Mage Revised review at Ex Libris Nocturnis!
rav...@gte.net
A review for Mage: The Ascension, Revised Edition is up at Ex Libris
Nocturnis!
Hope to see you there. ;)
Sing while you may...
The Lighthouse Keeper
Supervising Editor, Ex Libris Nocturnis
http://www.nocturnis.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Beau Yarbrough
rav...@gte.net wrote:
> A review for Mage: The Ascension, Revised Edition is up at Ex Libris
> Nocturnis!
Two questions:
1) How did ELN get a copy early? Rassin' frassin' ...
2) No Technocracy info? Really? I'm hoping this is the result of an
overly quick read through of the book, or hyperbole.
rav...@gte.net
Beau Yarbrough <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <88ad0n$hf1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> rav...@gte.net wrote:
> > A review for Mage: The Ascension, Revised Edition is up at Ex Libris
> > Nocturnis!
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1) How did ELN get a copy early? Rassin' frassin' ...
That would be telling. ;)
Sing while you may...
The Lighthouse Keeper
Supervising Editor, Ex Libris Nocturnis
http://www.nocturnis.net
Erik Stutzman
Catalyst Echo <cmo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:38A9A975...@san.rr.com...
> >
> > 2) No Technocracy info? Really? I'm hoping this is the result of an
> > overly quick read through of the book, or hyperbole.
> >
>
> highly possible that they don't want to restate (or change) what they've
> only recently sold you.
>
> Catalyst Echo
>
How considerate of them. Now anyone that might be getting into Mage for the
first time can get the Tech book along with the old-timers..
Catalyst Echo
Malcus
> In article <88ad0n$hf1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> rav...@gte.net wrote:
> > A review for Mage: The Ascension, Revised Edition is up at Ex Libris
> > Nocturnis!
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1) How did ELN get a copy early? Rassin' frassin' ...
*Malcus just smiles warmly*
My secret... :)
> 2) No Technocracy info? Really? I'm hoping this is the result of an
> overly quick read through of the book, or hyperbole.
Oh trust me, there's no such thing as a "quick read" when I do my
reviews, especially one as important as this. When I realized, after a
detailed read, that the technocracy info seemed to be missing, I went
through the book with a fine-toothed comb. There are a few
generalizations made in Chapter One (ooky spooky Big Bro, etc), but any
and all concrete info got cut from the book.
--
Malcus Dorroga
Reviews Editor - Mage and Werewolf
Ex Libris Nocturnis
http://www.nocturnis.net
"It seems to me one is lying; a saccharine
sweetness clings to every sound"
Friedrich Nietzsche
"The best way to a man's heart is through his
stomach...from the front. From the rear, it is
the gap between the fifth and sixth ribs. Be
careful not to get your blade caught in the
cartilage..."
Unknown
Jason Corley
> Oh trust me, there's no such thing as a "quick read" when I do my
> reviews, especially one as important as this. When I realized, after a
> detailed read, that the technocracy info seemed to be missing, I went
> through the book with a fine-toothed comb. There are a few
> generalizations made in Chapter One (ooky spooky Big Bro, etc), but any
> and all concrete info got cut from the book.
I'm not sure whether to be happy about this (de-emphasizing the idiotic
Ascension war as previously described and relegating the dumb-ass
Technocracy to the wings where it belongs in a Traditional game) or
disappointed about this (GttT being a big step in the right direction for
Technocracy depiction, wishing the trend would continue to the point where
it gets within buying distance of my idea of a good game). So I think I'll
just keep buying Trinity stuff.
--
(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
Jason Corley
> My opinion only: maybe they left out the Technocracy info since it
> would invalidate a great sourcebook that was only released a few months
> ago and is still in print?
I never try to second-guess motivation for any reason. I generally just
try to decide whether or not I like something - it's hard in this
situation.
Catalyst Echo
Erik Stutzman wrote:
> Catalyst Echo <cmo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:38A9A975...@san.rr.com...
> > >
> > > 2) No Technocracy info? Really? I'm hoping this is the result of an
> > > overly quick read through of the book, or hyperbole.
> > >
> >
> > Well, they did just put out the Players Guide to the Technocracy... It's
> > highly possible that they don't want to restate (or change) what they've
> > only recently sold you.
> >
> > Catalyst Echo
> >
>
> How considerate of them. Now anyone that might be getting into Mage for the
> first time can get the Tech book along with the old-timers..
I suppose that depends on what they want to play and storytell. Though from
what the review said it seems there are a lot of holes and not just the
Technocracy. I'm not defending the lack of material at all. I don't know if
it's justified or not, not having read the new Mage stuff yet, so I can't make
any judgement calls there but it sort of stands to reason that since they just
put out a book on the Technocracy then they wouldn't heavily deal with them in
Mage revised.
However (and conversely) I've heard they deal with them a lot so it may be a
hyperbole or mistake as was originally pointed out. ~shrugs~
Catalyst Echo
Bill Kte'pi
Jason Corley <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure whether to be happy about this (de-emphasizing the
idiotic
> Ascension war as previously described and relegating the dumb-ass
> Technocracy to the wings where it belongs in a Traditional game) or
> disappointed about this (GttT being a big step in the right direction
for
> Technocracy depiction, wishing the trend would continue to the point
where
> it gets within buying distance of my idea of a good game). So I think
I'll
> just keep buying Trinity stuff.
If the material on the Technocracy is replaced with suggestions
for other suitable antagonists or conflicts - ie, if Big Bad and Purple
is a reasonable stand-alone book - I see it as a good thing. The
Tech/Trad conflict has just never been interesting enough to me to make
it into every Mage chronicle; newcomers to the game should immediately
see the other options, and know how to go about them.
--
Bill Kte'pi // http://ktepi.freeservers.com // bwk...@hampshire.edu
Matthew
>I'm not sure whether to be happy about this (de-emphasizing the
>idiotic Ascension war as previously described and relegating the dumb
>or disappointed about this (GttT being a big step in the right
>direction for Technocracy depiction, wishing the trend would continue
>to the point where it gets within buying distance of my idea of a good
>game). So I think I'll just keep buying Trinity stuff.
My opinion only: maybe they left out the Technocracy info since it
would invalidate a great sourcebook that was only released a few months
ago and is still in print?
--
Matthew Hickey aka Tiama'at ][ WS/Soc (H) III - Carleton U
matthe...@hotmail.com ][ "Hold On To Nothing
ICQ: 12954569 (Tiama'at) ][ As Fast As You Can" - T.A.
Mike Shannon
WtA and start up a game fighting against Wyrm things. Can you buy MtA rev
and start up a game fighting against the Techs? Or do you have to spend yet
more money to buy another book?
--
Mike
Matthew <matthe...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:8EDBEFA7...@news-server.carleton.ca...
LrdLeoLido
>WtA and start up a game fighting against Wyrm things. Can you buy MtA rev
>and start up a game fighting against the Techs? Or do you have to spend yet
>more money to buy another book?
I'd say the answer is "Yes" and "Yes," the same as you can buy Vamp Revised and
play a Nosferatu, but you really may want to buy (or borrow) Clanbook Nosferatu
if you're going to go all into it.
There's always room for greater detail in another book. I'm simply glad that
the Merits and Flaws are in the main book, since while they were originally
presented as an "option," they're almost a mandatory option, especially if a
Storyteller has people bringing in characters from other games that use them.
A truly thorough Storyteller will want to have all the books, even the ones
that are now apocryphal, but IMHO the core books are the ones you need to have
on hand to run a game. If the Technos are being run as antagonists instead of
PC's, you really don't need an elaborate write up, since the Storyteller can
pull details out of his ass if he needs to. "You see some guy with black hat
and mirror shades and some sort of funky gun with an elaborate laser sight."
How much damage does the funky gun do? It does as many dice of damage as I
decide to grab behind the screen. I don't even have to have stats, since I'm
the Storyteller.
What I do have to have stats on is the stuff the players have and commonly use.
Kevin
Sean Riley
> If the Technos are being run as antagonists instead of
> PC's, you really don't need an elaborate write up, since the Storyteller can
> pull details out of his ass if he needs to. "You see some guy with black hat
> and mirror shades and some sort of funky gun with an elaborate laser sight."
> How much damage does the funky gun do? It does as many dice of damage as I
> decide to grab behind the screen. I don't even have to have stats, since I'm
> the Storyteller.
You may not need stats, but to do the whole thing justice, you do need solid info
on each convention, for example. You need to know that there are Five Conventions,
and who they are.
And now, the question for Malcus: Is the amount of Technocracy information less
than the amount in Mage 2nd Ed? 2nd Ed didn't have much, but you could run the
Technocracy as it was presented then. If it is less, however, that is a big, BIG
mark against MRev. Big mark.
Cheers,
Sean.
--
"Pineapple and Chicken go together like... like.. like the Kennedys and a bullet."
- Bren Sweeny.
Sean Riley
sean...@iname.com
Slave to my Players
Malcus
> LrdLeoLido wrote:
> And now, the question for Malcus: Is the amount of Technocracy information less
> than the amount in Mage 2nd Ed? 2nd Ed didn't have much, but you could run the
> Technocracy as it was presented then. If it is less, however, that is a big, BIG
> mark against MRev. Big mark.
Yes.
There is actually LESS info.
2nd Edition Mage had a few templates and a list of Conventions. Revised doesn't even
have that.
Malcus
> My opinion only: maybe they left out the Technocracy info since it
> would invalidate a great sourcebook that was only released a few months
> ago and is still in print?
Putting in basic information on the Technocracy, like what the
Conventions are, wouldn't invalidate the GttT. I'm not saying that White
Wolf should have put in copious amounts of information, but BASIC
information would have been nice.
Sure, any good ST can pull stuff out of thin air, but I look at core
rulebooks from the standpoint of the absolute newbie, trying to run the
game for the first time. If there is basic info mising, I cannot properly
run the game. The Technocracy is mentioned as a major antagonist to the
PCs, and yet that's ALL that is really said about them. Mage Second Ed.
had more info, and a lot of people called that sparse.
And if the Technocracy was edited out of the book just because of the
GttT, I'll be sorely annoyed. A ST shouldn't have to buy $100 in books
just to get all the basic info.
Malcus
> If the material on the Technocracy is replaced with suggestions
> for other suitable antagonists or conflicts - ie, if Big Bad and Purple
> is a reasonable stand-alone book - I see it as a good thing. The
> Tech/Trad conflict has just never been interesting enough to me to make
> it into every Mage chronicle; newcomers to the game should immediately
> see the other options, and know how to go about them.
And if the Technocracy HAD been thoroughly replaced, I would not have
minded, either. However, the book makes the Technocracy THE "Bad Guy (tm)"
for all intents and purposes, then provides no information. A newcomer
looking at this game is going to wonder about that; and a novice ST is
going to have NO basis for the Technos in his chronicle.
Look at it from the standpoint of someone who's NEVER run the game. A
lot of us here on this list have the benefit of many years playing the
game, so we know what's there and what isn't. However, MageRev is going to
be THE main rulebook for all players who buy the game from this point on.
A new Storyteller picks up the book, sees that a Technocracy exists, but
have no idea what's in it. He or she has no clue what this organization
looks like, and now has to either lay out another $25 to answer the
question or spend time making stuff up, which a novice isn't going to be
particularly welcome to doing. That fact, in and of itself, makes the book
unable to stand on its own.
I will note that what WAS in the book was excellent, and I will give
kudos to Jess and his team for putting out something of this calibre; a lot
of us, myself included, had doubts. The missing Umbra rules and pertinent
Technocracy info just really hurts.
LrdLeoLido
>kudos to Jess and his team for putting out something of this calibre; a lot
>of us, myself included, had doubts. The missing Umbra rules and pertinent
>Technocracy info just really hurts.
Hmph. Well, the way it looks/sounds to me is that Jess divied up the book such
that everything that the PLAYERS need to know is in the main guide, and the
extra stuff the storyteller needs is bumped to the Storytellers Guide.
To put it another way, you don't need info on the Techs or the Umbra to do
character generation, though you do need backgrounds, stats, merits, flaws,
skills and descriptions of the traditions and spheres to do that.
The old WW division of main guide/players guide NEVER did that the way that,
say, the old AD&D Players Handbook vs. Dungeon Masters Guide did. Players for
WW games, until Changeling 2nd, had to grab two books to make a character
(everyone uses merits and flaws).
Which is not to say that I don't find it a valid critique, but if you're faced
with a choice of making players have to buy/use two books, or just leaving that
trouble for the Storyteller...well, I know what decision I'd make.
Kevin Andrew Murphy
http://www.sff.net/people/Kevin.A.Murphy
Malcus
> To put it another way, you don't need info on the Techs or the Umbra to do
> character generation, though you do need backgrounds, stats, merits, flaws,
> skills and descriptions of the traditions and spheres to do that.
>
> The old WW division of main guide/players guide NEVER did that the way that,
> say, the old AD&D Players Handbook vs. Dungeon Masters Guide did. Players for
> WW games, until Changeling 2nd, had to grab two books to make a character
> (everyone uses merits and flaws).
Not everyone. I never saw merits and flaws as a necessary part of
character
creation in this system.
You see, I ALWAYS hated the D&D division of books. I still hate
systems that
do it, like 7th Sea. These books are expensive as all get-out, and no
one should
have to spend $60 to $100 to run a game. That was always the nice thing
about
White Wolf; one book, one game, nifty stuff optional, $30. To run the
most basic
D&D game, you needed a Player's Guide, DM'S guide, and a Monster book:
$75,
minimum, and more like $90 nowadays.
Our views differ in this regard: I view many things that appeared in
the WoD
Players' Guides as optional. Merits/Flaws were always optional; special
powers
were optional; special rules were optional. Basic setting info simply
isn't
optional. By dumping basic Technocracy information, you make the
setting
incomplete, and what good is making a character in an incomplete
setting? Even
worse in this regard is the missing Umbra and spirit rules. By omitting
these
rules, you make an entire Sphere of magic useless; what's the point of
playing a
Dreamspeaker without them?
Mike Shannon
and the ST/DM to have one.
--
Mike
Marizhavashti Kali <xe...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:38AB4652...@teleport.com...
>
>
> Malcus wrote:
> >
> > You see, I ALWAYS hated the D&D division of books. I still hate
> > systems that
>
> I prefer such systems also, but I should note that it's $30.00 for the
> core rules and something I'm not sure of the exact price for the STComp,
> but it's likely under $20. That "Spend $60-100 to get all the material"
> is inaccurate.
>
> --
> Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
> Listowner: Fading Suns, Trinity and Aberrant
> "You are using the time-honored strategy of ignoring my point."
> http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | http://www.telelists.com
Jason Corley
> Now that you've said that, I'm curious as to what an absolute newbie
> *will do* with the book.
I am too. This is actually someething I'm really looking forward to. WW's
main standalone rulebooks have always always always been the best of their
various lines (I make a narrow exception for Psi Laws and the Year of the
Hunter books /only/) and V:Rev is no exception...M:Rev is likely to be the
same.
> (not that I like having so little Technocracy information)
I'm slowly swinging towards the "this is a good thing" angle.
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> I am too. This is actually someething I'm really looking forward to. WW's
> main standalone rulebooks have always always always been the best of their
> various lines (I make a narrow exception for Psi Laws and the Year of the
> Hunter books /only/) and V:Rev is no exception...M:Rev is likely to be the
> same.
Ayuh. I like what I've seen and written, but there you go. I really
think a new ST will do things with it the old-timers simply wouldn't
think of. Why? Emphasis. The lack of Technocracy emphasis may send them
in different and entertaining directions.
> > (not that I like having so little Technocracy information)
>
> I'm slowly swinging towards the "this is a good thing" angle.
I'm curious to know your reaction.
LrdLeoLido
>character
>creation in this system.
Necessary? No more so or less so than Nature & Demeanor. There are many games
where all of those are filled in later. But it's nice to be in the main book.
> You see, I ALWAYS hated the D&D division of books. I still hate
>systems that
>do it, like 7th Sea. These books are expensive as all get-out, and no
>one should
>have to spend $60 to $100 to run a game. That was always the nice thing
>about
>White Wolf; one book, one game, nifty stuff optional, $30. To run the
>most basic
>D&D game, you needed a Player's Guide, DM'S guide, and a Monster book:
>$75,
>minimum, and more like $90 nowadays.
Fair enough, though I always LIKED the D&D divisions for ease-of-use once you
bought them. The DM could look through the MM while players looked through the
PH, instead of playing a tug-of-war with them.
But I agree with the price problems.
> Our views differ in this regard: I view many things that appeared in
>the WoD
>Players' Guides as optional. Merits/Flaws were always optional; special
>powers
>were optional; special rules were optional. Basic setting info simply
>isn't
>optional. By dumping basic Technocracy information, you make the
>setting
>incomplete, and what good is making a character in an incomplete
>setting? Even
>worse in this regard is the missing Umbra and spirit rules. By omitting
>these
>rules, you make an entire Sphere of magic useless; what's the point of
>playing a
>Dreamspeaker without them?
Plenty of point, actually. First, you don't need to step into the Umbra
continually to work your magic. Second, even if you don't have the stats for a
critter, it's pretty easy to make them up.
Your Dreamspeaker says, "I'm summoning the ghost of Great Chief Nine Thunders,
and if he's not available, I'll take Ambrose Bierce!" Okay, it's a ghost. Do
you need a copy of Wraith to create that NPC? Do you need a special write up?
A biography of Ambrose Bierce? Or can you just say, okay, here's an NPC, he's
just like a living guy, except he's insubstantial and has telekinesis, and can
turn invisible when he wants to and maybe make the walls bleed.
If my Verbena wants to turn someone into a pig, do I need the stats for a pig,
or do I just make something up that sounds right?
Mage is a game that continually breaks outside the box. Nowhere in any WW book
(unless I'm very wrong) is there a set of statistics predone for a newt or a
goldfish. These can be constructed using Bygones Bestiary, with enough time
and a pencil, but they're not there. So if Pamela the Verbena suddenly says,
"I'm turning him into a newt!" and you don't have Bygone's Bestiary, what do
you do? What do you do when Hank the VA uses Correspondence 5 to change the
perspective such that it's now a 500 foot newt rampaging through downtown
Boise?
All this stuff happens in games and Storytellers quickly improvise. Players
sometimes say "But that contradicts book XX" at which point the Storyteller
says, "Then hand it to me. If we don't have it, we ignore it."
I don't need the GttT or an Umbra book to run them. Technocracy? Do them as
MiB from the cartoon mixed with the Smoking Man from the X-files. Umbra? Get
some use out of having seen "What Dreams May Come" or anything similar.
Kevin
Bill Kte'pi
Malcus <mal...@xtdl.com> wrote:
> And if the Technocracy HAD been thoroughly replaced, I would not have
> minded, either. However, the book makes the Technocracy THE "Bad Guy
(tm)"
> for all intents and purposes, then provides no information. A
newcomer
> looking at this game is going to wonder about that; and a novice ST is
> going to have NO basis for the Technos in his chronicle.
Well, that's no good, then. Like Deird're says, newcomers are
undoubtedly capable of coming up with things that those of us inside the
box aren't going to think up - that's one of the joys of discovering a
new game, and vice versa - but it seems less likely to happen if they're
deliberately steered in the direction of an empty lot.
> Look at it from the standpoint of someone who's NEVER run the
game. A
> lot of us here on this list have the benefit of many years playing the
> game, so we know what's there and what isn't. However, MageRev is
going to
> be THE main rulebook for all players who buy the game from this point
on.
> A new Storyteller picks up the book, sees that a Technocracy exists,
but
> have no idea what's in it. He or she has no clue what this
organization
> looks like, and now has to either lay out another $25 to answer the
> question or spend time making stuff up, which a novice isn't going to
be
> particularly welcome to doing. That fact, in and of itself, makes the
book
> unable to stand on its own.
I feel the same way. Part of the goal of any new edition ought to
be to attract new gamers, shouldn't it?
> I will note that what WAS in the book was excellent, and I will
give
> kudos to Jess and his team for putting out something of this calibre;
a lot
> of us, myself included, had doubts. The missing Umbra rules and
pertinent
> Technocracy info just really hurts.
Well, there's no question I'll be picking it up :) Everything else,
from the preview material to the hints dropped here and there to the
remainder of your review, has me convinced of that. And I have little
doubt it'll be one of the better purchases I make this year.
--
Bill Kte'pi // bwk...@hampshire.edu // http://ktepi.freeservers.com
Scott Staten
> And if the Technocracy was edited out of the book just because of the
> GttT, I'll be sorely annoyed. A ST shouldn't have to buy $100 in books
> just to get all the basic info.
I'm one of those people who will buy a new game just to look at it. I haven't
bought 7th Sea, because you need to buy TWO 30+ dollar hardback books to look at
the basic rules. I know several other people who gave it a pass for the same
reason.
The lack of even basic Techno information is, IMO a sale-breaker. I'll get it,
yes, but anyone who's never played mage.... I honestly couldn't reccomend it to
them.
--
Scott
ICQ 6561915
sst...@erols.com
http://www.dragonmage.net/~scott/
http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/sstaten/sstaten.html
NE:CiS Historical MUSH - netr.betterbox.net 6999
We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams.
- Willy Wonka
Jason Corley
> I'm one of those people who will buy a new game just to look at it. I haven't
> bought 7th Sea, because you need to buy TWO 30+ dollar hardback books to look at
> the basic rules. I know several other people who gave it a pass for the same
> reason.
That's not the case as far as I can tell with 7th Sea. I got everything I
needed to run a game out of the Player's Guide. I don't know why people
are getting upset over the dual-book format. There are a lot worse
formatting problems with 7th Sea to get upset about.
> The lack of even basic Techno information is, IMO a sale-breaker. I'll get it,
> yes, but anyone who's never played mage.... I honestly couldn't reccomend it to
> them.
I am starting to think that a Mage-without-the-Technocracy full game might
actually be /better/ than Mage 2ed, /especially/ for people who haven't
played it before. Still turning it over in my mind, though. It should be
an interesting publication.
LrdLeoLido
>actually be /better/ than Mage 2ed, /especially/ for people who haven't
>played it before. Still turning it over in my mind, though. It should be
>an interesting publication.
I'll say I'm ambivalent, and that's speaking as a fan as well as one of the
writers. The Technos are good adversaries, but they're not the only
adversaries, and I'd like to see for myself just how much info there is or
isn't in the book regarding them. But advance copies of course went to the
reviewers first (as might be expected), and even if I were a reviewer, I'd be
pretty biased.
I think not having the Technocracy over-emphasized as the main villain is
overall a good thing. I've never had them as my main villain, since it's more
fun to have players guessing as to what the threat is and where it's from,
rather than being able to easily know the source.
A cold war is a bit more realistic anyway, since if anyone REALLY went after a
group of trad mages, they'd be liable to sic a dragon on the local IBM complex
just to cause a real problem for the Technocracy. The last thing the
Technocracy needs is a group of sane Trad mages fusing the tactics of the
Marauders and the IRA for a bit of reality terrorism. Which is exactly what
would happen if the pogram were always in high gear.
Kevin
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> I don't know why people
> are getting upset over the dual-book format.
When you say this about other gamers, it is of course vacuously true.
:-)
> I am starting to think that a Mage-without-the-Technocracy full game might
> actually be /better/ than Mage 2ed, /especially/ for people who haven't
> played it before. Still turning it over in my mind, though. It should be
> an interesting publication.
I expect more Tech material to be in the screenbook - and it should run
somewhere under $20.
Erik Stutzman
>
>
> Jason Corley wrote:
> >
> > I don't know why people
> > are getting upset over the dual-book format.
>
> When you say this about other gamers, it is of course vacuously true.
> :-)
>
> > I am starting to think that a Mage-without-the-Technocracy full game
might
> > actually be /better/ than Mage 2ed, /especially/ for people who haven't
> > played it before. Still turning it over in my mind, though. It should
be
> > an interesting publication.
>
> I expect more Tech material to be in the screenbook - and it should run
> somewhere under $20.
But how many newbies are going to buy a SCREEN, even if they know a 60 page
book comes with it, all for $15-20?
The only screen I've bought was the one for WW:WW, and I was immediately
struck by how useful the material was and how at least part of it should
have been in the core book. The Society of the Weeping Moon -THE canonical
bad guys- end up with all the info about them (aside from their name)
shunted to a book bundled with the screen?
I'm sure at least some people will feel the same way if Mage does the same,
possibly turning them off the game...
Kish
Erik Stutzman wrote in message ...
>> I expect more Tech material to be in the screenbook - and it should run
>> somewhere under $20.
>
>But how many newbies are going to buy a SCREEN, even if they know a 60 page
>book comes with it, all for $15-20?
>The only screen I've bought was the one for WW:WW, and I was immediately
>struck by how useful the material was and how at least part of it should
>have been in the core book. The Society of the Weeping Moon -THE canonical
>bad guys- end up with all the info about them (aside from their name)
>shunted to a book bundled with the screen?
Sounds good to me. You give the players the main book and say "Read this," and
if they ask you how much they know of what's in the Screenbook, you point to the
word "Storytellers" and say, "Nothing, unless you have Technocracy/Convention
Lore."
Pop quiz for anyone who feels like answering: Just from the main Werewolf book,
how much would you say the average newly created Werewolf character knows about
Pentex?
How much would you say the average newly created Werewolf character should know?
Kish
ICQ#: 28085879
AIM: Kish K M
Kis...@mindspring.com
Marizhavashti Kali
Erik Stutzman wrote:
>
> But how many newbies are going to buy a SCREEN, even if they know a 60 page
> book comes with it, all for $15-20?
Don't ask me that question. My precognition hasn't been working.
> The only screen I've bought was the one for WW:WW, and I was immediately
> struck by how useful the material was and how at least part of it should
> have been in the core book. The Society of the Weeping Moon -THE canonical
> bad guys- end up with all the info about them (aside from their name)
> shunted to a book bundled with the screen?
Erik, I think you seriously fail to understand how much *can* go into a
book, and why the screenbooks have to pick up overflow.
> I'm sure at least some people will feel the same way if Mage does the same,
> possibly turning them off the game...
I can't help that, unfortunately.
Marizhavashti Kali
Mirober wrote:
>
> Being the selfish bastard that I am, I'm not overly concerned about
> what hypothetical newbies to Mage will get out of the Revised book;
> at this moment, all I want to know about is what I'll get out of it.
> And for now, I just want some good Traddie material to work with.
Four pages per Trad (I believe), along with the history and material in
the magic chapter and some general stuff in the WoD chapter might be a
start. :-)
Marizhavashti Kali
Kish wrote:
>
> Pop quiz for anyone who feels like answering: Just from the main Werewolf book,
> how much would you say the average newly created Werewolf character knows about
> Pentex?
From reading the book, they know its name and practices. Tribe books
inply they even know the names of the board of directors.
> How much would you say the average newly created Werewolf character should know?
Nothing.
Mant
lrdle...@aol.com (LrdLeoLido) wrote:
> > Not everyone. I never saw merits and flaws as a necessary part
of
> >character
> >creation in this system.
>
> Necessary? No more so or less so than Nature & Demeanor. There are
many games
> where all of those are filled in later. But it's nice to be in the
main book.
WW have always presented Merits and Flaws as optional while Nature and
Demanour where part of base character creation rules (except oddly in
wherewolf). So while you can run the game without either, one is
defined by the game as a part of the base system and one as optional.
Still in the book is nice, if you have space.
<snip on two booksa vs one>
> Plenty of point, actually. First, you don't need to step into the
Umbra
> continually to work your magic. Second, even if you don't have the
stats for a
> critter, it's pretty easy to make them up.
Well for expeirenced STs sure, I make up stats for most everything on
the spot and usually without fixed mechanics, just a rough idea of what
they do. Then I go back and stat them later so I'm consistent if they
show up again.
> Your Dreamspeaker says, "I'm summoning the ghost of Great Chief Nine
Thunders,
> and if he's not available, I'll take Ambrose Bierce!" Okay, it's a
ghost. Do
> you need a copy of Wraith to create that NPC? Do you need a special
write up?
> A biography of Ambrose Bierce? Or can you just say, okay, here's an
NPC, he's
> just like a living guy, except he's insubstantial and has
telekinesis, and can
> turn invisible when he wants to and maybe make the walls bleed.
If thats what you think a ghost can do. And if you play WW games thats
a good asumption. But if you are a new player maybe you think ghosts
are like in Sixth Sense, don't even know they are dead and have no
special powers at all.
Now if the player thinks they are like one and the ST like another you
start getting into trouble. You don't need every spirit stated out, but
some common ground on what spirits can do and how they work is
important so everyone is playing in the same gameworld.
> If my Verbena wants to turn someone into a pig, do I need the stats
for a pig,
> or do I just make something up that sounds right?
Yeah but everyone knows what a pig can do, they have a common ground
and expectations.
> All this stuff happens in games and Storytellers quickly improvise.
Players
> sometimes say "But that contradicts book XX" at which point the
Storyteller
> says, "Then hand it to me. If we don't have it, we ignore it."
I tell its in the core rulebook though under Golden Rule, although I'm
happy to debate it with them afterwards and make sure everyone knows
how things are working in our game.
> I don't need the GttT or an Umbra book to run them. Technocracy? Do
them as
> MiB from the cartoon mixed with the Smoking Man from the X-files.
Umbra? Get
> some use out of having seen "What Dreams May Come" or anything
similar.
You don't need them, but as a buyer I would expect them. If the Umbra
and Technocracy are considered core parts of the game (and maybe MRev
doesn't) I should have enough to run them "out of the box" without
_having_ to make them up. Other wise where do you draw the line? We all
know what witches and priests and wizards and mad scientists are liek
so why describe the trads?
The expectations of how much work you should have to do to run and rpg
seem to vary a lot. I expect my rpgs to have no holes in core
background or rules that I have to plug (I'm not saying MRev does,
haven't read it yet). Changing adding and creating stuff is one of the
cool parts of being an ST, but often you need to feel comfortable with
the system first. For new STs the book should give them enough to run
with.
Hopefully this missing stuff will pop up in the book with the ST
screen, the traditional place for overflow material. It would be a pain
for new players to have to get the Book of Madness so they new what all
the spirit stats in these existing Mage suppliments actually ment.
Mant
--
Mant's Lair
Resources for the World of Darkness games
http://www.mants-lair.org.uk
cthulhuslushee
<cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>Scott Staten <sst...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm one of those people who will buy a new game just to look
at it. I haven't
>> bought 7th Sea, because you need to buy TWO 30+ dollar
hardback books to look at
>> the basic rules. I know several other people who gave it a
pass for the same
>> reason.
>
>That's not the case as far as I can tell with 7th Sea. I got
everything I
why people
>are getting upset over the dual-book format. There are a lot
worse
>formatting problems with 7th Sea to get upset about.
>
>
>> The lack of even basic Techno information is, IMO a
sale-breaker. I'll get it,
>> yes, but anyone who's never played mage.... I honestly
couldn't reccomend it to
>> them.
>
game might
>actually be /better/ than Mage 2ed, /especially/ for people who
haven't
>played it before. Still turning it over in my mind, though. It
should be
>an interesting publication.
>
I agree with you here. I loved it way back in the old vampire
days when the sabbat were secretive and mysterious. While I've
generally liked the renditions of the sabbat that WW has done, it
took some of the fun away when everyone knew that tzimisce could
fleshcraft, and other basic structures. Maybe this will allow
the technocracy to have that more "mysterious other" edge to it.
And that may not be a bad thing. It seems like WW is trying to
get away from the trad vs. techno warfare and more into a theme
of competition between the two, rather than conflict.
De-emphasizing the technos in the main book may help in
rebuilding them later in their own light, rather than in the
advesarial light they've been depicted in for most of Mage's
history.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Malcus
> > To me, the missing spirit/Umbra rules are an ease of use issue. Many people like
> > the idea that the Umbra will be detailed in a supplement only; my opinion is
> > different, that basic rules should have been in the book for ease of use.
> >
>
> They're in the Storyteller's Companion -- where the Storyteller will have them, but the
> players shouldn't. (Yeah, we all know that players read stuff they shouldn't. At least
> this way it's *clear* that this is material designed for the ST.)
Well, at least we all live in the same reality in that regards...
Of course, I stil disagree with the need for two books for the base game, but that's a
point that's beed debated to death. around here.
> The Umbra's a very, very complex subject. To my eyes, Mage 2 was *too* broad in scope.
> The newcomer can easily be overawed by the tremendous scale of Mage. By focusing on the
> "here-and-now" Mage Revised presents a narrower picture for the new player. Old players
> will recognize the same old elements, and what they know about the "wider world" is in no
> way useless, but for the new player, this starts with a "Here's the basics of being a
> mage."
> The Umbra is, ultimately, a very flexible place, and a Storyteller can easily make the
> spirit world into whatever (s)he wants. For that matter, STs should do just that, and
> would do so even if more were written.
This is an excellent point. However, my own objection stems from my view that there
should have been more in the book to at least build on, to make the building process easier
for those who have never done it before or have a hard time coming up with things when
there's no foundation. I remember the early Mage days, trying to fill the Umbral void with
all manner of oddity, and I remember how much it alternately annoyed and enthused me. Having
info available made that easier.
> More to the point, writing, say, ten pages about the Umbra would mean cutting ten pages
> elsewhere. We could've removed, say, two Spheres and all the Tradition factions. And that
> would've given an *overview* of the Umbra that was far from comprehensive or complete.
> Better, I think, to focus Mage on Earth, where mages will grow up and live, and then to
> treat th Umbra as it should be -- as something that mages *can* deal with, but which is
> not part and parcel of normal human life, and which is so grand that it really deserves
> its own sourcebook.
In all honesty, I agree that ten pages would be a bit much, but two pages of the most
basic info on some things would have been nice, something to at least address the most basic
issues and give Storytellers something to work from. They won't have that info until said
Storyteller's Guide arrives, which isn't very far from now, but still...
Sean Riley
> > So I don't understand the appeal of WW fiction.. at least there are only a
> > few pages tainting each book.
>
> Quite so. And there's too much art.
Does too much art qualify as more art than usual, more art than there should be
even though it's the normal amount or any art as all?
Still loves good, inspirational art in books,
Sean.
--
"Tuesday, 9:14pm. I abducted an alien." - Flacco
LrdLeoLido
>only a
>> > > few pages tainting each book.
>> >
>> > Quite so. And there's too much art.
>>
>> Does too much art qualify as more art than usual, more art than there
>should be
>> even though it's the normal amount or any art as all?
>
>facts - with no hint of actual setting evolution - and rules. No art or
>fiction need apply.
Art and fiction are both necessary for the books, and not as Art for the sake
of Art, or Fiction for the sake of Fiction.
Artwork plays a very important part in book design as an organizational tool.
Human brains do not memorize text by page number. They remember it as "about
3/4 of the way through the book, right hand page, black sidebar, opposite the
page with the woman with the squid on her head."
Books without illustrations are very difficult to find your place in, and with
the exception of novels, which are meant to be read from start to finish,
almost all books, and certainly all major reference books, will have
illustrations. Even if illustrations have little or nothing to do with the
text.
Besides which, if the illustrations are good, they can also spark interesting
plots and characters.
Fiction is useful because it can often convey concepts in a more concise manner
than prose. When the concept is "How to roleplay an evil sorceress," it's more
useful to read a story about an evil sorceress than it is to read an essay
saying, "Kind of like Morgan Le Fay crossed with Medea, except with Catharine
the Great's thing for horses and Circe's general opinion of men."
If you haven't read the stories and histories I'm referencing, my essay on how
to roleplay the villainess isn't going to do you a damn bit of good. However,
the fiction will.
>
>> Still loves good, inspirational art in books,
>
>Art can do wonders to set a mood if it's good, and is ignorable if bad.
>And a lack of art won't actually make for books with more text.
>
Yes, I remember many game companies books with huge columns of white space.
Very decorative.
Not.
Kevin
Julian Mensch
> Erik, I think you seriously fail to understand how much *can* go into a
> book, and why the screenbooks have to pick up overflow.
I honestly don't understand this attitude that 'we can have
X words in the book and if there's more it will get cut.' I'm
not saying it's bad, I just *don't get it*, and I doubt others
do either.
I'm not anti-art or anti-fiction, for the record. But White
Wolf books are written with *lots* of art and *lots* of
fiction, in 10 point text. In writing a book on Paths of
Enlightenment I did a lot of experimenting with layout and
text manipulation. Each writeup *had* to be four pages because
I wanted them to line up right ala the Conventions in GttT.
_Every_ Path but PatIV was over the length, however. So I
went back over the text and asked how some ideas could be
expressed more concisely and compactly. I changed the font
size to 9 points, made the margins smaller and generally
squeezed. It worked - each Path on 4 pages. And I had neither
art nor fiction to cut.
Not it just seems glaringly obvious to me that a Revised
Edition of a ST main book is going to be 130% to 150% longer
than the original. Maybe WW management doesn't share that
ideal, but I don't honestly see why. What was done here -
cutting what I consider *essential* material to save space -
just seems foolish. One of the best things about VRev - one
of the only things I like, AAMOF - is that the crammed
everything you *really* need in there: 13 clans, Paths, Merits,
setting, hunters, other race info, etc. If clanbooks can be
made 3 times larger wordwise, how is it that MRev could not
be made sufficiently large to carry the Union and the Umbra?
Nine point text in places, less art, tighter layout and so
forth can go a long way here. I'm 100% certain that I could
"squeeze" the information into the main book, make it still
pleasant to read and increase the page count only negligably.
There's always smaller borders (and I *know* WW is aware of
this trick - look at Changeling 1st and 2nd) and a little cut
art and fiction. Hell, look at the font size in the intro!
The cut art can even pad a later sourcebook that seems a little
thin; it not as if it's wasted and will never be seen.
I know freelancers are writers are told 'this book will be
60,000 words' or whatever, but is it impossible for Jess
Heinig to go to whomever makes that decision - the Marketing
Execs, a guess - and say "listen, I know this is our wordcount,
but there's legitimate reasons this product needs to be an
exception; we have the words sitting on paper and finished
on deadline; all I have to do is go to Publishing and tell
them it's okay, and they'll squeeze it in?" If it's a profit
thing ("but we can do two books and make more money") I can
understand and don't have problems with it, but I honestly
think a really completeist main book would make the line sell
better.
It's not like it (overflow) should happen for every book,
but MRev is a really critical book to WW's future, and it
isn't just hardcore fans like me who will miss the Umbra
and the Union. I can't help but feel that while word count
is a factor, these peices got cut in large part because the
writers wanted to draw the game away from the Umbra and the
Conspiracy War. I'm really, _really_ unimpressed with the
attitude of "the game should be played *this* way, so we'll
make the resources to play it any other way much less acc-
essable." M2 was a wonderful book in part because it was
so completely, dynamically open. It had everything you need
for almost *any* mage game, save good info on Marauders and
Nephandi. M:tSC was even better here: two playable sects,
the Umbra, the mortal world, rotes, talismans, spirits,
everything (cept the other supernaturals). I'll be really,
*really* disappointed if MRev has 30 pages of niggly details
and notes on how to run a low-key, Earth-focused game *that
isn't really necessary* at the expense of the Technocracy
and the Umbrae. I have no problem with the *necessary* info
for such a game being in there, but if it strays off into
heavy exploration at the expense of other kinds of games,
Mage will have become too rigid for by tastes by far, and
I may skip all but the most compelling MRev books.
Could you educate me on something, Kali? What were the
Word Counts for Mage 1st, 2nd and Rev? If MRev already *is*
a lot larger than M2, I'll cut a little more slack here.
-- Julian Mensch
Marizhavashti Kali
Marizhavashti Kali wrote:
>
> If Jason had his way, the books would be dry recitations of setting
> facts - with no hint of actual setting evolution - and rules. No art or
> fiction need apply.
This isn't, btw, meant as an insult, Jason. I didn't realize how I'd
phrased it when I actually wrote it (sigh).
I simply meant to say you don't like certain bells and whistles.
Malcus
> It's a lot harder to justify point size changes when you have to deal with
> the fact that there are already people complaining that 10 point typeface
> is too damn small, and it's hard to read. Margins aren't all that
> squeezable on a web printer; you're normally printing out to the maximum
> possible edges as it is.
*nods in agreement*
Reducing the font in a White Wolf, or ANY RPG book, really isn't feasable. The
fonts are pretty small as it is, and while you could fit more words on a page in
smaller font, it becomes copious to read at that point. Also, one must honsetly
take into consideration (and no offense to anyone with this point) that 3/4 of the
market for RPG books has vision problems/needs glasses, and making smaller fonts and
putting more words onto a page is just going to piss off people who can't see the
words very well as it is.
> There is also a concept in printing called greyspace and whitespace.
> Basically, greyspace is text, and whitespace is everything else; border
> elements, graphics, quote boxes, etc. Too much greyspace on a page, and
> the book gets harder and harder to read; witness things like legal briefs,
> which are not only boring as hell to begin with, but are also *tedious* to
> read even if you are interested in the topic (some science papers are the
> same way).
This is something most reviewers, like myself, look for in this kind of
material; balance between greyspace and whitespace means readability and
enjoyability. MageRev has a pretty damned good balance, and I'd say it has
less/smaller art than 2nd Ed, even if the art blew in places :)
> <Snip again; M1 was 310 pages, including index, M2nd was 290 some-odd, not
> including index, GttT was 242 or so, M:tSC is 292, and VRev is 310. I
> dunno how big MRev is, page count wise; I haven't gotten my comp copies
> yet).
MageRev is 310 pages, in any case.
Jason Corley
> Jason Corley wrote:
>> > So I don't understand the appeal of WW fiction.. at least there are only a
>> > few pages tainting each book.
>>
>> Quite so. And there's too much art.
> Does too much art qualify as more art than usual, more art than there
should be > even though it's the normal amount or any art as all?
More art than there should be. However, this is a heretical belief not
shared by many in the gaming community, as flipping through nearly any
game book published by any company will conclusively demonstrate.
Jason Corley
> Sean Riley wrote:
> If Jason had his way, the books would be dry recitations of setting
> facts - with no hint of actual setting evolution - and rules. No art or
> fiction need apply.
You're right about no fiction, except, naturally, in the section for
beginning GMs, where sample campaigns are de rigeur. Or in the "sample
campaign" list.
>> Still loves good, inspirational art in books,
> Art can do wonders to set a mood if it's good, and is ignorable if bad.
> And a lack of art won't actually make for books with more text.
Now now. This is not at all true and you know it. Just because WW has a
particular process by which art and books are written and purchased
doesn't mean that if there was a drastic reduction in art that we wouldn't
see changes in the price of the book (and therefore the marginal price of
the usuable text), which for those of us with limited incomes to spend on
gaming, often makes the difference between a sale and a non-sale. It did
with V:Rev, an excellent game which I did not buy because the parts of it
that I would pick apart and reformat were just not worth the full price of
the book for me.
Marizhavashti Kali
KidAnarky wrote:
>
> On a side note, sometimes bad art isn't ignorable. There are any
> number of game books for which the mood is utterly ruined by bad art.
> (Freak Legion comes to mind. I wasn't hot on In Nomine as a non-WW
> example.)
This is a matter of personal opinion. I find that the subject matter can
do more to distract than simple quality - and even at that, I wouldn't
rate it as a personal factor. I hate the art in CB Tzimisce, but I can
still read it without dwelling on it.
Aileen Miles
in question I feel the need to add my $0.02. To those who talked about the
web offset press printing process, you were correct, and we try to use 16
page "signatures" (that some of you called "imprints") whenever possible,
since it's the cheapest way to print.
The "gray space/white space" argument also figures in to the design of the
books.
And just so you know, WW has reduced the amount of art in it's books in the
last year in order to keep from having to raise the price of it's books.
When we did VRev I believe we were still using the one piece of art per 4
pages formula. For MRev it was less about the formula, than it was about
getting art to illustrate specific sections of text. So most of the art that
went with those 90K words that got cut, also ended up getting cut. In fact,
there were a dozen pieces left over from the main rulebook. Because of this,
I didn't have to get any additional art for the Storytellers Companion,
(except for the full pages and templates) this being where much of the cut
text ended up anyway.
in article 38AE79BA...@home.com, Julian Mensch at jme...@home.com
wrote on 2/19/00 6:04 AM:
> Marizhavashti Kali wrote:
>
>> Erik, I think you seriously fail to understand how much *can* go into a
>> book, and why the screenbooks have to pick up overflow.
>
> I honestly don't understand this attitude that 'we can have
> X words in the book and if there's more it will get cut.' I'm
> not saying it's bad, I just *don't get it*, and I doubt others
> do either.
>
> I'm not anti-art or anti-fiction, for the record. But White
> Wolf books are written with *lots* of art and *lots* of
> fiction, in 10 point text. In writing a book on Paths of
> Enlightenment I did a lot of experimenting with layout and
> text manipulation. Each writeup *had* to be four pages because
> I wanted them to line up right ala the Conventions in GttT.
> _Every_ Path but PatIV was over the length, however. So I
> went back over the text and asked how some ideas could be
> expressed more concisely and compactly. I changed the font
> size to 9 points, made the margins smaller and generally
> squeezed. It worked - each Path on 4 pages. And I had neither
> art nor fiction to cut.
The margins in MRev are *slightly* smaller than Mage2nd. I believe they
allow about 1/8" more room for text per page. Doesn't sound like much, but
when every word counts...
Also the text is 9.5 points 2 point leading (space between lines). The font
size for the headings and subheads is also smaller than previous editions.
Usually our text should be 10 or 11 points. VRev is also 9.5 over 11.5 and
we were lucky enough not to have to cut anything.
Before I changed the font size on VRev it was more than 20 pages over
page-count. For Werewolf the Wild West (which I did not lay out, but I was
called in to "squeeze" the book into the proper page count) started out
being 80 pages or so over page-count before squeezing.
We'll never know how many pages MRev would have been without the cuts and
the squeezing. The 90K words were cut before it ever came to me, and I knew
this book would need to be "squeezed" from the get-go, so I never bothered
trying our normal type size and used all the compression tricks at my
disposal from the start. Even so, I had to get it from 328 pages down to
312 before I did a laser proof.
>
> Not it just seems glaringly obvious to me that a Revised
> Edition of a ST main book is going to be 130% to 150% longer
> than the original. Maybe WW management doesn't share that
> ideal, but I don't honestly see why. What was done here -
> cutting what I consider *essential* material to save space -
> just seems foolish. One of the best things about VRev - one
> of the only things I like, AAMOF - is that the crammed
> everything you *really* need in there: 13 clans, Paths, Merits,
> setting, hunters, other race info, etc. If clanbooks can be
> made 3 times larger wordwise, how is it that MRev could not
> be made sufficiently large to carry the Union and the Umbra?
> Nine point text in places, less art, tighter layout and so
> forth can go a long way here. I'm 100% certain that I could
> "squeeze" the information into the main book, make it still
> pleasant to read and increase the page count only negligably.
> There's always smaller borders (and I *know* WW is aware of
> this trick - look at Changeling 1st and 2nd) and a little cut
> art and fiction. Hell, look at the font size in the intro!
> The cut art can even pad a later sourcebook that seems a little
> thin; it not as if it's wasted and will never be seen.
Already addressed the cut art issue, but I want to mention that it is not
unusual to use art that gets cut from a book that is running long in a
future sourcebook. I try to cut the most generic pieces that might fit in
any sourcebook for that gameline, or to cut pieces that I *know* will find a
home in an upcoming product that is already on the schedule (for example 8
or 9 pieces in Book of the Wyrm 2nd Ed. were originally contracted for the
Werewolf Players Guide 2nd Ed. I knew BotW2 was coming up, so where I had a
choice of what art to use laying out the WPG2 I tried to save back pieces
that would be appropriate for BotW2).
The font size for the prelude is large because it had to fill a 16-page
signature that would be printed on a 2-color press, and because it needed to
be readable over the gold ink elements printed behind it.
>
> I know freelancers are writers are told 'this book will be
> 60,000 words' or whatever, but is it impossible for Jess
> Heinig to go to whomever makes that decision - the Marketing
> Execs, a guess - and say "listen, I know this is our wordcount,
> but there's legitimate reasons this product needs to be an
> exception; we have the words sitting on paper and finished
> on deadline; all I have to do is go to Publishing and tell
> them it's okay, and they'll squeeze it in?" If it's a profit
> thing ("but we can do two books and make more money") I can
> understand and don't have problems with it, but I honestly
> think a really completeist main book would make the line sell
> better.
And sometimes the sales department will let us production folks allow a book
to run over by 8 pages if they expect the book to sell like hotcakes (well
game-industry flavored hotcakes anyway). In this case, because of the
binding and the cost of adding enough pages to cover 90K more words it just
wasn't practical.
So there it is, a total insider's POV. And I like the art in MRev too ;P
For those of you who think art direction is easy, I suggest trying to art
direct Christopher Shy!
--
Aileen E. Miles
WWGS
Scott A. Taylor
<shado...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> For those of you who think art direction is easy, I suggest trying to art
> direct Christopher Shy!
"Christopher, I said No Powered Armor! "That's" <counts> "That's *Ten*
Powered Armor! Can't you count?!?"
"But Aileen, my cousin's car..."
"Christopher!"
:-)
--
Scott Taylor
Freelancer for Hire
Have Powerbook, Will Travel
Simcon XXII Mar 23-26 2000 http://www.simcon.org
Stunt Borg
> I find it sad that people are decrying "no Technocracy info" as a
> sale-breaker for Mage Rev, given that Chapter One has sections on
> "The Technocratic Union," "The Modern Day," "Scientific Procedure,"
> "Chain of Command" and "Vision," there's an entire history chapter
> (seven) which details (among other things) the Technocracy's
> involvement in the Ascension War, and the Storytelling chapter
> mentions the Technocracy in the context of the defunct Ascension
> War and as competition for Traditions.
Consider me in loosely in the opposite camp. Given the history of
Union material, and the tendency for it to be worse and more
conforming to the EEEEEEEVIL stereotype the more concise it is, I'm
totally sold if the argument is, "We couldn't do it justice in 10
pages, so we're going to try to do it justice in 20+".
Having the Union be a possible *theme* add-on to a standard Trad
game, not necessarily even coming up, is an interesting vision, and
I'll reserve judgement til I see the work.
I do consider it unfortunate that the theme add-on book to date
would be the ambivalent 'Union as antagonists' GttT, though. I'm
hoping that the material written does get presentation in the
Screenbook or the new Books of Mirrors and Shadows.
> I'd also consider it a telling statement that the Technocracy is
> *not* mentioned in the Antagonists chapter.
Three cheers for belated pleasures :) Thank you.
Paul Lowe Hlavacek
would also plug new Convention Books. Just think of it:
Syndicate: the Accounting - When will you Amortize?!?
cthulhuslushee
<sean...@iname.com> wrote:
>Aileen Miles wrote:
>
>> For those of you who think art direction is easy, I suggest
trying to art
>> direct Christopher Shy!
>
>
>"You said no face tattoos. I worked around it."
>
>*sounds of frustrated gnashing of teeth*
>
>Cheers,
>Sean.
>
>--
heh. I think the artwork with posted on the WW webpage probably
helped influence the "cyberpunk" feel I got from the new
direction Mage was taking. Not so much the idea of the heros
running around jacking into the web or with massive cybernetics,
but the idea of a modern (or slightly futuristic) world out of
control, with modern institutions forming a new elite and
crushing the masses. Not that this doesn't also fit the WoD;
cyberpunk was just the first thing that jumped into my head after
reviewing the material. Anyone else get that sort of vibe?
Sean Riley
> For those of you who think art direction is easy, I suggest trying to art
> direct Christopher Shy!
"Power armor?! I specifically stated _no_ power armor!"
"You said no face tattoos. I worked around it."
*sounds of frustrated gnashing of teeth*
Cheers,
Sean.
--
"Sensing my immediate need to attempt not to die, he graciously postponed all
discussion about Lemurs until I had a chance to rest." - John Cleese
Sean Riley
> More art than there should be. However, this is a heretical belief not
> shared by many in the gaming community, as flipping through nearly any
> game book published by any company will conclusively demonstrate.
Gotcha. I just wanted to know, because these NG's do actually influence that which
I buy. If something gets a bad rap here, and something else gets a good one, well,
guess which I'm gonna be more keen on?
As for your position, it's hardly heretical in the gaming community. I continually
wonder just how many more people other than me love art in gaming books and
purchase the art books just so I can flick through and grab ideas...
It's just in opposition to gaming companies stand, is all. ;-)
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Jason Corley <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> spake:
>More art than there should be. However, this is a heretical belief not
>shared by many in the gaming community, as flipping through nearly any
>game book published by any company will conclusively demonstrate.
I'm very apathetic about art in RPG books. I think it's absurd and
foolish that some people buy RPGs for the art when there are perfectly
good art books which don't have any of that pesky text in the way.
I want art in RPGs for one purpose only: illustrating specific items,
people, creatures, and scenes. Anything else is a waste of paper at
best, and an active distraction if it's not high-quality and in-genre
art. The lousy new clan cartoons in VRev are a perfect example of that;
if I ever intended to care about the clans, I'd find them really
annoying.
-- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
Julian Mensch
I'm grateful for the lower art content, smaller borders
and 9.5 type size. I understand now the difficulty with
"a few pages longer" in regard to sheafs.
-- Julian Mensch
Alexander Bateman
cthulhuslushee <cthulhu_slu...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1594255f...@usw-ex0106-047.remarq.com...
>
> heh. I think the artwork with posted on the WW webpage probably
> helped influence the "cyberpunk" feel I got from the new
> direction Mage was taking. Not so much the idea of the heros
> running around jacking into the web or with massive cybernetics,
> but the idea of a modern (or slightly futuristic) world out of
> control, with modern institutions forming a new elite and
> crushing the masses. Not that this doesn't also fit the WoD;
> cyberpunk was just the first thing that jumped into my head after
> reviewing the material. Anyone else get that sort of vibe?
Shadowrun. Its Definitely more like Shadowrun.
Alex.
Ethan Skemp
----------
In article <38B1ADB3...@iname.com>, Sean Riley <sean...@iname.com>
wrote:
> Gotcha. I just wanted to know, because these NG's do actually influence that
which
> I buy. If something gets a bad rap here, and something else gets a good one,
well,
> guess which I'm gonna be more keen on?
>
> As for your position, it's hardly heretical in the gaming community. I
continually
> wonder just how many more people other than me love art in gaming books and
> purchase the art books just so I can flick through and grab ideas...
Plenty. And some of us even pick up the yearly Spectrum for ideas whether
any of our company's book covers have made it in or not.
Ethan Skemp
WWGS
Aileen Miles
wrote on 2/21/00 4:36 PM:
> Aileen Miles wrote:
>
>> For those of you who think art direction is easy, I suggest trying to art
>> direct Christopher Shy!
>
> "Power armor?! I specifically stated _no_ power armor!"
>
> "You said no face tattoos. I worked around it."
>
> *sounds of frustrated gnashing of teeth*
>
Frankly, I would have rejoiced at the sight of facial tattoos. The illos are
nothing like the art notes I sent, and it was like pulling teeth to get any
revisions.
On the subject of art:
> As for your position, it's hardly heretical in the gaming community. I
> continually wonder just how many more people other than me love art in gaming
> books and purchase the art books just so I can flick through and grab ideas...
I do! I do! I buy some game books I wouldn't ordinarily buy mostly for the
art, if I know the artist or it's particularly good.
--
Aileen E. Miles
WWGS
Who hates it when other game companies "steal" our good artists.
Sean Riley
> Frankly, I would have rejoiced at the sight of facial tattoos. The illos are
> nothing like the art notes I sent, and it was like pulling teeth to get any
> revisions.
I take it you personally will be unlikely to personally choose him then, given the
choice?
*personally rejoices* More Leif Jones! Less Shy! That's the idea!
Ahem. Less openly biased: I personally think Scott Baxa is a wonderful choice
instead of Shy for similar stuff. Both do a highly computerized, high tech vision,
but Scott Baxa is quirky, puts in some great thought into his work and creates far
more unique results. His Syndicate picture (Even though I'd swear it's an MiB) in
the Mage art book is a classic.
> On the subject of art:
> <snip>
> I do! I do! I buy some game books I wouldn't ordinarily buy mostly for the
> art, if I know the artist or it's particularly good.
Art is a wonderful thing. Properly done, it evokes emotion and imagination. A
picture is not worth a thousand words, rather, it's worth what the artist puts into
it. A good picture can create a statement that no amount of words could possibly
achieve, a bad one says absolutely nothing. I do begin to think maybe less art is a
good idea, but let's keep all that good, inspiring art.
And btw? I loved Jones's Tradition artwork. His Akshaic was neat, the Cultist lively
and exactly as I imagine one, the Hermetic beautifully against the grain and
perfectly illustrative of the dramatically changing Tradition, the Son of Ether just
imaginative, and he also scores mega points for doing a male Verbena. 'Bout damn
time.
> Who hates it when other game companies "steal" our good artists.
I sympathize.
Sean Riley
> Plenty. And some of us even pick up the yearly Spectrum for ideas whether
> any of our company's book covers have made it in or not.
Aroo? Pray tell, what is the Spectrum?
Cheers,
Sean.
--
"Tuesday, 9:14pm. I abducted an alien." - Flacco
Sean Riley
Sean Riley
> Shadowrun. Its Definitely more like Shadowrun.
Bingo. Thank goodness only Shy thought that way. The book is clearly moving
toward a street mentality, but it is NOT Shadowrun. If anything, MRev is
clearly focusing back on the mystic level, not the technological. The
Technocracy's importance on the game scenario has been lessened, the quirky
Sons of Ether and Virtual Adepts aren't as fronted out in many of the
illustrations... It's definately about magic, not technomagic or science. The
only thing that was Shadowrun was Shy's artwork. I consider those pieces on par
with most of Hunter: The Reckoning's main book for inappropriate nature.
Cheers,
Sean.
--
"And now that we've been warm and Christian and loving and caring, let's get
back to the nasty stuff!" - Paul McDermott
Sean Riley
> I do consider it unfortunate that the theme add-on book to date
> would be the ambivalent 'Union as antagonists' GttT, though. I'm
> hoping that the material written does get presentation in the
> Screenbook or the new Books of Mirrors and Shadows.
Just a query, and I'm not trying to cast any judgement here, but what
would be the angle you'd like to see taken with the Technocracy? I'm
curious here, because whilst I felt the GttT had a few flaws (Ironically,
disorganisation. :-) ) I didn't feel that it was thematically
inappropriate. I saw the Union presented about as favorably as it should
ever be seen: A group of people born from noble causes but descended into
disillusioned would-be heros, ruthless self serving power players, and
control freaks. Lots of control freaks.
I personally object to the idea of the Technocracy as clean cut heroes in
any way: They whole concept began in conspiracy theory and I feel it
should still remain there to a large degree.
But I'm curious to hear other opinions. I'd love to hear yours.
Kish
Sean Riley wrote in message <38B7C9A2...@iname.com>...
>Just a query, and I'm not trying to cast any judgement here, but what
>would be the angle you'd like to see taken with the Technocracy? I'm
>curious here, because whilst I felt the GttT had a few flaws (Ironically,
>disorganisation. :-) ) I didn't feel that it was thematically
>inappropriate. I saw the Union presented about as favorably as it should
>ever be seen: A group of people born from noble causes but descended into
>disillusioned would-be heros, ruthless self serving power players, and
>control freaks. Lots of control freaks.
>
>I personally object to the idea of the Technocracy as clean cut heroes in
>any way: They whole concept began in conspiracy theory and I feel it
>should still remain there to a large degree.
>
Kish
ICQ#: 28085879
AIM: Kish K M
Kis...@mindspring.com
Jason Corley
> Just a query, and I'm not trying to cast any judgement here, but what
> would be the angle you'd like to see taken with the Technocracy? I'm
> curious here, because whilst I felt the GttT had a few flaws (Ironically,
> disorganisation. :-) ) I didn't feel that it was thematically
> inappropriate. I saw the Union presented about as favorably as it should
> ever be seen: A group of people born from noble causes but descended into
> disillusioned would-be heros, ruthless self serving power players, and
> control freaks. Lots of control freaks.
I personally think this sells authority very short, and leaves a vast,
gaping, bloody, ugly hole in the philosophical continuum of magi, which is
/by definition/ unfillable in the WoD. There is nobody amongst WoD magi
that act like scientists, public servants, entrepreneurs or explorers
typically act in the real world except in scattered, un-influential
instances.
> I personally object to the idea of the Technocracy as clean cut heroes in
> any way: They whole concept began in conspiracy theory and I feel it
> should still remain there to a large degree.
I realize that thisis where the concept began and Paul and I are
uninterested in keeping it there. Oboy, another poorly thought out
supposedly smart dark conspiracy of authoritarian figures with keen
powerz. Wake me when we get to the inevitable nudie dancing mage-ette
pics.
Alexander Bateman
Sean Riley <sean...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:38B7C9A2...@iname.com...
> Stunt Borg wrote:
>
> > I do consider it unfortunate that the theme add-on book to date
> > would be the ambivalent 'Union as antagonists' GttT, though. I'm
> > hoping that the material written does get presentation in the
> > Screenbook or the new Books of Mirrors and Shadows.
>
> would be the angle you'd like to see taken with the Technocracy? I'm
> curious here, because whilst I felt the GttT had a few flaws (Ironically,
> disorganisation. :-) ) I didn't feel that it was thematically
> inappropriate. I saw the Union presented about as favorably as it should
> ever be seen: A group of people born from noble causes but descended into
> disillusioned would-be heros, ruthless self serving power players, and
> control freaks. Lots of control freaks.
Okay, The problem some people have With the Coverage of the Technocracy upto
Date is that no supliment actually tells there side of the Story without
Appending the fact that they are Wrong, Misguided or in some cases just
plain old "Evilllll."
While Myself and Most others do not Advocate a Technocracy of Smiling
Do-Gooders we do belive that a Supliment should Portray them that way to
balance the Pro Tradition Stance of some other supliments, Notebly the
Tradition Books.
As a Book Explaining the Technocracy GttT deserves Full marks and High
Praise IMO, However it is Not A Players Guide to the Technocracy which some
of us where led to belive it would be.
Personally I Want the Revised Convention Books to be Writen in the Same Vein
as The Tradition Books, So that Running a Technocracy Game, Or even a game
where the Moral Line Between the Trads and technos is more fully explored,
Becomes Easier.
> I personally object to the idea of the Technocracy as clean cut heroes in
> any way: They whole concept began in conspiracy theory and I feel it
> should still remain there to a large degree.
Nobody Sould be lean Cut Heros, For starters Its Boreing. However at the
moment the're Almost Clean-Cut bad guys where as I think is much more
intresting if there the political Opposition.
> But I'm curious to hear other opinions. I'd love to hear yours.
Well Here's Mine Anyway,
Alex.
Kish
Alexander Bateman wrote in message <38b82...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net>...
>
>Okay, The problem some people have With the Coverage of the Technocracy upto
>Date is that no supliment actually tells there side of the Story without
>Appending the fact that they are Wrong, Misguided or in some cases just
>plain old "Evilllll."
>While Myself and Most others do not Advocate a Technocracy of Smiling
>Do-Gooders we do belive that a Supliment should Portray them that way to
>balance the Pro Tradition Stance of some other supliments, Notebly the
>Tradition Books.
"Pro-Tradition stance?" What does that mean? The Traditions are the heroes of
the game. The Technocrats are the main villains. This has been established
ever since Mage First. Why is it treated like a surprise?
Julian Mensch
>
> I personally think this sells authority very short, and leaves a vast,
> gaping, bloody, ugly hole in the philosophical continuum of magi, which is
> /by definition/ unfillable in the WoD. There is nobody amongst WoD magi
> that act like scientists, public servants, entrepreneurs or explorers
> typically act in the real world except in scattered, un-influential
> instances.
Exactly. Further, it's just bad form to hobble one
ideology as being arbitrarily evil in a game about
ideological conflict, as I've noted before.
> I realize that thisis where the concept began and Paul and I are
> uninterested in keeping it there. Oboy, another poorly thought out
> supposedly smart dark conspiracy of authoritarian figures with keen
> powerz. Wake me when we get to the inevitable nudie dancing mage-ette
> pics.
This is where we differ. I think the Technocracy is
fundamentally, completely grounded in conspiracy lore
and it should stay there. I think a much more complex
look at this would be to aim for a conspiracy fighting
a Shadow War that's *actually worth fighting*. You can
always run nonconspiratorial stories, after all, but
I think a truly good conspiracy story would present a
conspiracy that *might actually be right*. War IRL
don't often have clear-cut good and bad guys; why should
conspiracy shadow wars be any different? Just my
opinion, of course.
-- Julian Mensch
Jason Corley
It is not a surprise. Nor are we treating it like a surprise. Nor have we
been treating it like a surprise since Mage 1ed. At least /I/ haven't.
Kish
Julian Mensch wrote in message <38B82C3B...@home.com>...
>Jason Corley wrote:
>>
>> I personally think this sells authority very short, and leaves a vast,
>> gaping, bloody, ugly hole in the philosophical continuum of magi, which is
>> /by definition/ unfillable in the WoD. There is nobody amongst WoD magi
>> that act like scientists, public servants, entrepreneurs or explorers
>> typically act in the real world except in scattered, un-influential
>> instances.
>
> Exactly. Further, it's just bad form to hobble one
>ideology as being arbitrarily evil in a game about
>ideological conflict, as I've noted before.
>
Traditions and Technocracy in your game?
After all, you can't present an ideology as arbitrarily evil, even a villain's
ideology.
Eric Tolle
>
> I do! I do! I buy some game books I wouldn't ordinarily buy mostly for the
I'd _like_ to say that I'm a purist and only buy game books for the
printed content...but dang it, Lace and Steel has art by Donna Barr
who is one of my favorite graphic novel artists. So I have that on
perpetual "Waiting for L&S" order.
(So when _are_ you going to get Donna Barr to do Werewolf art?) ;'/
Anyway, art at times can be vital in an RPG- primarily in a SF or
fantasy game, where the art can show the players the fashions,
culture and technology of the milieu. Not to mention assorted weird
beasties.
--
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
Information does not want to be free. Information wants to be
folded, spindled, mutilated, and used to make funky children's
party hats.
Julian Mensch
>
> > Exactly. Further, it's just bad form to hobble one
> >ideology as being arbitrarily evil in a game about
> >ideological conflict, as I've noted before.
>
> So I take it your Marauders and Nephandi are also morally equivalent to the
> Traditions and Technocracy in your game?
Mm - no. The Marauders, IMO, are not really part of
the ideological paradigm of Mage so much as they are
just a little chunk of coolness. The Nephandi are not
arbitrarily evil - instead, they are the servants of
the ideology of evil, and are thus (usually) personally
evil for very good reason. There's been a few very
Miltonian antihero Nephandi in my game (usually right
after I have some reason to be pissed at Christianity)
but overall, they are villans. Most are amoral in a
complex way; a few I like just EEEVIL. (For every Jack
Burton there must be a Lo Pan).
> After all, you can't present an ideology as arbitrarily evil, even a villain's
> ideology.
Key word: arbitrarily. If there's a good reason within
the ideology for it to be evil - as with demon worship -
then I portray it as such. Even absolute anarchism and
selfish individualism (Marauders) implies amorality.
Government, Science, Reason, Economy and Social Contract
do not imply evil *inherantly*, so it rubs me ill to
portray them as such.
Now if I want a villanous Union, I do what GttT did: I
make the Union's primary ideology Fascism, Control, Fear
of the Unknown and Revisionist History. With this I have
no problem seeing the Union as a multifaceted, complex and
very, very human evil. In this case, Science, Reason and
so forth are not part of their ideology but only tools
that they misuse and pervert. There are certainly some
powerful stories to be told around that Union - fascism
has been the root of a lot of suffering, the Union could
easily be seen as credibly corrupt and the Traditions'
struggle for individuality against an overwhelming monolith
could be very evocative, more so that most stories because
the Traditions are much more compelling individualist
heros than some yahoo loser like Luke Skywalker. But for
one thing, as I've said, I play crossover games. I don't
need the Union as a monolithic, oppressive conspiracy because
I already have the Camarilla. I'd basically have two
Camarillae (Camarillas?) running around my WoD, and the
only thematic differences would be that one was made of
creatures with a supernatural impetus to evil while the
other had a technological flavour. Not enough difference,
IMO.
The Union struck a chord deep within me when I first
read about them, even covered in all the repugnant First
Edition EEEVILness. They were the kind of heroes I always
wanted to root for, the perfect counterpoint to the cookie-
cutter rugged individualist rebel clones we see so much of
in Postmodern fiction. I *like* individualism, don't get
me wrong, but there's a place for Social Contract and Limits
on Freedom as well. If only our governments would actually
*listen* to all their highly paid social scientists and
economic forecasters and ethical advisors instead of ruling
based on mindless monotony or irrational impluse, maybe the
world would be a better place. One of the reasons I so like
the idea of a heroic Technocracy is that while it's fun to
root for a group like the Traditions or the Seelie in an RPG,
IRL the groups they represent are nice but don't stand a
great hope of truly improving the world. The Technocracy
looked like a group of *effective* good guys, an order that
got their power not from Kewl Superpowers and Authorial Fiat,
but just from thinking on their toes and understanding the
consequences of their actions. The same kind of people that
join the Technocracy in the [my] WoD are the kind of people
that build orginizations like the United Nations and the
Orginization for African Unity IRL. That's a very underrated
kind of hero, IMO, and _Mage_ seemed to be the perfect
world in which to explore that kind of heroism. Sure, Star
Trek has the Federation, but that never quite struck the
same chord with me - I'm not sure why. Possibly because the
Federation was whitewashed so heavily, or because we only
see Starfleet and never get into the heart of the Federation
Council on the show. Largely, I think it's because Mage is
a game about warring ideologies, so it proves a better forum
to really explore ideology than a game about adventure and
exploration like Star Trek.
I can understand a villanous Union and can tell stories
that are quite well crafted around the themes I listed as
represented in GttT. Likewise, I'm sure if you put your
mind to it you could chew through GttS and make the VRev
Sabbat into something that let you express a new facet of
evil for your Camarilla charecters, something intelligent
and appropriate to Vampire. But you have Ba'ali and Settites
and Humanity 0 vampires and such to fill that role. More
importantly, I believe you (we) like the antiheroic
Sabbat themes better, so we want an antiheroic Sabbat. Same
with me and a heroic Union. I just think the themes are
more interesting; more importantly, they are so underexplored
in and real in depth way, and further are prefectly suited
to the Mage setting.
In short, it's not that Mage canon is bad, it's just that
if it really were about contesting ideologies without pre-
selecting the winner, if it let it's *players* decide who
was the villian, it would be *so much* better.
-- Julian Mensch
Jason Corley
> Julian Mensch wrote in message <38B82C3B...@home.com>...
>>> I personally think this sells authority very short, and leaves a vast,
>>> gaping, bloody, ugly hole in the philosophical continuum of magi, which is
>>> /by definition/ unfillable in the WoD. There is nobody amongst WoD magi
>>> that act like scientists, public servants, entrepreneurs or explorers
>>> typically act in the real world except in scattered, un-influential
>>> instances.
>>
>> Exactly. Further, it's just bad form to hobble one
>>ideology as being arbitrarily evil in a game about
>>ideological conflict, as I've noted before.
>>
> So I take it your Marauders and Nephandi are also morally equivalent to the
> Traditions and Technocracy in your game?
> After all, you can't present an ideology as arbitrarily evil, even a villain's
> ideology.
Actually, I think you could achieve the same thing we are trying to
accomplish by improving the Technocracy by improving the Marauders or
Nephandi. All you have to do is make chaos more empowering or give the
Nephandi's otherworldly masters a little more of a rebellious agenda (than
an Oblivion agenda), as demons traditionally have. It doesn't matter which
faction you improve, for the purpose of an ideological conflict. It's just
that I know and understand the things that the Technocracy uses in its
various paradigms much more.
Marizhavashti Kali
Alexander Bateman wrote:
>
> While Myself and Most others do not Advocate a Technocracy of Smiling
> Do-Gooders we do belive that a Supliment should Portray them that way to
> balance the Pro Tradition Stance of some other supliments, Notebly the
> Tradition Books.
I want to take a moment here to say that game supplements are nothing
like the US Presidential Elections. That is, there is no constitutional
guarantee of equal time.
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Fading Suns, Trinity and Aberrant
"You are using the time-honored strategy of ignoring my point."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | http://www.telelists.com
Marizhavashti Kali
LrdLeoLido wrote:
>
> >I want to take a moment here to say that game supplements are nothing
> >like the US Presidential Elections. That is, there is no constitutional
> >guarantee of equal time.
>
> Mage is just like the US elections. It's a two party system--Traditions vs.
> Technocracy--with a couple other parties (Nephandi and Marauders) who never
> manage to do anything aside from get a couple more people added to the ballot
> that everyone dismisses as either evil or crazy.
Disparates, Hollow Ones and Orphans are there as well...further
confusing the issue. :-)
Kish
Jason Corley wrote in message <38b8...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net>...
>Actually, I think you could achieve the same thing we are trying to
>accomplish by improving the Technocracy by improving the Marauders or
>Nephandi. All you have to do is make chaos more empowering or give the
>Nephandi's otherworldly masters a little more of a rebellious agenda (than
>an Oblivion agenda), as demons traditionally have. It doesn't matter which
>faction you improve, for the purpose of an ideological conflict. It's just
>that I know and understand the things that the Technocracy uses in its
>various paradigms much more.
>
Why is it needed (since guessing from this you don't feel a compulsion to edit
every group into indistinguishable shades of gray)? There isn't enough conflict
between the various Traditions for a game with a purely philosophical conflict?
You could even keep it within canon if you wanted to:
Storyteller: "...and there's this nasty fascist group called the Technocracy out
there trying to control the world, but don't worry about them, they're off doing
something /else/ for this game and the foreseeable future. The only adversaries
you'll deal with on a regular basis are--" (pauses to look at which Traditions
the PCs are: a Chorister, a Euthanatos, and a Virtual Adept) "are the Cult of
Ecstasy, the Akashic Brotherhood, and the Verbena. Oh, and," wicked smile,
"each other, of course."
Jason Corley
Another perfectly good alteration but I wouldn't call it anything like
canon. Possibly canon M:Rev, if the rumors about de-emphasizing the
Technocracy are true.
Kish
Jason Corley wrote in message <38b8...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net>...
>Another perfectly good alteration but I wouldn't call it anything like
>canon.
The Technocracy exists, but it never shows up. Perfectly canonical--not obvious
canon, but it can happen.
Of course, you still didn't answer my question.
--
Angela Christine
> The same could be said of Monotheism, Hedonism, Contradictive
>Science, Hacking, Paganism, et al., but none of the above are
>ideas that when properly implemented are truly evil. I won't
>deny that there's evil and darkness in the Union ideological
>pillars - indeed, what a perfect vehicle the [my] Union provides
>to explore that evil!
I expect (hope) that if they redo the convention books for mage revised
the conbooks will portray the Union as protagonists, not antagonists,
this time and show the heroic elements.
I think a major corrupting element of the Union is that it is very
organized and very large, so a certain element of bureaucracy has crept
in because it's needed to manage such an unwieldy organization. And
bureaucracy seems to develop it's own self-sustaining inertia. The
guys at the top know the *world* is going to hell, and the guys at the
bottom know the *city* is going to hell, but the communication between
them is filtered and twisted by "proper channels" so no one is able to
put all the pieces together.
The guys at the top are out of touch with the real world (and they
probably had to be scheming bastards to get to the top in the first
place). The guys at the bottom don't really know what the hell is going
on in the big picture. Middle management and bureaucracy provide a
layer of fat that keeps the guys at the top from ever talking to or even
seeing the guys on the ground. Most of the guys at the top, the bottom
and even the middle may be *good* idealistic people trying to change the
world for the better. But they are busy taking care of the paperwork
their jobs require and doing good whenever they can, so the few
ambitious, greedy, corrupt or jaded, folks end up in positions of
organizational authority.
The Traditions don't have much of that particular problem because they
are so disorganized. There is no "middle management" in most of the
traditions and no accountants. Most people still don't know what the
hell is going on, but there are not so many chances for corrupt (and
corrupting) folks to get into positions of authority because there
aren't many positions of authority. A particular chantry leader may be
a bastard, but that's about as far as it goes.
I also have a suspicion that a Tradition mage is more likely than a
Technomage to "join" the Nephandi if he goes Evil. Selling your soul to
a Demon for power is just the sort of thing that fits into Tradition
paradigms better than Techno paradigms: first you have to believe in
demons and believe that they actually want your soul and will give you
something valuable for it, then you have to find a way to communicate
with one. So Evil Tradmages slowly bleed out of the organizaton, while
most Evil Technomages have no where to go, so they stay in the
Technocracy spreading their corruption.
The Technocracy needs to clean house. This will be tough since many of
them probably don't even believe in good and evil, and will be messy in
any case. Purges are never shiny happy times. If they managed it they
could become the basically heroic Union you envision.
As for heroic (although not utopian) gov't and science I did read a few
books with that theme recently. I don't recall the author, but the
title of the 3rd book in the series was "Heirs of Empire" I think, (I
have a terrible memory for names). Basically on a future Earth much
like ours some folks find remnants of a truely ancient human empire--but
all the worlds in the empire except Earth were killed by a plague. So
one good man finds the computer at the core of the old empire and is
declared the new Emperor of Humanity by the computer--giving him control
of the fleet and a bunch of other ancient but incredibly advanced
technology. So he's strugling to introduce all this technology,
technology that will make life *much* better for the vast majority of
people in the long run, but just at the moment is putting people out of
work and causing social mayhem.
This is one of the problems the Union has. They have a vision of an
ideal society, but it seems you can't get there from here. :) They
want to change things for the better, but most mundanes don't really
like change, the Tradmages don't like their basic vision, and groups of
other supernatural critters have their own agendas for the world.
Angela Christine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aca(at)telus.net~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The brown eyes had the weird sanity sometimes found
on the far side of maddness: calm, but a demon's eyes.
~Barbara Hambly
_Travelling_with_the_Dead_
LrdLeoLido
>like the US Presidential Elections. That is, there is no constitutional
>guarantee of equal time.
Mage is just like the US elections. It's a two party system--Traditions vs.
Technocracy--with a couple other parties (Nephandi and Marauders) who never
manage to do anything aside from get a couple more people added to the ballot
that everyone dismisses as either evil or crazy.
Kevin
Alexander Bateman
Julian Mensch <jme...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38B82C3B...@home.com...
> This is where we differ. I think the Technocracy is
> fundamentally, completely grounded in conspiracy lore
> and it should stay there. I think a much more complex
> look at this would be to aim for a conspiracy fighting
> a Shadow War that's *actually worth fighting*. You can
> always run nonconspiratorial stories, after all, but
> I think a truly good conspiracy story would present a
> conspiracy that *might actually be right*. War IRL
> don't often have clear-cut good and bad guys; why should
> conspiracy shadow wars be any different? Just my
> opinion, of course.
And a Damn Good Opinion it is Too.
Alex.
Ranma Al'Thor
: Kish wrote:
: >
: need the Union as a monolithic, oppressive conspiracy because
: I already have the Camarilla. I'd basically have two
The Camarilla is too loose and riddled with infighting to really serve as
a monolithic, oppressive conspiracy. It's more like a loose feudal league
that survives because its main enemies are even less organized than it is.
: on Freedom as well. If only our governments would actually
: *listen* to all their highly paid social scientists and
: economic forecasters and ethical advisors instead of ruling
: based on mindless monotony or irrational impluse, maybe the
: world would be a better place. One of the reasons I so like
Nope. Wouldn't help, because you can find a social scientist to say
anything you want. There is no organized, coherent direction to be gained
from modern social scientists. Ronald Reagan, who I consider to a moron
beyond compare listened to social scientists and economists who agreed
with him. The man was simply a nineteenth century classical liberal,
clinging to outmoded, but perfectly rational economic theories in the
twentieth century. And social scientists/economic forecasters/ethical
advisors are just as prone to be irrational as everyone else.
Ultimately, appeals to 'Reason' tend to mean 'appeals to rational
arguments based on my set of irrational fundamental concepts instead of
yours'.
Further complicating matters for the Technocracy is their unacknowledged
magical abilities, which can tend to bugger up the objectivity of the
experiments of the scientists among them. If I am Hari Seldon, It. X
Statistician, and I use my Psychohistory methods to predict the future,
it's possible that I am in fact bringing that future to pass by predicting
it, if I have the right spheres. This makes it difficult for me to ever
actually work out a version which isn't dependent on my own personal
abilities, which I can't actually measure because I don't believe in them.
: IRL the groups they represent are nice but don't stand a
: great hope of truly improving the world. The Technocracy
: looked like a group of *effective* good guys, an order that
: got their power not from Kewl Superpowers and Authorial Fiat,
: but just from thinking on their toes and understanding the
: consequences of their actions. The same kind of people that
I'd leave out the second one of those; I don't see the Technocracy as
getting power from 'understanding the consequences of their actions'.
Rather, the Technocracy understands the value of cooperation,
organization, and planning. Tradition mages don't act without thinking
or fail to understand the consequences of their actions, but they tend to
be loners who don't play well with others. Technocrats cooperate and
coordinate, and even though probably half of what they do goes blort in
the face of the unanticipated, they can make effective use of their
resources because they can bring their strength to bear at strategic
points.
--
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/
"The connection is so abstract, that we have people whose job
it is to make sure the paperwork doesn't get totally disconnected
from the world. Theoretically, I handle millions of dollars a day,
but it is less real than this e-mail. I have never seen our product.
I have never seen the sales people. I have never seen a customer."
--Robert Lane describes his work as an accountant.
Jason Corley
> Jason Corley wrote in message <38b8...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net>...
>>Another perfectly good alteration but I wouldn't call it anything like
>>canon.
> The Technocracy exists, but it never shows up. Perfectly canonical--not obvious
> canon, but it can happen.
> Of course, you still didn't answer my question.
Uh...yes I did. I said it was perfectly acceptable. Wasn't that the
question?
Kish
Brandon Quina wrote in message <38B95EB6...@bellsouth.net>...
> Just so you two have a neutral viewpoint:
>
> I believe the question Kish originally asked was why you thought the
>Technocracy was needed, due to the fact that the /other traditions/
>could provide more than enough in the way of antagonists for a great
>number of stories.
>
Thanks, Brandon. And also that, using other Traditions, you don't /need/ to
heavily overhaul the antagonist's philosophy to get a morally viable antagonist.
Kish
Jason Corley wrote in message <38b9...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net>...
>>>Later I wrote that I thought M:Rev may have picked that very solution of
>>>the de-emphasizing of the Technocracy is not just rumor.
>
>
>> Well, it hasn't. The Technocracy is just as much there as ever. It's just
not
>> described in detail the way it was in Mage Second.
>
>Well, then that would be 'de-emphasizing', wouldn't it?
Oh, hardly. Let me try again: THE TECHNOCRACY IS JUST AS MUCH THERE AS EVER.
The book still talks about a group called the Technocracy which hunts down mages
and others who don't fit into its world, and which manipulates human society on
every level. It just never gives details on it. For example, I haven't found a
listing of the five Conventions anywhere. There's a two-page writeup of the
Technocracy, which is pretty good for not naming the Conventions--think the Mage
Second writeups for Marauders and Nephandi. It's "not as omnipresent as many
Tradition mages believe," but it's still the largest of the four factions,
counting its Sleeper members.
> It's not a black
>and white thing (the horror!)
The Noble Defenders of Humanity are...still as kind as ever.
Bruce Baugh
>of Eight Million Dreams cover, IIRC. Definitely an interesting publication
>for those of us who like visual inspiration.
Spectrum is a wonderful source of ideas, and a good way to learn artists
one will want to watch for in the future.
--
Bruce Baugh / bruce...@sff.net
"Never let it be be said, especially by large men with guns, that
I failed to help." - Dave Weinstein
Kish
Angela Christine wrote in message <38b83ea0...@news.telus.net>...
>I expect (hope) that if they redo the convention books for mage revised
>the conbooks will portray the Union as protagonists, not antagonists,
I hope not. I'd rather see books that give ways of playing Technocrats as PCs,
but focus on how to present members of that Convention as sympathetic and
believable antagonists/villains. Books which presented them as heroes would be
just as useless to me as the old First Edition Conventionbooks, and more
annoying. Books which presented them as antiheroes, but presumed anyone reading
them was going to use them as protagonists, wouldn't be so annoying, but they
still wouldn't be very useful.
Jason Corley
> Jason Corley wrote:
>> He should know by now that I attach, if anything, a /positive/
>> connotation to "changing the way the game works", and by saying that I
>> wouldn't call it canon, I'm probably unfairly prejudicing myself in
>> FAVOR of his idea.
> Heh. ;) Oh yeah, I forgot.
> *pull's the string*
> "Canon is bad, always, no exceptions."
:D
It's true. It's a knee-jerk reaction by now. I'm not ashamed of it,
though, even when it causes me problems, I always get at least /some/
benefit out of it.
Scott Staten
> As for heroic (although not utopian) gov't and science I did read a few
> books with that theme recently. I don't recall the author, but the
> title of the 3rd book in the series was "Heirs of Empire" I think, (I
> have a terrible memory for names). Basically on a future Earth much
> like ours some folks find remnants of a truely ancient human empire--but
> all the worlds in the empire except Earth were killed by a plague. So
> one good man finds the computer at the core of the old empire and is
> declared the new Emperor of Humanity by the computer--giving him control
> of the fleet and a bunch of other ancient but incredibly advanced
> technology. So he's strugling to introduce all this technology,
> technology that will make life *much* better for the vast majority of
> people in the long run, but just at the moment is putting people out of
> work and causing social mayhem.
3rd Book in the Mutineers moon series by David Weber.
Mutineers Moon
The Armageddon Inheritance
Hiers of Empire
--
Scott
ICQ 6561915
sst...@erols.com
http://www.dragonmage.net/~scott/
http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/sstaten/sstaten.html
NE:CiS Historical MUSH - netr.betterbox.net 6999
We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams.
- Willy Wonka
Brandon Quina
> > *pull's the string*
>
> > "Canon is bad, always, no exceptions."
>
> :D
*grins*
> It's true. It's a knee-jerk reaction by now. I'm not ashamed of
> it, though, even when it causes me problems, I always get at least
> /some/ benefit out of it.
Hey, whatever floats your boat. (: I just saw that, and my mind
popped back to that "we don't really need you, we can just get one of
those 'pull the string and it talks dolls'" comment. :) You at least
have solid reasons why you say you dislike canon, even if I don't agree
that their universally applicable.
--
Brandon L. Quina (39755700 ; bran...@bellsouth.net)
( Dalton by Night PBEM; http://www.geocities.com/quinabl/ )
#WoD-Chat on DALnet; (splitrock.tx.us.dal.net; hebron.in.us.dal.net)
"World of Darkness Discussion and Friendly Chat with Fans"
Angela Christine
>3rd Book in the Mutineers moon series by David Weber.
>Mutineers Moon
>The Armageddon Inheritance
>Hiers of Empire
Oooh, I'm always impressed by (and more than a little suspicious of)
people who have that kind of memory. It always amazes me that, on
usenet, almost any vague referance can be dug up in no time flat.
Ok try this one; what poem is "for I'm weary with hunger and fane must
lie down" from?
Mirober
Christine) wrote:
>
>The guys at the top are out of touch with the real world (and they
>probably had to be scheming bastards to get to the top in the first
>place). The guys at the bottom don't really know what the hell is going
>on in the big picture. Middle management and bureaucracy provide a
>layer of fat that keeps the guys at the top from ever talking to or even
>seeing the guys on the ground. Most of the guys at the top, the bottom
>and even the middle may be *good* idealistic people trying to change the
>world for the better. But they are busy taking care of the paperwork
>their jobs require and doing good whenever they can, so the few
>ambitious, greedy, corrupt or jaded, folks end up in positions of
>organizational authority.
Agreed. In Technocratic terms, the guys on top are the Inner Council,
who got their positions through the same combination of
will/ruthlessness/Enlightenment that Tradition Archmages attain their
own positions with. Control is the bureacracy, and is home to much of
the corruption that has been afflicting the Union. On the bottom are
Field Agents, having to deal with sometimes conflicting orders and
recently having more and more trouble communicating with the higher
ups.
>I also have a suspicion that a Tradition mage is more likely than a
>Technomage to "join" the Nephandi if he goes Evil. Selling your soul to
>a Demon for power is just the sort of thing that fits into Tradition
>paradigms better than Techno paradigms: first you have to believe in
>demons and believe that they actually want your soul and will give you
>something valuable for it, then you have to find a way to communicate
>with one. So Evil Tradmages slowly bleed out of the organizaton, while
>most Evil Technomages have no where to go, so they stay in the
>Technocracy spreading their corruption.
A bit different for VE's, though, who many times come in quite a bit
of contact with trans-dimensional entities. This puts a rather
different light on their higher Barrabi ratios.
>
>The Technocracy needs to clean house. This will be tough since many of
>them probably don't even believe in good and evil, and will be messy in
>any case. Purges are never shiny happy times. If they managed it they
>could become the basically heroic Union you envision.
I believe this is happening, with the Inner Council's creation of
Project Invictus. The Union seems to be heading to a point where
Control (manipulated by the corrupt elements within) is going to come
in direct conflict with the Council.
Worst time possible for it to happen, as well.
--
Matt Roberts
/v\ The Corax Digital Nest /v\
http://www.lascruces.com/~mirober/main.html
"Hey, when your world is ruled by an evil demon who wants to
call it's undead minions 'Deadels', you call 'em 'Deadels'!"
- Berk, Sluggy Freelance
LrdLeoLido
>people who have that kind of memory. It always amazes me that, on
>usenet, almost any vague referance can be dug up in no time flat.
>
>Ok try this one; what poem is "for I'm weary with hunger and fane must
>lie down" from?
Sounds familiar, but are you sure that's the right spelling of "fane"? I think
that's Scottish and mean's "in all honesty," but I'm not certain.
I'd guess "The Erl King" but that's probably not it. Or "Sir Gawain and Dame
Ragnell."
How soon do you tell us, and can you post the whole poem?
Kevin
Angela Christine
>>Oooh, I'm always impressed by (and more than a little suspicious of)
>>people who have that kind of memory. It always amazes me that, on
>>usenet, almost any vague referance can be dug up in no time flat.
>>
>>Ok try this one; what poem is "for I'm weary with hunger and fane must
>>lie down" from?
>
>Sounds familiar, but are you sure that's the right spelling of "fane"? I think
>that's Scottish and mean's "in all honesty," but I'm not certain.
I'm not even remotely sure how it's supposed to be spelt, so I went
phonetically.
>I'd guess "The Erl King" but that's probably not it. Or "Sir Gawain and Dame
>Ragnell."
>How soon do you tell us, and can you post the whole poem?
*sigh* You know how sometimes you get a song, or just a couple lines
from a song, going round and round in your head? Well, I've had that
single line of some olde poem going around in my head for _years_. Not
continuously, or I'd be completely mad by now, but it's a chronic thing.
I have no idea what it is from, or even where I heard/read it in the
first place. It sounds like the sort of thing I might have read for a
literature class, but I also just read some odd stuff on my own
sometimes, or it could have been something someone said on some PBS
special that stuck in my head. I'm doomed.
I have the little known 1pt flaw "Obsession with a line of obscure
poetry". I keep hoping it's from something famous and that someone
somewhere will be able to identify it. I have a superstitious certainty
that if I could just read the entire poem--hell, even just that one
stanza--I could finally be free of it.
Next stop, kidnap all the Literature intructors at the local college and
torture them 'till they talk. >:-)
Eric Tolle
>
> In article <38B77A89...@iname.com>, Sean Riley <sean...@iname.com>
> wrote:
> > Aroo? Pray tell, what is the Spectrum?
>
> It's a yearly publication showcasing excellence in fantasy/science fiction
> art; novel covers and magazine covers, obviously, but also comic-related
Sounds interesting. And how can people get ahold of this annual?
Is there a subscription?
Stunt Borg
> Brandon Quina wrote in message <38B95EB6...@bellsouth.net>...
> >
> > I believe the question Kish originally asked was why you thought
> > the Technocracy was needed, due to the fact that the /other
> > traditions/ could provide more than enough in the way of
> > antagonists for a great number of stories.
To provide *more* story options, clearly.
Rigid Faith vs. Responsible Hedonism is a good story. So is Rigid
Faith *with* Responsible Hedonism. But Faith and Utilitarianism, or
Hedonism and Utilitarianism, are also good stories, either as foes
or strange bedfellows. *NO* Trad represents such stories, but some
Conventions do ... so paint them in a fashion so that they can be
*either* foes or friends, depending.
Pigeonhole whole groups that *embody* philosophies as mandatorily
bad and you waste options to little gain, since opposition is *easy*
to do. It's much harder to portray quirky coexistence with eruptions,
but ultimately that's a far more fertile field, because anyone and
anygroup can have more possible options for use. There are *more*
stories to tell - always a good thing.
> Thanks, Brandon. And also that, using other Traditions, you don't
> /need/ to heavily overhaul the antagonist's philosophy to get a
> morally viable antagonist.
You don't have to overhaul the Union's philosophy to make them a
morally viable antagonist. That is, in fact, the *point* of much
of Jason's more extensive writings. In fact, the Union's philosophy
is probably grasped much more clearly and accepted much more
thoroughly by most posters than any Trad you can name.
No overhaul. You merely have to have the Union mostly uphold its
philosophy, rather than hypocritically ignore it (2nd Ed) or
perform pointless evil in wanton conflict with it (1st Ed).
A perfectly natural consequence will be conflict ... *and*
cooperation, at times.
Paul Lowe Hlavacek
thought the Nephandi served well enough as a whole
organization dedicated to obviously-wrong evil and abuse,
if that simply *must* be a major theme
LrdLeoLido
to the odd unplacable quote (now placed).
Thanks to fellow author Pat McEwen for this one:
From: "Patricia H. MacEwen" <mac...@earthlink.net>
Kevin:
It sounds like a line from an old Scottish ballad, rather than a
poem...."Lord Randal, my son"?
Don't have the complete text, but one stanza goes:
"What gat ye to your dinner, Lord Randal, my son?
What gat ye to your dinner, my handsome young man?"
"I gat eels boil'd in broo'; mother, make my bed soon,
For I'm weary wi' hunting, and fain wald lie down."
As I recall, it turned out that Lord Randal had been poisoned, and finally
laid down for good and all. Can't remember if there was a verse
specifically about hunger, rather than hunting, but you should be able to
look it up from there and find out.
Pat MacEwen
Angela Christine
>Well, Kevin's combination roll of Investigation + Contacts turned up the answer
>to the odd unplacable quote (now placed).
Woo woo!
>Thanks to fellow author Pat McEwen for this one:
>From: "Patricia H. MacEwen" <mac...@earthlink.net>
>Kevin:
>It sounds like a line from an old Scottish ballad, rather than a
>poem...."Lord Randal, my son"?
>Don't have the complete text, but one stanza goes:
>
> "What gat ye to your dinner, Lord Randal, my son?
> What gat ye to your dinner, my handsome young man?"
> "I gat eels boil'd in broo'; mother, make my bed soon,
> For I'm weary wi' hunting, and fain wald lie down."
>As I recall, it turned out that Lord Randal had been poisoned, and finally
>laid down for good and all. Can't remember if there was a verse
>specifically about hunger, rather than hunting, but you should be able to
>look it up from there and find out.
Yep, that's the one. Misspelling several words (damned archaic scottish
*grumble*) and completely flubbing "hunger" for "hunting" would explain
why no automated seach engine was ever able to help me.
Woo! I'm not completly crazy. I can't wait to tell the voices in my
head.... :)
Kish
Stunt Borg wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Kish wrote:
>
>> Brandon Quina wrote in message <38B95EB6...@bellsouth.net>...
>> >
>> > I believe the question Kish originally asked was why you thought
>> > the Technocracy was needed, due to the fact that the /other
>> > traditions/ could provide more than enough in the way of
>> > antagonists for a great number of stories.
>
>To provide *more* story options, clearly.
>
>Rigid Faith vs. Responsible Hedonism is a good story. So is Rigid
>Faith *with* Responsible Hedonism. But Faith and Utilitarianism, or
>Hedonism and Utilitarianism, are also good stories, either as foes
>or strange bedfellows. *NO* Trad represents such stories,
Some Choristers and some Cultists can. The fact that you have to restrict the
possibilities of some Traditions to give the Technocracy something positive to
do doesn't exactly support the idea that a heroic "Union" is a good thing.
>Pigeonhole whole groups that *embody* philosophies as mandatorily
>bad and you waste options to little gain, since opposition is *easy*
>to do.
<shrug> The real Technocracy (as opposed to various net-constructs) doesn't
embody any philosophies I see as anything but mandatorially bad.
>> Thanks, Brandon. And also that, using other Traditions, you don't
>> /need/ to heavily overhaul the antagonist's philosophy to get a
>> morally viable antagonist.
>
>You don't have to overhaul the Union's philosophy to make them a
>morally viable antagonist. That is, in fact, the *point* of much
>of Jason's more extensive writings. In fact, the Union's philosophy
>is probably grasped much more clearly and accepted much more
>thoroughly by most posters than any Trad you can name.
What--that most people are better off being taken care of instead of making
decisions for themselves? Grasped easily, but I hope not accepted thoroughly.
That the ends justity the means? Same. That the needs of the many outweigh the
needs of the few? Same. That's the philosophy of the real Technocracy, as it's
been clearly presented in every book to date. For some reason, a lot of people
want it to be something different, a lot of people convince themselves it is
something different. I do not know why. The Technocracy uses science and
reason as a means to an end; it's not their philosophy.
>
>No overhaul. You merely have to have the Union mostly uphold its
>philosophy, rather than hypocritically ignore it (2nd Ed) or
>perform pointless evil in wanton conflict with it (1st Ed).
>
>A perfectly natural consequence will be conflict ... *and*
>cooperation, at times.
>
>Paul Lowe Hlavacek
> thought the Nephandi served well enough as a whole
> organization dedicated to obviously-wrong evil and abuse,
> if that simply *must* be a major theme
The Nephandi aren't an organization, and their goals are obviously wrong by any
person's definition (anyone support the obliteration of the universe?).
a) The Technocracy is wrong in a subjective sense. I would hope most people
here would say that people deserve to be able to make decisions for themselves,
instead of being taken care of, but I'm sure you could find people who say
having their needs taken care of is important enough to make free will an
acceptable sacrifice. I /know/ you can find people who say the ideal government
is an enlightened dictatorship, because I've heard 'em, defending the
Technocracy!
b) Only the organization's structure (i.e., the methods used by the Technocracy
as a group) need be corrupt. There's plenty of room for individual Technocrats
to be good. This leaves room for occasional cooperation, defections (which can
only go the other way with Nephandi, thanks to the Caul), and PC Technocrats.
Jason Corley
> Stunt Borg wrote in message ...
>>
>>Rigid Faith vs. Responsible Hedonism is a good story. So is Rigid
>>Faith *with* Responsible Hedonism. But Faith and Utilitarianism, or
>>Hedonism and Utilitarianism, are also good stories, either as foes
>>or strange bedfellows. *NO* Trad represents such stories,
> Some Choristers and some Cultists can. The fact that you have to restrict the
> possibilities of some Traditions to give the Technocracy something positive to
> do doesn't exactly support the idea that a heroic "Union" is a good thing.
Uh. Why in God's name would we limit them? Paul /just said/ they could be
"foes or strange bedfellows", and that no /Tradition/, not "no Tradition
member" represents such stories. You say yourself later in your post that
we who want to change the Technocracy are wasting our time because
individual Technocrats can be good and decent folk. What's good for the
goose is good for the gander. We're talking about broad organizational
changes.
>>Pigeonhole whole groups that *embody* philosophies as mandatorily
>>bad and you waste options to little gain, since opposition is *easy*
>>to do.
> <shrug> The real Technocracy (as opposed to various net-constructs) doesn't
> embody any philosophies I see as anything but mandatorially bad.
Naturally. And we are saying it "wastes options to little gain". Ta dah.
"We think X canon element is bad, so we're going to change it." "But X
canon element is in the book!" Pay close attention, please. Do you see why
we might be frustrated with your response? WE COULD CARE LESS THAT THE
CANON TECHNOCRACY IS EVIL. We think it makes for a better game if it is
not. Saying that the canon Technocracy is evil is just plain irrelevant to
the discussion.
>>morally viable antagonist. That is, in fact, the *point* of much
>>of Jason's more extensive writings. In fact, the Union's philosophy
>>is probably grasped much more clearly and accepted much more
>>thoroughly by most posters than any Trad you can name.
> What--that most people are better off being taken care of instead of making
> decisions for themselves? Grasped easily, but I hope not accepted thoroughly.
> That the ends justity the means? Same. That the needs of the many outweigh the
> needs of the few? Same. That's the philosophy of the real Technocracy, as it's
> been clearly presented in every book to date. For some reason, a lot of people
> want it to be something different, a lot of people convince themselves it is
> something different. I do not know why. The Technocracy uses science and
> reason as a means to an end; it's not their philosophy.
I guess you have a different definition of "overhaul" than Paul and I. We
don't think it's that much of a change to make science and reason more
than a means to an end, any more than faith should be "just a means to an
end" for the Celestial Chorus. Yes, it's the primary focus of the
Tradition's efforts to change the world. But even to individual
Choristers, it is much more than that. It is the /fundamental question/ of
their individual search for enlightenment. The scientists of our
Technocracy (in our non-canon non-evil Technocracy, these exist) operate
in the same manner.
Ville Mäkelä
Kish <Kis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:89jfgm$c6d$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
Snip
> What--that most people are better off being taken care of instead of
making
> decisions for themselves? Grasped easily, but I hope not accepted
> thoroughly. That the ends justity the means? Same. That the needs of the
> many outweigh the needs of the few? Same. That's the philosophy of the
> real Technocracy, as it's been clearly presented in every book to date.
For
> some reason, a lot of people want it to be something different, a lot of
people > convince themselves it is something different. I do not know why.
The techies have been portrayed as the winning side just about from day one.
Most people want to be on the winning side, so they say that the techies are
kewl. When that isn't accepted they claim that the techies are good etc.
Same thing with the Sabbat, if they had been portrayed as a pathetic
minority fighting a losing war against the Camarilla no-one would have
bugged WW for a player's guide to the Sabbat...
Sorry, but that's the way the human mind works.
--
Join AllAdvantage.com and get paid to surf the Web!
Please use my ID (bot-963) when asked if someone
referred you. Thanks!
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=bot-963
Jason Corley
> The techies have been portrayed as the winning side just about from day one.
> Most people want to be on the winning side, so they say that the techies are
> kewl. When that isn't accepted they claim that the techies are good etc.
Actually, if you would read the thread, there are plenty of perfectly good
reasons to alter the Technocracy. The fact is that the Technocracy as
portrayed in canon, in my view, would not be the winning side. Everything
it stands for has been shattered and beaten and pissed on in the nations
(Western industrialized democracies) where it supposedly has the gratest
hold. Hence my desire to alter them to reflect accurately the strengths
and weaknesses of the industrialized democratic world. It also helps that
I know a lot about science, politics and a little about business, and I
don't know squat, really, about Hermeticism or Wicca.
> Same thing with the Sabbat, if they had been portrayed as a pathetic
> minority fighting a losing war against the Camarilla no-one would have
> bugged WW for a player's guide to the Sabbat...
I would have. and I liked the 1ed. Sabbat Player's Guide just fine. (I
haven't seen the Revised version.) It made for an entirely different style
of game, if a little less flexible than the Vampire 2ed. book. (A high
standard of flexibility, to be sure.)
> Sorry, but that's the way the human mind works.
I guess that means the people who are calling me an alien AI project sent
to torment folks are right.
Bruce Baugh
>What--that most people are better off being taken care of instead of making
>decisions for themselves? Grasped easily, but I hope not accepted thoroughly.
>That the ends justity the means? Same. That the needs of the many outweigh
> the
>needs of the few? Same. That's the philosophy of the real Technocracy, as
> it's
>been clearly presented in every book to date. For some reason, a lot of people
>want it to be something different, a lot of people convince themselves it is
>something different. I do not know why. The Technocracy uses science and
>reason as a means to an end; it's not their philosophy.
Preach it, brother Kish!
Angela Christine
>The techies have been portrayed as the winning side just about from day one.
>Most people want to be on the winning side, so they say that the techies are
>kewl. When that isn't accepted they claim that the techies are good etc.
>minority fighting a losing war against the Camarilla no-one would have
>bugged WW for a player's guide to the Sabbat...
To some extent I agree with you, but I feel an unresistable urge to
present a counter example; the DA Salubri clanbook. The Salubri are (or
will become) a pathetic minority who lose the war against the Tremere.
Recent events notwithstanding, natch. :)
>Sorry, but that's the way the human mind works.
As someone pointed out, you can't expect the folks here to be human. :>