[Mage] Dead Magic Ramifications
Scatter Gatherer
to be disparities between the spheres required for two rotes
in Dead Magic and what spheres ranks allow what capabilities
as listed in Mage Revised, the Mage developer replied:
> The whole point of the spells in _Dead Magic_ is that these,
> in many cases, predate the use of Spheres, and though a mage
> with certain Sphere knowledge can simulate or puzzle out the
> effects, often they don't adhere to the normally accepted
> limits of the Spheres.
>
> Does this mean that you could arbitrarily figure out a time-
> travel rote with Time 1 as the prerequisite? Who knows? After
> all, the Spheres are just arbitrary classifications that
> humans label onto mystic forces in an attempt to categorize
> and describe them. Ultimately magic is more than just points
> or dots or groups of things . . .
Of course anything can happen in an individual ST's game that
ST wishes to happen. That has always been the case. However
what we have here is a statement about the canonical World
of Darkness--There are remnants of knowledge which mages may
acquire that will enable them perform some, if not all,
magical effects easier than any modern mage has come to
expect.
What is the import of this development? Of course I can't
speak for what the developer or White Wolf will do with this,
but consider. . . . Tradition mages all believe in and want
to perform magic. If they didn't, the Technocracy certainly
wouldn't mind if Tradition mages took jobs as accountants
and never worked a bit of magic again in their lives.
Tradition mages have engaged in a losing war with the forces
of the Technocracy to at the very least ensure that the
world didn't become a non-magical place. If a means came
along that enabled you and yours to do what you as a group
are dedicated to doing, what would you do?
Well of course, you'd make money with it, but the point is
that you'd share the knowledge wouldn't you? Think about it,
a person discovers how to break the encryption used to
encode DVDs and what does he do with it? He shares the
knowledge. Why would mages act any differently?
You almost have to wonder when we'll see the revision to
the Sphere descriptions that this will bring about. . .
. .almost.
Donald
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Dr Nuncheon
Scatter Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> wrote:
>> Does this mean that you could arbitrarily figure out a time-
>> travel rote with Time 1 as the prerequisite? Who knows? After
>> all, the Spheres are just arbitrary classifications that
>> humans label onto mystic forces in an attempt to categorize
>> and describe them. Ultimately magic is more than just points
>> or dots or groups of things . . .
>
>Of course anything can happen in an individual ST's game that
>ST wishes to happen. That has always been the case. However
>what we have here is a statement about the canonical World
>of Darkness--There are remnants of knowledge which mages may
>acquire that will enable them perform some, if not all,
>magical effects easier than any modern mage has come to
>expect.
>
>What is the import of this development? Of course I can't
>speak for what the developer or White Wolf will do with this,
>but consider. . . .
<snip>
>
>Well of course, you'd make money with it, but the point is
>that you'd share the knowledge wouldn't you? Think about it,
>a person discovers how to break the encryption used to
>encode DVDs and what does he do with it? He shares the
>knowledge. Why would mages act any differently?
This assumes, of course, that the mage truly *understands* what the rote
is doing and how it works. That is not necessarily the case, of course.
It may be comparatively easy to 'learn' the rote, and thus be able to use
it...but understanding it as more than a 'black box' could take the length
of a campaign...or a lifetime.
Just because Rote X lets you perform the 'hanging spell' or whatever at
Time 2 in a certains et of circumstances, that doesn't mean that you can
use Time 2 to hang a spell under *any* circumstances. You could certainly
share the rote with your friends, but you don't have any way to change it
or make it work differently, so this drastic revision of the Spheres is
highly unlikely to come about as a result of your discovery.
J
--
"Boy, you lose one measly continent and people | Jeff Johnston
just won't let you forget about it." - Kenneth Hite |
"Suppressed Transmissions", _Pyramid_ 5/12/00 | jeffj @ io.com
Jess Heinig
may come up with his own explanations for parts of it -- but that doesn't
mean that he truly comprehends why it works. It also means he may be hesitant
to share his "special little trick" . . .
Jess Heinig
Mage developer
WWGS
Dr Nuncheon wrote:
[snippage]
Scatter Gatherer
the rote
>is doing and how it works. That is not necessarily the case,
of course.
>It may be comparatively easy to 'learn' the rote, and thus be
able to use
>it...but understanding it as more than a 'black box' could take
the length
>of a campaign...or a lifetime.
>
Mage has stated for some time that belief, mediated by an
Awakened avatar, is what fundamentally changes reality when
magic is performed. This is why paradigms are important to
the game. If your mage believes he can do it and has the
appropriate knowledge, he can work a specific magic. However
if his belief is that he can't do something then regardless
of his knowledge he can't do it.
The existence of the aforementioned rotes suggest that
knowledge is not the issue in what is limiting mages
generally to performing those specific effects. Take
two mages of the same tradition, paradigm, and level
of knowledge and teach one the rote while not mentioning
to the other that such a rote exists. The first mage
will be able to work its magic, the other will not
under any circumstances be able to perform similar
until he either gains more knowledge (higher sphere
ranking) or until he is shown the rote. This seems
introduces something in addition to belief and
knowledge that is real, regardless of belief and
paradigm.
I'll have to think further one where that approach
leads, but taking for now that there are specific
instances that violate the general truths of what may
be done with given levels of sphere knowledge you
also have to wonder why these violations only arise
from dead cultures, and why they are not common
knowledge. Again, I'm drawn to the idea that what
is being implied is some other objective element
that determines what may and may not be done that
heretofore has not been commented upon.
Blake
tools. They've always been /meant/ to be teaching tools. The idea of
having a Rote that you've learned and can use, but don't fully
understand all the concepts behind sound, to me, exactly like 'buying'
a Rote with one or more sphere levels beyond what you currently have,
prepatory to acquiring those new levels.
Since there's a guideling that seems to make gaining moderate to high
levels of spheres prohibitively time-consuming, such a system might be
a particularly good idea. Though, I suppose it could be seen as Mage
further sliding towards a list based 'D&D' system of magic...
In article <396F86A0...@white-wolf.com>,
Jess Heinig <je...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> BINGO. A Traditionalist may be able to recreate the spell -- in some
cases he
> may come up with his own explanations for parts of it -- but that
doesn't
> mean that he truly comprehends why it works. It also means he may be
hesitant
> to share his "special little trick" . . .
>
> Jess Heinig
> Mage developer
> WWGS
>
> Dr Nuncheon wrote:
>
> [snippage]
>
> >
> > This assumes, of course, that the mage truly *understands* what the
rote
> > is doing and how it works. That is not necessarily the case, of
course.
> > It may be comparatively easy to 'learn' the rote, and thus be able
to use
> > it...but understanding it as more than a 'black box' could take the
length
> > of a campaign...or a lifetime.
> >
> > Just because Rote X lets you perform the 'hanging spell' or
whatever at
> > Time 2 in a certains et of circumstances, that doesn't mean that
you can
> > use Time 2 to hang a spell under *any* circumstances. You could
certainly
> > share the rote with your friends, but you don't have any way to
change it
> > or make it work differently, so this drastic revision of the
Spheres is
> > highly unlikely to come about as a result of your discovery.
> >
> > J
> > --
> > "Boy, you lose one measly continent and people | Jeff
Johnston
> > just won't let you forget about it." - Kenneth Hite |
> > "Suppressed Transmissions", _Pyramid_ 5/12/00 | jeffj @
io.com
>
>
--
`````````````````````````````````````` | ```````
Blake 1001, Virtual Adept, Disciple ---|-.
- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/1317 '-|---
________________________________________ | _____
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Beau Yarbrough
Blake <blak...@technologist.com> wrote:
> Since there's a guideling that seems to make gaining moderate to high
> levels of spheres prohibitively time-consuming, such a system might be
> a particularly good idea. Though, I suppose it could be seen as Mage
> further sliding towards a list based 'D&D' system of magic...
I've never understood people's problems with that. You have mages who
aren't creative, and aren't developing their own applications of the
Spheres. They end up, ultimately, not being the ones capable of the
wild intuitive leaps that will keep them and their causes alive. The
ones who stick to the established roads have a limited arsenal at their
disposal, and one day ... boom.
Seems to me a list of rotes would only encourage this behavior, a
behavior, IMO, that matches up thematically with MtA (and, to a lesser
extent, MtSC).
Dr Nuncheon
Scatter Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> wrote:
>je...@fnord.io.com (Dr Nuncheon) wrote:
>>In article <01d04750...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com>,
>>Scatter Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>Well of course, you'd make money with it, but the point is
>>>that you'd share the knowledge wouldn't you? Think about it,
>>>a person discovers how to break the encryption used to
>>>encode DVDs and what does he do with it? He shares the
>>>knowledge. Why would mages act any differently?
>>
>the rote
>>is doing and how it works. That is not necessarily the case,
>of course.
>>It may be comparatively easy to 'learn' the rote, and thus be
>able to use
>>it...but understanding it as more than a 'black box' could take
>the length
>>of a campaign...or a lifetime.
>
>Awakened avatar, is what fundamentally changes reality when
>magic is performed. This is why paradigms are important to
>the game. If your mage believes he can do it and has the
>appropriate knowledge, he can work a specific magic. However
>if his belief is that he can't do something then regardless
>of his knowledge he can't do it.
And if those beliefs are wrong, he may be limiting himself unnecessarily.
For example, it's proven that Mages as whole do not need foci to do magic
- but many of them need that 'crutch' to operate.
>The existence of the aforementioned rotes suggest that
>knowledge is not the issue in what is limiting mages
>generally to performing those specific effects. Take
>two mages of the same tradition, paradigm, and level
>of knowledge and teach one the rote while not mentioning
>to the other that such a rote exists. The first mage
>will be able to work its magic, the other will not
>under any circumstances be able to perform similar
>until he either gains more knowledge (higher sphere
>ranking) or until he is shown the rote. This seems
>introduces something in addition to belief and
>knowledge that is real, regardless of belief and
>paradigm.
Not at all. The first mage has a specific piece of knowledge that the
second one doesn't: the rote. Therefore, he can do the effect and the
second mage cannot. So knowledge is still the limiting factor.
The trouble is, having a rote is like memorizing an equation. You can do
that equation, but you don't necessarily have the knowledge to extrapolate
from it. For example, you could memorize the fact that the acceleration
of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, and figure out how fast something is moving after
falling for 10 seconds. But if you went to the Moon, your equation
doesn't work anymore, and without the understanding of the physics behind
the equation, you can't extrapolate and figure out a new one.
Knowing one of these rotes is like memorizing an equation. You can use
the equation, but you don't understand everything that makes it work.
>I'll have to think further one where that approach
>leads, but taking for now that there are specific
>instances that violate the general truths of what may
>be done with given levels of sphere knowledge you
>also have to wonder why these violations only arise
>from dead cultures, and why they are not common
>knowledge. Again, I'm drawn to the idea that what
>is being implied is some other objective element
>that determines what may and may not be done that
>heretofore has not been commented upon.
I personally think it's the belief systems of the Mages involved. They're
so tied to the idea of spheres and foci and what is possible at each level
of knowledge that they trap themselves into a prison of their own making.
Of course, I also think that the Marauders are the only Mage faction
that's *truly* fighting for freedom, so...
Jess Heinig
J.
Blake wrote:
> This point really /begs/ for some way of using Rotes as teaching
> tools. They've always been /meant/ to be teaching tools. The idea of
> having a Rote that you've learned and can use, but don't fully
> understand all the concepts behind sound, to me, exactly like 'buying'
> a Rote with one or more sphere levels beyond what you currently have,
> prepatory to acquiring those new levels.
>
Scatter Gatherer
Exactly.
Ahh, but in the case of a=9.80665m/s^2 there is a broader
truth behind it. I have no problem with the Spheres as
used by the Traditions being an incomplete understanding.
I also have no problem with the Spheres being universally
used by modern mages--in the modern world mass communication
is easy. It srikes me as odd that such exceptions managed
to avoid coming to light until recently, and also odd
that the groups that came together to form the Traditions
didn't have such quirks in the way they individually
performed magic. ("You mean you can stop time with very
little training? Amazing, by our approach you don't learn
to stop time until the final step of mastery.")
These rotes are the equivalent to finding an ancient
Mayan device that allows communication faster than light,
or perhaps anti-gravity--either way, something that
shouldn't exist by our current view of physics.
>>I'll have to think further one where that approach
>>leads, but taking for now that there are specific
>>instances that violate the general truths of what may
>>be done with given levels of sphere knowledge you
>>also have to wonder why these violations only arise
>>from dead cultures, and why they are not common
>>knowledge. Again, I'm drawn to the idea that what
>>is being implied is some other objective element
>>that determines what may and may not be done that
>>heretofore has not been commented upon.
>
>I personally think it's the belief systems of the Mages
involved. They're
>so tied to the idea of spheres and foci and what is possible at
each level
>of knowledge that they trap themselves into a prison of their
own making.
>
This could be tested by finding newly awakened mages and
teaching them contrary to what is normally done.
If any can do things that nobody else can with that knowledge,
then the Traditions know they have been hamstringing
themselves. Of course, failure doesn't show anything.
Scatter Gatherer
>In article <8knqtp$t61$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Blake <blak...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
to high
>> levels of spheres prohibitively time-consuming, such a system
might be
>> a particularly good idea. Though, I suppose it could be seen
as Mage
>> further sliding towards a list based 'D&D' system of magic...
>
mages who
>aren't creative, and aren't developing their own applications
of the
>Spheres. They end up, ultimately, not being the ones capable of
the
>wild intuitive leaps that will keep them and their causes
alive. The
>ones who stick to the established roads have a limited arsenal
at their
>disposal, and one day ... boom.
>
The problem for people who have problems with it is probably
due to experience with games that have lists of spells and
no way to expand the list. When finally they find a game
where there are no spell lists, the suggestion that such
be implemented is going to sound like taking a step backwards.
Is it possible to be a computer programmer without being
creative? Depends on what you consider programming. How
many programmers could implement everything from assembler
to compiler so that they can program in something like (one
second while I shudder) COBOL? However, while they may use
canned applications (Visual C++) to compile and assemble
their code, they still create it. In terms of mages, I
suppose the level of creativity required would depend on
how readily the elements of magic assemble into desirable
end effects.
Then there is the cookbook effect. If spells are as easy to
make work as cooking from a recipe book, then afer you learn
a number of recipes, how can you help but being capable of
cooking on the fly?
Jess has already indicated elsewhere that he had been thinking
about providing a system for learning rotes. If we end up
with something ala Ars Magica where spells can be spontaneous,
learned, or mastered then the end result could be quite
nice. The problem I see is that experience already is
stretched very thinly in terms of what it provides. I'd
hate to see something in competition with everything else
a player has to consider spending experience on.
The Lighthouse Keeper
> Good thought, Blake. I may include that in an upcoming book. Hmm . . .
Then there's really no use for the Spheres at all, then is there? I mean,
if you're going to do that you might as well assign an "Invoc/Evoc
specialist has penalties in Illusionaries..." etc., system to Mage.
<shakes head>
We might as well just adopt the Shadowrun or AD&D magic system to the WoD
setting if that's going to be the case. How does this make Mage "better" or
"improve" on its existing systems?
Go easy.
Shannon W. Hennessy
Supervising Editor, Ex Libris Nocturnis
http://www.nocturnis.net
aetherson
Scatter Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> wrote:
> Ahh, but in the case of a=9.80665m/s^2 there is a broader
> truth behind it. I have no problem with the Spheres as
> used by the Traditions being an incomplete understanding.
> I also have no problem with the Spheres being universally
> used by modern mages--in the modern world mass communication
> is easy. It srikes me as odd that such exceptions managed
> to avoid coming to light until recently, and also odd
> that the groups that came together to form the Traditions
> didn't have such quirks in the way they individually
> performed magic. ("You mean you can stop time with very
> little training? Amazing, by our approach you don't learn
> to stop time until the final step of mastery.")
Yeah. Accepting for the moment the possibility of rotes working
differently from spontaneous magic (an idea that I hate, but hey,
that's me), you have to wonder why the better stuff didn't stay
around. That is, presuming that there's been no fundamental change in
the world that makes this "dead magic" no longer work (which doesn't
seem to be the case, as it, well, does still work. At least for
nagalopers), why didn't somebody keep using it? What was the
catastrophe that suddenly dropped this knowledge off the face of the
planet?
I know roughly nothing about the history presented in Dead Magic, so
I'm willing to believe that there's some logical catastrophe expressed
there. What all this /does/ imply to me, however, is that these sorts
of "superior" magics must have been incredibly few and far between, to
not to have surivived to this day.
Mike (aetherson)
Stephenls
>
> The Lighthouse Keeper schrieb in Nachricht
> <7yLb5.14100$8m.7...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
> You're
> not restricted to your rotes, you can still improvise effects, which would
> be
> impossible without spheres.
Indeed, people using Rotes without the required spheres would most
likely be the exception, rather than the rule. I suppose most mages
would have one or two rotes that are "beyond their means", but not more.
--
Stephenls
Geek
<I'm sorry. I cannot help you. I cannot change the nature of a man>
--Fell, Torment
"The Merriam-Webster dictionary has the definition wrong
as well as it states that hubris is "exaggerated pride
or self-confidence." "
--Hikageneko
"There is no known limit to the stupidity of Mankind."
--Christina Waldeck
"Online communication is a fragile thing. It's also phenomenological.
There is no existence beyond what we read. If you present the persona of
a humorless twit, then you are one, as far as the net is concerned."
--Bruce Baugh
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GU dpu s+:--- a17 C++ U? P? L? E? W+ N++ o? K w
O- M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP? t+ 5 X+ R++ tv b+++ DI(+) D++
G e- h! !r y(**)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Stanoje Zupunski
Beau Yarbrough
Scatter Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> wrote:
> The problem for people who have problems with it is probably
> due to experience with games that have lists of spells and
> no way to expand the list. When finally they find a game
> where there are no spell lists, the suggestion that such
> be implemented is going to sound like taking a step backwards.
A taste issue that has nothing to do with how well it'd potentially
work with the game or whether it'd be a good fit with the themes
thereof. Gotcha. Perfectly fair -- the "Werewolf" games aren't to my
tastes, but more power to those who like it.
> Then there is the cookbook effect. If spells are as easy to
> make work as cooking from a recipe book, then afer you learn
> a number of recipes, how can you help but being capable of
> cooking on the fly?
True, but I know many cooks who still cling to recipes, even if they
tweak them a little, never having the confidence to start blending the
more complex ingredients and juggling times and temperatures.
> Jess has already indicated elsewhere that he had been thinking
> about providing a system for learning rotes. If we end up
> with something ala Ars Magica where spells can be spontaneous,
> learned, or mastered then the end result could be quite
> nice.
'xactly.
> The problem I see is that experience already is
> stretched very thinly in terms of what it provides. I'd
> hate to see something in competition with everything else
> a player has to consider spending experience on.
Characters already are pulled 10,000 different ways. Adding another
thing to spend experience on, so long as it's a good one, doesn't seem
to be that big of a deal to me.
Beau Yarbrough
"The Lighthouse Keeper" <spirald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Then there's really no use for the Spheres at all, then is there?
Of course there is. The unimaginative mage will stick to rotes -- as
many of them already do, IME -- while the truly enlightened ones will
still break the rules. That fits how the game is played, fits how the
characters in the WoD behave, and fits the theme of MtA.
> I mean,
> if you're going to do that you might as well assign an "Invoc/Evoc
> specialist has penalties in Illusionaries..." etc., system to Mage.
They're already there. Those lists of rotes didn't spring from the
ether.
> We might as well just adopt the Shadowrun or AD&D magic system to the
WoD
> setting if that's going to be the case. How does this make
Mage "better" or
> "improve" on its existing systems?
Because it's ALWAYS been part of MtA, we've just never had systems for
it. Even the first edition of "Mage" made mention of rotes and their
uses.
Beau Yarbrough
Scatter Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> wrote:
> It srikes me as odd that such exceptions managed
> to avoid coming to light until recently, and also odd
> that the groups that came together to form the Traditions
> didn't have such quirks in the way they individually
> performed magic. ("You mean you can stop time with very
> little training? Amazing, by our approach you don't learn
> to stop time until the final step of mastery.")
History in "Mage" is a bastardized thing, with centuries of lies and
political compromises. Extend that back a millenium more (which doesn't
seem unreasonable, IMO), and there's your explanation right there:
SOMEONE didn't want these rotes to be known, since it fucked with their
worldview and paradigm. Destroy the examples rather than modify the
model.
Beau Yarbrough
aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I know roughly nothing about the history presented in Dead Magic, so
> I'm willing to believe that there's some logical catastrophe expressed
> there. What all this /does/ imply to me, however, is that these sorts
> of "superior" magics must have been incredibly few and far between, to
> not to have surivived to this day.
Absolutely. For the most part, "modern" (circa MtSC, at least)
understanding of magic should be correct, even if there's a whole lot
of terra incognita still left in the theories.
aetherson
Beau Yarbrough <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Because it's ALWAYS been part of MtA, we've just never had systems for
> it. Even the first edition of "Mage" made mention of rotes and their
> uses.
Hang on there. I've always assumed in Mage1 and Mage2 that rotes were
simply effects that happened to be useful enough that Magi practiced
them and and hung names on them. That there was no difference besides
hanging a label between them and spontaneous magic.
Mike (aetherson)
Beau Yarbrough
aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Hang on there. I've always assumed in Mage1 and Mage2 that rotes were
> simply effects that happened to be useful enough that Magi practiced
> them and and hung names on them. That there was no difference besides
> hanging a label between them and spontaneous magic.
IIRC -- and I may not -- in MtA1, they mentioned rotes were "used to
teach students." At some point, a student wouldn't be able to produce
an effect and apparently a rote would be used to teach them how to do
so. I always figured there was at least some period of time where that
rote is all they could do with that effect.
That's on a different scale than apparently shifting a Time 4 effect to
Time 2, but it's the same idea. (Bob the Mage has Time 0, learns a rote
that uses Time 1 to learn Time 1 but can't yet produce any Time 1
effects.)
aetherson
Beau Yarbrough <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8kocki$a32$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Hang on there. I've always assumed in Mage1 and Mage2 that rotes
were
> > simply effects that happened to be useful enough that Magi practiced
> > them and and hung names on them. That there was no difference
besides
> > hanging a label between them and spontaneous magic.
>
> IIRC -- and I may not -- in MtA1, they mentioned rotes were "used to
> teach students." At some point, a student wouldn't be able to produce
> an effect and apparently a rote would be used to teach them how to do
> so. I always figured there was at least some period of time where that
> rote is all they could do with that effect.
I gave away my Mage1 book, so I can't check. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?
> That's on a different scale than apparently shifting a Time 4 effect
to
> Time 2, but it's the same idea. (Bob the Mage has Time 0, learns a
rote
> that uses Time 1 to learn Time 1 but can't yet produce any Time 1
> effects.)
Mmmm, not necessarily. I'd characterize that as more like "Bob the Mage
has Time .5, which means that he can't produce Time effects consistently
unless he spends a ton of time working on just a single one."
In other words, that we shouldn't assume that the system is a /strict/
plateau as the mechanics are forced to represent. That's different from
skipping from Time 2 to Time 4.
Mike (aetherson)
Beau Yarbrough
aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In other words, that we shouldn't assume that the system is a /strict/
> plateau as the mechanics are forced to represent. That's different
from
> skipping from Time 2 to Time 4.
Can we agree with Jess's macro-point that the system the Trads use to
represent magic (which is the basis of how the game represents it) is
NOT 100 percent correct?
Having flawed models and finding the exceptions to what are thought of
as rules doesn't mean a total upheaval in the way things are. It turns
out that the sound barrier can be broken, but moving large objects at
hypersonic speeds is still relatively uncommon and is difficult and/or
expensive.
If there's flaws in the Nine Spheres theory, that doesn't have to mean
that Bob the Mage with his Time 1 is going to be changing the course of
history and flinging fireballs around tomorrow.
David Johnston
> Of course, I also think that the Marauders are the only Mage faction
> that's *truly* fighting for freedom, so...
>
I agree. I also think that "true" freedom isn't worth fighting for.
David Johnston
>
> In article <7yLb5.14100$8m.7...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "The Lighthouse Keeper" <spirald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then there's really no use for the Spheres at all, then is there?
>
> Of course there is. The unimaginative mage will stick to rotes -- as
> many of them already do, IME -- while the truly enlightened ones will
> still break the rules. That fits how the game is played, fits how the
> characters in the WoD behave, and fits the theme of MtA.
It is the other way around however. The rote users are the ones who
"break the rules", by doing things that are beyond the spheres being
used.
Mad Genius
> > Of course, I also think that the Marauders are the only Mage faction
> > that's *truly* fighting for freedom, so...
> >
>
> I agree. I also think that "true" freedom isn't worth fighting for.
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose...", like gravity,
light, rational thought, etc.
aetherson
Beau Yarbrough <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8koe2b$aup$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In other words, that we shouldn't assume that the system is a
/strict/
> > plateau as the mechanics are forced to represent. That's different
> from
> > skipping from Time 2 to Time 4.
>
> Can we agree with Jess's macro-point that the system the Trads use to
> represent magic (which is the basis of how the game represents it) is
> NOT 100 percent correct?
We can agree that the game system is not 100% correct. We can agree
that the Trads /Paradigms/ can have weird inconsistancies. We can't
agree that True Magic has such inconsistancies, because it's, well,
pretty simple, really.
Mike (aetherson)
Beau Yarbrough
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> It is the other way around however. The rote users are the ones who
> "break the rules", by doing things that are beyond the spheres being
> used.
In isolated cases. The vast majority of rotes are what they've always
been: Training wheels to help the unimaginative somewhat enlightened.
David Johnston
Maybe rotes not conforming to the game rules is the point. Obviously
it would be worth your character's while to charge out and look for books
containing rotes if some of those rotes are going to to let you do things
you can't do with regular spheres. Thus, finding a new rote becomes a
goody for the character.
Dave Turner
>This assumes, of course, that the mage truly *understands* what the rote
>is doing and how it works. That is not necessarily the case, of course.
>It may be comparatively easy to 'learn' the rote, and thus be able to use
>it...but understanding it as more than a 'black box' could take the length
>of a campaign...or a lifetime.
>
>Time 2 in a certains et of circumstances, that doesn't mean that you can
>use Time 2 to hang a spell under *any* circumstances. You could certainly
>share the rote with your friends, but you don't have any way to change it
>or make it work differently, so this drastic revision of the Spheres is
>highly unlikely to come about as a result of your discovery.
>
Dangerous ground, here. Why bother to learn Spheres to high levels,
then? Why not just learn the rotes and cast all the Forces 5/Prime 2
effects you want?
Dave T.
Daniel Glass
Master or reach Ascension.
Mike Shannon
spheres to do what a master can do, why try to become a master?
--
Mike
Daniel Glass <thefirsttheone...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3970AC55...@hotmail.com...
Chris Bell
>
> The difference is that you still can use the full range of your spheres.
> You're
> not restricted to your rotes, you can still improvise effects, which would
> be
> impossible without spheres.
Hello, all. I've been out of the NG for a while, and have decided to step
back in, for a time.
I take issue with much of what MageRev does with the Metaplot and the Mage
setting. As of this time, I do not support the game system. It seems that
the Traditions were crippled and that the Ascension War was discontinued as
a thematic concept merely for the benefit of the Vampire:The Masquerade
setting. A world where the Traditions were victorious (or any other mythic
faction, for that matter) would be so radically different that the other
game settings would be forced to change with them, and Vampire has always
had as it's axis modern-day, urban roleplaying of a Vampire secret society.
A victorious and unified Traditions Council would be morally obligated to
eliminate Vampires as a threat, and a Reality where many forms of mythic
magic are possible, even with science also present and workable, would
result in a setting much like Shadowrun. White Wolf needed to make a choice
as to which audience it would make more financial sense to serve, and
Vampire fandom won out. That, I can't fault them for.
Now, as for the inconsistencies between published Sphere effects in Dead
Magic, and the Sphere effect levels in MageRev (or Mage 2, if that's what
you use), there's actually a deceptively easy answer to reconcile the
universal aspects of the spheres as opposed to the local abilities of
specialised magick (yes, I continue to use the K. Awakened power is
distinctively different from Hedge Magic, in my opinion. Fault me for being
a second edition man.)
Mythic threads.
This debate is similar to the various Hedge Magic vs Magick debates of a few
years back. Reality is not only wide, but it's also deep. Sometimes a
technique will be discovered where a lesser degree of understanding is
needed to create a certain change in Reality. I get the feeling that
turning on a light or programming a computer is something that no
understanding of the Spheres, in the WoD is needed for, depending in how
deeply and widely that thread is woven into the Tapestry. The rotes in Dead
Magic may have existed as mere non-Awakened Reality manipulations that now
need Awakened knowledge (Arete) and Sphere training to accomplish. The idea
also that certain tricks may also be easier for certain Traditions and
Crafts to accomplish also appeals to me. I suspect that much of this
knowledge was shared when the first Nine Keystones of Magick were developed,
as both an objective study of the subjective, shared Reality that the Mages
of that time lived in, as well as a lingua franca that Mages could use to
actually share secrets and move beyond their local Paradigms. This process
was repeated by the Craftmasons at the Convention of the White Tower, and
the Order of Hermes when the first Convocation of the Traditions were
formed.
Mythic threads, the dry river beds of once-strong belief, can be useful when
empowered by an Awakened Mage's will. When the water of belief and thought
runs through them, the course may well be easier or more direct than if he
or she forged his or her own channel. I also however believe that the
Spheres, while flexible, are not a mere set of opinions set up by
Craftsmason or Hermes scholars in the renaissance, but are as close to
universal constants that you can get. I feel that the Spheres have a
certain 'give' to them as well, so that a Paradigm that focuses exclusively
Time and Prophecy, for example, may have it's practicioners perform Time
feats more easily than a practicioner from another practice who has the same
amount of training and experience, but also has a weakness gained from it's
overspecialization (for example, that sect of Prophets may well be great as
Time Mages, but have a weak grasp on Matter.) This can be represented by
specialty rotes that give better abilities in certain areas. This is also
why groups that study magick for it's own sake can be said to have stronger
magick. The Order of Hermes is an excellent case, with it's massive
libraries of Rotes and intensely academic approach to Reality Manipulation.
Merely my thoughts,
--
Chris Bell
arg...@agoron.com, kaiu_k...@yahoo.com, sart...@hotmail.com
Deirdre M. Brooks
Chris Bell wrote:
>
> I take issue with much of what MageRev does with the Metaplot and the Mage
> setting. As of this time, I do not support the game system. It seems that
> the Traditions were crippled and that the Ascension War was discontinued as
> a thematic concept merely for the benefit of the Vampire:The Masquerade
> setting.
<snip>
Chris, no offense intended but: Can you see daylight from there?
You don't like MageRev? Fine.
You don't like decisions made with MageRev? Fine.
You invent stupid reasons in your head as to why these decisions were
made and then act as if they must be the truth? Egotistical.
Your breakdown of the decision-making process is certainly extremely
fannish in its negativity and lack of thoughtful criticism, but it has
absolutely nothing to do with what actually happened.
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"Atlantic City is Oz envisioned by used car salesmen and pimps."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | --Rick Glumsky, Celtic Filth
Jason Corley
> I take issue with much of what MageRev does with the Metaplot and the Mage
> setting. As of this time, I do not support the game system. It seems that
> the Traditions were crippled and that the Ascension War was discontinued as
> a thematic concept merely for the benefit of the Vampire:The Masquerade
> setting.
Huh? Uh. What the heck do you mean? MageRev isn't in the V:tM setting.
> A world where the Traditions were victorious (or any other mythic
> faction, for that matter) would be so radically different that the other
> game settings would be forced to change with them, and Vampire has always
> had as it's axis modern-day, urban roleplaying of a Vampire secret society.
Like these are the only two options available? One thing I really liked
about MageRev was that it emphasized that the range of probable outcomes
for magical conflicts is /infinite/, not binary. Now, the actual outcome
they chose, I have decidedly mixed feelings about, but no more than I did
for 2ed. or 1ed.
> A victorious and unified Traditions Council would be morally obligated to
> eliminate Vampires as a threat,
This assumes:
1. Traditions are victorious. Not a given.
2. Victorious Traditions are unified. Definitely not a given.
3. Victorious and unified Traditions know enough about vampires to make
the decision to eliminate them. EXTREMELY not a given.
4. Victorious and unified Traditions dedicated to killing vampires find
out enough abour vampires to make them a threat greater than the
Inquisition or FBI-SAD. EXCEEDINGLY EXTREMELY not a given.
5. Victorious and unified Traditions dedicated to killing vampires and
competent at doing so actually succeed in impacting vampiric society at
all. HUGELY EXCEEDINGLY EXTREMELY MASSIVELY not a given.
So I don't see your logic even if we /do/ assume (contrary to the
rulebooks) that they are in the same world. Sorry.
--
"He means well for his country, is always an honest man, often a wise man,
but sometimes, and in some things, absolutely out of his senses."
-----Benjamin Franklin, 1783
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
Mad Genius
Daniel Glass <thefirsttheone...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3970AC55...@hotmail.com...
> Depends on the Mage. But using nothing but rotes you will never become a
> Master or reach Ascension.
>
> Dave Turner wrote:
>
> > Dangerous ground, here. Why bother to learn Spheres to high levels,
> > then? Why not just learn the rotes and cast all the Forces 5/Prime 2
> > effects you want?
IMG, I rule that a player who messes with a rote which includes spheres
well beyond his rank, or tht he doesn't have, is using magic that is Vulgar
w/ Witnesses, must use all the foci perscribed for it, and can only be used
in the way that it is written. Of course, I allow players IMG to make rotes
like this with an Intelligence+High Ritual or Occult roll, then use them
with the above restrictions. I don't hold with their Sphere Ranks being
absolute limits, y'see, just the limits where they're safe operating without
(hopefully) getting sodomized by Paradox.
Kish
The Lighthouse Keeper wrote in message ...
>Honestly, the comparison between the two revisions isn't FAIR to
VRev. VRev
>WORKS. No complaints. People who loved Vampire continue to love
Vampire...
Not true.
Sorry about that.
--
Kish
ICQ#: 28085879
AIM: Kish K M
Kis...@mindspring.replacewithcom
David Johnston
>
> Depends on the Mage. But using nothing but rotes you will never become a
> Master or reach Ascension.
I've been told you don't even have to be a mage to reach Ascension,
so I don't see why using rotes would be an impediment. As for becoming
a Master, pfuiiy. Who needs it?
>
> Dave Turner wrote:
>
> > Dangerous ground, here. Why bother to learn Spheres to high levels,
> > then? Why not just learn the rotes and cast all the Forces 5/Prime 2
> > effects you want?
> >
> > Dave T.
The Lighthouse Keeper
>
> > I take issue with much of what MageRev does with the Metaplot and the
Mage
> > setting. As of this time, I do not support the game system. It seems
that
> > the Traditions were crippled and that the Ascension War was discontinued
as
> > a thematic concept merely for the benefit of the Vampire:The Masquerade
> > setting.
>
> Huh? Uh. What the heck do you mean? MageRev isn't in the V:tM setting.
I think he's making a statement somewhere towards the fact that the "new
direction" of the MRev metaplot is based, for the most part, on the events
and changes which occured in the "Year of the Reckoning" and revision of
Vampire: The Masquerade and that the changes made in MRev from 2nd Edition -
at least where the metaplot is concerned - were made to follow some sort of
suit with VRev.
I disagree.
I have little or no problems with the Vampire metaplot at current. To be
completely honest, I've never enjoyed Vampire more. Out with the
foppishness and politik, in with the vicious, blood-sucking, inhuman
monsters! Vampire's revision SUCCEEDED as far as I'm concerned and in my
honest opinion, because *I AM* one of the people who basically grew bored
with the "So you're in this bar..." feel that Vampire had, gave it up, and
then dropped jaw when the revisions started rolling out.
The Mage metaplot, however, needs no small amount of work. While I "get it"
and understand the basic logic behind the changes in the metaplot, I'm not
completely sure that the organized whole of those who have been working on
MRev's metaplot DO. It has a very "by the seat of our pants" feel to it
lately, and while I'll do my best not to incite or fan flames, the
metiocrity of a lot of the supplements that have been released for Mage
since its revision haven't helped a whole lot where that "uncertainty" is
concerned.
The Ascension War had to end sometime. I have no problem with that at all.
My chosen "side" won... kind of... so I have no complaints with that. Game,
Point, Match for the "good guys." <grin>
It's an easy enough concept to understand, I just think it was a little too
rushed and a little too simplistic. <shrug>
Critics of that statement are going to say - as sarcastically as they can -
"Oh yeah. It was totally simple to obliterate Doissetep, Porthos, et al,
install the Avatar Winds into the Gauntlet and tack a huge ass-whippin' on
the Council of Nine who were for the most part completely and totally
defenseless without their Oracles, etc."... but it DOES seem like it was a
little too simple. Dare I say "convenient." Things have been rushed, a lot
of mistakes have been made whether they've been officially acknowledged or
not, a lot of discrepancies, contradictions and downright ODD decisions have
been made during the formation of the new metaplot for Mage. When you point
those out or try to look for a logical explanation to them, you're normally
considered to be nitpicking, whining, waxing sentimental for 2nd Edition, or
downright "negative." While there are a LOT of positive aspects to the
revision of Mage - 98% of those being the revamping of the Spheres and a
couple of other neat things (Resonance comes to mind) - the metaplot seems
to be the chink in its new suit of clothes, and the banners of metiocrity
and, in some cases downright foolishness, that it flies from its lance don't
ADD to the overall effectiveness of the revision as a whole.
Honestly, the comparison between the two revisions isn't FAIR to VRev. VRev
WORKS. No complaints. People who loved Vampire continue to love Vampire...
and people that despised Vampire are starting to love it. I don't think I
can say the same for MRev overall. The two are mutually exclusive in both
quality and metaplot... and while their respective metaplots might cross
paths every now and then (for example, Guide to the Technocracy and the
newly released Blood Treachery), one doesn't rely on the other for backbone
and one didn't "beget" the other.
> > A victorious and unified Traditions Council would be morally obligated
to
> > eliminate Vampires as a threat,
Since when has MORALITY or OBLIGATION fit into the World of Darkness?
Hmmm... I'm not too sure about that statement at all. I would think,
personally, that if you're going to try to assign moral obligation to a
"unified Traditions Council" (which is not unlike pairing the words
"vampire" and "fellacio" in the same sentence) it should probably begin with
them re-defining the nature of their association with a group of Magi like
the Euthanatos, who basically hold at the core of their beliefs system the
jury-rigged pseudo-philosophical dogma of most convicted serial killers.
<shrug>
> This assumes:
> 1. Traditions are victorious. Not a given.
> 2. Victorious Traditions are unified. Definitely not a given.
> 3. Victorious and unified Traditions know enough about vampires to make
> the decision to eliminate them. EXTREMELY not a given
> 4. Victorious and unified Traditions dedicated to killing vampires find
> out enough abour vampires to make them a threat greater than the
> Inquisition or FBI-SAD. EXCEEDINGLY EXTREMELY not a given.
> 5. Victorious and unified Traditions dedicated to killing vampires and
> competent at doing so actually succeed in impacting vampiric society at
> all. HUGELY EXCEEDINGLY EXTREMELY MASSIVELY not a given.
>
> So I don't see your logic even if we /do/ assume (contrary to the
> rulebooks) that they are in the same world. Sorry.
Oh I think they're all in the same world. Blood Treachery is an interesting
book. A breath of fresh air, as such, into the MRev line and is a book that
pretty much does nothing but show the current intersection of the VRev/MRev
metaplots. Sometimes it does happen.
Ever seen Rage Across Appalachia... Changelings and Werewolves. <cough>
Ever seen a Red Talon go at it with a Troll? Eekies.
You basically get to see what happens when Magi and Vampires go to war.
It's not pretty, and its MOST CERTAINLY a lesson learned on both sides. I
think that, for the most part, the SMALL PERCENTAGE of Magi/Vampires who
encounter one another usually know better than to trifle with one another.
At least their own kind, on both sides, are SOMEWHAT predicatable.
Best to stay in your own sandbox if you can.
Angela Christine
>Hello, all. I've been out of the NG for a while, and have decided to step
>back in, for a time.
Hello.
>I take issue with much of what MageRev does with the Metaplot and the Mage
>setting. As of this time, I do not support the game system. It seems that
>the Traditions were crippled and that the Ascension War was discontinued as
>a thematic concept merely for the benefit of the Vampire:The Masquerade
>setting. A world where the Traditions were victorious (or any other mythic
>faction, for that matter) would be so radically different that the other
>game settings would be forced to change with them, and Vampire has always
>had as it's axis modern-day, urban roleplaying of a Vampire secret society.
Um, I think you may have missed the bit where the WoD is supposed
to be almost like our world, but with supernaturals and
everything is darker. That is the main shtick of the World(s) of
Darkness.
If the Traditions win the world would be radically changed,
perhaps to something more like shadowrun or the Anita Blake
novels, but it would no longer resemble *our* world to a
significant degree. That is part of the reason to discourage
vulgar magic, in our world folks don't throw fireballs so in the
WoD people shouldn't be *seen* throwing fireballs either. So the
Traditions can't win.
The Technocracy can't win either. Oh sure they are ahead, but if
they won the world would start to look like Star Trek, Star Wars
or Spaceballs. ;-) Since that wouldn't be much like our world,
albeit more like it that Trad-world would be, they can't win.
On the upside, niether the Nephandi or Mauraders can win either,
since that would cause the world to cease to exist or to become
something incomprehensible.
As long as the Mage line is viable, no faction can win in cannon.
If they decided to wind up the line (like they did with Wraith)
then they could publish a final suppliment showing somebody
winning and the all the repercussions involved in that. The
Assension war hasn't been won yet, it's just been scaled down.
Angela Christine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aca(at)telus.net~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
The Lighthouse Keeper
> Mythic threads.
>
> This debate is similar to the various Hedge Magic vs Magick debates of a
few
> years back. Reality is not only wide, but it's also deep. Sometimes a
> technique will be discovered where a lesser degree of understanding is
> needed to create a certain change in Reality. I get the feeling that
> turning on a light or programming a computer is something that no
> understanding of the Spheres, in the WoD is needed for, depending in how
> deeply and widely that thread is woven into the Tapestry. The rotes in
Dead
> Magic may have existed as mere non-Awakened Reality manipulations that now
> need Awakened knowledge (Arete) and Sphere training to accomplish.
Right, and I completely understand and, for the most part, agree with the
general concept you're delivering. However...
Let's say I'm an ancient medicine man who has drawn a picture on a tablet in
my own blood, the feces of a rhino, and hyena butter which depicts a
sleeping man with darts of light extending from his body. We'll say that
this is my RECORDING of what will later be referred too as a Rote used to
halt the Nagloper from getting me, or anyone else whom I deem worthy of
teaching this too.
Now, while I'm shaking my lion's tooth rattle over the picture and chanting,
I'm essentially preparing the effect to go off at a later date... when I
might need it.
DISCLAIMER - this is NOT how Halt the Nagloper is performed according to
Dead Magic. I'm aware of this. This is merely an example to prove a point.
Now... Mr. Heinig has already stated that a lot of the Rotes in Dead Magic
"pre date" the Spheres. I haven't found anything in the book that actually
SAYS this, but he's said it and therefore, we're suppossed to accept it.
<shrug>
Okay. So here I am, this ancient medicine man who has no idea that the sun
ISN'T consumed by "Baka, god of the Crocodiles" every night - and hey, for
all intents and purposes THIS MIGHT INDEED be the case in the "paradigm" in
which I live in this forgotten age, right? But while I might not understand
a complex philosophy such as the Nine Spheres, I do "know what I know."
Time, to me, is dictated by the rising and setting of the sun, or rather
Baka's swallowing and regurgitation of the sun because it burns his belly if
he holds it for too long, the migration of the wildlife that my tribe hunts,
etc. My concept of Time may be PRIMATIVE, but there IS A DISTINCT concept
of time nonetheless, because I have cause to "create" a Rote that only works
when the Nagloper comes for me, right?
So let's say that the forces I call upon to be vigilant of the Nagloper's
arrival are more friendly to me in this day and age. I invoke the sacred
name of my perception of a spirit or entity of what I understand to be the
passing of time - "Cowfart." When I say "Watch over me, Cowfart. When the
Nagloper comes, please unleash my juju on it!" I am, essentially, using what
is regarded in the modern World of Darkness and MRev specifically as TIME
4 - regardless of whether or not I UNDERSTAND what Time 4 is. In order for
me to even KNOW the name of or the correct pronunciation of "Cowfart's" most
powerful name, I must possess a keen enough understanding of what "Cowfart"
can do for me, how to harness his energy, and how to placate him should he
ask for sacrifice in return. Perhaps "Cowfart" is nothing more than a
"power word" that allows me to tap into the universal phenomenon of the
passing of time rather than a spirit or entity. REGARDLESS, the effect I'm
attempting to bring about requires, according to Mage: The Ascension Revised
Edition, Time 4, Time Determinism.
Is it EASIER for me to do it in MY DAY than it will be for my great x9
grandson to do it in the modern World of Darkness? YES. I ROGER THAT. In
MY day and age it's probably NOTHING MORE than medium-heavy Hedge Magic.
However, in the modern World of Darkness, the day and age for which Dead
Magic - hence DEAD - was written to "support", my x9 grandson is NOT going
to be able to perform this Rote without using Time 4.
I might even entertain the idea that in MY day and age, calling on "Cowfart"
or using the "Cowfart" power word was the equivalent of Time 2... but things
have changed. A LOT.
Unfortunately my x9 grandson doesn't have the ABILITY or ACCESS to the words
of my now extinct language, my mythology or paradigm and the Rotes he might
uncover that *I* used in MY time simply won't work the same for him. Can he
PERFORM Halt the Nagloper? Yeah. But according to the core rulebook that
specifically states that TIME 4 is required for delays in effects, he'll
need Time 4, not Time 2, to do it.
Dots and groups of things are nothing more than symbols on paper that show
both an ST and a player how deep their understanding of a particular Sphere
is. The dots are a symbol of what the Mage is AWARE she can accomplish...
common sense would probably dictate that she is aware of this either through
formal training or through trial, error and experimentation on her part.
If an individual ST wants to say "Okay... your understanding of how Time
works and can be made to work for you is basic (which, let's say would
appear as Time 1 on her sheet.), but you want to delay a magical effect to
go off like a supernatural timebomb. That's normally going to require a
greater than average (higher than three) understanding of how Time works and
can be made to work for you... however, I like you kid. I'll let the
universe read your mind and let you give it a shot and hope that it works.
Roll Arete." then that's MOST CERTAINLY his or her call to make as an ST and
no one can fault them for that. If that's what the game needs, then the
ST's job sometimes includes letting rules bend for the sake of the game.
Mage: The Ascension Revised Edition, which was supposed to "fix" everything
that was "broken" with Mage: The Ascension 2nd, and to its credit it has a
very easy to understand, monkey-proofed section on the Nine Spheres. In
that write-up, Time 4 is specifically addressed as being required for the
delay in a magical effect. END OF STORY. I'm not arguing that individual
ST's should be allowed to fudge when they need too... I just don't see why
Heinig & Friends have decided to, whether by error or choice, ignore
consistency in this matter. The rules for magic need to remain uniform
throughout the supplements. Don't put a rote in a book that requires Time 4
to succeed under Time 2. And if you're GOING to do that, then for crying
out loud at least take the time in the introduction of the book to EXPLAIN
LOGICALLY why you're doing that and STATE that YES, this IS IN FACT a
divergence from the corebook write-up of Time. If you don't, you're doing
one of three things (or, perhaps ALL of the following):
1. Confusing people for no apparent reason.
2. Not paying close enough attention to detail when developing the
supplements that are written to support the basic, essential core rules
system of the game.
3. Taking the Golden Rule from MY TABLE and into your canon, which isn't
all that smart or considerate to me as an ST.
The Golden Rule is fine. Sacrificing rules for the enjoyment of a story is
fine. But there's a time and a place for it, and it's not in canon.
Contradicting BASIC, ESSENTIAL MECHANICS in canon for no apparent reason
other than to offer "kewl, seekrit powerz" to fledgling Magi is, quite
frankly, stomping on your own peepee... which is about as foolish as
self-inflicted Lichdom.
<shrug>
Araknid
<cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>Chris Bell <argra...@agoron.com> wrote:
>
>> A victorious and unified Traditions Council would be morally obligated to
>> eliminate Vampires as a threat,
>
>This assumes:
>1. Traditions are victorious. Not a given.
>2. Victorious Traditions are unified. Definitely not a given.
>3. Victorious and unified Traditions know enough about vampires to make
>the decision to eliminate them. EXTREMELY not a given.
>4. Victorious and unified Traditions dedicated to killing vampires find
>out enough abour vampires to make them a threat greater than the
>Inquisition or FBI-SAD. EXCEEDINGLY EXTREMELY not a given.
>5. Victorious and unified Traditions dedicated to killing vampires and
>competent at doing so actually succeed in impacting vampiric society at
>all. HUGELY EXCEEDINGLY EXTREMELY MASSIVELY not a given.
Once you overcome the main hurdle and get to point 2 the likelyhood of
points 3, 4 and 5 become EXCEEDINGLY more likely.
A victorious and united Traditions (or Technocracy for that matter)
would be very likely to notice vampires especially given the vampiric
goings on as part of the metaplot (parts of CN: Tzimisce and Nights of
Prophecy spring to mind).
Either Mage faction, if united and devoting any kind of serious effort
to the vampire problem, has the intelligence gathering capabilities to
very quickly learn as much about vampires as the FBI or the
Inquisition and probably a great deal more about what vampires are
doing /right now/ that would be useful in a tactical sense.
A victorious and united Traditions or Technocracy, secure in their
place in the consensus, could then impact on vampiric society fairly
easily. The Inquisition made a noticable impact during the Burning
Times using swords and torches...
>So I don't see your logic even if we /do/ assume (contrary to the
>rulebooks) that they are in the same world. Sorry.
He did say that IF the Traditions won (I guess meaning in the highly
unlikely recreate the world into a multicultural New Mythic Age sense)
THEN vampires would likely get screwed over.
That's not that unreasonable a statement.
Araknid.
The Lighthouse Keeper
> The Lighthouse Keeper wrote in message ...
> >Honestly, the comparison between the two revisions isn't FAIR to
> VRev. VRev
> >WORKS. No complaints. People who loved Vampire continue to love
> Vampire...
>
>
> Not true.
>
> Sorry about that.
Then perhaps I should have said the ratio of people I've come in contact
with who loved Vampire in 2nd and continue love Vampire AFTER its revision -
which are literally thousands - FAR EXCEED the number of people I've come
into contact with who loved Mage in 2nd and continue to love Mage after it's
revision.
That's probably more accurate a statement, anyway.
<shrug>
Bruce Baugh
>Then perhaps I should have said the ratio of people I've come in contact
>with who loved Vampire in 2nd and continue love Vampire AFTER its revision -
>which are literally thousands - FAR EXCEED the number of people I've come
>into contact with who loved Mage in 2nd and continue to love Mage after it's
>revision.
On the flip side, I'm one of many who found pieces of Mage interesting
but never really lit up for it until the tail end of Phil Brucato's
tenure (with works like Dark Adventure and The Guide To The Technocracy)
and the work Jess has done building on it. Mage Revised has gotten a
bunch of my friends, like me, enthusiastic about Mage and happy with it.
What the overall truth is, I couldn't say, but it's vitally important to
remember that sufficiently strongly expressed opinion on the net is
unrepresentative - I emphatically include mine among this. The vast
majority of folks out there do not love or hate things the way we vocal
minority do, and whatever their opinions are, the odds are good that
none of us visible particularly represent them.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> bruce...@spiretech.com
Deirdre M. Brooks
The Lighthouse Keeper wrote:
>
> Critics of that statement are going to say - as sarcastically as they can -
> "Oh yeah. It was totally simple to obliterate Doissetep, Porthos, et al,
> install the Avatar Winds into the Gauntlet and tack a huge ass-whippin' on
> the Council of Nine who were for the most part completely and totally
> defenseless without their Oracles, etc."... but it DOES seem like it was a
> little too simple. Dare I say "convenient."
Except for the avatar winds, you'll have to take those changes up with
Phil Brucato. He made them.
Porthos, Doissetep, the Council of Nine...all were killed/destroyed in
the first War in Heaven novel and officially referenced in the
supplement, TALES OF MAGICK: DARK ADVENTURE.
Deirdre M. Brooks
The Lighthouse Keeper wrote:
>
> Then perhaps I should have said the ratio of people I've come in contact
> with who loved Vampire in 2nd and continue love Vampire AFTER its revision -
> which are literally thousands - FAR EXCEED the number of people I've come
> into contact with who loved Mage in 2nd and continue to love Mage after it's
> revision.
On the other hand, the number of people I meet who say they couldn't
stand Mage before the Revision and now really get into it and like it is
quite high.
The Lighthouse Keeper
> remember that sufficiently strongly expressed opinion on the net is
> unrepresentative - I emphatically include mine among this. The vast
> majority of folks out there do not love or hate things the way we vocal
> minority do, and whatever their opinions are, the odds are good that
> none of us visible particularly represent them.
It's also vitally important to note that only about 1/3 of the strongly
expressed negative opinion regarding MRev that I've been privy too comes
from online discourse.
And I have to admit I think you're a little off base in your opinion that
the percentage of electronic-based vocalization is "unrepresentative."
I think the online presence of RPers, ESPECIALLY those who RP in the World
of Darkness is pretty astounding, actually. I've watched it grow
consistently over the past two years. Entire websites dedicated to the
World of Darkness and RPing in general receive phenomenal amounts of traffic
on a daily basis, and new sites - be they resource, review or character
database sites - pop up every week. The myth that the online community
constitutes only a small fraction of the overall population at large is JUST
THAT; a myth. It might have been true in 1995, but a lot of things have
changed since 1995.
I certainly think there are a few people who would like to believe and/or
convince themselves that the pesky, "squeaky wheels" out there who are so
"negative," or even those who may not actually be all that vocal in their
negativity - because we've all seen what happens to outspoken, "negative"
people - are merely a small fraction of a small fraction of an overall
market, but I don't see that as being the case. I think there's a
SIGNIFICANT presence of online WoD/Mage RPers that does, in fact, make a
difference where, if nothing else, dollars and cents are concerned.
<shrug>
The Lighthouse Keeper
> The Lighthouse Keeper wrote:
> >
> > Critics of that statement are going to say - as sarcastically as they
can -
> > "Oh yeah. It was totally simple to obliterate Doissetep, Porthos, et
al,
> > install the Avatar Winds into the Gauntlet and tack a huge ass-whippin'
on
> > the Council of Nine who were for the most part completely and totally
> > defenseless without their Oracles, etc."... but it DOES seem like it was
a
> > little too simple. Dare I say "convenient."
>
> Except for the avatar winds, you'll have to take those changes up with
> Phil Brucato. He made them.
You've no idea how much enthusiasm I would have for an opportunity to do so.
> Porthos, Doissetep, the Council of Nine...all were killed/destroyed in
> the first War in Heaven novel and officially referenced in the
> supplement, TALES OF MAGICK: DARK ADVENTURE.
<nod> I'm completely aware of that. I was simply trying to paint a
colorful point.
As I said, the Ascension War had to end sometime, and while I have not one
single problem with who technically WON the Ascension War - if ANYONE can
actually be declared the clear-cut victor there* - I DO have a couple of
problems with the metaplot of the AFTERMATH of the Ascension War.
<shrug>
And no, believe it or not, the Avatar Winds aren't one of them. I've gotten
over that bucket of ice water. ;)
Go easy.
* - For any who might not have seen it yet, Blood Treachery eludes to some
interesting stuff regarding Tradition Technomancers. That's all I'll say.
James Kiley
>constitutes only a small fraction of the overall population at large is JUST
>THAT; a myth. It might have been true in 1995, but a lot of things have
>changed since 1995.
Really? Do you have any hard data to back you up on this, or is it
based mostly on anecdotal observation?
jk
Michael P Collins
Newsgroups: alt.games.whitewolf
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 05:59:51 GMT
What the overall truth is, I couldn't say, but it's vitally important to
remember that sufficiently strongly expressed opinion on the net is
unrepresentative - I emphatically include mine among this. The vast
majority of folks out there do not love or hate things the way we vocal
minority do, and whatever their opinions are, the odds are good that
none of us visible particularly represent them.
Good point. As a rule of thumb, if I want to figure out the pulse of
popular opinion on a topic, I usually go for the conventional .net
wisdom and take the opposite track. I've been wrong doing this twice,
but that's about it.
Michael P Collins
Newsgroups: alt.games.whitewolf
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 08:33:30 CDT
jk
My experience, anecdotally, has been that the denizens of usenet or
fannish websites (especially usenet) are still not representative.
Some of this is the nature of the internet, which equates stridency
with legitimacy, and some of this is the nature of fandom - fans tend
to be archconservative and extremely loud in their complaints. I
GAFIATED from anime fandom when people were organizing protests over
the letter 'O'.
Ultimately, there's really only one objective answer to this question
- WW's sales figures. If Mage has been going up or breaking even
since the revision, it's a success.
Christina Waldeck
Err, so you're saying the Game System (which has nothing to do with the
way the mages define the spheres for themselves inside the WoD) is not
complete and if I buy more supplements with rotes in them, my mage
suddenly gets better/more powerful/whathaveyou than those who only use
the main rulebook's magic?
Nothing against you, but this sounds... i don't know... it reminds me of
the way a trading card game works.
C.
Christina Waldeck
>
> Beau Yarbrough wrote:
> >
> > In article <7yLb5.14100$8m.7...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,> > > Then there's really no use for the Spheres at all, then is there?
> >
> > Of course there is. The unimaginative mage will stick to rotes -- as
> > many of them already do, IME -- while the truly enlightened ones will
> > still break the rules. That fits how the game is played, fits how the
> > characters in the WoD behave, and fits the theme of MtA.
>
> It is the other way around however. The rote users are the ones who
> "break the rules", by doing things that are beyond the spheres being
> used.
Excuse me, but once upon a time Rotes used to be a more limited version
of the more powerful and versatile spheres. A rote was a single effect,
a kind of spell, something you do over and over again and thereby THIS
single effect becomes more easier to cast. Plus you can use it as an
example in the training of young mages.
But if Rotes suddenly become more powerful than the Spheres from which
they are drawn, if you can learn a Rote to perform a feat that
technically you neither have the Arete nor knowledge to cast, then
something is broken.
Such Rotes should be renamed "sorcery" or "hedge magic", period.
Although then Dead Magic would break the old rule that awakened magic(k)
and hedge magic/thaumaturgy cannot be cast by the same individual.
If that has changed, we'd have to rewrite the whole Order of Hermes Trad
book and every Hermetic mage would have Hedge Magic AND Sphere True
Magic(k), since hedge magic is what the OoH teaches the novices prior to
awakening, but upon awakening they discard that magic (which is only
smoke and mirrors, waves and chants to trap some sliver of the Real
Power) and learn the True Magic(k), which comes a bit closer to pulling
the strings behind the scenes, which means changing Reality and not just
invoking spells. (In game terms, an OoH PC does NOT take over his
background-story hedge magic dots into the Mage:tA character sheet.)
Hedge magic is like using a computer by clicking on a button... a
preprogrammed effect happens, but that's all. Someone else programmed
this effect for you. Sphere magic is like rewriting the source code. so,
if you want a Rote that is able to do the equivalent of Time 4 effect
with a Time 2, you would need someone (or something) else - another
entity which is more powerful than yourself are at the moment - to
preprogram this effect for you! Asking a spirit or demon to cast the
effectfor you, or to grant you a special effect that you alone cannot
cast.
But this is exactly what shamans and Nephandi do in the WoD. And they
all pay the price, they are not in 100% control of their own magic. Plus
Mage:Sorcerer and M:Shamans (was that the title of the supplement?)
refer to such "rule-breaking effects" as Hedge Magic.
Or has all of this changed now??
Christina
Christina Waldeck
Scatter Gatherer wrote:
(snip)
> Mage has stated for some time that belief, mediated by an
> Awakened avatar, is what fundamentally changes reality when
> magic is performed. This is why paradigms are important to
> the game. If your mage believes he can do it and has the
> appropriate knowledge, he can work a specific magic. However
> if his belief is that he can't do something then regardless
> of his knowledge he can't do it.
*nods*
> The existence of the aforementioned rotes suggest that
> knowledge is not the issue in what is limiting mages
> generally to performing those specific effects. Take
> two mages of the same tradition, paradigm, and level
> of knowledge and teach one the rote while not mentioning
> to the other that such a rote exists. The first mage
> will be able to work its magic, the other will not
> under any circumstances be able to perform similar
> until he either gains more knowledge (higher sphere
> ranking) or until he is shown the rote. This seems
> introduces something in addition to belief and
> knowledge that is real, regardless of belief and
> paradigm.
But this would mean that if i take an apprentice mage (or even an
unawakened person?) and hypnotize them with Mind magic (or Thaum or
whatever) instilling in him the unshakable belief THAT HE CAN FLY ... or
hurl fireballs or similar, then is is suddenly able to do so?
Regardless of prior sphere rating, arete rating or magical knowledge, he
can suddenly pull off an effect that violates the rules of magic (both
the subjective rules inside the WoD AND the Game Rules about character
development and sphere rankings) just because he thinks he can or
because some wrinkled old mage told him "if you hold this feather you
will surely be able to fly, son, do not believe in the voices of your
teachers that want to hold you back."?
Up until now the only ones who were able to pull off effects that seemed
contrary to all experience were the Marauders. But then, Marauders had
already fallen through the cracks of Reality.
An arete 1 apprentice mage *might* go megalomanic and think "hey, if
untimately the spheres are just guidelines and all barriers are
illusions, I should be able to do *anything* I want just by believing
really hard in it (or holding this orb of universal power or
whatever)!". But if he hurled himself from a skyscraper and tried to
fly, he'd go splat regardless of what he believed or which old rote he
had read in an old book. Reality isn't that flexible. Because there is a
difference between going through the motions of a Rote and actually
changing reality. Otherwise the whole idea of learning, experience and
Arete goes out of the window.
> I'll have to think further one where that approach
> leads, but taking for now that there are specific
> instances that violate the general truths of what may
> be done with given levels of sphere knowledge you
> also have to wonder why these violations only arise
> from dead cultures, and why they are not common
> knowledge. (snip)
Because Dead Cultures with Forgotten Lore are "cooler"? *sigh* WW seems
to think so.
So instead of a WoD where magic theory has been defined and expanded
over millenia and evolved to adapt to the fluctuating paradims, and
produced new theories that led to new discoveries and "more powerful"
magics, we now have been told that the "Olde Wayes" are much more
powerful, even in the 20th century, and able to thumb their nose at
universal constants in magic just because they are Hidden Knowledge. Oh
dear.
Christina
Christina Waldeck
>
> Depends on the Mage. But using nothing but rotes you will never become a
> Master or reach Ascension.
Hm, Ascension....
When Masters of the Art was published, we "learned" that becoming a
Master or Archmage, pushing up your knowledge and Arete (which should be
a measure of enlightenment, no?), does in fact take you farther AWAY
from the path of Ascension. Ok, it does not automatically, but it was
stated again and again that powerful mages fall prey to hubris or
overspecialisation, and one sentence even stated that novices might be
closer to Ascension than more learned mages.
*sigh*
Christina Waldeck
>
> Daniel Glass <thefirsttheone...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3970AC55...@hotmail.com...
> > Master or reach Ascension.
> >
> >
> > > Dangerous ground, here. Why bother to learn Spheres to high levels,
> > > then? Why not just learn the rotes and cast all the Forces 5/Prime 2
> > > effects you want?
>
> w/ Witnesses, must use all the foci perscribed for it, and can only be used
> in the way that it is written. Of course, I allow players IMG to make rotes
> like this with an Intelligence+High Ritual or Occult roll, then use them
> with the above restrictions. I don't hold with their Sphere Ranks being
> absolute limits, y'see, just the limits where they're safe operating without
> (hopefully) getting sodomized by Paradox.
Yes, but I can gain Paradox for effects that ARE within my limits if the
effect is vulgar. And a lot of what the Trads do is vulgar.
(Shapeshifting for example, no matter if the Verbena is a Master of Life
and in his paradigm it's totally acceptable to turn into an animal or a
tree, it's still vulgar magic(k).)
So, even if the sphere ranking is not a limit, what about
Arete/enlightenment/knowledge?
Christina
Bruce Baugh
>And I have to admit I think you're a little off base in your opinion that
>the percentage of electronic-based vocalization is "unrepresentative."
I don't - and it's not just me. It's one of the well-established facts
in the gaming industry at large: online opinions bear precisely no
correlation to sales, which are the ultimate benchmark over time of what
folks want. This is true not only for White Wolf but for companies as
large (in gaming terms) as Wizards of the Coast, as well-established as
Chaosium, as well-respected as Atlas and Hogshead, and as small as this
week's startup venture.
Mad Genius
> So, even if the sphere ranking is not a limit, what about
> Arete/enlightenment/knowledge?
>
> Christina
"A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
Besides, this allows for those interesting magic quirks, like what happened
in "The Sorceror's Apprentice."
And the mage still rolls his regular Arete, just with an increased
chance of Paradox doing the jackboot stomp on him.
Jason Corley
> The Lighthouse Keeper wrote:
>>
>> Then perhaps I should have said the ratio of people I've come in contact
>> with who loved Vampire in 2nd and continue love Vampire AFTER its revision -
>> which are literally thousands - FAR EXCEED the number of people I've come
>> into contact with who loved Mage in 2nd and continue to love Mage after it's
>> revision.
> On the other hand, the number of people I meet who say they couldn't
> stand Mage before the Revision and now really get into it and like it is
> quite high.
Just for the record, both Mage 2ed. and Mage Revised are excellent games,
and if I were helping someone start a Mage game for the first time, I
would recommend Mage Revised over Mage 2ed. It is an exceedingly better
product in terms of descriptions of the Traditions, Sphere descriptions,
and all of the various things that new players need to get up the
tremendously steep learning curve the Mage has. But I have to say that I
didn't see the changes from 2ed. to Revised as being any big thing - that
is, some of them seemed neat, and some of them didn't, and it remained
flexible enough that I could blow the smithereens out of the ones that
didn't, so it was just like 2ed. in that respect. And the changes I didn't
like certainly haven't crept into more than a few pages of subsequent
supplements. I tear out that many pages in gaming fiction and art anyway.
The Lighthouse Keeper
> and if I were helping someone start a Mage game for the first time, I
> would recommend Mage Revised over Mage 2ed. It is an exceedingly better
> product in terms of descriptions of the Traditions, Sphere descriptions,
> and all of the various things that new players need to get up the
> tremendously steep learning curve the Mage has.
You just hit the nail on the head.
I think the mechanics of MRev are superior as well. As I said before, the
Spheres are explained in such a manner that make them vastly more
comprehensible as a whole. There are a lot of really neat and helpful
things inherent to the mechanics of MRev over 2nd - and I've NEVER argued
that. MECHANICS wise, MRev is a superior product. But you mentioned the
fact that "It is an exceedingly better product in terms of descriptions of
the Traditions, Sphere descriptions, and all of the various things that new
players need to get up the tremendously steep learning curve the Mage has."
IF I had the ability to highlight any one set of words in that statement, it
would be "Sphere descriptions" and "steep learning curve Mage has."
It's hard enough, even with the MRev take on the Spheres, to acclimate a new
player to the basic five levels of each Sphere and what they can and cannot
do. It's a lot of information to digest, and those basic five levels of
each of the Nine Spheres are the FOUNDATION of a Mage's ability to DO what
she does; perform magical effects. This information - this CORE
information, however basic it may be, is VITAL to a new player's
understanding of Mage. This information - these basic rules - should be
STATIC. Again, Time 4 does what Time 4 does and Time 2 does what Time 2
does. Time 2 NEVER does what Time 4 does. That's not how it works, and if
that's the direction that Mage is taking in its magic system, then I'd like
an explanation as to why I've got a revised set of Sphere Descriptions in my
MRev book that are essentially useless for the sake of teaching a new player
how magic works in MRev.
Why contradict them if you don't have too? Why not just stick to the
formula you've presented in the core book instead of arbitrarily changing
the way the Spheres work as you see fit under the afterthought excuse of
"Oh... it's for the betterment of the story." which is apparently what was
done in Dead Magic.
THEY (meaning WWGS) should concern themselves with consistency throughout
canon, I (meaning any ST who runs mage) should concern myself with how
smoothly my story flows. The only thing that WWGS can (or should) do to
really help my story flow more smoothly is pay exceptional attention to
detail and strive for consistency in their canon supplements so that I'm
not having to waste time making judgement calls based on the confusion
they've created through either their mistakes or inconsistencies.
<shrug>
Dr Nuncheon
>
>Then there's really no use for the Spheres at all, then is there?
Oh, sure, because there's absolutely no difference between "I can light a
candle" (Rote) and "I can do anything I want with flames" (Sphere)
J
--
"Boy, you lose one measly continent and people | Jeff Johnston
just won't let you forget about it." - Kenneth Hite |
"Suppressed Transmissions", _Pyramid_ 5/12/00 | jeffj @ io.com
Dr Nuncheon
Scatter Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> wrote:
>je...@fnord.io.com (Dr Nuncheon) wrote:
>>Knowing one of these rotes is like memorizing an equation. You
>can use
>>the equation, but you don't understand everything that makes it
>work.
>>
>
>Ahh, but in the case of a=9.80665m/s^2 there is a broader
>truth behind it.
There's a broader truth behind the Time sphere, too. That's exactly what
I'm getting at. Knowing the *equation* doesn't automatically let you see
the broader truth.
You have to know enough about Time to understand the equation, but you
don't need to know enough to understand *why* the equation works.
>I have no problem with the Spheres as
>used by the Traditions being an incomplete understanding.
>I also have no problem with the Spheres being universally
>used by modern mages--in the modern world mass communication
>is easy. It srikes me as odd that such exceptions managed
>to avoid coming to light until recently,
Because we already know *everything* about all the ancient, extinct
cultures on the Earth, right? C'mon. Archeologists still argue over how
the Pyramids were built.
>and also odd
>that the groups that came together to form the Traditions
>didn't have such quirks in the way they individually
>performed magic. ("You mean you can stop time with very
>little training? Amazing, by our approach you don't learn
>to stop time until the final step of mastery.")
Who's to say they didn't, and that those weren't all incorporated together
into the modern Spheres? Heck, some of the Trads were probably saying,
"Time? You can affect time?"
>These rotes are the equivalent to finding an ancient
>Mayan device that allows communication faster than light,
>or perhaps anti-gravity--either way, something that
>shouldn't exist by our current view of physics.
Like magic, huh?
>>I personally think it's the belief systems of the Mages
>involved. They're
>>so tied to the idea of spheres and foci and what is possible at
>each level
>>of knowledge that they trap themselves into a prison of their
>own making.
>
>This could be tested by finding newly awakened mages and
>teaching them contrary to what is normally done.
The trouble is doing that without giving them *any* of your prejudices and
thoughts on how you think magic works.
Besides - it's already known to be possible for mages to exceed the bounds
of their sphere knowledges, during their Awakening. I think a more
fruitful line of research would be an attempt to extend that period of
time & study it to find out *why* they are not bound by the rules that
apply to other Mages...
aetherson
What I don't like is the implication that rotes are in any way different
from spontaneous magic. This messes with what is for me the primary
utility of Mage: A unified and consistent magical meta-Paradigm about
the subjective universe.
Bluntly, and this is why I have not and will not purchased Mage Revised,
that point is the reason I consider Mage to be a good game. I otherwise
(and I know I've made this point a billion times before) consider it a
rather poor version of Witchcraft.
Mike (aetherson)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > aetherson wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <8kof6j$boa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Beau Yarbrough <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <8koe2b$aup$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In other words, that we shouldn't assume that the system is a
> > > /strict/
> > > > > plateau as the mechanics are forced to represent. That's different
> > > > from
> > > > > skipping from Time 2 to Time 4.
> > > >
> > > > Can we agree with Jess's macro-point that the system the Trads use to
> > > > represent magic (which is the basis of how the game represents it) is
> > > > NOT 100 percent correct?
> > >
> > > We can agree that the game system is not 100% correct. We can agree
> > > that the Trads /Paradigms/ can have weird inconsistancies. We can't
> > > agree that True Magic has such inconsistancies, because it's, well,
> > > pretty simple, really.
> >
> > Maybe rotes not conforming to the game rules is the point. Obviously
> > it would be worth your character's while to charge out and look for books
> > containing rotes if some of those rotes are going to to let you do things
> > you can't do with regular spheres. Thus, finding a new rote becomes a
> > goody for the character.
>
> way the mages define the spheres for themselves inside the WoD) is not
> complete and if I buy more supplements with rotes in them, my mage
> suddenly gets better/more powerful/whathaveyou than those who only use
> the main rulebook's magic?
No. I'm suggesting that if your character goes out and finds rotes such
as these which weren't made using the standard rules some of them will
make your character disproportionately more powerful. The ST can just
as easily dream up rotes that don't conform to the spheres.
David Johnston
> Up until now the only ones who were able to pull off effects that seemed
> contrary to all experience were the Marauders.
Actually there were always rotes that apparently didn't conform to the
rules one way or another. We assumed that it was just sloppy editing,
but it now appears that they were by design.
Deirdre M. Brooks
The Lighthouse Keeper wrote:
>
> It's also vitally important to note that only about 1/3 of the strongly
> expressed negative opinion regarding MRev that I've been privy too comes
> from online discourse.
And people tend to discourse with those who agree with them, yes.
> And I have to admit I think you're a little off base in your opinion that
> the percentage of electronic-based vocalization is "unrepresentative."
Not really. This newsgroup, for example, represents (at most) a few
dozen vocal personalities, and who knows how many lurkers.
If you and five other people complain about the Mage metaplot, that's
representative of you and five other people. You have no data to go
beyond that observation and attempts to do so are doomed to inaccuracy.
> I think the online presence of RPers, ESPECIALLY those who RP in the World
> of Darkness is pretty astounding, actually. I've watched it grow
> consistently over the past two years. Entire websites dedicated to the
> World of Darkness and RPing in general receive phenomenal amounts of traffic
> on a daily basis, and new sites - be they resource, review or character
> database sites - pop up every week. The myth that the online community
> constitutes only a small fraction of the overall population at large is JUST
> THAT; a myth. It might have been true in 1995, but a lot of things have
> changed since 1995.
Do you know how many people own PCs in America? How many of those people
are online? How many of *those* people are gamers? How many of *those*
people are WoD fans? How many of *those* fans participate?
20,000 hits a month could mean anything from 20,000 people visiting ELN
to 1,000 people visiting it 20 times a month each, or some other
combination.
> I certainly think there are a few people who would like to believe and/or
> convince themselves that the pesky, "squeaky wheels" out there who are so
> "negative," or even those who may not actually be all that vocal in their
> negativity - because we've all seen what happens to outspoken, "negative"
> people
Nothing quite so vicious as what happens to those who are vocal in
disagreement with "negative" people.
> - are merely a small fraction of a small fraction of an overall
> market, but I don't see that as being the case.
I can count a dozen people right off-hand who've been rather negative
(often insulting and never constructive) in their MageRev discussions.
If that's not a fraction of a fraction, I'm not sure what is.
> I think there's a
> SIGNIFICANT presence of online WoD/Mage RPers that does, in fact, make a
> difference where, if nothing else, dollars and cents are concerned.
You'd be surprised at how far off your estimations could be.
Deirdre M. Brooks
The Lighthouse Keeper wrote:
>
> As I said, the Ascension War had to end sometime, and while I have not one
> single problem with who technically WON the Ascension War - if ANYONE can
> actually be declared the clear-cut victor there* - I DO have a couple of
> problems with the metaplot of the AFTERMATH of the Ascension War.
It's a good thing that the so-called "metaplot" is, as always, optional.
Is it not?
Mad Genius
> Actually there were always rotes that apparently didn't conform to the
> rules one way or another. We assumed that it was just sloppy editing,
> but it now appears that they were by design.
*Snark!* "It's not a bug, honest! It's a feature!"
And yes, I'm also one of those who think that the least they could do is
tell a story and stick to it. Sue me; why should I pay money for a rulebook
when not even the writers stick to the rules?
Scatter Gatherer
>In article <1bea1080...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com>,
>Scatter Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> wrote:
>>je...@fnord.io.com (Dr Nuncheon) wrote:
>>>Knowing one of these rotes is like memorizing an equation.
You
>>can use
>>>the equation, but you don't understand everything that makes
it
>>work.
>>>
>>
>>Ahh, but in the case of a=9.80665m/s^2 there is a broader
>>truth behind it.
>
>There's a broader truth behind the Time sphere, too. That's
exactly what
>I'm getting at. Knowing the *equation* doesn't automatically
let you see
>the broader truth.
>
>You have to know enough about Time to understand the equation,
but you
>don't need to know enough to understand *why* the equation
works.
>
The equation is circumstances that I work with is a fixed point
of data--I know that it must work that way via observation.
I can hypothisize all sorts of mechanisms and varations from
it so long as when conditions are as I am used to the equation
remains true. What then is necessary is looking for testable
results from my suppositions. Perhaps everything in the universe
falls towards the Earth at 9.80665m/s^2 acceleration. . .but
that has results that are at odds with what is observed.
>>I have no problem with the Spheres as
>>used by the Traditions being an incomplete understanding.
>>I also have no problem with the Spheres being universally
>>used by modern mages--in the modern world mass communication
>>is easy. It srikes me as odd that such exceptions managed
>>to avoid coming to light until recently,
>
>Because we already know *everything* about all the ancient,
extinct
>cultures on the Earth, right? C'mon. Archeologists still
argue over how
>the Pyramids were built.
>
You miss my point all together. It isn't a matter of not
knowing what the dead cultures knew, its a matter of my
still living culture, with its history, coming into contact
with your living culture, with its history, and finding out
that I can do something that you thought was impossible with
Time 2. It is odd that in the scores of groups that came
together to found the Traditions that this wasn't the case.
Apparently everyone with contradictory knowledge died out in
the WoD well before the modern Traditions.
>>and also odd
>>that the groups that came together to form the Traditions
>>didn't have such quirks in the way they individually
>>performed magic. ("You mean you can stop time with very
>>little training? Amazing, by our approach you don't learn
>>to stop time until the final step of mastery.")
>
>Who's to say they didn't, and that those weren't all
incorporated together
>into the modern Spheres? Heck, some of the Trads were probably
saying,
>"Time? You can affect time?"
>
Because if they'd been incorporated, there would have been
"broken" exceptions to the Spheres already published.
>>These rotes are the equivalent to finding an ancient
>>Mayan device that allows communication faster than light,
>>or perhaps anti-gravity--either way, something that
>>shouldn't exist by our current view of physics.
>
>Like magic, huh?
>
Yes. Your point?
>>>I personally think it's the belief systems of the Mages
>>involved. They're
>>>so tied to the idea of spheres and foci and what is possible
at
>>each level
>>>of knowledge that they trap themselves into a prison of their
>>own making.
>>
>>This could be tested by finding newly awakened mages and
>>teaching them contrary to what is normally done.
>
>The trouble is doing that without giving them *any* of your
prejudices and
>thoughts on how you think magic works.
>
Why would that be a problem? It is relatively easy to teach
Aristotelian physics, and happens all the time on college
campuses around the world. All you need to do is leave off
any commentary about validity.
>Besides - it's already known to be possible for mages to exceed
the bounds
>of their sphere knowledges, during their Awakening. I think a
more
>fruitful line of research would be an attempt to extend that
period of
>time & study it to find out *why* they are not bound by the
rules that
>apply to other Mages...
>
Fruitful? Perhaps. More fruitful? How the heck could anyone
tell? Moreover, it requires understanding what happens during
Awakening. What I propose is much more straightforward.
Donald
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Chris Bell
Hi, Di. Good to here from you again. Hope you're well.
"Deirdre M. Brooks" <xe...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:39710059...@teleport.com...
>
>
> Chris Bell wrote:
> >
> > I take issue with much of what MageRev does with the Metaplot and the
Mage
> > setting. As of this time, I do not support the game system. It seems
that
> > the Traditions were crippled and that the Ascension War was discontinued
as
> > a thematic concept merely for the benefit of the Vampire:The Masquerade
> > setting.
> <snip>
>
> Chris, no offense intended but: Can you see daylight from there?
>
> You don't like MageRev? Fine.
>
> You don't like decisions made with MageRev? Fine.
>
> You invent stupid reasons in your head as to why these decisions were
> made and then act as if they must be the truth? Egotistical.
Merely the facts as I see them. The Ascension War, as a thematic concept,
was a direct threat to the continuity of Vampire:The Masquerade. Hell, if I
were Jess or Justin or Stewart, *I* may have made the decision. You have to
go where the dollars are, after all. It's actually not something I hold
against White Wolf. It in a certain way was almost inevitable, and the same
decisions were no doubt instrumental in the changes to the Wraith and
Changeling lines. Again, I'm not on the inside as you are, but I have to
work with what I see before my eyes. And I won't hold against a company
that has to make a thematic and financial decision between two game lines.
Vampire is the flagship, so it must be preserved.
> Your breakdown of the decision-making process is certainly extremely
> fannish in its negativity and lack of thoughtful criticism, but it has
> absolutely nothing to do with what actually happened.
Again, I'm not on the inside, but I have to draw conclusions based on what I
can see before me. Aside from the loss of an Antediluvian, neither of the
two major Vampire sects have been harmed in any way. The Masquerade is as
strong as ever, Sabbat atrocities go unchecked, while both the Council and
Union are scuttled. I prefer this setting not. But, that's neither here
nor there. Merely my view.
In any case, moving on before a flame war starts, what do you think of my
comments on Dead Magic?
Best,
--
Chris Bell
arg...@agoron.com, kaiu_k...@yahoo.com, sart...@hotmail.com
Chris Bell
> So I don't see your logic even if we /do/ assume (contrary to the
> rulebooks) that they are in the same world. Sorry.
Actually, this brings up a valid point...
Do the 5 game lines exist in the same physical space? This must be a
binary, yes/no question. Yes or no are both legit options, IMO. But as far
as the canonical metaplot goes, are the 5 game line's continuties unified?
I'm not asking about personal campaigns and 'do it you're own way' options.
I'm interested in whether or not WWGS in it's own Canon sees the continuity
of each game line taking place in the same universe.
This distinctly reminds me of a DC vs Marvel style of storytelling. Marvel
has a tendency to do more linear storytelling, and to reference it's own
continuity. DC, especially in the pre-crisis years, had many 'imaginary
stories', where certain events in Superman, say, were not considered 'Canon'
for the Flash. Neither approach is 'good' nor 'bad', merely differing
styles.
If the 5 game line's continuities only cross over at certain points, I for
one would be interested in cataloging events that all 5 settings share.
Chris Bell
> I think he's making a statement somewhere towards the fact that the "new
> direction" of the MRev metaplot is based, for the most part, on the events
> and changes which occured in the "Year of the Reckoning" and revision of
> Vampire: The Masquerade and that the changes made in MRev from 2nd
Edition -
> at least where the metaplot is concerned - were made to follow some sort
of
> suit with VRev.
>
> I disagree.
>
> I have little or no problems with the Vampire metaplot at current. To be
> completely honest, I've never enjoyed Vampire more. Out with the
> foppishness and politik, in with the vicious, blood-sucking, inhuman
> monsters! Vampire's revision SUCCEEDED as far as I'm concerned and in my
> honest opinion, because *I AM* one of the people who basically grew bored
> with the "So you're in this bar..." feel that Vampire had, gave it up, and
> then dropped jaw when the revisions started rolling out.
>
Apologies and clarifications...
My post was primarily with the current MRev plot arch. Actually, aside from
the fact that the bad guys always seem to win :), VREV's metaplot is
*superb*. The VRev rules and plot arch meld seemlessly, and I appluad Mssr
Achilli's work. My only nitpicks is that a sourcebook on Golconda and it's
exploration is desperately needed, the Paths of Enlightenment are a
get-out-of-beast-free card (although I feel that the Sabbat are actually an
excellent concept), and more plot tweaks allowing decent characters not to
utterly fail in the Jyhad need to be slipped in. But, VRev gets a 9 out of
10 for me. I especially liked how Justin dealt with the issues of the
Souleaters and the True Hand... He had the Stygian fleet soulfire the false
Enoch into Oblivion!
I also have strong, personal thoughts about interaction between Mage powers
and such things like Disciplines, but they're my personal tastes and I won't
repeat them here. I look forward to the metaplot developnments for Vampire.
But, with the Ascension War killed off by WW management, don't count on me
buying any more Mage supplements for the foreseeable future. However, I
will continue to support Vampire due to the high quality work.
Chris Bell
> What the overall truth is, I couldn't say, but it's vitally important to
> remember that sufficiently strongly expressed opinion on the net is
> unrepresentative - I emphatically include mine among this. The vast
> majority of folks out there do not love or hate things the way we vocal
> minority do, and whatever their opinions are, the odds are good that
> none of us visible particularly represent them.
>
>
In this regard, I must agree with Bruce. Although my small gaming circle
has given the thumbs down on Mage Rev (to quote one player - "They made us
just wizards now! Why bother if we can't save the world?"), it may well be
that the majority Mage audience loves it. I, however, in good faith, can't
support it.
To each their best world,
Chris Bell
arg...@agoron.com
Chris Bell
"Angela Christine" <aca.Rem...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:39711f3f...@news.telus.net...
> Rumor has it that "Chris Bell" <argra...@agoron.com> wrote:
>
> >Hello, all. I've been out of the NG for a while, and have decided to
step
> >back in, for a time.
>
> Hello.
Hi, Angela!
> >I take issue with much of what MageRev does with the Metaplot and the
Mage
> >setting. As of this time, I do not support the game system. It seems
that
> >the Traditions were crippled and that the Ascension War was discontinued
as
> >a thematic concept merely for the benefit of the Vampire:The Masquerade
> >setting. A world where the Traditions were victorious (or any other
mythic
> >faction, for that matter) would be so radically different that the other
> >game settings would be forced to change with them, and Vampire has always
> >had as it's axis modern-day, urban roleplaying of a Vampire secret
society.
>
> Um, I think you may have missed the bit where the WoD is supposed
> to be almost like our world, but with supernaturals and
> everything is darker. That is the main shtick of the World(s) of
> Darkness.
Exactly. And, as far as I can see, WW needed to make a decision. Were the
Traditions allowed to start winning some decisive victories, then the world,
by definition, would start drifting away from the early 90's gothic-punk
millieu and more into a Shadowrun urban-fantasy setting. So, games like
Changeling and Mage are essentially a direct threat to Vampire's flavor,
although the two can be reconciled, with work.
> If the Traditions win the world would be radically changed,
> perhaps to something more like shadowrun or the Anita Blake
> novels, but it would no longer resemble *our* world to a
> significant degree. That is part of the reason to discourage
> vulgar magic, in our world folks don't throw fireballs so in the
> WoD people shouldn't be *seen* throwing fireballs either. So the
> Traditions can't win.
>
> The Technocracy can't win either. Oh sure they are ahead, but if
> they won the world would start to look like Star Trek, Star Wars
> or Spaceballs. ;-) Since that wouldn't be much like our world,
> albeit more like it that Trad-world would be, they can't win.
All the more reason that the Avatar Winds were implemented, it seems, as
well as the 'hardening' of Reality as represented by the new Paradox rules
in Mage Rev, as well as the overall greater difficulty of Magick.
> On the upside, niether the Nephandi or Mauraders can win either,
> since that would cause the world to cease to exist or to become
> something incomprehensible.
Re the Marauders, incomprehensible to *us*. I'm sure they could understand
an insane world quite fine.
> As long as the Mage line is viable, no faction can win in cannon.
> If they decided to wind up the line (like they did with Wraith)
> then they could publish a final suppliment showing somebody
> winning and the all the repercussions involved in that. The
> Assension war hasn't been won yet, it's just been scaled down.
The Ascension War is a conflict that has been going on for centuries, and I
prefer a vision of Mage with the current era as a pivot point, the point
where things can turn, which is why the Mages of the current era are so
vitally important.
Further, in order to be playable, the struggle for Universal Ascension and
the whole concept of Reality Shaping is integral for Mage. Without the
struggle, for good or ill, to change outer Reality as well as inner, Mage
looses one half of it's thematic impact. Without the Ascension War in one
form or another, Mages may as well be Hedge Magicians with a different rules
set.
Excellent points, Angela. Keep it Magickal, not just magical!
> Angela Christine
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aca(at)telus.net~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
Chris Bell
arg...@agoron.com
Chris Bell
"Beau Yarbrough" <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8kof6j$boa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8koe2b$aup$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In other words, that we shouldn't assume that the system is a /strict/
> > plateau as the mechanics are forced to represent. That's different
> from
> > skipping from Time 2 to Time 4.
>
> Can we agree with Jess's macro-point that the system the Trads use to
> represent magic (which is the basis of how the game represents it) is
> NOT 100 percent correct?
I like to think of the model of Nine Spheres as a constant work in progress,
and I think that Mages of the Council would know that the currently known
functionings of the Spheres are just the tip of the iceberg. No doubt there
are New World Order and House Bonisagus researchers who do nothing but
research new applications for the Spheres. The changes in the Spheres
between Mage 2 and Mage Rev can be introduced into a game by having them
disseminated as new knowledge released by one of the Ancestral or Research
Chantries, or by having the untutored Disciples of the Avatar Winds setting
discover new secrets by experimentation.
> Having flawed models and finding the exceptions to what are thought of
> as rules doesn't mean a total upheaval in the way things are. It turns
> out that the sound barrier can be broken, but moving large objects at
> hypersonic speeds is still relatively uncommon and is difficult and/or
> expensive.
Exactly. I actually don't have a terrible problem with a specialised Rote
that works in Time 3 knowledge performing a Time 4 effect, assuming that the
Rote was worked with the same understanding, same foci and same rites every
time, by someone who understood that particular craft of Magick. This is a
nice thing, since it means that not all Mages with the same Sphere levels
are capable of exactly the same things. A good term to use is "flexible
constants". Hey, Magick is supposed to be paradoxical anyway.
> If there's flaws in the Nine Spheres theory, that doesn't have to mean
> that Bob the Mage with his Time 1 is going to be changing the course of
> history and flinging fireballs around tomorrow.
>
Exactamundo.
Scatter Gatherer
>In article <00fec3ec...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com>,
>
>Sorry, you'll have to unpack this, because it makes no sense
the way
>you've written it.
I'm going to repeat this only this one more time.
The equation--a=9.8m/s^2--is an observable truth here about
Earth (depending on how inaccurate my measuring equipment is).
I can hypothesize all sorts of other equations as broader
turths that yield different equations based upon non-Earthly
conditions so long as when I stick in Earthly conditions I
end up with results compatible with what I observe on Earth.
For example, I could suppose that acceleration due to
gravity between two objects follows an inverse cubed law if I
assume the appropriate constant to make acceleration due to
gravity where I'm standing work out to what I observe. However,
that assumption fails when I test it against the observed
universe.
>
>Let's try a simpler example:
>
>Professor Bob has History 5.
>
>There is a fact that is so obscure, only people with History 5
would know
>it.
>
>Bob tells this fact to Jim, who has History 1.
>
>Does Jim now have History 5?
>
>No.
>
What relevance does this have?
>>>>I have no problem with the Spheres as
>>>>used by the Traditions being an incomplete understanding.
>>>>I also have no problem with the Spheres being universally
>>>>used by modern mages--in the modern world mass communication
>>>>is easy. It srikes me as odd that such exceptions managed
>>>>to avoid coming to light until recently,
>>>
>>>Because we already know *everything* about all the ancient,
>>extinct
>>>cultures on the Earth, right? C'mon. Archeologists still
>>argue over how
>>>the Pyramids were built.
>>>
>>
>>You miss my point all together. It isn't a matter of not
>>knowing what the dead cultures knew, its a matter of my
>>still living culture, with its history, coming into contact
>>with your living culture, with its history, and finding out
>>that I can do something that you thought was impossible with
>>Time 2. It is odd that in the scores of groups that came
>>together to found the Traditions that this wasn't the case.
>>Apparently everyone with contradictory knowledge died out in
>>the WoD well before the modern Traditions.
>
>Again, how do you *know* this didn't happen? You're looking at
the modern
>Spheres and making the assumption that they have somehow always
been this
>way, when in reality they're the modern expression of thousands
of years
>of traditions mixing and such.
>
Are you trying to suggest that group A with definite knowledge
that fact A is true because they perform feat A all the time
will, once they come into contact with group B, forget that
feat A is possible even though the performance of feat A is
one of the things that defines group A as a group in the first
place? Not only that, but group B, who hadn't thought feat A
was possible will not make note of the fact that apparently it
is? Not only this, but that it happened for C, D, E, F, G, H,
and I as well?
Well, I suppose it _could_ happen that way. Of course it
_could_ happen that the rote, as published, was a mistake
and that Jess, acting out of spite, decided to defend the
mistake rather than admit to it.
I leave it to the reader to decide which is more reasonable
to believe. (And as a test, how many other rotes in Dead
Magic violate the rules?)
>>>>and also odd
>>>>that the groups that came together to form the Traditions
>>>>didn't have such quirks in the way they individually
>>>>performed magic. ("You mean you can stop time with very
>>>>little training? Amazing, by our approach you don't learn
>>>>to stop time until the final step of mastery.")
>>>
>>>Who's to say they didn't, and that those weren't all
>>incorporated together
>>>into the modern Spheres? Heck, some of the Trads were
probably
>>saying,
>>>"Time? You can affect time?"
>>>
>>
>>Because if they'd been incorporated, there would have been
>>"broken" exceptions to the Spheres already published.
>
>What? Not even close.
>
>Tradition A can create fire at Forces 3. Tradition B only
figures it out
>at Forces 5. However, Tradition B knows how to tell time at
Time 1, while
>Tradition A hasn't figured it out at all.
>
>They meet, and trade knowledge.
>
>Now *both* Traditions can make Fire at Forces 3, and tell time
at Time 1.
>
>See?
No. First, you don't have this happening in the earliest
history of the Traditions (Mage: the Sorceror's Crusade).
Second, that Tradition B creates fire at Forces 5 is a
function of their paradigm. Their paradigm must change
if they are to create fire at Forces 3, yet we've never
had word the first in any book about the Spheres being
being this yielding. In fact Orphans, who most assuredly
aren't part of the Traditions, learned to create fire
throughout the history of the Mage line, at Forces 3.
The same holds for the Crafts. Yet nowhere in the Mage
line is there history for Orphans, Crafts, or other
non-tradition group performing Sphere rank breaking
magic. Most telling, it isn't true for the Technocracy,
which has done its best to claim to be different from
the Traditions. Sure, they may require foci, but it was
never the case that fire creation has ever been presented
as being anything other than Forces 3 based.
>
>If that's how the Spheres came to be in their modern form, and
they are
>the 'lowest common denominator' among the Traditions, then it
makes sense
>that the only exceptions we would see would be in 'dead magic'
that was
>lost to the world.
>
There is more than the Traditions to consider (although even
just considering them seems to suggest other than is being
defeneded).
>>>>These rotes are the equivalent to finding an ancient
>>>>Mayan device that allows communication faster than light,
>>>>or perhaps anti-gravity--either way, something that
>>>>shouldn't exist by our current view of physics.
>>>
>>>Like magic, huh?
>>
>>Yes. Your point?
>
>Magic isn't possible by our current view of physics. Magic is
possible in
>the World of Darkness. Take it from there.
>
Take what from there?
>>>>>I personally think it's the belief systems of the Mages
>>>>involved. They're
>>>>>so tied to the idea of spheres and foci and what is possible
>>at
>>>>each level
>>>>>of knowledge that they trap themselves into a prison of
their
>>>>own making.
>>>>
>>>>This could be tested by finding newly awakened mages and
>>>>teaching them contrary to what is normally done.
>>>
>>>The trouble is doing that without giving them *any* of your
>>prejudices and
>>>thoughts on how you think magic works.
>>
>>Why would that be a problem? It is relatively easy to teach
>>Aristotelian physics, and happens all the time on college
>>campuses around the world. All you need to do is leave off
>>any commentary about validity.
>
>Maybe it would work. Of course, you'd be put in the unenviable
position
>of trying to teach a paradigm that wasn't yours, and doing it
without
>using magic (since your magic reflects your paradigm and your
>assumptions.) Not an easy task.
>
Why would you have to avoid using magic? How can the
student tell what the master knows? Certainly the rotes
in question work, and are obviously compatible enough
with my paradigm for me to be able to use. "This then is
an example of using Temporal magic to hang an effect,"
is what I finish up with.
>(And, of course, you'd have to get around their preconceived
notions of
>how magic works, as well...after all, if they Awaken, their
beliefs about
>what magic is are going to shape their personal paradigm.)
>
Everyone who teaches magic has to do that anyway.
Jason Corley
> Heck, you could probably dig up some old timers and change
> "second edition" to "first edition" and "revised edition" to
> "second edition" and still find folks to agree with it. That is
> the nature of change, some people will like it and some won't.
There was a great thread here a while back about mining part of the Mage
1ed. coincidence rules for used in 2ed. and Revised. As I had sold off my
1ed. book ages ago, I thought it was pretty cool to find one of the ideas
that might be useful today.
Deirdre M. Brooks
Angela Christine wrote:
>
> Heck, you could probably dig up some old timers and change
> "second edition" to "first edition" and "revised edition" to
> "second edition" and still find folks to agree with it. That is
> the nature of change, some people will like it and some won't.
Emboss this on a brass plate. :-)
Stephenls
> when not even the writers stick to the rules?
Because you think the writing is interesting, or it gives you a neato
story idea, or....
Just because you don't agree with "something" doesn't mean that
"something" is /objectively/ bad. Stop telling other people that
because they see the issue different than you, they don't know what
they're talking about.
Icidentally: Occham's Razor suggests that we take the simplest
solutuion, the simplest solution in this case is that you (and me and
him) don't know what we're talking about, and Jess does. After al, he
attends the WWGS meetings.
--
Stephenls
Geek
<I'm sorry. I cannot help you. I cannot change the nature of a man>
--Fell, Torment
"The Merriam-Webster dictionary has the definition wrong
as well as it states that hubris is "exaggerated pride
or self-confidence." "
--Hikageneko
"There is no known limit to the stupidity of Mankind."
--Christina Waldeck
"Online communication is a fragile thing. It's also phenomenological.
There is no existence beyond what we read. If you present the persona of
a humorless twit, then you are one, as far as the net is concerned."
--Bruce Baugh
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GU dpu s+:--- a17 C++ U? P? L? E? W+ N++ o? K w
O- M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP? t+ 5 X+ R++ tv b+++ DI(+) D++
G e- h! !r y(**)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Dr Nuncheon
aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <39700B...@telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>
>> it would be worth your character's while to charge out and look for
>books
>> containing rotes if some of those rotes are going to to let you do
>things
>> you can't do with regular spheres. Thus, finding a new rote becomes a
>> goody for the character.
>
>from spontaneous magic. This messes with what is for me the primary
>utility of Mage: A unified and consistent magical meta-Paradigm about
>the subjective universe.
I think that these 'rule-breaking' Rotes, if used properly, could add a
whole lot of flexibility to Mage. (But then, I think that the 5-level
system is generally too grainy for my tastes.)
They could be used, for example, as part of the training process to reach
a higher level in a particular Sphere. (And the indications are they
Rotes are used this way...) Surely the knowledge doesn't all descend upon
the Mage all at once - they learn one trick at the higher level, then more
as their understanding grows, until they are at the 'full' higher level
and can use all of the sphere's effects.
Dr Nuncheon
Let's try a simpler example:
Professor Bob has History 5.
There is a fact that is so obscure, only people with History 5 would know
it.
Bob tells this fact to Jim, who has History 1.
Does Jim now have History 5?
No.
>>>I have no problem with the Spheres as
>>>used by the Traditions being an incomplete understanding.
>>>I also have no problem with the Spheres being universally
>>>used by modern mages--in the modern world mass communication
>>>is easy. It srikes me as odd that such exceptions managed
>>>to avoid coming to light until recently,
>>
>>Because we already know *everything* about all the ancient,
>extinct
>>cultures on the Earth, right? C'mon. Archeologists still
>argue over how
>>the Pyramids were built.
>>
>
>You miss my point all together. It isn't a matter of not
>knowing what the dead cultures knew, its a matter of my
>still living culture, with its history, coming into contact
>with your living culture, with its history, and finding out
>that I can do something that you thought was impossible with
>Time 2. It is odd that in the scores of groups that came
>together to found the Traditions that this wasn't the case.
>Apparently everyone with contradictory knowledge died out in
>the WoD well before the modern Traditions.
Again, how do you *know* this didn't happen? You're looking at the modern
Spheres and making the assumption that they have somehow always been this
way, when in reality they're the modern expression of thousands of years
of traditions mixing and such.
>>>and also odd
>>>that the groups that came together to form the Traditions
>>>didn't have such quirks in the way they individually
>>>performed magic. ("You mean you can stop time with very
>>>little training? Amazing, by our approach you don't learn
>>>to stop time until the final step of mastery.")
>>
>>Who's to say they didn't, and that those weren't all
>incorporated together
>>into the modern Spheres? Heck, some of the Trads were probably
>saying,
>>"Time? You can affect time?"
>>
>
>Because if they'd been incorporated, there would have been
>"broken" exceptions to the Spheres already published.
What? Not even close.
Tradition A can create fire at Forces 3. Tradition B only figures it out
at Forces 5. However, Tradition B knows how to tell time at Time 1, while
Tradition A hasn't figured it out at all.
They meet, and trade knowledge.
Now *both* Traditions can make Fire at Forces 3, and tell time at Time 1.
See?
If that's how the Spheres came to be in their modern form, and they are
the 'lowest common denominator' among the Traditions, then it makes sense
that the only exceptions we would see would be in 'dead magic' that was
lost to the world.
>>>These rotes are the equivalent to finding an ancient
>>>Mayan device that allows communication faster than light,
>>>or perhaps anti-gravity--either way, something that
>>>shouldn't exist by our current view of physics.
>>
>>Like magic, huh?
>
>Yes. Your point?
Magic isn't possible by our current view of physics. Magic is possible in
the World of Darkness. Take it from there.
>>>>I personally think it's the belief systems of the Mages
>>>involved. They're
>>>>so tied to the idea of spheres and foci and what is possible
>at
>>>each level
>>>>of knowledge that they trap themselves into a prison of their
>>>own making.
>>>
>>>This could be tested by finding newly awakened mages and
>>>teaching them contrary to what is normally done.
>>
>>The trouble is doing that without giving them *any* of your
>prejudices and
>>thoughts on how you think magic works.
>
>Why would that be a problem? It is relatively easy to teach
>Aristotelian physics, and happens all the time on college
>campuses around the world. All you need to do is leave off
>any commentary about validity.
Maybe it would work. Of course, you'd be put in the unenviable position
of trying to teach a paradigm that wasn't yours, and doing it without
using magic (since your magic reflects your paradigm and your
assumptions.) Not an easy task.
(And, of course, you'd have to get around their preconceived notions of
how magic works, as well...after all, if they Awaken, their beliefs about
what magic is are going to shape their personal paradigm.)
J
Angela Christine
<spirald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Honestly, the comparison between the two revisions isn't FAIR to VRev. VRev
>WORKS. No complaints. People who loved Vampire continue to love Vampire...
>and people that despised Vampire are starting to love it.
Bleck. Did you miss "Feeding as Rape" threads a few months ago?
The lengthy and at times nearly hysterical discusions on the
perception that while vampires have always been monsters and the
vast majority of them bastards as well, now they are *all*
irredeemable heartless bastards from night one? The few vampires
that cannonically had reached Golconda were retconned so that, in
cannon, there is not a single example of anyone *ever* reaching
it, quenching one of the faint glimmers of hope for vampires.
The vast hoards of folks who railed against the heavens (well,
WW) when the Ravnos Antediluvian was killed?
There are plenty of folks who are frankly apalled at the
direction Vampire has taken.
>I don't think I
>can say the same for MRev overall.
Some people that liked the second edition don't like some
elements of the revised edition, and some folks who didn't care
for the game in the second edition do like the revised edition?
I'd say that, overall, that is true for both games.
Heck, you could probably dig up some old timers and change
"second edition" to "first edition" and "revised edition" to
"second edition" and still find folks to agree with it. That is
the nature of change, some people will like it and some won't.
David Johnston
> Well, I suppose it _could_ happen that way. Of course it
> _could_ happen that the rote, as published, was a mistake
> and that Jess, acting out of spite, decided to defend the
> mistake rather than admit to it.
>
> I leave it to the reader to decide which is more reasonable
> to believe. (And as a test, how many other rotes in Dead
> Magic violate the rules?)
I find neither plausible. What I do find plausible, is the idea
that the rote was written by someone who doesn't really care
about the rules and just slaps on whatever sphere levels sound good
to him, in the exact same way that immortality rotes end up with 5
conjunctional Master-level spheres that do nothing that rules
driven magic couldn't do with nothing more than Life 4 or 5
aetherson
I actually suggested/supported this notion a bit higher up this thread.
However, I disagree with skipping a level entirely in that case. That
is, I could see my way clear to letting someone with Time 2 cast a Time
3 rote on this principle, but not letting someone with Time 2 cast a
Time 4 rote.
The Lighthouse Keeper
> Icidentally: Occham's Razor suggests that we take the simplest
> solutuion, the simplest solution in this case is that you (and me and
> him) don't know what we're talking about, and Jess does. After al, he
> attends the WWGS meetings.
The simplest solution could also be that a mistake in consistency was made
due to a lacking in attention to detail.
I have a hard time believing that just because someone may or may not attend
meetings at WWGS that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
The Lighthouse Keeper
> And yes, I'm also one of those who think that the least they could do is
rulebook
> when not even the writers stick to the rules?
That's been my point EXACTLY for the most part for the entirety of this
"fork" of the Dead Magic threads.
Go easy.
Deirdre M. Brooks
The Lighthouse Keeper wrote:
>
> The simplest solution could also be that a mistake in consistency was made
> due to a lacking in attention to detail.
Or Jess could mean exactly what he said here.
It's not too great a leap to assume he knows what he's talking about.
> I have a hard time believing that just because someone may or may not attend
> meetings at WWGS that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Perhaps, but it strikes me that this detail is minor enough that it's
probably best to simply move on. You don't agree with the rote? That's
fine.
Fangorn
>
> In article <8knqtp$t61$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Blake <blak...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > Since there's a guideling that seems to make gaining moderate to high
> > levels of spheres prohibitively time-consuming, such a system might be
> > a particularly good idea. Though, I suppose it could be seen as Mage
> > further sliding towards a list based 'D&D' system of magic...
>
> I've never understood people's problems with that. You have mages who
> aren't creative, and aren't developing their own applications of the
> Spheres. They end up, ultimately, not being the ones capable of the
> wild intuitive leaps that will keep them and their causes alive. The
> ones who stick to the established roads have a limited arsenal at their
> disposal, and one day ... boom.
>
> Seems to me a list of rotes would only encourage this behavior, a
> behavior, IMO, that matches up thematically with MtA (and, to a lesser
> extent, MtSC).
I agree. I don't see the tendency towards "spells" (as opposed to
spur-of-the-moment reality-warping) as necessarily a bad thing. In my
opinion, one of the main failings of Mage 2nd ed was the way it didn't
feel mystical. There was simply a list of sphere levels and what could
be done with them, and you could work out a spell for virtually anything
you wanted to do. I feel that this took a lot of the mystery out of the
game. Unless you were willing to put a lot of effort into designing your
paradigm and thinking up rotes, I found that the mood shifted from being
users of magic and knowers of secrets into just being guys with powers.
Mage Rev has addressed this a little, but I think that more is required.
I'm considering a system of magic where you start off as a Sorceror,
with a few minor and static paths, gain specific rotes to access more
powerful magic, and only later on begin to discard foci and become a
true willworker.
I like the idea of being able to get rotes that give you far more power
than you can do on your own. If nothing else, it opens the door to
"wizard's apprentice"-type adventures where your PCs end up releasing
powerful demons by accident.
-Fangorn
Death is the only reality.
Christina Waldeck
(snip)
> Besides - it's already known to be possible for mages to exceed the bounds
> of their sphere knowledges, during their Awakening. I think a more
> fruitful line of research would be an attempt to extend that period of
> time & study it to find out *why* they are not bound by the rules that
> apply to other Mages...
No supplement ever said that mages going through the awakening can break
the "rules" of what is possible inside the magical laws of the WoD. They
simply said that the those mages often manifest effects, during a burst
of energy at awakening, that are more powerful than what they should be
able to cast (similar to Changeling where the process of chrysalis
creates a temporary wild surge of Glamour) - but since a newly awakened
mage is effectively Arete 1, sphere ratings 0, EVERY magic unconsciously
cast during awakening is technically more powerful than what he can
consciously cast. The theory is that since the Avatar DOES have
knowledge about former lifes, the magic flows straight from the Avatar.
And in former lifes, the mages perhaps knew all those spheres and
levels. Now, of course, once the wild dance of awakening wears off, the
Avatar retreats into the background again and the mage can to uncover
all that knowledge and magical theory again.
But it never said that i.e. an Arete 1 Verbena can cast wild Life 5
effects because sometimes the universal laws of magic are reversed and
there are circumstances where shapeshifting is suddenly easy as taking
candy from a baby!
James Kiley
>No supplement ever said that mages going through the awakening can break
>the "rules" of what is possible inside the magical laws of the WoD.
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!
jk
Dr Nuncheon
Scatter Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> wrote:
>je...@fnord.io.com (Dr Nuncheon) wrote:
>>
>>Sorry, you'll have to unpack this, because it makes no sense
>the way
>>you've written it.
>
>I'm going to repeat this only this one more time.
>
>The equation--a=9.8m/s^2--is an observable truth here about
>Earth (depending on how inaccurate my measuring equipment is).
>I can hypothesize all sorts of other equations as broader
>turths that yield different equations based upon non-Earthly
>conditions so long as when I stick in Earthly conditions I
>end up with results compatible with what I observe on Earth.
>For example, I could suppose that acceleration due to
>gravity between two objects follows an inverse cubed law if I
>assume the appropriate constant to make acceleration due to
>gravity where I'm standing work out to what I observe. However,
>that assumption fails when I test it against the observed
>universe.
And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?
The point is that one can use the equation 9.8m/s^2 and be perfectly happy
without understanding *why* it works, or *how* it would need to be
changed to work in other circumstances (like on a different planet).
Similarly, one might be able to use the rote 'Halt the Nagloper' without
understanding *why* it works, or *how* you might use it to hang other
spells for later use.
You MIGHT be able to study the Halt the Nagloper rote to try to figure out
how it 'hangs' the spell. Guess what? That'd be part of studying the
Time sphere, and if you *do* figure it out, you'd have a higher score in
Time! But studying the rote and just using it are two vastly different
things.
>>Let's try a simpler example:
>>
>>Professor Bob has History 5.
>>
>>There is a fact that is so obscure, only people with History 5
>would know
>>it.
>>
>>Bob tells this fact to Jim, who has History 1.
>>
>>Does Jim now have History 5?
>>
>>No.
>>
>
>What relevance does this have?
Bob has Time 4. He constructs a rote. He teaches it to Jim, who has Time
2. The rote is constructed in such a way that Jim can use it without
understanding all of the intricacies of Time 4.
Jim does not suddenly get Time 4. He gets the ability to perform one
small subset of one ability of Time 4.
No, I'm saying that group B saw it, said 'cool', and started doing it too.
And when group C came along and could do it in an easier way, groups A and
B said 'cool' and started doing it that way.
And none of these magical traditions had *any* contact before the
Renaissance. Uh-huh.
>Second, that Tradition B creates fire at Forces 5 is a
>function of their paradigm. Their paradigm must change
>if they are to create fire at Forces 3, yet we've never
>had word the first in any book about the Spheres being
>being this yielding.
Could that be because in seeing Spheres in Mage, they've been set and
static for hundreds of years?
>In fact Orphans, who most assuredly
>aren't part of the Traditions, learned to create fire
>throughout the history of the Mage line, at Forces 3.
Except in Mage 1st Ed (where everybody learned it at 5), but I guess
that's a needless nitpick.
However, people doing things like going through their Awakening create
fire at Forces 0. Heck, so do I, with a Zippo lighter. The rules *can*
be broken (or changed, as the case may be.)
>>Maybe it would work. Of course, you'd be put in the unenviable
>position
>>of trying to teach a paradigm that wasn't yours, and doing it
>without
>>using magic (since your magic reflects your paradigm and your
>>assumptions.) Not an easy task.
>>
>
>Why would you have to avoid using magic? How can the
>student tell what the master knows?
"This guy tells me magic is possible, and he can work magic. I'll watch
him to see what working magic is like." If you work your magic in front
of him, you're going to shape his paradigm by exposing it to yours. He's
going to copy you on some level, because he knows that it works.
Dr Nuncheon
Christina Waldeck <c.wa...@tu-bs.de> wrote:
>Dr Nuncheon wrote:
>(snip)
>> Besides - it's already known to be possible for mages to exceed the bounds
>> of their sphere knowledges, during their Awakening. I think a more
>> fruitful line of research would be an attempt to extend that period of
>> time & study it to find out *why* they are not bound by the rules that
>> apply to other Mages...
>
>simply said that the those mages often manifest effects, during a burst
>of energy at awakening, that are more powerful than what they should be
>able to cast (similar to Changeling where the process of chrysalis
>creates a temporary wild surge of Glamour) - but since a newly awakened
>mage is effectively Arete 1, sphere ratings 0, EVERY magic unconsciously
>cast during awakening is technically more powerful than what he can
>consciously cast.
In other words, they break the rules of what is normally considered
possible, which is exactly what I said.
>The theory is that since the Avatar DOES have
>knowledge about former lifes, the magic flows straight from the Avatar.
>And in former lifes, the mages perhaps knew all those spheres and
>levels.
Key word: theory.
>But it never said that i.e. an Arete 1 Verbena can cast wild Life 5
>effects because sometimes the universal laws of magic are reversed and
>there are circumstances where shapeshifting is suddenly easy as taking
>candy from a baby!
Oddly enough, I can cast a Forces 3 effect with a Zippo lighter. 1000
years ago, I would not have been able to do so. It is clearly possible to
change what is and is not 'magic', as well as the amount of knowledge one
needs to effect said magic.
aetherson
If you can handle a bit of extra game-level complexity, mostly in
chargen and experience, I wrote a series of fairly intrusive house
rules that are meant to let people like you and people like me coexist
in harmony -- that is, to give the game more of a mystical feeling
without removing the will-working/reality-warping parts of the game.
I've posted some of them before, and they're still a work in progress,
but I can post or email what I've got if there's interest.
aetherson
"Deirdre M. Brooks" <xe...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>
> Angela Christine wrote:
> >
> > Heck, you could probably dig up some old timers and change
> > "second edition" to "first edition" and "revised edition" to
> > "second edition" and still find folks to agree with it. That is
> > the nature of change, some people will like it and some won't.
>
Could we add "aetherson's first and second corollaries" to this brass
plate?
1. No matter how wildly good the change is, to the point where no
reasonable human being could contest that the change is positive,
unreasonable people will come out of the woodwork and proclaim the
change bad.
2. No matter how wildly horrible the change is, to the point where no
reasonable human being could contest that the change is negative,
unreasonable people will come out of the woodwork and proclaim the
change good.
Scatter Gatherer
>In article <1cfd5746...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com>,
>Scatter Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> wrote:
>>je...@fnord.io.com (Dr Nuncheon) wrote:
>>>
>>>Sorry, you'll have to unpack this, because it makes no sense
>>the way
>>>you've written it.
>>
>>I'm going to repeat this only this one more time.
>>
>>The equation--a=9.8m/s^2--is an observable truth here about
>>Earth (depending on how inaccurate my measuring equipment is).
>>I can hypothesize all sorts of other equations as broader
>>turths that yield different equations based upon non-Earthly
>>conditions so long as when I stick in Earthly conditions I
>>end up with results compatible with what I observe on Earth.
>>For example, I could suppose that acceleration due to
>>gravity between two objects follows an inverse cubed law if I
>>assume the appropriate constant to make acceleration due to
>>gravity where I'm standing work out to what I observe. However,
>>that assumption fails when I test it against the observed
>>universe.
>
>And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?
>
Very little I suspect, however the point was that the very
existence of rule-breaking rotes provides the beginnings of
of getting at the broader truth of the matter.
>The point is that one can use the equation 9.8m/s^2 and be
perfectly happy
>without understanding *why* it works, or *how* it would need to
be
>changed to work in other circumstances (like on a different
planet).
>
a=9.8m/s^2 isn't much of an equation. It is more a statement of
fact--a has a value. PV=nRT is an equation, and in order to
solve for the various non-constants, you have to understand
basic algebra.
>Similarly, one might be able to use the rote 'Halt the
Nagloper' without
>understanding *why* it works, or *how* you might use it to hang
other
>spells for later use.
>
Which qualifies as something of a change to the Mage setting.
It used to be the case that you had to have the appropriate
knowledge to perform a rote. Moreover, you had to have the
appropriate belief. A member of the Order of Hermes comes
across records of ancient African magic. He looks at the
record and thinks to himself, "This is somewhat garbled by
all sorts of foolish, backwards, incorrect, primitive
belief, but I can see common elements with Hermetic thinking,
and just might be able to adapt it to something I can use."
His paradigm and belief says that what is done requires
understanding available at Time 4. Where does Time 2 enter
the equation?
If he isn't using his paradigm, how is he working any magic
at all? If he is using his paradigm, how does Time 2 allow
him to do what he believes can't be done?
If an physicist came across a crashed alien spaceship with
a device that allowed faster than light communication, he'd
know his beliefs to the contrary, FTL is possible. He may
never come up with an overall theory to explain FTL, but
certainly he could, having figured out how to, use the
device. The difference here is that the device has objective
existence. Rotes. . .they are expressions of what happens
according to a particular paradigm if you do the appropriate
thing--things that in this case the mage discovering the rote
believes are wrong. Moreover, the working of the FTL device
isn't a matter of belief (in our world), but in Mage, magic
is, to the extent that isn't covered by knowledge, a matter
of belief.
>You MIGHT be able to study the Halt the Nagloper rote to try to
figure out
>how it 'hangs' the spell. Guess what? That'd be part of
studying the
>Time sphere, and if you *do* figure it out, you'd have a higher
score in
>Time! But studying the rote and just using it are two vastly
different
>things.
>
Again, this relies on the objective existence of something to
give truth to the rote. This goes against the established
grain of Mage.
>>>Let's try a simpler example:
>>>
>>>Professor Bob has History 5.
>>>
>>>There is a fact that is so obscure, only people with History 5
>>would know
>>>it.
>>>
>>>Bob tells this fact to Jim, who has History 1.
>>>
>>>Does Jim now have History 5?
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>
>>What relevance does this have?
>
>Bob has Time 4. He constructs a rote. He teaches it to Jim,
who has Time
>2. The rote is constructed in such a way that Jim can use it
without
>understanding all of the intricacies of Time 4.
And until Dead Magic, Bob would have been wasting Jim's time.
In fact, he presumably is still wasting Jim's time.
>
>Jim does not suddenly get Time 4. He gets the ability to
perform one
>small subset of one ability of Time 4.
The published rules do not support this as a possibility.
It has never been the case in Mage that you could still
someone's big book of rotes and use them without sufficient
knowledge.
And either completely ignored their own paradigm along the
way or came up with a broader understanding which incorporated
the new bit of knowledge. As Mage says that paradigm is
important, I'll assume they didn't do the former. Yet if they
did the latter, then why isn't his required of the mage
discovering the rules-breaking rote?
>And when group C came along and could do it in an easier way,
groups A and
>B said 'cool' and started doing it that way.
>
This just doesn't work.
Not none, some.
>>Second, that Tradition B creates fire at Forces 5 is a
>>function of their paradigm. Their paradigm must change
>>if they are to create fire at Forces 3, yet we've never
>>had word the first in any book about the Spheres being
>>being this yielding.
>
>Could that be because in seeing Spheres in Mage, they've been
set and
>static for hundreds of years?
>
That doesn't change how flexible they inherently are.
>>In fact Orphans, who most assuredly
>>aren't part of the Traditions, learned to create fire
>>throughout the history of the Mage line, at Forces 3.
>
>Except in Mage 1st Ed (where everybody learned it at 5), but I
guess
>that's a needless nitpick.
That was a retconing of the entire world, and you know that.
So yes, it is a needless, and meaningless, nitpick.
>
>However, people doing things like going through their Awakening
create
>fire at Forces 0. Heck, so do I, with a Zippo lighter. The
rules *can*
>be broken (or changed, as the case may be.)
>
Temporary flashes of insight are not a lot upon which to
base an argument. Certainly nothing sticks around that
thereafter allows repitition of whatever feat was performed.
>>>Maybe it would work. Of course, you'd be put in the
unenviable
>>position
>>>of trying to teach a paradigm that wasn't yours, and doing it
>>without
>>>using magic (since your magic reflects your paradigm and your
>>>assumptions.) Not an easy task.
>>>
>>
>>Why would you have to avoid using magic? How can the
>>student tell what the master knows?
>
>"This guy tells me magic is possible, and he can work magic.
I'll watch
>him to see what working magic is like." If you work your magic
in front
>of him, you're going to shape his paradigm by exposing it to
yours. He's
>going to copy you on some level, because he knows that it works.
>
I don't have to believe in a rain dance to perform one. If I
go into the ceremony already having hung a spell to cause it
to rain when I perform the dance, all the student sees me do
is perform the dance. Or I could have someone out of sight
perform the magic. All the student sees is my dance and the
subsequent rain.
Bruce Baugh
>1. No matter how wildly good the change is, to the point where no
>reasonable human being could contest that the change is positive,
>unreasonable people will come out of the woodwork and proclaim the
>change bad.
>2. No matter how wildly horrible the change is, to the point where no
>reasonable human being could contest that the change is negative,
>unreasonable people will come out of the woodwork and proclaim the
>change good.
It's an important truth among clueful game designers that _every_
passage is someone's most favorite and someone else's least favorite.
Every passage.
Robert G. Shimmin
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, David Johnston wrote:
> I find neither plausible. What I do find plausible, is the idea
> that the rote was written by someone who doesn't really care
> about the rules and just slaps on whatever sphere levels sound good
> to him, in the exact same way that immortality rotes end up with 5
> conjunctional Master-level spheres that do nothing that rules
> driven magic couldn't do with nothing more than Life 4 or 5
If I were ST'ing a game in which a player attempted immortality through
Life 4, I'd let each use of the Life 4 effect "rejuvenate" the player --
remove the outward appearance of aging and undo age-related illness, but
I'd rule that the player is still "old," that is prone to physical atrophy
and possible senility, as well as the onset of age-related illness
(cancer, heart disease, eye deterioration). Over the course of months to
years after casting the Life 4 effect, they'd revert to their true age,
requiring repeated (and more frequently repeated with time) use of the
effect to simulate immortality. A Traditionalist mage might describe them
as a "new tapestry woven from old cloth." The Technomancer would see
their youthful appearance, but on a molecular level their genome still
would have age-related damage.
Of course, anyone who extends their lifetime beyond what is possible for
normal sleepers (120 years or so) eats paradox every morning for
breakfast if I had to make the ruling.
--RS
Jess Heinig
flexibility. Sure, you may have a rote to create fire, and a rote to accelerate
a stone to super high speed, but can you channel lightning or create luck?
Or, more concretely, you have a lighter and a gun. This doesn't necessarily
let you do other magics (although a clever mage can be very flexible with
limited tools.)
Jess Heinig
WWGS
Mad Genius wrote:
> Daniel Glass <thefirsttheone...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3970AC55...@hotmail.com...
> > Depends on the Mage. But using nothing but rotes you will never become a
> > Master or reach Ascension.
> >
> > Dave Turner wrote:
> >
> > > Dangerous ground, here. Why bother to learn Spheres to high levels,
> > > then? Why not just learn the rotes and cast all the Forces 5/Prime 2
> > > effects you want?
>
> IMG, I rule that a player who messes with a rote which includes spheres
> well beyond his rank, or tht he doesn't have, is using magic that is Vulgar
> w/ Witnesses, must use all the foci perscribed for it, and can only be used
> in the way that it is written. Of course, I allow players IMG to make rotes
> like this with an Intelligence+High Ritual or Occult roll, then use them
> with the above restrictions. I don't hold with their Sphere Ranks being
> absolute limits, y'see, just the limits where they're safe operating without
> (hopefully) getting sodomized by Paradox.
Deirdre M. Brooks
aetherson wrote:
>
> Could we add "aetherson's first and second corollaries" to this brass
> plate?
Yes, have some. :-) Could add a third corollary that "good" and "bad"
are largely in the eye of the beholder.
Tina
> Or, more concretely, you have a lighter and a gun. This doesn't necessarily
> let you do other magics (although a clever mage can be very flexible with
> limited tools.)
<pause> <vacuous look> So all mages are MacGuyver? <blink> <blink> ;)
Tina
Stephenls
> meetings at WWGS that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
No one is right and no one is wrong. Jess is writing as he sees fit.
You run games as you see fit. Jess /cannot/ write games as /you/ see
fit, because Jess is not you. You should not criticize Jess for
"writing wrong" because he doesn't know what you think is wrong. It may
be intuitively obvious for you, but it sure isn't for me, and,
evidently, it isn't for him.
Jess Heining thought of something and said to himself "hey, this is a
neat idea. I believe I'll write it into a book." Jess may have done
the right thing, or he may have done the wrong thing. He may be the
most visionary man on earth, or he may be a bumbling idiot. I don't
know. You don't /really/ know*.
Jess doesn't know either.
All Jess can write is stuff that occurs to him, or stuff that occurs to
others and who tell Jess. Jess has no way of knowing whether people
will agree or dissagree with him.**. /He/ evidently thought that
"incorporating [the idea that one can perform magic exceeding ones
knowledge of the Spheres if one uses a predetermined rote] into the mage
setting" was a good idea. I see no reason why this is a bad idea. If
other do, that's good for them. More power to them. But those people
shoud refrain from attemting to tell Jess that he is not allowed to
write as he sees fit, because that is not how they see fit.
* I am not accusing you, Shannon, or thinking Jess is a bumbling idiot.
You have said otherwise in earlier posts. I was trying to illustrate
both ends of the greyscale.
** People who say "but he should!!" in an indignant manner will be
regarded in the same way as the bullies who say "cuz it's fun" when I
ask them why they just tripped me in the highschool halls. Yes, I'm
seventeen and just getting into 12th grade. So sue me. My opinions are
just as valid as yours, at least on this subject. I am a paying
whitewolf customer.