Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is seven Sphere dots too many to start with?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Just John, Forever... View Post
    Uhhh... okay...



    ...that's not what you said just above. You made it sound as if a chargen mage would *only* have rank 1 in their spheres if they started with more than 3 spheres... but that's not the case (a la', for example, A:3, B:1, C:1, D:1; or A:2, B:2, C:1, D:1, or similar)...

    That's why I had to put a -?- in my initial response. >shrugs<
    ok... cool...


    Keepers of the Wyck: A Chronicle I'm running UPDATE Chapter 22: The Morning After

    Comment


    • #32
      There is a question of the utility of having six separate Spheres, but it can be fun. I have run Orphan campaigns where I required the characters to take Arete 1, six Spheres at 1, and the Sleepwalker (-4) Flaw because I wanted the players to have a proper appreciation of True Magick (I did not count the Flaw against their maximum Flaw limit). It is sometimes fun to get back to basics, especially if you are introducing new players to Mage.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Faradn View Post
        JJF, I am aware of the idea that a Mage can Awaken with Spheres, six just seems like a lot. Wouldn't the slog of more normal learning after that seem really anticlimactic? It's not just about what is possible in the broad metaphysics of the game, but whether it makes good storytelling.
        >blink<

        Originally posted by Faradn View Post
        Maybe it's possible to tell a good compelling story about someone whose super awesome Awakening makes everything after that kind of disappointing--or about a dim-witted Archmage. But it's a lot harder. I understand the metaphysics of Mage. My "worldview," as you describe it, concerns storytelling and what I think is cool.
        >blink<

        Originally posted by Faradn View Post
        Maybe it makes me a dick.
        ?...

        Originally posted by Faradn View Post
        I felt a little bit bad a few days ago when I commented on a thread about pop culture paradigms with essentially: yeah that's probably possible, but it's also kind of dumb. But I take roleplaying seriously. I have a strong sense of what I think serves the ambiance of various RPG's, this one in particular. It doesn't mean I'm right in every instance, but I'm going to express my opinion. I find it amusing that people can fight in a comment thread for weeks about which splat can beat up which--and you think my approach to the game is the problematic one.
        ...

        .....

        ........


        ...*wow*....



        ...just... *wow*....

        (I'm going to go make dinner/clean up a bit because your response is... yeah... it's... yeah...)



        *****

        Okay, let's splice this... because apparently something is coming across very, very "off" in this exchange.

        What is "wrong" about your approach/original question-concept is that it is predicated on an already pre-existing assumption/perspective on your part (and your response above cements just how much relative assuming is going on... which is more, to a degree, than even I initially thought...). It isn't that the underlying concept you suggest is "wrong" -- it's perfectly fine relative to a given setting/story/choice-of-realities. Rather, it's "wrong" in that you're holding onto it as if (not saying you *are* doing this, consciously, but rather just saying as if...) it's in-sync with the sum-total of the various suggestions/examples in Mage and the expressed metaphysics it has. What you're saying *isn't* in-sync with that. That is to say, you've got *part of it* -- a number of mages *do* have INT:3+, spend years developing their understanding of magic(k) and their abilities (their Arete and Spheres), belong to one (or sometimes more) mystical communities/societies, et al -- but you are literally seemingly blind to not only the other side of the coin -- the mages for whom their initial powers come quite naturally and seemingly effortlessly, or who never belong to *any* cabal, cult, faith or society, etc... -- but also to the seeming pendulum-swing of response you gave relative to the sense of scaling. You state/indicate that, somehow, if a mage character Awakens and manifests in short order their natural talents (that is, the "x" number of points given in the game for doing this, that and the other), it somehow diminishes the learning curve that comes after that.

        Far from it.



        Just because a given mage Awakens with an impressive (by beginner's standards) set or array of abilities or intuitive understanding, that doesn't mean what comes after is inherently a "let down", so to speak. They can spend much of their time coming to understand how to flesh out/finesse the seeming miracles they can do (that is, come to better integrate and utilize the Spheres that they have with "x" dots already in place) -- that right there is a great deal of roleplaying and any number of sessions. The sudden aptitude/affinity for whatever doesn't automatically indicate even remote proficiency with the abilities listed: any new mage who pushes their talents will find themselves coming head-to-head with their first bout of Paradox in very short order... and that's enough of a lesson for most people, in-and-of-itself.

        Further, you are holding onto the idea that natural talent/"right-out-the-gate" ability is something that doesn't happen in Mage. It does. No -- *seriously* -- it does. A very simple example can be found in the pre-gen characters from Orphans: one, a teen/young woman simply has enough with "x" in her life, wants to travel the world, puts on her "trusty Doc Martins", her headphones and hits the road. BAM -- she Awakens. She finds herself walking down roads that don't lead her to the nearby town/city... but to other states, then countries, all around the world (Correspondence:3, as indicated on the character sheet). She also seems to have a knack for not getting hurt or at least not staying that way for very long (Life:2) as well as having a sixth sense for where the "juice" is (Prime:1). She literally has these things, as a starting character, the moment her heels hit the road. (Does she think she is a "mage"? -- no, of course not. What the hell are talking about...?) Similarly, a young boy -- alone and homeless on the streets -- Awakens one cold, hungry night and transforms a rock into a loaf of bread. His aptitudes, too, arose spontaneously and were "at power" from Moment-GO! (Matter:3, with three other Spheres at one dot that as-indicated represent his "street sense" of what's going on). Again, another starting character straight out the gate. There are a number of other examples, including mages (in-stats and in-fluff) who belong to whatever Tradition but showed considerable talent/already-existing magickal prowess before indoctrination and "training". (On the flip, and to keep things in a balanced perspective, two other mages from Orphans show the relative opposite -- closer to what you use in your mindset/setting -- wherein a martial artist developed his -- to him quasi-mystical -- aptitudes over an implied considerable period of time... a slow heating up of Awakening, as it were; similarly, the stock market analyst who had her moment of epiphany in a single moment's revelation is still similarly implied to have slowly developed and applied her abilities with Time and Entropy vs. the other two characters' "aaannnnddd -- we're off!" Awakenings...)

        This, also, is where your "incorrect" perspective *does* require more addressing and deconstruction, at its core, than is the case with most of the "splat-fights" that go on around here. The splat-fights are ubiquitous and have been going on for over two decades now. People "get it", in that regard -- it's a known thing and despite it still being an ongoing thing it is, for the most part, understood and perceived in the broad. The difference here with your line of thinking/questioning is that unlike with the splat-fights the distinction involved are *subtle*; consequently, this makes them/it very easy to overlook. This isn't a point of saying you are "wrong" relative to your expressed opinion -- hence my continuous use of " " left, right and center -- what you are saying, contextually, is a *part* of the overall gist of things as-presented, and therefore you have a "piece of the puzzle", so to speak. And it's not the original question of this thread, in-and-of-itself, that is "wrong", by any means, but rather much like with your not seeing the viability of how there can be mages with INTs of less than 3 (the martial artist, for example, had an INT:2, and the other-thread-mentioned examples of, say, Nan the Witch from AHS -- who has Downs Syndrome -- who herself would be a transplanted example of how a mage who happens to be mentally handicapped can very easily happen in Mage, as Intelligence(tm) *isn't* a requirement, by any means, for being Awakened(tm)), it's your indicated premises as to *why* you are asking "x" question, or making "y" statements/responses, that shows you aren't seeing the other side of the Mage coin. That, in turn, is why you ask certain questions the way you do and for the reasons you do; you're -- for example purposes -- a Technocrat who has Awakened(tm)... but just can't seem to wrap your head around what it is that these "reality deviants" are doing.

        It's not the questions/ideas themselves -- it's the mindset and underlying subtle biases that are the issue. And because they're subtle vs. the more blatant/overt "splat-wars", it requires a more involved and critical approach.

        Does *that* make things more clear? I'm not saying your ideas are "wrong" in the traditional sense of the word, but rather asking you to take a step back and realize that you're --again, hoping to draw an "ohhhh -- right... gotcha..."-mental lightbulb-going-off moment here -- as to what is being more properly addressed as the "real issue" here. Otherwise, on the surface, your ideas and concepts/questions are perfectly fine. It's just the underlying premises/approaches that are off...

        *****

        >goes out to get salad as apparently we're out<





        I have been around here for waaaayyyy too fucking long...

        Comment


        • #34
          I'll be charitable and assume you're trying to demonstrate what you think I'm doing by way of example. You think I'm arrogantly assuming other people don't "get" Mage when I disagree with them about certain concepts--so you're showing what it would look like if by dint of your disagreement with me, you said I don't "get" Mage.

          But in all seriousness I think you're just being arrogant. The "*blink*" bullshit is the most annoying. There's nothing I said above that is incomprehensible or beyond the pale. Clearly you have enough words to respond with, there's no reason for you to use Sunday comic sound effects. If you think I'm so obviously wrong, why bother with the wall of text? If I'm so uncomprehending and childlike that I need to be explained to and talked down to, why would you think I could even understand that? Fortunately I do understand it, at least enough to know it's mostly obfuscatory nonsense. The object-level topics aren't even worth engaging you on at this point. For you it's all just a vehicle to prove your superiority. How audacious of you, coming at me with "wow... just wow" when you were the one who decided that this thread was an appropriate place for you to go meta and condescend all over my understanding of the material.

          I actually like discussions about Mage metaphysics and styles of approach, etc. But there has to be a basic respect, at least some willingness to try to understand the other person. Acting like you have the goddamn vapors ("....wow ...just wow...") at some ideas you disagree with is not any kind of good-faith discussion.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Faradn View Post
            I'll be charitable and assume you're trying to demonstrate what you think I'm doing by way of example. You think I'm arrogantly assuming other people don't "get" Mage when I disagree with them about certain concepts--so you're showing what it would look like if by dint of your disagreement with me, you said I don't "get" Mage.
            This is really as far as I need to go with this, really, because at this point it's very clear that we're having two subtly different conversations -- none of your statement above is implied by me nor intended to be inferred as such by anyone. This is definitely one of those cases where not being face-to-face is causing a lot to be lost in translation... especially with...

            Originally posted by Faradn View Post
            But in all seriousness I think you're just being arrogant. The "*blink*" bullshit is the most annoying. There's nothing I said above that is incomprehensible or beyond the pale. Clearly you have enough words to respond with, there's no reason for you to use Sunday comic sound effects. If you think I'm so obviously wrong, why bother with the wall of text? If I'm so uncomprehending and childlike that I need to be explained to and talked down to, why would you think I could even understand that? Fortunately I do understand it, at least enough to know it's mostly obfuscatory nonsense. The object-level topics aren't even worth engaging you on at this point. For you it's all just a vehicle to prove your superiority. How audacious of you, coming at me with "wow... just wow" when you were the one who decided that this thread was an appropriate place for you to go meta and condescend all over my understanding of the material.
            ...the response you gave just above. My "blinks" were because the context of your response seemed out-of-left field to me (and hence my "?" when you brought up how "x" said by you might make you sound like a dick -- nothing you said/posted, at least that I read here or in the other threads I referenced, seemed at all dick-ish to me, in the slightest... until now...)

            Originally posted by Faradn View Post
            I actually like discussions about Mage metaphysics and styles of approach, etc. But there has to be a basic respect, at least some willingness to try to understand the other person. Acting like you have the goddamn vapors ("....wow ...just wow...") at some ideas you disagree with is not any kind of good-faith discussion.
            Then discuss it. You have *yet* to properly respond to my counterpoints made vis-a-vis your foundations of "x, y and z". I had given counterpoints/examples, both in books and in the general sense of conceptualizing *how* the game mechanics presented are meant to represent a wide interpretation -- on their face -- of how a "starting character" can be/comes about. I similarly cited supporting points that fell in-line with the points you were making (citing the more slow-starting-and-advancing martial artist starter character, et al.), just to draw a further line of cognitive comparison. At this point, *you* are the one who is, in fact, being arrogant and a dick. The more reasonable response to my posts could have included, for example, "? -- dude, what's with the hemmin' 'n hawin' in the response? -- is that supposed to be funny?" [To wit I would, reasonably, respond with something along the lines of "Well, it's funny to me; that is, I "mean" it in the sense of feeling a bit confused and eye-quirky about where you were coming from, but I don't "mean" it in any kind of "fuck you" sort of way -- far from it. If that were the case, I just wouldn't bother to respond -- I have plenty of other stuff to be doing, I just post around here on topics that strike me as interesting and/or have subtle/overlooked nuances to them..."; then you'd go "Oh, okay -- whatever. Anyway, to respond to your various cited points..." ....


            That's how that works.


            I will say this, Faradn -- I actually thought better of you relative to previous posts I'd read of yours. I didn't perceive you as being somebody who -- as I am beginning to suspect -- allows inferred cognitive dissonance to make them evade points brought up in a discussion or just respond back with an unwarranted accusation. If you read my posts, I *did* elaborate on exactly why your suppositions are "wrong" -- and explained what was meant by "wrong", including how your questions/points, when foundationed on a different set of premises, are actually perfectly fine/nothing wrong with them, and indicated that what happens at your table/in your world is perfectly fine in any case, no question -- and then gave examples/explanations as to *why* they were so, similar to the perception you had in your other thread vis-a-vis mages and Intelligence (where I, again, indicated that your perspective is fine relative to your setting(s), but much less so relative to Mage(tm) as-presented and written).

            If any of *that* is a problem, why don't you address *that* instead? Ignore my Victorian Vapors as a polite gentleman would and simply cite/bring up counter points to the 95%+ of my responses that weren't annoying or unfunny to you.

            Simple.


            And that's not arrogance on my part. Arrogance would be simply to state that "you're wrong, asshat" and then only list a few sentences supporting my assessment sans any reasonable consideration or citation. I didn't do that. I provided ample coverage/citations (both in-game and meta-conceptually), as well as cited where your indicated views fit relative to that (again, including examples both in-game and meta-conceptually that were in-sync with *your* points instead of mine). If you consider that to be arrogant, I suggest you re-read your response to me again: one of us perhaps botched their internet-funny roll; the other was point-blank disregarding of the views expressed.
            Last edited by Just John, Forever...; 02-09-2017, 10:11 PM. Reason: spacing, my eternal enemy...


            I have been around here for waaaayyyy too fucking long...

            Comment


            • #36
              The reason I haven't responded to the individual, object-level points is because your meta point is the more salient one: you think I'm too dense or stubborn to understand a game I've spent as much time thinking about as I have any other piece of media. This is the beginning of your first response to me:

              Originally posted by Just John, Forever... View Post
              Not to start an "argument", but I've noted in several of Fardn's other posts/threads that he seems to confuse/conflate his own world view (...paradigm, if you will... ) of How Magic(k) Works(tm) with the inherently flexible (especially on a narrative level) qualities that Mage, as a setting/system, has.
              If you wanted to have a civil discussion about the specific topic, why get personal? Why did you have to cross-reference my (in your mind) wrongness from months ago? I know old married couples that find a way of bringing old arguments into new ones, but we don't know each other that well. It seemed weird that you would do that.

              It is possible I read aggression into what was just the kind of over-zealous pattern recognition that some people (definitely including myself) are prone to doing sometimes.

              On the topic of Magely intelligence, I remember saying most of what I wanted to say in that thread. But on both topics, you have to understand, I'm talking about probabilities. There may be some mages of average or even low intelligence. But they would probably be outliers. I look at it as similar to artistry--great artists, truly visionary artists, do not seem very often to have an I.Q. below about 120 from what I've seen. That is a 3 Intelligence. Like great artists, Mages are exceptional in their ability to see the world in a unique way. It may not be a nice thought, but I don't think someone of average intellect is likely to have such an exceptional ability. It's the G-factor--mental abilities tend to be highly correlated. The outliers are not completely irrelevant--they mean that the actual requirements in the game itself probably shouldn't change. But as a house rule I find it useful. Metaphysically, yeah, there's the Avatar. But the Avatar works in conjunction with the mind--it has to. Paradigm isn't separate from the mind. Mystical perception isn't separate from the mind. Have you met many real-life "mystics" or conspiracy theorists, the kind of people who make strange connections most people wouldn't think of? They're usually smart, weird as they are. So there's another analogy for you.

              To the other topic--part of my reaction was that it seemed like you were blowing a mild statement out of proportion. As a brief, off-the-cuff comment I said I was skeptical that a Mage could Awaken with six Sphere dots. Later I amended that to "six just seems like a lot." Do you see how your sweeping statements about my grasp of the game look like a huge overreaction? Especially since I clarified that I think it's more of a narrative issue than a game-metaphysic issue. It seemed like you must have had a chip on your shoulder about me, and were just waiting for a reason put me in my place.

              On the whole I find your comments to be among the most thoughtful on this forum. I don't want to have a conflict with you over trivia. But it seemed to me like you were the instigator.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Faradn View Post
                The reason I haven't responded to the individual, object-level points is because your meta point is the more salient one: you think I'm too dense or stubborn to understand a game I've spent as much time thinking about as I have any other piece of media. This is the beginning of your first response to me:

                If you wanted to have a civil discussion about the specific topic, why get personal? Why did you have to cross-reference my (in your mind) wrongness from months ago? I know old married couples that find a way of bringing old arguments into new ones, but we don't know each other that well. It seemed weird that you would do that.

                It is possible I read aggression into what was just the kind of over-zealous pattern recognition that some people (definitely including myself) are prone to doing sometimes.

                On the topic of Magely intelligence, I remember saying most of what I wanted to say in that thread. But on both topics, you have to understand, I'm talking about probabilities. There may be some mages of average or even low intelligence. But they would probably be outliers. I look at it as similar to artistry--great artists, truly visionary artists, do not seem very often to have an I.Q. below about 120 from what I've seen. That is a 3 Intelligence. Like great artists, Mages are exceptional in their ability to see the world in a unique way. It may not be a nice thought, but I don't think someone of average intellect is likely to have such an exceptional ability. It's the G-factor--mental abilities tend to be highly correlated. The outliers are not completely irrelevant--they mean that the actual requirements in the game itself probably shouldn't change. But as a house rule I find it useful. Metaphysically, yeah, there's the Avatar. But the Avatar works in conjunction with the mind--it has to. Paradigm isn't separate from the mind. Mystical perception isn't separate from the mind. Have you met many real-life "mystics" or conspiracy theorists, the kind of people who make strange connections most people wouldn't think of? They're usually smart, weird as they are. So there's another analogy for you.

                To the other topic--part of my reaction was that it seemed like you were blowing a mild statement out of proportion. As a brief, off-the-cuff comment I said I was skeptical that a Mage could Awaken with six Sphere dots. Later I amended that to "six just seems like a lot." Do you see how your sweeping statements about my grasp of the game look like a huge overreaction? Especially since I clarified that I think it's more of a narrative issue than a game-metaphysic issue. It seemed like you must have had a chip on your shoulder about me, and were just waiting for a reason put me in my place.

                On the whole I find your comments to be among the most thoughtful on this forum. I don't want to have a conflict with you over trivia. But it seemed to me like you were the instigator.
                >inserting one more blink due to your specific quote/citation of mine...<

                *THAT* came across as "aggressive"? Really? What with me specifically saying that I wasn't trying to start an argument, included a "winky" and made a simple citation of confusion/conflation (and basing it on your other thread and how -- cross-comparatively -- it seemed to mirror a specific "world view", in the sense of you posted "x", asked questions or solicited opinions/what-have-you, and then seemed to not "get" where some others were coming from presumably -- and note I am saying presumably -- because what is being counter-cited doesn't jibe with your initial premise... despite said counter-citations (mine and -- in the other thread -- others') being pretty soundly exampled in the books as-written)? I actually thought you were at least tangentially responding to my later-on paragraphs. (Yeah -- I think we *were* having two subtly different conversations; a case where splitting hairs actually made a significant difference in where I, at least, thought you were coming from... and likely vice-versa, too...)

                Well, that certainly wasn't my intention. I had thought that my saying "x"/winky as an initial diffuser was sufficient "coverage", so to speak, against the idea of me "attacking" anyone. To be more clear: if I am "attacking" anything, it's not what you are saying, in-and-of-itself on the surface -- like I said already, that's not the "issue" I'm debating against/with -- but rather the reasonably derived/inferred-by-others POV you are seeming to come from when you make a thread like this one or comment as you did in the other cited thread. It isn't that I am saying that your points are "wrong" in the sense of not being applicable in a great many situations, but more so that as you've created threads/responses that question "x" (should a beginning character mage, relative to game mechanics vs. indicated narratives, have "x" dots in magic(k) to start with and further -- as expanded on later -- whether a mage can/should ever start with multiple dots in Spheres from the get-go, etc.), the asking of the questions, themselves, indicate a POV concerning the topic(s) in question that overlooks what has been fairly reasonably indicated by sample PCs in various books as well as in the various editions/settings. That is, there certainly are mages for whom the accumulation of mystic will (Arete) and understanding of the Spheres is a very involved, years-long process; just as similarly, there are mages for whom an initial manifestation of power/intuitive understanding occurs in relatively short order, and then there are mages who are in-between and start with a given affinity and then have to expand other understandings over a period of time. It's mechanically and narratively similar to how, for example, with vampires that may develop several dots in disciplines right from the get-go ("The Dream Walker" sample PC for Malkavians woke up with Auspex:4, reading and getting lost in the minds and dreams of others from her first waking), or conversely may take decades just to manifest/develop even the most basic traits of their bloodline/clans (one dot in each of their clan/bloodline disciplines, which per character creation can be as long as up to around 50 years).

                Stemming off of that example (among others, which I won't cite as my responses can get notoriously long as-is), I'm just showing how certain premises you set out with are limited/"flawed" relative to being applied to the broader game setting of Mage (or WoD in general), as-written. It isn't that what you are saying "doesn't make sense", or anything like that, but rather your further responses (here and elsewhere) continue along certain lines of thinking but seemingly at the preclusion of others (and more so notable when the "others" being cited are just as much indicated in the books as what you cite). Again, like I said here and in other threads/responses, it's a *subtle* distinction, but one that can very easily have a butterfly effect in terms of how people then in turn think about the setting and the game... and because it *is* subtle, it is more problematic in the long run because unlike with the splat-wars (which, in the final accounting, is just people mentally circle-jerking over which splats they like best/appeals to them), it isn't so obvious that a level of mental preference is taking place.

                That's it.

                Otherwise, what you are saying is perfectly reasonable and true for a great number of mage characters. But again, that you are asking the questions that you do (or, perhaps more accurately, asking opinions/what-have-you in a broader conversation) indicates that said subtle misperception *is* an issue; otherwise, you wouldn't be asking "x" because the other facets indicated in the books already explain things (or, with only a modicum of thought, can be reasonably derived from the books-- such as with the 6 dot assignment for mages being the balance of mystical ability vs. the more usual 3 dots for most other splats who also have arrays of automatic mystical abilities, such as healing or shapeshifting or what-have-you, which I brought up earlier and you agreed did make a difference).

                *****

                I can't help but feel that if we were sitting across from each other, this would have been maybe a 5 minute conversation with no misunderstandings. God bless the interwebs... lol...
                Last edited by Just John, Forever...; 02-12-2017, 07:20 PM. Reason: spacing, as always...


                I have been around here for waaaayyyy too fucking long...

                Comment


                • #38
                  "I don't mean to start an argument, but have you noticed that Faradn is wrong about everything, but insists on wasting our time anyway? *smiley*"

                  Sorry dude. There's no nice way to say inherently not-nice things. And since you're a literal-minded Goober, yes I'm aware that what you said was technically different. But the meaning is clear. You think my ideas are not just wrong but blasphemous, and I'm corrupting the youth. That's why you decided it was not just acceptable but necessary to denounce me out of the blue.

                  The fact that you persist in this, and persist in defending the neckbeardery that is the splat wars, tells me we are not going to make any headway in this conversation. If you want to talk with me ON TOPIC in n future threads that's fine. But don't bring up this nonsense again.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Faradn View Post
                    "I don't mean to start an argument, but have you noticed that Faradn is wrong about everything, but insists on wasting our time anyway? *smiley*"

                    Sorry dude. There's no nice way to say inherently not-nice things. And since you're a literal-minded Goober, yes I'm aware that what you said was technically different. But the meaning is clear. You think my ideas are not just wrong but blasphemous, and I'm corrupting the youth. That's why you decided it was not just acceptable but necessary to denounce me out of the blue.

                    The fact that you persist in this, and persist in defending the neckbeardery that is the splat wars, tells me we are not going to make any headway in this conversation. If you want to talk with me ON TOPIC in n future threads that's fine. But don't bring up this nonsense again.
                    Okay -- *NOW* you are officially an asshat. Period. (And here I had made the mistake of thinking you were one of the more reasonable posters -- there's not mistaking, however, any other intent behind this response except that you are an asshat... and, most ironically, you are the type of asshat who effectively accuses others of doing *exactly* what he himself does/is doing: dismissing the views/citations of others out of hand without proper rebuttal and/or citations.)

                    I never said, nor implied, that you were "wrong about everything" (in point of fact, I cited that much of what you say/cite is "correct", just in other contexts/applications, just not the specific examples/circumstances you are bringing up in this thread and the other, contextually-related thread), nor did I say or imply that you were wasting our/anyone's time. Further, I never said *ANYTHING* that defended splat wars -- (where the ever-fuck did you get *that* idea from *ANYTHING* I posted here? -- all I said was that the splat wars are, in effect, an ongoing, well-known vice of the threads, and something that everybody knows happens regardless of whether they support them or not; further, I indicated no "support" for them, but simply cited that *they have overt, easily recognized biases backing them... unlike *your* misperceptions/specifically-applied interpretations, which due to their subtlety are actually more "damaging", so to speak, precisely because they aren't the "Rawr-- Werewolves RULE!!!" -- "Fang-Hiss -- no: Vampires RULE!!!" sort of thing that people can easily overlook precisely because they *are* so obviously biased that they're often not worth commenting on. That's it. That is in no way, shape or form "supporting" splat wars. Obviously, you didn't even bother to properly read my posts... and speaking of which...)

                    I *DID* respond on-topic, and drew lines of cross-comparison that supported my counterpoints while simultaneously acknowledging yours. You have *yet*, again, to properly respond to *ANY OF MY POINTS CITED* in any of my responses... a common sign of at least a level of either (or both) cognitive dissonance and/or intellectual dishonesty on the part of the person doing the evading, especially after several post-responses. I didn't say nor imply that your ideas were *wrong*, but "wrong" -- air-quotes and all, with explanation elaborating on what that meant (that is, predicated on your *personal* perception of the game/setting that -- while completely valid for your game/setting, at your table, which I indicated quite clearly -- which isn't the perspective of the broader game-setting and rules/scenarios). Similarly, I made no such statement that you were being "blasphemous" -- how can that be when I cite that your points are valid in a number of situations, just not in the *broader* game-view as-written and indicated in numerous Mage books/pre-gen characters -- but rather, simply, that you were (and this is even, apparently, more true than I even initially surmised) applying your *own* personal "paradigm", as it were, to the broader game in your points/foundations of your views and predicates. And more/most importantly, this isn't me "denouncing [you] out of the blue" -- I was addressing, directly, the topic of this thread as I did in the one other thread where you demonstrated the same subtle degree of cognitive lack of perspective, and cross-compared the two to show how your questions/requested opinions of others are foundation'd on a particular world/game-view that directly colors the underlying reason/rationales for asking "x" questions in the first place... which renders the point of people posting the more book-supported counter-points as being ham-strung out the gate because you aren't seeing the broader picture to begin with.

                    None of what I posted is unfounded, out-of-the-blue, or inappropriate to the subject(s). Until your response just above, I had been operating on the idea that you weren't like a number of other posters over the years (I've been here since the forums originally opened back in the 90's, where the flame wars put anything posted nowadays to utter shame); apparently, though, I am gravely mistaken in that assumption.

                    I'm posting this response to you, but more so I am posting it so as to draw attention to the again-subtle distinction of cognitive evasions/misfire that often goes on with posters such as yourself that can lead to further/more subtly deeper-running misperceptions than *any* splat-war posts: the SWs are *obvious*, and as-said can just be scrolled passed by anyone with a modicum of reason. Your particular cognitive misperception (not your views-as-stated, in-and-of themselves -- which I said, specifically, in my further up posts -- but rather your underlying *presumptions* and sense of (mis)perspective that underlines them) relative to the setting isn't that your stated ideas are *wrong*, but rather they are "wrong" because you refuse to see that the points you're making -- which, again, are valid in a number of contexts in many games or home-rules -- *aren't* what is indicated in the broader setting of the books. Simple.

                    You wonder if having "x" dots in Spheres is too powerful; citations are made to allay that perspective. You assert that you don't see the (comparative) validity of a newly Awakened mage having "x" dots in a Sphere off-the-bat; citations are made showing that that can-and-does occur not simply by the the indicated broadness of the rule as-indicated, but in sample PC characters provided in the game by the writers. You state that you don't see the relative validity of a mage having an Intelligence less than 3 (granted, that's from the other thread, which I cited in this one and you didn't, but as I've repeated several times now it's valid to bring up again for the purpose of demonstrating the underlying flaw in your rationales for asking "x" in the first place); characters are cited both in-narrative (not just the sample PC mages who start with INT:2-, such as the martial artist and others) and extra-narratively (citing characters who have indicated mental defects but still work magic/cast spells, particularly relative to the context of Mage wherein the Awakening needn't have *anything* to do with the human/mortal's intellect or wisdom/insight, in-and-of itself, but just as often simply whether or not their Avatar/Eidelon/Fount/Daemon/Sahu/whatever is Awakened or not... that's it) who counter-example that premise-of-questioning/supposition, in the broad.

                    That's all I said, Faradn. Yes, I did my wall-o'-post as I am often known for, but that's a case of catch-22: if I give a short, succinct answer, then the counter-examples are left out and it just reads as *you* erroneously indicate it as being -- I'm just calling you an asshat from out-of-the-blue and/or am just saying "yer RONG, Duuude", which is exactly the opposite of tone and elaboration of what I am doing/what I posted. On the flip, if I post longer, more detailed and correct comparisons that show why "y" is more valid than "x", then (apparently) I get people like you who don't properly bother reading what was posted and instead to decide to just respond with an answer that (in a very 45th POTUS manner) tries to flip on the counter-speaker (me, in this case) that *I* somehow am not saying what is true/indicated in the books/broader setting vs. a more narrow application of said information... the latter of which is what *you* are doing.

                    *****

                    If Mark should happen to read this (as I know you tend to read a lot of the Mage threads), this is to you: there's a reason why I almost always respond to your queries (the ones I happen across, that is) and/or respond to your posts even though for years now I've wanted to shove a pillow down your throat for being so damned hard-headed about "xyz" topics -- unlike with what Faradn just did here, *you* (for all your frustratingly infuriating lines of thought) *do* try to properly read what I (and many others) post relative to you, and take time to consider things more clearly (sometimes it takes you while... a looonnnggg while... but you do seem to get there eventually....). Further, you bring up appropriate counter-counter-points that actually bring something to the conversation and shows that you are actually, properly reading what someone posted to you. As I was typing this to Faradn, you (Mark) literally popped into my head... and if occurred to me that there have been a few occasions where I lost my patience with you, and that is unfair on my part. You've never posted in a subtly, cognitively dissonant manner the way Faradn is here (and, ironically enough and not noted by him, goes about proving my point about how it's the *subtle* misperceptions that are the most "dangerous" -- they're *not* the SWs, so therefore aren't as easily noted as such by a more casual reader), and this example illustrated in this thread has shown me that I need/should be more appreciative of those who *do* bother reading things properly, and/or debating "xyz" more cogently.

                    >sigh<

                    Well, I guess that means this particular conversation is at its end as Faradn has made his... steadfastness... in his views quite clear. I'll bow out of this now and simply make a note in my comment parameters not to bother commenting on any of Faradn's posts/responses from now on. I won't waste any more time with someone who proves the adage "If they don't know, you can't tell'em...".

                    /threadblocked


                    I have been around here for waaaayyyy too fucking long...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      So... how 'bout them spheres?


                      Keepers of the Wyck: A Chronicle I'm running UPDATE Chapter 22: The Morning After

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        ​So how about people staying on topic and not massively derailing a thread, enough so to warrant them getting a thread ban or worse? Seems like something worth doing to me.


                        Onyx Path Forum Administrator
                        Posts in this color are moderator posts
                        Posts in this color mean a Great Old One has driven me mad.
                        Forum Terms of Use
                        the Contact Us link.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X