Mage:the Awakening is out. Opinions?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SSquirrel

Explorer
I haven't read ENWorld much in the last few months due to real life craziness, but I haven't seen anything in the baords really about the new version of Mage. Who has it, what does everyone think? I was reading thoughts on it from RPG.net yesterday and the general concesus is that the whole Atlantean thing is a bit bland, the book looks gorgeous and no one has completely decided about it.

I'm working thru the setting info right now after a quick skimming of the book. What does everyone else think? I'm still trying to decide if the game is different just to justify a new edition of the game or to fix things. Even then, I'm figuring out if the game is actually better than 2E. Revised just never happened heh.

Hagen
 

log in or register to remove this ad

SWBaxter

First Post
Hmm. It's very shiny.

The rules, on first read at least, are miles and miles better than any of the previous versions I've read (I'm pretty sure there's at least one version I haven't read, so it might've been comparable, I dunno). Very strong treatment of magic, two thumbs up just for that.

The setting is a bit harder to judge; it's a little on the bland side. I didn't much like the oWoD setting and background, but at least it sparked an emotional reaction - this one gets an "eh" from me. I suspect that - kinda like Werewolf: the Forsaken - WW are saving their ideas on how the game should run for the setting and enemies books.

Did I mention it's very shiny?
 

Well, it's been out for about two weeks now (for us lucky ones who managed to get a copy at Gen Con).

They've definitely learned a lot of lessons from earlier Mage, some of the big (and welcome) changes:

1. The first dot of a type of magic (Arcanum now, Spheres before) is a lot more useful than it used to be. Instead of just purely sensing, you can do some limited manipulation with the first dot.

2. It's easier to create a starting mage with any real power level, since Gnosis (formerly Arete) 1 lets you get up to 3 dots in an arcana. You also start with 2 dots in two arcanum and 1 in a third, meaning even a basic mage can cast spells that really affect things without buying up their arete gnosis.

3. Becoming a stronger mage actually makes it easier to draw Paradox, power has it's price. The overall theme of new Mage appears to be "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility".

4. They made mages a lot more rote dependent, you can still try and improvise spells, but rotes work an a whole lot better. Probably for crossover balance, since Mages are quite flexible with what they can do.

5. They really spelled out the cosmology nice and clearly. The descriptions of the old Umbra were clear as mud. It is harder to visit than it used to be (no weird Avatar Storm at least), and the the game is clearly based on Earth, but if you must venture across the Abyss or the Gauntlet, the game at least makes it clear enough what is out there, and how it all fits together.

6. There are actually rules (guidelines more) for the 6th dot in an Arcanum. Not much more than saying it's a plot device-level, but at least they acknowledged it instead of consigning it to an obscure and overpowered splatbook. They also had powers capping out at 6, and those are hard to get.

7. Liches, they have liches. I like that Tremere are now Mages who have to devour the souls of others.

8. The 5 "path" splats are pretty broad, although saying that 2 of your 3 starting Arcana have to be the 2 Ruling Arcana of your splat is a little limiting.

9. The focus is definitely back on being a Mage. It's clear that mages are supposed to cast spells, wave wands, perform strange rituals and the like. Weird arcane hackers, mad scientists, raver kids, men in black and the like aren't impossible, but the game makes it clear that they aren't the norm.

10. No Technocracy. I thought they were kinda cool, but not having Them as an everpresent opponent really can make the game more about roleplaying, and less about matrix-esque gunfights and blowing up Space Marines (which is what a lot of Mage games came down to).

11. The default setting of Boston/New England seems quite appropriate. Cold, dark New England villages with a distinct Lovecraftian and/or Stephen King feeling seem quite appropriate for White Wolf mages (not to mention the obvious Salem).

12. Style. Mage books always were colorfully written and quite evocative of a mood, and this one definitely holds up to that tradition. It's a physically very beautiful book and the book itself seems almost like a piece of art. The "Atlantis" theme for the ancient history of Mages and the chevron look of the "A" in their logo makes me think of Stargate: Atlantis though.

13. I liked how sleeper witnesses to Vulgar magic works now. Sleepers witnessing somebody flying are to rationalize away whatever they saw (much like Werewolf delerium lunacy), and have a chance of making any vulgar spell they witness in progress just fail.
 

Starman

Adventurer
It sounds interesting; I like some of the changes they've made. I've never had a chance to play oWoD Mage. Maybe I can get a group to play the new one.
 

Borlon

First Post
How clear are the guidelines for coincidental magic? The reason I ask is that I had several discussions with a would-be MtA DM Storyteller about the nature of coincidental magic, and we were not able to reach a consensus. I wasn't a player in his group; we were just talking about it.

My claim was that a mage who wanted an apple could "just happen" to have one on his person. Doesn't have to be an apple; just something common and easily concealed, that someone plausibly might carry around with them, and that could be forgetten until needed. I said that producing an apple in this way would not cause any paradox at all. You could even have a character whose use of magic was unconscious, I claimed, and he could think that he was both absent minded and lucky to have packed an apple and then forgotten about it.

But my friend (who has an MA in particle physics) thought that creating an apple was a massive violation of the laws of conservation of energy, and it would produce HUGE amounts of paradox.

Does the latest version of MtA support one of these answers more than the other?
 

Haradim

Explorer
Borlon said:
Does the latest version of MtA support one of these answers more than the other?

The oWoD Mage book fully supported your interpretation, unless I have been reading it in a completely backwards fashion.

The new version sounds a lot better to me than the older one. My complaints of ineffectiveness are quite common when I play old Mage. Shame our only Mage GM hates the new version, as I rather enjoy the concept of the game.
 

SSquirrel

Explorer
Borlon said:
My claim was that a mage who wanted an apple could "just happen" to have one on his person. Doesn't have to be an apple; just something common and easily concealed, that someone plausibly might carry around with them, and that could be forgetten until needed. I said that producing an apple in this way would not cause any paradox at all. You could even have a character whose use of magic was unconscious, I claimed, and he could think that he was both absent minded and lucky to have packed an apple and then forgotten about it.

In oWoD I would definitely rule with you, so long as the same sleepers don't continue to see coincidence after coincidence from the same mage. "Luckily" having the needed, not-so-uncommon item when you need it most once or twice isn't too bad. 5 or 6 times in a day or so...you'll start having Paradox issues. This is how a character like Nakor from the Feist Riftwar Saga is possible ;)

In nWoD I'm not entirely sure. I need to read more, but I tend to believe that coincidental handwaving is a needed part of being a mage. Then again, I run D&D 3E w/free casting of 0 level spells. Easy, simple magic should be just that and it makes for less rules overhead too.

Hagen
 


SWBaxter

First Post
wingsandsword said:
3. Becoming a stronger mage actually makes it easier to draw Paradox, power has it's price. The overall theme of new Mage appears to be "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility".

They state explicitly early on that the main theme is "Power Corrupts". I'm kinda pondering whether it'd work for a modern day Lord of the Rings-inspired campaign.

Borlon said:
How clear are the guidelines for coincidental magic?

(snip)

Does the latest version of MtA support one of these answers more than the other?

The book says that the ST makes a paradox roll when:

- the mage casts a vulgar spell
- the mage casts a covert spell that a Sleeper witness believes is improbable

It seems fairly clear to me that your apple example wouldn't cause a paradox roll, although the "unconcious mage" idea doesn't really fit with the way mages are presented in the new edition. Then again, from what I recall of previous versions it wouldn't have caused a roll there, either.
 

raleel

Explorer
wingsandsword said:
1. The first dot of a type of magic (Arcanum now, Spheres before) is a lot more useful than it used to be. Instead of just purely sensing, you can do some limited manipulation with the first dot.

Well, this is good, although I found that starting off as lower power made for a more interesting game myself.

wingsandsword said:
2. It's easier to create a starting mage with any real power level, since Gnosis (formerly Arete) 1 lets you get up to 3 dots in an arcana. You also start with 2 dots in two arcanum and 1 in a third, meaning even a basic mage can cast spells that really affect things without buying up their arete gnosis.

sounds like they wanted to make a game that was more structured. Mage was, for better or worse, very hard.


wingsandsword said:
4. They made mages a lot more rote dependent, you can still try and improvise spells, but rotes work an a whole lot better. Probably for crossover balance, since Mages are quite flexible with what they can do.

Again, more structured and more defined.


wingsandsword said:
9. The focus is definitely back on being a Mage. It's clear that mages are supposed to cast spells, wave wands, perform strange rituals and the like. Weird arcane hackers, mad scientists, raver kids, men in black and the like aren't impossible, but the game makes it clear that they aren't the norm.

And this disappoints me greatly. Now you are a modern day Gandalf, not a willworker. boring.

wingsandsword said:
10. No Technocracy. I thought they were kinda cool, but not having Them as an everpresent opponent really can make the game more about roleplaying, and less about matrix-esque gunfights and blowing up Space Marines (which is what a lot of Mage games came down to).

well, those games will just take on a different flavor, but I wouldn't say that they are going to be more about roleplaying. There were plenty of options for roleplay with the technocracy.

It sounds like they wanted to firm things up. I suppose I'll happily ignore this one. I really liked Mage a lot... probably my favorite game ever, but I knew pretty well it wasn't for everyone, or even a large fraction of gamers. Not like i get to play it a lot or anything, but it stimulated my brain.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top