Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is Mummy: The Resurrection so unliked?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Koronus
    started a topic Why is Mummy: The Resurrection so unliked?

    Why is Mummy: The Resurrection so unliked?

    I have often heard about many times people saying, that they did not really liked Mummy. As I have started with W20 I have not experienced it myself and so I am curious, why it got such a bad reputation.

  • monteparnas
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
    I agree. It would have been nice to have a few more smaller supplements for WoD. Besides Mummy, I really liked the original WoD: Sorcerer. It satisfied a real need for the other game lines if an ST wanted to include some magic or psychic characters to serve as antagonists or potential allies. Later on, I found copies of Ascension's Right Hand and the original Book of Madness for Mage, and included them as essential books for other game lines. I did the same for Quick and the Dead and Mediums in the Wraith line. All these books helped me immensely as an ST whenever I had a "I'd like to include X in my next game, I wonder how to do that?" moment, and usually one of those books already had an example of how to do that.
    It is really a shame that the "A World of Darkness" line didn't get some more love at the time. There was so much to do there, including a lot of books from other lines that would be better in a more inclusive format. I totally agreed with Elphilm here.

    One "line" of sorts that comes to mind are the books on the Umbra. Even if you decide that not everything about the Umbra needs to be addressed or even be the same on every game line, a lot of information is basically repeated from book to book because you can't assume a player of one line read the corresponding book from the other, and the result is a mess where you have information about the spirit realms all over the place without any central thread that can help you make sense of it in practical terms for your game, and you have to fish it in the midst of so much redundant information.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Fox
    replied
    Originally posted by Elphilm View Post
    I kind of wish that the original World of Darkness would have presented more of these kinds of modular additions that would have been compatible with any of the main game lines. Not every classic horror monster has a broad enough concept to stand as the basis of its own game. For example, the idea of living constructs could have been presented as a Mummy-style addition to the overall World of Darkness, instead of ending up spread out over obscure Mage and Changeling supplements (as the Prometheans and the Inanimae, respectively).
    I agree. It would have been nice to have a few more smaller supplements for WoD. Besides Mummy, I really liked the original WoD: Sorcerer. It satisfied a real need for the other game lines if an ST wanted to include some magic or psychic characters to serve as antagonists or potential allies. Later on, I found copies of Ascension's Right Hand and the original Book of Madness for Mage, and included them as essential books for other game lines. I did the same for Quick and the Dead and Mediums in the Wraith line. All these books helped me immensely as an ST whenever I had a "I'd like to include X in my next game, I wonder how to do that?" moment, and usually one of those books already had an example of how to do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elphilm
    replied
    Originally posted by TyrannicalRabbit View Post

    The demarcation there is that 1e Mummy was made when VtM was the more fleshed out, relatively speaking line and 2e was vastly more a book that, as I said, took advantage of updates to other lines in it's lore. Tangibally so. I'm more interested in that than engaging with "But Ackchyually."
    OK, but what else is there to engage with in your initial reply to me? I was responding to Black Fox 's comments about the original Mummy books with my own thoughts about the function of the supplements in the wider context of the World of Darkness. All you did was state "Yeah, that thing you just said? That's what the books were. Word."

    Leave a comment:


  • TyrannicalRabbit
    replied
    Originally posted by Elphilm View Post
    I see it stated often that 1st Edition Mummy was a supplement for Vampire: The Masquerade, but that's not really true. The original supplement is clearly marked on the cover as A World of Darkness product, with the following note: "Sourcebook for the Storytelling System including Vampire: The Masquerade." Within the text the product is consistently called "A World of Darkness: Mummy." The only reason the book refers numerous times to the rules of Vampire is because when Mummy was first released, Vampire was the only World of Darkness game published. 1st Edition Mummy predates even the 1st Edition of Werewolf.

    I think it would be more fair to say that both 1st and 2nd Edition Mummy were World of Darkness products, and the primary function of the 2nd Edition update was to bring the supplement more in line with the other games that followed, particularly Wraith.
    The demarcation there is that 1e Mummy was made when VtM was the more fleshed out, relatively speaking line and 2e was vastly more a book that, as I said, took advantage of updates to other lines in it's lore. Tangibally so. I'm more interested in that than engaging with "But Ackchyually."

    Leave a comment:


  • monteparnas
    replied
    Originally posted by Mister_Dunpeal View Post
    I honestly never liked Hekau being basically rebranded sorcery since it didn't feel really.. unique. But at the same time my impression of Egyptian magic has always been its very... ritualized. Sort of like how Heremtic magic works but there's a definite procedure and system you operate under.
    Both IRL and in lore Hermetic magic is extremely based on Egyptian magic, so I think that focusing on this link would be an interesting take. Hekau should feel as a throwback to Isis' original Paradigm and weirdly similar to the early Order of Hermes. Not identical by any means, but similar enough to give a sense of connection, even if it's in a lot of ways also very distinct.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elphilm
    replied
    Originally posted by TyrannicalRabbit View Post

    Because they were. 1e Mummy was a VtM supplement. 2e was a World of Darkness and made use of the expanded lore of the other game lines.
    I see it stated often that 1st Edition Mummy was a supplement for Vampire: The Masquerade, but that's not really true. The original supplement is clearly marked on the cover as A World of Darkness product, with the following note: "Sourcebook for the Storytelling System including Vampire: The Masquerade." Within the text the product is consistently called "A World of Darkness: Mummy." The only reason the book refers numerous times to the rules of Vampire is because when Mummy was first released, Vampire was the only World of Darkness game published. 1st Edition Mummy predates even the 1st Edition of Werewolf.

    I think it would be more fair to say that both 1st and 2nd Edition Mummy were World of Darkness products, and the primary function of the 2nd Edition update was to bring the supplement more in line with the other games that followed, particularly Wraith.

    Leave a comment:


  • TyrannicalRabbit
    replied
    Originally posted by Elphilm View Post
    I tend to view 1st/2nd Edition Mummy not as its own game, but a crossover-friendly supplement to all of the World of Darkness games. In other words, if there is going to be a mummy player character in a chronicle, it's going to be only one mummy in a Vampire chronicle, or a Werewolf chronicle, and so on. Like you, I tend to view Mummy mostly as a Storyteller resource for unique NPCs, but in addition, I see it as a tool the ST can use when one player in the group wants to try out something very different from the chronicle's default options.

    I kind of wish that the original World of Darkness would have presented more of these kinds of modular additions that would have been compatible with any of the main game lines. Not every classic horror monster has a broad enough concept to stand as the basis of its own game. For example, the idea of living constructs could have been presented as a Mummy-style addition to the overall World of Darkness, instead of ending up spread out over obscure Mage and Changeling supplements (as the Prometheans and the Inanimae, respectively).
    Because they were. 1e Mummy was a VtM supplement. 2e was a World of Darkness and made use of the expanded lore of the other game lines.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elphilm
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
    Although Mummy was presented as its own game, I always considered the book to be more for STs if they wanted a Mummy NPC. As you say, it is not really set up well for PCs, especially a group of PCs. Given their rarity, it's hard to justify an ongoing chronicle where there are 4+ PC Mummies together. An ST could run a very tight short lived chronicle dealing with a particular story, but it's not set up for an ongoing chronicle.
    I tend to view 1st/2nd Edition Mummy not as its own game, but a crossover-friendly supplement to all of the World of Darkness games. In other words, if there is going to be a mummy player character in a chronicle, it's going to be only one mummy in a Vampire chronicle, or a Werewolf chronicle, and so on. Like you, I tend to view Mummy mostly as a Storyteller resource for unique NPCs, but in addition, I see it as a tool the ST can use when one player in the group wants to try out something very different from the chronicle's default options.

    I kind of wish that the original World of Darkness would have presented more of these kinds of modular additions that would have been compatible with any of the main game lines. Not every classic horror monster has a broad enough concept to stand as the basis of its own game. For example, the idea of living constructs could have been presented as a Mummy-style addition to the overall World of Darkness, instead of ending up spread out over obscure Mage and Changeling supplements (as the Prometheans and the Inanimae, respectively).

    Leave a comment:


  • Mister_Dunpeal
    replied
    I honestly never liked Hekau being basically rebranded sorcery since it didn't feel really.. unique. But at the same time my impression of Egyptian magic has always been its very... ritualized. Sort of like how Heremtic magic works but there's a definite procedure and system you operate under. I feel like even for the Pillar/Foundation would be a bit more free form than that allows, at least by itself. When they focus on incantations, tools and amulets, symbols, and alchemy having them operate more by rotes (rather than improvised magic) they must develop but that they can prepare from the disciplines that represent their equivalent of 'Pillars.' It would be more static than dynamic magic (whether sphere or Pillar/Foundation) but it would be more flexible than sorcery/linear magic.' And while it can backlash it would not be vulnerable to paradox (any more than the spell of life itself was.)

    I'd have to dig out the book I still have somewhere on that but as I recall alot of their 'rituals' focused on dealing with spirits and gods in affecting the established 'rules' of the universe, so the pillars might focus on affecting different kinds of 'spirit' (such as Divine, nature, undying souls & living beings, objects)

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Fox
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluecho View Post
    I think there's a double edged quality to Mummy 1e/2e. There's not a lot to DO as a Mummy.
    Although Mummy was presented as its own game, I always considered the book to be more for STs if they wanted a Mummy NPC. As you say, it is not really set up well for PCs, especially a group of PCs. Given their rarity, it's hard to justify an ongoing chronicle where there are 4+ PC Mummies together. An ST could run a very tight short lived chronicle dealing with a particular story, but it's not set up for an ongoing chronicle.

    Originally posted by Bluecho View Post
    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.
    That's a very good point, but I think it'd be possible to produce a second supplement for the 1e/2e Mummy that is about the same size and expand the game to give STs the tools to do so. You'd need to expand the Setites and their minions a bit. Add some more groups connected to the Cult of Apophis who would be independent of the Setites. Maybe some legacy occult groups from the Persian, Greek, Roman, and Muslim eras of Egypt that stumbled into a feud against the Mummies, and their descendants continue that conflict. Lots of forbidden lore to suppress, or sacred lore to keep safe. Create a rival to the Mummies for collecting ancient lore - the Arcanum would be a good slot here although a bit more Belloc by way of Raiders of the Lost Ark than the Talamasca. Maybe a group of immortality seekers that seek the Spell of Life, but would do so in an unacceptably profane way and would want to capture Mummies for experimentation and interrogation. even the potential friends of Mummies - the Children of Osiris, the Cult of Isis, Silent Striders, and wraiths and priests of Osiris who are in contact with a Far Shores heretic group around Osiris - could be presented in an uneasy allies sort of way that makes them equally antagonistic as supportive. Plus some well defined politics among the Mummies and Horus to introduce some tension and rivalries among their own kind. I don't think it'd be that hard to flesh these kind of things out.

    Originally posted by Bluecho View Post
    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.
    In my experience, most PCs don't have goals they proactively pursue regardless of game. So you wouldn't have many players for that kind of game. If players want to achieve something, they usually put it as part of their character background as something they already accomplished. But in other games, it's easier to ignore this because the ST already has various things he intends to do as you noted. Plus to be fair, a lot of STs do not want to run a game where they react to what the PCs want to do. They have certain ideas for plots, and the PCs are expected to pursue that. They don't want to divert their time and attention to deal with things the PCs would like to do independently. Some of the players I've seen who did try to run a proactive character eventually "learned" not to do so because of lack of support by the ST.

    Leave a comment:


  • monteparnas
    replied
    breggie going off topic isn't a big problem per se, but the point here is precisely that you need to broad your horizons. You want something outside WoD. Go for it, instead of trying to make it out of WoD's bones. There are greener pastures for you, and both CoD and M&M and good and simple places to start looking, along with D&D 5th edition and many other systems that are simple, but still with some nice complexities.

    Leave a comment:


  • breggie
    replied
    Originally posted by Prometheas View Post

    If you're making a completely different game I'd suggest a different system entirely than the Storyteller system WoD uses.

    Originally posted by monteparnas View Post
    Second that.

    Not only divorcing completely from the setting is kind of off-topic here, as the discussion is about the line within it, not Mummies as a lose concept, but also the system isn't really that great.

    I was originally thinking of it as within the WoD setting, but I dunno. I think at this point I might be getting tired of the WoD and particularly of the storyteller rules system in general.

    It is off topic so I’ll stop after this but my gaming group has only ever played oWoD games and we’ve been doing it for over 20 years. I’m the only one among us who has ever played anything else (shadowrun and D&D), but those were both many years ago.

    That’s why anything that could be different catches my eye now. That’s why we’ve gravitated towards mage in the last few years, because it can be almost anything from fantasy to sci-fi and everything in between. That’s why I was interested in this thread because Mummy is something novel for me, at least somewhat.

    Sorry for the off topicedness. And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

    Leave a comment:


  • monteparnas
    replied
    Originally posted by Prometheas View Post
    That's... a bit different of a take than I thought this was going. I thought you were throwing in ideas for what amounted to a discussion on what a theoretical MtR20 would look like, metaplot baggage and all.

    If you're making a completely different game I'd suggest a different system entirely than the Storyteller system WoD uses.
    Second that.

    Not only divorcing completely from the setting is kind of off-topic here, as the discussion is about the line within it, not Mummies as a lose concept, but also the system isn't really that great.

    I mean, sure you can adapt a lot of things to it, as you can adapt a lot of things to a lot of systems. But it isn't necessarily the best option, and WoD's Storyteller usually isn't a good option to begin with.

    CoD 2nd ed will offer you more resources and a more solid ground for this game. M&M 2nd or 3rd ed is always a good place to plug and play character ideas to see how they work, even if later you decide to switch systems. There are all sorts of systems out there with a better base for what you want than this one, many, maybe most here only stay with it for the setting, and some just port the setting of WoD to better systems.

    Leave a comment:


  • Prometheas
    replied
    Originally posted by breggie View Post

    I don't disagree with you from an official game design standpoint - indeed I strongly agree.

    But my concept for this would not necessarily be set in the WoD - it would be wholly separate, completely new, and having nothing to do with any other splat. In fact, I'm not positive that this theoretical fictional universe would even have any other supernatural creatures... maybe the purpose would be just to direct humanity towards a future where human technology does not destroy them before they advance far enough to colonize the stars.

    I play games for the story, but I myself am terrible at coming up with stories hence why I do not make a good ST. In this case I would just utilize mage's game rules system, but everything else would be unique and have little in common with the WoD.
    That's... a bit different of a take than I thought this was going. I thought you were throwing in ideas for what amounted to a discussion on what a theoretical MtR20 would look like, metaplot baggage and all.

    If you're making a completely different game I'd suggest a different system entirely than the Storyteller system WoD uses.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X