Why is Mummy: The Resurrection so unliked?

[Ravnos]

Personally I think a core concept of Mummy should be that you take the part of an actually millenial old being
But ascending in power and experience and whatnot is a staple of RPGs for a reason: it's simply more satisfing
So the idea from MtC that you make up all "wrath of the gods" and then you downgrade in power while also becoming more human-like... It doesn't work (IMHO, I never actually played MtC)
But the idea of Memory is a good idea.
So I think it should work with players waking up as sort of "neonate" mummies, recently arised from their tomb, that simply don't remember how to use their ancient magic and they must re-learn how to use it by recovering their Memory.

And there should be some social structure or warring sects, with some kind of "the Man" equivalent that oppresses the player characters. Because that's the way of the Classic WoD. Super-powerful mummies that were awake for the last few millenia will do. They are actively discovering and awakening other mummies, to build-up personal armies for [insert interesting reason or apocalyptic stuff]

Another thing that to me MtR kinda fails is to making the players taking the role of monsters in the more strict term. There isn't an obvious downside to being a Mummy. There is no Hunger or Rage or Shadow.

I would avoid stuff like KotE, so mesoamerican mummies should function as "egyptian" mummies and everything else.
After all it's not like the vampires function as in slavic folklore: they took cinema and Anne Rice's ideas and turned them into a game.
Sure there can be some different specifics, but should be minor stuff
At the same time, your mummy should have an historical origin of some type because that's part of the coolness of playing a mummy. Like playing a Wraith from old times

[monteparnas]

Another thing that to me MtR kinda fails is to making the players taking the role of monsters in the more strict term. There isn't an obvious downside to being a Mummy. There is no Hunger or Rage or Shadow.

It's not the point with Mummy. Most of those things aren't.

The thing is that those themes you cited are already there: your character is a millennia old being, that need to remember their powers more than develop them, with warring sects and oppressive, more powerful parties, actively seeking and awakening more of their kind to buikld an army for an apocalyṕtic end, and you straight up play as a monster.

But this isn't Mummy, it is Demon.

Mummy is what it is for several reasons, but at the end of the day it boils down to being heavily based on reference. Mummies have been in the Classic WoD for a long time, but initially as just a Vampire supplement. And then the games, all of them, had those nods to the events in Ancient Egypt for a long time, a secret war that involved every splat and shaped a lot of their future, and whose aftereffects would be felt across History in the setting.

So in the end one of the reasons for Mummy not being so popular is that it isn't so much a version of a pop culture monster (despite it also being a version of a pop culture monster), but more a huge inside development of the setting itself, the culmination of a story that some fans have been following since first edition for then almost 10 years. It is the story of the Osirian Alliance of old, the end of the arc of the Spell of Life, new blood being introduced to an ancient and storied brood so they can finally have closure for a war that is in a way as old In Character as it is Out of Character.

With that, Mummy couldn't and shouldn't be other game than what it is, for better or worse.

[Ravnos]

With that, Mummy couldn't and shouldn't be other game than what it is, for better or worse.

That's exactly my point, but reversed

I am aware of most of the things you listed.
From a certain out-universe IRL perspective it is very cool that Mummies in classic WoD has been what it is.
Admittedly I didn't take in consideration the handful of fans that followed the developments of the mummies plot from 1st edition mummy to Time of Judgement. I suppose it has been satisfing for them.
But part of my point is that people who enjoyed it due to all that were just a handful.

I'm happy for them if they enjoyed MtR, but my convinction is that a TRPG should aim to be popular and especially should aim to be played.
With that, Mummy can and should be other game than what it is, for better or worse (depending on point-of-view)
IMHO

[monteparnas]

But part of my point is that people who enjoyed it due to all that were just a handful.

I'm happy for them if they enjoyed MtR, but my convinction is that a TRPG should aim to be popular and especially should aim to be played.
With that, Mummy can and should be other game than what it is, for better or worse (depending on point-of-view)
IMHO

That's why I pointed to Demon. The niche was pretty much filled by it, arguably better than Mummy would, being also a more obvious splat to include before more "undead".

Also, when I call on the whole Egyptian metaplot, it's not just about the fans benefited, but the context in which Mummy was written. Mummy 1st and 2nd editions already existed, a whole plot about them and surrounding people existed, and the whole Year of the Scarab was about that, not just Mummy. Of 7 book planned for that year, only one was Mummy, the others covered all the other lines at the time in their relation to that plot (Changeling ended up not being published, but was planned).

It isn't so much about Mummy as written being the right choice, but being inevitable. After two books about them and supplements for every line citing them, making them something unrelated would be weird at best. Even less during a publication period dedicated not to Mummy, but to that plot. The plot existed, it was a thing, and a big thing. One of the biggest uniting threads between lines. Ignoring it would require a really heavy-handed retcon that would harm the entire setting for the benefit of a single new game.

Hence why I said for better or worse. I'm not saying this is the best Mummy we could have, but that taking the whole context it was the only viable one.

[Ravnos]

That's why I pointed to Demon. The niche was pretty much filled by it, arguably better than Mummy would, being also a more obvious splat to include before more "undead".

Also, when I call on the whole Egyptian metaplot, it's not just about the fans benefited, but the context in which Mummy was written. Mummy 1st and 2nd editions already existed, a whole plot about them and surrounding people existed, and the whole Year of the Scarab was about that, not just Mummy. Of 7 book planned for that year, only one was Mummy, the others covered all the other lines at the time in their relation to that plot (Changeling ended up not being published, but was planned).

It isn't so much about Mummy as written being the right choice, but being inevitable. After two books about them and supplements for every line citing them, making them something unrelated would be weird at best. Even less during a publication period dedicated not to Mummy, but to that plot. The plot existed, it was a thing, and a big thing. One of the biggest uniting threads between lines. Ignoring it would require a really heavy-handed retcon that would harm the entire setting for the benefit of a single new game.

Hence why I said for better or worse. I'm not saying this is the best Mummy we could have, but that taking the whole context it was the only viable one.

I don't want to play Demon XD
And I want my mummies as undead XD

Jokes aside, I don't have as much knowledge as you about the setting. I come from the revised era, and with time I collected some books from 1st edition time (including Mummy). So my perspective is probably different

Retcons have always been there. Kindred of east originally were just that, asian kindred with different clans and some different characteristics. For example the Gaki.
Then Kuei-Jin came and Gaki and other stuff got retconned away.
Now in V5 Kuei-Jin are 99% retconned away.
So I don't see much of a problem with it.
The Hunter "5" currently in production is likely to retcon away the Imbued, or maybe there will be some nods to them but that's it.

I understand what you're saying, and I understand MtR was probably the only viable mummy we could have taking the context in consideration. Your points make sense

My idea is that while MtR was the mummy could have then, it doens't mean it should be the mummy we can have today

[monteparnas]

So I don't see much of a problem with it.

Just the granularity and dispersion of it, and not really being a plot they wanted to retcon. KotE will be missed by many and retconning them isn't in any way universally seen as a good idea (or even by most), but it was mostly self-contained, give or take a few books. The Egyptian plot had roots everywhere and I mean it, would be a lot more awkward, not to say that, again, no one really wanted to get rid of it at all.

My idea is that while MtR was the mummy could have then, it doens't mean it should be the mummy we can have today

That, on the other hand, is an idea I can get behind.

It is doable to use the time gap to overhaul the line without overhauling the plot, bringing the old mummies back to the main spot and all that, with the New Spell of Life somewhat having unforeseen effects, maybe. And if they decide to retcon the whole Egyptian plot, while that would be awful, making a Mummy game afterwards wouldn't be their worse decision. And I totally get why you're uninterested in MtC, although it seems pretty interesting for some games.

[adambeyoncelowe]

Personally, I think MTR was less popular because it turned the Shemsu-Heru into what changelings are and gave them a lot of overlap with the Fallen. They're not really mummies, but humans with a bit of mummy soul.

I can see why they did this -- the idea of playing ancient beings might not be as accessible as playing bright young things with a bit of mummy spirit fused into their own -- but I think it made the line too similar to other games, while also robbing mummies of what made them recognisably mummies.

The Amenti would be fine as the ghoul (or perhaps Thin Blood) equivalents of the setting -- new or reborn servants who were called to the aid of the Shemsu-Heru, or perhaps even the reincarnated spirits of the mummies' original loved ones -- rather than as replacements for them.

Making them loved ones of the Shemsu-Heru appeals to me, because a lot of mummy stories revolve around lost love through the ages. These 'Amenti' gain a sudden flash of their past life and are drawn to their mummy, to awaken and serve them. Then you have a bit of symmetry between their journeys: the Amenti are humans with full memories, but they try to recover the memories of their past lives while trying to reconnect with their mummy patrons; while the Shemsu-Heru are revived corpses without memories, trying to recover their power and identity in a strange new world, while also meeting their duties to Ma'at (and fighting evil!).

You still need the Shemsu-Heru as the core of the game, because mummies need to be, well, mummies. And I think a part of that is rising again in crumbling bodies from ancient tombs, rather than being Yulan Jin with an Egyptian flavour.

Otherwise, it's like making Werewolf but where the Garou are just humans who reincarnate with a bit of an animal spirit, don't turn into wolves, do shamanistic stuff, and have vaguely wolfy powers.

I would have gone with the format of: you wake up without memories, tended by the Amenti guardians who will be your touchstones in a new age, have to slowly recover who you are, slowly regain your former glory, and then fight the good fight against the forces of Apophis.

Characters start off as almost tabulae rasae, with few powers or memories, but grow over time, as they would in most other games. That gives a very clear structure to a chronicle too: become a god again and kick some villainous butt.

It can still fit into the metaplot. The Amenti were just one part of that (e.g., losing Amenti, the place, could mean mummies don't know for certain if they will actually resurrect anymore, which adds a degree of drama to things).

In terms of updating it to V5 rules, you could replace Hunger with something like Disorder. Maybe it rises if you ignore your duties and decreases when you meet them.

If your Disorder gets to a critical stage, you are unlikely to be resurrected by the Judges of Ma'at if you die. You may even become a Bane Mummy.

Alternatively, you could have Lethargy as the Hunger equivalent, representing your lapse back into a corpse if you use up all your Vitality (Sekhem). This must be restored through quests, rites and observances.

Maybe there's a fourth way involving sacrifice, which gains you more Disorder for the price of more power, but which slowly turns mummies into servants of Apophis. The oWoD works best when there's a temptation to be evil -- even in a game where you're playing one of the few good guys of the setting.

[Elphilm]

Personally, I think MTR was less popular because it turned the Shemsu-Heru into what changelings are and gave them a lot of overlap with the Fallen. They're not really mummies, but humans with a bit of mummy soul.

I was thinking the same thing the other day -- how the original World of Darkness game lines seemed to get stuck in a rut after Changeling: The Dreaming. Most of the games that followed repeated the premise of Changeling with minor variations. Changelings are fae souls in human bodies. The Amenti are mummy souls in human bodies. The Fallen are demon souls in human bodies. White Wolf had found a formula and was sticking to it come hell or high water.

At least for me, the charm of the original Mummy supplement was the idea of taking on the role of truly ancient beings that nonetheless displayed a modest level of power compared to other supernaturals of similar age. The Second Edition of the supplement played up the themes of memory and loss, giving a good reason why mummies were not earthshakingly powerful creatures in spite of the fact that some of them were older than the pyramids. It was a nice little niche within the World of Darkness that didn't have to be wiped away in favor of yet another game about modern day humans with something special inside them.

Similar to adambeyoncelowe, I would make the passage of time and the impermanence of memory the central themes of the game. Romance would also play a big part in my take on the subject, given how often mummies have served as love interests in mummy fiction, from The Mummy's Foot by Gautier to The Mummy, or Ramses the Damned by Anne Rice. A modern game inspired in part by colonial-era literature could have a lot of fun by not just uncritically repeating the Orientalist romanticization of the East in works like The Mummy's Foot or Stoker's The Jewel of Seven Stars, but also by commenting on it in a hopefully entertaining fashion.

[adambeyoncelowe]

Another thought I had, inspired somewhat by Charon and the Mnemoi in Wraith, is that the Amenti could literally be containers of mummy memories and/or life force -- something between a horcrux and a Touchstone for mummies.

The Shemsu-Heru need the Amenti to return to life, and they need them to regain who they were so they can become what they need to be. Drop the 'return to Egypt' angle for restoring yourself and make it 'surround yourself with a cult' instead. Mummies need humans who figuratively keep the memory of them alive, and who will also literally provide them with the memories and power they need to fight Apophis.

You could still keep the Amenti dynasties, too. Instead of them being based on which soul fragment fused with yours to make you an un-mummy, they represent whichever part of your mummy patron you carry within yourself, and the symbiotic relationship/mutual influence that creates between you and your master.

And I've found a better analogy than vampire/ghoul now. The mummy is the mage and the Amenti is the sorcerer who acts as consor. You could even go back to the WoD's roots in Ars Magica and have rules for troupe-style play, where you play the mummy, her Amenti guardians, and the wider cult around them.

So when the mummy is dead again, you still have stuff to do to track them down, revive them, and so on. If an Amenti dies, their soul fragment moves on, and the cult has to track it down again to revive the mummy. The mummy also has to protect his own cult to do his duty to Ma'at. There are loads of story opportunities there.

[Mister_Dunpeal]

Honestly I feel like the mummies (esp the Amenti) had more in common with DtF's Demons than Changelings but there are parallels to both in the sense there is always a corporeal and a spiritual element to most WoD creatures (or at least the ones that make up the various systems) - they just manifest/interact in different ways.

[Bluecho]

I definitely think that trying to make Mummy like other splats isn't the best way to go. It should focus on the angle that Mummy does really well: make the players feel like they're playing a living Time Abyss.

In Mummy 1e/2e, you are an old world horror. Not in the sense that a Methuselah Vampire is, that of a centuries old parasite in constant war with other centuries old parasites. You're a thing from the depths of history and prehistory, that is also massively powerful. And unlike a vampire, you cannot die. Not for good, anyway. In VtM, you need to be an Antedeluvian to reliably cheat death. Whereas Mummies can do that as part of their standard kit, because your very being breaks the normal rules of life and death. Grandfathered in by Reality, and thus not subject to Paradox.

You are the Ouroboros, eternal and self-contained. You just ARE.

What makes you horrific to mortals isn't that you must do evil just to exist. If you do harm, it's because you want to. And because you subscribe to a worldview informed by bygone civilization and a perspective on time that most creatures cannot fathom. You have forgotten more than most people have ever known. You have no progenitors breathing down your neck, no torment, no avatar, and no banality. Few other factions in the World of Darkness even know you exist, because you predate most of them, and will be here long after they've faded from everyone's memory, including your own.

What makes you horrific is also what makes you tragic: you will never die. You will always be here. What, then, will you do with your time? And how will your actions, seemingly inconsequential in the moment, indelibly mark the world by design or happenstance?


I think there's a double edged quality to Mummy 1e/2e. There's not a lot to DO as a Mummy. There are only a scant few antagonists, many needing to be shared from other game lines. And there's not a lot forcing you to interact with the game world, other than the need to guard your corpse between lives and to gather energy needed to revive.

But that's also the beauty of it. You have nothing forcing you to act. So your actions in-game are wholly self-directed. As a being for whom time is like water, washing away all worldly concerns, you decide how you spend eternity.

Which I suppose isn't to everyone's taste. Might explain why it didn't get much traction. You had to have a good idea of how you were going to make your own fun, when there's little in the book giving you direction.

[monteparnas]

I definitely think that trying to make Mummy like other splats isn't the best way to go. It should focus on the angle that Mummy does really well: make the players feel like they're playing a living Time Abyss.

I partially agree, but then if that's it you just get to the same problem again, a very narrow public for the game. On top of that, making a whole core book for something that was well done just through small supplements. To justify Mummy as its own line it must be a broader game with more to it than "timeless, so whatever" ("whatever" here from the perspective of the character).

The sense of timelessness is also a tricky thing in an RPG. The character may have it, but the player don't. Not only as in we're not immortals, but game sessions and story plots naturally give the game a time constraint. Memory is another problem, because while it is a common trope that immortals get detached from it (a trope you heavily used, but it is a trope, not a fact), you actually need memories to deliver both the senses of age and meaning to the players. The characters may feel that things are meaningless, but the players can't or we can just ditch the game and hit some beers, which is as Ancient Egyptian as mummies or even more.

Also, Demon and Mokolé did this already, so back to stage one. Both cover nicely several aspects of timelessness, immortality and return. While it's inevitable that Mummy will cover yet another angle of it, it needs its own kick to it. All in all I think adambeyoncelowe's ideas are a very good start to say the least. It severs the need for the character to be the caretaker of their own memories, but make those memories relevant in the game, make the history of the character relevant, and keep the character grounded to things that give them motivation to act. You can ditch grander plots if you want, but you need something that grounds you to the here and now (and to the plot of the chronicle).

[Ravnos]

I partially agree, but then if that's it you just get to the same problem again, a very narrow public for the game. On top of that, making a whole core book for something that was well done just through small supplements. To justify Mummy as its own line it must be a broader game with more to it than "timeless, so whatever" ("whatever" here from the perspective of the character).

The sense of timelessness is also a tricky thing in an RPG. The character may have it, but the player don't. Not only as in we're not immortals, but game sessions and story plots naturally give the game a time constraint. Memory is another problem, because while it is a common trope that immortals get detached from it (a trope you heavily used, but it is a trope, not a fact), you actually need memories to deliver both the senses of age and meaning to the players. The characters may feel that things are meaningless, but the players can't or we can just ditch the game and hit some beers, which is as Ancient Egyptian as mummies or even more.

Also, Demon and Mokolé did this already, so back to stage one. Both cover nicely several aspects of timelessness, immortality and return. While it's inevitable that Mummy will cover yet another angle of it, it needs its own kick to it. All in all I think adambeyoncelowe's ideas are a very good start to say the least. It severs the need for the character to be the caretaker of their own memories, but make those memories relevant in the game, make the history of the character relevant, and keep the character grounded to things that give them motivation to act. You can ditch grander plots if you want, but you need something that grounds you to the here and now (and to the plot of the chronicle).

Yeah, I agree with your analysis. Mummy to work on its own legs as a game needs its own kick.
I too think what adambeyoncelowe put together a few good starting points. Most of it (from what I've read but I'm no expert of it) was used in Mummy the Curse.

Personally an idea I'd add is that the player characters can be awake from different periods of time in the last 100 years or so, kinda like a wraith player character could be dead from more time than just a few years back. And also a mummy loses more memory if it stays asleep for long, while it retains easily memory of a "past life" if it gets awakened soon enough.

For example you can have characters that start with some memories of being awake in WW2, then got put to sleep, awoke in the '80s again, from which they have memories, and then put to sleep once more and in the end they are active in present time once again when the chronicle starts.
But before their awakening in WW2 they slept for 2700 years, so their memories of ancient times are super-vague, fuzzy and dream-like (but still grounded to real-life history because it's always cool, no fictional original empire from MtC thank you).

The different dynasties might originate due to some "group memory" that the mummies from a dynasty have in common, even if it is dream-like (actually screw it, it's cooler if it's vision-like)
So the Shemsu-Heru are just one dynasty, the self-appointed leaders (like the Ventrue) that try to push their agenda on other mummies. So that there's no need to completely retcon everything, and the Horus/Set/Osiris myth can still be kept as a possible origin story, much like the Caine myth.

There can still be mummy that canonically stayed awake for millenia. They're simply not meant for players, just like the elders and methuselah in vampire aren't meant for players.

But yeah, the game would need its own big selling kick.

If we take the original five games of WoD, the main selling point was coupling two things:
the idea of playing one kind of monster (very subversive for the time) + some overarching big thing that by itself wasn't part of the idea of that kind of monster

So we had:

Vampire + Masquerade
You play the classic most popular monster, but you're also entagled in globe-spanning conspiracies

Werewolf + Apocalypse
You play the savage monster that goes into killing sprees, but you also fight for the "soul" of the world to fight back an approaching apocalypse

Mage + Ascension
You play the mage, but actually no it's more like you play philosphers/believers/scientists because reality is flexible and subject to belief to the point that it can be reigned over

Wraith + Oblivion
You pay the restless ghost of a former human and you try to find means to rest in peace, but surprise surprise the ghostworld is weird and dangerous and there's like sort of another dimension that is trying to obliterate everything forever and ever and whatever you wish for is meaningless because once you get obliterated you will be dead beyond death omg this game is so terrifying and yet I love it

Changeling + Dreaming
You play as one of those changeling of legends (metaphorically speaking) so a fae that lives hidden among the humans, but the ability to dream and imagine is slowly dying and sometimes I stop thinking how meta this game is as a metaphor of people who play make-believe and my brain can't handle it

All this to say that the original five tried to take the classic cinematic concept, stayed faithful to it to a degree and then turned their world upside down with some grand scheme of things.
That was the original formula of the WoD.
The later games, aside from repeating to a degree the premise of Changeling (never thought about it but it's definetely true Elphilm !), never tweaked the concept with some big insertion.
So we have

Hunter: they are humans that gets powered-up to fight the monsters in the night, which is exactly what they do

Mummy: they resurrect from the grave, which is what mummies do (ok to be fair they fight evil ancient egyptian gods and push forward cosmic ancient egyptian concepts so I'd say it's still what mummies do)

Demon: ok admittedly taking the formula of Changeling worked well and seemed neat, but in the end they do exactly what you expect demon/fallen angels would do: fight angels and demons, gathering faith, search God

[Prometheas]

Mummy: they resurrect from the grave, which is what mummies do (ok to be fair they fight evil ancient egyptian gods and push forward cosmic ancient egyptian concepts so I'd say it's still what mummies do)

The one thing Mummies have that are fully unique to them is the idea that they are 100% fully immortal, not the kind of Diet "immortality with exceptions" other supernaturals have.

One way to highlight this is have the "death" mechanic in the game be different. For example: use the Shemsu-heru/Amenti system adambeyoncelowe proposes with the caveat that When(not if) the Shemsu-heru "dies" and the group ends their time in this era, they don't roll new character's and instead continue playing the same character X years into the future.

This gives the ST more room to be a bit more murderous and makes inevitable death part of the mechanics. The theme of the game changes to essentially be "survive long enough to accomplish objective X in this lifetime" and whenever the group inevitably Dies, they see the results of their decisions on the next era. This could have reaching consequences like having a groups failure make them Responcible for pentex or the technocracy forming in the first place, or a victory preventing the age of apocalypse occuring in the medieval era.

Demon: ok admittedly taking the formula of Changeling worked well and seemed neat, but in the end they do exactly what you expect demon/fallen angels would do: fight angels and demons, gathering faith, search God

This would also be a good game to talk about. Supplements like Devil's due showed that the WOD writing team were trying to experiment with the formulae, but that probably isn't a tangent appropriate to the thread.

[monteparnas]

The later games, aside from repeating to a degree the premise of Changeling (never thought about it but it's definetely true Elphilm !), never tweaked the concept with some big insertion.
So we have

Hunter: they are humans that gets powered-up to fight the monsters in the night, which is exactly what they do

Mummy: they resurrect from the grave, which is what mummies do (ok to be fair they fight evil ancient egyptian gods and push forward cosmic ancient egyptian concepts so I'd say it's still what mummies do)

Demon: ok admittedly taking the formula of Changeling worked well and seemed neat, but in the end they do exactly what you expect demon/fallen angels would do: fight angels and demons, gathering faith, search God

Those later games are also recursive, that's why they're so different. They're not as much a twist on the monster's concept, but a reference in the setting itself, building what said monster would be in the established WoD and facing the coming Time of Judgement. They're also intrinsically tied to the Revised metaplot and the coming end.

It means they're originally meant for people that were already the public of the game, for whatever that's worth. They answer questions and affect other lines. But they're not contained in this self-reference to the same degree.

Hunter was born as the link between Exalted and the WoD, as originally Exalted was meant to be the ancient past of the setting. The Imbued are the closing of the cycle, the return of the heroes of old to do the last battle, changed to match the passing of time and learned lessons (by their supernatural patrons). This didn't went so well, but it is a more classic game of heroes vs monsters, which is naturally an easier sell.

Mummy tied the numerous, numerous threads of the Egyptian Plot, but that's too much self-referential, it leaned even more in specifics of the setting and had a hard time as a standalone proposal. How do you explain the basics of this game without explaining anything about the rest of the setting? They're the creation of a legendary Mage™ to help a Vampire™ fight an Antedeluvian™ and the forces of the Wyrm™, at first along with their allies Werewolves™ and the other Changing Breeds™. Now the spell was improved as per Previous Crossover Supplements for World of Darkness™.

Demon learned from this lesson and backed down from being pure crossover reference. Maybe too much, as so many people still think that it not mentioning other splats and the Umbra by name means they don't access things. But it still exists as a nod to the metaplot. What made it still stand on its own is that they did added something to the Fallen: the War. Demons is about Falling from Grace in several senses, falling from the grace of your society, your church or your government due to the horrors of a war you initially fought for them, and how war grows on its own. Torment isn't like any other "morality measure" in the WoD because it is simply a huge case of PTSD. It took the Fall as meaning more than simply an explanation for demons and made it a huge thing, something not nearly as common in pop culture as demons themselves.

So Mummy ended up in this weird place. It has no lack of quality, but its primary appeal is limited. Hunter expanded out of the shell by happy accident, Demon by design, Mummy stayed there and there was no time to solve this through new supplements with so many other things to do.