You know why I keep doing this stuff? It’s because I love it. I love games. I love people playing games together, in particular. So when the chance came up to jump back in to this open development process, well, how can I say no to that? People working together to make great games that people are going to play together.
I think that’s a great recipe. You’re going to be playing the game, so I want to see how you use it. I’m going to be building the rules and the supplement, so you need access to me. It’s a Moebius strip of game development.
In the days coming, you’ll see the outline for the first supplement for the 20th Anniversary Edition of Vampire: The Masquerade. You’ll have your chance to see what’s coming, test the rules, and even offer some commentary on what’s supposed to be in the book. In fact, we’ve budgeted for your input directly — some of the word count is apportioned based on the player feedback we get so we can optimize the book toward what you want and use.
This is a great way to do books, in my opinion. Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s (20th anniversary, remember?), I would shake my fist at the office, slink into my cave, and emerge six weeks later with a manuscript ready for editing. It was a pretty one-sided relationship and it relied on you wanting to play what I chose to put out.
Well, it doesn’t work like that anymore, and it shouldn’t. With our mutual ability to communicate and collaborate, you need an opportunity to tell me what you want, and I need a venue in which I can hear you. That’s what open development fosters and I think we’re going to see some really strong books from the effort.
Here’s an example. Here’s a piece of what I’m working on right now. It’s part of the Titles chapter of the V20 Companion. Let me know what you think.
<3>Baron (Anarch; 4-point Title)
<n>The Baron’s duties and privileges are similar to those of a Prince, but the Kindred who dwell in a Baron’s domain don’t necessarily want the same sort of dominating, overweening would-be dictator who calls the shots in a Camarilla domain. As a result, the Baron’s powers are more limited than a Prince’s, as the Anarchs trade some amount of authority and security for their freedom. The Baron is discussed more on pp. XX-XX of V20.
System: Like a Prince, a Baron interprets the Traditions in her domain. Unlike a Prince, a Baron doesn’t have the same amount of undeniable authority that a Prince does, and she runs her domain as much through reason, populism, and charisma as force of personality and the gravity of her title. Her word is law, but it’s a law established by a social contract with the other Anarchs. A Baron may render a verdict on any matter involving the Traditions of the Masquerade and Domain. In Anarch domains, the other Traditions are up to the free Kindred themselves to resolve. An Anarch may make an appeal to a Baron to solve such an issue, but ultimately, even the Baron’s input on these matters is advice, not policy. A Baron surely has earned status and respect that might inflect such counsel, but counsel is what it remains.
So, as our first step together, come on back here Monday, when I’ll have the outline assembled for you. You can tell me specific content to work on, you’ll be able to use the material that already exists, and we’ll be able to see where the pieces fit together for everyone. And then, later in the week, we’ll be able to talk about it all in person at the Grand Masquerade. And, hey, even if you’re not attending the show, you’ll still be able to participate. After all, since we’re all going to be playing together, I don’t want to leave anyone out.
You’re working on V20 Companion? Great news! 🙂
I’m eager to read the outline, then. Does the “4-points” listed after the title heading relate to the status background or is it a new sub-system?
Keep up the good work.
It’s both, really. I’m building a system that will allow players to create their own effects for titles, and it’s linked to the function of the Status Background.
Thanks for the kudos!
I would like a very nice index. Alot of the old books had a very poor index, or no index at all. I know it’s a difficult task, but it really helps cut down on looking up rules. Thanks so much for coming back to this setting, that we all love. May have more for you later.
The index on V20 was done by the editor, as opposed to a developer who really hated doing indices 😉 It’s a marked improvement over any index I have ever done at any time ever at all, period. I promise 😉
That’s great news. It definatly lend it self to the enjoyment of the book.
Man, Vampire Lando Calrissian is looking good. Just needs a cold Colt 45 and he’d be set.
What?
I’m here to help.
Looking forward to Monday’s update. 😀
Will you be doing an MET version of V20?
We’re considering the idea when Mind’s Eye Theatre has its 20th anniversary in 2013.
Sounds good!
And thank you Justin, for the continued support of the games. I think open development for V:tM in particular is a fantastic idea. While the former editions cover a lot of ground, there are some areas, ideas, and concepts that still have plenty of room to be cultivated. That, combined with rehashing some of the older material that Requiem didn’t update means this new approach may well kick-start some more books. A tantalizing prospect to say the least. I just hope the fans realize that it’s really going to be up to them to show solid support of this to keep the ball rolling.
A little while after you folks have what’s likely going to be the biggest Grand Masquerade ever, I’m going to start some V:tM festivities on SnE (similar to what I did when Requiem came out) and the main theme of it is going to be continued support for the open development system. To the future!
Sounds great! I think actually that the “hiatus” between VTM and VTR has been good for stoking the creatives fires, both for us and for the players. Here’s hoping we get some good ideas (and some more books 😉 out of the shared process.
Hi,
I love the new baron write-up for the Anarchs! I was Just wondering whether your rendition of baron was in any way aided by a post I put up on the blog for 20th Anniversary Vampire? I’ve included it below. It was a long, impassioned plea for a more distinctively ‘anarchic’ Baron – independent of the Prince – and I feel you’ve encapsulated some of the points I mentioned. If not, thanks anyway for giving the Anarch’s a greater sense of independence.
(My original post):
It is heartening to find that 1st/2nd edition Vampire: the Masquerade is a source of inspiration for this setting write-up. However, I am troubled by the portrayal of the Anarchs, specifically the title of Baron. One sentence, in particular, stands out: “The Baron: a Prince in all but name and reputation.” What troubles me is the image of the Baron – and the Anarchs more generally – as an adjunct of the Camarilla – the Anarchs as a kind of Camarilla Reform Movement seeking only a restructuring of Kindred society rather than a more thoroughgoing dismantling or destruction. Where is the sense of Anarch independence and autonomy here, and how does this depiction of the Baron as would-be Prince aid in the portrayal of the Anarchs as an independent Sect and a viable alternative to both the Camarilla and the Sabbat?
I say this, because earlier depictions of the Anarchs (Anarch Cookbook, for instance) seemed to emphasize their relative autonomy, whereas later incarnations, particularly Vampire Revised edition, sought to erase these differences, and subsequently draw the Anarchs into the orbit of the Camarilla. I was wondering then whether, in this general emphasis on a return to origins, the Baron might be placed back into this earlier context of Anarch independence.
One early book stands out here: Los Angeles by Night. The book is important because it makes use of both the Baron and the Barony, but it too demonstrates how an Anarch city works independently of the Camarilla. Los Angeles is essentially a city without centralised authority, that is, no Prince. Without this central authority, the Anarchs turn on themselves, as power disperses and dissolves into ever new and forever changing configurations. But this infighting eventually reaches a state of equilibrium. And here emerges the Baronies, a fragmented patchwork of territories and Anarch gangs – often, though not always, led by a series of minor barons and influential leaders.
While the city does not appear to have any central authority, Los Angeles does have something of a head Baron, a symbolic figurehead of sorts. This Baron is however difficult to construe as “a Prince in all but name and reputation.” I’m thinking here of Jeremy Macneil, the ‘reluctant leader’, one of the most charismatic and idealistic participants in the overthrow of the Camarilla. While holding considerable respect and admiration from fellow Anarchs, his is a symbolic authority borne of an insurrectionary heritage. He may then command respect, but he can’t actually make commands – even if others would like him to do so. He might call for unity, but he can’t enforce that unity on fellow Anarchs. He possesses a neutered authority that involves attempts at fostering unity and solidarity in hopes of staving off fractious disintegration.
Macneil’s tentative authority as ‘Baron’ of Los Angeles is not then necessarily a radical inversion of the Prince’s role in Camarilla cities; the Baron is something else entirely. The Baron might, in fact, be loosely associated with the ‘chieftain’ as expounded in Pierre Clastres’ Society Against the State. The book is a somewhat obscure reference, but its definition of the chieftain in South American tribal societies as an anti-authoritarian authority deftly summarizes the potentially anarchic nature of the Baron. In Clastres’ understanding, the chieftain has three main roles: peacemaker and arbiter (not judge and executioner); a generous gift-giver; and, a fine orator or public speaker. The chieftain in this sense is a symbol of and force for tribal unity. The chieftain does not “rule” as such. In fact, it is the tribe that binds the chieftain to their own uses.
And so it should be with the Baron amongst the Anarchs. Indeed, Jeremy Macneil already possesses the three features of the chieftain just noted: he attempts to make peace between the baronies, and to act as arbiter in disputes; his own barony within Los Angeles is itself a communal “gift” to all Anarchs; and, he is equally a fine speaker at Anarch gatherings. Far from being a Prince disguised in anarchist rhetoric, Macneil-as-Baron embodies a radically different conception of authority and power within an Anarch community. And, ultimately, it is the offer of an alternative to the Prince that better defines the Anarchs as an independent Sect.
nWoD did it…
Editors did the index for VTM20? Well they missed something.
Anyway, I looked through the topics so far and this seems to be the most fitting place for my question, I hope it gets read.
I just got my V20 pdf download from DrivethruRPG (Love the Antediluvian perks.) It came with an Elder Character sheet similar to what was in the Elysium book. However, none of the content for Elders was in the V20 book, such as expanded backgrounds and Elder only items. Is this going to be included in the companion, or are all those extra dots on the Elder sheet just for fun?
First off sorry for joining the conversation so late,
One of the things that I would really like to see in the Companion would be a listing of the Combo disciplines that were mostly published in the Dark Ages books. I think that they can make for more of a custom character and added a new dimension to the game.
Wouldn’t it be nice If the Anarchs abandoned the feudal ways of Princes and Barons? I say the title Chieftain or even something more anarchic would be great.
Best!
I just like the valuable info you supply on your articles. I’ll bookmark your blog and check again here frequently. I’m moderately certain I’ll be informed plenty of new stuff right right here! Best of luck for the following!