Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

VTR CCG + VTES? How...

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 12:06:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

I see some problems in the future...

20 years from now, no one remembers VTM... so even fewer people buy
into VTES because they liked VTM (though I don't even know the numbers
of people who DID buy into VTES because they dug VTM... I did, but has
there been market research for this? LSJ?)

Anyhow... how does one make a VTR based CCG without killing the player
base of VTES, and one that compliments the buying into the CCG and
buying into VTR?

Thoughts?
~SV

More about : vtr ccg vtes

Anonymous
May 5, 2005 12:20:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

These are my thoughts on VTR + VTES...

1.) Make a completely different game.

Make VTR geared more towards a two player experience. Use similar
mechanics that VTES has, but make it a two player game with perhaps
some different mechanics, too.

2.) Make a partially compatible game.

Make VTR CCG's crypt cards all like Group negative numbers or count up
from 100 or something... make many of the cards from library keyword
specific. Like lancea sanctum and what not... then SOME cards will
still be valuable, like maybe the occasional vote and generic combat
card, maybe even some reprints.

Then there's the thoughts of making tournament 'types' like in MTG...
but that's a whole other can of worms... related, but... complicated...
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:21:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> I see some problems in the future...
>
> 20 years from now, no one remembers VTM... so even fewer people buy
> into VTES because they liked VTM (though I don't even know the
numbers
> of people who DID buy into VTES because they dug VTM... I did, but
has
> there been market research for this? LSJ?)
>

I'm kinda interested in how many people started playing VTES because of
VTM, purely from a curiosity perspective. I wouldn't think VTM has/had
as big of an impact as something like the LOTR Movies had on LOTR CCG.
And I don't even know what the numbers are there, just guessing that
the movies helped significantly.

> Anyhow... how does one make a VTR based CCG without killing the
player
> base of VTES, and one that compliments the buying into the CCG and
> buying into VTR?
>

I don't think its possible to make VTR CCG without killing VTES. VTES
players begged to have sets come out only every nine months. With this
slow rate of new expansions (and buying of cards), I don't think many
players would want to buy cards for both VTES and VTR CCG. Also, the
player base of VTES (at least in the US) is not big enough to handle
even a small percent abandoning VTES for VTR CCG, IMHO.

> Thoughts?
> ~SV

Just my thoughts.

Later,
~Rehlow
Related resources
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:31:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> These are my thoughts on VTR + VTES...
>
> 1.) Make a completely different game.
>
> Make VTR geared more towards a two player experience. Use similar
> mechanics that VTES has, but make it a two player game with perhaps
> some different mechanics, too.
>

A two player game could draw in people who stayed away from VTES
multi-player aspect. However, since the current VTES players only want
to buy expansions once every nine months, I think that you would find
those people to choose either VTES or VTR CCG, killing your current
VTES player base, which should be avoided. Maybe Europe could handle
splitting the player base into two games, but I think it would bring an
end to VTES in the US unless VTR CCG totally flopped.

> 2.) Make a partially compatible game.
>
> Make VTR CCG's crypt cards all like Group negative numbers or count
up
> from 100 or something... make many of the cards from library keyword
> specific. Like lancea sanctum and what not... then SOME cards will
> still be valuable, like maybe the occasional vote and generic combat
> card, maybe even some reprints.
>

Since I don't really know anything about how VTR works, I don't even
know if a somewhat compatible game is even possible. The Star Trek CCG
came out with a Second Edition, with certain cards marked as playable
in the First Edition, because parts of the original structure of the
game were kept in Second Edition, while other parts were reworked. I
haven't seen anyone playing First Edition, so I don't know if people
actually use any Second Edition cards in their decks.

> Then there's the thoughts of making tournament 'types' like in MTG...
> but that's a whole other can of worms... related, but...
complicated...

I think Crypt groupings try to do what MTG tournament types achieve,
but in a better way. VTES is like having a MTG tournament where all
tournament types are legal, but you can only make your deck out of any
one type. This would never work for MTG, because the tournament types
are not balanced against each other.

Later,
~Rehlow
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:52:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Rehlow wrote:
> Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> > I see some problems in the future...
> >
> > 20 years from now, no one remembers VTM... so even fewer people buy
> > into VTES because they liked VTM (though I don't even know the
> numbers
> > of people who DID buy into VTES because they dug VTM... I did, but
> has
> > there been market research for this? LSJ?)
> >
>
> I'm kinda interested in how many people started playing VTES because
of
> VTM, purely from a curiosity perspective. I wouldn't think VTM
has/had
> as big of an impact as something like the LOTR Movies had on LOTR
CCG.
> And I don't even know what the numbers are there, just guessing that
> the movies helped significantly.

LotR CCG was made using card images FROM the movie... it exists BECAUSE
the movies exist...

> > Anyhow... how does one make a VTR based CCG without killing the
> player
> > base of VTES, and one that compliments the buying into the CCG and
> > buying into VTR?
> >
>
> I don't think its possible to make VTR CCG without killing VTES. VTES
> players begged to have sets come out only every nine months. With
this
> slow rate of new expansions (and buying of cards), I don't think many
> players would want to buy cards for both VTES and VTR CCG. Also, the
> player base of VTES (at least in the US) is not big enough to handle
> even a small percent abandoning VTES for VTR CCG, IMHO.

You could accelerate the release schedual... every five months make a
VTR suppliment and then a VTES suppliment... this way VETS stuff is
coming out every 10 months, and there's another set for them to look at
too, with some cards that are adaptable, if they want.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 7:25:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> I see some problems in the future...
>
> 20 years from now, no one remembers VTM... so even fewer people buy
> into VTES because they liked VTM (though I don't even know the
numbers
> of people who DID buy into VTES because they dug VTM... I did, but
has
> there been market research for this? LSJ?)

My experience has been that few people got into V:TES because of VTM. I
certainly didn't. It seems to be one of the common misconceptions as
well. Even the WotC President thought that there'd be an overlap and
there was some concern that maybe the game would be too complex for the
VtM crowd.

If anything, I know a bunch of V:TES players who've come to learn about
VtM based on their desire to learn more about the V:TES background.

> Anyhow... how does one make a VTR based CCG without killing the
player
> base of VTES, and one that compliments the buying into the CCG and
> buying into VTR?

You'd have to make the game so different that the new VTR game builds
its player base without touching the V:TES player base. Trying to make
a new game that is similar or even partially compatible is just taking
the V:TES income from one pocket and dividing it into two pockets (but
doubling your production and support costs).

-Robert
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 9:44:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

People might remember things like Vampire: the Masquerade
and Vampire: the Requiem if you ever SPELLED THEM OUT.

(Historian, speaking on the History Channel "History of
Role Playing Games" holo-broadcast, "...and games like
Vampire: the Requiem totally died out in the first few
years of the 21st Century when all the existing players
began speaking in nothing but acronyms. Once they could
no longer communicate with other human beings, the
popularity of such games completely collapsed!")
May 5, 2005 10:24:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

I think it would be a simple matter of expanding V:TES.

We already have new clans coming with the Legacies of Blood expansion
and essentially new disciplines.

So you'd do the same with Requiem Clans/Bloodlines and Disciplines.

The things like Ordo Dracul "powers" could be simulated with Master
Cards or a new action. And they could form some type of escalation
chain ... so Master 1 gives you level 1, Master 2 increases to level 2
etc.

Or it could be actions.

I don't think it would be difficult just to keep V:TES expanding.

David
May 5, 2005 11:48:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:1115331945.541777.45390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Screaming Vermillian wrote:
>> I see some problems in the future...
>>
>> 20 years from now, no one remembers VTM... so even fewer people buy
>> into VTES because they liked VTM (though I don't even know the
> numbers
>> of people who DID buy into VTES because they dug VTM... I did, but
> has
>> there been market research for this? LSJ?)
>
> My experience has been that few people got into V:TES because of VTM.

<snip>

> -Robert
>

Count me in the minority, though in my case it was the vampire LARP, rather
than the tabletop game. Never played the TT game, haven't played the LARP in
years, but still buy WoD stuff (novels & supplements, both old and new WoDs)
because I enjoy the settings so much.

If WW ever decided to do a V:tR expansion, I'd hope that they'd do new
clans/sects with the new WoD vamps and just let them use the existing
discipline cards. They could skip a grouping number when they got to the
V:tR vamps (e.g., if it came out tomorrow, all V:tR vamps would be G6), so
that the vamps would never meet in the same starting crypt. It seems like
the disciplines would be similar enough for that to work.

One problem is that the new WoD doesn't have super-old ubervamps, because of
the get-too-buff-and-go-to-torpor mechanic. I'm sure there are others, but
that's the main one that jumps to mind for me.

I REALLY hope they don't try to start a new V:tR CCG.

- Pat
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:44:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Robert Goudie wrote:
> If anything, I know a bunch of V:TES players who've come to learn
about
> VtM based on their desire to learn more about the V:TES background.

And thats the point. VTES and V:tM (and the Vampire computer game, the
old books and Vampire:LARP) share the same background: the oWoD. An
interest in one of those games makes you interested in another of those
games. There will come a time, when there is no more interest in the
oWoD and that will probably kill VTES for new players. (Old players
will still remember the time they first read something about Lucita.)
But i think, we dont need to worry about whats happening in twenty
years. VTES now is ready and alive.

Mixing the background of VtR to VTES is IMO like mixing the Startreck
World to VTES. They are different worlds. VtR even has no Jyhad AFAIK.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 3:04:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:1115331945.541777.45390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> If anything, I know a bunch of V:TES players who've come to learn about
> VtM based on their desire to learn more about the V:TES background.

It's the only reason I read the clan novels. Rage was the only reason I
read two or three of the WW werewolf novels.

I have a couple more trilogies sitting around that I bought and never read.
I was not tremendously impressed by the clan novels, although I have
a feeling some of the things that are sitting around unread may be better.

Fred
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 3:53:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 5 May 2005 15:25:45 -0700, "Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org>
wrote:

>My experience has been that few people got into V:TES because of VTM. I
>certainly didn't. It seems to be one of the common misconceptions as
>well. Even the WotC President thought that there'd be an overlap and
>there was some concern that maybe the game would be too complex for the
>VtM crowd.

I guess this is different in every region of the world. I don't have
numbers, but can say without fear of being dismissed by local players
that the vast majority of brazilian players come from V:tM groups.
There are lots of reasons for this disparity, but they are not
relevant to this topic.


>If anything, I know a bunch of V:TES players who've come to learn about
>VtM based on their desire to learn more about the V:TES background.

This also happens pretty much in here.


>> Anyhow... how does one make a VTR based CCG without killing the
>player
>> base of VTES, and one that compliments the buying into the CCG and
>> buying into VTR?
>
>You'd have to make the game so different that the new VTR game builds
>its player base without touching the V:TES player base. Trying to make
>a new game that is similar or even partially compatible is just taking
>the V:TES income from one pocket and dividing it into two pockets (but
>doubling your production and support costs).
>-Robert

Which leads to the assumption that it won't happen soon. Not for the
production/support costs, but for the fact that these things (planning
based on a completely different player base/customer) take time if you
don't want to throw your money to the air.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 5:35:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
> Robert Goudie wrote:
> > If anything, I know a bunch of V:TES players who've come to learn
> about
> > VtM based on their desire to learn more about the V:TES background.
>
> And thats the point. VTES and V:tM (and the Vampire computer game,
the
> old books and Vampire:LARP) share the same background: the oWoD. An
> interest in one of those games makes you interested in another of
those
> games. There will come a time, when there is no more interest in the
> oWoD and that will probably kill VTES for new players. (Old players
> will still remember the time they first read something about Lucita.)
> But i think, we dont need to worry about whats happening in twenty
> years. VTES now is ready and alive.
>
> Mixing the background of VtR to VTES is IMO like mixing the Startreck
> World to VTES. They are different worlds.

Oh that's a crock of poop. They're both gothic-punkesque horror
settings with vampires, clans of vampires, 'gangs' of vampires that
hang out together and have similar philosophies, have titles, drink
blood, are angsty and moody, don't like fire, go to torpor, kick butt,
have supernatural skills that power them, use blood to do so, have a
grudging respect for their elders, have conspiracy amongst themselves,
etc... The game just has some different mechanics, and a few
different... things. Like Lancea Sanctum and what not.

Its like mixing Anne Rice vampires and Sonja Blue vampires... only
there are MORE differences with those than with VTR and VTM...
Really... Jeesus. You really don't follow your vampire lore very
carefully do you? For shame...

> VtR even has no Jyhad AFAIK.

Meh. I'm sure they have some kinda' conspiracy thingy... and then you
can just say that instead of being 'methuselah' we're just really old
powerful internationally influencial vampires.

~SV
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 5:46:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

quetzalcoatl wrote:
> I think it would be a simple matter of expanding V:TES.

That's the spirit!

> We already have new clans coming with the Legacies of Blood expansion
> and essentially new disciplines.
>
> So you'd do the same with Requiem Clans/Bloodlines and Disciplines.

Right. Maybe even with outferiors, too.

> The things like Ordo Dracul "powers" could be simulated with Master
> Cards or a new action. And they could form some type of escalation
> chain ... so Master 1 gives you level 1, Master 2 increases to level
2
> etc.

Or keyword it. "only useable by a lancea sanctum vampire"...

> I don't think it would be difficult just to keep V:TES expanding.

Right. I think it will be more difficult convincing all these 'loyal'
VTES players that VTR as a VTES supliment wouldn't be that much of a
violation of world or plot continuity as they think it is...

~SV
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 8:03:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Screaming Vermillian" <vermillian69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115412416.344284.91320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> quetzalcoatl wrote:
> > I think it would be a simple matter of expanding V:TES.
>
> That's the spirit!
>
> > We already have new clans coming with the Legacies of Blood expansion
> > and essentially new disciplines.
> >
> > So you'd do the same with Requiem Clans/Bloodlines and Disciplines.
>
> Right. Maybe even with outferiors, too.
>
> > The things like Ordo Dracul "powers" could be simulated with Master
> > Cards or a new action. And they could form some type of escalation
> > chain ... so Master 1 gives you level 1, Master 2 increases to level
> 2
> > etc.
>
> Or keyword it. "only useable by a lancea sanctum vampire"...
>
> > I don't think it would be difficult just to keep V:TES expanding.
>
> Right. I think it will be more difficult convincing all these 'loyal'
> VTES players that VTR as a VTES supliment wouldn't be that much of a
> violation of world or plot continuity as they think it is...

Just for example a VTR vampire

Name: Belly Yellow

Clan: Gangrel
Sect/Covenant: The Carthian Movement

6-cap

Superior Protean
Inferior Resilience
Superior Vitality

Prince of Red Rock

So some of the cards, protean and traditions, would be compatable with
current VTES cards but others Resilience and Vitality would be new
disciplines that would give new results.


--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:31:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 6 May 2005 10:44:38 -0700, x5mofr@gmx.de wrote:

>Mixing the background of VtR to VTES is IMO like mixing the Startreck
>World to VTES. They are different worlds. VtR even has no Jyhad AFAIK.

There's the Danse Macabre, you know. But they are quite different. The
Danse Macabre is a personal thing. The Jyhad is about mass
manipulation. You're quite right, they don't mix well as a scenario.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:04:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 6 May 2005 13:35:20 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian"
<vermillian69@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
>> Robert Goudie wrote:
>> > If anything, I know a bunch of V:TES players who've come to learn
>> about
>> > VtM based on their desire to learn more about the V:TES background.
>>
>> And thats the point. VTES and V:tM (and the Vampire computer game,
>the
>> old books and Vampire:LARP) share the same background: the oWoD. An
>> interest in one of those games makes you interested in another of
>those
>> games. There will come a time, when there is no more interest in the
>> oWoD and that will probably kill VTES for new players. (Old players
>> will still remember the time they first read something about Lucita.)
>> But i think, we dont need to worry about whats happening in twenty
>> years. VTES now is ready and alive.
>>
>> Mixing the background of VtR to VTES is IMO like mixing the Startreck
>> World to VTES. They are different worlds.
>
>Oh that's a crock of poop. They're both gothic-punkesque horror
>settings with vampires, clans of vampires, 'gangs' of vampires that
>hang out together and have similar philosophies, have titles, drink
>blood, are angsty and moody, don't like fire, go to torpor, kick butt,
>have supernatural skills that power them, use blood to do so, have a
>grudging respect for their elders, have conspiracy amongst themselves,
>etc... The game just has some different mechanics, and a few
>different... things. Like Lancea Sanctum and what not.

There's no Jyhad, and no similar hidden conspiracy, at least not in
any scale major than local (i.e., inner-city politics). I think that's
enough to make any mixing of the two unlikely to seem natural.

My Lancea Sanctum deck would be made of vampires that couldn't care
less if other vampires called a Praxis Seizure: Cucamonga. The most
interested response would be "Is he aligned with the Lancea Santum?
Nice. He's not? That city is damned. Now let me take care of these
nomads messing in my hunting grounds". Requiem is like that -
feudalism applied to the upmost degree. It also does not share the
Cainite origin, and millenia-old vampires are probably in torpor
having to deal with too much bad nightmares to manipulate younger ones
to seize power in a city - much less in any bigger scale than
that.They'll wake from torpor someday with no clear memories of what
they were; how come they will be able to scheme for centuries this
way?

The list of similarities you see is a list of traits usually assigned
to any vampire in almost any horror story that features vampires. The
fundamental core of the game is way detached from the old Masquerade,
they just didn't bother to change some clan and titles names, not the
other way around.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:24:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Fri, 6 May 2005 16:03:43 -0500, "XZealot"
<x_zealot@NoSpamcox-internet.com> wrote:

>"Screaming Vermillian" <vermillian69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1115412416.344284.91320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> quetzalcoatl wrote:
>> > I think it would be a simple matter of expanding V:TES.
>>
>> That's the spirit!
>>
>> > We already have new clans coming with the Legacies of Blood expansion
>> > and essentially new disciplines.
>> >
>> > So you'd do the same with Requiem Clans/Bloodlines and Disciplines.
>>
>> Right. Maybe even with outferiors, too.
>>
>> > The things like Ordo Dracul "powers" could be simulated with Master
>> > Cards or a new action. And they could form some type of escalation
>> > chain ... so Master 1 gives you level 1, Master 2 increases to level
>> 2
>> > etc.
>>
>> Or keyword it. "only useable by a lancea sanctum vampire"...
>>
>> > I don't think it would be difficult just to keep V:TES expanding.
>>
>> Right. I think it will be more difficult convincing all these 'loyal'
>> VTES players that VTR as a VTES supliment wouldn't be that much of a
>> violation of world or plot continuity as they think it is...
>
>Just for example a VTR vampire
>
>Name: Belly Yellow
>
>Clan: Gangrel
>Sect/Covenant: The Carthian Movement
>
>6-cap
>
>Superior Protean
>Inferior Resilience
>Superior Vitality
>
>Prince of Red Rock
>
>So some of the cards, protean and traditions, would be compatable with
>current VTES cards but others Resilience and Vitality would be new
>disciplines that would give new results.

If it were to be a V:tR expansion, I don't see why shouldn't the game
translate Resilience as Fortitude and Vigor (not Vitality) as Potence.
That's a region where there are just slight mechanical differences...

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:24:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> >Just for example a VTR vampire
> >
> >Name: Belly Yellow
> >
> >Clan: Gangrel
> >Sect/Covenant: The Carthian Movement
> >
> >6-cap
> >
> >Superior Protean
> >Inferior Resilience
> >Superior Vitality
> >
> >Prince of Red Rock
> >
> >So some of the cards, protean and traditions, would be compatable with
> >current VTES cards but others Resilience and Vitality would be new
> >disciplines that would give new results.
>
> If it were to be a V:tR expansion, I don't see why shouldn't the game
> translate Resilience as Fortitude and Vigor (not Vitality) as Potence.
> That's a region where there are just slight mechanical differences...

Perhaps they could use the same symbols but be called by different names.

"Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet...."


--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:32:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 5 May 2005 15:25:45 -0700, Robert Goudie <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote:

> Screaming Vermillian wrote:
>> I see some problems in the future...
>>
>> 20 years from now, no one remembers VTM... so even fewer people buy
>> into VTES because they liked VTM (though I don't even know the
> numbers
>> of people who DID buy into VTES because they dug VTM... I did, but
> has
>> there been market research for this? LSJ?)
>
> My experience has been that few people got into V:TES because of VTM.

For what its worth... I'm a counterexample. Our local VTES forums also
have a WoD topic related to the RPG world of the oWoD. It's not as
active as (for example) the game mechanics topic, but it's active.

Not that it would mean anything, we're comparing global guesses with
local data...

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:32:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Fri, 06 May 2005 18:32:56 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:

>For what its worth... I'm a counterexample. Our local VTES forums also
> have a WoD topic related to the RPG world of the oWoD. It's not as
> active as (for example) the game mechanics topic, but it's active.
>
>Not that it would mean anything, we're comparing global guesses with
> local data...

Sure. But let me add another guess: probably all V:tES decisions (in
design, implementation and marketing and every other business instance
of it) are made with the assumption/market data that a good bunch of
new players will come from V:tM, at least as much as the bunch that
comes from other CCGs. Otherwise we would see more unusual, unique
effects, ilustrations, card names and such. The state of things now is
that every card released still comes directly from a paragraph or two
in any given V:tM/WoD book, as literal as it can be in the set of
rules this game has built upon the years.

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
May 7, 2005 12:05:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> There's no Jyhad, and no similar hidden conspiracy, at least not in
> any scale major than local (i.e., inner-city politics). I think
that's
> enough to make any mixing of the two unlikely to seem natural.
>

I would think that the "origins" of the vampire world would be the
hidden conspiracy kind of thing in Requiem. The Lancea Sanctum for
example believe that they are a Christian-centered sect. I've got a
feeling that Requiem will be headed in that kind of direction. Each
sect vying for "control" of their creation myth or something.

David
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 4:51:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <TkOee.11751$ye1.11482@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>I have a couple more trilogies sitting around that I bought and never read.
>I was not tremendously impressed by the clan novels, although I have
>a feeling some of the things that are sitting around unread may be better.

The clan novels varied a lot, due to having a lot of different writers.
Some of them are quite readable, whereas others blow harder than a wind
tunnel.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 8:19:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Fri, 06 May 2005 17:39:47 -0300, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
<fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote:

> On Fri, 06 May 2005 18:32:56 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
>
>> For what its worth... I'm a counterexample. Our local VTES forums also
>> have a WoD topic related to the RPG world of the oWoD. It's not as
>> active as (for example) the game mechanics topic, but it's active.
>>
>> Not that it would mean anything, we're comparing global guesses with
>> local data...
>
> Sure. But let me add another guess: probably all V:tES decisions (in
> design, implementation and marketing and every other business instance
> of it) are made with the assumption/market data that a good bunch of
> new players will come from V:tM, at least as much as the bunch that
> comes from other CCGs. Otherwise we would see more unusual, unique
> effects, ilustrations, card names and such. The state of things now is
> that every card released still comes directly from a paragraph or two
> in any given V:tM/WoD book, as literal as it can be in the set of
> rules this game has built upon the years.

Note that players who have been playing for a long time may also have
a concept of what the feeling and world of VTES is. This is largely
independent of (or better yet, only indirectly linked to) VtM's oWoD.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 7:28:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 5 May 2005 08:20:04 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian"
<vermillian69@yahoo.com> wrote:

>These are my thoughts on VTR + VTES...
>
>1.) Make a completely different game.
>
>Make VTR geared more towards a two player experience. Use similar
>mechanics that VTES has, but make it a two player game with perhaps
>some different mechanics, too.
>
>2.) Make a partially compatible game.
>
>Make VTR CCG's crypt cards all like Group negative numbers or count up
>from 100 or something... make many of the cards from library keyword
>specific. Like lancea sanctum and what not... then SOME cards will
>still be valuable, like maybe the occasional vote and generic combat
>card, maybe even some reprints.
>
>Then there's the thoughts of making tournament 'types' like in MTG...
>but that's a whole other can of worms... related, but... complicated...

3.) Steal what is stealable and plug it into V:TES. [as others have
suggested]

I'm rather disappointed with V:TR because it's way too much like V:TM.
But, I think I understand why. It's necessary to set up the world in
such a way that a bunch of vampires - PCs - will work together and,
furthermore, avoid doing the superheroes with fangs thing.
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 7:37:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 5 May 2005 13:21:58 -0700, "Rehlow" <newsgroup@rehlow.com> wrote:

>
>Screaming Vermillian wrote:
>> I see some problems in the future...
>>
>> 20 years from now, no one remembers VTM... so even fewer people buy
>> into VTES because they liked VTM (though I don't even know the
>numbers
>> of people who DID buy into VTES because they dug VTM... I did, but
>has
>> there been market research for this? LSJ?)
>>
>
>I'm kinda interested in how many people started playing VTES because of
>VTM, purely from a curiosity perspective. I wouldn't think VTM has/had
>as big of an impact as something like the LOTR Movies had on LOTR CCG.
>And I don't even know what the numbers are there, just guessing that
>the movies helped significantly.

Hasn't this question come up before? I feel like I've answered it
previously.

I was familiar with V:TM, which I think helped me assimilate the CCG,
e.g. jargon. But, I was introduced to the CCG by someone not into the
RPG I met playing another CCG at a con. At the time, I had only been
playing CCGs for a couple of months and was highly enthused with them
in general, so I don't know if the source material hook mattered or
not.

>~Rehlow
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 6:08:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:
> Note that players who have been playing for a long time may also have
> a concept of what the feeling and world of VTES is. This is largely
> independent of (or better yet, only indirectly linked to) VtM's
oWoD.


The oWoD cannot be indirectly linked to VTES because it is the
(fantasy) world that is standing behind VTES. VtM, VTES (and others
like the Computer game) are games that are located in the oWoD, they
share the same background. Thats why after the end of VtM VTES is the
only game that explores the oWoD any further. In so far that every
people in the OWoD and also every player has a different view of the
oWoD, you are right. That was part of WWs gaming philosophy from the
beginning.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 6:21:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> Right. I think it will be more difficult convincing all these 'loyal'
> VTES players that VTR as a VTES supliment wouldn't be that much of a
> violation of world or plot continuity as they think it is...

Yes, that will be difficult. Because it is a violation of world
continuity.

Every gaming IMO is a roleplaying experience. One of the strength of
VTES is that it is based on a rich, adventurous, dark and exciting
background. That background is much more interesting than playing a
wizard who summons some creatures to battle other wizards for example.

It is no problem to create a superman, Cpt. Picard or Teddy Bear
vampire. And for the players who like to battle the barbie dolls with
the borgs there are the Create-your-own-clan tournaments. But by doing
so in the official game, you kill the existing background of VTES and
you kill the game like it is now.

Give us African vampires, werewolfes, mages, antediluvians, Lilith,
there are countless ideas for new suppelemts. But please from the oWoD.

There are players who play VTES like chess or any abstract game. Thats
absolutely ok. But please for us players who like the roleplaying
experience of VTES, dont ruin it.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 7:33:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
> Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> > Right. I think it will be more difficult convincing all these
'loyal'
> > VTES players that VTR as a VTES supliment wouldn't be that much of
a
> > violation of world or plot continuity as they think it is...
>
> Yes, that will be difficult. Because it is a violation of world
> continuity.

and ravnos still existing isn't? And I thought you said in anther line
on this thread, that VTES is the only VTM oWoD thing still out, but
isn't even directly linked to VTM anyhow?

Anyhow, it doesn't kill the oWoD setting if you put out an expansion
based on the new world of darkness. It just creates a ccg setting in
which one could play with either world of darkness they wished (and for
those blasphemors who play the game as a game like 'chess' or
something, potentially both).

Aren't the african vampires pretty much followers of their own
continuity, by and large?

> Every gaming IMO is a roleplaying experience.

Oh don't make me vomit. Do you guys play dress up and pass a hat around
pretending to be Malkav and play with Elder Methuselah special powers
varaints as described in the initial strategy manual?

The 'flavor' of MTG's current block is exciting enough, and if that's
not enough, wait for the next one (it reminds me of Guild Wars).

> One of the strength of
> VTES is that it is based on a rich, adventurous, dark and exciting
> background. That background is much more interesting than playing a
> wizard who summons some creatures to battle other wizards for
example.

Yeah... have you actually paid attention to MTG lately?

> It is no problem to create a superman, Cpt. Picard or Teddy Bear
> vampire.

> Give us African vampires, werewolfes, mages, antediluvians, Lilith,
> there are countless ideas for new suppelemts. But please from the
oWoD.

I'm sorry. I had to post these two right next to each other, because
they're almost synonomous in their audacity and hilarity. ITS A GAME.
Why NOT have silly things? (and what I'm suggesting is NOT captain
crunch of vampires... its more like Anne Rice vs. Blade's vampire world
continuity... although with even less parity issues.

> And for the players who like to battle the barbie dolls with
> the borgs there are the Create-your-own-clan tournaments. But by
doing
> so in the official game, you kill the existing background of VTES and
> you kill the game like it is now.

Every expansions kills the game 'like it is now'. Reclarify.

> There are players who play VTES like chess or any abstract game.
Thats
> absolutely ok. But please for us players who like the roleplaying
> experience of VTES, dont ruin it.

What do you say to Hell hound with a 44 magnum?

~SV
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 12:14:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Fri, 6 May 2005 16:34:23 -0500, "XZealot"
<x_zealot@NoSpamcox-internet.com> wrote:

>> >Just for example a VTR vampire
>> >
>> >Name: Belly Yellow
>> >
>> >Clan: Gangrel
>> >Sect/Covenant: The Carthian Movement
>> >
>> >6-cap
>> >
>> >Superior Protean
>> >Inferior Resilience
>> >Superior Vitality
>> >
>> >Prince of Red Rock
>> >
>> >So some of the cards, protean and traditions, would be compatable with
>> >current VTES cards but others Resilience and Vitality would be new
>> >disciplines that would give new results.
>>
>> If it were to be a V:tR expansion, I don't see why shouldn't the game
>> translate Resilience as Fortitude and Vigor (not Vitality) as Potence.
>> That's a region where there are just slight mechanical differences...
>
>Perhaps they could use the same symbols but be called by different names.
>"Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet...."

Or something as a Potence card with the text "only usable by a Daeva
vampire" or something.

But again, there's too many similarities in the discipline field.
Designing a Requiem expansion would require to deal with two extremes.
For once, the introdution of what's new and unique to Requiem: the
Predator's Taint, the territorial nature, new clans and bloodlines
etc. And do it taking account to the fact that there are at least two
clans almost untouched - Gangrel and Ventrue - and one slightly
modified - Nosferatu.
On the other hand, the basic effects of disciplines are the same. New
discipline cards would have to deal basically with Devotions. This is
easy stuff because most devotions were created by a vampire in a given
specific situation - like "this devotion was created by a vampire on
the run from a city after a failed Carthians' cup" and such. This
could easily translate to double-discipline cards with "only usable by
a Carthian Movement vampire".

Don't know. Some things would be easy, some would not; some would
translate into more of the same (in V:tES), some would overcrowd the
number of discipline and clan field.

It's better to wait some years, plan carefully and slowly, to release
an even better game than V:tES - because if it's not, it's better to
leave things as they are until until this game has no leverage
anymore.

best,



Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 2:42:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> > Right. I think it will be more difficult convincing all these
'loyal'
> > VTES players that VTR as a VTES supliment wouldn't be that much of
a
> > violation of world or plot continuity as they think it is...
>
> Just for example a VTR vampire
>
> Name: Belly Yellow
>
> Clan: Gangrel
> Sect/Covenant: The Carthian Movement
>
> 6-cap
>
> Superior Protean
> Inferior Resilience
> Superior Vitality
>
> Prince of Red Rock
>
> So some of the cards, protean and traditions, would be compatable
with
> current VTES cards but others Resilience and Vitality would be new
> disciplines that would give new results.

Of course, there are other rules/thematic questions that have to get
raised in contemplating a V:tR expansion. Stuff like:

V:tR doesn't have the concept of 'Generation', so what do you do about
capacity? Blood Potency doesn't have the same range of values as
Generation, so what determines what the CCG capacity of a V:TR vampire
should be?

Are Malkovians a separate clan/bloodline from Malkavians in the CCG?
What about the Bruja/Brujah? Or the Toreador, which are a bloodline in
V:TR but a full clan in V:TM under the same name?

What if a Dracul-covenant Daeva plays Clan Impersonation to pretend to
be a Follower of Set, which doesn't exist in the V:TR universe - what
sect and/or covenant are they? Can the now-Setite still play Coils of
the Dragon cards?

V:tR cities have Princes. But there's no Camarilla in V:tR, so is
Prince now a Camarilla title for Camarilla vampires, but a (whatever
sect you wish to name V:tR vampires) title for V:tR vamps? If the
vampire changes sects between the two, does the title stay the same?
Can Command of the Harpies remove a V:tR prince's title too?

Most of these issues aren't a matter of 'these two games have different
themes and moods' - the real problem is 'these two tabletop games are
set in distinct and different game worlds, using different (and
sometimes exclusionary) rules sets yet using similar or identical
terminology to represent very different and/or directly contradictory
concepts.' And in a CCG that is very keyword-dependent, that sets up a
lot of problems.

You could then add to it that some V:TES players specifically _aren't_
clamoring for a V:TR expansion, because they have little to no interest
in that game world/setting/set of rules - why try to jury-rig a set of
awkward cross-game kludges to reconcile the fact that they're _not_ the
same game setting, theme, rules set or terminology, when there's still
plenty of ways to expand V:TES in its own existing setting?

And finally, since White Wolf has made it abundantly clear since its
initial announcement that Vampire: the Requiem is designed and intended
to be completely distinct and separate from the Vampire: the Masquerade
setting, with zero overlap, why would they then choose to make a
product that would directly undermine and contradict this core V:TR
design concept by melding their two settings together?

> Comments Welcome,
> Norman S. Brown, Jr
> XZealot
> Archon of the Swamp

-John Flournoy
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:24:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Ecb7HrBPvKfCFwLf@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <TkOee.11751$ye1.11482@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
> <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>>I have a couple more trilogies sitting around that I bought and never read.
>>I was not tremendously impressed by the clan novels, although I have
>>a feeling some of the things that are sitting around unread may be better.
>
> The clan novels varied a lot, due to having a lot of different writers.
> Some of them are quite readable, whereas others blow harder than a wind
> tunnel.

I recall hearing others say that as I read them. Arguably true except that
when I saw people post lists of the ones that thought were good and bad, I
frequently disagreed with both lists. Struck me as being more about taste
than quality.

Fred
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 6:03:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sat, 7 May 2005 12:51:43 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

>In message <TkOee.11751$ye1.11482@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
><nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>>I have a couple more trilogies sitting around that I bought and never read.
>>I was not tremendously impressed by the clan novels, although I have
>>a feeling some of the things that are sitting around unread may be better.
>
>The clan novels varied a lot, due to having a lot of different writers.
>Some of them are quite readable, whereas others blow harder than a wind
>tunnel.

And more than a handful of events in the clan novels only make sense
in the bigger picture - i.e., after reading the whole series. So one
has a chance of picking his favourite clan's novel and feel that half
of what one reads is not clearly related to what one likes most about
that clan, because there's too many major issues rolling in the
background.

I particularly liked (and recommend) the Clan Novel Saga edition.
Having all chapters arranged by chronological order makes it easier to
enjoy the experience, and the better plots and scenes outshine the
regrettable parts when disposed that way. Not to mention that you get
a much, much clearer view of the major issues.

The best example is clan novel Giovanni, which is a collection of
pieces from various subplots and a tough read if you're not aware to
what they relate to. The "main" story of this novel (I mean, the parts
that relate only to clan Giovanni) has nothing new. The better parts
are the ones that relate to the major plots - but "hey, what's this
Sabbat-Camarilla war Isabel is talking about with a Camarilla
representative?" Gotta read a bunch of other novels to know... 'Cause
if you don't, that meeting plays no role in this novel's plot.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 6:10:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 7 May 2005 08:05:42 -0700, "quetzalcoatl" <david@vega.id.au> wrote:

>
>> There's no Jyhad, and no similar hidden conspiracy, at least not in
>> any scale major than local (i.e., inner-city politics). I think
>that's
>> enough to make any mixing of the two unlikely to seem natural.
>>
>
>I would think that the "origins" of the vampire world would be the
>hidden conspiracy kind of thing in Requiem. The Lancea Sanctum for
>example believe that they are a Christian-centered sect. I've got a
>feeling that Requiem will be headed in that kind of direction. Each
>sect vying for "control" of their creation myth or something.
>David

It would be nice, and it already has a precedent... I've seen
somewhere - I think it was in a character write-up on the Nomads book
- a different theory than the official Lancea Sanctum one. If I recall
correctly, it's a theory sustained by a bunch of Legates that don't
think Longinus was the first, there were ones before him directly
cursed by God, as Dracula portraits itself.
Even if the game take that route, it will be difficult to achieve some
"official"/"canon" end of this "myth dispute", because of the Fog of
Ages.

But for the moment, there's nothing concrete to draw upon, so it's
hard to think about mixing the two games without compromising somewhat
the background of both.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 6:12:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:19:20 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 May 2005 17:39:47 -0300, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
><fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 18:32:56 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
>>
>>> For what its worth... I'm a counterexample. Our local VTES forums also
>>> have a WoD topic related to the RPG world of the oWoD. It's not as
>>> active as (for example) the game mechanics topic, but it's active.
>>>
>>> Not that it would mean anything, we're comparing global guesses with
>>> local data...
>>
>> Sure. But let me add another guess: probably all V:tES decisions (in
>> design, implementation and marketing and every other business instance
>> of it) are made with the assumption/market data that a good bunch of
>> new players will come from V:tM, at least as much as the bunch that
>> comes from other CCGs. Otherwise we would see more unusual, unique
>> effects, ilustrations, card names and such. The state of things now is
>> that every card released still comes directly from a paragraph or two
>> in any given V:tM/WoD book, as literal as it can be in the set of
>> rules this game has built upon the years.
>
>Note that players who have been playing for a long time may also have
> a concept of what the feeling and world of VTES is. This is largely
> independent of (or better yet, only indirectly linked to) VtM's oWoD.

Which still adds more to think about and plan for when designing a new
CCG based on Requiem, no? (assuming that it will happen eventually,
which is not certain)

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 12:52:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:p 2ln715iadgcl88c4te79to94hhanjcp6o@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 18:32:56 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
>
>>For what its worth... I'm a counterexample. Our local VTES forums also
>> have a WoD topic related to the RPG world of the oWoD. It's not as
>> active as (for example) the game mechanics topic, but it's active.
>>
>>Not that it would mean anything, we're comparing global guesses with
>> local data...
>
> Sure. But let me add another guess: probably all V:tES decisions (in
> design, implementation and marketing and every other business instance
> of it) are made with the assumption/market data that a good bunch of
> new players will come from V:tM, at least as much as the bunch that
> comes from other CCGs. Otherwise we would see more unusual, unique
> effects, ilustrations, card names and such.

Is it a safe assumption, though? Maybe its just that its as easy to assign
a name from VTM canon as it is to pull one out of the Wild Blue... I think
that WW probably knows that a VTMmer (table top or LARP) isn't necessarily
their target demographic. Sure, some people will cross over, but its about
as common as an avid baseball player who is also a wargamer, meaning that
the overlap of interests is incidental, at best. So you hang your names
and effects off of things found in the canon, and it makes those (more or
less) few VTMmers in the crowd happy, and it doesn't harm the game in the
least. But I don't think that such a choice was made because they expect it
to motivate a bunch of VTMmers to jump up and buy a box or ten... :-)

> The state of things now is
> that every card released still comes directly from a paragraph or two
> in any given V:tM/WoD book, as literal as it can be in the set of
> rules this game has built upon the years.
>
I'd agree, if you replaced "as literal as it can be" with "loosely
associated, so that it works within". Honestly, how many WW-era cards
function even remotely close to what their vampiric disciplines do in VTM?

DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 5:59:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
> > Yes, that will be difficult. Because it is a violation of world
> > continuity.
>
> and ravnos still existing isn't?

Where is the problem? If i play a Waterloo wargame Napoleon can win! If
i play the LotR borad game Sauron can win. It is the deeper sense of
gaming to have different results.

And I thought you said in anther line
> on this thread, that VTES is the only VTM oWoD thing still out, but
> isn't even directly linked to VTM anyhow?

VTM and VTES are linked to the fantasy world oWoD.

> Anyhow, it doesn't kill the oWoD setting if you put out an expansion
> based on the new world of darkness. It just creates a ccg setting in
> which one could play with either world of darkness they wished (and
for
> those blasphemors who play the game as a game like 'chess' or
> something, potentially both).
>
> Aren't the african vampires pretty much followers of their own
> continuity, by and large?
>
> > Every gaming IMO is a roleplaying experience.
>
> Oh don't make me vomit.

Do what you like. But please at your home.

Do you guys play dress up and pass a hat around
> pretending to be Malkav and play with Elder Methuselah special powers
> varaints as described in the initial strategy manual?

Is it possible that you are paranoid about roleplayers? What are you
when playing VTES? Are you a lawyer (insert your own profession
please), thats actions (like cheating for example) have an impact on
his real life. Or are you a methuselah trying to manipulate a
(fictious) world? That is roleplaying.

To "pretend" to be a methuselah by wearing special clothes will not
give any better roleplaying experience, so it is not necessary.

But - i like it when Orpheus dresses dark, talks like a Giovanni and
uses his skull counters.

And i have absolutely the opinion that aesthetics can enhance the game.
So cards with good pictures, a nice edge and a black table cloth are
good for the game.


> The 'flavor' of MTG's current block is exciting enough

Ok, i dont know anything about MTG, so all my comments were only
prejudices.

> ... ITS A GAME.
> Why NOT have silly things? (and what I'm suggesting is NOT captain
> crunch of vampires... its more like Anne Rice vs. Blade's vampire
world
> continuity... although with even less parity issues.

Because the oWoD is not silly. Silly games can be fun, but that is not
argument to make all games silly.

And yes, it may be possible to include elements from different horror
settings into VTES without breaking the background of the game. But
that has to be done so cautious that maybe the best thing is to avoid
it all together.


> > And for the players who like to battle the barbie dolls with
> > the borgs there are the Create-your-own-clan tournaments. But by
> doing
> > so in the official game, you kill the existing background of VTES
and
> > you kill the game like it is now.
>
> Every expansions kills the game 'like it is now'. Reclarify.

There is a difference between "developing" and "killing" the
background. Both is changing things, but "killing" means to change
things in a radical, destroying, unreliable way.

> > There are players who play VTES like chess or any abstract game.
> Thats
> > absolutely ok. But please for us players who like the roleplaying
> > experience of VTES, dont ruin it.
>
> What do you say to Hell hound with a 44 magnum?

I say, the designer has forgotten to write "Cannot have or use
equipment" on the card.

What do you say to all the cards that are designed with the oWoD
background in mind? (For example the Gehenna Events. They are obviously
not designed starting with an abstract rule mechanism but instead with
the events happening in the Gehenna books of WW.)

I repeat myself. You can play VTES in an abstract way, ignoring the
roleplaying potential of the game. It is like people, who are not
interested in the artwork and would be happy with clip art. But to
think, because you are not interested, makes the whole VTES community
not interested is wrong. To change things and destroy an aspect of the
game that is important for some people, makes me vomit.

Frank
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 8:43:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
> Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> > x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
> > > Yes, that will be difficult. Because it is a violation of world
> > > continuity.
> >
> > and ravnos still existing isn't?
>
> Where is the problem? If i play a Waterloo wargame Napoleon can win!
If
> i play the LotR borad game Sauron can win. It is the deeper sense of
> gaming to have different results.

Oh oh! If I play this vampire game, I can have the NWoD interact with
the OWoD! Just think of it as Goratrix using tha or something to travel
to an alternative vampiric dimension on something...

> Do you guys play dress up and pass a hat around
> > pretending to be Malkav and play with Elder Methuselah special
powers
> > varaints as described in the initial strategy manual?
>
> Is it possible that you are paranoid about roleplayers? What are you
> when playing VTES? Are you a lawyer (insert your own profession
> please), thats actions (like cheating for example) have an impact on
> his real life. Or are you a methuselah trying to manipulate a
> (fictious) world? That is roleplaying.
>
> To "pretend" to be a methuselah by wearing special clothes will not
> give any better roleplaying experience, so it is not necessary.
>
> But - i like it when Orpheus dresses dark, talks like a Giovanni and
> uses his skull counters.
>
> And i have absolutely the opinion that aesthetics can enhance the
game.
> So cards with good pictures, a nice edge and a black table cloth are
> good for the game.

The good pictures help you remember cards and their text whilst in
play, the nice egde helps you remember it and the black coth table is a
good contrast on which to see the cards better. :) 

> > ... ITS A GAME.
> > Why NOT have silly things? (and what I'm suggesting is NOT captain
> > crunch of vampires... its more like Anne Rice vs. Blade's vampire
> world
> > continuity... although with even less parity issues.
>
> Because the oWoD is not silly. Silly games can be fun, but that is
not
> argument to make all games silly.

Chess isn't silly then. So if this game isn't silly, then incorporating
other aspects into the game, regardless of world background is ok,
because you're all about the game, yes? (I know you're not... so ok.
You're serious about the game, and you're serious about its 'plot
continuity' erm... 'world continuity'.)

> And yes, it may be possible to include elements from different horror
> settings into VTES without breaking the background of the game. But
> that has to be done so cautious that maybe the best thing is to avoid
> it all together.

Well its not like I'm LSJ or anything and have the power to say POOF
let there be VTR in VTES!

That's why I'm POSTING a thread about it here to get a feel for peoples
true feelings towards the whole idea. How it could be implimented, road
blocks, etc...

SOME people are helping.

> > > And for the players who like to battle the barbie dolls with
> > > the borgs there are the Create-your-own-clan tournaments. But by
> > doing
> > > so in the official game, you kill the existing background of VTES
> and
> > > you kill the game like it is now.
> >
> > Every expansions kills the game 'like it is now'. Reclarify.
>
> There is a difference between "developing" and "killing" the
> background. Both is changing things, but "killing" means to change
> things in a radical, destroying, unreliable way.

Like Events? :) 

> > > There are players who play VTES like chess or any abstract game.
> > Thats
> > > absolutely ok. But please for us players who like the roleplaying
> > > experience of VTES, dont ruin it.
> >
> > What do you say to Hell hound with a 44 magnum?
>
> I say, the designer has forgotten to write "Cannot have or use
> equipment" on the card.
>
> What do you say to all the cards that are designed with the oWoD
> background in mind? (For example the Gehenna Events. They are
obviously
> not designed starting with an abstract rule mechanism but instead
with
> the events happening in the Gehenna books of WW.)

Right, Honestly, those make me vomit a bit too. The fact that the whole
game is based off of RPG mechanics and flavor and is almost translated
ad hoc into the ccg makes me wonder about power balancing capacity the
game designers have had...

> I repeat myself. You can play VTES in an abstract way, ignoring the
> roleplaying potential of the game. It is like people, who are not
> interested in the artwork and would be happy with clip art. But to
> think, because you are not interested, makes the whole VTES community
> not interested is wrong. To change things and destroy an aspect of
the
> game that is important for some people, makes me vomit.

Vomitfest 2005!

Ok. So if you like the roleplaying potential of the CCG, won't it be
more of a challenge RPG wise with the VTR?

Other response could be: Ok. So you dig the RG aspects of VTES.
Consider VTR expansion to be like goratrix traveling in some alternate
dimension or something...

Or: OK. So you like the RPG aspect of VTES. So if there is a VTR
expansion put out, just play with the VTM influenced cards in one's own
deck. I'm sure there won't be that many more physical/cultural
impossibilities introduced this way than there are with the regular
card game (like.. white phosperous grenade, Rotschrek, the grenade
stays, or whatever).

~SV
>
> Frank
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:57:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 10 May 2005 01:59:00 -0700, <x5mofr@gmx.de> wrote:

> Is it possible that you are paranoid about roleplayers? What are you
> when playing VTES? Are you a lawyer (insert your own profession
> please), thats actions (like cheating for example) have an impact on
> his real life. Or are you a methuselah trying to manipulate a
> (fictious) world? That is roleplaying.

Sorry, no dice. I've been roleplaying for quite some time and nope,
V:TES is a card game. Was, is, will be. VtM, for example, is an RPG.
The difference is huge; in one game you play a character, in the
other you play a deck.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:19:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Ok, let's say for a moment that VtR was released as a crypt series that
was only compatible to itself. (Like released set 6 or something). Now
let's say that there are two kinds of vampires: VtM vampires who are
descended from Caine and VtR vampires who don't know where they are
from. What's wrong with saying they exist in the same WoD setting for
the purposes of this card game?

Sure, there are some continuity issues, but in the end, who cares?
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 4:05:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Preston wrote:
> Ok, let's say for a moment that VtR was released as a crypt series
that
> was only compatible to itself. (Like released set 6 or something).
Now
> let's say that there are two kinds of vampires: VtM vampires who are
> descended from Caine and VtR vampires who don't know where they are
> from. What's wrong with saying they exist in the same WoD setting for
> the purposes of this card game?
>
> Sure, there are some continuity issues, but in the end, who cares?

The real problem with trying to mix VTR and VTES is that the only real
reason to do it is to attract more roleplayers to the ccg and the
people it will piss the most off are roleplayers.

Seems like we'd lose some of the roleplayers we have and not get very
many new ones (cause the new ones would be looking for a VTR-based CCG
rather than a crazy hybrid).

Which would be a terrible move.

John
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 4:37:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Preston wrote:
> Ok, let's say for a moment that VtR was released as a crypt series
that
> was only compatible to itself. (Like released set 6 or something).
Now
> let's say that there are two kinds of vampires: VtM vampires who are
> descended from Caine and VtR vampires who don't know where they are
> from. What's wrong with saying they exist in the same WoD setting for
> the purposes of this card game?
>
> Sure, there are some continuity issues, but in the end, who cares?

exactly. who does care, and is it enough people that it would cause
VTES sales to suffer more than it makes up in getting more people into
it?

~SV
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:37:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 10 May 2005 11:19:42 -0700, Preston <prestonpoulter@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, let's say for a moment that VtR was released as a crypt series that
> was only compatible to itself. (Like released set 6 or something). Now
> let's say that there are two kinds of vampires: VtM vampires who are
> descended from Caine and VtR vampires who don't know where they are
> from. What's wrong with saying they exist in the same WoD setting for
> the purposes of this card game?
>
> Sure, there are some continuity issues, but in the end, who cares?

For what it's worth, I do. I don't see many differences between the two
RP games - in fact, when switching from VtM to VtR, the difference is
almost negligible (like switching from 1st ed. VtM to Revised). Not so
with a card game that has to be backward compatible. (Unless you find
a way to make library card groups, in which case the two games might
be compatible, but the point of such endeavor is still quite elusive).

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:28:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:
> Sorry, no dice. I've been roleplaying for quite some time and nope,
> V:TES is a card game. Was, is, will be. VtM, for example, is an
RPG.
> The difference is huge; in one game you play a character, in the
> other you play a deck.

Daneel, if you have read my previous posts exactly you would know that
i am talking about the roleplaying aspects that almost all games have.
(Even in chess you cannot arrest your opponent because he was not nice
to you and you are a policeman. Real life is not part of a gaming
world.) VTES is a card game based on a fictious world. VTM is a RPG
based on a fictious world. By chance it is the same world.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:55:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Screaming Vermillian wrote:

> The good pictures help you remember cards and their text whilst in
> play, the nice egde helps you remember it and the black coth table is
a
> good contrast on which to see the cards better. :) 

You have never heared the word "flavour"? ;-)

> SOME people are helping.

Oh i try to help. I want to help the people, who are interested in the
background of VTES.

> > There is a difference between "developing" and "killing" the
> > background. Both is changing things, but "killing" means to change
> > things in a radical, destroying, unreliable way.
>
> Like Events? :) 

Events are not "killing" the background. Events are not, as far as the
big tournaments show, "kill" the rulesystem. They may be not everyones
taste.

Will you vomit, if i tell you, that i dont like, that events disappeare
if a methuselah is ousted? It makes no sense for me because of the
background. But sometimes things have to be functional.

> > What do you say to all the cards that are designed with the oWoD
> > background in mind? (For example the Gehenna Events. They are
> obviously
> > not designed starting with an abstract rule mechanism but instead
> with
> > the events happening in the Gehenna books of WW.)
>
> Right, Honestly, those make me vomit a bit too. The fact that the
whole
> game is based off of RPG mechanics and flavor and is almost
translated
> ad hoc into the ccg makes me wonder about power balancing capacity
the
> game designers have had...

If that is really your opinion, than maybe you are playing the wrong
game. The whole history of VTES is translating the oWoD background to a
card game (not the roleplaying mechanism - or what has the mechanism of
the VTES Dread Gaze to do with the mechanism of the VtM Dread Gaze?).
To change that, is really "killing" the game.

Power balance and functioning rule mechanisms are important for a game.
Accepted. But they can never be an excuse to break the background of a
game. Maybe it would be better balanced if the Chainsaw (3 damage. Only
usable once) would make the damage at long range (becoming a Shotgun),
but that would be silly. I prefer the non balanced shotgun that feels
right. (I repeat: background is no excuse for non functioning rule
machnisms.)

Oh, and i have problems to understand, what introducing VtR backgropund
has to do with power balancing. If you think, that background per se is
bad for the rules, why introduce VtR background.

> Other response could be: Ok. So you dig the RG aspects of VTES.
> Consider VTR expansion to be like goratrix traveling in some
alternate
> dimension or something...

Why not travel to the borgs or the barbie dolls?

I know, that in some RPG books mixing of differnet worlds was
discussed. There was the idea of playing Vampires against Chtulhu
monsters. But you see the difference of playing silly things with your
own playing group or by introducing it (official) by WW. Play "Create
your own clan" if you want VtR.

> Or: OK. So you like the RPG aspect of VTES. So if there is a VTR
> expansion put out, just play with the VTM influenced cards in one's
own
> deck.

Why have VtR influenced cards if you can have VtM influenced cards? Why
mix a different world into it?

I'm sure there won't be that many more physical/cultural
> impossibilities introduced this way than there are with the regular
> card game (like.. white phosperous grenade, Rotschrek, the grenade
> stays, or whatever).

I am not a radical. I know that some things can be transfered perfect
to a rules stystem. And sometimes mistakes are made. (And vampires run
away by only seeing a phopherous grenade even if it is not really
used.) But the small anomalies of VTES are no argument for introducing
a big anomalie.

Frank
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 3:14:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 11 May 2005 01:28:20 -0700, <x5mofr@gmx.de> wrote:

>
> Daneel wrote:
>> Sorry, no dice. I've been roleplaying for quite some time and nope,
>> V:TES is a card game. Was, is, will be. VtM, for example, is an
> RPG.
>> The difference is huge; in one game you play a character, in the
>> other you play a deck.
>
> Daneel, if you have read my previous posts exactly you would know that
> i am talking about the roleplaying aspects that almost all games have.
> (Even in chess you cannot arrest your opponent because he was not nice
> to you and you are a policeman. Real life is not part of a gaming
> world.) VTES is a card game based on a fictious world. VTM is a RPG
> based on a fictious world. By chance it is the same world.

You are wrong. Playing or not playing chess has no bearing whatsoever
on arresting someone who broke the law. Being nice is irrelevant. Real
life may not be part of the gaming world, but the game IS part of real
life. Playing the game is a passtime that happens in our real lives.

If you want to overgeneralise, then fine, everything is roleplaying
(and we constantly wear masks). But then don't mix in RPGs or
Roleplaying as it may confuse readers.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:34:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 09 May 2005 20:52:17 GMT, "David Zopf" <davidxzopf@snetx.net>
wrote:

>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
>news:p 2ln715iadgcl88c4te79to94hhanjcp6o@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 18:32:56 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
>>
>>>For what its worth... I'm a counterexample. Our local VTES forums also
>>> have a WoD topic related to the RPG world of the oWoD. It's not as
>>> active as (for example) the game mechanics topic, but it's active.
>>>
>>>Not that it would mean anything, we're comparing global guesses with
>>> local data...
>>
>> Sure. But let me add another guess: probably all V:tES decisions (in
>> design, implementation and marketing and every other business instance
>> of it) are made with the assumption/market data that a good bunch of
>> new players will come from V:tM, at least as much as the bunch that
>> comes from other CCGs. Otherwise we would see more unusual, unique
>> effects, ilustrations, card names and such.
>
>Is it a safe assumption, though?

Of course not. That's why it's a guess. Hope I'm not misunderstanding
what "guess" implies.


Maybe its just that its as easy to assign
>a name from VTM canon as it is to pull one out of the Wild Blue... I think
>that WW probably knows that a VTMmer (table top or LARP) isn't necessarily
>their target demographic. Sure, some people will cross over, but its about
>as common as an avid baseball player who is also a wargamer, meaning that
>the overlap of interests is incidental, at best.

I can understand that, though I'm one of these exceptions of a sports
(soccer) fan who also plays a CCG and RPG.

Again, the target demographic varies by culture and region, you see.
I'm assuming WW marketing folks (and even the designers) know this,
and that it's easier (and more profitable) to accomodate as many
trends as possible rather than just make the game for the ones who
couldn't care less.
What is unlikely in the US could be very likely in another country - I
don't want to sound boring and repeating, but we've been having the
best success attracting players that are familiar with V:tM (though
most already had played one or other CCG) than M:tG players that had
never played an RPG before, or D&D players, or GURPS players, or
whatever.
Again, this is just a personal and localized experience. I have no
numbers for that. I can only guess. There's language issues - we don't
have a portuguese version of the game, so one needs to be very
familiar with the particular terms. Since most of these come directly
from the setting, even a player who can't speak english has a better
grasp on the learning curve if he's used to V:tM, which makes the game
more attractive, and leads to a new regular player. We notice it when
trying to teach the game to a M:tG player - M:tG has been translated -
that just can't understand what is a Primogen, an anarch, the Sabbat,
Camarilla and more than a handful of traits. Most note that they'll
need to invest a lot of time familiarizing with the terms and give up
after a demo.
That said, I'm sure the local distributor works on promoting the game
on that basis. They don't care to put the game in a CCG section in
their website they do it under the V:tM section, and so on.


So you hang your names
>and effects off of things found in the canon, and it makes those (more or
>less) few VTMmers in the crowd happy, and it doesn't harm the game in the
>least. But I don't think that such a choice was made because they expect it
>to motivate a bunch of VTMmers to jump up and buy a box or ten... :-)

Hmm... Why not? I always thought that themes and background were of
considerable importance when choosing to play a CCG. I know there's a
way bigger market for CCGs in the US, and I see that there are a good
number of CCG'ers (for what they share at forums like this one) that
don't care that much about what the game they're playing is about,
they just like the strategic challenge cardgames offer. But still,
there's a good bunch of CCGs out there. Won't a good portion of the
CCG'ers choose which to buy and try out of personal fondness to a
given theme or scenario? If so, won't most designers spend time and
effort working around that given theme or scenario? Couldn't be the
careful handling of theme and scenario that important edge for market
success? (assuming CCGs with similar success in maintaning balance and
rules consistency - because if they're not successful on that part,
they won't last long anyway for the theme to make a difference)...


>> The state of things now is
>> that every card released still comes directly from a paragraph or two
>> in any given V:tM/WoD book, as literal as it can be in the set of
>> rules this game has built upon the years.
>>
>I'd agree, if you replaced "as literal as it can be" with "loosely
>associated, so that it works within". Honestly, how many WW-era cards
>function even remotely close to what their vampiric disciplines do in VTM?
>DaveZ
>Atom Weaver

I guess it depends largely on how one sees to what degree a
transposition is "literal" or "loosely associated". To some,
Conditioning woud only be literal if it helps to take control of a
minion permanently or for a good amount of turns, not to handle a
bigger bleed.

But enough for a rant, let's simplify... See "as literal as it can be"
as "as literal as it can be given that it should work properly for a
CCG". Getting better? ;-)

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:14:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

x5mofr@gmx.de wrote:
> Screaming Vermillian wrote:

> > SOME people are helping.
>
> Oh i try to help. I want to help the people, who are interested in
the
> background of VTES.

and you aren't interested in helping see the bigger picture. the
marketting picture, or help me understand why its a bad move.

how many people in your play group would leave if a VTR expansion that
worked was released?

> Will you vomit, if i tell you, that i dont like, that events
disappeare
> if a methuselah is ousted? It makes no sense for me because of the
> background. But sometimes things have to be functional.

yeah, i don't like the 'feel' of that either, but I see why it needs
done from a rules perspective.


> > Right, Honestly, those make me vomit a bit too. The fact that the
> whole
> > game is based off of RPG mechanics and flavor and is almost
> translated
> > ad hoc into the ccg makes me wonder about power balancing capacity
> the
> > game designers have had...
>
> If that is really your opinion, than maybe you are playing the wrong
> game. The whole history of VTES is translating the oWoD background to
a
> card game (not the roleplaying mechanism - or what has the mechanism
of
> the VTES Dread Gaze to do with the mechanism of the VtM Dread Gaze?).
> To change that, is really "killing" the game.

whaoh. No. I mean like catch this:

VTES vampires have three main disciplines. these discipline's functions
were mostly defined in the first set. The second set introduced
different clans with different permutations of these main abilities.
Now, I HAVE to believe that the things that the original disciplines
DID were balanced with one another, that is, what was availible to the
vampires, and what we'd see most often (like we didn't see ANI PRE in
any jyhad vampires really a whole lot).

But then WW comes around, prints a bunch of new clans with discipline
sets that are different. Are these balanced? How can you expect balance
when WHAT the cards for that discipline do were created years ago, and
were not planned with having vampires with ANI PRE in their main score,
or FOR POT... You follow?

> Power balance and functioning rule mechanisms are important for a
game.
> Accepted. But they can never be an excuse to break the background of
a
> game. Maybe it would be better balanced if the Chainsaw (3 damage.
Only
> usable once) would make the damage at long range (becoming a
Shotgun),
> but that would be silly. I prefer the non balanced shotgun that feels
> right. (I repeat: background is no excuse for non functioning rule
> machnisms.)

Yeah, but I'm not breaking the rules system or the balance of it to
incorporate VTR into it... and incorporating VTR into VTES doesn't
break the background of VTES for certain people... true purists that
LOVE VTM in VTES so much won't stop playing their VTES just because WW
released some funny expansion for it. Hell, VTES was a DEAD GAME for
like, three years, and it was still being played... So if WW did print
VTR, you'd still play, right? but you'd do so with your old VTR free
VTES cards, right? Sure, you'd be playing maybe with others who didn't
have VTR cards in their decks, but maybe the VTR expansion would have
somethings for you still. you know. Like generic PAs that make sense in
VTM, or generic weapons or combat cards. Allies and retainers and what
not. Ever thought about that? just because "Lolth the Impaler" a mortal
vampire hunter doesn't exist in any official VTM world product, but
does in the VTR/VETSccg;expansion, doesn't mean that inclusion of him
in the VTM world, ala inclusion in a VTES deck would ruin your world
view, would it?

> Oh, and i have problems to understand, what introducing VtR
backgropund
> has to do with power balancing. If you think, that background per se
is
> bad for the rules, why introduce VtR background.

because background sells product. maybe. Who knows. i don't have the
market research in front of me at the moment. :) 

> Why not travel to the borgs or the barbie dolls?

Because its no longer gothic punk horror setting in which vampires
exist?

> > Or: OK. So you like the RPG aspect of VTES. So if there is a VTR
> > expansion put out, just play with the VTM influenced cards in one's
> own
> > deck.
>
> Why have VtR influenced cards if you can have VtM influenced cards?
Why
> mix a different world into it?

see my second reply to myself in this same thread, and previous
responses to WHY GOD WHY!!!

> I'm sure there won't be that many more physical/cultural
> > impossibilities introduced this way than there are with the regular
> > card game (like.. white phosperous grenade, Rotschrek, the grenade
> > stays, or whatever).
>
> I am not a radical. I know that some things can be transfered perfect
> to a rules stystem. And sometimes mistakes are made. (And vampires
run
> away by only seeing a phopherous grenade even if it is not really
> used.) But the small anomalies of VTES are no argument for
introducing
> a big anomalie.

a big anomolie like making 11 cap vampires being controlled by a
methuselah? Or !tremere coming back to life? Or Miller Delmardigan
calling Cock Robin on the redlist? Or hell, sabbat vampires and
camerilla vampires even voting in the same referendum?

those are all plot continuity issues I suppose, but WORLD continuity
issues were created in gehenna events. Each event represented a
different way the oWoD was ending... sounds like a different world to
me!

Africa vampires? Sounds like a different world to me!

~SV
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:10:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Frederick Scott wrote:

> (whottheheck is "RCG"? some kind of weird artificial flavoring?)

I suppose he could have been referring to my grandfather but that's not
the most likely answer. Probably Richard C. Garfield (as in K-RCG News
Radio).

-Robert (RTG)
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 6:32:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Screaming Vermillian wrote:

> Like sabbat did. It didn't have certain key powerful trouble cards in
> the game. It was made to be stand alone. VTR expansion could be the
> same. Make it compatible with VTES, but stand alone.

"Make it compatible with VTES" is a significant undertaking, which is
something many people in this thread don't seem to understand. Some of
the most basic terminology of VTES has either contradictory or
non-existing meaning to VTR; there's a lot MORE terminology and
concepts that don't match between VTM and VTR.

> If this happened, there could be a variant game
> rules for VTR that makes 2 player VTES actually GOOD. you wouldn't
use
> that variant rules set with VTES multiplayer, or even with the older
> card sets (it just wouldn't be rewarding. See, the individual cards
> themselves in VTRex would be the thing that help make it work,
though,
> maybe if incorporated in WITH old VTES cards...). you wouldn't have
to
> use the varient 2 player rules with VTRexpansion at all. It'd just be
> an option, or perhaps event the focus of the VTRexpansion. the THING
> that sets it apart from VTES old, so that it doesn't compete and
steal
> VTES players (or maybe making it a good 2 player varient of VTES
WOULD
> make it steal support from regular VTES...).

There's certainly a use for a good 2-player variant.

But it either will need to be:

Playable with existing VTES cards and new VTR cards - in which case the
existence of those new VTR cards doesn't matter, because you've got a
good 2-player variant using the existing cards, or:

Playable with only new VTR cards - in which case you might as well make
a separate VTR 2-player game (much like Rage is a seperate 2-or-more
Werewolf CCG.)

Personally, I do think a new, unrelated-to-VTES 2-player-based VTR game
could be very cool. It wouldn't 'steal' much from the VTES market at
all, because VTES is very clearly aimed at group play instead of
head-to-head, and there'd be zero issues of conflicting setting or
meshing mechanics together.

But since the settings are not the same and supposedly never will be
overlapping, saying 'I'd like to play VTR and VTM vampires in VTES' is
roughly the same as asking for a Buffy expansion to VTES, or a Forever
Knight one, or an Elvira one ("I tap Elvira to equip with a Push-Up
Bra!")

> Anyhow... all just thoughts. Commnets?

-John Flournoy
!