Setting Design: Dracula

[Username17]

The problem is that an atheist will be able to learn the rituals that do work without a great deal of trouble (unless these are UBERSECRET) and say "fuck this." to the ones that don't with even less trouble (regardless of how hard it was to learn the ones that do work).

Catholics can learn to use garlic.

A few sessions in, after some trial and error, everyone is going to be running around with garlic flowers in a leaf blower, a pile of of sticky rice, and a prefab sacred circle made out of a silver chain. The question is whether coming into the game believing that sacred circles work makes up for believing that the lord's prayer should work.

One can save your life, the other can get you killed.

-Username17

[Maxus]

Frank's got a point. As soon as modern technology and human ingenuity enters the mix, this could quickly become a farce as people find the most ways to screw over vampires.

What's to stop one guy from dipping into his savings and buying thousands of dollars worth of garlic, and then gridding out his city with it?

Also, what's to stop the heroes from going into the vampire's castle at 9 AM, wearing a garlic necklace and eating garlic?

Or that one practically always has running water available, which supposedly could stop Dracula cold.

Forget using communion wafers, you could just turn on all the faucets in the house and your own plumbing system will ensure that he can't enter.

Actually, that could make walking down the street very difficult for him. Considering water pipes and so forth.

[Elennsar]

A few sessions in, after some trial and error, everyone is going to be running around with garlic flowers in a leaf blower, a pile of of sticky rice, and a prefab sacred circle made out of a silver chain

That feels all kinds of wrong as the best way to go about it, because it punishes taking any one tradition seriously.

Also, atheists don't have the burden of finding out the hard way that any dedication to any given ritual will hurt them.

So...I would prefer less "Human ingenuity > the supernatural".

What does the source material justify?

Actually, that could make walking down the street very difficult for him. Considering water pipes and so forth.

Yeah. So, how should this situation look? Should Van Helsing be a model of a good (capable, that is) hunter?

Should we have people eating garlic and wearing necklaces of cloves?

[Username17]

Also, atheists don't have the burden of finding out the hard way that any dedication to any given ritual will hurt them.

Yeah, but they don't start with any rituals either. Protection that may not work is perhaps better than no protection at all. Or to put it another way: the Atheist has to find out by trial and error which of these things work and which don't. The difference is that he isn't especially disappointed or confused when one he's trying happens to not work, because he ha no expectation that it would work in the first place.

So...I would prefer less "Human ingenuity > the supernatural".

What does the source material justify?

In the source material the heroes catch up to Dracula's sailing ship with a steam ship, match the power of vampiric dream sending by using telegraphs, and blow their way through old world thralls with pistols and bowie knives. It's very much Ingenuity > Supernatural. The human ingenuity after all wins and Dracula is destroyed. Mina is saved (though Lucy is not).

So, how should this situation look? Should Van Helsing be a model of a good (capable, that is) hunter?

He did win that fight as it happens.

Should we have people eating garlic and wearing necklaces of cloves?

Honestly, you can keep vampires away just by staying in at night and not inviting them into your home. Dracula can't cross the threshold of your house without an invitation and is just a normal dude by the light of day. The fact that he can't cross uncovered running water is pretty much meaningless, because he can use a boat (which covers it).

Vampire fighters have a number of tricks up their sleeves, as they can cover all the entrances to a house with garlic, or even move potential victims to other peoples' homes. The real problem is finding vampires in the first place. Once you've done that, you really can take them on in hand to hand combat by dint of the fact that you're a named character and a wicked awesome cowboy.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

Yeah, but they don't start with any rituals either. Protection that may not work is perhaps better than no protection at all.

I'd be more comfortable with that if it wasn't for the fact that the time I spend wondering why this isn't working or finding out that the things I know that do work are excessively shackled to arbitrary limitations (your comment on Helsing and flinging blessed crackers) for my own good.

Now, if my rituals are generally reliable, finding out that they also require an inane code of conduct is a bad enough. But having both unreliable rituals and an inane code of conduct is frustrating.

It's very much Ingenuity > Supernatural. The human ingenuity after all wins and Dracula is destroyed. Mina is saved (though Lucy is not).

Not to dispute the usefulness of any of those things, but they're just taking advantage of what already exists, not conjuring up something in campaign.

It doesn't take a great deal of inspiration to chase a sailing ship with a steamship.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Dracula can't cross the threshold of your house without an invitation and is just a normal dude by the light of day.

Y'know, I read Dracula and thought: 'Wow, Vlad really mellowed in his old age."

This man should not need supernatural powers to kill fools. The smattering of casualties he produces over the course of the entire book are not even up to snuff for one of his pre-breakfast killin' sprees from the old days.

I would be more concerned by the monster he was than the creature he became.

[Elennsar]

Even not treating him as a being quite evil enough as a mortal, agreed.

Vlad was NOT a man to be triffled with. I don't think he was a "tear you apart with his bare hands" type (in terms of power, not mindset), but he was certainly as capable as any other lord of the marches. Probably more so.

That brings up a question.

Who are the vampires? Vlad was a particular individual in a particular time etc. etc. So while you could have many other such (in)famous individuals, like say Ivan the Terrible (do that and die) also become vampires, you'd have to figure out that you're doing that.

[Heath Robinson]

Elennsar,
You're missing the point; religious characters are able to hedge their bets. It doesn't matter if the lord's prayer doesn't work so long as you're already covered by some other ritual. You know that something is working in your list of rituals and that's all you need to care about.

Seriously, if you're at the point where you discover that the lord's prayer doesn't work, you're likely to be already dead.


The atheist, meanwhile, has no fucking clue what they're going to do. They've also got a list of rituals that might work, but they've not got much faith in them since the rituals are mostly taken from pop culture. They don't know that we're looking at Bram Stoker's Dracula for inspiration, so they don't know what kind of vampires they're facing.

If anything, the atheist and the Catholhic are in the same boat. They both have lists of things that might work and they have no prior knowledge (at character generation) what works. Their lists are different, but unless on list has a higher average chance of succeeding per item that's nothing special.

[Elennsar]

Seriously, if you're at the point where you discover that the lord's prayer doesn't work, you're likely to be already dead.

The problem is, you won't know it doesn't work until you try it or see someone else do it.

If anything, the atheist and the Catholhic are in the same boat. They both have lists of things that might work and they have no prior knowledge (at character generation) what works. Their lists are different, but unless one list has a higher average chance of succeeding per item that's nothing special.

The atheist is not burdened by any bizzare restrictions other than those he chose (or she chose) personally. That is a big advantage if any of those restrictions ever impact choices on what to do.

And while the atheist may not know that we're using Bram Stoker vampires, the fact that these vampires are like _____ is probably a sign that you can skip the sticky rice to him.

Or need the sticky rice. Whatever.

[Heath Robinson]

The problem is, you won't know it doesn't work until you try it or see someone else do it.

Layered defenses. It doesn't matter if the lord's prayer doesn't work if you already happen to be in a church and haven't invited vampires in. At that point, the fact that the lord's prayer isn't working doesn't fucking matter. No sensible person is going to forgo one or more of their defenses just to find out if one works by itself.

The atheist is not burdened by any bizzare restrictions other than those he chose (or she chose) personally. That is a big advantage if any of those restrictions ever impact choices on what to do.

And while the atheist may not know that we're using Bram Stoker vampires, the fact that these vampires are like _____ is probably a sign that you can skip the sticky rice to him.

Or need the sticky rice. Whatever.

Um, right. You're thinking of atheists as perfectly pragmatic, unreligious folk. Atheists can be just as dogmatic, petty and arbitrary as theists. Atheism is not incompatible with religion, either.

You're also conflating atheism with educated intelligentsia there, that's not advisable. There are a lot of well educated, smart religious folk (I know a few in person). They will likely also know of warding techniques related to foreign vamps, from pop culture or through other means.


Even a scientific approach to vampires has its weaknesses, namely that you'll be trying to apply knowledge of the natural world to a phenomenon that is at least partially supernatural. Sure, your biologist training might tell you that rattlesnake venom causes coagulopathy in humans, but how does that work on a vampire - an undead monstrosity that sucks blood to continue its own wretched existance?

[Elennsar]

Layered defenses. It doesn't matter if the lord's prayer doesn't work if you already happen to be in a church and haven't invited vampires in. At that point, the fact that the lord's prayer isn't working doesn't fucking matter. No sensible person is going to forgo one or more of their defenses just to find out if one works by itself.

And if you're already in a church, then yes, it doesn't matter. Problem is that it won't show you whether or not it is useless in those sitautions you're not in a church and did invite a vampire in (because you didn't realize he was a vampire).

Um, right. You're thinking of atheists as perfectly pragmatic, unreligious folk. Atheists can be just as dogmatic, petty and arbitrary as theists. Atheism is not incompatible with religion, either.

What part of "other than those he chose (or she chose) personally" came out in small font?

A Catholic has his personal issues -and- his religion's issues. An atheist just has his issues. He doesn't have a rule that says that ripping pages out of the Bible will add an extra six months to his time in purgatory unless he personally thinks it does for his own bizzare and disturbing reasons.

You're also conflating atheism with educated intelligentsia there, that's not advisable. There are a lot of well educated, smart religious folk (I know a few in person). They will likely also know of warding techniques related to foreign vamps, from pop culture or through other means.

So at what point is this (quoting Frank)

The things that "work" are a seemingly random collection of old European superstitions, Catholic rituals, Gypsy magic, and modern science. You can deny a vampire power recharge from earth by sterilizing it! People who aren't religiously invested are at a huge advantage in that setting. Catholics like Van Helsing not only are preoccupied with doing rituals that seem to be completely ineffective for religious reasons, but are also wracked by guilt when they contemplate using entirely effective rituals in a manner that their religion doesn't approve of. Van Helsing has to get permission from a priests to throw blessed crackers around, while an Atheist would just load and go.

being used, if at all?

If the answer is "we're not doing that, because it sucks.", let's make that clear and move on to "what we doing".

Sure, your biologist training might tell you that rattlesnake venom causes coagulopathy in humans, but how does that work on a vampire - an undead monstrosity that sucks blood to continue its own wretched existance?

It could work just as well, it could work better, it could fail to work. Is there any way to tell until we (rule writers) decide?

[Heath Robinson]

How is the Catholhic in a room with a vampire any different to a biologist in a room with a vampire? The Catholhic has an option that he could try to deal with the situation (the lord's prayer), and so does the biologist (rattlesnakes). Whether they work or not determines whether they live or die. It's that simple.

The non-Catholhics are not in a particularly different situation when it comes to sorting out their methods of dealing with vampires. Some things will work, some won't. What set of things you know is down to what you've learnt.


What makes you think that an atheist can't easily equal the impact of the Catholhic belief structure in terms of personal foibles and oddities. Atheists are people, too. They have equal capacity to be stupid, fuck up and kill themselves. In many cases being Catholhic will give you advantages beyond knowing Catholhic rituals. For a start, I expect Catholhics to be calmer when faced with a threat (supernatural or otherwise) on account of being able to have faith in their lord's protection.


I believe we are trying to make it so that atheists and catholhics are allowed to play in the same game. The idea that catholhics and not atheists have this bunch of special strictures that prevents them from gaming the system is clearly putting them at a disadvantage that can't really be compensated for by giving them extra rituals.

I propose that we make each choice a path or tree that gives benefits (ways to defend yourself, ways to interact with the environment to your advantage, etc) and also gives you weaknesses (at the beginning of the game, anyway). If you take the Catholhic path more than a few steps, you stop being able to spam communion wafers. Take a science path too far and you end up treating the vampire as something natural and go "WTF?!" when it does something that violates physics, so you end up glossing over or rejecting something right in front of you.

[Elennsar]

What makes you think that an atheist can't easily equal the impact of the Catholhic belief structure in terms of personal foibles and oddities. Atheists are people, too. They have equal capacity to be stupid, fuck up and kill themselves. In many cases being Catholhic will give you advantages beyond knowing Catholhic rituals. For a start, I expect Catholhics to be calmer when faced with a threat (supernatural or otherwise) on account of being able to have faith in their lord's protection.

The fact that the atheist doesn't have anything other than their personal issues. Van Helsing has the stupid crap of his religious belief system and his personal issues from being who he is an individual to wade through, an atheist only has his personal issues to sort out...if it works, who cares if some dogma frowns on it.

I don't have to ask permission to fling communion wafers around, Van Helsing does.

I believe we are trying to make it so that atheists and catholhics are allowed to play in the same game. The idea that catholhics and not atheists have this bunch of special strictures that prevents them from gaming the system is clearly putting them at a disadvantage that can't really be compensated for by giving them extra rituals.

Then we need to ensure that there are no perfectly legitimate but objectionable things that would screw with religious people such as flinging communion wafers as throwing stars (Kudos for anyone getting the reference).

I propose that we make each choice a path or tree that gives benefits (ways to defend yourself, ways to interact with the environment to your advantage, etc) and also gives you weaknesses (at the beginning of the game, anyway). If you take the Catholhic path more than a few steps, you stop being able to spam communion wafers. Take a science path too far and you end up treating the vampire as something natural and go "WTF?!" when it does something that violates physics, so you end up glossing over or rejecting something right in front of you.

That seems like you get punished for taking any given path seriously.

The idea that you're better off as a guy who dabbles in each field doesn't feel right.

So here is the question.

What methods that can be used by individuals exist? Because making it possible to pursue whatever "path" you want may or may not fit basing this on Stoker's vampire/s.

So what works? Do crosses work? Does it matter if you fervently believe or is it a property of the cross itself?

[Cynic]

Virgil here, borrowing Cynic's computer.

So what works? Do crosses work? Does it matter if you fervently believe or is it a property of the cross itself?

This is going off the purpose of what I was asked. It's established that crosses work, and that why they work is of importance; because it decides effects on vampires and vampire hunters that perform actions outside what the book covers.

aka, please refer to the OP.

[Elennsar]

Crosses were used as an example, there (my post).

For those of us not familar with Stoker's work, we need a list of what works reliably, what might work (and might not), and so on.

As far as I can tell, what seems to be the thing is that we do not have psychosomatic magic problems for the vampires.

So:

1) Crosses work because God likes Christians.

2) Crosses work because holy powers work. Faith irrelevant, and you can pick something else just as well. This still doesn't help atheists.

3) Crosses work because people have powers. This may or may not help atheists.

Pick one, any one. But we need to know which one, still.

[Cynic]

Did you not read my first post? I had those options inferred (and had even more options) and I thought people would get the implication by now that I'm against having crosses work in a way that proves Christian belief.

I guess I'll have to reiterate...
A) Blessed objects of any faith work as deterrents (wafers, holy water to sterilize his soil, crosses, etc)
...1) Requires faith in the object
......a) Faith in user OR faith in vampire
...2) Does not require faith
......a) May or may not require the user/victim to be a part of said faith (only the baptized can use crosses, whether they remain Christian or not)

B) Dracula's weaknesses are all-inclusive
...1) Non-religious reasons, cursed and the curser thought it would be funny that holy crackers repels him
...2) Actual Christian reasons are not an option for my campaign

[Sir Neil]

You'd have to have some pretty screwy pyschological issues to DIE of shame.

At least one dude in the Three Kingdoms died of indignation.

[Maxus]

Okay, referring to the original post...

Some vampire movies have holy symbols work because of the presenter's belief in the object. Supposedly, anything can work as long as you really believe in it. This reached its high point when a yuppie repelled a vampire by holding up his wallet. That seems to be simplest--and it's kind of cute to imagine a little girl successfully repelling Dracula with a teddy bear.

[Manxome]

Yet another arbitrary option is to make it some sort of group/cultural belief that gives the objects power. So crosses work well in Victorian England, but if you go to Africa you need whatever object is a symbol of holiness/protection/whatever to the local people. That would presumably explain why Christian symbols are the only ones used in the novel without giving any specific preference to Christianity or to Christians.

But as already alluded to, you should consider carefully exactly what objects or rituals you want to be effective and under what conditions, or else you end up with the heroes carrying around super soakers filled with holy water. Or whatever. I haven't read the book in question.

[norms29]

What makes you think that an atheist can't easily equal the impact of the Catholhic belief structure in terms of personal foibles and oddities. Atheists are people, too. They have equal capacity to be stupid, fuck up and kill themselves. In many cases being Catholhic will give you advantages beyond knowing Catholhic rituals. For a start, I expect Catholhics to be calmer when faced with a threat (supernatural or otherwise) on account of being able to have faith in their lord's protection.

The fact that the atheist doesn't have anything other than their personal issues.

I'm not sure why you think personal issues and religious issues are a seperate pile. It would seem to me that "Respects his religion enough to risk death rather then disrespect it's symbols" is just a potential entry on the Personal Issues list, as is "hangs on to minutiae of religious Dogma".

I mean the Van Helsing example that keeps getting thrown around is a perfect illustration of how the two are the same. Van Helsing had a personal issue with throwing communion wafers around, until a priest told him it was alright. now if the priest had said "No Way!" then you'd have a point. and in a larger view, the world has too many pro-choice "Catholics" and Jews who don't keep kosher for the argument that a character's religous restrictions represent an impediment above and beyond their personal hang-ups in a modern setting. Caring enough about religious issues enough that you'd risk death-by-vampire to avoid doing something that your God might find disrespectful is a personal issue. and I might go so far as to say that in some religions even knowing about the more obscure restrictions is unusual.

[Lago PARANOIA]

But as already alluded to, you should consider carefully exactly what objects or rituals you want to be effective and under what conditions, or else you end up with the heroes carrying around super soakers filled with holy water. Or whatever. I haven't read the book in question.

This seriously was an option in d20 modern.

And you know what? I don't find it genre breaking. I don't find heroes carrying around water ballons full of holy water any more ridiculous than Simon Belmont carrying old whisky bottles full of holy water and smashing Dracula in the face with them.



When a setting doesn't wank to vampires being superior to everything (like WoD) or the methods to dispatch them aren't limited to badasses (Blade) then yes, beating off vampires in modern settings are going to look ridiculous.

Eventually, someone is going to light garlic-scented candles and have it work (or not) or do the 'bucket of water on a door--BUT HOLY WATER' trick. And you know what? It's going to be part of the genre.

That's the name of the game.

[Draco_Argentum]

I'm with Lago, if a super soaker full of holy water lets me beat some dude who can kick the crap out of me then I'm off to the toy store. If you don't want that in the game holy water or super soakers have to go.

[Prak]

I prefer the way that White wolf treated this kind of thing, what's actually harmful is the Faith channeled through the object, and the way you determine whether the character has the ability or not is with the True Faith merit, which anyone could take. Penn Gillette (of Penn and Teller) could have True Faith: Science, and beyond a little semantical argument over faith and science, he could smack a vampire over the head with a physics text book, or hold it off with a fucking Darwin fish (ironically, if Darwin had the same merit it would be True Faith: Christianity).

I think I like it because it doesn't bone anyone except the people who don't believe in anything, and I don't mean atheists, atheists could have True Faith: Nothing, and well, I don't know what they would present to harm a vamp, but... well, themselves, I don't know... anyway, with this avenue you only get boned if there is not a single thing you believe in, not even the lack of anything. Ok, I suppose agnostics get a little boned, but... that could conceivably be argued. Hell, an agnostic, if nothing else, knows they exist. You could play an Agnostic martial artist with True Faith: Self, and punch out vamps cold.

[Username17]

Honestly, that true faith bullshit is bullshit.

If your faith is strong enough then your belief warps reality so that objects you leave around have different physical properties? Fuck that! That's Mage: The Wanking, not Bram Stoker's Dracula in any meaningful respect.

Dracula as a setting has things work or not work based on what they are. Not based on the personal phlebtonium reserves of individuals. The world is not split up into genetic super men who can warp the laws of physics and everyone else - it's just a bunch of people. And the world is filled with mystery and things you don't understand yet.

-Username17

[virgil]

Damn, beat me to the punch. I was half thinking not using the option for faith simply because it's used so freakin' often, especially RPGs. I know a day or two ago I was thinking that if I used faith, it would logically lead to silly things like teddy bears and pictures of Texas, leading to a Disney effect in fighting vampires.

There's a question, why is faith such a popular concept here? Frank's practically the first one to openly suggest the option of not using the faith option.