As with the vampire-to-lawn-chair problem, it involved Matter magick in Mage 1e. One of the examples listed of "coincidental magick" for Matter was "transmuting bullets into air" with the coincidence of "the gun was never loaded." Now, earlier examples in the book of coincidental magick in the book suggested that to be coincidental magick, the coincidence had to be something that could occur, even if unlikely. Bullets do not, on their own, turn into air, so a lot of time and Internet bits were spent trying to rationalize these two… ahem, Paradoxical things.

The canonical example became "Can you heal the damage from a bullet coincidentally by pulling a whiskey flask from your pocket (as is suggested on page 248 of the 1st Edition Mage: the Ascension core rulebook) even if neither the flask or pocket was there before?" After all, both of those things are reasonable. Does the Consensus collude with you to make it happen with something like Matter, or even Life 2? Or do you need to actually conjure a flask with Matter and Prime for that to work.

This was considered a hot topic of discussion as far back as, again, 1994. The online FAQ for Mage back in 1999 addressed the issue only vaguely, and Mage players on the Internet developed the HAP/HOP/[^HYP]/RBD/PBD system of talking about Paradox to cover it. Stephen Lea Sheppard, Mage author (and former "Freaks and Geeks" actor) explains:

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.

And that's the tale of the whiskey flask: it's the symbol of Mage players trying to make sense out of poor explanations and contradictory game text in order to make the game they loved playable.

[^HYP]:"Harass Yonder Passerby," by the way, is: Find someone on the street outside where you're gaming and ask them if they'd believe your proposed magical effect to be plausible. If so, coincidental. If not, vulgar.

I have run Mage the Ascension in a variety of games, Mage exclusively or in crossover with other WoD games. I've had some two Seekings in the past, and recently three more, therefore I believe I'm qualified to give an answer. Unfortunately there is no short version of it.

Success and/or failure

It is a viable idea to ask the player to wager their XP on a roll - however I would say that when the roll is unsuccessful, the XP in question should be spent without limitation on Spheres, willpower and ability increases. Losing XP - and in this case probably majority of the pool - is frustrating. Avoid it. Players needs to shape their character. I am opposed to the idea of failing a whole Seeking because of an unlucky roll.

The preparation

The most successful of my Seekings were preceded by some core discussion between myself and the player about the future of the character. The most important issue and one that is often forgotten is that a Seeking changes the character fundamentally and irrevocably. This opening statement requires that the players agrees to substantially change his character's psyche, style, sometimes even rewrite the core concept. Have your player realise that they will have to choose (or have chosen for them) new Backgrounds for the character. They don't have to be completely disjoint from their previous ones, but different enough to show lateral character growth

When creating a new character I always make the player write down what holds the character back in terms of magickal development. Now is the time to use it.

• Take a look at their Nature - the primary strength and weakness of the chosen archetype is listed in the book. Note both of them. Do the same for Demeanor. You will challenge those during the Seeking.
• Consider character's Style. Do you see any limitation? E.g. one of my players used to derive her power from achieving an euphoric state. That limited her ability to do magic during moments of clarity and purposeful contemplation.
• Examine the foci and how the character uses it. The same character from above used dance to achieve euphoria. The Seeking showed that it was not the enjoyment that did the magick, but instead her momentary detachment from reality. The Focus can remain the same, but it's usage change or the other way around.
• Are there any other go-to strategies that the player uses? Tactics that your player instinctively does e.g. always run for cover in a fight, examine any unknown piece of technology before using it. Any preconceptions or strong beliefs? You might even go as far as to challenge your conservative friend to consider liberalism as a viable system.

Consider player's Avatar very carefully. Both will be extremely important, as a Seeking is Avatar's attempt to change the character.

The trial

The overarching flavour of the endeavour should be determined by Avatar's Essence. Seekings in it's truest form are delivered by Questing Avatars. Dynamic ones often tease the mage with randomness and unpredictability, while a Pattern one could delight in a series of puzzles or structured challenges. Primordial I find the hardest, but you could go wild, retelling the creation of the Tellurian or something similarly grandiose.

Try to make the Seeking plot relevant to their characters weaknesses. The journey should demonstrate that the character can overcome those flaws and the player abandon some concepts within the character. I recommend a series of challenges where playing within the scope of character's current style seems to be the most natural and intuitive approach but ends in failure. Now, don't be afraid to involve lateral thinking or paradoxical logic. This is Mage the Ascension! The player is aware that a Seeking is not about completing a quest, it's about doing it in a novel way, and if he's not, drop clues, as to what would be sufficient, in the form of visions or companions urging the character to "let go of his limitations".

Put the player in situations, where his usual tactics appear to be appropriate, but allow him to progress only if he chooses to do the opposite. E.g. if your character has Bravo Nature with Anger weakness, put him in a in a trash compactor. Springing to action (his default playstyle) is what the situation calls for (superficially). However, only if a character lets go of his urge to act heroically can he progress (trash compaction stops because it reacts to movement or sleeping monster's shell stops the compactor).

Every time such a challenge is completed, get your player to choose a new related character archetype. This will serve to show the transition and let the player retain control over the process. Once all of his limitations are overcome - he has a new Nature and Demeanor, player's go-to tactic had to be abandoned and new magickal style emerged, go to the finale.

Finish with a scene that enables the realisation that character's understanding of Magick was incomplete. Allow the player to come up with a new, improved version. Real-life example - one of my players used to do Magick by "hacking the server of the universe". The seeking made him wrong, and he decided that his new paradigm allows him to directly rewrite source code - going white hat.

Involving other players

I think you are right on the money. Talk to other players and plot with them against the Seeker. They should know what does the Avatar want from the Seeker and have a role to play - as enemy, friend or trying to lead him astray. They can even play as projections of their own characters (if they befriended the Seeker) or command more than one character. This should be their opportunity to play as something different. However, don't let them in on all the challenges, let them figure it out with the main player, but ask them to play double agents if they have better ideas than him.