Brian Rogers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
subplotkudzu) wrote2006-09-10 11:46 am
subplotkudzu) wrote2006-09-10 11:46 am
Entry tags:
Early Thoughts on the World of Darkness.
This set of musings that's now nearly 15 years old. Recent comments by whswhs concerning Promethean: the Created brought it to mind.
Vivian threw out a good quote last night concerning the differences between Vampire and Werewolf "In Vampire, the first thing the storyteller should do is kill the players. In Werewolf, that is the last thing she should do."
This emphasizes the fundamental dichotomy between the two game systems -- not in mechanics, but in the way they operate. In Vampire, the characters are already dead, and therefore death holds much less fear for them. They have time, and should learn to use that time. In Werewolf, the characters are gloriously alive in every gaming session up to the last, but they will die: in Werewolf, death is inevitable, for the battle is already lost.
It took me while to realize that, and re-reading Mark Rein-Hagan's notes on the game design was what finally tipped it over. I had assumed that the Werewolves could win, if they would simply learn to fight together, and follow the Glass Walkers in adapting to the city. This is not the case. The battle is lost, before the players ever step onto the scene.
Which marks Werewolf: the Apocalypse not as a horror game, but as a Tragedy Game. Garou are tragic heroes one and all, flawed and struggling to do the right thing, but at the end, they will be dead. With luck they, like Hamlet, may succeed in seeing their foe pass from this world before they do. That's the best they can hope for.
Obviously that analogy brings to mind how a Werewolf game can parallel Shakespearean tragedy -- not just in the tragic heroes but everything: the flaw, the struggle for control, the conflict, and finally the large number of bodies on the stage once its all over. The end of the Werewolf chronicle, as well as the end of many stories, should be a blood bath. When its all over, one PC should have survived, and the final speech is given by an old caern guardian -- the highest ranking individual present.
I Digress. The main thing I wanted to explore here was the aspects of both storytelling and gaming that exemplify the three White Wolf games with which I am familiar.
Vampire is History. Its underlying theme is sensuality. The characters overcome obstacles through Politics. Combat and Problem Solving (read: logic puzzles) were de-emphasized in favor of political action (which is essentially role playing -- politicking is harder to emulate with mechanics or dice rolls, making politics the most role-playing intensive method of overcoming obstacles). The element of internal conflict is Humanity, and maintaining your tenuous grip on it.
This leads to some interesting shifts in viewpoint when dealing with Vampire.
1) the Sabbat are even more of an abomination, if only because they don't act politically, as vampires should. And there are, somewhere, some Sabbat elders whose plans are ticking forward with this many pawns.
2) If the players are in a fight, they have already lost. The game should be played politically. The first time you are forced to engage in combat, it moves you from the status of a player to a piece. Someone, somewhere, is getting a benefit from your fighting, just as they had planned.
3) Chronicles need to last a long time -- the PCs are pawns from word one, if only due to their inexperience at the politics. I think this lack of duration more than anything else is what gives me the feel that our Chronicles had 'failed' to accurately reflect the game, as there are not enough politics and too much conflict.
Werewolf is a Tragedy. Its underlying theme is spirituality. The characters overcome obstacles through combat. The blunt nature of Garou society serves to reduce Problem Solving and Role-playing (oft times the best solution is combat against the enemy: destroy rather than diminish or out maneuver). The element of internal conflict is balancing rage and spirit, of making yourself a complete individual as well as a part of society.
Mage is a Suspense Drama. Its underlying theme is philosophy. The characters overcome obstacles through problem solving. Role Playing and combat are de-emphasized by making the magi incredibly powerful in limited ways (forcing them to think their way though every action, making best use of their resources). The element of internal conflict is Willpower -- this might seem slight, but it is very true. The traditions are losing because they are demoralized, and require force of will to overcome their opponents. Mage characters should almost never be at full willpower to emphasize this weakness -- by my read the quintessence/paradox problem is not internalized enough to really qualify as a point of conflict.
Mage can be a beautiful game but I have yet to see any two people approach it in the same fashion. There are so many fractious ideas concerning its precepts, themes and mechanics (each of which fully supported by the text) that discussion of the first edition becomes almost impossible. Perhaps this was a master stroke, forcing each troupe to develop its own paradigm of play, further emphasizing the true concepts in the work.
My personal feelings about Mage are based partially around seeing it as the third leg in the gaming tripod -- a system that emphasizes problem solving over characterization and combat -- designed for those gamers who prefer that style of play. I would like to think that this is so, and it makes a fairly elegant structure amongst the White Wolf games (in my opinion -- this is probably shattered by Wraith and Changeling, but...)
Following are some notes on the Mage system, and how I feel it should be changed. These range from subtle shifts in game mechanics to massive rewrites in philosophy.
Traditions
Since I see Mage as a Game whose underlying theme is Philosophy, the philosophical tenants of the Traditions needs to be explored in more depth, but first I need to better define them for myself. Hence, these thumbnails.
Akashic Brotherhood: Strong in Time, the Brotherhood embodies Asian philosophy and religion -- Zen, Taoism, following the path of life, using force properly, or against itself. It is a philosophy of personal enlightenment as well as teaching those few who wish to learn. It is not an easy philosophy to begin but once started, is as simple as breathing.
Celestial Chorus: Strong in Prime, the Chorus are the embodiment of western religious tradition -- The immortal soul, the will of God, and interconnectivity among community, power of prayer and the importance of history and hierarchy. This is perhaps the most embracing philosophy -- everyone is welcome, and it simply takes an acceptance of Faith. Still, faith wavers, and is tested.
Cult of Ecstasy: Strong in Mind, the Cult of Ecstasy embrace the concepts of exploration of the mind and its abilities, often by taking life to its extremes. Embodied by the opium cults, and the LSD drug culture of the 1960's. It is a path of self enlightenment rather than personal enlightenment, promoting personal experimentation by the uninitiated.
Dreamspeakers: Strong in Spirit, this tradition embraces the philosophy of spiritualism, animism, the earth mother, and crystals. From the aborigine tribes to the west coast crystal wearers, the realms of spiritualism still flourish. of all the Magi, these are the ones closest to the Garou (although still an enemy of sorts, they are a foe you can reason with).
Etheric College: Formerly called the Sons of the Ether, I like this name better. Strong in Matter, the Etheric College abandoned the Technocracy some time ago, but sticks to the philosophy of science. They are the scientists of the 19th century, and believe in individual scientists handing down their discoveries to the rest of mankind.
Euthanatos: Strong in Entropy, these magi represent the beliefs of the far east -- reincarnation, karma and the undesirable nature of life. They are NOT serial killers or assassins. Imagine them more as Buddhists, staying on the wheel of life to help others progress away from karma and materialism, so that they will eventually ascend to Nirvana.
Order of Hermes: Strong in Forces, the Order of Hermes embodies the classic western magical tradition, at its core is Ritual Magic. Concepts such as protective circles, seals, similarity, and even levels of initiation and pyramidal structures of magic originate in the hermetic tradition. It is not quite a philosophy, but more a stereotypes way of viewing magical thought.
Verbena: Strong in Life, the Verbena philosophy is that of Wicca, witchcraft and naturalism. Theirs is the science of nature, and typifies how one can modify reality via the powers inherent in the "natural" or pre-industrialized world. They use sacrifices of everything from herbs to blood, using nature to change nature.
Virtual Adepts: Strong in Correspondence, these former Technomancers still follow the philosophy of science. Their view is that science, specifically the science of computers, should be in the hands of everyone, and used all the time for both group and personal benefit. In some ways similar to the Etheric Collage, the difference is one of time -- the Adepts are the science of the 21st century.
Getting back to thoughts from the 21st century, I think if I do get around to running something in any of these games (and it would be in these versions since the new WoD just doesn't stir much interest in me, perhaps because I feel like I never really got to explore the originals as a GM), my goal would be for the V:tM game to begin as GM directed and say that way for the first half to two-thirds of the arc. W:tA would be GM directed for only the first third, and I'd like for M:tA to be player directed from the outset. Something like The Great Labor that I discussed in A&E, or Philias Fogg's working asprinceofcairo discussed in recent Pyramid issues, with the PC Magi selecting their own method for reclaiming, stabilizing, subverting or surviving in the Technocracy's perfectly ordered universe.
whswhs concerning Promethean: the Created brought it to mind. Vivian threw out a good quote last night concerning the differences between Vampire and Werewolf "In Vampire, the first thing the storyteller should do is kill the players. In Werewolf, that is the last thing she should do."
This emphasizes the fundamental dichotomy between the two game systems -- not in mechanics, but in the way they operate. In Vampire, the characters are already dead, and therefore death holds much less fear for them. They have time, and should learn to use that time. In Werewolf, the characters are gloriously alive in every gaming session up to the last, but they will die: in Werewolf, death is inevitable, for the battle is already lost.
It took me while to realize that, and re-reading Mark Rein-Hagan's notes on the game design was what finally tipped it over. I had assumed that the Werewolves could win, if they would simply learn to fight together, and follow the Glass Walkers in adapting to the city. This is not the case. The battle is lost, before the players ever step onto the scene.
Which marks Werewolf: the Apocalypse not as a horror game, but as a Tragedy Game. Garou are tragic heroes one and all, flawed and struggling to do the right thing, but at the end, they will be dead. With luck they, like Hamlet, may succeed in seeing their foe pass from this world before they do. That's the best they can hope for.
Obviously that analogy brings to mind how a Werewolf game can parallel Shakespearean tragedy -- not just in the tragic heroes but everything: the flaw, the struggle for control, the conflict, and finally the large number of bodies on the stage once its all over. The end of the Werewolf chronicle, as well as the end of many stories, should be a blood bath. When its all over, one PC should have survived, and the final speech is given by an old caern guardian -- the highest ranking individual present.
I Digress. The main thing I wanted to explore here was the aspects of both storytelling and gaming that exemplify the three White Wolf games with which I am familiar.
Vampire is History. Its underlying theme is sensuality. The characters overcome obstacles through Politics. Combat and Problem Solving (read: logic puzzles) were de-emphasized in favor of political action (which is essentially role playing -- politicking is harder to emulate with mechanics or dice rolls, making politics the most role-playing intensive method of overcoming obstacles). The element of internal conflict is Humanity, and maintaining your tenuous grip on it.
This leads to some interesting shifts in viewpoint when dealing with Vampire.
1) the Sabbat are even more of an abomination, if only because they don't act politically, as vampires should. And there are, somewhere, some Sabbat elders whose plans are ticking forward with this many pawns.
2) If the players are in a fight, they have already lost. The game should be played politically. The first time you are forced to engage in combat, it moves you from the status of a player to a piece. Someone, somewhere, is getting a benefit from your fighting, just as they had planned.
3) Chronicles need to last a long time -- the PCs are pawns from word one, if only due to their inexperience at the politics. I think this lack of duration more than anything else is what gives me the feel that our Chronicles had 'failed' to accurately reflect the game, as there are not enough politics and too much conflict.
Werewolf is a Tragedy. Its underlying theme is spirituality. The characters overcome obstacles through combat. The blunt nature of Garou society serves to reduce Problem Solving and Role-playing (oft times the best solution is combat against the enemy: destroy rather than diminish or out maneuver). The element of internal conflict is balancing rage and spirit, of making yourself a complete individual as well as a part of society.
Mage is a Suspense Drama. Its underlying theme is philosophy. The characters overcome obstacles through problem solving. Role Playing and combat are de-emphasized by making the magi incredibly powerful in limited ways (forcing them to think their way though every action, making best use of their resources). The element of internal conflict is Willpower -- this might seem slight, but it is very true. The traditions are losing because they are demoralized, and require force of will to overcome their opponents. Mage characters should almost never be at full willpower to emphasize this weakness -- by my read the quintessence/paradox problem is not internalized enough to really qualify as a point of conflict.
Mage can be a beautiful game but I have yet to see any two people approach it in the same fashion. There are so many fractious ideas concerning its precepts, themes and mechanics (each of which fully supported by the text) that discussion of the first edition becomes almost impossible. Perhaps this was a master stroke, forcing each troupe to develop its own paradigm of play, further emphasizing the true concepts in the work.
My personal feelings about Mage are based partially around seeing it as the third leg in the gaming tripod -- a system that emphasizes problem solving over characterization and combat -- designed for those gamers who prefer that style of play. I would like to think that this is so, and it makes a fairly elegant structure amongst the White Wolf games (in my opinion -- this is probably shattered by Wraith and Changeling, but...)
Following are some notes on the Mage system, and how I feel it should be changed. These range from subtle shifts in game mechanics to massive rewrites in philosophy.
Traditions
Since I see Mage as a Game whose underlying theme is Philosophy, the philosophical tenants of the Traditions needs to be explored in more depth, but first I need to better define them for myself. Hence, these thumbnails.
Akashic Brotherhood: Strong in Time, the Brotherhood embodies Asian philosophy and religion -- Zen, Taoism, following the path of life, using force properly, or against itself. It is a philosophy of personal enlightenment as well as teaching those few who wish to learn. It is not an easy philosophy to begin but once started, is as simple as breathing.
Celestial Chorus: Strong in Prime, the Chorus are the embodiment of western religious tradition -- The immortal soul, the will of God, and interconnectivity among community, power of prayer and the importance of history and hierarchy. This is perhaps the most embracing philosophy -- everyone is welcome, and it simply takes an acceptance of Faith. Still, faith wavers, and is tested.
Cult of Ecstasy: Strong in Mind, the Cult of Ecstasy embrace the concepts of exploration of the mind and its abilities, often by taking life to its extremes. Embodied by the opium cults, and the LSD drug culture of the 1960's. It is a path of self enlightenment rather than personal enlightenment, promoting personal experimentation by the uninitiated.
Dreamspeakers: Strong in Spirit, this tradition embraces the philosophy of spiritualism, animism, the earth mother, and crystals. From the aborigine tribes to the west coast crystal wearers, the realms of spiritualism still flourish. of all the Magi, these are the ones closest to the Garou (although still an enemy of sorts, they are a foe you can reason with).
Etheric College: Formerly called the Sons of the Ether, I like this name better. Strong in Matter, the Etheric College abandoned the Technocracy some time ago, but sticks to the philosophy of science. They are the scientists of the 19th century, and believe in individual scientists handing down their discoveries to the rest of mankind.
Euthanatos: Strong in Entropy, these magi represent the beliefs of the far east -- reincarnation, karma and the undesirable nature of life. They are NOT serial killers or assassins. Imagine them more as Buddhists, staying on the wheel of life to help others progress away from karma and materialism, so that they will eventually ascend to Nirvana.
Order of Hermes: Strong in Forces, the Order of Hermes embodies the classic western magical tradition, at its core is Ritual Magic. Concepts such as protective circles, seals, similarity, and even levels of initiation and pyramidal structures of magic originate in the hermetic tradition. It is not quite a philosophy, but more a stereotypes way of viewing magical thought.
Verbena: Strong in Life, the Verbena philosophy is that of Wicca, witchcraft and naturalism. Theirs is the science of nature, and typifies how one can modify reality via the powers inherent in the "natural" or pre-industrialized world. They use sacrifices of everything from herbs to blood, using nature to change nature.
Virtual Adepts: Strong in Correspondence, these former Technomancers still follow the philosophy of science. Their view is that science, specifically the science of computers, should be in the hands of everyone, and used all the time for both group and personal benefit. In some ways similar to the Etheric Collage, the difference is one of time -- the Adepts are the science of the 21st century.
Getting back to thoughts from the 21st century, I think if I do get around to running something in any of these games (and it would be in these versions since the new WoD just doesn't stir much interest in me, perhaps because I feel like I never really got to explore the originals as a GM), my goal would be for the V:tM game to begin as GM directed and say that way for the first half to two-thirds of the arc. W:tA would be GM directed for only the first third, and I'd like for M:tA to be player directed from the outset. Something like The Great Labor that I discussed in A&E, or Philias Fogg's working as
princeofcairo discussed in recent Pyramid issues, with the PC Magi selecting their own method for reclaiming, stabilizing, subverting or surviving in the Technocracy's perfectly ordered universe.
no subject
Cult of Ecstasy: Strong in Mind, the Cult of Ecstasy embrace the concepts of exploration of the mind and its abilities, often by taking life to its extremes. Embodied by the opium cults, and the LSD drug culture of the 1960's. It is a path of self enlightenment rather than personal enlightenment, promoting personal experimentation by the uninitiated.
Those two were interchanged in the second edition. The first edition version actually makes more sense in some ways.
no subject
no subject