Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thoughts about Mage 5th

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

  • PMárk
    replied
    Originally posted by Trippy View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trippy
    replied
    Originally posted by PMárk View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • PMárk
    replied
    Originally posted by Kammerer View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trippy
    replied
    Originally posted by PMárk View Post

    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?
    Last edited by Trippy; 12-19-2019, 11:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PMárk
    replied
    Originally posted by Trippy View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trippy
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post


    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • PMárk
    replied
    Originally posted by CaptOtter View Post

    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.



    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    Originally posted by Trippy View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trippy
    replied
    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
    What I think about M5?

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

    Leave a comment:


  • PMárk
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trippy
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post

    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.
    Last edited by Trippy; 12-19-2019, 10:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    Originally posted by Trippy View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trippy
    replied
    Originally posted by CaptOtter View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Trippy; 12-19-2019, 07:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CaptOtter
    replied
    The problem with a discussion about who I'd like writing the new Mage game (or who would be good) is that there's no way to have that discussion without first, or simultaneously, having the discussion over whether M5 should be as radical a departure setting- and mechanics-wise as V5 was from previous versions of V:tM, because different studios are going to be good at different things. Some studios are great at weighty social issues; some are great at crunch; some are better with freeform or more "rules lite" systems; etc. The likelihood is that M5, like V5, will have only a nominal/superficial relationship to the game that was, and will, in most ways, be a wholly different and new game wrapped in some of the proper nouns from the IP as we know it. That won't make the resulting game necessarily bad--but it'll be a different game regardless.

    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. Maybe Memento Mori Theatricks since I think InSpectres is fun, light and hilarious, and I really enjoy it. Or if Paradox wants something closer to a D&D or Shadowrun--except with spheres (e.g., like a giant spell list, no improvisation, ONE reality zone for everywhere that isn't your sanctum, in-character discussions of paradigm and metaphysics are boiled down to a skill check so no one has to learn anything) then I think a company like Paizo is probably the way to go, though I doubt they'd take time away from their own Top 5 best-selling games to make a game for their competition, particularly when they're already dunking on that competitor in sales numbers.

    However, in the (from my perspective) insanely unlikely event that it is decided that M5 should hew closer (re: systems and underlying metaphysics) to prior editions, then I think it simply MUST be Onyx Path with Brucato at the helm, for reasons that were so perfectly set forth by Ambrosia that I'm just going to quote the bullet points from their comment supra:

    Originally posted by Ambrosia View Post
    * They already have good relations with Satyr - who was lead dev for 2nd, Sorcerors Crusade AND M20. He just knows all the inside-outs of the setting, and even if Revised did a controversial hard turn in a different direction, even Revised was influenced by all that came before it. And even if Satyr isn't the one who is going to lead dev it in any way, OP can easily consult with him.

    * Onyx Path just does good books, hands down. If not influenced too much by Paradox (oh the Pun Potential...), they have shown to be utterly capable of handling oWoD in all regards

    * Mage is a gameline that *heavily* relies on philosophical lore-knowledge and having a feel for what it's supposed to be, how Magick works, and what the headspace of it all is. It requires heavy investment. It is a gameline that can easily be fucked up by changes that might seem Like A Good Idea At The Time to somebody without much experience with it. Likewise, I think 'streamlining' it in any regard would not affect it positively - IMO. More straightforward examples and good tables? Sure. Simplifying its mechanics away from the freeform Magick system we have? No.
    Onyx Path and their hired writers that worked on M20 *have* that experience. If a different company touches it, and people who possibly never touched Mage much try to develop for it...things might get so much harder to pull off right. It *could* be a refreshing change to have new pairs of eyes working on it, of course - and it *could* get pulled off right. But the risk would increase as much as any possible reward.
    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. Mage is the only game that, to run it, you must not only figure out a time/place to set your game, and the overall milieu of the characters and stories you want to run... but you have to make preliminary decisions about the fundamental operation of causality itself, and the very nature of subjective/objective reality--i.e., the discussion of "HAB/ HOO/ HYP and RDB/PBD" on page 534 of M20 asks storytellers looking to play a game for fun to engage in an analysis involving (at a minimum) ontology and epistemology (and arguably phenomenology)--basically subjects that are hard enough to wrap your head around when you're reading about it for school and have an ostensible expert teaching it... and this is what we're doing for leisure and recreation! The fact that we love the game, and come here to discuss it ad nauseam, and that thought experiments about the weird edge cases of rules are the norm (and often necessary) in this community, can only mean that the people who presently love this game and are engaged in the Mage dialectic such as it is, must like this incredibly onerous component of the game, because it's too huge a part of the meta-game for it to be plausible that there are a whole lot of Mage fans just not engaging with those first-order, preliminary concerns.

    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.

    Originally posted by Kammerer View Post
    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.
    Is your issue limited to first bullet/asterisk of Ambrosia's comment, or all of them? What do you even like about this game in the first place? Do you just hate the setting canon, and if so, why? Jess Heining basically hit the hard reset button on masters, the Umbra, horizon realms, non-street-level play in Revised (V5 before V5 if you really think about it)... what is it about this metaplot that scares you at this point?

    Leave a comment:


  • Asimar
    replied
    Originally posted by Trippy View Post

    You could make the argument, as I’d like to see, for two separate games - one for the Traditions and one for the Technocracy. I could see this working for Vampire too actually, with a spin-off game for playing The New Inquisition (which would mirror nicely with the Technocracy, in a way).
    .
    This is a very interesting idea. We can even push more into speculation territory and poses that there could be 2 magic systems, one for the Traditions and one for the Technocracy. This could royally piss some fans, but then again, I'm open for something different.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X