Setting: Rural America (North, Central and South)

direwolf wrote:

Have fun with it. It's supposed to be an excersize of the imagination.

kombainas wrote:

I believe that such scenario is somewhat out of flavor in WoD, as absolute majority of vampires would be slain at sight (plus easy to find by smell) by Werewolves and such

If you have nothing creative/constructive/inventive/humorous to say, you are posting in the wrong forum.

direwolf wrote:

"Hermit"
Master. Archtype.
Put this on a vampire you control that does not have any votes. This vampire is independent. Vampires with titles worth 2 or less votes have -1 intercept against this vampire. At the end of your turn this vampire gains a blood if he or she is ready and did not take any actions. Burn this card if he or she joins a sect or is blocked by a titles vampire.

Technical wording point: "Independent" is a sect, it's not a lack of sect. So I'd reword it as "Burn this card if this vampire is not Independent" or something like that.

Something to consider: Anarch isn't a sect. Anarchs are independent. Does becoming a Hermit stop you being an Anarch? Does becoming an Anarch stop you being a hermit? So you might consider "This vampire is independent (and loses Anarch status, if any).... Burn this card if this vampire is not Independent or becomes an Anarch." Not sure what you'd want, though.

Why not making Hermit dependent on Anarch trait, not Independent sect? Hermit by definition is being anarch, just without any company. Then you could remove the burn clause. And I'd suggest reversing the title-intercept effect. Usually it is simple people, who would notice odd people, not people in power. For all a prince cares is that if it is not (does not look like) a threat, there is no sense in wasting personal attention for every odd person in the area.

kombainas wrote:

Why not making Hermit dependent on Anarch trait, not Independent sect? Hermit by definition is being anarch, just without any company.

What ?

No, they won't be anarch by definition. Also, I can see thing like True Brujah being hermit and absolutely loathing anything anarchic.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

[

Something to consider: Anarch isn't a sect. Anarchs are independent. Does becoming a Hermit stop you being an Anarch? Does becoming an Anarch stop you being a hermit? So you might consider "This vampire is independent (and loses Anarch status, if any).... Burn this card if this vampire is not Independent or becomes an Anarch." Not sure what you'd want, though.

You don't change sect or gain new one when you become anarch so i suppose anarchy don't trigger burn clause at all (even losing anarch status without sect change).

No, they won't be anarch by definition. Also, I can see thing like True Brujah being hermit and absolutely loathing anything anarchic.

Perhaps it would be reasonable to change the name of the card then?

A hermit (adjectival form: eremitic or hermitic ) is a person who lives, to some degree, in seclusion from society. Wikipedia

I do like this archetype mechanic, but I am not sure that Cammies or Laibon cannot live secluded unlife and retain still their sect. Perhaps it would be nicer to explore underdeveloped Autarkis concept instead?