Couple of comments about things that were bugging me writing this -

  • What 'era' should the clan summaries be at? I was kind of sitting between second and revised, what with the Setites not being their sillier 1st ed version and there still being Ravnos around.
  • There are an awful lot of caveats in things like morality due to the Sabbat; it may make more sense to trim the main section down to Camarilla Vampires primarily, then detail the Sabbat separately.
Clan summaries should be current as of Vampire Revised, which is the most recent core rulebook. The individual clan pages can and should include a complete history of the clan, including their history, their statuses as of Dark Ages and Victorian Age, and the more recent history. The latter section would include any changes between editions.
Having Sabbat in the main section is cool, but it may make some sense to gloss over them a little. Again, detail can be reserved for the seperate Sabbat page. IanWatson 03:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Article size Edit

I don't know about the rest of you but doesn't anyone think that this article is getting a bit long? Whispering 20:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the stuff here should be moved; this is about the game as a whole, but there's a fair bit of information about the game world and about the vampires themselves, which could be moved to articles about those things. (The vampire and Kindred articles in particular.) This should just be an overview in these areas, and focus more on the theme and mood of the game, since the setting (the World of Darkness) is a larger topic and the various traits and abilities of vampires are covered elsewhere. I might try and edit it down this week. -- Guybrush 00:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Front page of the VTM needs some organization.  There's no portal to clans clans, history, headers...  I makes me sad.  Table of Contents for the win anyone?

--> I agree. Good luck with that. ;) (Russel Hammond)

As I understand it, most of the adressed points can be reached via the Kindred (VTM) page, which has its own undersection in the article. I believe that the article is about external information about the VTM, like its publishing history, adaptions, etc., rather than internal infos, like, for example clans.

To adress the points Anon made, we could add the templates for Clans/bloodlines/sects (is there one in the moment? I think not) as further means of navigation within the wiki. Has anyone other ideas?

And I agree that the page needs some reworking, to adress changes brought via V20.Sharth (talk) 02:10, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

--> Interesting. The page Kindred (VTM) shouldn't display that kind of information. "Kindred" is merely a term used by Camarilla vampires to adress vampires in general (the term "Cainite" is much more accurate, however, I don't believe that kind of information belongs to the Cainite article either). So far, I have no idea how to fix this, but I'm sure we'll think of something. (Russel Hammond)

I gain the impression that this was done in the early phases of the wiki to describe the vampires as presented in VTM separate from their depiction in other media, like Werewolf or Changeling.

If there is a problem with the term, we could move parts of the info to either Cainite (VTM) (which has been used as common parlance in the Dark Ages) or Vampire (cWOD). My concerns about putting it all in a single Vampire page is that the article becomes too unclear and overcrowded, especially if we maintain the views other gamelines have on vampires (like Werewolf, Mage, Demon etc.) Sharth (talk) 02:32, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

-->Take a look at the Cainite article I just edited. It is simple and direct, referring to the actual term and it's significance. I believe the article "Kindred" should follow the same pattern. Your idead of moving the content of Kindred (VTM) to Vampire (cWOD) strikes me as a good alternative. (Russel Hammond)

Then I would suggest to do this. As I understand, there were already placeholders that can be filled. I would recommend to move the parts concerning the Kuei-jin to the respective page, or a smaller sub-section among the view of other supernaturals. From a pure, in-game metaphysical viewpoint, Kuei-jin are not vampires/Kindred/Cainites at all, even if they suck blood.

In the preface, we should mention the terms Kindred and Cainite as how vampires describe themselves. Sharth (talk) 02:55, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

-->Wait a sec. I can agree that the Kuei-jin may not be vampires in the traditional western sense of the word, but they are some sort of vampires. At least that was the idea that the developers sold us throughout their books. Wasn't it?

Just look at the summary of Kindred of the East Rulebook when it says: "Kindred of the East is a giant hardcover sourcebook describing the unique and deadly vampires of the East."

So how could we take them away from the "vampire" term ourselves? (Russel Hammond)

It's more to avoid confusion with the WOD specific variant. While I agree that they are vampiric, as defined in the dictionary, I also believe that they should deserve an own article to describe their habits (like progressing in their ways to absorb chi), which differ from the traditionell western vampire as depicted in the article Vampire (cWOD). It also allows the article to focus solely on the western variant, while we have an article to describe the other variant in greater detail.Sharth (talk) 03:17, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

--> Ok, I can live with that (as long as we keep the part saying they are a different "species" of vampires).

So, if I got that right Vampire (cWOD) will focus on western vampires (the Cainites), while the Kuei-jin article will focus on the eastern vampires. The Vampire: the Masquerade article will have to be reworked to adress the V20 content, but should follow the same line it follows today (focusing on publishing info, adaptations, etc).

Do we have an agreement? (Russel Hammond)

We do. Sharth (talk) 03:32, September 5, 2014 (UTC)