White Wolf's World of Darkness

[TheLastOne]

I would normally be interested, but I'm... well, looking to play Mage, using the default setting or reasonably close to it, since this would be my first actual game of it. Whereas you're recruiting for a game which features a significantly different setting and is played using the Mutants and Masterminds rules.

Click to shrink...

For me, the issue is that this board is pretty pro-technocracy, and the setting really really isn't. Like, huge swothes of people here ignore tones of metaphysics baked into the setting, and I got into it early enough that I can't do that - see every discussion that brings up Stasis and what it means as a technical term in the WoD, vs. what stasis mean. I can at best play elements of the Technocratic Union as misguided, and the legacy of a group that once did great things, raised humanity out of the gutter and gave them fire and light and knowledge, and has now fallen into complete institutional corruption by the forces of Order. A group that now represents everything they once fought against.

Which very much is default mage, but you wouldn't know it reading on this board.




Also, the storyteller system sucks and shouldn't be used if you don't have.

 

[NonSequtur]

the setting really really isn't.

Click to shrink...

Which setting? The oWoD varies wildly by edition, by individual books, by how you interpret the in-character fluff, by how you deal with the other lines and probably a dozen other points of contention.

This is especially true for Mage. Nobody can even agree on how Consensus works, which is as frustrating as it is appropriate. Mage is hugely effective tinder for a flamewar because the only thing that equals how incoherent it is is how attached various fans are to their particular interpretation.

 

[TheLastOne]

Which setting? The oWoD varies wildly by edition, by individual books, by how you interpret the in-character fluff, by how you deal with the other lines and probably a dozen other points of contention.

This is especially true for Mage. Nobody can even agree on how Consensus works, which is as frustrating as it is appropriate. Mage is hugely effective tinder for a flamewar because the only thing that equals how incoherent it is is how attached various fans are to their particular interpretation.

Click to shrink...

You can take a small slice of revised and play it as pro-technocracy, but that's about it. Even Guide to the Technocracy, which was mostly written to be pro-them, included enough little bits to remind you they were wrong. I mean, I know lots of people ignore those bits, but they're there. M12 jokes, but it's true that in the default Traditions game, you fight the Technocracy, and in the default Technocracy game, you fight the Technocracy.

 

[NonSequtur]

You can take a small slice of revised and play it as pro-technocracy, but that's about it. Even Guide to the Technocracy, which was mostly written to be pro-them, included enough little bits to remind you they were wrong. I mean, I know lots of people ignore those bits, but they're there. M12 jokes, but it's true that in the default Traditions game, you fight the Technocracy, and in the default Technocracy game, you fight the Technocracy.

Click to shrink...

Sure, but that's because the Technocracy matters.

Okay, that's mostly a joke, but the point stands that if you want to change the world, you going to have to deal with the current dominant force. Traditionalists might try and change the Traditions, but that's generally a step in the road to 'change the Technocracy' by way of 'make the Traditions more effective', because changing the Union is what's important, whether that change is utter collapse or reform.

It's a Technocratic world, the rest of them just live there.

 

[TheLastOne]

Sure, but that's because the Technocracy matters.

Okay, that's mostly a joke, but the point stands that if you want to change the world, you going to have to deal with the current dominant force. Traditionalists might try and change the Traditions, but that's generally a step in the road to 'change the Technocracy' by way of 'make the Traditions more effective', because changing the Union is what's important, whether that change is utter collapse or reform.

It's a Technocratic world, the rest of them just live there.

Click to shrink...

Sure, but that's basically why if I want to run a game that isn't 'Fight the Technocracy,' which isn't terribly popular on this board, I need to shift the setting. Well, that, or have a 'Fight the Nephandi' game, but while both of the plot-lines I'm envisioning have that, I don't want to make that the only focus.

 

[NonSequtur]

Sure, but that's basically why if I want to run a game that isn't 'Fight the Technocracy,' which isn't terribly popular on this board, I need to shift the setting.

Click to shrink...

I mean, MJ, ES and Kerrus all played Traditions games, and I'm perfectly fine with it. I think the perception people have of each other's opinions and preferences is kind of polarized because of this thread.

Edit: Like, I'm mostly arguing with you now because I had this sense that you were painting people who played pro-Technocracy games as doing something objectively wrong in terms of playing Mage, while I think the incoherence of Mage means that basically every interpretation involves a significant amount of ignoring shit and imposing order on a fundamentally broken base, not because I'm opposed to pro-Traditions views of the setting.

 

[vicky_molokh]

I mean, MJ, ES and Kerrus all played Traditions games, and I'm perfectly fine with it. I think the perception people have of each other's opinions and preferences is kind of polarized because of this thread.

Click to shrink...

The perception of other people's opinions are largely coloured by how said people express said opinions.

Even Guide to the Technocracy, which was mostly written to be pro-them, included enough little bits to remind you they were wrong.

Click to shrink...

And that, I think, is a large factor here.

I do get the fun in playing a contrarian position once in a while. I get the coolness of saying "You rebel scum!" with a vaguely British accent while fighting for the Evil Galactic Empire. I also get the coolness of settings where both (or many) sides are sympathetic. But it seems that the local dominant opinion goes further than that, reaching all the way to "Traditions cannot be right, and any canonical statements that they are or can be in the right will be dismissed, altered, or interpreted in the most opposite way to their wording". It feels kinda like a hypothetical SWtOR server where not only 99% of the characters are Sith-aligned, but the whole idea of somebody playing a Republic-aligned character is automatically deemed wrong.

 

[TheLastOne]

I mean, MJ, ES and Kerrus all played Traditions games, and I'm perfectly fine with it. I think the perception people have of each other's opinions and preferences is kind of polarized because of this thread.

Edit: Like, I'm mostly arguing with you now because I had this sense that you were painting people who played pro-Technocracy games as doing something objectively wrong in terms of playing Mage, while I think the incoherence of Mage means that basically every interpretation involves a significant amount of ignoring shit and imposing order on a fundamentally broken base, not because I'm opposed to pro-Traditions views of the setting.

Click to shrink...

There's nothing wrong with it, it does require you to rewrite the setting a little. I can't do it, because I paid enough attention to the unifying themes of the WoD that when I try it rubs me wrong. If you notice, both of the game ideas I'm push are in setting where Stasis is a good thing - the untamed frontier and after chaos and paradigm shift, places where the stabilizing and normalizing forces of order are positive rather then negative forces.

 

[The Laurent]

On less fractious news, what were the ways that people/STs have figured out for quick character generation? I'm just asking mostly to see if there's something I missed. The problem I'm running into is that none of the characters are 'mooks' and thus I can't just give them a 'here's a generic stat-line.' Because they're all Changelings, there are different Seemings and Kiths, and Contracts, and because the character in question is their leader, he knows their name, so there's already a huge amount of complexity that's involved before I even start putting down a stat, so it's...a bit time-consuming.

 

[Aaron Peori]

Create a set of generic 'one third' character templates. That is, each template is about one third of a character. Create a few dozen of those. Then, combine any set of three in play as required. Each template should be a clear theme such as 'soldier' or 'courtier' or 'dabbler in dark secrets' and so on.

Thus if you need a character quick you can assign three templates "this is a courtier who also fights as a soldier to earn respect in the Court but is actually a dabbler in dark secrets" and so on.

EDIT: Just to be clear, templates should overlap not add. If one template has Brawl 3 and another has Brawl 1 the result should have Brawl 3 not Brawl 4. This prevents characters from being way overpowered.

 

[BlueBiscuit]

On less fractious news, what were the ways that people/STs have figured out for quick character generation? I'm just asking mostly to see if there's something I missed. The problem I'm running into is that none of the characters are 'mooks' and thus I can't just give them a 'here's a generic stat-line.' Because they're all Changelings, there are different Seemings and Kiths, and Contracts, and because the character in question is their leader, he knows their name, so there's already a huge amount of complexity that's involved before I even start putting down a stat, so it's...a bit time-consuming.

Click to shrink...

For the longest time, I used these guidelines when making quick NPCs.

 

[veekie]

I just use 'npc blocks' like Ex 3 doed.

Provide a few basic pools, no formula or pool breakdowns, just their basic attack, defense, initiative, grappling, senses...then slap down a few pools for their primary skills and assume 1-2 dice for everything else. Then throw in two or three relevant special abilities/merits, if any.

Flesh out from there if it becomes recurring.

 

[cmwatford]

Rule of thumb when designing npcs on the fly is:

• Are they good at a thing? give them ~5 dice. (2 attribute dots + 3 skill dots, professional)
• Are they meh at a thing? give them ~3 dice. (2 attribute dots + 1 skill dot, does it now and again)
• Are they terrible at something? give them 1 die or a chance die. (2 attribute dots + no skill dots, I've never done this before!)

You can go higher or lower as best fits the situation.

 

[MJ12 Commando]

I do get the fun in playing a contrarian position once in a while. I get the coolness of saying "You rebel scum!" with a vaguely British accent while fighting for the Evil Galactic Empire. I also get the coolness of settings where both (or many) sides are sympathetic. But it seems that the local dominant opinion goes further than that, reaching all the way to "Traditions cannot be right, and any canonical statements that they are or can be in the right will be dismissed, altered, or interpreted in the most opposite way to their wording". It feels kinda like a hypothetical SWtOR server where not only 99% of the characters are Sith-aligned, but the whole idea of somebody playing a Republic-aligned character is automatically deemed wrong.

Click to shrink...

Um, what? If you've got some evidence that people are saying that the Traditions cannot be right, ever, when both @EarthScorpion and I have been perfectly willing to say that the Technocracy should own the sins of modernity, maybe you should find that strawman so we can take him into the fields to use as a scarecrow.

 

[vicky_molokh]

Um, what? If you've got some evidence that people are saying that the Traditions cannot be right, ever, when both @EarthScorpion and I have been perfectly willing to say that the Technocracy should own the sins of modernity, maybe you should find that strawman so we can take him into the fields to use as a scarecrow.

Click to shrink...

You keep saying that what the Technocracy does is justified (using some very "ends justify the means" logic that is reminiscent of WH40K Imperium of Man apologism), while the whole idea of Ascension of humanity seems to be treated as unachievable and/or not worthy of striving for. Am I remembering that correctly? (Maybe I'm not.)
If yes, what is the difference between that and saying that the Traditions cannot be right? It just does not sound like a case of "either side might be right", it sounds like already having decided that they're in the wrong.

As for the "Technocracy should own the sins of modernity" part, it doesn't seem to be a recognition of them as sins if one seeks to justify keeping doing them.

 

[Renu]

You keep saying that what the Technocracy does is justified (using some very "ends justify the means" logic that is reminiscent of WH40K Imperium of Man apologism), while the whole idea of Ascension of humanity seems to be treated as unachievable and/or not worthy of striving for. Am I remembering that correctly? (Maybe I'm not.)
If yes, what is the difference between that and saying that the Traditions cannot be right? It just does not sound like a case of "either side might be right", it sounds like already having decided that they're in the wrong.

As for the "Technocracy should own the sins of modernity" part, it doesn't seem to be a recognition of them as sins if one seeks to justify keeping doing them.

Click to shrink...

iirc, MJ12's argument was that the Traditions had no idea about how to achieve mass Ascension while the Technocracy, with all its flaws, had a mostly roughly working method.

In short, not that the Traditions method wouldn't work, but that there actually was no Tradition method.

 

[Desus]

iirc, MJ12's argument was that the Traditions had no idea about how to achieve mass Ascension while the Technocracy, with all its flaws, had a mostly roughly working method.

In short, not that the Traditions method wouldn't work, but that there actually was no Tradition method.

Click to shrink...

You've got the right of it. The Traditions have a goal, not a plan. The technocrats have a plan and have been implementing it for centuries. That this is a thing, however, is definitely poor writing on the part of some of the authors - making the faction you're supposed to agree with very difficult to relate to, meaning that you need to make the enemy cartoonishly evil to compensate unless you want people to prefer the villains - and is a problem throughout oWoD in general.

Once you get past that, the Technocracy vs Traditions debate becomes a matter of personal values. Are the sins of modernity worth the benefits of modern life, even after you account for those sins being genuinely monstrous at times? Does the good of the many absolutely outweigh the good of the few?

 

[MJ12 Commando]

You keep saying that what the Technocracy does is justified (using some very "ends justify the means" logic that is reminiscent of WH40K Imperium of Man apologism), while the whole idea of Ascension of humanity seems to be treated as unachievable and/or not worthy of striving for. Am I remembering that correctly? (Maybe I'm not.)
If yes, what is the difference between that and saying that the Traditions cannot be right? It just does not sound like a case of "either side might be right", it sounds like already having decided that they're in the wrong.

Click to shrink...

Yes, shockingly enough the Traditions would be in the wrong if you decide universal Ascension of humanity is the only just victory condition. This is why the Traditions in the games are not actually presented as striving for universal Ascension of humanity but rather to restore some vague 'balance' or to achieve personal Ascension. So yes, you're remembering wrong. Focusing on universal Ascension makes the Traditions 'wrong' because the Traditions explicitly are not about universal Ascension.

The reason it seems like the Traditions 'cannot be right' is that the defenders of the Traditions here are also often focused on universal Ascension, which is a thing the Traditions are not set up as fighters for, but rather for a much more individualist, personal view of Ascension. If you decide to solely adopt the other side's moral standards and justifications you're going to lose the moral high ground.

As for the "Technocracy should own the sins of modernity" part, it doesn't seem to be a recognition of them as sins if one seeks to justify keeping doing them.

Click to shrink...

How is it that you can't acknowledge the wrongs done and decide that they're justified in the same breath? That's silly.

 

[vicky_molokh]

iirc, MJ12's argument was that the Traditions had no idea about how to achieve mass Ascension while the Technocracy, with all its flaws, had a mostly roughly working method.

In short, not that the Traditions method wouldn't work, but that there actually was no Tradition method.

Click to shrink...

Is it a clear statement that the Traditions lack the ability to achieve human Ascension, or is the method merely not described in any detail, just like many other things in MtA were left vague'ish? I seem to recall that human Ascension is one of the canonical endings in MtA, so at a minimum that seems to indicate that there is a method of achieving it, even if it lacks an Achieving Ascension For Dummies checklist in the books.

Yes, shockingly enough the Traditions would be in the wrong if you decide universal Ascension of humanity is the only just victory condition. This is why the Traditions in the games are not actually presented as striving for universal Ascension of humanity but rather to restore some vague 'balance' or to achieve personal Ascension. So yes, you're remembering wrong. Focusing on universal Ascension makes the Traditions 'wrong' because the Traditions explicitly are not about universal Ascension.

The reason it seems like the Traditions 'cannot be right' is that the defenders of the Traditions here are also often focused on universal Ascension, which is a thing the Traditions are not set up as fighters for, but rather for a much more individualist, personal view of Ascension. If you decide to solely adopt the other side's moral standards and justifications you're going to lose the moral high ground.

Click to shrink...

Okay, fair enough: I have misremembered a significant chunk of that.

But universal Ascension need not be the only victory condition. Liberty, as in the right to pursue Ascension, whether individually or collectively, can also be a good victory condition. But apparently opposing the faction that takes away such a liberty in exchange for (alleged?) security is not always seen as a worthy goal.

How is it that you can't acknowledge the wrongs done and decide that they're justified in the same breath? That's silly.

Click to shrink...

The concept of 'right' and 'wrong' are about what one should and shouldn't do. And when you're trying to justify something, you're effectively saying "Yes, one should do it", i.e. no longer agreeing that it's wrong. There's a huge difference between "I was wrong, please forgive me, I'll strive to be good from now on", and saying "I had reasons and would totally do it again if the same reasons show up!".

 

[The Laurent]

Here's the thing (oh god I'm wading into this fucking debate again, why am I doing it): the game is, as joked about, a philosophical knife-fight. That means everyone is coming in with their own political/world-view biases and mostly interpreting stuff based on that.

FBH, if I recall, supports the Traditions. They're also a lot more...well, politically in Current Affairs, they tend to take a somewhat more--[1]

[1] Libertarian isn't the world especially not in many ways, but more focused on human freedom.

MJ12 Commando, on the other hand, is the closest I've seen online to a real-life Technocrat. Like, in both the random examples I just used, if Mage was real, and FBH and MJ12 Commando were Mages, they'd be Tradition and Technocracy respectively.

It's no surprise. I mean, this is a good and a bad thing, I suppose (I've always thought that MJ12 sometimes leans rather too authoritarian for my standards, but whatever), but most of all it's just a thing.

*****
It's thus axiomatic, essentially. The Technocracy debate turns what's a basic sci-fi/fantasy debate (which are intractable and endless but people might actually be convinced) into a debate about morality and the nature of political institutions and the purpose of the world.

Like, if we had more religious people who also played oMage and posted here, maybe we'd hear more talk about the Choristors or whatever.

If we had, like, real hippies, maybe there'd be more talk on those...Paths? I only really know nMage well.

Instead, surprise-surprise, the person who highly values personal liberty interprets the gameline in a way that fits their beliefs.

The person who has their own values which, yeah, are somewhat authoritarian and legalistic and focus on bureaucracy and groups and etc...supports and interprets the setting in a way that mostly fits their beliefs.

And because the latter person, along with EarthScorpion and others, is a good writer who enjoys sharing their works and ideas and thoughts, it has become a dominant paradigm, to the point where I wonder if anyone is actually debating the Technocracy at all.

Or just debating MJ12 Commando's interpretation of it as viewed through his Quest's overall lens.

If NegaMJ12 Commando...

(Hrm.)

JK42 Revolutionary published a huge Quest detailing their complex homebrewing/thoughtcrafting on the setting from a pure Traditions viewpoint, where the Technocracy is mostly misguided but might have some points and compromise might be needed, but only within a context of the Traditions getting *most* of what they want, and then wrote it well and consistently and whatever...

Maybe the debate here would be different. Not better, just different.

*shrugs*

 

[vicky_molokh]

Who's FBH?

Here's the thing (oh god I'm wading into this fucking debate again, why am I doing it): the game is, as joked about, a philosophical knife-fight. That means everyone is coming in with their own political/world-view biases and mostly interpreting stuff based on that.

Click to shrink...

Oh, yes, MtA is very much about competing philosophies. But there's a difference in a healthy competition, and a dominance/monopoly of one of the philosophies. Which brings us to:

it has become a dominant paradigm, to the point where I wonder if anyone is actually debating the Technocracy at all.

Click to shrink...

and

For me, the issue is that this board is pretty pro-technocracy, and the setting really really isn't. Like, huge swothes of people here ignore tones of metaphysics baked into the setting, and I got into it early enough that I can't do that - see every discussion that brings up Stasis and what it means as a technical term in the WoD, vs. what stasis mean. I can at best play elements of the Technocratic Union as misguided, and the legacy of a group that once did great things, raised humanity out of the gutter and gave them fire and light and knowledge, and has now fallen into complete institutional corruption by the forces of Order. A group that now represents everything they once fought against.

Click to shrink...

----

Maybe the debate here would be different. Not better, just different.

Click to shrink...

That's probably the other end of the coin, indeed: it's quite possible for the opposite opinion to become equally unaccepted under the opposite circumstances.

In fact, I've seen groups of players (not characters) with likewise strong anti-Technocracy/pro-Traditions views, but, as TheLastOne said, that at least seems to be in line with canonical stance on who is more right/more wrong in the setting.

 

[Renu]

it has become a dominant paradigm

Click to shrink...

Does that mean Vicky will suffer paradox?

 

[MJ12 Commando]

In fact, I've seen groups of players (not characters) with likewise strong anti-Technocracy/pro-Traditions views, but, as TheLastOne said, that at least seems to be in line with canonical stance on who is more right/more wrong in the setting.

Click to shrink...

What canonical stance?

The canonical stance if we take Brucato's word is, as @Eukie said, "both the Traditions and Technocracy are smelly and dumb and you are smelly and dumb for siding with one or the other, because you should be siding with the cool kids in the Disparates who aren't deluded fools who are fighting the real bad guy. Oh yeah, and all the bad things that ever happened are actually the fault of the Nephandi, but really it's the fault of the Traditions and Technocracy because they are smelly and dumb."

I'm sure Bridges and the other WW people have a different stance, and the people who wrote the Revised Technocracy books another stance still. Every author has a different 'canonical' stance. @NonSequtur mentions that there is no single 'authorial intent' and this is almost certain.

 

[vicky_molokh]

Does that mean Vicky will suffer paradox?

Click to shrink...

Wasn't there this thing about goin a'maraudin' and no longer suffering?

What canonical stance?

The canonical stance if we take Brucato's word is, as @Eukie said, "both the Traditions and Technocracy are smelly and dumb and you are smelly and dumb for siding with one or the other, because you should be siding with the cool kids in the Disparates who aren't deluded fools who are fighting the real bad guy. Oh yeah, and all the bad things that ever happened are actually the fault of the Nephandi, but really it's the fault of the Traditions and Technocracy because they are smelly and dumb."

I'm sure Bridges and the other WW people have a different stance, and the people who wrote the Revised Technocracy books another stance still. Every author has a different 'canonical' stance. @NonSequtur mentions that there is no single 'authorial intent' and this is almost certain.

Click to shrink...

Aren't they pretty totalitarian and Banal across the various versions of canon? As for the Guide to the Technocracy, I'll rather point to this post of someone who seems to be better-versed in the books than I am*:

You can take a small slice of revised and play it as pro-technocracy, but that's about it. Even Guide to the Technocracy, which was mostly written to be pro-them, included enough little bits to remind you they were wrong. I mean, I know lots of people ignore those bits, but they're there.

Click to shrink...

* == Since, after all, the last time I played MtA was in the early 2000s.

 

[SinisterPorpoise]

Brucato

Click to shrink...

IIRC the canonical stance, if you ignore the morons, is "The Order of Reason was correct/Just, but the Technocratic Union is corrupt and currently controlled/influenced by The Bad Guys(TM).".