[Mage] Chantry Design 101

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

I'm not sure what the general feeling towards Ex Libris Nocturnis is
around here, but right now I'm paging through a pretty interesting
article on potential elements to include in one's chantry:
http://www.nocturnis.net/articles/mage/288/page1.html

The only thing is I don't think I'd charge points for any of this stuff;
certainly not things like the merits and flaws. Escher Architecture?
Inexplicablism? These are things that should be going on in chantries
(and sanctums) by default.

Well, maybe not default, but they'd certainly be entertaining in the
right game and I wouldn't want to snare up all the fun in point counting.

--
Tyler

m o c t o d o o h a y t a h c t i v o n i l b

Bac>|wards

 

[william]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Tyler Dion wrote:
> I'm not sure what the general feeling towards Ex Libris Nocturnis is
> around here, but right now I'm paging through a pretty interesting
> article on potential elements to include in one's chantry:
> http://www.nocturnis.net/articles/mage/288/page1.html
>
> The only thing is I don't think I'd charge points for any of this stuff;
> certainly not things like the merits and flaws. Escher Architecture?
> Inexplicablism? These are things that should be going on in chantries
> (and sanctums) by default.
>
> Well, maybe not default, but they'd certainly be entertaining in the
> right game and I wouldn't want to snare up all the fun in point counting.
>

The author really likes subdividing his attributes. I don't why he
didn't just break with character naming conventions totally.

I agree, a lot of the merits and flaws shouldn't need points spent on
them. Many should be functions of the mages living in the chantry rather
than the chantry itself. The same applies to several of the
"backgrounds"- they really are pointlessly duplicating individuals
backgrounds. Sanctum is a particularly bad background for a chantry, as
it will only work for a few individuals of nearly identical paradigm at
most. Many of the "invested" backgrounds are like this, though I agree
they should be available for the chantry as a whole in addition to what
individual members bring with them.

William

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

In article <38d38vF5p2hpuU1@individual.net>, William
<wilit0613@postoffice.uri.edu> wrote:

> The author really likes subdividing his attributes. I don't why he
> didn't just break with character naming conventions totally.

Beg pardon?

> I agree, a lot of the merits and flaws shouldn't need points spent on
> them. Many should be functions of the mages living in the chantry rather
> than the chantry itself. The same applies to several of the
> "backgrounds"- they really are pointlessly duplicating individuals
> backgrounds.

And honestly, what's the gain in donating background points to the
chantry? You might as well just put towards the personal equivalent and
share the resources as you see fit.

Wasn't there a system in Book of Chantries or GttTrads or something
where points invested in a chantry's resources actually offered a higher
effective return, because the resources were shared and thus prone to
all the entanglements that sharing connotes?

(As an aside, forgive the point-mongering talk, but it's always been
something that bothers me about WW games. So many cool things to do and
be, and they all cost precious, precious points. There are never enough!)

> Sanctum is a particularly bad background for a chantry, as
> it will only work for a few individuals of nearly identical paradigm at
> most.

Well, I suppose it depends on how you're playing. It'd work better for
mono-Tradition chantries than the eclectic ones that MageRev describes
springing up.

Actually, it's got me thinking about the ramifications of all the cabals
in a mono-Tradition chantry working to make the entire property one
enormous sanctum. Take technocrats encroaching on a Verbena farming
community, for instance. Agents surreptitiously try to pollenate the
area with GMO seeds -- in order to initiate intellectual property theft
charges and cause financially devastating legal battles -- and find
their technology inexplicably fails. And *then* night falls.

> Many of the "invested" backgrounds are like this, though I agree
> they should be available for the chantry as a whole in addition to what
> individual members bring with them.

The way it's described in the article, there's no real benefit to
characters donating their resources to a chantry. It's basically the
same as if they'd kept them for themselves and bartered for access to
other resources ("I'll recharge your periapt if your totem intercedes on
my behalf with that Umbrood preceptor.")

It's a great resource, though, for coming up with the frosting on a
chantry, making it more than where the mages hang out. I love the
Superimposition merit. Reminds me of IM Foreman's time-travelling
freakshow in Lawrence Miles' "Doctor Who" novels.

--
Tyler

m o c t o d o o h a y t a h c t i v o n i l b

Bac>|wards