Mage RPG discussion (threadjack from 4e Character in a 3E World thread)

[Mark Hope]

Yes, and this is where White Wolf learned the major problem with games that use a metaplot - in practical play, many people go with the core rulebooks, and they only apply those bits of continuing metaplot that they like, if any at all. So, while you say that storyline events destroyed the majority of the setting, the fact of the matter is that those storyline events probably didn't happen in many, or even most, games in play.

This is my experience. We used bits and pieces of the metaplot here and there and ignored it for the rest. This differed from chronicle to chronicle, of course - my Mage 1e/2e chronicle was fairly close to canon in many respects, but my Revised chronicles less so (the current one doesn't even have any Traditions or Techies, for example.)

So, when they changed the rules to incorporate those events that weren't used, of course there was griping - I think they weren't used for a reason. Forcing them on the players is then a bad idea. I think WW had a bit of a blind spot, in that regard - they should have done a little more research, and found out what was actually getting used, rather than assuming that their metaplot was actually the functional part of the game that should drive design.

I'm of mixed opinion about the rules reflecting the metaplot changes. On the one hand I didn't much like having all the changes to Spirit and the Umbra shoved down my throat with Revised. On the other hand, those changes are absurdly easy to ignore, alter or revert to the rules of 1e or 2e. And on the other hand (yes, I have three hands - it's an old Paradox flaw), there are times when I'm really glad to have the option to mix things up a bit where the setting is concerned. (In one game, for example, a powerful angel died in the Umbra close to Earth and I was pleased to be able to use the mechanics for the Avatar Storm to represent the effects of this event, even though the classic Avatar Storm never occured in my game.) In the long run, I appreciated having more tools added to my toolbox. It gave me the ability to have the Umbra as a dangerous place, a sparkly haven filled with happy unicorns, a set of demented dimensions or whatever else I fancied. All good in the long run, I think, but a bit of a shocker when it first appeared.

Given that none of us have sales figures, I take this as an unsupported assertion from a random person on the internet. Without actual data, it is a terribly weak argument.

There was an (apocryphal, I guess) story back in the day that, for a period, the Mage 2e corebook was outselling any other WoD book, even Vampire. (Which led to my favourite WW loony conspiracy theory ever, namely that Mage 2e was replaced with Revised because the top dogs at WW preferred Vampire and were insanely jealous of the success of Mage. Priceless.)

 

[Vocenoctum]

The history of Mage Revised is:

1) People stop buying the books.
2) Storyline events destroy the majority of the setting.
3) Mage Revised gets written.

Note the order. Everybody said they loved Mage 2nd, yet nobody bought much of anything for Mage 2nd.

You mean supplements I assume?

Now, with Awakening, people play the thing. There's less philosophy. There's tons more people drawing situations from the game they were in last week. I think there could be more philosophy, sure -- but I want people to play it. It's a frickin' RPG, after all.

I think this is the leap of logic that I never cared for in the arguement really. Plenty of people may have bought the core and been playing without regard for continuing to support the line. With the freeform magic, they may simply have had no need for the rest.

Now, I don't know the sales of NWoD Mage vs the old for the Core itself, but that doesn't mean people weren't playing the old versions, just because sales lagged. This aside from the number of players that were probably lost because there was no NWoD Mage for what, 2 years? (from end of Old Mage)


I actually like metaplot in a game, but I agree that it shouldn't shape mechanics too much. The opposite is possible (new mechanics justified with a metaplot change).

 

[Umbran]

The oWoD Mage, in any of its versions, was one of the best RPGs ever created. It was, however, also one of the worst.

The former because it could ignite the imagination in ways that no other game could hope to do. The latter because if it did not have a storyteller who really knew what he or she was doing, that imagination would run rampant and break the game in short order.

Tne nWoD mage, unfortunately, chose to take the road of making it much less likely to be overrun by imagination. It does so by putting that imagination in a much stronger framework that extended far beyond that which was needed to secure the game from breaking. They wound up eliminating most of the strengths of the original system, which is sad.

 

[Particle_Man]

Yes, and this is where White Wolf learned the major problem with games that use a metaplot - in practical play, many people go with the core rulebooks, and they only apply those bits of continuing metaplot that they like, if any at all. So, while you say that storyline events destroyed the majority of the setting, the fact of the matter is that those storyline events probably didn't happen in many, or even most, games in play.

Yeah, I hate metaplot. It is like that annoying guy that corners you in the game store and spends an hour telling you about "his campaign" and what happened in it, when you just want to play *your* campaign. In fact, it is worse, because it is like someone gave that guy a job writing the rule books and setting books so that you are stuck with "his campaign" blaring at you like an unwanted commercial.

I like the idea of Sorcerer's Crusade, I guess because, being set in the past, it would be harder to extend the metaplot that much. But I could be wrong, as I only looked at the core of SC.

 

[Imaro]

Tne nWoD mage, unfortunately, chose to take the road of making it much less likely to be overrun by imagination. It does so by putting that imagination in a much stronger framework that extended far beyond that which was needed to secure the game from breaking. They wound up eliminating most of the strengths of the original system, which is sad.

I guess I just disagree with this. As a fan of oWoD mage and the nWoD mage. I don't see how the new mage is more limiting. It caters itself to different types of stories (more-hellblazer-esque vs. books of magic-esque IMHO and I wouldn't say one is more limited than the other, though they focus on different types of stories), but I don't understand how it's anymore limiting, to one's imagination. I've seen this stated by fans of oWoD Mage, but it's never really explained in any depth, so maybe I'm just not understanding the sentiment..

 

[stonegod]

I agree w/ the above that you could ignore the Avatar Storm mechanics (as an example of the bones I had to pick w/ Rev). The issue was, for me, that at that point I saw the game was diverging from what I wanted---it was more gritty magical survival than magickal transcendence. Which was sad. 1999 was its highpoint for me (with the release of Guide to the Technocracy, which even though it mentioned Operation Ragnarok, did not mention the Avatar Storm or anything of that sort... that apparently wasn't cannonized until Rev); 2000 with Rev saw my last Mage purchase until Ascension (just because I wanted to know how it ended so to speak).

I have nothing to say about nWoD Mage; by the time nWoD rolled out, my group had gone back to 3E.

 

[Umbran]

I don't see how the new mage is more limiting. It caters itself to different types of stories (more-hellblazer-esque vs. books of magic-esque IMHO and I wouldn't say one is more limited than the other, though they focus on different types of stories), but I don't understand how it's anymore limiting, to one's imagination.

I'll take two basic points that typify (though don't exhaustively cover) the issue:

System -
oWoD: speaks of Rotes, but they are not mechanically differentiated from other magics. Magic is mostly defined by what the payer can imagine.
nWoD: magic is expressed in the rulebook mainly in the form of Rotes, and non-rote magic is rather more difficult to pull off.

Setting -
oWoD: Characters come from any esoteric tradition known to mankind. The very nature of the universe is in question.
nWoD: All magic comes from the same core Atlantean tradition, all PCs are from branches of that tradition. There is one basic fable relating the nature of existence and the basic metaphysics of the Universe.

So, I stand by my opinion that the nWoD is much more set in its ways.

 

[eyebeams]

Given that none of us have sales figures, I take this as an unsupported assertion from a random person on the internet. Without actual data, it is a terribly weak argument.

No, it's an assertion from somebody who worked on Mage Revised and Awakening for nearly the entirety of both lines' existence. I know of what I speak.

 

[eyebeams]

You mean supplements I assume?

I mean the whole kit and kaboodle.

I think this is the leap of logic that I never cared for in the arguement really. Plenty of people may have bought the core and been playing without regard for continuing to support the line. With the freeform magic, they may simply have had no need for the rest.

Now, I don't know the sales of NWoD Mage vs the old for the Core itself, but that doesn't mean people weren't playing the old versions, just because sales lagged. This aside from the number of players that were probably lost because there was no NWoD Mage for what, 2 years? (from end of Old Mage)

Or they weren't playing much but loved to hold forth on the Internet. The fact remains that people used to *never* talk about their games, and now they almost *always* do. Consider that this thread, on this very board, includes *no* reminiscing or concrete mechanical discussion of the old Mage. It's rusky axe grinding based on conceptual twaddle that has nothing to do with real play.

(It is by the way, very easy to tell who has actual experience with the old Mage, since it has a very significant systems problem that anybody who plays it for any notable length of time notices immediately and usually mentions. No, I'm not going to say what it is -- that makes it too easy to cheat.)

I actually like metaplot in a game, but I agree that it shouldn't shape mechanics too much. The opposite is possible (new mechanics justified with a metaplot change).

The plotline was responsible for one new game mechanic (for the Avatar Storm). The Paradox rules are actually much more forgiving than 2nd Ed. I have an article posted up on Shadownessence.com, which is about a million x better for WoD-oriented discussion. The Revised core did have problems, granted. It really needed to be produced on a looser deadline.

 

[Imaro]

I'll take two basic points that typify (though don't exhaustively cover) the issue:

System -
oWoD: speaks of Rotes, but they are not mechanically differentiated from other magics. Magic is mostly defined by what the payer can imagine.
nWoD: magic is expressed in the rulebook mainly in the form of Rotes, and non-rote magic is rather more difficult to pull off.

Setting -
oWoD: Characters come from any esoteric tradition known to mankind. The very nature of the universe is in question.
nWoD: All magic comes from the same core Atlantean tradition, all PCs are from branches of that tradition. There is one basic fable relating the nature of existence and the basic metaphysics of the Universe.

So, I stand by my opinion that the nWoD is much more set in its ways.

Not sure about the rote thing, don't have my books near me and it's been awhile since I read Mage. The Atlantean thing is kind of a widespread misconception... it's been expanded upon and clarified that this is one (the most widely accepted) of numerous legends of the history of Mages. I believe the book that goes into depth about this is Secrets of the Ruined Temple. Another point is that both legacies and magical traditions allow one to create mages more rooted in the esoteric traditions of mankind.