Thoughts about Mage 5th

[Trippy]

As for developers, if they decided to go in a V5-sort of direction (e.g., actual magic no longer exists; characters in the game are mortal stage and close-up magicians who dress exclusively like Criss Angel, and "battle" for prime time slots at The Magic Castle, while at the same time struggling to make rent at unfulfilling jobs as baristas and paralegals), then there's probably very few wrong answers.

This isn’t anything like a 'V5-sort of direction’ that was taken, and obviously it’s an insult against a game that isn’t understood or appreciated.

However, the wider point that any new edition that tries a new approach needs to be wary of alienating existing fans, because some fans don’t like change, is worth noting. Then again, if you are going to do a new edition, it’s worth considering fresh ideas.

For me, I just don’t think it will happen, partially because there will always be fans that are entrenched in one particular edition or another and it takes a lot of marketing to establish that there is a wider audience to make it worthwhile. Mage is a complex game to sell, and the existing fanbase has a history of volatility and conflict.

That last point, about the metaphysics, is potentially the biggest reason I'm going to be a Brucato-or-Bust type (a Brucato Bro if you will). The metaphysics of magic(k), and paradigm/theory, are the game; the soul/essence/what-have-you.

This isn’t original to Brucato of course - it was written into the central premise of the 1st edition by Stewart Weick, before Brucato came along. I would say that the notion of paradigm and consensual reality are central to any conceptualization of a Mage: The Ascension game, but there are still plenty of different ways in which this could be approached.

[MyWifeIsScary]

This isn’t anything like a 'V5-sort of direction’ that was taken, and obviously it’s an insult against a game that isn’t understood or appreciated.

However, the wider point that any new edition that tries a new approach needs to be wary of alienating existing fans, because some fans don’t like change, is worth noting. Then again, if you are going to do a new edition, it’s worth considering fresh ideas.

For me, I just don’t think it will happen, partially because there will always be fans that are entrenched in one particular edition or another and it takes a lot of marketing to establish that there is a wider audience to make it worthwhile. Mage is a complex game to sell, and the existing fanbase has a history of volatility and conflict.

Everyone who insults V5 understands V5. I'd argue we insult it because we understand it. Generally everyone who defends V5 is either new or has always been a very liberal house-ruler or fancanon fanatic. I've yet to see otherwise. We understand what they were trying to do with V5; We understand why it's bad. It's not some 'We don't like change' because there's plenty of stuff we'd like to change, but we certainly don't like the wild, sweeping changes of v5 that don't make sense within the context of VTM. He wrote a pretty good assessment of what could happen with M5, I had to google the guy he was comparing fashions too and he was so bang on it hurts.

[Trippy]

Everyone who insults V5 understands V5. I'd argue we insult it because we understand it. Generally everyone who defends V5 is either new or has always been a very liberal house-ruler or fancanon fanatic. I've yet to see otherwise. We understand what they were trying to do with V5; We understand why it's bad. It's not some 'We don't like change' because there's plenty of stuff we'd like to change, but we certainly don't like the wild, sweeping changes of v5 that don't make sense within the context of VTM. He wrote a pretty good assessment of what could happen with M5, I had to google the guy he was comparing fashions too and he was so bang on it hurts.

You don’t understand it as others do (which you clearly have a very limited experience of), and you don’t have to play it.

[PMárk]

What I think about M5?

Mainly, I don't want to think about it. I'm content with M20. I don't want to see the "streamlined" mechanics for magic (with a likely even harsher Paradox system than Revised). I don't want to see Mage's metaphisically and ideologically complex setting turning into the one-sided political dumpster fire it likely would.

And for the sake of all, I don't want to see what they'd turn the Hollowers into.

[Trippy]

What I think about M5?

Mainly, I don't want to think about it. I'm content with M20.

Then stick with M20.

[MyWifeIsScary]

You don’t understand it as others do (which you clearly have a very limited experience of), and you don’t have to play it.

Explain yourself, I just think you're being rude and wrong here.

[PMárk]

HOWEVER, that may not be something Paradox wants to keep about the game. I mean, you can strip enough stuff from Mage that it basically just becomes like any other RPG, and so will not "scare off" new players. Notably, my issue with the "inaccessible to new players" thing is that these rules have always been this dense and difficult--and yet I, at the tender of age of 15 (20 years ago), having played only a little V:tM and a little Werewolf, picked up Second Edition and never looked back. Forget the fact that I didn't understand a whole lot of what was going on in the game--I understood enough to know that my lack of understanding was more than anything a product of my own (excusable given my age and level of education) lack of knowledge and still-developing cognitive faculties. I understood on an instinctual level (even if I could not articulate it this way at the time) that the game was moreso about learning how to think, than about memorizing the step-by-step process of working out how much Paradox to take in any given scenario, or some other such thing. But, again, that may not be everyone's bag; like I said above, people who gravitate to and love Mage are obviously a breed apart from much of the rest of the market--not necessarily better, but certainly different.

Thing is, I'll always call bullshit on anyone saying more complex games (either in terms of lore or crunch) can't attract new people. They can, they always did, and they're doing it now. They just won't attract as much "casual" gamers, who just want a quick hop-on and have some fun, without putting much into it. On itself, that's not wrong, I certainly don't want to start a "filthy casuals versus grognards" flamewar. That's pointless. However, I do believe and deeply so, that not every game has to target the largest possible crowd, thus becoming the least common denominator. That would (ans is) lead(ing) to losing countless wonderful things that got built up over the years.

No, a game could be "niche". It just has to have enough fans, old or new (and there always be new too, who appreciate it, not just the "old guard"), who could appreciate the given game, the deep lore, or the metaphysics, or the crunch. Too many people assume too readily nowadays that every game, that isn't simplified to the ground in both aspects will fail. No. They just won't sell as much as D&D 5. But that isn't necessarily the goal, or doesn't have to be. There's a definitive market for Pathfinder, or CoC, or Shadowrun, or the WoD 20ths.

Plainly, I refuse the notion that nowadays' new gamers are all individuals with the mental faculties and attention span of a goldfish and it's just only the old fans who would be interested in anything more substantial.

[Trippy]

Explain yourself, I just think you're being rude and wrong here.

Ok, well, how about V5 was one of the best selling RPG titles last year and it’s supplements continue to sell? How about it has a fanbase and plenty of people play the game as written, and enjoy the experience? How about you stop hatefully ranting about a game other people like, just because you don't?

We insult it because we understand it

What an obnoxious thing to say. You are being rude and wrong here, and we weren’t even talking about V5.

[PMárk]

Then stick with M20.

Likely will. Based on V5, I just have a hard time imagining any developer team working under the guidance of the current WW will come up with a Mage (or Werewolf) I'd have much interest in.

Honestly? It's very likely the regulars of these boards could guess, if not the details, but the broad direction it'll take, with an approximately 75% accuracy at least, based on everything up to this point. I know I have no interest in the game that direction leads.

[Trippy]

Thing is, I'll always call bullshit on anyone saying more complex games (either in terms of lore or crunch) can't attract new people. They can, they always did, and they're doing it now. They just won't attract as much "casual" gamers, who just want a quick hop-on and have some fun, without putting much into it. On itself, that's not wrong, I certainly don't want to start a "filthy casuals versus grognards" flamewar. That's pointless. However, I do believe and deeply so, that not every game has to target the largest possible crowd, thus becoming the least common denominator. That would (ans is) lead(ing) to losing countless wonderful things that got built up over the years.

No, a game could be "niche". It just has to have enough fans, old or new (and there always be new too, who appreciate it, not just the "old guard"), who could appreciate the given game, the deep lore, or the metaphysics, or the crunch. Too many people assume too readily nowadays that every game, that isn't simplified to the ground in both aspects will fail. No. They just won't sell as much as D&D 5. But that isn't necessarily the goal, or doesn't have to be. There's a definitive market for Pathfinder, or CoC, or Shadowrun, or the WoD 20ths.

Plainly, I refuse the notion that nowadays' new gamers are all individuals with the mental faculties and attention span of a goldfish and it's just only the old fans who would be interested in anything more substantial.

Well, there is a point in that, but every game has to find a market in order to be successful. Moreover, unless it’s yourself willing to be the business that takes the risk, don’t be surprised if any new edition that does eventually come to pass isn’t a bespoke version of the game to suit your own preferences. Indeed, I’m still skeptical whether they will be one, in reference to some of the outbursts already evident here.

Based on V5, I just have a hard time imagining any developer team working under the guidance of the current WW will come up with a Mage (or Werewolf) I'd have much interest in.

Interesting. Who do you think is the most influential creative director of the World of Darkness titles, currently? What don’t you like about that person?

[PMárk]

This is everything I dread about Mage 5. Mage desperately needs an entirely fresh set of hands to make it a game and a setting that can attract anyone who isn't a millennia-old mage grognard.

Why? What is it in the core ideas of the setting, or the basics of the game that makes it impossible to attract anyone, who isn't a millenia-old grognard (or, in my case, 31 years old, who got into WoD well after 2000...).

We're not talking about brushing up the rules here, or the updating of the setting into modern times. Surely, the state of the setting will reflect some of the real-world changes. M20 already did a lot of that. I just can't see where's the need to rewrite the game and the setting to the extent (or even more) V5 did and W5 seems it will, instead of updating, to make it appealing to both the old fans and a new generation.

Mostly, I frequently get the vibe that people who want those sweeping changes are mostly projecting their dissatisfaction with the game as it is/was into thinking it can't possibly appeal to new people and there are only old fans are just clinging to it because of nostalgia. Well, that's just not true. You think, for example, that all the Pathfinder 1e fans, who played the game in the last 10+ years were only disgruntled 3.5 fans, who refused to let go of an "outdated" game? That's bullshit, excuse my French. D&D 5e is, at it's core, a simplified nostalgia edition and see how many new people are playing it.

Even with the WoD 20ths, which were mainly targeted at the existing audience and wasn't really on the forefront of the mainline rpg market, due to the business model of OPP, there are plenty of people, who started playing WoD with them since V20 came out.

[Trippy]

Why? What is it in the core ideas of the setting, or the basics of the game that makes it impossible to attract anyone, who isn't a millenia-old grognard (or, in my case, 31 years old, who got into WoD well after 2000...).

We're not talking about brushing up the rules here, or the updating of the setting into modern times. Surely, the state of the setting will reflect some of the real-world changes. M20 already did a lot of that. I just can't see where's the need to rewrite the game and the setting to the extent (or even more) V5 did and W5 seems it will, instead of updating, to make it appealing to both the old fans and a new generation.

Mostly, I frequently get the vibe that people who want those sweeping changes are mostly projecting their dissatisfaction with the game as it is/was into thinking it can't possibly appeal to new people and there are only old fans are just clinging to it because of nostalgia. Well, that's just not true. You think, for example, that all the Pathfinder 1e fans, who played the game in the last 10+ years were only disgruntled 3.5 fans, who refused to let go of an "outdated" game? That's bullshit, excuse my French. D&D 5e is, at it's core, a simplified nostalgia edition and see how many new people are playing it.

Even with the WoD 20ths, which were mainly targeted at the existing audience and wasn't really on the forefront of the mainline rpg market, due to the business model of OPP, there are plenty of people, who started playing WoD with them since V20 came out.

Look, I own a signed Quintessential edition of M20. I was one of the biggest backers of that book, and actually Patreon’d Brucato as an independent writer for a while. I’m happy with M20, as I am with all the other editions of the game I own and have followed since 1993.

But I’m not afraid of new directions, whatever they may be.

As a criticism of M20, I’d say that there is a significantly wide spread view that the book itself is too big - practically speaking - and has a scope that is difficult to follow. Brucato himself has a distinctive writing style that not everybody likes, while certain terms in the game could be better defined. There are setting-based decisions that could be reviewed and certain concepts could be given greater emphasis. As with all the 20th Anniversary lines, it’s very much a catalogue of collated material - and again, that is not to everybody’s taste. Some people want a more driven game, that has focussed themes to play on. Even then, this is all just speculative talk because we don’t even know if there ever will be a new edition. But what is to fear from discussing it?

[PMárk]

Well, there is a point in that, but every game has to find a market in order to be successful.

And they do. CoC 7e is doing quite well, I believe. CofD has its market, the 20ths had their market, V5 has its market.

Moreover, unless it’s yourself willing to be the business that takes the risk, don’t be surprised if any new edition that does eventually come to pass isn’t a bespoke version of the game to suit your own preferences.

The owner of the IP does whatever they want with it, yes. But that doesn't necessiate alienating a good portion of the existing fans.

Interesting. Who do you think is the most influential creative director of the World of Darkness titles, currently? What don’t you like about that person?

On a personal level? I don't have problems with them. They are fine folks, I agreed with many things they said during the development and was hyped about V5. I defended them on these boards frequently. It's just, when it came to the details of the final product, their vision and mine doesn't match and since the general direction any licenser will have to follow still comes from them... Based on V5 and what we know about W5, I don't think Mage will be an exception, due to some miracle.

As for who is the most influential right now? I don't know. Paradox clearly pulled back Martin and co. from the forefront, due to all the backlash, but I think it's still their core team, who gives the "setting bible", the mentioned general direction to the licencers.

[Trippy]

And they do. CoC 7e is doing quite well, I believe. CofD has its market, the 20ths had their market, V5 has its market.

It transpires that CoC7E’s biggest market is in Japan, as a purely irrelevant aside. V5 outsold it last year.

The owner of the IP does whatever they want with it, yes. But that doesn't necessiate alienating a good portion of the existing fans.

If it means they are satisfying their own market it does. They don’t own anybody any favours when they have creative control - they merely have to make it worth it on their own terms.

On a personal level? I don't have problems with them. They are fine folks, I agreed with many things they said during the development and was hyped about V5. I defended them on these boards frequently. It's just, when it came to the details of the final product, their vision and mine doesn't match and since the general direction any licenser will have to follow still comes from them... Based on V5 and what we know about W5, I don't think Mage will be an exception, due to some miracle.

As for who is the most influential right now? I don't know. Paradox clearly pulled back Martin and co. from the forefront, due to all the backlash, but I think it's still their core team, who gives the "setting bible", the mentioned general direction to the licencers.

Well, to answer the first question for you - V5, currently, the creative developer has been Matthew Dawkins. What don’t you like about Matthew Dawkins’ direction?

[PMárk]

Look, I own a signed Quintessential edition of M20. I was one of the biggest backers of that book, and actually Patreon’d Brucato as an independent writer for a while. I’m happy with M20, as I am with all the other editions of the game I own and have followed since 1993.

But I’m not afraid of new directions, whatever they may be.

It's not abut being afraid. You could see it two ways:

1. I already have enough of this stuff, I'd like to see something new/different/new take on the same thing.
2. I like this thing and I'd like to see more stuff for it, with advanced setting and better mechanics, but ultimately, I want this thing.

Both are valid, but neither are a necessity. Moreover, fans tend to like the things they like because they are the way they are, so you'll naturally anger a lot of them with the first. On the other hand, new prospective buyers don't have any preconceptions about the game, so, they don't need the thing to change wildly, they just need a good presentation and accessability (pointing back to the D&D 5e example).

As a criticism of M20, I’d say that there is a significantly wide spread view that the book itself is too big - practically speaking - and has a scope that is difficult to follow. Brucato himself has a distinctive writing style that not everybody likes, while certain terms in the game could be better defined. There are setting-based decisions that could be reviewed and certain concepts could be given greater emphasis. As with all the 20th Anniversary lines, it’s very much a catalogue of collated material - and again, that is not to everybody’s taste. Some people want a more driven game, that has focussed themes to play on. Even then, this is all just speculative talk because we don’t even know if there ever will be a new edition. But what is to fear from discussing it?

As for M20 being too big and all-encompassing: true. It's hard for a totally new fan, to start with, just due to sheer size and density of stuff (but it gives you much, if you take your time). On the other hand, the same was said about V20, in comparison to V5. Funny thing is, V5 is much closer to V20 in terms of length, than to the earlier corebooks, while containing far less actual information. People complained about the "green marble wall", but the corebook was, in truth, a pretty good starting point.

In general, I believe the Revised corebooks were pretty good, well, corebooks. They were short, had distinct themes, a good grasp on the basics of the setting and gave you everything you needed to start playing.

However, all that is only about slimming down things to a reasonable corebook from a compilatory tome M20 was. It has nothing to do with sweeping changes to the game and setting.

As for not everyone liking Brucatto's style: that's true for any of the writers. I had some very eye-rolling moments, when reading V5. Or VtR 2e, for that matter. I felt they're just trying too hard. I also loathed the contempt some of the revised writers had toward players and styles they deemed "inappropriate" (which was quite hipocritical IMO, when the game and story had plenty of stuff for and like that). I don't like every last piece Brucatto wrote and he has a tendency to go into long purple speech with symbolism, which is appropriate, but yeah, could be a bit much for some. On the other hand, I like most of what he wrote for M20 and I like the plotline there and most of the mechanical changes so yeah, I'd call him a good candidate, as M20 was mostly acclaimed among the fanbase. Not without controversies and arguments, but all-in-all positively regarded and accepted.