[Mage] How complete is your paradigm?

[Guest]

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

That's my question. When you came up with a character, how thoroughly
did you flesh their paradigm? Did you come up with rules for what it
could and could not accomplish?

I'm curious, because I typically go no further than about the level of
depth you'd find in a power's special effects in Mutants & Masterminds.
I think it's due to wanting plenty of leeway when I would actually play
the character.

--
Tyler

m o c t o d o o h a y t a h c t i v o n i l b

Bac>|wards

 

[Guest]

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

Tyler Dion wrote:

> That's my question. When you came up with a character, how thoroughly
> did you flesh their paradigm? Did you come up with rules for what it
> could and could not accomplish?

> I'm curious, because I typically go no further than about the level of
> depth you'd find in a power's special effects in Mutants & Masterminds.
> I think it's due to wanting plenty of leeway when I would actually play
> the character.

I haven't played in a while (three years? four years? aaaagh!) but when
I did, I typically fleshed it out to a general special effects trend and
some loose "this is the sort of thing he would do and this is the sort
of thing he wouldn't" boundaries in my head. No formalized
restrictions; it's more fun to improvise depending on what the ST tosses
my way.

People who obsesss endlessly about paradigm detail level and espouse the
necessity of setting rigid boundaries bother me. They're the sort of
people who'd piss me off if I had one for an ST.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
-Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon

 

[william]

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

Tyler Dion wrote:

> That's my question. When you came up with a character, how thoroughly
> did you flesh their paradigm? Did you come up with rules for what it
> could and could not accomplish?
>
> I'm curious, because I typically go no further than about the level of
> depth you'd find in a power's special effects in Mutants & Masterminds.
> I think it's due to wanting plenty of leeway when I would actually play
> the character.
>

Loose but colorful.

The simple fact is that people aren't flexible enough to play anything
but their own paradigm dressed up in other paradigm's colors anyway. It
gets really, really obvious in mage who is used to thinking in what ways.

What this means in practice is that the fundamental logic (or intuition,
as the case may be) of any paradigm you play will be the same. That's
fine, because the "paradigms" as presented in the books are actually a
step up from that basic level. You can play any of the other ones, but
you're playing and what you need are the costume and what parts of your
own beliefs you can bring into the role.

William

 

[william]

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

Tyler Dion wrote:

> That's my question. When you came up with a character, how thoroughly
> did you flesh their paradigm? Did you come up with rules for what it
> could and could not accomplish?
>
> I'm curious, because I typically go no further than about the level of
> depth you'd find in a power's special effects in Mutants & Masterminds.
> I think it's due to wanting plenty of leeway when I would actually play
> the character.
>

Expanding a bit...

I go a step or two deeper than "special effects" in Mage, and I think
you really need to get the most out of the game. While power
descriptions and spheres are about effect, paradigm is about cause and
method. How a mage generally gets things done is very important, and to
my mind is what really gives the magic definition.

Of course, definition does imply limits, especially if you don't have a
solid grasp of the methods of the paradigm you chose/constructed for
your character.

William

 

[Guest]

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

In article <382b67F5d42shU1@individual.net>, William
<wilit0613@postoffice.uri.edu> wrote:

> It
> gets really, really obvious in mage who is used to thinking in what ways.

Could you cite some examples? Which ways do you mean?

--
Tyler

m o c t o d o o h a y t a h c t i v o n i l b

Bac>|wards

 

[Guest]

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

In article <37vsknF5j17b1U1@individual.net>, Stephenls
<stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:

> People who obsesss endlessly about paradigm detail level and espouse the
> necessity of setting rigid boundaries bother me. They're the sort of
> people who'd piss me off if I had one for an ST.

So you'd brook no nonsense about an Etherite picking up another
Etherite's heat ray and mistaking it for a freeze ray?

--
Tyler

m o c t o d o o h a y t a h c t i v o n i l b

Bac>|wards

 

[Guest]

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

Tyler Dion wrote:

> So you'd brook no nonsense about an Etherite picking up another
> Etherite's heat ray and mistaking it for a freeze ray?

In the context of a discussion about how Mage metaphysics work on the
Internet, that'd be something I'd discourage. In the context of play,
it'd depend on the player, the character, the circumstances surrounding
the action, and the general tone of the game.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
-Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon

 

[Guest]

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

In article <387lqiF5kr632U3@individual.net>, Stephenls
<stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Tyler Dion wrote:
>
> > So you'd brook no nonsense about an Etherite picking up another
> > Etherite's heat ray and mistaking it for a freeze ray?
>
> In the context of a discussion about how Mage metaphysics work on the
> Internet, that'd be something I'd discourage. In the context of play,
> it'd depend on the player, the character, the circumstances surrounding
> the action, and the general tone of the game.

Can one mage's paradigm interfere with another's? This is what the
Technocracy does all the time, natch, but I mean on a one-to-one basis.

--
Tyler

m o c t o d o o h a y t a h c t i v o n i l b

Bac>|wards

 

[william]

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

Tyler Dion wrote:
> In article <37vsknF5j17b1U1@individual.net>, Stephenls
> <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>People who obsesss endlessly about paradigm detail level and espouse the
>>necessity of setting rigid boundaries bother me. They're the sort of
>>people who'd piss me off if I had one for an ST.
>
>
> So you'd brook no nonsense about an Etherite picking up another
> Etherite's heat ray and mistaking it for a freeze ray?
>

What self-respecting etherite would use another's inferior inventions
without a little tinkering anyway? Everyone knows that if you reverse
the chronofluxelectrocapacitor, a heat ray becomes a freeze ray anyway,
AND it get rid of that really annoying whine for a proper FWwwoooosh sound!

William

 

[Guest]

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

Tyler Dion wrote:
> That's my question. When you came up with a character, how thoroughly
> did you flesh their paradigm? Did you come up with rules for what it
> could and could not accomplish?
>
> I'm curious, because I typically go no further than about the level of
> depth you'd find in a power's special effects in Mutants &
> Masterminds. I think it's due to wanting plenty of leeway when I would
> actually play the character.
I have always seen paradigm as integral to the character, and I develop
it at the same time as I choose the characters nature - after all they
both describe the character's belief. And this is essentially it - once
I have an idea of what the character believes, the actions necessary
to pull off the magic naturally follow, as do personal limitations.

How far do I go? Initially I try to write up the history and paradigm
description as far as I can put it into words. This tends to take 1/3 -
2/3 of a sheet of typed page, depending on the character and game. I
normally include some example rotes: these both set out the character's
magic style and also his magical priorities; they are very useful to
show your ST as they may disagree with you or want to make suggestions
or changes. Technocratic characters seem to require many more sample
rotes...

Of course a written concept never survives gameplay. However, all magic
the mage does should follow from the ideas layed down previously - the
ideas layed out originally are not restrictions, but a starting point.
Characters develop, in style, ability and knowledge, and in
high-pressure situations may push their limits - and thus as mages
expand them.

To summarise as best I can: I see a paradigm as a mage's personal
viewpoint on his magic. As we all know viewpoints change by experience
and interaction with others - the degree of change depends entirely on
the individual; and as we all know, mages have a tendency towards
hubris, where they believe they are absolutely right.
--
Picks-at-Flies
Save a kill spell to deal with this guy.
http://www.werepenguin.co.uk/