The Impossibility of Discussing Mage

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Through some course of events I can't recall, I find myself subscribed
to a Yahoogroup devoted to Mage. Currently there's a discussion about --
what else? -- vulgar vs coincidental. And it's forced an epiphany upon
me.

There will never be a really good multi-person discussion of vulgar vs
coincidental, or any of the other subjectivities of Mage. It'll always
just be a bunch of people talking past each other about how "In my
game..." and never achieving meaningful communication about the subject.

So I think I'll unsubscribe from that list.

--
Tyler

u d e t o d r y s t a n o i d f t

Bac>|wards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Tyler Dion wrote:

> Through some course of events I can't recall, I find myself subscribed
> to a Yahoogroup devoted to Mage. Currently there's a discussion about --
> what else? -- vulgar vs coincidental. And it's forced an epiphany upon
> me.

> There will never be a really good multi-person discussion of vulgar vs
> coincidental, or any of the other subjectivities of Mage. It'll always
> just be a bunch of people talking past each other about how "In my
> game..." and never achieving meaningful communication about the subject.

That's pretty much entirely true, and why I largely stopped
participating in the Mage forum over at WWOnline. My most recent
contribution was basically cranky hatred of everyone else present.

> So I think I'll unsubscribe from that list.

Wise choice.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

In the borning days of the third millennium, Tyler Dion wrote:
>There will never be a really good multi-person discussion of vulgar vs
>coincidental, or any of the other subjectivities of Mage. It'll always
>just be a bunch of people talking past each other about how "In my
>game..." and never achieving meaningful communication about the subject.

In my game, we have intense meaningful discussions about metaphysics,
religion, politics, and vegetarianism vs. mmmmmm. . .steak.

--
Brian Merchant (remove 'remove' and 'example' from email)

Puritanism didn't keep the puritans from sinning, it just kept
them from enjoying it.
--Father Joe Breighner
Country Roads

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

In article <2q9lbcFsug8oU1@uni-berlin.de>, Stephenls
<stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:

> My most recent
> contribution was basically cranky hatred of everyone else present.

Which has a subtle difference from your cranky goodwill.

--
Tyler

u d e t o d r y s t a n o i d f t

Bac>|wards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

> There will never be a really good multi-person discussion of vulgar vs
> coincidental, or any of the other subjectivities of Mage. It'll always
> just be a bunch of people talking past each other about how "In my
> game..." and never achieving meaningful communication about the subject.

Such abilities to fine tune Paradox within a setting so as to emulate
whatever cinematic or literary genre you draw inspiration from with Mage is
a *feature*, not a bug. When people talk about how they do Paradox in Mage,
what I think that they're really talking about is how they want they're game
universe to run. Paradox describes the commonly accepted boundaries of
reality. I bet if you ask them what flavor they tend towards when they run
their games, you'll get kind of the same answers as to how they feel about
Paradox.

CB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

In article <2q9teaFtdbjtU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Intelligroove"
<kaiu_keiichi@nospam.com> wrote:

> When people talk about how they do Paradox in Mage,
> what I think that they're really talking about is how they want they're
> game universe to run. Paradox describes the commonly accepted boundaries of
> reality. I bet if you ask them what flavor they tend towards when they
> run their games, you'll get kind of the same answers as to how they feel
> about Paradox.

An interesting point. However, it seems a roundabout way of discussing
genre conventions. Doing so directly would be a far cry better than
another round of "IMHO, drawing a gun from a previously empty pocket in
front of sleepers is clearly vulgar with witnesses." Better to say that
one prefers a game world in which magic is used only in exceptional
circumstances, and not for casual violence.

--
Tyler

u d e t o d r y s t a n o i d f t

Bac>|wards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Tyler Dion wrote:

> An interesting point. However, it seems a roundabout way of discussing
> genre conventions. Doing so directly would be a far cry better than
> another round of "IMHO, drawing a gun from a previously empty pocket in
> front of sleepers is clearly vulgar with witnesses."

Vulgar without witnesses.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

 

[william]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Tyler Dion wrote:

> Through some course of events I can't recall, I find myself subscribed
> to a Yahoogroup devoted to Mage. Currently there's a discussion about --
> what else? -- vulgar vs coincidental. And it's forced an epiphany upon
> me.
>
> There will never be a really good multi-person discussion of vulgar vs
> coincidental, or any of the other subjectivities of Mage. It'll always
> just be a bunch of people talking past each other about how "In my
> game..." and never achieving meaningful communication about the subject.
>
> So I think I'll unsubscribe from that list.
>

You make a false assumption that, for a discussion to be meaningful,
there has to be some sort of conclusion reached. I don't agree with the
vulgar vs coincidental opinions of anyone on this list. The discussions
on this list were still what finally let me figure out what scheme I'd
use in games of my own.

William

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

In article <2qa33hFs9h9pU1@uni-berlin.de>, Stephenls
<stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Vulgar without witnesses.

You're despicable.

--
Tyler

u d e t o d r y s t a n o i d f t

Bac>|wards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

In article <2qa144Ft6qlaU1@uni-berlin.de>, William
<wilit0613@postoffice.uri.edu> wrote:

> You make a false assumption that, for a discussion to be meaningful,
> there has to be some sort of conclusion reached.

Do I?

I'm not asking for a conclusion. I'm asking for people to stop talking
past each other. Enough with letting the "In my game..." bullshit be
their ultimate response to every unlike opinion. Actually talk about and
consider other people's points; don't just fire back with one's own.
That's meaningful discussion in my book.

--
Tyler

u d e t o d r y s t a n o i d f t

Bac>|wards

 

[william]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Stephenls wrote:
> Tyler Dion wrote:
>
>> An interesting point. However, it seems a roundabout way of discussing
>> genre conventions. Doing so directly would be a far cry better than
>> another round of "IMHO, drawing a gun from a previously empty pocket
>> in front of sleepers is clearly vulgar with witnesses."
>
>
> Vulgar without witnesses.

Coincidental. If you look like someone who'd be carrying a gun.

William

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

William wrote:

> Coincidental. If you look like someone who'd be carrying a gun.

No. Conjuring the gun in your pocket is vulgar whether people can see
it or not -- guns don't appear from nowhere. A thin sheet of fabric
blocking line of sight doesn't make stuff any less impossible.

But it's got no witnesses because the people watching won't think of it
as magic, or even particularly strange.

Coincidental would be using magic to help your aim, or amping up the
emotional resonance of the gun so that it's extra-scary and people do
what you say while you're holding it, or anything else that isn't
demonstrably impossible.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On 9/8/04 8:00 PM, in article tfdion-9D5F22.20002508092004@newstand.syr.edu,
"Tyler Dion" <tfdion@spammenot.com> wrote:

> There will never be a really good multi-person discussion of vulgar vs
> coincidental, or any of the other subjectivities of Mage. It'll always
> just be a bunch of people talking past each other about how "In my
> game..." and never achieving meaningful communication about the subject.

Not true!

Sometimes there are flame wars.



BrandonQ,

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Yeah, WolfSpoor's Mage forum was the closest our forums have got to
having an argument. But it was headed off at the pass.

There hasn't been much there lately, but it's a good place for
conversation if you're interested. High signal/noise ratio. DigitalRaven
has a couple of great dissertations on paradigm and such.

--
_______________
Ian A. A. Watson
ianwatson@wolf-spoor.org
http://www.wolf-spoor.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

In article <C_Z%c.19154$0c.17972@read1.cgocable.net>,
ianwatson@wolf-spoor.org wrote:

> There hasn't been much there lately, but it's a good place for
> conversation if you're interested. High signal/noise ratio.

I'd like to browse WolfSpoor regularly, but for some reason, that site's
pages take an absurd amount of time and thought on my computer's part to
load. The forum jump menu doesn't work so well either. It doesn't make
for a pleasant browsing experience, so I don't visit often,
unfortunately.

Last night's visit, when I found out the people from WW's Werewolf forum
had opted to shift there, was my first in maybe a month or so.

--
Tyler

u d e t o d r y s t a n o i d f t

Bac>|wards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

What about "making sure there's a gun in your pocket" when there /could/
be, but you can't remember if there is one or not?


Stephenls wrote:
> William wrote:
>
>> Coincidental. If you look like someone who'd be carrying a gun.
>
>
> No. Conjuring the gun in your pocket is vulgar whether people can see
> it or not -- guns don't appear from nowhere. A thin sheet of fabric
> blocking line of sight doesn't make stuff any less impossible.
>
> But it's got no witnesses because the people watching won't think of it
> as magic, or even particularly strange.
>
> Coincidental would be using magic to help your aim, or amping up the
> emotional resonance of the gun so that it's extra-scary and people do
> what you say while you're holding it, or anything else that isn't
> demonstrably impossible.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Brandon Quina wrote:

> What about "making sure there's a gun in your pocket" when there /could/
> be, but you can't remember if there is one or not?

There was either a gun in your pocket or there wasn't, so either no
Arete roll was necessary or it's vulgar. There is no way to
coincidentally conjure a gun from nowhere, because according to the
dominant paradigm, guns appearing from nowhere is impossible. Magic
can't change the past. (Unless you're playing with high level Time
magic, in which case it's vulgar by definition.)

You could probably manage some sort of "I want to coincidentally find a
gun in the hollow of that tree" effect, provided you're willing to wait
long enough for the magic to set it up such that a gun actually does end
up in that trashcan naturally -- a day or two after you cast the Effect,
say. That's mostly useful if you want to acquire a gun without paying
for it.

The problem with coincidental magic is it has limits -- it can either do
subtle stuff or it can work slowly. Vulgar is there for when you need
the gun right damn now.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Tyler Dion wrote:
> I'd like to browse WolfSpoor regularly, but for some reason, that site's
> pages take an absurd amount of time and thought on my computer's part to
> load. The forum jump menu doesn't work so well either. It doesn't make
> for a pleasant browsing experience, so I don't visit often,
> unfortunately.
>
I'm sorry to hear that. I honestly don't know what the problem could
be... the server does most of the work in rendering the page, and even
caches it so if you load the page a second time within half an hour, it
doesn't take up as much database access time. Loading any individual
page takes less than a second for me.
So again, I don't know what the problem could be. Sorry, though.


--
_______________
Ian A. A. Watson
ianwatson@wolf-spoor.org
http://www.wolf-spoor.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

> Do I?
>
> I'm not asking for a conclusion. I'm asking for people to stop talking
> past each other. Enough with letting the "In my game..." bullshit be
> their ultimate response to every unlike opinion. Actually talk about and
> consider other people's points; don't just fire back with one's own.
> That's meaningful discussion in my book.
>
> --
> Tyler

Unfortunately, reality is subjective in Mage, so people's opinions as to
what constitutes Vulgarity will be subjective as well. It's hard to find a
firm, objective basis.

In some settings, to bring up Stephenls's vulgar gun issue, some ST's may
not feel that Vulgarity should be decided by some "universal objective
observer" effect - ie, sleeper beliefs influencing how well your magick
works even when they're not around. Other ST's may want a powerful, rigid
Consensus. Much of it depends on what 'feels' right to a particular ST.
Some may even argue that the Mage himself, who both simultaneosly believes
in his own Awakened paradigm and the current Sleeper consensus generates the
Paradox himself, since if he believed *entirely* in just his own mystic (or
whatever) Paradigm, and did not account for sleeper reality, he'd be a
Marauder. However, I'm pretty certain that Stephenls' stance is probably
closest to what WW developers have released, he's a student of such things.

Paradox is both an in-game consequence of magick and a meta-game setting
enforcement tool. I think it's more productive to discuss how to use
Paradox to reinforce the setting vibe we want in a particular Mage
chronicle.

CB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Stephenls wrote:
>
> William wrote:
>
> > Coincidental. If you look like someone who'd be carrying a gun.
>
> No. Conjuring the gun in your pocket is vulgar whether people can see
> it or not -- guns don't appear from nowhere. A thin sheet of fabric
> blocking line of sight doesn't make stuff any less impossible.
>
> But it's got no witnesses because the people watching won't think of it
> as magic, or even particularly strange.

That's not even consistent with the in game examples.

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Stephenls wrote:
>
> Brandon Quina wrote:
>
> > What about "making sure there's a gun in your pocket" when there /could/
> > be, but you can't remember if there is one or not?
>
> There was either a gun in your pocket or there wasn't, so either no
> Arete roll was necessary or it's vulgar. There is no way to
> coincidentally conjure a gun from nowhere, because according to the
> dominant paradigm, guns appearing from nowhere is impossible. Magic
> can't change the past. (Unless you're playing with high level Time
> magic, in which case it's vulgar by definition.)

This makes the mage creating an effect into a witness, and he can't be a
witness to his own magic for determination of vulgarity - in fact, no
supernatural being can.

> You could probably manage some sort of "I want to coincidentally find a
> gun in the hollow of that tree" effect, provided you're willing to wait
> long enough for the magic to set it up such that a gun actually does end
> up in that trashcan naturally -- a day or two after you cast the Effect,
> say. That's mostly useful if you want to acquire a gun without paying
> for it.

Or you could just do the effect and explain that you had the gun all
along, and that would qualify.

> The problem with coincidental magic is it has limits -- it can either do
> subtle stuff or it can work slowly. Vulgar is there for when you need
> the gun right damn now.

Well, yeah, if you want to conjure it into your hand and not, say, a
briefcase, or a purse, or holstered/pocketed out of view.

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Julie d'Aubigny wrote:

> This makes the mage creating an effect into a witness, and he can't be a
> witness to his own magic for determination of vulgarity - in fact, no
> supernatural being can.

What does the presence or absence of witnesses have to do with
coincidentality or vulgarity? A vulgar effect is vulgar whether or not
a witness is present.

I just said a mage conjuring a gun into his pocket is vulgar without
witnesses. If I meant the mage counted as a witness, I'd have said it
was vulgar /with/ witnesses.

> Or you could just do the effect and explain that you had the gun all
> along, and that would qualify.

No.

> Well, yeah, if you want to conjure it into your hand and not, say, a
> briefcase, or a purse, or holstered/pocketed out of view.

If five seconds of thought can turn any effect coincidental with a
handwave, what's the point of having vulgar magic at all?
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

In the borning days of the third millennium, Stephenls wrote:
>Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
>> Or you could just do the effect and explain that you had the gun all
>> along, and that would qualify.
>
>No.

There are two clashing styles here. Tight magic and loose magic. Some people
like the tight magic style to give a more realistic, grittier feel. Some
people like a the loose style for a more free-wheeling, intense feel.

*Neither* is more correct than the other. It's a matter of taste.

Personally, I like the looser style. Half the fun of the game is coming up
with good coincidences. I enjoy trying to BS reality, and occasionally
getting away with it.

--
Brian Merchant (remove 'remove' and 'example' from email)

Puritanism didn't keep the puritans from sinning, it just kept
them from enjoying it.
--Father Joe Breighner
Country Roads

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Intelligroove wrote:
>
> In some settings, to bring up Stephenls's vulgar gun issue, some ST's may
> not feel that Vulgarity should be decided by some "universal objective
> observer" effect - ie, sleeper beliefs influencing how well your magick
> works even when they're not around. Other ST's may want a powerful, rigid
> Consensus. Much of it depends on what 'feels' right to a particular ST.
> Some may even argue that the Mage himself, who both simultaneosly believes
> in his own Awakened paradigm and the current Sleeper consensus generates the
> Paradox himself, since if he believed *entirely* in just his own mystic (or
> whatever) Paradigm, and did not account for sleeper reality, he'd be a
> Marauder. However, I'm pretty certain that Stephenls' stance is probably
> closest to what WW developers have released, he's a student of such things.

It is possible that things may have shifted since Bill Bridges started
developing Mage, but the general idea before then was that the
determination of vulgarity vs. coincidence was how explainable the
effect was to a hypothetical observer. Someone drawing a gun from a
concealed holster wouldn't be remarkable beyond the entire "Oh no, he
has a gun!" angle, and if the player doing it had a good coincidence,
it'd work as a coincidence.

The situation could be either/or, and doesn't have to be strictly
vulgar, unless the ST is trying to discourage the use of coincidental
magic.

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Stephenls wrote:
>
> Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
>
> > This makes the mage creating an effect into a witness, and he can't be a
> > witness to his own magic for determination of vulgarity - in fact, no
> > supernatural being can.
>
> What does the presence or absence of witnesses have to do with
> coincidentality or vulgarity? A vulgar effect is vulgar whether or not
> a witness is present.
>
> I just said a mage conjuring a gun into his pocket is vulgar without
> witnesses. If I meant the mage counted as a witness, I'd have said it
> was vulgar /with/ witnesses.

Because a mage can conjure a gun into his pocket in a manner that is
either vulgar or coincidental. If the only option for such a conjuration
is vulgar, then either you're assuming a hypothetical witness, or you're
making an assertion that's really not supported.

> > Or you could just do the effect and explain that you had the gun all
> > along, and that would qualify.
>
> No.

Er, yes.

> > Well, yeah, if you want to conjure it into your hand and not, say, a
> > briefcase, or a purse, or holstered/pocketed out of view.
>
> If five seconds of thought can turn any effect coincidental with a
> handwave, what's the point of having vulgar magic at all?

If the storyteller simply declares effects vulgar because he doesn't
care for them/won't conceive of how it might be coincidental, what's the
point of having coincidental magic at all?

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856