5 ms·

I love the oWoD. But it doesn't take a grognard to argue it had huge problems in terms of rules. Anyone who wants to play Mage needs to first find a new magic s

I love the oWoD. But it doesn't take a grognard to argue it had huge problems in terms of rules. Anyone who wants to play Mage needs to first find a new magic system, because the one in the book straight up does not work properly if you think about it for five seconds. They also injected a ton of New age-y politics into everything, which annoyed many people. The player base of Mage basically revolted at one point and decided the ostensible villains of the setting - the Technocracy - while far from perfect, where a damn sight more sympathetic than the insane hippie anarchist weirdos (aka Mages) who are pissy humanity no longer lives in mud huts and who can't accept science and technology did more good for the average person than they ever could.

glogla 9y ago
Yep. I think Vampire was fine in this regard, but there was a lot of anti-intelectualism in both Mage and Werewolf. I guess it was the esoteric nineties, nowadays 'science is evil' runs with a different and pretty specific crowd.
- ticviking 9y ago
  Which one is that, because I know at least as many anti-science hippies as I do religious nuts.
  - abiox 9y ago
    > I know at least as many anti-science hippies as I do religious nuts are those distinct groups? seems like there could be significant overlap.
e12e 9y ago
> Anyone who wants to play Mage needs to first find a new magic system, because the one in the book straight up does not work properly if you think about it for five seconds. The premise of Mage is that an awakened can bend reality to their will[1]. There's no need for a system... Just a Good GM :) [1] À la The Matrix and the graphic novel The Books of Magic by Gaiman.
- csydas 9y ago
  I was going to say something to this effect since the MtA had a very free and easy magic system that was more about manipulating reality in subtle and not so subtle ways than "I cast fireball". It was a really creative and fun idea for magic without mages outclassing everyone like with DnD (3.x). What about it doesn't work cause I've spent quite a bit more than 5 seconds thinking on it and I find it works quite well.
  - j9461701 9y ago
    Tell me, in concrete, non-ambiguous terms, what will or will not generate paradox and if so how severely for performing the following feats in front of 10 sleepers. Directly cite the rule book for each example: Using magic to levitate a feather. Using magic to levitate a plane in the sky. Using magic to levitate a person. Using magic to levitate a person wearing a jetpack. Using magic to levitate a person wearing a jetpack not turned on. Doing each of the above, but while wearing a stage magician's outfit and explicitly calling each one an "illusion". Vulgar, coincidental, perceiver w/ consensus, perceiver w/o consensus - blah, it is so needlessly complicated and has too many self-contradictory answers. You're left spinning your wheels trying to run the game according to the rules white wolf created, ignoring the rules entirely and playing purely narratively, or finding alternative rules that are actually decent.
    - ticviking 9y ago
      I'm not near a rulebook, but for the CoD version of the rules, all of those will generate paradox, though you get a bonus to managing it if you have the illusion roll. You're criticizing a stylistic choice to have the rules here be "whatever the GM thinks is reasonable" which is a valid, if fuzzy and imprecise rules choice.
    - e12e 9y ago
      Even in Tsr's ad2nd ed - the book starts by saying all rules are optional and up to the dm and players discretion. Mage can be played like a straitjacket rules heavy game - but it really lends itself more to storytelling and meta-philosophical gaming IMNHO. This goes for all the storyteller settings; they're bad "world simulators" but great "story facilitators". If you want the former, you'll be disappointed.
Endy 9y ago
Oh, I totally agree with you there. In all honesty, "my game" is TSR's MSH FASERIP. But I wasn't talking about the system, the mechanics, etc - I commenting on the fact that in the article linked, the author calls V:tM a LARP, and while he wants to make it sound hopeful, my grognard alarms were going off about the way he said it. Will he always look down on games that are not D&D? Does he now, a decade later? I honestly don't know. But I do feel that his research here is lacking; and the question I'm forced to ask is, if he couldn't research what the WW games actually were (or if he did, couldn't represent that in black-and-white), what else did he miss?

glogla 9y ago

Yep. I think Vampire was fine in this regard, but there was a lot of anti-intelectualism in both Mage and Werewolf. I guess it was the esoteric nineties, nowadays 'science is evil' runs with a different and pretty specific crowd.

ticviking 9y ago
Which one is that, because I know at least as many anti-science hippies as I do religious nuts.
- abiox 9y ago
  > I know at least as many anti-science hippies as I do religious nuts are those distinct groups? seems like there could be significant overlap.

e12e 9y ago

> Anyone who wants to play Mage needs to first find a new magic system, because the one in the book straight up does not work properly if you think about it for five seconds. The premise of Mage is that an awakened can bend reality to their will[1]. There's no need for a system... Just a Good GM :) [1] À la The Matrix and the graphic novel The Books of Magic by Gaiman.

csydas 9y ago
I was going to say something to this effect since the MtA had a very free and easy magic system that was more about manipulating reality in subtle and not so subtle ways than "I cast fireball". It was a really creative and fun idea for magic without mages outclassing everyone like with DnD (3.x). What about it doesn't work cause I've spent quite a bit more than 5 seconds thinking on it and I find it works quite well.
- j9461701 9y ago
  Tell me, in concrete, non-ambiguous terms, what will or will not generate paradox and if so how severely for performing the following feats in front of 10 sleepers. Directly cite the rule book for each example: Using magic to levitate a feather. Using magic to levitate a plane in the sky. Using magic to levitate a person. Using magic to levitate a person wearing a jetpack. Using magic to levitate a person wearing a jetpack not turned on. Doing each of the above, but while wearing a stage magician's outfit and explicitly calling each one an "illusion". Vulgar, coincidental, perceiver w/ consensus, perceiver w/o consensus - blah, it is so needlessly complicated and has too many self-contradictory answers. You're left spinning your wheels trying to run the game according to the rules white wolf created, ignoring the rules entirely and playing purely narratively, or finding alternative rules that are actually decent.
  - ticviking 9y ago
    I'm not near a rulebook, but for the CoD version of the rules, all of those will generate paradox, though you get a bonus to managing it if you have the illusion roll. You're criticizing a stylistic choice to have the rules here be "whatever the GM thinks is reasonable" which is a valid, if fuzzy and imprecise rules choice.
  - e12e 9y ago
    Even in Tsr's ad2nd ed - the book starts by saying all rules are optional and up to the dm and players discretion. Mage can be played like a straitjacket rules heavy game - but it really lends itself more to storytelling and meta-philosophical gaming IMNHO. This goes for all the storyteller settings; they're bad "world simulators" but great "story facilitators". If you want the former, you'll be disappointed.

Endy 9y ago

Oh, I totally agree with you there. In all honesty, "my game" is TSR's MSH FASERIP. But I wasn't talking about the system, the mechanics, etc - I commenting on the fact that in the article linked, the author calls V:tM a LARP, and while he wants to make it sound hopeful, my grognard alarms were going off about the way he said it. Will he always look down on games that are not D&D? Does he now, a decade later? I honestly don't know. But I do feel that his research here is lacking; and the question I'm forced to ask is, if he couldn't research what the WW games actually were (or if he did, couldn't represent that in black-and-white), what else did he miss?