Thoughts on openness, canon

From the Designers' Diary: www.vekn.net/index.php/designers-diary/220-thoughts-on-openness-canon With respect to transparancy and openness in the design process, we've maintained a policy of keeping a barrier between the playtesters and the Design Team members. We don't want to interfere with the playtesters or bias the playtest process, nor do we want the playtesters to interfere with the designers or bias design. Part of the reason for the policy is simply to leave each other alone so we can do our respective jobs. We've also found that maintaining playtester anonymity encourages unfiltered, honest opinions and feedback. We have definitely been able to tell that in the playtest notes. Sometimes the comments are harsh, but we appreciate those comments and don't take them personally as they're honest, insightful, and helpful. We decided to take a poll of the playtesters to see if they wanted direct contact with the designers and if they wanted the designers to participate in dialog in the playtest forum. Interestingly, opinions were very mixed. Some wanted that direct contact and participation. Some wanted the designers to have read-only access to the playtest forum. Some wanted no contact and no visibility into the playtest forum at all. Without a strong indication in the direction of more access to or participation in the playtest forum, we opted to maintain the policy of separation and anonymity. Heh...and then at Origins we had a meeting with myself, Hugh the Playtest Coordinator, and the North American playtesters in attendance. It was pretty much a big chat and Q&A session, where various issues were discussed, including questions and issues about the playtest process, design and direction of the set, abstract design issues, and so on. One of the discussions that sticks in my head was about city titles, and to what extent contestable titles are desirable and to what extent uncontestable titles are acceptable. Opinions ranged surprisingly widely. Some felt that contestable city titles are a key element of the game and that only contestable titles should be used. Some questioned the value that contestable titles add to the game, feeling that they just result in randomly turning someone's deck off. From the Design Team's perspective, it's a conflict between canon and metagame. Since the first Sabbat expansion, there's been a theme in V:TES of having pairs of contestable titles. However, the World of Darkness canon doesn't match that symmetry. The Sabbat are relatively few in number compared to the Camarilla in the World of Darkness, but in V:TES the numbers are roughly equivalent. There very typically isn't a matching Archbishop from the canon to go with every Prince. Over the course of the development of V:TES, the canon-sourced Sabbat titles that match Camarilla cities have nearly all been used up. The other remaining canon-sourced Archbishops would be uncontestable. Once all of the canon-sourced matching titles are used, there are three options. First is using the canon-sourced uncontestable titles. Second is finding appropriate un-titled, canon-sourced vampires to whom you could stretch the canon a bit and assign contesting titles to them. Third is creating brand-new vampires with contesting titles. In the end, the Design Team has chosen to use all three options, sticking to contestable titles where possible as the primary option, and using the other options sparingly. - Ben Peal and the V:EKN Design Team V:EKN Website Coordinator

Game-wise, contest does not have to be between Camarilla and Sabbat. If the Camarilla is completely missing from a city canon-wise, then it can have two archbishops.

Boris, you mean with the absence of Camarilla a city can have a Crusade of its own to get the reigning Archbisop's title contested, right? Finnish Politics!

As Tim goes on for vtes, I think new vamps having traditionally cam or sabbat city titles makes sense. I love the Canon as source, but eventually it will be depleted of characters, long before every part of the caretaker could be fleshed out. even within sects, clans compete for a city, and mechanically it should be taxing for the competitors I was told contenders used to ne able to rush each other. that sounds interesting to implement as part of the game in the future, but I just want to see things less confined by current game function and amount of canoncharacters so that vtes has the plethora of options a vtm game would to some extent. Just my two cents though, as a vtm fan who loves vtes as well.

> Lönkka wrote: > Boris, you mean with the absence of Camarilla a city can have a Crusade of its own to get the reigning Archbisop's title contested, right? > I was more thinking of having several vampires with the built-in title (crusades suck ). It usually happens across different groups, but Carlak and Vasily contest Prague in KoT for example.

> Lönkka wrote: > Boris, you mean with the absence of Camarilla a city can have a Crusade of its own to get the reigning Archbisop's title contested, right? > I think he talks about having 2 archbishops of one single city. Think Carlak & Vasily. and yes, until Sabbat Wars, the ruling prince and archbishop of a same city could enter combat with each other as a D action. So the contest would be much quicker than it may be now I don't really know what motivated this change of rules. If we could hear designer's intent on this one, that would be cool. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

NOTE: Carlak and Vasily are the ONLY connecting-group Prince or Archbishops of any city in the game. Every other city's multiply-titled Archbishops or Princes are either: g1 & g3 g2 & g4 g3 & g5 g1 & g3 & g5 Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Reyda wrote: > and yes, until Sabbat Wars, the ruling prince and archbishop of a same city could enter combat with each other as a D action. So the contest would be much quicker than it may be now > I don't really know what motivated this change of rules. If we could hear designer's intent on this one, that would be cool. > Maybe this was due to the fact that, in VTES, a city title can be contested by different vampires of the same sect, which is a situation where the "background" rule of entering combat with the other guy shouldn't apply.

> KevinM wrote: > NOTE: Carlak and Vasily are the ONLY connecting-group Prince or Archbishops of any city in the game. > There are also Maxwell and Horatio Ballard in group 3, but they have this weird half-title instead of starting with it (which made the whole Brujah and Ventrue crypts a lot weaker and should never be done again).

@Boris: That is all based on the book Chicago by Night. They were the leading characters in that story. That explains their card texts. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Pascal wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > and yes, until Sabbat Wars, the ruling prince and archbishop of a same city could enter combat with each other as a D action. So the contest would be much quicker than it may be now > > I don't really know what motivated this change of rules. If we could hear designer's intent on this one, that would be cool. > > > Maybe this was due to the fact that, in VTES, a city title can be contested by different vampires of the same sect, which is a situation where the "background" rule of entering combat with the other guy shouldn't apply. > the original sabbat rulebook says something like : (see post below) Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

Okay, I found the old, 1996 mini rulebook : *Contesting cities* If an archbishop of the sabbat and a camarilla prince exist in the same city, their titles are not contested; after all, they answer to different sects and have different followers. However, they do share the same territory, and the city is sure to be too small to support them both. A prince and an archbishop who rule the same city may enter combat with each other if either one assaults the other as a +1 stealth action during his or her controller's minion phase. For example, the archbishop of miami can enter combat with the prince of miami and vice versa. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

I think that's still a cool way to speed the attrition factor of contestation. it won't ever come back, but I think. princes, barons, and archbishops should be able to do that. its also cool for Canon reasons.

In other thread there's talk about the game already being too cumbersome. While being a nifty minor detail adding the intercity rushing ability wouldn't really help making the game easier. Finnish Politics!

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > princes, barons, and archbishops should be able to do that. its also cool for Canon reasons. > Well, not at all. When, say, François Villon contest paris with some scrawny sabbat vampire, Villon won't go by himself putting a knuckle sandwich to Marcel Debreau. What is cannon is that he send goon to put him in custody - and by "custody" we mean final death. On reverse, while Marcel Debreau certainly want to do it himself, just about any sabbat vampire diablerizing the Prince of France is fine by him. And he certainly don't suddenly know where Villon is hanging simply because he call himself the archbishop of Paris. Camarilla don't give him a dueling right to the prince either. So, it's more that, by canon, contested titleholder are more likely to get attacked, but by anybody of the opposite camp. And people don't have any reason to be easier to locate simply because they are contested. On the contrary, I would suppose they tighten their security. So, like very often, something flavorful (like this rule is) have no special canon basis. It may still feel good and flavorful, but it is absolutely not canon.

On the topic of city titles. Games should be fun. We play because we want to enjoy ourselves. Mechanics that does not add to the fun of any of the participating players are therefore bad mechanics. Example: Wall decks. If you're the wrong kind of deck and end up having a wall deck as your prey then you're kind of screwed. The game is more or less over for you from the start and you won't have any fun. However, the wall deck player is probably having the time of his life. So in this case, I would argue that wall decks are OK since at least one player is having fun. Contesting anything, not only city titles, however does not qualify. I play the game of thrones lcg a lot as well. In that game we have the concept of "unique characters" as well, however they are only unique per player. So if we play a mirror match (the same deck against a copy of itself) the game doesn't become any stranger than if I'd play against any other deck. (Lore-wise, it might look weird though, but I'd say that having a fun game would be more important) In VTES this quickly becomes stupid though. Contesting city titles, contesting vampires...for gods sake, contesting dreams of the sphinx! This is not strategy, it's pure luck. One could argue that this mechanic should encourage more varied deckbuilding (I know that someone else is will probably play Lutz in the tournament, so I play another deck to maximize my chances not to end up contesting), but look at the meta. This isn't the case. Every ahrimanes deck plays howler and the other girls from that crypt even though you'll get totally screwed if you end up with another ahrimanes deck on the table. Everyone plays dreams of the sphinx. Hell, people even play ivory bow just to protect against ivory bow! This is stupid! It doesn't add to the fun. It's just a random element where suddenly if you're unlucky you'll end up contesting cards and have to choose between a chicken race to the death or not getting to actually play your deck at all. I say that one of the best rule changes that could happen to this game would be to remove contesting. Completely remove it from the game. Lore/Canon be damned. This is a game, not a vampire novel (and as a disclaimer, I love the lore/canon). Remove all contestng, except with yourself (so one ivory bow/lutz/dreams per player, if you get a second it's a dead card). I suspect that this change would cause two things. 1) Plenty of people calling me an idiot and telling me how horrible this change would be. 2) The game actually becoming more fun and no one even remembering the contesting rule after a month or two.

> wastaz wrote: > 1) Plenty of people calling me an idiot and telling me how horrible this change would be. > Count me as the first of them. > wastaz wrote: > 2) The game actually becoming more fun and no one even remembering the contesting rule after a month or two. > It would become more competitive (since it would be less random). Fun ? I don't think so, and nothing in your post seem to let think the opposite. Don't forget that contesting is actually a factor improving deck diversity. No contesting lead to deck becoming less diverse lead to less fun.

> wastaz wrote: > In VTES this quickly becomes stupid though. Contesting city titles, contesting vampires...for gods sake, contesting dreams of the sphinx! > Contesting is in integral part of the game and an important balancing factor. E.g. Dreams of the Sphinx is one of the most powerful cards in the game. Top players often include more than 1 copy in their decks. Contesting makes sure that it's not too easily abusable. Powerful effects should always have some risk attached to them, otherwise it would be a bit boring. I agree though, that contesting vampires in very early turns is a bit of a bummer, but then again, later on it can be strategic move if I contest my prey's Greger Andersen when he has no other ready vampires to deflect my bleeds... pckvtes.wordpress.com

Negotiating who gets what out when across the table from a nearly identical deck is part of the many strategies of the game, while doing it with you predator or prey is a very risky tactic that still gets beads off the table. only contesting titles is weak enough to only cost blood. contesting is very important to the game, and to balancing the power of titles. I think if anything, more abilities like Zanes or interactions like power struggle would make the game more interesting. things hosing your whole deck make you more likely to re-evaluate blocking priorities, adding depth to many situations. I just wish titled Indy vamps like Zayyat could go anarch and keep two votes. I'd also like to add that pentex , fame, and secure haven being contestable is One of the easiest ways to get them out of play, even temporarily. same with Jack. its part of game balancing tactics. its useful every four games, annoying every twenty or so.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > I just wish titled Indy vamps like Zayyat could go anarch and keep two votes. > Zayyat or any other titled independent can go anarch and keep their votes via Anarch Secession. Heck they can even use Into the Fire, become Sabbat and still keep their title. The this Vampire has x votes [titled] are tied to said vampires not to their independent status, so as long as they don't gain any other title they keep their votes. Name: Anarch Secession [KMW:R] Cardtype: Action +1 stealth action. Requires a ready, non-anarch, titled vampire. Put an anarch counter on this acting vampire. This vampire becomes anarch (and Independent). If he or she had a city title, put this card on him or her as a title card to represent the title of baron of the same city. Minions without titles cannot block this action. Burn the anarch counter if this vampire changes sects. Artist: David Day Name: Into the Fire [Anarchs:C] Cardtype: Master Master. Trifle. Choose a ready non-Sabbat vampire you control. That vampire becomes Sabbat. (His or her clan is not affected.) Artist: Brian LeBlanc

> Whisker wrote: > > Zayyat or any other titled independent can go anarch and keep their votes via Anarch Secession. > Actually, any titled, period. The whole point of the card is that princes and archbishops (so, Camarilla and Sabbat) keep their titles in a form of baronhood. > Whisker wrote: > Heck they can even use Into the Fire, become Sabbat and still keep their title. > Nope, because of the Anarch Secession text - he changes sect, he stops being anarch. You cannot be a baron without being anarch. Being a Baron is not the same as being titled (x votes).

I was actually talking about just the going anarch the hard way action. succession is an over priced card but I love it from a Canon view point and from a stance of taking the baron title for a city. but its still cards to draw. imagine what zayyat and Mata hari could do with the anarch discipline cards such as crimthinc and undue influence if the could just go anarch as a base action. Little quietus on both is suddenly for. something other than foul blood.

Well, I don't see any reason (either from lore or from gameplay balance) for which independant vampires would keep theirs titles and vote more than anybody else. What may be added is that titled vampires lose theirs title instead of being unable to became anarch. Giving to all titled vampires the ability to go anarch without losing their vote seem excessive ; also, even simply Villon going Anarch seem extremely odd, not to mention the justicar or inner circle.

> Kiddo wrote: > > > Whisker wrote: > > > > Zayyat or any other titled independent can go anarch and keep their votes via Anarch Secession. > > > Actually, any titled, period. The whole point of the card is that princes and archbishops (so, Camarilla and Sabbat) keep their titles in a form of baronhood. > > Umm, no! Innercircle, Primogen, bishop or any other vampire with a sect title not bound to a city will lose their votes [innert title] if they use Anarch secession. > > > Whisker wrote: > > Heck they can even use Into the Fire, become Sabbat and still keep their title. > > > Nope, because of the Anarch Secession text - he changes sect, he stops being anarch. You cannot be a baron without being anarch. Being a Baron is not the same as being titled (x votes). > Again I was talking about Zayyat and other indie vampires with personal [has x votes] title. I wanted to point out that using sect changing cards such as Anarch Secession or Into the Fire in no way affects those personal titles. So using Anarch secession on Zayyat turns him in [non Baron] anarch with 2 votes. And using Into the Fire om him will turn him to a sabbat with 2 votes. But this has nothing to do with our topic of openness and canon so let's start a new topic if you want to futher discuss tactical uses of above mentioned cards.

What annoys me : all those cool vampires who have the oh-so useful "One Vote" that restrict them from going anarch. Danielle Diron, Shemti, Kashan or Maureen spring to mind. And I didn't mention odd bishops like Violet Tremain or Jefferson Forster whose discipline set are begging you to go anarch. And being titled allows them only one stuff really : being able to play Red List on another minion -and oh, of course, not going anarch. Oh why ? -_- Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > What annoys me : all those cool vampires who have the oh-so useful "One Vote" that restrict them from going anarch. > Danielle Diron, Shemti, Kashan or Maureen spring to mind. > And I didn't mention odd bishops like Violet Tremain or Jefferson Forster whose discipline set are begging you to go anarch. > > And being titled allows them only one stuff really : being able to play Red List on another minion -and oh, of course, not going anarch. > Oh why ? -_- > Oddly enough it's something that has been mentioned in playtesting that 'bishop' is actually a liability - you should get yourself in the French group Reyda (or set up a second one!)

> Squidalot wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > What annoys me : all those cool vampires who have the oh-so useful "One Vote" that restrict them from going anarch. > > Danielle Diron, Shemti, Kashan or Maureen spring to mind. > > And I didn't mention odd bishops like Violet Tremain or Jefferson Forster whose discipline set are begging you to go anarch. > > > > And being titled allows them only one stuff really : being able to play Red List on another minion -and oh, of course, not going anarch. > > Oh why ? -_- > > > Oddly enough it's something that has been mentioned in playtesting that 'bishop' is actually a liability - you should get yourself in the French group Reyda (or set up a second one!) > Primogen is a greater liability. Good on an affordable vamp with PRE? Eh, possibly. Bishops like Madrid, at least. Though, really, it has more to do with how historically Sabbat vampires have been more focused disciplinewise. That's easily changed to where someone would want more of the Sabbies to anarch themselves. Well, and how the Sabbat sect has a lot more going on than the Camarilla sect. While it would be nice-ish to see Elisabetta get to show her true power, from a flavor standpoint it would make more sense to close the gap between Primogen and Prince. Traveller Card Game

> Reyda wrote: > What annoys me : all those cool vampires who have the oh-so useful "One Vote" that restrict them from going anarch. > Danielle Diron, Shemti, Kashan or Maureen spring to mind. > And I didn't mention odd bishops like Violet Tremain or Jefferson Forster whose discipline set are begging you to go anarch. > > And being titled allows them only one stuff really : being able to play Red List on another minion -and oh, of course, not going anarch. > Oh why ? -_- > There's Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire for that, but they are sub optimal. Did a Dr. Jest & Sylvester Simms go anarch deck just after Anarchs set came out. It wasn't pretty. Hmm, I should revisit that... However I did work Into the Fire for good effect with Marcus Vitel and Assamites going Sabbat (before there were any Sabbat Assamites). A sect swapping trifle that gains you +1 bleed v. Camarilla is kinda fun. And I thought only city titles keep their votes in Anarch Secession, switching into Baronies. Unless there's a ruling I forgot I'm pretty sure we were talking in The Path of Blood how sect swapping ended up suppressing your indie titles because you now answer to a new group. I thought that was the point of the errata of all previous indie votes to be labeled "titled" in the first place. EDIT: Looked at Rulebook for Sect info... 10. Vampire Sects [...] A vampire must belong to the appropriate sect to receive a title. If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects to a clan or sect inappropriate for his title, he loses the benefit of the title until his clan or sect changes appropriately. If he receives a new title, or if his title is contested (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2), he immediately yields the old title. So... switching Aziz to Sabbat with Into the Fire should suppress his title because he's going from Independent to Sabbat, where his title wouldn't be recognized. But if Aziz just used Anarch Secession, he's just gaining the Anarch trait, not changing sects, and thus keeps his 2 votes. But you must be independent to do this. Interesting... Otherwise AS card text only allows a sect's city titles to carry over. Anarch Secession +1 stealth action. Requires a ready, non-anarch, titled vampire. Put an anarch counter on this acting vampire. This vampire becomes anarch (and Independent). If he or she had a city title, put this card on him or her as a title card to represent the title of baron of the same city. Minions without titles cannot block this action. Burn the anarch counter if this vampire changes sects.

X vote(s) titles, although printed only on Independent vampires, are not restricted to Independent vampires. Aziz going Sabbat doesn't suppress his title. Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

Back to the original question of options for titles, I was looking over a list of vamp genealogy earlier for fun, and another option occurred to me: There are plenty of Canon cities left uncovered by cards that have either a Prince or archbishop, and also noted conflicts between sects. why not just take the liberty of assigning titles based on who has them in the source material, which is often multiple vampires of the samesect anyway, and then using the sourcebooks, determine who of the opposing sect makes sense as someone who could overthrow them? Its kinda a middle ground option, but others may not be as open to new vamps as I am.