Mage:the Awakening is out. Opinions?

[eyebeams]

Not really, as the focus of Awakening is tightened down so the people I think of as 'laughable old frauds' are the ones you're quoting as being canonically relevent.

Like Francis Bacon, Thomas More, Crowley and Plato, right? Crowley is an amusing reference to make, since he bought into Atlantis and is the explicit forerunner of Carroll, Hine, Spare and the like. That's why he was the recurring figure in the disinfo lecture series (Morrison, Anger and others) a while back.

This is funny. It underlines the difference between people who think the occult is Too Cool For School and the people who actually read the source material.

In some sense, the entire corpus of the Western occult tradition is ridiculous, no matter how much you dress it up in the postmodern airs of Chaos magick. Chaos magick simply ascribes to different ridiculous things (Morrison's ultraterrestrials, the efficacy of sigils) with the justifcation that it's a tool with personal resonance. Of course, if you fancy this it means that you can't pass judgment on other elements that people find have resonance for themselves, making your critique of Atlantis hypocritical once again.

Of course, if you insist on making judgments in consistent with that occult theory, it makes Mage: The Ascension even sillier, since Mage: The Ascension is about sincere belief in a single mode of magic -- something that happens to be anathema to Chaos occultism. Basically, you've cornered yourself into a contradiction. You want a "real occult" game, but you also want to whine about Atlantis -- part of the "real occult."

Add this to the fact that the valid critiques you could make about the game not being culturally inclusive are ones you can't -- be it because you're in denial about this history of esoteric movements or that it would undermine the ethos by which you write d20 books about fat LARP chicks you hate -- and I must admit I sympathize with the intellectual pickle you've blundered into.

 

[kigmatzomat]

You know, I haven't read Kult, but I wonder how it would compare.

I've got Kult 1e and 2e plus a number of the supplements. The mechanics in Kult are less than ideal. I haven't really compared them to nWoD but it never did anything for me.

The setting however, whooooooo. It could mesh with old mage or new mage fairly readily. IIRC, Kult had two paths; the light path and the dark path. On the light path any sins set you back, conversely virtues are a problem on the dark path. Of course, this is Kult so "light" is nowhere near as nice as WoD.

Kult's spells could easily become rotes. Lots of props and tools used in Kult as well as sacrifices. Atlantis is Heaven with the doors locked. The Metropolis is a more accessible Supernal Realms or could just be the adjacent spirit realms. Avatar becomes either your own personal lichtor or your true self trying to guide you free of the illusion. Paradox becomes the will of the Divine smacking those souls who try to break his rules.

Oh yeah, this could be very, very bad or very, very good.

 

[GRIMJIM]

Add this to the fact that the valid critiques you could make about the game not being culturally inclusive are ones you can't -- be it because you're in denial about this history of esoteric movements or that it would undermine the ethos by which you write d20 books about fat LARP chicks you hate -- and I must admit I sympathize with the intellectual pickle you've blundered into.

All of which just cements to me that you really haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about and you don't get 'it'.

Lets try a different angle to try and make it a bit more clear what the problem is.

Say you're working on conspiracy-X, conspiracy theories about and are full of some pretty whacked out and cornball ideas but you're trying to come up with something that people can play at least half seriously. One of these aspects is the saurian type aliens (one of two or three more widely reported and 'documented' alien species claimed to have been cited). Given your aims do you...

a) Allude to the slightly more credible and relatively respected sources and come up with something coherent or...
b) Allude to David Icke and his 'invisible lizards have replaced the royal family' line.

It doesn't create a very good impression at all now does it?

Its like trying to write a serious faerie based game around Snap, Crackle and Pop.

Yes you can point at Crowley and the Theosophists as important in fusing together different modes of magical thought, you can go back to Plato and so on but let us not forget that Crowley also used to curl one out on carpets as a party trick and that Blavatsky was involved in defrauding people through spiritualism. You can't just point at them and go 'AHA! ATLANTIS IS COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED!' its not that simple and doesn't really show that much effort on your part.

In any consequence, whichever of us is 'right' in this case makes no difference whatsoever. Whether I'm right that the more modern references of yours are discredited old frauds (whatever their more serious contributions) or you're right that they are hallowed pillars of the occult establishment makes no friggin' difference whatsoever to the common impression that 'Atlantis' creates, an impression that has all the public-consciousness legitimacy of 'it was space bats!' - whether its accurate, effective or anything else at all doesn't matter a spit because that's how it's recieved and interpreted and that's a flaw in and of itself.

That flaw is made worse by the game's concentration on 'my way or the high way' though that may be, hopefully, addressed in supplemental material its too late for me.

So, people don't like what you've done and you feel a personal attachment, kool and the gang, either take it on board or ignore it and convince yourself you're right regardless. You don't like something I've done and decided to have a little snip there as well. Fine, you don't like it, you're making assumptions (or just trying to use it to make a sideways ad hominem attack) but then its not for you really judging by your personality projected here. You wouldn't get the joke. I'm happy to look at it that way. You're not going to convince me or Funksaw with these arguments and you're just going to look worse and put people off. Write us off as ignorant savages or something and stop being a helmet.

And if the exquisite irony of writing a White Wolf pisstake under d20 is lost on you then there really isn't much hope

 

[GRIMJIM]

Sideways point that I find amusing...

In the old days we used to defend RPGs by saying that they had nothing at all to do with the genuine occult.

Now people try to defend them by saying they do bear relation to RL occult practices.

Strange

 

[King of Old School]

You know, I haven't read Kult, but I wonder how it would compare.

Kult is about a bazillion shades darker than anything for oWoD or nWoD (outside of Black Dog). It's more oriented towards mundane characters, and indeed I've considered using the nWoD corebook for a Kult-based campaign. It's an excellent game, albeit it can easily degenerate into juvenile splatterpunk or a gross-out contest.

It is also wholly derived from Christian and folkloric European perspectives on mysticism, cosmology and gnosticism (with a token bone thrown to Vodoun as seen through Western eyes), so if you're looking for pluralism or multiculturalism or anything like that, it's not for you. It's far more "one-true-wayist" than Awakening. If the Virtues and Vices of the nWoD corebook bothered you, Kult would make you spontaneously combust in your chair.

KoOS

 

[King of Old School]

Sideways point that I find amusing...

In the old days we used to defend RPGs by saying that they had nothing at all to do with the genuine occult.

Now people try to defend them by saying they do bear relation to RL occult practices.

Strange

I don't think a game like Mage (old or new versions) could have been published in the early '80s -- to say nothing of Kult!

KoOS

 

[eyebeams]

All of which just cements to me that you really haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about and you don't get 'it'.

One of us is bringing out numerous references to actual, historical influences on the occult. The other is talking about DC comics and vague handwaving about the "credible" occult.

Lets try a different angle to try and make it a bit more clear what the problem is.

Say you're working on conspiracy-X, conspiracy theories about and are full of some pretty whacked out and cornball ideas but you're trying to come up with something that people can play at least half seriously. One of these aspects is the saurian type aliens (one of two or three more widely reported and 'documented' alien species claimed to have been cited). Given your aims do you...

a) Allude to the slightly more credible and relatively respected sources and come up with something coherent or...
b) Allude to David Icke and his 'invisible lizards have replaced the royal family' line.

It doesn't create a very good impression at all now does it?

Actually, it entirely depends on the kinds of games you want to run. If I want to design a game inspired by the Moonchild run of the Invisibles, then it'd by Icke. If I was running an X-Files clone, it'd be the equally stupid cliams made by MUFON groups.

Similarly, if I wanted a game based on highly personal, piecemiel occult techniques I'd use Spare, Carroll and others as primary sources. If I wanted a game where the occult was an ancient, recurring truth, I'd use motifs that were ancient and recurring. Atlantis happenes to be of ancient provenance and recurs throughout the past 2 millennia.

Yes you can point at Crowley and the Theosophists as important in fusing together different modes of magical thought, you can go back to Plato and so on but let us not forget that Crowley also used to curl one out on carpets as a party trick and that Blavatsky was involved in defrauding people through spiritualism. You can't just point at them and go 'AHA! ATLANTIS IS COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED!' its not that simple and doesn't really show that much effort on your part.

What? The claims of "real magicians" are BS? Quel surprise! It's also fairly irrelevant to the design of the RPG.

In any consequence, whichever of us is 'right' in this case makes no difference whatsoever. Whether I'm right that the more modern references of yours are discredited old frauds (whatever their more serious contributions) or you're right that they are hallowed pillars of the occult establishment makes no friggin' difference whatsoever to the common impression that 'Atlantis' creates, an impression that has all the public-consciousness legitimacy of 'it was space bats!' - whether its accurate, effective or anything else at all doesn't matter a spit because that's how it's recieved and interpreted and that's a flaw in and of itself.

It may come as an incredible surprise from your vantage point, but far more people read Plato and Bacon than they do DC comics.

So, people don't like what you've done and you feel a personal attachment, kool and the gang, either take it on board or ignore it and convince yourself you're right regardless.

As I've said repeatedly, I didn't put together the premises of the game. My personal "reinvention" of mage wouldn't look like Awakening at all -- and it would be far too harsh for people who've fed themselves on the comforting pap of certain of Ascension's conceits.

You don't like something I've done and decided to have a little snip there as well. Fine, you don't like it, you're making assumptions (or just trying to use it to make a sideways ad hominem attack) but then its not for you really judging by your personality projected here.

Dude. You and Funksaw hate the company. You hate it so much that you can't even discuss this game without referrring to your LARP issues ("Year of Fire blah blah blah . . ." -- What did that have to do with anything?). Part of your creative output as a designer is devoted to your grudge.

You wouldn't get the joke. I'm happy to look at it that way. You're not going to convince me or Funksaw with these arguments and you're just going to look worse and put people off. Write us off as ignorant savages or something and stop being a helmet.
And if the exquisite irony of writing a White Wolf pisstake under d20 is lost on you then there really isn't much hope

It has more to do that you wrote trash about how fat chicks are Stoopid (and appropriate fit with Mongoose, though). This is the highly refined intellectual positon that you approach the company's stuff from. If you consider this a decent pisstake, then you are . . . easily amused.

Funksaw, on the other hand, just wished that Conrad Hubbard would be killed and wants to run the company out of business. Your combined presence in any thread about a WW product -- and anything you would say about it --has little to do with content. I must say, though, that you're both willing to put an uncommon amount of effort into prosyletizing. Between your .pdfs and Funksaw's press releases, it seems that the company has done far more for the two of you than it ever has for me.

 

[King of Old School]

Lets try a different angle to try and make it a bit more clear what the problem is.

Here's why your "problem" is only a problem for you:

I don't share your perspective on Atlantis. Many people don't share your perspective on Atlantis. Many people do share your perspective on Atlantis, but that's okay -- I generally don't game with those people and their tastes are irrelevant to me.

You seem to be arguing that an element which people subjectively do or don't like is an objective flaw in a game, based on people's potential agreement with you. Why do you care what the "common impression" is? By that standard, none of us should even be having this conversation since the common impression of RPGs is that they're a hobby for socially-retarded losers, anal-retentive geeks who live in their parents' basements and have severe issues with weight management, fashion sense and personal hygiene. Much like the common impression of Atlantis, the common impression of RPGs is indeed based on the sad cases we're exposed to every day. If the common impression were an issue for me, I wouldn't bother with Mage or any other RPG.

But of course, the "common impression" isn't all there is.

Some people are going to focus on the stupid pop-culture stuff you reference when they read the word "Atlantis," and for them it's a negative. Some people are going to focus on the legitimate occult traditions of the word, and be happy with what's there. And some people, like me, are going to ignore the stupid stuff and minimize the literal relevance of the term "Atlantis," using it as the placeholder name it's clearly intended to be (I prefer to use the term "Awakened City" instead).

I'm cool with the idea that some people just can't swallow the use of "Atlantis" because of all the baggage attached to it, even if I think they overstate the centrality of Atlantis in the game. I wish you would be cool with the idea that not everyone is as hung up on the dross as you are, and that we can take the material in the spirit in which it's intended. Contrary to what you've written, pop-culture Atlantis isn't as big a deal to everyone as it is to you.

EDIT: An example of what I mean...

I like Spycraft 2.0. Now, the first supplement planned for the line is called "World on Fire" (it's a worldbook based in part on the CCG setting). When I first learned this I was annoyed, because that's also the title of a popular Sarah McLachlan song that got a lot of radio airplay here -- I can't read that title without immediately thinking of the song, and there are few things more mood-breaking for a game of high-octane cinematic espionage than Sarah McLachlan. I even told this to the developer, sharing my wish that the book had been titled differently.

But if I wrote a review (or a pseudo-review, whatever) of the book saying "this book sucks because everyone will see the title and think of Sarah McLachlan" I'd be laughed off the 'net. And rightly so.

KoOS

 

[GRIMJIM]

It is also wholly derived from Christian and folkloric European perspectives on mysticism, cosmology and gnosticism (with a token bone thrown to Vodoun as seen through Western eyes), so if you're looking for pluralism or multiculturalism or anything like that, it's not for you. It's far more "one-true-wayist" than Awakening. If the Virtues and Vices of the nWoD corebook bothered you, Kult would make you spontaneously combust in your chair.

Reasonably valid point KoOS but when approaching Kult there isn't really any baggage, one doesn't expect everything to be addressed (though it is in a way in the form of being part of The Prison Reality). It comes in fresh without the baggage that Awakening has. Something that can be a valid criticism of a Mage derivation doesn't necessarily apply to everything.

 

[GRIMJIM]

Right, carefully extracting the one or two relevant points that aren't repetition...

It may come as an incredible surprise from your vantage point, but far more people read Plato and Bacon than they do DC comics.

1. I'd be very surprised if that were actually true TBH. Take that as a damning statement about the intellectual state of the world if you will but there it is.
2. The Atlantis of Plato and Bacon is substantially different in execution and tone from the Atlantis presented in Awakening.

Dude. You and Funksaw hate the company. You hate it so much that you can't even discuss this game without referrring to your LARP issues ("Year of Fire blah blah blah . . ." -- What did that have to do with anything?). Part of your creative output as a designer is devoted to your grudge.

*sigh* There you go again being assumptive. Again, I can't speak for Funksaw but I don't hate the company nor all of its output on principle, I haven't taken a boycott stance over anything and likely will continue to purchase some of its products in the years to come. I have had personal issue with two of its employees (both now left) and its handling of its fan organisation. C'est tout. And excuse me if its hard to disentangle the LARP terminology from the TT terminology occasionally, the events were substantially the same and equally frustrating and annoying.

Part of my creative output as a designer is towards HUMOUR, mostly self-referential or insular gamer humour. It is a sad fact that despite the fact I'd like my more serious work to be better referenced and appreciated I'm known for Munchkin's Guide to Powergaming and the humour books for Mongoose. All too often that's the stuff that brings in the pennies. So, part of my creative output is devoted to gamers making fun of gamers, something you'll also find in Dork Tower, Order of the Stick and the Munchkin spin-offs that I half-jokingly always whinge about not seeing a penny of.

But you seem determined to take this hate thing on faith, whatever.

It has more to do that you wrote trash about how fat chicks are Stoopid (and appropriate fit with Mongoose, though). This is the highly refined intellectual positon that you approach the company's stuff from. If you consider this a decent pisstake, then you are . . . easily amused.

If that's how you're going to take it I'm not going to change your mind any more than I'm going to change the mind of the guy who spammed just about every internet RPG forum in existence with his moral outrage over Slayer's Guide to Female Gamers based on reading only a web extension of that document. There's always layers to what I write and I've been happy to see that (particularly with Nymphology) a lot of people have seen them.

--has little to do with content. I must say, though, that you're both willing to put an uncommon amount of effort into prosyletizing. Between your .pdfs and Funksaw's press releases, it seems that the company has done far more for the two of you than it ever has for me.

You can see it how you like, nobody seems capable of making a dent in that but my criticisms are to do with content. Ah well no, lets be fair, they're also to do with expectation and presentation.

As with all the other discussions on Awakening we've gotten mired in the Atlantis thing but really that's just the glaring ridiculousness that broke the camels back and it heightens the other problems. The one-way (in the context of previous Mage so that crosses over with expectation), the morality linked magic, the 'blah' splats and the rote concentration (I can understand the design decision behind it - doesn't mean I like it). That the cause behind these flaws is something so eye-rollingly awful (IMO) as atlantis is just icing on the cake.

And yet, despite all that, I gave it an average grade and I marked werewolf above average. Not really the actions of someone with a blind hatred on now is it? Especially since werewolf was the one I hated the most in the past.

If this ISN'T how you would have interpreted or rewritten it then why are you taking it so personally and trying to make personal attacks?