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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
>
> 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.

Actually, that should be "you're probably assuming a hypothetical - and
not literal - witness, and you're making an assertion that's not
strongly supported in Mage."

What is the value of making coincidental magic a complex endeavor? It's
not like there's a carrot here - just the stick of paradox if you don't
use it. As you suggest, you're punishing a player for using coincidence
by adding further requirements for it to operate properly, and giving
them paradox if they don't want to work within those confines.

The end result is not a version of Mage I'd want to play.

--
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

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

Neelakantan Krishnaswami wrote:
>
> In article <2qcjd0Fud8gtU1@uni-berlin.de>, Stephenls wrote:
> > Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
>
> It's a character-defining moral point -- are you willing to accomodate
> the dominant paradigm when you do magic, or are you going to act
> according to your own vision of the way the Real should be regardless
> of the cost?
>
> I've run Mage both your way and Deirdre's way. It works both ways, and
> the choice really depends on the sorts of themes that you and your
> players want to work with.

That's wrong, Neel.

We must state our positions as inflexible. This *is* a Mage discussion,
after all.

Oh, and good points.

--
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

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

William wrote:

> Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That's wrong, Neel.
>>
>> We must state our positions as inflexible. This *is* a Mage discussion,
>> after all.
>>
>> Oh, and good points.
>>
>
> Well, duh. What's the point of argueing if you are not opinionated,
> inflexible, and dogmatic?
>
> William
>

(And, most importantly, having fun?)

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

William wrote:
>
> Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
>
> >
> > That's wrong, Neel.
> >
> > We must state our positions as inflexible. This *is* a Mage discussion,
> > after all.
> >
> > Oh, and good points.
> >
>
> Well, duh. What's the point of argueing if you are not opinionated,
> inflexible, and dogmatic?

Exactly.

My true position is not precisely opposed to Stephenls', actually. It's
more of a case-by-case thing.

--
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

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

Brandon Quina squarked:
>> 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.
I always found mage discussions were like being trampled in the rush to get
to the truth. Or perhaps it being in the cave off truth but being attached
by elastic to a central point - everytime you find a piece of the cave, you
hold onto it in case when you let you go you will not be able to get back.
--
Picks-at-Flies
I only eat people in self-defence.
http://www.werepenguin.net

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

David Johnston wrote:
>
> <sigh> The presence or absence of a witness is totally irrelevant to
> the determination of whether an effect is vulgar.

But the potential of a witness does.

Also, this specific argument tends to devolve into "if the mage knows
it's magic, then it's vulgar." And I think even you've resorted to that
canard.

--
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

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

Stephenls wrote:
> Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
>
>> Also, this specific argument tends to devolve into "if the mage knows
>> it's magic, then it's vulgar." And I think even you've resorted to that
>> canard.
>
> I'd never take it in that direction.
>
> I'd probably say something like "If causality knows it's magic, then
> it's vulgar," instead. If the result of the magic is something that
> couldn't possibly have happened without magic, then the magic is vulgar.
> Not /wouldn't/ have happened, but /couldn't./ Outside the realm of
> conceivable possibility. The exception is sensory magic, which is
> always coincidental just 'cause it is, and healing bashing damage,
> which... oh, game balance, or something.
>
> Summoning a storm? Coincidental, 'cause a storm could have sprung up.
> Bullets missing? Coincidental, 'cause bullets miss. Exploding gas
> main? Coincidental, 'cause gas mains explode. Win the lottery?
> Coincidental, 'cause lotteries get won.
>
> Teleporting handgun? Vulgar. Handguns don't teleport.

I think this is mainly a definitional issue. One could just as easily
say that "forcibly altering the path of bullets" is vulgar; only when
stated as "bullets missing" is it 'coincidental'. Similarly, the idea
of a teleporting handgun is very vulgar. However, if you change it to,
"having a gun in your pocket," then it's just as likely to occur as any
of your other example. Sometimes people have guns in their pockets;P



Brandon,

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

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:51:46 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
<kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>>
>> <sigh> The presence or absence of a witness is totally irrelevant to
>> the determination of whether an effect is vulgar.
>
>But the potential of a witness does.
>
>Also, this specific argument tends to devolve into "if the mage knows
>it's magic, then it's vulgar." And I think even you've resorted to that
>canard.

No. That's what my variant was invariably distorted into
by people unable to grasp the difference between that and
"If the mage knows that it could not have happened without
magic, then it's vulgar".

And since you asked what the appeal was of going a slightly
more involved route with coincidence for those who did,
the answer is "It made magic seem more mysterious and
therefore more dramatic."

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

Neelakantan Krishnaswami wrote:
>
> Nah, they have katanas in their trenchcoats. :-)
>
> (I remain convinced that PCs with a leather trenchcoat, katana, and
> sunglasses after dark are cool. Evidence will not sway me on this
> point.)

I am amused that the first Obfuscate power in the new Vampire lets you
hide katanas in your trenchcoats.

--
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

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

In the borning days of the third millennium, Joel Morton wrote:
>
>"Neelakantan Krishnaswami" wrote in message
>
>> (I remain convinced that PCs with a leather trenchcoat, katana, and
>> sunglasses after dark are cool. Evidence will not sway me on this
>> point.)
>>
>
>Are they still cool after they crash their (black) motorcycles into a
>sinkhole they couldn't see because they were wearing sunglasses?

Only if they flip over the handlebars as the bike goes in, landing on
the other side with katana at the ready and not a single hair out of place.

[bonus points if the bike explodes in a fireball behind you]

--
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

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

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:37:34 -0400, Tyler Dion <tfdion@spammenot.com>
wrote:

>In article <Gnn2d.445814$%_6.337965@attbi_s01>, "Joel Morton"
><joelwmortonNOSPAM@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Are they still cool after they crash their (black) motorcycles into a
>> sinkhole they couldn't see because they were wearing sunglasses?
>
>Since this is a Mage thread, I think it's safe to say they've all had
>their sunglasses enchanted with a permanent Forces 1 effect granting
>nightvision.
>
>'S what I would do.

It's certainly what the New World Order does.