Hello! On my blog, I recently wrote an article about the availability of cards. Or rather, the lack of availability. It's a real problem for current players, and it completely prevents new players from getting involved. Today, I just released an article that is my best attempt to argue for why our community should embrace printed proxy cards of physical cards at all levels of play.
gamingwithbs.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/the-problem-with-card-availability-part-ii/
In this article, I argue that there are really three different ways that we could implement the idea of printed proxies, which I will briefly enumerate below. Please see the article for a more in depth discussion of each idea.
1) All cards are printed and printed cards are treated like physical cards at all levels of play.
2) A curated set (Fourth Edition, anybody?) of physical cards is created that represents the staple cards that we think all players should have access to, and any card on this set can be printed and used just like the physical card. Note that unlike previous suggestions for a Fourth Edition, this set would include no new cards, just digital versions of physical cards.
3) All cards with significant errata (Majesty, Misdirection, Concealed Weapon, Wake with Evening’s Freshness, Fifth Tradition: Hospitality, Rötschreck, Fame, Wooden Stake, and others) are put into a list where players can print these cards so that they have access to the most recent wording of these cards.
However, I wanted to make sure that this idea gets wider attention that just my blog, so I'm posting it here with the hopes that we can start a dialogue in our community about whether it is time to allow printed proxy cards to be legal. And, if we don't want to do that, how we are going to solve the card availability problem for new and current players alike. Thanks for your thoughts!
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
"Should the VEKN officially sanction printed proxies?"
If it in any way reduces the possibility of print of demand or a return to print (however slim the odds) then I don't believe they should. That is my only concern — I don't care about card value etc...
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
IMO only thing we should care is:
would it bring more players or maybe it will have negative impact on number of players because some people don't want to play with proxies. Without proper statistical survey (and pool on forum is not good for it) it's really hard to quess.
> Ke. wrote:
> If it in any way reduces the possibility of print of demand or a return to print (however slim the odds) then I don't believe they should. That is my only concern — I don't care about card value etc...
>
Well, I agree that sanctioning printed proxy cards would destroy the chance of POD - what incentive would any company have to open negotiations if their customers could just print the product for free? And I agree that POD would have been good for the game and would (likely) be preferable to printed proxies. But negotiations stalled two years ago, and they've shown no signs of being reinvigorated since. I'm honestly of the opinion that waiting for POD will lead to significantly greater damage to our game than abandoning the idea. It's time to cut our losses and move on.
> alek wrote:
> IMO only thing we should care is:
> would it bring more players or maybe it will have negative impact on number of players because some people don't want to play with proxies. Without proper statistical survey (and pool on forum is not good for it) it's really hard to quess.
>
Well, I agree with your priorities. But are you suggesting that we can never really know the consequences of our actions, so we should never take any? As for the possibility of printed proxy cards having a negative effect (driving people away from the game), I find that highly unlikely. Printed cards are already welcome in most play groups for casual games (including every play group that I've been part of or heard about. but I write "most" because my sample size is small). The difference that I'm suggesting seems to be to be a very minor one. Simply saying that what everybody is already doing (printed proxies for casual events) is now ok at tournaments. We'd just be codifying a common practice.
But the benefits for a new player are immeasurable. Right now, getting access to staple cards is often a matter of getting lucky on Ebay.
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
Interesting topic and thanks for your blog, have been enjoying it.
You are absolutely right, the player base is on the decline, and has been for a long time now. In friendly games In our country we have had many players leave (many who had played since Jyhad), then sell everything or rares online, and/or to other players if they can get a price they are happy with.
I agree that we should allow clear well printed proxies in tournaments, as I also think that this would make this game more accessible to new interested players. Even though I prefer original cards myself to play with. As long as you can read the text and the print image is average I'm fine with it.
Many potential new players are surprised when finding out starter decks/boosters are not available via games shops, and often very expensive online when compared with other supported card games. Many are very reluctant to invest into a card game when they find out the price of starter decks, boosters or single cards via eBay. Additional negative factor for potential new players is how small the play group is due to many players investing in other accessible/populated games, selling their collection and joining some other game. I myself occasionally play other card games, yet vtes is still my favorite card game.However on and off throughout the last four years have thought about selling all or most of my collection due to the small amount of vtes players we have vs many other card games.
Like many of us remaining players, I have a very good/large collection, made up of purchased expansions, trades, single cards purchased online, and from buying many collections from leaving players. I don’t even want to think about the amount of money I have paid online singles. I could sell singles and do well, however I’d rather the money value of my whole collection be drastically reduced, or gamble with the chance of missing out on the seemingly slim chance Print On Demand ever happens, than to see the population of this great game continue to die and hinder the entry of new players.
I’ve been very impressed with the quality of the last two expansions, the developers/designers/artist/testers have done an great job. Which has not impacted negatively on myself, local group or our tournaments, in regards to having to print these cards out and sleeve them. In fact it has fueled more excitement about the future of this game for current players, breathed new life with a high standard of quality, providing more diversity for vtes veterans. However to new players, they still need basic fundamental cards, which proxy obviously allow.
While I understand many players/collectors may be very reluctant to allow proxies in torni’s due to the money/time they have invested into their collection, and the effect this would have on sales/card monetary value, maybe we could come up with suggestions on how we can increase player base and make cards more accessible for new players.
> brettscho wrote:
>
> > Ke. wrote:
> > If it in any way reduces the possibility of print of demand or a return to print (however slim the odds) then I don't believe they should. That is my only concern — I don't care about card value etc...
> >
> Well, I agree that sanctioning printed proxy cards would destroy the chance of POD - what incentive would any company have to open negotiations if their customers could just print the product for free? And I agree that POD would have been good for the game and would (likely) be preferable to printed proxies. But negotiations stalled two years ago, and they've shown no signs of being reinvigorated since. I'm honestly of the opinion that waiting for POD will lead to significantly greater damage to our game than abandoning the idea. It's time to cut our losses and move on.
>
Yes, POD with Oneshelf stalled, but how is the kickstarter doing? Haven´t heard a word about that since early spring, other than someone is MAYBE trying to buy the whole IP from CCP, and that deal is going very slow. So my opinion is: Don´t do anything with the tournament rules that risks the chances of this game getting printed FOR REAL. But still, if anyone can speed up this printing thing it would be great, because the game is bleeding players, and its hard to recruit without cards.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> brettscho wrote:
> ...But negotiations stalled two years ago, and they've shown no signs of being reinvigorated since. I'm honestly of the opinion that waiting for POD will lead to significantly greater damage to our game than abandoning the idea. It's time to cut our losses and move on.
>
Actually, I'm getting more inclined to think that we should end this problem entirely.
If we sign a bunch of contracts for POD, it is more than likely that they will have sunset clauses. That means later we hit the same problem again. If we don't sign those contracts, then we have the specter of what Hasbro/CCP might do, or what happens if IP changes hands (as it has a number of times in VTES history).
Maybe it is time to push forward the otherwise 'taboo' idea of actually ending VTES and rebuilding the whole game. Rebuilt with a large number of things that functionally feel the same, maybe with stronger streamlining of glitchy bits of the rules and so on.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
my two cents:
VTES is dead (at tournament level in my country), like a former NC i would glad to do proxy tournaments, in fact, i have thinking about to do a parallel rank of proxy cards (with the Nationals Tournaments, and Continental Champions) so to allow the newbie players can access to cards (or proxy versions at a cheap cost), for many years players (specialy in my country) bully others players for don't have the "gold cards" like parthenon, I. Highway, etc etc i would like avoid that situation because the worst of vtes it was the believe of some people that are superior to the new ones only because they have the access (a matter of money) to expensives cards.
In fact, some tournaments in some countrys they play with proxy cards, is a well know fact, so why don't break this "masquerade", and allow all the rest world to do the same?
IV Edition it's a great idea also, i hope that this can bring some new players, because play with the old ones is borring because:
1) They play with the same "deck" of 10 years ago.
2) They play to kill the player to they hate more than play to win.
3) The toxic playgroup only do that the new players go to anothers games that have more players (like Magic, Pokemon, etc etc etc)
Well, if the proxy rank is allowed, i would glad try to organize a tournament after 10 years of my last tournament (the First SAC in Chile).
I am a proxy lover, i have some decks with proxy cards and i have more fun than play with a card of USD$100.-
> enriquesmw wrote:
> the "gold cards" like parthenon, I. Highway, etc etc
>
Parthenon is $2 USD and Information Highway's $1 and that's buy it now prices. Seems OK. Guess it's just perspective.
You can have a tournament viable deck in VTES for minimal outlay. Yes, once you start to explore more diverse and exotic options prices go up — but it's no where near insanity levels of MTG.
As I mentioned on the BS blog; I think the only card that really needs a VEKN version is Villein — without it large caps decks aren't all that viable and you need need 6+ of them (which is definitely an inhibitor for new players).
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
In general I believe that once you starting to allow proxies there may be no way back, so I think we should not do that. For tournaments, usually it is possible to borrow rare cards if you want a specific deck. Actually some of the best cards in VTES are still commons and uncommons, and these are easy to get for a decent price, so there is no need to break the bank for a competitive deck.
In France there have been a few experiments with tournaments allowing proxies, these would then be unsanctioned tournaments.
I attended one, it did not seem like the proxies did much to the general power level.
Still it would be the combination of a reasonably good deck combined with a skilled player that would win most.
I think card availability is not really the problem, it is rather the steep learning curve and lack of active play groups that is the barrier for new players to enter competitive play.
The lack of exposure in stores is probably a big issue, and one that will not be addressed by printed proxies.
What will draw new players is active recruitment at gaming clubs, which requires recruiters to hand out or lend out easy-to-play decks, which is something that could be easier if existing players did not have to risk their own cards.
So there are valid arguments for both allowing and disallowing printed proxies.
Speaking from my own perspective, Readily available printable sets of say the 100 most necessary library cards would take me a long way towards not being limited by my cards when improving my game.
> Borrelstein wrote:
> I think card availability is not really the problem, it is rather the steep learning curve and lack of active play groups that is the barrier for new players to enter competitive play.
>
No, I think you are wrong. Card availability is a huge problem. I would have started vtes a lot sooner if I could simply find the cards in physical stores like you can with magic/yugioh/pokemon/vanguard and every other self respecting card game.
Without physical cards/booster/expansions available in CCG stores, on display, people visiting those stores won't know vtes even exists. This means that one of the few people that still play vtes have to get people interested for a game that they never heard about, don't know the rules of and have to jump through 45 hoops to get cards from. POD still provides the barrier to entry, and so do the print them yourself expansions.
Try making vtes visible in physical places were other CCG players buy their stuff, because if they don't know it exists they will definitely not go on the internet to search for 4hrs trying to find a dealer that still has cards and can ship them to their door at regular retail price (Very VERY uncommon).
Similarly, I advocate trying to get vtes 2nd hand sales to move to a more visible platform like: www.magiccardmarket.eu/ so that when people browse cards for the games they do play they can spot vtes.
I think centralising second hand sales to a visible platform for all kinds of ccg players will help.
TLDR
Try to think of platforms other ccg players already use and try to get cards sold through that same channel, if the channel allows for visibility when you do not know VTES exists.
1. They can spot VTES as a brand through channels they already use.
2. They can buy VTES through channels they already use.
> Ke. wrote:
>
> > enriquesmw wrote:
> > the "gold cards" like parthenon, I. Highway, etc etc
> >
> Parthenon is $2 USD and Information Highway's $1 and that's buy it now prices. Seems OK. Guess it's just perspective.
>
> You can have a tournament viable deck in VTES for minimal outlay. Yes, once you start to explore more diverse and exotic options prices go up — but it's no where near insanity levels of MTG.
>
> As I mentioned on the BS blog; I think the only card that really needs a VEKN version is Villein — without it large caps decks aren't all that viable and you need need 6+ of them (which is definitely an inhibitor for new players).
>
ok, i mention that because year's ago (like 2002, 2003) that kind of card's can only be finded in some old editions (Ancient Hearths, Final Night's, etc), and that kind of rarity made the card's more valuable, now you can find at US$2.- but again, you are asking to the new player's to invest some money (maybe not so much) to try to learn a "new" game, when you have to do is made the easy's way to learn it, a then, you can ask to them they buy "real cards" (like special tournaments with "non proxy cards" 1 or 2 for year with some good "prizes" or a special bonus if they made the final table, or any good idea).
The idea is bring more chances to teach to the new players, because print proxy card's have some cost (specialy time), so if you allowed the "new proxy expansions", why not made the "IV edition proxy"? And also, there are so many tournaments that maybe are allowing (in secret) proxy cards, so please bring this masquerade down and allow the rest of the world to do this.
In Chile never would be plausible to do a secret proxy tournament, because the hate between old players are far know, so they will scream at the second they will find it, and for me, is better with proxy beacuse it keep away the old "toxics" players (because they hate proxy but also they don't play tournament any more, the only think that they do is bring down any effort to relive the local metagame)
Some clarifications: Chile shouldn't be used as an argument/example about anything regarding vtes, it's a group of 15 people having issues with each other for about 20 years. Nothing healthy can be said and done about it and nothing will ever change about it, believe me, I've tried. VTES on chile will work when every single one of that generation retires.
On topic, it depends on what's VEKN plan for next x years. I don't know, 2 or 3. It is not something that can be discussed in a vacuum. Same can be said about new players: VTES being print-dead, it is important but what other variables comes into it? Thing have been discused and done regarding starter manuals and starting sets but I don't know if it has been discused as a whole: print status/proxies, new players not arriving, old players retiring, secondary market.
i think I'm with Juggernaut1 here, dealing with both Hasbro and CCP will always complicate things so perhaps adapt game mechanics and play about generic vampires, generic werewolves or generic pirates may be the way to go and since we're on it, let's make it LCG so availability is not an issue and generic-enkil-generic-cog doesn't cost a ton of money
Brett's question is almost rhetorical. The next obvious step is to recognize proxies. The likelihood that a new publisher will be able to take up the game is very, very low, but it is that possibility that prevents the VEKN from recognizing proxies.
VEKN should probably still give lip service to the possibility of a new publisher, but they should act realistically. And they are, by creating new cards for tournament play. The next step is going to come sooner or later.
But besides the VEKN, the question should also be posed to play groups: should you allow proxies in casual play? I've spent a lot on VTES cards, but I am no longer interested in spending any more. I don't play enough. If I need a spare card and I can't borrow it, I'm going to proxy it.
I like Brett's idea of allowing proxies of revised cards. Specifically, I would like a print-ready version of those cards that I could place over my old versions. In my last game, I incorrectly played Taste of Vitae because I had an older version.
The logic of "game will not be picked up by new publisher if vekn allow proxies" is behind my understanding for a log time. It's maybe the case for OBS, but real company obviously will reboot the game making all old cards/proxies irrelevant.
The idea, that the value of cards will drop is also questionable - Enkil Cog, Villein, Summon History and smth like it maybe, but most of the cards maybe will even grow in price if the game became more played. As was already said - people prefer to play with real cards and quite ready to pay for it (look at the mtg players who pays rediculous amounts for "foil" cards with got no additional game value).
One other idea from mtg of alloving proxies (in Vintage format) - emake a cap for proxies (10-15) as well as adding some additional trophy for highest standing non-proxied deck.
NC Russia
> brettscho wrote:
>
> > alek wrote:
> > IMO only thing we should care is:
> > would it bring more players or maybe it will have negative impact on number of players because some people don't want to play with proxies. Without proper statistical survey (and pool on forum is not good for it) it's really hard to quess.
> >
> Well, I agree with your priorities. But are you suggesting that we can never really know the consequences of our actions, so we should never take any? As for the possibility of printed proxy cards having a negative effect (driving people away from the game), I find that highly unlikely. Printed cards are already welcome in most play groups for casual games (including every play group that I've been part of or heard about. but I write "most" because my sample size is small). The difference that I'm suggesting seems to be to be a very minor one. Simply saying that what everybody is already doing (printed proxies for casual events) is now ok at tournaments. We'd just be codifying a common practice.
>
> But the benefits for a new player are immeasurable. Right now, getting access to staple cards is often a matter of getting lucky on Ebay.
>
I'm not suggesting that we can never really know consequences of our actions. I'm suggesting that before taking such steps like allowing proxies we should do a thorough examination of the expected results. That's because such move don't have only positive apsects but also a lot of negative ones. Instead of getting new players we can get no new and lost o lot of old players. To have better insight in the problem vekn should f.e. organize worlwide survey. It can be done with help of NC and local princes which should gather all neccesary data. Only then we should consider such changes.
> elotar wrote:
> The idea, that the value of cards will drop is also questionable - Enkil Cog, Villein, Summon History and smth like it maybe, but most of the cards maybe will even grow in price if the game became more played. As was already said - people prefer to play with real cards and quite ready to pay for it (look at the mtg players who pays rediculous amounts for "foil" cards with got no additional game value).
>
im pretty sure publishers give zero fucks about the secondary market, as people buying used cards aren't necessarily buying packs.
Vtes also has a number of legacy issues to deal with, and that may also prove to be a limiting factor in getting it reprinted.
> Borrelstein wrote:
> In general I believe that once you starting to allow proxies there may be no way back, so I think we should not do that.
>
I agree with this.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> self wrote:
> im pretty sure publishers give zero fucks about the secondary market, as people buying used cards aren't necessarily buying packs.
>
They will buy packs if the publishers put what they want inside. Look how quick HttB starters sold.
> im pretty sure publishers give zero fucks about the secondary market, as people buying used cards aren't necessarily buying packs.
>
That's a very incorrect statement. Every publisher I know of places direct thought into their secondary market sales. That's a part of what leads to Box Rarity spread and print run management. A fine example of this is when either WOTC or Yu-Gi-Oh does their reprints. They are usually different and carefully distributed in a specifically limited manner to ensure that the secondary market is now injured.
The secondary market is directly responsible for the distribution of the games themselves. The game is spread by the availability of the cards. One of the biggest failures that this game ever had, that and a player base that let the idea of being Methuselah's get to their heads and replace their realities.
This game didn't spread by having players accidentally discover this game from some other media. It spread by having a network of Prince's and players promoting the game with physically attainable and usable cards in store fronts. The biggest complaint that both other game store owners and I always had about the game was that only the packs had value. There were no inherent secondary market values to encourage cracking boxes (the number one way that some games get sold) and buying/selling singles. This was partially because card values were average at best with no "money" rares most of the time. This was always a great selling point of the game to players, but it also meant that less boxes overall would turn.
Httb was the first real example of the dynamic trying to change. It gave me hope in the game moving toward the future.
However, as a store owner and a gamer I would be very disappointed to see this game simply turn into a print and play proxy mess. I already dislike the current method of printing cards from new sets and I feel like it drags the game down just a bit and have felt like I should have GotPrint make a few copies of cards our group wants to play, but I worry about the game legality of this.
> Borrelstein wrote:
> In general I believe that once you starting to allow proxies there may be no way back, so I think we should not do that.
>
I confess that this attitude confuses me. Are you suggesting that once we allow proxy cards, we *can't* go back, or that we *shouldn't* go back? Because the first statement is simply untrue. One day we say "Proxies are legal in tournaments until such time as the game is picked up by a publisher and physical cards are once again available." That would allow players to get involved with the game now, and in a hypothetical future where CCP allows another company to buy the rights for a decent price, then proxies would no longer be tournament legal. Is that really so complicated or difficult to enforce?
But the question of whether we *should* go back is a more nuanced question - giving players the ability to print any card they want and then suddenly taking that away might not be seen favorably. So I can see an argument there. But I think that most people who join the game want to buy real cards. They don't want to just print out pieces of paper. The problem is that they can't easily acquire staple cards.
> TheLich wrote:
> However, as a store owner and a gamer I would be very disappointed to see this game simply turn into a print and play proxy mess. I already dislike the current method of printing cards from new sets and I feel like it drags the game down just a bit and have felt like I should have GotPrint make a few copies of cards our group wants to play, but I worry about the game legality of this.
>
I appreciate your view as a store owner - it's clearly very different than mine as somebody who is only a player. But I have to vigorously refute your insinuation that the health of a card game is dependent on the health of the secondary market. That would be ignoring the massive success that Fantasy Flight Games has had with their Living Card Game system, which literally has no secondary market. In many ways, we are seeing a revival of the early 90's when CCGs were all the rage and there were a massive number of them - except that the CCG model is dead (except for the king - Magic), and it's LCGs that are popping up all the time. The model has even spread outside of FFG - AEG released Doomtown using the LCG model (but not the name).
I also understand your preference for physical cards over printed slips of paper. I think we would all like to be able to purchase these new cards and financially support the game that we all enjoy. However, that doesn't appear to be an option any more - multiple companies have approached CCP and WotC looking to acquire the license to the game and they have all been rebuffed. At this point, our options are to just let the game die or to accept that some changes need to be made (like new cards that are just pieces of paper).
I'm also curious why you are unhappy with the printed cards - may I ask what specific problems you have with the system? Maybe we could change something to make it more palatable.
Finally, just so you know, the only legal shield that the VEKN has in regards to the new print-and-play expansions isn't a legal one at all - it's a social one. The shield is that neither CCP nor WotC cares enough to take the issue to court (which they certainly could). As long as nobody makes any money from it, that situation is likely to continue. That means that getting your cards professionally printed would be a big mistake (the print company is making money that WotC and CCP "should" or "could" be making). This all assumes that there isn't contract that I'm unaware of between WotC / CCP and the VEKN.
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
> brettscho wrote:
> One day we say "Proxies are legal in tournaments until such time as the game is picked up by a publisher and physical cards are once again available." That would allow players to get involved with the game now, and in a hypothetical future where CCP allows another company to buy the rights for a decent price, then proxies would no longer be tournament legal. Is that really so complicated or difficult to enforce?
>
There are two different aspects to this.
1) Could we enforce it? Possibly yes, possibly no.
2) Would a company think "I know, I'll sink tens of thousands of dollars of work into a product where the players currently play for free by printing out and photocopying stuff?" It's a risk for them, even if it's one they're willing to take. And even if they do take it, it might affect how you go about things. Would you, for instance, print a set that has a lot of reprints in it(*), if you were worried that fewer players would buy it, because they're happy using their photocopies for that - driving sales down overall?
(*) Could be a base set. Could just be doing something like saying "Well, we want to make a Laibon set, so we'll reprint these 50 key Laibon cards, plus our new stuff."
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> 1) Could we enforce it? Possibly yes, possibly no.
>
I honestly don't see why there would be problems enforcing it. Many play groups have already admitted to allowing proxy cards in their casual games, but they all switch to using physical cards when playing in tournaments. That seems to offer proof that "once you go proxy, you can never go back" isn't true.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> 2) Would a company think "I know, I'll sink tens of thousands of dollars of work into a product where the players currently play for free by printing out and photocopying stuff?" It's a risk for them, even if it's one they're willing to take. And even if they do take it, it might affect how you go about things. Would you, for instance, print a set that has a lot of reprints in it(*), if you were worried that fewer players would buy it, because they're happy using their photocopies for that - driving sales down overall?
>
Oh, I totally agree with you - allowing proxies will destroy any chance that a company is able to buy the rights to reprint old cards (although I think this will have no bearing on a company wanting to make a different Vampire or WoD card game). No company would want to start negotiations under those circumstances. The question is - how long are will willing to wait for printed cards. I know of three separate attempts to negotiate for this all of which failed. Perhaps I'm just being a pessimist, but I honestly don't see any hope of printed cards in the near to moderate (1-5 years) future. And I think that if we wait another 5 years, the game will be truly be dead (according to the steady decrease in attendance at events since 2012). I guess that I see allowing proxies as putting a bullet into an already dead horse. Am I wrong? Is there hope worth waiting for?
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
> hat would be ignoring the massive success that Fantasy Flight Games has had with their Living Card Game system, which literally has no secondary market.
>
To clarify something very important. LCGs do have a secondary market. You can buy singles directly from several vendors online to avoid having to buy cards from groups you would never want cards from. (ex. I play Grayjoy and I would rather not have to spend $15 to get 3 copies of 3 cards that I want to play. So instead another person opens it and sells me my 3 copies, another guy his copies and another theirs. This lowers the overall cost of an LCG while still encouraging an indirect purchase. It is essentially the same thing as what is done in a CCG.
> I'm also curious why you are unhappy with the printed cards - may I ask what specific problems you have with the system? Maybe we could change something to make it more palatable.
>
My biggest problem is that they look like proxies because you need to use thin paper to make it less obvious you are playing with proxies.
> However, that doesn't appear to be an option any more - multiple companies have approached CCP and WotC looking to acquire the license to the game and they have all been rebuffed.
>
This all feels very false. I find it difficult to believe that none of these companies want this money. We know that most of what WotC can claim rights to has fallen out of Copyright and CCP allowed someone to talk to them about a new WoD system. So there are clearly reachable people. I think the best plan would be to seek a final number on costs and then present those costs to the public and announce a Kick Starter to gather the funds needed to seal these deals. If it doesn't go off, then we discuss official proxies because the game is actually dead. Otherwise, the game gets the shot in the arm it needs. Right now we're all just whining because no company wants to pick up the game where the players keep begging to get unlimited copies of their cards for essentially free.
*didn't realize I had repeated some rhetoric.
> TheLich wrote:
> I think the best plan would be to seek a final number on costs and then present those costs to the public and announce a Kick Starter to gather the funds needed to seal these deals.
>
That requires prior consent from all involved licensing parties. I am pretty sure you can´t launch a kickstarter to gather money for licenses that you might be able to acquire or not. Then it seems unlikely to get consent from several licensing parties on the possibility that you might collect enough money through a kickstarter.
> TheLich wrote:
> I stated that you seek a final number for costs.
> I expected that you would know I was implying all costs and securing agreements for those costs.
>
See the last point of my post. Securing the agreement usually means that you sit down and both sign a contract, for example that you are buying rights on VTES for 1.000.000.000€ from WotC. But that requires you having those €, because you have to pay even if you kickstarter doesn´t succeed. That´s why kickstarter is no option, it´s a deadlock. Can´t get the license without money but can´t get money unless you have the license.
> TheLich wrote:
> This all feels very false. I find it difficult to believe that none of these companies want this money. We know that most of what WotC can claim rights to has fallen out of Copyright and CCP allowed someone to talk to them about a new WoD system. So there are clearly reachable people. I think the best plan would be to seek a final number on costs and then present those costs to the public and announce a Kick Starter to gather the funds needed to seal these deals. If it doesn't go off, then we discuss official proxies because the game is actually dead. Otherwise, the game gets the shot in the arm it needs. Right now we're all just whining because no company wants to pick up the game where the players keep begging to get unlimited copies of their cards for essentially free.
>
I agree that they should want to license this out, but they haven't thus far. I'll list the failed attempts (that I know of...) below. Maybe CCP and WotC just want too much money - I have no idea what the snag has been.
Onebookshelf.com: The owner of Onebookshelf.com even used to be a high exec in White Wolf... maybe the former owner of White Wolf? This was (as far as I know), the closest anybody has come to making Print-On-Demand possible:
News during negotations
News that negotations had been put on ice
Interestingly, the last article says that there would be no news until mid 2014 (which lines up with the experation date of the Gamemaster copyright). So... has there been any news? I didn't play during 2014 - does anybody remember this coming back up?
Fantasy Flight Games: They were interested in just licensing the World of Darkness setting (so I have no idea if WotC was involved in any way), and there are a number of reports of early playtesting of the LCG game that this would have been. It was (supposedly) a 2 or 4 player game that kept a lot of ideas like stealth / intercept, predator and prey (for multiplayer), but the factions were Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, etc, rather than clan. Richard Garfield even did an interview where he talked about how excited he was that FFG was picking up VTES.
BBG post that contains links to relevant posts - including an FFG exec verifying that negotiations had happened, but were no longer
Kickstarter Campaign: Hrmm... people on the forums told me about this (and it's mentioned earlier in this thread... but I can't find anything else about it by searching on this site, so I have to assume that this was never seriously considered / negotiated.
So I guess I only have info on those two attempts.
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
> TheLich wrote:
> This all feels very false. I find it difficult to believe that none of these companies want this money.
>
It doesn't matter if some of the companies want the money: if any of the companies don't want it, there is no deal. (And by some and any, I mean one and either.)
WotC has a compelling reason to not license the game because the game is in competition with MtG. Back in '96, I basically stopped playing MtG because my playgroup got involved with VTES. MtG players are the most likely recruits to VTES because of the similarities between the games' mechanics. It is unlikely that a MtG player would just keep spending as much on MtG if he also started buying VTES.
CCP might have all kinds of business, creative, and arbitrary reasons not to want to license a product set in the OWoD.
Both entities could have real reasons to not want the money, which is probably not that much any way. Or, to make it worth their while, they may have made the asking price for the license so high as to make it an impossible proposition for the potential licensee. And it only requires one of the two to veto it.
My prediction is that the game is never going to be picked up again. Not-for-profit reprinting is the only way to keep it alive.
> johannes wrote:
> See the last point of my post. Securing the agreement usually means that you sit down and both sign a contract, for example that you are buying rights on VTES for 1.000.000.000€ from WotC. But that requires you having those €, because you have to pay even if you kickstarter doesn´t succeed. That´s why kickstarter is no option, it´s a deadlock. Can´t get the license without money but can´t get money unless you have the license.
>
Hi Johannes - I was actually just doing some digging on the forums, and I kept finding places where people were suggesting that things might change in 2014 for the Onebookshelf.com negotiations. This includes the final statement that you made about it just before Danse Macabre was release, and the 2013 NC meeting notes (sadly, I couldn't find any 2014 or 2015 NC meeting notes). And Ben posted this last year:
> BenPeal wrote:
> The idea of allowing proxies or printouts of difficult/expensive-to-acquire cards was proposed at the National Coordinator meeting at the Stockholm EC. It was agreed that we'd defer the idea for a year so we can see if there's any substantial update on getting the game back in print, and to test the idea of proxies in a tournament environment. It is to my understanding that such testing has been done in France for the French National Championship and its national qualifiers (not its continental qualifiers). It is also to my understanding that negotiations among OneBookshelf.com, White Wolf, and Hasbro are ongoing, but haven't had an update in about a year (apart from the sudden news that Fantasy Flight Games was in and then out of negotiations).
>
> So, at the EC in Mannheim, we'll see what our French colleagues have to say about their proxy experiment, and we'll see if Johannes Walch or Steve Wieck have anything material to report. From there, we'll make a decision (or perhaps defer the decision again) on what to do (or not do) about allowing proxies.
>
So I guess I'm wondering if there is any news on these negotiations? Please feel free to just tell me that you can't talk about it, but if there is any indication that this deal was progressing at all (even just confirmation that WotC no longer needs to be involved in negotations), that would be amazing, and would really put to rest this idea of proxies! Thanks for all the time you've put into all this!
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
> AaronC wrote:
> CCP might have all kinds of business, creative, and arbitrary reasons not to want to license a product set in the OWoD.
>
Vampire: The Masquerade IV is going to be a thing . So, they might want another product to support that IP (or not).
> TheLich wrote:
>
> > im pretty sure publishers give zero fucks about the secondary market, as people buying used cards aren't necessarily buying packs.
> >
> That's a very incorrect statement. [...]
>
i intended to say something more along the lines of 'publishers may not care about how much your collection is worth when deciding reprinting cards,' but i was rushed for time and typing on my phone.
> Ben wrote:
> So, at the EC in Mannheim, we'll see what our French colleagues have to say about their proxy experiment, and we'll see if Johannes Walch or Steve Wieck have anything material to report. From there, we'll make a decision (or perhaps defer the decision again) on what to do (or not do) about allowing proxies.
>
> Brettscho wrote:
> So I guess I'm wondering if there is any news on these negotiations?
>
Deathly silence around this forum on a big topic like "Are we going into print?" and with the VEKN in general is rarely a great sign.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Deathly silence around this forum on a big topic like "Are we going into print?" and with the VEKN in general is rarely a great sign.
>
while I agree that it doesn't bode well, the VEKN IC is also somewhat notorious for not always communicating effectively. There may still be "nothing to report."
> self wrote:
> while I agree that it doesn't bode well, the VEKN IC is also somewhat notorious for not always communicating effectively. There may still be "nothing to report."
>
The last time I talked to someone in the VEKN board about this the message was that CCP is looking to sell the whole Vampire/WoD intellectual property, and that allowing someone to print a single game (VtES) would disturb such a deal. I have understanding for that.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
ben/damnas/someone- can we get some kind of sticky thread detailing what we know? it might be beneficial to have everything in one place so we don't see this thread every few months.
Ashur: that's news to me. though the logic seems incongruous yo the fact that Onyx Path is developing masquerade v4. Onyx Path =/= CCP, right?
> self wrote:
> ben/damnas/someone- can we get some kind of sticky thread detailing what we know? it might be beneficial to have everything in one place so we don't see this thread every few months.
>
Actually lots of armchair pundits on it, would be useless like teats on a bull...
> Ashur: that's news to me. though the logic seems incongruous yo the fact that Onyx Path is developing masquerade v4. Onyx Path =/= CCP, right?
>
Because Onyx Path is an old agreement, which can be valued and easily priced into the IP transaction. Open negotiations for the IP would be a lot more problematic for pricing the IP transaction.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
A lot of very good information about this topic from the 2015 National Coordinator's meeting just got posted here . But below are my take-aways as they relate to proxy cards. (A quick note - I'm trying to summarize information here, not judge - but a lot of this seems valuable to our current discussion)
1) The IC is interested in the possibility, but is hesitant for all the same reasons we are. Particularly the possibility of print-on-demand. A two year “experiment” has been going on in France to allow proxy cards at some (maybe all?) tournaments. The first year proved to be very successful (“Resurrected players,” among other benefits), and while the second year apparently had a much smaller impact, no down sides or problems were reported. There is even a French project started by Orian Gissler to have ~100 decks built entire of proxy cards for new players to use. However, even after all of this, a non-binding vote of the 17 members in attendance resulted in an 8-8 split regarding proxy cards (with 1 abstention).
2) One possibility being discussed is having different tournament formats – some that allow proxy cards, and others that do not. Personally, I think this is a bad way to go, but I can understand why people would want to keep the highest level events “pure.”
3) Walch & Nusser is shutting down their store (actually, it's already down), and then will liquidate their stock of VTES at the end of the year. This means that the largest remaining stock of sealed cards is about to vanish, making it almost impossible for new players to get cards other than through current players, or buying singles.
4) The VEKN has not been incorporated as a non-profit (“HA asked if this was legal given VEKN is not an entity in any legal sense [not a company, charity or other body recognised under law] so cannot make contracts.”). This makes it especially important to step lightly in legal matters since there is nothing to shield volunteers from personal liability.
5) Negotiations for POD are ongoing, but on “hiatus.” Here is a direct quote from the NC minutes:
- talks with CCP regarding the WOD license are on hiatus.
- CCP did however, indicate that they are not interested in licensing a VTES-compatible game that cuts out Wizards.
- still no word from Wizards.
- Design Team developed a boxed set of Sabbat-themed pre-con starters for OneBookshelf, with the idea that it would be the primary Kickstarter product in a 2015 release. If no movement by Wizards or CCP by the end of the year, the VEKN will release the new cards from that set as a Sabbat mini set.
Maybe that means that we wait until the end of the year before doing anything “drastic”? I do find it interesting that the wide-spread use of printed proxy cards doesn't seem to have been a determinant in the negotiations. Onebookshelf.com must be confident that players will buy cards if able (I think this is a very reasonable assumption).
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
> Ashur wrote:
>
> > self wrote:
> > while I agree that it doesn't bode well, the VEKN IC is also somewhat notorious for not always communicating effectively. There may still be "nothing to report."
> >
> The last time I talked to someone in the VEKN board about this the message was that CCP is looking to sell the whole Vampire/WoD intellectual property, and that allowing someone to print a single game (VtES) would disturb such a deal. I have understanding for that.
>
In an unrelated news:
www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/9/11/a-new-emperor-rises/
i've not followed L5R since the Diamond Edition or so. Though the game has gone through three different designs for its card layouts, and was still successful.
> brettscho wrote:
> 5) Negotiations for POD are ongoing, but on “hiatus.” Here is a direct quote from the NC minutes:
> - talks with CCP regarding the WOD license are on hiatus.
> - CCP did however, indicate that they are not interested in licensing a VTES-compatible game that cuts out Wizards.
> - still no word from Wizards.
> - Design Team developed a boxed set of Sabbat-themed pre-con starters for OneBookshelf, with the idea that it would be the primary Kickstarter product in a 2015 release. If no movement by Wizards or CCP by the end of the year, the VEKN will release the new cards from that set as a Sabbat mini set.
>
Actually this right here basically can boil down to "We don't want to get into a fight with Hasbro over old IP. So VTES stuff that doesn't involve Hasbro risks us.
Solution: Build a game similar to VTES, but not VTES, to avoid Hasbro IP entirely. CCP would seem open to that solution.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Solution: Build a game similar to VTES, but not VTES, to avoid Hasbro IP entirely. CCP would seem open to that solution.
>
That CCP have said they're not interested in a V:TES-without-Hasbro option doesn't mean that they're open to your solution. It could just mean that someone - OneBookshelf, V:EKN etc. - pressed specifically on "Would you licence this if Hasbro don't agree?" and CCP said no, without enumerating all the other things they might say no to.
Consider the FFG LCG V:TES story that came and went fairly quickly. From what we've heard, it appears that it would have been a V:TES-ish game, but not V:TES. What was the blocker? Could have been commercial terms, could have been FFG's proposal, could have been a personality clash, or whatever. But it could also be that they don't want to do it, for whatever reason. Maybe they want to offload all the WoD IP in one go, without extra dangling bits. Maybe they don't want to annoy Hasbro (e.g. for any future possible arrangements between them), even if what is suggested is done in a totally 100% legally watertight fashion. Given FFG's good track record with licensing IP and putting out games, including games based on some extremely valuable and high-profile IP, you'd reasonably assume that they weren't complete bozos when approaching CCP - and, if so, what was the problem that stopped them coming to an agreement on a WoD-ish/V:tM-ish LCG?
Open to the idea... Not necessarily "all over the idea and keen to put something out there".
I am basically reiterating with a different focus. CCP won't touch a VTES print that doesn't include Hasbro.
So, they may consider a non-VTES but VtM/VtR-themed game that doesn't have the Hasbro IP built into it.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> self wrote:
>
> > Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > Deathly silence around this forum on a big topic like "Are we going into print?" and with the VEKN in general is rarely a great sign.
> >
> while I agree that it doesn't bode well, the VEKN IC is also somewhat notorious for not always communicating effectively. There may still be "nothing to report."
>
Be assured we will inform players of any "final" step (whichever direction it is).
We are still looking for solutions, be they proxies, or other publisher, or anything else. It's just that we don't really consider it important enough to let you know things like "Johannes sent an email and is waiting for an answer" (plus, some discussions might be under NDA).
If someone decided to publish another Vampire the Masquerade based card game, it is highly possible that even though I'd check the new core box I'd most likely wouldn't start playing it. As it ain't VTES.
Finnish Politics!
> Be assured we will inform players of any "final" step (whichever direction it is).
> We are still looking for solutions, be they proxies, or other publisher, or anything else. It's just that we don't really consider it important enough to let you know things like "Johannes sent an email and is waiting for an answer" (plus, some discussions might be under NDA).
>
I feel like all signs point to the ( ) text explaining everything. This is the third post that I've read that points towards an unpublicized discussion occurring. Couple with a strong interest in re-promotion, I almost wonder if this topic was even worth discussing.
> Pascal wrote:
> It's just that we don't really consider it important enough to let you know things like "Johannes sent an email and is waiting for an answer" (plus, some discussions might be under NDA).
>
Well, I can see why some might not feel like such news would be important, but I would argue that it is very good for the community to know that negotiations are ongoing. We're trying to hold this community together, and having nothing but silence come form the leadership provides the impression that the house is still standing, but nobody's home. By which I mean, silence makes it seem like nothing is moving or changing on the game - that no work is being done. And clearly that isn't the case. From the NC meeting notes - you guys are doing some great work, but the silence projects a very different impression.
> TheLich wrote:
> I almost wonder if this topic was even worth discussing.
>
I think this is a very relevant topic. Clearly, it's one that the inner circle is debating amongst themselves. But each year that they have brought up the issue (see the minutes from the National Coordinator meeting in 2012, 2013, and 2015 ) they have asked how the community feels about the issue, but they have yet to put out of public poll of any kind. So discussions like this are the only way for the leadership to gauge how the community feels, and what issues are facing it.
Also, for the record, the poll on my own website shows that 40/48 participants support at least some level of printable proxy cards. Another 2/48 prefer to we simply facilitate online play (again, where any card is open). Only 6/48 think that printable proxies are a bad idea for the community. That's a pretty small minority. It's interesting to me that the National Coordinator meeting was split 50-50 when they voted because this does not appear to be in agreement with the current sentiment at least among players who filled out my survey.
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
> brettscho wrote:
> I think this is a very relevant topic. Clearly, it's one that the inner circle is debating amongst themselves. But each year that they have brought up the issue (see the minutes from the National Coordinator meeting in 2012, 2013, and 2015 ) they have asked how the community feels about the issue, but they have yet to put out of public poll of any kind. So discussions like this are the only way for the leadership to gauge how the community feels, and what issues are facing it.
>
The Inner Circle has created a poll about this issue that will be posted shortly.
V:EKN Website Coordinator