If you sit back and think about it, the Addendum is sort of a microcosm for the Camarilla itself.
One one hand, it’s genius. Without it, the idea of a Global Chronicle would be laughable at best. There would be ZERO consistency from game to game and players would live in constant fear of “House Rules.” The Addendum, in a way, represents the Global Chronicle that makes the Camarilla such a wonderful and unique club.
On the other hand, it’s a mess. It has rulings, additions, approval levels, and guidelines that confuse new Cammies and overburden experienced players. It’s a user’s guide to the Camarilla written by rules lawyers who hold accuracy to be far more important than usability.
We have to give the MST’s office a great deal of credit for improving the quality of the Global Addendum over the last year by making it more specific. Monthly updates, color-coded edit tracking, and defined terms go a long way toward creating a document that the Cam can actually use.
However, the Addendum hasn’t yet transitioned from an obstacle to a tool at the local level. New STs struggle to understand it. New players barely know it exists. And for all PCs, the constant struggle to deal with the ruleset we have creates endless numbers of appeals. With the Rules FAQ out of play for almost 2 years, the Addendum is the only place to turn for guidance…and it’s not adequate.
So here are a few things we think could help:
1) Stop Using the Addendum as a Band-aid
Let’s look at a line from the Addendum that has always confused and befuddled us:
Physical augmentation with Vitae is limited. When a character spends vitae to add to physical test pools the applied bonus from that Vitae can be no higher than the natural unmodified Attribute or +5, whichever is higher.
Good god, why? Why are we so limiting Kindred who are BP 6+ in our chronicle. Is it because we have like…a million of them? Oh yeah, it is.
If you want to look at the problems the Camarilla has faced in the last 3 years, you need to look no further than the Addendum and the changes enacted within. If something is different from the core books, it’s because there was an obvious problem that the MST staff tried to fix.
Sometimes these fixes are not only effective, but great for the game. Take Rule U.1.04 that limits modifiers to a +15 for most pools. That’s a great rule because it limits the effect that Super Friends (OOC friends teaming up from different covenants) can have.
But some fixes, like the Vitae cap above, really just paper over basic problems. Got too many BP 6+ characters? Cut down on XP, don’t just neuter them in the addendum. We could have addressed the issue of XP when this problem first cropped up, but we chose to do nothing but add a line to the Addendum that means one more rule has to be remembered in combat.
Before anyone adds anything new to the Addendum, the question “Is there a way I can fix this for good?” needs to be asked and answered.
2) Separate the Addendum into THREE parts
Once we remove everything in the Addendum that can be fixed some other way (XP reductions), we still have a decent amount of material that standardizes the game. In order to make it usable we need to break it up into three parts:
An FAQ – Answers from the AMST Rules that are supported by core materials via specific citations and references.
Addendum – A list of Approval Levels.
Errata – Changes to the core material made by the MST.
The FAQ is for people who have common questions about the rules, especially New STs. It will list answers to common questions, NOT rulings from the MST. Rulings supported by the MST should go directly into the Errata document. This document should be made available at ALL games.
Thus, the Errata is a set of standard rulings and the FAQ as an explanation of oft-confused material. It’s important that our appeals process reflects this! If an ST makes a ruling, such as “Mist Form Can’t Fly,” and neither the Errata nor the books contradict him, then that ruling should be upheld on appeal. It doesn’t matter what previous STs have ruled or what the RST of some random region thinks. ANY changes to the rules must be in the Errata to be enacted in full. Precedent means nothing in the Cam.
3) Stop Using National Addenda
If you want to play in the US, you need a copy of the US Addendum. If you want to play in the UK, you need a copy of the UK Addendum. Why? Do the laws of physics change once you enter the British Isles or arrive in Manhattan?
While we understand that the US and UK differ in a lot of ways, this is another level of paperwork we don’t need. The Addendum should be an MST generated document, but it should have input from the NSTs of both countries. If the NSTs can’t convince the MST Rules that a specific clarification should be in the Errata document, then consider the MST to have ruled that that item is up to local ST discretion.
Obviously there may be some shifts in approval levels (Bruja in SW America at Mid instead of High) and there may need to be a document that explains those very few changes. But for the most part, the MST needs to run this Chronicle in a way that lets new players join without needing to read a Tax Code sized document.
It would be a pleasure to hand a new player the Errata and say “For right now, this is all you need to worry about. These are the changes the Master Storyteller has made to the rules for our chronicle. Once you run for VST, you probably need to read through the FAQ and Approvals document. Until that time…your VST has all the answers you need.“
It’s time to make that day happen. Let the MST/NST/RST near you know that you think these changes are not only possible, but essential!
In theory, National Addenda are best used for differing Approval levels
And if that’s all that they did, I doubt that there would be as big of a problem with the National Addendum. But when you start talking about powers working differently from country to country (Legionaire’s Blessing not working for staking draws in the US) or completely new rules and powers (the Optional Rule: Flaws and the Fighting Styles from the Armory book in the UK), then you start adding in needless rules and extra levels of paperwork that are completely not needed.
J. Derrick Kapchinsky
US2005075735
Ok, on the existance of National Addenda and Global Addenda:
The needs of the US chronicle are not the same as the needs of an affiliate. The National addenda allows the NST of a country to make some limitations to what is, and is not permissible based on the needs of the nation in question. This isn’t a question of consistancy, but a question of practicallity.
For instance, if you have a game of 9 people and all of them are from the Ordo Dracul, then your focus as a VST is going to be on how the Ordo mechanics work and the metaphysics involved. You will likely make rules calls on ST discretion items and record them for your players. You will have a minor “addenda” for you game so that everyone knows how a given ruling is going to work. This way you are fair and consistant and new players have the info they need. The National addenda are larger versions of the same thing.
A note on the Addendum as a Band Aid:
As much as I would like to believe that the Global staff can, in a timely manner, devise a way to remove an issue from the game in a way that will never been seen as a poor move, I know better. The limits on Blood Spend are a direct result of players pursuing BP at the expense of everything else. Even with less xp, it would remain an issue. Not to mention that the Oath of the Bloody Hand would become vastly more powerful than it already is. So less xp might negate the high BP characters, but if I can get to BP 6 as an Invictus, then I can get a Geth to bump me to BP 7 and Oath to BP 9. Then I swear a Bloody Hand and all of a sudden I can spend 20 Blood and get a +40 to a physical test. Which means that I will likely have a better staking pull than any currently existing PC possibly could. How much did all of this cost? Less than 200 xp total.
This is an example of a “Band aid” which is actually a good fix for balance. The problem with wanting to get rid of the Band Aids is that you might remove a lot of skin with it.
I agree in regard to national addenda. I think they should be used only to acknowledge genuine national differences – e.g. firearms being higher approval in the UK. I would prefer to have a poor ruling applied consistently on a global level.
It is a point that I’ve made to NSTs and do hope that mechanics aspects of national addenda can be at the very least de-emphasised.
“Ok, on the existance of National Addenda and Global Addenda:
The needs of the US chronicle are not the same as the needs of an affiliate. The National addenda allows the NST of a country to make some limitations to what is, and is not permissible based on the needs of the nation in question. This isn’t a question of consistancy, but a question of practicallity. ”
I absolutely agree to a point. Things like the UK firearms policy make complete sense given the vast cultural and legal differences between the UK and the US.
Where I take issue, however, lies in optional rules and new mechanics that are either not mentioned in the global addendum or specifically prohibited in the global addendum that are in use in certain affiliates. I can’t quite get my head around how things like these can be simply explained away as a ‘need of an affiliate.’
J. Derrick Kapchinsky
US2005075735
As to addenda: A lot of the addenda grows as a result of “patching”, exactly like any MMO. I would prefer a single, more universal addenda from global, with national ones only addressing specific changes in approval levels. Any mechanics differences should be important enough for inclusion in the global document. Games mechanics should be global. Approvals are not game mechanics, they are club mechanics.
Jesse: Removing the limit is not as horrible as it sounds. First because the bonus does not change the attribute, it is a bonus and thus subject to the +15 maximum bonus. Two, defense is still stronger than offense. Assuming a Bp 6, enhanced to 9, with max attribute of 6 (the bonus bp is temporary and we are assuming players of said character doesn’t want to waste several hundred xp) and max skill w/ a spec in stakes (again max skill for bp 6), his total pool with bonuses will be 25, as tool (in this case a stake), -3 for the called shot and bonuses from the burning of vitae, etc. A similarly powered defensive character is in no real danger. 6 defense from attributes, +2 more defense from a rapier, +5 defense from two weapon, +5 armor from celerity. -18 to that 25, assuming he doesn’t dodge = 7. Leaving a 7% chance of actually staking the defender under our current system as staking requires 3 levels of damage. Now, if the character were to dodge, dodge being defined as double the defense of the character, that draw drops to -6 or a chance draw with .1% chance of staking. Or defining dodge as double the unmodified defense of the character, that draw is now a 1, leaving only a 2% chance of success. All made possible because defense is not a pool, but a modifier generated by the opposing player that is outside the maximum modifier pool. All this is of course, assuming that said Celerity 5 even lets the attacker catch him.
Further, that oath of the bloody hand better be sworn to actually stake/kill that person or someone they are directly and immediately protecting. And, they just burned a permanent willpower for all that extra bp with no real benefit other than burning themselves out faster.
Its been a while since i looked at our ponderous addendum, but if attribute pool bonuses are not otherwise subject to the max +15 rule, then they should be.
As i said, not that dangerous.
Max bonus of +15: rational and applicable across venues to prevent superfriends/superrituals
Max attrib pool bonus of +5 or double attribute: reactionary, mostly to the number of bp 6+ characters.
Your reaction exactly demonstrates the point of this entry. Here we have two different rules, one clearly superior to the other, but they are both in the addendum, causing confusion. Then again, i would argue that needing a rule covering maximum bonus available on a roll is directly demonstrative of some of the other points of this blog. Namely that between xp glut and custom mechanics, and bad base draw mechanics, we are seeing dice pools that can only be described as silly.
Simply, the addendums, all together, should not be harder to use than a single supplement book. Essientially, the addenda should be eligible to be titled World of Darkness: The Camarilla Fan Club, with national addenda as nothing more than minor appendices or charts in the back.
I’m curious. Have you read the UK addenda?
Wow. No.
I’ve been in the club for a year, when I was told there was an addendum I didn’t fear it. I devoured it!
Sure at first I didn’t know it existed, but I also didn’t need it. Why would I? The ST’s know all the info on what is and isn’t … everything.
Once I found out about the addendum and what it is I sat there and read the whole thing. I loved it. It’s one of the reasons I love this club rather than just going to play at my friends tabletop game. We have rules, and you gotta play by them.
A breakdown of the UK National Addenda;
- An increased approval level for cross venue NPCs
(Introduced due to some communication issues)
- Changed approval level for firearms
(It’s the UK. We have sucky firearms laws)
- Defined Soft Roleplay
(Necessary due to a number of issues in the UK, and differences in play styles)
- Defined NPC use
(Again, specific UK related issues)
- Membership benefits changes
(Due to difference in play culture)
- XP point earning
(Due to difference in play culture, and some record keeping / audit issues in the UK)
- Character knowledge
(Additional clarification for sanity sake. Some sections since added to international addenda)
- Characters moving domain
(Due to right in the handbook for UK member to base their character anywhere in the UK)
- Change to resilience
(Because it’s sane)
- Alias use
(Because the number of these being used with no parity were extreme)
- Surgery
(Introduced to maintain canon)
- Enhanced Form Bonuses
(Specifying what every UK VSS does, as per international addenda)
- Renown
(Requiring notification for high renown)
- Carthians
(Modification for Carthian Law due to difference in style of European Legal Systems, introduced mechanic for the RPed “drumming out”)
- Obtenebration
(Clarified what poorly worded level 5 power does)
- Spirit Cruac
(Further limited Spirit Cruac use)
- Damnation City
(We use Vassal and Tenant, unlike other nations, ’cause I wanted to)
- Armory
(Increased some weapon approval levels, as agreed at MST’s office level)
- Armory
(Playtesting fighting styles, with agreement from MST’s office)
It’s not a huge amount…
Tim,
We think your addendum is great! But why does the UK need something different? Are you unable to convince Global that the clarification and restrictions you put in are needed?
Brady – What do you mean No? You mean we should leave it as is?
Blood expenditure is not limited by the +15 modifer cap.
About the addendum, yes we need one that works. I think it also needs to be some what comprehensive and cover the exact rules. I think it is problematic that one currently has to do a search over the FAQ, read the addenda and look over any extra books that might be out there to clarify things like “can mist fly”.
All errata and rules governing our play should be in one document. If the rule is not it should be considered interpretation at best and a suggestion at least. That is all.
Where I can see for things like the new player usability a shorter addendum is useful.
As an ST running a venue which gets short changed as it is; it really hurts.
Things like, “Global approval to play a Redeemed in Prometheans.” “There are no such things as Soft RP”
There we’re many of these statements in the old addendum, where yes it made it bulky – but now that there are not ’stated’ somewhere Players are going ‘but you have to let me play that it doesn’t say I cannot any more’.
Thanks for the clarification Andrew.
As I said, its been a while since I cared to look it up, but is there any particular reason why it is exempted from the +15 rule, other than it came first?
If it continues to be exempted, wouldn’t it make more sense to simply allow it to only contribute a bonus of equal size to the unmodified attribute?
That would be a simpler rule to remember and still place the emphasis on advancement in multiple categories.
Oh, and at the base of it all, wouldn’t just be easier if the current base mechanics weren’t so brutal as to demand such horrific dice pools?
Wouldn’t it be easier if one could actually swing a dead cat without hitting a bp 6+?
These aren’t meant as sarcastic questions, but probative of the underlying problems. Part of the reason that the addendum is a patchwork of band-aids is because of what happens when you turn several very high xp characters loose in a chronicle with several low xp characters and try to strike a balance. Now, I will be the first to congratulate the various members of the ST side who have created our current one. It’s a peach compared to a few of the previous ones. They do a great job trying to keep it clean and streamlined.
However, this far in we should have common and standardized rules that cover the “st discretion” in the books. We shouldn’t still be asking if you can fly in mist form. It should be a matter of common knowledge and it should be directly in the addenda, not in a seperate FAQ.
If you want an example that proves a broken draw system combined with a mish-mash of patch type rules, look no further than the Forsaken rules. Double attribute changes and double successes in contested gifts so that you can get appreciable effects for a third, fourth, and fifth level gifts.
Why the UK needs something different.
We have 19 items in our addenda.
One is a limited scale playtest.
9 are things you don’t dispute we need – different approval levels due to country specific cultural issues, such as gun law.
9 are changes or clarifications which could be in a Global addenda. But the reasons for these vary – some are not in the addenda due to it’s length restrictions (our Obtenebration clarification). It doesn’t change any rules, but just saves us a ton of time and I put it there so I didn’t lose it on some list archive somewhere.
Meanwhile, other changes, such as the approval level for renown, change to resilience, Damnation City and NPC use restriction were introduced because of one of two reasons;
1. Because the needs of the Global or US chronicle differed from that of the UK chronicle – as an example, Damnation City merits weren’t cleared due to concerns of US VST workload and the difficulty of tracking the impact of the downsides of the merits. Jon was quite happy for me to clear them in the UK addenda to see how they work.
2. Because I think Global are just plain misreading a rule (resilience)
3. Because our smaller chronicle had encountered some specific abuses I wanted to stamp on which were either not seen as significant enough to merit a global change, or it was quicker and easier for me to throw it into the UK addenda.
In short – the UK reads our addenda. It’s available for people who proxy over. And the process for it getting approved involves 10 people, and needs a consensus of one (me). The process for getting something into the international addenda probably involves something in the region of 30, and needs consensus from the group as a whole.
I really don’t think a difference of 9 changes, which make the UK addenda move from ‘cultural changes’ to ‘addressing local problems’ is such a huge difference as merits enforcing a change.
For that matter, it’s currently not possible for that change to be enforced, due to the rules the UK works under.
I agree the Addendum needs to be changed for ease of use, and has been used as a “Band-aid” to fix certain problems. I’ve heard tales of VST’s demanding things be put in the Addendum to fix a local problem, when the VST in question could more easily exercise his Low Approval to deny said fromage.
I’m not certain I agree with the specific suggestions offered here to improve it.
I waffle on the National Addendum issue. I feel it lives the National games more ownership and a measure of protection against particular rules in the GA that make less sense to affiliates. I know in Canada, the Status rules had to be modified just on the basis of *scale*. I may be playing the highest ranked Nosferatu in Canada with a mighty 2 Status, and there just ain’t that many players around if I wanted to get more.
Then again, most of the “protectionism” at the border doesn’t stem from the Addendum itself IMHO, so I’m not sure how much power the document really has.
David L.
Tim –
We all wished we lived in the UK. Your addendum is like two pages. I skimmed it real quick. I agree with the resilience part too. I don’t care enough about obten, but i’ll just assume your clarifications are on point.
Clearly, as you said, most of it is spent describing approvals and approval level information specific to the UK. I would say that the UK Addendum works, and well.
The Form Bonus rule could be negated in all addenda if we could get a draw system that worked correctly. But, I also don’t blame you for not using it because it tends to make “Werewolf: the Forsaken” in the “Werewolf: What do I get to hit next?”.
Absent having to deal with stuff that could be handed off to global or is in “playtesting”, the UK Addenda is 90% or more of what they are talking about.
Can I point out that one of the reasons for the whole Vitae thing was due to IC abilities to increase blood potency to an ungodly high level ICly, which would allow someone to go and have a BP of 10 when they had a natural BP of 2?
That’s why it was NATURAL unmodified BP or +5. whichever is HIGHER.
Even in the oWoD, the UK (due to it’s size more then likely) tended to playtest things before it moved to hte US. Sure I”d like to see some fighting styles brought in over here that would fit my characters greatly.
I also see the need for various national addenda. If you actaully stopped and LOOKED at the US addenda, the only things the US addenda does further clarify things that people don’t understand (though there has been discussion about the interpetation of Ob and imbued items), or say that certain things are a higher or lower approval level in the US.
Technically, you can get away with going off and printing the US addenda without the Camarilla addenda and you’d still be fine.
Bill,
I don’t know which particular rule you are talking about. But i was talking the rule that says the bonus to any physical attribute pool gained through the use of vitae has a maximum of +5 or your unmodified ATTRIBUTE x2, whichever is higher. As far as I know, a rule relating to vitae use to boost BP does not exist as you can’t boost BP with raw vitae expenditures.
Yes there are a number of powers that allow boosted bp on a temporary basis. Yes, some glorious cheese monster would gather up a coalition of persons with those powers to use them upon himself. However, if we want to emphasize balanced development, wouldn’t it make more sense to simply say that the limit of boost is the unmodified attribute x2 or include the bonus in any relevant bonus cap. My question was which was simpler, remembering an if/then statement or remembering a simple maxim? Or, simply include the bonus derived from the boost in the max bonus cap?
And, yes I have looked at the US addendum, and the UK one. Most of the items included in them are exactly what they should be, slight variations in approval levels. But the original topic was about the general and global addendum. I would be willing to be that looking at the various addenda, that most of the national ones are pretty much on target.
The issue comes when they include rules clarifications that make perfect sense, but aren’t added into the main addendum. The main addendum is the item being criticized. It probably does its job 50% of the time, but when it fails at it the other 50%, that doesn’t work.
Eric,
#1, the message wasn’t to you, it was to the original post
#2 The Vitae thing i’m talking about is the one that they have highlighted as an example, about the physical augmentation.
The Geth have a discipline that allows people to come in with higher blood potencies then normal, thus, you can be BP 2 and walk in with BP 10. and being able to use your new blood pool to go off and waylay people at because you are able to go off plunge more more blood into physical attributes without a problem (say you have 2, you’d be able to pluge as much blood as possible to get 10 strength on top of your 5 vigor, 5 melee, specilization in swords, and your +4 sword with a +5 Legionaires blessing on it, which will give you a 35 on your damage roll, roll a 2, take 5 damage! Since we are damage capped at 5).
This limits that, so Strength 2 guy can only have a strength of 7 and not 10, to hack at you with his greatsword.
#3 My national addenda stuff was about the orignial post
Maybe I should start going off and saying “replyto original post” when I respond to this stuff.
First, I’m sorry, i made an assumption that we were having a conversation in the comments. I’m sorry, if I got testy with you. But the problem you are referring to has already be discussed at length. We are aware of the cheese powers that are involved. That being said, I can only go by what you wrote.
Further, the attribute pool boost rule is just an example of the addendum covering for a problem that could be more reasonably fixed. There are dozens throughout the addendum.
Forsaken form bonus: patch to fix the fact that our draw mechanics suck
Forsaken success doubling on opposed gifts: again, patch to fix the fact that our draw mechanics suck.
I’m sure if i wanted to re-read the addendum and its 4 appendices, I could find more examples.
The bottom line is this: We want an addendum that reads like a settings document with relevant rules alterations, not like a list of patch notes from an MMO.
No one is going to say that the ST staff have not put in herculean effort to get us this far, but each step relies on each other step. Broken draw mechanics lead to xp glut to compensate. Broken draw mechanics + xp glut lead creative players to write and get approved custom mechanics to add even higher bonuses. Broken mechanics + xp glut + bad custom mechanics leads to patching as more and more loopholes are found and fixed.
We have to fix the base problems, then the more esoteric problems will be easier to handle.
Eric, apology accepted, but in the future, I’ll still put a “in response to original post” in my posts.
way late to the party, and prolly seriously off topc but part of my current beef with the cam is that in an effort to make everythign super happy play nice land weaknesses designed to be varying degress of common are intentionally made rare, but only for that setting:
in requiem party stores and smoke shops no longer sell lighters, bars have no matches, and tiki torches are outlawed
while in forsaken…
silver jewlery stores don’t actually carry silver
while in lost…
that wraught iron fence isn’t really iron…
and in all of them, a sturdy metal tube designed to have high velocity shrapnel pushed out the end are ruined by, err, having high velocity shrapnel pushed through…
however a vampire that wants pure silver jewlry and prolly get as much as they want.
it gets even worse if you’re playing with jewlers or people who blacksmith in their spare time
“i’m sorry bob, the jewlery you, the person, made in an hour requires top and global approval for your character to have. ”
the point of a weakness to a common item is that its, well, common, and a weakness.
i’m surprised that wooden stakes and sunlight don’t require approval levels.
greg us200709635
Greg,
Part of the reason for this is game balance. Think of the Cam as a really flexible MMORG with some specific rules. While it might be easy to get torches in real life, in the game that makes things not fun for all the players. You don’t have access to that “ability” within the game…