Tal como acontece com the problema de vampiro para cadeira de jardim, envolvia Magia de Matéria no Mago 1e. Um dos exemplos listados de "mágica coincidente" para Matter foi "transmutar balas no ar" com a coincidência de "a arma nunca foi carregada". Agora, exemplos anteriores no livro de mágicas coincidentes no livro sugeriam que, para ser mágica mágica, a coincidência tinha que ser algo que poderia ocorrer , mesmo que improvável. As balas, por si só, não se transformam em ar, portanto, muito tempo e bits da Internet foram gastos tentando racionalizar esses dois ... coisas paradoxais.
O exemplo canônico se tornou "Você pode curar o dano de uma bala coincidentemente puxando um frasco de uísque do seu bolso (como é sugerido na página 248 do livro de regras principal da 1ª Edição Mago: a Ascensão ) mesmo que nem o frasco ou bolso estivesse lá antes ? " Afinal, ambas as coisas são razoáveis. O consenso congrega com você para que isso aconteça com algo como Matéria ou Vida 2? Ou você precisa realmente conjurar um frasco com Matter e Prime para que isso funcione.
Este foi considerado um tópico importante de discussão desde
HAP\HOP\HYP|RBD/PBD is a way of categorizing different approaches to running magic in oMage. HAP/HOP/HYP is one axis, and RBD/PBD is the other.
Axis The First
HAP/HOP/HYP is a method of determining whether effects are vulgar or coincidental. In its simplest form, it's a way of addressing the question "Can reality see into your pockets?"
Say you want a business card to hand to a guy you just met. You don't have one. You do have Matter 2 and Prime 2, though, which will let you create one from nothing. If you create a business card in your pocket and then hand it to him, with the coincidence "I just happened to have it in my pocket all along, really," is that coincidental, or vulgar?
According to the Hypothetical Average Perceiver theory, it's coincidental. This also lets you make a lucky whiskey flask, or do the "No, actually, I did remember to load my gun with silver bullets this morning" thing. It's supported in some places in the text of the game.
According to the Hypothetical Omniscient Perceiver theory, it's vulgar. Reality can see into your pockets. It's not possible to "coincidentally" create anything from nothing. The whiskey flask trick doesn't work unless you actually did have a whiskey flask, and just used whatever spell to make the bullet hit it and not you.
Harass Yonder Passerby is a joke. It's included in the HAP/HOP/HYP trinity because of tradition.
...
There are problems with both interpretations. On the one hand, if Hypothetical Average Perceiver works, then can I make money by summoning it into my wallet, even if there's nobody around to hear me when I say "Oh, look, I've got enough money to afford [whatever it is I'm trying to buy] after all!"? What about if I just summon the money into an empty room? Where does "Coincidental" end and "Vulgar without witnesses" begin under this model?
On the other hand, if you run Hypothetical Omniscient Perceiver too strictly, then suddenly no magic is coincidental at all. Reality saw the trajectory of that bullet, it saw your Entropy effect to adjust it, it knows you cast a spell, so that's vulgar. This applies equally to any spell you want to cast.
(I favor games that run under "loose" Hypothetical Omniscient Perceiver. My friend favors games that run on HAP.)
Axis The Second
RBD/PBD was created to explain the taxi.
So, I'm casting a Correspondence spell to move myself from one place to another. I want it to manifest as a convenient taxi that hits all the green lights and the driver forgets to charge me for the ride at the end of it. I could teleport, but that'd be vulgar, and I want coincidental. Can I do this, and if so, how?
According to Result-Based Determinism, the final result of the spell is all that matters. I can use Correspondence 3 to call up a useful taxi, as long as I'm willing to wait for however long it takes to show up (which is, usually, how long it takes for the spell to affect the nearest actual taxi and manipulate events so that it does what I want), as long as the only actual benefit I get from the spell, in the end, is that I get from point A to point B quickly and free.
According to Process-Based Determinism, I can't do this. Not with just Correspondence. Possibly with just Entropy, though, if I get enough successes, or, failing that, with Correspondence to locate the nearest taxi, Correspondence and Mind to ranged-mind-control the driver to me, Correspondence and Entropy together to plot a lucky course through traffic, Mind to mind-control the driver along the course, and Mind at the end to make him forget to charge me. Or, failing that, Prime and Matter to create the taxi, Prime and Life to create the driver, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum, and this last version ends up vulgar as hell.
...
I favor Result-Based Determinism, because it solves the Entropy Problem (which is, under PBD you can use just Entropy to do anything, because Entropy manipulates the chance of events to occur, and theoretically anything could occur), and because it goes nicely with "loose HOP."
The two most common types of oMage players on the Internet are Average/Process, and Omniscient/Result. They get into huge arguments. EDIT: Or they did, until we invented HAP\HOP\HYP|RBD/PBD on the Mage forum to stop them. Then they mostly got into arguments over which was official, until Malcolm Sheppard showed up and said "None. The writers don't think about this [stuff] nearly as hard as you all do. Christ." Or something to that effect.
E esse é o conto da garrafa de uísque: é o símbolo dos jogadores do Mago tentando entender as explicações ruins e o texto contraditório do jogo para tornar o jogo que eles amavam jogável.
[^ HYP]: "Harass Yonder Passerby", a propósito, é: encontre alguém na rua onde você está jogando e pergunte se ele acredita que o efeito mágico proposto é plausível. Se sim, coincidência. Se não, vulgar.