There's a common phrase: "Vote with your feet." She's entrenched and defensive, to the point that she is vindictively killing PCs to punish players. That is never acceptable, and a very strong sign that this is beyond fixing without breaking it a bit more and starting over. You can talk to her outside the game, and that might help and is always worth trying first, but you've tried and at this point more words are unlikely to get through.
Your instinct to leave to avoid more strife, and continued unhappiness in a pastime that is supposed to be fulfilling, is right. You always have to be willing and ready to walk, else you're a willingly-captive audience. Words are hollow if you're going to stay no matter what she does. If you're going to stay, she doesn't need to change, right?
Leaving doesn't need to be hard for you or unpleasant for her
Be ready to walk, but don't try to use the idea of leaving to convince her to change, since threats aren't going to bring a defensive person out of their emotional bomb shelter. If there is no change, and it sounds like there won't be, walk.
When you leave the game, communicate clearly and without venom that this game isn't for you and that you won't be participating anymore. You don't need to justify or explain (which will just invite argument), just inform that you're not going to play. If she tries to argue with you, don't try to convince her (her permission isn't needed!), just respond by gently repeating that the game isn't for you and you won't be playing anymore, then remove yourself physically from the conversation.
You can use this calm repetition again later if she seeks you out to try to start an argument. Feel free to talk with her otherwise; she's your friend, after all. If she wants to talk about the game and you feel like it's an honest attempt to communicate, feel free to. If it becomes an argument, of it becomes an attempt to convince you to stay/return without actually changing anything, the best you can do is express your preference to not talk about that:
I prefer not to discuss returning to the game right now. How about we talk about something else?
You can repeat that as necessary when the conversation is going in unproductive directions. Also feel free to back it up with "You're my friend, but I don't want to have this conversation now" calm repetition+leaving response.
Leaving is the best thing that could happen to her as GM
She does need your help, and leaving is probably the biggest help you can give her. She can't continue like this if she ever wants to GM again. She needs to stop if she doesn't want to ruin friendships. You're doing her a favour by leaving, because leaving works.
Why does walking work? Actions speak louder than words and don't invite argument. She can't fight a person who isn't there and make them "stop being absent!" by flexing her GM muscles. You can't fight an absence, and absences don't provoke the fight/flight reflex that arguments do, but absence is very loud. And if she's not fighting, she has a chance of hearing the message sitting in that empty chair.
Walking also discharges any responsibility you might feel for the other players: you've broken the illusion that the gathering is socially OK, and shown them a way out. You've also shown the GM that the remaining players have a way out, and maybe they can now get through to her with words. But regardless, they're their own people and responsible for their own happiness and choices, so leaving also discharges your perceived responsibility: by trusting them to use their own words/actions to take care of their own needs.
You Don't
The problem here is the premise. This isn't school or work. You can't force people to do homework if they don't want to, at least not without creating bad feelings at the table. The single most important rule of gaming is to have fun. Are they having fun when you try to force them to do these things?
I don't feel that most of what I'm asking is exceptional, and most of
it is suggested in the storytelling section of the God Machine
Chronicle.
It is, and it isn't. It depends on what kind of game they want. In my current D&D campaign, I have players with very detailed backgrounds, multiple ongoing stories, NPC affiliations, the whole nine yards (lets call him player A). I have another PC who has only the most basic character backstory, and are primarily interested in doing quests and reacting to the story that I give them (lets call him player B).
A goes so far as to write character journal entries between sessions (something I also do). B doesn't think about the game between sessions. A has good mastery of the rules. B requires help at games to know how to use some of their abilities. You get the idea.
I don't have to do anything to get A to do these things. I didn't even ask for some of it. A does it because A finds creating this stuff fun, and thus wants to do it. That's what gaming is supposed to be: fun. If players find it fun, you won't have to try and force them. They'll want to do it. If they don't find it fun, are you really adding anything by trying to make them do it?
Like you, I'd like it if B was more like A. Unlike you, I don't particularly try to change how B acts. The only thing I do is offer a gold incentive for those who wish to write character journals or session recaps, and that goes to group treasure. It's a "do this and everyone gets a bit more awesome" benefit, rather than a personal benefit. The reason why is that it's an encouragement to do it without creating ill feelings that someone with more free time can gain an extra advantage in character.
Why Not?
B simply isn't into the game that much. They like the company, they enjoy playing, we have a good time with them there, but that's it. If I ask them to do more, they'd refuse. If I try to force them, they'd get annoyed. They just aren't interested in putting in that kind of work.
I don't have to cajole or pressure A, as A is doing it because he finds it fun. B is not, and that's cool. A is happy, B is happy, and we all have fun at the table, so I'm happy.
It's worth noting that as the DM, I spend far, far more time on the campaign than anybody else. That's part of the job. World of Darkness in my experience with it (which was all in Old WoD) is no different, the storyteller has a lot more work to do than the players, even if the players are especially engaged. That's just how it is, and you shouldn't hold that against the players.
Group Mismatch
So to me, your real problem is that you have a mismatch in expectations between you and the rest of the group. You expect them to put time into the game when not actually playing, and they don't.
None of you are wrong in how you want to play. However, you can't have this kind of a mismatch in expectations without someone being unhappy. Right now, that someone is you. You have three options:
- Do nothing, and continue to be frustrated that they aren't putting the effort in that you want.
- Nag, cajole, beg, plead, or bully them into doing the things you want, and risk building resentment in them.
- Have this same conversation with them, and explain to them straight up why you want things like a character history. Do it respectfully, and just explain how you'd use it in part of your story. Do not try and guilt them based on how many hours you put in.
Obviously, I recommend #3. If they decide they can do some of what you want, great! If they don't want to, at least you will know that and can accept it (changing expectations accordingly) or re-evaluate how much effort you want to put in... or even if you're playing the correct system and type of game at all.
System/Campaign Style Change
If you're playing in a system and campaign style that expects players to put in work on backgrounds and your players don't want to, it's possible the only good answer is to change one or both of those things.
Campaign styles are things like a story intensive narrative game, a sandbox game, a dungeon crawl, a mindless monster bash, a zombie apocalypse survival horror, and so on. You want to match the campaign you're running to what your players actually want to do. If you're trying to run a narrative campaign with extensive backstory and they mostly want to run around as "Steve" bashing the heck out of everything in sight, you probably need to adjust the campaign.
Similarly, although it's possible to do most styles of campaigns in most systems, some systems are more suited to some types than others. WoD (back when I last played it) did really well for a lot of things, but a game where players don't want to invest in backstory, and especially a straight up dungeon crawl are not what it excels at.
You should try and sort out with your players what type of game you want to play. Once you agree on that, you can figure out if Hunter (or WoD in general) are suited to that. If they are, great! If not, it's time to consider picking a system that has mechanics that are suited to what you do want to do.
You don't necessarily have to change if you really like the system. I've played in narrative heavy, RP heavy, story driven D&D 3.5 campaigns. It's entirely possible to do it, even though the system doesn't do a lot to help you do it. It's easier to do it in another system, but everybody at the table knows and likes D&D, so we wanted to use it anyway.
The most important part is to get the campaign style right. If you do, you can usually make it work even if the system isn't suited to it (but a system that helps you do it is going to be beneficial).
The Same Page Tool can be of some help in figuring this out. It's important that you do it with your players, as it's the group collectively that has to sort this out.
Best Answer
As @aaron9eee says, it's never too late to enforce rules as written (RAW).
However, you say you haven't talked to your player yet about it. That should be your first step! Your player clearly knows something is wrong, so take them aside out of game and 'fess up: "I recently found out that we've been handling some of the monk features incorrectly. The game balance relies on us using these features the right way so that everyone can have fun. I'm sorry I didn't catch this sooner!"
(Note: I prefer to use "we" when having these kinds of conversations; it avoids making it sound like you're accusing them of cheating or being "stupid" somehow. And it acknowledges that you could have looked up the rules earlier but didn't, so they don't feel alone in this.)
After that, listen to the player. They'll likely have concerns about what this means for their character going forward, especially if they've made level-up choices based on the incorrect rulings. I'd recommend offering the player a free chance to restat/re-spec by the book. This lets them feel like they're involved with fixing the mistaken rulings, rather than just being punished.
If you're not comfortable allowing a respec, still listen to your player's concerns and do your best to find ways to help them adjust to playing by RAW. Remember, and remind them, that you aren't doing this to punish them. You're doing this because you want the game to be fun and that means making sure you're using the system correctly (or at least, making informed choices about when and how to homebrew).
I actually just had this conversation last week with my players after we all switched to a new system and several folks realized they misunderstood how their classes worked. I set limits on the respec - no complete character concept overhauls, but stat bonus adjustments, feats, spells, etc were all fair game. Some of my players are taking me up on it; I think at least one other is choosing not to because they see it as an interesting challenge to play the character as originally built despite not understanding the mechanics. Either way, the most important thing for my group was acknowledging the issue and agreeing on a solution.