a thought on titles

why is it that we don't have independent titles? instead we have in the text box of independent vampires "Jerkface has two votes (titled)." it seems like a super roundabout way of coming to a conclusion. why not just come up with 'independent' titles?

Lord- one vote
Autarch- two votes
Czar- three votes

or something similar?

Independant are too varied for a single set of title I believe. For example, a FoS czar feel strange.

self wrote:

why not just come up with 'independent' titles?

Because these aren't independent titles.

Prince is a Camarilla title. Priscus is a Sabbat title. Ventrue Justicar is a Camarilla title and a Ventrue title. If you become Sabbat while a Prince, your Prince title goes inert(*). If you become Toreador while you are Ventrue Justicar, your Ventrue Justicar title goes inert.

The titles printed on Independent vampires are not tied to clan or sect. They are simply a property of that vampire. If Jamal (Assamites, 2 votes) becomes Camarilla, he still has a 2 vote title; it does not go inert. If Nehsi (Setite, 2 votes) becomes Sasbbat, the title does not go inert.




(*) Inert = will come back if you change back, but isn't there for other purposes except basically: 1) if someone else gains your inert title, you immediately yield without contesting and 2) if you gain a new title, your inert one is completely gone.

Note that, in WoD, prince was used as a title way before camarilla. In theory, a very old tzimisce that wake up could use the title prince (his old title from before the camarilla and sabbat), and would still be disavowed by both camarilla and sabbat.

Most independants clans weren't exactly keen on using "prince" as a title even before the rise of the sects. Candidates would mostly be very old tzimisces, who generally tend to die as soon as they leave torpor due to both tremere and tzimisce wanting them deader than dead.

Ohlmann wrote:

Independant are too varied for a single set of title I believe. For example, a FoS czar feel strange.

on the face of things, i honestly don't disagree, and from a fluff/background perspective i will grant that it makes sense. From a straight-up game mechanics perspective is where I struggle, because it seems counter-intuitive. You've got Primogen, Prince, Justicar, and Inner Circle for Camarilla; Bishop, Archbishop, Priscus, Cardinal, and Regent for Sabbat; Magaji and Kholo for the Laibon; Baron for Anarchs, and... nothing that supports that system for the Independents.

Ankha wrote:

Plus it would make some more keywords to learn.

tell you what: I'll trade you... Cold Iron Vulnerability and... Red List for it. Tightening up the mechanics and making them more consistent should count for something.I'd honestly offer more, but i would fear that making change would be problematic

Ashur wrote:

No. VTES is based on WoD - see whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Vampire:_The_Masquerade

I'm going to go forward with the assumption that you feel you make this statement because you think i'm ignorant of the setting, genuinely and without malice wanting to educate me as to all of the varied and sundry glories of the background.

I assure you that such intentions are as flattering as they are unnecessary. I'm not going to claim a deep and profound understanding of all the subtle nuances, but i feel as though i've got the basics under my belt.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Because these aren't independent titles.

Prince is a Camarilla title. Priscus is a Sabbat title. Ventrue Justicar is a Camarilla title and a Ventrue title. If you become Sabbat while a Prince, your Prince title goes inert(*). If you become Toreador while you are Ventrue Justicar, your Ventrue Justicar title goes inert.

The titles printed on Independent vampires are not tied to clan or sect. They are simply a property of that vampire. If Jamal (Assamites, 2 votes) becomes Camarilla, he still has a 2 vote title; it does not go inert. If Nehsi (Setite, 2 votes) becomes Sasbbat, the title does not go inert.


(*) Inert = will come back if you change back, but isn't there for other purposes except basically: 1) if someone else gains your inert title, you immediately yield without contesting and 2) if you gain a new title, your inert one is completely gone.

I'm not sure if you're being pedantic or willfully obtuse, but you do bring up a better point than anyone else and i respect that.

but... so what?

how many times have you seen in an actual game an independent vampire that has votes change sects? In all of those times that you've seen an independent vampire (titled) change sects, how many of those times did it actually matter in any significant way? If that particular mechanic were so vital, we can change the passage in the rulebook: "Some Independent vampires may start with votes, as listed on card text. Treat these vampires as if they had titles of their own." to: "Independent Vampires with titles do not lose their titles if they should change their sect." AND JUST GIVE INDEPENDENT VAMPIRES TITLES!

i realize that from a background and fluff perspective the idea fits about as well as Jupiter does into a teacup. I get that. but one of the Big Complaints about the game is that it's Confusing and Complicated! and that drives off all of the new players!

we can sit here and bicker about nomenclature (it's pretty much what we do best), but as it stands Independent vamps with votes are inconsistent with every other kind vamps with votes. if there were more (or any for that matter) cam/sabbat vamps that had votes and phantom titles outside of their purveiw that the independents are required to, it'd be a harder sell.

For me, i can suspend disbelief enough if the abstraction makes sense in the rules. "yes, Independent vamps have all kinds of wacky and zany titles amongst themselves, but they fall into X, Y, and Z, categories of power and for game terms, &c and yadda yadda.

I've temporarily run out of steam for this argument, so i will take a small bow.

self wrote:

on the face of things, i honestly don't disagree, and from a fluff/background perspective i will grant that it makes sense. From a straight-up game mechanics perspective is where I struggle, because it seems counter-intuitive. You've got Primogen, Prince, Justicar, and Inner Circle for Camarilla; Bishop, Archbishop, Priscus, Cardinal, and Regent for Sabbat; Magaji and Kholo for the Laibon; Baron for Anarchs, and... nothing that supports that system for the Independents.

Yes, because independants are ... independants. They aren't a single group unlike all thoses things you cited. Setites, assamites, giovannis and ravnos constitute mostly four different mini-sectes, there is a couple of other, even smaller congregation, and I kind of remember ravnos to have *two* very different organizations depending on whether they are in India or Europa.

self wrote:

how many times have you seen in an actual game an independent vampire that has votes change sects? In all of those times that you've seen an independent vampire (titled) change sects, how many of those times did it actually matter in any significant way?

I remember it being used often enough for anarch decks.

In conclusion, I think what you want to address is not a problem, because the current way is flavorful, easy to remember, and work well. And (2 votes) on a Setites make more sense than (czar) for me.

Ohlmann wrote:

In conclusion, I think what you want to address is not a problem, because the current way is flavorful, easy to remember, and work well. And (2 votes) on a Setites make more sense than (czar) for me.

Actually, what I have encountered regarding new players and titles, they do tend to ask all the time how many votes is Justicar or Bishop or what ever title. None has ever asked how many votes is 2 votes (titled).

self wrote:

why is it that we don't have independent titles? instead we have in the text box of independent vampires "Jerkface has two votes (titled)." it seems like a super roundabout way of coming to a conclusion. why not just come up with 'independent' titles?

LSJ wrote a very good answer to this very question back in the day.