You know that feeling you get sometimes that a purchase you are about to make is a big mistake? But you still make the purchase, either because you're a real fan or you can't believe it's as bad as you think it's going to be. And once you finally buy it, you find it's even worse than you ever imagined?
Can you guess where I'm going here?
Hunter Players Guide is $25.95 6% Pennsylvania sales tax that I will never get back. The cover art is the first warning, with a painting by the talented Glenn Fabry, depicting a fusion of Buffy the Vampire Slayer with Preacher's Tulip. Skimming through the book you'll quickly find that, except for the Prologue, Hermit, Wayward, and Bystander art, 99.9% of the art is so poor you'll find yourself weeping that the artists received payment for it. I freely admit I've no talent for illustrations, but I don't trouble humanity with my nonexistent skills, as these folks do. If each illustration had the respective artist's name I'd put down exactly who's talented in my opinion and whose not, but since they don't I have to do blanket generalizations. I've been told by other users of rpg.net that I should specifically state exactly why the art failed to impress me, but frankly there's just so much wrong with the majority of the art in this book I honestly can't understand how anyone would not notice the problems.
Okay, now with that out of the way let's get to a section by section review of why this book is a waste of time, money, and space.
Prologue: This is actually a very good piece of fiction, and if the rest of the book was of this caliber I'd be singing its praises from the mountaintops.
Introduction, Hermits & Waywards: An overview of the book, and the first glimpse Hunter fans were offered of the "lost" Vision Creeds, Hermits and Waywards. The lost Creeds info is well-written (though it describes Hermits pre-imbuing as being communicators, a view opposite that presented later in the Hermit Creedbook) but lacking: I recall that the Second Edition Vampire Player's Guide had new bloodlines and their new Disciplines fully described, while here none of the Creeds new Edges were described. This comes off as a tease to us, forcing us to wait for their respective Creedbooks to be released before we can play them properly. I could probably accept that, if not for....
Chapter 1 "Bystandards.": Fifty pages (51 with the full page pic apparently depicting a Bystander) devoted to those that failed the imbuing. When I got the Second Edition Vampire Player's Guide there was no section on creating and running ghouls, and in the Werewolf Player's Guide there was no devoting a massive quantity of pages to running Kinfolk; each system later had a sourcebook devoted to each of the aforementioned groups, second stringers as they were to the game's main focus. Why, then, did Hunter have its second stringers in the Player's Guide, rather than in their own book? Granted, the fiction in this chapter was excellent (and I understand the story about the Bystander known as rabbitkeeper was the flip side of a story told in a Vampire book from a Kindred's perspective-any info on this would be appreciated) and I am interested in Bystandards, but this space could have been used for better things like, say, more information on Hermits and Waywards so we could play them right off the bat? Also the picture on page 72 of rabbitkeeper is a perfect example of the bad art in this book---that's a transvestite, not a woman with an Appearance of 3!
Chapter 2 starts with some new, optional rules. First up is some juiced up Hunter creation rules, apparently for those who've played other Storyteller games and feel Hunters are too wimpy to play. Next up is the idea that you can convert all the dots a starting Hunter receives and convert them to their equivalent in Freebie Points. I've been doing this since Vampire First Edition came out. One note: the author says that with this method you will get 114 Freebie Points to build you character with. WRONG!!!!! In fact you'd have 135 points, as all Hunters start with 21 Freebie Points automatically. Mr. Editor, where are you?!!
There are some other optional rules, the only noteworthy one being the Sacrifice system. Basically, a Hunter gives up his mundane connections (Backgrounds), abandons his learned knowledge (Abilities), or allows his mind and health to deteriorate (Attributes) as he purses the supernatural, and recognizing his devotion the Messengers strengthen his Virtues. I like this, as it fits into the world and tone of Hunter. In this chapter is another hint that having a Level Five Edge is done by dealing with some power other than the Messengers, which makes no damn sense since Virtues which power (provide dice pools for) Edges are provided by Messengers, and why would they power such things, let alone not mark those with said powers as "evil" to their untainted Hunter brethren?
Rounding out this chapter is about six pages discussing True Faith. For those unfamiliar with it True Faith is the idea that a character's religious beliefs are so strong that it can affect some supernatural entities and even invoke miracles. This, frankly, is one of the worst parts of the book. I'm going to break down the problems subsection by subsection of this part of the book.
True Faith and Hunter: The first few paragraphs of this section can be summed up as "the level of devotion that True Faith would require is something few, if any, readers of the Hunter Players Guide have ever encountered in an individual they met, much less meet themselves. Readers are ordinary people. Hunters are ordinary people. Therefore, almost no Hunter has a chance of having True Faith." By that logic no one could ever play a vampire, as Kindred were ordinary people before their Embrace, and since you players have never met anyone who has been turned into a vampire in real life, you can't play a vampire. The whole point of role playing is to be something you are not. Why is it that role-playing a character whose faith is stronger than yours is a problem?
Using True Faith: This section can be summed up as "We can't stop you from using True Faith, but you'll have to buy Hunter's Hunted (which is out of print, but we won't mention that) or Inquisition for rules for it." Mind you, I've been told by people who play Vampire that the True Faith rules in those books are now outdated and unofficial. I guess this adds credence to the idea those with True Faith don't show up as wrong to Second Sight, if Hunters can have it.
Creeds & True Faith: Basically an attempt to discourage use of True Faith by citing examples of how True Faith and Creed beliefs could contradict. Heck, in the third edition rulebook of Vampire a high-ranking Inquisition member has True Faith but uses torture on individuals as a tool. All life is a conflict between faith and life experience.
The Burden of True Faith & The Storyteller and True Faith: More discouragement on using True Faith in your game.
Chapter 3, "New Traits," starts out with introducing Merits and Flaws for Hunter. Many of these are good, reflecting that Hunter is more rooted in mundane reality than other Storyteller games. My only complaint is that the effects of some of the Merits will come up very rarely, unless your Storyteller is very anal about mundane matters; the Merits Paid Mortgage, Good Credit Rating, Specialist Driver's License, and Independent Income are all good examples of this. These Merits cover details which should come up in character background creation, and a player should not have to spend points on those aspects of life. Independent Income would be great if all Storyteller games made it mandatory. I can see it now:
Toreador: I move through the crowd toward my chosen prey, ready to lay the Kiss upon her.
Storyteller: Great. Your watch beeps, reminding you there's only ten minutes until your shift at the 7-11 begins.
Backgrounds are next. There's a very odd, admittedly optional system here to allow Hunters to increase Backgrounds between adventures, in which a Hunter spends permanent Willpower points to gain/raise Backgrounds. As soon as you read that last sentence you probably realized this system is biased against Hunters with high Willpower. For example, Wally Wayward has 10 Willpower, and will need to spend 9 experience points to get back to his original Willpower score after buying a new Background at level one. By contrast, Irene Innocent has Willpower 3, spends one point to get the first point of a Background, and only has to spend 2 experience points to get back to her original Willpower. Wouldn't a weak-willed individual have a harder time studying/focusing/whatever to forge new Backgrounds? Mummy says a new Background costs 4 experience points, and to raise it costs the current level times three. I say use that instead.
Another annoying thing in this section is the optional rule on a minimum Background pool for Hunters. Basically a Hunter can never have less than five for total number of dots in Backgrounds, and if for some reason a Hunter does drop below five dots during the course of play those points are regained and can be reassigned after the end of the adventure. I say: WHAT? After having it harped on so many times that Hunters are people outmatched by their supernatural foes, this unexplained safety net regarding Backgrounds seems ludicrous, and totally outside the concept of Hunter as a game.
Okay, now we get to the enraging portion of this chapter. Other Storyteller games, when discussing raising and lowering Backgrounds during the course of a game, sum it up by saying such changes are determined by player actions and ultimately approved by the Storyteller; in other words, those games respect that players & Storytellers can work out on their own when a Background change occurs. Not the Hunter Players Guide! Almost 17 pages are devoted to explaining how Backgrounds can go up and down. Many of these explanations are insulting to the reader's intelligence---I refuse to believe I'm the only Hunter fan who could come up on his own with the idea that the Bystander or Allies Background would go down if Bystanders or Allies were killed, or that if a Contact was mistreated he might end a friendship with the Hunter, reducing the Contacts rating. There are many other such obvious ideas that after a short while you feel like White Wolf staffers view Hunter fans as having IQs several dozen points lower than those who like other Storyteller games.
It gets worse. How about this portion of the description of the Arsenal Background? "If the Storyteller allows, Arsenal can be used as an equivalent to Contacts, focused on acquiring guns and ammo instead of information." Wow, that'd be cool if the main rulebook didn't already state that on page 120 that points in Arsenal signifies a character's ability to get weapons, as well as noting how many he already owns. Or the idea presented that if you frequently use the Destiny Background you will lose points in it, as "Sometimes failure is as much a part of destiny as success is, and setbacks on a mission should be accepted and learned from." So a player should invest points in a Background, but then be fearful of using it, in case the Storyteller decides he's abusing it and punishes him for it? And what of those characters with only one point in Destiny? One use an adventure could constitute abuse under some Storytellers! And there's a write-up under Gaining Exposure of something called "Blessing in Disguise," which is a straight rip-off of the Insane Insight rule found in the Call of Cthulhu game. In short, this section is an utter waste.
Chapter 4, "The Measure of Humanity," would seem to start out very well, with a system for Hunters changing Creeds after they have been involved in the hunt for a while. This is a great idea, as the Creed and Primary Virtue a Hunter is "assigned" to at his imbuing is based both upon his actions and viewpoints on life; it makes sense that if the Hunter's worldview is severely shaken or altered (an all too easy thing to happen, given the very nature of the Hunt) his attitudes, beliefs, and thus Creed will change as well. There some very good and simple mechanics for the die-rolling related aspects of such a change.
This quality level suddenly hits a brick wall, similar to back in Chapter Three on the subject of Backgrounds, where the authors thought the readers were too stupid to understand how Backgrounds could go up and down in the course of play. In this case, however, the writer(s) devote about seven pages on both reasons why someone would join a particular Creed, and how members of each Creed views converts to their cause. The reasons for joining a Creed are very obvious, and no space should have been devoted to them. But the views on changing Creeds are anger inducing on many levels. Since the main rulebook White Wolf has said Creeds are a general summation of a character's beliefs, each member of each Creed having their own opinions and outlooks; an idea I love, even if White Wolf seems to try and hammer it into us in every Hunter book. The sections viewpoints on changing Creeds paint the picture that all members of a Creed have only one or two viewpoints on those who convert, in effect stereotyping them as mush as White Wolf keeps warning us not to do; this is made even more amusing, as at the beginning of this section the idea of not stereotyping is brought up! Oh, there's also a picture of a gun shop that relates to a portion of the text where the genders mentioned in the writing don't match the picture. I mention this because since this book was published it seems to be a regular thing in Hunter books to have one picture in each book that doesn't marry up with the text it is based on.
A so-so section on Hunters and Triggers follows this (where we learn that Hunter that don't use Triggers DO use Triggers, they're just "internalized." Right.), and then there's about 19 pages on playing a Hunter, focusing on the "real life, everyday aspects of a Hunter." Pardon me if I get snippy as I describe this section. It begins with another of those "Play a normal person, not Rambo" bits we've grown used to in Hunter, which ends with the idea that it is harder to play a real person than a monster.
Excuse me? News flash, writer-type person, but I, and everyone else who plays Hunter, live in the real world. We know how real people act, and when it comes to role-playing a character that's a normal person I'm sure we can all think of someone we've met and use them as a template for our character.
Next up is "Creating a Normal Person," or how to make our Hunter like a real person. How do we do that? I Crap You Negative, the writers says we should go out to a public place and observe people, to get ideas on how real people behave. EXCUSE ME? Apparently all the social interaction and observations we've made in our lives are worthless as far as our perceptions of the real world go, and only by going out specifically to watch the masses will we learn anything. I think you get my point about this section.
Then we get "The Problem with Edges," which seems to suggest that a Hunter with Edges should act like a character from the X-Men comics would act during the 1980s (IE: My powers are freakish and set me apart from the masses who fear and do not understand me, yet I must use them to make the world a better place). I will commend the writer for commenting on how Hunters' powers differ from supernatural powers: it's the same view I had before I read this book, and it explains perfectly why Hunters are not considered supernatural.
A brief section on getting into character follows, the subject and tone of which seems more appropriate for a Vampire book than Hunter, followed by a hodge-pode of column on everything from leading a dual life to leaving your pre-Hunter life. Nothing really bad here, but also nothing exceptional.
We not reach the final chapter of the book, entitled "Make Your Own Fate." It starts out with the concept of a Chronicle involving the Storyteller and only one player. After giving some reasons on why you would run such a Chronicle (ignoring the obvious answer that you have only one player who likes Hunter) you get tips on the creation of a solo Hunter. Unlike every other area of character creations we've seen in Hunter products, where we're told that we should create real people with real statistics, we're told here that "compromises may be necessary for solo roleplaying," and goes on for several pages on how to minimax your character into a veritable Rambo/Doc Savage/Buffy of the Hunter world. This article also assumes all Storytellers allow Hunters to pick their own Edges, citing the best ones the writer a Hunter should possess. I think everyone reading this understands the problem with this section.
A short article on the legal system is next, very nicely done, I might add, for those unfamiliar with the United States' legal system. This is followed by an article on Hunters working in groups-this section really provides no insights into Hunter, and seems written for a Hunter Storyteller Handbook rather than the Hunter Players Guide. There is an irritating bit from the writer on how having a limited range of Creeds in a player group limits perspective; apparently the writer never saw any of the "Creeds are a generalization, not set in stone behavior" warning in most Hunter books.
After a few pages on Hunter/Supernatural relations the book ends with a section on children becoming Hunters. Honestly, this reads like someone who got a degree in child psychology wanted to show it off very badly, and convinced someone at White Wolf to use Hunter as a forum for what they learned. Let me just mark off my grievances about this section by the numbers:
1. "The fact that [children] can be imbued betrays a startling impartiality-some might say callousness--on the part of the Messengers in their quest for champions." DUH! We know rapists, murderers, abortionists, and pseudo-Satanists number among the imbued, so why should children come as a surprise?
2. Adults are freaked out by Edges and have moral qualms, unlike children. Enough said on that one.
3. "A very potent mix of abuse and alienation is required to create at a young age the kind of self-loathing that Martyrs possess." Here's a word for you as to how someone (not just kids) could be Martyrs without the negative traits you mention: Altruism. It's a word that offends many these days, but I still believe in it.
There's also a breakdown of the behavior of children by age group, for role-playing purposes, but it's worthless. We've all been kids, I think we can handle playing one.
It wasn't until I reread this book to review it that I truly understood the statement "It pained me to finish reading it." For the love of God/Satan/Jigglypuff/whatever you believe in and the money in your wallet leave this book to rot on the shelves. I need to go rest now, to purge it from my mind before I write the rest of my reviews.
Go to forum!
(Due to spamming, old forum discussions are no linked.)