state beyond death
by stealing away the life's blood of the people they formerly were while
fighting to hold back the excruciating urges of the Beast. All vampires are
addicts, dedicated, above all else, to acquiring that precious fluid upon
which their existence hangs so precariously. To what depths will these
characters sink in the pursuit of their schemes and wants? Let's see those
depths.

With those central ideas in mind, here's what I'm looking for.

o New Twists: Surprise your reader. If we know what's going to happen in the
plot, it's boring. I'm not advocating random chaos or arbitrarily motivated
antagonists, but sometimes the logical conclusion isn't what shakes out of
an event. Weirdness and mystery are good.

o Interesting Characters: This is such a hot button for me, I don't even
want to open it up. Just make your characters have whole personalities. The
idea of a "generic Malkavian" is pretty weak; everyone is an individual.
Also remember that your characters' concepts are not their clan or sect.
See? You're getting me started. Cool characters, please.

o Monsters: I don't want florid tirades about eternal damnation, but I do
want to see that we're not dealing with fanged superheroes. Simple, but very
important

o Open-endedness: Yeah, that's not a word. So what? Anyway, if you're
dealing with plot, allow players' coteries to have an impact on their
environment. This is very hard with Vampire; characters run such a broad
spectrum of motivations that it's impossible to create a truly universal
situation. It's not like the old days of hack 'n' slash games, where you
could stick a monster in a room and every character would make a beeline for
it and kick its ass, whether they were priests, elves or whatever. Still,
try to accommodate as many tastes as possible, and plan for as many
eventualities as you can. If the objective of a story is to recover a torpid
Kindred's body, give my vagrant Gangrel truck driver a reason to
participate.

o Focus: At the same time, however, your idea needs a unity of vision. Why
the hell is the Ventrue gang boss hanging out with the Malkavian political
hopeful on the balcony of the Brujah runway model's loft? You can't stop
players from creating characters who have no business being together (check
out a convention game that lets you bring your own character to the table
for big laffs sometime), but you can at least bring a sense of order to the
material you're putting into print.

o The Young Ones: I like games that aren't infested with low-generation god
characters. A 13th-generation vampire is every bit as cool as the
fifth-generation Prince of Paris, and a damn sight more likely to be
believably played. Vampires already have an edge over the mortals among whom
they hide -- we don't need any more vertigo-inducing lists of mega-Traits.
Skew your writing to reflect the higher generations, unless you're writing
for sympathy with an older vampire.

o Keep it Current: The Vampire setting is ultramodern, and a 600-year-old
jackass capering about in a velvet frock coat is gonna get waxed by the
Inquisition, if not other Kindred. Vampires enact their Masquerade by
following mortal trends, not by guzzling bloodwynnnne from crystal goblets
with their vampyre wyves and speaking fantasy roleplaying-influenced faux
Olde Englishe. Hey, you! Yeah, you; the Lord Byron doppelganger! I'm setting
you on fire because you look like a vampire! Seriously, show us how hip and
cutting-edge vampires are. Or, by contrast, show us a static elder who still
does wear his powdered wigs -- and show us the difficulties he faces by
being unable to cope with change.

Now here's what I don't want.

o Stuff We've Already Done: I'm not interested in Your City by Night, in
which the main conflict is a struggle for princedom.

o Stuff We Haven't Done for a Reason: No Clanbook: Samedi or Secrets of the
Inconnu, please. It's hard enough to keep the mystery without turning over
every rock in Vampire's backyard. Maybe these books will come out at some
point, but if they do, it's because Vampire needs them and not because the
eight millionth "I think Samedi are cool" submission was the straw that
broke the camel's back. I'm a bitter, resentful jerk, and I'm more likely to
not print a book out of spite than to be won over by fawning over a pet idea
(see below).

o Crossover: I'm the guy at the office who hates this the most. Mixing the
various World of Darkness supernaturals almost invariably comes at the
expense of the games' horror and leans it toward a disparate mix of random
superpowers. That, and the systems of the different games don't work well
together. Werewolves don't even have tribes in Vampire; they're almost
always unknowable "Lupines." Other supernaturals follow suit. Send crossover
to someone else and keep Vampire out of it if you know what's good for you.

o Your Personal Crusade: So you like the Daughters of Cacophony. Great. The
strength of your fetish/passion won't sell books. Cool ideas will.

o The Same Old Tropes, Redux: Blah blah blah prince blah blah blah Ventrue
blah blah blah control blah blah blah manipulated blah blah blah in his bid
for power. Yawn.

o GoobCon XIV: I don't know what committee approves these sorts of things,
but every now and then, the gaming community appropriates some weird trend
and it becomes chic to participate in it. People claim to be Celts or pagans
or Gypsies or Wiccans or Native Americans, or they wear blowzy poet shirts
and trenchcoats. What the hell is this all about? Well, most vampires aren't
gamers. Leave your Scottish Gangrel and your Ren Faire-visiting Nagaraja
Abomination at home, please. Let these cultures have their dignity and let
the dorky fads hurry to their merciful deaths.

Important Note: The Vampire schedule is full until mid-2001. I will not be
adding new projects until that time. I do, however, need people to work on
books in the interim, so please send in your proposal. Even if I don't use
your idea immediately, I may use you for one of the other projects on the
board.

A list of inspirations for Vampire:

Anne Rice's Interview With the Vampire and The Vampire Lestat -- Vampires
are sexy in a modern context, and the historical flashbacks are very
evocative. I wasn't a huge fan of Queen of the Damned, which I found too
epic for my tastes, or The Tale of the Body Thief, which gave vampires some
weird powers (but showed how much Lestat lost by becoming a vampire).

Sheridan LeFanu's "Carmilla" -- Here's how you exist for centuries: by
hiding and reinventing yourself. This story is also very sensual and spooky.

Frederick Cowles' "The Vampire of Kaldenstein" -- What a bunch of monstrous
degenerates these guys were!

John Polidori's "The Vampyre" -- Despite the aftermath of lace and capes,
this story pretty much established the core ideals of the modern vampire.

Bram Stoker's Dracula -- Duh.

Irvine Welsh's Trainspotting -- Unpleasant, seedy characters; swap out the
heroin for blood and poof! Instant vampires! The movie also provided a good
film translation, which is uncommon.

F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby -- An excellent book stylistically
(Fitzgerald describes his characters through their actions, showing rather
than telling), and the social commentary is certainly applicable to Kindred
society.

Tom Wolfe's The Bonfire of the Vanities -- A nest of high-society vipers and
what they do when things go awry. Very Camarilla.

Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Hell's Angels --
Welcome to what could easily be the Sabbat. The Fear and Loathing movie is
actually better than you heard it was.

John Berendt's Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil -- Very Southern, but
also very gothic in the sense Vampire illustrates: rife with corruption and
rotten from within.

Blade -- Um, see, there are these 13 cla-- er, houses, right? And they have
mortal minions called ghou-- uh, familiars. Oh well. The vampires in Blade
were certainly very sexy and ultra-modern-hip-cool, and Steven Dorff's
performance was excellent. Plus, New Order was on the soundtrack and played
during the phenomenal opening scene, so you can't go wrong.

The Crow -- Despite spawning a legion of fiendishly made-up LARP kids (and
Sting), this was a scummy, noisy, vibrant, violent, druggy, and even
somewhat gothic hell of a good time, with kickass sets to boot. Michael
Wincott gave a sterling performance as Top Dollar, and I think the movie was
better than the comic.

The Replacement Killers -- Mainly the opening scene. You can bet that when
vampires walk into a nightclub and some grade-A whup-ass starts to happen,
there's going to be some Crystal Method playing really loudly. And most of
the movie's characters are World of Darkness-style scumbags.

The Godfather, The Godfather II and Goodfellas -- Treachery! Greed! Death!
Sex! Lather! Rinse! Repeat! If you don't like these movies, there's
something wrong with you. Every element of these movies can be adapted to
suit Vampire, most of them with very little shoehorning.

The Hunger -- A bit dated, but excellent nonetheless. Two creepy vampires
ply their trade in New York as Bauhaus leers at the camera. I think David
Bowie really is a vampire.

John Carpenter's Vampires -- Again, the strongest part of the movie is the
opening scene, and it gets kinda action-campy from there. That opening scene
is quality, though, and it gives an unsettling feeling for the "nests" of
vampires. The head vampire, Varek, is really sinister in an over-the-top
"bad dude" way.

Some General Writing Guidelines

Spellcheck, Damn You!: Your word processor does this. You have no excuse to
submit a proposal with spelling errors. Even if youÄ…re a brain-dead,
flesh-eating, feces-flinging howler monkey, all you have to do is click a
little button and 60 percent of your moronism will disappear.

Action!: Many writers have a tendency to slip into the future perfect tense
and passive voice. The Storyteller games are as much about proactivity as
reactivity, and writing should reflect this. Consider:

o The hapless serf was slaughtered by the frenzied vampire.

o The frenzied vampire slaughtered the hapless serf.

Note the inherent sense of action in the second sentence -- itÄ…s actually
happening (even in past tense) as we speak, by simply making the subject
active instead of passive.

o The characters will discover the slumbering Methuselah.

o The characters discover the slumbering Methuselah.

Note that "will" in the first sentence implies that the characters may get
around to it eventually, whereas it definitely happens in the second
sentence. Keep this dynamic of dynamics in mind, please!

Verb Tense: Present. Things happen now! Use the present tense to indicate
that the things youÄ…re talking about are going on as we speak. Only use past
tense if you are discussing something that did indeed happen in the past.
For example:

o The playersÄ… characters stumble upon the lair of Assamite ghouls.

o A group of rogue Assamites established a fanatical ghoul cult in 1973.

Words I Hate: DonÄ…t use any of these words unless theyÄ…re the best choice
for the job: Utilize, Moist, Zesty, Tangy, Facilitate, Basically (and its
ugly sister, Essentially) and Incredible. Also avoid "junk" words -- the
ones you use to make yourself seem smarter. I donÄ…t care how smart you are,
I just want to read something without being patronized. Some of those above
words are junk words, for example.

Bad Phrasing: Avoid it. Things donÄ…t "begin to" happen unless theyÄ…re
interrupted. ("It was then the Tremere began to take action against the
Tzimisce" implies that they never finished. "The Tremere began to take
action against the Tzimisce, but faced opposition from Ventrue Eastern Lords
that ended their campaign" works just fine.) Be wary of subjective
prepositions, too; within, upon and the like are treacherous and rarely
appropriate.

There Is and There Are: Not only are these often used incorrectly, they're
passive as all hell. "There is" means, "In that locations existsÅ " which
generally isn't what you're trying to say when you use this construction.
Here; I'll show you.

o "There is my car," is fine, if passive-voiced.

o "There is a school of thought that suggest vampires are the children of
Lilith, not Caine," is a damn mess. Where is this school? "There is"
suggests it has actually, physically been constructed somewhere. And it's
still passive, even if you're talking about a literal school, which you're
not. See what I mean? Just say no to there is.


--
[Justin R. Achilli]
[Vampire: The Masquerade Developer]
[jach...@white-wolf.com]
"That boy has an earring in his eye."
-- A kid at Kroger

Ratspaw

unread,
Jul 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/30/99
to
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:15:05 GMT, "Justin R. Achilli"
<jach...@white-wolf.com> wrote:

>Words I Hate: Donıt use any of these words unless theyıre the best choice


>for the job: Utilize, Moist, Zesty, Tangy, Facilitate, Basically (and its

What's wrong with moist? Does it come up a lot?

Ratspaw

A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?

DoxWire

unread,
Jul 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/31/99
to
At the risk of sounding like a complete suck up..

Justin has anyone latley told you how cool you are?

Falcon of Lugh

unread,
Jul 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/31/99
to
>At the risk of sounding like a complete suck up..
>
>Justin has anyone latley told you how cool you are?


Justin doesn't need to be sucked up to. He needs gifts, lots of them. Most
likely he'd prefer large non-taxable monetary ones.


Rude, lude and crude. But I get the job done.

MeloraTika

unread,
Jul 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/31/99
to
Justin, you rock. I just wish you were going to be at the San Diego con
this year. Such sarcasm and sharpness would be interesting to see, full
strength, in person.


Patricia

Christina Waldeck

unread,
Jul 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/31/99
to
Since writing "I agree, I agree etc etc" is superfluous, let's say:

Thank you. Finally someone who feels annoyed by the same things I keep
ranting about in my groups.

(As for movies with vampire themes: I'd include "Near Dark".
As for "Vampires"... now that I have seen it I will never be able to
keep from laughing when a vampire is staked.)


CW

Fred Mensch

unread,
Jul 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/31/99
to
Justin R. Achilli wrote:
> I thought some people might get some mileage out of this. It will soon
> supplement the old submission guidelines.

Ok - firstly, thank you for sharing. I don't mean to be uncivil, but
you did post this to an open forum so I don't think I'm out of line.
For a very long time I've had a strong dislike of many of the decisions
you have made in developing Vampire; here I'm going to try to say why.
I'm not trying to bitch, but I do hope I can express what I don't
like about this in an intelligent and respectful manner.



> Vampire is a game of personal, gothic horror. That's "gothic," not "goth."
> Some vampires are goths, sure, but we're more concerned with the intricacies
> of becoming a monster and the literary meaning of gothic than we are with
> lyrics from Apoptygma Berzerk songs.

Ok - I'm no Goth; I'm the guy who was suprised to learn that Blood Dolls
exist outside the WoD four years ago. But nonetheless V:tM has some very
Goth elements, and some enhance the game. I'll agree that taking it too
far leads to trendy hip vampires instead of monsters, which I don't
like.

> Vampire is about normal people who have been Embraced into a World of
> Darkness and turned into predatory monsters. It is a game of horror, of both
> the internal and external varieties. Each vampire is only half man -- the
> other half is a ravenous, bloodthirsty Beast. Vampires' worlds fall apart:
> Mortals they love die, things they held dear now linger out of reach, they
> prey upon what they once were. They have been utterly cursed. To ease the
> pain -- or to escape what they have become -- they pretend to be mortal.
> They place elaborate social rules and grand Jyhads before themselves, hoping
> to divert their attention from their own bestial natures. They cling
> desperately to the vestiges of their humanity. Their unlives are tragic,
> doomed attempts to stave off the unnatural forces that lurk within them all.

I'll agree that that's *part* of what Vampire is about, and your writing
does bring that out quite skillfully. But it isn't the whole, and to be
quite honest to my tastes it's far from the most important element. I
have friends who like the who "personal horror" element and so I try to
bring it out when Storytelling. But there's a whole lot more to the core
themes of Vampire then just this.

I've always, contrary to the back of the book, thought that Vampire was
a
game of *political* horror. Not the inane, dull scheming you get a bad
LARPs, but true intrigue-horror as of The Pelican Brief or The X-Files.
Politics where people get hurt - badly. I've always said the most
monsterous
things vampires do have nothing to do with being vampires and everything
to do with being people. The societies are by and far the most
interesting
part of Vampire to me. The game has some very strong aspects of social
satire and black comedy - vampires aren't real, but diseased, paranoid
societies are; that Camarilla politics can be found in all their
visciousness
in any high school is, IMO, one of the coolest aspects of the game.

And there's so much more to Vampire then just this. I _like_ personal
horror, and I think you and Rob Hatch do those elements better than
any previous developers. But they aren't to me the only or the pivotal
elements of the game, and in recent supplements it feels like personal
horror is beginning to exclude many of the other elements that I like.



> (Vampire, to some people, is about blowing shit up, hurling bolts of flame
> and vicariously getting back at a world that shuns them for their geekdom. I
> don't publish books for those people. It's fine for them to play in that
> idiom -- as long as they're having fun, the game works. They're going to
> play Vampire like that anyway, but I'm not going to encourage them.)

I don't like this "style" either, especially when

> In fact, White Wolf has put out consistently crappy books since
> (1) you started writing for them.
> (2) Justin Achilli took over Vampire.
> (3) they stopped using Sisters of Mercy quotes to open every subsection of
> text.
> (4) they came into existence, yet I still buy every book, if only to give me
> new reasons to complain and find a surrogate victim for my own feelings of
> inadequacy and self-loathing.

I can empathize with your frusteration after the amount of inane
criticism and outright flaming you get. I want to say I'm not trying
to insult you personally in any way, and for the record your writing
is very intelligent and well-thought out. But I and a number of other
people do see negative elements in your current development and since
this was posted to Usenet I feel justified in trying to explain why.

> The personal aspect rests upon the role of the characters. We don't need
> books in which clans/sects/coteries are faceless, monolithic entities that
> exist only to serve the greater agenda. Sure, the Toreador involve
> themselves in the worlds of art and mortals, but what motivates them
> individually? Clans are not fraternities that gather for Spring Rush or to
> take over the Brujah primogen's crime syndicate. Sects are not giant
> companies or armed forces that unite to war with the infidels or "control"
> (damn, I hate that word) cities (even though they may say otherwise, as is
> the case with some particularly fervent Sabbat or Assamites). Rather, clans
> are more like families and sects are more like social societies, and when
> was the last time the Achillis or the goths banded together to drive the
> Methuselahs from the city? Focus on the individual -- the intent is to show
> the unique nature of being a vampire, not to join an eternal, undying
> corporation as a pathetic servant. Nothing inherent to clan or sect
> membership ties a vampire to a "party line," and it's more likely for a
> conniving Ventrue to plot against other Ventrue than it is for him to shake
> his fist at a cadre of black-biker-jacket-wearing Brujah gangstaz. Princes
> don't just "hang out" on velvet thrones, and not all Sabbat are
> molotov-tossing psychotics.

There's a lot of truth in this, but there is a strong political/societal
element that clans and sects add to Vampire. Stereotypes do exist for a
reason, and the "Ventrue surfer" from the VRev just seems inane to me.
Vampire isn't wholly an individual game. There's something that sets it
apart from _Interview_ and _Dracula_, something completely unique in the
history of the vampire genre: the element of vampire society.

Clans _do_ work together. They are _conspiracies_. They aren't just
gatherings of individual people who run off and do their own thing.
And, at least in some _perfectly valid_ games, they insinuate themselves
into mortal society and try to control it to their own ends. I'm not
asking you to write about vampires controlling mortals if you don't
want to, but is it necessary to go out of your way to ret-con every
instance of them doing so in others' works?



> o Interesting Characters: This is such a hot button for me, I don't even
> want to open it up. Just make your characters have whole personalities. The
> idea of a "generic Malkavian" is pretty weak; everyone is an individual.
> Also remember that your characters' concepts are not their clan or sect.
> See? You're getting me started. Cool characters, please.

I agree, but have yet to really see this in the newer work. The most
interesting charecters for me were in Chicago by Night, because they
seemed like people instead of strange things groomed from birth to be
creatures of the night. I don't have CotN, so I can't evaluate your
charecters very much, but the ones at the beginning story of the Sabbat
book _really_ blew. (Sorry; just my opinion. Way too much random
violence; way too little spirituality.)



> o Monsters: I don't want florid tirades about eternal damnation, but I do
> want to see that we're not dealing with fanged superheroes. Simple, but very
> important

Yes. I know you like the we-are-monsters thing, but does _every_
supplement have to focus on it? It's part of the game, but it
shouldn't engulf everything else.



> o Open-endedness: Yeah, that's not a word. So what? Anyway, if you're
> dealing with plot, allow players' coteries to have an impact on their
> environment. This is very hard with Vampire; characters run such a broad
> spectrum of motivations that it's impossible to create a truly universal
> situation. It's not like the old days of hack 'n' slash games, where you
> could stick a monster in a room and every character would make a beeline for
> it and kick its ass, whether they were priests, elves or whatever. Still,
> try to accommodate as many tastes as possible, and plan for as many
> eventualities as you can. If the objective of a story is to recover a torpid
> Kindred's body, give my vagrant Gangrel truck driver a reason to
> participate.

Amen. This is just good, IMO.



> o Focus: At the same time, however, your idea needs a unity of vision. Why
> the hell is the Ventrue gang boss hanging out with the Malkavian political
> hopeful on the balcony of the Brujah runway model's loft? You can't stop
> players from creating characters who have no business being together (check
> out a convention game that lets you bring your own character to the table
> for big laffs sometime), but you can at least bring a sense of order to the
> material you're putting into print.

Agreed.



> o The Young Ones: I like games that aren't infested with low-generation god
> characters. A 13th-generation vampire is every bit as cool as the
> fifth-generation Prince of Paris, and a damn sight more likely to be
> believably played. Vampires already have an edge over the mortals among whom
> they hide -- we don't need any more vertigo-inducing lists of mega-Traits.
> Skew your writing to reflect the higher generations, unless you're writing
> for sympathy with an older vampire.

That's cool. Vampire should be able to support low-power, low-key games.
Personally, though, I hate them. There's no fun being helpless in a
world
where everybody's bigger then you are - yes, it's dark, but IMO better
stories come from higher power levels. Most of the charecters I
Storytell
tend to me tough ancillae or weak elders and they're not powergamers or
twinks; combat is very uncommon.

What I'm saying is _include_ low-key elements; don't _exclude_ epic
ones.
(And ToTB doesn't count. That was _so friggin huge_ that no average
ancilla
or elder could participate in any way more than a neonate could.)



> o Keep it Current: The Vampire setting is ultramodern, and a 600-year-old
> jackass capering about in a velvet frock coat is gonna get waxed by the
> Inquisition, if not other Kindred. Vampires enact their Masquerade by
> following mortal trends, not by guzzling bloodwynnnne from crystal goblets
> with their vampyre wyves and speaking fantasy roleplaying-influenced faux
> Olde Englishe. Hey, you! Yeah, you; the Lord Byron doppelganger! I'm setting
> you on fire because you look like a vampire!

<grin> An amusing image, but again you're trying to exclude ideas. Some
players might like the romantic-gothic flavor that anacronistic clothing
and customs give to an older charecter. I personally, am less fond of
it,
but some of my players really like it. I have had four charecters who
carry
swords in the modern day, although they do it intellegently and
cautiously.
It annoys me a bit, but they players seem to like it. And then there's
that
blurb in the Orphans' Suirvival Guide that says if you carry a sword in
the
modern day, that's just _wrong_. It's not an option, it's bad
roleplaying.
Personally, if the WoD can absorb all the daily wierdness it does,
including
Sabbat and Marauder antics, it can certainly suffer a few sword-bearers
without shattering the Masquerade. I know you didn't write OSG, but I
get
the same vibe from your writing here.

> Seriously, show us how hip and cutting-edge vampires are.

*wince* Ok, that one was _much_ worse then the whole sword-carriers
thing.
Julian's big pet peeve: every vampire has to be hip, trendy, stylish,
seductive and sexy. Vampires _aren't_ hip in my games. I'm probably the
only player on earth who plays a Kindred that can't pick up members of
the
opposite gender because s/he's to shy, awkward, homely or all of the
above.
Now I know some players like to play stylish, seductive undead. But it
should be an option, not a mandate.

> o Stuff We Haven't Done for a Reason: No Clanbook: Samedi or Secrets of the
> Inconnu, please. It's hard enough to keep the mystery without turning over
> every rock in Vampire's backyard. Maybe these books will come out at some
> point, but if they do, it's because Vampire needs them and not because the
> eight millionth "I think Samedi are cool" submission was the straw that

I agree on the Inconnu, but a book giving some culture, substance and
humanity to the bloodlines would be really cool. But it doesn't fit
your view of Vampire, so it won't be printed.

> I'm a bitter, resentful jerk, and I'm more likely to
> not print a book out of spite than to be won over by fawning over a pet idea
> (see below).

I presume this is sarcasm and bitterness. If it's serious, then you're
just a poor developer.



> o Crossover: I'm the guy at the office who hates this the most. Mixing the
> various World of Darkness supernaturals almost invariably comes at the
> expense of the games' horror and leans it toward a disparate mix of random
> superpowers. That, and the systems of the different games don't work well
> together. Werewolves don't even have tribes in Vampire; they're almost
> always unknowable "Lupines." Other supernaturals follow suit. Send crossover
> to someone else and keep Vampire out of it if you know what's good for you.

Ok. Realize I've run _nothing but_ crossover for the last four years.
Understandably this attitude pisses me off. What you're saying is this:
no matter how good, intellegent or provocative a crossover supplement
that graces your desk is, it will be automatically dismissed because
it's crossover. I don't like crossover games, so I'm going to make sure
that nothing is ever printed for them, and I'm even going to complain
if someone uses vampires in a supplement for a different game line.



> Blade -- Um, see, there are these 13 cla-- er, houses, right? And they have
> mortal minions called ghou-- uh, familiars. Oh well. The vampires in Blade
> were certainly very sexy and ultra-modern-hip-cool, and Steven Dorff's
> performance was excellent. Plus, New Order was on the soundtrack and played
> during the phenomenal opening scene, so you can't go wrong.

Personally, I think that if "sexy" and "ultra-modern-hip-cool" are
viable, mature and thought-provoking options for a Vampire game,
there's no good reason why crossover can't be as well. I really,
_really_ hate any description of Vampire involving "hip", but I
have no problem dealing with it in the books and even bring those
elements into my games at times. I wish you could take the same
attitude to crossover.

I guess my biggest problem with your development in Vampire is how
exclusive it is. You do add things to the game - elements of tension
and prophecy in the Final Nights, a strong development of the "I'm a
monster" theme and a lot of good material for low-key games. But you
are, as far as I can see (and I haven't read your rationales on
everything) determined not to publish or even allow to exist anything
that doesn't coincide with your "vision" of the game.

And that's sad. There isn't any One True Way to play Vampire, everyone
did it differently. Some people played tragically hip clove-cigarette
smoking anarchs out to kick the system. Other people played the monsters
that your view of the game fits. Others played charecters and didn't
stress the "vampire" bit overmuch, like Lestat is Memnoch the Devil:
(paraphrased) "Yeah, I happen to be a vampire, but this could have
happened to anyone." Others played a more paranoid, gloomy, thoughful
game as described in Elysium and DSotBH. Some people even played the
gun-wielding revenge fantasy you describe above. Some Storytellers
built chronicles around adventure where the players were basically
heroes seeking to uncover a lost sercet or save a Ward. Some people
played grim, street level chronicles; others played Sabbat charecters
completely seperated from humanity. Everyone did it different.

Me? Personally, I played games that were one part cloak and dagger
intrigue, one part societal satire and one part personal drama. My
favourite player charecter, my Assamite, is thematically "about"
fanaticism, faith, honor and how these interact with human nature.
The fact that he - and most of my other charecters, for that matter -
are vampires is just window dressing.

And you know what? The books supported that. They were what Jason
Corley described - a "toolkit" with which a Storyteller and players
could build whatever setting they wanted. Andrew Greenburg developed
the intrigue and politics, MR*H got the angst and trendyness, Rob
Hatch got the grime and street level elements and other developers
all added their own visions and ideas into thw whole.

But that doesn't seem to be how your development works. You don't
leave things vague like the other developers did. Ravnos died for
100% certain, and it's all spelled out OOC how it happened. No
doubts, no mystery, no maneuverability in the canon. Furthermore,
I'm sure every developer to date has had elements of the game that
they don't like; the general approch is just to leave those alone
or even to publish particularily intelligent submissions for them
based on their own merit.

But you seem determined to edit out the things you don't like. Lets
look at the "death toll" so far: Tremere antitribu, Ravnos, Enoch,
crossover, Baba Yaga and probably more as well. Nor are your
developments subtle enough for canon-followers to brush over them.
A Storyteller either has to abandon the canon or accept that you,
Justin Achilli, are going to foist huge changes on them on a regular
basis. It just seems to me that under past developers the books
helped people run whatever kind of chronicle they wanted - from the
military grade hardware in the back of VPG2 for twinks to CB:Toreador
for the Goths to Ventrue Clanbook for conspiracy/intruge fans
to Tzimisce ans Nosferatu for visceral horror to Players Guide to the
Sabbat for dark philosophical meanderings to DSotBH and DA:Vancouver
for the crossover crowd.

I know that I can ignore the canon if I want - I am, as a matter of
fact, you don't need to tell me. But now I practically _have_ to
ignore the canon unless I want my Vampire game to be a cookie-cutter
imprint of your "vision". Now, the books make it _harder_ to run
other types of games instead of easier. They work _against_ me in
planning my chronicle instead of _for_ me. Collectivley, the Black
Hand, the Shadow Curtain, vampires _controlling_ mortals and personal
horror in controllable doses instead of oozing from everything defined
a lot of what I liked about Vampire.

This is getting long so I should wrap it up. Basically, my complaint is
this: why can't you be content to just add things to the game like the
other developers instead of destroying or rewriting everything you don't
like and narrowing the game's focus so?


-- Julian Mensch
One World, One Truth, One Reality...
and one approved flavor of Vampire: the Masquerade.

MeloraTika

unread,
Jul 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/31/99
to
>And, at least in some _perfectly valid_ games, they insinuate themselves
>into mortal society and try to control it to their own ends.

Perfectly valid games aside, I do think that it gets old when every major
mortal event has been orchestrated by Kindred (or other supernatural
influences). People tend to get carried away with it, and history ends up
being given to the Kindred. Sleepers may not always be that bright, but they
do occassionally get things done.

>Yes. I know you like the we-are-monsters thing, but does _every_
>supplement have to focus on it? It's part of the game, but it
>shouldn't engulf everything else.

Ummmm...I always thought that part of the whole point is that the monster
within DOES start to engulf everything else. We can look to our real life
mortal murderers to see examples of that.

>That's cool. Vampire should be able to support low-power, low-key games.
>Personally, though, I hate them. There's no fun being helpless in a
>world
>where everybody's bigger then you are - yes, it's dark, but IMO better
>stories come from higher power levels.

Every powerful figure in the WoD was an underdog once. They were helpless
and smaller. I've always thought that part of the fun in being the underdog is
taking a look around at what it's really like to be a bottom feeder, and then
finding ways to move up. While it may not be easy to push one's way in, it can
be a great ride. It feels good to stick it to the elders when you can.

>An amusing image, but again you're trying to exclude ideas.

I think the point of the writing guidelines is to exclude only those ideas
that are overdone and overused. The guidelines say very clearly: this is what
we want - do you think you can handle writing this? They do not say: we're
going to cater to every player of Vampire, feel free to jump in.

>> Seriously, show us how hip and cutting-edge vampires are.
>
>*wince* Ok, that one was _much_ worse then the whole sword-carriers
>thing.
>Julian's big pet peeve: every vampire has to be hip, trendy, stylish,
>seductive and sexy. Vampires _aren't_ hip in my games.

I took this bit to mean that Justin's sick of seeing the seriously
outdated vampires that people love to play in AOL private rooms so they can
have fangs in their cyber. Vampires who deal with the mortal populace do have
to adapt to a certain extent, and the changes of the last few centuries will
show themselves in a vampire's demeanor. That doesn't mean that every vampire
has to be Antonio Banderas with the new summer wardrobe. That would be just as
bad. It does mean, I believe, that vampires have to be updated to be
believably functional in the modern world.

>I agree on the Inconnu, but a book giving some culture, substance and
>humanity to the bloodlines would be really cool.

Culture, substance, and humanity? ::scritches her head:: Bloodlines are
small. Considering that the numbers of vampires are still pretty low given the
world population, it wouldn't be practical to focus so heavily on bloodlines.
They aren't meant to be the norm, or necessarily the heavy-hitters. Bloodlines
seem to give a sense of variety and the different ways vampires can evolve.

>> I'm a bitter, resentful jerk, and I'm more likely to
>> not print a book out of spite than to be won over by fawning over a pet
>idea
>> (see below).
>
>I presume this is sarcasm and bitterness. If it's serious, then you're
>just a poor developer.

Considering all the pet ideas the man sees, I for one wouldn't blame him
for being a tad bitter.

>What you're saying is this:
>no matter how good, intellegent or provocative a crossover supplement
>that graces your desk is, it will be automatically dismissed because
>it's crossover.

Justin has seen weaknesses in crossover. He's also seen enough crossover
ideas that were complete crap. I personally would think that, given those
things, he wouldn't find crossover very pratical to work on printing. It
probably wouldn't sell.

>But you
>are, as far as I can see (and I haven't read your rationales on
>everything) determined not to publish or even allow to exist anything
>that doesn't coincide with your "vision" of the game.
>

He's the developer. I thought that was part of how developing a game
works. He sees to the development that goes into the book. If you don't want
your games that way, then you don't have to use the man's words as gospel. You
can build your game however you wish with what's out now, if you actually sit
down and fire up your alertness and creativity.
Now, if an idea went to Justin and it just screamed of brilliance, I think
he would consider it, regardless of the grating on his tastes. But how often
do you think something like that would happen?
Narrowing the focus of a game so large, with so much material, is only
practical, human, and smart. Given the job itself, and the hoards of
nitpickers and question-makers, most of us would be more than bitter. We'd be
defunct.


Patricia

Disclaimer: some of you may take this as pure butt kissing. Guess what? It's
not. This is just a post of my opinions. Deal.

tar...@imap2.asu.edu

unread,
Jul 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/31/99
to
Justin R. Achilli (jach...@white-wolf.com) wrote:
: I thought some people might get some mileage out of this. It will soon
: supplement the old submission guidelines.

[...]
: "Hello,

This is really great, but could you guys make it into a CGI form and put
it on your website? It'd be much easier for us to use that way.

Ben B.

Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes

unread,
Aug 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/1/99
to
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:15:05 GMT:
Justin R. Achilli <jach...@white-wolf.com> spake:

>I thought some people might get some mileage out of this. It will soon
>supplement the old submission guidelines.
[snip]

You're a bitter, twisted, wreck of a man, Justin, and I mean that in a
good way.

But why didn't you mention _Near Dark_?

-- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>

Casey Johnson

unread,
Aug 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/1/99
to
Thanks for taking the time to post that. I sometimes worry that the goofballs
are the only ones posting on a regular basis and the normal players are not.
Keep in mind, most of the normal Vampire players who do NOT post on usenet are
very happy with the way Vampire is going and look forward to the new books in
2000.

Casey

aetherson

unread,
Aug 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/1/99
to
I rearranged a few bits for my conveniance in responding. Sorry if
anything gets lost because of it.

In article <19990731091129...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
melor...@aol.com (MeloraTika) wrote:
<snip>


> Ummmm...I always thought that part of the whole point is that the
monster
> within DOES start to engulf everything else. We can look to our real
life
> mortal murderers to see examples of that.

<snip>


> I think the point of the writing guidelines is to exclude only
those ideas
> that are overdone and overused. The guidelines say very clearly: this
is what
> we want - do you think you can handle writing this? They do not say:
we're
> going to cater to every player of Vampire, feel free to jump in.

Well, Justin and White Wolf are clearly within their rights to print or
not print anything they damn well please. If they want to make Hunter:
The Whatevering about three-apple-high blue shirtless sprites with a
seriously bad male:female ratio, who "hunt" the other supersnautrals by
wandering up and convincing them to "play nice" and indulge in a game or
two of ring-around-the-rosy, they're more than welcome to.

Of course, I wouldn't buy it, and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one.

Most games try to cater to more than one taste. There is clearly a
large contingent of Vampire players who prefer to political side of the
game to the horror side, and there may well be more people who want to
play it as a superhero game than either of the above. I'm sure that
there are also a few people who want to play it as a game focussed on
the many wonders of the World o' Plumbing.

You write to some of your players and not others. I doubt we'll be
seeing Vampire: The Plumbing any time soon, and that's fine by me. If
Vampire completely neglects its political side, well, I'm not so
thrilled with that (in all fairness, I doubt very much that Justin
intends to totally ignore the political side of the game). I think that
Julian's post was a completely reasonable commentary from a more
political player, asking Justin not to forget that side of the fan base.
Of course, part of Justin's job is to draw that fine line as to whom
to write to. I don't think that it's remiss of Julian to want to see
the game defined a bit more broadly.

I'm not a big Vampire player, and I've read essentially none of Justin's
work, so I have to take him at his word in these design docs. I realize
that he uses a lot of hyperbole and that he's partially "yelling" to
drive his points home. None the less, if these are to become official
guidelines for the Vampire line, some criticism certainly wouldn't hurt
them.

> Every powerful figure in the WoD was an underdog once. They were
helpless
> and smaller. I've always thought that part of the fun in being the
underdog is
> taking a look around at what it's really like to be a bottom feeder,
and then
> finding ways to move up. While it may not be easy to push one's way
in, it can
> be a great ride. It feels good to stick it to the elders when you
can.

That's all well and good, but some of us don't have the opportunity to
play really long games. Until recently, I was tied to an academic
calender which pretty much meant that I could get at most nine months of
(mostly) continuous campaign before there was at least a three month
break in it, and, probably, a bunch of players who left. If I wanted to
play a powerful character, it just wasn't feasible to start all that
small.

Again, it comes down to whether you're only going to write for the
people who want to and have the time to play exactly as you would, or if
you're willing to broaden the scope of the game.

That said, I do think it's better to err on the side of low-power.

> Considering all the pet ideas the man sees, I for one wouldn't
blame him
> for being a tad bitter.

Obviously he's a tad bitter. And I think that his writing is amusing in
its bitterness. On the other hand, throwing out good ideas due to
bitterness is unprofessional, so I hope that the bitterness mostly stops
with the writing guidelines.

Of course, were I in Justin's shoes, I'd be so amazingly bitter I'd
probably not accept a damn thing.

> Justin has seen weaknesses in crossover. He's also seen enough
crossover
> ideas that were complete crap. I personally would think that, given
those
> things, he wouldn't find crossover very pratical to work on printing.
It
> probably wouldn't sell.

I just disagree with the notion that crossover wouldn't sell. In my
experience, it's always a safe play to make more "kewl stuff," and let
everyone play their favorite pet character. Sell to the lowest common
denominator.

Not that crossover has to be a munchkin-fest, but it does tend to draw
some of the less desirable players. I think you'll get a lot more
mileage out of not making crossover on the grounds of principles (as
Justin's guidelines did) than on market grounds.

I think that Justin's right that a lot of personal horror gets lost in
crossover, and I generally prefer single-game stuff to crossover.

Mike (aetherson)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Wade Lahoda

unread,
Aug 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/1/99
to
Fred Mensch (fme...@nait.ab.ca) wrote:
: But that doesn't seem to be how your development works. You don't

: leave things vague like the other developers did. Ravnos died for
: 100% certain, and it's all spelled out OOC how it happened. No
: doubts, no mystery, no maneuverability in the canon. Furthermore,
: I'm sure every developer to date has had elements of the game that
: they don't like; the general approch is just to leave those alone
: or even to publish particularily intelligent submissions for them
: based on their own merit.
<snip>
: This is getting long so I should wrap it up. Basically, my complaint is

: this: why can't you be content to just add things to the game like the
: other developers instead of destroying or rewriting everything you don't
: like and narrowing the game's focus so?

My, how long did you say you've been following White Wolf?
Popular opinion is that this is how all the Developers work - they come
in and try and leave their mark on the game, which usually entails
destroying some previous work. Everyone has a vision of how the game
should be, and it's more or less the developer's perogative to try and
shape the game into his vision. It's the development cycle... Developer
comes in, says most of the previous stuff is shit, and either completely
ignores it and/or destroys it, and then proceeds to start shaping the
game in a new direction...until a new developer comes on board.

Admittedly, if all the developers had made a real effort to stay
'true' to MR*H's original vision, we'd have a lot more coherent game.
But they didn't. As a result, what vampire really is, is a series of
related games - MR*H's Vampire, Rob Hatch's Vampire, Achilli's Vampire,
etc, etc. Which is annoying for the fanboys, yes. Especially if you
like one particular Developer's vision over the others - myself, I'm a
big MR*H worshipper. Nothing will ever compare to his original stuff.
But that doesn't mean some of the other stuff isn't worthwhile. It's
just different, and I try to fit it to my MR*H-inspired vision of the
game. I'm not saying this is either good or bad, it's just the way White
Wolf works.

Incidentally... I have no clue how White Wolf *Really* works.
This is just the fanboy perception. To the *outside*, it looks like each
developer is trying desperately to undo the work of previous developers
and stamp "Mine" all over the game. It probably doesn't work like this
in acctuallity. I'd hate to think that all the Developers hated their
predecessors so much. So, to any WWer who reads this...I'm not really
accusing you of being petty, possesive, and angry... I'm just saying that
that is what it looks like from the outside. If you wish to explain the
'War of the Developers' thing from the insider's point of view, go
ahead. =)

A. Wade Lahoda
ab...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca

Tiama'at

unread,
Aug 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/2/99
to
aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com>, traitor and Fallen.

>I just disagree with the notion that crossover wouldn't sell. In my
>experience, it's always a safe play to make more "kewl stuff," and let
>everyone play their favorite pet character. Sell to the lowest common
>denominator.
>
>Not that crossover has to be a munchkin-fest, but it does tend to draw
>some of the less desirable players. I think you'll get a lot more
>mileage out of not making crossover on the grounds of principles (as
>Justin's guidelines did) than on market grounds.
>
>I think that Justin's right that a lot of personal horror gets lost in
>crossover, and I generally prefer single-game stuff to crossover.


And there is *nothing* saying you can't use a single-game story as a
crossover. Look at Gio Chronicles 4 - the time line is brief enough to
use a Mummy, some Garou (not every 80yo shifter is rank 5 - maybe rank 3
with a crippling scar), a Mage (imagine the 1920s-30s part with the
newly renamed Hollow Ones running around) or really anything. Use
Werwolf:Dark Ages to have your pack of Silver Fangs and Shadow Lords
participate in the Anarch Wars from the TChronicles.

Changelings get peeved at the Loom of Fate events messing with their
summer festival plans.

And Fianna and Bastet get roped into the Quest for the Silver Road.

Tiama'at
--
Matthew Hickey aka Tiama'at ][ WS/Soc (H) III - Carleton U
matthe...@hotmail.com ][ "Hold On To Nothing
ICQ: 12954569 (Tiama'at) ][ As Fast As You Can" - T.A.

jonatha...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/2/99
to
In article <ZQmo3.1095$k34....@newshog.newsread.com>,

"Justin R. Achilli" <jach...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> I thought some people might get some mileage out of this. It will soon
> supplement the old submission guidelines.

<snip>

> o Crossover: I'm the guy at the office who hates this the most. Mixing
> the various World of Darkness supernaturals almost invariably comes at
> the expense of the games' horror and leans it toward a disparate mix of
> random superpowers.

In which case, why the hell did you allow the mess at the end of ToTB?
Here is a classic example of a cross over action; Technocracy, Werewolves
and KotE all getting involved.

OK, so you offed Ravnos with it (good choice, useless clan!) but making
this canon sets precedents for crossovers. Make you mind up, please.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Justin R. Achilli

unread,
Aug 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/2/99
to
In article <37a8623d.255324463@news> , che...@home.com (Brian Merchant)
wrote:

> In the dying days of the second millennium, Justin R. Achilli wrote:
>>I thought some people might get some mileage out of this. It will soon
>>supplement the old submission guidelines.

> <snip>
>
> That's it, Justin. I must worship you as a god now. What color would you
> like the altar cloths to be?

Um... blue.

> [Every god must have a flaw, and yours is that you used the word "proactive".]

Hey, at least I didn't say "paradigm." Or "brilliant."

Regards,
Justin

--
[Justin R. Achilli]
[Vampire: The Masquerade Developer]
[jach...@white-wolf.com]

"I would go out tonight, but
I haven't got a stitch to wear."
-- The Smiths, "This Charming Man"

Justin R. Achilli

unread,
Aug 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/2/99
to
In article <37A28577...@nait.ab.ca> , Fred Mensch <fme...@nait.ab.ca>
wrote:

> Justin R. Achilli wrote:
>> I thought some people might get some mileage out of this. It will soon
>> supplement the old submission guidelines.
>
> Ok - firstly, thank you for sharing. I don't mean to be uncivil, but
> you did post this to an open forum so I don't think I'm out of line.
> For a very long time I've had a strong dislike of many of the decisions
> you have made in developing Vampire; here I'm going to try to say why.
> I'm not trying to bitch, but I do hope I can express what I don't
> like about this in an intelligent and respectful manner.

No problem. That's what the newsgroup is for.

>> Vampire is a game of personal, gothic horror. That's "gothic," not "goth."
>> Some vampires are goths, sure, but we're more concerned with the intricacies
>> of becoming a monster and the literary meaning of gothic than we are with
>> lyrics from Apoptygma Berzerk songs.
>
> Ok - I'm no Goth; I'm the guy who was suprised to learn that Blood Dolls
> exist outside the WoD four years ago. But nonetheless V:tM has some very
> Goth elements, and some enhance the game. I'll agree that taking it too
> far leads to trendy hip vampires instead of monsters, which I don't
> like.

Understand that I'm talking about the larger body of vampires. As I think
was obvious in those notes, every vampire is an individual, and I'm more
than willing to throw any of my personal ideals away in favor of a vampire
who _truly believes_ in what she does. If a vampire needs to be a goth, so
be it.

My point was that attaching oneself inseparably to one subculture --
especially one that is off-putting to many people -- is not a good way to
draw vessels to oneself. That's also my point about vampires having grand
senses of style and grace (both of which I included as Secondary Abilities,
for _players_ who aren't necessarily as smooth as their characters ;). If
you're a shecky-looking vampire, few people are going to be mesmerized by
your charms and want to "get to know you," which makes feeding difficult.
It's the survival of the fittest for a vampire to be attractive, and I have
to admit a predilection for fashion magazines colors how I envision
vampires.

That said, going back to the (more-important) individual aspect, there's
nothing wrong with playing an "average looking" vampire. In fact, it's
probably very interesting, as he has concerns that other vampires take for
granted. That's why I included things like Sarah's "Vampire Dad" in ToTB and
made sure not all the justicars and archons in CotN weren't
Presence-Cannons.

>> Vampire is about normal people who have been Embraced into a World of
>> Darkness and turned into predatory monsters. It is a game of horror, of both
>> the internal and external varieties. Each vampire is only half man -- the
>> other half is a ravenous, bloodthirsty Beast. Vampires' worlds fall apart:
>> Mortals they love die, things they held dear now linger out of reach, they
>> prey upon what they once were. They have been utterly cursed. To ease the
>> pain -- or to escape what they have become -- they pretend to be mortal.
>> They place elaborate social rules and grand Jyhads before themselves, hoping
>> to divert their attention from their own bestial natures. They cling
>> desperately to the vestiges of their humanity. Their unlives are tragic,
>> doomed attempts to stave off the unnatural forces that lurk within them all.
>
> I'll agree that that's *part* of what Vampire is about, and your writing
> does bring that out quite skillfully. But it isn't the whole, and to be
> quite honest to my tastes it's far from the most important element. I
> have friends who like the who "personal horror" element and so I try to
> bring it out when Storytelling. But there's a whole lot more to the core
> themes of Vampire then just this.

Here's where we'll have to agree to disagree. The most central thing to a
vampire is the monster he has become. In light of _everything else_ he says,
does, wears, fights, schemes, or seduces, he will still be a vampire when
the sun rises -- forever.

> I've always, contrary to the back of the book, thought that Vampire was
> a
> game of *political* horror. Not the inane, dull scheming you get a bad
> LARPs, but true intrigue-horror as of The Pelican Brief or The X-Files.
> Politics where people get hurt - badly. I've always said the most
> monsterous
> things vampires do have nothing to do with being vampires and everything
> to do with being people. The societies are by and far the most
> interesting
> part of Vampire to me. The game has some very strong aspects of social
> satire and black comedy - vampires aren't real, but diseased, paranoid
> societies are; that Camarilla politics can be found in all their
> visciousness
> in any high school is, IMO, one of the coolest aspects of the game.

I like it, too, but I like it as an outgrowth of the personal motivations of
the vampires who wield the power. Much like an X-Files or other conspiracy
tale, these schemes take place at the whim of those pulling the strings.

I have always disliked the idea of "Vampire as team sport." Just because I'm
a Brujah doesn't mean I like any other Brujah. This once again returns to
the individualism thing, but I can't think of a single rationale for all
Kindred of a certain clan/sect/whatever to like and cooperate with each
other just because they happened to be Embraced by people who have some
common ancestor somewhere. In fact, I think this reinforces the "conspiracy"
aspect because one truly has no one to trust.

> And there's so much more to Vampire then just this. I _like_ personal
> horror, and I think you and Rob Hatch do those elements better than
> any previous developers. But they aren't to me the only or the pivotal
> elements of the game, and in recent supplements it feels like personal
> horror is beginning to exclude many of the other elements that I like.

Again, here's where we differ. I think the Beast _is_ the pivotal point of
the game. I do like the politics, however (albeit less centrally than you
do), and I think the clans and sects are good vehicle for them. I haven't
thrown _them_ out ;)

>> In fact, White Wolf has put out consistently crappy books since
>> (1) you started writing for them.
>> (2) Justin Achilli took over Vampire.
>> (3) they stopped using Sisters of Mercy quotes to open every subsection of
>> text.
>> (4) they came into existence, yet I still buy every book, if only to give me
>> new reasons to complain and find a surrogate victim for my own feelings of
>> inadequacy and self-loathing.
>
> I can empathize with your frusteration after the amount of inane
> criticism and outright flaming you get. I want to say I'm not trying
> to insult you personally in any way, and for the record your writing
> is very intelligent and well-thought out. But I and a number of other
> people do see negative elements in your current development and since
> this was posted to Usenet I feel justified in trying to explain why.

Loaded wording. "Negative elements." Things that you personally don't like
aren't by nature bad. Opinion is unquantifiable.

>> The personal aspect rests upon the role of the characters. We don't need
>> books in which clans/sects/coteries are faceless, monolithic entities that
>> exist only to serve the greater agenda. Sure, the Toreador involve
>> themselves in the worlds of art and mortals, but what motivates them
>> individually? Clans are not fraternities that gather for Spring Rush or to
>> take over the Brujah primogen's crime syndicate. Sects are not giant
>> companies or armed forces that unite to war with the infidels or "control"
>> (damn, I hate that word) cities (even though they may say otherwise, as is
>> the case with some particularly fervent Sabbat or Assamites). Rather, clans
>> are more like families and sects are more like social societies, and when
>> was the last time the Achillis or the goths banded together to drive the
>> Methuselahs from the city? Focus on the individual -- the intent is to show
>> the unique nature of being a vampire, not to join an eternal, undying
>> corporation as a pathetic servant. Nothing inherent to clan or sect
>> membership ties a vampire to a "party line," and it's more likely for a
>> conniving Ventrue to plot against other Ventrue than it is for him to shake
>> his fist at a cadre of black-biker-jacket-wearing Brujah gangstaz. Princes
>> don't just "hang out" on velvet thrones, and not all Sabbat are
>> molotov-tossing psychotics.
>
> There's a lot of truth in this, but there is a strong political/societal
> element that clans and sects add to Vampire. Stereotypes do exist for a
> reason, and the "Ventrue surfer" from the VRev just seems inane to me.
> Vampire isn't wholly an individual game.

I disagree. Vampires are not colonies of like-minded drones, they are people
-- individuals -- who have been pulled into undeath. I like stereotypes
because it makes the characters who break them more valuable, both from the
"personal" aspect and the conspiratorial aspect.

> There's something that sets it
> apart from _Interview_ and _Dracula_, something completely unique in the
> history of the vampire genre: the element of vampire society.

That's precisely it: It's a society, it's social. It's not like Joe Ventrue
can't play for the Chiefs because he's on the Raiders. These social rules
exist and do indeed serve their sects and clans, but they may also be broken
to great effect.

Also, because they largely _are_ social rules, the consequences for them
come out through interpersonal (inter-Kindred?) contact. If you've got an
acquaintance in a Sabbat pack and I favor the Camarilla, we're going to have
some degree of static between us.

Don't get me wrong -- room certainly does exist for the sects and clans to
be distinct entities. But those entities are qualified only by the credence
the Kindred lend them.

> Clans _do_ work together. They are _conspiracies_. They aren't just
> gatherings of individual people who run off and do their own thing.
> And, at least in some _perfectly valid_ games, they insinuate themselves
> into mortal society and try to control it to their own ends. I'm not
> asking you to write about vampires controlling mortals if you don't
> want to, but is it necessary to go out of your way to ret-con every
> instance of them doing so in others' works?

"Control" is a peeve-word of mine. How do you "control" something? Vampires
do not click buttons on remote controls. They /influence/ others to take
their course of action.

My antipathy for the word comes largely from early vampire supplements, in
which "control" and "manipulated" were bandied about frequently. But we were
never told _how_ a vampire "controlled" such-and-such. And in my writers'
redlines, if they use those words, I mark them up and ask them for details.
Joe Ventrue is very powerful because he controls the police. What does this
mean? Nothing. But if Joe Ventrue has blackmailed a police detective or
dispatch officer, I'm given much more to work with. Also, staying away from
"control" makes the mortals more than mindless automatons who serve their
hidden masters' secret agendas. Which has been done to death and is nowhere
near realistic.

>> o Interesting Characters: This is such a hot button for me, I don't even
>> want to open it up. Just make your characters have whole personalities. The
>> idea of a "generic Malkavian" is pretty weak; everyone is an individual.
>> Also remember that your characters' concepts are not their clan or sect.
>> See? You're getting me started. Cool characters, please.
>
> I agree, but have yet to really see this in the newer work. The most
> interesting charecters for me were in Chicago by Night, because they
> seemed like people instead of strange things groomed from birth to be
> creatures of the night. I don't have CotN, so I can't evaluate your
> charecters very much,

This is why I won't do a Chicago 3rd. The first two were, IMO, too good for
me to try to follow up. I don't think there's anything I can offer the
Chicago plot arc that it hasn't done better than I could, and I'm not going
to make an inferior book. Yeah, they're a little dated by now, but they are
great.

> but the ones at the beginning story of the Sabbat
> book _really_ blew. (Sorry; just my opinion. Way too much random
> violence; way too little spirituality.)

I didn't see any need for them to be spiritual. In many ways, the embodied
the young Sabbat, thrown as pawns into their elders' "Great Jyhad." because
they had been fed so much propaganda that tehy believed it was the right
thing to do. _This_ is how I see sects and political maneuvering working.
(Not that it needs to be violence every time....)

>> o Monsters: I don't want florid tirades about eternal damnation, but I do
>> want to see that we're not dealing with fanged superheroes. Simple, but very
>> important
>
> Yes. I know you like the we-are-monsters thing, but does _every_
> supplement have to focus on it? It's part of the game, but it
> shouldn't engulf everything else.

Show me a vampire who's not a vampire.

[Agreement points snipped]

>> o The Young Ones: I like games that aren't infested with low-generation god
>> characters. A 13th-generation vampire is every bit as cool as the
>> fifth-generation Prince of Paris, and a damn sight more likely to be
>> believably played. Vampires already have an edge over the mortals among whom
>> they hide -- we don't need any more vertigo-inducing lists of mega-Traits.
>> Skew your writing to reflect the higher generations, unless you're writing
>> for sympathy with an older vampire.
>
> That's cool. Vampire should be able to support low-power, low-key games.
> Personally, though, I hate them. There's no fun being helpless in a
> world
> where everybody's bigger then you are - yes, it's dark, but IMO better
> stories come from higher power levels.

Not every story needs to focus on achieving something through power. An
infinte number of very interesting, very _personal_ stories may be told
without requiring that every be Eighth Generation or lower.

Not that I dislike elders' games. The Storytellers Handbook includes updated
information on running them.

> What I'm saying is _include_ low-key elements; don't _exclude_ epic
> ones.
> (And ToTB doesn't count. That was _so friggin huge_ that no average
> ancilla
> or elder could participate in any way more than a neonate could.)

I'm not. The Transylvania Chronicles are a case in point. I haven't actually
printed any stories for specifically _low-powered_ characters, but the
elders-and-ancilla have received two full chronicle arcs.

But if you choose not to use those -- I don't -- the game reflects the
tension of the modern nights through its young, desperate characters.

>> o Keep it Current: The Vampire setting is ultramodern, and a 600-year-old
>> jackass capering about in a velvet frock coat is gonna get waxed by the
>> Inquisition, if not other Kindred. Vampires enact their Masquerade by
>> following mortal trends, not by guzzling bloodwynnnne from crystal goblets
>> with their vampyre wyves and speaking fantasy roleplaying-influenced faux
>> Olde Englishe. Hey, you! Yeah, you; the Lord Byron doppelganger! I'm setting
>> you on fire because you look like a vampire!
>
> <grin> An amusing image, but again you're trying to exclude ideas.

What I'm trying to exclude are the unchallenging cliches.

> Some
> players might like the romantic-gothic flavor that anacronistic clothing
> and customs give to an older charecter.

And they're welcome to it. But that's pretty much a stock trope. If you want
to play like that, you don't need supplementary material because those ideas
spring so easily to mind.

> I personally, am less fond of
> it,
> but some of my players really like it. I have had four charecters who
> carry
> swords in the modern day, although they do it intellegently and
> cautiously.
> It annoys me a bit, but they players seem to like it. And then there's
> that
> blurb in the Orphans' Suirvival Guide that says if you carry a sword in
> the
> modern day, that's just _wrong_. It's not an option, it's bad
> roleplaying.
> Personally, if the WoD can absorb all the daily wierdness it does,
> including
> Sabbat and Marauder antics, it can certainly suffer a few sword-bearers
> without shattering the Masquerade. I know you didn't write OSG, but I
> get
> the same vibe from your writing here.

Actually, I wrote that very part.

If you're walking around with a sword, trouble is going to find you. If you
walk around with an unconcealed weapon of _any type_, trouble is going to
find you.

>> Seriously, show us how hip and cutting-edge vampires are.
>
> *wince* Ok, that one was _much_ worse then the whole sword-carriers
> thing.
> Julian's big pet peeve: every vampire has to be hip, trendy, stylish,
> seductive and sexy.

No they don't. It makes their unlives easier. If they're attractive, people
will come to them. Wolves in sheep's clothing. Not every vampire _has_ to be
this way -- just like not every Tremere _has_ to be pals with every other
Tremere.

> Vampires _aren't_ hip in my games. I'm probably the
> only player on earth who plays a Kindred that can't pick up members of
> the
> opposite gender because s/he's to shy, awkward, homely or all of the
> above.
> Now I know some players like to play stylish, seductive undead. But it
> should be an option, not a mandate.

Everything is an option. This is just how -- in my estimation -- most
vampires do it. In your estimation, clan and sect have greater gravity.
Neither of us is wrong.

>> o Stuff We Haven't Done for a Reason: No Clanbook: Samedi or Secrets of the
>> Inconnu, please. It's hard enough to keep the mystery without turning over
>> every rock in Vampire's backyard. Maybe these books will come out at some
>> point, but if they do, it's because Vampire needs them and not because the
>> eight millionth "I think Samedi are cool" submission was the straw that
>
> I agree on the Inconnu, but a book giving some culture, substance and
> humanity to the bloodlines would be really cool. But it doesn't fit
> your view of Vampire, so it won't be printed.

That's right. Because I don't think it would make up in use what it
sacrificed in mystery. And you know what? Stanley Kubrick never made a movie
about invisible, fire-spitting space rocket ninjas. It didn't fit his view
of movies. So?

>> I'm a bitter, resentful jerk, and I'm more likely to
>> not print a book out of spite than to be won over by fawning over a pet idea
>> (see below).
>
> I presume this is sarcasm and bitterness. If it's serious, then you're
> just a poor developer.

Of course it's sarcasm.

>> o Crossover: I'm the guy at the office who hates this the most. Mixing the
>> various World of Darkness supernaturals almost invariably comes at the
>> expense of the games' horror and leans it toward a disparate mix of random
>> superpowers. That, and the systems of the different games don't work well
>> together. Werewolves don't even have tribes in Vampire; they're almost
>> always unknowable "Lupines." Other supernaturals follow suit. Send crossover
>> to someone else and keep Vampire out of it if you know what's good for you.
>
> Ok. Realize I've run _nothing but_ crossover for the last four years.
> Understandably this attitude pisses me off. What you're saying is this:
> no matter how good, intellegent or provocative a crossover supplement
> that graces your desk is, it will be automatically dismissed because
> it's crossover. I don't like crossover games, so I'm going to make sure
> that nothing is ever printed for them,

Not exactly true. Ethan and I have loosely discussed doing a crossover
chronicle. What I'm against is the "Legion of Superheroes"-style crossover,
in which no one pays any attention to the fact that they're monsters, but
damn, don't they have kewl powerz to choose from! I'm not going to pander to
that. Believe me, if we shat together a book called "Rage Across
Autochthonia by Night" it would sell like a motherfucker, but none* of us is
willing to compromise our game line's theme to do that.

* Actually, I'm sure at least one of us would. And it wouldn't even be
mercenary me.

If it's _good_ I'll consider it. I haven't seen much that qualifies as good
in my opinion in this vein.

> and I'm even going to complain
> if someone uses vampires in a supplement for a different game line.

Very true. No one else develops Vampire. This is a line where developers
have mutually agreed to respect each other's ability to do their jobs. I've
already jokingly threatened other developers: Print something stupid about
vampires and in the next book, all vampires will have a Discipline that does
13 aggravated damage per dot to their supernaturals.

I'm not against using pieces of the World of Darkness in conjunction with
others -- it _is_ a _world_, after all. I'm against stuffing the rules
together and forcing them to work -- which they don't and aren't intended
to. And I'm also against the shiny-happy rainbow-coalition coterie of
everybody's Drac Pack best friends.

>> Blade -- Um, see, there are these 13 cla-- er, houses, right? And they have
>> mortal minions called ghou-- uh, familiars. Oh well. The vampires in Blade
>> were certainly very sexy and ultra-modern-hip-cool, and Steven Dorff's
>> performance was excellent. Plus, New Order was on the soundtrack and played
>> during the phenomenal opening scene, so you can't go wrong.
>
> Personally, I think that if "sexy" and "ultra-modern-hip-cool" are
> viable, mature and thought-provoking options for a Vampire game,
> there's no good reason why crossover can't be as well.

Because Vampire is intended to reflect the themes that vampire stories tell.
If Vampire was better suited to werewolves, we'd have done something wrong.

> I really,
> _really_ hate any description of Vampire involving "hip", but I
> have no problem dealing with it in the books and even bring those
> elements into my games at times. I wish you could take the same
> attitude to crossover.

"Crossover" isn't the presence of elements of other games. "Crossover" is
making universal cohesion between game lines. It don't exist and it never
will. Does your mage have to see if her Humanity drops if she kills someone?
No. So stuffing that into a _Vampire_ game would screw it up -- the mage can
kill with merriment while the vampires break down into emotional wrecks
every time that take one blood point too many. That's not a sensible game.

Again, the other elements of the World of Darkness are there, but the
context of _Vampire_ is that the Kindred don't understand them. Anyone with
access to enough books can see that the Technocracy had a hand in the
destruction of the Ravnos Antediluvian, but if you can show me the word
"Technocracy" in that Appendix, I'll give you a hundred dollars.

> I guess my biggest problem with your development in Vampire is how
> exclusive it is. You do add things to the game - elements of tension
> and prophecy in the Final Nights, a strong development of the "I'm a
> monster" theme and a lot of good material for low-key games. But you
> are, as far as I can see (and I haven't read your rationales on
> everything) determined not to publish or even allow to exist anything
> that doesn't coincide with your "vision" of the game.

Right. Microsoft doesn't make sports cars either. What's the problem?

> And that's sad. There isn't any One True Way to play Vampire, everyone
> did it differently. Some people played tragically hip clove-cigarette
> smoking anarchs out to kick the system. Other people played the monsters
> that your view of the game fits. Others played charecters and didn't
> stress the "vampire" bit overmuch, like Lestat is Memnoch the Devil:
> (paraphrased) "Yeah, I happen to be a vampire, but this could have
> happened to anyone." Others played a more paranoid, gloomy, thoughful
> game as described in Elysium and DSotBH. Some people even played the
> gun-wielding revenge fantasy you describe above. Some Storytellers
> built chronicles around adventure where the players were basically
> heroes seeking to uncover a lost sercet or save a Ward. Some people
> played grim, street level chronicles; others played Sabbat charecters
> completely seperated from humanity. Everyone did it different.

So what's stopping them from doing that now? Andrew never published a book
about playing vampires during the dark ages....

> Me? Personally, I played games that were one part cloak and dagger
> intrigue, one part societal satire and one part personal drama. My
> favourite player charecter, my Assamite, is thematically "about"
> fanaticism, faith, honor and how these interact with human nature.
> The fact that he - and most of my other charecters, for that matter -
> are vampires is just window dressing.

Then why bother playing Vampire at all? If the fact that they're vampires is
so cursory, why not cut it out and play a "noble assassin" in some other
system?

> And you know what? The books supported that. They were what Jason
> Corley described - a "toolkit" with which a Storyteller and players
> could build whatever setting they wanted. Andrew Greenburg developed
> the intrigue and politics, MR*H got the angst and trendyness, Rob
> Hatch got the grime and street level elements and other developers
> all added their own visions and ideas into thw whole.

That's what developers do.

> But that doesn't seem to be how your development works. You don't
> leave things vague like the other developers did. Ravnos died for
> 100% certain, and it's all spelled out OOC how it happened. No
> doubts, no mystery, no maneuverability in the canon.

1) Then don't use the "canon."

2) I have spelled out exactly two things -- Ravnos' end and the passing of
Cappadocius' wraith. Your esteemed Chicago by Night had a list of 20+
characters who had irreversibly been killed in the second edition. There is
no difference. Use what you want and leave the rest aside.

> Furthermore,
> I'm sure every developer to date has had elements of the game that
> they don't like; the general approch is just to leave those alone
> or even to publish particularily intelligent submissions for them
> based on their own merit.

If I cut everything I didn't like, you'd be facing a radically different
game. I don't like most of the clans, I don't like the Camarilla as it
currently stands, I only nominally like the Sabbat, I think Golconda is dumb
and more than half of the Disciplines (IMO) shouldn't be.

> But you seem determined to edit out the things you don't like. Lets
> look at the "death toll" so far: Tremere antitribu, Ravnos, Enoch,
> crossover, Baba Yaga and probably more as well. Nor are your
> developments subtle enough for canon-followers to brush over them.

So who says they have to use my story arc?

> A Storyteller either has to abandon the canon or accept that you,
> Justin Achilli, are going to foist huge changes on them on a regular
> basis.

Well, if they can't make their own Storytelling decisions about what to
include and what not to, they aren't a very good Storyteller. I'd rather
work with the people who want to make and run their own games, and I
emphasize the importance of making one's chronicle unique in _every_ book I
publish. You're not running a game to see how close you can keep it to the
printed matter -- you're running it to entertain yourself and your troupe.

> It just seems to me that under past developers the books
> helped people run whatever kind of chronicle they wanted - from the
> military grade hardware in the back of VPG2 for twinks to CB:Toreador
> for the Goths to Ventrue Clanbook for conspiracy/intruge fans
> to Tzimisce ans Nosferatu for visceral horror to Players Guide to the
> Sabbat for dark philosophical meanderings to DSotBH and DA:Vancouver
> for the crossover crowd.

Too much. I argue that it lacked unity.

> I know that I can ignore the canon if I want - I am, as a matter of
> fact, you don't need to tell me. But now I practically _have_ to
> ignore the canon unless I want my Vampire game to be a cookie-cutter
> imprint of your "vision".

The moment your characters enter the game, you've broken "canon," because
none of your characters have been printed in our books. What's the big deal?

> Now, the books make it _harder_ to run
> other types of games instead of easier. They work _against_ me in
> planning my chronicle instead of _for_ me. Collectivley, the Black
> Hand, the Shadow Curtain, vampires _controlling_ mortals and personal
> horror in controllable doses instead of oozing from everything defined
> a lot of what I liked about Vampire.

Then use that. Use the hundred-plus pages of ToTB that _didn't_ talk about
Ravnos getting whacked. Use the vast majority of the subject matter that
generates story hooks instead of the background itself. The printed setting
needs to be nothing more than backstory -- if you decide to use it at all.

> This is getting long so I should wrap it up. Basically, my complaint is
> this: why can't you be content to just add things to the game like the
> other developers instead of destroying or rewriting everything you don't
> like and narrowing the game's focus so?

I have added more than you acknowledge, and I have destroyed less. Now that
the metaplot has become larger scale and it no longer matches your
backstory, it has become no more central to your game unless you want it to.

> -- Julian Mensch
> One World, One Truth, One Reality...
> and one approved flavor of Vampire: the Masquerade.

This statement undermines you. How would you being in my chair make the game
any better? Wouldn't we simply be playing in "your" world? You've stated
plainly that there is no One True Way to play Vampire and that's correct --
so don't tout yours as the One True Way.

Regards,
Justin

--
[Justin R. Achilli]
[Vampire: The Masquerade Developer]

[White Wolf Game Studio]
[jach...@white-wolf.com - www.white-wolf.com]
"He would have told us admirable things about the physical
and moral evils that cover the earth and the sea..."
-- Voltaire, _Candide_


Justin R. Achilli

unread,
Aug 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/2/99
to
In article <37a309ce.298227610@news> , che...@home.com (Brian Merchant)
wrote:

> In the dying days of the second millennium, Justin R. Achilli wrote:

> <snip>


>>o Crossover: I'm the guy at the office who hates this the most. Mixing the
>>various World of Darkness supernaturals almost invariably comes at the
>>expense of the games' horror and leans it toward a disparate mix of random
>>superpowers. That, and the systems of the different games don't work well
>>together. Werewolves don't even have tribes in Vampire; they're almost
>>always unknowable "Lupines." Other supernaturals follow suit. Send crossover
>>to someone else and keep Vampire out of it if you know what's good for you.
>

> How do you define crossover? I would need a *damn* good explanation for why
> Garou and Vampire (or Mage and Vampire, or Changeling and Mage, etc.) were
> hanging out together, but I use the other supernatirals as antagonists all the
> time. One of my Werewolf players has a Vampire enemy and he will definitely
> be a recurring element of the chronicle. And I made him an actual character
> with actual motivation, instead of the blood sucking monster the Werewolf book
> describes. He gets the same XP as the characters!
>
> Do you just mean no "Team Super: All One Big Happy Family", or do you mean no
> interaction between the types? If it's the former, I agree. If it's the
> latter, you are sacrificing and lot of stories on the altar of ideology.

The former. "Crossover" is not using the Technocracy -- never mentioned by
name! -- in ToTB to help eliminate the Ravnos Antediluvian. Crossover is
forming a legion of supernatural assbeaters, or grafting rules onto a
setting never meant to support them.

Power-up Vlad Blood-fountain with spinning Celerity Feral-Claws action!

Activate Yuri Wolf-Fangs with death-dealing Get of Fenris Gifts!

Awaken Frodo Giga-Bolt with mastery of Forces Sphere Magick!

Yeesh ;)

jonatha...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/2/99
to
In article <MCip3.3044$061.1...@monger.newsread.com>,

"Justin R. Achilli" <jach...@white-wolf.com> wrote:

The naughty c***s-o***r word raises it's "ugly" head:

> > Do you just mean no "Team Super: All One Big Happy Family", or do
> > you mean no interaction between the types?

> Crossover is forming a legion of supernatural assbeaters, or grafting


> rules onto a setting never meant to support them.

Thanx for explaining what YOU mean by crossover, this could explain why
so many of us are confused by an apparant conflict between your stance
and our experiences.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Bear

unread,
Aug 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/2/99
to
In article <7o3mkr$8rn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
jonatha...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <ZQmo3.1095$k34....@newshog.newsread.com>,

> "Justin R. Achilli" <jach...@white-wolf.com> wrote:

> > o Crossover: I'm the guy at the office who hates this the most.

...

> In which case, why the hell did you allow the mess at the end of ToTB?
> Here is a classic example of a cross over action; Technocracy,
> Werewolves and KotE all getting involved.
>

> OK, so you offed Ravnos with it ... but making this canon sets


> precedents for crossovers. Make you mind up, please.

I wouldn't describe the events at the end of ToTB as a "crossover", at
least, not in the context of a crossover game*. Each of the separate
supernatural groups approached the event from different directions and
had no idea that the other groups were involved (well, they might have
suspected, but they never met face to face). The whole point was to show
that this event was of such magnitude that the effects were felt all
over the World of Darkness, by all the Superanturals. All the
Changelings knew was that something affected the Dreaming in such a way
as to release a lot of Nightmares; there were no kithain at ground
zero...

*I've never played a crossover game. If such a game involves disparate
critters going about their business and never the twain shall meet (as
was effectively happening when Ravnos was being smacked down), then I'm
not sure I want to. The WoD novel "Pomegranates Fair and Fine" (?) is a
good example of a crossover that works; the fae and vampires there have
a reason to come together, and work towards a common goal.

--
Bear, Keeper of the Household

"Because they're stupid, that's why! That's why
everyone does everything!" Homer Simpson


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Sangraal

unread,
Aug 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/2/99
to
In article <ZQmo3.1095$k34....@newshog.newsread.com>, Justin R.
Achilli <jach...@white-wolf.com> writes

>I thought some people might get some mileage out of this. It will soon
>supplement the old submission guidelines.

Could you tell me, what sort of unsolicited materials get published? An
example might be edifying, which of the WoD supplements or scenarios
began their days as an unsolicited submission that arrived at the WWGS
office?

It's a pertinent question, since though a great many people on the NG
are competent writers and contribute, in some manner or other, to the
hobby (I mean, creatively, beyond just buying and using the games),
nonetheless, the sort of effort that would be put into a Vampire MS up
to the standards you're suggesting would be immense. Most of us would
be fascinated in adding another stone to the developing architecture of
the WoD - or else would just get off on seeing our name in print - but
your submission guidelines, though entertaining and incisive, give no
real clue as to the feasibility of this. Do you want proposals, or
extracts, or fully comprehensive MSS? What do the fellows at WWGS do
with submissions? What's a likely procedure if a submission is received
and deemed 'viable'? [Maybe this information is available somewhere on
the website, and I'm just too feckless to find it]

Personal Experience: A couple of years ago WWGS initiated a "Writers
All-Call" and I received a very cordial letter saying that WWGS liked my
submission and would use me as a writer. Now, the past two years were
far too chaotic for it to have been possible for me to undertake such a
project, but, intriguingly, nothing more came of it in any event. I
don't have an axe to grind, but I am wondering just how serious we are
to take invitations to submit material to WWGS. You seem to have no
shortage of excellent staff-writers and regular freelancers. Do you
_really_ want submissions? Or are you just trying to weed out the
dross, to ensure that the submissions you're (in reality) unlikely to
use are less of a chore to wade through?

Anyone else on this NG with happy experiences of making unsolicited
submissions to WWGS (or any other RPG company, for that matter) may feel
free to correct my scepticism.

--
Sangraal

Raindog

unread,
Aug 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/2/99
to

>In which case, why the hell did you allow the mess at the end of ToTB?
>Here is a classic example of a cross over action; Technocracy, Werewolves
>and KotE all getting involved.

Atthe risk of Justin kung-fuing my throat for making an
'official' pronouncement without being in any way an official voice:
As people have been saying for a year or two now, no crossovers
does not mean that the games are all set in seperate universes, it just
means that Your Choady Party of Overstatted Chunkmonkey Deathbringers
culled from five different games isn't going to get an official rulebook,
and that writers aren't going to think about what happens when you use a
certain Gift and a certain Arcanos art along with a particular Kuei-jin
Discipline to stage your own remake of Crossfire where all three
panelists are making conflicting arguments that are impossible to refute.
Yes, things in the WoD interact, but they do not all meet in a
bar and decide to become fast friends and have many exciting adventures
together. If they do, the rules for how to do it are left as an exercise
to the reader.

G.

--
|Geoffrey C. Grabowski|http://www.raindog.org|rai...@eyrie.org|SwingHeil!

Privacy invasion is the pollution of the 21st century

Patricia Willenborg

unread,
Aug 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/3/99
to
>The WoD novel "Pomegranates Fair and Fine" (?) is a
>good example of a crossover that works;

Pomegranates Full and Fine, by Don Bassingthwaite, as it were.
Patricia

"If you cannot find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to
find it?" ~ Dogen

The Livewire

unread,
Aug 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/3/99
to

Justin R. Achilli <jach...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:MCip3.3044$061.1...@monger.newsread.com...

Sounds like the front of Hengeyokai :-)

> [Justin R. Achilli]
> [Vampire: The Masquerade Developer]

The Livewire

Johnny Mayall

unread,
Aug 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/3/99
to
> >The WoD novel "Pomegranates Fair and Fine" (?) is a
> >good example of a crossover that works;

I /so/ read this as "Powergamers Fair and Fine". I didn't even
/realize/ it until I saw a follow-up that referenced it.

--
Johnny Mayall But the lies we live will always be
joh...@prometheus.frii.com confessed in the stories we tell.
prometheus.frii.com/~johnny/ -Orson Scott Card


Fred Mensch

unread,
Aug 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/3/99
to
Justin R. Achilli wrote:

> Understand that I'm talking about the larger body of vampires. As I think
> was obvious in those notes, every vampire is an individual, and I'm more
> than willing to throw any of my personal ideals away in favor of a vampire
> who _truly believes_ in what she does. If a vampire needs to be a goth, so
> be it.

We agree on this perfectly then.

> I have always disliked the idea of "Vampire as team sport." Just because I'm
> a Brujah doesn't mean I like any other Brujah. This once again returns to
> the individualism thing, but I can't think of a single rationale for all
> Kindred of a certain clan/sect/whatever to like and cooperate with each
> other just because they happened to be Embraced by people who have some
> common ancestor somewhere. In fact, I think this reinforces the "conspiracy"
> aspect because one truly has no one to trust.

I agree here somewhat, now that you qualify it more. I like to think
that
clans have some personality as clans, though. I think of a clan like a
religon or exclusive fraternity. Christians are as diverse as any group
on the planet, but they all (are supposed to) share the same ethos,
beliefs
about Christ and such. You won't find a Christian Athiest or a Christian
Satanist for good reason. Same with the clans.

> Again, here's where we differ. I think the Beast _is_ the pivotal point of
> the game.

> Loaded wording. "Negative elements." Things that you personally don't like


> aren't by nature bad. Opinion is unquantifiable.

I said "people do see", not "there are". Anyway, sorry for any offence.



> "Control" is a peeve-word of mine. How do you "control" something? Vampires
> do not click buttons on remote controls. They /influence/ others to take
> their course of action.

As I see it, control over a mortal orginization can be established
through
many means - Blood Bonding ruling members, insinuating ghouls, long-term
bribery, Presence-inspired seduction, etc. In many cases the mortal
order
has no choice but to comply with the vampire's requests - that's not
influence; it's outright bondage.



> dispatch officer, I'm given much more to work with. Also, staying away from
> "control" makes the mortals more than mindless automatons who serve their
> hidden masters' secret agendas. Which has been done to death and is nowhere
> near realistic.

I've always seen humanity as very different in the WoD; very oppressed
and
manipulated. It seems kind of flat to tell stories about world-spanning
conspiracies that don't really control anyone at all. Vampire society is
parasitic; it doesn't have nearly as much impact and takes a lot away
from
the conspiracy element if they haven't controlled some of human history.
Not _all_, not _most_ but at least some.



> This is why I won't do a Chicago 3rd. The first two were, IMO, too good for
> me to try to follow up. I don't think there's anything I can offer the
> Chicago plot arc that it hasn't done better than I could, and I'm not going
> to make an inferior book. Yeah, they're a little dated by now, but they are
> great.
>
> > but the ones at the beginning story of the Sabbat
> > book _really_ blew. (Sorry; just my opinion. Way too much random
> > violence; way too little spirituality.)
>
> I didn't see any need for them to be spiritual. In many ways, the embodied
> the young Sabbat, thrown as pawns into their elders' "Great Jyhad." because
> they had been fed so much propaganda that tehy believed it was the right
> thing to do. _This_ is how I see sects and political maneuvering working.
> (Not that it needs to be violence every time....)

I guess it just epitomized entirely too much of the Sabbat stereotype
for my taste. I'll have to reread, but I don't really remember them
being and mentioned Elder's pawns or having any higher goals whatever.
Average story, I guess, but certainly not what I see as the best
possible
to typify the Sabbat.



> >> o Monsters: I don't want florid tirades about eternal damnation, but I do
> >> want to see that we're not dealing with fanged superheroes. Simple, but very
> >> important
> >
> > Yes. I know you like the we-are-monsters thing, but does _every_
> > supplement have to focus on it? It's part of the game, but it
> > shouldn't engulf everything else.
>
> Show me a vampire who's not a vampire.
>
> [Agreement points snipped]


> Not every story needs to focus on achieving something through power. An
> infinte number of very interesting, very _personal_ stories may be told
> without requiring that every be Eighth Generation or lower.

Very rarely do mine - the charecters are moderately powerful, but they
don't throw Disciplines at problems commonly; they're far more likely
to talk it out, threaten or call upon Contacts or Influence. In fact,
IMO, ancilla-elders fight *less* than neonates, because they're a lot
more experienced in the ways of the world and a lot less ready to deal
with the consequences. Besides, personal stories can be told just as
effectivley with tougher charecters. Many of the stories I've told are
moral dilemmas, personal development lines or entirely inspired by the
tragic consequences of one minor action.


> Not that I dislike elders' games. The Storytellers Handbook includes updated
> information on running them.

Cool.



> I'm not. The Transylvania Chronicles are a case in point. I haven't actually
> printed any stories for specifically _low-powered_ characters, but the
> elders-and-ancilla have received two full chronicle arcs.

My apoligies then. I thought the TC line was Dark Ages stuff from
another
developer. My mistake.



> But if you choose not to use those -- I don't -- the game reflects the
> tension of the modern nights through its young, desperate characters.

Cool. I don't like it, but I wouldn't deny it to others.



> And they're welcome to it. But that's pretty much a stock trope. If you want
> to play like that, you don't need supplementary material because those ideas
> spring so easily to mind.

Fair enough; I didn't really think of that.



> Actually, I wrote that very part.
>
> If you're walking around with a sword, trouble is going to find you. If you
> walk around with an unconcealed weapon of _any type_, trouble is going to
> find you.

It depends how you see the Gothic-Punk world (and Arcane), I guess.
Philosophically, Subjective Reality is incoherant. Logistically, there's
no way the Sabbat could have stayed out of some news-reporter's
world-wide broadcast. I know they have a sorta-Masquerade, but IRL it
just wouldn't cut it. Logically, magic and the supernatural don't exist.

If I can suspend by disbelief of these to enjoy the games, I can do same
on swords - especially if players are smart about it. And that section
seemed the most sactimonious, "if you're doing this, you're doing it
_wrong_" I've ever read in any RPG book. The genre conventions of
_Highlander_ allow charecters to get away with carrying swords. Why
can't
the WoD be similar, especially given how much other wierd stuff flies?

(For the record, sword-bearers irritate me too; I just found the part
in OSG to be one of the strongest examples of your exclusion so I
figured
I'd mention it.)

> Not exactly true. Ethan and I have loosely discussed doing a crossover
> chronicle. What I'm against is the "Legion of Superheroes"-style crossover,
> in which no one pays any attention to the fact that they're monsters, but
> damn, don't they have kewl powerz to choose from! I'm not going to pander to
> that. Believe me, if we shat together a book called "Rage Across
> Autochthonia by Night" it would sell like a motherfucker, but none* of us is
> willing to compromise our game line's theme to do that.

Why do you automatically assume that all crossover games are twinkery?
From four years personal experience, they aren't. I'll admit a large
portion of twinks go for crossover, but the same is true of Werewolf.
Just because the twinks like it doesn't mean it's inherantly bad.

> If it's _good_ I'll consider it. I haven't seen much that qualifies as good
> in my opinion in this vein.

Ok. I know your hear more than enough of this, but to offer as an
example
here's one crossover game I ran that I feel wasn't twinky and stayed
true
to the themes in question:

It was a Dark Ages game; the charecters were a Diadne (Verbena) mage and
a
Solicitor wraith. They had a lot of reason to work together - they were
both
pagans in a Christian world. Furthermore, the charecters' background
inter-
twined; the wraith died being burnt at the stake as a witch because of
the
mage's acts, and the mage had to try and make recompensanse to her. The
mage's Mentor also had serious ties to Shadowland politics.

The "core" theme in the game was the overwhelming, frightening power of
the
Catholic church in this period, contrasted with the individual, healthy
spiritualities of different charecters both Christian and pagan. The
events
of the game eventually brought in all five races over the course of 40+
sessions in significant ways that were natural instead of forced.

For example, the mage being Diadne naturally brought about hostility
toward
the Tremere, and the Salubri's pacifist martyrdom worked as a wonderful
contrast to the Diadne's vengeful violence. The group also picked up a
Lasombra neonate NPC that stayed around for much of the adventure and
(as one of the future founders of Power and the Inner Voice) helped the
wraith reconcile her spiritual needs with her inherantly power-hungry
nature and Solicitor membership. The wraith even had the honor of acting
as a Solicitor ambassador at a gathering of Les Amines Noir.

The werewolves fit in pretty naturally as well, leading to all kinds of
problems when the male mage broke into a sacred women-only part of a BF
caern to try and commune with his Goddess. A hell of a lot more than
just
this happened, but you surely don't want to be regailed with endless
tales of my game.

Suffice it to say that I feel all the themes of Mage, Wraith and DA were
preserved in that game. The mage made a deviously evil Shadowguide,
all three Seekings were played through, as were Harrowings, the mage's
Avatar had a face and personality and we didn't skimp on tiny,
personal interactions that didn't affect the plot much but had a great
deal of emotional impact on the players. One time a player even had to
leave the table because he got so worked up. We also brought in a lot
of the themes from the other three games - the Salubri extermination
typified both humanity and the Beast better than I've ever seen in any
other game, Werewolf contributed heavily to the pagan spirituality
element and there were even some elements of Glanmour (parts of the
game had a very mythic feel, and it even included a quest for the
literal, mythical Fountain of Youth that was heavily Changeling-
influenced).

In short, what I'm trying to get across here is that there are many
people running crossover games that have a great deal of depth,
intelligence and evocative storytelling. It's *hard* to Storytell
crossover well - you're right about that - and it would be nice
if the gamebooks at least gave us a nod every now and then with
neat little hooks and points of possible interaction between the
societies.

By the way, what did you think of WoD: Hong Kong? Blood Dimmed Tides?
Isle of the Mighty? Aren't these examples of good crossover?

In a week or two I'll be posting a long Usenet post called "The
Crossover
FAQ" or something along those lines explaining how I do crossover and
offering hints and advice to other Storytellers attempting same. If you
have time, I'd urge you to take a peek and see if anything I have to
say intrests you at all.

> I'm not against using pieces of the World of Darkness in conjunction with
> others -- it _is_ a _world_, after all. I'm against stuffing the rules
> together and forcing them to work -- which they don't and aren't intended
> to. And I'm also against the shiny-happy rainbow-coalition coterie of
> everybody's Drac Pack best friends.

In all honestly, a "coterie" composed of a Syndicate mage, a Ventrue
vamp,
a Glass Walker and a Ursurer makes a lot more sense to me then a cabal
consisting of a Celestial Choruser, Virtual Adept, Verbena and a
Hollower.
But that's just me.

As for the rules... well, many many players around the globe are running
crossover games with multiple PC charecter types and I'm well aware the
rules don't work together perfectly. It would be really nice to get a
book
that adresses this at least to some degree, because many troupes need
it,
they aren't going to stop running crossovers and they aren't inherantly
twinks just for doing so.



> "Crossover" isn't the presence of elements of other games. "Crossover" is
> making universal cohesion between game lines. It don't exist and it never
> will. Does your mage have to see if her Humanity drops if she kills someone?
> No. So stuffing that into a _Vampire_ game would screw it up -- the mage can
> kill with merriment while the vampires break down into emotional wrecks
> every time that take one blood point too many. That's not a sensible game.

For the record, I don't *ever* want vampire Disciplines explained in the
context of subjective reality or Banality relegated to an aspect of the
Weaver. That's not in the slightest what I'm asking for.

Humanity is a vampire thing; the counter to the Beast Within. Mages
don't
have Beasts; ergo no Humanity score. I really don't see any problem
there. Most mages can't kill with impunity - their conscience, their
friends and their goal of Ascension prevent it. Some can and do, as can
many vampires - those following Paths. Vampires have Humanity; mages
have
Ascension and never shall the twain meet. That doesn't mean they can't
both be played as PCs in the same game without losing the importance of
Ascension and Via.


> Again, the other elements of the World of Darkness are there, but the
> context of _Vampire_ is that the Kindred don't understand them. Anyone with
> access to enough books can see that the Technocracy had a hand in the
> destruction of the Ravnos Antediluvian, but if you can show me the word
> "Technocracy" in that Appendix, I'll give you a hundred dollars.

The ToTB scenario is not a strong point to bring up with me, but it's
already published so I don't see any point arguing about my problems
with it. You wrote it, lots of other people liked it - enough said.



> > I guess my biggest problem with your development in Vampire is how
> > exclusive it is. You do add things to the game - elements of tension
> > and prophecy in the Final Nights, a strong development of the "I'm a
> > monster" theme and a lot of good material for low-key games. But you
> > are, as far as I can see (and I haven't read your rationales on
> > everything) determined not to publish or even allow to exist anything
> > that doesn't coincide with your "vision" of the game.
> Right. Microsoft doesn't make sports cars either. What's the problem?

See below; I'll try to explain what I mean.

>
> > And that's sad. There isn't any One True Way to play Vampire, everyone
> > did it differently. Some people played tragically hip clove-cigarette
> > smoking anarchs out to kick the system. Other people played the monsters
> > that your view of the game fits. Others played charecters and didn't
> > stress the "vampire" bit overmuch, like Lestat is Memnoch the Devil:
> > (paraphrased) "Yeah, I happen to be a vampire, but this could have
> > happened to anyone." Others played a more paranoid, gloomy, thoughful
> > game as described in Elysium and DSotBH. Some people even played the
> > gun-wielding revenge fantasy you describe above. Some Storytellers
> > built chronicles around adventure where the players were basically
> > heroes seeking to uncover a lost sercet or save a Ward. Some people
> > played grim, street level chronicles; others played Sabbat charecters
> > completely seperated from humanity. Everyone did it different.
>
> So what's stopping them from doing that now? Andrew never published a book
> about playing vampires during the dark ages....

Nothing in earlier Vampire books activley forced me to deviate from
canon to run the game the way I enjoyed. I ignored stuff I didn't
like, but none of it was really "invasive". My "vision" didn't clearly
match either Mr. Greenburg's or Mr. Hatch's, but their books were
flexible, open and vague enough not to require me to tear apart the
system to play the game I wanted.

Under your aegis I have to sit a new player down and explain how
different everything I run is. Ravnos lives. Baba Yaga lives. Almost
all the Assamites and Settites are on Paths; same for Sabbat. The
vampires are much closer to the other supernaturals than the books
imply. There are no 14th+ generation vampires. The Justicars are
much tougher than in CotN, and none of the NPCs in that book exist
in my games. The Sabbat is about spirituality, not violence. The
Gangrel are all still in the Camarilla. Basically, I just say "Ok,
ignore everything changed in 3rd Edition Vampire." You've changed
the world so much that most future vampire supplements aren't
really that useful to me, so I don't buy them.

The game just seems a lot less flexible and open and a lot more
fixed and limiting. I know I can change whatever I want, but it
doesn't help. Now the books impede what I'm trying to do instead
of aiding it.



> > Me? Personally, I played games that were one part cloak and dagger
> > intrigue, one part societal satire and one part personal drama. My
> > favourite player charecter, my Assamite, is thematically "about"
> > fanaticism, faith, honor and how these interact with human nature.
> > The fact that he - and most of my other charecters, for that matter -
> > are vampires is just window dressing.
>
> Then why bother playing Vampire at all? If the fact that they're vampires is
> so cursory, why not cut it out and play a "noble assassin" in some other
> system?

In this specific case, because the Storyteller decided we were all going
to make Vampire charecters, so that's what I made. But for an answer to
the more general, unspoken question ("Why play V:tM then?") here's what
I have.

* Because it's got a cool world, developed cultures and lots of
interesting
plots that just happen to be about vampires.
* Because the five WoD games are the only games I know of that are both
set
in the real world, have lots of supplements and development and
encourage
intelligent roleplay.
* For that matter, although I like other games, I play Vampire and the
other
four because IMO they are the most intelligent and thought-provoking
RPGs
currently on the market, the only "interpretive" instead of "escapist"
RPGs, to use Engligh 20 terms.
* And because the Humanity/Beast issue can, *in moderation*, lead to
very
mature, intelligent and insightful roleplay.

Don't get me wrong, I play vampres, not normal people with fangs. But I
don't
base the charecter around being a vampire. Isrifi is a person first,
Assamite
second, vampire third. The fact that he's a bloodsucking corpse
following an
inhuman path certainly affects gameplay; it just isn't the most
important part.



> 1) Then don't use the "canon."

But I *like* using canon. Seems like a stupid, contrary complaint, I
know.
Let me put it this way: previously I could run the game the way I liked
and stay within canon. Now I either have to toss out canon and lose all
the advantages thereof (fluidly dynamic setting, heavily developed
world,
players' foreknowledge of the world and ability to integrate that into
charecter concepts) or accept it complete with all the wierd shit that I
don't like.

> 2) I have spelled out exactly two things -- Ravnos' end and the passing of
> Cappadocius' wraith. Your esteemed Chicago by Night had a list of 20+
> characters who had irreversibly been killed in the second edition. There is
> no difference. Use what you want and leave the rest aside.

That's a difference of scope. One Antediluvian's death will surely
affect
every chronicle everywhere in some manner, and would have affected mine
immensely with a Ravnos PC and many Ravnos NPCs of long-term development
had I used it. Blood Red Moon, on the other hand, only affects Chicago,
even though twenty Kindred die.



> If I cut everything I didn't like, you'd be facing a radically different
> game. I don't like most of the clans, I don't like the Camarilla as it
> currently stands, I only nominally like the Sabbat, I think Golconda is dumb
> and more than half of the Disciplines (IMO) shouldn't be.

Ouch - ok, fair enough. But why nuke Enoch? DSotBH was specifically set
up so that it wouldn't affect the games of those Storytellers who don't
like it - it'll simply never come in to play. Why blow up one of the
coolest places in Vampire if not to "exclude" it?



> Too much. I argue that it lacked unity.

Then you at least acknowledge that your vision is more "unified"
(IMO, exclusive and limiting) then the previous developers? This
is the core of my problem with it. And for the record I'm not
trying to tell you you "can't" do this. Vampire is yours now;
you have every right to do with it as you please. But I have
same right to complain about things I don't like. I will at least
try to remain respectful, however.

> This statement undermines you. How would you being in my chair make the game
> any better? Wouldn't we simply be playing in "your" world? You've stated
> plainly that there is no One True Way to play Vampire and that's correct --
> so don't tout yours as the One True Way.

Ok, to be fair that was sarcasm and thus hurtful and inappropriate; I do
apoligize. I was feeling really frusterated about the "no crossover"
element in your guidelines. To be fair, you are equally sarcastic
regaiding
crossover games.

In answer to your question, how would I do (IMO) better if I were
developer?
Well, I'd try to publish books that cater to different visions of
Vampire
instead of just mine. Look at Book of Worlds and Orphans' Survival Guide
-
those are two completely different approaches to Mage. Same for Vampire.
I wouldn't dare remove the stylish and sexy elements of Vampire, even
though
I hate them. I might focus on them less but I'd try to keep them in
there
because I know the fans like them and they are a part of vampire. I'd
try to
publish something political, something personally horrific, something
sexy,
something involving crossover, even the occasional appeal to the twinks
ala
Freak Legion or Diablerie: City X. Of course, I might dote more on the
projects
that appeal to me personally, but I'd try to make sure that my vision
for
the game didn't eclipse anybody else's.

And if I did a metaplot, I'd do it in such a way that any given troupe
can
become involved in it, but if they don't it won't change their chronicle
overmuch unexpectedly - and it's put it in a metaplot-book or two
instead
of scattered all throughout the books of the line. In short, I'd do it
much
like Shadowrun's Dunkhelzahn metaplot, which has very little potential
to
radically mess up games unlike (IMO) ToTB.

> Regards,
> Justin
>

-- Julian Mensch

Ethan Skemp

unread,
Aug 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/3/99
to
Fred Mensch wrote:

> > Not exactly true. Ethan and I have loosely discussed doing a crossover
> > chronicle. What I'm against is the "Legion of Superheroes"-style crossover,
> > in which no one pays any attention to the fact that they're monsters, but
> > damn, don't they have kewl powerz to choose from! I'm not going to pander to
> > that. Believe me, if we shat together a book called "Rage Across
> > Autochthonia by Night" it would sell like a motherfucker, but none* of us is
> > willing to compromise our game line's theme to do that.
>
> Why do you automatically assume that all crossover games are twinkery?
> From four years personal experience, they aren't. I'll admit a large
> portion of twinks go for crossover, but the same is true of Werewolf.
> Just because the twinks like it doesn't mean it's inherantly bad.

Well, since my name's been invoked, I'll just jump in here:

We *don't* assume that all crossover games are twinkery. There are
people who run excellent crossover chronicles, where theme and mood are
carefully preserved, where all the characters are both realistic and
given time to shine, where there is a common sense of effort and a
generally solid setting.

But for the most part, the Storytellers who run these games are *not*
the ones who ask us for guidelines on crossover materials. They're the
ones who already know to take what they like and discard the rest, not
to let their players run roughshod over them, and to put the story
before what is In Print.

And on a side note, I must admit that the constant barrage of questions
like "Can werewolves use Gnosis for countermagick?" gets a little
desensitizing, no matter who you are.

> Ok. I know your hear more than enough of this, but to offer as an
> example
> here's one crossover game I ran that I feel wasn't twinky and stayed
> true
> to the themes in question:

[kersnip]

This is a good thing. A fine game, it sounds like. However, it is far
from the norm in many ways. Most importantly, there are only two
players; hard for that to get out of hand the way even a five-player
game could. The average game seems to hold from four to six players, not
counting LARPs or online games, and such games require a *lot* more
control.

> In short, what I'm trying to get across here is that there are many
> people running crossover games that have a great deal of depth,
> intelligence and evocative storytelling. It's *hard* to Storytell
> crossover well - you're right about that - and it would be nice
> if the gamebooks at least gave us a nod every now and then with
> neat little hooks and points of possible interaction between the
> societies.

The problem with interation between societies is that it's very easy for
the players to latch onto this and assume that it's the norm; that a
Bone Gnawer isn't really a Bone Gnawer without contacts among the
Nosferatu, Ratkin *and* sluagh. You have to keep a tight hand on those
plot hooks or else they become out of control.

> By the way, what did you think of WoD: Hong Kong? Blood Dimmed Tides?
> Isle of the Mighty? Aren't these examples of good crossover?

Actually, I do think Blood-Dimmed Tides is a fair example of crossover,
but you'll notice that for the most part, the crossover is between the
oceanic and land-dwelling denizens of the same supernatural type. There
*was* some stuff in the first draft about pirate ships with
representatives of each of the Big Five aboard, sailing the high seas in
search of blood, Gnosis, Quintessence, Pathos and Glamour all at once,
but that was bad crossover, so it was axed.

> As for the rules... well, many many players around the globe are running
> crossover games with multiple PC charecter types and I'm well aware the
> rules don't work together perfectly. It would be really nice to get a
> book
> that adresses this at least to some degree, because many troupes need
> it,
> they aren't going to stop running crossovers and they aren't inherantly
> twinks just for doing so.

Heh. Such a book would logically be nothing more than a giant essay on
"What are you Trying to Achieve? Then Adjust the Rules to Reflect That!"
There should be no, I mean *no* One True Way that the games cross over,
only crossover rules that enforce the goals and motifs of the chronicle
in question.

[snip]



> Ouch - ok, fair enough. But why nuke Enoch? DSotBH was specifically set
> up so that it wouldn't affect the games of those Storytellers who don't
> like it - it'll simply never come in to play. Why blow up one of the
> coolest places in Vampire if not to "exclude" it?

Gotta say it: Justin wasn't the only person to hate Enoch. Sure, if you
didn't like it, it would never come into play in a Vampire game.

But pity the poor Wraith players, who were the ones who had the thing
squatting on their doorstep. Never asked for it, and there it was.

Ethan Skemp
WWGS

The Livewire

unread,
Aug 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/3/99
to

Justin R. Achilli <jach...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:Qyip3.3042$061.1...@monger.newsread.com...

> 1) Then don't use the "canon."
>
> 2) I have spelled out exactly two things -- Ravnos' end and the passing of
> Cappadocius' wraith. Your esteemed Chicago by Night had a list of 20+
> characters who had irreversibly been killed in the second edition. There is
> no difference. Use what you want and leave the rest aside.

Um, 3, Tzimisce is confirmed surviving in TV II and III :-)

> Regards,
> Justin

The Livewire
I saw a nit and had to pick...

HunterRose

unread,
Aug 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/3/99
to
>>Tzimisce's survival was confirmed as far back as the book
"Children of the Inquisition," which came out sometime in
'92 or '93, I think- long before Justin was on the scene.<<

::Checks his copy:: '92... back in the early days. Other
mentions of him have appeared in LS1:MotS, Guide to the
Sabbat (which I enjoyed more than I can say, even with an
expanded vocabulary if I chose to pull it up), and probably
a few other places I can't recall at the moment.

::Prepares his two cents:: If you don't like it, don't use
it. In all this ranting and raving, a lot of people seem to
have missed one big thing... Where is it _going_? We know
where the game has been, we have a nice idea of where it is
now, but one does not develop a game _just_ to change it. I
happen to feel there's a higher goal at work here, and we're
just being tossed the occasional scrap of knowledge to keep
us guessing.

For example: "Oh no, the Tremere Antitribu are gone! I'm
angry!"
Yes, they're gone... but why? Did any survive? A bloodline
just doesn't poof into ashen pillars without a reason. Here
lies the mystery. It is far more interesting than "Goratrix
didn't like the other Tremere elders, so he grabbed a few
clan members of like mind and split."

We can whine all we want, but it does no one any good.

Now... how do I join the Holy Order of Achilli? For a man of
such wit and beautiful sarcasm, I'll wear blue. Well, as
long as it's not Powder Blue...

--Nathan Light
Webmaster of Twisted Darkness
http://members.aol.com/hunterrse0/vampire/Main.html
Shameless plug, I know... and _NO_ I do not play in the
chatroom games on AOL. I just like the webspace since
there's no advertising to litter my pages.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

chrisrieder

unread,
Aug 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/4/99
to
>> 2) I have spelled out exactly two things -- Ravnos' end and the passing
of
>> Cappadocius' wraith. Your esteemed Chicago by Night had a list of 20+
>> characters who had irreversibly been killed in the second edition. There
is
>> no difference. Use what you want and leave the rest aside.
>
>Um, 3, Tzimisce is confirmed surviving in TV II and III :-)

Tzimisce's survival was confirmed as far back as the book "Children of the
Inquisition," which came out sometime in '92 or '93, I think- long before
Justin was on the scene.

>The Livewire


Rieder

Sean Riley

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
Justin R. Achilli wrote (Not in the one I'm replying to, but my News server bites,
so I'm winging it...):

> If I cut everything I didn't like, you'd be facing a radically different game. I
> don't like most of the clans, I don't like the Camarilla as it currently stands, I
> only nominally like the Sabbat, I think Golconda is dumb and more than half of the
> Disciplines (IMO) shouldn't be.

OK, I have to ask, since we already know which 8 clans you dislike... What would
your vision of the Camarilla be? The 'as it currently stands' infers that you think
the whole concept isn't lost, which implies that you have considered how it could
work.

Curious,
Sean.

--

"How many units are in a buttload, anyway?"
"47. A few is 3 or 4. A bunch is 6 to 10. A whole bunch is 10, or 11. And a buttload
is 47."
"So if I bought two cases of beer..."
"That's be a bakers buttload, 47 plus one, in case it's bad. That's why they have 24
in a case."
"One case of beer ain't bad.."
"But two cases.."
"That's a buttload of beer."
"Plus 1!"
- From the APC Studios demo tape

Streetlight Revelations, Sydney: A city of Intrigue:
http://come.to/thestreetlight

Ivo Luijendijk

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
Sean Riley wrote:
>
> Justin R. Achilli wrote (Not in the one I'm replying to, but my News server bites,
> so I'm winging it...):
>
> > If I cut everything I didn't like, you'd be facing a radically different game.
You've already done that: Assamites-curse, Necromancy, Baba Yaga,
Hunters (whatever they'll be), Dementation re-entry, thin-blooded
vammpires, dhampires, Gangrel leaving, Ravnos, and some probably I
forgot right now.
This is hardly the same game as in the pre-Achilli period. Don't get me
wrong, I like the new setting and a static game is doomed to die, but I
feel your comment is a bit... pointless, if you take all the action from
the last months in account. It was quite obvious that you wanted to
change a lot.
(Personally, I'd like to see more.)

> I
> > don't like most of the clans,

And you think you could've done better, all those years ago? I doubt it.
As I see it, the guys back then have done a good job. Sure some
clans/bloodlines-disciplines were awfull, like Samedi-Thanatosis,
Assamites-Quietus and Ravnos-Chimestry (and Toreador, who still need a
HUGE make-over), but at least they created a versatile world for the VtM
games.

>I don't like the Camarilla as it currently stands, I
> > only nominally like the Sabbat,

The Sabbat-Camarilla controvery was a logical one to use. Two visions on
humanity, two factions. It makes sense.
Besides, again, you've already started the proces of changing them,
haven't you? Gangrel leave, someone enters (probably), the Harbingers
enter the Sabbat.

> I think Golconda is dumb

Agreed. It doesn't fit in the personal horror theme. What's better
suited for such a setting: "damnation without salvation" or "damnation,
but you'll be OK". I don't use galconda at all in my games and luckily,
none of my players brought it up so far (knock on wood).


> and more than half of the
> > Disciplines (IMO) shouldn't be.

Some, yeah, like those mentioned above. And Dementation. Frankly, most
of the non-basically available disciplines are the non-interesting ones,
only a few exceptions I can think of (Thauma, Necro and Protean).

>
> OK, I have to ask, since we already know which 8 clans you dislike... What would
> your vision of the Camarilla be? The 'as it currently stands' infers that you think
> the whole concept isn't lost, which implies that you have considered how it could
> work.
>
> Curious,
> Sean.

and Ivo
--

Ivo

"We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

http://www.angelfire.com/ga2/utrechtworkshop

David Scott Tait

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ivo Luijendijk wrote:

> > I think Golconda is dumb
> Agreed. It doesn't fit in the personal horror theme. What's better
> suited for such a setting: "damnation without salvation" or "damnation,
> but you'll be OK". I don't use galconda at all in my games and luckily,
> none of my players brought it up so far (knock on wood).

Golconda is dumb, but the principle is not. The quest for Golconda can fit
the personal horror theme very well. I would never let a player achieve
Golconda in game, as it does detract from the "monster" nature that all
Vamps have to deal with. However, the very fact that there is the rumour
of salvation can have a very telling effect on a character. Exploring the
route to Golconda can allow a character to examine the "monster" nature,
and fully expose him/her to their characters inner self. This is what
makes Golconda valuable to me as an ST. My LARP character is a Salubri
searching for Golconda, but without any of the knowledge of how to get
there. He has a plan to achieve Golconda within 20 years, but obviously as
the game is run in real time, I know this is not going to happen -
however, every decision he makes is based on his attempts to cleanse his
soul, so he spends a lot of time attempting to rationalise behaviours and
desires. He can never forget that he is a monster as it is something he is
fighting against all the time - I think it is this aspect of Golconda -the
search for what has been lost - that is good for the game. Succeeding in
Golconda takes away the personal horror, unless you make it very tenuous.
Even now, with my character so far form his goals he finds that he is
forced to make very tough decisions - decisions that others cannot
understand, and that he loses friends over. In trying for the only form of
salvation he knows, he stands to lose everything and everyone that he
holds dear, that he cares for. He needs to learn that salvation is not
evrything it is cracked up to be - THAT is personal horror.

Dave


Ivo Luijendijk

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
David Scott Tait wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ivo Luijendijk wrote:
>
> > > I think Golconda is dumb
> > Agreed. It doesn't fit in the personal horror theme. What's better
> > suited for such a setting: "damnation without salvation" or "damnation,
> > but you'll be OK". I don't use galconda at all in my games and luckily,
> > none of my players brought it up so far (knock on wood).
>
> Golconda is dumb, but the principle is not. The quest for Golconda can fit
> the personal horror theme very well. I would never let a player achieve
> Golconda in game, as it does detract from the "monster" nature that all
> Vamps have to deal with.
<snip good monologue because I have a wrotten version of netscape>

> In trying for the only form of
> salvation he knows, he stands to lose everything and everyone that he
> holds dear, that he cares for. He needs to learn that salvation is not
> evrything it is cracked up to be - THAT is personal horror.
>
> Dave
I agree with you...mostly. I agree that galconda CAN add something to a
player's state of mind, but I don't like the very concept of it. It's
like vampires reproducing, it's just not what I'd like to think of as
"Vampires". They are what they are, don't fidget with that.

Maybe I should add YMMV to my signature... ;o)
--

Ivo

"We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

http://www.angelfire.com/ga2/utrechtworkshop

http://www.angelfire.com/ga2/utrechtworkshop

Ethan Skemp

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
Ivo Luijendijk wrote:
>
> Sean Riley wrote:
> >
> > Justin R. Achilli wrote (Not in the one I'm replying to, but my News server bites,
> > so I'm winging it...):
> >
> > > If I cut everything I didn't like, you'd be facing a radically different game.
> You've already done that: Assamites-curse, Necromancy, Baba Yaga,
> Hunters (whatever they'll be), Dementation re-entry, thin-blooded
> vammpires, dhampires, Gangrel leaving, Ravnos, and some probably I
> forgot right now.

Nope, actually he hasn't. There's *lots* Justin doesn't like, and he's
not going to cut it all out. I understand completely; there's several
thing I don't like about Werewolf, but I'm not going to cut them out,
either. (Most of them, that is.)

Besides, not everything you've listed was one of Justin's changes.
Remember that Rob was the one to develop Vampire Revised, and the
changes you see in that rulebook are indicative of Rob's ideas first and
foremost (although authors were, of course, allowed some fredom).

Ethan Skemp
WWGS

Ivo Luijendijk

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
Ethan Skemp wrote:
>
> Ivo Luijendijk wrote:
> >
> > Sean Riley wrote:
> > >
> > > Justin R. Achilli wrote (Not in the one I'm replying to, but my News server bites,
> > > so I'm winging it...):
> > >
> > > > If I cut everything I didn't like, you'd be facing a radically different game.
> > You've already done that: Assamites-curse, Necromancy, Baba Yaga,
> > Hunters (whatever they'll be), Dementation re-entry, thin-blooded
> > vammpires, dhampires, Gangrel leaving, Ravnos, and some probably I
> > forgot right now.
>
> Nope, actually he hasn't. There's *lots* Justin doesn't like, and he's
> not going to cut it all out. I understand completely; there's several
> thing I don't like about Werewolf, but I'm not going to cut them out,
> either. (Most of them, that is.)
Why not? Only change can herald improvement...

>
> Besides, not everything you've listed was one of Justin's changes.
> Remember that Rob was the one to develop Vampire Revised, and the
> changes you see in that rulebook are indicative of Rob's ideas first and
> foremost (although authors were, of course, allowed some fredom).
>
> Ethan Skemp
> WWGS
Oh. I didn't know that... How blonde of me.

David Scott Tait

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ivo Luijendijk wrote:

> I agree with you...mostly. I agree that galconda CAN add something to a
> player's state of mind, but I don't like the very concept of it. It's
> like vampires reproducing, it's just not what I'd like to think of as
> "Vampires". They are what they are, don't fidget with that.

Keep it as a myth then. That's mostly what i'm advocating, and I can see
quite comfortably, how the damned might buy into some obscure rumour about
salvation. If I was a blood drinking angst-ridden monster, and some dude
came back from an extended holiday and said "hey, there's this higher
state of being where you can be, like, at one with your beast, man", I'd
be, like, "sign me up for the fucker, straight away".

The very nature of being damned lends individuals (well some of them) to
look for something more to themselves. It may not exist, but that
shouldn't stop them thinking about it, and hence looking for it. I think
Golconda is integral to Vampire, and I cannot see how Vampires could exist
for thousands of years without some of them looking for something more to
their existence. It could all be bullshit - I mean, most Kindred know
shit-all about Golconda - it's not as if it's widely touted as the way to
go in Vampiric society (unless that's the way you/your ST plays it). It
could just be a rumour founded on news about the Cathayans in the far
east. At some point though, some poor leech is gonna stop and ask if there
is a way to control himself - and you may not want to call it such, but
that way has been given the name Golconda. In the real world, each society
creates its Gods (or vice versa if that is your belief), and each society
explains that which it cannot understand with spirits and such. Each
society has a form of afterlife, and each society has ways of making that
afterlife better or worse - why not vampires.

Like I said, Vampire needs the theory of Golconda, it just doesn't need it
to be real.

Dave


Justin R. Achilli

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
In article <37A98665...@students.bio.uu.nl> , Ivo Luijendijk
<i.luij...@students.bio.uu.nl> wrote:

>> > If I cut everything I didn't like, you'd be facing a radically different
game.
> You've already done that: Assamites-curse, Necromancy, Baba Yaga,
> Hunters (whatever they'll be), Dementation re-entry, thin-blooded
> vammpires, dhampires, Gangrel leaving, Ravnos, and some probably I
> forgot right now.

To be fair, some of those are Rob's changes in the revised edition and
Hunter has been developed completely independently of Vampire. That's just
for the record.

> This is hardly the same game as in the pre-Achilli period. Don't get me
> wrong, I like the new setting and a static game is doomed to die, but I
> feel your comment is a bit... pointless, if you take all the action from
> the last months in account. It was quite obvious that you wanted to
> change a lot.
> (Personally, I'd like to see more.)

Well, consider that any time a new book comes out it's going to contain
information that hasn't existed before. Whether it's the fleshing out of
what was previously a tertiary concept or the introduction of something
previously unknown is just a matter of the subject itself -- and who was
looking. The Thin-Blooded were mentioned specifically in the Book of Nod,
for example, which predates me by years.

>> I
>> > don't like most of the clans,
> And you think you could've done better, all those years ago? I doubt it.

You're right, but that's because I try to avoid words like "better," because
what's better for me isn't what's always better for someone else. I think
there are too many clans, and I think the shticks of several of them are
decidedly unvampiric.

> As I see it, the guys back then have done a good job.

I agree, as do enough people to keep making the game a viable publishing
venue for this company. I'm not trying to tear down the work of others, I'm
trying to build on the foundation they've established.

> Sure some
> clans/bloodlines-disciplines were awfull, like Samedi-Thanatosis,

See, they're one of the ones I like, as far as bloodlines go.

> Assamites-Quietus

The Assamites have potential.

> and Ravnos-Chimestry

Hated these jokers from day one, which, incidentally, was _not_ the reason
they died. I'm not that petty ;)

> (and Toreador,

One of my favorites.

> who still need a
> HUGE make-over), but at least they created a versatile world for the VtM
> games.

Agreed.

>>I don't like the Camarilla as it currently stands, I
>> > only nominally like the Sabbat,
> The Sabbat-Camarilla controvery was a logical one to use. Two visions on
> humanity, two factions. It makes sense.

My only gripe with the original presentation of the Camarilla and the Sabbat
was that it smacked very strongly of good guy-bad guy, and I don't think
those objective moral distinctions are appropriate for Vampire. Same reason
I cut so much of the infernalism material in recent books.

> Besides, again, you've already started the proces of changing them,
> haven't you? Gangrel leave, someone enters (probably), the Harbingers
> enter the Sabbat.

Change has happened with me and without me. It's just more on the forefront
of my development philosophy. I agree completely with your earlier comments
on stagnation.

>> I think Golconda is dumb
> Agreed. It doesn't fit in the personal horror theme. What's better
> suited for such a setting: "damnation without salvation" or "damnation,
> but you'll be OK". I don't use galconda at all in my games and luckily,
> none of my players brought it up so far (knock on wood).

My complaint is that it's fairly arbitrary. It's supposedly a coming to
terms with one's vampiric nature -- but it requires a Humanity 10 to
achieve. Somehow, by denying the Beast aspect of the vampire, you supersede
it? Weird. I'd think that you change morally -- perhaps Humanity/Path
doesn't mean anything to a vampire who has achieved Golconda.... It's not
something I use regularly at all.

>> and more than half of the
>> > Disciplines (IMO) shouldn't be.
> Some, yeah, like those mentioned above. And Dementation. Frankly, most
> of the non-basically available disciplines are the non-interesting ones,
> only a few exceptions I can think of (Thauma, Necro and Protean).

Seven Disciplines plus Thaumaturgy probably would have worked fine, but I
don't know how dynamic that is. Disciplines are a good hook for new people
coming in, but too many cooks spoil the soup.

Sean Riley says:

>> OK, I have to ask, since we already know which 8 clans you dislike... What
would
>> your vision of the Camarilla be? The 'as it currently stands' infers that
> you think
>> the whole concept isn't lost, which implies that you have considered how it
could
>> work.

I don't like the neofudal bent of the Camarilla, in a nutshell. I think the
Camarilla should be more of a _society_ than a secret vampire government,
and that's how I present it. Ann Braidwood did some great stuff on vampire
salons in the upcoming Storytellers Handbook. _That's_ how I think the
Camarilla should operate. (She also did the storytelling section for the
Sabbat book, for reference.)

But then, that's just my take. The only difference between me and most
players is that I get paid to do this.

Regards,
Justin

--


[Justin R. Achilli]
[Vampire: The Masquerade Developer]

robertgeiger

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to

Justin R. Achilli wrote in message

>In article <37A98665...@students.bio.uu.nl> , Ivo Luijendijk
><i.luij...@students.bio.uu.nl> wrote:
>

>
>My complaint is that it's fairly arbitrary. It's supposedly a coming to
>terms with one's vampiric nature -- but it requires a Humanity 10 to
>achieve. Somehow, by denying the Beast aspect of the vampire, you supersede
>it? Weird. I'd think that you change morally -- perhaps Humanity/Path
>doesn't mean anything to a vampire who has achieved Golconda.... It's not
>something I use regularly at all.
>


perhaps with some reworking. The idea of Golconda can fit in the WoD.
i think back to and issue of SANDMAN when Morphous retrives his
helmet from hell. One devil makes a threat that Morphus won't get out
alive and Morphus says 'What devil does not dream of heaven?' and
then leaves.
.
.
.
.

Raindog

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
In article <%4jq3.26$2V5....@newshog.newsread.com>,

Justin R. Achilli <jach...@white-wolf.com> wrote:

>I don't like the neofudal bent of the Camarilla, in a nutshell. I think
the >Camarilla should be more of a _society_ than a secret vampire
government, >and that's how I present it. Ann Braidwood did some great
stuff on vampire >salons in the upcoming Storytellers Handbook. _That's_
how I think the >Camarilla should operate. (She also did the storytelling
section for the >Sabbat book, for reference.)

I've always thought this was kinda cool, and that it only really
dissolved into chaos in the hands of people (like a national LARP
organization I could name) who had no idea that there historically were
and in many cases still are governments all around the world where the
people making high-level executive decisions only have so much capital for
making things happen inside the system.
The Cam is both a floorwax and a dessert topping to me. It's a big
OBN and way of doing things, and somewhere up there there's an Inner
Circle that never anticipated such a wide-ranging mandate when it
originally formed the government, with no real way to extend its
authority, trying desperately to steer Cam-the-society with a rudder that
is just way too small.

>But then, that's just my take. The only difference between me and most
>players is that I get paid to do this.

Likewise. It's sorta flattering to be able to get this many people
worked up, but it bothers me at some level when people go ""help, help,
I'm being opressed!" over something as trivial as having to say "no, baba
yaga isn't dead".

>Regards,
>Justin

Wade Lahoda

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
David Scott Tait (d...@st-andrews.ac.uk) wrote:
: makes Golconda valuable to me as an ST. My LARP character is a Salubri
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I wonder how many people (rightfully?) stopped listening as soon
as they read that? ;)

Congratulations my friend, you just said one of the most commonly
recognized twink-calls ever.

Not that I'm accusing you of being a twink. I'm just saying you
can do one hell of an impersonation... ;)

A. Wade Lahoda
ab...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca

Ethan Skemp

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
Ivo Luijendijk wrote:
>
> Ethan Skemp wrote:

> > Nope, actually he hasn't. There's *lots* Justin doesn't like, and he's
> > not going to cut it all out. I understand completely; there's several
> > thing I don't like about Werewolf, but I'm not going to cut them out,
> > either. (Most of them, that is.)
> Why not? Only change can herald improvement...

Change does not automatically equate improvement, however. Besides, I
think some people would be upset if there were only two or three
surviving Changing Breeds, instead of the nine there are today (making
the survivors of the War of Rage more numerous than the casualties...).
Logic would demand that fewer survive; and those that logically survived
would probably be the Ratkin, Nagah, Rokea and Ananasi.

But I realize that changing this for the sake of changing this would not
necessarily mean "improvement" in the minds of many people. Besides, you
can't tell me that people wouldn't miss the Bastet...

Ethan Skemp
WWGS

Blake

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
In article <37A9D1...@white-wolf.com>,

Ethan Skemp <alpha...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> Change does not automatically equate improvement, however. Besides, I
> think some people would be upset if there were only two or three
> surviving Changing Breeds, instead of the nine there are today (making
> the survivors of the War of Rage more numerous than the
casualties...).

Weren't there a lot of casualties, though? I mean, you don't see were-
dodos, were-hyenadons, were-megatheriums, or were-smilodons anymore...
And, in the fluid timelines of the WoD, it wouldn't be that wierd for
the War of Rage to date back to the last round of extinctions... ;)

> Logic would demand that fewer survive; and those that logically
survived
> would probably be the Ratkin, Nagah, Rokea and Ananasi.

Not to mention the were-cockroaches...

> But I realize that changing this for the sake of changing this would
not
> necessarily mean "improvement" in the minds of many people. Besides,
you
> can't tell me that people wouldn't miss the Bastet...

I get it: maybe the other Bete should never have been added, but now
that they /have/ been, you can't just toss out what's come before...

The W:tA fans are lucky to have you as developer.

Wade Lahoda

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
Ethan Skemp (alpha...@white-wolf.com) wrote:
: Besides, you

: can't tell me that people wouldn't miss the Bastet...

<grumble grumble> What's the deal with all the people in love
with Bastet? I swear, if you guys had made a game about WereCats instead
of Werewolves as a main game...it'd probably be the biggest selling game
in history. People and their cats. People and their humonoid cats.
People wanting to BE cats. Why? =)

Of course, it's much worse in online games, then in
tabletop...Trust me. Oy Vey!


: Ethan Skemp
: WWGS

A. Wade Lahoda, who has always thought wolves are cooler than cats. ;)
ab9502sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca

Robin McCaig

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
on 05 Aug 99, Ethan Skemp wrote...

>
>Change does not automatically equate improvement, however. Besides, I
>think some people would be upset if there were only two or three
>surviving Changing Breeds, instead of the nine there are today (making
>the survivors of the War of Rage more numerous than the casualties...).
>

Er, I'm not going to argue 'cause you're the Developer, but aren't there at
least 11 Breeds around today (Garou, Bastet, Nuwisha, Corax, Kitsune, Gurahl,
Ratkin, Mokole, Ananasi, Rokea & Nagah)? Which two are you planning to kill off?
; )


Ellw...@webtv.net

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
Ethan Skemp wrote:

Besides, you can't tell me that people wouldn't miss the Bastet...

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I would miss the Bastet fiercely!!!!!! They are one of the most
interesting of the Changing Breeds.

X2 (who has 2 Bastet Characters...)


Jason Corley

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
In article <37A6F7E7...@nait.ab.ca>,
Fred Mensch <fme...@nait.ab.ca> wrote:

> [ a beautiful post about why he doesn't like the constriction of
> Vampire via metaplots and other devices ]


You brought up a lot of great points - some of which do not apply to me
(I don't like crossover games myself and can barely hang onto my PCs
when they're all in the same "sphere"), but all of which are marvelous
reasons why the game should be returned to it's "toolkit" phase.

However, there is one counterargument that trumps everything you and I
believe:

"Toolkit" games with no overarching metaplot (as well as the other
"constricting" tools you list) /no longer sell/. And never will again,
so saith the marketing gurus.

I tried to name a few that did and couldn't. Even old standbys like
CP2020 are incorporating metaplots. You and I are a dying breed and
will someday in the distant future be limited to buying new GURPS
supplements because none of our favorite games will be publishing
anything even vaguely near anything we want to run or play. All
discussions in a.g.ww will be about the new novels and debates about
the stats of the NPCs who are mentioned in the fiction sections and
self-congratulatory posts about what wonderful supplements are being
produced and everything will get 5 stars out of 5 from every reviewer.

I'm not sure this countervailing influence applies to your ideas about
crossover games. I'm sure a crossover book would sell like hotcakes.
However, I also thought that the $5 Trinity books were the best thing
to happen to game publishing formats since the little Traveller books
and Wraith 1ed. was the least depressing of the White Wolf games.

Thanks for invoking my name, sometimes it's hard being completely out
of step with everyone else in your hobby and loud and mean about it.
Jesus, what the hell am I saying? It must be the vicodin. Never mind
the martyr complex. It's fun to bellow your opinion when everyone else
thinks not only quite differently but thinks that nobody in the world
believes any different than they do.

Back to recuperating from my car accident. Peace.


--
"I was pleased to be able to answer promptly, and
so I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
Jason Corley -- cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu

aca.Rem...@bc.sympatic.ca

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
Achieving Golconda would probably remove much of the drama from the game, but
the quest for Golconda --or some form of salvation -- is a good one.

The tv show "Forever Knight" got 3 seasons out of it. :) For those of you that
don't know, Nick Knight was 700+ yr old vampire who was also a night shift
homicide detective. He spent the first several centuries of his existance
reveling in his vampire powers and generally kicking butt and being a bad boy.
Eventually he decides he doesn't like being an immortal monster and starts
looking for a way to become mortal again (in the game, mortality is rumored to
be one of the golconda options). He tries to limit his blood intake, eat
regular food, try various "scientific treatments" a friendly coroner cooks up
for him and occasionly tries to hunt down some mystical artifact rumored to
reverse vampirism. Of course that is just the back story, most episodes he just
uses his nifty vamp powers to catch criminals without revealing his nature to
any of his mortal associates, except the afor mentioned friendly coroner. :)

My point is that the search for salvation can be a useful plot device whether
you call it golconda or something else. I wouldn't let pc's actually achive it,
except perhaps as the conclusion to a chronicle.

Angela Christine

Rumor has it that, Ivo Luijendijk <i.luij...@students.bio.uu.nl> wrote:


>David Scott Tait wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ivo Luijendijk wrote:

>> > > I think Golconda is dumb
>> > Agreed. It doesn't fit in the personal horror theme. What's better
>> > suited for such a setting: "damnation without salvation" or "damnation,
>> > but you'll be OK". I don't use galconda at all in my games and luckily,
>> > none of my players brought it up so far (knock on wood).
>>

>> Golconda is dumb, but the principle is not. The quest for Golconda can fit
>> the personal horror theme very well. I would never let a player achieve
>> Golconda in game, as it does detract from the "monster" nature that all
>> Vamps have to deal with.
><snip good monologue because I have a wrotten version of netscape>
>> In trying for the only form of
>> salvation he knows, he stands to lose everything and everyone that he
>> holds dear, that he cares for. He needs to learn that salvation is not
>> evrything it is cracked up to be - THAT is personal horror.
>>
>> Dave

>I agree with you...mostly. I agree that galconda CAN add something to a
>player's state of mind, but I don't like the very concept of it. It's
>like vampires reproducing, it's just not what I'd like to think of as
>"Vampires". They are what they are, don't fidget with that.
>

>Maybe I should add YMMV to my signature... ;o)

>--
>
>Ivo
>
>"We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/ga2/utrechtworkshop
>

>http://www.angelfire.com/ga2/utrechtworkshop

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aca(at)bc.sympatico.ca~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the time it has taken you to read this,
your personal computer has become obsolete.

Ethan Skemp

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to

Okay, you caught me. I wasn't including Garou (who aren't Changing
Breeds in the way I classify things mentally, since they're the stars of
the game, not the walk-ons) or Kitsune (ack!), just going by the number
of Changing Breed Books I have to complete.

Eleven, then. Jeez. Doesn't that *seem* like a lot?

Ethan Skemp
WWGS

Ethan Skemp

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
Blake wrote:
>
> Weren't there a lot of casualties, though? I mean, you don't see were-
> dodos, were-hyenadons, were-megatheriums, or were-smilodons anymore...
> And, in the fluid timelines of the WoD, it wouldn't be that wierd for
> the War of Rage to date back to the last round of extinctions... ;)

Y'know, there are plenty of people out there who have no idea that the
weremegatheria were a joke...

> > Logic would demand that fewer survive; and those that logically
> survived
> > would probably be the Ratkin, Nagah, Rokea and Ananasi.
>
> Not to mention the were-cockroaches...

The cockroaches don't *need* Changing Breed powers to survive...

> I get it: maybe the other Bete should never have been added, but now
> that they /have/ been, you can't just toss out what's come before...
>
> The W:tA fans are lucky to have you as developer.

I don't know whether this is more compliment or more an indirect slam on
Justin, but, um, thanks?

Ethan Skemp
WWGS

Justin R. Achilli

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
In article <7od9ro$6lo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> , Jason Corley
<cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:

> You brought up a lot of great points - some of which do not apply to me
> (I don't like crossover games myself and can barely hang onto my PCs
> when they're all in the same "sphere"), but all of which are marvelous
> reasons why the game should be returned to it's "toolkit" phase.

Ye gods. The old "should be."

> However, there is one counterargument that trumps everything you and I
> believe:
>
> "Toolkit" games with no overarching metaplot (as well as the other
> "constricting" tools you list) /no longer sell/. And never will again,
> so saith the marketing gurus.

This is true in the literal sense with which you make this statement.
Toolkit (great word, by the way) _games_ lag behind the plotted games in
sales. That said, I've got a toolkit _supplement_, for example, tentatively
scheduled for 2001 release. It's a Storytellers' book for creating cities,
and the original proposal included an "example" city, which I asked that the
writer not include. As a personal anecdote, I never used the "example"
material printed in game books, and that's more pages I can devote to the
larger concept, anyway.

> I tried to name a few that did and couldn't. Even old standbys like
> CP2020 are incorporating metaplots.

I think this is because people no longer have the time to spend
custom-building their world from the ground up. While you and Julian might
prefer the whole-cloth creation of your background (as I do, in certain
cases), the larger market prefers to be able to jump right in. I have to
admit, I'm more predisposed toward satisfying them -- I think more new
people will come to the hobby and more of the established crowd will remain
interested if they can immediately get their feet wet. The most common
roleplaying complaint I hear is that people can't find a Storyteller/GM, and
adding to his responsibilities exacerbates the problem, IMO.

> You and I are a dying breed and
> will someday in the distant future be limited to buying new GURPS
> supplements because none of our favorite games will be publishing
> anything even vaguely near anything we want to run or play.

Unless, of course, you just build it from the ground up _anyway_. It's what
you already want to do, isn't it?

This argument always gets me. It's not what you want, and you want to make
your own background anyway, so...?

> All
> discussions in a.g.ww will be about the new novels and debates about
> the stats of the NPCs who are mentioned in the fiction sections and
> self-congratulatory posts about what wonderful supplements are being
> produced and everything will get 5 stars out of 5 from every reviewer.

I hope not. I'd rather see people talking about new ideas, interpreting old
ones and generally discussing. Fawning is as unpleasant ask rabid bitching.

> I'm not sure this countervailing influence applies to your ideas about
> crossover games. I'm sure a crossover book would sell like hotcakes.
> However, I also thought that the $5 Trinity books were the best thing
> to happen to game publishing formats since the little Traveller books
> and Wraith 1ed. was the least depressing of the White Wolf games.

Crossover would sell like mad. So would a _Highlander_ supplement. Neither
are what the World of Darkness needs in the long term, and they'd do more
harm than good.

> Back to recuperating from my car accident. Peace.

Get well.

Regards,
Justin

--
[Justin R. Achilli]
[Vampire: The Masquerade Developer]

[jach...@white-wolf.com]
"That boy has an earring in his eye."
-- A kid at Kroger

Lanfear

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
golconda can add something. i think the concept of having some ideal out there,
no matter how impossible, makes the horror and despair that much more visible-
you realize you're spiraling downward, you heard talk of this "golconda", but
how do you achieve it while everything you know is turning to the beast?

if golconda is played like transcendence is supposed to be played in wraith, i
think it makes a great plot device.

AndroidCat

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
HunterRose <hunte...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9337424...@www.remarq.com...

> >>Tzimisce's survival was confirmed as far back as the book
> "Children of the Inquisition," which came out sometime in
> '92 or '93, I think- long before Justin was on the scene.<<
>
> ::Checks his copy:: '92... back in the early days. Other
> mentions of him have appeared in LS1:MotS, Guide to the
> Sabbat (which I enjoyed more than I can say, even with an
> expanded vocabulary if I chose to pull it up), and probably
> a few other places I can't recall at the moment.
>
> ::Prepares his two cents:: If you don't like it, don't use
> it. In all this ranting and raving, a lot of people seem to
> have missed one big thing... Where is it _going_? We know
> where the game has been, we have a nice idea of where it is
> now, but one does not develop a game _just_ to change it. I
> happen to feel there's a higher goal at work here, and we're
> just being tossed the occasional scrap of knowledge to keep
> us guessing.
>
> For example: "Oh no, the Tremere Antitribu are gone! I'm
> angry!"
> Yes, they're gone... but why? Did any survive? A bloodline
> just doesn't poof into ashen pillars without a reason. Here
> lies the mystery. It is far more interesting than "Goratrix
> didn't like the other Tremere elders, so he grabbed a few
> clan members of like mind and split."

Well, there's gone, and there's gone gone. I still think there's more to
the story than we've been told so far. (Which I like.)

> We can whine all we want, but it does no one any good.
>
> Now... how do I join the Holy Order of Achilli? For a man of
> such wit and beautiful sarcasm, I'll wear blue. Well, as
> long as it's not Powder Blue...

Be careful fool! There are Things Man Was Not Meant to Wear!

Ron of that ilk.


Adam

unread,
Aug 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/7/99
to

"Justin R. Achilli" wrote:
>
>
> This is true in the literal sense with which you make this statement.
> Toolkit (great word, by the way) _games_ lag behind the plotted games in
> sales. That said, I've got a toolkit _supplement_, for example, tentatively
> scheduled for 2001 release. It's a Storytellers' book for creating cities,
> and the original proposal included an "example" city, which I asked that the
> writer not include. As a personal anecdote, I never used the "example"
> material printed in game books, and that's more pages I can devote to the
> larger concept, anyway.
>


I am already interested in this book, its amazing how a good suggestion in a
Vamp book carries over to a Mage or Wherewolf game. My concern is though I
understand why you would not want an "example" city in the book because of space
considerations, it can be very useful in making sure the text points are brought
across.

Adam

DShomshak

unread,
Aug 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/7/99
to
In article <vVDc0FAQ...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Sangraal
<Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes:

>Anyone else on this NG with happy experiences of making unsolicited
>submissions to WWGS (or any other RPG company, for that matter) may feel
>free to correct my scepticism.

I've written supplements for WW and HERO Games. My experience has been that I
make an unsolicited submission -- you have to introduce yourself somehow -- and
the editor comes back and says "We don't need that," or "We've already assigned
that to someone else," then adds "But we're impressed enough to offer you
something else. How would you like to do *this* project?"

After you prove you can deliver the goods, editors will call you with other
projects. I've received two assignments from WW since Time of Thin Blood, and
my co-author Sarah Roark just received one.

Never feel that "Oh, they have so many freelancers already, they won't be
interested in me." Smart editors always look for new talent because, well, you
never know who's gonna be hit by a bus a month before a project comes due.

And btw -- this newsgroup is a great place to get the developers' attention.
(Some developers, at least.) They notice if you show yourself to be
knowledgeable about the game, with creative new ideas, expressed clearly and
politely. So don't hide behind a handle if you want to become a freelancer!
Your posts are an advertisement for your abilities.


Dean Shomshak
**********************************************************
Send e-mail responses to DSho...@juno.com.
The AOL address is a spam trap.
**********************************************************

Jason Corley

unread,
Aug 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/7/99
to
Justin R. Achilli (jach...@white-wolf.com) wrote:

: This is true in the literal sense with which you make this statement.
: Toolkit (great word, by the way) _games_ lag behind the plotted games in
: sales. That said, I've got a toolkit _supplement_, for example, tentatively
: scheduled for 2001 release. It's a Storytellers' book for creating cities,
: and the original proposal included an "example" city, which I asked that the
: writer not include. As a personal anecdote, I never used the "example"
: material printed in game books, and that's more pages I can devote to the
: larger concept, anyway.

It's funny how many WW developers utterly reject every "example" thing
published.

I'd love to see that supplement. I for one think I could learn something
from it.

: The most common


: roleplaying complaint I hear is that people can't find a Storyteller/GM, and
: adding to his responsibilities exacerbates the problem, IMO.

Damn PLAYERS!!!!! My games would be so much better without them. (Well,
they might go a little more /smoothly/.) And now confirmation - published
material is for THEM and not ME! AND WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE THEY OUTNUMBER
ME!!! OH THE HORROR! (vicodin-inspired twitching) I have to sit there and
stare at them week after week...they outnumber me then...their vacant
little beady eyes looking at my notepad...and now I find out that they can
OUTBUY ME! Arrrgh!!! My Brain!!!

That's completely fair, and I never thought of it before. Of course
example/metaplot-heavy material is going to sell well with players.
Players are a feeble-minded and insecure lot, and need the security of
everyone knowing the same things. Whereas Storytellers are a vicious and
depraved group of sadists who flay the skin off players' assumptions and
make it into rather nice stockings and only occaisionally use
example/metaplots in the same way that sausage-makers use cockroach parts:
ground-up filler which they are ashamed to admit exist.


: This argument always gets me. It's not what you want, and you want to make


: your own background anyway, so...?

You'll see the effect in the gigantic leap in sales which your strategy
will garner you as one or two of us mope away not buying the books and
the mad rush of foaming players streak to the shelves to purchase. Ha HA!
Take THAT! You will be SUCCESSFUL! (Oooh, that's low.)

: Crossover would sell like mad. So would a _Highlander_ supplement. Neither


: are what the World of Darkness needs in the long term, and they'd do more
: harm than good.

Oh, surrrrre. Take your job seriously. Hmph!

(For the record, I think a well-done crossover book would be great, but
would get nothing but bitching from the people who want crossover books,
and I think a Highlander book would be a very nice game that doesn't cross
over at all.)

: Get well.

Stitches come out tomorrow.


--
"Dullness marked the beginning of our tale, dullness marked the thread of
it, and dullness more than permeates it's end altogether we've all had a
dern dull time of it, ain't we? Yezza." ----Geo. Herriman
Jason D. "cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu" Corley | ICQ 41199011

Marizhavashti Kali

unread,
Aug 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/7/99
to

Sangraal wrote:
>
> you tell me, what sort of unsolicited materials get published? An
> example might be edifying, which of the WoD supplements or scenarios
> began their days as an unsolicited submission that arrived at the WWGS
> office?

Kinfolk: Unsung Heroes - poster child for "Unsolicited Manuscript."

As Dean said, in most cases you won't get the book you proposed, but you
might get something if your proposal impresses the Developer.

I sent a sample to Jess and got work on two Mage products.

Justin invited me to work on Children of the Night

My first proposal to White Wolf (WOrld of Future Darkness) was accepted.

> Anyone else on this NG with happy experiences of making unsolicited
> submissions to WWGS (or any other RPG company, for that matter) may feel
> free to correct my scepticism.

It seems that good freelancers are always a good thing.

--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Fading Suns, Trinity and Aberrant
"Balance is nothing, story is everything. Obey your ST."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | http://www.telelists.com

DShomshak

unread,
Aug 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/8/99
to
In article <Q1Dq3.383$2V5....@newshog.newsread.com>, "Justin R. Achilli"
<jach...@white-wolf.com> writes:

>In article <7od9ro$6lo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> , Jason Corley
><cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>> "Toolkit" games with no overarching metaplot (as well as the other
>> "constricting" tools you list) /no longer sell/. And never will again,
>> so saith the marketing gurus.
>

>This is true in the literal sense with which you make this statement.
>Toolkit (great word, by the way) _games_ lag behind the plotted games in
>sales. That said, I've got a toolkit _supplement_, for example, tentatively
>scheduled for 2001 release. It's a Storytellers' book for creating cities,
>and the original proposal included an "example" city, which I asked that the
>writer not include. As a personal anecdote, I never used the "example"
>material printed in game books, and that's more pages I can devote to the
>larger concept, anyway.

Sounds good! I too have no use for "sample campaigns" and the like. They are
*almost* invariably stupid.

>I think this is because people no longer have the time to spend

>custom-building their world from the ground up...

There's also the problem that once you've created a "toolkit" game that isn't
tied to any specific setting, it becomes harder to sell supplements. People
like Jason and me won't need 'em, so we won't buy 'em unless the supplement is
really good and jam-packed with fresh, new and well-developed ideas.

The solution is that the company has to work to produce such supplements.
Unfortunately, most game companies are very small, spare-time operations
without the resources for editorial development that WW has. In the case of
HERO Games, for instance (whose CHAMPIONS/HERO System is practically the
epitome of a "toolkit" game), this resulted in a whole bunch of "Enemies"
books. Most of them were pretty sucky, but they were easy to produce.

>> You and I are a dying breed and
>> will someday in the distant future be limited to buying new GURPS
>> supplements because none of our favorite games will be publishing
>> anything even vaguely near anything we want to run or play.
>

>This argument always gets me. It's not what you want, and you want to make
>your own background anyway, so...?

I think Jason's point is that as the "official" WoD becomes more detailed,
supplements will be harder for newbies to understand without having a stack of
previous supplements. Metaplot events will be less comprehensible without the
background. From what you've said, Justin, I don't think you'd *willingly* let
this go too far. Nevertheless, it *is* a danger to watch out for.

>Crossover would sell like mad. So would a _Highlander_ supplement. Neither
>are what the World of Darkness needs in the long term, and they'd do more
>harm than good.

_Highlander_ -- Ghaa, ick.

I hope that WW avoids trying any more hard-core crossover supplements because
Chaos Effect and Midnight Circus had real problems. (Notably a plethora of
uber-characters who made PC's actions pretty much irrelevant.) I'd prefer that
WW not try again. Unless I get to write it, of course. Then it would be
amazingly great. ;-)

I wouldn't mind seeing supplements like Blood Dimmed Tides, though -- taking
some aspect of the world and showing how the various supernaturals of the WoD
are involved with it. Just off the top of my head, I'd suggest...
* A book about big business -- who among the supernaturals gets involved, how
they may interact, and how corporate machinations affect the man (vampire,
werewolf, changeling, etc.) on the street.
* A book about India. The hints have been tantalizing; a full treatment is
overdue.
* An updated guide to the mean streets for all 5 games, to replace Destiny's
Price. Maybe this could double as a general treatment of organized crime in
the WoD (hopefully correcting the idiocies of making everyone and their brother
the secret masters of the Mafia.)
* The American Civil War. It shaped many aspects of modern America; presumably
it had as profound an effect on the supernaturals of the WoD. If you
developers want revenge on Jason for his bitching, offer him a contract to
write/develop the excellent but half-finished Civil War netbook he posted a few
months back.
* World War Two. 'Nuff said.

Jason Corley

unread,
Aug 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/8/99
to
DShomshak (dsho...@aol.com) wrote:

: I think Jason's point is that as the "official" WoD becomes more detailed,


: supplements will be harder for newbies to understand without having a stack of
: previous supplements. Metaplot events will be less comprehensible without the
: background. From what you've said, Justin, I don't think you'd *willingly* let
: this go too far. Nevertheless, it *is* a danger to watch out for.

Right. That and your earlier point about future "example" supplements
being less and less useful as they proceeded along the path of a metaplot
which bears little or no resemblace to the game.

: * The American Civil War. It shaped many aspects of modern America; presumably


: it had as profound an effect on the supernaturals of the WoD. If you
: developers want revenge on Jason for his bitching, offer him a contract to
: write/develop the excellent but half-finished Civil War netbook he posted a few
: months back.

It is still being written. However, finances made me take a real job and
the pain medication that accompanied the car wreck made me fuzzy-headed
and silly.

It doesn't help that the Mage portion of the Civil War is by far the most
complicated and interesting of the settings, and so is the most difficult
to organize and write.

A Number

unread,
Aug 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/8/99
to

Justin R. Achilli wrote in message

>>> OK, I have to ask, since we already know which 8 clans you dislike...


What
>would
>>> your vision of the Camarilla be? The 'as it currently stands' infers
that
>> you think
>>> the whole concept isn't lost, which implies that you have considered how
it
>could
>>> work.
>
>I don't like the neofudal bent of the Camarilla, in a nutshell. I think the
>Camarilla should be more of a _society_ than a secret vampire government,
>and that's how I present it. Ann Braidwood did some great stuff on vampire
>salons in the upcoming Storytellers Handbook. _That's_ how I think the
>Camarilla should operate. (She also did the storytelling section for the
>Sabbat book, for reference.)

You know, I'd like to hear more on this. I'm a big pro-Camarilla guy, and
anything Justin Achilli has to say on my favorite sect is cool by me. So,
Justin, if you read this and you have, like, fifteen minutes to kill, could
you elaborate on what the Camarilla would have been if you made it from the
beginning?

- A Number

Sean Riley

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
(As usual, I apologise for my ... unorthadox method of posting. I blame my server.)

Justin R. Achilli wrote:

> I don't like the neofudal bent of the Camarilla, in a nutshell. I think the
> Camarilla should be more of a _society_ than a secret vampire government, and
> that's how I present it. Ann Braidwood did some great stuff on vampire salons in
> the upcoming Storytellers Handbook. _That's_ how I think the Camarilla should
> operate. (She also did the storytelling section for the Sabbat book, for
> reference.)

I'm all aquiver. ;)

Seriously, I thought that chapter was perhaps the all time best ST chapter in White
Wolf history. And FINALLY having someone explain the Salons to me would be nice.
What the hell IS a salon, for that matter?!?

Oh, and since I think there needs to be the obligatory outburst. "What? No prince?
The mind boggles."

> But then, that's just my take. The only difference between me and most players is
> that I get paid to do this.

And we get to be totally envious of you, and you get to know all the reasons we
shouldn't be. (And I'm certain a few of the ones why we should, too.)

I am very curious now, however, as to what you think of the Anarchs. I know you
like your Vampires fitting the molds set by traditional tales and modern stories
and film. And the Anarchs certaintly fit that mold. (The ultimate Anarchs film
being.. well.. the ultimate HALF film for Anarchs is "The Lost Boys". First half,
natch.) Buuuuuuuuut... the Anarchs kinda make very little sense with the Camarilla
being less restrictive, as you seemed to imply.

Cheers,
Sean.


--

"How many units are in a buttload, anyway?"
"47. A few is 3 or 4. A bunch is 6 to 10. A whole bunch is 10, or 11. And a
buttload is 47."
"So if I bought two cases of beer..."
"That's be a bakers buttload, 47 plus one, in case it's bad. That's why they have
24 in a case."
"One case of beer ain't bad.."
"But two cases.."
"That's a buttload of beer."
"Plus 1!"
- From the APC Studios demo tape

Streetlight Revelations, Sydney: A city of Intrigue:
http://come.to/thestreetlight

Joshua Knorr

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
DShomshak <dsho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990808023814...@ngol01.aol.com...

> I hope that WW avoids trying any more hard-core crossover supplements
because
> Chaos Effect and Midnight Circus had real problems. (Notably a plethora
of

I sigh a little sigh every time I flip through The Chaos Factor. It had
such good potential as a high-adventure chronicle, and the basic concept of
Samuel Haight was sound.

Execution bit the big one, though. Kinfolk Garou Awakened Hedge Mage with
Thaumaturgy. <ugh>

Joshua Knorr
WWBBD?

0 new messages