Questions about Masters of the Art
Screed of Vengence
Liked it alot. But several questions after reading it:
#1. When will a char. sheet appear on the WW page?
#2. How should (according to the official rules - I will use House
Rules if I need to) I run the following contradictions:
p. 76 Paradox "On Earth, Arch-Sphere Effects are always large enough
to have witnesses, ..." and "Therefore, in all times, in all places on
Earth, these Effects must garner paradox."
p. 72 Paradox senses "This last effect is coincidental." ?
#3. Most Mind effects will also be invisible so what about this
witnesses comment?
#4. Horizons presents many of the same concepts. MotA does not
explictly say that it updates and overrules Horizens. Does it?
#5. I like to use extensive Umbra/Earth interactions in my campaign.
Will the "avatar winds" concept be emphazised in future products like
Mage rev.?
#6. Will other supernatural group members (Garou, Kindred of the
East) that often cross the Gauntlet also be subject to an "avatar
winds"-like concept? Is this device a part of the Meta-Plot?
Thanks for the work on this product; its the coolest Mage product in a
while!
scree...@yahoo.com
"Surf the wave"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jess Heinig
> Liked it alot. But several questions after reading it:
>
> #1. When will a char. sheet appear on the WW page?
Probably never.
> #2. How should (according to the official rules - I will use House
> Rules if I need to) I run the following contradictions:
>
> p. 76 Paradox "On Earth, Arch-Sphere Effects are always large enough
> to have witnesses, ..." and "Therefore, in all times, in all places on
> Earth, these Effects must garner paradox."
>
> p. 72 Paradox senses "This last effect is coincidental." ?
Pure sensory Effects are coincidental unless the mage gifts them to
someone else (I'd look up the page but right now my legs are in too much
pain for me to get out of my chair). Functionally there's no "witness" so
no vulgar Effect.
> #3. Most Mind effects will also be invisible so what about this
> witnesses comment?
Doesn't matter if it's invisible; if it has an Effect that's noticeable
-- even by a Sleeper suddenly realizing his mind's being invaded, or by a
person getting a weird tingling up his spine, or by a whole city of people
turning into zombie slaves after you do your mojo stuff -- it's vulgar.
> #4. Horizons presents many of the same concepts. MotA does not
> explictly say that it updates and overrules Horizens. Does it?
Yes, Masters supersedes Horizon in terms of magical Effects. (Horizon is
largely defunct for material now, anyway, with the destruction of
Concordia and the death of many Tradition Masters.)
> #5. I like to use extensive Umbra/Earth interactions in my campaign.
> Will the "avatar winds" concept be emphazised in future products like
> Mage rev.?
Yes, the "Avatar winds" are a core part of Mage now.
> #6. Will other supernatural group members (Garou, Kindred of the
> East) that often cross the Gauntlet also be subject to an "avatar
> winds"-like concept? Is this device a part of the Meta-Plot?
As far as I know, the Avatar storm affects only mages.
> Thanks for the work on this product; its the coolest Mage product in a
> while!
>
> scree...@yahoo.com
> "Surf the wave"
Later,
Jess Heinig
Mage developer
WWGS
Screed of Vengence
Thanks for your answers!
Jess Heinig <je...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> largely defunct for material now, anyway, with the destruction of
> Concordia and the death of many Tradition Masters.)
I know that Doisseitop (sp?) was gone from the "War of Ages" trilogy,
but in what product was the destruction of Concordia described?
Thanks,
scree...@yahoo.com
"Surf the Wave"
Alpha Lemming
>Screed of Vengence wrote:
>> p. 76 Paradox "On Earth, Arch-Sphere Effects are always large enough
>> to have witnesses, ..." and "Therefore, in all times, in all places on
>> Earth, these Effects must garner paradox."
>>
>> p. 72 Paradox senses "This last effect is coincidental." ?
>
> Pure sensory Effects are coincidental unless the mage gifts them to
>someone else (I'd look up the page but right now my legs are in too much
>pain for me to get out of my chair). Functionally there's no "witness" so
>no vulgar Effect.
If no witnesses means it's not vulgar, then why is there a "vulgar, no
witnesses"
category on the difficulty chart?
>> #4. Horizons presents many of the same concepts. MotA does not
>> explictly say that it updates and overrules Horizens. Does it?
>
> Yes, Masters supersedes Horizon in terms of magical Effects. (Horizon is
> largely defunct for material now, anyway, with the destruction of
> Concordia and the death of many Tradition Masters.)
I have a question. Why can't WW put out a supplement without changing the
canon of entire game universe?
>> #5. I like to use extensive Umbra/Earth interactions in my campaign.
>> Will the "avatar winds" concept be emphazised in future products like
>> Mage rev.?
>
> Yes, the "Avatar winds" are a core part of Mage now.
How integral to the system will it be? I'm planning on ignoring it in the
game I run.
David Johnston
>
> Jess Heinig wrote in message <382F3CC8...@white-wolf.com>...
> >Screed of Vengence wrote:
> >> p. 76 Paradox "On Earth, Arch-Sphere Effects are always large enough
> >> to have witnesses, ..." and "Therefore, in all times, in all places on
> >> Earth, these Effects must garner paradox."
> >>
> >> p. 72 Paradox senses "This last effect is coincidental." ?
> >
> > Pure sensory Effects are coincidental unless the mage gifts them to
> >someone else (I'd look up the page but right now my legs are in too much
> >pain for me to get out of my chair). Functionally there's no "witness" so
> >no vulgar Effect.
>
> If no witnesses means it's not vulgar, then why is there a "vulgar, no
> witnesses"
> category on the difficulty chart?
If no witness is possible, then then that officially means the effect is
coincidental. If witnessing the effect is possible, but no witness is
present, then that is vulgar without witness.
Jess Heinig
> Jess Heinig wrote in message <382F3CC8...@white-wolf.com>...
> >Screed of Vengence wrote:
> >> p. 76 Paradox "On Earth, Arch-Sphere Effects are always large enough
> >> to have witnesses, ..." and "Therefore, in all times, in all places on
> >> Earth, these Effects must garner paradox."
> >>
> >> p. 72 Paradox senses "This last effect is coincidental." ?
> >
> > Pure sensory Effects are coincidental unless the mage gifts them to
> >someone else (I'd look up the page but right now my legs are in too much
> >pain for me to get out of my chair). Functionally there's no "witness" so
> >no vulgar Effect.
>
> If no witnesses means it's not vulgar, then why is there a "vulgar, no
> witnesses"
> category on the difficulty chart?
My bad, the curse of explaining something after a weekend of camping and
lots of anguish. However, given the snide commentary that follows, I suspect
that you are simply trying to play "thumb your nose at the developer!", so
draw your own conclusions.
> >> #4. Horizons presents many of the same concepts. MotA does not
> >> explictly say that it updates and overrules Horizens. Does it?
> >
> > Yes, Masters supersedes Horizon in terms of magical Effects. (Horizon is
> > largely defunct for material now, anyway, with the destruction of
> > Concordia and the death of many Tradition Masters.)
>
> I have a question. Why can't WW put out a supplement without changing the
> canon of entire game universe?
I could answer that, but it would change the canonical game universe.
> >> #5. I like to use extensive Umbra/Earth interactions in my campaign.
> >> Will the "avatar winds" concept be emphazised in future products like
> >> Mage rev.?
> >
> > Yes, the "Avatar winds" are a core part of Mage now.
>
> How integral to the system will it be? I'm planning on ignoring it in the
> game I run.
Like the death of Ravnos, it's now an assumed part of Mage, but one that you
certainly aren't mandated to use. There will be no Game Police with
night-black truncheons showing up at your house to make you use the Avatar
storm.
Jess Heinig
WWGS
Jess Heinig
David Johnston wrote:
[snippage]
> If no witness is possible, then then that officially means the effect is
> coincidental. If witnessing the effect is possible, but no witness is
> present, then that is vulgar without witness.
Thanks, Dave.
Jess Heinig
WWGS
Jason Corley
: David Johnston wrote:
: [snippage]
: Thanks, Dave.
I'm still not sure where this gets us with sensory effects. Does the
actual effect ("I have drunk my Special Enhancement Fluid -- already I can
feel my eye's vitreous jelly taking on the properties of being able to see
with darkons as well as photons! Beware, Dr. Klimbuzzle!") have to be able
to be seen? Or can a witness /surmise/ that an effect has occurred? (Dr.
Klimbuzzle's trusty Sleeper assistant waiting in the dark with IR goggles
and a sockety wrench: "He can see in the dark! But how!")
--
(1) Ignorance of your profession is best concealed by solemnity and silence,
which pass for profound knowledge upon the generality of mankind.
-------"Advice to Officers of the British Army", 1783
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
Dr Nuncheon
Jess Heinig <je...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>Alpha Lemming wrote:
>> Jess Heinig wrote in message <382F3CC8...@white-wolf.com>...
>> >
>>
>> How integral to the system will it be? I'm planning on ignoring it in the
>> game I run.
>
> Like the death of Ravnos, it's now an assumed part of Mage, but one that you
>certainly aren't mandated to use. There will be no Game Police with
>night-black truncheons showing up at your house to make you use the Avatar
>storm.
I was so disappointed when I found this out. It was like finding out the
truth about Santa Claus. My childhood dreams of being a riot-shield
carrying, jackbooted, truncheon-weilding Game Police thug were crushed.
Darn you Jess Heinig! And all the other game designers who told me the
cold, bitter, cruel truth about the non-existence of the Game Police! How
could you destroy a young man's dreams liek that?! Darn you all! Darn
you all to HECK!
If there's no Game Police, I'll have to be a Game VIGILANTE!
J, going shopping for a mask and a lead pipe...
--
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" Jeff Johnston
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation. jeffj @ io.com
aetherson
<snip>
> > > Yes, the "Avatar winds" are a core part of Mage now.
> >
> > How integral to the system will it be? I'm planning on ignoring it
in the
> > game I run.
>
> Like the death of Ravnos, it's now an assumed part of Mage, but one
that you
> certainly aren't mandated to use. There will be no Game Police with
> night-black truncheons showing up at your house to make you use the
Avatar
> storm.
Quick comment on this. While I appreciate the kind of problems that
metaplot can create for a game, this comment about the game police is
not entirely true.
Specifically, I was recently shouted at quite a bit by several people
including Phil-the-(former)-Mage-Developer, for, essentially, not
having G3T or the Book of Mirrors. I'd feel a lot better about
the "play your game any way you want to" clause if the answer to so
many questions wasn't, "Well, you haven't been keeping up with the
metaplot."
Now, to be fair, we're at the /very/ end of the Mage 2nd Ed. lifecycle,
so the core book is at its least useful for the modern game. And I do
appreciate what White Wolf is trying to do with metaplots, and, while
I'm torn on the specifics of them, I don't hate the concept. But it
would be nice if supplements were, well, supplemental, rather than
being so central to the game that almost any question which isn't a
matter of either basic mechanics or /extremely/ basic setting
information ("Whassa Verbena?") gets answered by, "Oh, well you need to
read Supplements A and B."
I presume that this problem will be greatly alleviated by MageRev when
it comes out, and, indeed, that that is one of the driving
reasons /for/ MageRev. But, in the mean time, do understand that those
of us who don't have the inclination to purchase each and every
supplement when it comes out get a bit frustrated by the glib, "There
are no gaming police" statement.
Mike (aetherson)
dbac...@ionet.net
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Alpha Lemming wrote:
> >
> > Jess Heinig wrote in message <382F3CC8...@white-wolf.com>...
> > >> p. 76 Paradox "On Earth, Arch-Sphere Effects are always large
enough
> > >> to have witnesses, ..." and "Therefore, in all times, in all
places on
> > >> Earth, these Effects must garner paradox."
> > >>
> > >> p. 72 Paradox senses "This last effect is coincidental." ?
> > >
> > > Pure sensory Effects are coincidental unless the mage gifts them
to
> > >someone else (I'd look up the page but right now my legs are in
too much
> > >pain for me to get out of my chair). Functionally there's
no "witness" so
> > >no vulgar Effect.
> >
> > If no witnesses means it's not vulgar, then why is there a "vulgar,
no
> > witnesses"
> > category on the difficulty chart?
>
is
> coincidental. If witnessing the effect is possible, but no witness
is
> present, then that is vulgar without witness.
Ahh, so teleportation can be coincidental, so long as you can make
sure nobody has the opportunity to witness it--say, from coffin
to coffin?
Donald
Donald
Bruce Baugh
>If there's no Game Police, I'll have to be a Game VIGILANTE!
They're a cowardly and superstitiou lot....
--
Bruce Baugh / bruce...@sff.net
"Never let it be be said - especially not by large men with guns -
that I failed to help." - Dave Weinstein
Brandon Quina
> > How integral to the system will it be? I'm planning on ignoring it
> > in the game I run.
>
> Like the death of Ravnos, it's now an assumed part of Mage, but one
> that you certainly aren't mandated to use. There will be no Game
> Police with night-black truncheons showing up at your house to make
> you use the Avatar storm.
Oh yeah, so you say. But, they've shown up at my games. Knocked down my door,
they did. They were trying to get me to shove Enoch into the shadowlands
instead of in India, but I plead my case and they decided to let it stand --
even sat down and joined in the game. One of 'em wanted to play an indian
lasombra with a katana blade, while the other had already brought a ravnos
caitiff with chimestry 4. Fairly good players, I suppose. Ate all the pizza,
though...
Brandon,
Jess Heinig
stems from style of play.
"Hard coincidence" is the sort of game where you have to justify your
coincidences excruciatingly, and your coincidence just nudges things a
little. If you want to deflect a bullet with a whiskey flask in your shirt
pocket, you'd better have had the whiskey flask there all along (or have
the Spheres to create it whole cloth), and you just nudge things so that
an otherwise very unlikely event comes to pass.
A "soft coincidence" game is more flexible; the whiskey flask happens to
be there and deflect the bullet, even though nobody noticed the flask
before and the mage doesn't drink . . .
The difference is a thin but important one. A "hard coincidence" is
anything that *could* happen, however unlikely. A soft coincidence is more
along the lines of things that you can't prove *shouldn't* have happened.
Thus, in the former case, you can get away with strokes of luck, but you'd
better have your evidence lined up to show how it happened. In the latter
case, you can get away with a lot more, as long as nobody can conclusively
prove that what happened was impossible. Really, it's a difference of
degree, if anything.
Teleporting from a secluded place to another is not possible under the
former version, but is possible under the latter.
Jess Heinig
Mage developer
WWGS
Jess Heinig
it's that people are complaining about specific cases that have been
changed, overruled, updated, or never were problems in the first place.
Phil did a huge amount of good work on Mage, and to see people come in and
trash his work under the premise that "such-and-such is broken" when it's
clearly a holdover from some earlier book that he didn't do, or something
that was recognized as a problem and corrected, is extremely annoying.
To put it another way, things do get changed, and sometimes things are
recognized as problems and addressed. However, we can't magically cause
these updates to appear in your core rule book at home. You have to get
out there and read the books where we talk about these things -- and if
you don't agree or don't like them, return the books. If you complain
about things but you never read any of the new books, how can you know if
it's material that's been fixed/superseded/whatever? It's a complaint
possibly stemming from ignorance, and when it comes with vitriol like
"This is the worst shite ever published for Mage," it naturally raises the
ire of a developer.
I'm not citing specific cases nor trying to, but rather trying to get a
handle on Phil's approach here. The point is moot in any case since he
unsubscribed from a.g.ww a little while ago.
Later,
Jess Heinig
Mage developer
WWGS
aetherson wrote:
> In article <38302E2D...@white-wolf.com>,
> Jess Heinig <je...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > > Yes, the "Avatar winds" are a core part of Mage now.
> > >
> > > How integral to the system will it be? I'm planning on ignoring it
> in the
> > > game I run.
> >
> > Like the death of Ravnos, it's now an assumed part of Mage, but one
> that you
> > certainly aren't mandated to use. There will be no Game Police with
> > night-black truncheons showing up at your house to make you use the
> Avatar
> > storm.
>
dbac...@ionet.net
> Mage developer
> WWGS
Thanks for the answer, though I admit it leaves me just a bit
confused.
Under "hard coincidence" is every act of creation vulgar, as it is
well known that objects don't spring into existence out of thin
air?
Donald
Samhaine31
> The difference is a thin but important one. A "hard coincidence" is
>anything that *could* happen, however unlikely. A soft coincidence is more
>along the lines of things that you can't prove *shouldn't* have happened.
I'd always considered that to fall into vulgar w/o witnesses... for example:
A mage lights a "strike anywhere" match on a table and it bursts into flame.
This isnt even an effect, since reality accepts that "strike anywhere" matches
can be struck, well, anywhere.
A mage lights a "strike on box" match on a table, adding in a bit of forces 2
to ensure that it ignites from the friction. This is coincidental because even
though "strike on box" matches usually dont ignite well without the box's
strip, it's possible that the table could create enough friction.
A mage lights a sliver of balsa wood with red paint on the tip on a table,
using forces 2 to ignite it. This is vulgar without witnesses, because while
any observer who doesnt know it's just a painted twig will believe it's a
match, reality (and the mage) knows better.
A mage picks up a toothpick and strikes it on a table using forces 2. It's
Vulgar with Witnesses since no one watching (unless they came from a culture
with exploding toothpicks) would believe that could occur normally.
Basically, I've never liked the idea that you can seriously warp reality by,
say, creating things or teleporting things that werent previously there and
have it be coincidental just because no one notices. A mage creating a whiskey
flask "out of thin air" in the middle of an empty forest would be casting a
vulgar effect, so why is it any more coincidental when he creates it in his
jacket in the middle of a firefight?
~S
Dr Nuncheon
Jess Heinig <je...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Depends on how you define "coincidence." A lot of the argument over it
>stems from style of play.
> "Hard coincidence" is the sort of game where you have to justify your
>coincidences excruciatingly, and your coincidence just nudges things a
>little. If you want to deflect a bullet with a whiskey flask in your shirt
>pocket, you'd better have had the whiskey flask there all along (or have
>the Spheres to create it whole cloth), and you just nudge things so that
>an otherwise very unlikely event comes to pass.
> A "soft coincidence" game is more flexible; the whiskey flask happens to
>be there and deflect the bullet, even though nobody noticed the flask
>before and the mage doesn't drink . . .
>anything that *could* happen, however unlikely. A soft coincidence is more
>along the lines of things that you can't prove *shouldn't* have happened.
>better have your evidence lined up to show how it happened. In the latter
>case, you can get away with a lot more, as long as nobody can conclusively
>prove that what happened was impossible. Really, it's a difference of
>degree, if anything.
> Teleporting from a secluded place to another is not possible under the
>former version, but is possible under the latter.
Ya know, a little discussion of the "soft coincidence vs. hard
coincidence" styles of play would be an excellent article for inclusion in
a future Mage book. I think that that little dichotomy has caused more
arguments in Mage games both online and tabletop than I care to remember.
Having an understood terminology (for one) and some examples would, I
think, help things go a lot more smoothly - you could tell your players at
the start what kind of coincindences you are using - and indeed, help out
beginning Mage storytellers a *lot* by alerting them to some of the
potential rough spots in running a Mage game.
Will we see this in MRev, perhaps?
J
Ranma Al'Thor
: In article <38302E2D...@white-wolf.com>,
: Jess Heinig <je...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
: Specifically, I was recently shouted at quite a bit by several people
: including Phil-the-(former)-Mage-Developer, for, essentially, not
: having G3T or the Book of Mirrors. I'd feel a lot better about
: the "play your game any way you want to" clause if the answer to so
: many questions wasn't, "Well, you haven't been keeping up with the
: metaplot."
If you want to argue about the current full status of Mage with other
people based on what has been released, then yes, you need everything to
keep up. If you want to play Mage, you can completely ignore whatever is
in The Book of Mirrors or GTTT or whatever, especially since Mage, unlike
some gaming systems, does not produce much in the way of adventures which
might draw upon things in non-core rules. To play Mage, all you need is
the Core Rules. But if you want to argue about the totality of canon,
then yes, you need the other supplements which address things which are
not in the Core Rules.
: would be nice if supplements were, well, supplemental, rather than
: being so central to the game that almost any question which isn't a
: matter of either basic mechanics or /extremely/ basic setting
: information ("Whassa Verbena?") gets answered by, "Oh, well you need to
: read Supplements A and B."
Without making the Core Rules the size of a mountain, I'm not sure what
other solution there is. Or possibly I'm not understanding what you're
saying.
--
John Walter Biles : MA-History, ABD, Ph.D Candidate at U. Kansas
ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
rh...@tass.org http://www.tass.org/~rhea/falcon.html
rh...@maison-otaku.net http://www.maison-otaku.net/~rhea/
"Anybody touches my radishes and it's war!"
--KODT #1
aetherson
I'm not arguing, however, about the totality of canon. For example,
I've never even attempted to form an opinion about the destruction of
Doissestep (or however the hell you spell it), because that's a meta-
plot event that occurred in a supplement I don't have. That's
rightfully relegated to the role of supplementary material.
The "Why Mage is Broken" thread, however, was an argument about certain
very low level and fundamental elements of the Mage game. I wasn't
being referred to G3T in order to get rules for a particular aspect of
Technomancer devices, or details like the Syndicate's relation with old
tabacco companies, but for issues about the basic role and placement of
the Technocracy in a Mage game. That's not supplementary material.
It's core.
Now, again, I do appreciate the fact that a new Mage core book /is/
coming out in the near future, partially in order to pull such changes
into the core.
> : would be nice if supplements were, well, supplemental, rather than
> : being so central to the game that almost any question which isn't a
> : matter of either basic mechanics or /extremely/ basic setting
> : information ("Whassa Verbena?") gets answered by, "Oh, well you
need to
> : read Supplements A and B."
>
> Without making the Core Rules the size of a mountain, I'm not sure
what
> other solution there is. Or possibly I'm not understanding what
you're
> saying.
I think that you're misunderstanding the scope of my question. The
core rules should provide enough material in order to play Mage within
the setting. Supplements should expand upon that setting, but not be
essential to the understanding of that setting. That's the fundamental
difference between "core" and "supplemental." One is essential, the
other is not.
The argument, "Well, you could play Mage without this" is specious. I
could play Mage based on a five minute description of the setting,
making up my own rules to go along. But it wouldn't /really/ be the
same game.
A good rule of thumb is, "If two people make up wildly divergent things
to fill a part of the setting, and the macroscopic setting doesn't much
change, it's supplemental. Otherwise, it's core." I don't have the
OoH tradbook. I presume that it details things like the Order's
internal ranking system. But if I, sans Tradbook, decide that the OoH
ranks themselves by the names of chess pieces, King at the top and Pawn
at the bottom, and you use the canonical work, our Mage games really
aren't all that different. Oh, sure, the difference might be important
to our OoH characters, but it's not a huge deal for anyone else.
If, to take a ridiculous extreme, the core book detailed only four
Traditions, but noted that there were, in fact, nine, and then
published the other five in a "supplement," you, using canonical
material, and I, using made up material, would end up with wildly,
amazingly different games. This is a good indication that the Nine
Traditions were a good choice to include in the core book.
Right now, I think that the core material is way too slim. Okay, I can
deal with that. If it's this slim after MageRev comes out, I'll
probably return MageRev, stop following Mage threads on this newsgroup,
and mutter nasty things about White Wolf under my breath.
I don't expect that will happen, though.
Mike (aetherson)
Jason Corley
: The point is not that people are complaining about Mage, in this case --
: it's that people are complaining about specific cases that have been
: changed, overruled, updated, or never were problems in the first place.
I'm sorry, I fail to see this as a problem. People post their opinions. I
still think the Technocracy is too flat and uninteresting even after G3T,
just to use an example. Am I right? Who knows? Who cares? What kind of
question is that anyway? I can give you my reasons, other people can give
reasons why I'm wrong, I can give reasons why they're wrong, and we go
back and forth ping-ponging around ideas and evalating and bouncing them
off each other. Where exactly is the problem?
"I think this part of Mage is busted." "Welp, it was fixed on Page
748734834 of Supplement 3847347." is not much of a valuable discussion. My
own (generally internal) response whenever I see something like this is
"that's nice, but off-topic for an unmoderated newsgroup."
: Phil did a huge amount of good work on Mage, and to see people come in and
: trash his work under the premise that "such-and-such is broken" when it's
: clearly a holdover from some earlier book that he didn't do, or something
: that was recognized as a problem and corrected, is extremely annoying.
What he (and all other sufferers of Developer Defensiveness Syndrome)
needs to understand is that A) there is no pleasing everyone, B) this is a
good thing and not a bad one. I know my view of my revised and rewritten
Technocracy (to use the same example as above) has been improved by the
debates about it. That these debates do not benefit White Wolf at all is
beside the point. Of course it does not benefit the writers to have
people torque their work until it is not recognizable and then say "Ahh,
that's much better." Because even if they agree that it is much better,
they can't recall their work and change it. But the newsgroup does not
exist for the benefit of WW writers, it exists for the benefit of all the
participants, and debates of that kind DO help the participants.
: To put it another way, things do get changed, and sometimes things are
: recognized as problems and addressed. However, we can't magically cause
: these updates to appear in your core rule book at home. You have to get
: out there and read the books where we talk about these things -- and if
: you don't agree or don't like them, return the books.
This is exactly Mike's point. We do not bring these issues to Usenet in
order to be told that the answer is on a particular page in a particular
book. Such a service could be provided much more cheaply with a few phone
calls or a little better indexing in the supplements. We bring them to
Usenet not to be TOLD an answer, but to FIND an answer, share one that we
wrote ourselves, debate the answer with others who have gotten different
answer, and so forth.
: If you complain
: about things but you never read any of the new books, how can you know if
: it's material that's been fixed/superseded/whatever? It's a complaint
: possibly stemming from ignorance, and when it comes with vitriol like
: "This is the worst shite ever published for Mage," it naturally raises the
: ire of a developer.
Well, /some/ supplement has to be the worst shite ever published for Mage,
doesn't it? And if someone believes it is, my feeling is to let them vent
and let people who liked the stuff step in with their own interpretation
and alterations of the material.
: I'm not citing specific cases nor trying to, but rather trying to get a
: handle on Phil's approach here. The point is moot in any case since he
: unsubscribed from a.g.ww a little while ago.
Not that it makes any difference to me. I think he was one of the few
WWers left who had actually kept me in his killfile. ;)
David Johnston
Well that would depend on whether it was possible for someone to see you
get into a coffin and not get out again, wouldn't it?
Marizhavashti Kali
Jess Heinig wrote:
>
> Like the death of Ravnos, it's now an assumed part of Mage, but one that you
> certainly aren't mandated to use. There will be no Game Police with
> night-black truncheons showing up at your house to make you use the Avatar
> storm.
Actually, Jess, after I read the forums, I hired some ninja to track
these people down.
Sorry. :-)
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Fading Suns, Trinity and Aberrant
"Oh my god, they killfiled Kenny!"
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | http://www.telelists.com
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> I'm still not sure where this gets us with sensory effects. Does the
> actual effect ("I have drunk my Special Enhancement Fluid -- already I can
> feel my eye's vitreous jelly taking on the properties of being able to see
> with darkons as well as photons! Beware, Dr. Klimbuzzle!") have to be able
> to be seen? Or can a witness /surmise/ that an effect has occurred? (Dr.
> Klimbuzzle's trusty Sleeper assistant waiting in the dark with IR goggles
> and a sockety wrench: "He can see in the dark! But how!")
Witnesses may surmise a great many things, but that doesn't make the
effect vulgar. Coincidental effects can't be turned into vulgar effects
simply because someone thinks supernatural powers might be involved.
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> "I think this part of Mage is busted." "Welp, it was fixed on Page
> 748734834 of Supplement 3847347." is not much of a valuable discussion. My
> own (generally internal) response whenever I see something like this is
> "that's nice, but off-topic for an unmoderated newsgroup."
Actually, I don't agree here - it's perfectly on-topic. It seems
churlish to say "that doesn't count because it's not in the books I
have."
When you state a premise with absolute assurance that you're right, you
should be prepared for answers which state otherwise.
I'd also recommend the avoidance of insulting and condescending language
to describe one's problems with the books.
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> What if there is just plain no other way that a sensory effect could have
> occurred?
Could you cite an example?
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> : Actually, I don't agree here - it's perfectly on-topic. It seems
> : churlish to say "that doesn't count because it's not in the books I
> : have."
>
> It's not tht the answer somehow "doesn't count" - it's that the answer
> /doesn't help/ the person who is seeking advice on fixing what he sees as
> a problem or feedback on how they have fixed the problem.
I don't see why that's the case. I mean, it's just as pertinent to say
"This was addressed in G3T" as it is to say "this is my preference."
> : I'd also recommend the avoidance of insulting and condescending language
> : to describe one's problems with the books.
>
> I think it is certainly within the realm of criticism, if you feel
> strongly about something. It's traditional, in fact.
And traditionally ineffective in making your point.
Ratspaw
>Under "hard coincidence" is every act of creation vulgar, as it is
>well known that objects don't spring into existence out of thin
>air?
Although if you set your game in the days of Pasteur, you'd still have
scientists arguing that life spontaneously generates on old meat and
in aging milk and whatnot... :)
Ratspaw
Never express yourself more clearly than you think.
Screed of Vengence
Hey--I Agree with You.
We all have viewpoints about Mage. We can talk about what we use as
House Rules, but we can also talk about the "commonplace" that is the
Mage cannon.
I started this thread because a number of internal conflicts exist in
MotA i.e. Paradox and Archspheres, Avatar Winds and so on and . I
wanted answers about what was official. Jess quickly answered my
questions. I don't think his answers work for my game.
I won't use his interpretations, in my games, but because of his
position as developer he gets to determine what is Mage (officially at
least). This is one of the Main reasons I read this list.
scree...@yahoo.com
"Surf the Web"
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley wrote:
: >
: > I'm still not sure where this gets us with sensory effects. Does the
: > actual effect ("I have drunk my Special Enhancement Fluid -- already I can
: > feel my eye's vitreous jelly taking on the properties of being able to see
: > with darkons as well as photons! Beware, Dr. Klimbuzzle!") have to be able
: > to be seen? Or can a witness /surmise/ that an effect has occurred? (Dr.
: > Klimbuzzle's trusty Sleeper assistant waiting in the dark with IR goggles
: > and a sockety wrench: "He can see in the dark! But how!")
: Witnesses may surmise a great many things, but that doesn't make the
: effect vulgar. Coincidental effects can't be turned into vulgar effects
: simply because someone thinks supernatural powers might be involved.
What if there is just plain no other way that a sensory effect could have
occurred?
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley wrote:
: >
: > "I think this part of Mage is busted." "Welp, it was fixed on Page
: > 748734834 of Supplement 3847347." is not much of a valuable discussion. My
: > own (generally internal) response whenever I see something like this is
: > "that's nice, but off-topic for an unmoderated newsgroup."
: Actually, I don't agree here - it's perfectly on-topic. It seems
: churlish to say "that doesn't count because it's not in the books I
: have."
It's not tht the answer somehow "doesn't count" - it's that the answer
/doesn't help/ the person who is seeking advice on fixing what he sees as
a problem or feedback on how they have fixed the problem.
: When you state a premise with absolute assurance that you're right, you
: should be prepared for answers which state otherwise.
Yes. That is /precisely/ my point.
: I'd also recommend the avoidance of insulting and condescending language
: to describe one's problems with the books.
I think it is certainly within the realm of criticism, if you feel
strongly about something. It's traditional, in fact.
--
Nicolas Hughes
news:80pb2g$for$3...@news.ccit.arizona.edu...> : > If no witness is possible, then then that officially means the effect
is
> : > coincidental. If witnessing the effect is possible, but no witness is
> : > present, then that is vulgar without witness.
>
>
> I'm still not sure where this gets us with sensory effects. Does the
> actual effect ("I have drunk my Special Enhancement Fluid -- already I can
> feel my eye's vitreous jelly taking on the properties of being able to see
> with darkons as well as photons! Beware, Dr. Klimbuzzle!") have to be able
> to be seen? Or can a witness /surmise/ that an effect has occurred? (Dr.
> Klimbuzzle's trusty Sleeper assistant waiting in the dark with IR goggles
> and a sockety wrench: "He can see in the dark! But how!")
>
The witness may surmise that something is up, but whatever they surmise is
going to be from within their own beliefs and experiences - it is within
their existing paradigm and so cannot garner paradox. It is only when a
sleeper experiences an effect which they *cannot* explain within their
paradigm that paradox is generated. The thing about sensory effects is that
there is no direct way to detect them, whatever rationalisations the
sleepers come up with after the event must by definition be 'in paradigm'
because they were thought up by sleepers who cannot escape their paradigms!
HTH
Nic
Nicolas Hughes
<dbac...@ionet.net> wrote in message news:80pvjr$n95$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <383060E1...@white-wolf.com>,
> Thanks for the answer, though I admit it leaves me just a bit
> confused.
>
> well known that objects don't spring into existence out of thin
> air?
>
Objects do appear out of thin air - in a sintering machine for example. You
just need a sufficiently strong mythic thread to tug on.
But in general I tend to find that nothing much is coincidental using "hard
coincidence" rules, which is why I moved over to the "soft" camp in my games
a long time back.
Nic
David Johnston
> > Thanks for the answer, though I admit it leaves me just a bit
> > confused.
> >
> > Under "hard coincidence" is every act of creation vulgar, as it is
> > well known that objects don't spring into existence out of thin
> > air?
> >
>
> Objects do appear out of thin air - in a sintering machine for example. You
> just need a sufficiently strong mythic thread to tug on.
>
> But in general I tend to find that nothing much is coincidental using "hard
> coincidence" rules, which is why I moved over to the "soft" camp in my games
> a long time back.
All you have to do is do it right. For example, it is not coincidental for you
to pull an object out of thin air. It is coincidental to open the glove compartment
of a car for the first time and find a gun inside because it hasn't been established yet
that there is no gun there.
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley wrote:
: >
: >
: > It's not tht the answer somehow "doesn't count" - it's that the answer
: > /doesn't help/ the person who is seeking advice on fixing what he sees as
: > a problem or feedback on how they have fixed the problem.
: I don't see why that's the case. I mean, it's just as pertinent to say
: "This was addressed in G3T" as it is to say "this is my preference."
To the person who does not have G3T, it is pertinent without being
helpful, particularly if they are looking for feedback. I suppose the
most that can be said for page number references is that they "do no
harm".
: > : I'd also recommend the avoidance of insulting and condescending language
: > : to describe one's problems with the books.
: >
: > I think it is certainly within the realm of criticism, if you feel
: > strongly about something. It's traditional, in fact.
: And traditionally ineffective in making your point.
Then that's the critic's problem and not the reader's problem, innit?
dbac...@ionet.net
So any result is coincidental so long as it does not conflict with
what Sleeper's have established? You can teleport from New York to
Los Angeles so long as your nothing precludes you from being
being in your point of destination?
All this under "hard" coincidence?
Donald
Marizhavashti Kali
David Johnston wrote:
>
> All you have to do is do it right. For example, it is not coincidental for you
> to pull an object out of thin air. It is coincidental to open the glove compartment
> of a car for the first time and find a gun inside because it hasn't been established yet
> that there is no gun there.
I would let a mage who has looked in the glovebox, who knows there is no
gun there, open the damned thing and find the gun. Why? Because he knows
he's doing magic. No need to hide behind complex gyrations of mental
acrobatics to convince himself it was there all along.
More appropriately, it hasn't been established to a sleeper in the car
that there is no gun there. Some effects, I think, can either be vulgar
w/witnesses or coincidental, without the middle ground, but not all.
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> To the person who does not have G3T, it is pertinent without being
> helpful, particularly if they are looking for feedback. I suppose the
> most that can be said for page number references is that they "do no
> harm".
Depends. The person who does not have it may choose to purchase it, or
may choose to say "I don't want to purchase this book." Although your
statement that G3T is not a core book is inaccurate.
> : And traditionally ineffective in making your point.
>
> Then that's the critic's problem and not the reader's problem, innit?
Yes.
Although most of what I read on this newsgroup falls greatly short of
actual criticism.
Dr Nuncheon
Jason Corley <cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>Jess Heinig (je...@white-wolf.com) wrote:
>
>: The point is not that people are complaining about Mage, in this case --
>: it's that people are complaining about specific cases that have been
>: changed, overruled, updated, or never were problems in the first place.
>
>748734834 of Supplement 3847347." is not much of a valuable discussion. My
>own (generally internal) response whenever I see something like this is
>"that's nice, but off-topic for an unmoderated newsgroup."
But it's *not* off-topic - not at all - and it gives you plenty of
information. It says "We saw that this was a problem. We fixed it." It
says, "This is where you can go to find the fix." In a lot of cases, it
even says, "We're paying attention to the questions and problems people
have about our stuff." All of this is important and valuable information.
At the very least it tells you what book to crack open at the gaming store
and skim through, even if you don't buy it.
>: To put it another way, things do get changed, and sometimes things are
>: recognized as problems and addressed. However, we can't magically cause
>: these updates to appear in your core rule book at home. You have to get
>: out there and read the books where we talk about these things -- and if
>: you don't agree or don't like them, return the books.
>
>This is exactly Mike's point. We do not bring these issues to Usenet in
>order to be told that the answer is on a particular page in a particular
>book. Such a service could be provided much more cheaply with a few phone
>calls or a little better indexing in the supplements. We bring them to
>Usenet not to be TOLD an answer, but to FIND an answer, share one that we
>wrote ourselves, debate the answer with others who have gotten different
>answer, and so forth.
And how exactly does being told "the official rule for X is on page Y of
supplement Z" stop this from happening?
>: If you complain
>: about things but you never read any of the new books, how can you know if
>: it's material that's been fixed/superseded/whatever? It's a complaint
>: possibly stemming from ignorance, and when it comes with vitriol like
>: "This is the worst shite ever published for Mage," it naturally raises the
>: ire of a developer.
>
>Well, /some/ supplement has to be the worst shite ever published for Mage,
>doesn't it? And if someone believes it is, my feeling is to let them vent
>and let people who liked the stuff step in with their own interpretation
>and alterations of the material.
On the other hand, if someone tells me, (for example) that you're a lying
cheat and whatever business you're in does shoddy work, and I loudly pass
that on to everyone within earshot - wouldn't you rather give me the
*right* information instead of letting me rant? Not only might you change
my mind, you might change the mionds of anyone listening to me.
If my work and my livelihood are going to be attacked, I want them to be
attacked for any actual faults or flaws that it has, *NOT* for something
that somebody made up or got confused about. I think the WW developers &
authors feel exactly the same way.
Saying "Y supplement sucks" or "Y rule is broken" is basically saying,
"[some of] the people who worked on Y did a lousy job." It makes them
look bad. If I'm going to look bad, I want it to be my fault. If it
isn't my fault - yes, I'm going to try to correct the person making me
look bad.
Them saying "It's on page X of supplement Y" is their way of saying,
"Look, we're not total fucking morons who can't take a crap without help.
We realized that this was a problem. We fixed it."
Is that a bad thing?
No. Not at all.
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley wrote:
: >
: > To the person who does not have G3T, it is pertinent without being
: > helpful, particularly if they are looking for feedback. I suppose the
: > most that can be said for page number references is that they "do no
: > harm".
: Depends. The person who does not have it may choose to purchase it, or
: may choose to say "I don't want to purchase this book." Although your
: statement that G3T is not a core book is inaccurate.
I'm not really interested in the difference between "core" and "non-core",
and don't think I drew a distinction (Mike may have). To the person who
does not have G3T, it does not matter, certainly. Yes, they may want to
purchase it to see WW's answer to their question. But that is not the end
of the story, it is the beginning of the story, since even once they have
G3T, they will still have to evaluate the answer as good or bad just as if
it were Joe Shmoe's answer from Podunk.Com in Iowa. It also does not help
the person seeking feedback.
: > Then that's the critic's problem and not the reader's problem, innit?
: Yes.
: Although most of what I read on this newsgroup falls greatly short of
: actual criticism.
I don't set the bar too high. Usenet posts tend to be far shorter than
most RPG reviews. RPG reviews even off of Usenet tend to be far shorter
than most book reviews. Most of the posts that trigger Developer
Defensiveness Syndrome only concern one element of a book, or a broad
design choice that doesn't implicate the quality of the details of a book.
So a limited focus is not a big deal, particularly since Usenet is an
ongoing enterprise. If you packed up everything I've written on the
Technocracy (and managed not to throw it off a cliff) you would have
something pretty substantial. Any one of my
speculative/recommendative/evaluative posts is probably not going to be
nearly that impressive. Of course the one-line trolls are lame but there
is not a bright line between that and everything else.
aetherson
cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
> Marizhavashti Kali (xe...@teleport.com) wrote:
>
> : Jason Corley wrote:
> : >
> : > To the person who does not have G3T, it is pertinent without being
> : > helpful, particularly if they are looking for feedback. I
suppose the
> : > most that can be said for page number references is that they "do
no
> : > harm".
>
> : Depends. The person who does not have it may choose to purchase it,
or
> : may choose to say "I don't want to purchase this book." Although
your
> : statement that G3T is not a core book is inaccurate.
>
> I'm not really interested in the difference between "core" and "non-
core",
> and don't think I drew a distinction (Mike may have). To the person
who
> does not have G3T, it does not matter, certainly.
Jason didn't, and I did, yes.
The statement that G3T is core kind of amuses me. I mean, yes, it is
by my definition. But does that mean that, if you were authorizing
another print run of Mage 2nd Ed. right now, you'd have the back cover
done up to say, "This book is a player's guide to Mage, 2nd Ed. In
order to GM the whole game, you need this book and the Guide to the
Technocracy"?
White Wolf has been traditionally committed to one book core material.
As I said, if MageRev doesn't integrate the core material currently in
supplementary books into itself, I'll be very disappointed. I presume
that MageRev will /not/ be billing itself as one part of the Mage game,
but all you need to run the Mage game.
Mike (aetherson)
Jason Corley
: In article <80prih$p3t$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
: Jason Corley <cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
: >
: >"I think this part of Mage is busted." "Welp, it was fixed on Page
: >748734834 of Supplement 3847347." is not much of a valuable discussion. My
: >own (generally internal) response whenever I see something like this is
: >"that's nice, but off-topic for an unmoderated newsgroup."
: But it's *not* off-topic - not at all - and it gives you plenty of
: information. It says "We saw that this was a problem. We fixed it." It
: says, "This is where you can go to find the fix." In a lot of cases, it
: even says, "We're paying attention to the questions and problems people
: have about our stuff." All of this is important and valuable information.
: At the very least it tells you what book to crack open at the gaming store
: and skim through, even if you don't buy it.
I'll admit that it probably doesn't impede the discussion unless someone
says "You are an idiot. This has already been addressed! Do you think we
are fools?" Which happened in this very thread.
But it also does not /advance/ the discussion, because just because an
answer to someone's question or concern happens tobe published by White
Wolf /does not exempt the answer from evaluation and criticism/, nor does
it lend the answer any immediate additional value.
: If my work and my livelihood are going to be attacked, I want them to be
: attacked for any actual faults or flaws that it has, *NOT* for something
: that somebody made up or got confused about. I think the WW developers &
: authors feel exactly the same way.
That's nice, but to believe that this somehow should /end the discussion/
is madness of a particularly selfish variety. ("We fixed the Technocracy
in G3T. If you don't have G3T you are ignorant and don't know what you are
talking about when you talk about your problems with the Technocracy as
presented in Mage 2ed so you should shut up.") That is just nonsensical.
: Them saying "It's on page X of supplement Y" is their way of saying,
: "Look, we're not total fucking morons who can't take a crap without help.
: We realized that this was a problem. We fixed it."
: Is that a bad thing?
: No. Not at all.
Unless, as some suggest, this means the end of discussion. It doesn't. It
doesn't affect the discussion at all. Or shouldn't.
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> But it also does not /advance/ the discussion, because just because an
> answer to someone's question or concern happens tobe published by White
> Wolf /does not exempt the answer from evaluation and criticism/, nor does
> it lend the answer any immediate additional value.
Nor does it invalidate it as an answer.
Marizhavashti Kali
aetherson wrote:
>
> Jason didn't, and I did, yes.
My mistake.
> The statement that G3T is core kind of amuses me. I mean, yes, it is
> by my definition. But does that mean that, if you were authorizing
> another print run of Mage 2nd Ed. right now, you'd have the back cover
> done up to say, "This book is a player's guide to Mage, 2nd Ed. In
> order to GM the whole game, you need this book and the Guide to the
> Technocracy"?
You don't need it, but it develops one of the two major factions, so
it's handy to have.
> White Wolf has been traditionally committed to one book core material.
> As I said, if MageRev doesn't integrate the core material currently in
> supplementary books into itself, I'll be very disappointed. I presume
> that MageRev will /not/ be billing itself as one part of the Mage game,
> but all you need to run the Mage game.
VRev includes Guide to the Camarilla, Guide to the Sabbat, the
Storyteller's Companion and the Storyteller's Handbook as core material,
but you only need VRev to actually play.
David Johnston
> news:80pb2g$for$3...@news.ccit.arizona.edu..
> >
> >
> > : David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > : [snippage]
> >
> > : > If no witness is possible, then then that officially means the effect
> is
> > : > coincidental. If witnessing the effect is possible, but no witness is
> > : > present, then that is vulgar without witness.
> >
> > : Thanks, Dave.
> >
> > I'm still not sure where this gets us with sensory effects. Does the
> > actual effect ("I have drunk my Special Enhancement Fluid -- already I can
> > feel my eye's vitreous jelly taking on the properties of being able to see
> > with darkons as well as photons! Beware, Dr. Klimbuzzle!") have to be able
> > to be seen? Or can a witness /surmise/ that an effect has occurred? (Dr.
> > Klimbuzzle's trusty Sleeper assistant waiting in the dark with IR goggles
> > and a sockety wrench: "He can see in the dark! But how!")
A sensory effect can always be a "lucky guess". Maybe the hero's
actually seeing in the dark, or maybe he's using extraordinarily acute hearing
to somehow avoid obstacles. If the witness can't be sure, then it's a
coincidence. Of course what a representative witness can and can't be sure of
in a given area is largely a matter of ST fiat, but in the case of
effects invisible to all Sleeper senses there would pretty much always be
guaranteed the benefit of the doubt. A sensory effect might become vulgar if
the Storyteller decided that the mage was _really_ pushing it, repeatedly shoving
his knowledge in the face of the disbelievers, but basically that's just punishing
your player for being a jerk about it.
The variant of coincidence I use personally, isn't quite so forgiving, but is almost so.
After all there are loads of "mythic threads" covering the field of extrasensory
perception one way or the other. Just look at all the people who claim to see
auras, all the mentalists, mediums, wanna-be psychics, and astute readers of
facial expressions out there. Very few sensory effects aren't covered one way or
another.
David Johnston
>
> In article <3831D8...@telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> > Nicolas Hughes wrote:
> > >
> > > <dbac...@ionet.net> wrote in message news:80pvjr$n95
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com..
> > > > In article <383060E1...@white-wolf.com>,
> > > > Thanks for the answer, though I admit it leaves me just a bit
> > > > confused.
> > > >
> > > > Under "hard coincidence" is every act of creation vulgar, as it is
> > > > well known that objects don't spring into existence out of thin
> > > > air?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Objects do appear out of thin air - in a sintering machine for
> example. You
> > > just need a sufficiently strong mythic thread to tug on.
> > >
> > > But in general I tend to find that nothing much is coincidental
> using "hard
> > > coincidence" rules, which is why I moved over to the "soft" camp in
> my games
> > > a long time back.
> >
> coincidental for you
> > to pull an object out of thin air. It is coincidental to open the
> glove compartment
> > of a car for the first time and find a gun inside because it hasn't
> been established yet
> > that there is no gun there.
> >
>
> what Sleeper's have established? You can teleport from New York to
> Los Angeles so long as your nothing precludes you from being
> being in your point of destination?
>
> All this under "hard" coincidence?
No. Any result is coincidental so long as it does not conflict with
what the ST has established. The Sleepers have nothing to do with it.
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley wrote:
: >
: > What if there is just plain no other way that a sensory effect could have
: > occurred?
: Could you cite an example?
Not offhand. Let me come up with a tortured example:
Sam Sleeper is having chest pains. Vicki Verbena just turns on her Life 1
uber-diagnosis-sight with a potion or whatever, and says "Oh, his third
ventricle is mildly constricted because of blockage." Dan Doctor (another
sleeper) cuts Sam open and discovers Vicki is exactly right. Dan knows
there is absolutely no way to tell with that kind of accuracy what is
happening under the skin.
1) Is it vulgar? Vicki is obviously doing something supernatural. There is
no natural way to tell that kind of thing from just looking at someone.
2) If it is vulgar, does it stay vulgar-with-no-witnesses if Vicki keeps
her big trap shut?
3) If Vicki says "I imagine it's some kind of blockage" does it become
coincidental, since Dan Doctor figures it might be the educated guess of a
secret cardiologist?
4) If Dan doesn't cut Sam open, does it become vulgar-no-witnesses?
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley wrote:
: >
: > But it also does not /advance/ the discussion, because just because an
: > answer to someone's question or concern happens tobe published by White
: > Wolf /does not exempt the answer from evaluation and criticism/, nor does
: > it lend the answer any immediate additional value.
: Nor does it invalidate it as an answer.
Nobody has yet claimed that it does. Phil's claim, on the other hand, is
that somehow the person who points out a problem in an earlier supplement
or suggests a solution to a problem they found there is "ignorant" and
their criticism is worthless and will not advance the discussion, when the
exact opposite is true.
David Johnston
> : > occurred?
>
> : Could you cite an example?
>
> Not offhand. Let me come up with a tortured example:
>
> Sam Sleeper is having chest pains. Vicki Verbena just turns on her Life 1
> uber-diagnosis-sight with a potion or whatever, and says "Oh, his third
> ventricle is mildly constricted because of blockage." Dan Doctor (another
> sleeper) cuts Sam open and discovers Vicki is exactly right. Dan knows
> there is absolutely no way to tell with that kind of accuracy what is
> happening under the skin.
>
> 1) Is it vulgar? Vicki is obviously doing something supernatural. There is
> no natural way to tell that kind of thing from just looking at someone.
Sure there is. You guess. Besides, it's too late by that point because
Vicki has already done the effect and you can't determine coincidentality
ex post facto.
Scatter Gatherer
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
> >
> > So any result is coincidental so long as it does not conflict
> with
> > what Sleeper's have established? You can teleport from New York
> to
> > Los Angeles so long as your nothing precludes you from being
> > being in your point of destination?
> >
> > All this under "hard" coincidence?
> No. Any result is coincidental so long as it does not conflict
> with
> what the ST has established. The Sleepers have nothing to do with
> it.
If you are creating something, then obviously it didn't exist before.
If you say you are attempting to create something, then the ST
has pretty good reason to have established for himself that
what you are creating didn't exist before--if it existed, you
wouldn't be or need to create it.
So now you are arguing that every act of creation is vulgar.
Donald
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Scatter Gatherer
cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
> Marizhavashti Kali (xe...@teleport.com) wrote:
> : Jason Corley wrote:
> : >
> : > What if there is just plain no other way that a sensory effect
> could have
> : > occurred?
> : Could you cite an example?
> Not offhand. Let me come up with a tortured example:
> Sam Sleeper is having chest pains. Vicki Verbena just turns on her
> Life 1
> uber-diagnosis-sight with a potion or whatever, and says "Oh, his
> third
> ventricle is mildly constricted because of blockage." Dan Doctor
> (another
> sleeper) cuts Sam open and discovers Vicki is exactly right. Dan
> knows
> there is absolutely no way to tell with that kind of accuracy what
> is
> happening under the skin.
> 1) Is it vulgar? Vicki is obviously doing something supernatural.
> There is
> no natural way to tell that kind of thing from just looking at
> someone.
> keeps
> her big trap shut?
> 3) If Vicki says "I imagine it's some kind of blockage" does it
> become
> coincidental, since Dan Doctor figures it might be the educated
> guess of a
> secret cardiologist?
> 4) If Dan doesn't cut Sam open, does it become vulgar-no-witnesses?
Vulgarity is not determined by later circumstances. Either the act
was vulgar when she did it or it wasn't.
Though sensory magicks are so often coincidental as to almost make
it worth stating, "sensory magicks are always coincidental", I can
see examples where you could go the other way. If I take a blank
sheet of paper, write down a sequence of 100 numbers and letters,
lock it in a vault, have you brought into the room, and you use
Matter to look through the vault at the sheet of paper to determine
what I wrote, you have knowledge that I know you have no way of having.
Right there you are at Vulgar magick, though the fact that I can't
observe anything amiss suggests it is Vulgar Without Witnesses.
Your telling me what you have read is beside the point.
Mechanistically, an ST could decide that there is a window of
opportunity for paradox to be gained in the advent of an effect
and award suitable paradox accordingly, but that would be a house
ruling.
Jason Corley
: Vulgarity is not determined by later circumstances. Either the act
: was vulgar when she did it or it wasn't.
Can vulgar magic pick up witnesses /after/ the fact? For example, you put
your 100-character combination in the safe. I use my X-Ray Specs to look
into the safe. Vulgar, no witnesses, according to your example.
Then I write down the 100-character combination on a sheet of paper
outside the safe while you watch. Does that add witnesses?
I guess it doesn't matter because there's no difference between vulgar
magic with or withtout witnesses unless it fails.
Tim Gray
>Sam Sleeper is having chest pains. Vicki Verbena just turns on her Life 1
>uber-diagnosis-sight with a potion or whatever, and says "Oh, his third
>ventricle is mildly constricted because of blockage." Dan Doctor (another
>sleeper) cuts Sam open and discovers Vicki is exactly right. Dan knows
>there is absolutely no way to tell with that kind of accuracy what is
>happening under the skin.
>
>1) Is it vulgar? Vicki is obviously doing something supernatural. There is
>no natural way to tell that kind of thing from just looking at someone.
>
>2) If it is vulgar, does it stay vulgar-with-no-witnesses if Vicki keeps
>her big trap shut?
If she senses but doesn't tell anyone, is it really vulgar at all?
A lot of this stuff goes to the question of what the viewpoint of the
theoretical witness for vulgar effects (without witnesses) is. For
instance, one of my PCs with Matter went and "found" an old mop in the
back of the alley. A witness just hanging around in the alley would
pass that as coincidental, but one that followed him and looked over
his shoulder would not.
>
>3) If Vicki says "I imagine it's some kind of blockage" does it become
>coincidental, since Dan Doctor figures it might be the educated guess of a
>secret cardiologist?
>
>4) If Dan doesn't cut Sam open, does it become vulgar-no-witnesses?
Tim Gray
Master of the Sphere of Confusion
Visit the Reliquary of Questionable Wisdom at
=> http://www.change-works.com/pers/mage <=
Alpha Lemming
>: > What if there is just plain no other way that a sensory effect could
have
>: > occurred?
>
>uber-diagnosis-sight with a potion or whatever, and says "Oh, his third
>ventricle is mildly constricted because of blockage." Dan Doctor (another
>sleeper) cuts Sam open and discovers Vicki is exactly right. Dan knows
>there is absolutely no way to tell with that kind of accuracy what is
>happening under the skin.
Dan Doctor says, "Heh heh. What do you know? A lucky guess."
David Johnston
>
> In article <383267...@telusplanet.net>, David Johnston
> <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> > dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
> > >
> > > So any result is coincidental so long as it does not conflict
> > with
> > > what Sleeper's have established? You can teleport from New York
> > to
> > > Los Angeles so long as your nothing precludes you from being
> > > being in your point of destination?
> > >
> > > All this under "hard" coincidence?
> > No. Any result is coincidental so long as it does not conflict
> > with
> > what the ST has established. The Sleepers have nothing to do with
> > it.
>
> If you are creating something, then obviously it didn't exist before.
Oh that's obvious, is it?
>
> If you say you are attempting to create something, then the ST
> has pretty good reason to have established for himself that
> what you are creating didn't exist before--if it existed, you
> wouldn't be or need to create it.
Nope.
>
> So now you are arguing that every act of creation is vulgar.
Nope. I'm saying you are taking something that may or may not
be there, and saying, magically, "It IS there." And so it is.
David Johnston
>
> Scatter Gatherer (dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid) wrote:
>
> : Vulgarity is not determined by later circumstances. Either the act
> : was vulgar when she did it or it wasn't.
>
> Can vulgar magic pick up witnesses /after/ the fact?
Nope.
For example, you put
> your 100-character combination in the safe. I use my X-Ray Specs to look
> into the safe. Vulgar, no witnesses, according to your example.
>
> Then I write down the 100-character combination on a sheet of paper
> outside the safe while you watch. Does that add witnesses?
Nope.
>
> I guess it doesn't matter because there's no difference between vulgar
> magic with or withtout witnesses unless it fails.
The difficulty is different. That is why it matters.
Sure there's a differen
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley wrote:
: For example, you put
: > your 100-character combination in the safe. I use my X-Ray Specs to look
: > into the safe. Vulgar, no witnesses, according to your example.
: >
: > Then I write down the 100-character combination on a sheet of paper
: > outside the safe while you watch. Does that add witnesses?
: Nope.
Well, what a marvelously explicative answer, Dave.
What if I write down the 100 characters while you are watching?
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston (rgo...@telusplanet.net) wrote:
> : Jason Corley wrote:
>
> : For example, you put
> : > your 100-character combination in the safe. I use my X-Ray Specs to look
> : > into the safe. Vulgar, no witnesses, according to your example.
> : >
> : > Then I write down the 100-character combination on a sheet of paper
> : > outside the safe while you watch. Does that add witnesses?
>
> : Nope.
>
> Well, what a marvelously explicative answer, Dave.
That's all that's needed. You don't need magic to write down 100 characters.
The witness can't see you actually looking inside the safe no matter how hard
it tries.
>
> What if I write down the 100 characters while you are watching?
That's what you said before.
Donald Bachman
Which is not a satisfying answer because the mage in question has
the ability to know if something was there or not.
Donald
David Johnston
> : > So now you are arguing that every act of creation is vulgar.
> :
> : Nope. I'm saying you are taking something that may or may not
> : be there, and saying, magically, "It IS there." And so it is.
> :
>
> Which is not a satisfying answer because the mage in question has
> the ability to know if something was there or not.
Hey, if he's dumb enough to look first, then he'll have to put the gun
somewhere else.
Jason Corley
: >
: > 1) Is it vulgar? Vicki is obviously doing something supernatural. There is
: > no natural way to tell that kind of thing from just looking at someone.
: Sure there is. You guess. Besides, it's too late by that point because
: Vicki has already done the effect and you can't determine coincidentality
: ex post facto.
Well, I've already positted that there is no natural way to determine
this, so "you guess" isn't a good enough explanation. And since the
effect is already done and over with, why would the "explanation" factor
into it anyway? By your analysis, this should actually be /vulgar/ since
people can't look at people's circulatory system directly. Right?
Jason Corley
: > Well, what a marvelously explicative answer, Dave.
: That's all that's needed. You don't need magic to write down 100 characters.
You certainly do need it to match a 100-character string which the person
has placed inside a safe without you seeing it first.
You are saying, in effect, that a Sleeper who sees a fireball fly past but
does not see you actually throw the fireball is not an unexpected witness
to vulgar magic, but is a quite ordinary witness to something
coincidental.
: The witness can't see you actually looking inside the safe no matter how hard
: it tries.
They certainly can. You are there with your focus seeing something they
know is inside the safe and demonstrating beyond not just a reasonable
doubt but /even the tiniest possible doubt/ that I've got some kind of
supernatural sensory ability.
I didn't post this to cause trouble. I genuinely want to know why you
think sensory magicks can /never/ under any circumstances be vulgar.
WICGR Mac
Tim Gray wrote:
> cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
>
> >Sam Sleeper is having chest pains. Vicki Verbena just turns on her Life 1
> >uber-diagnosis-sight with a potion or whatever, and says "Oh, his third
> >ventricle is mildly constricted because of blockage." Dan Doctor (another
> >sleeper) cuts Sam open and discovers Vicki is exactly right. Dan knows
> >there is absolutely no way to tell with that kind of accuracy what is
> >happening under the skin.
> >
> >1) Is it vulgar? Vicki is obviously doing something supernatural. There is
> >no natural way to tell that kind of thing from just looking at someone.
> >
> >2) If it is vulgar, does it stay vulgar-with-no-witnesses if Vicki keeps
> >her big trap shut?
>
> If she senses but doesn't tell anyone, is it really vulgar at all?
>
Yes, it is. She has no good reason of knowing this information prior to the
magickal effect. Unless it had been established that Vicki has experience with
cardialogy patients, that she's familiar with diseases of the heart or
complications that occur due to diet, lifestyle, and genetics, and she has
sufficient knowledge to diagnose said complications, it's clearly not a
coincidental effect. Playing on the worst stereotypes, if a Wiccan peacenik
looks at a person, takes a swig of some potion, then starts yammering about a
blockage in Sam's heart, I have no good reason to believe her. Wham, she gets
Paradox for doing something that obviously could not be.
Compare this to the doctor who looks at Sam Sleeper, takes blood pressure,
pulse, X-Ray, blood tests, and numerous other nifty technological mumbo-jumbo,
then states, "Sammy, you've got a blockage in your heart. I'm willing to bet
that it's the left ventricle," who gets no Paradox. Why? There's an
established reason and paradigm for the gathering of this information.
Yes, if you want to be legalistic about it, Mage 2nd says that all sensory
effects are coincidental. However, this really isn't the case and I believe
that it's done for simplicity's sake more than any other reason. Game
abstraction.
>
> A lot of this stuff goes to the question of what the viewpoint of the
> theoretical witness for vulgar effects (without witnesses) is. For
> instance, one of my PCs with Matter went and "found" an old mop in the
> back of the alley. A witness just hanging around in the alley would
> pass that as coincidental, but one that followed him and looked over
> his shoulder would not.
"Finding" a mop in the back of an alley is coincidental for the same reason
that Vicki Verbena's effect is vulgar: believability. If one of my friends
disappears down an alley and returns with a mop, that's believable and
coincidental. If he returns with 20lbs of mercury, I'm sorry, but that's not
believable (unless I was in a rundown industrial block, but for this example,
I'm in a city block). Vulgar, no witnesses.
Basically, my test of coincidence in Mage games I run is believablity within
the Technocratic paradigm. Some things are unlikely, but could happen. Some
things just aren't likely to happen, no matter how much guessing. That's when
Paradox comes in and says, "You're working in the wrong paradigm for what you
want to be doing."
> Tim Gray
> Master of the Sphere of Confusion
Dale
exo...@mit.edu
aetherson
Marizhavashti Kali <xe...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> VRev includes Guide to the Camarilla, Guide to the Sabbat, the
> Storyteller's Companion and the Storyteller's Handbook as core
material,
> but you only need VRev to actually play.
Okay, differing definitions of core material, basically.
Blake
cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
> Not offhand. Let me come up with a tortured example:
>
Life 1
> uber-diagnosis-sight with a potion or whatever, and says "Oh, his
third
> ventricle is mildly constricted because of blockage." Dan Doctor
(another
> sleeper) cuts Sam open and discovers Vicki is exactly right. Dan
knows
> there is absolutely no way to tell with that kind of accuracy what is
> happening under the skin.
>
> 1) Is it vulgar?
Coincidental any way you slice it. Could have just been a lucky
guess...
Now, Vicki would have been better off saying 'maybe there's something
wrong with his heart,' as the vagueness of such a statement would
protect her from the Domino effect. If she keeps making uncannily
accurate diagnosis as 'lucky guesses' she'll face a higher difficulty
as it seems more an more improbable - eventually she'll start failing
her rolls. But, Paradox won't come into it...
Also, IRL, people have rather a tendency to /want/ to be amazed, so
thier memory of a prediction can skew slightly to fit what later
happens...
Finally, it's possible that she had prior knowledge of his condition -
if, for instance a medical exam had been performed earlier and she was
privy to the results...
--- |
Blake 1001, Virtual Adept, Disciple ---|-.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/1317 '-|---
Mirober
WICGR Mac wrote:
> Yes, if you want to be legalistic about it, Mage 2nd says that all sensory
> effects are coincidental.
Actually, no, it doesn't. It says "[perception magics] often seem like hunches
rather than magick and are almost always coincidental, unless the mage clearly
sees something that no normal person could detect."
Matt Roberts
Blake
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Nicolas Hughes wrote:
> > But in general I tend to find that nothing much is coincidental
using "hard
> > coincidence" rules, which is why I moved over to the "soft" camp in
my games
> > a long time back.
>
> All you have to do is do it right. For example, it is not
coincidental for you
> to pull an object out of thin air. It is coincidental to open the
glove compartment
> of a car for the first time and find a gun inside because it hasn't
been established yet
> that there is no gun there.
That gets really odd though, because it rewards ignorance. If a mage
uses Matter 1 to look inside the glovebox, he's just completely
eliminated his ability to pull anything out of that glove box
coincidentally. If a mage has the Absent Minded Flaw, he can pull
quite a range of things out of his cluttered pockets, while the mage
with the Eidetic Memory Merit can't pull out anything using
coincidental magick...
Besides, what constitutes what's been /established/?
Scatter Gatherer
Why? If the space is empty, he can place the gun there.
Blake
cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
> Jess Heinig (je...@white-wolf.com) wrote:
>
> : The point is not that people are complaining about Mage, in this
case --
> : it's that people are complaining about specific cases that have been
> : changed, overruled, updated, or never were problems in the first
place.
>
> I'm sorry, I fail to see this as a problem. People post their
opinions. I
> still think the Technocracy is too flat and uninteresting even after
G3T,
> just to use an example. Where exactly is the problem?
I think the problem would be if you were airing such problems with the
Iteration X Convention Book, after GttT had come out and soft-pedaled
or fixed what was in that book...
Aside from that, though, there's nothing wrong with taking a game in
other directions, and debating the relative merits of those directions
on a group like this one... even if you leave the published material
far behind...
Marizhavashti Kali
WICGR Mac wrote:
>
> Yes, if you want to be legalistic about it, Mage 2nd says that all sensory
> effects are coincidental. However, this really isn't the case and I believe
> that it's done for simplicity's sake more than any other reason. Game
> abstraction.
So you think that an effect can become vulgar after it's ended?
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Fading Suns, Trinity and Aberrant
"Oh my god, they killfiled Kenny!"
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | http://www.telelists.com
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> Well, I've already positted that there is no natural way to determine
> this, so "you guess" isn't a good enough explanation. And since the
> effect is already done and over with, why would the "explanation" factor
> into it anyway? By your analysis, this should actually be /vulgar/ since
> people can't look at people's circulatory system directly. Right?
As a sensory effect, it qualifies as coincidental. Of course, if the
player wants to show off and give the rundown to the surgeon, that's
just hubris, and probably deserves a bit of paradox. I'm not sure if
it's necessary, however.
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> You are saying, in effect, that a Sleeper who sees a fireball fly past but
> does not see you actually throw the fireball is not an unexpected witness
> to vulgar magic, but is a quite ordinary witness to something
> coincidental.
Not at all, because writing a string of characters and numbers is
something people do all the time. Throwing fireballs is not.
> They certainly can. You are there with your focus seeing something they
> know is inside the safe and demonstrating beyond not just a reasonable
> doubt but /even the tiniest possible doubt/ that I've got some kind of
> supernatural sensory ability.
If they suspect anything at all, it'd be psychic powers, which are
commonly rumored.
> I didn't post this to cause trouble. I genuinely want to know why you
> think sensory magicks can /never/ under any circumstances be vulgar.
Because they only alter your senses, not the world. The problem is the
assumption that the gaining of "impossible" information must necessarily
be vulgar. I don't understand why you think that.
Marizhavashti Kali
aetherson wrote:
>
> Okay, differing definitions of core material, basically.
Don't be reasonable, I want to flame you.
Damned rabble-rouser. :-)
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley wrote:
: >
: > Well, I've already positted that there is no natural way to determine
: > this, so "you guess" isn't a good enough explanation. And since the
: > effect is already done and over with, why would the "explanation" factor
: > into it anyway? By your analysis, this should actually be /vulgar/ since
: > people can't look at people's circulatory system directly. Right?
: As a sensory effect, it qualifies as coincidental. Of course, if the
: player wants to show off and give the rundown to the surgeon, that's
: just hubris, and probably deserves a bit of paradox. I'm not sure if
: it's necessary, however.
Oh, that's an /interesting/ approach. I hadn't thought of that. It's the
intentional stretching of the Sleeper that triggers this variety of
Paradox, not the stretching of the world to fit the Mage's.
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley wrote:
: > I didn't post this to cause trouble. I genuinely want to know why you
: > think sensory magicks can /never/ under any circumstances be vulgar.
: Because they only alter your senses, not the world. The problem is the
: assumption that the gaining of "impossible" information must necessarily
: be vulgar. I don't understand why you think that.
I assume that because that's always how I saw coincidental stuff.
Coincidental magick is magick with an explanation that is /possible/. If
Vicki Verbena downs her Life-1-sense-the-bloodstream potion and gets the
strong impression that there's blockage somewhere near the heart, this is
/possible/ because an experienced cardiologist when presented with the
same information she has, could make that guess correctly. But to guess
correctly the exact place and amount (also a Life 1 effect) is impossible
- there is no explanation for it, not even chance (the 100-character
sequence is another good example.) Similarly, if Al Akashic uses
Correspondence 4 to get across town via a really good taxicab which stops
right in front of him, has a top-notch driver and perfect traffic
conditions, that's coincidental because it's possible. If he waves his
arms and goes 'shazam' and is there, that's vulgar because it's not.
Kish
Marizhavashti Kali wrote in message <3832EFE9...@teleport.com>...
>So you think that an effect can become vulgar after it's ended?
Doesn't the Syndicate book have an example of an effect that does exactly
that? Increases damage to a blow, coincidental when cast, becomes vulgar if
the caster does too well on the damage roll?
Kish
ICQ#: 28085879
AIM: Kish K M
Kis...@mindspring.com
Jason Corley
: I think the problem would be if you were airing such problems with the
: Iteration X Convention Book, after GttT had come out and soft-pedaled
: or fixed what was in that book...
I don't see why this would be any different in kind than airing problems
and floating changes with Vampire 2ed, since V:Rev came out. It's a
difference in scope, but not in kind. If someone wants to come out with a
list of problems with Conventionbook It-X and ask what people have done
with It-X in their game or say what they have done with theirs, I do not
see this as inappropriate in /even the very least possible way/. It may
annoy the authors ("they should just buy MY fixes, that'll solve their
problem") but that does not implicate the validity of the debate at all.
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> Oh, that's an /interesting/ approach. I hadn't thought of that. It's the
> intentional stretching of the Sleeper that triggers this variety of
> Paradox, not the stretching of the world to fit the Mage's.
Yeah, normally I'm against it, but if a mage reads sleeper minds and
proves it to them in highly detailed uncertain terms, they earned it.
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> sequence is another good example.) Similarly, if Al Akashic uses
> Correspondence 4 to get across town via a really good taxicab which stops
> right in front of him, has a top-notch driver and perfect traffic
> conditions, that's coincidental because it's possible. If he waves his
> arms and goes 'shazam' and is there, that's vulgar because it's not.
Oh, wow. This is my favorite corr example. It also used to draw flames
like a bugzapper drew moths.
In the heart example, I don't think the Verbena needs to establish her
credentials as a heart expert before saying "I think the trouble might
lie here." The expert might wonder why she thought that, and the Verbena
might say "I read an article about this sort of thing once" or
something. I've read several articles about various odd medical
conditions myself, so it's not at all unlikely. At worst, it comes off
as a "lucky guess."
Blake
cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
> : That's all that's needed. You don't need magic to write down 100
characters.
>
> You certainly do need it to match a 100-character string which the
person
> has placed inside a safe without you seeing it first.
>
past but
> does not see you actually throw the fireball is not an unexpected
witness
> to vulgar magic, but is a quite ordinary witness to something
> coincidental.
Actually, no. The fireball is /really/ odd looking. Where it came
from doesn't matter. OTOH, a list of 100 characters is hardly
remarkable taken out of context.
> : The witness can't see you actually looking inside the safe no
matter how hard
> : it tries.
>
> They certainly can. You are there with your focus
/If/ you use one. Any mage with Arete 2+ who chose to buy off Matter
wouldn't have that problem. OTOH, a Vdept, who, supposedly, has an
advantage in using Coincidedental magick, will most likely have those
number scroll across his screen for the astounded sleepers to see...
> seeing something they
> know is inside the safe and demonstrating beyond not just a reasonable
> doubt but /even the tiniest possible doubt/ that I've got some kind of
> supernatural sensory ability.
Not that it matters either way. The effect you're describing could be
done in a number of ways be a clever stage magician who could use any
mumbo jumbo (along the lines of any Trad focus, just pick one) as an
adjunct/distraction in his performance.
Just look at some of the stuff David Blaine pulls...
> I didn't post this to cause trouble. I genuinely want to know why you
> think sensory magicks can /never/ under any circumstances be vulgar.
I wouldn't say /never/ but, I can't think of a good instance when they
would be. The effect merely imparts knowledge to the mage, and, such
is an entirely unobserveable phenomenon.
Of course, if that knowledge is somehow communicated magickally to a
witness (telepathically or by 'extending' you senses - something
mentioned in 2nd Ed), /that/ could well be Vulgar.
Scatter Gatherer
cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
> Similarly, if Al Akashic uses
> Correspondence 4 to get across town via a really good taxicab
> which stops
> right in front of him, has a top-notch driver and perfect traffic
> conditions, that's coincidental because it's possible. If he waves
> his
> arms and goes 'shazam' and is there, that's vulgar because it's
> not.
You will have to forgive me for asking, but what does Correspondence
have to do with taxi-cabs? Where in Mage 2nd is any example given
of Correspondence summoning taxis, airplane tickets, or special
invitations from NASA to ride the Space Shuttle? For that matter,
where is any example of such found in Mage 1st?
Blake
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Donald Bachman wrote:
>
> > : > So now you are arguing that every act of creation is vulgar.
> > :
> > : Nope. I'm saying you are taking something that may or may not
> > : be there, and saying, magically, "It IS there." And so it is.
> > :
> >
> > Which is not a satisfying answer because the mage in question has
> > the ability to know if something was there or not.
>
> Hey, if he's dumb enough to look first, then he'll have to put the
gun
> somewhere else.
>
Heh, I know I've said it before, but how much would the Absent
Minded /merit/ cost me in your game, Dave? ;)
Sorry, every time this point comes up I can't help but picturing Tom
Baker going through his pockets as Dr. Who...
David Johnston
>
> In article <3831D8...@telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> > Nicolas Hughes wrote:
> > > But in general I tend to find that nothing much is coincidental
> using "hard
> > > coincidence" rules, which is why I moved over to the "soft" camp in
> my games
> > > a long time back.
> >
> > All you have to do is do it right. For example, it is not
> coincidental for you
> > to pull an object out of thin air. It is coincidental to open the
> glove compartment
> > of a car for the first time and find a gun inside because it hasn't
> been established yet
> > that there is no gun there.
>
> That gets really odd though, because it rewards ignorance. If a mage
Schrodinger's Cat is an odd idea.
> uses Matter 1 to look inside the glovebox, he's just completely
> eliminated his ability to pull anything out of that glove box
> coincidentally.
That's right.
If a mage has the Absent Minded Flaw, he can pull
> quite a range of things out of his cluttered pockets, while the mage
> with the Eidetic Memory Merit can't pull out anything using
> coincidental magick...
Memory makes little difference.
>
> Besides, what constitutes what's been /established/?
If the ST has said something is not there, then it is not. If the ST has
said that something is there, then it is. If the ST hasn't said yet,
then it hasn't been established.
David Johnston
>
> In article <3832FC...@telusplanet.net>, David Johnston
> <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> > Donald Bachman wrote:
> > > : > So now you are arguing that every act of creation is vulgar.
> > > :
> > > : Nope. I'm saying you are taking something that may or may not
> > > : be there, and saying, magically, "It IS there." And so it is.
> > > :
> > >
> > > Which is not a satisfying answer because the mage in question has
> > > the ability to know if something was there or not.
> > Hey, if he's dumb enough to look first, then he'll have to put the
> > gun
> > somewhere else.
>
Sure he can. But it will be vulgar. (I hasten to add that this is only
the case in the "hard" coincidence variant.)
Marizhavashti Kali
Kish wrote:
>
> Doesn't the Syndicate book have an example of an effect that does exactly
> that? Increases damage to a blow, coincidental when cast, becomes vulgar if
> the caster does too well on the damage roll?
Perhaps it does, but that's not the same thing.
CeIestiaI7
>cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
>> Similarly, if Al Akashic uses
>> Correspondence 4 to get across town via a really good taxicab
>> which stops
>> right in front of him, has a top-notch driver and perfect traffic
>> conditions, that's coincidental because it's possible. If he waves
>> his
>> arms and goes 'shazam' and is there, that's vulgar because it's
>> not.
>
>You will have to forgive me for asking, but what does Correspondence
>have to do with taxi-cabs? Where in Mage 2nd is any example given
>of Correspondence summoning taxis, airplane tickets, or special
>invitations from NASA to ride the Space Shuttle? For that matter,
>where is any example of such found in Mage 1st?
>
>
>
>Donald
>
Zzzzt-zzzt-ZAP!
Marizhavashti Kali
David Johnston wrote:
>
> If the ST has said something is not there, then it is not. If the ST has
> said that something is there, then it is. If the ST hasn't said yet,
> then it hasn't been established.
Although the mage should be able to alter that with magic. Coincidence
vs. vulgar doesn't get decided by whether the mage knew he created
something or not, but by appearances.
Marizhavashti Kali
Scatter Gatherer wrote:
>
> You will have to forgive me for asking, but what does Correspondence
> have to do with taxi-cabs? Where in Mage 2nd is any example given
> of Correspondence summoning taxis, airplane tickets, or special
> invitations from NASA to ride the Space Shuttle? For that matter,
> where is any example of such found in Mage 1st?
Does that matter?
I think it doesn't, because we can go over this ground again, scream at
each other, plot each other's deaths, look up our mob connections, etc.
But in the end, we'll continue playing the way we always have.
FWIW, I don't think you need explicit examples for something to be
workable. Otherwise, you'd be capable of practically no coincidence at
all. "I'm sorry, you can't do that - there are no examples." Uh huh.
I don't think it's important enough to go over it again. The whole
debate is stupid. It was stupid six years ago. It was stupid three years
ago. It's stupid now.
Marizhavashti Kali
I should hasten to add that I don't think Donald is stupid, but the
taxi-cab/airplane ticket thread has come up so many times I've lost
track.
Kish
Robin Lim wrote in message ...
>
>Evil Tyger <tyg...@flash.net> wrote in message
>news:FGJY3.3374$16.4...@news.flash.net...
>>
>> Kill sombody, yes. Cause the head to become a fine red mist, no. (The
>latter
>> something that a frieght train can do.)
>
>A .50 rifle round should be able to redmist a human head :)
>
A .50 rifle round, I'll grant, but I said Blow and I meant Blow, as in from
a fist.
Alpha Lemming
<19991115151336...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>A mage lights a "strike on box" match on a table, adding in a bit of forces
2
>to ensure that it ignites from the friction. This is coincidental because
even
>though "strike on box" matches usually dont ignite well without the box's
>strip, it's possible that the table could create enough friction.
Unless you happen to know that "strike-on-box" match tips are inert without
the chemical component found on the strip on the box, which is required
for ignition.
*A.L. Anti-Magicks.
>A mage lights a sliver of balsa wood with red paint on the tip on a table,
>using forces 2 to ignite it. This is vulgar without witnesses, because
while
>any observer who doesnt know it's just a painted twig will believe it's a
>match, reality (and the mage) knows better.
>A mage picks up a toothpick and strikes it on a table using forces 2. It's
>Vulgar with Witnesses since no one watching (unless they came from a
culture
>with exploding toothpicks) would believe that could occur normally.
But by that logic, striking a real match the right way is vulgar if you do
it in front
of someone who has never seen matches before.
>Basically, I've never liked the idea that you can seriously warp reality
by,
>say, creating things or teleporting things that werent previously there and
>have it be coincidental just because no one notices. A mage creating a
whiskey
>flask "out of thin air" in the middle of an empty forest would be casting a
>vulgar effect, so why is it any more coincidental when he creates it in his
>jacket in the middle of a firefight?
Because he's not creating it. He's suddenly having had it there the whole
time.
Marizhavashti Kali
Donald Bachman wrote:
>
> I generally respect your opinion in the group, but merely saying you
> don't want to deal with it doesn't make questioning the support and
> logic behind it stupid.
Oh, no, that's not it.
It's all the bloody flame wars that it spawns every time it comes up. I
honestly wasn't trying to insult you, Donald. I like your posts, I
really do, but you've set of a bomb. :-)
Marizhavashti Kali
Donald Bachman wrote:
>
> And invariably those who support the taxi/airplane view have a hard
> time supporting it.
Or conversely, those who are against it, have a hard time actually
addressing how the coincidence is described, rewording it in ways that
make it sound ludicrous. This falls into "soft paradox," and I'm happy
with that.
Timothy P. McMackin
finished. An act is vulgar if it dramatically contrasts with what
consensual reality says can happen.
Suppose I use a sensory effect to read a person's mind. That's
coincidental, because it's all in my head and reality isn't changed in
the least. But if I come up to him later and repeat his own personal
thoughts to him, that violates consensual reality; it isn't supposed to
be happening. As I see it (and there certainly is room for
interpretation) that's vulgar.
Tim
> > Yes, if you want to be legalistic about it, Mage 2nd says that all
sensory
> > effects are coincidental. However, this really isn't the case and I
believe
> > that it's done for simplicity's sake more than any other reason.
Game
> > abstraction.
>
> So you think that an effect can become vulgar after it's ended?
>
Robin Lim
Kish <kis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:80v51b$voo$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> that? Increases damage to a blow, coincidental when cast, becomes vulgar
if
> the caster does too well on the damage roll?
That sounds silly. A well-aimed shot to the head is going to kill someone
in real life AND in movies.
rob
Evil Tyger
Robin Lim wrote in message ...
>
Kill sombody, yes. Cause the head to become a fine red mist, no. (The latter
Robin Lim
latter
> something that a frieght train can do.)
A .50 rifle round should be able to redmist a human head :)
rob
Mark Jones
cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) spake thusly:
>: The witness can't see you actually looking inside the safe no matter how hard
>: it tries.
>
>They certainly can. You are there with your focus seeing something they
>know is inside the safe and demonstrating beyond not just a reasonable
>doubt but /even the tiniest possible doubt/ that I've got some kind of
>supernatural sensory ability.
No, the witness can see you doing _something_ and then _apparently_
proving that you've discerned something that you cannot, logically,
have actually learned. Maybe you already knew the number, maybe you
have confederates, or a secret camera in the safe, or...something.
Professional magicians do such things all the time. Nobody (or
almost nobody) believes they really have supernatural powers. It
isn't the sensory effect that's vulgar--it's going out of your way
to _be_ vulgar about it that causes paradox.
Mark Jones
Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> spake thusly:
>In article <80uvsa$deo$2...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
>> Similarly, if Al Akashic uses
>> Correspondence 4 to get across town via a really good taxicab
>> which stops
>> right in front of him, has a top-notch driver and perfect traffic
>> conditions, that's coincidental because it's possible. If he waves
>> his
>> arms and goes 'shazam' and is there, that's vulgar because it's
>> not.
>
>You will have to forgive me for asking, but what does Correspondence
>have to do with taxi-cabs? Where in Mage 2nd is any example given
>of Correspondence summoning taxis, airplane tickets, or special
>invitations from NASA to ride the Space Shuttle? For that matter,
>where is any example of such found in Mage 1st?
Why is it needed? My approach to judging such things in my Mage
game is that if the coincidence is used to explain a (brief) sphere
effect, I don't care if the coincidence involves effects that
ordinarily require another sphere. That is, you don't need Matter
to create a taxi, if the taxi exists only to get you from point A to
point B (a correspondence effect). Ditto if you pull a spyglass
from your pocket to justify using Forces to magnify the view and get
a good look at somebody--I won't require Matter for that. It's a
special effect and nothing more. (If you want to try to use it as a
club afterward, though, or leave it behind as a clue to your allies
that were there--that's another matter.)
Mark Jones
cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) spake thusly:
>Marizhavashti Kali (xe...@teleport.com) wrote:
>
>
>: Jason Corley wrote:
>
>: > I didn't post this to cause trouble. I genuinely want to know why you
>: > think sensory magicks can /never/ under any circumstances be vulgar.
>
>: Because they only alter your senses, not the world. The problem is the
>: assumption that the gaining of "impossible" information must necessarily
>: be vulgar. I don't understand why you think that.
>
>I assume that because that's always how I saw coincidental stuff.
>Coincidental magick is magick with an explanation that is /possible/. If
>Vicki Verbena downs her Life-1-sense-the-bloodstream potion and gets the
>strong impression that there's blockage somewhere near the heart, this is
>/possible/ because an experienced cardiologist when presented with the
>same information she has, could make that guess correctly. But to guess
>correctly the exact place and amount (also a Life 1 effect) is impossible
>- there is no explanation for it, not even chance (the 100-character
>sequence is another good example.)
Unless you _already_ had that information, somehow. The patient is
getting a "second" opinion--but you know what the prior report said.
Or you just plain got lucky. It does happen.
> Similarly, if Al Akashic uses
>Correspondence 4 to get across town via a really good taxicab which stops
>right in front of him, has a top-notch driver and perfect traffic
>conditions, that's coincidental because it's possible. If he waves his
>arms and goes 'shazam' and is there, that's vulgar because it's not.
This one I'd agree with--but it isn't a _sensory_ effect.