PDA

View Full Version : M:tA Houserule Evaluations



JeenLeen
2009-09-01, 10:11 AM
My gaming group is starting a game of Mage: The Ascension, v2 (old World of Darkness). One of our main hopes is to get more into roleplaying and less away from power-gaming, which became a problem in D&D. (We all want to move away from power-gaming, but some of the group are just optimizers and in that mindset.)

To help this, the DM has instituted a few houserules. I wanted to run them by the people here to see if anyone saw any potential problems these houserules may cause. (I don't see any, but I wanted to check.)

1. During character creation, you are assigned arrays to assign as you wish to Attributes, Abilities, Spheres, and Advantages. These arrays are possible through character creation, but you do not have to assign them in any particular way to Attributes and Abilities (no primary, secondary, and tertiary strengths.)
This is to counteract the potential different levels of 'xp' one could get through the 'dots' system mentioned in the rulebook. (For example, having 4 Strength and 2 Dexterity is the same dots as 5 Strength and 1 Dexterity, but different in xp costs.) By having an array, none of us are tempted to min-max.

2. Knowledges, Traits, and Skills all take the same xp. In normal rules, Knowledges are cheaper to buy.

3. Mentor, Library, and other backgrounds that help you save xp do not do this. However, they still enable one to have reasons in-character to learn things the character might otherwise not have access to.

This houserule is more style than fairness. The DM likes foci.
4. For each Sphere you initially start with at least 1 focus/Sphere; you cannot use prayer for both Forces and Spirit, for example. As you gain Arete 2-5, you can use 2 additional Spheres with a given focus; for example, at Arete 2, you can use Forces and Matter in addition to Spirit through prayer. At Arete 6, you can use 2 Spheres without a focus, and so on until you can use all Spheres without foci at Arete 10.
I am unsure yet if/how the rule of getting -1 difficulty when using a focus you do not need will apply.
I do see this balances the Tradition mages, as different rules existed for Sons of Ether and Virtual Adepts apart from the others. Although maybe it unbalances them as those two Traditions are more easily coincidental.

satorian
2009-09-01, 12:24 PM
Well, first off, you guys will be playing a game where balance just isn't a primary concern. Some of the spheres, though great to play with, just aren't that strong in combat. Others only work in combination with already strong combat abilities. Doesn't matter, really. The game isn't about combat. It's about the, well, the storytelling. Thus, I don't really think much needs to be done to balance the game. Anyway, your ideas:

1) I almost like it at first blush, since it's what I usually do anyway when I make a character. Even though most characters I've made do kinda follow an array, I for one would not want to be locked into a hard and fast array. I think this issue is better resolved with a gentleman's agreement not to make gamed out ability scores without an airtight reason. This leaves room for flexibility, and leaves open the few viable character concepts that really do need 5-dots/1-dot disparities (nutty professor is one off the top of my head). So, instead of a houserule, I'd make this one "let's try and do this, folks. It'll keep us in the spirit of MTA".

2) I don't get this one. It sounds like you are taking away the carrot of knowledges. Knowledges are less out-and-powerful than things like Do or Firearms. What they are is something Mages would be expected to focus on. Taking skills makes a Mage less Magey and more worldly. You are just giving them a greater reason to take skills and traits instead of knowledges. Why?

3) Eh, things like mentor and library have always come around and bitten me in the bum. Like once, I took the Enemy (name?) flaw and Mentor, and the ST made it the same person, though I didn't know that. Or the privacy of your house gets compromised by antagonists or whatever. There are huge in-game drawbacks to these merits, even with a perfectly reasonable storyteller. Anything you own is something you have to defend. Anyone you know is someone who could be kidnapped or who could be forced to betray you. Not necessary.

4) Whatever, I guess. He likes foci, so I guess he likes foci. Too much Harry Potter, maybe? I for one hate foci. I think it goes against the whole power of magic is from inside you, arising from the power of that god fragment in you thing. I think they should be allowed, but tradition mages tend to know even early on that these things are crutches. This is especially true for some traditions, like the Akashics. Hermetics and Etherites would be more apt to want to use foci. A lot of the others: not so much. The problem for me is that this gimps certain character concepts (notice, not traditions, this isn't about balance). If I want to play a self-sufficient Mage, i should be able to. there are already bonuses for using focuses for those that want them. Such bonuses should be sufficient incentive to use foci. Anyone ignoring those incentives does so for his or her own valid reasons.

I guess I came across really harsh. Mage has some problems, specifically in the explications of powers: i.e., can Entropy cause a heart attack without a dot or two in Life? A lot of stuff is fuzzy. In some ways, that's what makes the game great. Other times, it's just confusing. That said, I wouldn't worry about powergaming. Every mage, even on day 1, is sickeningly worldbreakingly powerful, even compared to vampires and werewolves. but every mage has not only other even more powerful mages and demons, etc. to deal with (always) but paradox. Power to level a mountain? good for you. Actually try it and you will die.

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-01, 01:36 PM
1. During character creation, you are assigned arrays to assign as you wish to Attributes, Abilities, Spheres, and Advantages. These arrays are possible through character creation, but you do not have to assign them in any particular way to Attributes and Abilities (no primary, secondary, and tertiary strengths.)
This is to counteract the potential different levels of 'xp' one could get through the 'dots' system mentioned in the rulebook. (For example, having 4 Strength and 2 Dexterity is the same dots as 5 Strength and 1 Dexterity, but different in xp costs.) By having an array, none of us are tempted to min-max.


This is fine, though I don't know if it will discourage minmaxing. Regardless, it's a much better system than the typical WoD assignments which I've always felt to be too inflexible.



2. Knowledges, Traits, and Skills all take the same xp. In normal rules, Knowledges are cheaper to buy.


Knowledges are cheaper to buy because Mages should focus on them. In general, a large portion of a Mage's paradigm is informed by their mundane background.

It's one of the reasons why the Technocracy focuses so much on educating the Masses in their way of thinking. If they do Awaken, they're already used to the Technocratic way of doing things. That it also makes the stuff they do Coincidental is another big reason, of course, but one can't ignore the huge potential of already having Awakened indoctrinated to your way of thinking before they even realize the fluidity of reality.



3. Mentor, Library, and other backgrounds that help you save xp do not do this. However, they still enable one to have reasons in-character to learn things the character might otherwise not have access to.


This change really depends on the DM. Another poster said that Mentors and Libraries can have extreme problems associated with them and this is true. But they don't have to, either.

You might also want to make Libraries cheaper for Virtual Adepts and Sons of Ether. By the setting, both these groups freely create and share knowledge (the Etherites even have a magazine dedicated to this and the VAs have massive library repositories on the Digital Web), unlike other Traditions which either don't create libraries as part of their culture (like the Cultists or Verbena) or actively try to restrict and hoard knowledge (like the Order of Hermes or Celestial Chorus).



This houserule is more style than fairness. The DM likes foci.
4. For each Sphere you initially start with at least 1 focus/Sphere; you cannot use prayer for both Forces and Spirit, for example. As you gain Arete 2-5, you can use 2 additional Spheres with a given focus; for example, at Arete 2, you can use Forces and Matter in addition to Spirit through prayer. At Arete 6, you can use 2 Spheres without a focus, and so on until you can use all Spheres without foci at Arete 10.


This... I have to disagree with. What determines what and how foci are used should not be mechanics, but the individual's Paradigm. If the mage believes they can pray to God for any favor, for instance, then they can. Period. If you're worried about your group abusing this idea, then the easy answer is to make them Roleplay it out. Have that Celestial Choruster actually conduct a prayer. If they're in the middle of a fight, this can actually take a while. The Storyteller can also require that higher-level Spheres need more ornate and longer prayers (though this is stepping a bit on the player's freedom to make their Paradigm their own).

Not only that, but foci (with the exception of Unique Foci) are supposed to be flexible. An Etherite doesn't always have to use a meter as a focus for doing some Matter sensory effect; maybe tasting it would work or using Etherchemical testing. It really depends on the situation and the individual Mage's paradigm. Hell, even Technocratic mages are pretty flexible when it comes to foci... Forces can be used with a gun or with their Enhancements or with an appropriate chemical combination, etc.



I do see this balances the Tradition mages, as different rules existed for Sons of Ether and Virtual Adepts apart from the others. Although maybe it unbalances them as those two Traditions are more easily coincidental.

Don't forget that SoE and VAs also have a harder time getting rid of their foci -- they simply believe that they need them as a consequence of how their Paradigms work. It's easier to take the group out the Technocracy than the Technocracy out of the group.

In general, I agree with the other poster... balance doesn't even come into a Mage game. Even very new Mages are ridiculously powerful. If the GM really wants to have a more "balanced" game, then the easiest thing to do would be to restrict players to having 2 Arete max at chargen and require that any attempt to gain another dot in Arete needs a Roleplayed Seeking. If they fail the Seeking, then they lose the experience it would've cost and don't get a higher rating. It's a bit more work on the Storyteller's part, but it works as a pretty effective way to make sure the character and player is ready for more power.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-01, 01:42 PM
Agreeing with the above posters, you're really missing the point of Mage. If people start powergaming in World of Darkness, you hit them with paradox, the Technocracy, or a bunch of Red Talons.

(1) reduces character diversity, which doesn't sound too good. Besides, you can't powergame much on attributes and abilities anyway.

(2) misses the point that mages are supposed to have lots 'n lots of knowledges. Besides, it's not unbalancing as it applies to everyone.

(3) is just meh. Mentor and library don't save you all that much XP to begin with (and note XP gain is rather slower in WOD than it is in D&D).

(4) is mostly irrelevant to balancing Tradition mages, but yeah it's got some style.

Hint: you powergame Mage by boosting your Arete to the limit, and investing as much as possible in spheres (likewise, Vampire with Generation and Disciplines, and Werewolf with Gnosis and Gifts). Your "balancing" rules don't do anything to address that.

JeenLeen
2009-09-01, 02:14 PM
Hint: you powergame Mage by boosting your Arete to the limit, and investing as much as possible in spheres (likewise, Vampire with Generation and Disciplines, and Werewolf with Gnosis and Gifts). Your "balancing" rules don't do anything to address that.

The arrays mentioned in houserule 1 have a set array for Arete and Spheres. In this instance, all start with Arete 3 and the Tradition Sphere at 3, another at 2, and a third at 1. I know I didn't state that explicitly. I also realize this is probably as high an array as one can get, maximizing freebie points to Arete.

We are allowed to have more than one focus per Sphere; we just aren't allowed to share foci amongst Spheres without raised Arete. So I could have five different devices, as a Son of Ether, for Matter effects. I just can't also have one of them be my focus for another Sphere, at least at Arete 1.


The main justification for the array houserules is that, if one power did min-max and another did not, the one that did not would feel penalized for trying to roleplay well. The DM has stated that xp awards will be influenced by roleplay, so even optimizing mindsets are encouraged to make a well-rounded character.

I appreciate everyone's responses. I hadn't foreseen that reason behind why Knowledges are cheaper. However, at the same time, I see Knowledges as about as valuable as some of the Skills or Traits. They won't come up in battle as much as Dodge or Firearms, but they are certainty important for interaction with others and the world.

Haven
2009-09-01, 02:46 PM
The main justification for the array houserules is that, if one power did min-max and another did not, the one that did not would feel penalized for trying to roleplay well. The DM has stated that xp awards will be influenced by roleplay, so even optimizing mindsets are encouraged to make a well-rounded character.

I don't really see the array thing as fixing min-maxing though. To me, the normal array just allows people a little versatility: they can choose to have a character who's really flexible but not strong, and then they'll do great at things requiring Dex but not so much at things requiring Stamina or whatever. Or they can have a more balanced set of attributes, and they won't be as good at any one thing but they won't suffer at any one task either. Both these approaches have their advantages and disadvantages--even the wiry hacker is going to have to run for their life at some point, after all.

To me, enforcing the latter actually takes away from role-playing because it's a fairly artificial constraint on the range of character concepts that can be represented. (Plus, since min-maxing is all about minimizing one's disadvantages, it seems like both approaches have something of the min-maxer about them).

As for knowledges costing less--I think that's because there are more knowledges than there are skills. From a non-balance point of view, it's also probably because it's easier to learn a new piece of knowledge than to acquire a new skill. But I'm not sure how this promotes balance--even if knowledges cost less, they cost less for everyone. I think that's just the game's way of trying to promote characters who know about lots of things, rather than being acrobatic gun-firing kung-fu stunt-driving rock stars. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, and actually I kind of want to make that my next character now that I'm thinking about it--but it's more interesting when they are also scholars of languages and ancient lore and know about spirits and the Umbra and so on.)


4) Whatever, I guess. He likes foci, so I guess he likes foci. Too much Harry Potter, maybe? I for one hate foci. I think it goes against the whole power of magic is from inside you, arising from the power of that god fragment in you thing. I think they should be allowed, but tradition mages tend to know even early on that these things are crutches. This is especially true for some traditions, like the Akashics. Hermetics and Etherites would be more apt to want to use foci. A lot of the others: not so much. The problem for me is that this gimps certain character concepts (notice, not traditions, this isn't about balance). If I want to play a self-sufficient Mage, i should be able to. there are already bonuses for using focuses for those that want them. Such bonuses should be sufficient incentive to use foci. Anyone ignoring those incentives does so for his or her own valid reasons.

I'd have to second this, a lot. The entire post makes a lot of good points, but sticking to a one-to-one correlation of foci to spheres all the time...From the point of view of the characters, the spheres are just some obscure theory of some members of the Order of Hermes. If I'm a Verbena, why won't my ritual knife help me carve out a goat's stomach if I intend to use its entrails to divine--because I've already used it to sacrifice a different goat to ask for the aid of the spirits?

In particular, I don't understand how this would work for Virtual Adepts, whose entire paradigm is computer-based.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-01, 02:55 PM
In particular, I don't understand how this would work for Virtual Adepts, whose entire paradigm is computer-based.

You use a PC for entropy rituals, and a Mac for prime... :smallbiggrin:

Haven
2009-09-01, 03:33 PM
You use a PC for entropy rituals, and a Mac for prime... :smallbiggrin:

Snerk.

Actually, Virtual Adept sabotage of the Technocracy is probably the most sensible explanation for Vista.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-01, 04:10 PM
Actually, Virtual Adept sabotage of the Technocracy is probably the most sensible explanation for Vista.
It gets funnier... the concept of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Dark Matter are all incursions of the Sons of Ether into Technocratic lore.

(and don't ask what the Taftani have done... let's not go there...)

Haven
2009-09-01, 04:34 PM
The Void Engineers insisted the Syndicate fund Star Trek after all the aliens & monsters movies ruined their image. Inspired after getting wind of this, the Akashics gained a lot of ground through their operatives Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan.

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-01, 04:41 PM
It gets funnier... the concept of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Dark Matter are all incursions of the Sons of Ether into Technocratic lore.


Don't forget M-Theory which is absolutely devastating to the Technocracy's preferred viewpoint of rigid order and absolute reality. The Union opposed parallel dimensions for a reason back in the day of Einstein.