Extra Petrol for Various Fires
legb...@my-deja.com
i'm glad to see we can still manage a decent flame-war when we care to.
And while i don't want to start [or stoke] another one, i have to say i
mildly agree with my Brother the Hated Coupe, Between Whose Iron Heel
the Kindred of Central England Nightly Groan, and Mildly disagree with
my Brother JB Whelan, about new expansions including new clans and
disciplines.
Sorry if i paraphrase or over-simplify here, but James is basically PRO
[if there's one new discipline at a time, and the new clans are phased]
and JB is basically ANTI [on the grounds that fragmentation, already a
problem with the AH/DS and new Sabbat clans, is a a Bad Thing].
i have a view about this because i have been playing Damnan's
Cappadocians in USA and at home and having GREAT fun. Cappadocians have
for, aus and Mortis as in-clan disciplines plus some funky pool-gaining
abilities which make them a playable non-Camarilla clan. A couple of
cards in Damnan's set are broken [Awakening and Legion of Zombu, though
you have to work a bit to break Awakening] and one needs clarified,
namely Temple of Erciyes, but otherwise they are OK [ i say nothing
about the other clans, partly because i've not tried them, partly
because the True Brujah are so OBVIOUSLY broken, and partly because the
Baali are, too, though not so obviously]. Anyway, the point i'm making
and i'm happy to be contradicted by those who were there, is that the
Cappadocians slipped smoothly into the game in SE USA and were generally
well-received. i would like to advocate single-clan, single
extra-discipline expansions as cheap and fun and Cool as a Christian
Dior Ice Lolly {legbiter's Best Ever Chat-Up Line, unfortunately TOTALLY
wasted on a Bride whose first language was NOT English]
Buffer Line to Stop Message Tailing
Buffer Line to Stop Message Tailing
Buffer Line
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
inr...@my-deja.com
> i've been reading the various passionate posts about CL and stuff and
> i'm glad to see we can still manage a decent flame-war when we care
to.
oh oh, can i join????
my take on this is that new clans and disiplines are a good way to avoid
the arms race that M:tCH has become (still working on new tortures). If
the cards are play tested and balanced, then they can be integrated
without causing all of the older cards to be useless, and further,
generating renewed interest in the game (as well as renewed sales for
White Wolf). It should, of course be done slowly, especially since all
the Cool Things tm from the Jyhad set haven't been discovered, there is
no need to keep constantly churning out new expansions to keep us all on
our feet. This should allow ample time for playtesting... right?
gee, that didn't sound all that divisive. darn. still, better safe
than sorry. *puts on flame resistant PJ's, heads to sleep*
Cameron
John Whelan
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> And while i don't want to start [or stoke] another one, i have to say i
> mildly agree with my Brother the Hated Coupe, Between Whose Iron Heel
> the Kindred of Central England Nightly Groan, and Mildly disagree with
> my Brother JB Whelan, about new expansions including new clans and
> disciplines.
OK. But I had a rather long post on the subject which no-one has yet
responded to, including H Coupe BWIHtKoCENG. Perhaps I should edit it
down to something more manageable and repost.
> Sorry if i paraphrase or over-simplify here, but James is basically PRO
> [if there's one new discipline at a time, and the new clans are phased]
> and JB is basically ANTI [on the grounds that fragmentation, already a
> problem with the AH/DS and new Sabbat clans, is a a Bad Thing].
Yes. I am basically ANTI.
> i have a view about this because i have been playing Damnan's
> Cappadocians in USA and at home and having GREAT fun. Cappadocians have
> for, aus and Mortis as in-clan disciplines plus some funky pool-gaining
> abilities which make them a playable non-Camarilla clan. A couple of
> cards in Damnan's set are broken [Awakening and Legion of Zombu, though
> you have to work a bit to break Awakening] and one needs clarified,
> namely Temple of Erciyes, but otherwise they are OK [ i say nothing
> about the other clans, partly because i've not tried them, partly
> because the True Brujah are so OBVIOUSLY broken, and partly because the
> Baali are, too, though not so obviously]. Anyway, the point i'm making
> and i'm happy to be contradicted by those who were there, is that the
> Cappadocians slipped smoothly into the game in SE USA and were generally
> well-received. i would like to advocate single-clan, single
> extra-discipline expansions as cheap and fun and Cool as a Christian
> Dior Ice Lolly {legbiter's Best Ever Chat-Up Line, unfortunately TOTALLY
> wasted on a Bride whose first language was NOT English]
This is all well and good, but does not address any of the problems I have
mentioned, which I think are considerable enough to give pause.
Anyway, I would be curious to check out this expansion just for
curiosity's sake. Is the "spoiler list" available anywhere?
I'm curious as to how supply issues are dealt with. I assume it is the
usual situation as far as playtested experimental "expansions" are
concerned: everyone is given a complete "spoiler list" and then allowed
to bring as many proxies as they wish? If so, you have an ideal
situation: a new expansion with all the fun and added variety, unlimited
supply of "cards" for all, and none of the practical problems of supply
and demand that "fragmentation" creates. To argue on the basis of such
an example, you are only looking at one side of the picture. I hope you
don't think that I am adocating against further fragmentation simply
because I am some stuck-in-the-mud curmudgeon who despises variety,
novelty and innovation.
I sympathize with your interest in the Cappodocians. They certain seem
more interesting and more flexible than their dull-as-dirt Giovanni
replacements. (The Giovanni were an idea that seem to have been based on
an ethnic steriotype, which is always a bad start. The rigid nature of
the clan makes it hard for individual members to break the mold.)
Even if we were to add the Capodocians, do we really need the Mortis
discipline? My understanding is that some of the descendants of
Cappodocians, like the Harbingers of Skulls, practice Necromancy, which
has a new "Path of Mortuus" that somewhat mimics the powers of the Mortis
discipline. This being the case, is a new "Mortis" discipline really
needed? New disciplines are possibly a bigger fragmentation problem than
new clans are.
We already have 17 disciplines, and have not even begun to explore the
number of discipline combos that this makes possible. In WoD role playing
game this is not a problem because it is based around individual
characters which can be made as atypical as one likes. In V:tES one
typically needs at least two to four characters of similar focus to even
think of trying to make a deck around a particular discipline combo (I
have not seen anyone use Patrizia Giovanni or Mirembe Kabbada yet). But
there are 136 possible 2 discipline combos, 680 possible 3-discipline
combos, and 2380 possible 4-discipline combos (I hope I got that right).
But anyway that's alot of possibilities to be exploring -- ones that might
support strategies that are not currently workable. It seems to me that
introducing a whole new discipline into such a situation is an insult to
the enormous potential already present, especially since there is little
reason why new card concepts could not be introduced within the context of
the present discipline structure.
So, why waste an opportunity to expore a new discipline combo. If the
Cappodocians are to be introduced at some far distant date, should they
not have Fortitude, Auspex and Necromancy? If new "death magic" ideas are
to be introduced to the game, why not do it withing the context of
Necromancy? If you don't want the Giovanni using these special cards,
then print Necromancy cards that work well only in combination with
Fortitude or Auspex effects. If no suitable Auspex effects exist
currently for a combo you have in mind, then invent a new card.
If you introduce a new Mortis discipline with the Cappodocians, then
little is done to explore new pairings of old disciplins. We already have
a clan that combines Auspex and Fortitude. But if we give the modern
Cappodocians Necromancy, then Aus & Nec, and For & Nec, get combined for
the first time. This allows the exploration of new possibilities for
Necromancy, rather than leaving it stuck in a marginalized corner of the
game.
-- John Whelan
The Lasombra
John Whelan (Lupus Australis) <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> asked
about Cappadocians that Legbiter talked about:
> Anyway, I would be curious to check out this expansion just for
> curiosity's sake. Is the "spoiler list" available anywhere?
Of course.
http://www.geocities.com/damnans/
Carpe Noctem.
Lasombra
http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra
James Coupe
John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes
>OK. But I had a rather long post on the subject which no-one has yet
>responded to, including H Coupe BWIHtKoCENG.
I'm not sure about the H or the acronym afterwards.
I haven't, yet, had time to go through some of the lengthy posts, and
rather than fire off a short answer, I'm waiting for more time when I
can do a long, considered answer.
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail)
"Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful
they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why
it's possible I could get by."
John Whelan
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 inr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> my take on this is that new clans and disiplines are a good way to avoid
> the arms race that M:tCH has become (still working on new tortures).
This is a point, and I was wondering when someone would mention it.
However, Vampire already has the equivalent of 39+ colors of mana, as
compared to Magic's 5. This is already a stabilizing factor, making it
rather difficult to print cards that will replace the entire set in one
go. The basic design is also a safeguard. That the game is based on
Vampires means that can always use MORE Vampires who will help make one's
decks more focussed and therefore more efficient, but that one does not
necessarily need BETTER Vampires. White Wolf realizes (hopefully) that
the problem with the marginal clans is that there were not enough of them,
not that they were not powerful enough on an individual basis. Hopefully
they realize that we can always use new vampires, and they need not be
more powerful than the ones that came before.
Question is: can there be too much of a good thing? Surely you realize
that making it difficult for White Wolf to Screw Things Up, also means
making it difficult for them to do lots of other things, like maybe Get
Things Right. It makes it harder to provide any service to existing
clans, or reward the interests and expectations of an increasingly
fragmented customer base. What if people stop buy fewer cards because
they are not as interested in the particular clans not currently being
serviced.
Fragmentation means that White Wolf can only service part of the game at
one time. The "good" news is that there is absolutely NO chance that the
Assamites, the Settites, the Giovanni, or the Ravnos will become "broken"
or overpowered because of the new Sabbat War cards. There is no chance
that old Clan-specific cards for Camarilla & Independents, Chimeristry
cards, Serpentis Cards, Necromancy cards, or Quietus cards will be
rendered obsolete. But if we really want to play it that safe, perhaps we
should do without expansions altogether.
> If
> the cards are play tested and balanced, then they can be integrated
> without causing all of the older cards to be useless, and further,
> generating renewed interest in the game (as well as renewed sales for
> White Wolf).
In a post a short while back, a response to James Coupe titled
"Fragmentation (Long)", I made considerable arguments to the effect that
fragmentation has the potential to damage the marketability and
profitability of the game. I was just wondering if you have had a chance
to read the post, or if you have any criticism of the arguments I
presented there. I will try to repost a condensed version of it if I can
find the time and energy.
> It should, of course be done slowly, especially since all
> the Cool Things tm from the Jyhad set haven't been discovered, there is
> no need to keep constantly churning out new expansions to keep us all on
> our feet. This should allow ample time for playtesting... right?
I don't think we need an expansion every year, though it certainly would
be nice to get a few promo vampires on a regular basis. New vampires with
new discipline combos will certainly create new opportunities to explore
"Cool Things tm" from the Jyhad set.
> gee, that didn't sound all that divisive. darn. still, better safe
> than sorry. *puts on flame resistant PJ's, heads to sleep*
I don't think there has been anything qualifying as a "flame" on this
subject. As I recall, James & I kept our disagreement fairly civil. I
hope he agrees.
-- John Whelan
The Lasombra
James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.0009112151550.20252-
100...@amanda.dorsai.org>,
> John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes
> >OK. But I had a rather long post on the subject which no-one has yet
> >responded to, including H Coupe BWIHtKoCENG.
>
> I'm not sure about the H or the acronym afterwards.
From the Legbiter,
"the Hated Coupe, Beneath Whose Iron heel the Kindred of Central
England Nightly Groan" [LEG 7-12-00] [LEG 2-17-00] [LEG 2-3-00] [more]
Carpe Noctem.
Lasombra
http://legbiter.tripod.com
http://lasombra.tripod.com
quotes via deja news power search - http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
legb...@my-deja.com
John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > And while i don't want to start [or stoke] another one, i have to
say i
> > mildly agree with my Brother the Hated Coupe, Between Whose Iron
Heel
> > the Kindred of Central England Nightly Groan, and Mildly disagree
with
> > my Brother JB Whelan, about new expansions including new clans and
> > disciplines.
>
> OK. But I had a rather long post on the subject which no-one has yet
> responded to, including H Coupe BWIHtKoCENG.
FYI This stands for Beneath Whose Iron Heel the Kindred of Central
England Nightly Groan, James.
Perhaps I should edit it
> down to something more manageable and repost.
i read that bit of the thread and found it perfectly clear and cogent. i
don't want to argue against it - merely to assert from my own experience
of playing with a home-made expansion that things may not be as bad as
you think if/when new clans and disciplines get introduced.
Not directly, i agree. However, if you look at the way the cards have
been designed you see that there are very few actual new concepts. i
suggest another idea below which may go some way towards answering
another of the problems you've raised.
> Anyway, I would be curious to check out this expansion just for
> curiosity's sake. Is the "spoiler list" available anywhere?
>
> I'm curious as to how supply issues are dealt with. I assume it is
the
> usual situation as far as playtested experimental "expansions" are
> concerned: everyone is given a complete "spoiler list" and then
allowed
> to bring as many proxies as they wish? If so, you have an ideal
> situation: a new expansion with all the fun and added variety,
unlimited
> supply of "cards" for all, and none of the practical problems of
supply
> and demand that "fragmentation" creates. To argue on the basis of
such
> an example, you are only looking at one side of the picture. I hope
you
> don't think that I am adocating against further fragmentation simply
> because I am some stuck-in-the-mud curmudgeon who despises variety,
> novelty and innovation.
>
No, as i say i understood your post, and i personally don't give a toss
whether future expansions are all home-made or whether White Wolf does
them.
i think that is reasonable. Alternatively, perhaps Mortis would allow
you to play cards with the mortis or necromancy symbol, but you would
have to pay an extra blood for nec cards if you had only mor, and vice
versa.
i also [using Damnan's cards] made up a Baali deck which was pretty
stinky and IMO heavily overpowered. i made up the following rule for
Dark Thaumaturgy:
Dark Thaumaturgy allows you to play Tha cards from your hand [normally]
or from the ash-heap. If you use DT to play a card from the ash-heap,
remove it from play whenever it would normally go to the ash-heap. Put a
Damnation counter on the vampire whenever it uses DT. When the number of
Damnation counters on a vampire equals the capacity of that vampire,
burn it.
i think i might add something else to this rule now: at the start of any
round of combat, any minion may burn X damnation counters on the
opposing vampire to gain +X hand damage for that round of combat.
Buffer line t
John Whelan
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> i read that bit of the thread and found it perfectly clear and cogent. i
> don't want to argue against it - merely to assert from my own experience
> of playing with a home-made expansion that things may not be as bad as
> you think if/when new clans and disciplines get introduced.
OK, but let me again emphasis that I was minimally (if at all) worried
about the effects of fragmentation on the actual playing of the game.
Rather, I was concerned about the effects on its affordability,
profitability, supply, demand, etc. etc.
<snip much>
> > So, why waste an opportunity to expore a new discipline combo. If the
> > Cappodocians are to be introduced at some far distant date, should
> they
> > not have Fortitude, Auspex and Necromancy? If new "death magic" ideas
> are
> > to be introduced to the game, why not do it withing the context of
> > Necromancy? If you don't want the Giovanni using these special cards,
> > then print Necromancy cards that work well only in combination with
> > Fortitude or Auspex effects. If no suitable Auspex effects exist
> > currently for a combo you have in mind, then invent a new card.
> >
> > If you introduce a new Mortis discipline with the Cappodocians, then
> > little is done to explore new pairings of old disciplins. We already
> have
> > a clan that combines Auspex and Fortitude. But if we give the modern
> > Cappodocians Necromancy, then Aus & Nec, and For & Nec, get combined
> for
> > the first time. This allows the exploration of new possibilities for
> > Necromancy, rather than leaving it stuck in a marginalized corner of
> the
> > game.
> >
> i think that is reasonable. Alternatively, perhaps Mortis would allow
> you to play cards with the mortis or necromancy symbol, but you would
> have to pay an extra blood for nec cards if you had only mor, and vice
> versa.
OK. Ideally, however, a new expansion should not introduce rules into the
game apart from what card text provides ... at least not if it can be
avoided.
I checked out the expansion on the website (thanks Lasombra) & saw the
symbol used for Mortis. It is a skull. Yeah, ok, its from the side
rather than the front, but conceptually it is the exact same symbol as
that of Necromancy. Makes one wonder what the symbol of Thanatosis will
be -- perhaps a skull with a top hat? Just another reason to suspect that
there is little to gain by not combining the two disciplines.
One option might be to print one or more "Mortis-type" Necromancy cards
which cause damage to users without fortitude. This might discourage
their use by the Giovanni. Another option is combat cards that work
better if you are a non-acting minion (thus more usable in Auspex-using
decks).
It is already certain that the Cappodocians, having Auspex, will ignore
any current Necromancy-related intercept powers.
Of course, what "Path" or variant of a discipline one's vampires are using
will always depend on what cards a Methuselah puts in her decks. We
Methuselahs have a powerful influence on our minions. Sure, in the
official WoD, the Giovanni use one type of death magic, and the
Cappodocians another, but perhaps that is simply because the Methuselahs
controlling them want it that way (with the variants they have chosen
merely being analagous to the different types of Necromancy cards their
Methuselahs have put in their libraries)? IMHO, a CCG adaptation is
sufficiently faithful if it ALLOWS a Methuselah to dublicate WoD
conditions. It need not force him to do so.
> i also [using Damnan's cards] made up a Baali deck which was pretty
> stinky and IMO heavily overpowered. i made up the following rule for
> Dark Thaumaturgy:
As an aside on the subject of "Dark Thaumaturgy". I was under the
impression that the Sabbat Tremere practiced this discipline in the WoD,
and hence that a decision has already been made not to distinguish it from
normal Thaumaturgy for game-design purposes. Anyone who knows more than I
do on the subject please feel free to corret me....
> Dark Thaumaturgy allows you to play Tha cards from your hand [normally]
> or from the ash-heap. If you use DT to play a card from the ash-heap,
> remove it from play whenever it would normally go to the ash-heap. Put a
> Damnation counter on the vampire whenever it uses DT. When the number of
> Damnation counters on a vampire equals the capacity of that vampire,
> burn it.
I like the "damnation counters" idea. Once again, though, you seem to
have formulated a situation that requires rules other than that provided
by card text. Fine as a friendly house rule, but...
How about printing alternate versions of earlier Thaumaturgy cards, in
which one gains damnation counters instead of paying blood costs (or some
similar trade-off), as defined by card text. This way we keep the
simplicity of a single discipline. The particular path or variant
followed by a minion will depend on the particular cards a Methuselah puts
in his library. If a significant portion of these have "damnation
counters" as part of their cost, then clearly the minion playing it is a
"Dark Thaumaturgist" as opposed to the normal kind.
> i think i might add something else to this rule now: at the start of any
> round of combat, any minion may burn X damnation counters on the
> opposing vampire to gain +X hand damage for that round of combat.
Interesting. I'm insufficiently familiar with the background
material. What is the idea behind this?
Though it would be interesting if the consequences of Dark Thaumaturgy
were somehow unpredictable. Otherwise, a minion always knows just when to
stop. Perhaps they could go Kaboom when damnation counters exceed
Methuselah's pool. That would be hilarious.
-- John Whelan
legb...@my-deja.com
John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > i read that bit of the thread and found it perfectly clear and cogent. i
> > don't want to argue against it - merely to assert from my own experience
> > of playing with a home-made expansion that things may not be as bad as
> > you think if/when new clans and disciplines get introduced.
>
> OK, but let me again emphasis that I was minimally (if at all) worried
> about the effects of fragmentation on the actual playing of the game.
> Rather, I was concerned about the effects on its affordability,
> profitability, supply, demand, etc. etc.
>
i certainly agree with you that card text should ideally be transparent
and provide all the info you need to play a card. But i think a certain
amount of meta-ruling is OK, eg not being able to pack ante-related cards
if you aren't playing for ante, and Golden Tenets. Perhaps we could have
cards made either by White Wolf or at home that were only useable in, say
a Dark Ages format.
>
> I checked out the expansion on the website (thanks Lasombra) & saw the
> symbol used for Mortis. It is a skull. Yeah, ok, its from the side
> rather than the front, but conceptually it is the exact same symbol as
> that of Necromancy. Makes one wonder what the symbol of Thanatosis will
> be -- perhaps a skull with a top hat? Just another reason to suspect that
> there is little to gain by not combining the two disciplines.
>
> One option might be to print one or more "Mortis-type" Necromancy cards
> which cause damage to users without fortitude. This might discourage
> their use by the Giovanni. Another option is combat cards that work
> better if you are a non-acting minion (thus more usable in Auspex-using
> decks).
>
> It is already certain that the Cappodocians, having Auspex, will ignore
> any current Necromancy-related intercept powers.
>
> Of course, what "Path" or variant of a discipline one's vampires are using
> will always depend on what cards a Methuselah puts in her decks. We
> Methuselahs have a powerful influence on our minions. Sure, in the
> official WoD, the Giovanni use one type of death magic, and the
> Cappodocians another, but perhaps that is simply because the Methuselahs
> controlling them want it that way (with the variants they have chosen
> merely being analagous to the different types of Necromancy cards their
> Methuselahs have put in their libraries)? IMHO, a CCG adaptation is
> sufficiently faithful if it ALLOWS a Methuselah to dublicate WoD
> conditions. It need not force him to do so.
>
Agreed, and i reiterate R David Zopf's point from an earlier thread that
VTES, though set in the WoD, is a different game from VtM. In VTES the
pathetic delusions of the ancillae are of no interest to us, their Lords
and Masters/Mistresses. If they think Necromancy, Thanatos and Mortis are
different things, sobeit - if we know differently, that's the way it is.
Why i did this is that there actually aren't any specific DT minion cards
in Damnan's set. So i invented the DT rule so's not to waste the
discipline. It makes Deal with the Devil a playable card, and nods in the
direction of infernal familiar and Mark of Damnation, but if you push me
for a proper link to WoD source material, well i have to confess i don't
have one.
mik...@a_van_a.net
>Vampires means that can always use MORE Vampires who will help make one's
>decks more focussed and therefore more efficient, but that one does not
>necessarily need BETTER Vampires. White Wolf realizes (hopefully) that
I don't believe there is a difference between the two. Helping a deck
type(s) become more efficient is the definition of a "better" card.
And that isn't just limited to the vampire card type. Any card
introduced in expansion, can impact gameplay and deck construction,
for better or worse. Dreams of the Sphinx (AH) comes to mind, as well
as Horrific Countenance (DS).
>the problem with the marginal clans is that there were not enough of them,
>not that they were not powerful enough on an individual basis. Hopefully
>they realize that we can always use new vampires, and they need not be
>more powerful than the ones that came before.
I guess I'm missing your definition of "power," as applied to a vamp.
I see five criteria for vamps: capacity, skills, base damage, base
bleed, and votes/title. Clan, skill, and title allow certain
strengths and vulnerabilities, as denoted in the library cards. All
of these criteria, when considered as a whole, fall short of measuring
power, as a vamp's power is still limited by hand size, library size,
commonality of criteria, game mechanic, library composition and
library order. Example: The 12 (or 13) Crypt Machine vamps (4-caps
with dom) are orders of magnitude more powerful than any collection of
Inner Circle vamps. Why? because I can guarantee that I'll start with
4 unique vamps in the crypt, that share a skill (dom), and can run a
library based on that skill.
>Question is: can there be too much of a good thing? Surely you realize
>that making it difficult for White Wolf to Screw Things Up, also means
>making it difficult for them to do lots of other things, like maybe Get
>Things Right. It makes it harder to provide any service to existing
>clans, or reward the interests and expectations of an increasingly
>fragmented customer base. What if people stop buy fewer cards because
>they are not as interested in the particular clans not currently being
>serviced.
The simple answer is: they're missing out. One of the main points of
this game, is that clan divisions are transparent, to the overall goal
of ousting one's prey. If a player does not understand this function,
they don't understand the game.
What you have hit on, is the notion that improper combinations of
clan, skill, function, and/or cost (in game terms) tend to fail
because they contrast against the core mechanics and dynamics. This
is a separate issue from fragmentation, though.
I'll use Eyes of the Dead (DS) and Deadliest Sin (AH or S?) as an
example.
EotD, requires a skill, and provides a function. DSin, a skillless
card, provides function equal to superior-skill EotD, plus extra
function not included in EotD, for the same cost.
This pair of cards is broken, because it reverses a core concept of
V:TES: skilled library cards should offer an advantage to unskilled
cards, either in cost or effect.
That's a blatant example, but several such mistakes, of varying
impact, reside in the existing expansion sets.
>
>Fragmentation means that White Wolf can only service part of the game at
>one time. The "good" news is that there is absolutely NO chance that the
>Assamites, the Settites, the Giovanni, or the Ravnos will become "broken"
>or overpowered because of the new Sabbat War cards. There is no chance
>that old Clan-specific cards for Camarilla & Independents, Chimeristry
>cards, Serpentis Cards, Necromancy cards, or Quietus cards will be
>rendered obsolete. But if we really want to play it that safe, perhaps we
>should do without expansions altogether.
>
Here, you're talking breadth of game, vs. scope of expansion.
Take the Camarilla vamps from Ancient Hearts, as an illustration.
(note: I am deliberately excluding Ravnos/Giovanni from this example).
It looks like valuable vamp slots were taken from the main clans of
the set (Assamite/Setite), to create "hook" vamps for Camarilla clans,
utilizing a combination of old and new skills. The result is a subset
of vampires that cannot use either Settite or Assamite cards, but
don't have the skills to really be useful in their designated clans.
Since the point of the expansion was to introduce two new clans, the
mis-clanned vampires are wasted card slots, from the scope of the
expansion, resulting in incomplete clans.
L. Scott Johnson
>
> A few notes here...
>
> >Vampires means that can always use MORE Vampires who will help make one's
> >decks more focussed and therefore more efficient, but that one does not
> >necessarily need BETTER Vampires. White Wolf realizes (hopefully) that
>
> I don't believe there is a difference between the two. Helping a deck
> type(s) become more efficient is the definition of a "better" card.
> And that isn't just limited to the vampire card type. Any card
> introduced in expansion, can impact gameplay and deck construction,
> for better or worse. Dreams of the Sphinx (AH) comes to mind, as well
> as Horrific Countenance (DS).
I believe he's trying to make the distinction between a increase in power
level ("better") and simply an increase of options.
A new card: "Kewl Resources Contested. Political card (etc.) Allocate 5
points between two or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each
Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned." would be an example of
a "better" card, whereas the same card with a cost of 1 blood would simply
be a different card (but would still be "better" by your assertion, since
it allows a deck to choose higher damage at a blood cost penalty based on
which is more efficient for the deck).
By equating the two, any *usable* card introduced would be a "better"
card unless it duplicated an existing card (e.g., Meat Cleaver). I
think that "better" is a term more properly reserved for changes in
power level - something that, if done on a broad base, is referred
to as "escalation".
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | "The little demon wasn't
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | telling the truth,"
Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | Tom implied.
madma...@my-deja.com
>>I would like to advocate single-clan, single extra-discipline
expansions as cheap and fun <<
to the milieu. However, I doubt that such an expansion would be cheap
since I'm sure there are fixed costs associated with *any* expansion
and, the smaller the expansion, the more freight the fixed costs add.
And while I think that these mini-expansions would be fun, I do think
that the concept of expansions that can stand alone, and so be used in
sealed and draft games, is the way to go, at least for the time being.
In particular, I like the Sabbat War concept (as I understand it): a
mixture of old cards and new, useful for new and experienced players,
good for constructed and great for sealed or draft.
As speaking of future expansions, I am looking forward (already, yes)
to a post-Sabbat-War expansion full of Independents. If this very
hypothetical expansion were modeled after SW, then we should get the 4
Independents with, who knows, another 4 new Independent clans.
Wouldn't *that* be a kick?
Food for thought, and all for now,
Madman
Eric Pettersen
> I'll use Eyes of the Dead (DS) and Deadliest Sin (AH or S?) as an
> example.
DSin -> AH
>
> EotD, requires a skill, and provides a function. DSin, a skillless
> card, provides function equal to superior-skill EotD, plus extra
> function not included in EotD, for the same cost.
>
> This pair of cards is broken, because it reverses a core concept of
> V:TES: skilled library cards should offer an advantage to unskilled
> cards, either in cost or effect.
In general, I agree with this statement, but I think you've chosen a bad
example.
>
> That's a blatant example, but several such mistakes, of varying
> impact, reside in the existing expansion sets.
The EotD/Dsin example is bad because the original (skilled) card, EotD,
was so incredibly weak that it found it's way into essentially no decks.
Effectively, it is as if it had never been printed. Any new card giving
"EotD-like" functionality would have to be considerably better to see any
play at all, not merely "comparable". Therefore, in this case I think
the fact that EotD had been printed is no design constraint at all on
future EotD-like cards. And in fact we see that DSin is clearly superior
to EotD. How many decks have you seen DSin in? Probably not many. I
have seen it -- though very, very rarely.
In this case, the original card was the mistake, I believe. Therefore,
in all such cases one has to decide for oneself if the status quo is the
"mistake" or whether the newer card/rule/whatever is the mistake, and not
just blindly assume that the newer thing is bad.
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)
James Coupe
>As speaking of future expansions, I am looking forward (already, yes)
>to a post-Sabbat-War expansion full of Independents. If this very
>hypothetical expansion were modeled after SW, then we should get the 4
>Independents with, who knows, another 4 new Independent clans.
>Wouldn't *that* be a kick?
I would have thought that doing another stand-alone might be awkward
*but* doing an "Old World" expansion, covering the "Mediterranean" clans
(since the Giovanni are in Italy, the Setites in Egypt and north Africa,
the Ravnos in random bits of Europe and the Assamites in the middle east
- conceptually), which reprinted, revised and boosted the *current* four
clans would be excellent.
I would be, shall we say, uncomfortable at adding new clans *before*:
1) The current clans are fixed
2) We have time for them to settle down, so that we can see what roles
they occupy with their newly fixed status, as opposed to their old
crappy status
John Whelan
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 mike_p@a_van_a.net wrote:
> >Hopefully
> >they realize that we can always use new vampires, and they need not be
> >more powerful than the ones that came before.
>
> I guess I'm missing your definition of "power," <snip>
That's because I didn't define it. It was irrelevant to my point. All I
was saying was that one can build better, more focused crypts if one has
more vampires to choose from. You can design a better deck because of
more design options that allow you to choose those elements that fit your
strategy best. It need not (and should not) have anything to do with
newer vampires being inherently better than the old. Similar principles
apply to library design.
This applies regaredless of what criteria you use to judge which vampires
are better than which (relative to their cost in blood and transfers).
> >Question is: can there be too much of a good thing? Surely you realize
> >that making it difficult for White Wolf to Screw Things Up, also means
> >making it difficult for them to do lots of other things, like maybe Get
> >Things Right. It makes it harder to provide any service to existing
> >clans, or reward the interests and expectations of an increasingly
> >fragmented customer base. What if people stop buy fewer cards because
> >they are not as interested in the particular clans not currently being
> >serviced.
>
> The simple answer is: they're missing out.
Your "simple answer" is an inadequate answer. Indeed, it would seem that
you have missed the point entirely. Is it your position that each player
should play with each and every clan? All 22? And when we have 8 more,
he should play with all 30? What when we have 10 more clans and 10 more
disciplines?
Are you saying that every player should be a fanatic? That each player
should purchase sufficient quantities of cards that he has enough to make
highly focussed and competitive decks in each of 30+ clans and using any
of 25+ disciplines? Are you saying that if he is not sufficiently
fanatic, sufficiently devoted, that if he lacks the money, energy, time,
and tireless dedication to be everything you require of him, he should
just go away and play some other game because White Wolf just not want
such lowlifes as customers?
I consider myself a devoted player, but I myself don't have such energies.
I play almost exclusively with the Camarilla clans, especially the
Nossies. Even within my specialized focus, I find an enormous amount of
room for variety and creativity. Sometimes I think it is the generalists,
hopping from clan to clan, who are "missing out", because they never get
to explore the possibilities that I do. Still, I collect all the clans,
because I am a very devoted player. I like having everything, and you
never know when I might want to try something wierd.
But the point is, that unless you play with ALL clans and ALL disciplines,
you face the problem of fragmentation. The more clans and disciplines
that exist, beyond what you play, the higher the proportion of the cards
you acquire that will not be immediately (if ever) useful to you. Less
reward for your money inevitably means fewer customers. Soon all that are
left are us fanatics with our huge card collections.
> One of the main points of
> this game, is that clan divisions are transparent, to the overall goal
> of ousting one's prey.
I'm sorry, but that is an overgeneralization. You might as well say that
Auspex is "transparent to the overall goal goal of ousting one's prey."
Sure it is, if your deck strategy does not depend on resources that
require Auspex.
A clan symbol on a vampire works almost exactly like a discipline symbol
on a vampire. It is a sort of "licence" or that grants him the ability
to use certain resources that are available. It is an important feature
of many of my deck strategies ... less so in others.
I agree, however, that clan designation controls fewer resources than a
discipline designation, and is not as important. For this reason, I regard
fragmentation of clans as *less* of a problem than fragmentation of
disciplines. However, both are aspects of the same problem.
I have already had a discussion on the Cappodocians where I suggested that
even if these were introduced as a new clan, they should feature a new
combination of old disciplines (auspex, fortitude, necromancy) rather than
a introduce a new discipline (auspex fortitude mortis). You can add as
much (indeed more!) flavor and variety to the game by doing it in a manner
that minimizes fragmentation.
> If a player does not understand this function,
> they don't understand the game.
It has nothing to do with "understanding".
> What you have hit on, is the notion that improper combinations of
> clan, skill, function, and/or cost (in game terms) tend to fail
> because they contrast against the core mechanics and dynamics. This
> is a separate issue from fragmentation, though.
I'm clueless as to what you are trying to say here, or what it has to do
with anything I have said. Sorry. Your Eyes of the Dead example below
(which I have snipped) does not enlighten me. I agree with the other
poster who said it was a poor example of a "broken" pair of cards, since
Eyes of the Dead is clearly wallpaper and a mistake, but even if if were
a good example, I would not see how it ties in.
Perhaps this is intended to connect in some way with what an earlier
poster said about Fragmentation preventing escalation, since the
"Deadliest Sin" might be perceived as an example of escalation (though
justifiable in this case, as the original card was total wallpaper and
would not have been used anyway).
<snip>
> >Fragmentation means that White Wolf can only service part of the game at
> >one time. The "good" news is that there is absolutely NO chance that the
> >Assamites, the Settites, the Giovanni, or the Ravnos will become "broken"
> >or overpowered because of the new Sabbat War cards. There is no chance
> >that old Clan-specific cards for Camarilla & Independents, Chimeristry
> >cards, Serpentis Cards, Necromancy cards, or Quietus cards will be
> >rendered obsolete. But if we really want to play it that safe, perhaps we
> >should do without expansions altogether.
> >
>
> Here, you're talking breadth of game, vs. scope of expansion.
Yes indeed. The level of fragmentation (which you apparently call "breath
of game") is capable of increasing indefinitely as new clans are added.
The scope of an expansion, however, remaines the same. So as
fragmentation increases, expansions must either spread itself very thin,
or service a smaller portion of the game. Either way, the average player
gets, for his money, a smaller proportion of cards that are, from his POV,
"usable".
> Take the Camarilla vamps from Ancient Hearts, as an illustration.
> (note: I am deliberately excluding Ravnos/Giovanni from this example).
> It looks like valuable vamp slots were taken from the main clans of
> the set (Assamite/Setite), to create "hook" vamps for Camarilla clans,
> utilizing a combination of old and new skills. The result is a subset
> of vampires that cannot use either Settite or Assamite cards, but
> don't have the skills to really be useful in their designated clans.
> Since the point of the expansion was to introduce two new clans, the
> mis-clanned vampires are wasted card slots, from the scope of the
> expansion, resulting in incomplete clans.
Now I'm confused again. What's your point? Are you arguing with me or
agreeing with me.
They tried to service the entire game and spread themselves too thin.
This is a consequence of fragmentation. Had they wanted to truly expand
options for the Gangrel (for instance) then the "African Gangrel" like
Mirembe Kabbada needed at least one or two brothers or sisters who shared
her atypical focus. Likewise for "Greek Gangrel" like Panagos Levidis
(though he is more usable on his own, mainly because he is not trying to
introduce some new discipline). However, had they done this (and done it
right) there would have been less room for the new clans (if any).
Similarly, had they given the new clans the attention they truly needed,
they would have had to sacrifice everything they gave the old clans.
Such hard (but necessary) choices are a consequence of fragmentation.
[BTW, Greek Gangrel are a real subgroup in WoD. I believe they are
mentioned in one of the Dark Ages supplements. They have Ani Obf Pro]
John Whelan
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 madma...@my-deja.com wrote:
> As speaking of future expansions, I am looking forward (already, yes)
> to a post-Sabbat-War expansion full of Independents. If this very
> hypothetical expansion were modeled after SW, then we should get the 4
> Independents with, who knows, another 4 new Independent clans.
> Wouldn't *that* be a kick?
<Sigh!> Nobody listens to me.
But I can't help but be curious. What four new clans (and
disciplines) did you have in mind?
-- John Whelan
James Coupe
John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes
>Your "simple answer" is an inadequate answer. Indeed, it would seem that
>you have missed the point entirely. Is it your position that each player
>should play with each and every clan? All 22? And when we have 8 more,
>he should play with all 30? What when we have 10 more clans and 10 more
>disciplines?
No-one is saying anything of the sort.
The thing is, if you continue to make the "General" expansions that you
seem to advocate, where you have to have cards for all the clans that
have gone before, everyone has to buy everything. If I want all the
Gangrel cards, I have to go and buy every expansion, because there are
Gangrel cards in all of them.
With the more focused expansions that a number of people are talking
about, each with its own distinct task to fulfil, you can be a V:TES
fanatic, get lots of Gangrel cards but rarely feel compelled to go out
and buy boosters for another expansion because some of your essential
cards are in it.
John Whelan
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, James Coupe wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000914...@amanda.dorsai.org>,
> John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes
> >Your "simple answer" is an inadequate answer. Indeed, it would seem that
> >you have missed the point entirely. Is it your position that each player
> >should play with each and every clan? All 22? And when we have 8 more,
> >he should play with all 30? What when we have 10 more clans and 10 more
> >disciplines?
>
> No-one is saying anything of the sort.
No, but you need to take that position to argue that Fragmentation does
not impact players, and reduce the amount of "usable" game material that
the average player will get from an average expansion.
> The thing is, if you continue to make the "General" expansions that you
> seem to advocate, where you have to have cards for all the clans that
> have gone before, everyone has to buy everything.
Why do you keep saying that I "seem" to advocate general expansions?
I have repeatedly stated that I advocate focussed expansions. I have
advocated that some clans and disciplines be left out entirely, and that
each expansion should focus on at most 7 clans and 10 disciplines (as the
original did). I am of the opinion that all sets after the first spread
themselves too thin and tried to do too much.
I recognize that, because of the level of fragmentation, hard choices must
be made. I have recommended that those hard choices be made, particularly
when an expansion is a "standalone" and intended to rake in new players.
> If I want all the
> Gangrel cards, I have to go and buy every expansion, because there are
> Gangrel cards in all of them.
Yes. That is one of the sad things about Fragmentation. There is no way
to avoid the possible consequences that customers will be lost. If a
focussed expansion is made, and it leaves out the Gangrel and some other
clans, then there is a chance that fans of the omitted clans will not buy
the new set, or not as much of it. In other words, part of White Wolf's
customer base is lost. This increases the chance that the expansion will
not turn a profit, which in turn increases the chance that there will
never be a "next expansion".
White Wolf's other option is to print cards for all clans and disciplines
in each set. That way, there is a "hook" for all the players. The
downside is that those who do buy the set will get minimal reward for
their money. Players may feel disatisfied that they spend a whole load of
money for a lesser quantity of cards they consider usable. White Wolf may
still lose customers.
So you see, the choice between focussed expansions and general expansions
is a lose-lose situation. There is no way to avoid the consequences of
fragmentation, and one can only hope that the demand for the game is
sufficient to support it in spite of these problems.
Between the two, I advocate focussed expansions, because I feel these are
better for hooking in new players.
> With the more focused expansions that a number of people are talking
> about,
....people like me, you mean. As I recall, I was the one who first
brought up the issue by advocating for them, and so started this whole
discussion.
> each with its own distinct task to fulfil, you can be a V:TES
> fanatic, get lots of Gangrel cards but rarely feel compelled to go out
> and buy boosters for another expansion because some of your essential
> cards are in it.
This is great for the interests of the particular player, but bad for
White Wolf's profits. I'm not concerned about White Wolf's profits,
except for the consideration that if they don't get adequate profits,
neither do we get any further expansions. Is the customer base
sufficiently large that WW can afford to target an expansion at only a
fraction of it? I hope so, because there isn't much of a choice.
Once again!: I am not saying this to argue against focussed expansions,
which I feel are the better way to go (even from the POV of White Wolf's
profits). I am merely pointing out that you cannot avoid facing
consequences of fragmentation no matter how you do things. The moral of
the story: don't increase fragmentation.
-- John Whelan
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
yes)
> > to a post-Sabbat-War expansion full of Independents. If this very
> > hypothetical expansion were modeled after SW, then we should get the
4
> > Independents with, who knows, another 4 new Independent clans.
> > Wouldn't *that* be a kick?
>
>
> But I can't help but be curious. What four new clans (and
> disciplines) did you have in mind?
How about the Blood Brothers, the Samedi, the Daughters of Cacophony,
and the Arimans?(the Gangrel women that cannot produce childer). I
think that those are a good start with 4 fresh disciplines: Sanguinus,
Thanatosus, Melifluous? (the kumbaya discipline), and Spiritus.
How's bout them apples,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
X_Zealot
Archon of the Swamp
James Coupe
John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes
>> The thing is, if you continue to make the "General" expansions that you
>> seem to advocate, where you have to have cards for all the clans that
>> have gone before, everyone has to buy everything.
>
>Why do you keep saying that I "seem" to advocate general expansions?
You keep telling us that you have to have cards for all the clans that
have gone before. At least, that is what you appear to be saying.
>I have repeatedly stated that I advocate focussed expansions. I have
>advocated that some clans and disciplines be left out entirely,
But if they had not, from your previous posts, you wouldn't have had
anything for a new player or an old player to use immediately.
>> If I want all the
>> Gangrel cards, I have to go and buy every expansion, because there are
>> Gangrel cards in all of them.
>
>Yes. That is one of the sad things about Fragmentation.
Not at all. You just have specific areas for Camarilla clans. You deal
with those in a Camarilla designated expansion, or base-set or whatever.
Get a clan up to a good level, then let it go free. You then don't need
to go back and add new cards, because it can already fight for itself.
>There is no way
>to avoid the possible consequences that customers will be lost. If a
>focussed expansion is made, and it leaves out the Gangrel and some other
>clans, then there is a chance that fans of the omitted clans will not buy
>the new set, or not as much of it. In other words, part of White Wolf's
>customer base is lost. This increases the chance that the expansion will
>not turn a profit, which in turn increases the chance that there will
>never be a "next expansion".
If you make it a small expansion, on a small print-run, you have:
1) Fewer designers involved - less money spent on work-force, and the WW
staff can be off writing for V:tM or M:tA or whatever.
2) Fewer pieces of original artwork to commission or licence.
3) Less card stock to buy - paper is expensive
4) Less packaging to print
5) Less packing to get done
6) Less shipping to pay
etc. etc. etc.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that V:TES had 1000 cards
printed for it. (Just picking very low numbers to keep it manageable,
not for any real reason.)
Now, we come and print our new expansion, Ancient Sovereigns. We only
decide to print 300 cards for it, meaning:
- Well, that's the artists gone down to three-tenths of the original
cost, assuming we commission along a similar pattern of
expensive/inexpensive (relatively) artists.
- We only have to buy three sheets of paper instead of ten (100 cards
per sheet, say).
- We employed three designers for V:TES, but we decide to only employ 1
for this set. Not a three-tenths reduction, but a significant reduction
by two-thirds.
- We only have to ship three tenths as many boxes of cards.
Now, not everything will reduce in price by three-tenths, of course not.
You need at least one designer, so you can't go down to three-tenths.
The cost of paying for a courier or posting a package etc. will reduce,
but they'll have a flat rate to work from, too. Similarly, you'll have
to pay for a certain amount of the printing press - you can't just print
1 card and pay only for the card, since you have to pay for their time
etc. as well.
But, costs come down.
And if you look at V:TES vs Ancient Hearts, you can see that they
compensate for that too. In Britain, Ancient Hearts was normally sold
for around 1.80GBP a booster, which works out to about 15 pence a card.
(About 3 dollars, or 25 cents a card.) The wraps suggest that it was
$2.25 in the US, but I assume each state's sales tax has to be put on
top, whereas Britain already has VAT in the price. But you get the idea
as to price.
If I can just find a pack of V:TES around, it was sold at around 6.50
when it came out here, around 10 dollars. 76 cards and a rulebook.
Well, let's exclude the rulebook, as it's not really what people buy it
for once they have one or two. It. was sold, according to the box, at
$8.95 in the US. That makes each of the 76 cards significantly cheaper.
Taking it in British prices, that works out to about 8 pence a card.
(12 cents.)
Or in US prices direct, excluding sales tax, that gives us 18.75 cents a
card in AH, but only 11.78 cents a card in V:TES.
By way of simple comparison, to get 76 Ancient Hearts cards, you have to
buy six and a third AH boosters. (76/12) That would cost you $14.25,
significantly more than the same in V:TES.
But Ancient Hearts still sells, doesn't it? A lot of people find it
hard to get, as they do with Sabbat (which was $3.95 a pack for 28
cards, about 14 cents a card, or about $10.72 a starter).
These weren't printed on the same scale as V:TES or Jyhad, but they do
still tick a profit. (Except for Wizards monumentally cocking up
Sabbat.) No, they may not be as profitable as V:TES, but that isn't the
only thing to consider.
A company that doesn't print new games etc., will end up slipping out of
the forefront of the market. They lose market share, as everyone has
already bought what they want of their old stock. So, just printing a
new expansion, even if it is slightly less profitable than it could be,
can be a perfectly good thing to do. And I know, for myself, that it
brought both Wizards of the Coast and White Wolf to my attention
whereas, at the time, I was mostly playing things like AD&D, Decipher
card games (Star Trek) and a number of war games like Diplomacy.
How much have I spent on White Wolf products since? A lot, I'd
certainly say. I have each of the basic books for V:tM, Mage, Werewolf,
Wraith (all 2nd) and Changeling (1st). I have a number of clan books
for V:tM, a copy of V:tM 3rd, the players guide (2nd), the story-tellers
guide (1st), one of the Sabbat guides (2nd), a number of clan novels, a
copy of "Truth Until Paradox" (which is really quite cool), a copy of
Werewolf's Mind's Eye rules and so on. I keep toying with buying Mage:
Sorcerer's Crusade, but haven't done so yet. Just how much of that
would I have spent had White Wolf helped WotC develop Jyhad? A damn
sight less, I can be certain. These are hidden profits that a company
cannot track. All the sales tell you is that I went out and bought a
lot of White Wolf stuff - which can be attributed to the fact that White
Wolf spent time and money with WotC developing a game. White Wolf could
only, seriously, attribute those profits to the success of their lines,
when they should in fact be partially attributed to the success of
V:TES.
How *do* you get new players to play the game? Well, a new expansion,
or a publicity stunt, promo cards etc. will help. One of the best
options is to keep people playing it, so that they introduce people to
it. Dropping new cards into the game helps liven things up.
I have no idea, but I would certainly say that the answer was "More than
0", how many players were introduced to the game via friends. And how
many of those friends were still playing V:TES because they had plenty
of new ideas and creativity to play with from Dark Sovereigns, or
Ancient Hearts? I would say more than 0. So, printing those later
expansions brings more sales to V:TES - again, hidden profits, where
Dark Sovereigns makes another product more profitable.
And then there's PR. White Wolf have, to my mind, got some of the best
public relations of any games company in the world, at the moment. Yes,
they're there to make a profit. Yes, bills need to be paid. But, yes,
they do actually interact with their customers, listening to them,
talking to them, printing some of the products their customers actually
want, rather than only those things that will be most profitable. That
sort of things create brand loyalty.
Similarly, O'Reilly Associates print a great deal of very useful
computer books, with excellent in-depth treatment of many subjects.
They don't just print the most profitable books, but spend time and
money on more minority interests. They also invest a great deal of
time, money and effort investing back into the Perl community, which was
one of their greatest assets. It's created phenomenal brand loyalty.
If I know there is an O'Reilly on a specific subject, I can be quite
happy buying it without having done much more than read a sample on-line
and flicked through it in the shops, and I know for certain I'm not the
only person who does that. A number of the local book shops in Britain
have a computer section, ranging over a number of shelves. Some of the
bigger ones split it up into things like "Networking", "Programming
Languages", "General", "Operating Systems". We have an "O'Reilly"
section too, in two of the large chain book-shops (Waterstones, as it
happens).
The amount of direct profit you make isn't always as important as the
amount of good-will you generate, at the same time. If you can get a
reputation for making quality, giving customers what they want *and*
keeping it affordable, not pumping out trash, not just trying to milk
customers for money, that sort of thing can pay off in spades - and that
certainly seems to be where White Wolf try and capitalise.
Just pumping out another expansion, with the same old clans, with the
same old cards etc., can be viewed as just another expansion, with
nothing new to add. A lot of people object to having to buy all the
V:TES dross that's in Sabbat. Why do I need another 15 Magnums, when I
already had 7 googolplex of them from V:TES?
>White Wolf's other option is to print cards for all clans and disciplines
>in each set. That way, there is a "hook" for all the players. The
>downside is that those who do buy the set will get minimal reward for
>their money.
Exactly.
> Players may feel disatisfied that they spend a whole load of
>money for a lesser quantity of cards they consider usable. White Wolf may
>still lose customers.
They would also lose considerable reputation, I feel. And reputation is
their second strongest asset. (A lot of high quality games is their
strongest asset.)
>So you see, the choice between focussed expansions and general expansions
>is a lose-lose situation.
So we should never print any more cards then? If it's lose-lose, as you
suggest, they should just not bother?
I assert that the situation isn't lose-lose. At least one of the
options is simply "Not win as much", rather than "Lose".
>> With the more focused expansions that a number of people are talking
>> about,
>
>....people like me, you mean. As I recall, I was the one who first
>brought up the issue by advocating for them, and so started this whole
>discussion.
You spent half of your rebuttal of one of my posts talking about adding
one card per clan - which was entirely contrary to the spirit of focus I
was advocating.
>> each with its own distinct task to fulfil, you can be a V:TES
>> fanatic, get lots of Gangrel cards but rarely feel compelled to go out
>> and buy boosters for another expansion because some of your essential
>> cards are in it.
>
>This is great for the interests of the particular player, but bad for
>White Wolf's profits.
I assert that not exploiting players is of benefit to their profits -
and a small profit for the game is better than no profit for not
printing for it.
>I'm not concerned about White Wolf's profits,
>except for the consideration that if they don't get adequate profits,
>neither do we get any further expansions. Is the customer base
>sufficiently large that WW can afford to target an expansion at only a
>fraction of it?
At the moment? Possibly not. That's why White Wolf have been investing
time, money and effort into expanding the player base. The pre-con
starters are a huge benefit. The play-mat is also great. From the
sound of things, one of the useful things in the new rules book will be
links to the existing community, so that people don't pick up the game,
play in isolation and never try again - they have web resources,
newsgroups etc. to capitalise upon.
James Coupe
>How about the Blood Brothers, the Samedi, the Daughters of Cacophony,
>and the Arimans?(the Gangrel women that cannot produce childer). I
>think that those are a good start with 4 fresh disciplines: Sanguinus,
>Thanatosus, Melifluous? (the kumbaya discipline), and Spiritus.
The Daughters of Cacophony have Melpominee.
The Samedi have Thanatosis.
I believe the Ahrimanes (however it's spelled) have Spiritus.
The Blood Brothers have Sanguinus.
I also Melifluous is a mis-remembering of Melpominee.
Gomi no Sensei
>How about the Blood Brothers, the Samedi, the Daughters of Cacophony,
>and the Arimans?(the Gangrel women that cannot produce childer). I
>think that those are a good start with 4 fresh disciplines: Sanguinus,
>Thanatosus, Melifluous? (the kumbaya discipline), and Spiritus.
These are all pretty marginal. I'd rather fill out the current
shaky sets a LOT (like, two expansions' worth) before even contemplating
new clans, and I'm likely to oppose any new clans even then, since
we've covered all the good clans. I mean, what's left?
Blood Brothers, Samedi, Daughters of Cacophony, Ahrimanes, Kiasyd,
Baali, Salubri, Gargoyles. These are all bit players in the WoD, and
don't merit their own discipline. There's the extremely goofy
pseudo-mystical Real Black Hand stuff, which is too imbecilic for words.
The only things I'd like to see added, and these aren't must-haves, are
the Inconnu (as clanless Independent vampires) and, possibly, Eastern
Kindred (although I'd recommend this be a stand-alone game, since they're
very different from Western Kindred).
gomi
--
There are enough people who have a brain-cell to their credit and
yet still disagree with me that I don't feel any need to argue with
morons. -- M. Lorton
James Coupe
<go...@pollywog.com> writes
>The only things I'd like to see added, and these aren't must-haves, are
>the Inconnu (as clanless Independent vampires)
The Inconnu tend to stand outside the Jyhad, so far as they can.
V:TM 3rd:
Inconnu: A set of vampires who have removed themselves from
Kindred concerns and, largely, the Jyhad. Many Methuselahs are rumored
to exist among the Inconnu.
I wouldn't want to see them brought in *too* much. It devalues them.
However, a vampire something like "Hefnigibump, Fallen Inconnu" and a
few master cards (or similar) to reflect the ability to exploit them
*might* be interesting.
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
go...@pollywog.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote:
> X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote in <8ptfee$4t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
> >How about the Blood Brothers, the Samedi, the Daughters of Cacophony,
> >and the Arimans?(the Gangrel women that cannot produce childer). I
> >think that those are a good start with 4 fresh disciplines:
Sanguinus,
> >Thanatosus, Melifluous? (the kumbaya discipline), and Spiritus.
>
> These are all pretty marginal.
Marginal!?! These guys have great flavor! Sanguinus the ability to
share disciplines and combine vampires. That is a game changing
discipline.
Meliponee, the songs of the night and possibly a edge on Toreador
(because of its beauty) or Auspex (because it overwhelms the senses).
Thanatosis, could be like inflicting a vampiric disease with a action
card rather than a master card.
Arimans, can't embrace, but are allowed to convert other Gangrel to
their clan.
I'd rather fill out the current
> shaky sets a LOT (like, two expansions' worth) before even
contemplating
> new clans, and I'm likely to oppose any new clans even then, since
> we've covered all the good clans. I mean, what's left?
I would like to fill out the already existing expansion clans as well,
and bring them up to snuff before introducing any more clans, but to say
that none of the other clans are any good is just ridiculous. Frankly,
it is a little insulting to the creators of those clans (i.e the authors
,not the vampires) that you feel that they are no good.
<snip snubbing of all other clans>
> The only things I'd like to see added, and these aren't must-haves,
are
> the Inconnu (as clanless Independent vampires)
Involving the Inconnu in the Jyhad? Now that is ridiculous; as the
Inconnu's stated purpose is to remain outside of the Jyhad. Talk about
marginal, they don't even participate in the game.
and, possibly, Eastern
> Kindred (although I'd recommend this be a stand-alone game, since
they're
> very different from Western Kindred).
Possibly as allies, or a compatible stand alone game, but even in the
roleplaying game, the Eastern Kindred, pound for pound, kick the crap
out of vampires.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
James Coupe
>> >How about the Blood Brothers, the Samedi, the Daughters of Cacophony,
>> >and the Arimans?(the Gangrel women that cannot produce childer). I
>> >think that those are a good start with 4 fresh disciplines:
>Sanguinus,
>> >Thanatosus, Melifluous? (the kumbaya discipline), and Spiritus.
>>
>> These are all pretty marginal.
>
>Marginal!?! These guys have great flavor!
They are still very marginal in the World of Darkness.
No-one disputed their flavour.
Nystulc
<ve...@zephyr.org.uk> writes:
>John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes
>>Why do you keep saying that I "seem" to advocate general expansions?
>
>You keep telling us that you have to have cards for all the clans that
>have gone before. At least, that is what you appear to be saying.
Do I? I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Who exactly is "you"
in the "you have to have cards" phrase. Whatever it signifies, I have
difficulty imagining what I have said that could be paraphrased in that way.
Perhaps you should produce a quotation. Better yet, why don't you simply
accept my word for it when I say (at least half a dozen times now) that I
advocate focussed expansions, not "general" ones that attempt to service all
clans and disciplines..
>>I have repeatedly stated that I advocate focussed expansions. I have
>>advocated that some clans and disciplines be left out entirely,
>
>But if they had not, from your previous posts, you wouldn't have had
>anything for a new player or an old player to use immediately.
Yes, I said that. I said it because 1) it is true, and 2) because it was part
of my argument concerning inevitable consequences of fragmentation. It was not
part of any argument supporting unfocussed "general" expansions (as I have
already clarified more than once).
I'm sure you agree with me that the proposition is TRUE (ie. giving more to
your clans of focus necessarily means giving less to other clans). So why are
you insisting that this proposition leads to a conclusion other than the one I
am presenting? Especially since it is a conclusion you don't agree with
either?
>>> If I want all the
>>> Gangrel cards, I have to go and buy every expansion, because there are
>>> Gangrel cards in all of them.
>>
>>Yes. That is one of the sad things about Fragmentation.
>
>Not at all. You just have specific areas for Camarilla clans. You deal
>with those in a Camarilla designated expansion, or base-set or whatever.
I merely said that it was ONE of the (potential) "sad things" about
Fragmentation. It applies to unfocussed expansions that attempt to service all
clans/disciplines. What you just mentioned is the OTHER "sad thing" about
Fragmentation. It applies to focussed expansions that focus on some
clans/disciplines and leave out others.
An expansion must be either focussed or unfocussed. My arguments have
addressed both possibilities. My thesis is that negative consequences are
unavoidable no matter what the style of the expansion. My arguments that apply
to "general" expansions are not intended to argue against "general" expansions
(although, incidentally, I am not in favor of such). My arguments that apply
to "focussed" expansions are not indended as arguments against focussed
expansions (in fact I support such). My thesis (for the umpteenth time) is
that Fragmentation has negative consequences, which cannot be avoided.
>Get a clan up to a good level, then let it go free. You then don't need
>to go back and add new cards, because it can already fight for itself.
You made this point before. I have already responded to it a previous post.
The next paragraph was my previous response, verbatim..
"You really think that is possible ... print a clan once and have the bases
covered forever? So that it will never again need to be expanded? So that the
people who play that clan will not want it to be expanded? So that they will
not be disappointed with the latest expansion that does not add materials for
their favorite clan? Sure, if the clan is a failure, and nobody bothers
playing it, then I'm sure this won't be a problem, but in that case why bother
printing the clan in the first place? If any expansion that introduces new
clans is at all successful, then White Wolf has succeeded in further
fragmenting the demands of its available players, such that it will be harder
to satisfy all of them in future."
Let me add something to what I said previously. There is nothing wrong with
the level any of the current clans are at, except that it is less than other
clans. All clans are playable. They are just less playable than clans that
have received more attention, vampires, resources, etc. Once balance is
achieved, the only way to maintain it in the long term is to expand evenly
(over the course of several expansions, if you prefer), or stop expanding
altogether.
>>There is no way
>>to avoid the possible consequences that customers will be lost. If a
>>focussed expansion is made, and it leaves out the Gangrel and some other
>>clans, then there is a chance that fans of the omitted clans will not buy
>>the new set, or not as much of it. In other words, part of White Wolf's
>>customer base is lost. This increases the chance that the expansion will
>>not turn a profit, which in turn increases the chance that there will
>>never be a "next expansion".
>
>If you make it a small expansion, on a small print-run, you have:
James, you get so involved with the little details that you cannot see the
forest for the trees. Everything you have written below is irrelevant to the
broad issue being discussed. Smaller expansions and smaller print runs are not
at issue here. Such strategies of production and release may be important in
and of themselves, maximizing profit potential is correctly done. But they
cannot alter the basic marketting fact that fewer customers (or fewer satisfied
customers) PER CARD is a bad thing, no matter how those cards are packaged, or
in what sort of expansions they are organized.
By "a small expansion", I presume you mean fewer total card varieties per
expansion. By "a small print run", I presume you mean fewer of each card is
printed.
I will address the "smaller print run" issue first. In this, you only save on
shipping, packaging, and the like. You do not save on design, development,
artwork, etc. Because of this, a smaller print run is less efficient in terms
of cost per card, and these costs must be passed on to the customer in order to
make a profit. It is always more efficient to make a larger print run --
provided of course that one can find sufficient customers for the product.
There is no way around this. If you concede that Fragmentation forces WW to
make smaller print runs (as would be the case if each expansion were targetted
at a subsection or "fragment" of its customer base), then you necessarily
concede that it has negative consequences for either customer costs or company
profits (most likely both).
In a "small expansion", your savings are across the board, but this will not
improve profits. Players are not likely to make up for your printing fewer
cards by buying more of each. Unfortunately, "small expansions" don't help
with the problem of fragmentation at all. It is the very nature of
Fragmentation that MORE cards (not less) are necessary to service the entire
game. We have already established that the current level of fragmentation is
such that a DS/AH-sized expansion of say 180 cards is inadequate to service the
entire game, and should therefore try to service only a fraction of available
clans/disciplines in order to maintain adequate focus. So, are you NOW
suggesting that expansions should be even smaller than 180 cards? If so, they
will either have to sacrifice focus, or become even MORE specialized, even
narrower in scope, than a 180-card expansion would have to be. It appears you
are advocating increased specialization. In other words, each expansion will
be targetted at an even SMALLER subsection of the V:tES community (possibly
going as far as a mini-expansion for each clan?). That's fine, but that
necessarily means that each expansion MUST have a smaller print run. For the
consequences of a smaller print run, see previous paragraph. Essentially this
is a marketing issue. Lets take, hypothetically, a huge expansion of 1300
cards which has something for everyone and is vast and broad enough to service
the entire scope of the game. Do you market it as a single expansion to the
whole community and risk the disatisfaction by requiring your customers to pay
for cards they don't want? Or do you divide it up into 13 different
mini-expansions of 100 cards each (each perhaps focussed on a separate clan),
and target each expansion at a fraction (or "fragment") of the total customer
base? I agree that the second option (or a less extreme variation of it) is
the better strategy, but it still has undesirable consequences .... the
consequences of Fragmentation.
<snip much>
>But, costs come down.
Perhaps they do, but that is not what we are discussing. You need to relate
this to the fragmentation issue, or it is not relevant to our discussion.
>And if you look at V:TES vs Ancient Hearts, you can see that they
>compensate for that too. In Britain, Ancient Hearts was normally sold
>for around 1.80GBP a booster, which works out to about 15 pence a card.
>(About 3 dollars, or 25 cents a card.) The wraps suggest that it was
>$2.25 in the US, but I assume each state's sales tax has to be put on
>top, whereas Britain already has VAT in the price. But you get the idea
>as to price.
You are staring so hard at the tree that you can't see the forest. What does
this have to do with anything? If White Wolf can "compensate" and make extra
income by charging more in Britain then that's just peachy for them, isn't it.
It doesn't change the fact that if it were not for fragmentation, they could
either A) make more profit, or B) charge less money.
<snip a bunch of stuff about prices per card in the UK and elsewhere -- whose
relevance is lost on me>
>But Ancient Hearts still sells, doesn't it? A lot of people find it
>hard to get, as they do with Sabbat (which was $3.95 a pack for 28
>cards, about 14 cents a card, or about $10.72 a starter).
Are you asking me if Ancient Hearts was, on the whole, profitable? That is the
relevant question, not whether it "sells". I rather suspect that it was
profitable. At least it was sufficiently profitable that they decided to go
ahead with a 3rd expansion. Though the fact that the next expansion was a
"standalone" may possibly imply that they were perceiving problems, and hoped
to revitalize the game by starting fresh, and once again raking in new players.
>These weren't printed on the same scale as V:TES or Jyhad, but they do
>still tick a profit. (Except for Wizards monumentally cocking up
>Sabbat.) No, they may not be as profitable as V:TES, but that isn't the
>only thing to consider.
Sabbat may have "ticked a profit" but this was apparently inadequate to
convince WotC to continue supporting the product. I'm guessing that profits
were marginal at best, and that WotC decided that its development costs were
better invested elsewhere.
>A company that doesn't print new games etc., will end up slipping out of
>the forefront of the market. They lose market share, as everyone has
>already bought what they want of their old stock. So, just printing a
>new expansion, even if it is slightly less profitable than it could be,
>can be a perfectly good thing to do. <snip>
You are bringing up alot of side issues. I have argued that Fragmentation
negatively impacts profitability (possibly endangering the future of the game).
You deny this, and then, to prove me wrong, endeavor to show that other things
affect profitability too. Yeah? So?
<snip>
>How *do* you get new players to play the game? Well, a new expansion,
>or a publicity stunt, promo cards etc. will help. One of the best
>options is to keep people playing it, so that they introduce people to
>it. Dropping new cards into the game helps liven things up.
I certainly hope you do not imagine I am arguing against "dropping new cards
into the game". We are arguing about *how* to expand, not *whether* to expand.
>I have no idea, but I would certainly say that the answer was "More than
>0", how many players were introduced to the game via friends. And how
>many of those friends were still playing V:TES because they had plenty
>of new ideas and creativity to play with from Dark Sovereigns, or
>Ancient Hearts? I would say more than 0. So, printing those later
>expansions brings more sales to V:TES - again, hidden profits, where
>Dark Sovereigns makes another product more profitable.
For some strange reason, you think I have taken a position against further
expansions, or against giving V:tES players "new ideas and creativity to play
with", and are trying to show me I'm wrong.
>And then there's PR. White Wolf have, to my mind, got some of the best
>public relations of any games company in the world, at the moment. Yes,
>they're there to make a profit. Yes, bills need to be paid. But, yes,
>they do actually interact with their customers, listening to them,
>talking to them, printing some of the products their customers actually
>want, rather than only those things that will be most profitable. That
>sort of things create brand loyalty.
Best I can tell, you are trying to convince me that it doesn't matter if
Fragmentation is increased, because negative consequences like reduced profit
or affordability can be compensated for in other areas. I don't agree. If
there are other factors to consider, then discuss them in another thread.
If fragmentation is increased, other factors may compensate, yes. But things
will still be worse than if fragmentation had not been increased.
<snip OReilly example>
>The amount of direct profit you make isn't always as important as the
>amount of good-will you generate, at the same time. If you can get a
>reputation for making quality, giving customers what they want *and*
>keeping it affordable, not pumping out trash, not just trying to milk
>customers for money, that sort of thing can pay off in spades - and that
>certainly seems to be where White Wolf try and capitalise.
I'm certainly glad to hear that. Can we get back to the point? Or are you
conceding that I am right about Fragmentation's negative consequences, but that
it does not matter because their are other considerations besides direct
profit? Yes, I agree that other factors besides fragmentation affect a game's
success. An unfragmented game can fail, for instance, because it is total
crap.
I certainly hope that White Wolf will, as you say "give customers what they
want *and* keep it affordable". My argument about fragmentation is that this
makes it increasingly difficult for them to do both.
>Just pumping out another expansion, with the same old clans, with the
>same old cards etc., can be viewed as just another expansion, with
>nothing new to add. A lot of people object to having to buy all the
>V:TES dross that's in Sabbat. Why do I need another 15 Magnums, when I
>already had 7 googolplex of them from V:TES?
WHOAH! Stop right there! What is this "same old clans -- same old cards"
nonsense? "Same old clans" is one thing. "Same old cards" is something else
entirely. The two issues have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.
Nobody -- and certainly not me -- is advocating in favor of printing "same old
cards". This is unrelated to anything I ever said or advocated.
Neither do these concepts go together historically. Sabbat was the first
expansion to feature "same old cards" ... yet this same set featured not a
single vampire for the "same old clans" of earlier sets.
Do you really think it is impossible to add exciting new stuff to the game
without fragmenting the game structure? Do you really feel that the best way
to revitalize the game is to print alot of new-clan-specific and
new-discipline-specific resources that no vampires in ANY of the old clans can
use AT ALL. Would it not be better to print cards that can be used by at least
SOME of the already-existing vampires?
I also want to remind you that my primary fragmentation concern is disciplines,
not clans. I would guess that a new clan with a new discipline has at least 3
times the fragmentation effect as a new clan featuring older disciplines. Even
at inferior, a discipline is a more important resource-access that a clan
designation. My worry about "new clans" is based on the knowledge that almost
all additional bloodlines or clans in the WoD are given their own special
discipline.
<snip>
>> Players may feel disatisfied that they spend a whole load of
>>money for a lesser quantity of cards they consider usable. White Wolf may
>>still lose customers.
>They would also lose considerable reputation, I feel. And reputation is
>their second strongest asset. (A lot of high quality games is their
>strongest asset.)
You do not imagine you are arguing with me here, I hope. Let me remind you
once again that I am in favor of focussed expansions -- specifically stated
before you first posted on this issue, and many times since..
<snip>
> So we should never print any more cards then? If it's lose-lose, as you
> suggest, they should just not bother?
You know well enough that that is not my point, because I have already stated
what my point is a dozen times.
I argued that we should not should not add new clans & disciplines because it
increases the fragmentation problem. You responded that that is not true, and
that fragmentation problems do not apply if expansions are "done right" (ie.
sufficiently focussed). Your view was that since fragmentation problems could
be avoided, we could safely add new clans and disciplines and not worry about
the consequences. I pointed out that fragmentation problems DO apply, even to
focussed expansions.
And what was the conclusion of my argument? Why don't I make it easier and
turn it into a multiple choice question. Which of the following is John
Whelan's thesis:
(A) We should make general expansions, not focussed ones.
(B) We should make focussed expansions, not general ones
(C) We should give up and not make any more expansions at all.
(D) We should not increase fragmentation by adding new clans with new
disciplines.
OK. Times up! The correct answer is (D). All the other answers are incorrect
(though I agree with (B) it does not derive from my fragmentation argument).
And if you come up with any other conclusions of your own devising, I would
appreciate if you not attribute them to me.
> I assert that the situation isn't lose-lose. At least one of the
> options is simply "Not win as much", rather than "Lose".
YES! YES! That is PRECISELY why I am in FAVOR os FOCUSSED expansions. The
"lose-lose" situation is indended to apply ONLY to the fragmentation problem...
meaning that the negative consequences of Fragmentation cannot be avoided. It
does not extend beyond that consideration. My thesis is (i repeat i repeat i
repeat) that the negative consequences of Fragmentation apply to both types of
expansions. The reference to a "lose-lose situation" applies only to
consequences of Fragmentation. There are other considerations, some of which
(I agree) favor focussed expansions, which is why I support focussed
expansions.
<snip>
>You spent half of your rebuttal of one of my posts talking about adding
>one card per clan - which was entirely contrary to the spirit of focus I
>was advocating.
I have already clarified this issue. You posted your example to rebut my claim
that problems associated with fragmentation were unavoidable. I countered by
showing that you example still suffered from problems associated with
fragmentation. Fragmentation forces an expansion to either give each clan or
discipline very little OR leave out clans / disciplines altogether. .
I put alot of work and took great pains to clarify my position. Now you enter
the debate again, making the same accusations. I find this very rude. You do
not have the right to tell me what my opinions are. Disagree if you must, but
disagree with the position I present, not with another of your own devising.
<snip>
>I assert that not exploiting players is of benefit to their profits -
>and a small profit for the game is better than no profit for not
>printing for it.
The more we avoid increasing the Fragmentation problem, the less we are forced
to choose between the lesser of evils. Don't you get it? I am arguing for
NOT increasing the fragmentation problem. I am NOT arguing that any one option
for coping with the problem is necessarily better than any other. I tend to
believe that focussed expansions are preferable, but that is a side issue.
<snip>
>That's why White Wolf have been investing
>time, money and effort into expanding the player base. The pre-con
>starters are a huge benefit. The play-mat is also great. From the
>sound of things, one of the useful things in the new rules book will be
>links to the existing community, so that people don't pick up the game,
>play in isolation and never try again - they have web resources,
>newsgroups etc. to capitalise upon.
These are certainly good things. If they are successful in increasing the
player base, then this may give the game sufficient strength cope with the
fragmentation level -- perhaps even a greater fragmentation level that exists
currently.
I would not (in the very long run -- provided the game is successful enough to
support it) be averse to new clans that explore new combos of old disciplines.
I have no interest in adding new disciplines at all -- it seems a total waste
to me --, but perhaps the game would survive IF the player base was
sufficiently large and healthy.
However fragmentation, once increased, becomes a permanent issue. If business
or popularity should slow down for any reason, greater fragmentation increases
the chance that the game will not survive at all.
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Agreed, and i reiterate R David Zopf's point from an earlier thread that
> VTES, though set in the WoD, is a different game from VtM. In VTES the
> pathetic delusions of the ancillae are of no interest to us, their Lords
> and Masters/Mistresses. If they think Necromancy, Thanatos and Mortis are
> different things, sobeit - if we know differently, that's the way it is.
Yup. That's exactly the way I like to see it.
I'd also like to mention the discipline of "Spiritus", defined, I believe,
as the ability to interact with animal spritits. To me, this seems merely
to be an admixture of animalism and necromancy. Represented in Jyhad game
terms, it might mean that you are using necromantic cards to recover cards
that require animalism from your ash heap. Creating a new discipline for
this sort of thing would add nothing to the game that could not be done
far more efficiently. Better to print new necromancy cards, new animalism
cards, and new vampires who combine the two disciplines.
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote:
> How about the Blood Brothers, the Samedi, the Daughters of Cacophony,
> and the Arimans?(the Gangrel women that cannot produce childer). I
> think that those are a good start with 4 fresh disciplines: Sanguinus,
> Thanatosus, Melifluous? (the kumbaya discipline), and Spiritus.
>
> How's bout them apples,
Depressing from a game structure standpoint, unless most of these "new
discipline" concepts can be reimagined as variants of existing
disciplines, and worked into the game on that basis.
Spiritus seems to me to be little more than an admixture of animalism and
necromancy powers. Surely we don't need a new discipline for this.
Could not we just have vampires that combine animalism and necromancy?
It would be an interesting enough combo, with all those animalism
retainters and animalism cards to be recovered from ash heaps. Necromancy
seems a very versatile power, that changes radically in nature depending
on what other disciplines you combine it with. Perhaps "Spiritus" is just
necromancy by another name?
If the Samedi are introduced, would it not be better to focus on their
other three disciplines (Obf, Nec, For)? Thanatosis, to me, seems to be
just another variant of death magic. Just think of it as a path of
Necromancy rather than a separate discipline. Some Thanatosis powers
could just as easily be necromancy powers (as perceived when combined with
Obf & For). Others could become Samedi special abilities (printed on
Samedi crypt cards). Others might become other resources requiring a
Samedi.
-- John Whelan
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <8q08ck$2dj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com
writes
> >> >How about the Blood Brothers, the Samedi, the Daughters of
Cacophony,
> >> >and the Arimans?(the Gangrel women that cannot produce childer).
I
> >> >think that those are a good start with 4 fresh disciplines:
> >Sanguinus,
> >> >Thanatosus, Melifluous? (the kumbaya discipline), and Spiritus.
> >>
> >> These are all pretty marginal.
> >
> >Marginal!?! These guys have great flavor!
>
> They are still very marginal in the World of Darkness.
>
> No-one disputed their flavour.
Certainly, they are minor clans with no Antedelluvian of their own, but
who is to say that they would not be influential as players in the
Jyhad? Of course, that is after we have fleshed out the existing
expansion clans.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Matthew Heslin
<tUEY9oCn...@obeah.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <8q08ck$2dj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes
> >> >How about the Blood Brothers, the Samedi, the Daughters of Cacophony,
> >> >and the Arimans?
> >> These are all pretty marginal.
> >Marginal!?! These guys have great flavor!
> They are still very marginal in the World of Darkness.
> No-one disputed their flavour.
In that case, I'd like to dispute their flavor.
I find both the Blood Brothers and the Ahrimanes
both unnecessarily tart, with just that hint of rare beef
found among so many Sabbat clans. A little steak sauce
or perhaps Louisiana Hot Sauce would go well with them.
The Samedi are completely unpalatable, and
the Daughters o' Cacaphony are definitely after-dinner
tastes.
-chef heslin
James Coupe
<hes...@sprynet.com> writes
>the Daughters o' Cacaphony are definitely after-dinner
>tastes.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Be careful how you answer, for you hold your very life in your
hands.....
mik...@a_van_a.net
>was so incredibly weak that it found it's way into essentially no decks.
Actually, that's the reason I used that pair. The cards are so
narrowly focused that they're rarely used, so they tend to make a good
"academic" example.
mik...@a_van_a.net
<sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>mike_p@a_van_a.net wrote:
>>
>> A few notes here...
>>
>> >Vampires means that can always use MORE Vampires who will help make one's
>> >decks more focussed and therefore more efficient, but that one does not
>> >necessarily need BETTER Vampires. White Wolf realizes (hopefully) that
>>
>> I don't believe there is a difference between the two. Helping a deck
>> type(s) become more efficient is the definition of a "better" card.
>> And that isn't just limited to the vampire card type. Any card
>> introduced in expansion, can impact gameplay and deck construction,
>> for better or worse. Dreams of the Sphinx (AH) comes to mind, as well
>> as Horrific Countenance (DS).
>
>I believe he's trying to make the distinction between a increase in power
>level ("better") and simply an increase of options.
>
>A new card: "Kewl Resources Contested. Political card (etc.) Allocate 5
>points between two or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each
>Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned." would be an example of
>a "better" card, whereas the same card with a cost of 1 blood would simply
>be a different card (but would still be "better" by your assertion, since
>it allows a deck to choose higher damage at a blood cost penalty based on
>which is more efficient for the deck).
Exactly, where I define deck (and card) efficiency as relative
cost/benefit. I would view either version of Kewl RC as "better" than
standard KRC, with Free-Kewl RC as the "best" of the three.
>By equating the two, any *usable* card introduced would be a "better"
>card unless it duplicated an existing card (e.g., Meat Cleaver). I
>think that "better" is a term more properly reserved for changes in
>power level - something that, if done on a broad base, is referred
>to as "escalation".
Sure.
Frederick Scott
mike_p@a_van_a.net wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:54:39 -0400, "L. Scott Johnson"
> <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >mike_p@a_van_a.net wrote:
> >>
> >> A few notes here...
> >>
> >> >Vampires means that can always use MORE Vampires who will help make one's
> >> >decks more focussed and therefore more efficient, but that one does not
> >> >necessarily need BETTER Vampires. White Wolf realizes (hopefully) that
> >>
> >> I don't believe there is a difference between the two. Helping a deck
> >> type(s) become more efficient is the definition of a "better" card.
> >> And that isn't just limited to the vampire card type. Any card
> >> introduced in expansion, can impact gameplay and deck construction,
> >> for better or worse. Dreams of the Sphinx (AH) comes to mind, as well
> >> as Horrific Countenance (DS).
> >
> >I believe he's trying to make the distinction between a increase in power
> >level ("better") and simply an increase of options.
>
> >
> >A new card: "Kewl Resources Contested. Political card (etc.) Allocate 5
> >points between two or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each
> >Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned." would be an example of
> >a "better" card, whereas the same card with a cost of 1 blood would simply
> >be a different card (but would still be "better" by your assertion, since
> >it allows a deck to choose higher damage at a blood cost penalty based on
> >which is more efficient for the deck).
>
> Exactly, where I define deck (and card) efficiency as relative
> cost/benefit. I would view either version of Kewl RC as "better" than
> standard KRC, with Free-Kewl RC as the "best" of the three.
That's very odd. Unlike your previous example, Eyes of the Dead vs.
The Deadliest Sin, nonFree-Kewl RC is clearly _not_ better as its one
blood cost is a drawback not present in Kine RC. In fact, I doubt it
would be very popular at all, as the drain on the political vampires would
constrain other tactics (such as running an effective Fifth Tradition/
Minion Tap combo) more than the one extra pool burnt by the victims
would be worth.
I agree with some of your original complaints. But sometimes this sort
of thing happens because the designers need to correct problems with
the game. For instance, Eyes of the Dead was ridiculous. One or two
intercept IF the vampire had Necromancy IF the acting minion was
diablerizing one of your vampires? Now there's a card that's redraw
meat every time I have the misfortune to draw it. The last thing I want
is for the designers to feel like they need to stick a drawback in every
card that at least encompasses that paltry functionality. As it turns out,
even The Deadliest Sin is so specialized that it's unlikely to be used
much, despite its no-discipline requirement and the other advantages
over Eyes of the Dead. In general, yes, cards should be a matter of
tradeoffs between one another so the choice between them is a
matter of skill, not just owning more copies of a "better" card. But
if they design a real clinker and the game needs a better version, it's
best to just admit the mistake and design the "better" card.
As for vampires, I think LSJ is admitting that more vampires are
just plain better for a clan. However, that doesn't mean that each
individual vampire is better than previous vampires (except previous
vampires that were badly designed, similar to bad library cards).
And that seems that the correct thing to do to me.
Fred
James Coupe
> That's very odd. Unlike your previous example, Eyes of the Dead vs.
> The Deadliest Sin, nonFree-Kewl RC is clearly _not_ better as its one
> blood cost is a drawback not present in Kine RC. In fact, I doubt it
> would be very popular at all, as the drain on the political vampires would
> constrain other tactics
Very much depends.
Voter Captivation is a much ignored card, in some quarters. Its pool
generation ability is not the only thing it can do - it also fills up
vampires. The 1 blood you paid for it, assuming it passed, could be
quickly and easily replaced.
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"And all the while I'm thinking things that I can never share with him.
I'm a bundle of confusion, yet it has a strange appeal. Did it all begin
with him and the way he makes me feel?"
Derek Ray
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Frederick Scott wrote:
>> That's very odd. Unlike your previous example, Eyes of the Dead vs.
>> The Deadliest Sin, nonFree-Kewl RC is clearly _not_ better as its one
>> blood cost is a drawback not present in Kine RC. In fact, I doubt it
>> would be very popular at all, as the drain on the political vampires would
>> constrain other tactics
>
>Very much depends.
>
>Voter Captivation is a much ignored card, in some quarters. Its pool
>generation ability is not the only thing it can do - it also fills up
>vampires. The 1 blood you paid for it, assuming it passed, could be
>quickly and easily replaced.
My Brujah vote-and-bruise does just exactly that - since it tends to
only have inferior presence on the guys who call the "obnoxious"
votes, and those guys end up in fights a lot, they run low on blood.
Taste of Vitae would take up too much room, but a Voter Cap that
replaces 3-4 blood onto a fighter is just fine as well...
-- Derek
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871