[RPG]: Mage: The Awakening, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (4/4)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12526.phtml

Christopher W. Richeson's Summary:

<i>Mage</i> presents a world full of magic and mystery where ancient sorcerer kings rule from the shadows and monsters from beyond walk the nights. If you're looking for a subtly magical game that embraces mythology and the idea of worlds greater than our own just out of reach then check out <i>Mage: The Awakening</i>.

Go to the full review for more information.

[John P.]

Pretty good review all in all. I liked how the reviewer assesed the game on its own merits, rather than in relevance to Ascension.

That said, about the magic system, i think that its biggest issue is not that it is vague, at least as far as the more free form magic systems go. It is certainly a lot more clear about various topics that Ascension left undefined, or very losely defind.

It's more that it teaches you how to do magic in a way that is, for me, counter-intuitive. Instead of having the major part of its focus on the underlying principles of the Arcana and using sample spells primarily as a tool to help you become familiar with sai principles, it goes the other way around. The principles are very loosely defined, some times to the point of being practically meaningless, whereas the sample spells are very extensive. It's kinda like trying to teach someone trigonometry, and instead of giving him clear trigonometrical rules and a handful of actual triangles to test them on, you give him lots and lots of triangles and let him comeup with the gneral rules by himself. This is hardly productive, because in that later case, not only will he never be secure in what the rules are, but he'll also hae to redefine them whenever he's presented with a new, slightly different, triangle.

[hunting_moon]

I hear what you are saying about the concepts, but I have to disagree with the analogy. In the past they offered long definitions of what was possible with ideology decisions being left up the player to define what is and is not possible. In the current system they just took their examples of how sphere/arcana works and made it into a list of rotes. There are a few places where it is very vague, but that was very true of Ascension as well.

As a storyteller for Mage in both versions I have to say that the thing I have the hardest time defining is the orders and their goals, in the past (under Ascension) I had to spend the first game or two helping the players understand how paradox works, how fast casting worked, why people used rotes and defining a paradigm. Now the paradigm is present and we just need to look for a best case in the rotes for effect and whether it’s vulgar or not. Much simpler.

PS: I believe that Foci (dedicated magical tools) do not add to the dice pool, they reduce the paradox pool (if there is any).

[Wyvern76]

Originally Posted by John P.

It's kinda like trying to teach someone trigonometry, and instead of giving him clear trigonometrical rules and a handful of actual triangles to test them on, you give him lots and lots of triangles and let him comeup with the gneral rules by himself. This is hardly productive, because in that later case, not only will he never be secure in what the rules are, but he'll also hae to redefine them whenever he's presented with a new, slightly different, triangle.

But, er, isn't that how trigonometry was developed in the first place?

Wyvern

[SigmaOmega]

I also disagree with the analogy. I think it's more akin to the study of law rather than trig. Math is precise, the law is as much art as logic. Magic is much more like the later than the former. Law is taught by learning a large number of cases and distilling general principals from those cases. In order to make new legal arguments, you must build by analogy from cases that have already been decided while defining and refining the principals lying underneath.

Also, thanks for posting this review! I was hoping you would tackle this book. I liked Mage the Ascension and was looking for a review like this to get a read on it. Can you go into some more detail on the spheres when you have a chance?

[C.W.Richeson]

Thanks for the priase, everyone!

Originally Posted by SigmaOmega

Can you go into some more detail on the spheres when you have a chance?

Sure, what would you like to know? The Arcana here are just as conceptually broad as the Spheres from Ascension. I would say that the biggest difference is that Spirit is much more desirable since spirits are a big part of the nWoD and a lot of examples of useful Spirit magic are presented. The great thing about the Arcana is that all Arcana have "shield" spells to defend a Mage, "sight" spells to help a mage investigate, and attack spells and other general abilities such that a mage specializing in one Arcana still has many options.

[SigmaOmega]

Originally Posted by C.W.Richeson

Sure, what would you like to know? The Arcana here are just as conceptually broad as the Spheres from Ascension. I would say that the biggest difference is that Spirit is much more desirable since spirits are a big part of the nWoD and a lot of examples of useful Spirit magic are presented. The great thing about the Arcana is that all Arcana have "shield" spells to defend a Mage, "sight" spells to help a mage investigate, and attack spells and other general abilities such that a mage specializing in one Arcana still has many options.

I guess I am curious as to their general structure. MtA had a general pattern of

1 dot - sensory abilities
2 dots - minor abilities
3 dots - creation abilities (where relevant)
4 dots - major abilities
5 dots - super duper abilities

And each Arcana had its own definition of those abilities. Is the layout the same, or can you do attack/defense spells with 1 dot?

Do most of the rotes require more than 1 Arcana? If so, how many dice do you get to use?

How linked are the rotes to the various "Classes" and "Races?"

How does it play? If a mage is about to get shot how hard is it to avoid damage? How hard is it to inflict damage?

[Christian A]

Originally Posted by SigmaOmega

1 dot - sensory abilities
2 dots - minor abilities
3 dots - creation abilities (where relevant)
4 dots - major abilities
5 dots - super duper abilities

It's a bit more complicated with the Arcana in Awakening. This here is a nice writeup of what each of the Arcana is capable of doing, along with a few examples.

Originally Posted by SigmaOmega

And each Arcana had its own definition of those abilities. Is the layout the same, or can you do attack/defense spells with 1 dot?

Attacking generally ("generally" because there are a few exceptions) requires at least three dots in one Arcanum. As for defending, each of the Arcana provides a mage with the ability of shielding at two dots, allowing one to protect oneself from attacks. This shield can take different forms depending on the Arcanum used, such as a hardened body with Life, a force field with Forces, the ability to predict attacks with Time, etc.

Originally Posted by SigmaOmega

Do most of the rotes require more than 1 Arcana? If so, how many dice do you get to use?

Every spell can be a rote. Most spells in the book use only one Arcana, but that doesn't prevent resourceful mages from combining their Arcana to greater effect.

Originally Posted by SigmaOmega

How does it play?

I've recently started running Mage: the Awakening. There's a link to an actual play thread of my game in my signature.

Originally Posted by SigmaOmega

If a mage is about to get shot how hard is it to avoid damage? How hard is it to inflict damage?

The aforementioned practise of shielding is very useful when it comes to protecting oneself and others. Generally, I feel that it's easier to avoid getting hurt with magic than to inflict damage.

[C.W.Richeson]

Christian A has provided a much more detailed answer than I would have

Thanks, Christian!

[FXR]

Originally Posted by SigmaOmega

Law is taught by learning a large number of cases and distilling general principals from those cases. In order to make new legal arguments, you must build by analogy from cases that have already been decided while defining and refining the principals lying underneath.

That's true of anglo-saxon common law but it's not an accurate description of continental europe law (such as practiced in France, Germany, Japan, Louisianna and Québec) where there is a principle stated by law and the cases are simply either illustration of the application of said principle.