NWOD Vulgar definition

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> Quoting from the WW web site ...
>
>
>>Vulgar magic works outside the bounds of reality. Vulgar
>>magic produces an effect that could not possibly occur through
>>the normal laws of physics, or whose probability of occurrence
>>is so high as to be unthinkable.
>
>
>>Vulgar magic is by definition showy, accomplishing the
>>impossible right before your eyes. Using vulgar spells, mages
>>can fly through the air, transform into creatures out of
>>legend, throw fire and lightning, and literally turn the world
>>upside down. But reality rebels against such magic, so mages
>>pay a price for vulgar spells.
>
>
> For some, I think this will change the definition of "vulgar".
> Consider a character who has *never* had the chance to steal my car
> keys. If they suddenly without explanation appear in the character's
> pocket, this definition says this *cannot* be vulgar, as it is not
> "showy". Some Storytellers would have made this vulgar before.
>
> BTW, if this is the best definition the finished book has of vulgar,
> then they have not ended the debates. Reasonable people can disagree
> in important ways with "what is vulgar" given this definition. I assume
> they are aware of the debates, and have chosen not to provide a
> definitive answer. I wish they had been more clear, or at least said
> "Here is our definition, but feel free to use yours".

It looks like the "universal omniscience observer" (Stephenls, correct
me if I am wrong on the terminology) is now the "official" position.
But you should feel you need "permission" from the book's writers to
change where the line between coincidental and vulgar lies in your
games. Roleplaying sourcebooks are essentially recipes; you are welcome
to experiment with the ingredients.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
 >> Stay informed about: NWOD Vulgar definition 

"Charles Talleyrand" <kitplane01.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121062877.679541.288300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Quoting from the WW web site ...
>
> >Vulgar magic works outside the bounds of reality. Vulgar
> >magic produces an effect that could not possibly occur through
> >the normal laws of physics, or whose probability of occurrence
> >is so high as to be unthinkable.
>
> >Vulgar magic is by definition showy, accomplishing the
> >impossible right before your eyes. Using vulgar spells, mages
> >can fly through the air, transform into creatures out of
> >legend, throw fire and lightning, and literally turn the world
> >upside down. But reality rebels against such magic, so mages
> >pay a price for vulgar spells.
>
> For some, I think this will change the definition of "vulgar".
> Consider a character who has *never* had the chance to steal my car
> keys. If they suddenly without explanation appear in the character's
> pocket, this definition says this *cannot* be vulgar, as it is not
> "showy". Some Storytellers would have made this vulgar before.

Ok, I've carefully read it three times now, and as far as I can see, the
only way you can get "Coincidental" out of the act you described is if you
*completely* ignore the first paragraph in favor of the second. By
definition, if a Mage has *never* had the opportunity to steal your car keys
or get his hands on them in any other way, then his having them must be an
effect "-that could not possibly occur through the normal laws of physics,
or whose probability of occurrence is so high as to be unthinkable."

Just because you don't *see* the "showy" doesn't mean it wasn't.
Transforming into an armored tooth & claw demonic killing machine in a
pitch-black room & subsequently eviscerating your enemies therein isn't
"showy", technically, since no one can see it/knows what's going on. But it
certainly is something "-that could not possibly occur through the normal
laws of physics, or whose probability of occurrence is so high as to be
unthinkable."

As far as I see it, paragraph the first supercedes paragraph the second. But
that's just me...

> BTW, if this is the best definition the finished book has of vulgar,
> then they have not ended the debates. Reasonable people can disagree
> in important ways with "what is vulgar" given this definition. I assume
> they are aware of the debates, and have chosen not to provide a
> definitive answer. I wish they had been more clear, or at least said
> "Here is our definition, but feel free to use yours".

Seems pretty clear to me, though I'm sure plenty of people will be pushing
what can and cannot "-possibly occur through the normal laws of physics-"
and is or isn't a "-probability of occurrence- -so high as to be
unthinkable."

> -Charles Talleyrand
>
 >> Stay informed about: NWOD Vulgar definition 

Richard Clayton wrote:

> It looks like the "universal omniscience observer" (Stephenls,
> correct me if I am wrong on the terminology) is now the "official"
> position.

Seems more like Hypothetical Average Observer than Hypothetical
Omniscient Observer to me. HYPs can see into your pockets, which would
make the "pull nonexistent change out of my pocket" rote vulgar, and we
know it isn't. HAP is limited to seeing over your shoulder.

But I never liked those acronyms anyway. The new magic system seems to
involve symbolic context... which actually makes a degree of sense.
It's easier to pull nonexistent change out of your pocket than out of
thin air because pulling change out of your pocket conforms to the
regular pattern of events that reality supports, even if there's a
magical cheat in the middle of it. Pulling it out of thin air leaves
reality saying "What, are you not even /trying/?"

Actually, I think I like the term "symbolic context."
--
Stephenls
"Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Pirsig's Analytical Knife"
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
-Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon
 >> Stay informed about: NWOD Vulgar definition 

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>
> For some, I think this will change the definition of "vulgar".
> Consider a character who has *never* had the chance to steal my car
> keys. If they suddenly without explanation appear in the character's
> pocket, this definition says this *cannot* be vulgar, as it is not
> "showy". Some Storytellers would have made this vulgar before.

I agree, this nWoD definition of vulgar definitely differs from my
system. Even more clearly than the old WoD did. Whether or not I'll
adopt this system remains to be seen, I think I'll have to see the whole
book to decide.

> BTW, if this is the best definition the finished book has of vulgar,
> then they have not ended the debates. Reasonable people can disagree
> in important ways with "what is vulgar" given this definition. I assume
> they are aware of the debates, and have chosen not to provide a
> definitive answer. I wish they had been more clear, or at least said
> "Here is our definition, but feel free to use yours".

It's true, the debates aren't over, but I think the designers had to
balance clarity of rules with the flexibility they wanted the system to
provide. That was always the main issue in the old system too, I
suppose, but that's the problem with trying to make a system that
literally lets people do *anything.*
 >> Stay informed about: NWOD Vulgar definition 

> It's true, the debates aren't over, but I think the designers had to
> balance clarity of rules with the flexibility they wanted the system to
> provide. That was always the main issue in the old system too, I
> suppose, but that's the problem with trying to make a system that
> literally lets people do *anything.*

They did *not* have to achieve a balance between flexibility and
clarity by being unclear. They could have instead given several
clear rules, and said "pick the one you want, but for official
tournements use rule #1".
 >> Stay informed about: NWOD Vulgar definition 

Stephenls wrote:
> Richard Clayton wrote:
>
>> It looks like the "universal omniscience observer" (Stephenls,
>> correct me if I am wrong on the terminology) is now the "official"
>> position.
>
>
> Seems more like Hypothetical Average Observer than Hypothetical
> Omniscient Observer to me. HYPs can see into your pockets, which would
> make the "pull nonexistent change out of my pocket" rote vulgar, and we
> know it isn't. HAP is limited to seeing over your shoulder.
>
> But I never liked those acronyms anyway. The new magic system seems to
> involve symbolic context... which actually makes a degree of sense. It's
> easier to pull nonexistent change out of your pocket than out of thin
> air because pulling change out of your pocket conforms to the regular
> pattern of events that reality supports, even if there's a magical cheat
> in the middle of it. Pulling it out of thin air leaves reality saying
> "What, are you not even /trying/?"
>
> Actually, I think I like the term "symbolic context."

I like it too.
But the point about change from your pocket as opposed to change from
thin air fits with my own interpretation of magic in Mage Revised.
Similar to the "Rule of Ouch" from Wraith, I used the "Rule of 'That's
Impossible.'" If a casual bystander would look at your magic and say
"That's impossible," or otherwise express astonishment and disbelief, it
is vulgar. Otherwise it is coincidental. So pulling a coin, a ten dollar
bill, or even a pistol from your jacket pocket is coincidental. Pulling
out a thousand-dollar bill, a live pigeon, or an assault rifle is vulgar.
Not very scientific, I admit, but it worked fine for my games.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
 >> Stay informed about: NWOD Vulgar definition 

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> They did *not* have to achieve a balance between flexibility and
> clarity by being unclear. They could have instead given several
> clear rules, and said "pick the one you want, but for official
> tournements use rule #1".

Giving a list of different rules may have been clearer, but I doubt
it would have absolved all ambiguity. Remember that when I say
"flexible" I mean the system literally allows players to do anything
they can imagine. In many of the most disputed cases here on a.g.ww,
the rules calls hinged on specific situations encountered by PCs. Short
of defining a list of what is vulgar and what is not for ALL possible
examples, I don't see how they could have had it both ways. Needless to
say, providing such a list would be unfeasible for many reasons, time
and cost the foremost among them.
 >> Stay informed about: NWOD Vulgar definition