Mage: Canonical Coincidental Magic

G

Guest

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

I thought I'd make this its own thread since the thread where I talked
about it seems to have gone largely unnoticed.

While Jess was still developing, he wrote a FAQ for the game. This FAQ
was reprinted, in mostly unaltered form, in the Mage Storytellers
Handbook, which was signed off on by Bill Bridges. Thus, both
developers are consistent about stuff in the FAQ. Page 11 of that book
talks about the coincidental vs vulgar issue. And the "answer" is . .
..

.. . . teleporting a gun into a coat is probably vulgar without
witnesses in a by-the-book game.

The standard is that a given event could have conceivably happened
without magic. One example in the FAQ of something that is actually
vulgaar is opening a door in one room and going to another room in an
entirely different building, even if nobody saw you. This is
functionally the same as the teleporting gun issue.

*However* (and this is where my opinion steps in), one problem that I
think comes up in these discussions is a failure to appraise the
character of consensual reality. This is why gun teleporting is only
*probably* vulgar. I submit these three points for consideration:

1) Consensual reality has a psychological dimension.

2) Its psychology needs things to make *narrative* sense.

3) What counts as making narrative sense is not a simple description
of the causal chain that makes things happen. Because the consensus is
psychologically human, it has additional subjective standards of what
makes a good narrative thread.

This leads to 2 more points:

4) The consensus accepts good stories and rejects lousy stories, based
on its tastes.

5) The ST plays the consensus as a character.

Yeah, this is a fancy way of saying its up to the ST, but there's more
to it. Certainly, coincidences still have to meet certain basic
requiremnents, but what counts as "could have happened without magic"
is something that is a matter of taste not only in specific games, but
in the setting itself. When the consensus is iunfused with a sense of
wonder and adventure, pulp cliffhanger stunts like "I had my gedget
all along!" will probably be coincidental. When reality is convinced
that the world is a depressing place of hard truths, then that might
not cut it.

M.
 
G

Guest

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

"Malcolm Sheppard" wrote:
> 4) The consensus accepts good stories and rejects lousy stories, based
> on its tastes.
>
> 5) The ST plays the consensus as a character.

I think the disconnect comes in that sometimes people want to treat
coincidental magic like dramatic editing in Adventure!, and sometimes they
want to treat it as more harsh, gritty, and "realistic". A lot of the more
debatable "coincidences" such as the whiskey flask in the pocket or the cab
at the right moment would be perfectly reasonable expenditures of
inspiration in A!. Conversely, if you're running a game where the narrative
isn't something that magic directly interacts with, they're harder to
explain. In the first version, the only hard facts in the game world are
what have already been described by the GM. In the second version, reality
is assumed to be pretty consistent and undescribed details can be
extrapolated from those already in place.

So I guess it just comes down to stating before the game either "I see
reality as more narrative and flexible, and coincidences are more reliable
if they flow with the story and change the undescribed areas" or "I think
that magic doesn't have a direct narrative impact, but treats the world as
story-impartial, so arrange coincidences that only change things that a
thorough and informed observer would have ceded as possibilities." The
first is not necessarily more permissive than the second, as long as
attempts at coincidences that impede or add discord to the story are more
often interpreted as vulgar.

~Stephen
 
G

Guest

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

In article <c772e1f6.0409141446.7ff1166d@posting.google.com>,
usiel@vampirethemasquerade.com (Malcolm Sheppard) wrote:
>
> . . . teleporting a gun into a coat is probably vulgar without
> witnesses in a by-the-book game.

<snip>

Interestingly written.

In most of my Mage games I have based the argument largely on what an
*unassisted* viewer would perceive. So teleporting a gun into a pocket
is usually coincidental, into an empty room is vulgar w/o witness and
into a room with witness as, natch, with witness.

I likely got my preferences from Phil, I imagine...

mdf

--
remove 'no junk' to reply
 
G

Guest

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

usiel@vampirethemasquerade.com (Malcolm Sheppard) wrote in message news:<c772e1f6.0409141446.7ff1166d@posting.google.com>...

> 1) Consensual reality has a psychological dimension.
>
> 2) Its psychology needs things to make *narrative* sense.
>
> 3) What counts as making narrative sense is not a simple description
> of the causal chain that makes things happen. Because the consensus is
> psychologically human, it has additional subjective standards of what
> makes a good narrative thread.
>
> This leads to 2 more points:
>
> 4) The consensus accepts good stories and rejects lousy stories, based
> on its tastes.
>
> 5) The ST plays the consensus as a character.

This is strikingly similar to the rational for stunting in
Exalted- Reality (in the rm of pattern spiders) likes cool
stunts.

Which gives me the image of mages stunting to turn their vulgar
magicks coincidental. And a new perspective on Blatency.

- Eric Tolle