Another Temporis Rant
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
the Vamp boys felt it necessary to include the True Brujah and their
Temporis Discipline, rather than playing the whole thing off as a
mistake. If you check Deja News, I'm certain you'll find several posts
I made, ranting against the evil powergaming Discipline created by an
embittered man who couldn't give his beloved creations the Time
Sphere.[1]
And I was reading it, and -- what's this? They recommend against
allowing characters to have both Temporis and Celerity? They give an
excellent metaphysical justification for Temporis [2a]?! That vampires
can take damage, and even suffer Final Death, from overuse of Temporis
[2b]?!!
They de-mooked Temporis, and made it into a feasible and interesting
Discipline, rather than just another twink power! Yay!
*Wank wank wank wank wank-wank-wank-wank-wankwankwankeankwank...*
AAAHHH!!
After I was through (and my right hand had recovered enough to write), I
gleefully began developing True Brujah characters and Temporis powers.
I *like* Temporis now, and have reversed my previous decision to exclude
the Discipline from my WoD (though Spiritus and Melpominee are still
out). All is forgiven, at least as far as TB/Temp is concerned. Thanks
for fixing the Discipline and clan, guys.
Also, the new stuff on the Baali and Nagarajah was pretty cool, though I
would have liked to have seen more on the Old Clan Tzimisce (gotta love
that Animalism/Auspex/Dominate combo)!. Keep up the good work.
I still think the name "Temporis" sounds like a brand of mouthwash,
however.
--Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
The Parakeet's Nest: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Meteor/3484
[1] According to popular rumor.
[2a] Vampires with Temporis can draw on the metaphysical energy that
gives them immortality and bodily stasis. This allows them to effect
localized time.
[2b] However, drawing on the vampire's unlife-force is dangerous; doing
so can cause lethal damage, and even aggravated damage at higher
Discipline levels. Especially if you try to speed up time using level 5
and use other Disciplines... ow! BTW, does use of "automatic"
Disciplines such as Fortitude and Potence in conjunction with Temporis 5
cause lethal damage?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
Scatter Gatherer
Donald
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Nuriel Jabal
Not on the subject of Temporis, but rather this newly released book itself.
Other then your happiness over the new rulings concerning Temporis, did you, or
anyone else for that matter, really find this book useful?
I've seen it and read though it on a past few occasions at book stores, for a
decent amout of time to determine if it was worth it. From what I saw though,
it didn't seem to be a good guide for STs. It seemed to have but few things,
one the FAQ on the WW web page, two the supporting details on the bloodlines,
and three how to run a game.
Of course I'm sure number three as I've listed it would seem to be the "duh"
part and that which the book is most useful for. But as I read it, the only
good parts I've noticed were that it game ideas for running games in other time
periods, the rest was just "you are the ST, you are in control," kind of
things. So am I just missing the big important parts in it? Or is it really
more a guide for beginning STs?
~Janus
SASA
Alexander Bateman
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ajphh$gv9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[Snip the deranged ramblings of a complete Wanker ;-) ]
> I *like* Temporis now, and have reversed my previous decision to exclude
> the Discipline from my WoD (though Spiritus and Melpominee are still
> out). All is forgiven, at least as far as TB/Temp is concerned. Thanks
> for fixing the Discipline and clan, guys.
Stupid Question, But why pick on Melpominee?
Alex.
AdamRLee
>Insult the True Brujah and be forced to repeat your actions!
>
>
Temporis is WW's groundhog day. They were forced to continue to work at it
until they got it right. I still think it needs work but it's definately
passable now. (Even though I like my Temporis as a thaum path more.)
Adam
Alexander Bateman
news:20000313200346...@ng-dc1.aol.com...
Okay.
Chapter one.
The FAQ I hadn't actually ever seen so I found it Really Useful.
Chapter two.
Clans are not Fraternities was good, Revised Baali, True Brujah and Najaraga
Nice but not overwhelming Useful. (although them getting Clan symbols was
nice.) Revised Backgrounds useful Especially Arcane but not worth the book.
Revised Daimoinon I would have bought this book if they had just printed the
revised level 5 and left all the other pages Blank, Temporis and Vitreous
Necromancy, useful. (but then I use the Black Hand quite a bit.) Stuff on
Bloodlines quite Useful, Stuff on Storyteller characters not useful.
Chapter Three.
Play Balance stuff Interesting, Rest of Chapter not interesting.
Chapter Four.
Problem Player Types Hilarious and all too true, Degeneration stuff Useful,
Rest not so.
Chapter Five.
Well never mind.
Chapter Six.
Revised KotE Stuff Very, Very useful, (Guess what I'm Running.) Crossover
rules less useful except Hunter Stuff as I Don't intend to buy their Book.
Chapter Seven.
Cool, They did almost exactly what I Did to the Black Hand, My game is
Cannon once more, Hooray.
Oh and they did it well.
So all in all it was mainly Useful.
Alex.
jbu...@my-deja.com
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was flipping through the Storyteller's Handbook, and lo and behold,
> the Vamp boys felt it necessary to include the True Brujah and their
> Temporis Discipline, rather than playing the whole thing off as a
> mistake. If you check Deja News, I'm certain you'll find several posts
> I made, ranting against the evil powergaming Discipline created by an
> embittered man who couldn't give his beloved creations the Time
> Sphere.[1]
I've never heard an explanation of what made Temporis supposedly so twinky.
Was it the devastating "Freeze Object" power at fitfth level? It's actually
more like the Time Sphere, with multiple actions possible.
>
> And I was reading it, and -- what's this? They recommend against
> allowing characters to have both Temporis and Celerity? They give an
> excellent metaphysical justification for Temporis [2a]?! That vampires
> can take damage, and even suffer Final Death, from overuse of Temporis
> [2b]?!!
Why this, and no other Discipline?
Mike Zwiers
Because with Temporis you can increase your own speed in relation to
your
surroundings (among other tricks). In combination with Celerity that can
have such incredible effects that it was adviced not to give characters
access to both powers.
And I think the given solution was very well put together.
NightWing
(-=\V/=-)
Kish
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman wrote in message
<8ana07$1ak$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> I've never heard an explanation of what made Temporis supposedly so
>> twinky. Was it the devastating "Freeze Object" power at fitfth level?
>
>It was powerful enough, but the fact that there was no injunction
>against combining its effects with Celerity, Thaumaturgy or other
>Disciplines. The repeat action shit was pretty mook, too. Dominate
>someone into stabbing himself, then use Temporis 2 to make him do it
>over and over and over again.
Of course, there's nothing at all distracting about the fact that you're
stabbing yourself with a knife. Nothing's likely to distract you from that
effect, oh no...If it was actually used the way it was written in DSotBH, that
power would be next to useless in combat, because there's constantly something
to distract you in combat.
--
Kish
ICQ#: 28085879
AIM: Kish K M
Kis...@mindspring.com
Kish
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman wrote in message <8an8ua$qp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Seriously, though, Melpominee is one of the most mook Disciplines I've
>seen.
Wrong tense, unless you have another reason for considering it "mook."
> Combining level two (Tourette's Voice) with any of the level
>three or higher powers allows you to effectively remote fuck someone up
>the ass.
Yes, very true. Good thing you can't combine the powers anymore, isn't it?
>And now the vamp boys, from what I hear, have decided the bloodline
>still wasn't inane enough. They've had all the Daughters of Cacophony
>go Black Fury Ahroun/Ahriman on us and kill off all their male members.
>Because, as we all know, there can be no female-dominated group in the
>WoD that isn't a radical feminazi male-haters club.
Except, of course, for the Black Furies and the Ahrimanes. That leaves, um,
well. Which female-dominated groups actually /are/ "radical feminazi
male-haters clubs"?
Deirdre M. Brooks
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman wrote:
>
> And now the vamp boys, from what I hear, have decided the bloodline
> still wasn't inane enough. They've had all the Daughters of Cacophony
> go Black Fury Ahroun/Ahriman on us and kill off all their male members.
> Because, as we all know, there can be no female-dominated group in the
> WoD that isn't a radical feminazi male-haters club. *Rolls eyes.* Fuck
> the DoC and their pointless munchkin Discipline.
You know, while I'd rather stick toothpicks into my eyes than put
another DoC into my game (mainly because I don't like bloodlines), I
think there's more going on than "feminazi man-haters." I am curious as
to what, but Justin's not that straightforward a plotter for this to be
the real reason. :-)
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Fading Suns, Trinity and Aberrant
"You are using the time-honored strategy of ignoring my point."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | http://www.telelists.com
Deirdre M. Brooks
Kish wrote:
>
> Except, of course, for the Black Furies and the Ahrimanes. That leaves, um,
> well. Which female-dominated groups actually /are/ "radical feminazi
> male-haters clubs"?
Good Lord, man. Have some humanity. :-)
Deirdre M. Brooks
David Johnston wrote:
>
> The Black Furies are an exception?
Yes.
First edition beliefs are so hard to break.
Deirdre M. Brooks
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman wrote:
>
> Like they say at Mississippi weddings, "It's all relative, man."
> Apparently, it isn't as useful a resource for you as it would be for me.
> Personally, I'd recommend it, but not everyone has my tastes.
Some would call this a bug. Some, a feature. Not sure who's right. :-)
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
"Alexander Bateman" <alexande...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> news:8ajphh$gv9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> [Snip the deranged ramblings of a complete Wanker ;-) ]
Hey!
> > I *like* Temporis now, and have reversed my previous decision to
> > exclude the Discipline from my WoD (though Spiritus and Melpominee
> > are still out).
> Stupid Question, But why pick on Melpominee?
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people that ask questions.
>:)
Seriously, though, Melpominee is one of the most mook Disciplines I've
seen. Combining level two (Tourette's Voice) with any of the level
three or higher powers allows you to effectively remote fuck someone up
the ass. So long as you're familiar with the place your victim is at,
you can entrance someone, drive her utterly mad, or even fucking kill
her -- all from the comfort of your living room fold-out coffin. And
there's not a goddamned thing anyone can do about it, save intentionally
deafening themselves (if the Storyteller allows). Oh sure, *that's*
balanced. "Bye-bye, mister Prince. I'm going to sit here and sing
until your punkin head explodes."
And now the vamp boys, from what I hear, have decided the bloodline
still wasn't inane enough. They've had all the Daughters of Cacophony
go Black Fury Ahroun/Ahriman on us and kill off all their male members.
Because, as we all know, there can be no female-dominated group in the
WoD that isn't a radical feminazi male-haters club. *Rolls eyes.* Fuck
the DoC and their pointless munchkin Discipline.
YMMV. :)
-- Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
"I'd play Changeling if only someone will explain what the galloping
fuck it's about." -- Michael Cule
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
jbu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8ajphh$gv9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I was flipping through the Storyteller's Handbook, and lo and
behold,
> > the Vamp boys felt it necessary to include the True Brujah and their
> > Temporis Discipline, rather than playing the whole thing off as a
> > mistake. If you check Deja News, I'm certain you'll find several
posts
> > I made, ranting against the evil powergaming Discipline created by
an
> > embittered man who couldn't give his beloved creations the Time
> > Sphere.[1]
>
> twinky. Was it the devastating "Freeze Object" power at fitfth level?
> possible.
It was powerful enough, but the fact that there was no injunction
against combining its effects with Celerity, Thaumaturgy or other
Disciplines. The repeat action shit was pretty mook, too. Dominate
someone into stabbing himself, then use Temporis 2 to make him do it
over and over and over again. Extremely effective against silver
klaive-armed Garou. Goddamn, I've seen that Discipline abused...
> > And I was reading it, and -- what's this? They recommend against
> > allowing characters to have both Temporis and Celerity? They give an
> > excellent metaphysical justification for Temporis [2a]?! That
vampires
> > can take damage, and even suffer Final Death, from overuse of
Temporis
> > [2b]?!!
>
> Why this, and no other Discipline?
Considering the metaphysical precepts of the Discipline, it makes sense.
You're not merely using the powers of the blood, you're channeling part
of your own unlife force. Suffering damage from doing this makes sense
to me, and it balances the Discipline nicely (which is fairly powerful
even after the toning down).
--Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
The Parakeet's Nest: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Meteor/3484/
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
nurie...@aol.com (Nuriel Jabal) wrote:
> >I was flipping through the Storyteller's Handbook
>
> Not on the subject of Temporis, but rather this newly released book
> itself. Other then your happiness over the new rulings concerning
> Temporis, did you, or anyone else for that matter, really find this
> book useful?
I, for, will find it useful after I find a copy of it. I read over my
friend's copy.
>
> I've seen it and read though it on a past few occasions at book
> stores, for a decent amout of time to determine if it was worth it.
> From what I saw though, it didn't seem to be a good guide for STs. It
> seemed to have but few things, one the FAQ on the WW web page, two the
> supporting details on the bloodlines, and three how to run a game.
The FAQ thing was very useful. I'm going to use the Baali a good bit in
my upcoming Chronicle, and they needed revamping (no pun intended); they
were far too one-dimensional before. It has more substance than most
other Storyteller-oriented products, though the WW:tA Storyteller's
Guide was very well done too.
> Of course I'm sure number three as I've listed it would seem to be the
> "duh" part and that which the book is most useful for. But as I read
> it, the only good parts I've noticed were that it game ideas for
> running games in other time periods, the rest was just "you are the
> ST, you are in control," kind of things.
This section wasn't all that useful, IMO, though some of it was amusing.
> So am I just missing the big important parts in it? Or is it really
> more a guide for beginning STs?
Like they say at Mississippi weddings, "It's all relative, man."
Apparently, it isn't as useful a resource for you as it would be for me.
Personally, I'd recommend it, but not everyone has my tastes.
--Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
"Kish" <Kis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman wrote in message
> <8ana07$1ak$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >> twinky. Was it the devastating "Freeze Object" power at fitfth
> >> level?
>
> >
> >against combining its effects with Celerity, Thaumaturgy or other
> >Disciplines. The repeat action shit was pretty mook, too. Dominate
> >someone into stabbing himself, then use Temporis 2 to make him do it
> >over and over and over again.
>
> you're stabbing yourself with a knife. Nothing's likely to distract
> you from that effect, oh no...
Good point here. I think our good Storyteller overlooked something,
didn't he?
> If it was actually used the way it was written in DSotBH, that
> power would be next to useless in combat, because there's constantly
> something to distract you in combat.
Agreed. Obviously, the player and ST obviously didn't use the power
like it was intended. I still like the new version of Temporis better,
however.
----------===Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman===---------
The Parakeet's Nest:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Meteor/3484/
"Oh please! Crystal meth is *so* 1992. The popular club
drugs these days are all single letters - E and G and K.
Meth is definitely the choice of pink trash (i.e., gay
white trash)." -- Alex Elliott
David Johnston
>
> Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman wrote in message <8an8ua$qp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Seriously, though, Melpominee is one of the most mook Disciplines I've
> >seen.
>
>
> >three or higher powers allows you to effectively remote fuck someone up
> >the ass.
>
>
> >still wasn't inane enough. They've had all the Daughters of Cacophony
> >go Black Fury Ahroun/Ahriman on us and kill off all their male members.
> >Because, as we all know, there can be no female-dominated group in the
> >WoD that isn't a radical feminazi male-haters club.
>
The Black Furies are an exception?
David Scott Tait
> You know, while I'd rather stick toothpicks into my eyes than put
> another DoC into my game (mainly because I don't like bloodlines), I
> think there's more going on than "feminazi man-haters." I am curious as
> to what, but Justin's not that straightforward a plotter for this to be
> the real reason. :-)
I'm intrigued by the dislike of bloodlines that appears to emanate from
authors and developers. I've always understood it on a basic "a lot of
people only want to play bloodlines because they have kewl powerz, and are
different", because as an ST in a LARP I see large numbers of munchkins,
or people who don't understand what sort of game I'm "trying" to run,
begging me for things because they would be "funky" and "interesting for
the character" - which translates into "kewl powerz".
However, LARPS are completely different to tabletop, and the munchkin
factor is immeasurably higher. In a table-top I would presume (from those
I have played in) that the ST has more control over the direction and
theme of the game - making it much easier to deal with players personally
more regularly - creating and maintaining atmosphere. I'm not saying this
can't be done in LARPs, but it relies on the players keeping it in place a
lot more, when a lot of them want to run round and chib each other with
large rubber swords.
Given then, the control an ST has over who plays his/her table-top game,
the munchkin/uniqueness aspect would not be a problem. I would only let
someone I have observed roleplaying before, and well, play something that
was "different", as by that point I would know that they were not doing it
for that "difference".
I am aware that some chronicles do not suit some clans/bloodlines (I'm
playing in a V:tDA game where there are no Salubri or Tremere PC's, as the
game is set in 1140AD, and they would seem to be intrinsic to the plot as
NPC's), but I would not rule them out as a concept. True, I am inclined
against some bloodlines, but I have reasons that are specific to them, not
the category in and of itself. Daughters of Cacophany are, in my opinion,
too close to Toreador as presented (although that appears to be changing,
and obviuosly that is only the stereotype), and there is very little
information presented about them. They appear to have no place in the WoD
- they appear as an addition, that serves no function (although why they
should is a valid point). I believe there are twink attractor
disciplines, but that no discipline is inherently twinkish - it all
depends on how they are used, and to what ends.
Other bloodlines - the Gargoyles, the Kiasyd, the Blood Brothers are more
servitor lines, with very little roleplaying opportunity afforded by
playing them, owing to their nature, and not specifically their
stereotype.
This was the case for the Salubri, who appeared as a rather wasted space
in earlier versions of Vampire, and would better have been an anomaly with
no rules, than a "there are 7, they all want golconda, and they all hate
themselves" straitjacketed roleplaying experience. Despite the current
developer's opinions of the irritating non-core (read 5 he likes) Clans
and bloodlines, a good job has been done of fleshing out those lines where
little room for maneuvre existed before.
In short, I believe that anything can be done well, and if that is the
case, why not let something into your game if you believe that it will be.
Of course, it has to suit your game, and a proliferation of rare
bloodlines does take away from the nature of the game (unless you want
that, but I try to adhere to that very elusive beast, Canon - or at least
anticipate it - I'm hoping that I won't feel inclined to have the Giovanni
kicked out of the Camarilla if someone else joins - or trying to explain
away the Tremere with prophetic ability who manifests a third eye and
gibbers about gehanna, when Saulot is no longer residing in the mind of
their founder), but they can add a sense of horror if the game is inclined
that way. The Salubri in Elsyium, who saw the Tremere prophet, is losing
all faith in his founder - how will that affect his motives, and his
reasoning behind them? I don't think the game I run suffers from having a
Salubri - I think the sense of loss, and hopelessness that their tale
brings creates atmosphere - it brings home to those who know, that they
are nothing compared to their Elders, but that their needs are just the
same.
Tha's one example of how I feel a bloodline can add to a game. On another
level, they can be just fun to play, just as fun as anything else, and
they can add nothing of consequence to a game. In another LARP, I play a
Samedi. I love my Samedi, I love the bloodline - he is fun, a very cheery
character - but the response that others give him, is very uninspiring -
he is, to all intents and purposes, a superhero. He runs around
performing autopsies for the Prince, and the worst response he ever gets
from any PC's is a quick "Eeurch!". No one shuns him (although that could
be because he is so cheery, and superficially pleasant). I would like to
play someone who tries very hard to be liked, but who is ultimately a
loner. The background gives him no associates other than a couple of Nos
and his sire, but everyone in the City now relies on him for information.
This is just bad roleplaying on their part, but it shows how something odd
can add nothing to the game - I could just as easily be playing a
Nosferatu - the concept is such that it would fit any line. I wanted it to
be a Samedi, because it would be fun to be useful, but shunned by all but
a few. Now he has many allies, is owed many boons, and virtually no one is
aware of just how nasty he can be - because they do not look. In short, he
adds nothing to the game that could have come from another, more common,
source.
I've gibbered on for ages. I just wanted to put forth my opinion on
bloodlines, and why I feel they can be appropriate, as much as they can be
inappropriate. I would not dismiss them out of hand, and would ask why
others would. Ultimately it comes down to personal preference, but I would
like to know how this preference is arrived at.
Dave
Deirdre M. Brooks
David Scott Tait wrote:
>
> I'm intrigued by the dislike of bloodlines that appears to emanate from
> authors and developers. I've always understood it on a basic "a lot of
> people only want to play bloodlines because they have kewl powerz, and are
> different", because as an ST in a LARP I see large numbers of munchkins,
> or people who don't understand what sort of game I'm "trying" to run,
> begging me for things because they would be "funky" and "interesting for
> the character" - which translates into "kewl powerz".
Well, I wouldn't say that my dislike has anything to do with the fact
that have written for a couple Vampire books, but that because little
good ever came of using them in my games. Except the Samedi and the
Salubri - the first because I like them and the second because they've
not yet come up (although I may have one in my DA game). The reason I
prefer not to use them is because I don't see most of them as adding
anything to the game that a clan doesn't already have. The DoC offer
nothing a Toreador doesn't offer and the Kiasyd might as well be
Lasombra, etc. Yes, I know they're different, but I'd rather leave them
out.
Okay, except for Gargoyles.
> However, LARPS are completely different to tabletop, and the munchkin
> factor is immeasurably higher.
Indeed. I've seen some pretty amazing stuff in LARP. You know that look
Wesley Snipes gets in Blade when he cuts Deacon Frost in two and Frost
reforms? That's a look often seen in LARP when some new flavor of cheeze
pops up. 'What the fuck is wrong with you?" :-)
> Given then, the control an ST has over who plays his/her table-top game,
> the munchkin/uniqueness aspect would not be a problem. I would only let
> someone I have observed roleplaying before, and well, play something that
> was "different", as by that point I would know that they were not doing it
> for that "difference".
Munchkin has nothing to do with it, really. I don't worry about
"munchkin" so much as adapting my style to my players' and vice versa.
Except for those things I hate. :-)
> Other bloodlines - the Gargoyles, the Kiasyd, the Blood Brothers are more
> servitor lines, with very little roleplaying opportunity afforded by
> playing them, owing to their nature, and not specifically their
> stereotype.
I think that Gargoyles have a lot of room for intense, rewarding
roleplay. Blood Brothers are glorified cannon fodder, and Kiasyd bother
me 'cause they're Faerie Vampires.
> This was the case for the Salubri, who appeared as a rather wasted space
> in earlier versions of Vampire, and would better have been an anomaly with
> no rules, than a "there are 7, they all want golconda, and they all hate
> themselves" straitjacketed roleplaying experience. Despite the current
> developer's opinions of the irritating non-core (read 5 he likes) Clans
> and bloodlines, a good job has been done of fleshing out those lines where
> little room for maneuvre existed before.
The nice thing about writing for a game is that you can approach the
game (and topics in that game) in ways you never would as a player or
ST. I mean, I might say here that I hate Daughters of Cacophony, but
you'd never see that opinion pop up in anything I'd theoretically write
about them. I do like the idea of trying to add more hooks for players
and STs to *use*, even if I wouldn't want to, necessarily.
> In short, I believe that anything can be done well, and if that is the
> case, why not let something into your game if you believe that it will be.
Because letting some things in dilutes the whole experience.
Justin Achilli
Lord_...@hotmail.com wrote on 3/15/00 3:50 AM:
> In article <8anb5i$en7$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Kish" <Kis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman wrote in message
>> <8ana07$1ak$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>>> I've never heard an explanation of what made Temporis supposedly so
>>>> twinky. Was it the devastating "Freeze Object" power at fitfth
>>>> level?
>>
>>>
>>> It was powerful enough, but the fact that there was no injunction
>>> against combining its effects with Celerity, Thaumaturgy or other
>>> Disciplines. The repeat action shit was pretty mook, too. Dominate
>>> someone into stabbing himself, then use Temporis 2 to make him do it
>>> over and over and over again.
>>
>> Of course, there's nothing at all distracting about the fact that
>> you're stabbing yourself with a knife. Nothing's likely to distract
>> you from that effect, oh no...
>
> Good point here. I think our good Storyteller overlooked something,
> didn't he?
Also remember that Dominate can't force you to take an action contrary to
your Nature -- the only way you'd be able to Dominate someone into actively
stabbing themselves is if they had a Nature like Masochist or some
interpretations of Monster or Deviant.
Regards,
Justin
--
[Justin R. Achilli]
[Vampire: The Masquerade Developer]
[White Wolf Game Studio]
[jach...@white-wolf.com - www.white-wolf.com]
"It doesn't matter what you think!"
-- The Rock
Mant
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <8akcaq$ulm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> jbu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> against combining its effects with Celerity, Thaumaturgy or other
> Disciplines. The repeat action shit was pretty mook, too. Dominate
> someone into stabbing himself, then use Temporis 2 to make him do it
> klaive-armed Garou. Goddamn, I've seen that Discipline abused...
Thats _Dominate_ being abused, you can't get people to stab themselevs
with Dominate unless they are inherently masochistc or suicidal.
Mant
--
Mant's Lair
Resources for the World of Darkness games
http://www.mants-lair.org.uk
Justin Achilli
at d...@st-andrews.ac.uk wrote on 3/15/00 7:54 AM:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Deirdre M. Brooks wrote:
>
>> You know, while I'd rather stick toothpicks into my eyes than put
>> another DoC into my game (mainly because I don't like bloodlines), I
>> think there's more going on than "feminazi man-haters." I am curious as
>> to what, but Justin's not that straightforward a plotter for this to be
>> the real reason. :-)
>
> I'm intrigued by the dislike of bloodlines that appears to emanate from
> authors and developers. I've always understood it on a basic "a lot of
> people only want to play bloodlines because they have kewl powerz, and are
> different", because as an ST in a LARP I see large numbers of munchkins,
> or people who don't understand what sort of game I'm "trying" to run,
> begging me for things because they would be "funky" and "interesting for
> the character" - which translates into "kewl powerz".
My bother with bloodlines is that most feel hyperspecialized -- they're
arbitrary to begin with, and the application of them leaves little room for
individual characters to evolve from them. Too often, they're excuses for
lackadaisical players to skip the whole personality aspect entirely,
focusing instead on what makes them rare or unique _as a mechanic_ rather
than as a character. I'm sure you've seen these types around; they're the
ones whose Concepts are their clan/bloodline.
> However, LARPS are completely different to tabletop, and the munchkin
> factor is immeasurably higher. In a table-top I would presume (from those
> I have played in) that the ST has more control over the direction and
> theme of the game - making it much easier to deal with players personally
> more regularly - creating and maintaining atmosphere. I'm not saying this
> can't be done in LARPs, but it relies on the players keeping it in place a
> lot more, when a lot of them want to run round and chib each other with
> large rubber swords.
Now, I certainly have prejudice, but _almost all_ of the LARPs I have seen
or played in are straight-up _bad_. And by _bad_ I mean empirically bad; the
world will end unless [X], or this secret social society wants a written
formal "treaty" (ah, my personal favorite, the treaty!*) with this other
secret social society, blah blah blah. Add to that the games' writers' ennui
after putting together three dozen characters and they finally start
throwing in "um... a Kiasyd! We haven't done a Kiasyd yet!" and, hoo boy.
I know not all LARPs are bad. Someone out there has to be running a good
one. I've never run or participated in one that I've been completely
satisfied with, however.
But who cares what I think about LARPs?
> Given then, the control an ST has over who plays his/her table-top game,
> the munchkin/uniqueness aspect would not be a problem. I would only let
> someone I have observed roleplaying before, and well, play something that
> was "different", as by that point I would know that they were not doing it
> for that "difference".
I'm on your team there, bucko.
> I am aware that some chronicles do not suit some clans/bloodlines (I'm
> playing in a V:tDA game where there are no Salubri or Tremere PC's, as the
> game is set in 1140AD, and they would seem to be intrinsic to the plot as
> NPC's), but I would not rule them out as a concept. True, I am inclined
> against some bloodlines, but I have reasons that are specific to them, not
> the category in and of itself. Daughters of Cacophany are, in my opinion,
> too close to Toreador as presented (although that appears to be changing,
> and obviuosly that is only the stereotype), and there is very little
> information presented about them. They appear to have no place in the WoD
> - they appear as an addition, that serves no function (although why they
> should is a valid point). I believe there are twink attractor
> disciplines, but that no discipline is inherently twinkish - it all
> depends on how they are used, and to what ends.
Right -- but often, they're just plain unnecessary. Why can't the Daughters
of Cacophony just have been a specific brood of Toreador or Malkavians? Why
can't the Samedi be a Caribbean cult of Nosferatu or "Cappadocians"? Why do
we need, for the sake of difference, to qualify, quantify and assign Traits
to these things? Are people so dependent upon the printed material that
they're incapable of thinking outside the box?
> Other bloodlines - the Gargoyles, the Kiasyd, the Blood Brothers are more
> servitor lines, with very little roleplaying opportunity afforded by
> playing them, owing to their nature, and not specifically their
> stereotype.
Me, I would never permit any of these for players' characters. Hell, I'd be
hard pressed to think of a situation in which I'd use any of these
bloodlines _at all_, let alone as players' options.
> This was the case for the Salubri, who appeared as a rather wasted space
> in earlier versions of Vampire, and would better have been an anomaly with
> no rules, than a "there are 7, they all want golconda, and they all hate
> themselves" straitjacketed roleplaying experience.
Amen. Hated that.
> Despite the current
> developer's opinions of the irritating non-core (read 5 he likes) Clans
> and bloodlines, a good job has been done of fleshing out those lines where
> little room for maneuvre existed before.
Well, thanks, I think ;) Seriously, I try to accommodate tastes other than
mine when doing development. Otherwise I would have cleaned house in the
Week of Nightmares ;)
> In short, I believe that anything can be done well, and if that is the
> case, why not let something into your game if you believe that it will be.
Sure. Maybe I'm a cynic, though, because I have seen bloodlines used to _my
tastes_ so rarely that I'm inclined not to permit them at all.
> Tha's one example of how I feel a bloodline can add to a game. On another
> level, they can be just fun to play, just as fun as anything else, and
> they can add nothing of consequence to a game. In another LARP, I play a
> Samedi. I love my Samedi, I love the bloodline - he is fun, a very cheery
> character - but the response that others give him, is very uninspiring -
> he is, to all intents and purposes, a superhero. He runs around
> performing autopsies for the Prince, and the worst response he ever gets
> from any PC's is a quick "Eeurch!". No one shuns him (although that could
> be because he is so cheery, and superficially pleasant). I would like to
> play someone who tries very hard to be liked, but who is ultimately a
> loner. The background gives him no associates other than a couple of Nos
> and his sire, but everyone in the City now relies on him for information.
> This is just bad roleplaying on their part, but it shows how something odd
> can add nothing to the game - I could just as easily be playing a
> Nosferatu - the concept is such that it would fit any line. I wanted it to
> be a Samedi, because it would be fun to be useful, but shunned by all but
> a few. Now he has many allies, is owed many boons, and virtually no one is
> aware of just how nasty he can be - because they do not look. In short, he
> adds nothing to the game that could have come from another, more common,
> source.
Bingo. And it sounds like the players are the types I usually encounter at
LARPs. "I'll slavishly adhere to what it says in this book, except when it
would be more bother to do it that way. I demand adherence to 'clan dogmas',
except when I don't."
> I've gibbered on for ages. I just wanted to put forth my opinion on
> bloodlines, and why I feel they can be appropriate, as much as they can be
> inappropriate. I would not dismiss them out of hand, and would ask why
> others would. Ultimately it comes down to personal preference, but I would
> like to know how this preference is arrived at.
I don't dismiss them out of hand -- my story in _Nights of Prophecy_
features some Daughters of Cacophony, including a "unique" one whose
uniqueness is a liability to her rather than a "kewl" thing. They can be
used interestingly, but usually laziness or gooberism hamstrings it. That's
why I'd rather they be subdivisions of the existing clans or handles on an
individual basis -- that way, the benefit goes to the creative player who
comes up with an interesting and plausible twist on the clan archetype
rather than turning to page XX and saying, "It says here I can blood bond
the prince by looking at him if I roll a success on Appearance + Computer.
That's my character concept. That's all I really want to do in this game.
Oh, and have everyone look at me because I'm so rare."
Regards,
Justin
* "I hate that guy."
"You're not allowed to. We have a treaty."
"A which?"
"A treaty. Piece of paper, signed by one-a them and one-a us."
"I thought we had to hide from the world at large, or else they'll find out
about us."
"Well, apparently, we draft documents and codify our behavior. It's easier
than allowing us to make personal choices or working together to create a
shared world that's believable."
"I still hate him."
"Well, that would probably make for an interesting story, but I suspect you
just want to pick a fight."
"Maybe. Lookit this Discipline my character has..."
--
[Justin R. Achilli]
[Vampire: The Masquerade Developer]
[White Wolf Game Studio]
[jach...@white-wolf.com - www.white-wolf.com]
"You spent your time on me. I took it willingly."
-- Everything But The Girl, "Walking to You"
David Scott Tait
>
> Well, I wouldn't say that my dislike has anything to do with the fact
> that have written for a couple Vampire books, but that because little
> good ever came of using them in my games. Except the Samedi and the
> Salubri - the first because I like them and the second because they've
> not yet come up (although I may have one in my DA game). The reason I
> prefer not to use them is because I don't see most of them as adding
> anything to the game that a clan doesn't already have. The DoC offer
> nothing a Toreador doesn't offer and the Kiasyd might as well be
> Lasombra, etc. Yes, I know they're different, but I'd rather leave them
> out.
I suppose my point about authors/developers was meant to imply that
players get very enthusiastic about some bloodlines, whereas the former
rarely do (but that is probably a sign of maturity rather than dislike).
And I agree with your choice of acceptable bloodlines.
>
> Okay, except for Gargoyles.
>
I've seen a Gargoyle played well - it was just a very short lived
character, as it succumbed to the beast fairly quickly - which was
appropriate, so I had no complaints.
> > However, LARPS are completely different to tabletop, and the munchkin
> > factor is immeasurably higher.
>
> Indeed. I've seen some pretty amazing stuff in LARP. You know that look
> Wesley Snipes gets in Blade when he cuts Deacon Frost in two and Frost
> reforms? That's a look often seen in LARP when some new flavor of cheeze
> pops up. 'What the fuck is wrong with you?" :-)
>
I gave that look to a player who asked me for an Assamite Vizier with
Serpentis at level 4 at character gen. Coming into a Camarilla city? And
with no other abilities, 'cos the serpentis used up all his points. The
player has improved since then, and now understands his error (Hi Alex:))
> Munchkin has nothing to do with it, really. I don't worry about
> "munchkin" so much as adapting my style to my players' and vice versa.
> Except for those things I hate. :-)
An interesting choice - one that I haven't actually considered. I run an
indie LARP for about 45 people - about 15 of which actually play the game
that I want them to. The rest want to be superheroes. No amount of
atmosphere I create affects these superheroes, but they still seem to
enjoy the game. I have no intention of toning down the nature of the game
to reach their level, because those minority who I do run the game for
would not enjoy it as much. I try to make my players understand what I
want of them, but they still don't get it. I sit them down and talk to
them about it, but they do not see the game as I want them to. I suppose I
compromise to some degree and give everyone a little of what they like.
But when the majority are 17-21 male students, there's only so much I can
do to placate them without ruining the nature of the game.
>
> > Other bloodlines - the Gargoyles, the Kiasyd, the Blood Brothers are more
> > servitor lines, with very little roleplaying opportunity afforded by
> > playing them, owing to their nature, and not specifically their
> > stereotype.
>
> I think that Gargoyles have a lot of room for intense, rewarding
> roleplay. Blood Brothers are glorified cannon fodder, and Kiasyd bother
> me 'cause they're Faerie Vampires.
>
I've only met one person who wanted to play a gargoyle for the
roleplaying, although admittedly he did it well. All the others want
potence, fortitude, flight and visceratika.
> > This was the case for the Salubri, who appeared as a rather wasted space
> > in earlier versions of Vampire, and would better have been an anomaly with
> > no rules, than a "there are 7, they all want golconda, and they all hate
> > themselves" straitjacketed roleplaying experience. Despite the current
> > developer's opinions of the irritating non-core (read 5 he likes) Clans
> > and bloodlines, a good job has been done of fleshing out those lines where
> > little room for maneuvre existed before.
>
> The nice thing about writing for a game is that you can approach the
> game (and topics in that game) in ways you never would as a player or
> ST. I mean, I might say here that I hate Daughters of Cacophony, but
> you'd never see that opinion pop up in anything I'd theoretically write
> about them. I do like the idea of trying to add more hooks for players
> and STs to *use*, even if I wouldn't want to, necessarily.
>
I think my problem (well, I don't view it as a problem) lies with the fact
that I don't actively dislike anything as written, but I do dislike what
players want to do with them. Some things were not written to be PC's, but
mechanics are given - and that fuels poor imaginations as much as it does
any other type.
> > In short, I believe that anything can be done well, and if that is the
> > case, why not let something into your game if you believe that it will be.
>
> Because letting some things in dilutes the whole experience.
>
OK, so DoC are pointless, but virtually everything else has a place, even
if it is just as an NPC or a rumour. Maybe.
Dave
VoceNoctum
>Serpentis at level 4 at character gen. Coming into a Camarilla city? And
>with no other abilities, 'cos the serpentis used up all his points. The
>player has improved since then, and now understands his error (Hi Alex:))
I started a PC that was an assamite with serpentis, a former Settite ghoul,
that was brought into the assamite clan to reward his skill (too may years of
Battletech, he was taken as bondsman:-)
I wanted a snakey killer type and it was an all assamite chronicle. Of
course, I never finished the PC, since I couldn't quite work his personality
out and lost interest in it. I tend to rotate PC ideas for a while before
finally settling on one. Then I didn't even play in that chronicle, since time
constraints came up. <shrug>
>I've only met one person who wanted to play a gargoyle for the
>roleplaying, although admittedly he did it well. All the others want
>potence, fortitude, flight and visceratika.
>
I also had a gargoyle (but, then, I've had just about every type of PC
imaginable at one time or another) this one was based off the idea that a
Salubri warrior in DA, during the tremere hunts, was tracked and attacked by a
few gargoyles and a tremere master. The tremere and most of the gargoyles were
destroyed, but the last gargoyle diab'd the salubri. The Salubri managed to
hold onto himself though, inside the gargoyle. He haunts (as a spirit mentor
trying to direct the Gargoyles away from the "Evil Tremere" :-) the descendants
of that gargoyle (a very small line, since they only embrace one childe)
It was an interesting character. Gave him teh background that he was
descended from a Tzimisce/Nossie blood type, and he learned the basics of Vic
(still had a gargoyle shape, but one of them "pretty gargoyles" you see on
castles :-) and such.
I also like the Salubri, for the Dark Ages games. The anti-Salubri's don't
look bad, but I just havn't gotten into one.
Bascially, I come up with the PC, and try to find a clan that fits somewhat to
the PC concept. Sometimes the bloodlines are a better fit.
Vocenoctum
Nyogtha "the Thing that Should Not Be"
Nyarlathotep "the Crawling Chaos"
Snuffleupagus "the Thing Which Adults Cannot See"
Tina
> It was powerful enough, but the fact that there was no injunction
> against combining its effects with Celerity, Thaumaturgy or other
> Disciplines. The repeat action shit was pretty mook, too. Dominate
> someone into stabbing himself, then use Temporis 2 to make him do it
> over and over and over again.
I don't know about tabletop, but in LARP, it's impossible to use Dominate
to put someone in a life-threatening situation (we'll just ignore
Possession and Conditioning here, because I'm talking mostly about the
earlier levels). I would *so* port that over if it wasn't the case
already.
Trust me, this rule I've looked up. We had some moronic twink in one of
my LARPs post to our OOC e-mail list and tell us that we could make people
do life-threatening things with Dominate now.
Yeah, right. I *wish* I could make someone walk out into the sunlight
with a second or third level Discipline.
Tina
Daemeon Lethe
crops up less with the more standard clans. With the bloodlines as you
say people tend to rely on the line to make them unique.
It must be very hard to write a good larp. My feeling is that only
a small group can really be central to the story and I would wager that
it is always the SAME small group.
Well I can see your thinking about the DoC. But I kind of like the
Samedi. There curse, although mechanicly the same is an interesting
twist on it. I think they are one of the few bloodines I like, and
provide An interesting counterpart to the Giovani (corporeal death
as opposed to spirtual death).
>
> > Other bloodlines - the Gargoyles, the Kiasyd, the Blood Brothers
are more
> > servitor lines, with very little roleplaying opportunity afforded by
> > playing them, owing to their nature, and not specifically their
> > stereotype.
>
> Me, I would never permit any of these for players' characters. Hell,
I'd be
> hard pressed to think of a situation in which I'd use any of these
> bloodlines _at all_, let alone as players' options.
I think that a few good minion lines can add too the game. Gargoyles
make good sympathetic adversaries while still being nicely monstrous.
Blood Brothers are good because they are very alien and perverse. They
say somthing very important about the sabbat and nothing nice to boot.
The blood brothers are the best proof that the Sabbat are not the "good
guys", far better than all those cheap "gang banger" antics.
But I agree in many ways they should be left for the storyteller.
>
> > This was the case for the Salubri, who appeared as a rather wasted
space
> > in earlier versions of Vampire, and would better have been an
anomaly with
> > no rules, than a "there are 7, they all want golconda, and they all
hate
> > themselves" straitjacketed roleplaying experience.
>
> Amen. Hated that.
>
Hmm. One of my better NPC ideas was an ex Salubri who had failed
to make Golcanda (what does happen to salubri who don't make it?).
Now yes I could have done this with any clan, but it did add to the
feeling of aleination that I was going for to make him a member of
that bloodline. It also allowed me to create a sense of betrayal.
Besides I liked the idea of having the players notice the shriveled
third eye at a dramatic point:)
> > Despite the current
> > developer's opinions of the irritating non-core (read 5 he likes)
Clans
> > and bloodlines, a good job has been done of fleshing out those
lines where
> > little room for maneuvre existed before.
>
> Well, thanks, I think ;) Seriously, I try to accommodate tastes other
than
> mine when doing development. Otherwise I would have cleaned house in
the
> Week of Nightmares ;)
>
I must second the original point. despite the fact that I disagree
with Justin on certain game types (i enjoy a good elder game, he
doesen't) my concerns that this form of game would not be supported
were unfounded. Much of the Storytellers Handbook and the GttC
describe this type of game. So it seems that Justin is willing to put
aside his own views to make a better game. People who accuse the man
of putting a staight jacket on play are talking out of ther A**es.
*** the rest sniped in a very belated attempt at brevity****
>
> ]
> >
--
Regards;
Daemeon
The Baron Samedi
>>> You know, while I'd rather stick toothpicks into my eyes than put
>>> another DoC into my game (mainly because I don't like bloodlines), I
>>> think there's more going on than "feminazi man-haters." I am curious as
>>> to what, but Justin's not that straightforward a plotter for this to be
>>> the real reason. :-)
>>
>> I'm intrigued by the dislike of bloodlines that appears to emanate from
>> authors and developers. I've always understood it on a basic "a lot of
>> people only want to play bloodlines because they have kewl powerz, and are
>> different", because as an ST in a LARP I see large numbers of munchkins,
>> or people who don't understand what sort of game I'm "trying" to run,
>> begging me for things because they would be "funky" and "interesting for
>> the character" - which translates into "kewl powerz".
>
>My bother with bloodlines is that most feel hyperspecialized -- they're
>arbitrary to begin with, and the application of them leaves little room for
>individual characters to evolve from them. Too often, they're excuses for
>lackadaisical players to skip the whole personality aspect entirely,
>focusing instead on what makes them rare or unique _as a mechanic_ rather
>than as a character. I'm sure you've seen these types around; they're the
>ones whose Concepts are their clan/bloodline.
>
That said, some Bloodlines are "better" then others for play. I feel,
tho I am biased, that the Samedi have a great deal of potential.
Granted, alot of people would play them as "Treanchcoated Hitmen"
types but I fail to see how they have less going for them,
concept-wise, then the Nosferatu. I really like the Nosferatu as
well, but I don't see how here, for instance, the Nosferatu are easier
to have concepts for then Samedi. Except that too many people don't
try.
There are other exceptions. Salubri and Daughters of Cacophony come
to mind. DoCs seem to have gotten *more* limited not *less* limited
in revised, tho. still they can spice up things a little. "Is the
singer a Brujah? Toreador? Daughter?" To do a clan comparison, tho, I
have seen, even in LARP, *much* deeper Daughers and Salubri then
Setites or Assamites.
I will say the current schizm in Assamite life is generally a good
thing, IMHO, as it breakes their monolithic steriotype. While
Daughers ahve become more limited in revised, Assamites have, it would
seen, become a little less.
Some Bloodlines are just plain hard. Harbingers of Skulls I *love*
(Being a Capp fan) but it is hard to play them as a player, even in
an elders game, or even run them as an ST becouse I, the ST, don't
know their full deal unless I am willing to diverge from canon, not to
futher my chronicle, but becouse I *guessed wrong* It is one thing to
decide you don't want to follow something from Canon deliberatly (for
instance, In my chronicle, (which is currently in 1870), the DoC males
will not actually die out, though there will be that rumer. It is a
ploy by some members of my Bloodline.) that is deliberate movment
from Canon.
But OTOH, The PCs in the game want to find Constancia, as they cannot
find evedence of her demise (they want to deliver Thomas Beckett
Camden's letter to her) Problem is, I don't really know her
situation. Is she Unre yet? is she Unre at all? Should I drop
implications about Camden being one (his body, after all, did not turn
to dust or decay. he just lays there) or is Camden simply dead and a
freak incident resulted in him not decaying?
I can decide this. But then, when I guess wrong, I have to change
canon for my game, not becouse I want to diverge.
What I am trying to say in that rant is that some Bloodlines (Samedi,
Salubri, Daughters of cacophony) are just as viable as some clans for
veriaty. Some are, admittedly, more limited then most clans (Blood
Brothers, Kiasyd, Gargoyles) and some (Harbingers of Skulls) could be
more useful but we simply lack information. I ahve no problem with
haivng Mugs Pugs and Thugs not oriented toward PCs, and I ahve no
problem with mysterious Bloodlines, but It makes it harder to ST if I
don't know even if I am not allowing them as PCs
>> I am aware that some chronicles do not suit some clans/bloodlines (I'm
>> playing in a V:tDA game where there are no Salubri or Tremere PC's, as the
>> game is set in 1140AD, and they would seem to be intrinsic to the plot as
>> NPC's), but I would not rule them out as a concept. True, I am inclined
>> against some bloodlines, but I have reasons that are specific to them, not
>> the category in and of itself. Daughters of Cacophany are, in my opinion,
>> too close to Toreador as presented (although that appears to be changing,
>> and obviuosly that is only the stereotype), and there is very little
>> information presented about them. They appear to have no place in the WoD
>> - they appear as an addition, that serves no function (although why they
>> should is a valid point). I believe there are twink attractor
>> disciplines, but that no discipline is inherently twinkish - it all
>> depends on how they are used, and to what ends.
>
>Right -- but often, they're just plain unnecessary. Why can't the Daughters
>of Cacophony just have been a specific brood of Toreador or Malkavians? Why
>can't the Samedi be a Caribbean cult of Nosferatu or "Cappadocians"? Why do
>we need, for the sake of difference, to qualify, quantify and assign Traits
>to these things? Are people so dependent upon the printed material that
>they're incapable of thinking outside the box?
>
In my case, I like the story as you are telling it (for the most part)
and intend to follow it if I can. At least for my current game.
>> Other bloodlines - the Gargoyles, the Kiasyd, the Blood Brothers are more
>> servitor lines, with very little roleplaying opportunity afforded by
>> playing them, owing to their nature, and not specifically their
>> stereotype.
>
>Me, I would never permit any of these for players' characters. Hell, I'd be
>hard pressed to think of a situation in which I'd use any of these
>bloodlines _at all_, let alone as players' options.
>
Mugs, Pugs and Thugs. even elder charactors can be worried by
slavering Blood Brothers.
>> This was the case for the Salubri, who appeared as a rather wasted space
>> in earlier versions of Vampire, and would better have been an anomaly with
>> no rules, than a "there are 7, they all want golconda, and they all hate
>> themselves" straitjacketed roleplaying experience.
>
>Amen. Hated that.
agreed.
>
>> Despite the current
>> developer's opinions of the irritating non-core (read 5 he likes) Clans
>> and bloodlines, a good job has been done of fleshing out those lines where
>> little room for maneuvre existed before.
>
>Well, thanks, I think ;) Seriously, I try to accommodate tastes other than
>mine when doing development. Otherwise I would have cleaned house in the
>Week of Nightmares ;)
right
>
>> In short, I believe that anything can be done well, and if that is the
>> case, why not let something into your game if you believe that it will be.
>
>Sure. Maybe I'm a cynic, though, because I have seen bloodlines used to _my
>tastes_ so rarely that I'm inclined not to permit them at all.
right
>
>> Tha's one example of how I feel a bloodline can add to a game. On another
>> level, they can be just fun to play, just as fun as anything else, and
>> they can add nothing of consequence to a game. In another LARP, I play a
>> Samedi. I love my Samedi, I love the bloodline - he is fun, a very cheery
>> character - but the response that others give him, is very uninspiring -
>> he is, to all intents and purposes, a superhero. He runs around
>> performing autopsies for the Prince, and the worst response he ever gets
>> from any PC's is a quick "Eeurch!". No one shuns him (although that could
>> be because he is so cheery, and superficially pleasant). I would like to
>> play someone who tries very hard to be liked, but who is ultimately a
>> loner. The background gives him no associates other than a couple of Nos
>> and his sire, but everyone in the City now relies on him for information.
>> This is just bad roleplaying on their part, but it shows how something odd
>> can add nothing to the game - I could just as easily be playing a
>> Nosferatu - the concept is such that it would fit any line. I wanted it to
>> be a Samedi, because it would be fun to be useful, but shunned by all but
>> a few. Now he has many allies, is owed many boons, and virtually no one is
>> aware of just how nasty he can be - because they do not look. In short, he
>> adds nothing to the game that could have come from another, more common,
>> source.
>
Right.
but OTOH, you could also be playing an ugly Brujah. or anything else.
>I don't dismiss them out of hand -- my story in _Nights of Prophecy_
>features some Daughters of Cacophony, including a "unique" one whose
>uniqueness is a liability to her rather than a "kewl" thing. They can be
>used interestingly, but usually laziness or gooberism hamstrings it. That's
>why I'd rather they be subdivisions of the existing clans or handles on an
>individual basis -- that way, the benefit goes to the creative player who
>comes up with an interesting and plausible twist on the clan archetype
>rather than turning to page XX and saying, "It says here I can blood bond
>the prince by looking at him if I roll a success on Appearance + Computer.
>That's my character concept. That's all I really want to do in this game.
>Oh, and have everyone look at me because I'm so rare."
>
well yea.
>Regards,
>Justin
Nuriel Jabal
having twinkish powers I had a few things in mind.
Salubri aren't _really_ a bloodline. After all the definition of one is no clan
founder, yet, Lasombra, Brujah would be the first to disagree, as would most
people, so such an idea is fairly moot. Also most point to the Tremere as
really being a grouping of splintered bloodlines as per not even having a true
sire to begin with....
However what would be a more correct standard, is if a group of vampires, has,
or has had, someone that claims responcibility for their creation. Which would
then make all the true bloodlines large groups of Caitiff, that have organized
together.
But this has just been beat to hell anyway so it matters not one supposes.
~Janus
SASA
AJSolis
>Salubri aren't _really_ a bloodline
DShomshak
<xe...@teleport.com> writes:
>David Scott Tait wrote:
>>
>> I'm intrigued by the dislike of bloodlines that appears to emanate from
>> authors and developers. I've always understood it on a basic "a lot of
>> people only want to play bloodlines because they have kewl powerz, and are
>> different"...
The "Kewl Powerz" aspect certainly turns me off quite a lot of bloodlines I see
-- official and homebrew. Now, I *like* the idea of bloodlines. I like to
keep the concept of "clan" a little iffy -- IMC there's no clear line dividing
large bloodlines from small clans. OTOH, I also try to write up new lineages
*without* new Disciplines, or rewrite official bloodlines to remove their
"unique" Disciplines. If the concept can't survive through an interesting,
surprising culture and attitude, it ain't much of a concept to begin with.
> ...little good ever came of using them in my games. Except the Samedi
The Samedi have a *wonderful* concept. They're the vampires who can never
pretend they aren't dead, and there's all those lovely Voudon connections.
>The reason I prefer not to use them is because I don't see most of them
>as adding anything to the game that a clan doesn't already have.
>The DoC offer nothing a Toreador doesn't offer and the Kiasyd might
>as well be Lasombra, etc. Yes, I know they're different, but I'd rather
>leave them out.
Once you start demanding that each new lineage also show some new culture and
some new interpretation of what being a vampire is all about, they become much
harder to write up! I think I've pulled it off a few times, but *only* a few
times.
Dean Shomshak
**********************************************************
Send e-mail responses to DSho...@juno.com.
The AOL address is a spam trap.
**********************************************************
David Scott Tait
> >
> >Salubri aren't _really_ a bloodline
> Well, not anymore anyway. heh
The only people who know this are the Tremere, and they certainly aren't
going to be turning up at the next conclave telling everyone about it.
Semantics aside, the Salubri are, and will be, until they dramatically
increase their numbers, a bloodline. And I don't see the Salubri mass
embracing outside of the Sabbat - and they're too distrusted within the
Sabbat to be allowed to gain influnce through numerical increase - that
and the fact that they keep throwing themselves into suicidal situations.
So, Clan, in that they have a 3rd gen founder, but bloodline, in that that
is how the whole world recognises them - well those that know they're out
there.
Dave
Alexander Bateman
DShomshak <dsho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000318015539...@nso-cl.aol.com...
> In article <38CF81CB...@teleport.com>, "Deirdre M. Brooks"
> <xe...@teleport.com> writes:
>
> >David Scott Tait wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm intrigued by the dislike of bloodlines that appears to emanate from
> >> authors and developers. I've always understood it on a basic "a lot of
> >> people only want to play bloodlines because they have kewl powerz, and
are
> >> different"...
>
> The "Kewl Powerz" aspect certainly turns me off quite a lot of bloodlines
I see
> -- official and homebrew. Now, I *like* the idea of bloodlines. I like
to
> keep the concept of "clan" a little iffy -- IMC there's no clear line
dividing
> large bloodlines from small clans. OTOH, I also try to write up new
lineages
> *without* new Disciplines, or rewrite official bloodlines to remove their
> "unique" Disciplines. If the concept can't survive through an
interesting,
> surprising culture and attitude, it ain't much of a concept to begin with.
>
> >as adding anything to the game that a clan doesn't already have.
> >The DoC offer nothing a Toreador doesn't offer and the Kiasyd might
> >as well be Lasombra, etc. Yes, I know they're different, but I'd rather
> >leave them out.
>
> Once you start demanding that each new lineage also show some new culture
and
> some new interpretation of what being a vampire is all about, they become
much
> harder to write up! I think I've pulled it off a few times, but *only* a
few
> times.
I think the Intresting point is that Bloodline don't nesseccerilly have to
be that strong a Concept, They just have to have changed from there originl
clan in some way, Personally I like Bloodlines like the Settite Warriors and
Ahramines who expand upon a clan by having a slightly different concept.
Now of course most bloodlines do not add any thing to the game that a clan
could not and in most cases does not add itself. However most Clans Don't
add anything that another clan doesn't. I have met many people who play
Vampire with only the Seven Cammarilla Clans existing and I'm Damn Sure they
could cope without the Malkavians.
However I like to blur the lines between Clans both Politically and
Mythalogically. (There's no way on gods earth that that's a Word.) The use
of bloodlines is that they exist as a counterpoint to the whole Creation
Myth, After all if Caine cursed Clan X to the umpteenth generation then the
Bloodline Founder Should not be able to Warp it into something else by
sitting in a Farie Mound for Ten years, or by talking to some Shamans.
Alex.
Nuriel Jabal
>is how the whole world recognises them - well those that know they're out
>there.
But that's silly. You define a clan as having to have widely known in kindred
society, and why should they be? The WW definition was that the clan founder
was key to the clan, and any of the older vampires know who the Salubri were,
and Salubri do still exsist. On such a related note... the True Brujah, are a
clan, after all, but such ideals would put them as a bloodline, then again so
many try to cover up the Brujah was killed by Trolie, which would make the
actions of the True Brujah kinda strange...
~Janus
SASA
David Scott Tait
> But that's silly. You define a clan as having to have widely known in kindred
> society, and why should they be? The WW definition was that the clan founder
> was key to the clan, and any of the older vampires know who the Salubri were,
> and Salubri do still exsist. On such a related note... the True Brujah, are a
> clan, after all, but such ideals would put them as a bloodline, then again so
> many try to cover up the Brujah was killed by Trolie, which would make the
> actions of the True Brujah kinda strange...
That used to be there way of defining Clan - but it was always from an
out-of-game perspective. Considering that virtually everything they
release is writen subjectively, it would make sense to have the definition
of Clan be subjective. I know the Salubri were a Clan, stopped being one,
then became one again. I know the Ravnos are no longer a Clan. Very few
people in the WoD do, so why define in ways that don't make sense from an
IC point of view. Like I said, WW have gone from defining Clan objectively
to subjectively. Hence, the Salubri will be a bloodline, unless they start
mass siring, which is wholly inappropriae, 'cos they'd be killed even if
one of them made the mistake of siring a nutter. The Ravnos, as has been
stated, will remain a Clan until enough people in the WoD decide they are
not anymore. It's that simple. Certainly there will be some out there who
will refer to the Ranos as a bloodline, the Salubri as a Clan, the Tremere
as a bloodline etc., but they are a timy minority, with not enough impact
to affect the way the WoD percieves things.
As by my above argument, so the True Brujah are a bloodline also. They are
not recognised IC as a Clan, so they are not.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Dave
David Scott Tait
>
> I think the Intresting point is that Bloodline don't nesseccerilly have to
> be that strong a Concept, They just have to have changed from there originl
> clan in some way, Personally I like Bloodlines like the Settite Warriors and
> Ahramines who expand upon a clan by having a slightly different concept.
> Now of course most bloodlines do not add any thing to the game that a clan
> could not and in most cases does not add itself. However most Clans Don't
> add anything that another clan doesn't. I have met many people who play
> Vampire with only the Seven Cammarilla Clans existing and I'm Damn Sure they
> could cope without the Malkavians.
My old flatmate was one - he played V:TM from 1st Ed. when the other Clans
were virtually ignored, let alone the bloodlines. At the same time though,
remember that bloodlines do not have to add anything to the game (he says
countering his argument). It is the character that counts, not their
lineage. The blood has an effect, but that is a very minor part of the
character. The perception of that character by others will be tempered by
his lineage, but that doesn't mean to say that the character must be a
stereotype of that lineage. I think that not everything that exists in the
WoD does so for a purpose. A DoC character could be very good in a
chronicle, but a lot of that depends on the nature of the chronicle and
the players as well as the DoC player. It is easier to fit Samedi and
Salubri in, as they have a well defined (the Salubri more than the Samedi)
history in the WoD, than it is to add Kiasyd and Children of Osiris. As t
whether you use bloodlines in your game depends on what you want it to be
about. I'm inclined to have anything that is written up, if I think it
will add to the game that I run. That said, I do run a LARP, so you'd have
to expect odd shit to turn up. I would never run a table-top chronicle in
the fashion the LARP is run, but then the two are completely different. I
think LARP's offer a greater amount of room for roleplay than table-top,
but at the same time they lack atmosphere and tend to be out of the
control of the ST - oh, and they are populated by
twinks/munchkins/powergamers. So they have their pro's and con's.
> However I like to blur the lines between Clans both Politically and
> Mythalogically. (There's no way on gods earth that that's a Word.) The use
> of bloodlines is that they exist as a counterpoint to the whole Creation
> Myth, After all if Caine cursed Clan X to the umpteenth generation then the
> Bloodline Founder Should not be able to Warp it into something else by
> sitting in a Farie Mound for Ten years, or by talking to some Shamans.
>
>
Nothing is perfect, not even God's curse. Why, if Ravnos had been on top
form, then those four suns would have just caused some minor steam effect.
So why should Caine's perceived curse be any better at keeping up with the
fast pace of modern lifestyles:)
But yes, I agree (or should that be "me too"), the nature of the
bloodlines provides a counterbalance to the structure of the Clans,
although ony at the higher levels. The point is lost on most neonates,
such that the difference of the bloodlines has no in-game effect. A ten
year old Brujah is not going to know anything about the bloodlines, and
very little about any of the major clans - the juxtaposition of the Clans
against the bloodlines will be way above his head. It really does depend
on what you want out of your game.
Dave
Nuriel Jabal
You know? You believe you mean.
>Very few
>people in the WoD do, so why define in ways that don't make sense from an
>IC point of view.
Few people in the WoD do? Well since the majority don't really have a clue as
to what happend, they all would consider Ravnos a clan... if they knew about
it, I'm fairly sure they would still be referred to as a clan, elders suddenly
won't say hey look it's bloodline Ravnos"... though maybe... "The Clan formerly
known as Ravnos"
And again, as for IC, Lasombra? Care to argue with them, about them not being a
clan? Or the True Brujah. Seems clan is now based on internal perception and at
one time having a clan founder, that would cover everyone.
~Janus
SASA
Mant
Daemeon Lethe <daemeo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <B4F50F3A.EF06%jach...@white-wolf.com>,
> Justin Achilli <jach...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > in article Pine.SOL.3.96.1000315105942.10074C-100000@bute, David
> Scott Tait
> > at d...@st-andrews.ac.uk wrote on 3/15/00 7:54 AM:
> > the
> > ones whose Concepts are their clan/bloodline.
> >
> I agree here and add that it is my experience That this problem
> crops up less with the more standard clans. With the bloodlines as you
> say people tend to rely on the line to make them unique.
Strangely I find Bloodlines give me more freedom. While the range of
character concepts that will fit in one tends to be a bit narrower than
a Clan (although not as much as some people think) there is just less
about them.
People have so many expectations about Clans. They meet on this day of
the week, they organise like this and belive the other. The Bloodlines
are less well defined and that means people don't tell you what you
should be doing. Hopefully with Clans being de-emphasised at the moment
the revised Clan books will discourage that kind of thinking.
I also find the people who have Bloodlines-as-concpet are also the same
who have Clan-as-concept.
"I'm a rebel!"
"Why?"
"Well, um... I'm a Brujah"
I always do character concept before Clan or Bloodline but depressingly
it seems to be an afterthought to many.
Mant
--
Mant's Lair
Resources for the World of Darkness games
http://www.mants-lair.org.uk
Tina
Organization:
Mant <man...@geocities.com> wrote:
> "I'm a rebel!"
> "Why?"
> "Well, um... I'm a Brujah"
> I always do character concept before Clan or Bloodline but depressingly
> it seems to be an afterthought to many.
I pick my concept as a part of my clan, actually (I've never played a
bloodline). I had an elder Brujah rebel, but a major part of the concept
was *why* she was a rebel, and how her rebellion expressed itself (which
was essentially by taking--or attempting to take--Prince after Prince out
of power when he screwed up in her eyes). She tried to do what was best
for the domain, and tried to keep pretty much everyone on an even par.
...except she was a rampant hypocrite, like most elders. <g>
There was more, of course, but that's the bare bones of it. I find that
picking a clan concept go hand-in-hand. Not always, but often.
Tina
JimTheta
> There was more, of course, but that's the bare bones of it. I find that
> picking a clan concept go hand-in-hand. Not always, but often.
I definitely agree with this, but I must add that I think the main
thrust of this is this question:
Why would your sire have chosen /you/?
I mean, if you want to play an artsy type Brujah, first determine why a
Brujah would have picked you. I guess this isn't so much making a
character who fits a clan stereotype, but making a /sire/ with a clan
stereotype.
-JimTheta
www.msu.edu/~birchm20
Samiel Spiral
>thrust of this is this question:
>
>Why would your sire have chosen /you/?
>I mean, if you want to play an artsy type Brujah, first determine why a
>Brujah would have picked you. I guess this isn't so much making a
>character who fits a clan stereotype, but making a /sire/ with a clan
>stereotype.
I think this is too true. Most people if you ask about their sire once they
have made the character there are too classic responces... either, "insert
famous kindred here, Lucita, Molcanda, or Prince of Large City" or the other
is, "his sire is a Xgen Xclan" Of course often picking an lower generation, if
possible, for power gaming reasons, which of course relates to bloodlines...
most bloodlines are picked for their nifty power alone as was pointed out
earlier.
However I think for bloodlines over clan, the picking of someone to sire, isn't
usually as strict, after all the clans in the Cam have certain rules for how
often a new childe can be created. And even members of the Sabbat, have some
that they won't embrace... But with bloodlines it seems more open, natures and
demeanors are usually open, given like one requirement, Salubri (healers) the
person is slightly empathetic, the daughters of Cacophony... no dick.
It just seems that with bloodlines, a character is more likely to get away with
siring someone who is not of the norm which allows for these different
personas, as opposed to the Brujah, who has to be a loner, or some such.
~Janus
SASA
Webwalker
> Tina wrote:
>> There was more, of course, but that's the bare bones of it. I find that
>> picking a clan concept go hand-in-hand. Not always, but often.
> I definitely agree with this, but I must add that I think the main
> thrust of this is this question:
> Why would your sire have chosen /you/?
> I mean, if you want to play an artsy type Brujah, first determine why a
> Brujah would have picked you. I guess this isn't so much making a
> character who fits a clan stereotype, but making a /sire/ with a clan
> stereotype.
Something I think about with every character I create. For Sabbat, it's
easier; the character was in the wrong place at the wrong time, got hit on
the head with a shovel, and now he's Sabbat. For the other clans, there
has to be something more tangible. A Ventrue is not going to embrace an
Anarchist/terrorist/sociopath just so a player can play a Ventrue who is
like a Malkavian. It's possible; perhaps the Ventrue owes someone a
favour, and is asked to embrace the character. Maybe the character fooled
the Ventrue. Maybe the Ventrue simply made a mistake. But there should
be a reason for the Embrace, not just the idea of playing against the
stereotype.
--
"Hell, there are no rules here-- we're trying to accomplish something."
-- Thomas A. Edison
http://chat.carleton.ca/~smiall
Tina
Organization:
JimTheta <JimT...@beer.comnospam> wrote:
> I definitely agree with this, but I must add that I think the main
> thrust of this is this question:
> Why would your sire have chosen /you/?
Hmmm. Good point. I usually have something on the order of that, but
I've never really quantified that as a question to answer in my
backgrounds.
Admittedly, "because I was there" has been the answer on one occasion. :)
Tina
Mant
JimTheta <JimT...@beer.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> Tina wrote:
> > There was more, of course, but that's the bare bones of it. I find
that
> > picking a clan concept go hand-in-hand. Not always, but often.
>
> thrust of this is this question:
>
> Why would your sire have chosen /you/?
>
a
> Brujah would have picked you. I guess this isn't so much making a
> character who fits a clan stereotype, but making a /sire/ with a clan
> stereotype.
Given thar makeing a childer and the embrace are such intensely
personal reasons, and the opportunity to do so is very rare (except
Sabbat mass embraces) I would think the prospective sire would choose
for _completely_ personal reasons. Remeber you have to live with this
choice for potential eternity.
That is Clan stereotypes and alleged views and goals would have nothing
to do with the choice of childer. If the sire fits the stereotypes then
sure they will probably pick someone they think is similar.
Mant
samiel...@aol.com (Samiel Spiral) wrote:
> >I definitely agree with this, but I must add that I think the main
> >thrust of this is this question:
> >
> >Why would your sire have chosen /you/?
> >I mean, if you want to play an artsy type Brujah, first determine
why a
> >Brujah would have picked you. I guess this isn't so much making a
> >character who fits a clan stereotype, but making a /sire/ with a clan
> >stereotype.
>
once they
> have made the character there are too classic responces...
either, "insert
> famous kindred here, Lucita, Molcanda, or Prince of Large City" or
the other
> is, "his sire is a Xgen Xclan" Of course often picking an lower
generation, if
> possible, for power gaming reasons, which of course relates to
bloodlines...
> most bloodlines are picked for their nifty power alone as was pointed
out
> earlier.
Only by the unenlightened. The true power gamer knows that the more
generic disciplines are actually more powerful than the wizz-bang
highly specialised and limited use powers most bloodlines have.
> However I think for bloodlines over clan, the picking of someone to
sire, isn't
> usually as strict, after all the clans in the Cam have certain rules
for how
> often a new childe can be created. And even members of the Sabbat,
have some
> that they won't embrace... But with bloodlines it seems more open,
natures and
> demeanors are usually open, given like one requirement, Salubri
(healers) the
> person is slightly empathetic, the daughters of Cacophony... no dick.
I tend to see it the other way, the Bloodlines seem to have a narrow
range of character concepts to me.
Anyone could be embraced by a Bruajh but only singers get to be DoCs.
> It just seems that with bloodlines, a character is more likely to get
away with
> siring someone who is not of the norm which allows for these different
> personas, as opposed to the Brujah, who has to be a loner, or some
such.
Right. So if a Brujah embraces someone who isn't a leather jacket
wearing rebel the Official Brujah Standards Commisions sends its leg
breakers around?
Given how rare the chance it is for a Cammie to make a childer, do you
realy think they give a flying copulation about the mythical "party
line" (which doesn't exist)
The fact is vampires are individuals and select other indivduals for
the embrace for personal reasons.
Alexander Bateman
Mant <man...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:8b7fua$uh7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38D67BDB...@beer.comNOSPAM>,
> JimTheta <JimT...@beer.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> > I definitely agree with this, but I must add that I think the main
> > thrust of this is this question:
> >
> > Why would your sire have chosen /you/?
> >
> > I mean, if you want to play an artsy type Brujah, first determine why
> a
> > Brujah would have picked you. I guess this isn't so much making a
> > character who fits a clan stereotype, but making a /sire/ with a clan
> > stereotype.
>
> personal reasons, and the opportunity to do so is very rare (except
> Sabbat mass embraces) I would think the prospective sire would choose
> for _completely_ personal reasons. Remeber you have to live with this
> choice for potential eternity.
>
> That is Clan stereotypes and alleged views and goals would have nothing
> to do with the choice of childer. If the sire fits the stereotypes then
> sure they will probably pick someone they think is similar.
I think you have a point but it ignores the Social Implications of your
Choice, Certain Clans will judge you a great deal upon how well your childer
Fits In and may indeed in the case of the Brujah send around a squad of
Legbreakers if you choose to waste Your Blood on some one who is basically
not Brujah material.
Obviously the Ventrue, Toreador, Brujah and Tremere suffer more than the
Malkavians and Nosferatu when it comes to this.
Also I think a lot of princes will veto your choice if they don't think its
suitable a Tremere might find himself having problems Embracing an Artist in
a Toreador city as the Prince may Feel he is "Poaching" a person that comes
under the Toreadors area of influence.
Alex.
Mark Antill
> > personal reasons, and the opportunity to do so is very rare (except
> > Sabbat mass embraces) I would think the prospective sire would choose
> > for _completely_ personal reasons. Remeber you have to live with this
> > choice for potential eternity.
> >
> > That is Clan stereotypes and alleged views and goals would have nothing
> > to do with the choice of childer. If the sire fits the stereotypes then
> > sure they will probably pick someone they think is similar.
>
> I think you have a point but it ignores the Social Implications of your
> Choice, Certain Clans will judge you a great deal upon how well your
childer
> Fits In
Your choice of childer will certainly reflect on you true.
> and may indeed in the case of the Brujah send around a squad of
> Legbreakers if you choose to waste Your Blood on some one who is basically
> not Brujah material.
What squad? An average Amercian city might have have five Brujah. One of
them embraces someone. What are the other four going to think?
Well they are four individuals, there opions will depend on their
relationship with the sire, each other, how they like the new childer. In
short they are four indivduals who will make up their own minds.
> Obviously the Ventrue, Toreador, Brujah and Tremere suffer more than the
> Malkavians and Nosferatu when it comes to this.
Maybe Tremere as they are relatively organised. The rest? I just don't see
it. They simply have no such thing as clan policy and nobody goes around
enforcing it.
> Also I think a lot of princes will veto your choice if they don't think
its
> suitable a Tremere might find himself having problems Embracing an Artist
in
> a Toreador city as the Prince may Feel he is "Poaching" a person that
comes
> under the Toreadors area of influence.
That its completely dependent on city politics. Normally the Prince gives
right of creation for some reason and then they see the Neonate when they
are presented, well after the embrace. With 100,000 mortals per vampire
there are other artists out there. Said Prince is clearly in the thrall of
the Toreadors and nothing more than their puppet for acting like this, at
leasts thats what the harpies will start saying.
Saying Toreador's are artists is on a par with "the Germans are all
efficient" or "the British are all reserved". Its a _stereotype_, it exists
for some reason but has been blow out of proportion.
Mant
Alexander Bateman
Mark Antill <mantill@[spam-me-not]geocities.com> wrote in message
news:8b8oev$nqa$1...@quince.news.easynet.net...
> > > That is Clan stereotypes and alleged views and goals would have
nothing
> > > to do with the choice of childer. If the sire fits the stereotypes
then
> > > sure they will probably pick someone they think is similar.
> >
> > I think you have a point but it ignores the Social Implications of your
> > Choice, Certain Clans will judge you a great deal upon how well your
> childer
> > Fits In
>
> Your choice of childer will certainly reflect on you true.
>
> > and may indeed in the case of the Brujah send around a squad of
> > Legbreakers if you choose to waste Your Blood on some one who is
basically
> > not Brujah material.
>
> What squad? An average Amercian city might have have five Brujah. One of
> them embraces someone. What are the other four going to think?
I don't think Clans exist as just City coteries, An Powerful Elder from a
nearby city is going to effect the unlifes of the Local Brujah to Some
extent. Prestation, Prestige and Status are powerful tools and I think a
Brujah who is deemed to lose Clan Prestige is proably in for a good Kicking.
> Well they are four individuals, there opions will depend on their
> relationship with the sire, each other, how they like the new childer. In
> short they are four indivduals who will make up their own minds.
Yes the first part is right, they Make up their minds based upon the
opinion's of others, Also including There sires, there Prince, Primojen ect.
and anyone else who wants to throw his oar in, Thats how a society works. In
this case all the Brujah arn't going to go of into Isolation until they make
up there minds, which means that they are not Just four indivduals who will
make up their own minds but part of a Network of other intrested parties who
have a substancial stake in what is going on.
> > Obviously the Ventrue, Toreador, Brujah and Tremere suffer more than the
> > Malkavians and Nosferatu when it comes to this.
>
> Maybe Tremere as they are relatively organised. The rest? I just don't see
> it. They simply have no such thing as clan policy and nobody goes around
> enforcing it.
I Disagree. The Writeup of the clans in the Revised Storytellers Handbook
Points out Clearly what the Policys of each clan are. Admitadly these are in
many cases not official clan policy, (Although in many cases they are,)
However all are still the Policy of the clan. It even discusses what type of
people each clan embraces. The Clan Steriotypes are less important than in
second edition but they still Are important.
At the End of the Day the only way a Clan's steriotype can Exist, is because
it contains more Vampires that either fit it, or pretend to fit it, than
Vampires who Don't.
> > Also I think a lot of princes will veto your choice if they don't think
> its
> > suitable a Tremere might find himself having problems Embracing an
Artist
> in
> > a Toreador city as the Prince may Feel he is "Poaching" a person that
> comes
> > under the Toreadors area of influence.
>
> That its completely dependent on city politics. Normally the Prince gives
> right of creation for some reason and then they see the Neonate when they
> are presented, well after the embrace. With 100,000 mortals per vampire
> there are other artists out there. Said Prince is clearly in the thrall of
> the Toreadors and nothing more than their puppet for acting like this, at
> leasts thats what the harpies will start saying.
Note I said a Toreador City, where it is assumed the Prince has to appease
the Toreador.
However Yes everything is always dependent on City Politics which is also
something also often ignored during charicter creation.
> Saying Toreador's are artists is on a par with "the Germans are all
> efficient" or "the British are all reserved". Its a _stereotype_, it
exists
> for some reason but has been blow out of proportion.
I agree with this to a point, However I think due to the comparative numbers
of a Clan to a Race, then the conformity to the steriotype in the Clan will
be greater than the conformity of the Steriotype in the Race.
Alex.
Axiothea Phlius
gleefully began developing True Brujah characters and Temporis powers.
I *like* Temporis now, and have reversed my previous decision to exclude
the Discipline from my WoD (though Spiritus and Melpominee are still
out). All is forgiven, at least as far as TB/Temp is concerned. Thanks
for fixing the Discipline and clan, guys. >>
Ah Rants! I love 'em.
The thing I like about the new revision of Temporis is... well it offers a
great existential block for those oh so intellectual True Brujah who don't
believe in fate er whatever. If you control time, then you should be able to
control everything... right? Well, yes but you could die in the process. Is
that fate's decision or were you too lazy to work the discipline. I think it
is an excellent twist, especially if say, you played a True Brujah before and
the storyteller is allowing you to role play through the changing of the
discipline. But maybe I should read the rest of the arguement first?
Meredith (The closet gamer. I didn't ask you if I could spell... sorry for the
errors :)
PS: What does Elois mean anyway? I heard it was a female French name for
intelligent, but is there more to it? My friends and I have been looking for
this one forever.
bruce ramsay
Axiothea Phlius <axiothe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000407004320...@ng-md1.aol.com...
Axiothea Phlius
Morephus
Do you think that the True Brujah are necessarly evil doers for evil's sake?
Angela Christine
>PS: What does Elois mean anyway? I heard it was a female French name for
>intelligent, but is there more to it? My friends and I have been looking for
>this one forever.
The closest I've got as a name is Eloisa, Eloise or Eloisia. According
to _From Aaron to Zoe: 15,000 Great Baby Names_ "Eloise English. From
Aloysius, Old German, "Very wise." Unusual."
Angela Christine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aca(at)telus.net~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: What should you say if you meet a vampire in a dark alley?
A: Hello.
Axiothea Phlius
to _From Aaron to Zoe: 15,000 Great Baby Names_ "Eloise English. From
Aloysius, Old German, "Very wise." Unusual."
>>
Thanks Angela :) If anyone has more knowledge on this please let me know.
Meredith (The Closet Gamer)
Alexander Bateman
Well From The Complete Book of Baby Names.
I got Eloisa as a form of Louise (Teutonic: Famous battle maid)
Eloise is the same or a variant of Elizabeth (Hebrew: Consecrated to God.)
No mention of Eloisia or Elois though.
Alex (Greek: Helper and Protector of Mankind.)
Alexander Bateman
Alexander Bateman <alexande...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38f06...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net...
> Well From The Complete Book of Baby Names.
> I got Eloisa as a form of Louise (Teutonic: Famous battle maid)
> Eloise is the same or a variant of Elizabeth (Hebrew: Consecrated to God.)
>
> No mention of Eloisia or Elois though.
>
> Alex (Greek: Helper and Protector of Mankind.)
>
into Angelology.
Now "Eloi" is apparently "one of the seven angels created by Ildabaoth in
his own image." I think its the Noun for this type of angel rather than a
Name, But I could be wrong.
(this was REF.: The Gnostics and their Remains, Charles W. King.)
Although this is interesting it doesn't quite seem to fit.
However discarding Angelology I also came up with Eloisa, Who is apparently
a Famous? Former day Juliet described as Beautiful and Intelligent. this
seems to be the best match I've seen yet.
Apparently se comes from an old Folk-Tale but Pope's "Eloisa to Abelard" and
Helen Waddle's "Peter Abelard" where mentioned as good interpretations.
Hope this helps,
Alex.
K. Carr
to run games for my husband, myself and a few friends with similar
interests. I've never been involved with VtM groups locally and needed
something to tell me what to expect and things I should focus on for
organizing.
If you're having trouble locating a copy locally, I did order mine from
Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565042646/tilandrasnarthex
I thought 18$ US was a reasonable price, and it's comparable in thickness to
the player's guide (not that thickness is a reliable indicator, but I was
disappointed with the price in relation to info in the clanbooks when I
ordered them... large fonts can make page counts deceptive!)
However, if anyone knows a group of tabletop (as opposed to LARP) players in
the New Orleans area that is high on intelligence and low on the "freak"
factor, please email me with details or reply here at your convenience.
Kellee
"Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman" <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8anags$1m7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000313200346...@ng-dc1.aol.com>,
> nurie...@aol.com (Nuriel Jabal) wrote:
> > >I was flipping through the Storyteller's Handbook
> >
> > Not on the subject of Temporis, but rather this newly released book
> > itself. Other then your happiness over the new rulings concerning
> > Temporis, did you, or anyone else for that matter, really find this
> > book useful?
>
> I, for, will find it useful after I find a copy of it. I read over my
> friend's copy.
>
> >
> > I've seen it and read though it on a past few occasions at book
> > stores, for a decent amout of time to determine if it was worth it.
> > From what I saw though, it didn't seem to be a good guide for STs. It
> > seemed to have but few things, one the FAQ on the WW web page, two the
> > supporting details on the bloodlines, and three how to run a game.
>
> The FAQ thing was very useful. I'm going to use the Baali a good bit in
> my upcoming Chronicle, and they needed revamping (no pun intended); they
> were far too one-dimensional before. It has more substance than most
> other Storyteller-oriented products, though the WW:tA Storyteller's
> Guide was very well done too.
>
> > Of course I'm sure number three as I've listed it would seem to be the
> > "duh" part and that which the book is most useful for. But as I read
> > it, the only good parts I've noticed were that it game ideas for
> > running games in other time periods, the rest was just "you are the
> > ST, you are in control," kind of things.
>
> This section wasn't all that useful, IMO, though some of it was amusing.
>
> > So am I just missing the big important parts in it? Or is it really
> > more a guide for beginning STs?
>
> Like they say at Mississippi weddings, "It's all relative, man."
> Apparently, it isn't as useful a resource for you as it would be for me.
> Personally, I'd recommend it, but not everyone has my tastes.
>
> --Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
>
> The Parakeet's Nest: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Meteor/3484/