Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My review of SABBAT: THE BLACK HAND 4.5/5

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When the Camarilla is being cruel, 90% of the time that's the Prince, the council, or the puppetmaster acting in the name of the Camarilla. It's not actually the Camarilla as a body telling princes to be evil and tyranical. If anything, the Cam does well to curb the absolute worst excesses of princes, because it's the only sect that champions humanity (if only for the sake of the Masquerade)

    It's the same thing with the Anarchs, really. "The Movement" doesn't tell them to screw up, they do that on their own. The demographics are different for anarchs, but it's the same shit/worse, especially since, y'know, the Anarchs aren't meant to be championing humanity, they're supposedly championing freedom, and if that freedom means The Path of Night, Bones, Caine, Lilith, Typhon, Blood... Then it means you're going to have some particularly Immoral members among the ranks. (Of course V5 seems to be retconning paths to a Sabbat only thing, but in any case... Nazis)

    Imo, most "happy endings" for Anarchs should be the reformation of the local Camarilla, with all members accepting the new status quo. Your Baron becomes Prince or you set up a ruling council, and you make the changes you want to make. The Anarchs are Satisfied and become full fledged members of the Camarilla. Anything else is just inviting instability and a counter revolution.


    Throw me/White wolf some money with Quietus: Drug Lord, Poison King
    There's more coming soon. Pay what ya want.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
      When the Camarilla is being cruel, 90% of the time that's the Prince, the council, or the puppetmaster acting in the name of the Camarilla. It's not actually the Camarilla as a body telling princes to be evil and tyranical. If anything, the Cam does well to curb the absolute worst excesses of princes, because it's the only sect that champions humanity (if only for the sake of the Masquerade)

      It's the same thing with the Anarchs, really. "The Movement" doesn't tell them to screw up, they do that on their own. The demographics are different for anarchs, but it's the same shit/worse, especially since, y'know, the Anarchs aren't meant to be championing humanity, they're supposedly championing freedom, and if that freedom means The Path of Night, Bones, Caine, Lilith, Typhon, Blood... Then it means you're going to have some particularly Immoral members among the ranks. (Of course V5 seems to be retconning paths to a Sabbat only thing, but in any case... Nazis)

      Imo, most "happy endings" for Anarchs should be the reformation of the local Camarilla, with all members accepting the new status quo. Your Baron becomes Prince or you set up a ruling council, and you make the changes you want to make. The Anarchs are Satisfied and become full fledged members of the Camarilla. Anything else is just inviting instability and a counter revolution.
      I don't think that this is how the Camarilla is written in V5.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
        Because, frankly, “elitists who can’t even see their own privilege want more” is a poor concept to build a ‘protagonist’ sect around compared to “struggling to not be murdered by a ruthless elite just for existing.”
        At the core, the idea of the Anarchs is that they're not elitists because feeding grounds are a thing. A shitty distribution of feeding rights can effectively put even elders at risk. This is lost in games where the attention is mostly focused on Elysium politics, but if you put the sting on feeding depending on area things get more complex quickly as rights in the city start to have practical application.


        #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs
        #AutismPride
        She/her pronouns

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
          When the Camarilla is being cruel, 90% of the time that's the Prince, the council, or the puppetmaster acting in the name of the Camarilla. It's not actually the Camarilla as a body telling princes to be evil and tyranical. If anything, the Cam does well to curb the absolute worst excesses of princes, because it's the only sect that champions humanity (if only for the sake of the Masquerade)

          It's the same thing with the Anarchs, really. "The Movement" doesn't tell them to screw up, they do that on their own. The demographics are different for anarchs, but it's the same shit/worse, especially since, y'know, the Anarchs aren't meant to be championing humanity, they're supposedly championing freedom, and if that freedom means The Path of Night, Bones, Caine, Lilith, Typhon, Blood... Then it means you're going to have some particularly Immoral members among the ranks. (Of course V5 seems to be retconning paths to a Sabbat only thing, but in any case... Nazis)

          Imo, most "happy endings" for Anarchs should be the reformation of the local Camarilla, with all members accepting the new status quo. Your Baron becomes Prince or you set up a ruling council, and you make the changes you want to make. The Anarchs are Satisfied and become full fledged members of the Camarilla. Anything else is just inviting instability and a counter revolution.

          I feel like the Camarilla is ran by a bunch of Elders who have little to none humanity to start with. The Anarch on the other hand are basically humans with fangs who ar eall just running around doing the same stuff they did before they died.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
            Frankly, the most interesting thing I’ve ever seen done with “Anarchs” was when a local Prince declared all thinbloods and Caitiff anathema as a way of dealing with overcrowding.

            That’s not really Anarch though… that’s an already underprivileged group living on the fringes facing a pogram of “ethnic cleasing” for the benefit of the elites.
            That's actually just flat out canon, though. Revised made the Scourges to do this and this was a big change to Camarilla behavior. The Scourges were to destroy Thin Bloods, Caitiff, and those vampires without sires to vouch for them.

            It gave a good reason for many of the latter to become Anarchs.


            Author of Cthulhu Armageddon, I was a Teenage Weredeer, Straight Outta Fangton, Lucifer's Star, and the Supervillainy Saga.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
              That's actually just flat out canon, though. Revised made the Scourges to do this and this was a big change to Camarilla behavior. The Scourges were to destroy Thin Bloods, Caitiff, and those vampires without sires to vouch for them.

              It gave a good reason for many of the latter to become Anarchs.
              I think you missed “disavowed by even the Anarchs of the city” part (because the Anarchs are vampires and vampires are assholes) and how that provided more character to the thinbloods than I’ve ever seen applied to the Anarchs in ANY campaign I’ve ever been part of because “persecuted minority” has a whole catalogue of tropes, stock archetypes and plots.

              By contrast the general impression of the Anarchs among those in my area (American Midwest) that I’ve played with is of poseurs who range from Green or Libertarian party members to types like some of the white antifa protesters who burned down African American owned businesses and neighborhoods in the name of racial justice last year and then went home to their parents upper middle class basements when they were done pretending they were fighting ‘The Man’ and The Anarch Free States as just a bigger version of the dystopian Autonomous Zones that popped up.

              They’re not popular. They’re not sympathetic. They’re not even the cool evil of playing The Man (Camarilla campaign) or a Fanatical Death Cultist (Sabbat campaign)… they’re just self-entitled punks who turn into ‘The Man’ as soon as they get any power and, at least around here, are portrayed as absolutely willing to sell their fellows out if it’ll get them a leg up on that.

              Which also makes fantastic mid-level mini-bosses and asshole victims for a thinblood campaign, like when the Dhampir PC came looking for who sold out their parents to the Scourge and destroyed (daylight is a hell of an equalizer, particularly against low humanity assholes) the Anarch sellout who took their parent’s money and instead of getting them out of town, delivered them right to the Scourge. Dragging someone onto a rooftop to watch them burn to death never felt so cathartic.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
                I think you missed “disavowed by even the Anarchs of the city” part (because the Anarchs are vampires and vampires are assholes) and how that provided more character to the thinbloods than I’ve ever seen applied to the Anarchs in ANY campaign I’ve ever been part of because “persecuted minority” has a whole catalogue of tropes, stock archetypes and plots.
                But here the problem aren't the Anarchs, but how you use them. Absolutely nothing you ascribed to them is in the lore, despite being a possible interpretation.

                It isn't in any way a bad way of doing things, but you could as easily have given something to make the Anarchs fight for survival instead of the Thin Bloods.

                Let's say the Prince on purpose demarcates the city in such a way that 1/5 of the Kindred get exceedingly good hunting grounds and the other 4/5 have to deal with places where hunting is either dangerous or dangerously ineffective? Reinforce this law with prejudice, anyone caught feeding in protected turf is going to suffer a world of pain.

                What I getting here is that you choose to be creative with the interplay of factions and this resulted in one of them becoming more interesting than you're used to see, but that doesn't mean the other don't have the same potential. The Thin Bloods became more interesting because you chose to make them so, and the Anarchs didn't because you also choose to not make them so. You could have done it in other ways.


                #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs
                #AutismPride
                She/her pronouns

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
                  I think you missed “disavowed by even the Anarchs of the city” part (because the Anarchs are vampires and vampires are assholes) and how that provided more character to the thinbloods than I’ve ever seen applied to the Anarchs in ANY campaign I’ve ever been part of because “persecuted minority” has a whole catalogue of tropes, stock archetypes and plots.

                  By contrast the general impression of the Anarchs among those in my area (American Midwest) that I’ve played with is of poseurs who range from Green or Libertarian party members to types like some of the white antifa protesters who burned down African American owned businesses and neighborhoods in the name of racial justice last year and then went home to their parents upper middle class basements when they were done pretending they were fighting ‘The Man’ and The Anarch Free States as just a bigger version of the dystopian Autonomous Zones that popped up.

                  They’re not popular. They’re not sympathetic. They’re not even the cool evil of playing The Man (Camarilla campaign) or a Fanatical Death Cultist (Sabbat campaign)… they’re just self-entitled punks who turn into ‘The Man’ as soon as they get any power and, at least around here, are portrayed as absolutely willing to sell their fellows out if it’ll get them a leg up on that.

                  Which also makes fantastic mid-level mini-bosses and asshole victims for a thinblood campaign, like when the Dhampir PC came looking for who sold out their parents to the Scourge and destroyed (daylight is a hell of an equalizer, particularly against low humanity assholes) the Anarch sellout who took their parent’s money and instead of getting them out of town, delivered them right to the Scourge. Dragging someone onto a rooftop to watch them burn to death never felt so cathartic.
                  Not to point out but you basically are saying, "Anarchs aren't cool because I play them as poseurs and losers"?

                  Also, I hate to point this out but if you're playing a Thin Blood out to survive and kill the guys in power then that's pretty much an Anarch. One of my all time favorite Anarchs is Jenna Cross and she's a Thin Blood revolutionary trained by Smiling Jack.

                  But I don't disagree yours is a valid interpretation either as dealing with poseurs and hypocrites is something every Anarch should deal with. The PCs are usually the only Anarchs who are 100% true to the cause because it's their job to be the protagonists and guiding voice in the Movement. It's why Mark Rein Hagen made the first Anarch we meet in V:TM be Juggler, the ultimate in poseur rebels with the possible exception of Gengis.

                  Indeed, funnily, V5 gives Juggler MORE dignity than he initially had as a rebel.

                  Edit:

                  Some bits by Justin Achilli:

                  https://twitter.com/jachilli/status/1449013445647548417

                  https://twitter.com/jachilli/status/1449013931515813891

                  Anarchs are the default sect for V5 and going way back. The Camarilla became the default for V2-V20. Anarchs are especially popular among new and young players.
                  WoD5 also has as thematic element across all games, in that status quo/ world as it is is an "antagonist," and Anarchs are inherently at odds with that. (Werewolves also oppose exploitative status quo, Hunters at odds with status-quo orgs like the SAD, Society of St. Leo, etc.
                  Last edited by CTPhipps; 10-15-2021, 04:49 PM.


                  Author of Cthulhu Armageddon, I was a Teenage Weredeer, Straight Outta Fangton, Lucifer's Star, and the Supervillainy Saga.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
                    When the Camarilla is being cruel, 90% of the time that's the Prince, the council, or the puppetmaster acting in the name of the Camarilla. It's not actually the Camarilla as a body telling princes to be evil and tyranical. If anything, the Cam does well to curb the absolute worst excesses of princes, because it's the only sect that champions humanity (if only for the sake of the Masquerade)
                    The Camarilla as the Mob and The Duty of a Prince is to be the Designated Asshole

                    My inclination is the Camarilla has veto power whenever someone assumes the position of Prince but for the most part, it is something that the Camarilla never actually does so. I've made multiple comparisons of the Camarilla to the mafia and in that respect, the "real" Camarilla is not the local Don but the Commission above them. This is also more the Hollywood version than the real thing but basically as long as the Camarilla gets its cut, it doesn't care who is in charge of a region.

                    In the video game, MAFIA 3 (using fiction rather than reality because, hey, vampires), protagonist Lincoln Clay proceeds to go on a massive Grand Theft Auto-esque killing spree of the New Orleans Cosa Nostra before finally executing their boss. Much to his surprise, he's then contacted by the bosses who respond to this massive murder spree of their forces by going, "Okay, give us our 20% of the gross income and everything is fine."

                    As such, every vampire city is full of in-fighting, murder, and oppression. However, the Camarilla won't send a Justicar because these things don't matter. A Justicar and/or Archon will only show up if the Masquerade is violated. If you kill the Prince, you're the Prince and just have to carry out the duties they had before. Anarchs, unfortunately, represent a possible threat to the status quo. It's fine if they want to be Prince, Modius was not a problem. MALDAVIS was the problem in that she wanted to reform things, which was why she'd never be allowed to take over.

                    (And other Anarchs think she was too close to the Camarilla anyway)

                    One of the jobs of the Camarilla for Prince's is to keep the young in place and the Anarchs. Thin Bloods, high generation vampires, Caitiff, the young, and unapproved Embraces. The "trash" of Kindred society that the Elders argue are inherently a risk to the Masquerade. Rarely are you ordered to say "figure out a way to destroy them" but you're certainly meant to make their lives hell and to get them out of your city if you can. It's how a Prince looks like he's busy after all. William Walberg in Berlin got himself removed from power because the city had a massive number of Anarchs and other "degenerates" that he'd made peace with.

                    It looked like he was a slacker and they sent in a hardline prince...who promptly had them all revolt and kill him. Now will the Camarilla blame THEMSELVES for this or William? I think you know the answer to that.

                    It's the same thing with the Anarchs, really. "The Movement" doesn't tell them to screw up, they do that on their own. The demographics are different for anarchs, but it's the same shit/worse, especially since, y'know, the Anarchs aren't meant to be championing humanity, they're supposedly championing freedom, and if that freedom means The Path of Night, Bones, Caine, Lilith, Typhon, Blood... Then it means you're going to have some particularly Immoral members among the ranks. (Of course V5 seems to be retconning paths to a Sabbat only thing, but in any case... Nazis)
                    My take on the Anarchs is that they are the proverbial "big tent" and united by the common cause of the Camarilla. They're a wartime alliance that is made up of many people who would normally be at each other's throats (and might still be) that mostly aren't attempting to create a replacement for the Camarilla by driving the Camarilla out of their existing territories.

                    Canonically, the Anarch factions in V5 include:

                    * The Anarch Center (Chicago based, classic Brujah and Caitiff revolutionaries)
                    * Marcus Vitel's Empire (autocratic Roman Senate - Anarchs by virtue of being opposed to the Camarilla and using the rebels of Baltimore as foot soldiers)
                    * The Thin Bloods (survival is their motivation due to Camarilla eschatological frenzy)
                    * The Ministry (fuck the Camarilla for being mean to us and the other Anarchs are deeply stupid sheeple)
                    * The Gangrel (Anarch? Sure, I guess. Whatever man)
                    * Brujah (Have not even noticed they have been kicked out of the Camarilla-100 different incompatible vampire philosohies ranging from hippie pacifism to Nazis)
                    * Rudi's gang (German social justice with fangs! Destined to fail horribly because vampires are evil parasites)
                    * LA By Night Anarchs (Have basically become nothing more than a Primogen headed by Prince Isaac Abrams--and that's probably for the best)
                    * Libertalia (Smiling Jack has founded an actual pirate state with other vampires)
                    * The revived Brujah Council (actual Red Scare Communists partying like it's 1955)

                    Most of them will work together against the Camarilla as a whole but plenty of assassinations and intrigue between them.

                    Imo, most "happy endings" for Anarchs should be the reformation of the local Camarilla, with all members accepting the new status quo. Your Baron becomes Prince or you set up a ruling council, and you make the changes you want to make. The Anarchs are Satisfied and become full fledged members of the Camarilla. Anything else is just inviting instability and a counter revolution.
                    The ending depends on what you define as happiness because the "Anarch sellout" is nothing new in any campaign based around the Anarchs. What you're describing happens all the time in my games to the point that we actually have an in-universe name for them, "Judas Anarch."

                    It even has a process that my PCs have followed on ocassion:

                    1. The Prince is overthrown, the Primogen either falls in line or is destroyed as well.
                    2. The Anarch Baron becomes Prince to avoid being destroyed by a Justicar. They may not even have a choice due to Dominate or threats to their loved ones.
                    3. The Baron then awards domain and position to his former followers.
                    4. Every Anarch who WASN'T rewarded turns against them and vows revenge.
                    5. The cycle continues.

                    Which is to say there's never an ending when you're immortal unless it's death.
                    Last edited by CTPhipps; 10-15-2021, 05:18 PM.


                    Author of Cthulhu Armageddon, I was a Teenage Weredeer, Straight Outta Fangton, Lucifer's Star, and the Supervillainy Saga.

                    Comment


                    • Some bits by Justin Achilli:
                      That's borderline a tautology if you're saying it as far as trying to draw any conclusion from it, as far as the "the Anarchs are especially popular" bit.

                      That said, why wouldn't Anarchs be especially popular among new and young players when they're really the only viable play option in V5 as far as exposure to the game? The other options are: not playable (the Sabbat), presented as basically an inept evil cartoon (the Camarilla), or being created by what amounts to a third party, which by simple default reduces exposure/awareness (the Hecata/Blood Cults stuff).

                      It would be a remarkable failure of promotion if Anarchs weren't especially popular for Vampire 5th edition considering how heavily they're being pushed by the company in everything from Actual Live Plays cast with popular performers of such (LA By Night) to the game material that sees publication as far as stuff that shows up in game stores and what have you.

                      For new players coming into the game, that's what the game would look like. That's what the play option would be. Saying "the Anarchs are especially popular" doesn't so much vindicate "thus we were right to focus on them" as "we changed the game to make the Anarchs the main viable option new players would see, coming into this game".

                      I mean, that said, I'd certainly want to know if any actual research was done into making that statement, but still. It would be a failure state of V5 after all the effort they put in both in game and on a meta level above it to reduce and denigrate all non Anarch playing options if the Anarchs did not end up popular with new players. What else would they want to play?

                      That all aside? Yes, WoD5 and Vampire V5 certainly is very much a game about wanting to morally judge you if you wanted to play any differently from the default it wants to present (especially presenting it through the idea that the Anarchs are the forces against the bad state of the world), and especially V5 being about the notion that books that came out after 1991 were a mistake (Anarchs are "the default sect going way back" again hearkening back to a sentiment of "wasn't everything better about Vampire if we could only ignore over two decades of material for vampire and the way the game existed even 5 years ago?").

                      It's also sort of, I don't know, when one of my own gripes in this thread is that no one can seem to be capable of praising V5 without in some way including a reference to "look, we're doing VtM like first edition!" reinforces it as this game that doesn't exist in its own merits or context, but rather a game that came into existence to satisfy grudges that writers and developers had with seeming everything that came out for Vampire after 1991 (to again remind, Vampire Second Edition, the edition that even the writer here refers to as "Camarilla default" came into existence 1 year into the existence of VtM).

                      Then again Justin Achilli's style especially in revised was something of a "if you play Vampire the way I don't like, you're a bad person who doesn't understand what good gaming is.", so.. (there's a bit in Children of the Night that basically reads for filth the idea that people using VtM should want official npc stats that veers into outright mocking contempt for instance as far as suggesting why they would want it and what the results would be, like he's angry that this supplement he's doing even exists for people to read)

                      edit: Also, even in 1991 products, there's explicit stuff in books like Chicago by Night talking about the players as Camarilla, so it starts to feel like a case of selective memory, or again another "when I say older VtM, I basically mean the corebook for 1e and maybe one or two other books."
                      Last edited by MarkK; 10-15-2021, 05:32 PM.

                      Comment


                      • I mean, all I was arguing were the Anarchs were originally the protagonists of the game and the most popular sect before the Camarilla/Sabbat became more popular. Which you said there was no evidence they ever were. I freely admit I could have been wrong.

                        Now if you're arguing they SHOULD have focus of the Camarilla and Sabbat over the Anarchs, that's a different story.

                        Especially as I don't think the Sabbat should be NPC only and should have been a playable option at the beginning. Also, the Camarilla IS a major part of what makes the game enjoyable.

                        Originally posted by MarkK
                        It's sort of, I don't know, when one of my own gripes in this thread is that no one can seem to be capable of praising V5 without in some way including a reference to "look, we're doing VtM like first edition!" reinforces it as this game that doesn't exist in its own merits or context, but rather a game that came into existence to satisfy grudges that writers and developers had with seeming everything that came out for Vampire after 1991 (to again remind, Vampire Second Edition, the edition that even the writer here refers to as "Camarilla default" came into existence 1 year into the existence of VtM).

                        Then again Justin Achilli's style especially in revised was something of a "if you play Vampire the way I don't like, you're a bad person who doesn't understand what good gaming is.", so.. (there's a bit in Children of the Night that basically reads for filth the idea that people using VtM should want official npc stats that veers into outright mocking contempt for instance as far as suggesting why they would want it and what the results would be, like he's angry that this supplement he's doing even exists for people to read)
                        I mean, it's kind of funny but I think V5 is closest to Revised+ rather than 1st Edition. Even if there was a Sabbat option, the Sabbat option dramatically changed who the Sabbat was. It also massively amps up the Thin Bloods role and other things that had been hinted at for Revised like the Camarilla's vilification and them as an oppressive force on Kindred society.

                        The Anarchs were fucked over by Revised (Kuei-jin anyone?) so that's new so I don't think it's THAT similar to 1st Edition. V5 is best thought of as 1st Edition/Revised+/Requiem.

                        Originally posted by MarkK View Post

                        edit: Also, even in 1991 products, there's explicit stuff in books like Chicago by Night talking about the players as Camarilla, so it starts to feel like a case of selective memory, or again another "when I say older VtM, I basically mean the corebook for 1e and maybe one or two other books."
                        Kind of a point relevant to this is the Anarchs were part of the Camarilla. When we talk about Anarchs vs. Camarilla, we mostly mean Anarchs vs. Elders.

                        Which is why splitting the Anarchs FROM the Camarilla was a good idea, IMHO. It means the confusion is removed.
                        Last edited by CTPhipps; 10-15-2021, 05:40 PM.


                        Author of Cthulhu Armageddon, I was a Teenage Weredeer, Straight Outta Fangton, Lucifer's Star, and the Supervillainy Saga.

                        Comment


                        • I mean, all I was arguing were the Anarchs were originally the protagonists of the game and the most popular sect before the Camarilla/Sabbat became more popular. Which you said there was no evidence they ever were.
                          I questioned the idea that there is evidence that the Anarchs were the most popular sect with fans of VtM before LA By Night came out once you made that claim. There still isn't evidence of this. Please don't try to reframe my questioning of your claims into something else.

                          I freely admit I could have been wrong.
                          You still are, frankly, as far as anything you have put forward. I'm going to need you to go back and read your own posts.

                          You said this:


                          I would say more but this is literally what I have always believed about why the Anarchs went from being the most popular sect in 2nd Edition to ceasing to exist as anything other than a faction of Cammie cannon fodder until Bloodlines.
                          I replied with this, questioning your claim:

                          What is your basis for saying the Anarchs were the most popular sect in second edition? Or even at one point were the most popular sect in second edition?
                          You replied with this:

                          Generally the massive amount of support the Anarchs had and discussion of them as such. The default was being Anarchs after all.
                          I replied with this:

                          What massive support and discussion are you referring to? I'm not asking if you and people you agree with really like the Anarchs and liked talking about how much you like the Anarchs, I'm asking what tangibly in VtM showed the Anarchs were the most popular sect in the fanbase at one point in second edition? Did someone do market research or something?
                          That was the whole central focus and point of the exchange that went forward from there. I kept asking for things to support your original claim, you presented stuff that dubiously did, I noted that being the case.

                          I would again request that you not seem to.. I don't know, attempt to retcon an entire discussion we had? Yes, a few books in 1e past the core presented Anarchs as functional default. That has nothing to do with you claiming the Anarchs were the most popular sect in the game until LA by Night for 2e.

                          Frankly, even the writer tweets you are putting forward say nothing about the former popularity of the Anarchs, they just note they are popular now, and that "way back" they were the default sect of Vampire. In fact, he refers to second edition as "Camarilla default" which would seem to undermine your claim that the Anarchs were the most popular sect in the game until LA by Night came out.

                          And again, until someone actually puts out some market research for which sect was most popular with the fans in second edition vampire before LA By Night came out, or sales figures for Anarch only books in second edition outselling anything else in second edition by a considerable margin, it all regardless remains opinion.

                          Kind of a point relevant to this is the Anarchs were part of the Camarilla. When we talk about Anarchs vs. Camarilla, we mostly mean Anarchs vs. Elders.
                          When the part in question referred to potential players as being without Anarch ties, no, it's not really a relevant point.
                          Last edited by MarkK; 10-15-2021, 05:49 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Sure, you win. I have not proven that the Anarchs were the most popular sect or lost popularity after Los Angeles by Night.

                            Thank you for correcting me.

                            :thumbs up:
                            Last edited by CTPhipps; 10-15-2021, 06:05 PM.


                            Author of Cthulhu Armageddon, I was a Teenage Weredeer, Straight Outta Fangton, Lucifer's Star, and the Supervillainy Saga.

                            Comment


                            • For all Justin Achilli says about Anarchs being the default sect, I don't think the core book presents it that way. In the character creation section, it says words to the effect of "This is what the Camarilla is and these are its typical clans and coterie types. This is what Anarchs are and these are their typical clans and coterie types".

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                                Sure, you win. I have not proven that the Anarchs were the most popular sect or lost popularity after Los Angeles by Night.

                                Thank you for correcting me.

                                :thumbs up:

                                It feels at this point like it's very important to you to be able to present the history of Vampire the Masquerade as being a game where the Anarchs, the clearly best and most popular sect in the gameline until, what, 1994? but were then betrayed (along with, apparently, the majority of the fanbase, according to the idea that the Anarchs were the fanbase majority sect of choice) by its writers, an act which apparently betrayed the entire structural and thematic purpose of Vampire. That V5 is a triumphant restoration of their prominence and quality, and thus VtM itself (with Anarchs Unbound as, I suppose, a slight pre restoration in V20th). Which..

                                Look. There's nothing wrong with being really, really into the Anarchs. They're certainly one demonstrable way to play Vampire the Masquerade, and obviously one popular enough to create really passionate fans of them like yourself. And certainly there are people that like them as the option for playing Vampire. But you can like something without needing it to also have been the best/the most popular even when other playstyles became available/etc. Especially when that's instead extremely subjective by anything we can actually look at that tangibly exists or has been provided. It otherwise seems to reach a place where people can't even question the stuff you say without you seeming to need to recast their questions to fit your narrative and the very narrow paths and roles it allows for (I seem certainly to be at some point its villain, for my questioning the notion of past supreme Anarch popularity until mid second edition). Or certainly that's how it has felt with me, when I'm at a point of having to requote my own posts to show their content. It's kinda frustrating, to be honest with you. You keep outlining things as starkly as possible.

                                Also, once again, what I questioned was you claiming that the Anarchs were the most popular sect in the game in Vampire second edition before LA By Night came out. You're again adding stuff.
                                Last edited by MarkK; 10-15-2021, 06:52 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X