In the cosmology of Awakening, some entities - primarily Archmages, but also some more abstract forces - can retroactively rewrite huge parts of the world as we know it. We're talking about changes which erase major deities and their religions from the past, retrocreating an ancient worldwide conspiracy that has existed since the dawn of time, or altering high cosmological facts like the existence of Watchtowers and Realms (which have since that point always been so).

While I'm impressed by the grandeur of such possibilities when viewed 'from above', I also have a series of concerns that make it harder to be invested in the 'ground level' events in such a setting (such as those related to non-Archmage PCs), and they mirror some of the concerns I've seen my players state about large retcons done by big movers and shakers in general (i.e. in other franchises):

  • The cosmic retcons have wide-spanning consequences that invalidate pretty much everything the PCs did throughout a campaign, to a degree even more drastic than an archetypal Butterfly Effect from eponymous films.
  • The retcons come with no or at best very little warning.
  • There's unlikely to be anything the PCs can do to prevent or reverse invalidation of all their prior achievements; if they even continue existing after the retcon, they're likely unrecognisable as people and neither know nor care to even try.
  • For all the talk of how a small person can make a huge difference by influencing the opinion of an Archmage at some important-in-retrospect moment, there doesn't seem to be a way for said small person to make a meaningful and informed choice of what to shift the next iteration of the world towards when 'performing' such an influence.
  • Unlike, say, a nuclear apocalypse, not only does such an event put a full stop on the future ('Today I die, but at least I lived a good life!'), but also the past ('This person never existed in the first place, and thus didn't live a good life before dying!').

Yes, I know that the characters are largely unaware of these things and so can lead lives of blissful ignorance. But I'm asking about the attitudes of players as influenced by the knowledge that all they do is likely to be 'rebooted' many times afterwards. I also understand that a typical character already has a hard time significantly influencing the big world, but in Awakening, the ability to exercise agency over the long course of existence seems even more diminished.

Is there a way to prevent the apathy that commonly accompanies the realisation that most efforts and achievements are pointless and fleeting in this setting? So far the only solution I see is connected with maintaining an 'optimistic nihilist' mentality, and that's not a mentality for everyone. Are there other ways to prevent apathy and maintain player investment?

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Is this a concern actually voiced by your players? Or a potential problem you are worried about? \$\endgroup\$ Apr 17 '19 at 17:00
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I believe that the Signs of Sorcery supplement will address this somewhat, once it is eventually released. \$\endgroup\$
    – nick012000
    Apr 17 '19 at 21:57
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @KieranMullen The full context would spawn a discussion unsuitable for comments, but in short, yes but not in an MtAw context; so this question is in an attempt to do pre-emptive research about how people handle an issue that has been raised in a different context, because I know it will be relevant if/when I try GMing MtAw or something with similar possibilities of cosmic retcons (and while I find them worrisome, I also find them fascinating). \$\endgroup\$ Apr 18 '19 at 7:15

Reframing the question

First, you might point out this is similar to the world you live in right now.

A rogue state might set off a nuclear bomb. A terrorist group might harvest Ebola and spread it at a football game. There's global warming. There are lots of things beyond your control that might ruin everything you hope for. What are people's reactions to these now?

  • Some people give in to despair.
  • Some people ignore the possibility and go on with their priorities.
  • Some people do what they can locally to make things better and try to move groups of all types to address larger scale problems.

Players might fall in the first category but that provides an interesting dramatic hook when they are confronted by someone who needs help right now. Will they ignore the pain and suffering of an innocent because someday history might get re-written?

Second, think of the issue from the point of view of those you assume are making these changes. Why do they bother to try to re-write history? After all, someone else could just come along and change it back. Their motivations might be immediate ("I want to restore my loved one and it is important to me.") or longer term ("I want to make it impossible for me to ever be deposed.") The PC's should have similar flipped motivations ("I do not want anyone to erase my loved one," or "I want to make sure that X does not come back".) The possibility that good things can be undone means that they should be fought for, not abandoned.

Third, there's Pratchett's response: the you that is dealing with some possible re-written history isn't the you dealing with the problem now. You are responsible for the decisions you make in the world as it is now.

Finally, by claiming that it's not worth doing X because it might someday be undone simply guarantees that X never gets done at all. It's self-fulfilling.


In practice, it is rarely a problem.

I have never encountered this as a problem either as a storyteller or a player. The players focus on the problems presented to their character and rarely worry about such overarching, global concerns. It is a game, and the players are generally happy to play the game.

Of course, that changes if you are playing an apocalyptic game where the final fate of the world is precisely the point, but in those games the players are often given agency, or at least the illusion thereof, to actually make a meaningful impact in the final result. In such games, it is expected that the players either are powerful beings themselves capable of interacting on such a field or they are specially positioned at a pivotal point where they can make a difference even though being generally less powerful than the other players. In that case, the problem doesn't arise because the game is set up specifically to allow the players to make a real difference. (Of course, you could try to make a philosophical point about how powerless they are through the game, but that tends to not be fun).

Consider banning that portion of the rules.

It would change very little in the setting to simply declare that such large scale re-writings of time are impossible in your version of the game. While it is hinted at occasionally in the setting description, I have only seen one book (Imperial Mysteries) that actually tries to present rules for anything more than minor changes to very recent events (which don't present the problems you are alluding to). Personally, I refuse to use Imperial Mysteries in any game where I am the storyteller anymore because I can never find a way to make those rules work.

Outside of Imperial Mysteries, there are several portions of the lore that refer to the possibility of history being rewritten, but at least as I read it, it seems to imply the last large scale revision to history came shortly after the Exarch's ascended. After that, it didn't happen because the few beings with that kind of power were held in check by other beings of equal power. With that already in the fluff, it is a very small step to state that it absolutely will not happen in the course of your game and only a slightly larger step to declare that in your version something about the ascension of the Exarchs made further major changes to history impossible so the metaphysical possibility is no longer even there.

  • \$\begingroup\$ "While it is hinted at occasionally in the setting description, I have only seen one book (Imperial Mysteries) that actually tries to present rules for anything more than minor changes to very recent events" IIRC, Book of Secrets has rules for Mages that accidentally retconing reality during their Awakening, often by erasing themselves from the timeline. \$\endgroup\$
    – nick012000
    3 hours ago

Consider why your players would play your game.

As written, your requirements are for a story that involves making all choices the players make pointless, and all investment they may have in the setting meaningless. Going by that, there is no intrinsic reason for the players to invest themselves into a setting at all.

How is the player's experience different if their character gives a bum ten thousand dollars versus shooting them in the head, if the narrative flows on the same way regardless?

If the players choices simply do not matter, at all, then why should they care at all? Why should they play the game at all?

A close analogue for the situation you are proposing is where a story ends with "it was all a dream." That is usually a very unsatisfying ending.

If you cannot answer this question, you should reconsider the situation entirely.

Consider what you are trying to achieve.

You don't elaborate on why you would do this, or what goal you are trying to fulfill.

But doing it just simply because it fits in the world's background, and for no other reason, is very close to the Storyteller version of My Guy syndrome -- it doesn't matter how much sense it makes in the context of the fictional setting if it involves everyone, or everyone but you, not having fun.

You, as the Storyteller, are in complete control of the setting of the game; you decide which elements to include and which to leave out. Doing something "because that's what makes sense in the setting" is just trying to disclaim responsibility for a decision that you are still the one making. If you run a game where player's choices ultimately don't matter, that is because you are choosing to do so, not because of the setting.

If you cannot answer this question, you should reconsider the situation entirely.

Possible solutions

  • Don't do it.
  • Do it, but relax the guidelines: perhaps the characters are not affected by the retcon for whatever reason (perhaps they can even interact with their retcon'ed selves).
  • Do it, but relax the guidelines: make the player's choices matter. Maybe they play entirely different characters in each iteration of reality, but there is an overarching, but cohesive, story that the players can interact with. Perhaps the player's choices influence what the next iteration of reality looks like, and over time that builds to some narrative event that shapes the setting outside of the retcons. The players can then enjoy and become invested in the cohesive narrative.
  • Do it, but relax the guidelines: make it part of the plot instead of an event that happens without warning at any time. Allow the PCs to have an effect. Maybe it is difficult to do and could be stopped. Maybe it can be prepared for, allowing one to avoid being retcon'ed themselves, or keep "past life" memories, or escape to another realm. The point here isn't that the players have to win -- maybe they are as relevant to an archmage as an ant is to a human -- but they should at least be able to do something of relevance.

In my fanon at least, this issue is addressed by having archmages actually have no such effect. They instead create a connection to a parallel universe where the effect they desired was always reality.

The archmage may indeed think they have returned to a changed world, because that is exactly what it looks like to them. Mechanically, it works exactly as written in Imperial Mysteries, but the original universe remains unchanged (except perhaps that the archmage has now disappeared).

If your PCs are actually working for the archmage, she may bring them with her (probably they would need to be in her Golden Road at the time). But otherwise, don't retcon the entire universe from under the feet of your players. If one of your players is an archmage, then that is a separate question, because they are driving the change, but otherwise it doesn't seem to make a very meaningful story.

New contributor
orathaic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.

Time 2 is sufficient to protect against this.

The Practice of Shielding is sufficient to protect against any effect that falls within its Arcanum, and it only requires 2 dots in that Arcanum to cast. As such, a Time 2 Shielding spell should be sufficient to protect a Mage against history being rewritten. While this would provoke a Clash of Wills if the Shielded Mage was directly targeted by an effect to write them out of history, I don't think that a generalised rewrite that retconned the setting as a whole would do so.

Additionally, such an effect should set off the Passive Mage Sight of every Mage within the area of the effect, and any Mage with Time would likely be able to scrutinise the resulting Mystery to figure out what changed and thereby earn Arcane XP.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .