I've just recently had something rather nice happen to me because
I've been contributing to TWH. My roommates, Bob and George, have seen
some of the zines I've written (I tend to have zines written ahead of
time, and add comments later). They urged me to submit some to
Adventurer's Club, a Hero System magazine, as a possible column. The
editors, Bruce Harlick and Bill Robinson, liked the roughs, and asked me
to be a columnist.
They also invited me into a game they have regularly, on the basis of
what they considered the unusual opinions I showed in the column roughs
(funny, I don't feel unusual! :-). This game was started about 10 years
to play-test Fantasy Hero. It is what I referred to once as an
"incestuous" game -- the players are a somewhat elitist group that knows
each others' body language well, and are somewhat resistant to new
players. [George's comment on hearing I'd been invited, (mock sneer)
"ooOOooh. I see you've arrived in the game world!" :-)]
Anyway, that's not the nice thing I was mentioning. What I thought
was nice was when one of the players in the game came to me and said
he'd read my roughs. He'd realized, by reading my column roughs, that
his behavior might be construed as unfriendly to a new person, and that
wasn't the impression he wanted to give. So he came up to me to tell me
this.
I'm tremendously pleased! It's so nice when someone both understands
and agrees with your opinions!
I've just spent my weekend at Pacificon. *groan* Ask me later.
Anyway, while in the dealer's room Bob, one of my roommates, asked the
Task Force Games people if the next printing of the Central Casting
supplement "Heroes Now" would still contain the politically correct
point of view, as expressed by Paul Jaquays (sp?). They answered yes, as
they had heard from very few people complaining about the supplement. I
intend to write them a letter and I'd like to quote comments from The
Wild Hunt. I've found a number of zines where it is mentioned, but if
anyone has anything specific they want to remind me of, please let me
know which issue it was in. If anyone doesn't want to be quoted, please
tell me so in the next TWH, or call me. I'll wait at least that long
before I write. The phone number is in the title section. Leave a
message if I'm not at home.
The Game
I recently participated in a Vampire game based on a module. I found
it very annoying. I intend to analyze what it was I found so depressing,
so I guess you could consider this an elaborate product review.
I first became somewhat uncomfortable with the Vampire game I was
in when the PCs were saved from overwhelming opposition by NPCs -- for
the second time. I don't mind a challenge, or fighting against
incredible odds. I do mind having deus ex machina saves. I also
mind feeling that any plan the players come up with will not succeed,
regardless of its cleverness. I found myself very unhappy with the
situation -- frustrated and simmeringly angry is more like it. Needless
to say, I do not deal well with frustration.
I like understanding why I feel a particular way before I try to talk
out problems with the people involved. It took me a while to analyze the
exact cause of my anger; I was bothered most by my feeling of
helplessness. I have no desire to play that feeling. I fight it enough
in both my (and other's) day-to-day life.
The game was no longer fun because my character's presence made no
difference to the game. The story was going to churn along the way it
was written, regardless of my character's actions or my feelings.
The Interruption
I have played in this type of game before. The GM thought he was God,
and felt his control of the game was more important than the PCs or the
story. The players were all very good, mature role-players. The GM could
be fascinating to listen to. So I stayed in the game, even though it
wasn't fun. It was, in fact, the most horrible 'gaming' experience
I ever suffered through for the sake of art. :-) In retrospect, and
after I realized that some of the other players shared my feelings, I
no longer thought myself the "fun-void" in the game. The most important
part of that experience was that I promised myself (insert impressive
music here) never again would I put up with a storyline being
more important than the players.
Resumption
I knew the Vampire referee was using a module, and I prefer not
to assume the GM is a jerk. I also knew that we were in a cliffhanger
ambush that would be resolved the next week. I was not optimistic about
the probable outcome. So I did something I would ordinarily consider
cheating. I described the two deus ex machina encounters and
the ambush setup in as accurate detail as possible to a friend. Then
I asked him to read "Milwaukee by Night" (the module the GM was using)
and tell me if those encounters were intended to be that drastic, and
if there was more of the same in the module.
I was shocked to find out those encounters were being run
exactly as the module intended. Imagine my horror at discovering
we had somehow avoided more such encounters (which could be
inserted later in the storyline as desired), that there were further
such encounters ahead, and that the ambush we were headed for was
intended to be a no-win situation. Perhaps you can understand my
determination to have it out with the GM right away.
This narrative does have a happy ending. I found the GM himself was
becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the way the story was running.
He decided to skip several of the forced encounters and heavily modified
many things in the module. He also resolved to use no more Vampire modules
after this story arc finished. As a consequence, I and the other players
(who were also unhappy with this story arc) were quite relieved, and
the game became once again a pleasant experience for us all.
Since then I have read the module myself.
The Book
"Milwaukee by Night," by Dustin Browder: 127 pgs, SC, White Wolf
Editing: Andrew Greenberg, Rob Hatch
Development: Andrew Greenberg
Layout: Sam Chupp
Production: Josh Timbrook
Maps: Chris McDonough
Art: John Bridges, John Cobb, Josh Timbrook, Richard Thomas
Cover: Janet Aulisio
Back Cover: Chris McDonough
Vampire: The Masquerade was created by Mark
Rein*Hagen
Book I
It starts well enough. There are two halves to the module, referred
to as books. Book I is titled "Barren Streets, Barren Hearts", and
details the history, geography, kindred, and politics of Milwaukee. It
is an interesting read, and there are several NPCs who would complement
any game. There are many GM role-playing tips. There are several charts
which delineate the politics and relationships for quick and easy
understanding. The art is adequate. The maps are clear and helpful. I
thought this part of the module to be a useful addition to the game.
Then I got to Book II.
Book II
"Psychomachia" is defined by Webster's English Dictionary as
"conflict of the soul". It is also the title of Book II. Some of the
introductory paragraphs read:
"Impulses and wild instincts are the greatest threat
to a Vampire's sanity. They tug and pull at his rational mind and
threaten to drag him into a darkness of unthinking depravity. The loss
of humanity is what every sane Vampire fears, and it is this loss
"Psychomachia" explores in depth...
Vampires show human problems amplified to an extreme degree. Reason and
animal instincts are both part of being human, and each of us walks a
balance between these two. This Story shows the price of failure if
ever these two parts of human nature should become confused or if one
should become dominant. ...
[A]s Storyteller, it is your responsibility to bring out this theme
of reason versus emotion (the animal part of all of us) ...
[W]hat kind of inhuman monster could be committing these senseless acts
of violence...
[I]t would only take one bad night to push them [the PCs] over the edge
of sanity and into the unknown area called madness. ...
[the PCs] will be subjected to one bad night where they must battle
insanity to save their own fragile, rational minds."
An interesting, if somewhat intense beginning. Still, intense has
never been a problem for me -- I enjoy that sort of role-play (dare I say
it) intensely. However, it is unfortunate the author recommends beating
the players over the head with what is supposed to happen as the way to
depict this intensity.
The story is laid out with great detail and useful role-playing
hints. The different scenes of the story connect smoothly. Again, the
art is okay. What bothers me is the story being more important than the
PCs.
The Problems
To start the story, the main NPC commands the PCs to do several
disagreeable things. Lack of instant obedience is punished. Two of the
first encounters do indeed entail a deus ex machina save. The PCs are
supposed to feel grateful and indebted to the NPCs. My personal thought
during the game was that if the GM did this to me again, my PC was going
to turn on her saviors in a frenzy. The end of one chapter says,
"It [is] unlikely any of the characters will end up as
prisoner ... at the end of this scene (players hate having their
characters go through the "humiliation" of being captured)."
If the authors of this book are aware of this, why do they insist the
PCs must be so humiliated on two separate occasions? A later chapter
reads,
"The characters will no doubt lose this fight. They
are surprised, outnumbered and outgunned. Do not stop them from
putting up a good fight though. Nothing is more irritating to a group
of players than to have the cards so stacked against them that there is
no hope. Unfortunately, for good plot and drama this is sometimes
necessary. When you are forced to make the players lose,
you want the players to feel that they put up a good fight...
[emphasis mine]"
This annoying battle is immediately followed by yet another
overpowering menace. This menace is exceedingly rude, as is expected by
his followers. If the PCs reveal most of the information they have
fought so hard to acquire "and do not lie very much," the exceedingly
rude menace will "explain why he is going to let them go." The GM is
encouraged to "be as insulting to the characters as possible." If the
PCs are goaded into attacking the overpowering menace "they will be
certainly killed." One option that is mentioned in the scenario is:
"[A]llow the Vampires to fight as well as they may,
letting them die or live as their actions and the dice dictate. As a
Storyteller, this is not usually what you want to do, but you cannot be
bailing your Vampires out of the stupid mistakes they make."
The only possible mistake I see here is allowing your GM to
continuously pull this kind of crap on you. Instructing the GM to insult
and humiliate the PCs until they are forced to give up all their secrets
to their mortal enemies is not a way to build character, it is a way to
tear it down. Furthermore, I would much rather the GM not waste my time
with a useless fight. If we are predestined to lose, just tell us so,
kill us, and be done with it.
One of my roommates is a noted GM. He commented, on hearing some of the
quotes, "If you as the GM have to capture everybody, get it over
with."
Yet another quote concerning yet another battle capture,
"It is the sad truth that even in the most carefully
designed Story the plot must sometimes be forced. ...
[T]he characters must be captured, and it is your job as Storyteller
to make sure this happens. If the characters start to win, give the bad
guys reinforcements. ...
The trick is to make the players feel like the prince (not you)
captured them. Do not ruin their good ideas. Allow them to work -- to a
point...
So allow them some victories in their hour of defeat (that is, if they
earned them)."
This particular capture is followed by several scenes of drug-induced
dreams and hallucinations. Some of the dreams are supposed to be made
more horrific by being played out as part of the story without the
players being informed these are just dreams. One of the episodes has
the strongest PCs attack and kill the bound and weaker ones. The GM is
supposed to arrange this with the players of the stronger PCs, so as to
frighten the players of the victims. This is bad for any game. Consider
any group of (already paranoid) vampires suddenly turning on each other.
Even if it is supposed to be just a dream, my PC would never
trust the attacking PCs again, much less I the GM.
The GM has been consistently instructed to squash any initiative on
the part of the players: capture them, terrify them, abuse them, insult
them, kill them, but don't allow anything they do to change the story.
By the end of this, I'd be stunned if any remaining players gave a damn
about their PCs. To end the module with the following statement tells me
that the authors have no idea of how dictatorial their supplement is
and wouldn't care if they did know:
"[T]his is likely to result in a party massacre, who
knows? Your players may surprise you."
The Wrap-up
I feel strongly that if a GM has to force the story by crushing the
players and/or PCs on five separate occasions (yes, I counted them;
no I am not exaggerating) in order to continue the story, and the module
instructs you to do so, then there is something seriously
wrong with the module.
The End
In conclusion, I have mixed opinions concerning "Milwaukee by
Night." I thought Book I was a nice supplement. I can recommend it in
good conscience to anyone interested in buying the supplement. However,
I loathed Book II, and I cannot recommend it to anyone.
Comments on The Wild Hunt #174.