While the Operator does benefit from a game that stresses Barter and Scarcity, that's not their core. The Operator has an inherent, implied Goal (basically “Maintain personal agency and acquire resources”) but is given tools that make it nearly impossible for them to hold on to anything they gain. Due to their Obligations, the benefits they gain from high stakes betting (which is how I see Moonlighting), and the fact that their Crew/Contacts are externalized characters who can act independently, Operators can easily lose whatever they gain and frequently find themselves in complicated situations. Basically, everything goes to hell whenever the Operator is around. And that's the point! The Operator specializes in dealing with unexpected, complicated, tense situations (“Acting Under Fire” one might say), and I'd say each of the Operator moves relate to getting into or out of trouble (“Easy to Trust” you talk your way out, “Reputation” someone knows you and will react differently, perhaps less straightforwardly, than if they didn't, “Opportunist” invites chaos in the form of MC moves when you help others to Miss, “Eye on the Door” is literally getting out of a tense situation). The Operator is the best playbook to play, because it is never boring, and you get the joy of being most competent when others are at their worst.

(By the way, thanks so much for writing these! They're totally awesome, and you completely opened up the Hocus, Gunlugger, and Battlebabe for me).

Those are some pretty accurate, insightful interpretations, although I don't think that's the only way to do it. A Vampire could also be an emotionless serial date rapist after a fashion. A werewolf could also be the emotional dom who actually cares. Well, what I mean is, their style is different, but one is not more "Good" than the other. All the Monsterhearts skins are Monsters (especially the Mortal).

I agree that it is easy to see these as the two typical romantic triangle choices (perhaps even a Betty and Veronica). Although, one could see the werewolf as the less serious one as well. After all, the Werewolf has the whole "freedom through violence, running, taking" thing. And although the vampire is the more social of them, the Werewolf is still, definitely, Hot.

What really interests me about these two, though, is the fact that they are both seeking to control their love interest. It's not just "I want to be with you"; in both cases, it is "I want you to be mine. I want to own you." I think these do keep showing up in this genre, but I'm really curious about why. I guess if the standard protagonist really is the Mundane as represented by Bella, then it's a perfect fit. That kind of character is empowered by controlling types.

I'm actually really excited about how Monsterhearts offers the opportunity to see these characters in very different circumstances. If the Mundane's lover was the Ghost, it'd be a very different story. As mentioned, I really wanna see a Werewolf and Vampire involved with one another.

Has anyone else noticed an interesting dynamic to the Werewolf and Vampire? Obviously, these are the two defining monster types in supernatural teen drama, but it seems like, as presented here, they are both after the same thing--dominance over others in relationships. The only difference is that the Vampire uses emotions and manipulation to gain dominance, while the Werewolf uses violence and physical action.

It seems as though in a game with both a Vampire PC and a Werewolf PC, they would be bent towards a major conflict or feud with one another. I haven’t seen them in action, though; would anyone care to recount their experiences with these two skins interacting? Of particular interest to me would be hearing if anyone has played a game in which the Vampire and Werewolf were intertwined.

(As a side note, I think these personality types show up repeatedly in conflict with one another in teen dramas, even if they are not explicitly made into vampires or werewolves. For example, in Buffy, Angel acts like the Vampire and is forever in conflict with Spike, who acts like the Werewolf).

I understand that analysis. A Hocus might bring people positive, optimistic ideas and results, or they might cause chaos, tyranny, destruction, etc. Much like any other playbook. However, your very insightful analysis of the Hocus just now has led me to wonder if the Hocus relates to the idea of Hope, but doesn't, by itself, provide a definitive answer to whether hope is a good or bad thing. Some might assume Hope is always good, but it might also be false hope, or cause pointless violence. Kind of like the whole Bane/Dark Knight Rises speech about how he gave people hope to make their inevitable despair that much stronger. I could be off though. Hope and Meaning/Purpose seem related in my mind, but I guess they are different things, ultimately.

Ah, but Mr. Wood, isn't that the rub? "The possibility that this means anything at all." That is an arguable definition of hope. Not hope for a better future necessarily, true, but hope that the seemingly meaningless suffering is actually serving a greater purpose.

Also, Mr. Baker, I'm afraid that this is not a love letter at all..

...but this is!:

Dear Lumpley;
Seems you've made a game. Seems your game has made some waves. That's something, isn't it?
Roll+Weird
On a 10+, you have surplus: your game is generally well received.
On a 7-9, your game is still generally well-received, but choose 1 Want:
-People think that they like your game for reasons that have nothing to do with how you designed it. Somehow.
-Your game ends up showing how everything you once believed is wrong.
-Your message boards are in flames.
Hugs and kissies,
Your MC

I completely agree with you, Mr. Wood! These analysis are not a very good box to live in forever. I've only been an Operator once; I've also played a Savvyhead, Battlebabe, Maestro'D, and Touchstone (I actually love the Touchstone, but I can see how some might see it as a problematic crossover between the Hardholder and Hocus; I've always preferred to think of it as what you get when the Gunlugger starts to realize how much his life sucks at the end of the day). What I am trying to get out here is not a definition of player types (I don't see a great deal of value to be gained there) but rather an understanding of the appeal of each playbook, which I believe was specifically designed; the playbooks are so hot because they advertise a play experience to come.

Your analysis of the Hocus is very illuminating, sir! Yes, I suppose it is all about ideas and belief and their place in the Apocalypse. The Hocus puts a spotlight on the fact that Hope can be dangerous sometimes.

I don't really expect that any specific experience with any playbook would fit my idea perfectly, but I do think that the playbooks were specifically meant to be bent in those directions. However, there is a great deal of freedom left in place, because these are things that are meant to be discovered, not planned out ahead of time.

That's an extremely demanding question. I think it is very possible to play an Angel like a Battlebabe, but initially it might be an uphill battle, particularly against the expectations of other players. Each playbook is in a very specific category to start off, but as soon as we get into the real meat of the situations and people start getting advances, no character remains easily categorized. However... I almost kind of feel like, even if there isn't a big difference between an Angel with Battlebabe moves and a Battlebabe with Angel moves, the name on the playbook defines the character of the character. You might have an uncommonly high Cool score, and you might have "Dangerous and Sexy", but until you change playbooks, you are an Angel at your heart, which starts to get into the issue of what that actually means. If any of that makes any sense to you, ha ha.

I am glad to have stimulated some discussion.

Quite right you are, Antisinecurist! That thread was what got me thinking of all this to start with.

That does sound odd, Derendel. Do you feel as though those violent reactions added something (conflict, tension, etc) or took something away (possibly interesting situations, drama, etc) from your experience? I don't think any playbook is locked into anything, and violence isn't the Hardholder's only option for control (heck, they don't even need to seek to maintain control if they change their mind), but violence is just the thing they excel at, in the "Balls, Rolfball, hold her. If she tries to escape, have Millions riddle her" sense.