Re: Would you like to see it?

I think the interview in 2001 with Richard Garfield found at
http://www.vtesinla.org/articleGarfield.htm, discussing his thoughts
on the evolution of Jyhad/VTES, to be very telling to this
discussion.

On Aug 4, 5:02 pm, jwjbwhe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 4, 6:32 pm, LSJ <vtes...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
cf. allies using retainers. Many retainers were originally
printed as only usable by vampires. But they weren't
MEANT to be only usable by vampires.

Usually, people mean what they say.  Sometimes, people don't consider
their choice of words adequately, and it can be said that they did not
really mean what they said.  It is possible that this was the case in
the way certain retainers were worded.

I cannot possibly stretch this idea to cover any claim that Garfield
did not really mean the crypt to be vampires-only.  Clearly that was a
deliberate design choice.

Yes, since the game was based on Vampire: The Masquerade, and you
don't often throw everything into the melting pot all at once when
you're developing something that could be potentially very big. So you
start with the basics, and build upwards.

If you're going to base your arguments on what the original Jyhad CCG
offered, then I hope you don't play Independents or Sabbat, since they
too weren't part of the original design. If I were to use your
arguments, clearly it was a design choice that only the original 7
Camarilla clans should have been vampire cards in your Crypt.

Heck, the original design plan gave us totally random starter decks. I
think we're all thankful that we no longer use this design convention.

They were not even called "crypt cards" originally.  There was a
"crypt", but it was where you kept your "vampire cards".  Those were
the two types of JYHAD cards:  "Vampire Cards" and "Library Cards".

For instance, from section 5:  "Each card deck is composed of *library
cards* and *vampire cards*.  Each player will need at least 12 vampire
cards ...."

Clearly the terms were meant to be catch-all phrases to describe the
cards. It's rather cumbersome to say your deck of Action, Action
Modifer, Combat, Political Action, Retainer, Ally, Equipment and
Reaction Cards .. so you group them under an umbrella term, like
'Library Cards'.

Likewise, when the game was originally designed there were just 111
vampires as crypt cards. It's just as easy to call them vampire cards
(since they are cards that represent vampires) as it is to call them
crypt cards. Much like if all you have are apples for a fruit stand,
you could just as easily call it an apple stand. Doesn't mean that you
can't one day add oranges.

When the name of the game changed, and all "Jyhad Cards" became
"Vampire Cards", the former "Vampire cards" were renamed "crypt
cards".

(I agree, however, that it does not necessarily follow that Garfield
would disapprove of the revisions being made now.)

I think this is a telling quote from the above interview:

"Garfield: ... I just know that the mileage I get out of a single
word, game design wise, has increased a lot, and we make much more
concise cards than we used to that are as rich or richer than the old
ones."

So he is in agreement with you on a point, words hold a particular
power in card games. But the words you're clinging to even the game
designer has moved on from. Garfield since learned that terms are much
more useful than he first thought, and that clarity is paramount.

Plus, remember that he was commissioned to design this game. From the
interview, it certainly doesn't seem like this was a labour of love,
beyond developing the actual mechanics of the game. The theme and
flavour of the game was just window dressing.

The designer was simply focusing on vampires.

Sure he was.  But that was precisely what he MEANT to do.  And it can
hardly be said that he was so focussed on vampires that he forgot to
create other types of minions.  He did create other minions.  He
called them "allies" (meaning "allies" of your vampires) and
deliberately provided for a separate means of getting them into play.

He did indeed, because he and the designers wanted these other
entities in the game, but took the starting design route to just have
vampires as Crypt cards. Nothing in this indicates that other
supernaturals couldn't later come as crypt cards, just like nothing
precluded vampires being created by various library cards.

You have to start with basics for a game of this scope. The
development of VTES mirrors that of V:tM very closely. The original
RPG gave us just the 7 Camarilla clans. Then sourcebooks started
coming out (much like card expansion sets) giving us Independent
clans, some Bloodlines, and eventually the Sabbat clans. These all
built upon the original concept, even though they were never really
included in the original book. Eventually, the entire RPG line was
_revised_ ... clearing up rules, streamlining the game and concept,
making things more cohesive. The later revisions included the
Independent and Sabbat clans right off. Why? Because it as found that
these were popular and viable character choices, something that
probably wasn't considered when V:tM was first printed.

Hence: "crypt", "burn", and retainers' texts.
"crypt" is only one of many indications of this.  The
assumption  was incorporated into the rulebook and many
subsequently-printed cards.
No. It's one of the clever names used that indicates nothing
further in the foundations of the game. Like burn.

I disagree.  Sorry.

How can you possibly disagree with this point? If terms like 'burn'
and 'ash heap' are clever terms, wouldn't it make sense that other non-
game terms be in the same vein? (Yes indeed, pun intended!)

The term is clearly tongue-in-cheek, something clever to respesent
your stack of then vampire cards. If you know anything about the RPG,
you'd know that many of the hollywood vampire conventions don't apply
to 'real' vampires, including the fact that they don't sleep in
coffins in some dank tomb.

I can appreciate your desire to maintain the pure vampire feel you
want from the game. I just think hinging it all based on a term chosen
when the game was first developed is not the thing to do. The game has
always been about you, an elder Metheselah, manipulating others to
your own ends. Why would these ancient, powerful beings refrain from
using whatever tools they had access to? I find it sweet irony that
the Imbued are so manipulated to believing they are bettering the
world by destroying the plans of other Methuselahs, while all the time
just furthering victory for another.

Chris, Thrall of Arika
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nights of Reckoning
    ... > If one looks at the numbers of crypt cards, ... Not allies, not werewolves, not hunters, but vampires. ... But in terms of game mechannics, ... I suspect that the mechanics involved will be fairly simple, ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)
  • Re: Direction of V:TES
    ... investment in cards that will ONLY work in these niche decks, ... worst case they seriously unbalance the existing game dynamic, ... vampires vying for control over the mortals, ... most of the powerbases are useless, ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)
  • Re: Would you like to see it?
    ... called Vampire Cards and formed your Crypt, ... used Crypt Cards forming your Crypt .. ... vampires as crypt cards. ... entities in the game, but took the starting design route to just have ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)
  • Re: How to save VtES?
    ... My hate list comprise, unlike yours, only "shut up" cards: ... I have played Shambling Hordes decks often enough, ... There are many Nasty Combos in that game. ... non-Camarilla vampires ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)
  • Re: New Format Idea
    ... I try to build decks that can survive the rough times, move cards ... They exist, and we must deal with them, due to design choices ... isn't necessary for a game to be designed in this way and, IMHO, ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)