Grouping Rule and Dial-a-Vamp

So there's been a lot of talk lately about whether or not dial-a-vamp would really be a problem. Whether or not the grouping rule was really necessary. Why it would be such a bad thing to just play with all of the vamps, and why the designers were supposedly "too lazy". Here is an idea of why the grouping rule was necessary, and a brief attempt to show it, along with a sample deck. Note that this deck was built in approximately 15 minutes. It has gone through little to no tuning whatsoever, and as a result is nowhere near as good as it could be -- it needs both a Presence and Celerity skill card, for example. But it's pretty solid where it stands. It required no thought to build; something that I consider to be a Bad Thing to encourage in the game. I initially generated the list of vampires by filtering on all vampires with both Presence and Celerity who were also a 5-cap or cheaper. I then removed all the 4-caps and 5-caps who had (pre cel), and also removed Itzahk Levine ('cos he's ugly) to get down to 14. I can't tell right now whether it would be better to either remove one more 3-cap and Antoinette, OR remove a couple of the 5-caps. PRE/CEL: Rigby and Brachah (2) PRE/cel: Ramiel/Mariana (1) and Barth/Jade (3) pre/CEL: Felicia/Black Cat (1), Victor/Dodd (2), and Steve (3) pre/cel: Uma Hatch (1), Antoinette duChamp (2), Mazz (3) The grouping rule would force me to remove either five V:TES vampires from my crypt, or four CE vampires. I would be forced to replace them with inferior minions in some fashion; either by pre/cel vamps, or by more expensive vampires that the deck really can't afford (Sheila Mezarin and Sela at 6 for the +1 bleeders, or Ian Wallingford and Julian Sanders for the PRE/CEL, and Suzanne Kadim at 7 for both), OR by doubling up on Rigby, Brachah, and two of the pre/CEL vamps, which significantly hurts my chances of getting a shedload of vampires in play, significantly increases the chance of my getting a duplicate vamp or a crappy draw, and noticeably restricts the efficency of the deck. A player with no access to Jyhad/V:TES is at a significant disadvantage here; he cannot play with Mariana (4-cap!), Black Cat (huge vamp in this deck), or Felicia (distinct vamp with pre/CEL, the preferred discipline set). He'll have to backfill somewhere and make his deck weaker. This demonstrates quite well why the grouping rule benefits new players. I don't think the deck is broken right now without the grouping rule; it should operate more or less as advertised, and has its share of holes. I think that if I or anyone else spent the time tuning it, though, it can be an EXTREMELY solid example of its type. What the deck DOES demonstrate is why any new vampires added without a grouping rule surely WOULD either break the game or even more glaringly exaggerate the difference between old and new players. Take, for example, Black Cat. A new player is already at a disadvantage here; he doesn't have her, and you almost want 3 of her in the deck. So say you print a new 5-cap Brujah with her stats. Great! I can now use both Black Cat and this new Brujah and get BOTH in play; the new player hasn't caught up to me yet, and in fact is trailing further behind, since he has to duplicate his crypt to get a -1 pool equipper out and I still don't. The other question is: how do you add a vampire with pre CEL or PRE cel? If the most likely target for group 4 vamps is a new Sabbat-related expansion, that gives you two clans (!Tories and !Brujah) who have PRE CEL as their in-clan disciplines. Do you totally avoid printing a 5-cap with pre/CEL or CEL/pre? You certainly don't want to, but otherwise you really do start to degenerate badly. So, for your consideration: some bruise-and-sleaze. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Deck Name: Three Strikes or You're Ousted Created By: DSR Description: Attempt to demonstrate the grouping rule. Crypt: (14 cards, Min: 11, Max: 20, Avg: 4.36) ---------------------------------------------- 1 Victor Revell aus CEL dem pre 5, Toreador Antitribu 1 Steve Booth CEL pot pre pro 5, Brujah 1 Rigby aus CEL pot PRE 5, Brujah Antitribu 1 Ramiel DuPre aus cel dom PRE 5, Toreador 1 Felicia Mostrom AUS CEL pre 5, Toreador 1 Dodd CEL dom pre 5, Brujah Antitribu 1 Creamy Jade aus cel PRE vic 5, Toreador Antitribu 1 Brachah for CEL PRE 5, Brujah 1 Black Cat CEL pot pre 5, Brujah 1 Barth aus cel PRE 5, Toreador 1 Mariana Gilbert cel PRE 4, Toreador 1 Uma Hatch cel pre 3, Brujah 1 Mazz cel pre 3, Brujah 1 Antoinette DuChamp cel pre 1, Caitiff Library: (80 cards) ------------------- Master (12 cards) 1 Aching Beauty 1 Al's Army Apparatus 6 Blood Doll 1 Direct Intervention 3 Sudden Reversal Action (14 cards) 6 Legal Manipulations 8 Social Charm Action Modifier (6 cards) 6 Aire of Elation Combat (41 cards) 6 Blur 7 Concealed Weapon 8 Flash 8 Pursuit 6 Taste of Vitae 6 Vampiric Speed Equipment (7 cards) 7 .44 Magnum ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:42vttu4jnpdr2e7bn...@4ax.com... > > PRE/CEL: Rigby and Brachah (2) > PRE/cel: Ramiel/Mariana (1) and Barth/Jade (3) > pre/CEL: Felicia/Black Cat (1), Victor/Dodd (2), and Steve (3) > pre/cel: Uma Hatch (1), Antoinette duChamp (2), Mazz (3) > > A player with no access to Jyhad/V:TES is at a significant disadvantage > here; he cannot play with Mariana (4-cap!), Black Cat (huge vamp in this > deck), or Felicia (distinct vamp with pre/CEL, the preferred discipline > set). He'll have to backfill somewhere and make his deck weaker. This > demonstrates quite well why the grouping rule benefits new players. > Of course, this assumes that those Jyhad/V:TES vamps couldn't have been reprinted in place of the group 3 vamps with the same disciplines/capacity. If you're gonna make another exact copy of the same vampire, why bother to give it a different name? > > What the deck DOES demonstrate is why any new vampires added without a > grouping rule surely WOULD either break the game or even more glaringly > exaggerate the difference between old and new players. Take, for > example, Black Cat. A new player is already at a disadvantage here; he > doesn't have her, and you almost want 3 of her in the deck. So say you > print a new 5-cap Brujah with her stats. Great! I can now use both > Black Cat and this new Brujah and get BOTH in play; the new player > hasn't caught up to me yet, and in fact is trailing further behind, > since he has to duplicate his crypt to get a -1 pool equipper out and I > still don't. > Or you reprint Black Cat, or newbies get 5 Black Cats from any long-time player. Don't tell me the supply of Jyhad vampires will dry up. I just don't believe it. Impossible. There aren't enough potential new players IN THE WORLD to use up the supply of Jyhad that WoTC created. Besides that, you're saying that the grouping rule is necessary given the vampires that were released in CE. That's not under debate. The vampires in CE were printed assuming the grouping rule (or for conspiracy theorists, in order to enforce the need for that rule). There was, however, no need to print 100 new vampires immediately, some of them exactly duplicating older vampires. Some vampires could have been reprinted (lowering the set's value to old players, admittedly, but hell, what's with the constant re-releasing of base sets anyway? I want real expansions with more than 15 new cards). Or they could have created "experienced" rules, like having two copies of Democritus with different stats which contest each other.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:D_ND9.91070$__1....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps WW would have had to pay WotD in some fashion for the use of the Jyhad / VtES vampires and the requirement that similar-but-different vamps be printed was strictly a business one. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sebastian O" <joe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:UKQD9.12680$ea.3...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca... > > > Besides that, you're saying that the grouping rule is necessary given the > > vampires that were released in CE. That's not under debate. The vampires > in > > CE were printed assuming the grouping rule (or for conspiracy theorists, > in > > order to enforce the need for that rule). > > Perhaps WW would have had to pay WotD in some fashion for the use of the > Jyhad / VtES vampires and the requirement that similar-but-different vamps > be printed was strictly a business one. > Well, it's not like they didn't reprint *any* vampires... All of the DS/AH Camarilla vampires were reprinted in the starters. I honestly don't know the arrangement between WoTC and WW. If the changed layout/background of the cards and the printing of all new vampires was a financial decision, then I suppose I begrudgingly support it. But I really don't think it was. I think that the layout change was an aesthetic decision that was unfortunately made by blind monkeys with no sense of taste or practicality. And I think that the printing of all new vampires along with the advent of the grouping rule was a pure design decision. I don't have quite as strong an opinion about the design decision, as it's not obviously bad for the game. But on the other hand, I don't see that it's obviously good for the game either. I just personally don't really like it.

I definitely get the blind monkeys part. As for DS / AH, at least some of those guys were from the official cannon and, if there was any sort of financial arrangement, it was probably WotC paying WW for the use of their material. I often wondered at the sheer weirdness of WotC just making up a batch of vamps that totally conflicted with the cannon when the game first appeared and suspected that that, too, was a decision made on the basis of saving money. Actually, thinking about it, making sure that everything currently being printed makes sense for WW in the sense that cannon vamps are more familiar to people who play the RPG and therefore more likely to entice them into making the jump into VtES.

>> Perhaps WW would have had to pay WotD in some fashion for the use of the >> Jyhad / VtES vampires and the requirement that similar-but-different vamps >> be printed was strictly a business one. >> >Well, it's not like they didn't reprint *any* vampires... All of the DS/AH >Camarilla vampires were reprinted in the starters. Agreed. In addition, please note how Delilah Easton was "reprinted" as Emerson Wilkershire III. Yuri - The Talon was "reprinted" as Allison Maller. Lupo was "reprinted" as Arnold Simpson. Also Uma Hatch & Mazz, Dollface & Milo, the Invisible Horror, Dimple & Krid, Colin Flynn & Yvette the Hopeless, and Jing Wei & Ehrich Weiss. Well, there goes that theory! =) Halcyan 2

My guesses. >I definitely get the blind monkeys part. As for DS / AH, at least some of >those guys were from the official cannon and, if there was any sort of >financial arrangement, it was probably WotC paying WW for the use of their >material. I often wondered at the sheer weirdness of WotC just making up a >batch of vamps that totally conflicted with the cannon when the game first >appeared and suspected that that, too, was a decision made on the basis of >saving money. Canon vampires would have taken more time to do and would have strait-jacketed the design and balance by Richard Garfield. Knowing that "that other game" had been a hit and eager to quickly cash in on the success before the market became too saturated, creating vampires would have been much faster than carefully making sure everything agreed. And indeed, Jyhad was one of the earlier CCG's out there if I recall correctly. >Actually, thinking about it, making sure that everything currently being >printed makes sense for WW in the sense that cannon vamps are more familiar >to people who play the RPG and therefore more likely to entice them into >making the jump into VtES. As for White Wolf, I sincerely doubt they could even have begun to suspect that VTES would grow and evolve into what it has become today. CCG's was still a relatively new industry back then (and still is relatively speaking). White Wolf probably didn't know squat about CCG's but saw how much money they could rake in. So they let WotC, which had proven successes, take over the reins. For many in the gaming industry, the more immediate future is much more worrisome than the effects and consequences almost 10 years down the line... Halcyan 2

In message <D_ND9.91070$__1.5...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:42vttu4jnpdr2e7bn...@4ax.com... >> >> PRE/CEL: Rigby and Brachah (2) >> PRE/cel: Ramiel/Mariana (1) and Barth/Jade (3) >> pre/CEL: Felicia/Black Cat (1), Victor/Dodd (2), and Steve (3) >> pre/cel: Uma Hatch (1), Antoinette duChamp (2), Mazz (3) >> >> A player with no access to Jyhad/V:TES is at a significant disadvantage >> here; he cannot play with Mariana (4-cap!), Black Cat (huge vamp in this >> deck), or Felicia (distinct vamp with pre/CEL, the preferred discipline >> set). He'll have to backfill somewhere and make his deck weaker. This >> demonstrates quite well why the grouping rule benefits new players. >> >Of course, this assumes that those Jyhad/V:TES vamps couldn't have been >reprinted in place of the group 3 vamps with the same disciplines/capacity. If >you're gonna make another exact copy of the same vampire, why bother to give it >a different name? Jyhad/V:TES vamps are not "canon" vamps, and have no marketing lure or tie-in to the rest of the WW product line. Unless I'm mistaken (and I am NOT doing the legwork to check this), all the new CE vamps "exist" somewhere in the WW source materials... somewhere. In addition, reprinting all the Jyhad/V:TES vamps would create a set ONLY usable/purchasable by new players, and not at ALL of interest to veteran players, completely alienating a large segment of your market. I don't know even three people who would've bought large portions of CE if there hadn't been new vampires. >> What the deck DOES demonstrate is why any new vampires added without a >> grouping rule surely WOULD either break the game or even more glaringly >> exaggerate the difference between old and new players. Take, for >> example, Black Cat. A new player is already at a disadvantage here; he >> doesn't have her, and you almost want 3 of her in the deck. So say you >> print a new 5-cap Brujah with her stats. Great! I can now use both >> Black Cat and this new Brujah and get BOTH in play; the new player >> hasn't caught up to me yet, and in fact is trailing further behind, >> since he has to duplicate his crypt to get a -1 pool equipper out and I >> still don't. >> >Or you reprint Black Cat, or newbies get 5 Black Cats from any long-time >player. Don't tell me the supply of Jyhad vampires will dry up. I just don't >believe it. Impossible. There aren't enough potential new players IN THE >WORLD to use up the supply of Jyhad that WoTC created. Reprinting Black Cat was not going to happen. Getting 5 Black Cats from a long-time player is not an option for all newbies, because now you are mandating that someone know a long-term player who is both (a) generous, and (b) not already out of Black Cat from other newbies asking him. Since it is not an option for all newbies, it is not an option at all. Asking new players to find old sets of cards that are not ON STORE SHELVES is not a viable option, because very few of them are going to care that much when starting to play a game. And if they find out that's what they need to do to compete, they'll STOP playing the game. Jyhad boxes are not that cheap anymore. From Potomac's pricelist: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Prices current as of November 21, 2002. Jyhad: Booster $49 Jyhad: Starter $63 Vampire: TES Booster $118 Vampire: TES Camarilla Booster $61 Vampire: TES Camarilla Precon. $36 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ $12 difference? The CE is the better buy here for a new player, because the cards all have the most current text. When will you all realize that the long-term life of this game depends on people being able to walk into a store, buy some cards, and be able to play at a decent level? This whole "buy old stuff off the internet or rely on the generosity of old players" theory excludes a HUGE subset of people. >Besides that, you're saying that the grouping rule is necessary given the >vampires that were released in CE. That's not under debate. The vampires in >CE were printed assuming the grouping rule (or for conspiracy theorists, in >order to enforce the need for that rule). There was, however, no need to print >100 new vampires immediately, some of them exactly duplicating older vampires. What vampires with pre/CEL would you reprint? How about PRE/cel? How would you avoid printing vampires with these disciplines without totally screwing the new players and making CE ridiculously weak in comparison? >Some vampires could have been reprinted (lowering the set's value to old >players, admittedly, but hell, what's with the constant re-releasing of base >sets anyway? I want real expansions with more than 15 new cards). Or they And this was exactly why 100 new vampires were created. >could have created "experienced" rules, like having two copies of Democritus >with different stats which contest each other. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:n912uucefef8hd4gg...@4ax.com... > > Jyhad/V:TES vamps are not "canon" vamps, and have no marketing lure or > tie-in to the rest of the WW product line. > Gack, retch, puke. I'm sorry, if there was any reasonable argument in the rest of your post, all memory of it was erased by this putrid bullshit. Yes, there is evil in the world, and surely some of it resides within WW, just as it resides within all companies, successful and unsuccessful, but to invoke the various demons of Product Placement and Market Research by name is tantamount to invoking Godwin's Law and ending any meaningful part of this discussion that once existed.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> schrieb: > Or they >could have created "experienced" rules, like having two copies of Democritus >with different stats which contest each other. > hi i think that the background for VTES does not allow for the "expirienced" thing as the one for L5R does. Democritus stats won't change that much in lets say 10 years, him being a vampire of approx 2000 years of age. In contrast, a mortal very well changes in the course of this suggested time frame, which for Democritus is just the blink of an eye. i know that the mechanics and dynamics of the tcg can only so much reflect the rpg, but in this case it would definitley be a point to consider. regards Chris.QJ

In message <iieE9.100961$P31.53275@rwcrnsc53>, "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Well, whether or not you like it, game companies have to make money to survive. And just because you don't like it doesn't make it NOT a completely valid point... which it remains. I'm sorry that you believe companies should be producing everything pro bono for your enjoyment; it really is going to scar your view of the real world for a long time. CCGs are an iffy business at best. The current "winning" model can be seen in Pokemon; get in, rip off as many kids as you can with an absurdly addictive "line" based on something else highly popular, get back out and let the product die, your profits safely made. To go against the current model, one has to have a damned solid foundation first. I don't begrudge them for wanting the canon tie-in; I don't know who Menele or Helena is, nor do I care that they're somehow related, so it doesn't really affect my enjoyment of the game at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<42vttu4jnpdr2e7bn...@4ax.com>... > A player with no access to Jyhad/V:TES is at a significant disadvantage > here; he cannot play with Mariana (4-cap!), Black Cat (huge vamp in this > deck), or Felicia (distinct vamp with pre/CEL, the preferred discipline > set). He'll have to backfill somewhere and make his deck weaker. This > demonstrates quite well why the grouping rule benefits new players. Um... a player without access to older cards, is considered a new player. Your arguement doesn't make sense. Even if you were saying "As this deck demonstrates, the new grouping rule benefits new players" and you hadn't messed up the example, this would still just demonstrte how this particular deck gives evidence of how the new grouping rule helps new players. It does not say anything about how other decks may help or hinder newer players. Just some thoughts... ~SV

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4mf4uuchd474nbfhh...@4ax.com... > In message <iieE9.100961$P31.53275@rwcrnsc53>, > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about: > > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:n912uucefef8hd4gg...@4ax.com... > >> > >> Jyhad/V:TES vamps are not "canon" vamps, and have no marketing lure or > >> tie-in to the rest of the WW product line. > >> > >Gack, retch, puke. > > > >I'm sorry, if there was any reasonable argument in the rest of your post, all > >memory of it was erased by this putrid bullshit. Yes, there is evil in the > >world, and surely some of it resides within WW, just as it resides within all > >companies, successful and unsuccessful, but to invoke the various demons of > >Product Placement and Market Research by name is tantamount to invoking > >Godwin's Law and ending any meaningful part of this discussion that once > >existed. > > Well, whether or not you like it, game companies have to make money to > survive. And just because you don't like it doesn't make it NOT a > completely valid point... which it remains. I'm sorry that you believe > companies should be producing everything pro bono for your enjoyment; it > really is going to scar your view of the real world for a long time. > Yeah, sure. That's exactly what I said. Idiot.

In message <I%tE9.112877$%m4.5...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, as a matter of fact, it IS exactly what you said. Now wake the fuck up, twit-brain. You dismiss the entire post because I refer to marketing? What a puerile, Skinner-box view of the world you must have. Game companies have to make money. Don't like it? Tough. Blathering on about how marketing is "putrid bullshit" and attempting to ignore the rest of the points is remarkably similar to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. Want change? Convince people, don't whine because marketing appeal DOES have some place in game design. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <f987c6cd.02112...@posting.google.com>, vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<42vttu4jnpdr2e7bn...@4ax.com>... > >> A player with no access to Jyhad/V:TES is at a significant disadvantage >> here; he cannot play with Mariana (4-cap!), Black Cat (huge vamp in this >> deck), or Felicia (distinct vamp with pre/CEL, the preferred discipline >> set). He'll have to backfill somewhere and make his deck weaker. This >> demonstrates quite well why the grouping rule benefits new players. > >Um... a player without access to older cards, is considered a new >player. Your arguement doesn't make sense. Even if you were saying It makes perfect sense if you don't take one paragraph out of context and then randomly mumble about it. I suggest reading the rest, considering it as a whole, and then continuing on. What exactly do you think doesn't make sense about it? >"As this deck demonstrates, the new grouping rule benefits new >players" > >and you hadn't messed up the example, this would still just demonstrte What exactly do you think is messed up about the example, and why? In detail, now. Not just finger-pointing. >how this particular deck gives evidence of how the new grouping rule >helps new players. It does not say anything about how other decks may >help or hinder newer players. I only have to demonstrate it once to prove the point. I do not have time to construct decks for every single discipline and discipline combo. Maybe you do; perhaps you'll enlighten us one way or the other. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6b45uu0emn95nl75v...@4ax.com... >> > >Yeah, sure. That's exactly what I said. Idiot. > > Yeah, as a matter of fact, it IS exactly what you said. > So in addition to being an ass who loves flame wars, you also do not know how to read. Perhaps you think that market research (by which I mean pandering to the lowest common denominator, and in addition the art of making people want what you're selling) is necessary to making money. But then you have no idea what you're talking about. Luckily WW is not so indiscreet as to suggest that their primary reason for printing their new vampires was because they were "more marketable to their target audience." And hopefully that was not the reason. Advertisement, in the sense of letting people know what you are selling is one thing. Marketing, in the sense of tricking them into buying it, is sometimes successful, but often turns away a lot of people who have half a brain in their head. I suppose people like you prefer to be tricked? WW may exist simply to milk money out of unwitting fools. And if so, they have every right to. But even if that's true, the unwitting fools have the right to (assuming they become witting fools) be upset about it. Personally, I think that WW is just ever-so-slightly more altruistic than that, and they'd do well to at least portray themselves that way, if they don't want to lose all of their customers. So you're saying that making decisions based solely on how much money they will be able to rip off from consumers is the way of the world. That's just plain stupid. Naive. And you wonder why I don't really want to discuss it any further with you? > Now wake the fuck up, twit-brain. You dismiss the entire post because I > refer to marketing? > Because you obviously had nothing intelligent to say. And because I don't like you. Sure, I read the rest of it, and yes, it was a useless rehashing of what's been said a million times before. You're very good at repeating yourself in increasingly insulting ways. If you want my response to those arguments, you can search google for it. Instead, I only responded to the most insulting part of your post. Not to mention, why do you care if I dismiss your post? You don't care what I have to say, except in as much as it gives you fuel for your ranting bluster. I've given my piece, my reasons for the Grouping Rule not being needed by the game, and you've given your reasons for why you think it is needed, as well as serveral spurious curses and insults. If you honestly think that anything is going to get resolved, at least between you and I, then you're even less observant than I thought. > Want change? > Sure, I need to do some laundry. You got a quarter?

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<n912uucefef8hd4gg...@4ax.com>... > When will you all realize that the long-term life of this game depends > on people being able to walk into a store, buy some cards, and be able > to play at a decent level? This whole "buy old stuff off the internet > or rely on the generosity of old players" theory excludes a HUGE subset > of people. The game survived for 5 years without product on the shelves. I think that's pretty good proof right there. We have around 20 people in our play group, and they buy 90% of their cards online. Most of us buy online exclusively. Almost everyone of college age, the primary source of new players, has access to the internet and can buy online. Every player I know, other than the ones that started with the original Jyhad set, was recruited by another player. None of them started playing by picking up a pack of cards in a store and finding someone else to play with. I think the main purpose of retail shops, in relation to VTES, is to provide a venue for playing. Most stores these days in America have large play areas. With so many people buying off the internet, I'm not sure how long they'll continue providing free play space (I buy comics at our shop, so I don't feel like I'm not contributing to their bottom line). But the product being on store shelves is largely irrelevant to the core player base of VTES. JSpektr

>The game survived for 5 years without product on the shelves. I think >that's pretty good proof right there. Then again, during that period of time, there was still enough leftover product to satisfy most of the needs of the players. >I think the main purpose of retail shops, in relation to VTES, is to >provide a venue for playing. Most stores these days in America have >large play areas. With so many people buying off the internet, I'm not >sure how long they'll continue providing free play space (I buy comics >at our shop, so I don't feel like I'm not contributing to their bottom >line). But the product being on store shelves is largely irrelevant to >the core player base of VTES. Agreed. Of course this is a bit of a difficult issue since it is so recent. E-commerce has greatly revolutionalized many areas, including the gaming industries. Of course, this does have the unfortunate side-effect of hurting many gaming stores. Halcyan 2

Chris Berger wrote: > Luckily WW is not so indiscreet as to suggest that > their primary reason for printing their new vampires was because they were > "more marketable to their target audience." Umm, what other possible reason would there be to create 100 new vampires that are all specifically from the Role Playing Game (as opposed to 100 new vampires that are made up out of whole cloth)? Do I care that they are from the RPG? No. I don't play the RPG. I don't know Pug Jackson from a hole in the wall. But then I'd buy the new CE set if all the vampires were named "Phil". On the other hand, there are many RPG fans who see that the new vampires are cannon vampires, and get all excited, and buy the cards. This strikes me as nothing *but* being more marketable to their target audience. Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "she tore down Paris on the tail of Thom Paine but the left wing's broken and the right's insane" -Bowie

"Peter D Bakija" <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:BA0827C7.A510%PD...@bigplanet.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > Luckily WW is not so indiscreet as to suggest that > > their primary reason for printing their new vampires was because they were > > "more marketable to their target audience." > > Umm, what other possible reason would there be to create 100 new vampires > that are all specifically from the Role Playing Game (as opposed to 100 new > vampires that are made up out of whole cloth)? > So you're saying that they are not good for the game? That they don't create new combos, new excitement, new reasons to have fun when playing? That the reason they were drawn from the role-playing game was not because it contained a wealth of creative content that adds to the "rich emotional tapestry" <grin> that is V:TES?

In message <mgyE9.114554$%m4.5...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about: >So in addition to being an ass who loves flame wars, you also do not know how >to read. Perhaps you think that market research (by which I mean pandering to Pot. Kettle. Black? >the lowest common denominator, and in addition the art of making people want >what you're selling) is necessary to making money. But then you have no idea Excellent. So let's take the concept of "making people want what you're selling" for a moment, shall we, because whether or not you think it is, a certain amount of market research IS necessary to get people to want what you're selling. I don't think you're foolish enough to believe that purchases from the veteran players will sustain the game, so we can start from an initial point: NEW PLAYERS ARE MANDATORY. Now, where to get those pesky new players from? People like me, who do not play the RPG and do not read the source material, do not care what the vampires are named, as long as they're not something like "BART SIMPSON". So the name choice has no effect on making non-RPGers want what they're selling. People who DO play the RPG and read the source material are likely to find it appealing to play with a vampire they recognize, especially one who shares characteristics from the source material (menele/helena, for example). So the name choice here has a positive effect as regards "making them want what is being sold". I don't see any circumstances where the name choice could have a negative effect, except one: If most of the vampires in this set are just reprints of V:TES vamps, I (and most other old players) don't even consider buying ANY of it, because now it has NO appeal. Perhaps I know more about what I'm talking than you think. >what you're talking about. Luckily WW is not so indiscreet as to suggest that >their primary reason for printing their new vampires was because they were >"more marketable to their target audience." And hopefully that was not the I doubt it was their primary reason. I'm certain it was *a* reason. >reason. Advertisement, in the sense of letting people know what you are >selling is one thing. Marketing, in the sense of tricking them into buying it, >is sometimes successful, but often turns away a lot of people who have half a >brain in their head. I suppose people like you prefer to be tricked? What implies trickery about choosing names that are familiar to people who have demonstrated they already like things dark and vampiric? Why would it be a bad idea to try to draw new players from the LARP and other V:tM crowds? Marketing is more successful than you ever realize. It's STUPID marketing that fails, and that kind is spottable right off the bat. >WW may exist simply to milk money out of unwitting fools. And if so, they have >every right to. But even if that's true, the unwitting fools have the right to >(assuming they become witting fools) be upset about it. Personally, I think >that WW is just ever-so-slightly more altruistic than that, and they'd do well >to at least portray themselves that way, if they don't want to lose all of >their customers. So you're saying that making decisions based solely on how >much money they will be able to rip off from consumers is the way of the world. >That's just plain stupid. Naive. And you wonder why I don't really want to >discuss it any further with you? I don't see that it involves ripping money off from anyone. I think you are also displaying a bit of naivete here yourself, frankly. You need to understand that success doesn't happen without a great deal of attention to the bottom line. That attention doesn't automatically involve trickery or anything under-the-table, nor does it involve trying to "rip consumers off"; and often the most successful companies are the ones who figure out how to get people to buy what they're selling while ALSO doing lots of things that the consumer wants. But failure to pay attention to the bottom line is a sure route to, well... failure. (bunch of pointless blather about how Chris doesn't like me snipped) Let me know when you move out of your parents' basement. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <196f2577.02112...@posting.google.com>, jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<n912uucefef8hd4gg...@4ax.com>... > >> When will you all realize that the long-term life of this game depends >> on people being able to walk into a store, buy some cards, and be able >> to play at a decent level? This whole "buy old stuff off the internet >> or rely on the generosity of old players" theory excludes a HUGE subset >> of people. > >The game survived for 5 years without product on the shelves. I think >that's pretty good proof right there. I don't consider the population of the game at the time WW picked it up to be "surviving" -- I consider it to be "a bunch of die-hards who were barely hanging on". If WW hadn't picked the game up, it would've been history soon after as people got bored and found newer toys that were still supported. >We have around 20 people in our play group, and they buy 90% of their >cards online. Most of us buy online exclusively. Almost everyone of >college age, the primary source of new players, has access to the >internet and can buy online. Every player I know, other than the ones >that started with the original Jyhad set, was recruited by another >player. None of them started playing by picking up a pack of cards in >a store and finding someone else to play with. And you don't see that this is a terrible thing for the game? How long do you REALLY think online sales can sustain things, especially if distributors get pissed off and quit ordering? >I think the main purpose of retail shops, in relation to VTES, is to >provide a venue for playing. Most stores these days in America have >large play areas. With so many people buying off the internet, I'm not >sure how long they'll continue providing free play space (I buy comics >at our shop, so I don't feel like I'm not contributing to their bottom >line). But the product being on store shelves is largely irrelevant to >the core player base of VTES. That core player base will, over time, diminish. If it is not being replaced by new players constantly, the game will die. The best source of new players remains the retail shops; people can see others having fun playing, see that the game looks "cool", and be recruited on the spot. If they're told that they have to go order cards off the Internet (probably in bulk, mind you) to even start, they're liable to shrug and just wander away to buy a handful of HeroClix. On the other hand, if they can walk up front, buy a starter deck, play a game... and then walk up front again later and buy a handful of boosters... NOW there's a much better chance they'll stick around. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b7j5uuom65rpks83l...@4ax.com... > In message <mgyE9.114554$%m4.5...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about: > > >So in addition to being an ass who loves flame wars, you also do not know how > >to read. Perhaps you think that market research (by which I mean pandering to > > Pot. Kettle. Black? > I hate flame wars. I'm doing this just for you, mon cheri. Give us a kiss, eh? > People who DO play the RPG and read the source material are likely to > find it appealing to play with a vampire they recognize, especially one > who shares characteristics from the source material (menele/helena, for > example). So the name choice here has a positive effect as regards > "making them want what is being sold". > Yes, but this isn't what you said. You uttered the evil incantations used by product research. These people don't have souls. They don't respect vision or integrity. If it would help sales, a marketeer would put naked pictures of his own mother on the packaging. "If we make the book covers out of the skin of young children, most people wouldn't care, but supporters of child-flaying would increase profit-margins by nearly 1%!!!" Maybe you don't know these people or what they're capable of. But more likely you are one of them (did you go to a liberal arts school, Derek?) and have deluded yourself that marketing isn't evil. The simple fact that WW used vampires from canon isn't something I'm upset with. I think the canon and the storyline ruined the RPG and threatens to ruin the CCG, but that's a different discussion entirely. The reason that I didn't want to discuss the topic any further was in deference to Godwin's Law. The moment anyone mentions anything about nazis, the topic will no longer be fruitful. And even the nazis bowed down before the evil might of marketing and propaganda. > What implies trickery about choosing names that are familiar to people > who have demonstrated they already like things dark and vampiric? Why > would it be a bad idea to try to draw new players from the LARP and > other V:tM crowds? > Nothing, but the mention of marketing research buzz-words implies trickery. That's what those buzz-words were invented for. > I don't see that it involves ripping money off from anyone. I think you > are also displaying a bit of naivete here yourself, frankly. You need > to understand that success doesn't happen without a great deal of > attention to the bottom line. That attention doesn't automatically > involve trickery or anything under-the-table, nor does it involve trying > to "rip consumers off"; and often the most successful companies are the > ones who figure out how to get people to buy what they're selling while > ALSO doing lots of things that the consumer wants. But failure to pay > attention to the bottom line is a sure route to, well... failure. > But when it does involve trickery, it is no longer in the interests of the consumers. You seem to be implying that no money can ever be made without such trickery. Again, I understand that there is a difference between advertisement and marketeering, and I suppose I wouldn't have flown off the handle if you hadn't come in with the stupid buzz-words. The language of evil. > (bunch of pointless blather about how Chris doesn't like me snipped) > > Let me know when you move out of your parents' basement. > That's a little cold. Coming down on a guy because the computer industry is down and the start-up I worked for owes me enough money to buy my own boat... (and I blame it all on incompetent marketeers, partially because they spent all their time in meetings trying to figure out shortcuts for ripping off customers instead of selling the program, and partially because a lot of their lies were immediately visible to product reviewers - "of course it doesn't do that! what do you mean our literature says it does?") But since you're so concerned, I moved back outta the p's house in April. Oh wait... you weren't concerned at all, were you? You were just being facetious. I get it now, you're saying I'm a loser. Funny joke. How wily and clever you are, Derek Rey.

In article <D_ND9.91070$__1.5...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu says... > There was, however, no need to print 100 new vampires immediately, > some of them exactly duplicating older vampires. > Some vampires could have been reprinted (lowering the set's value to old > players, admittedly, but hell, what's with the constant re-releasing of base > sets anyway? Eventually, we'd wind up with 100 new vampires anyway. At which point we'd probably need the grouping rule. It's simply a matter of did "we want them now?", or at some undetermined point down the road. The "now" method gives us a bunch of new vamps to play with, at least. -- -Snapcase

Would players be averse to WW releasing an expansion that contained no vampires at all, just library cards? It sidesteps the Grouping rule, and "Dial a vamp", altogether. Plus, being a relative newbie that started playing just after Sabbat War came out, it seems to me that by the time I've adjusted to new vampires and how to use them, another set full of brand new ones sneaks along. It would be nice to be able to focus on the library without having to worry about which new vampires might enrich my crypt.

Jozxyqk wrote: > > Would players be averse to WW releasing an expansion that contained no > vampires at all, just library cards? > It sidesteps the Grouping rule, and "Dial a vamp", altogether. Only if you mean "would players be adverse to WW never releasing any new vampires in any expansions". > Plus, being a relative newbie that started playing just after Sabbat War > came out, it seems to me that by the time I've adjusted to new vampires > and how to use them, another set full of brand new ones sneaks along. > It would be nice to be able to focus on the library without having to > worry about which new vampires might enrich my crypt. ? Or nice to focus on the crypt without worrying about which new library cards might enrich your library? Both decks are important. Both should be built to provide synergy with the other. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Jozxyqk wrote: >> >> Would players be averse to WW releasing an expansion that contained no >> vampires at all, just library cards? >> It sidesteps the Grouping rule, and "Dial a vamp", altogether. > Only if you mean "would players be adverse to WW never releasing any > new vampires in any expansions". No, I just mean delaying it for awhile. Aside from grouping issues, I think an expansion of all library cards would be neat. Expanding allies, or somesuch. And, personally, I would still enjoy the game and buy cards if they never printed another new vampire. But I definitely don't speak for everybody in that. :)

Chris Berger wrote: > So you're saying that they are not good for the game? I said no such thing. I am very fond of the new 100 vampires, and am glad that they were made--my point had nothing to do with the existance of the new 100 vampires, just the decision to make them "cannon" vampires as opposed to "non-cannon" vampires. > That they don't create > new combos, new excitement, new reasons to have fun when playing? That the > reason they were drawn from the role-playing game was not because it contained > a wealth of creative content that adds to the "rich emotional tapestry" <grin> > that is V:TES? Clearly you misunderstood. Given that 100 new vampires were going to be made (and being that they were going to be made, all points you address above are inherrent in this discussion), they could: A) Be made up vampires that have nothing to do with the RPG. B) Be "cannon" vampires that come from the RPG. The only difference between A and B is one of marketing. If Pug Jackson had the exact same stats and the exact same portrait, but was named "Sam McHitty", it would make no difference to me, but I have no connection to the RPG, and consequently, that the vampire is from the RPG means nothign to me--I'd buy the set and use the vampires regardless. On the other hand, there are folks out there who will go out of their way to accuire and use Pug Jackson when they wouldn't necessarily if he were Sam McHitty, as Pug Jackson has a connection to the RPG, which makes some folks happy (and consequently, consumers). [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<nqk5uu81353hpg6un...@4ax.com>... > In message <196f2577.02112...@posting.google.com>, > jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) mumbled something about: > >We have around 20 people in our play group, and they buy 90% of their > >cards online. Most of us buy online exclusively. Almost everyone of > >college age, the primary source of new players, has access to the > >internet and can buy online. Every player I know, other than the ones > >that started with the original Jyhad set, was recruited by another > >player. None of them started playing by picking up a pack of cards in > >a store and finding someone else to play with. > > And you don't see that this is a terrible thing for the game? How long > do you REALLY think online sales can sustain things, especially if > distributors get pissed off and quit ordering? Forever. Again, every single player I know that has come to the game after it started has been recruited by one of us. Not wandered into a store and picked up some cards, not attracted by advertising, not affected in any way by the cards being in retail stores. In fact, most of our players shop for their other RPG materials at stores that don't carry VTES. I see no reason our group wouldn't continue expanding exactly like it is now if VTES was no longer sold at retail. Is this the case everywhere? I don't know, but based on the very anemic support VTES seems to get from retailers, I suspect that to some extent it is. I agree that the game might falter for a while without retailers, but I think in the long term it would do just fine. > That core player base will, over time, diminish. If it is not being > replaced by new players constantly, the game will die. The best source > of new players remains the retail shops; people can see others having > fun playing, see that the game looks "cool", and be recruited on the > spot. If they're told that they have to go order cards off the Internet > (probably in bulk, mind you) to even start, they're liable to shrug and All our new players have been recruited, and not in comic shops, though a few pre-existing players found us in comic shops. Players have been told they should buy cards on the internet, every single one of them thought that was fine, and prefered it to buying at retail. Do you have actual, direct experience with this phenomena, or are you just creating suppositions? So far real life events in St. Louis demonstrate the opposite to your claims. I'm willing to admit St. Louis may not be typical, but at the least it shows your claims are not necessarily true. At the most it shows they are entirely false. JSpektr

Jozxyqk wrote: > Would players be averse to WW releasing an expansion that contained no > vampires at all, just library cards? Well it would have made playing the Starter decks a tad bit difficult, don't you think? Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] A smaller expansion, without starters. But even if you *did* make starters for it, you could make "themed" starters, with reprints of older vampires, but a strategy-based or discipline-based starter rather than a clan-based one. The starters could even have Group 1 crypts! (thus an excuse to reprint some of the Group 1 vampires with the new layout; probably not something likely to happen, but still...)

>If Pug Jackson had the exact same stats and the exact same portrait, but was >named "Sam McHitty", it would make no difference to me, but I have no >connection to the RPG, and consequently, that the vampire is from the RPG >means nothign to me--I'd buy the set and use the vampires regardless. On the >other hand, there are folks out there who will go out of their way to >accuire and use Pug Jackson when they wouldn't necessarily if he were Sam >McHitty, as Pug Jackson has a connection to the RPG, which makes some folks >happy (and consequently, consumers). Overall I agree with your assessment. However, I do have to point out the potential problem that seducing the RPG players might actually backfire, if the canon vampires aren't created properly. The RPG-obsessed might get annoyed when this vampire doesn't have this title which Book XXX clearly states he does (Alfred Benezri and Archbishop of Montreal for example). And then you get issues of not matching disciplines (hey! Brujah Vampire XXX doesn't have any potence, celerity, or presence. She actually has Auspex 6, Daimonon 7, and Melpominee 5 so she should have AUS DAI MEL instead of the CEL POT PRE). Some people might get dissatisfied or annoyed by such inaccurate portrayals and may be oblivious to the fact that the CCG cannot be a simple carbon-copy of the RPG. On the other hand however, you also have another problem, something which Mr. Abrasive (Chris Berger) and I actually agree on. It's fine if you create crypt cards based on (not necessarily exact duplicates) of canon vampires. However, from the Camarilla Set, it *seems* like White Wolf is just creating crypt cards and then just pasting the name of some canon character on to the title. I'm not that much of a stickler for RPG details, but even I have to admit that quite some things are out of whack. Take for example Dr. Douglas Netchurch and Maris Streck who are supposed to be explicit exceptions of Malkavians who don't have Dementation. (And I also still have no idea where they came up with Vicissitude for a discipline point for Virstania). I mean, a 6-cap Malkavian like Netchurch was definitely an important, solid vampire for the Malkavians. But the fact that they simply stuck his name on to the card kind of smacks of desperation IMO. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty examples of crypt cards that are excellent representatives of the RPG character. But there are also plenty of cards that just leave me scratching my head, wondering "did I miss something?", and trying to figure out why it seems like names were picked out at random. "Hey there, I just created some 6-cap Ventrue, give me a name!" ::Reaches into hat full of names from various sourcebooks:: "Okay, got one!" Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > and then just pasting the name of some canon character on to the title. I'm not > that much of a stickler for RPG details, but even I have to admit that quite > some things are out of whack. Take for example Dr. Douglas Netchurch and Maris > Streck who are supposed to be explicit exceptions of Malkavians who don't have > Dementation. Dr. Douglas Netchurch has Dementation (CB:Mal Revised, p. 97) > I mean, a 6-cap Malkavian like Netchurch > was definitely an important, solid vampire for the Malkavians. But the fact > that they simply stuck his name on to the card kind of smacks of desperation > IMO. > Don't get me wrong, there are plenty examples of crypt cards that are > excellent representatives of the RPG character. But there are also plenty of > cards that just leave me scratching my head, wondering "did I miss something?", > and trying to figure out why it seems like names were picked out at random. > "Hey there, I just created some 6-cap Ventrue, give me a name!" ::Reaches into > hat full of names from various sourcebooks:: "Okay, got one!" None are "pulled at random", of course. But sometimes the stats are adjusted to suit the needs of the card game. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3DE613EF...@white-wolf.com... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > and then just pasting the name of some canon character on to the title. I'm not > > that much of a stickler for RPG details, but even I have to admit that quite > > some things are out of whack. Take for example Dr. Douglas Netchurch and Maris > > Streck who are supposed to be explicit exceptions of Malkavians who don't have > > Dementation. > > Dr. Douglas Netchurch has Dementation (CB:Mal Revised, p. 97) > True, but he doesn't like to use it, since he insists he doesn't really have it. And he only has a point of it. Whereas, I believe he has 2 points of Fortitude, which he uses almost constantly. Unfortunately, my gripe with Dr. N. is weakened considerably by the revelation (which I found out a couple months ago, Eric), since it was obvious that the Malks needed new vamps with dem, but I still would have liked to have seen Dr. N. with Fortitude. He's one of the few characters in the RPG that I actually find interesting, and I kind of feel bad for him getting his face rubbed in the Dementation thing.

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > The RPG-obsessed might get annoyed when this vampire doesn't have this title > which Book XXX clearly states he does (Alfred Benezri and Archbishop of > Montreal for example). Or Sarrasine, the (independent) Setite prince of Sydney? > And then you get issues of not matching disciplines > (hey! Brujah Vampire XXX doesn't have any potence, celerity, or presence. She > actually has Auspex 6, Daimonon 7, and Melpominee 5 so she should have AUS DAI > MEL instead of the CEL POT PRE). Such a freakazoid Brujah probably shouldn't be made into a VTES vampire. What, 6 cap or hiher with *no* in-clan Disciplines? Why not just randomly assign Disciplines to vampires and forget about this clan thing? ;) > I'm not that much of a stickler for RPG details, but even I have to admit that quite > some things are out of whack. Take for example Dr. Douglas Netchurch and Maris > Streck who are supposed to be explicit exceptions of Malkavians who don't have > Dementation. Sure, sometimes vampires are different in VTE than V:tM. I figur that this is generally because a perfect "translation" would have critical flaws that don't matter in V:tM (eg, the Malkav justicar lacking a clan Discipline), or because a character would be too powerful for it's generation/capacity (eg, Lithrac isn't a full archon and doesn't have any Celerity), or because the VTEs rules prohibit it (eg, Sarrasine can't hold a Camarilla title). Generally these are minor things; if a character has major issues (the mythical AUS DAI MEL Brujah, for example) then they just don't get converted. james o'rance http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer

Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<BA094AB9.A572%PD...@bigplanet.com>... > If Pug Jackson had the exact same stats and the exact same portrait, but was > named "Sam McHitty", it would make no difference to me, but I have no I would just like to point out that although I got into V:tES from the RPG, and I enjoy it when the RPG and CCG agree... I would *so* play with a vampire named "Sam McHitty". That would be the best. Xian

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DE613EF...@white-wolf.com>... > None are "pulled at random", of course. > But sometimes the stats are adjusted to suit the needs of the card game. A good example would be Helena, who, as I understand it from a friend ( Ole Christiansen, who should know what he is talking about, as he is one of the main translators for Vampire: The Masquerade in Germany ), has quite superior Presence. :) Magnus

In message <GqBE9.115160$P31.57597@rwcrnsc53>, "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:b7j5uuom65rpks83l...@4ax.com... >> In message <mgyE9.114554$%m4.5...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, >> "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about: >> >I hate flame wars. I'm doing this just for you, mon cheri. Give us a kiss, >eh? Although this does remind me of a T-shirt from "ZIV" that had a lovely picture of a toothless guy thrusting a beer mug straight out of the shirt and shouting "Giv us a beer, yer bastards!" >> People who DO play the RPG and read the source material are likely to >> find it appealing to play with a vampire they recognize, especially one >> who shares characteristics from the source material (menele/helena, for >> example). So the name choice here has a positive effect as regards >> "making them want what is being sold". >> >Yes, but this isn't what you said. You uttered the evil incantations used by >product research. These people don't have souls. They don't respect vision or >integrity. If it would help sales, a marketeer would put naked pictures of his >own mother on the packaging. "If we make the book covers out of the skin of Chris, this is blatant naivete in its most harmful, damaging form. It's a histrionic, hyperbolic misstatement of reality, and it reminds me of the rhetoric Linux and MS zealots use attempting to defend and/or promote their respective products, and I wouldn't want to leave FreeBSD zealots out either, come to think of it. Some marketers are Evil and Must Be Destroyed, yes. However, there is an awful lot of good that comes out of product research as well. To paint everyone working in marketing with the same "demonic" brush is amusing and makes great fodder for "Dilbert" comics, but the reality of it isn't anywhere near this. I suspect you actually know this, much like I suspect those linux/MS zealots of not being such damn fools as they are. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't carry on this way, as it doesn't do us or our cause any help and doesn't actually say much. Besides, I don't think you really meant to say that jspektr is soulless, doesn't respect vision or integrity, and would put naked pictures of his own mother on packaging. Though he might. >young children, most people wouldn't care, but supporters of child-flaying >would increase profit-margins by nearly 1%!!!" Maybe you don't know these >people or what they're capable of. But more likely you are one of them (did >you go to a liberal arts school, Derek?) and have deluded yourself that No, Chris, I didn't go to college. I've worked in the technical industry since I was 18. My first job was a technical support/data entry position with a small law firm. I have since worked for 4 different Fortune 500 class companies (one privately held), and a couple other small ones along the way. I've even spent some time at a dot-bomb, although I successfully got out prior to losing my life savings there upon realizing that it was bound to fail (not just no marketing, but no product that would appeal to anyone). I'm about to turn 31. This means I've been doing this shit for 13 years (technically 11, because I took a couple years off playing pool). What THAT means that I actually know something about what I'm talking, and frankly, Chris, I am CERTAIN that you do not have the kind of experience I do dealing with issues like this. You strike me as about 26, recently graduated from college, and recently introduced to the fact that life isn't pretty and corporations suck. They always have, and always will. But the suckage was derived from goodness at one point, and not everything sucks the same way. >marketing isn't evil. The simple fact that WW used vampires from canon isn't >something I'm upset with. I think the canon and the storyline ruined the RPG >and threatens to ruin the CCG, but that's a different discussion entirely. The >reason that I didn't want to discuss the topic any further was in deference to >Godwin's Law. The moment anyone mentions anything about nazis, the topic will >no longer be fruitful. And even the nazis bowed down before the evil might of >marketing and propaganda. This is a load of more histrionic, hyperbolic crap. I suggest you refer to the actual story behind Godwin's Law, and attempts to invoke it incorrectly. >> What implies trickery about choosing names that are familiar to people >> who have demonstrated they already like things dark and vampiric? Why >> would it be a bad idea to try to draw new players from the LARP and >> other V:tM crowds? >> >Nothing, but the mention of marketing research buzz-words implies trickery. >That's what those buzz-words were invented for. No, Chris. Those words were invented to describe things that there weren't any words for. They probably aren't the best words, and using the buzzwords without providing any substance underneath is the hallmark of trickery, but I don't see a problem with calling a thing by its right name. >> I don't see that it involves ripping money off from anyone. I think you >> are also displaying a bit of naivete here yourself, frankly. You need >> to understand that success doesn't happen without a great deal of >> attention to the bottom line. That attention doesn't automatically >> involve trickery or anything under-the-table, nor does it involve trying >> to "rip consumers off"; and often the most successful companies are the >> ones who figure out how to get people to buy what they're selling while >> ALSO doing lots of things that the consumer wants. But failure to pay >> attention to the bottom line is a sure route to, well... failure. >> >But when it does involve trickery, it is no longer in the interests of the >consumers. You seem to be implying that no money can ever be made without such >trickery. Again, I understand that there is a difference between advertisement >and marketeering, and I suppose I wouldn't have flown off the handle if you >hadn't come in with the stupid buzz-words. The language of evil. This focus on "evil" is out of hand, Chris. I'm sorry Marketing stole your wife and raped your dog, or whatever they did to you. But holding a grudge against the whole thing forever is so very, very... User-Friendlyesque. I mean, it's like it's the new fad to be a technical person and hate marketing or something. >That's a little cold. Coming down on a guy because the computer industry is >down and the start-up I worked for owes me enough money to buy my own boat... We all have our tales, Chris. If you buy me a beer maybe I'll share mine with you someday. >(and I blame it all on incompetent marketeers, partially because they spent all >their time in meetings trying to figure out shortcuts for ripping off customers >instead of selling the program, and partially because a lot of their lies were >immediately visible to product reviewers - "of course it doesn't do that! what >do you mean our literature says it does?") But since you're so concerned, I >moved back outta the p's house in April. Really? I don't think you're putting the blame in the right place at all, although it may well have been true for your company that Marketing sent the whole thing into the tank; it's something they're certainly capable of. I think you should put the blame for the INDUSTRY dropping, however, on all the broom-pushers who worked on their home computer for 3 months and then went out and got jobs paying $80k a year claiming they were "systems administrators"... and these people didn't even know what DNS was, much less how to configure it. All those people who read "C++ for Dummies" and then got jobs as programmers. All those people who read a few backs of magazines and then got jobs as CIOs. I think that the industry fell in the toilet upon the rest of the world realizing that the broom-pushers were taking them for a ride, had been all along, and that they really didn't know shit about the technology that everyone was claiming was the greatest; that all the yoyos who memorized the cheat sheet to an MCSE were, in fact, still just yoyos. I think there was a huge backlash related to anything technological, and I don't blame them either; I was really tired of dealing with "Minesweeper Consultants and Solitaire Experts" myself. The broom-pushers are still being weeded out of the industry. We won't see a significant upturn until they're all back to being broom-pushers, and let the rest of us be trusted again. In the meantime, it's a hard road to hoe for all of us. >Oh wait... you weren't concerned at all, were you? You were just being >facetious. I get it now, you're saying I'm a loser. Funny joke. How wily and >clever you are, Derek Rey. Sorry I didn't bite on your sob story, Chris Burger. Also sorry I didn't bother doing the stalking/research necessary to find out that it might have been true at some point before speaking. Well, not really. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <196f2577.02112...@posting.google.com>, jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<nqk5uu81353hpg6un...@4ax.com>... >> That core player base will, over time, diminish. If it is not being >> replaced by new players constantly, the game will die. The best source >> of new players remains the retail shops; people can see others having >> fun playing, see that the game looks "cool", and be recruited on the >> spot. If they're told that they have to go order cards off the Internet >> (probably in bulk, mind you) to even start, they're liable to shrug and > >All our new players have been recruited, and not in comic shops, >though a few pre-existing players found us in comic shops. Players >have been told they should buy cards on the internet, every single one >of them thought that was fine, and prefered it to buying at retail. We have countless people (ex-players) who drop by the retail store, see us playing, and say things like "Hey, I used to play that game. I didn't know anyone still played it!", along with other cute statements like "So are the Malkavians still totally broken?" >Do you have actual, direct experience with this phenomena, or are you >just creating suppositions? So far real life events in St. Louis >demonstrate the opposite to your claims. I'm willing to admit St. >Louis may not be typical, but at the least it shows your claims are >not necessarily true. At the most it shows they are entirely false. Yeah, I have plenty of direct experience with this phenomena. We can't get a number of players to play BECAUSE they can't buy in the shops. They say "We don't want to go buying all those cards and find out we don't like the game... can't we just get like a few or something?"... which can be a real bitch when the cards aren't in the store at all. We can offer them our decks, but they don't seem to go for that, they want to make something themselves. Fine. So we have contrary direct experience. Now, apply Occam's razor and Derek's Law Of Laziness (given equal options, people will seek the course involving least effort) and we get the conclusions above. I don't see the flaw here, nor do I believe there is one; and I have to say that a game **requiring** that much active recruitment from its pre-existing playerbase is as dead as it gets, and we've just got a stick up its bum and wiggling it around to make it seem live. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > some things are out of whack. Take for example Dr. Douglas Netchurch and Maris > > > Streck who are supposed to be explicit exceptions of Malkavians who don't have > > > Dementation. > > > > Dr. Douglas Netchurch has Dementation (CB:Mal Revised, p. 97) > > > True, but he doesn't like to use it, since he insists he doesn't really have > it. He is not obliged to use Dementation in the CCG, either. :-) > And he only has a point of it. Whereas, I believe he has 2 points of > Fortitude, which he uses almost constantly. Stats are adjusted for CCG concerns, of course. > Unfortunately, my gripe with Dr. N. is weakened considerably by the revelation > (which I found out a couple months ago, Eric), since it was obvious that the > Malks needed new vamps with dem, but I still would have liked to have seen Dr. > N. with Fortitude. Add fortitude and no other change? I don't think that that would be proper, balance-wise. > He's one of the few characters in the RPG that I actually > find interesting, and I kind of feel bad for him getting his face rubbed in the > Dementation thing. I see no face-rubbing, unless you mean by the CB:Mal-R entry. He has Dementation in the RPG, and it is good for the card game if that trait is preserved in the translation, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]