VTR CCG + VTES? How...

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
50 answers Last reply
More about vtes
  1. 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...
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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!")
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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/
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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/
  16. 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/
  17. 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/
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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/
  21. 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
  22. 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/
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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/
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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/
  33. 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/
  34. 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/
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
    news:p2ln715iadgcl88c4te79to94hhanjcp6o@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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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?
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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.
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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:p2ln715iadgcl88c4te79to94hhanjcp6o@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/
  47. 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
  48. 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)
  49. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games