Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Byronic" data-source="post: 4339541" data-attributes="member: 56829">I don't really see any "rotification" with revised. I mean, it has been a long time since I played it (or really read the books) but they seem quite easy. If you know a spell as a rote, then it's slightly easier to cast. It's well practised.But you could easily just make your spells as you go. You could use quintessence or other modifiers to make the spell easier enough. And if it was a spell you used often enough then the storyteller just had to decide exactly how you learn rotes (which was never done well) but you could just give a combination of time and exp to learn one. I remember once seeing a table which showed how much time and experience it would take to learn abilities of a certain level. So if you had only a bit of exp but lots of downtime you could learn an ability or if you had lots of exp you could learn it in a shorter time. Second edition didn't draw me in as much as Mage Revised, and there were a few reasons. I liked the Traditions more in Revised (they were explained better) and the stories seemed more about the characters themselves. It seemed to be that second edition was more about the Mage while Revised was more about the person who just happened to be a Mage. The setting in revised made it easier to make the players more powerful relatively because there was a good reason for the Masters and such to not be there anymore. About Paradox though I've read enough to be able to make another system for paradox depending on the story. The main reason we seem to have paradox is to stop magi from showing the entire world "the truth" in one easy swoop. It allows the ST more control over the world through more plausible ways. It was perfectly normal for paradox erase a huge magical effect. We could replace it with an effect from Wraith or Werewolf and achive much the same goal. Of course this means that people can toss fireballs down the street and people will remember it as a gun fight or something later on and other things would have to change but it's possible. And it would solve the paradox question straight away.</blockquote>

Verification