Tinner
First Post
eyebeams said:*cackle* At a "rough estimate?" What orifice was this pulled out of? OWbN doesn't have any formal method for tabluating numbers, while the Cam actually tracks every member.
Well, you'll notice I did say "rough estimate." Yes, OWbN does not track each member like the Cam does. That's exactly the kind of bureaucracy OWbN was formed to avoid. However, every player has to sign into their local game. Those numbers aren't publicly posted, but do get passed around internally. So yeah, if you want to say I pulled them out of an orifice, that's fine. Like I said, rough estimate.
Um, that's because the Cam actually has enough people to have cons where the sole focus is the Cam, and not as an adjunct to another event. The Camarilla is very much its own thing.
This is implying what exactly? That OWbN doesn't hold cons of their own? They do. Some very large ones at that. The Origins game is a big event, but it's far from the largest OWbN event. Things like the Midwinter Ball and Non-Klaive/Clave are MUCH larger games.
The New WoD? It's doing fine. But OWbN is irrelevant. The fact is that LARP itself has undergone a dramatic decline in popularity and did so long before the old WoD ended. There used to be at least 4 major North American MET orgs and many, many independent games. Now there's basically you and the Cam, and far fewer indie street and club games. In this context, moving to a membership-based model makes sense, because the company is better served by having a core of habitual consumers. The idea that they're "out to get" OWbN is silly, because OWbN's members haven't meant much to the company in ages. You are being alienated because you are irrelevant to their plans, not because you're thwarting them.
I'm sure the New WoD is doing "fine". But sales numbers flat out do NOT come close to matching those of previous versions of the WoD. So if WW was shooting for "fine" than they have certainly acheived it. BUt IMO "fine" isn't enough to carry a company the size of WW for too long.
I also question the idea that LARP has declined in popularity. Certainly the number of books being produced for LARPs hasn't decreased. WW cranked out plenty of MET books before the New WoD kicked off. There's Noir, Cthulu Live, SW Live, LA Paranoia, and a number of smaller, independant systems as well. I don't see that as an indication of declining popularity. All of the Con's I have attended in the last couple years have had plenty of well attended LARPs of all kinds. I played live action versions of Paranoia, Deadlands, Seventh Sea, Are You a Werewolf, Vampire, Werewolf, Changeling, Mage, Wraith, Star Wars, Cthulu and even checked out some homebrew super hero systems in the last two years. Where's the dramatic decline in popularity there?
Lastly, the idea that OWbN is irrelavent doesn't match up with WW's actions. They pretty much handed this policy to OWbN as a "cease & desist" notice, and have plainly said that the only groups this is meant to affect are the large organizations. If as you asert, that's just the Cam and OWbN, I hardly see how OWbN is "irrelavent" And if as you say OWbN doesn't mean much to the company, then clearly WW doesn't value sales, and "super-reccomnders" In the five years I was with OWbN, I would make a "rough estimate" that I personally introduced more than 100 people to WoD MET LARPs. with very few exceptions, each of those players bought a copy of the Core MET Vampire book. Most of them bought everything in Laws of the Night line, and some of them pretty much bought every new MET release as it came out. I'm certain that most of the OWbN games out there have similar numbers as well. I fail to see how that many purchases implies that "OWbN's members haven't meant much to the company in ages"
That said, I think the whole thing is a massive mistake. I understand that White Wolf wants to protect their property, but they should have adopted a model that differentiated between groups that collect modest dues to rent space and those that might abuse the company's IP. But again, I suspect that there's a marketing motive as well, and that this is a misguided attempt to combine both.
Well, at least we both agree the policy is a mistake.