Rules update suggestion: Diablerie and Disciplines

Rules update suggestion: Diablerie and Disciplines Suggestion: When diablerizing, there should be no need to fetch a master discipline card from your deck for the capacity effect - instead, when diablerizing an older vampire, the diablerist can gain a capacity and a level of any disciplines the victim had at superior. (tracked through special 'tokens') What does this mean then? First of all, this gives more room for the very thematic rule to be applied in games. It's a cool rule, but it's in effect way too rarely. When a player needs to add Master: Disciplines in a deck, it often makes the deck competetively worse. The effects of those cards are minor, and take up deck slots for masters. So, to balance this out, a diablerist could gain a level of a discipline through diablerie, but it is restricted by the disciplines of the victim. If you really want to have a spesific Discpline, by all means add a Master of it into your deck. We'd see more instastances of fun interactions though with my suggestion. It also works very well thematically. Those with better WoD knowledge might give more insight into this however. I'm not an expert by any means. How should we mark those disciplines then? With counters. People have already tinkered with card size and shape reminders of which disciplines are in effect in whichever situation, be it Agent of Power, Field Traning or Infernal Pact. It wouldn't be hard to make these for print, and eventually into the new starter pack or core set. They would be excellent promotional prizes, or something that could be sold in separate packs; 1 of each 'discipline remainder token' for 10$/10e/8£? This is more of a thematic suggestion, but would definitely have some in-game impact as well. Not for the worse though, would it? At least those roleplayers who could be getting into the game get to immediately experience fan-favorite effects and cool things from the game they already know, adding to the 'wow' effect. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

We are tampering with core rules of the game and doing such thing there should be very good reasons do to so. That being said, this idea is interesting. It is rather rare to include a master discipline card in a deck and this idea of yours is reasonable way to have interesting situations in the game. On the downside, diableries are rather rare occurance in the game. And in some cases diableries happen with no intent of the diablerist to survive. That leaves us a rather rare situation where diablerie happens in the game and the diablerist survives. Is there reason to change the game's core rules just for this minor situation in the game? Also, would that make decks diablerising vampires without fear of blood hunt do something too crazy? I don't know, perhaps not but it is a thing to consider. All in all, I think the idea is good and could give some interesting moments for the players but in the end I am inclined not to change basic rules of the game. Potence, if it doesn't work, you just aren't using enough National Coordinator of Finland Prince of Hämeenlinna

My main reasoning for changing this core mechanic is twofold: Firstly (1), we're seeing a very core mechanic in the game unfold very rarely. It is, however, a very thematic inclusion in the game, stemming from the source material. Thus it would speak volumes to have it occur in the game more often, because-- -- (2) that would possibly increase the 'cool' factor of the game for those probable newcomers and casual players we would be interested in cheating into the game come the launch of V5. The diablerie and it's benefits are a prime example of a very cool thing in the source material new players familiar with it would find very intuitive to see in play. Without sacrificing valuable deck slots in Master cards we would see these stories from the roleplaying sessions play out more often. It would need quite thorough play testing to be sure. To make it simple, I wouldn't keep both diablerie rewards (both this option, and the Master fetch), simply for simplicity's sake, but rather have this suggestion for a diablerie reward and keep the master cards as is (only master cards) to separate the theme more: the MASTER, you, Methuslah, can decide what to teach your lackies, but the rewards of diablerie are strictly dependant on the victim's abilities and skills. A more intuitive, dynamic experience with more shared ground with the source material. I'm not thinking about balance too much here, but rather the new players and their possible inclusion. In that light, I think this could be added to the list of changes warranting play testing for the good of the game. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

Personally I would prefer to be able to choose, either a disc from the food vamp that the food vamp had at SUP, or a disc card from the library that the meth had prepared in the deck. If I cannot select disciplines, it makes a number of niche decks unplayable (see tariq et al)

My view on this topic is that the game will benefit if we remove cardless diablerie and blood hunt referendum. NC Russia

> Kraus wrote: > Rules update suggestion: Diablerie and Disciplines > > Suggestion: When diablerizing, there should be no need to fetch a master discipline card from your deck for the capacity effect - instead, when diablerizing an older vampire, the diablerist can gain a capacity and a level of any disciplines the victim had at superior. (tracked through special 'tokens') > They could be standard discipline cards (with a sleeve of a different color). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Kraus wrote: > > Rules update suggestion: Diablerie and Disciplines > > > > Suggestion: When diablerizing, there should be no need to fetch a master discipline card from your deck for the capacity effect - instead, when diablerizing an older vampire, the diablerist can gain a capacity and a level of any disciplines the victim had at superior. (tracked through special 'tokens') > > > They could be standard discipline cards (with a sleeve of a different color). > They could. At least for starters. They could be some tokens as well (to differentiate from a Master card) for the renewed core game, just to make some more cool trinkets. Either works. There's benefits to making the tokens, but they're not mandatory by any means. As for Elotar; I'll call your bluff and accept that as a hilarious pull_your_leg - nice one. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

Great idea! And I agree with Ankha, just use cards (although there are not cards for all disciplines...) But then you should not be able to use cards from your deck imho. Rolf

I think that is not a bad idea, but what happens with per example with melpominee or other disciplines with no skill cards. And as an collector let me say, I like the idea with the tokens, but that is only my one thing.

Well the tokens would help with those bloodline disciplines, for sure. And the collector in me also fancied the idea of new shiny toys. I mean the lcg fornat for example largely rides with the glamour of extra bling, both in boxes and as prize support. I think many would love them. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> Kraus wrote: > Well the tokens would help with those bloodline disciplines, for sure. > > And the collector in me also fancied the idea of new shiny toys. I mean the lcg fornat for example largely rides with the glamour of extra bling, both in boxes and as prize support. > > I think many would love them. > I feel limited run prize support can be enormous for the Game going forward. Alternative art crypt cards, staple and rare library cards, and tokens could be easy outlets of this. We all have our favorite (or more commonly 1+ least favorite) art for a discipline card, so we notice. What about annual sets of diablerie discipline tokens, with full card art changing by the year, and small reminder text on diablerie (or reminder text on the back).

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > > > Kraus wrote: > > Well the tokens would help with those bloodline disciplines, for sure. > > > > And the collector in me also fancied the idea of new shiny toys. I mean the lcg fornat for example largely rides with the glamour of extra bling, both in boxes and as prize support. > > > > I think many would love them. > > > I feel limited run prize support can be enormous for the Game going forward. Alternative art crypt cards, staple and rare library cards, and tokens could be easy outlets of this. We all have our favorite (or more commonly 1+ least favorite) art for a discipline card, so we notice. > What about annual sets of diablerie discipline tokens, with full card art changing by the year, and small reminder text on diablerie (or reminder text on the back). > I mean this is exactly the thing. Offer some plain ones in starters, and super cool ones for prizes? Depending on how it's going to be published, if we go for example with clan specific packs or something something, they could have token cards of the relevant clan disciplines come in the box. The opporunities are limitless. Also, game play wise, people would probably be enthusiastic to see wonky disciplines enter the sphere of their vamps. For extra support for the masters, print some, i dunno, support cards to enable the combo decks? "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

I am favor of this idea, since its lore- and RPG-accurate, while the current rule is not. Adding extra counters that could be sold as merchandise is not a bad thing either. They could be printed in card form as well, just like the old anarch/corruption counter. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

As a side note I want to mention, that more than one type of counters on one card is a bad game design. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > As a side note I want to mention, that more than one type of counters on one card is a bad game design. > I don't agree with this at all. Why would it be bad game design? We already have it after all. We have blood counters and an anarch counter on an anarch vampire most of the time (not counting Galaric's legacy and whatnot). Same vampire can still have corruption counters etc. Its not at all uncommon in magic the gathering either, to use as an example.. If its good for the most popular CCG in the world, its good enough for us. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> elotar wrote: > As a side note I want to mention, that more than one type of counters on one card is a bad game design. > [Citation Needed]

> Bloodartist wrote: > > Its not at all uncommon in magic the gathering either... > No, it's uncommon. Actually it's kind of a rule in a late MTG sets, that there will not be more that one type of counters. Early sets got them, obviously, but it was later understood as a mistake. 2Self Biased - see some of the Mark Rosewater articles about ccg design. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > > > Its not at all uncommon in magic the gathering either... > > > No, it's uncommon. Actually it's kind of a rule in a late MTG sets, that there will not be more that one type of counters. Early sets got them, obviously, but it was later understood as a mistake. > > 2Self Biased - see some of the Mark Rosewater articles about ccg design. > Define "early". Easily within the last 10 years kamigawa, Ravnica, all 4 parts of Lorwyn, and especially time spiral had multiple variants of counters on permanent, as cratures, and out if play cards. I quit MTG, but I'm still confused.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > Define "early". Easily within the last 10 years kamigawa, Ravnica, all 4 parts of Lorwyn, and especially time spiral had multiple variants of counters on permanent, as cratures, and out if play cards. I quit MTG, but I'm still confused. > > > OK, let's take Lorwyn, as a set I've even played draft once. Please, provide an example of several types of different counters, which are supposed to be on one card. > NC Russia

I think elotar has a point. Different kinds of counters on one card is confusing. Even if it wasn't confusing, VTES already involves way too many counters. There's even a video out there poking fun at this (see 3:28 mark): So yeah, the game already has too much going on with counters. It doesn't need required special tokens for each discipline.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > So yeah, the game already has too much going on with counters. It doesn't need required special tokens for each discipline. > True, but if the counters would be represented by cards I think it would be fine. It could be likened to auras (enchant creature) in magic the gathering, for which there is no limit how many you can have on a single creature and they are a staple in any modern Magic sets, even the very latest. The situation is slightly different compared to magic as vampires in VTES are more 'important' since all actions are being played through them, and having egg basket vampires with lots of cards on them is relatively commonplace. > elotar wrote: > > OK, let's take Lorwyn, as an set I've even played once. Please provide an example of two types of different counters, which are supposed to be on one card. > The first example I can think of offhand is commander 2013, which featured number of level up creatures from rise of the eldrazi, meaning they could have level up counters and +1/+1 counters on them. Time spiral, which was mentioned earlier, featured reprint of Icatian javelineers with its javelin counter. Amonkhet set from april 2017 features planeswalker Gideon of the trials, who can turn himself into a creature and thus have both loyalty counters and +1/+1 counters (even though its somewhat unlikely). Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > ...having egg basket vampires with lots of cards on them is relatively commonplace. > There's also a legacy of excessive amounts of cards on minions being a bad thing, leading to too much upkeep and accounting. See Imbued and Events. Probably best to not add more types of counters.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > There's also a legacy of excessive amounts of cards on minions being a bad thing, leading to too much upkeep and accounting. See Imbued and Events. Probably best to not add more types of counters. > Its not like the original suggestion adds anything extra, since you can already play discipline cards on those vampires.The same discipline cards they would be getting off the diablerie. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Thanks @Bloodartist for pointing it out in my place - the card form counters wouldn't really add more than a card or two per game to the field. If even that. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > ...having egg basket vampires with lots of cards on them is relatively commonplace. > > > There's also a legacy of excessive amounts of cards on minions being a bad thing, leading to too much upkeep and accounting. See Imbued and Events. Probably best to not add more types of counters. > This is a can of worms on a whole different scale, I'm sure you agree. Krausedit\\ So yeah, I'm talking about counters here definitely in card form, as the old anarch and curroption counters. Very similar to the Master: Disciplines, but aesthetically different and coming off the decks. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

the whole problem of 'too many different kinds of counters on a card' goes away if you stop thinking about V:tes as a conventional CCG, and think of it as a Board Game that's played with cards. I feel the comparison is apt, because if you look at how the style of play lines up between v:tes and some of the more involved board games out there (Agricola, Twilight Imperium, Ikusa, &c), there are a lot of similarities. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > There's also a legacy of excessive amounts of cards on minions being a bad thing, leading to too much upkeep and accounting. See Imbued and Events. Probably best to not add more types of counters. > define 'excessvie.' the old Legend of the Five Rings CCG used to put potentially several dozen cards into play by design and there's no issue there in terms of upkeep of accounting. I suspect that the recursion issues that crop up with imbued are the culprit of the notion that 'too many cards on a minion makes for too much upkeep.' I mean, gangrel retainer decks are a popular archetype, Right?

> self wrote: > the whole problem of 'too many different kinds of counters on a card' goes away if you stop thinking about V:tes as a conventional CCG, and think of it as a Board Game that's played with cards. I feel the comparison is apt, because if you look at how the style of play lines up between v:tes and some of the more involved board games out there (Agricola, Twilight Imperium, Ikusa, &c), there are a lot of similarities. > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > There's also a legacy of excessive amounts of cards on minions being a bad thing, leading to too much upkeep and accounting. See Imbued and Events. Probably best to not add more types of counters. > > > define 'excessvie.' > I tried looking up "excessvie" in the dictionary and couldn't find it. > the old Legend of the Five Rings CCG used to put potentially several dozen cards into play by design and there's no issue there in terms of upkeep of accounting. > That game no longer exists in the same format, so apparently there was an issue. > I suspect that the recursion issues that crop up with imbued are the culprit of the notion that 'too many cards on a minion makes for too much upkeep.' > There's that, and the fact that other players need to look at the 20-30 cards that the imbued player has out before playing their turn. > I mean, gangrel retainer decks are a popular archetype, Right? > Do you mean Gangrel decks with Raven Spy? Not sure what your point is. That there are popular decks that do things similar to imbued (put lots of permanents and cards on minions) and don't involve recursion and massive upkeep?

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > > > OK, let's take Lorwyn, as an set I've even played once. ... > > > The first example I can think of offhand is commander 2013... > So, you are saying there was no such example in Lorwyn? NC Russia

For discipline tokens in card form I see no problem in game, but it looks kind of bothering - any player should have with him several copies of such cards for each discipline for extremely rare situations when it will be usefull (or lose competitive edge in such situations). Somebody mentioned contemporary boardgames, and it's a common problem as I see it - some games got so many components that management of them is making the whole game experience annoying. It's not very big problem, but the gain of "better diablery" not looks so big either. NC Russia

I suppose we could just make it a skill card from outside the game.......

> elotar wrote: > So, you are saying there was no such example in Lorwyn? > I don't think so, I went through Lorwyn cards, assuming you meant the set and not the block. There are far later examples though like I mentioned. Latest from last spring. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > So, you are saying there was no such example in Lorwyn? > > > I don't think so, I went through Lorwyn cards, assuming you meant the set and not the block. > There are far later examples though like I mentioned. Latest from last spring. > When I mentioned it, I meant the block. But that's because all 4 parts were designed to be cohesive. (Whereas other things that were t2 legal at various points lacked much of this, like counter-top goyf being legal for a short span before kamigawa rotated...) While early Lorwyn didn't have tons of multi token craziness, the heavy wither push made things like that happen, even having token on token creatures (garuuks 3/3 beasts, bitter blossom faeries with the uncommon things that pumped faeries, etc) Of course, card size tokens would be what we're talking about, not additional beads, which does get rough some times (is that the dead hookers life, a pathos counter, or a corruption counter?)

I'm hoping it's clear to all participants of the discussion at this point that we're talking about card size 'counters' or 'tokens', whereas we could just as well write it as: "When diablerizing an older vampire the diablerist may choose a discipline the burnt vampire had at superior level. She then learns a level of that discipline and her capacity increases by one. You can use a reminder card (supplied in the core set) to represent this." We'll just remove the 'token' or 'counter' word. It's all good. Anyways. With that sorted out, a thought occured to me, and I'd love to get some feedback for this from those who are familiar with the lore: Should a vampire with superior level of a given discipline be able to gain capacity? An example: Horatio Ballard diablerizes Lucinde Alastor . There are no extra levels of disciplines Horatio would be able to learn from Lucinde. Should Horatio be able to grow in capacity, given the lore? How would that feel? Of course there's the balance issue, but I'd love to concentrate on the fluff and lore aspect of it first, focusing on the RPG element. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> Kraus wrote: > There are no extra levels of disciplines Horatio would be able to learn from Lucinde. Should Horatio be able to grow in capacity, given the lore? How would that feel? > Overtly effin' complicated. Especially in a game that is already very very complicated. KISS! (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) Benefits gained by this system? None spring to my mind. No need to change the current system to "reflect the RPG more". Finnish Politics!

Beg to differ mate, as already stated the opening post. Im asking this from a roleplaying perspective. Not vtes at this point. KiiP - Keep it in Perspective. Anyways, its a suggestion, not a demand, and what im trying to do here is explore the horizon. No harm in that, is there? The rules team is the judge of whats to come anyways. Anyone with roleplaying background or insight in lore? "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

hoo boy, do i have serious Opinions on this subject. I'm a colossal fan of the source material, and have been playing in the same Masquerade game since '98. I went to the Requiem LARP for about 2 years (and honestly believe that Requiem and the NWoD is mostly a better setting than the classic one). I'm super looking forward to V5, and so far I'm enjoying many of the changes that are being made to the mechanics and the lore of the game. But... If I wanted to roleplay, I'd just play the roleplaying game that already exists. I while I like your idea overall, I don't see how it makes V:tes's current mechanics any more sound, easier to understand, or less complicated. Though it would be a boon to many of the Bloodlines who don't have decent access to their specialty Disciplines. Honestly, I've already come out as In Favor of cutting various 'theme' and 'lore' related things like Independent vampires not having titles and having something that is essentially the same but mechanically different, for no other reason than "They were cool in the books." I honestly don't get it, because I've never read any of the books and I don't have any attachment to the characters outside of V:tes. Same thing goes for Antitribu clans. The very concept should be hucked in a dumpster and set on fire, because it doesn't add much in the way of value to the game in my eyes. I've taught about ten people how to play the game in the last five years, and just about every one of my pupils has tried to sneak in an antitribu card, legitimately not realizing that they're two different clans. "But self!" you say, "How will people tell the difference between the Warrior bloodline of the Ventrue that composes most of the Sabbat Ventrue antitribu and other, garden variety Ventrue?" Easy. Those are the Ventrue with Auspex instead of Presence, and are by and large, in the Sabbat. So to wrap things up, sometimes there needs to be an abstraction of the background material and concepts (The entirety of Vampire: The Masquerade lore) to make the derivative game (Vampire: The Eternal Struggle) mechanically sound and smooth flowing.

> self wrote: > So to wrap things up, sometimes there needs to be an abstraction of the background material and concepts (The entirety of Vampire: The Masquerade lore) to make the derivative game (Vampire: The Eternal Struggle) mechanically sound and smooth flowing. > +++++ NC Russia

To answer the question about eating Lucinde: In lore she(and most elders in children of the night, her sourcebook) had WAAAAYYYYmore disciplines than is practical for s vtes card. So, no gain for the reasons posted above about abstractions of the source for the good of the game.

> self wrote: > Honestly, I've already come out as In Favor of cutting various 'theme' and 'lore' related things like Independent vampires not having titles and having something that is essentially the same but mechanically different, for no other reason than "They were cool in the books." I honestly don't get it, because I've never read any of the books and I don't have any attachment to the characters outside of V:tes. > I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, since independent vampires DO have titles in VTES. Take for example Arishat . Independent, 1 vote (titled). Personally I don't much like the whole concept of trophyhunter deck type, which is to my knowledge pretty much the only kind of deck that would run discipline cards for the purpose of diablerizing opposing vampire and searching for it? I feel the way disciplines during diablerie are handled currently is quite underused. If we added the possibility of searching a discipline card OUTside the game during succesful diablerie, I feel it would be much cooler and more rewarding to diablerize. Something that would be tempting to do regardless what kind of deck you were running. EDIT: I just realized that would make IC decks even stronger so maybe restrict the search for discipline card only to the case where the target vampire is older? But not restrict the type of discipline. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, since independent vampires DO have titles in VTES. Take for example Arishat . Independent, 1 vote (titled). > I have a few questions: What is Arishat's actual Title, and where is it listed in the rulebook? Why do Titles on Independent Vampires work in a (slightly) different way mechanically than any other sect's titles? How does the game benefit in a meaningful way from this difference? I mean, I know the answer to these questions. I even made a thread about it a few years ago, and the notion that streamlining the way titles work was met with some resistance because of concerns about Lore and Background.

> self wrote: > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, since independent vampires DO have titles in VTES. Take for example Arishat . Independent, 1 vote (titled). > > > I have a few questions: > > What is Arishat's actual Title, and where is it listed in the rulebook? > She has her own title. "Some Independent vampires may start with votes, as listed on card text. Treat these vampires as if they had titles of their own." > self wrote: > Why do Titles on Independent Vampires work in a (slightly) different way mechanically than any other sect's titles? > Then you may as well ask yourself why do primogen and bishop title work in a (slightly) different way mechanically than city titles? They work as any other title (= they provide votes, and the vampire is considered titled). They can't be contested (as the primogen, bishop, magaji, priscus title), and have no special name. > self wrote: > How does the game benefit in a meaningful way from this difference? > The only "unique" feature of Independent titles is that they are not named. They are easier to learn than a plethora of titles such as Calif, Vizier, Senechal or whatever. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Then you may as well ask yourself why do primogen and bishop title work in a (slightly) different way mechanically than city titles? > > They work as any other title (= they provide votes, and the vampire is considered titled). They can't be contested (as the primogen, bishop, magaji, priscus title), and have no special name. > i guess I don't understand why the abstraction between background and v:tes rules fell the way it did, and why (though I suspect it's a legacy issue from ancient hearts that somewhere along the way someone decided it was a feature and not a bug). Independent titles working as they do now, “1 vote (titled)” printed on the card, as opposed to “Independent (whatever-generic-title-you-want-to-put-in-the-rulebook-that’s-worth-one-vote)” feels more complicated for me because it’s inconsistent with how Titles work for every other sect. The abstraction is in the mechanics and having slightly different mechanics for Independent titles, rather than the out of game justification of “we gave Independent Vampires generic titles for ease of gameplay and to keep things consistent mechanically.” And honestly, unique titles could probably just stop being unique (with the exception of City titles, but even then). When was the last time anyone saw a contested Justicar or Inner Circle title in a game? The way the Grouping rule works, I don’t think I’ve ever seen those titles contested. I would wager that It’s even rare that City Titles get contested. > Ankha wrote: > The only "unique" feature of Independent titles is that they are not named. They are easier to learn than a plethora of titles such as Calif, Vizier, Senechal or whatever. > Is that feature meaningful in terms of a gameplay device? Clearly it's meaningful to people who have read the books and have emotional attachment to these characters, because every time I bring up the fact that there's an inconsistency in the mechanics I figuratively get shouted at with background justifications. "he's not a Lord, he's a caliph/vizier/seneschal/or whatever." i'm ot sure why people appear to get so defensive about it, but I'll continue to die on this particular hill when the argument comes up, and by that, I mean when I bring it up.