Mage:the Awakening is out. Opinions?

[Ace]

SNIP
In nWoD I'm not entirely sure. I need to read more, but I tend to believe that coincidental handwaving is a needed part of being a mage. Then again, I run D&D 3E w/free casting of 0 level spells. Easy, simple magic should be just that and it makes for less rules overhead too.

Hagen

O/T HMM Free cantrips -- Interesting. I think the free Cure Minor might be unbalanced but the rest -- HMM HMM -- let me ponder

 

[SSquirrel]

O/T HMM Free cantrips -- Interesting. I think the free Cure Minor might be unbalanced but the rest -- HMM HMM -- let me ponder

Actually I restrict the free Cure Minor to working only 3 times on any one person per day. Basically they get too full of healing energy and are unable to accept more from you. The healing signatures of higher level magic are different tho, so they would still work

Hagen

 

[Funksaw]

My friend has a copy - I looked it over.

Unlike Vampire and, I presume, Werewolf, this is a completely new game to the point that it's really not worth comparing the two versions.

The old mage was what I called a convergence of "brilliance and " - players were just -encouraged- to come up with these wacky, implausible but possible ideas in the course of play. The setting - where you were mucking with reality, where you were operating on a perpendicular wavelength to everyone around you, was one of the more interesting and open games that you could do just about anything with.

This is not to say that the old mage was better. As a -game- the new mage is certainly simpler - no competing paradigms, unified cosmology, more room for manuverability, more power balance and rotes are more emphasized meaning that powers become much more standardized. There's fewer "judgement calls" but it comes at the expense of toning down the setting and system significantly. The two games are likely to appeal more towards different types of gamers -- unlike, say old and new Vampire, which are really, fundimentally, the same game, new and old mage are quite different.

If there's one big drawback that I want to point out though, it's that the New Mage, because of it's emphasis on rotes and "box-o-spells" casting, is much more like Unknown Armies, which, quite frankly, does it better. My end verdict is that it's not going to be something I *choose* to play if I have UA or old-Mage as options, but if someone were to run it? Sure, I'd be in.

Just don't ask me to buy it. WW has burned way too many bridges for me to actually pay money to them.

 

[Funksaw]

Hmm... if I have free time...

HackMage (or MageMaster): The 4th edition that COULD HAVE BEEN!

 

[Evil Ujio]

I picked this up, it is easily one of my faves right now, right with the new Serenity RPG, Mage is very flexible, and lends itself to a variety of stories. The background is vague and very open bookish, but I like it.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I took a look at it, haven't sat down to read it, but so far it's a big :|

Can't quite place my finger on it yet, but seeing page after page of rotes didn't really enthuse me all that much.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

If there's one big drawback that I want to point out though, it's that the New Mage, because of it's emphasis on rotes and "box-o-spells" casting, is much more like Unknown Armies, which, quite frankly, does it better. My end verdict is that it's not going to be something I *choose* to play if I have UA or old-Mage as options, but if someone were to run it? Sure, I'd be in.

Wasn't the Developer for Mage: the Awakening involved with Unknown Armies before working on Mage? So there's bound to be some more similarities there...

 

[Umbran]

That's because the Diamond Orders consider it to *be* history.

That doesn't keep it from being incredibly boring to read. The fact that four out of the five Orders think of it as history doesn't excuse the flavorless writing style.

Like it or not, the choice was to present a largely Western, general outline of Awakened culture so that players can talk the talk from day one without having to buy books that present one or another cultural outline.

I think I'll go with "not". By reducing it all to one general outline, they've leeched much of the flavor out of the setting. It may be that everybody can talk the talk from day one, but that means that everyone is talking the same talk. Which means you might as well not talk at all.

Not really. You've quoted it out of context. Mages act more than they contemplate things, but they don't tend to go on globetrotting missions. That's all, really.

No, that's not all. I left quite a bit of the context in there, and "leave their sanctums only when necessary" simply isn't consistent with "always at ground zero." Unless there's some great cosmic hot line calling them out of their sanctums so they are at the right place at the right time, which they don't posit.

I'd let it go if that were the only instance, but the book is full of similar contradictions. Mages are supposed to be reclusive, and generally dislike and distrust each other, but meanwhile a mage who doesn't work within a cabal is considered insane. Nobody did a decent consistency check on this book.

I invite you to reread the rules for rotes. It's impossible to formulate a new rote without being a Master of its Arcanum. Novel rotes are thus hard to come by.

Novel, as in "nobody has them" sure. But if these guys have been around since pre-history, there should be libraries upon libraries of rotes built up by previous generations. The supply of ready rotes should be large, meaning their value should be small.

Furthermore, rapid XP accumulation *depends* on secret knowledge because that's the source of Arcane Experience. If you don't encounter bizarre supernatural phenomena/lore, you don't advance as rapidly. Far from not being supported, this is hard-coded into the rules.

Perhaps you've wandered off into other things, but I'm talking about why there's an "economy of secrets" here, why mages intentionally withhold information from each other. Are you suggesting that these magi (who are stated as being uncooperative) are withholding information so that other magi will be able to earn more XP in the field? That's absurd.

Aside from that, it assumes that a GM would withhold the one "learning curve" XP for a session because a character was intelligent enough to go hunt down information about the threats they face before leaping into action, that readign about something in a book so one is a bit more prepared should cost one of the 4 or so XP the character might earn in a session. I'm pretty sure that isn't hard-coded ito the rules.

I expect support for mages with other origins will be along in time

The game should be compelling for it's core, not for it's splatbooks.

In any event, I'd appreciate some content to your critique of the Orders, rather than a conclusion with no examples.

My basic view of them is that they are unimaginative and unoriginal. You think I'm going to start quoting passages that I find boring to prove that I find them boring?

I admit that the Orders can be fixed by a creative GM. They should have been given more creative thought, but it is setting rather than rules, and fixable.

The morality system, as written, however, is another matter. While I don't personally know any GM that would run it this way, technically, as written, combat is extremely likely to end in deranged characters. You're supposed to roll for Morality loss each time you commit a sin, and each loss can lead to a derangement. So, technically, for a normal starting character, each time they inflict damage in combat, they have to roll. And it is a bigger sin if they use magic. And heaven forfend they should actually be the last one standing, for killing is another sin on top of the others.

I think that it winds up with about a 3% chance for a morality 7 character to gain a derangement for a Morality 7 sin. Sometimes they'll get extra dice, but sometimes the sin is nastier. So let's use that number - every combat round, each character is risking a 3% chance of gaining a derangement! Talk about a disincentive to intervene...

 

[eyebeams]

That doesn't keep it from being incredibly boring to read. The fact that four out of the five Orders think of it as history doesn't excuse the flavorless writing style.

What did you find uninteresting, exactly?

I think I'll go with "not". By reducing it all to one general outline, they've leeched much of the flavor out of the setting.

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

It may be that everybody can talk the talk from day one, but that means that everyone is talking the same talk. Which means you might as well not talk at all.

Not really, no.

No, that's not all. I left quite a bit of the context in there, and "leave their sanctums only when necessary" simply isn't consistent with "always at ground zero." Unless there's some great cosmic hot line calling them out of their sanctums so they are at the right place at the right time, which they don't posit.

Actually, you left out the entire body of text talking about what mages do. That's whatwould provide context.

I'd let it go if that were the only instance, but the book is full of similar contradictions. Mages are supposed to be reclusive, and generally dislike and distrust each other, but meanwhile a mage who doesn't work within a cabal is considered insane. Nobody did a decent consistency check on this book.

Nobody checked it to defend it against complaints based on wilfully ignoring context and nuance. Happily, nobody is under any obligation to do so.

Novel, as in "nobody has them" sure. But if these guys have been around since pre-history, there should be libraries upon libraries of rotes built up by previous generations. The supply of ready rotes should be large, meaning their value should be small.

OK, I'll bite: How many Aztec codices do you have in your home? None? Well, you must have some cuneiform tablets . . . oh -- none of those? How about 13th century illustrated manuscripts? thousand year torah scrolls? Any such thing?

We live in a world where most people can't extract information from digital media that's more than 20 years old, yet you somehow believe it should be true in some ironclad sense than anything a budding Merlin writes down is preserved for all eternity. And funny how I've never heard anyone argue that every wizard in Faerun or Oerth should have complete 30th level spellbooks, since that scenario is actually much more plausible in those fantasy settings.

Amazingly, people write books on paper and other materials that are not considerate enough to be indestructible. People lose track of books. Towers burn down. When it comes to magical books, people burn them, hide then, kill each other for them.

Perhaps you've wandered off into other things, but I'm talking about why there's an "economy of secrets" here, why mages intentionally withhold information from each other. Are you suggesting that these magi (who are stated as being uncooperative) are withholding information so that other magi will be able to earn more XP in the field? That's absurd.

Your interpretation of arcane XP is so erroneous that I don't believe your position is sincere, since it's obvious that it's a matter of encountering the supernatural -- which is secret as a function of the setting (because, as you must realize the WoD is about a *hidden* supernatural world) -- rather than encountering any old secret thing. You don't get arcane XP when Bobbi-Sue tells you about the secret crush she had on the Hawkins boy. It's arcane XP, not secret XP. Arnae XP comes from secret sources by virtue of a setting where the supernatural is a secret.

Aside from that, it assumes that a GM would withhold the one "learning curve" XP for a session because a character was intelligent enough to go hunt down information about the threats they face before leaping into action, that readign about something in a book so one is a bit more prepared should cost one of the 4 or so XP the character might earn in a session. I'm pretty sure that isn't hard-coded ito the rules.

You are factually incorrect. It *is* hard-coded into the rules. Not only that, mage XP burdens exist the balance with arcane XP. If you missed this, it sure isn't the game's fault.

The game should be compelling for it's core, not for it's splatbooks.

I generally think people should give a game a thorough reading -- so that they know about thing slike how the XP system works, for example -- before they render judgment. Things are tough all over.

My basic view of them is that they are unimaginative and unoriginal. You think I'm going to start quoting passages that I find boring to prove that I find them boring?

If your opinion has integrity: yes.

I admit that the Orders can be fixed by a creative GM. They should have been given more creative thought, but it is setting rather than rules, and fixable.

Since you won't talk about them, I guess we'll never know . . .

The morality system, as written, however, is another matter. While I don't personally know any GM that would run it this way, technically, as written, combat is extremely likely to end in deranged characters. You're supposed to roll for Morality loss each time you commit a sin, and each loss can lead to a derangement. So, technically, for a normal starting character, each time they inflict damage in combat, they have to roll. And it is a bigger sin if they use magic. And heaven forfend they should actually be the last one standing, for killing is another sin on top of the others.

In any WoD game, combat is intended to be a major, infrequent event with considerable psychological impact. If your play agenda is incompatible with this, then the entire WoD line doesn't have the kind of games you want to play. This begs the question of why you would actually want to buy the games. Caveat emptor.

I think that it winds up with about a 3% chance for a morality 7 character to gain a derangement for a Morality 7 sin. Sometimes they'll get extra dice, but sometimes the sin is nastier. So let's use that number - every combat round, each character is risking a 3% chance of gaining a derangement! Talk about a disincentive to intervene...

That reminds me of I can never enter combat in D&D, because there's a chance someone will max-crit me and kill me right away. How unfair!

 

[Funksaw]

My basic view of them is that they are unimaginative and unoriginal. You think I'm going to start quoting passages that I find boring to prove that I find them boring?

I admit that the Orders can be fixed by a creative GM. They should have been given more creative thought, but it is setting rather than rules, and fixable.

The morality system, as written, however, is another matter. While I don't personally know any GM that would run it this way, technically, as written, combat is extremely likely to end in deranged characters. You're supposed to roll for Morality loss each time you commit a sin, and each loss can lead to a derangement. So, technically, for a normal starting character, each time they inflict damage in combat, they have to roll. And it is a bigger sin if they use magic. And heaven forfend they should actually be the last one standing, for killing is another sin on top of the others.

I think that it winds up with about a 3% chance for a morality 7 character to gain a derangement for a Morality 7 sin. Sometimes they'll get extra dice, but sometimes the sin is nastier. So let's use that number - every combat round, each character is risking a 3% chance of gaining a derangement! Talk about a disincentive to intervene...

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. 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.

I like the morality loss system for combat. First off, it discourages combat IF there's another solution to the problem. Second, combat should be a harrowing experience. But again - Unknown Armies did this better - with the Hardened and Failed Sanity System.

I'm going to have to agree, it's a playable :|