Titled Independents
Walter Denny
LSJ
>
> So are all independents with votes titled?
With votes printed on their cards, yes. [6.3.4]
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Noal McDonald
>
> With votes printed on their cards, yes. [6.3.4]
Ugh. I never noticed that.
So what about vampires that can burn a blood for a
vote? Are they titled?
Rather than have some obscure, non-intuitive rule,
wouldn't be easier if we came up with labels for
the Independent vampires with votes?
Regards,
Noal
LSJ
>>> So are all independents with votes titled?
>> With votes printed on their cards, yes. [6.3.4]
>Ugh. I never noticed that.
>
>So what about vampires that can burn a blood for a
>vote? Are they titled?
No.
>Rather than have some obscure, non-intuitive rule,
>wouldn't be easier if we came up with labels for
>the Independent vampires with votes?
You mean some obscure, intuitive rule.
I think this is better than coming up with a myriad
of obscure title names for the various titled
independent vampires, yes.
Frederick Scott
>
> dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote:
> >>> So are all independents with votes titled?
> >> With votes printed on their cards, yes. [6.3.4]
> >Ugh. I never noticed that.
> >
> >So what about vampires that can burn a blood for a
> >vote? Are they titled?
>
> No.
>
> >Rather than have some obscure, non-intuitive rule,
> >wouldn't be easier if we came up with labels for
> >the Independent vampires with votes?
>
> You mean some obscure, intuitive rule.
How about just printing the word, "Titled" on each
independent vampire with votes?
I really wish game companies would print cards with
straightforward stuff like that, rather than some
counterintuitive little rule about, "If it has votes then
it counts as titled." in the rules somewhere that
people will read the first time and totally forget when
it finally comes up in a real game. Just print it on the
card. What could be simpler?
(Players, please rant along with me at home...)
Fred
LSJ
>How about just printing the word, "Titled" on each
>independent vampire with votes?
>I really wish game companies would print cards with
>straightforward stuff like that, rather than some
>counterintuitive little rule about, "If it has votes then
>it counts as titled." in the rules somewhere that
How is that counterintuitve?
>people will read the first time and totally forget when
>it finally comes up in a real game. Just print it on the
>card. What could be simpler?
How about:
Rake: Unique vampire (minion). Camarilla Prince of Atlanta (Unique
title, worth two votes when Rake is ready, contests with Sabbat
Archbishop of Atlanta title). 1 bleed. 1 strength. Rake gets +1
strength when in combat with a Ventrue.
Much simpler than remembering all those rules. :-)
--
Frederick Scott
>
> fre...@netcom.com wrote:
> >How about just printing the word, "Titled" on each
> >independent vampire with votes?
> >I really wish game companies would print cards with
> >straightforward stuff like that, rather than some
> >counterintuitive little rule about, "If it has votes then
> >it counts as titled." in the rules somewhere that
>
> How is that counterintuitve?
2 votes is 2 votes. Generic. A title is a specific
thing, a proper noun. Without recalling the specific rule,
why would the fact that a vampire happens to control 2 votes
make you think we was titled? Contrast this to: "Prince of
Cleveland" or "Justicar", which sound like titles. On the
other hand, lots of things that sound like titles in the
game (e.g. "Rectrix of the 13th floor", "Viceroy of the Hollows")
aren't.
> >people will read the first time and totally forget when
> >it finally comes up in a real game. Just print it on the
> >card. What could be simpler?
>
> How about:
>
> Rake: Unique vampire (minion). Camarilla Prince of Atlanta (Unique
> title, worth two votes when Rake is ready, contests with Sabbat
> Archbishop of Atlanta title). 1 bleed. 1 strength. Rake gets +1
> strength when in combat with a Ventrue.
>
> Much simpler than remembering all those rules. :-)
Yes, I understand. But I believe I've showed that the existing
situation with respect to titles is confusing and prone to causing
mistakes. I think it's reasonable to have specific rules for Princes
and Justicars and so forth and expect players to understand that these
are titles. The independents-with-votes things could stand to be
spelled out in card text, IMHO.
Fred
Vanda Bushfield
with Fred on this one. When I first read the question, I was like 'what a
silly question, of course they aren't titled, if they were titled, it would
say so!' I was obviously, surprised at the answer.
I'm not the type to memorize the rulebook, so I probably would have found
this out the first time I looked this up 'just to be sure'. But my though
on looking at the cards, was that this was a new mechanic, for giving
vampires votes without actually making them 'Titled'.
I don't know if I'm making sense, suffice to say, I agree with Fred. I think
a little 'This vampire is considered titled', or heck, even an actual
obscure title, would have been more clear, and more in line with the current
way this mechanic is handled in the game.
-Vanda
"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B336F72...@netcom.com...
LSJ
>LSJ wrote:
>>
>> fre...@netcom.com wrote:
>> >How about just printing the word, "Titled" on each
>> >independent vampire with votes?
>> >I really wish game companies would print cards with
>> >straightforward stuff like that, rather than some
>> >counterintuitive little rule about, "If it has votes then
>> >it counts as titled." in the rules somewhere that
>>
>> How is that counterintuitve?
>
>2 votes is 2 votes. Generic. A title is a specific
>thing, a proper noun. Without recalling the specific rule,
>why would the fact that a vampire happens to control 2 votes
>make you think we was titled? Contrast this to: "Prince of
Without recalling the specific rule, how would you know a prince has 2
votes? Without recalling a specific rule, how would you know a vampire
can gain 1 blood from the blood bank as a +1 stealth action? Without
recalling a specific rule, how would you know that each round of
combat begins at close range?
This is fruitless - without recalling the rules, you can easily end up
not playing by the rules. Fortunately, there are rules.
>Cleveland" or "Justicar", which sound like titles. On the
>other hand, lots of things that sound like titles in the
>game (e.g. "Rectrix of the 13th floor", "Viceroy of the Hollows")
>aren't.
That's the difference between a card's name and card text.
The Cardinal of Canada isn't a cardinal if he successfully
becomes Archbishop of Atlanta via a Crusade. But his card
name won't reflect that.
>> >people will read the first time and totally forget when
>> >it finally comes up in a real game. Just print it on the
>> >card. What could be simpler?
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> Rake: Unique vampire (minion). Camarilla Prince of Atlanta (Unique
>> title, worth two votes when Rake is ready, contests with Sabbat
>> Archbishop of Atlanta title). 1 bleed. 1 strength. Rake gets +1
>> strength when in combat with a Ventrue.
>>
>> Much simpler than remembering all those rules. :-)
>
>Yes, I understand. But I believe I've showed that the existing
>situation with respect to titles is confusing and prone to causing
>mistakes.
No. You've shown that some people don't know the rule.
The rule itself is not confusing at all. The rule itself doesn't cause
mistakes - that some players don't know the rule causes mistakes
(which is true of many if not all rules).
>I think it's reasonable to have specific rules for Princes
>and Justicars and so forth and expect players to understand that these
>are titles. The independents-with-votes things could stand to be
>spelled out in card text, IMHO.
Or it could be spelled out in the rulebook.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Or it could be spelled out in the rulebook.
It's my experience that few players read the rulebook for any game.
It's like all those computer manuals which are still in their
shrink-wrap. I'm not sure we should encourage you to cram even more
text onto the cards but it is the best place for it, as folk are
saying.
Me, I have a rulebook here by my PC. It's not the right rulebook, of
course, being the Sabbat War one, but it will do, I suppose. Having
just read the relevant section, I have some questions which the rules
don't answer.
1. If an independent vampire with votes become a member of the
Camarilla (Writ of Acceptance, right?) does it lose its votes and/or
its titled status?
2. If this newly accepted vampire gained a real title, such Prince of
London, would it lose its independent votes?
Mind you, I don't really understand what the Sabbat and Independents
are doing, voting alongside the Camarilla vampires. It'd be like a
Republican voting in a Democratic primary. I believe that some states
allow this but even so ...?
Andrew
Jozxyqk
> Camarilla (Writ of Acceptance, right?) does it lose its votes and/or
> its titled status?
> 2. If this newly accepted vampire gained a real title, such Prince of
> London, would it lose its independent votes?
3. Do Independent "X votes" titles ever contest?
Frederick Scott
>
> fre...@netcom.com wrote:
> >LSJ wrote:
(re: the rule that an independent vampire with votes is
automatically considered 'titled' by the rules)
> >> How is that counterintuitve?
> >
> >2 votes is 2 votes. Generic. A title is a specific
> >thing, a proper noun. Without recalling the specific rule,
> >why would the fact that a vampire happens to control 2 votes
> >make you think we was titled? Contrast this to: "Prince of
>
> Without recalling the specific rule, how would you know a prince has 2
> votes? Without recalling a specific rule, how would you know a vampire
> can gain 1 blood from the blood bank as a +1 stealth action? Without
> recalling a specific rule, how would you know that each round of
> combat begins at close range?
>
> This is fruitless - without recalling the rules, you can easily end up
> not playing by the rules. Fortunately, there are rules.
Sure. You need rules. You need to put a lot of stuff in the rules and
it won't appear on cards because it's in the rules. I am trying to make
the point that there are good ways of doing this and bad ways. If you have
a concept that some vampires are "Princes" and there's a bunch of meaningful
implications to this, it makes sense to write a rule about it and put all the
stuff that's true and distinct about "Princes" in the prince rule. Then you
go tag all the vampires that are princes with the bold word "PRINCE" in the
card text and it's easy for players to realize that all the prince rules apply
and go check them if they're fuzzy about anything.
On the other hand, something like the distinction of which vampires are titled
and which are not, needs help if there's something obscure about it. People
tend to want to remember things simply. "Titles are the set of special title
tags that have rules about them." That's easy to remember. Kick in "and any
independents with votes", and that tends not to be very memorable. Since I've
posted articles about it, I'll probably remember it for a while. After that,
who knows? Most players who don't have it come up in a game and have someone
knowledgeable point it out to them, probably don't remember that clause in the
rules if they ever noticed it in the first place.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that big rules with lots of implications
get noticed and remembered. Little arbitrary pieces of minutia don't. Those
are candidates for an extra word on all the applicable cards. It is a
judgment call.
> >> How about:
> >>
> >> Rake: Unique vampire (minion). Camarilla Prince of Atlanta (Unique
> >> title, worth two votes when Rake is ready, contests with Sabbat
> >> Archbishop of Atlanta title). 1 bleed. 1 strength. Rake gets +1
> >> strength when in combat with a Ventrue.
> >>
> >> Much simpler than remembering all those rules. :-)
> >
> >Yes, I understand. But I believe I've showed that the existing
> >situation with respect to titles is confusing and prone to causing
> >mistakes.
>
> No. You've shown that some people don't know the rule.
All right, agreed the rule itself is not confusing _if you remember it_!
It does tend to cause mistakes because people are less likely to remember
it.
Fred
James Coupe
<jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> writes
>> 1. If an independent vampire with votes become a member of the
>> Camarilla (Writ of Acceptance, right?) does it lose its votes and/or
>> its titled status?
No. They are not tied to sect. (No rule states they are etc.)
>> 2. If this newly accepted vampire gained a real title, such Prince of
>> London, would it lose its independent votes?
Yes, in the same way it would relinquish any other title.
>3. Do Independent "X votes" titles ever contest?
No.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
"You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F
an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6
Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D
LSJ
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:46:47 GMT, LSJ wrote:
>
>>Or it could be spelled out in the rulebook.
>
>It's my experience that few players read the rulebook for any game.
As we've seen before, your experiences differ from others'.
Perhaps there's even some relation among those differences, as well.
>1. If an independent vampire with votes become a member of the
>Camarilla (Writ of Acceptance, right?) does it lose its votes and/or
>its titled status?
No. The "title" is not sect-based. The list of sect-based (and
clan-based) titles can be found in the rulebook by those who read usch
things - section 10.
>2. If this newly accepted vampire gained a real title, such Prince of
>London, would it lose its independent votes?
He has a real title. If he gains a new one, he loses the old one, per
the same (unread) section of the rules as before: 6.3.4
>Mind you, I don't really understand what the Sabbat and Independents
>are doing, voting alongside the Camarilla vampires. It'd be like a
>Republican voting in a Democratic primary. I believe that some states
>allow this but even so ...?
It's a card game. If you'd like to hold a separate primary, use Closed
Session or Private Audience.
Vanda Bushfield
>
> >1. If an independent vampire with votes become a member of the
> >Camarilla (Writ of Acceptance, right?) does it lose its votes and/or
> >its titled status?
>
> No. The "title" is not sect-based. The list of sect-based (and
> clan-based) titles can be found in the rulebook by those who read usch
> things - section 10.
>
What is the 'title' based on for independants then? If not sect or clan?
-Vanda
LSJ
Card text plus rulebook text. The vampire's name. Nothing. All these
amount to the same thing.
Walter Denny
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3B331D96...@white-wolf.com...
LSJ
Moot, since Camarilla and Sabbat "named" titles exist.
Any Cam/Sab vampire with a title will use one of those named
titles. Therefore any Cam/Sab vampire that starts with votes will
start with a title, and will be titled.
Noal McDonald
>> wouldn't be easier if we came up with labels for
>> the Independent vampires with votes?
>
> You mean some obscure, intuitive rule.
No, I don't. But seeing as condescension seems to be the order of the
day, allow me to provide the applicable defnition for "title."
ti·tle (tit'l) n. A formal appellation attached to the name of a
person or family by virtue of office, rank, hereditary privilege,
noble birth, or attainment or used as a mark of respect
Explain to me how having a notation of having 2 votes is intuitively
the same as having a formal label for an attained rank, such as Prince
or Priscus? If an independent vampire has political influence, but no
formal station, it still has no title by the _correct_ definition. For
example, while Jesse Jackson had substantial political influence, he
never achieved a political title. (despite his best efforts)
> I think this is better than coming up with a myriad of obscure
> title names for the various titled independent vampires, yes.
Myriad? Obscure? *snort*
It wouldn't be any more obscure than Priscus is once the rulebook and
card reflect the new titles. As for "myriad," I'm not suggesting that
we use a different title for each clan (Don for Giovanni, Baro for
Ravnos, etc.) but rather one or two generic names that applies to all
Independent vampires.
Or better, yet. Don't treat them as "titled" vampires at all. Consider
it one of the benefits of having chosen to participate in a sect.
Regards,
Noal
LSJ
>>> Rather than have some obscure, non-intuitive rule,
>>> wouldn't be easier if we came up with labels for
>>> the Independent vampires with votes?
>>
>> You mean some obscure, intuitive rule.
>
>No, I don't. But seeing as condescension seems to be the order of the
>day, allow me to provide the applicable defnition for "title."
>
>ti·tle (tit'l) n. A formal appellation attached to the name of a
>person or family by virtue of office, rank, hereditary privilege,
>noble birth, or attainment or used as a mark of respect
>
>Explain to me how having a notation of having 2 votes is intuitively
>the same as having a formal label for an attained rank, such as Prince
>or Priscus? If an independent vampire has political influence, but no
>formal station, it still has no title by the _correct_ definition. For
>example, while Jesse Jackson had substantial political influence, he
>never achieved a political title. (despite his best efforts)
OK. I yield.
>> I think this is better than coming up with a myriad of obscure
>> title names for the various titled independent vampires, yes.
>
>Myriad? Obscure? *snort*
>
>It wouldn't be any more obscure than Priscus is once the rulebook and
>card reflect the new titles. As for "myriad," I'm not suggesting that
>we use a different title for each clan (Don for Giovanni, Baro for
>Ravnos, etc.) but rather one or two generic names that applies to all
>Independent vampires.
Not really an option, for the same reason that Sabbat vampires
use different titles than Camarilla ones for the same effect. Named
titles indicate rank within some organization. Independent clans do
not share any organization among themselves. Or, if you rather,
consider "2 votes" as a "generic" title that applies to all
Independent vampires and a ready vampire with that title has two
votes. :-)
>Or better, yet. Don't treat them as "titled" vampires at all. Consider
>it one of the benefits of having chosen to participate in a sect.
No reason to do that. Errata isn't warranted here (some groups get
cranky about that sort of thing).
--
Jozxyqk
> "Walter Denny" <wde...@telocity.com> wrote:
>>If a camarilla or sabbat vamp had a vote would it be titled also?
>>
>>
>>"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>>news:3B331D96...@white-wolf.com...
>>> Walter Denny wrote:
>>> >
>>> > So are all independents with votes titled?
>>>
>>> With votes printed on their cards, yes. [6.3.4]
>>>
>>> --
>>> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
>>> Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
>>> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
> Moot, since Camarilla and Sabbat "named" titles exist.
> Any Cam/Sab vampire with a title will use one of those named
> titles. Therefore any Cam/Sab vampire that starts with votes will
> start with a title, and will be titled.
But semi-permanently "gaining a vote", i.e. Legacy of Pander, does
not count as "gaining a Title"?
Gomi no Sensei
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>Not really an option, for the same reason that Sabbat vampires
>use different titles than Camarilla ones for the same effect. Named
>titles indicate rank within some organization. Independent clans do
>not share any organization among themselves. Or, if you rather,
>consider "2 votes" as a "generic" title that applies to all
>Independent vampires and a ready vampire with that title has two
>votes. :-)
We could just make two new titles:
Big Monkey, worth 2 votes
Little Monkey, worth 1 vote.
These titles are misspelled on the cards as 'has 2 votes' and 'has 1 vote'
respectively. It's just a big typo.
There ya go.
gomi
--
Yes, I believe but I'd rather not pray
What I believe in I'd rather not say, baby
LSJ
Correct. [6.3.4], as before.
Walter Denny
> We could just make two new titles:
>
> Big Monkey, worth 2 votes
> Little Monkey, worth 1 vote.
>
Derek Ray
Sensei) wrote:
>We could just make two new titles:
>
>Big Monkey, worth 2 votes
>Little Monkey, worth 1 vote.
>
>These titles are misspelled on the cards as 'has 2 votes' and 'has 1 vote'
>respectively. It's just a big typo.
But I have two monkeys.
-- Derek
Madman2001
>I think this is better than coming up with a myriad of obscure title
names for the various titled independent vampires, yes.<
I will respectively chime in and suggest that we actually *do* come up
with obscure titles for all those who have votes. For example, the
textbox for Amisa could say "Grand Seductrix of Baghdad (2 votes)".
This is similar to the textbox format for the Inner Circle vampires.
Moreover, it would add some additional flavour to the game and could
conceivably be used in the future as a game mechanix or additional
card.
Madman
Daniel Poppe
> >We could just make two new titles:
> >
> >Big Monkey, worth 2 votes
> >Little Monkey, worth 1 vote.
> >
> >These titles are misspelled on the cards as 'has 2 votes' and 'has 1
vote'
> >respectively. It's just a big typo.
>
> But I have two monkeys.
>
While we're at it.... I want a _seperate_ title for Gratiano's 'extra'
priscus sub election vote... I mean, if all Priscus get one vote during the
sub-election, certainly Gratiano isn't _just_ a Priscus...
Tig
Gomi no Sensei
Daniel Poppe <Danie...@email.msn.com> wrote:
'Priscuser than Thou.'
'Big Prisced'
'Prisc-head'
'His Priscocity'
'Priscocious'
gomi
okay, that was just stupid
Halcyan 2
>the same as having a formal label for an attained rank, such as Prince
>or Priscus? If an independent vampire has political influence, but no
>formal station, it still has no title by the _correct_ definition. For
>example, while Jesse Jackson had substantial political influence, he
>never achieved a political title. (despite his best efforts)
Well, all the Independents with votes probably *have* titles (implicit). With
the Camarilla and Sabbat you have coherant organizations so you can come up
with uniform titles. In the case of the Independents, each clan has a vastly
different hierarchy so one probably couldn't create a uniform "title" to use
for all of the Independents. A Prince has the same meaning whether it's a
Tremere, a Nosferatu, or a Tzimisce with a Writ. I think it would be pretty
hard to come up with a keyword title that would apply to Ur-Shulgi, Kephamos,
Regina, and Ambrogino all at the same time.
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2
>>> >
>>> >Big Monkey, worth 2 votes
>>> >Little Monkey, worth 1 vote.
>>> >
>>> >These titles are misspelled on the cards as 'has 2 votes' and 'has 1
>>vote'
>>> >respectively. It's just a big typo.
>>>
>>> But I have two monkeys.
And what happens when a new Independent has 3 votes? "Bigger Monkey?"
>>While we're at it.... I want a _seperate_ title for Gratiano's 'extra'
>>priscus sub election vote... I mean, if all Priscus get one vote during the
>>sub-election, certainly Gratiano isn't _just_ a Priscus...
If Gratiano gets a special title, how about Genevieve (who gets an additional
normal vote). And while we're at it, anyone with a political special (like
Quentin or even Astrid) should also get a nifty title! Equal titles for all!
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2
>with obscure titles for all those who have votes. For example, the
>textbox for Amisa could say "Grand Seductrix of Baghdad (2 votes)".
>This is similar to the textbox format for the Inner Circle vampires.
>
>Moreover, it would add some additional flavour to the game and could
>conceivably be used in the future as a game mechanix or additional
>card.
I don't know. "Grand Seductrix of Baghdad" would make it sound more interesting
but I think it would end up confusing people when each Independent has some
weird title. But if it helps you can pretty much "pretend" that that is her
title. In fact, maybe the umma at this newsgroup can create a list of optional
titles one can use to call the vampires.
Alternatively, don't forget that lots of vampires already do have "titles"
(though not in the political sense) that are located in the name of that
vampire. Muaziz and Samat are "Archons," Thetmes is "Caliph of Alamut," Dre is
"Leader of the Cold Dawn," Lucretia is "Cess Queen," and Arika is "Queen of
Sleeze" (well at least that's what her name *should* be). You get the point.
What difference would it make if "Amisa" was now "Amisa, Seductriz of Baghdad?"
Halcyan 2
Frederick Scott
> While we're at it.... I want a _seperate_ title for Gratiano's 'extra'
> priscus sub election vote... I mean, if all Priscus get one vote during the
> sub-election, certainly Gratiano isn't _just_ a Priscus...
I still say, "Double Priscus". (Or would it be, more properly, "Double Prisci"?)
Fred
Wes
"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote
>
> Well, all the Independents with votes probably *have* titles (implicit).
With
> the Camarilla and Sabbat you have coherant organizations so you can come
up
> with uniform titles. In the case of the Independents, each clan has a
vastly
> different hierarchy so one probably couldn't create a uniform "title" to
use
> for all of the Independents. A Prince has the same meaning whether it's a
> Tremere, a Nosferatu, or a Tzimisce with a Writ. I think it would be
pretty
> hard to come up with a keyword title that would apply to Ur-Shulgi,
Kephamos,
> Regina, and Ambrogino all at the same time.
All votes involve *all* the sects (unless terms specify otherwise).
This implies that there is also an interaction between all sects and clans
on that one issue. (Which doesn't make much sense thematically, but
whatever).
Therefore, an appropriate name for the Independents with votes might be
something like:
-Ambassador
-Delegate
-Arbiter
-Diplomat
There is such a thing in the World of Darkness, to some extent. There isn't
a lot of communication between Sabbat and Camarilla besides 'I am going to
kill you.'
The Giovanni, for example, however have fairly consistent diplomatic contact
with the Camarilla, though considerably less with the Sabbat. The Assamites
have contact with both Sabbat and Camarilla, through Assamite-antitribu and
the members who recently joined the Cam. The Setites have plenty of dealings
with the Camarilla though outside of its laws. The Ravnos... well, no not
really.
An interesting thing about the Camarilla: Its mandate states that *all*
vampires fall under the Camarilla's fiat. Therefore, any vampire (even
independents) has some justification to participate in Camarilla
politicking.
Cheers,
WES
TigToad
>
> An interesting thing about the Camarilla: Its mandate states that *all*
> vampires fall under the Camarilla's fiat. Therefore, any vampire (even
> independents) has some justification to participate in Camarilla
> politicking.
>
> Cheers,
> WES
I don't understand why an Independent cannot be a Prince. Unlike quite
a few of you, I am a huge fan of the role playing game and have run a
Dark Ages campaign for over a year at a time. Before the Camarilla
there were still Princes, etc... it was simply the vampire strong enough
to claim the title. I do not see any reason why the same cannot hold
true in the world of VTES (and the modern day role playing game which
I'm less familiar with). Frankly, I do not see a lot of Vampires
contesting Augustus Giovanni for control of whatever Italian city he
wants. Of course back in card game terms, the title should not be
confused with any Camarilla benefits, but it would be the title all the
same. Just a thought, but its late and it may be a poor one. :)
Tig
Wes
"TigToad" <tig...@qwest.net> wrote
>
> I don't understand why an Independent cannot be a Prince. Unlike quite
> a few of you, I am a huge fan of the role playing game and have run a
> Dark Ages campaign for over a year at a time. Before the Camarilla
> there were still Princes, etc... it was simply the vampire strong enough
> to claim the title. I do not see any reason why the same cannot hold
> true in the world of VTES (and the modern day role playing game which
> I'm less familiar with). Frankly, I do not see a lot of Vampires
> contesting Augustus Giovanni for control of whatever Italian city he
> wants. Of course back in card game terms, the title should not be
> confused with any Camarilla benefits, but it would be the title all the
> same. Just a thought, but its late and it may be a poor one. :)
This is true, of course... Prince != Camarilla.
It does not mean that in the modern era, any vampire that declares himself
Prince is de facto Camarilla.
You should remember that 'Prince' is only the standard accepted title for
ruler of a city and not the only one. A Camarilla 'ruler' could also choose
to be called 'The Baron/Baroness' or 'The CEO' or even 'Princess Superstar'
if she thought it would make her rule more legitimate.
I find it interesting the dichotomy between Camarilla membership and
Camarilla rights of representation. If *every* vampire is considered to be
in the Camarilla whether they like it or not, why do only seven clans (six
now) have a Justicar? What makes a clan as a whole Camarilla rather than
just individuals from that clan?
However, in the case of the CCG, I really think that 'Prince' should mean
'Camarilla', for no other reason that LSJ would have to work overtime trying
to explain why an Independent Deranged Prince can't call a Parity Shift.
Cheers,
WES
Andrew S. Davidson
>>1. If an independent vampire with votes become a member of the
>>Camarilla (Writ of Acceptance, right?) does it lose its votes and/or
>>its titled status?
>
>No. The "title" is not sect-based. The list of sect-based (and
>clan-based) titles can be found in the rulebook by those who read usch
>things - section 10.
Can a vampire be a member of more than one sect? If an Independent is
the subject of a writ, doesn't it cease to be Independent?
Andrew
Halcyan 2
>>clan-based) titles can be found in the rulebook by those who read usch
>>things - section 10.
>
>Can a vampire be a member of more than one sect? If an Independent is
>the subject of a writ, doesn't it cease to be Independent?
A vampire can only belong to one sect (and he/she can only belong to one clan
and possess one title). If an Independent has a Writ, he/she ceases to be an
Independent and is Camarilla instead.
Halcyan 2
Derek Ray
wrote:
>Therefore, an appropriate name for the Independents with votes might be
>something like:
>
>-Ambassador
>-Delegate
>-Arbiter
>-Diplomat
Don't forget "Bitch of the Assamites". =)
-- Derek
Santiago
<gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote:
>This is true, of course... Prince != Camarilla.
>
>It does not mean that in the modern era, any vampire that declares himself
>Prince is de facto Camarilla.
>
>However, in the case of the CCG, I really think that 'Prince' should
>mean 'Camarilla', for no other reason that LSJ would have to work
>overtime trying to explain why an Independent Deranged Prince can't
>call a Parity Shift.
Well, how about adding a title called "Master of X" or "Lord of X"
that is not sect-dependent, contests with "Prince of X" and "Archbishop
of X", grants two votes, and maybe errating the Traditions (but not
other cards) to be usable by Lords (as the Traditions date to well
before the Camarilla).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a trained professional. Do not try this at home.
Johan Lundstrom
>I will respectively chime in and suggest that we actually *do* come up
>with obscure titles for all those who have votes. For example, the
>textbox for Amisa could say "Grand Seductrix of Baghdad (2 votes)".
>This is similar to the textbox format for the Inner Circle vampires.
Cool! If *that* isn't worth +2 Fun, I don't know what is!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se>
"Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."
Jack Crow
I have totally ignored this thread thinking it was answered "of course
not"
We are a good cross-section of the most hard-core players there are.
Most of us do not think that rule is spelled out well enough,
especially with the opening sentence in 6.3.4
"The two main sects of vampires, the Camarilla and the Sabbat, have
their own distinct power structures and titles."
While in 10
"Each sect has it's own codes of conduct and political structures."
"If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects to a clan or sect
inappropriate for his title he loses the benefits of the title until
his clan or sect changes appropriately."
These nearly contradict the rule that states independents are "treated
like titled vampires" since there is no way to tell if their title
conflicts with a sect title.
Reprinting is stupid, but at least the rulebook must emphasize and/or
explain how independent titled vampires work.