|Thursday, March 21st, 2002|
11:08p - Guide To The Anarchs: My view
Overall, better than I expected (I haven't been a fan of much of white wolf's anarch related material). I recommend the book. I am now going to talk about stuff I *didn't* like, but don't mistake this for a bad review. The book was good quality, apart from the lapse that is The character creation Rules. I'll deal with those later.
I had a few issues besides that ... it certainly could have dealt with the politics of the anarchs more in depth. It really never dealt with the way different political positions work within the sub-sect. How do the political factions work together? What are some of the competing ideas of how the "new order" will work? The book ignores the politics of what is an essentially political movement, and misses a bet by doing so. I'd be inclined to think your politicol viewpoint (anarchist, sociolist, democracy, fascist) would be as big a factor within the anarchs as clan. Even a small section in one of the chapters dealing with a few main viewpoints would have breathed a great deal of life into the anarch movement.
It also could have dealt a bit more with the various ways anarchs interact with and exist next to/within the Camarilla, aside from noting that the two are very closely related. Anarchs can play a couple roles in kindred society, from independent domains within a city (New York by night), warring wild cards (Milwaukee), loyal opposition (Chicago) or "free domains" (previously, LA) and nomads. Not necessary, but it also would have helped lift the uniformity of anarchs in most people's minds.
But those are just quibbles...overall the book did, as I said, a very good job. It missed a few bets, did a few things I disagreed with, but overall gave a more interesting look at the anarchs than anybody had bothered to take before.
One thing I really do not agree with ... the anarch character creation rules. Which are now as follows...
Now ... my first problem with this is the backgrounds. Anarchs are rebelling for a reason; a lot of that reason being they lack the resources, influence, generation and general sway of the Camarilla elders and loyalists. They are also unlikely to have mentors. If anything, their backgrounds should be *lessened*, compared to Camarilla members.
The rest of it is up for debate, but my own opinion is that abilities would be a necessity among anarchs, and something to be developed in the absence of other avenues of power. Attributes I am neutral on...anarchs do embrace less carefully and probably get less able people because of it; on the other hand, the weak don't tend to last as long.
I tentatively agree with the discipline point ... the book points out that anarchs share disciplines freely and like the Sabbat, need them to survive.
At the very *least* tweaking wise, I would give back the two ability points, and take away the 3 extra freebies and 1 background point.
Taking into account that the anarch character creation actually gives them 1 more freebie overall than the camarilla system*, I might take away 2 background points. I don't see any reason the anarchs should have an advanatge over the camarilla in that arena.
*the book says this, I am not *quite* pendantic enough to reverse engineer the whole thing.
(comment on this)