[NWOD] Charcoal Bullets and other musings

[nick]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Ultraviolet, a British vampire miniseries, did a lot with the logical
extension of various aspects of the vampire myth. Most of it doesn't
apply to the NWOD, but they do employ Charcoal bullets (and are said
to previously use wooden ones) to stake their foes. Would that work in
the NWOD? My most likely method of employing the NWOD would be to run
a Ultraviolet/Vampire$/The Exorcist type game, with vampire/mortal
interaction as the focus.

Anyway, I'm still not sold on Vampire: The Requiem, not entirely, as I
have some qualms.

Mostly about the Clan/Bloodline/Covenant thing. I like the Covenants,
but I'm not clear as to what Clans and Bloodlines are supposed to
actually *be*. I can see a Nosferatu/Normal Looking Vampire split;
they appear to be different species. I could see room for other kinds
of vampires. But are clans supposed to be species or are they supposed
to be groups? Families? Something? The Gangrel, Ventrue, Mekhet and,
ah...Daeva are all psychologically distinct from one another. I don't,
well, see the point.

The bloodlines were a little more interesting, for the most part, but
I'm still not clear on the distinction. Are clans just the five most
common bloodlines?

And, for that matter, aren't the Bruja more an organization (a small
covenant) than a bloodline? My memory is fuzzy on their weakness, but
there still wasn't any real apparent difference between Bruja vampires
and other vampires.

Theban Sorcery is another weird bit. Nothing about it strikes me as
particularly central to Vampires; I see little reason to keep mortals
from using it as well. Easy to say "The Lancea Sanctum is the only
group who preserved that particular knowledge", I guess.

Cruac was pleasantly surprising in that, for blood sorcery, it seemed
to actually be that- blood sorcery, not the jack-of-all-trades
megamagic that Thauamturgy was.

I didn't manage to get a full read through on everything, so I have
some rules questions. How much more powerful is an individual vampire
over a human in combat? Are we talking bullet-dodging and
ripping-people-apart-with-their-hands vampires or
stronger-and-faster-but-still-defeatable vampires? Celerity and Vigor
had these answers, but as I have no real sense of the Storytelling
system's benchmarks, I need further explanation.

Majesty and Dominate concern me. Majesty explicitly states it doesn't
screw with a person's Free Will; so if Ye Elite Vampire Hunting team
goes after a Majestic vampire, they'll be able to kill it, yes? I
imagine they might hesitate or feel bad for doing so, but a person who
recognizes he's under the influence of Majesty can more or less ignore
it's effects, right?

Summoning is much, much worse. Dracula met Van Helsing and co but was
only able to summon Mina because he had bit her; it seems damn near
ridiculous a vampire can summon anyone he ever met. Why not limit it
to those blood bound or enthralled or bitten or, well, something? It
seems really, really powerful and kind of silly. It also
seems...boring. Being able to Summon people with some kind of
connection to the vampire is cool. Old college roommmates? Not so
much.

Dominate seems worse. Useless in combat as it requires concentration,
sustained eye contact, and clear instruction, but it seems awfully
powerful as a given mortal will have, what, half the dice to resist as
a vampire? As far as I can tell, this goes for all mortals- which
strikes me as odd. While I'm not worried about vampires dominating
regular people, particularly unsuspecting people, willy nilly, I am
concerned about how easy it is to defeat one's mortal foes with
Dominate. I didn't spot any penalties for dominating targets that hate
you or are aware they are being dominated, and nor did it seem like
Very Strong Willed people got much of a bonus. It does say the "vast
majority" of humans had little defense against Dominate, so I suppose
I could whip up some merits to reflect the exceptions. Like "Too Crazy
to Be Controlled" or "Mental Resistance Training" and the like.

Even weirder, Animalism's animal control expired at the sunrise, IIRC,
but Dominate doesn't. Human being should at least have that in their
favor, I think.

Finally, the "a vampire can wake up during the day for short periods"
seemed a cop-out, probably to give players a chance to save themselves
if the ST pulls a daylight raid. That kind of "This is a
weakness...but not really" stuff always irks me. Or Guns-even big
ones- doing bashing while crossbows do lethal... what the heck's up
with that?

Basically my qualms are this: While the game SAYS mortals are better
able to participate, I'm not sure the mechanics reflect that. I'm
worried about all powerful Dominate and Majesty, unstoppable Vampire
killing machines with no weaknesses.

The lack of any hunter groups or True Faith also kind of annoyed me,
as I think they are a natural and important component to a game
centered around vampires, but I imagine they'll come in future
supplements. (Besides, I have fun writing up hunting groups)

Still, rules for True Faith would be nice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Nick wrote:

> Ultraviolet, a British vampire miniseries, did a lot with the logical
> extension of various aspects of the vampire myth. Most of it doesn't
> apply to the NWOD, but they do employ Charcoal bullets (and are said
> to previously use wooden ones) to stake their foes. Would that work in
> the NWOD? My most likely method of employing the NWOD would be to run
> a Ultraviolet/Vampire$/The Exorcist type game, with vampire/mortal
> interaction as the focus.

"Would that work in the NWoD" depends strictly on whether the ST (you?)
would allow it to work. The books do not explicitly talk about staking
people with bullets, but they do not explicitly forbid it either, to my
knowledge. There's a -4 standing penalty to stake someone, plus range
penalties. I don't know whether you'd want to employ the minimum 3
successes bit with a bullet though. It probably has enough momentum to
get past the ribcage and deeply into the heart, provided it was actually
on target in the first place.
The major technical problem I see with this style of staking is
there's a reasonably good chance that if the bullet hits the heart it
will go right through. At that point, is the vampire still staked? I
haven't seen Ultraviolet myself; in a setting where staking kills
vampires, this point is rather moot. He was staked at one point, now
he's dead. But if it only paralyzes them, this becomes important.

> Mostly about the Clan/Bloodline/Covenant thing. I like the Covenants,
> but I'm not clear as to what Clans and Bloodlines are supposed to
> actually *be*. I can see a Nosferatu/Normal Looking Vampire split;
> they appear to be different species. I could see room for other kinds
> of vampires. But are clans supposed to be species or are they supposed
> to be groups? Families? Something? The Gangrel, Ventrue, Mekhet and,
> ah...Daeva are all psychologically distinct from one another. I don't,
> well, see the point.

Clans (as a concept) are more or less exactly what they were in the
Masquerade. Minus the Antediluvians and Caine mythology. Certain
vampires with particularly potent blood have managed somehow to create a
lineage of vampires with their blood qualities. Families is probably
the best way to think of it, except they don't all live in one house and
keep in touch on the holidays.
The interesting thing I find is that the Clanless vampires in the
Requiem are big and scary instead of weak of downtrodden. Instead of
being a result of thinning blood potency, Clanless vampires arise from
those unusual and extenuating circumstances where someone becomes a
vampire without being Embraced (at least not in the normal fashion.)
There are theories that true Clans are created when a Clanless
vampire succeeds in producing childer (the two known Clanless vampires
in the setting have been, thus far, unable to sire.)

> The bloodlines were a little more interesting, for the most part, but
> I'm still not clear on the distinction. Are clans just the five most
> common bloodlines?

The five most potent bloodlines, as I understand it.

> I didn't manage to get a full read through on everything, so I have
> some rules questions. How much more powerful is an individual vampire
> over a human in combat? Are we talking bullet-dodging and
> ripping-people-apart-with-their-hands vampires or
> stronger-and-faster-but-still-defeatable vampires? Celerity and Vigor
> had these answers, but as I have no real sense of the Storytelling
> system's benchmarks, I need further explanation.

All vampires have an edge in that bullets do bashing damage instead
of lethal and vampire can also spend blood to heal in seconds whereas
humans need at least 15 minutes per bashing level (and obviously longer
for lethal and agg.)
Humans, on the other hand, have an advantage in that there are very
few things that cause them aggravated damage. Aggravated is reserved
for supernatural weaknesses and overwhelmingly powerful blows. Fire,
for example, does lethal damage to humans (third degree burns might be
agg though.)
A vampire with combat Disciplines, like Celerity or Vigor will
obviously have a distinct advantage over humans, these powers were
designed to give the vampire an edge over other vampires, after all.
And since some of those powers will likely inflict aggravated damage,
well, there goes the human's only real (meager) advantage. So yes,
vampires have a distinct bonus over humans. Humans can theoretically
win though, if they use wits to trap the vampire in a disadvantageous
position.

> Summoning is much, much worse. Dracula met Van Helsing and co but was
> only able to summon Mina because he had bit her; it seems damn near
> ridiculous a vampire can summon anyone he ever met. Why not limit it
> to those blood bound or enthralled or bitten or, well, something? It
> seems really, really powerful and kind of silly. It also
> seems...boring. Being able to Summon people with some kind of
> connection to the vampire is cool. Old college roommmates? Not so
> much.

I like the idea of only being to Summon people for whom the vampire has
some sort of link. Say, to those who have tasted his blood (whether
they are actually blood bound or not.) Thus a vampire can Summon any of
his childer. I would probably extend the rule just a bit to let the
vampire summon any of his childer, or their childer, etc, as well as (to
attempt) to summon his sire.

> Finally, the "a vampire can wake up during the day for short periods"
> seemed a cop-out, probably to give players a chance to save themselves
> if the ST pulls a daylight raid. That kind of "This is a
> weakness...but not really" stuff always irks me.

I agree with Stephenls on this one. Vampires are supernaturally bent to
sleeping during the day (since they can't go anywhere anyway) but they
should be able to at least force themselves awake to defend themselves.
If you're playing a hunter game where vampires are the enemy, maybe
not so much, but if the PCs are vampires then "you die because they
attack during the day, period" is a rather cheap stunt to pull.
It should be noted that (most) vampires will not magically realize
there's an enemy in their haven during the day. If they don't have a
ghoul or something to come wake them up, they'll lose the first round of
combat automatically before the pain wakes them up. One round might be
all it takes for an enterprising hunter.

> Or Guns-even big
> ones- doing bashing while crossbows do lethal... what the heck's up
> with that?

Well, crossbows (and bows) use bolts (or arrows) which are
traditionally made of wood. That carries an obvious threat to vampires.
Perhaps the supernatural weakness to wood also makes these things
hurt more, even when they fail to pierce the heart. If a particular
crossbow is firing aluminum or fiberglass bolts, I'd probably be tempted
to say it does bashing damage too.
The other way to look at it is that bullets are very small and quite
often go straight through the body and out the other side. Bolts and
arrows usually stick in and stop which emphasizes the "slashing and
cutting" bit about lethal damage.

> Basically my qualms are this: While the game SAYS mortals are better
> able to participate, I'm not sure the mechanics reflect that. I'm
> worried about all powerful Dominate and Majesty, unstoppable Vampire
> killing machines with no weaknesses.

Mortals are still mortals. If they give the vampire the opportunity
to use Dominate or Majesty, they'll probably lose. The key strategy
when fighting vampires is to not give them the chance to activate their
scary powers whenever possible. Ambush them, attack during the day, or
just make sure to bring a hell of a lot of firepower to bear at once.
These hunters have little more than a wooden stake and a pat on the
back, which is the way I like them, personally.
Being better able to participate doesn't necessarily mean being able
to stand toe to toe with a vampire.

 

[nick]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

> "What's up with that" is that V:tR is a modern Gothic horror game.
> Archaic weapons are appropriate. Guns are for techno-thrillers, which
> V:tR isn't. Thus, vampires aren't hurt too much by bullets, but arrows,
> bolts, and swords are effective.
>
> It's romance. It's /genre/.

Ehh....Gothic Horror, and Horror in general, isn't dependent on the
tropes involved. One could have a gothic horror drama take place on a
spaceship. Artificial impositions of genre like this rule seem to me
more arbitrary than useful. But as you said, easy to change. I'm damn
certain I can have my gothic horror and my technothriller at the same
time.

>
> > Basically my qualms are this: While the game SAYS mortals are better
> > able to participate, I'm not sure the mechanics reflect that. I'm
> > worried about all powerful Dominate and Majesty, unstoppable Vampire
> > killing machines with no weaknesses.
>
> I think it's appropriate if the game is set up so that a group of
> dedicated mortals can, with effort, planning, and luck (read: "the
> support of the plot"), take out a single vampire of moderate power. I
> don't think it's appropriate for a group of mortal hunters to be able to
> compete on even footing with a group of vampires, because otherwise
> what's the point of a game about vampires?

Well, that's the thing. Is the point of the game an Ann Rice
power/angst fantasy or something a little deeper? Personally the
setting doesn't yet "add up". It has monsters, but no monster hunters.
I have an almost obsessive need for balance in setting; I like having
people like Holst, (Abraham) Van Helsing, and Jack Crow around, and
groups like Exodus-22 or the Sword of St. Jerome.



>
>
> I'm hoping they keep the hunter groups to a minimum, myself. While
> Edges might not have been the best idea, H:tR's "Let's have hunters who
> don't really congregate in their own little secret societies" philosophy
> is something I appreciated.

Well, the two aren't exclusive. You'd have hunters-by-circumstance,
much like H:tR, and then a whole collection of organized and
experienced ones who "hunt" for various reasons. Not to say they'll
all be involved in Destroy All Monsters crusades- but the government
probably has a section that keeps the President from being dominated,
I'd think. Like I said above...balance. There has to be some kind of
defense mechanism for humanity other than mobs with torches, or the
setting just doesn't add up to me.

But I have fun writing 'em up.

>
> > Still, rules for True Faith would be nice.
>
> And again something I'd rather not see. Easy enough to import from the
> old rules, though.

Yeah. The more I think about it Ars Magica probably did miracles
better than any other game. Theurgy might be cool, though.

 

[nick]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

> Well, crossbows (and bows) use bolts (or arrows) which are
> traditionally made of wood. That carries an obvious threat to vampires.
> Perhaps the supernatural weakness to wood also makes these things
> hurt more, even when they fail to pierce the heart.

Hey, I like this idea. Kinda like how blessed silver worked in
Vampire$, only with...wood.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Nick wrote:

> Ehh....Gothic Horror, and Horror in general, isn't dependent on the
> tropes involved. One could have a gothic horror drama take place on a
> spaceship. Artificial impositions of genre like this rule seem to me
> more arbitrary than useful. But as you said, easy to change. I'm damn
> certain I can have my gothic horror and my technothriller at the same
> time.

I disagree. Horror isn't dependent on the tropes involved, because it
ultimately just means "this should be scary" (well, and should have
supernatural or unearthly elements of some sort). Gothic horror, on the
other hand, is a specific type of horror story, involving gothic tropes.

> Well, that's the thing. Is the point of the game an Ann Rice
> power/angst fantasy or something a little deeper? Personally the
> setting doesn't yet "add up". It has monsters, but no monster hunters.
> I have an almost obsessive need for balance in setting; I like having
> people like Holst, (Abraham) Van Helsing, and Jack Crow around, and
> groups like Exodus-22 or the Sword of St. Jerome.

I see no need for such a symmetry. I find knowing that there are people
out there Fighting The Good Fight reduces the intrinsic horror of the
setting, myself -- there are ways around it, like making the hunter
organizations shadowy and apparently serving less-than-savory agendas,
but I'm very tired of conspiracy clichés at this point.

> Well, the two aren't exclusive. You'd have hunters-by-circumstance,
> much like H:tR, and then a whole collection of organized and
> experienced ones who "hunt" for various reasons. Not to say they'll
> all be involved in Destroy All Monsters crusades- but the government
> probably has a section that keeps the President from being dominated,
> I'd think. Like I said above...balance. There has to be some kind of
> defense mechanism for humanity other than mobs with torches, or the
> setting just doesn't add up to me.

Eh. I'm tired of government conspiracies. I'm tired of conspiracies.
Conspiracies are implausible, and they're also too pat -- I prefer a
world that's horrible and scary due to apathy and circumstance, rather
than planning, competence, and evil.

> But I have fun writing 'em up.

Heh. Point.

This is sufficient reason to write them up.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:23:47 -0700, Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>Nick wrote:
>
>> Ultraviolet, a British vampire miniseries, did a lot with the logical
>> extension of various aspects of the vampire myth. Most of it doesn't
>> apply to the NWOD, but they do employ Charcoal bullets (and are said
>> to previously use wooden ones) to stake their foes. Would that work in
>> the NWOD? My most likely method of employing the NWOD would be to run
>> a Ultraviolet/Vampire$/The Exorcist type game, with vampire/mortal
>> interaction as the focus.
>
>I'd say no, because I'd say that in order to properly stake a vampire,
>the wood must exist both within the heart and outside it on both sides
>-- it must be impaled, not just pierced. A bullet isn't big enough.
>
>Mostly this is because I think wooden or charcoal bullets impaling
>vampires is very, very stupid (read: "out of genre") in a Gothic horror
>game. It would be more appropriate in a techno-thriller, but V:tR isn't
>a techno-thriller.

Why can't it be? However even in a techno-thriller, wooden bullets
are goofy. Personally I don't give wood any special powers over
vampires.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:

> Why can't it be? However even in a techno-thriller, wooden bullets
> are goofy. Personally I don't give wood any special powers over
> vampires.

There's nothing that says V:tR /can't/ be technothriller. It just
isn't, by default. It's something else instead.

You can alter it to /make/ it technothriller, of course, like adding
rules for being staked by carbon-tipped bullets, or perhaps being burned
by ultraviolet lasers by dudes who wear treated visors that render them
immune to Dominate. Tom Clancy's Vampire: The Requiem sounds like a
fine game. I'm glad it's not the default game, though.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Nick wrote:
>
> Ultraviolet, a British vampire miniseries, did a lot with the logical
> extension of various aspects of the vampire myth. Most of it doesn't
> apply to the NWOD, but they do employ Charcoal bullets (and are said
> to previously use wooden ones) to stake their foes. Would that work in
> the NWOD? My most likely method of employing the NWOD would be to run
> a Ultraviolet/Vampire$/The Exorcist type game, with vampire/mortal
> interaction as the focus.

Depends on the logic of WHY stakes work in your game. I've read the
NWOD core book but not V:tR, so I don't know the logic behind why
stakes work on vampires right now. In my old game (with some home
rules), I'd have said no. This was based on a home-rule concept that
the demonic web of magical power that kept a vampire animated was
centered in the heart, and unliving material simply could not disrupt
it. Everything that had been living in your charcoal bullet was broken
down and destroyed by the fire, so there would be nothing left to
disrupt the magic.

Of course, this rule also changed the "(super)natural laws" of my
game a bit. Stakes made of old wood just weren't very effective because
of how long the wood had been dead, so a vampire's blood could quickly
soak into your typical chair leg and "burn out / corrupt the life"
within, allowing the vampire to eventually overcome the staking. Green
wood (wood fresh from a living tree) worked the best for staking a
vampire, but fresh bone could also be used.

Of course, if you've got more of a technology-based game where
vampires are just victims of a virus, charcoal bullets might make
sense. Just depends on how you're playing it...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Clogar wrote:

> Depends on the logic of WHY stakes work in your game. I've read the
> NWOD core book but not V:tR, so I don't know the logic behind why
> stakes work on vampires right now. In my old game (with some home
> rules), I'd have said no. This was based on a home-rule concept that
> the demonic web of magical power that kept a vampire animated was
> centered in the heart, and unliving material simply could not disrupt
> it. Everything that had been living in your charcoal bullet was broken
> down and destroyed by the fire, so there would be nothing left to
> disrupt the magic.

My explanation was as follows:

Vampires are dead but animate. Wood is alive but inanimate. The two
essences are anathema to one another, and so piercing the center of a
vampire's being (symbolically situated in the heart, since vampires run
on blood) with wood temporarily nullifies the vampire's animation.

I'd never take this all the way and say that piercing a tree with a
vampire nullifies the tree's life, though. Nor would I declare that
only living wooden stakes work.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

 

[nick]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<2r6jgcF16e1ddU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Nick wrote:
>
> > Ehh....Gothic Horror, and Horror in general, isn't dependent on the
> > tropes involved. One could have a gothic horror drama take place on a
> > spaceship. Artificial impositions of genre like this rule seem to me
> > more arbitrary than useful. But as you said, easy to change. I'm damn
> > certain I can have my gothic horror and my technothriller at the same
> > time.
>
> I disagree. Horror isn't dependent on the tropes involved, because it
> ultimately just means "this should be scary" (well, and should have
> supernatural or unearthly elements of some sort). Gothic horror, on the
> other hand, is a specific type of horror story, involving gothic tropes.

Well, I can trust you to be right. Which is too bad, as it does seem I
won't be very interested in Gothic Horror or V:tR at all. Thanks for
the insight, though.



> I see no need for such a symmetry. I find knowing that there are people
> out there Fighting The Good Fight reduces the intrinsic horror of the
> setting, myself -- there are ways around it, like making the hunter
> organizations shadowy and apparently serving less-than-savory agendas,
> but I'm very tired of conspiracy clichés at this point.

See, here is where I think we'll disagree. I'm personally tired of the
angsty vampire cliche and still quite fascinated by the conspiracy.
And I don't think heroism even remotely diminishes horror. Call of
Cthulhu is simultaneously horrorific and heroic. It is interesting
primarily because of that mix.

If the central horror of the World of Darkness is apathy, then I don't
think I can really muster the energy to care about the setting at all.
And I mean that seriously; if no one in the setting cares, why should
I? I'm not really interested in a setting that can't change for good
or bad.

There's an "If everything is dark, nothing is dark" problem at work.
Without the contrast provided by, well, good, then evil is
meaningless. I'm not scared by a world without heroes. I'm bored by a
world without heroes.

I'd be scared by a world with plenty of heroes whose struggles add up
to little in the end; this is how I've always viewed the World of
Darkness.

>
> Eh. I'm tired of government conspiracies. I'm tired of conspiracies.
> Conspiracies are implausible, and they're also too pat -- I prefer a
> world that's horrible and scary due to apathy and circumstance, rather
> than planning, competence, and evil.

I can see that. I obviously feel differently- in fact pretty much all
the story ideas I have for Vampire: The Requiem are dependent on
mortal/vampire interaction. I find myself generally uninterested in
the struggles of vampires with other vampires. I don't know why.

Ultimately I think V:tR will focus too much on what I don't care about
and not enough on what I do. Though I don't think it'd be impossible
to get the kind of game I want out of it, it'd probably not be worth
the effort and if the default assumptions are as you say then I'd
likely just alienate my players.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On 19 Sep 2004 12:00:37 -0700, Nickhotep@gmail.com (Nick) wrote:

>> "What's up with that" is that V:tR is a modern Gothic horror game.
>> Archaic weapons are appropriate. Guns are for techno-thrillers, which
>> V:tR isn't. Thus, vampires aren't hurt too much by bullets, but arrows,
>> bolts, and swords are effective.
>>
>> It's romance. It's /genre/.
>
>Ehh....Gothic Horror, and Horror in general, isn't dependent on the
>tropes involved. One could have a gothic horror drama take place on a
>spaceship.

You could, but you'd still have to have initially unsuspecting
upperclass twits wandering around unequipped mentally or physically to
deal with the looming threat stalking them or waiting to be unearthed.


>
>Well, the two aren't exclusive. You'd have hunters-by-circumstance,
>much like H:tR, and then a whole collection of organized and
>experienced ones who "hunt" for various reasons. Not to say they'll
>all be involved in Destroy All Monsters crusades- but the government
>probably has a section that keeps the President from being dominated,

Does it matter whether the President is dominated?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Stephenls wrote:
>
[snip]
> I'd never take this all the way and say that piercing a tree with a
> vampire nullifies the tree's life, though.

That would be interesting to see, though. 😉 Actually, if it ever
comes up, I might use a rule-amendment like this - vampire blood causes
living tissue to spoil/corrupt and die after exposure. So, if a vampire
bled on your lawn, the grass would grow brow and die (maybe for a
while, depending on the amount of blood). A human that got vampire
blood on their skin might find that the area began to itch after
a day, then eventually the skin would turn red. Eventually, the skin
would peel off like a bad sunburn (no real effect other than the look).

> Nor would I declare that only living wooden stakes work.

"Green wood stakes" is still one of my favorite rules. 😉

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Nickhotep@gmail.com (Nick) wrote in message news:<2d6fc7c6.0409192150.3ab303f0@posting.google.com>...

> If the central horror of the World of Darkness is apathy, then I don't
> think I can really muster the energy to care about the setting at all.
> And I mean that seriously; if no one in the setting cares, why should
> I? I'm not really interested in a setting that can't change for good
> or bad.

Hmm...this has potential.

Clerks: the Reqium, where the biggest conflict is between going
down to the coffee shop and smoking cloves, or staying at home and
reading Anne Rice for the 20th time. The vampires could have
lousy jobs working at convenience stores and video shops, and
they could take extended breaks to argue about Star Wars...


....I didn't say it had a LOT of potential.


- Eric Tolle

 

[nick]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

>
> Hmm...this has potential.
>
> Clerks: the Reqium, where the biggest conflict is between going
> down to the coffee shop and smoking cloves, or staying at home and
> reading Anne Rice for the 20th time. The vampires could have
> lousy jobs working at convenience stores and video shops, and
> they could take extended breaks to argue about Star Wars...
>
>
> ...I didn't say it had a LOT of potential.
>
>
> - Eric Tolle

Though this may well be how many vampires spend a lot of their time.
I've always thought there was room for, well, normal people who happen
to be Vampires. Sure, I get turned into a vampire- does this mean I
stop playing Doom 3? Getting involved in clan/covenant disputes
strikes me much like joining the army- not everyone is going to
bother. Learning disciplines is much the same thing. It'd probably be
hard and boring to figure out how Vigor works, and I'd much rather sit
on the couch and watch what the TiVo caught for me while I was asleep.

The one and only Vampire game I ever run had a lot of this kind of
thing ( as well as the aforementioned 'mortal interaction' aspect).
Sure, there were your master manipulators and undead badasses, but
most vampires bought cow's/pig's blood off from butchers and did their
best to pay the rent on their havens.

Sure, they have to deal with whatever psychological changes occur, and
adjust to the problems of their condition, but they're still basically
people. Likes, dislikes, opinions, and so on.

It gets very lonely and can be very dangerous, so you associate with
other vampires...but it doesn't mean stop being a Red Sox fan.

I try to go for contrast. The fantastic (undead, conspiracies, magic,
etc) with the mundane (football, employment). The heroic with the
horrorific, and so on.

Which is one reason why I try to have a sense of humor about things.
Sometimes you'd encounter extremely incompetant vampires or simply
oddball situations.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On 19 Sep 2004 22:50:51 -0700, Nickhotep@gmail.com (Nick) wrote:

>
>> I see no need for such a symmetry. I find knowing that there are people
>> out there Fighting The Good Fight reduces the intrinsic horror of the
>> setting, myself -- there are ways around it, like making the hunter
>> organizations shadowy and apparently serving less-than-savory agendas,
>> but I'm very tired of conspiracy clichés at this point.
>
>See, here is where I think we'll disagree. I'm personally tired of the
>angsty vampire cliche and still quite fascinated by the conspiracy.

The problem with avoiding conspiracies in a superficially normal
but fantasy universe is that not having them is even more absurd
than having them. In any version of the WoD, easily detectable
supernatural phenomena are all over the place and have existed
continuously since the days when everyone knew they existed.
Absent a conspiracy, there is just no way to explain it. Of course
a perfectly good approach is just to abandon secrecy and have
everyone know except a few flat earthers.

Personally I think shooting for horror with Vampire is just kind
of silly. I'm not going to be horrified by vampires when I am one.
It's that simple.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Stephenls wrote:

> Clogar wrote:
>
>> Depends on the logic of WHY stakes work in your game. I've read the
>> NWOD core book but not V:tR, so I don't know the logic behind why
>> stakes work on vampires right now. In my old game (with some home
>> rules), I'd have said no. This was based on a home-rule concept that
>> the demonic web of magical power that kept a vampire animated was
>> centered in the heart, and unliving material simply could not disrupt
>> it. Everything that had been living in your charcoal bullet was broken
>> down and destroyed by the fire, so there would be nothing left to
>> disrupt the magic.
>
>
> My explanation was as follows:
>
> Vampires are dead but animate. Wood is alive but inanimate. The two
> essences are anathema to one another, and so piercing the center of a
> vampire's being (symbolically situated in the heart, since vampires run
> on blood) with wood temporarily nullifies the vampire's animation.

I like that explanation. Like the sea salt thingy they did on the Others.

> I'd never take this all the way and say that piercing a tree with a
> vampire nullifies the tree's life, though. Nor would I declare that
> only living wooden stakes work.

Which makes sense, since vampires are supernatural whereas trees are
not. Non-supernatural things shouldn't suffer from supernatural reasoning.