Take the 2-minute tour ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have always assumed that for an urban region (including the suburbs) the ratio between vampire and human population was about 1:10k and 1:50k for the biggest, capital cities. The rural region would yield a bigger ratio, about 1:5k-10k. I assumed that on the notion that in the scarcely populated regions vampires that would otherwise be scattered would group together, but in the largest centres the elders would thrive and gather more resources than their lesser peers.

However, I realised that I have never seen an actual passage from the book that describe this. Is there such a passage? Or maybe the vampire to human population ratio has been implied in one of the more obscure sourcebooks?

Also, if for some reason you believe my reasoning is wrong please let me know, though establishing correctness of my claim if there is no canon source is not an objective of this question.

share|improve this question
Wait, there are humans in the World of Darkness setting? –  Cristol.GdM Jul 11 '14 at 17:04

4 Answers 4

up vote 12 down vote accepted

As a rule of thumb, assume that there is one vampire for every 100,000 mortals. (...) The cities could certainly hold more Kindred, but there are legitimate fears of discovery. (...) Despite this, however, there are currently far too many Kindred for the mortal population to support; the ranks of the anarchs have swelled to unprecendented proportions.

– Vampire: The Masquerade, Second Edition (WW2002), p.31: Overpopulation


A rough ratio of vampires to mortals has evolved in the last century. Many vampire princes enforce a limit of one vampire per 100,000 mortals, in the interests of keeping the existence of the Kindred a secret. Nonetheless – and particularly in the last few years – some cities exceed this ratio (...) In cities that do not slavishly heed the Masquerade, such as those under Sabbat control, the ratio may soar to two or three times the acceptable level.

– Vampire: The Masquerade, Revised (WW2300), p.29: Cities

share|improve this answer
Were you able to find a quotation for V20? I was looking for it, but I have found nothing. –  Flamma Jul 11 '14 at 17:11
@Flamma I do not have V20, unfortunately. :-o Have you checked its introductory parts thoroughly? –  OpaCitiZen Jul 11 '14 at 17:23
I think the problem with that ratio is it might be designed for cities of millions like NYC, and LA –  xenoterracide Jul 12 '14 at 20:23
@xenoterracide Yep, that seems likely indeed, it's designed for metropolises. (But let's keep in mind that the WoD is a twisted reflection of our world, in which metropolises are more common and even bigger, and the wilderness around them is even more forbidding...) As for the populations of small cities: hierarchies can be filled up with... ghouls? Perhaps. Not the real thing, but more likely to serve the Masquerade better. :) –  OpaCitiZen Jul 12 '14 at 21:18
@OpaCitiZen I suspect population densities vary too.. for example I think Austin would support a much higher vampire population because of how the kinds of events that happen here. Austin is a medium sized city, but because we're a music center... anyways I digress, I think I'd take that as a rule of thumb, a metropolis might have 1:500k, a medium sized might be 1:20k, but say a town of only 20K is unlikely to have any (even only 100K might not have any). Basically the danse is a social thing so once theirs one vamp their tends to be more. –  xenoterracide Jul 13 '14 at 16:19

You are too optimistic compared to books. Vampire: The Masquerade always have been managing 1 vampire every 100k inhabitants, considered a safe number to keep the masquerade. Sabbat cities are usually overpopulated, having 1:50k ratio.

In my experience, these numbers only work well for big cities. When dealing with european cities, for example, these number must be stretched or you won't have a decent population on any. But the canon says 1:100k.

Note that vampires usually don't unlive on rural regions. The small populations make hard to keep secrets away from neighbours, thus the Masquerade risk is too high. Also, werewolves are strong on rural areas.

share|improve this answer
Can you provide a passage or a book and a page if you know where to look for? –  eimyr Jul 11 '14 at 14:49
For example Montreal has a population around 1.5M for the city, closer to 4M for the metro area. Presumably a bit less in 1996, when Montreal by Night was published. I'm going to go ahead and guess that if you add up the NPCs in the book, plus overhead for less important vampires not mentioned, plus the PC party, you get more than 80 :-) So yeah, the rulebook said approx 1:100k for Camarilla cities, but a usable cast list for a game rarely fits in that. –  Steve Jessop Jul 11 '14 at 17:05
@eimyr OpaCitiZen has provided quotations and page numbers. The number has historically been like a magic number that most Vampire fans had in their head (even if you had to ignore it), and usually referred on many books. –  Flamma Jul 11 '14 at 17:07
@SteveJessop I haven't counted all written vampires in Montreal by Night but, in contrast to NYC BN and Mexico BN, I'm pretty sure those vampires are all they unlive in the city, except for the PCs. I don't they leaved vampires without mention. –  Flamma Jul 11 '14 at 17:10
@Flamma: so you can work out the exact ratio, on the counter-factual assumption that the GM won't invent any characters ;-) –  Steve Jessop Jul 11 '14 at 17:12

It depends which book you are talking about (ratio are different in masquerade and requiem).

I don't remember if it was WOD core-book or an extension but I remember about some kind of chart of ratio depending on which creature you use (only-vampire settings will have higher vampire ratio than one with vampires, werewolves, mages...)

share|improve this answer

1:100000 ratio for general Kinred pop, increasing to 1:50000. It's "speculated" in the first chapter of the VTR gamebook, under the picture of the cowboy looking guy reaching into his coat. You definitely are way too optimistic. Hah hah!

share|improve this answer
Sorry, not talking about VtR here. –  eimyr Jul 11 '14 at 14:47

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.