![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Things are going well here, and it looks at least semi-permenant. I talked to Matt a little while ago and he asked if I was going to put down roots here, and mentioned that my responce of a year indicated I was. Considering I spent a year in Carbondale, hole that it was, I don't think I agree. Carbondale is a place I was, but never a place I really felt like I lived. Of course, I drove back on the weekends with a friend, so I'm not sure what they dynamic of that is.
I've been thinking of Mage a lot, lately. Awakening is a game I like a lot, but at a certain point, I think we subconciously add a lot to games we play until they become something we're invested in. It's a blank slate kind of game, even though additional books come out that flesh the setting out more. I like new books, but there's a level that's bad, too. I've never felt it, but there seems to be a movement to 'canonize', or to take every option and make it an aspect of the game that can't be removed. I've seen people argue over which suggestion is 'right' and which options can be expected in every game. The biggest problem is in the Cam, where new books really do add to canon, and all that data needs to be processed. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying it's the most problematic end of the issue at hand.
Almost every game idea I see about Mage on rpg.net skews political. Without a potent bad guy, people suggest, the easiest target is the political differences in Mage itself. I think that's kind of a throwback to Vampire or Ascension, where this is more true, but Mage really has a fairly wide assortment of compelling 'in house' bad guys, and the Pentacle is typically portrayed as a loose organization with internal squabbles, but presenting a fairly unified front. It's that reason I suspect that people are actually slightly dissapointed when I come to game as a Free Counciler without pipe-bombs or a desire to tear down the Concilium, because especially in a LARP, you're so much more dependant on other rp'ers to be your constant antagonists.
Ooh. That gives me another idea about LARP dynamics. Maybe later.
I like the Free Council. I like the other groups, too, but I'd of thought that the FC would be kind of the de facto group for most people, should they become mages. They're the group with the most modern viewpoint, the one most friendly towards a new generation that doesn't view technology as an 'other thing' that's invaded their lives. On the other hand, the other groups skew towards philosophies with a ruling class, but also promotes instantly any Awakened to that class, while assigning them the right to use that authority, though it doesn't give them the actual wisdom (little 'w') to do so. Considering how popular facism, monarchism, or authoritarianism is amoung groups who arn't even ruling class, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that many characters really would go in that direction. Of course, a disclaimer: I'm certainly not applying any -isms to players, though I guess there really might be people who lean in that direction.
Um. Well, anyhow, the only faction book I bought was Free Council as a resource for additional insight into my character's group in the Cam. Today, my biggest issue is, by far, that there's not enough (though I haven't weighed the rotes for balance, still). I'm also just a bit dubious about giving exp. for actions that are disruptive to groups, despite the disclaimer on the page. It seems like it might be a good idea, but in practice, I don't see it adding to games. As the mechanical bonus for playing an FC in paper and pencil, I don't see it as a potent benifit, leaving the Councilers a bit high and dry. On the other hand, they're the most adaptive, and their role as a Pentacle group is still young. It's likely they forwent their 'barbarian' roots to subscribe, or they waned over time, and they just have less to draw on then other groups. A compelling rationale for joining the Mysterium or what-have-you. You know, other than that, I like the book. I like the ideas in it, and I like some of the locations an awful lot. I just wish I've gotten more oppertunities to use it. My last game really doesn't present any reason.
I've been thinking of Mage a lot, lately. Awakening is a game I like a lot, but at a certain point, I think we subconciously add a lot to games we play until they become something we're invested in. It's a blank slate kind of game, even though additional books come out that flesh the setting out more. I like new books, but there's a level that's bad, too. I've never felt it, but there seems to be a movement to 'canonize', or to take every option and make it an aspect of the game that can't be removed. I've seen people argue over which suggestion is 'right' and which options can be expected in every game. The biggest problem is in the Cam, where new books really do add to canon, and all that data needs to be processed. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying it's the most problematic end of the issue at hand.
Almost every game idea I see about Mage on rpg.net skews political. Without a potent bad guy, people suggest, the easiest target is the political differences in Mage itself. I think that's kind of a throwback to Vampire or Ascension, where this is more true, but Mage really has a fairly wide assortment of compelling 'in house' bad guys, and the Pentacle is typically portrayed as a loose organization with internal squabbles, but presenting a fairly unified front. It's that reason I suspect that people are actually slightly dissapointed when I come to game as a Free Counciler without pipe-bombs or a desire to tear down the Concilium, because especially in a LARP, you're so much more dependant on other rp'ers to be your constant antagonists.
Ooh. That gives me another idea about LARP dynamics. Maybe later.
I like the Free Council. I like the other groups, too, but I'd of thought that the FC would be kind of the de facto group for most people, should they become mages. They're the group with the most modern viewpoint, the one most friendly towards a new generation that doesn't view technology as an 'other thing' that's invaded their lives. On the other hand, the other groups skew towards philosophies with a ruling class, but also promotes instantly any Awakened to that class, while assigning them the right to use that authority, though it doesn't give them the actual wisdom (little 'w') to do so. Considering how popular facism, monarchism, or authoritarianism is amoung groups who arn't even ruling class, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that many characters really would go in that direction. Of course, a disclaimer: I'm certainly not applying any -isms to players, though I guess there really might be people who lean in that direction.
Um. Well, anyhow, the only faction book I bought was Free Council as a resource for additional insight into my character's group in the Cam. Today, my biggest issue is, by far, that there's not enough (though I haven't weighed the rotes for balance, still). I'm also just a bit dubious about giving exp. for actions that are disruptive to groups, despite the disclaimer on the page. It seems like it might be a good idea, but in practice, I don't see it adding to games. As the mechanical bonus for playing an FC in paper and pencil, I don't see it as a potent benifit, leaving the Councilers a bit high and dry. On the other hand, they're the most adaptive, and their role as a Pentacle group is still young. It's likely they forwent their 'barbarian' roots to subscribe, or they waned over time, and they just have less to draw on then other groups. A compelling rationale for joining the Mysterium or what-have-you. You know, other than that, I like the book. I like the ideas in it, and I like some of the locations an awful lot. I just wish I've gotten more oppertunities to use it. My last game really doesn't present any reason.
Tags: