Card name change suggestion

LivesByProxy wrote:

@SelfBiased: I'm all for being inclusive, but the absolute wrong way to go about it is: "Are you brown/black/yellow/blue? Well, golly geez, do we have the clan for you!" or trying to fill some arbitrary POC representation quota.

except That is in no way what i said, or suggested.

I said that I'd like to see more inclusion with regard to race, sexuality, and gender. I feel that representation of these groups is important for a variety of reasons.

Please don't misrepresent my statments in the future.

Lech wrote:

I hated on soviet troops just as much as on usa troops today. It's cancer to be occupied. My hatred is ofc focused on your government @LivesByProxy, i don't even like my government why would i like something that is way worse.

I do not want to destroy your "castle of universal hatred" but unfortunately for at least two thousand years there is no other way of a territory to exist other than with military presence (and, as a consequence - control) of some empire-like entity, except rare situations, when it's stuck in the middle of the two and got some freedoms while big ones struggle to not let each other to take full control of it.

Poland was one of them some time ago and, by the way, there is one school of thought here, saying that if Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth managed to hold control of Russia in the XVII century than many crazy events in the later history of this part of the world may be avoided.

Lech wrote:

But again regarding the game, it's now impossible to touch one concept (gypsies) without touching others (assamite, setite, ravnos, giovanni) to not break the entire game.

Do not see any problem with settites - stereotyping snake cultists from conan the barbarian is not a problem for anybody.

You have gay, lesbian, transsexual, pedophile, sadists, masochists, bisexuals, people of all races. It's one of the most inclusive game on the market. I guess even some of those are overrepresented compared to humans on physical land the game is based upon. Content should first and foremost fit the theme and be good. Quality is way more important than representation.

@elotar: don't worry, my caste of universal and inclusive hatred is going strong! And i know history well. Sadly, we taken stupid part of vasa family, i wish we would take the other one, we would be empire others would hate.

LivesByProxy wrote:

The reality is that the majority of the people who play card & board games are overwhelmingly male, white men. As someone living in the Southern US where the black population is approx. 45-50%, if I go to my FLGS the breakdown is 75% men, and 85% white people. I don't think VTES has ever had a problem representing the demographics of the world (vampire or otherwise), but if we're shooting for a target demographic to get into this game, it should be white women IMO.

The largest region for growth in V:TES has been in Brazil, a nation that is very diverse in terms of ethnicity and skin color.

It's not the North Atlantic Nations of Darkness. It's the World of Darkness.

It's also woefully underrepresented. Is there any Prince/Archbishop/Cardinal from South America? What about eastern Europe, like for example Moscow, Warsaw, Bucarest ? Nope, only Prague. India ? Not much. At least laibon have africa covered. So it IS mostly North Atlantic of Darkness (covering mostly old NATO and some of it's unofficial colonies).

self wrote:

LivesByProxy wrote:

@SelfBiased: I'm all for being inclusive, but the absolute wrong way to go about it is: "Are you brown/black/yellow/blue? Well, golly geez, do we have the clan for you!" or trying to fill some arbitrary POC representation quota.

except That is in no way what i said, or suggested.

I said that I'd like to see more inclusion with regard to race, sexuality, and gender. I feel that representation of these groups is important for a variety of reasons.

Please don't misrepresent my statements in the future.

@SelfBiased: I wasn't trying to misrepresent anyone's statements. I was just remarking about the nature of inclusion (done wrong) and old WW's... design(?) of clans and their... flavor(?)

The best clans of the game are those that don't have any race / class association with them. Any person can be a Gangrel because 'beastial / animalistic vampires' are abstract enough to incorporate just about any sort of demographic you can imagine. Same goes for Nosferatu (ugly, diseased, monstrous looks = universal archetype), Toreador (sexy, beautiful vampires can be any race or person), and Malkavian (madness is universal, no?). The worst clans IMO are those that either implicitly racial (Giovanni, Ravnos, Assamites) or class-based (Ventrue are ostensibly 'rich people', Brujah are 'punks, anarchists, gangbangers, rebels').

I do agree with you though, the Gypsies card could easily be changed to 'Romani Travelers' and nothing of value will have been lost.

@BenPeal: I'd still be interested in knowing the racial / sexual composition of Brazil's VTES community. Also, what are the Brazilians doing that's earning them so many players? What technique(s) are they using to promote and grow the game? (Genuine Question)