Lamest, most to-the-point name ever. I’m open to suggestions.

So me and The Goat watched Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter Sunday night and 24 hours later I’d turned it into a game.

I have not tried it yet but I suspect with the right people it will be very fun and functional. I estimate play time to be about an hour, maybe an hour and a quarter. It is highly constrained, both in situation and character. You make a few character and setting choices in a competitive way initially, and these serve as the most rudimentary flags to your fellow players. After that the creative bits come from elaborating on a ten-scene script. You create clues (offers, improvisers) that appear later to exculpate innocent villagers (reincorporation, improvisers). There are four fight scenes. I think it emulates the inspirational film quite well. You always beat the vampire in the end, but at what cost? Playtesting will tell, but I think I’m onto something fun.

The Vampire Hunters
Tagged on:

8 thoughts on “The Vampire Hunters

  • September 13, 2006 at 4:40 am


    Those lame, to the point names are often the best. “Vampire Hunters” intrigues me, bro. I totally dig the short play cycle and a highly constrained Sit and Char is perfect for a short game.

    So is the game GMless?

    Do the players compete against each other?

    What are the endgame conditions like?



  • September 13, 2006 at 6:46 am

    Hi Troy,

    GMless, of course, I can’t seem to write in any other format. There’s no competition, really, at this point, although adding that would be fun and improve the game – I’m open to suggestions. There’s some tension in allocating character and situation elements, since you can choose to make someone else play a character or assign a bit to yourself instead. But really it’s parlor narration again – you don’t make any tactical decisions that influence the story, just narrative ones. I’m OK with that, unless it turns out to be a drag to play.

    The game ends after scene ten, period. Actually after the big fight in scene nine with ten being a denoument.

  • September 13, 2006 at 8:08 pm

    uh… fearless vampire killers?

  • September 18, 2006 at 9:00 pm


    By competition, I meant “Is someone playing the vampire and is someone playing the hunter or are both playing vampires and hunters or how are characters alloted?” I should have been more clear.

    Anyway, what I meant to ask was basically if the players play characters that are in opposition to each other. If so, how? If not, what opposes them and who represents that opposition? :)



  • September 19, 2006 at 8:40 am

    Oh yeah, in scene nine, the big throw down, the player of one of the dead PCs plays the vampire, who is his villager.

    All the opposition is self-contained.

  • September 23, 2006 at 6:32 pm

    Simon Washbourne (of Lashing of Ginger Beer fame) once wrote a Chronos game which I have somewhere on my broken PC. It was more your straight finding and killing vamps game though and I’ve never played it.

    Capt. Chronos was always a favourite of our roleplaying group.


  • September 24, 2006 at 7:46 am

    Thanks, Steve. I’d love to see it!

    We playtested yesterday and it hit all the right notes – 1 hour long, fun, chock full of parlor narration goodness. I see a fun way to revise it that will front-lod every decision and make character and situation generation the time when important decisions get made.

  • September 24, 2006 at 1:31 pm

    Here’s what I’m thinking, after playtesting this: Forget the cards. Now in character generation you have a 13-slot “queue”. You can either add a quality in any order to any slot for villager or hero, or you can put your initials in the queue, starting at slot #3. #2 and #1 are reserved for the players who get a choice made for them by the selection sequence – the person who gets the last hero and villager role filled in by default get #1 and #2, which previously sucked and is now valuable, even crucial.

    In play, at every decision point, anybody who wants to decide how it goes can declare. The person with the lowest number remaining gets to decide, and their number is then crossed off. #1 and #2 are special and can trump anybody at any time, and then get crossed off. The regular sequence begins at #3, so they are outside that sequence.

    This would mean that EVERY choice in play is basically decided during chargen, but there’s a resource shepherding component in actual play. It seems weird and interesting.

Comments are closed.