Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (
More info?)
Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Vis Sierra wrote:
> > Nod. Foci generally should not make things coincidental, unless
> > they act as a medium for the effect (in my opinion). A jet-pack
> > may make a flying effect coincidental because it's acting as the
> > medium. Things that don't actually act to cause an effect would
> > potentially excuse witnesses, but they wouldn't make things that
> > would be vulgar coincidental.
>
> > YMMV.
>
> I think you have it backwards. Foci shouldn't make coincidental things
> vulgar, but they're capable of making vulgar things coincidental.
Agreed, though that depends on what you mean by "make vulgar."
If a mage can fly coincidentally using a jet-pack but another
must use vulgar magic to get a broomstick off the ground, the
use of a mystic focus arguably 'makes the effect vulgar' as a
technomantic or mundanely technological approach could do the
same without going vulgar.
Anyway, my point was that foci that play don't play a role in the
creation of effects, according to static reality, would generally
play no part in whether an effect is coincidental or vulgar.
It's hard to explain this without circular logic, but here goes:
If you wave a dead chicken in a circle to get a computer to work,
static reality doesn't recognize an association between the focus
and the effect. As a result, the focus has no effect whatsoever
in determining whether the effect is coincidental or vulgar.
If you strap on a jet-pack and take off, there is a connection
between focus and effect that can be accepted /or rejected/ by
static reality. If it's a realistic jet-pack, the effect is a
coincidental one. The jet-pack is acting as a medium, bridging
the impossible and possible.
If you build a liquid-metal HIT Mark, there's a connect between
the focus and the effect that is recognizable /but rejected by/
static reality. The HIT Mark VI suffers Paradox/Unbelief as a
result.
The point of this way of looking at foci is that you can split
the question in two: does the focus seem to play a causal part
in the effect, and is that cause credible?
If the focus is not inherent to the effect, according to static
reality, it's not a factor. The question is whether the effect
is incredible, not whether the carwash causing it is incredible.
If the focus is inherent, having an apparent causal relationship
to the effect, you can judge whether there is enough support for
it in static reality to explain the effect. The question here is
whether such a small jet-pack is incredible, because it is seen
as the cause.
It's just a way to break it down to help analyze the problem in
two (smaller, clearer) steps instead of one.
Vis Sierra