The Forge Archives

(thoughts which occurred while in the shower)

Having just revised Schism, it made me realize just what is wrong with Mage: the Ascension. Why it consistently misses the point while having so much damn potential...

For one thing, every major White Wolf game would benefit from being transformed into a Sorcerer mini-supplement (the exception is Changeling, which is an anomoly I won't attempt to discuss in this post).

Each White Wolf game is about Humanity, despite what the mechanics of the game say. In Vampire, it's right there on the sheet. Werewolf is simply another look at Vampire (both feature altered humans struggling with identity and humanity issues) -- no wonder why Urge (Clinton's excellent mini-supplement) is such a better game than Werewolf. It's Werewolf done right.

Wraith is about Humanity as well. The characters are clinging to it...Humanity 0 means that they've "let go" and have either reached Transcendence or Oblivion (which the game hints are the same thing). Aberrant is like Urge + Schism...a superhero game where "Taint" is the thing that turns your character into a monster (ie: zero humanity).

And Mage, well where Urge is Werewolf done right, Schism is Mage done right. Schism's psychic powers translate to the magickal spheres of the mages. Loss of control translates to Paradox. But still, Mage isn't really about anything (it says it is...it ain't).

In Mage, the main factions are the Traditions and the Technocracy...but it rings hollow because although the Technocracy are the "bad guys," they share the same goal as the Traditions (albeit with different methodologies). Meanwhile, the Traditions themselves are fragmented into their own methodologies. Why aren't the Akashics at war with the Verbena or any other Tradition...? The game says that the Traditions share a moral center absent fromt he Technocracy...I say that's just bullshit. A weak excuse to give the game some kind of focus.

So here's what I would do.

Get rid of the Traditions altogether.
Get rid of all this mystical hoodoo and just make the effect of Paradox a repercussion of losing control of magick.
Make the Technocracy active bad guys. In other words, each character should have some connection with the Technocracy (in Schism/Sorcerer terms, the Technocracy is a kind of uber-Cabal which the mages have escaped from or have otherwise had ties to).

The focus of the game becomes: fight the Technocracy...but on a personal as well as global (and cosmic) scale. The premise is the same as Schism's...will you sacrifice yourself to fight for the rights of those who would destroy you? (yeah, it's the same as X-Men's, so sue me).

Anyway, did this have a point? I don't know anymore. Oh, just play Sorcerer.

Le Mon Mouri is Wraith done right! Ha!

Anyway...

I think you're on to something, Jared. But then, I think Vampire would be better if you got rid of the sodding Clans & just had a bunch of vampires. (I started working out Vampire done with Story Engine in my head a little while ago, where the Disciplines were Gift Affinities & there were no Clans). The last time I ran Mage, there were no Traditions & Technocracy--yeah, there were cabals & cults & Technocratic bad guys, but it was much looser, no "big group of good guys vs. big group of bad guys". I wanted to focus more on the whole Paradigm & Paradox thing.

But yeah, in the end, I think I'd rather play Sorcerer. Or Over the Edge.

Another thought on the World o' Darkness (TM):

Most of the games--Vampire, Changeling, Werewolf--work better for me if the whole central Simulationist premise ("What would you do if you were a monster?") is ignored & the vampire, werebeast, faerie thing is just used for funky color. Like those fun kids books where the main characters are all vampires or werewolves, but the narrative Premise is something else completely. Like, run a narrative game about "does power corrupt?" (or whatever--this is off the top of my head) & have the PCs be vampires, but the vampire stuff is just for fun gothy color--& I think the color needs to be amped up to 11.

Quote from: Jared A. Sorensen


Well, as a great fan of Mage, thought I'd stick in my oar here.

Quote
For one thing, every major White Wolf game would benefit from being transformed into a Sorcerer mini-supplement (the exception is Changeling, which is an anomoly I won't attempt to discuss in this post).

This I agree with.  Certainly I consider the basic vampire genre Done, since reading sorcerer.  

Quote
In Mage, the main factions are the Traditions and the Technocracy...but it rings hollow because although the Technocracy are the "bad guys," they share the same goal as the Traditions (albeit with different methodologies).

Ah, but thats the glory of it - everyone is a good guy.  Everyone wears the white hat in their own eyes - but "Lord preserve us from an honest man."  Thus, magic becomes a metaphor for politics, in that one conception of the world defines both ones methods and ones goals.  All data is mediated through a belief system, and action implemented via that belief system - the manifest merger of theory and praxis.  IMO, mage is not about humanity, it is about Truth.  Furthermore, it is about how one establishes legitimacy in the absence of absolute, or at least shared, truth.

Quote
Meanwhile, the Traditions themselves are fragmented into their own methodologies. Why aren't the Akashics at war with the Verbena or any other Tradition...? The game says that the Traditions share a moral center absent fromt he Technocracy...I say that's just bullshit. A weak excuse to give the game some kind of focus.

Well, they have been - as a Verbena PC I used to needle the CC about the Inquisition and Tyburn gallows relentlessly.  IIRC the rationalisation was an alliance of convenience, a recognition of a common enemy; I see no reason to rule out tension.  I mean, if nothing else it looks bad to the parishioners if you let the verbena sacrifice a goat to a pagan god on your catholic altar, doesn't it?  And then theres Afterwards... even if the technocracy goes, does that just usher in another tyrranny, only "yours" or "mine"?

Furthermore, there are questions about power, about force.  If the traditions are engaged a noble struggle on behalf of the unwitting masses, how do they reconcile the possible/probable deaths of said unwitting technocratic accomplices in their essentially terrorist behaviour?  Negotiating the clash of ideological perspectives and moral systems in terms of deciding action can become a very interesting and rather metaphysical activity - but IME this encourages identification with and internalisation of the world and has a good dynamic in play.

I agree it could stand a few tweaks, and I like giving the technocracy a more distinct face, but I don't think that what I got out of it would be duplicated by sorcerors emphasis on humanity.  As it stands, I feel it works well as a metaphor for resistance politics and it remains a game I hold in high esteem.

Quote from: Jared A. SorensenHaving just revised Schism, it made me realize just what is wrong with Mage: the Ascension. Why it consistently misses the point while having so much damn potential...

Possibly this would be less confrontational toward people who actually like Mage if it were phrased something like "...realize just what I hate about Mage: the Ascension."

Did Phil Brucato micturate in your Wheaties or something?

Quote from: Seth L. Blumberg

Quote from: Jared A. SorensenHaving just revised Schism, it made me realize just what is wrong with Mage: the Ascension. Why it consistently misses the point while having so much damn potential...

Possibly this would be less confrontational toward people who actually like Mage if it were phrased something like "...realize just what I hate about Mage: the Ascension."

Did Phil Brucato micturate in your Wheaties or something?

Naw, Phil seems like a nice guy. Very personable.

But I think what the game wants/tries to do, what it says it does and what it actually does are all totally different things...but the same could be said of all White Wolf's stuff.

And hey, if I have to preface my opinions with "This is my opinion," well just send the Thought Police after me right now.

Quote from: Jared A. Sorensen
But I think what the game wants/tries to do, what it says it does and what it actually does are all totally different things...but the same could be said of all White Wolf's stuff.

Fair enough; I and many others think that it DID achieve what it wanted to achieve.  Not only that, IMO it is one of the best games about.  Now obviously this is because I have had very good experiences with the game - but we played it pretty much by the book and I see no discrepancy between what the rules as written are intended to achieve and what they do achieve.  As adressed above, the assumption appears to be that Mage is about "humanity" but I see no evidence for that.  It is instead about the subjectivity of Truth, identity and the early references to Robert Pirsig should have made that pretty explicit.

Perhaps you might outline what it is that you think Mage is trying to achieve, and how it fails?

A Pirsigism: "When you live in the shadow of insanity, the appearance of another mind that thinks and acts as yours does is something close to a blessed event."

Hi there,

I'll chime in on Gareth's side, in this one. This might seem odd, 'cause I'm the author of Sorcerer, a big fan of Schism, and not especially enthralled by Mage.

However, I do think that Mage (based on the first edition, the only one I have) is "about something," and that its system and so forth do address that something. I'm not personally interested in the subjectivity of Truth as a topic, including Pirsig's writings, so I don't find myself interested in playing the game very much. I also can't comment on how well its system really drives at that topic, although Mage players I know seem to take sides about which version of the Paradox rules is most satisfying or true to the topic at hand.

To continue ... I agree with Gareth that Humanity issues as defined by Sorcerer are probably a different topic entirely. An early review of Sorcerer called it the "anti-Mage," which I interpret to mean that Mage is essentially an Internal Projection game - one's perceptions and actions transform reality - and Sorcerer is an External Alienation game - reality bites hard, and one's perceptions and actions must be modified in response.

Now that puts Schism in an interesting situation, because the "demons" in Schism are internal. So perhaps that's the basis of Jared's claim, which I do find sensible - that the manner by which Schism addresses internal conflict is more satisfying to him than the manner by which Mage does it. I think contrasting these things would be pretty interesting, with the proviso that which one is "better" at the thematic level is definitely a personal and aesthetic choice.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsNow that puts Schism in an interesting situation, because the "demons" in Schism are internal. So perhaps that's the basis of Jared's claim, which I do find sensible - that the manner by which Schism addresses internal conflict is more satisfying to him than the manner by which Mage does it. I think contrasting these things would be pretty interesting, with the proviso that which one is "better" at the thematic level is definitely a personal and aesthetic choice.

Being an Illiterate Bastard, I have no idea who Robert Pirsig is (sounds familiar though). And as such, I have no desire to get into a scrap with Gareth (cuz lord knows that man could pound me till I turned into hamburger).

I guess the problem I have with Mage has to do with its play structure, or more to the point, the fact that it doesn't have one. It's too open-ended. It has no built-in narrative drive.

FWIW, my own experience with Mage (LARP and tabletop) is that the game is either a) superheroes (Bam! Kapow! Paradox!) or b) college coffee shop navel gazing (where all the players sit in a circle, sip lattes and debate "reality").

I like the idea, but not the execution.

My experience parallels Jared's, except that when we had cool moments they were VERY cool moments.

Best,

Blake

I definately agree that it was hard to "get" - in fact at first I balked at playing, so negative had been my initial reading of Mage (I had wanted Hellblazer - not IMO an unreasonable desire considering the WoD theme to that point).  But actually seeing it in play changed my mind completely; in fact I think it is one of those games that really, really rewards player creativity in problem solving, and IMO there is a player learning curve that is quite observable (in terms of internalising and comprehending pradox, paradign and their ramifications).  But I agree the inherent structure is pretty nebulous, and leads to a catch 22 in which its hard to start playing it unless you already know someone who can show you how to play it.

I don't think that any of WoD games can be functionally combined with another - it generates too many headaches.  I did run a Hellblazer styled game using Mages Hedge Magic rules and some Kult/Cthulhu scenarios, and that worked fine - this is how I would do a Mage/Vamp cross. (you run into some strange ideas when exploring vampiric disciplines, especially at high level, in terms of mages Paradox.)

Quote from: Jared A. SorensenFWIW, my own experience with Mage (LARP and tabletop) is that the game is either a) superheroes (Bam! Kapow! Paradox!) or b) college coffee shop navel gazing (where all the players sit in a circle, sip lattes and debate "reality").

You seem to want to play Mage in a Narrativist fashion. That would require substantial drift.

What you call "college coffee shop navel gazing," I call "Simulationist play focusing on Exploration of Color."

Question mainly for Ron although anyone with thoughts can have a go.  I just read the Fantasy Heartbreakers article and want to ask what people think of coincidental magic in mage as a kind of buried directorial power, as mentioned in the article.  In play we found the coincidental magic was no sort of restriction but an opportunity, and I would describe a very high proportion of coincidental magic, like 80%, peformed in game was probably directorial, in hindsight.  It was quite frightening what you could cause to happen by cunning manipulation of even low spheres.  Come to think of it, the Correspondence sphere might also be said to be a mechanical transition between Author and Director, by moving magic, and hence legitimate action, outside the body.

Contracycle: you're absolutely right about coincidental magic and Director stance.  I disagree about Author stance, though, partly because it's possible to affect things outside the self without Correspondence, partly because magic use that doesn't demand Director stance is at least as likely to emanate from Actor stance as from Author stance.

Not to drag Actual Play into this, but in my Mage campaign, I've essentially gutted the experience system (turned it into a flat 5-point reward for attendance) and added a second reward system I call "happy dice."  Players get one happy die for each innovative use of Director stance through coincidental magic, and the bar gradually rises over time.  I even went out and bought some bright yellow dice that look nothing like any other dice owned by any of us, and I hand them out when players earn happy dice, to make the reward more immediate and visceral.

Seth:  That's effing brilliant.  Literal color, effectiveness, reward, and record-keeping, all in one go.  I think I'll have to pick up some obnoxious yellow dice (a most unpopular color generally) in a few different sidednesses (say that six times fast) for all the die-pool systems I use.

It was a few weeks ago that I noticed that magic systems that allow for improvisation are nearly all Authorial or Directorial power, and that that was what I had been struggling to achieve a long time in my own game designs.  I didn't share that particular revelation at the time because I do a lot of revelation-sharing here (what can I say, it's one of two decent intellectual hangouts remaining on the 'net as far as I'm concerned) and thought it might be redundant.

This is cool enough I think I'll start up a new topic.

--JB