Mage the Ascension Question
I've run Mage continuously for many (8 or 9?) years. I've also freelanced for the line for five years.
Mage is actually pretty easy to run and play, as long as you aren't a gamer, or are willing to unlearn being a gamer for the sake of playing it. I've introduced about a dozen people to the game over the years (probably more, actually), and in ever instance, experienced gamers were at a disadvantage compared to folks who had never laid eyes on an RPG before. Here's why:
1) Mage works when players apply self-discipline. Gamers demand discipline from the GM.
2) Mage works when players collaborate on ideas for what characters might do. Gamers consider characters to be their inviolable playing pieces.
3) Mage's magic is strategic. Gamers are used to tactics.
New players get this stuff right away. They intuitively understand that a good game requires some self-imposed limits based on the character's temperament and magical style. They want to help each other do cool things. They understand magic in terms of story-logic, rather than as a tool or weapon. Only diehard gamers easily forget this stuff.
Yeah, I know you folks probably don't like hearing that. Meh; I call it as I see it.
To be more specific:
1) Paradigms are easy for non-gamwers to understand. They just think of it as the story of why and how the character does magic and they run with it and add detail when required. gamers try to build an unassailable fortress of belief that gives them the most power while heading off any and all inconsistencies.
2) It's best that the play group work together to come up with ideas for spells, from using foci to what to actually do. People eventually develop their own way of doing things, but in the beginning, you work it out with friends. Gamers consider themselves to own their character to an extent where they will not ask for help or take proffered advice.
3) Mage's magic system is scaled to reward length rituals to the extent that fire and forget magic is weak, but rituals and spectacularly destroy enemies, unravel plots and so on. PCs can do this, but NPCs can also instantly incinerate unwarded enemies, if desired. Magicd is very much a matter of keeping your head down and playing a little chicken, rather than seeing who can "ping" the most damage or biggest bonus in little bits. Magic is all or nothing; gamers are used to something versus something.
Mage is actually pretty easy to run and play, as long as you aren't a gamer, or are willing to unlearn being a gamer for the sake of playing it. I've introduced about a dozen people to the game over the years (probably more, actually), and in ever instance, experienced gamers were at a disadvantage compared to folks who had never laid eyes on an RPG before. Here's why:
1) Mage works when players apply self-discipline. Gamers demand discipline from the GM.
2) Mage works when players collaborate on ideas for what characters might do. Gamers consider characters to be their inviolable playing pieces.
3) Mage's magic is strategic. Gamers are used to tactics.
New players get this stuff right away. They intuitively understand that a good game requires some self-imposed limits based on the character's temperament and magical style. They want to help each other do cool things. They understand magic in terms of story-logic, rather than as a tool or weapon. Only diehard gamers easily forget this stuff.
Yeah, I know you folks probably don't like hearing that. Meh; I call it as I see it.
To be more specific:
1) Paradigms are easy for non-gamwers to understand. They just think of it as the story of why and how the character does magic and they run with it and add detail when required. gamers try to build an unassailable fortress of belief that gives them the most power while heading off any and all inconsistencies.
2) It's best that the play group work together to come up with ideas for spells, from using foci to what to actually do. People eventually develop their own way of doing things, but in the beginning, you work it out with friends. Gamers consider themselves to own their character to an extent where they will not ask for help or take proffered advice.
3) Mage's magic system is scaled to reward length rituals to the extent that fire and forget magic is weak, but rituals and spectacularly destroy enemies, unravel plots and so on. PCs can do this, but NPCs can also instantly incinerate unwarded enemies, if desired. Magicd is very much a matter of keeping your head down and playing a little chicken, rather than seeing who can "ping" the most damage or biggest bonus in little bits. Magic is all or nothing; gamers are used to something versus something.
Mercule
Adventurer
A couple of new thoughts. Those who are inclined towards philosophy are probably going to get a higher (or just different) level of enjoyment from the game, but it isn't a requirement. I've got a friend who used to boot people out of his dorm room if they even carried a philosophy book in (only a very slight exaggeration) and his love of Mage is probably only second to D&D. On the other hand, I've got a minor in Philosophy, and I always felt like there was another level to which I could take the game if I found the right group.
If you're a new gamer, you could probably still have a load of fun with Mage, even running it. Eyebeams has some good points. Just be aware that you're going to have to put some work and thought into things.
And the best point from eyebeams is #3. If mages act intelligently (fancy that), there's very little that can stop them. The scariest thing I've done with a PC was (jargon alert) when my Hermetic Master of Forces was loaded up on Quint, partially shielded from Paradox, and was given 10 minutes warning that he was about to be mobbed by a swarm of supernatural critters. Makes meteor swarm look pathetic.
If you're a new gamer, you could probably still have a load of fun with Mage, even running it. Eyebeams has some good points. Just be aware that you're going to have to put some work and thought into things.
And the best point from eyebeams is #3. If mages act intelligently (fancy that), there's very little that can stop them. The scariest thing I've done with a PC was (jargon alert) when my Hermetic Master of Forces was loaded up on Quint, partially shielded from Paradox, and was given 10 minutes warning that he was about to be mobbed by a swarm of supernatural critters. Makes meteor swarm look pathetic.
eyebeams said:
Not really. There are two groups that base their magic on science fiction tropes (cyberpunk and pulp/pseudo- science, for the Virtual Adepts and Sons of Ether respectively) rather than more traditional magic/fantasy sources, but that doesn't really impact on the casting of most fields of knowledge as evil propaganda. White Wolf did try to tone down some of the luddite themes as their games became mainstream, but that just lead to some weird inconsistencies. Fortunately, it looks like the new editions aren't going the mainstream-is-EVIL route in their setting(s) this time around.
I am a gamer, but also a roleplayer. Roleplayers can come up with character concepts that involve friends, paradigms, that work in a troupe, that use magic together, and use strategies and tactics consistent with the character, not just metagame info.
Some people might be wargamer/gamer with no roleplayer, and be hard pressed to make a character, I guess, but they are the sort of players not apt to want to be involved with Mage anyway.
I enjoyed Mage quite a bit. I never got a 3rd dot in any of my magical traits, and really dont get a second in most. I had 1 dot in everything, and while I couldnt blow up worlds, I could see, and know, and foresee everything. Of course I was an Ecstatic, and had half or more of my senses on at all times, also, which was fun both for me and the GM, he got to describe stuff nobody has a right to hear or see =)
I think, if you are looking for fun roleplaying stories, Mage is an outstanding game to do it in. If you are looking for a powergaming romp, I guess it works, but I dont think its the optimal system.
Some people might be wargamer/gamer with no roleplayer, and be hard pressed to make a character, I guess, but they are the sort of players not apt to want to be involved with Mage anyway.
I enjoyed Mage quite a bit. I never got a 3rd dot in any of my magical traits, and really dont get a second in most. I had 1 dot in everything, and while I couldnt blow up worlds, I could see, and know, and foresee everything. Of course I was an Ecstatic, and had half or more of my senses on at all times, also, which was fun both for me and the GM, he got to describe stuff nobody has a right to hear or see =)
I think, if you are looking for fun roleplaying stories, Mage is an outstanding game to do it in. If you are looking for a powergaming romp, I guess it works, but I dont think its the optimal system.
Mercule
Adventurer
Tiberius said:
Don't rightly remember -- it was several years ago, and the win was worth it. The character was in a shallowing of some sort, so paradox was reduced. I do recall once saying to the other PCs, "I'm going to be going into Quiet after this, please be nice, since I'm saving your life. Okay?" There's likely some correlation between the two events, but maybe not, since the character liked flashy effects. Fun character, if a bit hubristic.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
wingsandsword said:
Except for the fact that the "bad" guys are moving away from that because they didn't think that having non-mages at the mercy of mages, horrible monsters and general pandemonium and chaos was a good thing.
WW made a big mistake with the tone of the core book. It does a really good job of painting the "bad" guys as good guys, and the "good" guys as reckless cthulu-deity-level loonies without a clue. They really should have made the core book politically neutral, or made the "good" guys plan be to hold back progress rather than revert everything to chaos. As is, just about everyone I know who's heard about the two different stances has assumed that the technocracy are good guys, and if told that the technocracy are bad guys have still agreed with them...
Similar Threads
