Mage: The Ascension FAQ


Lots of people have lots of questions about Mage. Many of those questions have no black-and-white answers - after all, this is a game about dueling realities. Even so, some issues come up across the table - and on the internet, and in my mailbox - again and again. I think it's time I gave some straight answers.
The following collection of inquiries comes from the upcoming The Book of Mirrors Mage Storytellers Guide. For the sake of sanity and simplicity, I'm not going over first edition questions that were answered in second edition. Many of the old issues are resolved in that book's Chapters Two, Eight and Nine, and all of the references I make come from the current rules, not the original ones. Naturally, I can't - and won't - answer every conceivable question; Mage is a game of mystery and enigmas. Shining a light into every corner would be an impossible task, and would take a lot of the fun out of the game.


Mage is a big game. Where does a new Storyteller start?

With the people. That's where good stories always begin. Find an idea that excites you, one that suits your players and your style. Each game is a mirror of the people who play it. Find the elements that appeal to you and work from there.
The main rulebook has everything you need to run a basic game; the supplements offer additional options and in-depth lore that the rulebook can't contain. Core supplements (those with neat important stuff) include The Book of Shadows, The Book of Madness, The Book of Mirrors and Beyond the Barriers: The Book of Worlds.


What advice can you offer a Mage Storyteller, especially one who's never run RPGs before?

First of all, don't panic. Mage has lots of possibilities, but that doesn't mean you have to use them all. Build the story around something you can sink your teeth into. Set some guidelines for your players and their character types - no Virtual Adepts, all characters come from the same neighborhood, that sort of thing - and stick to your vision. Familiarize yourself with the magick systems in the main rulebook; if things seem too complicated, avoid the "Permutations" section and just use the basics. Set a single focus for the chronicle - say a nightclub where everybody goes on Fridays - and expand when you feel comfortable doing so.
Personally, I recommend beginning players before their Awakenings, or just afterward, setting an upper limit of 2 or 3 on Arete and Spheres. That gives you room to move - the players can't do anything too heinous yet - and reinforces the idea that Mage is about growth, not raw power.
Most importantly, have fun. Get into the atmosphere of mystery. Improvise. Describe. Set your tale in motion with a simple story and let the players move it. Trying to force a Mage game in a predetermined direction is asking for trouble, but you can still keep things within certain bounds by limiting the power level and leaving some of the more outrageous elements (Quiet, Realms, the Umbra) out of the game until you're ready for them.
Keep the world mysterious - wizards won't be hanging out on every corner. Few people even believe magick exists in this world, and even fewer know anything about it. When magick appears, describe how it feels. Ask your players what they do to use their Arts - not just the game mechanics, but the actions their characters take. Encourage your troupe to be imaginative. A cool story is better than a pile of corpses - or an endless argument.


Can a vampire/werecreature/changeling/wraith become a mage, or vice versa? How about ghouls or Kinfolk? Why don't these creatures get Paradox when what they do clearly violates "reality"?

No, no, no, no and no. Mages can be ghouls (or vice versa), but drinking Kindred blood stimulates a taste for more of the same. That's a dangerous habit, even for a mage, and may lead to a Blood Bond - or a blood hunt. As for shapeshifter Kin, there's no reason why one couldn't Awaken, but there's no real "system" benefit from doing so. Both "types" are immune to the Delirium (see below) and either one could be a friend, an enemy or both to the Changing Breeds.
The theories about Paradox and other supernatural creatures are many and varied. No, they don't get Paradox as a rule. Why not? For simplicity's sake, let's just say that what they do conforms to "static" boundaries. Those powers work the same way each time with the same limitations. A Curse of Aeolus Gift creates a wall of fog. That's it. Nothing else. A mage can do the same thing with Matter or Forces magick, but she can do a great deal more. A werewolf is limited to the powers Gaia gave him, while a mage is limited only by her understanding and skill. The price for that potential is Paradox, the force that kicks in when you push reality too far, too quickly. Mages do that. The others don't.


Can a mage regenerate damage? Can she soak aggravated wounds? Is healing injuries vulgar or coincidental magick?

No and no. Some "house rules" might offer a mage a soak roll against vampire and Garou claws and teeth, if only for survival. Strictly speaking, though, a mystick needs Life magick to soak or heal aggravated damage. Mages are mortal, and mortals bleed. A lot.
The third answer depends on the injury; healing a broken arm could be coincidental ("It's just sprained"), so long as the bone isn't sticking out of the skin. Healing a severe burn would be vulgar, but healing internal injuries wouldn't be. In general, assume that if a person watching the operation would say "That can't be!", the healing is vulgar.
Oh, yeah; healing aggravated wounds is always vulgar. Sorry.


Are mages immune to the Delirium that most shapeshifters provoke?

Yes. This doesn't mean that a 10-foot-tall werewolf doesn't scare a mage (it'd scare the hell out of me!), just that he won't go running off in blind panic.


Why do so many Mage books contradict each other?

With a few exceptions (like rules changes between first and second editions), they don't. They just seem to contradict each other because they're often told from a subjective viewpoint rather than an objective one. If you're used to an objective view - "This is. Period" - the difference can be confusing. The subjective viewpoint - "This is so because I see it that way." - offers one part of the story. As we know, though, all stories have different perspectives.
Take history, for example: Read an account of the American Revolution in a United States textbook. Now imagine it from a British perspective - a bunch of spoiled colonists rejecting fair rule by their sovereign state. We can safely assume their textbooks tell a different story. Take an American war movie like The Longest Day and contrast it with a German one like Das Boot. Who are you rooting for now?
Get the picture? Reality is never as cut-and-dried as we would like it to be. And that's one of the main ideas in Mage. Reality is flexible, and everyone has their version.
One of my all-time favorite movies, Akira Kurosawa's Rashamon, tells the story of the same crime from four different perspectives. Each person has a different version of the events. A tribunal trying to get to the bottom of the case is baffled, and the men discussing it outside the court are even more confused. "Who knows what truth is?" one man finally says, and that's what I'm getting at in Mage. The absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. The supplements are designed accordingly.
The only things to take for granted in a Mage book are presented in game text, usually with the words "In game terms, this means." Everything else is up for grabs. I do this for two reasons: One, I like a subjective world. It's more intriguing and mysterious, and reflects the themes of the game better than a world set in stone. Two, it leaves writers and Storytellers room to move. I hate it when a player says "But it says on page 32 that all Technocrats live in Paris" while I'm running a tale set in London. By leaving the doors of possibility open, Mage becomes more flexible. Everyone has a story, and those stories are richer for their apparent "contradictions."


Why aren't the Chantry, Familiar, Resources or Sanctum Backgrounds given in the main rulebook?

Long story. They're available in The Book of Shadows, the Mage Players Guide, and were originally included in the second edition rulebook. The first version of that book ran far too long to be printed, however, and many things had to go. Since the Backgrounds existed elsewhere, they were cut (the other material went into Hidden Lore: The Second Edition Book and Screen). Since the cuts were made while the book was in the layout stage, we missed the reference to them on the Character Creation Process chart. Even then, that reference is only half a mistake; the Backgrounds are still available, just not in the main rulebook.


When are you coming out with The Nephandi Players Guide?

I'm not. Period. I'm as open-minded as the next person (and more open-minded than most), but the idea of a Players Guide for mages dedicated to corruption strikes me as careless and offensive. Vampires aren't real. Werewolves aren't real. Faeries aren't real. Ghosts may be real, but who wants to die to find out? Magick, to some degree, is real. Many people practice it. To make black magic seem cool is asking for trouble of all different kinds.


Do we have to play members of the nine Traditions? Must I use the Ascension War as my chronicle setting?

Not at all. You can run a Technocracy game, a Crafts game or a mixed-group chronicle, so long as the characters have some reason to be together. Your characters can avoid the factions altogether and forge their own destinies (see "Solitaries" in Mage, pages 55-56); my own player-character mage is a loner with no Tradition or alliance. Although I hesitate to suggest a Nephandi chronicle (the issue of black magick strikes a little too close to home; see above), and feel that a Marauder one would be problematic, they're always options if you're willing to do the work (see The Book of Madness, Chapters One and Three). The Council merely provides one of several options within the Ascension War.
As a symbol of change, order, balance and decay, the Ascension War itself provides both a backdrop for adventure and a powerful allegory. It's also a logical progression from the question "What if you really could mold reality this way?" I think it's reasonable to assume that, given magick's powers, secret societies would spring up and vie for world domination. Mortal nations have done it throughout human existence, so why should magickal societies be any different? The forces those societies represent tie into the metaphysical heart of the game; the struggle between them represents the dance of creation itself. Finally, the Ascension War provides us all with a forum for debate and satire. The writers and artists who create the game books make many subtle (and not-so-subtle) commentaries throughout the line, and individual Storytellers can pack their chronicles with as many political and social observations as they desire. In short, the Ascension War provides us with a lot of raw material and a framework for building with it.
If the conflict doesn't work for you, however, scrap it and do what you will. If you want a game setting without an Ascension War, then by all means pitch the idea. The only constants in a Mage game should be:
- The idea that magick is a real and viable force;
- That magick stretches the boundaries between what is "real" and what is not;
- That magick carries the weight of responsibility, whether you like it or not; and.
- That the mage transforms both herself and the world around her through her Arts.
The Ascension War provides a conflict dynamic for Mage's setting and a metaphor for the forces involved, but it's hardly the only way to play the game. One of Mage's greatest strengths (and most intimidating aspects) is that there isn't a "right" way to play it. It's as open-ended as you want it to be.


Does a character have to stay within his original Tradition? Does everyone within a Tradition practice the same magick style?

No to both questions. Traditions are social groups, not magickal castes. Some are more formal than others, but all of them offer their members some flexibility. Obviously, they mandate some kind of instruction (the magick styles mentioned in the group descriptions) and order, but they rarely hold a member who wants to leave.
In the beginning, the Council formed around three things: magickal practices, cultural backgrounds and mystic philosophies. Over the last 500 years they've favored the last two qualifications over the first one, and have considered philosophy more important than anything else. The early Traditions insisted on orthodoxy, but they soon threw the idea out when it became impractical. Nowadays a mage uses whatever tools she prefers.
There are common elements, of course. Hermetic masters don't teach their apprentices pagan blood magick, and Virtual Adepts don't build Frankenstein monsters. People tend to be drawn to others like themselves, so most mages within a given Tradition practice similar magicks. Even so, the Tradition provides a community, not a commandment. Some Verbena use computers. Some Ecstatics use them, too. Some Virtual Adepts prefer to work their magick through musical instruments, while their Dreamspeaker friends talk to the sprits of power tools. Diversity is the cornerstone of the Council of Nine; so long as a mage agrees with the idea behind the magick, the form she uses to channel it is unimportant.
A mage who leaves one Tradition for another might be considered flaky, even dangerous. Magick requires discipline, and while the Traditions value imagination, they frown on people who can't make up their minds. The rivalries within the Council (and the enemies outside) make trust a valuable trait. A mystick who shuttles between different groups seems untrustworthy; one who leaves the Council entirely seems treasonous. Even so, some mages forswear allegiance to the Tradition that trained them. Most even live to tell about it. Quitting is not a capitol offense.
The Conventions are a lot more rigid. Technocrats consider themselves parts in an important machine, and they don't take well to people who refuse to fit in. Malcontents rarely end up in the Technocracy's ranks to begin with. If the Union's ideals don't scare them off, its screening process often weeds them out.


The upper levels of the Spheres are really powerful. Why don't the archmages simply wish the Technocracy out of existence? Why doesn't the Inner Circle mount an all-out attack against Horizon? Why do all these ultra-powerful mages plot and plan instead of wipe each other out?

For the same reason the U.S., the Soviet Union and China didn't just settle their differences the old-fashioned way during the Cold War: mutually assured destruction. If your rival has the same weapons you have, and any one of you could wipe the floor with creation as it is, it's suicide to whip out the nukes and let fly. There's a tremendous amount of reality at an archmage's fingertips. No one wants to be on the receiving end of it if he gets mad. Multiply that power by a dozen or more and you'll see why Doissetep is a hotbed of intrigue instead of a battleground. If every archmage in the Chantry dealt with his problems as an angry mortal might, the place would've become a crater centuries ago. If all the rival mysticks did the same Well, draw your own conclusions.



Mage: The Ascension Archive


[ Poetry Corner ] [ Short Story Forum ] [ Vampire Pub II ] [ Music Jukebox ]
[ Role-Play Forum ] [ Guestbook ] [ Other Links ] [ Return Home ] [ Credits/Copyrights ] [ Email ]


Copyright © 1996 - 1997
Created by Wolf Pack Inc, Friday, August 29, 1997
Most recent revision Tuesday, September 30, 1997