Does Hunter need to be an independent line?

[Live Bait]

Hear me out. Since hunters are basically humans they probably use the first few chapters of CofD unmodified (they will need most non supernatural merits plus some of their own, a expanded antagonist section and none of the GM stuff) and that page count could instead be given over to new stuff which I think is sorely needed to do justice to everything H:TV adds to a core mortal game.
I know this is somewhat true of any CofD line but with Hunter it's even more true.
Basically would you accept requiring a second book if all the space saved was extra content?

[LostLight]

You mean that in order to play Hunter you would need both the Hunter book and the core CofD one? Like it was, for all games, in 1e, and that 2e moves from that direction to not force you to have two books to play a single game?

I mean, that was how things were, and it looks like it didn't really worked. And if that's how 1e is, and that extra page count seems to not be satisfying enough for you, why doing the same thing for 2e would be any different?

[ArcaneArts]

I dislike this framing since it sort of suggests that Everything In Hunter has been kind of a waste of time?

But that asides, yeah, I think it's worth admitting that one of the largest obstacles to Hunter has been that it's been a main gameline rather than considered a blue-book subset, since a lot of the dialogue that has to be addressed with Hunter is the direct result of that decision and that has definitely Created Problems. At this point that's more just a matter of challenge accepted, but I wouldn't have done it that way back when it was in development.

[Tessie]

Yeah, I'd personally be okay with Hunter being a sub-line à la Night Horrors. I don't think the few Hunter unique mechanics (that aren't tied to Compacts and Conspiracies) are really necessary. Any Endowments or Tactics could just as well be part of books about those who use them. That's kinda what most Hunter supplements already do. Gearing them towards the WoD/CofD core books would've been easy.
Not that it's something OPP would've been interested in for second edition (if they hadn't already started on it) now that Hunter already is a separate gameline. Making it a sub-line of only supplements would've been confusing and possibly alienating old HtV fans.

Edit: Making it a game rather than a line of themed supplements was probably more economical back when HtV was created. New games tend to generate more sales than supplements that have a naturally smaller pool of possible buyers (i.e. people who have bought the game it's a supplement to).

[Draconis]

Honestly if I were in charge I'd make Hunter halfway between a splat and a bluebook. The 2e core contains a whole bunch of things directly taken from Hunter 1e: horrors, dread powers, professional training, a bunch of merits. Whether or not the devs are actually going this direction I have no idea, but out of all the unreleased gamelines, Hunter is the closest to the 2e bluebooks at this point.

[Tessie]

Definitely. The only major thing missing from the CofD book to play a hunter would be ready made Compacts and Conspiracies, and they're not actually that important for those who prefer first tier games.

[Morty]

Would it be more efficient? Perhaps. But it'd also make people dismiss Hunter as not a "real" gameline and less relevant than the others. I don't think that'd be worth it.

[ArcaneArts]

Would it be more efficient? Perhaps. But it'd also make people dismiss Hunter as not a "real" gameline and less relevant than the others. I don't think that'd be worth it.

Given how the Night Horrors branding as a cross-gameline sub-franchise has worked out and has become widely regard as an instantly recognizable and favorite brand for a lot of people?

I mean, I get it, but I don't think it would have to be consigned to that fate. It would largely be dependent on the branding and marketing strategy.

(Now admittedly the way it turned out was how they decided to deal with the Hunter brand and that Mostly Worked Out, but as mentioned it also Created Problems that are still at work in dealing with property and audience expectations and the dissonance between the two, and between Hunter and Night Horrors I think there's precedence for a Better Third Option.)

[Morty]

Given how the Night Horrors branding as a cross-gameline sub-franchise has worked out and has become widely regard as an instantly recognizable and favorite brand for a lot of people?

I mean, I get it, but I don't think it would have to be consigned to that fate. It would largely be dependent on the branding and marketing strategy.

(Now admittedly the way it turned out was how they decided to deal with the Hunter brand and that Mostly Worked Out, but as mentioned it also Created Problems that are still at work in dealing with property and audience expectations and the dissonance between the two, and between Hunter and Night Horrors I think there's precedence for a Better Third Option.)

I'm not familiar with Night Horrors or how the audience reacted to it, so I can't really say how it compares to Hunter. Vigil is definitely different than other gamelines in that its protagonists are ultimately mortal, except maybe with some extra bits. The difference between a core book mortal character and a tier one hunter is blurry. So there's some grounds for being treated differently, but I don't know if it's worth the risk. As barren as this section of the forum is, Night Horrors don't have one, do they?

[ArcaneArts]

I'm not familiar with Night Horrors or how the audience reacted to it, so I can't really say how it compares to Hunter. Vigil is definitely different than other gamelines in that its protagonists are ultimately mortal, except maybe with some extra bits. The difference between a core book mortal character and a tier one hunter is blurry. So there's some grounds for being treated differently, but I don't know if it's worth the risk. As barren as this section of the forum is, Night Horrors don't have one, do they?

There's some truth in this, but the catch of the matters comes to sales-dialogue is only so important as it translates into putting the money down, and while Night Horrors doesn't have a forum, for years it was a big deal when a gameline got a Night Horrors book, with instant surge in response to it. Hell, I make it sound like it's fallen out of order, but Conquering Heroes and Enemy Action basically had each of the fan bases get more whipped up than simply the BPG or DSG, and that's because of the effect the Night Horrors brand has had on people as a result of the quality and nature of the content when it started. Arguably The Tormented, Shunned by the Moon, and The Nameless and the Accursed haven't hit as hard of a reaction as the two mentioned above, but by and large that's because conversation in general has cooled a little bit for Chronicles overall, and might be influenced by the fact that those books are stepping in as 2E antagonist books, but even still the way a lot of people reacted to those three has still been "NIGHT HORRORS, FUCK YEAH" above many others (Nameless and Accursed still got more of a response than Signs of Sorcery, and people wanted Signs of Sorcery like whoa).

Now contrasting this, as you mentioned, the difference between mortal investigators and hunters is very blurry, and largely that's because there shouldn't be one-but there is because Hunter is a gameline instead of a Blue Book sourcebook (set), and with that things have to be presented and built A Certain Way, and this has led to a lot of hang-ups both mechanically and in keeping control of the conversation, with some of the larger issues of understanding and working with and playing Hunter stemming from that brand choice.

Now, Hunter has done well despite that, no denying that-as I mentioned, at this point those issues are more "Challenge Accepted" that Problems. But it has been something that has kept Hunter from being as strong a product as it could be, and I'm not going to deny that.

[Primordial newcomer]

Well we will see what 2nd edition hunter brings to the table. Personally if making it a blue book supplement would still keep the conspiracies and compacts (along with endowments), I would be ok with the idea

[ArcaneArts]

Well we will see what 2nd edition hunter brings to the table. Personally if making it a blue book supplement would still keep the conspiracies and compacts (along with endowments), I would be ok with the idea

I mean, at this point I wouldn't mess with the brand. Problems as a main gameline may exist, but at this point it has built and sold itself on those grounds, and a rebranding would hurt more than help.

[LostLight]

In the end, the only difference in 1e between a supplement and a gameline is how much depth and development were given to the splat- blue books were self contained, sometimes referenced by other books but rarely with additional books giving further development of the concepts in question. Gamelines (other than Geist) were when there was meant to be a series of books exploring different concepts and adding to them. Again, there are exceptions (again, Geist, and Armory), but that's was the core difference.

Now, using some sort of a Night Horrors format may have been interesting, and that is kinda what the "specialist" book are- even though they come from Hunter's point of view instead of the hunted, mechanics included. And yes, the all "Hunter vs mortal" thing has brought its share of issues. However, if I;m not mistaken the idea of Night Horrors came kinda late at 1e, and until then it made more sense that if you plan for a series of books, gameline would be the better format. May main question is still what exactly we would have gained from making Hunter a supplement instead of a line- 1e didn't "wasted space" on core materials, 2e always "waste". With the new core absorbing many of Hunter's ideas and concepts, I do agree that differentiating Hunter from a mortal game is the new edition's greatest challenge, but it looks like the people who work on it are aware of the it and work on it.

In short, it is hard for me to see how different Hunter would have been if it was only a supplement/ a cross gameline supplement series, other than the fact it would have had potentially less books and material about it- so in short, yeah, I'm happy it is a gameline, and I'm not sure what the benefit would be.

[ArcaneArts]

In the end, the only difference in 1e between a supplement and a gameline is how much depth and development were given to the splat- blue books were self contained, sometimes referenced by other books but rarely with additional books giving further development of the concepts in question.

Hoo boy is that missing a lot of actual difference.

[LostLight]

Hoo boy is that missing a lot of actual difference.

Care to expand?