Mage:the Awakening is out. Opinions?

[eyebeams]

My view on the orders: Compared to the vast variety of traditions found in Mage, it does kind of make you go: WTF? There really isn't a whole big point to having the orders - the Silver Ladder, Guardians, Mysterium, and Adamantine Arrow pretty much could be a single tradition in the old Mage, with the Free Council as tenuous allies, or even-- and this is a wacky thought -- maybe as rivals.

It depends whether or not you're just going by the core or by core+support. The Akashic Brotherhood is very diverse -- once you get to the Tradbook. The orders don't have any non-core support yet.

One the other hand, Mage: The Awakening starts with up to 25 different combinations of defined character groups before you take up a Legacy. Whether or not an Akashic Brother has as much depth as a Perfected Adept/Obrimos/Adamantine Arrow isn't something with an objective answer.

One group seeks to preserve and emulate the past, the other seeks to look towards the future, the main antagonists just want everything to stay exactly where it is, and of course you've got the evil mfs.

The Diamond's concern for the past is not always a desire to emulate it. The Silver Ladder certainly has no wish to do exactly what they did last time the thrones of the gods were up for grabs. This is a variant of the old, "Tradition mages don't want you to have plumbing!" error that came from people who didn't understand Ascension and has about as much validity.

Incidentally, the Free Council is not necessarily interested in the future, either. Techne is not limited to stereotypical Ascension-style technomancy.

 

[Funksaw]

5x5 does not mean 25 splats. It means 5 splats, twice.

But I did get the impression that the FC was fundimentally different from the four other orders - one of these things does not belong - and that the other four really just seemed superfluous. The main reason is that the other four really were "job descriptions": warrior, leader, researcher, sneak, while the FC really isn't defined by what they are, but rather what they aren't - they really aren't anything except those who feel that the other four orders are missing out on the bigger picture.

Even so, this is merely nitpicking the choice of orders, while not really looking at the central conceit - that old mages were people who believed in something enough to make it part of reality, and new mages do some traditional hocus-pocus. If you wanted new mage to be -grander- than old mage, this was a step backwards.

Yes, there are improvements. But more baby got thrown out than bathwater in this case.

 

[Funksaw]

Leached it out of what setting again? You seem to think this is an edition of Mage: The Ascension.

To be fair, Eyebeams, V:TR was a new edition of V:TM, W:TF was a new edition of W:TA. M:TAw marks the first radical departure from the old WoD.

 

[eyebeams]

5x5 does not mean 25 splats. It means 5 splats, twice.

Really? How does the Thyrsus Path overlap with any order? The depth of the Traditions came from having backstories that spanned about a decade of development, including fleshing out each of them with multiple subfactions. As I was responsible for about a third of this effort -- personally -- I can tell you that this was incremental over a long period of time and certainly involved the "splat+splat" method you're dismissing.

But I did get the impression that the FC was fundimentally different from the four other orders - one of these things does not belong - and that the other four really just seemed superfluous. The main reason is that the other four really were "job descriptions": warrior, leader, researcher, sneak, while the FC really isn't defined by what they are, but rather what they aren't - they really aren't anything except those who feel that the other four orders are missing out on the bigger picture.

Except that the order descriptions directly contradict your assertions. The description of the Adamantine Arrow specifically discusses how they are not always conventional warriors (i.e, information-based and strategic conflict). Even the Free Council has a thesis (based on the primacy of human innovation as a mystical force)-- it is not just an antithesis.

Even so, this is merely nitpicking the choice of orders, while not really looking at the central conceit - that old mages were people who believed in something enough to make it part of reality, and new mages do some traditional hocus-pocus. If you wanted new mage to be -grander- than old mage, this was a step backwards.

Define "grand" in a way other than "synonym for something I like but can't really argue other people should hold to."

Yes, there are improvements. But more baby got thrown out than bathwater in this case.

I'm sure the new Mage is a great disappointment to people who would rather read than play RPGs. As for the rest, there is an intelligent divide of opinion and a line of criticism that is not represented in this thread at all. Go talk to Amado Guzman to find out what it is.

 

[eyebeams]

To be fair, Eyebeams, V:TR was a new edition of V:TM, W:TF was a new edition of W:TA. M:TAw marks the first radical departure from the old WoD.

W:tF is a far more radical change from the old Werewolf than the new Mage is a change from the old. W:tF was just kind enough to stroke your ego about being a shapeshifting killing machine enough to escape similar criticism. This doesn't change the fact that everything from the core cosmology to basic character capailities were seriously changed.

The new Mage is not nearly as conducive to gamers who heavily identified with their characters and thus, wanted them glorified, but I don't see how a game's ability to serve falsely assumed egotism is an indication of quality one way or another.

 

[Funksaw]

Wow, you just can't seem to take any criticism, constructive or otherwise today, can you?

Oh, by the way...

grand (gr?nd)
adj., grand·er, grand·est.
Large and impressive in size, scope, or extent; magnificent: The bridge that crosses the bay is a grand structure.
Rich and sumptuous: A grand meal was laid before them.
Of a solemn, stately, or splendid nature.
Dignified or noble in appearance or effect: a grand old face that bespeaks suffering but not defeat.
Noble or admirable in conception or intent: a grand purpose.
Lofty or sublime in character: a speech delivered in the grand style of the great orators.
Wonderful or very pleasing: had a grand time.
Having higher rank than others of the same category: a grand admiral.
Having more importance than others; principal: the grand ballroom of a hotel.

 

[eyebeams]

Wow, you just can't seem to take any criticism, constructive or otherwise today, can you?

As I said before, at least one person has levelled cogent criticisms of the game: Namely, that it's view of magic, even within the context of a fictional history, is, by default, Western in conception and therefore, implicitly deprives the game of alternative perspectives.

Oh, by the way...

I would have thought rhetoric-by-dictionary was beneath a journalist, but to answer your question:

Large and impressive? Part of the game's focus is about conquering the universe. The Silver Ladder's party comes right out and says, "Buck up, because this is part of a struggle to conquer the universe." In the game, it's called Imperium.

Noble or admirable? You must be comparing it to some idealized version of Mage: The Ascension, rather than the one that was actually produced. In the actual game, the primary struggle was between a corrupt totalitarian bureaucracy and an alliance of cults of spiritually decrepit personalities, whose sole effective dissenter (Porthos) was insane. I'm not talking about post-hoc interpretation, either. This was Phil Brucato's intentional setup. When working with Kathy Ryan, she made it quite clear that every single "good guy" authority figure bar one was crazy and neded to die, that she felt the Euthanatos Tradition (the one she wrote about the most) had a despicable ethos comparable to al-Qaeda's, and that the "large, impressive" aspects that so many people point at as hallmarks of possibility were irredeemably corrupt. The role of the PCs was to act despite all of this -- and they were under no obligation to do so. In fact, one of the problems with the old game is that it prsented overly persuasive propaganda for perspectives and fictional setups that, from a realistic standpoint, were vile.

The new game features an element of corruption as well, but it's localized. There is no chain of command that leads to a rotting ramshackle tower with a rotting, ramshackle cult leader in it. Even in Boston, the corrupt head of the ruling council is a peacekeeper at heart; his menace makes the city fairly free, because he doesn't care about the day to day doings of mages (unlike a Vampire prince) and doesn't have an overarching amoral scheme for them (unlike virtually every powerful Ascension NPC).

The question, then, is whether you believe that goals that involve discovering the unknown, protecting others from supernatural danger and thwarting the prison-keepers of humanity is "noble," or whether you are so wedded to a vision of "nobility" that involves killing a designated enemy for your ideology's sake. This isn't a question with a foregone conclusion, either way, so describing the relative morality of characters from each game is hardly something to make a definite claim about.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I would have thought rhetoric-by-dictionary was beneath a journalist

What a strange assertion to make. Speaking as a working journalist, rhetoric-by-dictionary isn't a particularly stinging thing to toss out there. Journalists are craftsmen. They may do their trade in a workmanlike fashion or spectacularly, but it at the end of the day, it's craftwork. If Funksaw was a novelist or poet, the attack might have some teeth.

In any case, it does suggest the thread has sort of fallen apart if this is what folks have been reduced to discussing.

 

[Funksaw]

What a strange assertion to make. Speaking as a working journalist, rhetoric-by-dictionary isn't a particularly stinging thing to toss out there. Journalists are craftsmen. They may do their trade in a workmanlike fashion or spectacularly, but it at the end of the day, it's craftwork. If Funksaw was a novelist or poet, the attack might have some teeth.

In any case, it does suggest the thread has sort of fallen apart if this is what folks have been reduced to discussing.

More importantly, you wanted me to: "Define 'grand' in a way other than 'synonym for something I like but can't really argue other people should hold to.'"

I figure, why argue with Websters?

 

[Funksaw]

Large and impressive? Part of the game's focus is about conquering the universe. The Silver Ladder's party comes right out and says, "Buck up, because this is part of a struggle to conquer the universe." In the game, it's called Imperium.

Noble or admirable? You must be comparing it to some idealized version of Mage: The Ascension, rather than the one that was actually produced. In the actual game, the primary struggle was between a corrupt totalitarian bureaucracy and an alliance of cults of spiritually decrepit personalities, whose sole effective dissenter (Porthos) was insane. I'm not talking about post-hoc interpretation, either. This was Phil Brucato's intentional setup. When working with Kathy Ryan, she made it quite clear that every single "good guy" authority figure bar one was crazy and neded to die, that she felt the Euthanatos Tradition (the one she wrote about the most) had a despicable ethos comparable to al-Qaeda's, and that the "large, impressive" aspects that so many people point at as hallmarks of possibility were irredeemably corrupt. The role of the PCs was to act despite all of this -- and they were under no obligation to do so. In fact, one of the problems with the old game is that it prsented overly persuasive propaganda for perspectives and fictional setups that, from a realistic standpoint, were vile.

The new game features an element of corruption as well, but it's localized. There is no chain of command that leads to a rotting ramshackle tower with a rotting, ramshackle cult leader in it. Even in Boston, the corrupt head of the ruling council is a peacekeeper at heart; his menace makes the city fairly free, because he doesn't care about the day to day doings of mages (unlike a Vampire prince) and doesn't have an overarching amoral scheme for them (unlike virtually every powerful Ascension NPC).

The question, then, is whether you believe that goals that involve discovering the unknown, protecting others from supernatural danger and thwarting the prison-keepers of humanity is "noble," or whether you are so wedded to a vision of "nobility" that involves killing a designated enemy for your ideology's sake. This isn't a question with a foregone conclusion, either way, so describing the relative morality of characters from each game is hardly something to make a definite claim about.

As for noble or admirable, I wasn't talking about what the player characters do, I was talking about the vision of the designers. Mage: The Ascension is about observational and perceptual reality, subjective versus objective truth, and the clash of philosophy between faith and reason.

Mage: The Awakening is about wizards throwing spells at each other.

As for conquering the universe... well, that's the problem. In short, mages in Ascension tried to change the world. Mages in Awakening merely try to conquer it, a much less original goal. It is far easier to own the world or to rule over people than to change human nature. Ascension had the loftier goal.

Yes, Ascension was developed to have nasty people fighting nasty people and your characters crushed like ants in a children's sandbox. There was some things that needed revision. But, as I said, you threw out a whole mess of baby with the bathwater, and there really isn't much in the new Mage that hasn't been done before. Hell, the gameplay of Awakening is fundamentally the same as In Nomine or GURPS Technomancer. The magic system is extremely similar to the one found in Children of the Sun, quite frankly.

You keep referring to the loss of the metaplot as some sort of redeeming factor - yes, the metaplot sucked. Who used the metaplot anyways, though? People weren't brought to Mage because of Dante or Porthos but because it was an interesting, unique concept with good mechanics (that could be ported to other settings and other genres) and you've replaced it with a mediocre concept with mediocre mechanics. That's what I'm attacking here. I'm saying that the basic setup of Mage the Ascension is pretty standard urban-fantasy fare - Harry Potter or Hellblazer given a paint-over - and the mechanics are your standard "To cast Magic missle, roll Stat+Skill+Mods"

I mean, that's really what you've done. Replaced creativity with standardization, replaced infinite variety with "Magic Missle."

In the end, the only way you can -- and the only way you are -- justifying the design decisions of Awakening is by trying to point out all the flaws that you fixed in Ascension. You did - you fixed Mage's flaws. But in doing so, you removed anything that made Mage particularly interesting.

So stop trying to point out the flaws in the old Mage, we're well aware of them and after years, we've learned we can work around them. Try to explain to me how this world of one-type-of-magic-fits-all is innovative. Why should I play Mage instead of one of the many games out there? Why should I specifically play Mage instead of the now virtually identical Unknown Armies, which doesn't have innovative magic mechanics, but certainly has an innovative worldview, or Ars Magica, which doesn't have an innovative worldview, but certainly has an intersting magic system.

Why, for the love of god, is this game worth spending money on?