Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (
More info?)
"Charles Talleyrand" <rappleto@nmu.edu> wrote in message news:<10k4tr8a7ej35a9@corp.supernews.com>...
> Obviously one can debate the definition of Vulgar and
> Coincidental in Mage. Does anyone know the game creators
> actual view on the subject?
>
> Of course I am aware of White Wolfs Rule #0: "Don't let the
> rules stop the fun." But I imagine that the game designers did have
> a clear understanding of what they wanted. Or if they just wanted
> to leave things ambiguous, does anyone know how they play when
> they play themselves?
Several years ago, Jess Heinig remarked in a couple of discussions
that, in his view, coincidental magic was an event that *could* have
happened without magical intervention.
My personal addendum to that is follows: "Could" does not mean "could"
in the sense of according to a microcosmic analysis of the casual
factors around a particular event. It means "could" in relationship to
the detail in an RPG session.
Under that interpretation, teleporting a gun into your pocket is,
indeed, vulgar without witnesses, barring some sort of opportunity for
the gun to appear that the player and GM can decide would be a
reasonable part of the narrative.
*However*, you must understand something of Jess' design philosophy,
as far as I've understood it, when it pertains to Mage.
While there are points of uncertainty in the text that came about as
the result of the less than ideal scheduling and organizational
factors involved in the book (see Elizabeth's cut text about the
Technocracy), there are other points of *intentional* ambiguity,
because Jess believed that the GM should take a relatively strong hand
in interpreting various factors. Resonance is an example of this.
What this means, is that you should not necessarily consider Jess'
answer aswer in light of the fact that he probably preferred it if you
answered it yourself.
Bill prefers a somewhat tighter default state for systems. I haven't
talked to him about coincidental versus vulgar magic. *However*, if
you look at the MSTH, page 11, you'll see that the FAQ repeats Jess'
previous statements (and an example similar to the gun in coat -- the
"discreet bathroom door teleport" -- is mentioned). It was also
written by Jess and signed off on by Bill. Thus, from the perspective
of developer intent, you have an answer, but the developers probably
*didn't* intend for you to cleave to it with any particularly huge
commitment.
M.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram