Ars Magica 4th Edition was released in 1996. That doesn't make it wildly long in the tooth, but it does mean it's the longest-in-print edition. (1st Ed was 1988-89; 2nd 1989-92, I think? And I think 3rd was published in 1992 or 1993...)

We're very proud of it, and the fact that it's working its way through a 4th printing, but we know it has flaws.

So how about an open discussion of what kinds of things fans might like to see improved, added, dropped, or otherwise changed, were we to revise the game for a new edition?

-John Nephew
President, Atlas Games

I think the #1 thing I'd like revised is the Order. I think this mnstrosity needs to be taken out back, reassembled and presented in a way that makes sense. (And fully incorporates The Mysteries of course)

Maybe we could get a covenant system that makes sese and is usable. 4th editons major flaw is the covenant material it presents, and snce the covenant is the central character, we need to see that done well.

A combat system that works would be nice.

And we nee some solid storyguide advice. One ting Ars needs to do a whole lot better.

Jere

Huh. Oh well. Guess I want to wait till 2008 for 5th edition then.

As a general stance, I'd prefer to avoid changing what doesn't need to be changed. However, seeing what a fantastic job Tynes and Stolze did in making a new edition of Unknown Armies a much more useful and accessible book, I'm curious to speculate as to how something similar could be done for ArM.

As far as rules -- the most consistent suggestion I hear is the combat system. Perhaps the main rules should include more complete information on covenants, as well.

Here's another way to look at the issue. What could be done to make the game more appealing and accessible to new players? One of our biggest goals in a new edition, of course, would be to draw in new blood, and to reinvigorate the enthusiasm of the old (so they go out and recruit new blood, who in turn find it easy to get involved).

My response:
This isn't possible. If you altered the game enough to make it accessable to a new group of players, the old ones would scream their bloody heads off. Because, the first thing that would have to go is Mythic Europe. Why? Well, because Mythic Europe isn't actually mythic for many of the so-called loyal hardcore fanbase. Mythic Europe means Historical Europe to them and they beat down anybody who tries to suggest otherwise. They claim that isn't their intent, but the end result is the same. For Ars Magica to ever break the mold as a game that requires a history degree to play properly, you (Atlas) must: Relaunch the game with multiple official backgrounds (high fantasy, low fantasy, and perhaps even specialized (and targeted) settings - howabout a kids RPG using ArM for the magic in Harry Potter, or something similar?). The game should be able to have material published that appeals to a wide variety of play styles (low and high fantasy) and until the game gives the impression that it doesn't lean heavily towards Factual History, it will never increase its audience. When someone hears the words 'Ars Magica' they should think 'great magic system' not 'way too much history'.

Oh hell, just do ArM d20. That will increase your sales (I imagine dramatically) and be done with it. Yes, you will lose most of the old guard, but Atlas is a business, isn't it? If you had asked me 5 years ago, this wouldn't be my response, but the cold hard truth is that currently Ars Magica cannot grow beyond its current popularity without major change and if you make that change, you will be called all sorts of nasty names. Everyone will not be happy. Be a slave to the market, get rich while d20 is still hot, then move on. *grin*

Let the flaming begin,

Damelon Kimbrough

I don't think the system needs changing, but I do think the ability to create "homebrew" settings would indeed be beneficial.

I also think that maybe there should be alternatives to the troupe style campaigns, because most people I know with backgrounds in other RPGs think that the covenant-based campaign is just plain wierd.

To make it accessible to new players, I believe the key is streamlining what you've got. The rules should be intuitive and logical. I think the game's target players will have some experience with roleplaying games, but will be looking for something a little more robust and intelligent. Play to those strengths. Make the rules more consistent, and make the setting as realistic as possible. Above all, stay true to the ideas that originally made the game appealing.

Here's how I would suggest doing that:

1. Clearly define the base mechanics. (Die roll + Characteristic + Ability + modifiers = Ease Factor) is great, but it isn't as simple as it could be because we have so many formulae that break that standard. At its most basic, the game should rely on a formula that is easy to remember. Combat and other mechanics will follow from that. So, I say simplify the formula and remove the extraneous bits from the game.

2. Streamline the magic system. It's the game's biggest strength, but it's gotten overly complicated in successive editions. I don't think new players should have to open the book and find the appropriate section every time they cast a spontaneous spell. There should be clear and simple guidelines for determining a spell's level.

3. Clarify the role of the covenant as the main character in the story. Describe a troupe starting by designing a covenant, then making characters to support that covenant. I think covenant creation needs to figure more prominently in the game, and should be more associated with character development throughout the saga.

4. Integrate the Mysteries advancement mechanics into the basic game, so that the Houses become lineages and all characters can easily grow and develop in ways that go beyond gaining more experience points. This will strengthen the setting, as the Order will have more historical ties to Europe and will seem less like a "tacked on" feature of the game.

5. I would like to see a beautiful book. So much of the wonder of Ars Magica is the historic resonance it carries, and the more it can be made to look like a living story, the better. I want it to read like a mythic book. When there are pictures, I'd like to see full-color illuminations in a style that is immediately recognizable as medieval, and when there is text, I'd like it to seem more like a handwritten script (though not unreadably so).

6. There should be many more tables and sidebars breaking down any mechanics into simple and easy-to-find summaries. Like any good how-to book (cookbooks, computer reference books, texbooks), examples and explanations should be written and designed alongside the text. Ars Magica has more page turning than any other game in my experience, so when it must be complicated, make it easy to find and easy to read.

7. I would suggest you avoid conversion rules for D20. I think Ars Magica's biggest appeal is that it's got a more intelligent setting and better rules. Convince your new players to use the elegant mechanics that fit Mythic Europe, rather than suggest that they try to make Mythic Europe fit D&D. Convert the player, not the game.

So there's my opinion. I'm definitely a fan, so I hope my thoughts and ideas help you produce a great product.

Oh yes, Ars agica did the whole covenant concept first, but frankly Conspiracy X and Nobilis have done it with more elegance.

I think the covenant creation system can be taken from a purely mahematical and brought to the realm of being a roleplaying expeience. And 5th edition is a good place to do it.

Jeremiah

With the gorgeous setting and multitude of details we get from ArM, the modularity of the world's most popular fantasy rules system and the need to streamline the existing ArM rules (where Intelligent Rules + Vast Details + Old-Style Layout = Hesitation/Confusion) I think a new layout may solve a great many problems. Concentrate on the relationship between the setting and the rules, but keep them visually separate in the text via floating boxes or handsome and frequent sidebars. Don't let the rules and the text occupy the same paragraphs, whenever possible. The existing covenant system and all that should be changed if a more elegant solution can be found. Terms like "Ease Factor" can be evaluated and given shorthands which benefit gameplay and limit confusion. There are too many *kinds* of variables in ArM right now. Note how D20 has a great many variables broken down into a manageable number of categories. This is a factor of presentation as much as gameplay. We know the ArM gameplay works. So let's fix the presentation.

Once the rules and the setting are visually separated, we'll have a layout which resembles Open Gaming layout and a large market of fantasy gamers who are already trained to disseminate between game mechanics and setting info. This makes the new edition of ArM both more beneficial to the mass market gamer and obviously so.

With that in place, the topic of a d20 appendix becomes simpler. I say "yes," with the understanding that the appendix isn't just rules but also a few essays on the subject of integrating historical game elements into a fantasy game, be it d20, Harn or whatever.

And this new edition needs to take advantage of the fantastic beauty of medieval art styles and how easily they may be applied with current publishing software. Look at Rune, man!

John ... can I work on the next edition of Ars Magica?

word,
will

Hmmm... a 5th edition. I'm not sure I'm too opposed to it on other grounds than it's potential effect on my pocket book. But them's the breaks.

As for waht I would like to see:

- A better covenant system, or maybe not a better system, but that that aspect of the book is made more crucial and has significantly more support.

- As someone else mentioned, that the Order of Hermes becomes potentially more integrated into the world (although I have a feeling that that would damage some of the feel of what we havwe become uesd to the order feeling like). The major pro for the integration would be that instead of having always to work out the Order's effect on history (and feeling like an add-on) the Order would become much more part of the tapestry of history. The major con in my eyes is that you start moving into WW kind of territory, where now the Order (due to it's amazing power) is somewhere between extreme persecution or complete dictatorship, with not too much inbetween. Looking back on what I just wrote I guess I'm still a bit on the fence about this one.

- A better layout and cutting into the needed page flipping (rules index/summary pages?).

- Do not make a d20 version. Although economically it may (and I say may) make sense, I think that adopting a lowest common denominator system (d20) will destroy a lot of the flavor of what is Ars Magica. The flexibility of the d20 system is not that good. A game like Legends of the five Rings (Alderac) in d20 does not feel the way it is supposed to. In the world of d20 Ars would simply be another sorcery (low fantasy?) game, and the feel and uniqueness would be lost. A conversion booklet, sure, but not in the main book and preferably not in supplements. As I'm sure you have figured out I do not like D&D3E, this is mostly becasue the kind of games I enjoy don't really work, or just don't have a good feel under that system.
Then again some people would say my attitudes are a bit like the following phrase in latin... which is not entirely untrue...

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem!
-
Stand aside plebians! I am on imperial business. (trans)

I prefer a more intelligent game/system, and to achieve that you need a distinct feel, and that is something Ars Magica has, and that I feel needs to be kept in a new edition.

Sasayaku

One idea I do like, though I am still thinking this one over, is converting the houses to lineages. It makes the apprenticeship process seem more likely than the standard house does, especially since covenants tend to be multi-house. Also, it seems a more likely development than the house system.

I agree with some of the previous posters on the D20 issue. Bringing Ars Magica over to D20 would break the feel of the game, and raise havoc with the playability of the game. Ars Magica in D20 would lose the uniqueness and flavor it currently enjoys, and be lost amongst the other D20 systems that already contain magic. I believe changing Ars Magica to D20 would doom Ars Magica to a footnote in history, while keeping its systems intact will allow it to continue for many more years.

Ed Campbell

Regardless, if there must be a revision, I still must lobby for as much of the rules to stay the same. Expand, do not retract. The magic system is fine the way it is. And for god's sake, no d20.

A pretty book, and re-organization, can bring in new blood without alienating the current fanbase. If you want rules changes, integrete some of the supplements into the new book.

Magic system is core. I can't imagine anyone would wnt t change it. Change it and its no longe Ars Magica, its another ae with similarities. Though some refinements t lab related activities are okay.

Covenant rules is something that should be core, but isn't. It needs to be redone so that it is a central aprt of the game, where it belongs.

Combat is periphery. No one plays Ars for combat so it can easily be redone so it works.

Learning rules are subjective. Offera good solution and folks an g either way.

Not sure if anyone ever offered d20 as a serious option. I know I certainly didn't.

Presence of math does not equal lack of roleplaying. Especally not in something like covenant creation. Anyone who has played ConX knows cell creation is very math-centric, but it is still a great experience and adds tons to the game.

How right you are Jeremiah. I was attempting to make a point, but by mentioning d20 in process I caused a panic. I will say it for the record (although I find it funny anyone would think otherwise): Ars Magica is a great game. I have spent almost every truly creative moment I have ever had (and quite a few less than creative ones) on this system and its fans. Do I think Ars Magica would be the same game if converted to d20? No, but that wasn't the point I was attempting to make. So let me try it this way.

Ars Magica is not perfect, but neither is it hopelessly incomplete. A vast resource exists for this game and if nothing else ever got published, it would still be infinitely playable. Personally, I hope the game will continue to be developed for and that more products will appear, but... but to what end? Yes, I know all the arguments about if we only make a beautiful book, with more and clarified material, then players from other games will buy Ars Magica products, but I know for fact that is incorrect. Some would, sure, but not enough to make a difference in overall market share. The way you would get a substantial amount of say d20 players to buy a product is by doing a d20 version of it. But let me be even more clear. It wouldn't make any difference if the Ars Magica system was gutted by being converted to d20. If it had a slick 4 color cover with scantily clad chicks and d20 plastered on the front, it would still sell. Would it be Ars Magica as I know it and love it? No, but then again all of those holdouts still praising ArM 2nd edition as the best version of the game don't think 4th edition ArM is Ars Magica either.

But as I think about it, I do find it sad that anyone would be opposed to a d20 conversion in the form of an expanded appendix or something. If that would increase sales of the game in other quarters and if that would cause so-called loyal fans from buying the book, then I really think those fans are not considering this one simple fact. Atlas Games is a business, not a charity or social organization. Wouldn't the addition of materials that would make Ars Magica easily usable by the largest gaming system going be in their best interest? Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the line continuing?

Damelon Kimbrough

I'm not s sure the market suports the d20 appendix increases sales arguement anymore. I'm not privy to tons of sales data, but I've seen this trend becoming less popular over time.

Jeremiah

Oh, one more thing. Sorta on the whole reason why I suspect Ars Magica doesn't fare very well in alot of the same market that d20 probably does. I started roleplaying back in my early to mid-teens. Now, I can't say for sure if we would have played Ars Magica or not as it didn't exist yet, but I suspect the answer would have been no. Why? Well, you know the answer as well as I do. History, and history was my favorite subject in school. But most teenagers really probably don't dig the 'big history' stigma that the game sports. Roleplaying at that age is about having fun, not studying. I make this point because it filters back to my original post and why I think in a fifth edition, Mythic Europe should only be offered as one potential setting and not the only setting.

Damelon Kimbrough

2. What might be more effective than a 5th ed. appendix would be a set of conversion books. Ars for D20, Ars for GURPS, etc. (I know some people won't like the thought of this, I don't. Business is business, and if it attracts more people to learn about Ars, and then draws them into the real Ars Magica system, so much the better.)

3. Alternate settings options is a good idea. That and an advertizing campaign would do a lot for sales.

Ed C

Damelon Kimbrough

Ed C

Damelon Kimbrough

One thing I have to say, the organization of almost all the books is horrible. I have had the hardest time finding answers for questions. Information is broken up through many sections of the book, and even between books themselves. So, the most important thing I would want to see in a 5th edition is better layout and better organization. I’d also want to see more examples, rules clearly presented (i.e. “The Rule Is:”), and better uses of appendixes. I’d also like to see someone go through the records of mailing lists and discussion boards and find what the truly frequently asked questions are and answer them. Maybe some of them are for SG decision, but state that explicitly. (Can a Bjornerer whatsit cast spells in beast-heart form? The rule book implies so, but some logic says no… Just what is the relationship between Fairy Magic and Hermetic Magic? Oh, and here’s one for free, if Fairy Magic isn’t supposed to be like Hermetic Magic at all, call it Glamour and give it its own rules, even if they’re just different nouns and verbs.)

I don’t know if you had the opportunity to blind play-test 4th edition, but I question how well I would have done (as an experienced gamer in general and someone who had run 1st edition briefly once upon a time) without more experienced players to help me out.

Secondly, I wish to echo the sentiments that the houses be down played in a future edition. I love the lineages as presented in Mysteries and think that they are a wonderful direction to go. Failing that, I would like to see the inclusion of many “lesser” houses to flesh out the Order and diminish the reliance upon just 12.

Thirdly (and I think lastly for now) based on the energy, enthusiasm and apparent commitment of the groups I’ve assembled, I can easily imagine playing Ars Magica in 2008, and would GLADLY buy a deluxe edition (or even preordering a deluxe limited edition) along the lines of what Jere described. I’m just saying. (Of course, this assumes that I’m still employed somewhere and all that, or haven’t died suddenly and young, but you know what I mean.)

This is just a quick question of economics for which you and Snr. Chart are probably the best qualified to answer. Assuming the four color leatherbound have-your-cake-and-eat-it book. Assume it is the best you can make it... what is the cost to me as the consumer for the added 4-6-10 pages of conversion notes? I guess that is kind of what it boils down to, because in my (not so) humble opinion those are pages (that are to me) better spent on on "the game" as such to improve the product directly as to me they are wasted pages. I can live with wasted pages however, especially if someone can show me (definately beyond the call of anyone's duty) that it makes real economic sense to add the pages.

Most Humbly (we can all see that's not very true)

Sasayaku
aka
Ronny S. Mo

Damelon Kimbrough

Ed C.

The ad venues that generate good response -- say, Dragon Magazine -- are very expensive. A full-page color ad in Dragon runs about $2800, last I checked. It's extremely difficult for ads to generate enough additional sales to pay for their cost, unless you are dealing with a product that has enormous broad market potential (say, HeroClix or Mage Knight), in which case introducing an exciting new concept to a broad audience makes sense.

We do advertise in various ways, actually. Generally, we find ways to do it inexpensively. For example, we have a website (and on it are free introductory scenarios to download for Ars Magica); we mail out review copies; we attend conventions; we trade prizes for ad space in the programs/booklets of small conventions; we have our product line listed in the Games Quarterly Catalog, and sometimes have ads there, targetted at the game retailers who decide whether or not potential customers even have a chance to see our products.

If someone thinks we're going to take out ads in Boy's Life at $50,000 a pop in order to grow our market, though, I have to say that there is simply no way that such an expenditure would be justified.

(For the record, WotC spent an IMMENSE sum of money promoting 4th Edition when they owned the game, including in non-industry publications. While I'm certain it helped, I would also guess that the total profit of Ars Magica 4th Edition wouldn't pay for what they spent on advertising before concluding they couldn't make the line a profitable one for them.)

Ed C.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If D&D Third Edition (that is D20) is not the biggest selling RPG of this decade, and is not still selling big numbers two, three, four, and five years from now, I feel comfortable in predicting that it will only be because D&D 4th Edition will have come out by then, eclipsing its sales.

Spike Y Jones

We've been doing it for years... But then, a lot of conventions aren't exactly well advertised/promoted themsevles.

> The way I was introduced to Ars Magica was by word of mouth.

That is, I think our #1 form of advertising. We really do depend on players recruiting new players, or at least talking about the game so that other gamers become aware of it and might check it out.

> The question I hope this brings out is: how can Ars Magica be
> brought to a larger audience without spending too much?

We're always open to suggestions! ;)

Another thing we do is we put ads for Ars Magica in the back of other books. For example, our biggest recent D20 release, Occult Lore, has a full-page ad for Ars Magica in the back. That doesn't cost us anything, and probably reaches more eyeballs than a lot of advertising options out there in this industry.

> One thing has occurred to me though, I have to wonder at the White
> Wolf strategy of creating novels based on the game system. That way
> the advertising itself generates money. I don't know how effective
> that model is, but it is an interesting idea.

Our experiences in novel publishing have not honestly been profitable. In the case of WW, the novels came well after the game was established as a hit, as another kind of product with which to profit from their audience (RPG and LARP). Having reached a critical mass where they are able to publish fiction profitably (which depends on well oiled channels into the whole book trade, as well as a lot of related promotional expenditures), I am sure the novels help sustain the games, but I would not say that they got the games to their position.

On the other hand, we do endorse the "advertising itself generates money" approach -- that's what publishing adventures and sourcebooks is usually about. ;)

In practice, it doesn't even have to be that gorgeous for a game store to keep it up for a long while. This might become long-term advertising in just the sort of markets you want. At least it would generate product awareness, which seems to be a problem for ArM these days.

So, instead of $2800 for an ad in Dragon for one month, what about $1400-$2000 to print a run of this lovely poster? I don't know how the return on this sort of investment would be feasibly measurable, but it's an idea and I thought I'd share. :)

I'll try and think of some more.

word,
will

http://trio.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_6788.html

It's provocative reading for thoughts on what might make ArM more accessible to new players -- or, shall we put it this way, make ArM a game that is more friendly to players who are trying to recruit new players.

- Don't be afraid to make significant game mechanics changes, if they make the game easier and better. D&D3E was a big jump from 2nd edition, yet virtually everyone I have ever spoken to about it prefers it to the old version, despite the sweeping changes. There were complains during the ArM3-4 changeover, but those complaints existed because the changes were mismanaged (especially combat and some spell guidelines), not simply because they were changes.

(One such radical change which I advocate is the "arts as abilities" variant in Hermes Portal. With sufficient playtesting this could significantly improve the game's standardization and playability.)

- Standardize the game system. In ArM1-3 there was a practical cap on art scores built into the study rules that made scores of 30+ virtually impossible to attain. As a result, it was possible to determine whether a magus was extremely powerful, very powerful, or relatively weak and inexperienced. In ArM4 Arts are completely open-ended, so what is considered to be a "powerful magus" can vary vastly between sagas. This complete de-standardization makes sourcebook characters very difficult to design, and sagas impossible to compare.

I have also had recurring problems with players asking "how good" a certain attribute, ability, or art score is, but the book is completely silent on the matter. Create standards for abilities, but base them on the learning rules so they are actually meaningful in play, not just numbers pulled out of a hat.

- Don't make it D20, but take a close look at D20 and take away some lessons from its design. D&D3 wasn't innovative, but has a very coherent design that incorporates the most playable innovations created in other games. For example, to standardize the basic die system, which is simple in theory, but becomes complicated with all sorts of exceptions, assign different kinds of modifier 'types' to die rolls. For example, a "synergy" modifier could be from one skill helping another (like with animal ken and animal handling), with virtues like Mage Smith allowing a magus to add craft skills to his lab totals as a synergy bonus. Other examples are "circumstance", "affinity" and "mystery" bonuses. Then, make the die roll simply ability+attribute (like D20) with no more than one bonus of each other named type added on.

Other good things to pinch from D20 are cyclical inititative, standardized simple rules for combat maneuvers, and the concept of "feats." The latter could be create from scratch for the new edition (allowing characters to learn new combat maneuvers, spellcasting advantages, and so on), or it could be an extension of the Mysteries virtue-gaining rules.

- Make the combat system simpler and fun to play in and of itself. Others have pointed out that combat isn't really what ArM is about, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve or need the best combat system humanly possible.

- Integrate the Mysteries. Convert the houses to lineages, and incorporate lineages and secret societies into the setting.

Also integrate the Mysteries game mechanics. Expand it beyond just magical virtues, to create secret learned techniques akin to D20 feats or prestige class abilities. ArM is focussed on Magi, but that doesn't mean that non-magi shouldn't have interesting advancement options too.

Perhaps include the Outer Mystery virtues of all the basic mysteries (including the Bjornaer and faerie mysteries from Hermes Portal), while leaving the more esoteric inner mysteries virtues for the Mysteries book.

- Don't bother with mechanical rules for covenant creation, unless you have space to spare. IMO more setting information, additional lineages/mystae, and examples of character and monster creation are much better uses of space.

- Create a core setting book to release shortly after the core rulebook. Include the hermetic society and history information that is currently spread across houses of hermes, the grimoire, the mysteries, and various sourcebooks, in addition to covenant economics and story-creation advice. Also include basic information on the church, nobility, travel, and mundane society, such as the first few chapters of Mythic Europe, only expanded.

- Finally, re-emphasize the "mythic" part of Mythic Europe. Currently the game has a not-completely-unjustified reputation as "a game that you need a degree in history" to play. De-emphasizing real world mundane history in favor of historical superstition and mythology, secret magic, and magical places would IMO make the setting more accessible. I'm not asking that history be ignored, or that fantasy be made up whole cloth, just that the more magical elements of history (folktales, superstition, legends attributed to certain locales, faerie stories, and so on) be brought to the fore.

- As part of the standardization of the system, make natural resistance rolls part of the spell creation guidelines. Currently they are applied ad hoc, with no guidelines for when they are allowed and what their difficulties should be.

- I think everyone is agreed that ArM would not be appropriate to convert to D20. Some of the fundemental features of the game - namely study-based character improvement, lack of character categories (ie. classes), and lethal combat, are simply incompatible with D20's class-based, level-based system.

However, a OGL ArM system, using the same basic mechanics of D20 divorced of classes, levels, and massively improving hit points, could be worthwhile. Godlike has a good example of what I mean. If study rules, background feats to mimic virtues and flaws, and the ArM magic system are added to that basic framework, an Ars Magical game that is almost completely compatible with the D20 rules while not losing any Ars Magica flavour could be created. The conversion wouldn't even really be that difficult, since core game mechanics are so similar. It would mostly be a change of scale.

Ars Magica reads, right now, as a game of collected, singular and exceptional rules. There needs to be a fundamental core mindset for the player from which all rules stem as practices or exceptions. That's really already there, of course, but it needs to be reinforced in the text. Thus, I agree with Michael on that front.

ArM has a chance to be the game of realistic medieval martial arts in additional to magical arts. The foundation for such a combat system is already present, it just needs to embraced and cultivated. This could be the game where a two-handed sword is the flexible axe, club, bayonet and shield it was in its day.

The unifying principle I'm behind for a new edition is this: a tools-based design that can be wielded by players to create the sort of mythic tales the setting inspires. I recommend looking at Decipher's new Star Trek game (a tools-based approach to a vast and detailed setting) as much as we look at d20's flexible and organized presentation of a rules set.

And am I the only person who really enjoyed William O'Connor's black and white art for ArM3?

word,
will

Yes itis time to either remove or greatly change Imaginem. It doesn't work with the other forms well.

Jeremiah

Why not? What does imaginem do? Basically it gives the accidential properties of something. It doesn't create a tree. It makes something look, smell, sound, feel and tast like a tree.

Thats just a low level Herbam spell.

I can't think of a single thing that doesn't better belong as a low level spell in the appropriate form.

Jeremiah

Ed C.

Makes absolutely no sense. Neither from a rules perspective or a medieval physics perspective.

Imaginem exists for an art solely to please fans of the D&D illusionist. It is a vestige of Ars Magica being a set of D&D house rules, and it needs to go.

Jeremiah

What other aspects of ArM would you say are are artifacts of being D&D house rules? Do you think there are any new arts that should to be added?

I love how Pendragon handles glamour. A glamour is as real as anything else, except by dawn, all effects melt away as if it was all a dream.

So you could have a Merinita virtue that allows you to cast a glamorous version of a spell at a fraction of the "real" spell's cost. A glamorous spell is entirely real until the next sunrise or sunset, after which it is entirely false.

Example: Merinita Magus casts a glamour MuCo (duration sun) spell to make him look just like the prince. He goes off to the ball and has a fabuluous time. Unlike Cinderella, he remembers to get home before time's up. When the sun rises, not only does his spell end, but it never happened. Everyone who thought they were with the prince at the ball suddenly realizes the truth!

Sound neat?

PeIm is just about the only one. Imperceptibility is complex -- I don't think people would be comfortable with Invisibility or Silence spells being ReMe, PeCo, PeAu, PeIg, or whatever.

Just to blather a little, I think Imaginem isn't quite a Form. Of course, the book calls it a Form, but Imaginem requisites often act as a localized Perdo, a Technique -- "I want an illusory wall" is the same as "I want a wall that you can't touch" CrTe(Im) or CrTe+PeIm[Cr(Pe)Te(Im)]. In fact, any CrIm spell that doesn't cover *all* the senses can be considered CrFo+PeIm.

I wouldn't mind seeing Imaginem set aside as a "Requisite Art," an Art that never appears in a spell as a Form or Technique, but only as a special kind of Requisite. Sort of like an inverse Affinity -- an Affinity can only *help* you, by adding to your totals, but (my) Imaginem (or rather, the lack of it) can only *hurt* you, by limiting your totals. Whether Imaginem were a Form requisite or a Technique requisite would depend on whichever score is less (or *more* for the truly mean). So if Creo is less than Terram, an illusory wall would be Cr(Im)Te, but if Terram is less than Creo, it's CrTe(Im). Yeah, I'm crazy.

I wouldn't mind seing Vim being treated the same way, in part because it's a rather ephemeral Form, and in part because I'd hate Imaginem to be lonely, but that's a different Can o' Worms.

Just to jump around a little, while I'm for the idea of incorporating Lineages into the main rules, I'd hate to see the Houses go, too.

Treating Houses as a collection of like-minded lineages -- with one lineage being the "True" lineage, that is, the line of the Founder himself -- might be a fair compromise.

FrEx, you have House Bonisagus, composed of the lineages of Bonisagus Vera, Trianoma, and whatever's in Mysteries that I can't remember. It gets really fun when you realize there's no "Miscellanea Vera," and that "Merinita Vera" -- now dead -- lived for a while in House Bjornaer, while House Merinita had (has) Quendalon as its "true" lineage.

Ex Miscellanea being the major exception (Since they were Union, and used Mass Bargaining), any "lesser" house would probably have to be "sponsored" by an existing house, or is actually a variation of the "True" lineage (That Perdo apprentice of Flambeau whose name I can never remember?), thus the coagulation of lineages into the 12 fixed houses -- and the nifty side effect of making the change seem more palatable than if we dumped/overshadowed the Houses altogether.

It fits the Medieval mindset quite well, since it's a semi-feudal structure -- "Okay, Carolinus, we won't crush you and all your apprentices in Righteous Wrath, but you have to swear fealty to one of our existing lineages. Right now, the only one which wants to talk to you is Verditius. Work it out." I don't think *any* of the Big 12 would want their power diminished by the addition of a new House -- they'd probably *insist* on such a setup.

You seem to have issues with the illusionist archetype in itself. I find this more troubling. I have an illusion specialist in my current game, and she's an awful lot of fun. While I won't attempt to argue that it is particularly medieval, but its an important archetype whose roots in story go well beyond D&D. How do you explain to the casual gamer than any magical archetype can be portrayed *except* the illusionist (in what is frequently lauded as the best fantasy magic system out there). So while I am not particularly concerned about the art of Imaginem, there are a lot of reason why I believe that the illusionist archetype should be preserved in the new edition.
Kevin

And Im not trying to persuade anybody really. I'm brainstorming.

Jeremiah

I agree with much things that others have said (excuse my english if it's not correct, it's not my native language) : streamlining the rules, more Art, more Mysteries-like Order...

About the setting, well, I don't know. 3rd edition material seemed to be mythic fantasy, 4rd edition more historical-without-fantasy. But there's a problem about scales, as a midly experienced magus in a saga could be an archmagus in another saga. Maybe the rules should cover this point to permit all kinds of sagas, from low-fantasy historical ones to high fantasy.

As I am currently bending 4rd rules for a low fantasy saga in Pendragon world, here is my main idea to cover this point : beginning magi have only 15 points to distribute in Arts and Spells instead of 150. No changes in magic rules and it's ok.

Then covenants rules should specificate how much vis and books you can have for different kinds of sagas, somes examples of magi with different power levels, and it's all that is necessary to have sagas with different tones.

Another of my ideas, about streamlining the rules :

In character creation, actually there are characteristics, then Virtues & Flaws. You can have a Giant Blooded character with Strength -2...

The characteristics and V&F are two ways to express the same thing, to describe a character. One way should be sufficient : how about only choose some V&F, then express the characteristics with the V&F choosed ?

This way, many of tiny rulings specifics to a virtue could be generalized to characteristics, also.

Last idea ;) about mysteries.

Mystery abilities (hermetic alchemy, imaginatio magica, etc) seems to me superfluous, as we already have the Magical Arts. Arts are not only power, they are also magical knowledges. With Michael de Verteuil rules, arts on the same scale as skills, so it could be possible.

so, what do you think about my ideas ? ;)

Jérémy Provost
Rubrique Ars Magica du Site de l'Elfe Noir
http://www.sden.org/jdr/arsmag

In other news, I'd like to see Art protection against Mundane danger (re?) introduced. ("I have 40 ignem, your puny bonfire tickles!") Okay, not that bad, but whatever. Would a high Terram score keep you from shaving? ("Stupid iron razors...")

And as long as I'm spouting uselessly, if you *do* throw out imaginem, can you replace it? And as long as we're creating new Arts, can you come up with enough that we have 7 techniques and 13 forms? They're my favorite numbers....

Take a hint from FASA's MechWarrior -- with less randomness, methinks -- the "life path" character creation is (or at the very least, could be) extremely fun to do, even if you're never going to play the character, and (to me) contrasts well with Ars' *other* great strength: Self-improvement through education (not just adventuring).

We've already got the first big step: Grog/Companion social class V/F's. Just assign a "character template" -- starting characteristics -- to each one as a start. Do the same for each Hermetic House (Yay! A reason to hang on to the houses!). Then add some "Life Event" virtues and flaws for customization. ("Farmer's Son: You spent your formative years plowing fields and harvesting crops. You have +1 Sta and +1 Str from all this hard work, but -1 Int because Peasants are stupid. (Or whatever)") Prolly have the things grant "pyramid points" for increase in characteristics, to avoid stacking abuse.

My wishes a a retailer who tries to support ArM.

- A drastic increase in visual appeal, good design sells. A few colour splashs like illuminations would be great.

- Make it more accessible to new players, with better organisation and rules streamlining.

- I'd like to put more emphasis one of the strong points of ArM, the troupe style play in a covenant. Make covenant generation a central chapter.

- Try to keep the price below 35$ better yet at 30$. Many customers shy away from new games with higher price tags. Here in Germany 30$ cover price result in 38$ effective retail price, this includes taxes and the additional precentage for transcontinental shipping or a second distributor.
I would have great difficulties selling UA for the normal price of 52$.

Roland

Just to intentionally misinterpret you, if covenant generation is that important, it should probably be near the *beginning* of the book. Possibly even ahead of character creation. You have to admit, that manner of layout would draw eyes. "Oh! An RPG I've never seen before. I wonder what Character Creation is like? <flip to first page> 'Chapter One: Covenant Creation and Troupe Play.' Wow. New and different. I must learn more..." Or so I would fantasize it as occurring

While I am at it, I am also all for the Order being rebuilt from the ground up and the workings of imaginem being better grounded or discarded (both of which I believe Jeremiah suggested).

And while I am not for every little detail of the game being explained exhaustively, I would very much like the topic of how much magic theory you need to enact Parma Magica better explained. I know, I know, it is more than lightly implied that apparently anybody with the Gift can be taught it, but aside from my personal belief about why this is all just more sloppy backstory, I would ask the following: if Parma can be taught to anyone (with the Gift) why do we have no (to my knowledge) examples of any magi who are not members of the Order with it? And the explaination that the Order hunts down anyone that can manifest Parma might certainly been true at the beginning of the Order, but would most likely not be true in 1200. And having sworn the Oath as an explanation of why memebers of say Ex Miscellanea have not spread this out on the fringes of the Order and beyond is also very weak. My opinion is that while Bonisagus was able to add, adjust, shoehorn, and sneak lots of little (and not so little) elements into the General Theory of Magic, the basis for so much of Hermetic Theory are elements of knowledge common (or more common) to Roman wizards. So many of the beginning members of the Order needed less information to make PM possible for themselves. Anyway, for anybody that cares, I think in any fifth edition, the amount of MT someone needs to handle PM is one season of instruction. And then someone either showing them how, or having some sort of insight.

Damelon Kimbrough

Yep, that was what I envisioned, too.

-----------------------------
Just to intentionally misinterpret you, if covenant generation is that important, it should probably be near the *beginning* of the book. Possibly even ahead of character creation. You have to admit, that manner of layout would draw eyes. "Oh! An RPG I've never seen before. I wonder what Character Creation is like? <flip to first page> 'Chapter One: Covenant Creation and Troupe Play.' Wow. New and different. I must learn more..." Or so I would fantasize it as occurring
-----------------------------

You do not misinterpret me at all. I think covenant creation could very well (should?) be placed before character generation.
If general explantions (what is a RPG ect.) and the important paradigms (Mythic Europe as background, an introduction to troupe style play and the covenant as central structure) in the fist chapter, chapter two could be covenant creation.
I'd like it even better if covenant and character creation could be integrated somehow.

Roland

Edited 8/3/2002 4:51:15 PM ET by ROLAND_BAHR

And everyone, we're reading all the feedback with great interest. David Chart will be in Milwaukee for Gen Con next week, and I'm looking forward to sit down with him for some quality in-person brainstorming on the longer-term future of ArM.

When I take a step back, I have to admit it really is a healthy game, in the big picture. We've had four printings of the 4th edition, and continuing sales of the line as a whole are quite strong (though I fear we have done a lot of "competing with ourselves," just with the number of titles that have stayed in print for so long--but that's a discussion unto itself). Clearly there are a lot of ArM fans out there, actively playing the game. I'm liking the ideas about making a new edition a game that is easier for those current players to use to recruit new players into the network.

David Chart
Ars Magica Line Editor

Could you split the material into two equally useful books or would it be a Players Guide/Gamemasters Guide arrangement?

Would that mean that the first book (assumption: the buy and play a characterimmediately book) would contain alot of the playercentric material from accross the range of books, incorporating the character and 'player' sections of the basic book, Grimoire, Mysteries etc. etc. And the more advanced book, and by a quick skim through my own books thicker book (by quite a bit), would contain Covenant, setting and more 'advanced' elements of the same books?

I would probably be quite happy with that arrangement, but I'm initialy a bit stumped on exactly what material would be critical to each book and how to prevent needless overlap while keeping each book consistent, coherent and well structured. I would hazard a guess that summary pages and 'cheat sheets' would be key to this. I.e. flip to page X to see all the rules for section Y and if you need the reasoning behind rule Z reference the paragraph on the appropriate page.

Slightly stumped

- Sasayaku

If you choose another format, the fist book has to convey ArMs unique aspects and strengths, to hook new players.
As I said before these strengths are IMHO the troupe style play and the covenant as a "communal meta character" and of course the magic system.

My guestimate for a 2 volume edition would be 220 pages a book, so there would be about 200 pages for content. You could fit the material from chapters 1-6 and chapter 9 (Covenants! :-)) into it and more if you'd use a text density similar to Unknowm Armies.

Some things, like familiar and apprentice rules, should be shifted to book 2, where you'd have room for extensive setting info on the hermetic order and mythic europe, storyguide advise and a sample adventure.

I've been researching the different production options, and when you start using the high-quality paper and color printing (the two go hand in hand -- look for example at the 70# matte paper used in the color section of Nyambe), the cost per page is a lot more significant than using the offset paper (the typical stock in ArM books currently). We wouldn't want to have two rulebooks be any more expensive than necessary (we'd want most players to pick up both, sooner or later), so we would try to avoid including everything under the sun (no having two books that bloat out to the same size as the current one), and we'd also be likely to have a very dense layout (though there's already an awful lot packed in ArM4, especially considering the tiny type used in certain parts of the book...). The comparison to UA2 is a good one, in the density department.

I think you could expect a 10 - 7 sales ratio between book 1 and book 2, maybe more, considering the loyalty of the ArM crowd and the quality of the product.

1. general stuff (credits, toc, index, character sheet) approx. 12 pages
2. Introduction approx. 4 pages (8 pages fiction left out)
3. Characters 48 pages
4. Hermetic Magic 16 pages
5. Spells 59 pages
6. Combat 13 pages
7. Covenant 10 pages

162 pages

With some rewriting, editing and a new layout it could fit into a 148 pp book, don't you think?

Would it work without setting info?

My aim would be to keep them at about $30 each, and working back from that to see what we can do in terms of production fanciness.

Or maybe, have a hand-to-mouth "Adventure" book and a long term "Seasonal" book. The Adventure book would have Character Creation, a Spell list and casting rules, combat, and anything else needed to play *one adventure*. The other book would start with Covenant Creation, include all Hermetic Labwork, aging and advancement rules, and everything else that occurs seasonally or "between adventures."

And to drag the conversation backwards some, the more I think about it, the more I agree with Jeremiah: something needs to be done with Imaginem. But simultaneously, the more I hate the idea of "5 techniques, 9 forms."
Such a tough life.

Having finally gotten copies of HP, I've read Mr. Chart's take on Faerie Glamour, and (as a withdrawal from my previous hardline stance) treating Illusion as an Affinity that applies to Creo and Muto, iff the products of such magic follow David's "glamour" strictures (No iron, evaporate at X time, etc.) sounds reasonable to me. I wouldn't mind scaling it back so that was the sole virtue of "Faerie Magic," but that would restrict illusions to House Merinita. That may or may not be a good thing. Still dunno what to make that new 10th form/Imaginem replacement.

Okay, I lied. It's always bothered me that "You can't detect a demon," but you can use Demon's Eternal Oblivion to pretty much "detect a demon," by making it go poof, so I was thinking maybe combine Demons, Vim spirits, and Mentem spirits into a Spiritus form, so that when you cast Perdo Spiritus, you don't know if the thing that just went BAMF was an actual demon or just a ghost. Save Vim for metamagic, and Mentem for "psychic powers." (Plus, I've never really liked the "Power" form -- vim -- being so closely associated with Demons, but maybe that's the point.) Yes, I realize you don't need a new form to make Perdo Vim apply to more than just demons -- as has been suggested before.

Then again, I'm curious how Jeremiah would handle Eyes of the Past without Imaginem. Or silence/invisibility. PeCo sounds incredibly dangerous to use for invisibility -- but that may *also* be the point, making the Tarnhelm once again a truly fabulous device.

As long as I've got the big boys listening, I don't suppose I could con them into telling me which books have published covenants in them? I'm slowly drawing a "Hermetic Atlas" with all the published covenants marked on it. (And just the covenants, so maybe "Hermetic Rollcall" would be a better description.) The idea is to have a bass ackwards way to force more creativity. ("Look! We've named every mage and covenant in existence in Mythic Europe. If you're going to tell your own story, you're going to *have* to rewrite some of the setting. Get used to it, it's okay to do, and it's good for you.")

Well, you said it should be "core," as in.. the center of the book.. not the beginning. It was a funny. A poor one, but an attempt. :D

Go to Atlas's website, in the resources section for Ars Magica you will find an Index. The index is good through Ordo Noblis I think. It will have all the covenants on it by book.

Atlas realy should get somone to update that monstrosity.

Jeremiah

Knowledge is power, and I *know where you live.*

1. I like Imaginem. Eliminating a long-standing, useful, and thematic Form strikes me as a bad idea. "Accidental properties" my bum -- glamour is integral to the genre, and if Imaginem overlaps with other Forms, that's a good thing. Creating an image of a tree may be low-level Herbam... but not creating an image of a dog. Imaginem is much more flexible and cheap if all you want is images.

2. A two-volume set would rock.

3. Integrate established rules... but don't eliminate the Houses. Optional rules, people. Making things more complicated does no one any good.

It's a tough call for me to make. I would love to see Ars Magica become *the* game for playing in a historical fantasy of medieval Europe, both for wizardry and chivalry (and warts-and-all peasantry).

On the one hand, the magic system is what first drew me to Ars Magica. On the other hand, Mythic Europe keeps me playing.

I'm almost tempted to suggest splitting the potential two books up, not by character & storygude, but by Mythic Europe, and the Order of Hermes. The first book would contain rules and background for playing commoners, nobles, and priests in a magically realistic world (IMO, the majority of 4th Ed suppliments fall under the rubric of "magical realism").

The second book would be all about the Order of Hermes, how to make magi characters, covenants, the Order's structure, rules for Hermetic magic, etc. Put "requires Ars Magica: Mythic Europe" on the cover. :)

What do y'all think?

I can easily see a split between a player book and a troupe book, or an adventure book and a saga book, but I can't see a setting book and a rules book. They just seem to depend upon each other too much; the rules of Ars Magica require the setting to function, and the setting requires the rules. You might do better with a separate book that described how to convert the setting into an Orderless world. The difficulty is that you risk creating two games: if the Order is canon in one book, you really have to have that Order in all published books, or the line isn't consistent and the game begins to fracture into separate camps.

One way to support your vision is to keep the number of magi in the Order a mystery, designed to support many different options. You could play a saga with only one magus if you wanted, with the player characters supporting his covenant as companions while he sits in the lab all day. Part of the troupe book, I think, should be exploring these possibilities for the storyguide. "Here's what things look like with less than 500 magi. Here's what things look like with 1000 magi. Here's 2000 magi." And so on.

Me neither, which is why I'm teasing it out. :)

>>>>I can't see any way to lift the Order out of the setting and still maintain the game, because it's the covenant that gives the troupe a central purpose. Without a covenant, Ars Magica is plagued by the same character interaction problems as D&D...<<<<

I agree; the covenant is the primary plot device for troupe-style play.

>>>>I can easily see a split between a player book and a troupe book, or an adventure book and a saga book, but I can't see a setting book and a rules book.<<<<<

Actually, neither can I. I was brainstorming of two "rule & setting" books, one giving you the "adventuring in Mythic Europe" setting & rules, the other giving you the "Grand (and not-so-Grand) Designs of the Order of Hermes" setting & rule info.

I like the "Player" and "Troupe" distinction you envision. Much better paradigm (sorry!) than a "Player" and "GM" split, since ArM is troupe-styled. Perhaps one could split the rules/setting into what's typically done individually (character design, introduction to Hermetic magic, how to fight effectively, intro to setting, etc.) with what's done collectively (covenants, storyguiding, in-depth magic stuff, in-depth setting stuff).

I think the notion of two books is very solid. If we assume 16 color pages over two books, that's twice the color pages, yes? Just an example.

I also think this idea of looking at the world of Ars Magica from two different perspectives is right on. Consider: Book One -- the street-level view and Book Two -- the top-down view.

Once again I have to point us at the new STAR TREK books from Decipher. Although labelled Player's and Narrator's guides, these books are both indespensible to players of the game since the setting is so rich in detail. The ST:RPG Player's Guide is solely about character creation and roleplaying. I think the ArM Book One could cover more than this, but it's an example. The ST:RPG Narrator's Guide covers the means for creating settings, adventures and the like. Especially in a troupe-style game like Ars Magica, this sort of approach becomes valuable to players and Storyguide's alike.

What is Book One is about characters and magic and combat while Book Two is about covenants, monsters, settings and stories?

I also want to say, for posterity, that a lesser page count utilizing modern layout software and creative art design doesn't necessarily mean less information. I'd love to see two slimmer, portable and jam-packed books ... even while I'd miss the old heavy tomes of Ars Magica.

I'm positively giddy about seeing Ars Magica re-imagined.

word,
will

1. Reduce the four powers to three powers. Given that we have a Christian Dominion and a Jewish Dominion and are likely to see an Islamic Dominion defined in a future book about the Holy Land, all of a sudden the differences between Magic Auras and Faerie Auras look like a matter of aspect.

Why not just say that a Magic Aura is a 'tamed' Faerie Aura? It gets you to a neat trinity of powers, Divine, Infernal and Natural. The difference between Magic Auras and Faerie Auras is the difference between a cleared and plowed field and wilderness.

2. Restructure and incorporate the Mysteries into the core of hermetic magic and try to incorporate more historical magic into Ars Magica. Even if this breaks compatibility with previous editions. I for one would prefer to see the dates in the game universe listed as 'Age of Pisces' as any astrologer worth his salt would know.

I'd really like to see the whole initiation system incorporated into the whole development of a Magus. A young apprentice should start out weak in power and lore and when they are young quest a lot to increase their powers. Group quests are a great way to have adventures, and one of the better reasons for Magi to leave the Covenant.

3. Allow for more flexibility in how spells are cast. One of the features that drives me nuts about Ars Magica is that you have spontaneous, formulaic and ritual magic. A person cannot design a powerful spell that takes days to cast and extra props and a group of Magi working together. The formulaic/ritual breakdown is an arbitrary game mechanic thing. For that matter, so is Vis.

A Magus should take the level of the spell's effect and work out casting requirements for that level of effect and break them down as they see fit. If a Magus wants to create a special spell that can be cast without incantations, gestures or material props, just a moment's concentration (useful in mundane situations) then I think Hermetic magic should be flexible enough to accomodate them as well as the Magus who wants to create a massive ceremony that requires a half dozen Magi and can only be cast on the Winter Solstice in a certian location (the yearly Aegis for the Covenant).

Yes, I know the above breaks with backwards compatibility, but we don't want to let compatibility with previous editions hold back progress.

Islamic Dominion coming to a store near you in September 2002 (or later knowing Atlas), Blood and Sands looks to be very promising (I think that if the author took playtest comments seriously this could be my favorite Tribunal book ever).

I've long argued that Faerie and Magic are different aspects of the same aura. It is how I treat them in my saga and I'd love to do the same in 5th editon. Oh yes I would.

Jeremiah

If we find time today (uncertain, since we have a lot of things to take care of before heading off toward Gen Con in the car in early afternoon), I'll attempt to print out a copy of the book to have at Gen Con for folks to paw through.

I look forward to seeing the finished product.

Do we get a good Hotz map in this book? I am really hoping for a map comparable to Dragon and the Bear (the best part of that book imho)

Jere

I know, always wanting more

Jere

This is not to say that I object to making the Mysteries more core, or trying to integrate the Order with the setting. An awful lot of people like the Mysteries, so I expect that pushing it to the forefront would be a good idea. I simply want to careful to avoid removing elements of the setting that would be familiar to casual gamers trying to get into it.
Kevin

I'd really like to see the whole initiation system incorporated into the whole development of a Magus. A young apprentice should start out weak in power and lore and when they are young quest a lot to increase their powers. Group quests are a great way to have adventures, and one of the better reasons for Magi to leave the Covenant.
-----

Why does the year have to start on the vernal equinox? That's just what the Mundanes believe. *True* Hermetic Magi use a much more esoteric dating system that has the New Year start on whatever day was on the cusp of Aries in 139AD or so. Some backwards calculation and a good fiction writer could easily resolve this issue. Instead, we've got people wanting to invalidate every A.A. date in every sourcebook since.

:P Sorry, pet peeve.

As for making initiation core, I had a similar idea (D&D's theory of "Thought Bubbles" that float around striking people comes to mind. Or maybe I'll just reuse the cliche: "Great Minds...")

Say it four times, and people start to believe it. Taking the Virtue layout in Mysteries as Gospel, the four Virtues for "The Little Mystery" (Latin scholars: Secretum Minor?) would be:

+1 Magic Theory. The outer mystery, this lets you study the Arts, cast spells (ritual, formulaic, or spontaneous) and use Vis.

+2 Parma Magica. An inner mystery. In addition to giving you the Parma Magica itself, you don't receive Form bonuses to your magic resistance until you've been initiated in this mystery.

+3 Certamen. I'm toying with a "Certamen Strike" idea, where you can *force* an opponent into Certamen, hopefully to take advantage of the Parma bypass you get for winning, for use in Wizard's War only, which is why this is after Parma Magica. If you don't like the idea, reverse them. (+2: Certamen, +3 Parma Magic). I'm also toying with a "Certamen Pose," which, OoP, I'd describe as a "Samurai's Stance." It lets you flaunt your incredible CrIg (or whatever) total without actually setting fire to the entire district or knocking some other magus unconscious.

I'm stuck at the fourth virtue. If you assume that the Order itself is a Secret Society, and whatever Lineage you're in initiates you into a familial mystery, then one possibility would be:

+4 Ex Pluribus Unum. With apologies to the US Mint. Without this Virtue, a Magus may only initiate into *one* Mystery (other than the Order of Hermes itself). This is, almost without exception, your Lineage's familial mystery. Any more, and the conflicts and apparent contradictions just become too much for true illumination. *With* this virtue, you realize that all magics are (or at least should be) one, and other Secret Societies (like the Cabal of the Golden Bee...) become open to you. The last great revelation of Bonisagus, and the one most taken for granted by the Modern Order.

Another possibility is
+4 Largesse of Power: Allows you to initiate your own labwork: The creation of potions, familiars, magic items and talismans, extracting Vis, and other rituals normally taken for granted by full-fledged Magi. Without this virtue, you're limited to, at most, inventing new (minor) spells.

But I'm babbling.

In other news, I'd like to see a "beloved rival" reintroduced. Tytalus was right, it makes us healthier. The Orders of Geonim and Odin have been debunked as myths, and I bet Blood and Sand does the same to the Order of Suleiman. (If not, WOO HOO!). We never really got a chance to play with Diedne, or the hedgies crushed during the Founding. The only organizations that are of the same scale as the Order are the Infernal and the Church (I refuse to consider Nobility or Faeries as "organized") Opposing the Infernal drives Hermes into the Church's arms, which is bad (as shown by the reaction to White Wolf's attempt), and opposing the Church is just too drastic for most modern players to accept (You think we've got a bad reputation *now*...) What's left? Well, the Mongols would have been cool, but it'd mean advancing the timeline *again*, *and* as a magical threat, all they've got are a bunch of Shamans. It's really getting to the point where all we have left is to start a penpal relationship with an Order in Cathay.

A Player book vs. Troupe book seperation (or an adventure book vs. seasonal book) seperation sounds ideal. Leave the covenant, lab, study and experience, and aging rules to the troupe book, and put the rest in the player book.

I am also in complete favor of merging the faerie and magical auras together, at least conceptually. The two are essentially different modes of the same force IMO. The only problem with completely eliminating the faerie aura is that it eliminates the botch danger of faerie auras for hermetic magic. OTOH, making faerie places more attractive to magi, balanced only with the inherent danger of faerie, works just fine.

The idea of a new art that deals with ghosts, demons, faeries, and other spirit types also feels right to me. If Imaginem is eliminated, adding Spiritus brings the total back up to the nice round 10.

- A good introduction. The game really needs a comprehensive introductory chapter with an overview of the setting, the genre, and the basic assumptions about the game (such as the lack of game balance between magi and mundanes, troupe style play, and the time frame of years), to give to new players and draw more people into the game. Nobilis has an excellent example of this, which Hogshead has posted on its website.

- Simplified spell guidelines which have been playtested massively. I would like to see the guidelines simplified so that all guidelines use the same basic range, duration, and target. That way only the "effect" needs guidelines, not a different RDT combination for every Te/Fo.

- Better experience rules for non-arts. The knowledge and skill study rules suffer from being too granular, because of the /5 division. IMC we use the Michael de Vertuil's arts as abilities variant, but use the old art study rules and simply multiply the number of XP required to advance by 5, so the XP needed is the new level x5. This multiplication has the added effect that it allows SGs to give more interesting story-based XP awards. Giving out a handful of xp for exceptional achievement or IC learning is much easier, becasue each individual XP is worth less than in the standard system.

- Make formulaic spells more flexible to cast. Perhaps only lock the target and effect, and allow the magus to choose the range and duration when he casts the spell. Also allow magi to "un-cast" their own spells, instead of having to use PeVi. The knowledge of how to undo a spell should be part of the formula.

- Make hermetic magi more than just people who can cast spells. They should have some passive automatic abilities. For example, it's odd that magi cannot sense magic or magical auras without the aid of InVi spells. (IMC we have a house rule that all magi have the benefits of Magic Sensitivity, with a score equal to their InVi/5.

1. I would get rid of the Faerie Realm completely. The difference between "magic" and "faerie" in myths and legends is so blurred that any distinction made between the two is almost entirely arbitrary. It would mean that the three realms formed a pleasing symmetry to the Three Estates, and also solve the current confusion about the origins of pagan deities.

2. I would get rid of spontaneous magic. I think it is probably fair to say that, from my experience at least, most players concentrate exclusively on their magus characters, because between the Gentle Gift and spontaneous magic, they can overcome most mundane challenges, rendering Companion characters completely unnecessary. While Ars is a game that accepts that it throws game balance out of the window, this is one case where some sort of redress needs to be made.

Niall Christie

Actually, having looked over the realms and aura section not all that long ago, I think that this entire section needs some heavy revision. What causes auras? Dominion auras appear to be caused by prayer and belief, but do magic auras form by people casting spells? The text is not very helpful when trying to dig into the these kinds of issues.

2) I really wouldn't want to see spontaneous magic go. I think it is one of the biggest draws the system has. There are some things that I think could resolve your complaints without removing spontaneous magic altogether. Eliminate Gentle gift or make it more costly. Reduce fatigue recovery. The two minute cycle on the top fatigue level makes the fatigue cost a lot less sting a lot less. Leave spont magic in, but perhaps make it hurt more.
Kevin

If Mystae are folded in to the main hermetic rules, having lots of Societies initiate Second Sight could work, too.

That's not to say I don't like the idea. As I suggested in a previous post, I think passive Art use is cool. I said as resistance to mundane Forms (like high Ignem gives soak against bonfires), but giving you an extra sense for Forms (Like just *knowing* where the nearest fire is...or, in Vim's case, the nearest spell/enchantment) would be just too darn spiffy, too.

The impression I get is that there are two types of Ars players - those who would like to see Hermetic magi get more and more powerful (for whom books like The Mysteries are a godsend), and those who would like to tone them down a bit, to encourage people to play their non-magus characters a bit more. I happen to be of the latter persuasion. :-)

To put the cat among the pigeons: Maybe one way forward would be to dispense entirely with Companion and Grog characters. One could argue that Ars is a game about magi, and most people enjoy playing their magi above all, so it is logical that the other character types should become entirely NPCs.

Niall

As to eliminating Magi and Grogs. I tend to run Magi focus games where companions take a back seat and Grogs almost never have any focus. Still, I've seen some very memorable companions (the 3rd edition Wereowl with feral upbringing was beautiful) and would hate to see them eliminated. From where I stand, the Magi first, everyone else second approach we have now works.
Kevin

As for removing or toning down spont magic... I would not like to see this as spont magic is *the* feature of the magic system which makes it vastly superior to any other. Formulaic/Mastery help in stepping up over what I see as it's main competitor, the WW Mage the Ascencion system.

My 2 cents.

R.M.

A better solution would be to fix the rampant power inflation ArM has been suffering since 3rd edition. In 4th edition it's become quite drastic, since there the limits on Art learning have been completely removed. In 1st-3rd editions, the learning rules effectively capped all art scores at 30 or so, becuase after a certain point magi could no longer improve by reading books, and when studying vis magi had to roll higher than their art score on (stress die)x3, while using 3 pawns of vis. In 4rd edition, magi just need a stack of tractati in order to advance their art scores into the 50's or higher (which in turn allows for higher level books to be written).

If I had to choose a single thing to be changed in 5th edition, I'd like to see the level of power reduced to that of 1st-3rd edition, which an effective cap on Art learning built back into the study rules. That would make spontanous magic more reasonable, and also make it much easier to compare sagas and create sourcebook characters.

By the way, maybe this belongs in the Legacy thread, but how would combining Faerie and Magic realms affect the cosmology? In particular Houses Criamon and Merinita.

If they're the same aura, does that mean Arcadia is in the same relative place as the Twilight realm? If Magic is just a "tamed" Faerie Aura (an idea I like, BTW), what happens to the relevant spot in Arcadia when a large Faerie forest is turned into a high-Magic covenant?

As for Arcadia, I have never really percieved much of a differentiation between it an the Magic realm anyway. They're just different ways of looking at the same thing, or different types of locales within a single realm. Or perhaps there are multiple magic 'realms'. After all, do the ghosts of Pompeii and ancient Greece really live in the same place as Irish sidhe, slavic Baba Yaga, and moorish Jinn? The answer is both no and yes.

What would happen if Magi moved into the middle of a faerie forest? The faeries might get mad. What would happen to Arcadia (presuming there's a high enough Regio to enter it)? Not much. If the Magi entered Arcadia through a faerie regio (by which I mean a regio that is inhabited by faeries, not a seperate type of realm), then they would enter the magic realm in an area corresponding to the nature of the faeries that are a part of the regio.

1) The two book Idea: I like it but if you look at the books to look for the logical split why not put all the coven(yes put it before character creation), character, combat(this needs to be fixed some as it is much better in 3rd edition), etc rules in one book. Magic spells, Items, familurs, Books, Research(This badly needs fixing) and so forth in the second. Almost half the main book now is spells and such, with more in the grimore. When we play everyone needs a spell book to look up something but the character creation rules are hardly ever looked at unless we forgot a minor point of a rarely used virtue or flaw. The same is true for most of the material of the first book. The second book would truely be worth the title of the Wizard's Grimoire then.

2) How bout 2 powers Jeremiah or more like axis of power. There is the magic/farie aura axis and the divine/infernal axis. After all both divine and infernal are using angels, just with differing agendas. Magic and Farie are like the axis of Logic vs Carefree and Infernal and Divine are the Good vs Evil. The spirits of the elements (I have heard elementals spoken of but never actaully published) make up the neutral powers stuck in the balance of these great forces.

3) I like the idea that houses become a collection of lineages. It helps give the different houses more flavor and explains why their is certain different sterotypes allowed. Midevil society was very hide bound and unlike most of us today, they would be horrified of the idea of striking out into a new way of doing things. Feudalism stagnated very contentedly for hundreds of years because of the "what was good enough for my father is good enough for me" Idea.

4) The death of Imaginem: I also have been tempted to do away with this art but have many players who rant and rave about this most sacred Form of theirs. They love its versatility and refuse to play without it. Unfortnately these are not the slowest players in the troop but the most imaginative. Our verdi often sleeps in game unless something exciting is going on. So while I do not like the idea of having my game hostage to a particular form, I feel that the game would be much diminished without it. O and as to making it a form of merinita...we have never yet had a merinita imaginem mage yet. It has usually been the provence of the jerbiton and in our current story it is being used by a criamon.

Anyway thats my take on things, Hope it helps.

If done this way, I would prefer a book on the core mechanics and on creation companions/mundanes in the core book Maybe even flesh out a little more of mythic Europe as well. Give more of the philosophical mindset of medieval people and the structure of medieval life. Maybe some of Ordo Nobilis blended into it, at least some of the core rules.

The second book would be on the Order of Hermes and Hermetic magic. And in fact I wouldn't mind seeing Houses of Hermes blended into that book. A thicker book much more complete on the Order of Hermes. Some of the Wizard's Grimore should be incorporated, and as I said before, I'd like to see Hermetic magic rebuilt around the concepts in the Mysteries.

In short, the first book should give a fairly complete way to build any mundane character, and all the mundane aspects of a Magus. The second book allows one to build a Magus.

(dang, can't find the URL for that post from Shane..)

-j-

I am not a fan of ad hoc and provisional rules for this and that. I much prefer a clearly defined system.

And what about just going through, finding all the rules and writing them down. Then, locate the place where they belong and clearly put them in somewhere? Maybe in a box or a nice bold lettering. Something like:

Penetration: (To affect someone protected by magic)
Target Number: Opponent’s Might or (whatever it is for Parma Magica, I have no idea) + Technique
Modifiers: Stress Roll + Penetration + Form + Technique + Aura Modifier

And auras. Clarify what they are and how they are used and when they are used. Are they used for everything?

I know that a lot of the sales base comes from established fans, but please write the core books for new players and story guides. Please do pure blind testing, among people who’ve never played the game before at all!

Sorry, I’m just a little frustrated after last night’s game. I found it very difficult to find the information I wanted quickly. The index was nearly useless. If issues such as these were cleared up I would gladly replace my growing 4th collection.

Regarding spliting the core rules into mundane and magic books, that strikes me as being a bad idea, for practical as well as marketing purposes. All the character creation rules should be in one book, as having to reference back and forth between books is annoying, and not all players can be counted upon to own both books. The adventure/saga division proposed earlier is a better split IMO.

I propose, though, that a beautiful leather-bound two-book set of both, illuminated and thoroughly playtested, released a year or two after the originals, would be worth a lot to the longtime fans. I know I'd pay $100 for that.

If Alas spends less than 2 years playtesting this book, after spendng a year-and-a-half develoing and riting i, the are doing something wrong.

There is no pressing need to hurry up and release 5th editon. 4th edition works just fine. So lets take our time and do it iht.

Unless John has this strange business hunch which tells him a well-one 5th edition lanched next year could bring in oodles of fans. I've learned to trust John's hunces.

Jeremiah

I've playtested for a lot of different companies, and I'd say Atlas was one of the better ones.

Jeremiah

Firstly, Ars Magica is a game about magic, specifically wizards ("The Magical Art"). Players play wizards, and that means the Order of Hermes. The Order is the only aspect of the setting that is entirely original to the game. So, the Order must remain, and players playing wizards must be integral to the story. Things about the Order can change, but I think the history and the Houses are set.

Secondly, Ars Magica is a troupe-style game. Players are part of a covenant. They play other characters in addition to the magi: companions and grogs who provide support and variety. The concept of three types of characters and a home base as the central character is as essential to the game as the idea of having storyguides and players.

The root mechanic involves Characteristic + Ability. Therefore, having Characteristics and Abilities is essential. Stress dice and botch rolls also seem clearly established. The concept of Virtues and Flaws should stay. Body levels and Fatigue levels are core. How these are used or designed might change, but I don't think any of them could be dumped.

Mythic Europe is the setting of the game, and that is also an essential aspect. Sure, the game could be played elsewhere, but the published line is inextricably associated with it. There are parts of it that could be modified (for example, three Realms instead of four), but the new edition shouldn't try to remove the legendary medieval concept.

I'm quite opposed to the idea of changing the Techniques or Forms. What sorts of things they can do might be changed, but I think all fifteen are essential. Some have argued that Imaginem is useless, but I use it a lot, especially for faerie glamours. As I see it, it is far better to give a creature a single MuIm power than six or seven low level MuXX powers. Imaginem has been around since the beginning, and like it or not, illusion is a popular variety of fantasy magic. There are also other aspects of the magic system that I feel are essential (vis, Might, effect parameters).

I can't think of anything else offhand that makes Ars Magica what it is to me. I am enjoying the discussion, even the things about which I disagree, and I admit that a few months ago there are things I would have listed here as essential that I'm now reconsidering, like the Faerie Realm. I haven't decided if I agree these things are disposable, but it is quite interesting to read the arguments for and against, and I hope this sort of discussion continues.

I have this weird weakness as a GM where I feel like everything the NPCs do, a player should be able to do. And so I want more and better rules for potential protagonists. That’s all.

Hmm. It was my understanding that the complaint over Imaginem wasn't that it was useless, but that it was too flexible, or that it was counter to the division imposed by the other forms. Magi were taking high levels of Imaginem and neglecting the other forms.

Imaginem is in dying need of a good dissection delineating what it can and cannot do. And, yes, it gives us a bad image, but it would help if it reflected medieval thought better.

Personally I'm very happy with the Fourth edition, and own most of the supplements (barring one or two that I may have missed) along with quite a few 3rd edition ones too. As such, I would be wary of overly radical changes for the sake of it, especially if it gives the impression of making previous supplements obselete. This is not to say that I'm opposed to the whole idea though.

I think that the recent Unknown Armies Second edition provides a very good model of how to do a game revision. Pretty much all the changes and clarifications made where due to feedback given from reviews, forums etc. When I bought it, I felt that the game had improved dramatically from the 'supplement' feel of the first edition, to being a fully blown game, that I was excited about playing. The fact that the new edition was big, thick, and had a nice hardback cover, did contribute to this, I have to say.

With that in mind, I'm wary of the 2 book format. Sure, costs and so on are a major factors in publishing, and Decipher's Star Trek would actually make a good model for ArsM's core rules to be broken down in ths way, but then could you afford to provide glossy, full colour pages, lots of illustration, and hardbacks? If not, then you have to question what a c.160 page book will look like. ArsM is a classy niche game, with a history of gaming awards. Currently, the only problem I've got with the design is that the cover is not bright enough, but I like to keep the Heraldic design! If you can get interior colour templates, then I'd like to see them blocked together as the introduction or prelude. Please don't end up making it look like Deadlands d20, whatever you do! I dunno, perhaps you might also look at one of those nifty 6" by 9" designs that some game company's have done...maybe..

Having said that, the rules themselves could breakdown quite well into Character and Saga books, as others have mentioned. So here goes with my preferential design.....

Personally, I would like the Character book to be broken down into three sections(one for Magi, one for Companions, and one for Grogs), with appropriate rules included in each, along with an introduction section and maybe include some Archetypal characters from each House too, also. The magic system should be retained as a whole in this book, unless it is something that occurs in the Laboratory (see Saga book). I would welcome the integration of any newer magic rules from supplements (particulary The Mysteries), but would not really like to see any major tampering with the basic Arts (keep them all!).

I would like the Combat section to be stripped right down and included in a Systems chapter, that also includes rules for, say, Debate, Travel and Bartering too. Combat should be less structured, more narrative and less wordy in it's description. It shouldn't take up more than 5 pages, charts 'n' all. It always struck me as being odd that the combat system in Pendragon, which is meant to be be more combat heavy, is actually less complicated than that of ArsM! Simply roll initiative, roll to hit, roll for damage - as with most other games - is all that is neccessary, but I did like the formatting of the skills in the 4th Ed.

In terms of mechanics....well, I'd like to ditch the division between stress, simple and quality dice and use a straightforward 2d6 (botch on snake-eyes; exploding dice on box-cars) system. Why? Because it's very confusing for a new SG to determine what type of dice to roll, or how many botch dice either. The fact that a basic Ease Factor chart was missed out in the last edition compounded this problem no end. I do realise that this would make the rules somewhat similar to those used in Decipher's system. I don't see this as being a bad thing, though and the actual scale of the variance would be reasonably comparable to what it is now with a d10 (as opposed to what it would be if it switched to a d20).

I'd also welcome Characteristics and other such seperate Traits to be fully integrated into the Virtues and Flaws list (why not? It would allow characters to be presented much more concisely), and a character generation system similar to that of Castle Falkenstein: where a series of structured Q&A are answered and the written down, to form the basis of a journal. This allows for the development of really interesting, fully fleshed out characters. Isn't this what everyone wants?

The Saga book could then elaborate on Covenants, Laboratory (including all magical development, Apprentices and Familiars, etc), Mythic Europe, Beasts and Realms, and perahaps some discussion on the Order, other magical traditions and general story ideas and suggestions. In terms of the background, well I'd like to see more 'mystical' over 'historical' like that in The Mysteries or the Medieval Bestiary, as opposed to more 'fantasy'. To my mind ArsM isn't fantasy anyway.....it's medieval Sci-Fi! I'm not sure of the implications of absorbing the Fairie into the Realm of Magic, but it wouldn't really bother me much either way. Perhaps the timeline could be moved on further too.......late 14th century anyone?

Oh well, that's my piece.....

Edited 8/20/2002 6:19:35 PM ET by TRIPPY666

- A central core book, around the same size (or a bit bigger) as the 4th edition book, but with more art. I would include base rules, a better setting chapter, and perhaps a lot of the Houses of Hermes. However, I would try and streamline the rules into "simple" and "advanced" - and include the simple rules in the core book. (It's an RPG publishing dodge as old as the hills...:-))
- A Players guide revising the Wizards Grimoire, indeed perhaps CALLED the Wizard's Grimoire ("The Wizards's Grimoire - A Player;s Guide to Ars Magica"). Advanced rules could be included here.
- A "GM/Storyguide" uh Guide. This could include a lot of the Mythic Europe details, details from the Bestiary, and some more complex setting, philosophical concepts and game rules.

At this point, the "core" books should have "everything you need to play" and have "replaced" the 4th ed corebook, the Houses of Hermes, the Mysteries, Mythic Europe, the Grimoire, the Bestiary and maybe even Faeries (a bit).

Thus, the player, hopefully someone knew, who has been lured by the nice design, cool looking book, blah, blah, now has the "broad strokes" of the AM universe mapped out, and everything he or she needs to start. Then the supplements can come out - perhaps making 4 big Tribunal books, one per year, putting the older books under one cover, and updating them a bit. Perhaps these books can be groups geographically - Merlin's Heirs and Lion of the North in one book; iberia, Rome and whereever else in another...

As for the Auras and Regio, someone made a cool suggestion about the differences between Faerie and Magical auras. "The difference between a wilderness and a ploughed field." That's probably apt, but I would emphasise that the wilderness is dangerous, and full of scary things. Stealing the Glamour rules from Pendragon would also be neat. I would suggest "Glamour" be called Gramarye, though.

and that's all I can manage before I must go eat.
Apologies for the rambling.

Gavin

I have read through most of the posts in this thread and the general opinion seems to be that there really isn't that much in the way of rules that need changing.

Sure we want the money handling rules tightened up, and maybe combat etc but the rules as they stand are solid. I have read a few house rules on the net that would work if added to the core (especially correspondence rules).

So, we come down to changes to the setting (focus of the Order etc) or changes to the way the books are organised.

I think the system in the future needs to explore the different loyalties that a Magis may have to juggle; house, lineage, covenant, idealogical brethren etc, which would involve blending in some of the Mysteries concepts (the rules might be kept out as the book itself will still be available). I would like the houses to be represented more like lineages (strengthen the magical specialities and virtues taught by the house and give Mysteries style initiation rites for higher learning in the house).

Please keep Imaginem. I don't use it much for my characters, but it is an integral part of the magic system. The power to create and manipulate illusion just cannot be replicated by the other arts.

As far as the book organisation goes, take a leaf out of the D&D books (I know, but I just had to buy them...). They are sumptuous. I love the tight layout and the full colour content. But, please don't split the book into two. I want to see all the current core content and more in one volume. The page count could easily be lower (saving on costs) with tighter design.

I think that does it for now. I just can't see that much to change in the 4th edition except all those nice additions that have been published in various books (enhanced book rules, combat rules, lineages etc). I just want to buy a 4.5 edition that tarts up the look and feel.

Here's my number one complaint about Imaginem: Mormoor. This turns on
the WayBack machine all the way to "The Broken Covenant of Calebais,"
where the Mage Mormoor had the most extensive lab setup imaginable -- it was literally another world. He really should have had to study more than Imaginem to create another world in his lab.

Obviously, Imaginem has been tightened up since then...the sense of touch can no longer be universally created...but the potential is still there.

Forcing all Magi to have Incompatible Arts: CrIm doesn't strike me as too unbelievable. Creo deals strictly with ideals, but Imaginem is the opposite: It deals strictly with accidents.

I suppose you could CrIm "green," but if you want Kermit the Frog, you better have Animal. IMO.

Yeah, I agree that an Animal requisite makes sense, so long as it i substantially easier to create the illusion of a frog than it is to create a real frog. I don't have the book to hand so I am assuming that this is the case.

Requisites make sense at the risk of forcing an Imaginem specialist to know just as much about (say) Animal as he does about illusions just to create a picture of a frog.

Thinking about it though, stick the requisites in as standard and then make a virtue available (Illusionist - for instance) that allows the Magus, by virtue of his artistic bent, to cast without reqs. After all, illusions are only a facade. All the Magus needs is to be able to make a fair enough copy of what your frog looks like. He doesn't have to make it work, unless he wants it to stand up to investigation.

I would like to see Imaginem remain an integral part of the Ars magic system, but it would be nice to see a dedicated illusionist scenario considered. This would, I think, make Imiginem that bit more rationalised and consequently a little more useful.

Just to keep the argument going in circles, what's the difference between an illusion of a frog and a real frog with Sun duration? Or Diameter? After which it goes Poof?

Imaginem is a sound Form. It's just extremely subjective mechanically, since the stuff of illusions is so much more malleable than the physical effects of other Forms.

A note from my Devil's Advocate to see if this discussion can move in an entirely different circle: what if illusions were governed by a new Technique ("I Imagine")?

word,
Will

Ooooh! You know this Imaginem stuff could really go on and on, couldn't it! I mean, _surely_ the problem is that both Imaginem and Mentem are just too broadly defined, eh? Let's see what we could instead have as new Forms:-

Illusionem (Something that cannot be real)
Emotionem (Feelings)
Imaginem (more closely defined as a picture of something that *is* real)
Cognitcionem (Knowledge)
Fidem Quae (What you Believe)
Fedem Qua (How you Believe)

or new Techniques:-

Imaginare (Specifically, I create a picture of something that is potentially real)
Dubito(I doubt)
Credo (I believe)
Despero! (I despair!)

Ultimately you have to make a decision as to whether the system is weak enough to justify the addition of such complications. Personally, I think that the system is basically as robust as it needs to be and is a signature-mark of the game. I'd rather attention gets focussed on other more contentious areas, such as the combat system which I regard as being needlessly complex.

I would never go so far as to say that the ArM system is weak. And while Imaginem isn't *too* broadly defined, it is perhaps the Form most dependent on circumstantial decision-making. It's certainly the most nebulous Form in application, as it deals with the way things "seem," which is not only highly subjective to begin with, but is further complicated by the nature of a role-playing game. It's a relatively imprecise method of storytelling for something as sensually-defined as a magic illusion. There are rarely photos or film footage or recorded sound effects which can be used to make the description of the spell's effect precisely understood by all players. What's more, none of us have actually encountered an illusory frog in real life have we? It's the most difficult Form to grasp clearly.

I don't think it is necessary to change Imaginem, but I do think there is something to be learned by discussing the alternatives. We may get a renewed perspective which makes whatever opinions we have on the subject clearer. That is, even if it is wise to not make any changes, it would be foolish to simply assume that is going to be the case. Consideration does no harm.

Believe me, this is not the only area of the game being reconsidered.

word,
Will Hindmarch
Atlas Games

The book needs to be made even more reader accessible. Thats a given.

More charts. Better index. Better organization. Better layout.

I shouldn't have to rely on memory to find things. My memoy isn't to good anymore.

Jere

Having wound rules in a section that is not the combat section really made my scratch my head.

~Alex

Haakon

My personal recommendation is to not make it a 5th edition, but instead something more. The weakness in the game is that it doesnt attract the huge number of players that it could. I mean the system is extraordinary in its magickal concept and with the right changes could draw in an infinite number of players, however players want to see their characters grow, and fast. You dont want out-of-game learning and the way magic is studied and learned, while being more practical and believable, turns away alot of potential players. I came up with some house rules that changes that.

For one, I set the campaign in pre-Ars Magica, before the Order of Hermes (meaning no Parma Magica and no Cartamen). My story line suggests that the further from the past you get, the harder magic becomes to use, so in early 600s magic was not only easier to learn but more common.

Now from there we can suggest that although most that use magic dont understand that theres vast amounts of Vis all over (they have an inkling of an idea) they are constantly in the heart of vis allowing them to learn from experience instead of study. As time goes on and vis wears out soon it will be rare and so will the number of magic users. This lets us just spend XP for raising the arts and for learning spells. Takes away the need for slow laborous laboratory rules, and you just play 1 character since there is no covenant and you need to be out in the world (where the vis is abundant) to advance.

My XP charts for advancing arts mirror the character generation charts of 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, etc, except you have to buy it one dot at a time. Spells cost their level (not magnitude) per spell. I also give out 8 to 12 XP per game.

Then I do to combat what you do to magic. I use the current combat skills and they become the Forms of Combat (Think I added a couple to get an even 10 Forms), then I take the 5 basic combat stats of Attack, Defense, Damage, Soak, and Initiative and they become techniques. This was sufficient for awhile and people were as eager to make warriors as magic users but it was the spells that made the magic better so we started making combat maneuvers that you could 'learn' for XP based on combinations much like spells are done. An example being Flourentine a level 10 AtSw (Attack/Sword) which let you use 2 weapons at once giving you a chance to roll your attack twice and take the better roll. We dont have alot but it sure made the game more interesting.

Lastly at char generation we limit the number of points you get to spend on magic arts, magic spells, combat arts, combat maneuvers to 50 each (so you dont feel like youre starting with a maxxed out character which is another flaw of the current system, youre never a newbie).

As for theme, in our history magic users are hunted down on sight, but with so much magic in the air there is no 'Gifted' feeling, so you cant tell someone is magickal from a 'feeling', however the 'dark arts' are feared for a very valid reason, the more magic users there are, the quicker the Vis is drained from the world. When magic users visit a farm the food is less plentiful, animals become sick, and basic 'bad luck' things happen due to the drain in Vis.

Anyhows, I think a system like that appeals to a much larger group and gives you a chance for a more fantasy_oriented game as the faerie world is much more common, orcs and goblins are as common as other species of animals, dragons are feared (not only for their breaths but because their magickal nature has a similar effect on the environment that magicians have). Give us a real system with this superior magic system that we can use for a more fantastic style of adventure.

Sphynx, the Winged Lion

However the main usage of this form (least in my games) is most often as sensory type spells (Clairvoyance ReIm, Wolf Scent MuIm[strenghtening the smells in the area instead of mutating your own senses], etc) or to hide things from senses such as the array of invis type spells, or to manipulate your senses such as the Torn Wizard spells.

That form is strong enough without the need for realistic illusions, so lose that level of it, if you want an illusion of a frog, get CrAn and have the spell last for a Concentration duration.

Learning:

Get rid of the 3 levels/xp per season limit. That's a kludge put in to prevent, among other things, apprentices sneaking into the paren's library every night and picking up 10 levels in a season. Or a magus getting lucky on his vis study roll and getting 500+ Art exp.

Instead, for every Skill, Talent, and Knowledge, roll a Stress Die(no more than one or two doublings) and subtract the current level of the Ability. Then add the quality of whatever xp-gaining method you are using(training, lecture, disputatio, etc). Divide by 5 and round up if you want, but I like to keep track of those fractional xp bits, because I don't want players metagaming. For Arts, I'd say subtract level/5.

In other words, get rid of the 'divide by your current total' - it's a holdover from 3rd edition.

I'd like to see 2 Skills for teaching Knowledges, and 2 Talents for teaching Skills. 1 each for personal tutoring, and 1 each for mass teaching. Disputatio and Lectio exist already, although I say you should be able to Lectio without a text if you want to. For teaching skills, you might call them 'Train' and 'Drill', Train being the personal one and Drill being the mass one.

Books

The quality of a book ought to be based on Disputatio(for LQs) or Lectio(for everything else). Although there's this one group called ARMA that teaches Western swordfighting, as recorded in a medieval book found in germany that teaches swordfighting, so you may wish to allow people to use Train to write manuals.

Speak(Language) and Scribe(Alphabet) should be used to determine the level of sophistication of a book. A book written at Speak Latin: 2 and Scribe Latin: 1, will be very nearly baby-talk, with a significant Quality penalty. _However_, the apprentice will be able to understand this book, where he might not understand a book that was written for a more sophisticated audience. And if he's taking a -8 or -10 Quality penalty, it should be pretty hard for an early apprentice to gain more than 6-7 exp in a season(although a skilled and talented lecturer might write an excellent apprentice book for his filius, so the kid might gain 15 exp from reading it).

Same penalties should apply to teaching, by the way. If you only have a 2 in Latin, you're gonna miss important stuff.

Well, I need to get off the net, so I'll come back later.

-Albert

Assume an 80-day block(or a 90-day block, but because Magi get 10 free days a season, I call it 80). Further assume that training/study/lab points come linearly. Which is to say, for a lab total of 20, I'm getting a point every 4 days.

The way to do it is you have a Daily Total - each day you accumulate points equal to your Lab/Study/Whatever total. Every time you hit 80(or 90, for the 90-dayers), subtract 80 and add one to your Whatever Total.

Okay, now for spell research and item enchantment it's a little different. If the spell level or the enchantment total is more than half your Lab Total, subtract the spell level/enchantment total from your Lab Total. If the spell level or the enchantment total is half or less than your Lab Total, divide your Lab Total by 2. Either way, once you accumulate points equal to the project total, it's complete(note that you still get the same results - it takes 240 days, 3 80 day blocks, for a Magus to research a level 30 spell with a Lab Total of 40).

Okay, someone's going to say that it's too much math. I don't think so. After 80 days, your Project Total is your Lab Total(or modified Lab Total, for research and item creation). Also, this can provide a common mechanic for just about every long-term activity: Vis Distillation, Spell Research, Training, Study, Item Creation, Spell Study(when you have a copy to learn from), Lectio, Disputatio, etc. Note that for non-Arts each point is 1/5 of an xp.

Okay, back to books:

I'd say that LQs should only be useful for their level - once you hit level 7, your Study Total suddenly drops by 5. My reasoning is that a bright student should hit the point of diminishing returns more quickly than a duller student. Compare two characters, studying identical LQs. They are at level 4 in the Art that the LQ addresses. One has a Study Total of 20, the other has a Study Total of 10.

Mr. 20 is gaining a point of Art exp every 4 days, exactly. It takes him 20 days to gain the 5 xp needed to get to level 5. At that point, his Study Total drops to 15. To get to level 6 will require 32 more days of study. To get to level 7, once level 6 is reached, will require 56 further days of study(because his Study Total is now taking a -10 penalty). Finally, to get to level 8 from 7, he'd need a good 128 days. At level 8, he's squeezed every bit of knowledge from the LQ that he can, over the course of 236 days.

Now Mr. 10. He's only gaining a point of Art xp every 8 days, so it will take him 40 days to achieve level 5. Now his study total drops to 5. It will take him 96 days to reach level 6, at which point he won't be able to benefit any more from the LQ. This has taken him 136 days.

At day 136, Mr. 10 is at Level 6(0).
At day 136, Mr. 20 is at Level 7(1), almost at Level 7(2), and still able to learn a bit more from the LQ.

However, both would be vastly better off getting an LQ at level 5 once they hit level 5.

More as I think of it.

-Albert

The 5th ed. must really be a new edition, even if some compatibility must be lost.

Character generation, combat and covenants must me re-thought and made easy. Magic is great, but could be streamlined a bit.

Here's what I think about global issues, for what it's worth. :)

If Atlas wants to be revolutionary, then they should do what Michael de Verteuil did in Hermes Portal and scale Arts in line with Abilities- rated from 1-10+, not 1-20+, using Ease Factors, not levels.

Afterall, if mages only think in Magnitudes, why shouldn't we as players?

And I agree, Atlas needs to do something to Ars that is new. Afterall, they are supposed to be charting new realms of imagination.

~Alex

How about a *gasp* metaplot of some description. I know, I know. Bear with me.

The next Grand Tribunal of Hermes is to be 1228.
The Mongols will turn back from their invasion of Europe in 1241. There's a good beginning and end date for the scope of the 5th Edition.

Now before the changeover to WOTC, White Wolf were talking about a "return of Diedne" plotline. Well its still a reasonably ok plotline.

Secondly, the Mysteries talks about there being a LOT more Magi knocking around Europe than the Houses of Hermes does. Well...uh...maybe the Order expands, aggressively, leading up to and following the Grand Tribunal, perhaps inducting new houses. Good idea? of course not - it means more politics, more fighting over scarce resources and so on.

Thirdly, the Iberia and Rome books talk about the future, and various doomed things happening. Now, I don't have the books to hand, but it seems to me that these occurences happened way into the future, towards the end of the century. But perhaps, in the two French Tribunals, and the Transylvanian tribunal, these things happen much earlier. Certainly, in the French tribunal areas, the Albigensian crusade is going to mess things up. Combine that with other things happening, and you have the basis for a decent metaplot.

Off the top of my head concepts:

- A house falls. What would happen if a House was destroyed? What if it was Tremere. Even better, what if it was Bonisagus?

- An entire Tribunal is riven by war. The Albigensian crusade uncovers Mistridge, say, and destroys it. What does the rest of the Order do? fight over what's left, that's what.

Anyway, that's just off the top of my head, spending a few minutes typing.

Gavin

So how about an open discussion of what kinds of things fans might like to see improved, added, dropped, or otherwise changed, were we to revise the game for a new edition?

Unquote:

First, I'd remove Faerie auras from the game. Magical auras should suffice for everything, and fey creatures work just as well if they are magical. You can make 'Arcadia' the realm of magic, or just 'a' realm of magic (with the Spirit Lands being another, etcetera). The game doesn't need faerie auras.

Second, make the learning process more mythic. Grubbing for vis to study after your summae run out is all nice and scholarly, but not very impressive. I'd really like to see a system whereby a magi learns more about an art by actually using the art (learning spells, creating spells, creating magic items, casting those dangerous ritual spells) rather than 'experimenting' with vis. Many low-end magi spend all their time with a nose in a book rather than really doing 'magical' stuff.

Third, all those non-hermetic magi have to start using vis. Many of them don't (see Blood and Sand - those sahir don't use vis! Kabbalists neither. Volkhvy neither.) and thus aren't a real competition for hermetic magi.

Fourth, as others have mentioned, the House -> Lineage idea is probably a good one, as well as progressive magical learning. Initiation and new virtues are a good idea for maintaining the cohesion of houses and a reason to 'serve' your house as well. However, I'd like to see much of the stuff in The Mysteries go away. Why? Well, once you have something like Oneirimancy (sp?), you need that virtue to cast dream magic type spells. Before, there weren't rules for it, so you could fake it with standard Hermetic magic. Similarly with Theurgy. Automata rules should be incorporated into standard magical theory, as it should encompass things like alchemy and astrology.

Fifth, the spell lists need to be cleaned up. Spells like Lungs of Water and Death or Curse of the Desert should be moved to Perdo Corpus; they are way too cheap and easy methods of killing people. Spells like Statue to Animal should be removed entirely (make a magical item instead). However, the Range/Duration/Target lists shouldn't be 'unified'. It should be easier to create Boundary effects with Auram magics than, say, Corpus magics. Perhaps a unified RDT table with modifiers for form (Auram: +3 steps on Target for free; Ignem: -2 steps on Duration for free) would keep everything in one place as well as keep it neat and clean.

Sixth, define the major breakthroughs and discoveries made by the Order, when they happened. For example, who discovered how to extract vis from the aura? When did he discover it? What shape does this vis take? Make it easier to make non-standard era Ars Magica games, but define what options are lost to magi in the process - in other words, give the Order the feel of actually getting better at magic with time. You could make discoveries easier too, because right now very, very few will ever want to do original research on even the most modest of ideas.

There's probably lots more I'd like to see, but that's it for now...

John D. Prins

The distinction between Faerie auras and Magical auras serves a purpose, and fits in with the Medieval mindset. Faeries were the wild creatures of the wood and glen. The Wizard/Magician/etc. represented a more ordered form of supernatural power. The distinction between Hermetic Magic and Faerie Magic is one of compatibility of viewpoints. The well ordered Hermetic viewpoint is somewhat incompatible with the free flowing Faerie viewpoint, so one who casts spells of one type should be somewhat uncomfortable casting spells in an area dominated by the other viewpoint.

[Second, make the learning process more mythic. Grubbing for vis to study after your summae run out is all nice and scholarly, but not very impressive. I'd really like to see a system whereby a magi learns more about an art ... ]

It would be interesting to have the experience system expanded to allow experience training for arts similar to skills. It would allow for additional, but somewhat slow progression in the arts. Experimenting with vis should still be the main method of advancement, as it creates a riskier, fast track to the advancement of arts.

[Third, all those non-hermetic magi have to start using vis. ... ]

Maybe, maybe not. Each has their own strengths. The Order of Hermes is supposedly a gathering of the most powerful traditions in Europe, and as such, if the other traditions were so powerful, they would have been forced into the fold during the join or die phase of the Order's development.

[Fourth, as others have mentioned, the House -> Lineage idea is probably a good one, ...]

Agreed

[ However, I'd like to see much of the stuff in The Mysteries go away. Why? Well, once you have something like Oneirimancy (sp?), you need that virtue to cast dream magic type spells. ... ]

Not necessarily so. The new virtues just make that kind of magic easier for those who have the virtue, and bends the limits of Hermetic Magic in some interesting directions.

[Fifth, the spell lists need to be cleaned up. ...]

There does need to be some work done in this area, but I wouldn't suggest anything radical.

[Sixth, define the major breakthroughs and discoveries made by the Order ...]

Sounds like an interesting idea. A timeline of Hermetic theory would be quite useful.

And while I am on the idea of useful stuff... A period map of Europe and the tribunals would be nice too.

Ed C.

I disagree. The line is very blurry. Is a giant magical or faerie? Ogres? Dragons? Singing Frogs? Faeries are just one subcategory of magical beings. Maybe they warrant a few special rules defining the sorts of powers they have - that's fine. Many would do the same for dragons.

Also, magic isn't "more ordered". A dragon is a magical being, but it isn't "more ordered" than a goblin. In fact, probably less so. If any distinction exists, it would be that faerie creatures are probably more mercurial, but even then they follow some simple (if strange) internal rules of logic.

<The distinction between Hermetic Magic and Faerie Magic is one of compatibility of viewpoints. The well ordered Hermetic viewpoint is somewhat incompatible with the free flowing Faerie viewpoint, so one who casts spells of one type should be somewhat uncomfortable casting spells in an area dominated by the other viewpoint.>

Faerie Magic could exist perfectly well in an all-magic (no faerie) aura world. Modify the level to account for its' strengths and weaknesses, make sure it works thematically, and bingo, faerie magic. You could make hermetic magic less controllable in a regio dominated by faeries if you like, almost like a faerie Aegis of the Hearth - note that the dragon listed in the main rulebook gives magic resistance to its own lair! I'd rather see faeries as a special circumstance rather than a general rule.

<Experimenting with vis should still be the main method of advancement, as it creates a riskier, fast track
to the advancement of arts.>

I've always viewed raw vis as something 'unstable'; thus always using stress rolls and extra botch dice when using vis. 'Experimenting' with vis is so _vague_; especially the way raw vis shows up (as almost anything). I have difficulty accepting that a pawn of raw vis could be 'stretched out' for 3 months worth of study.

I'd rather do the following: Every pawn of vis used in ritual magic (i.e. "big magic") becomes one XP in the related art. This is both better and worse than normal vis experimentation. It's very risky, as ritual magic has LOTS of botch dice. Also, it's not vis efficient - it takes a very big ritual to equal what you'd normally get on an average season of vis study. However, it is fast, and you get the benefits of casting a ritual spell at the same time.

<[However, I'd like to see much of the stuff in The Mysteries go away. Why? Well, once you have something like Oneirimancy (sp?), you need that virtue to cast dream magic type spells. ... ] >

<Not necessarily so. The new virtues just make that kind of magic easier for those who have the virtue, and bends the limits of Hermetic Magic in some interesting directions.>

Much of the stuff in the Mysteries is predicated on the idea that you can only cast this type of magic if you have the associated virtue. That would be fine, if I didn't think a lot of it should be standard hermetic magic (Onierimancy, Theurgy summonings, celestial targets, etcetera). YMMV.

John D. Prins

Anyway, one thing that has generally distinguished different editions of Ars from each other is cover layout and colour (though the "medieval book" theme seems to be entrenched), so...

What colour do people think Ars 5th should be? :-)

Niall

~Alex

Or am I wrong in thinking that those types of publications reach that demographic?

Also, have piggy-backing your popular offerings with ads for the - I think Woody used to call them 'Boutique' - games been successful at all?

The industry tends to fascinate me from a marketing standpoint, so I realize this is a little esoteric.

-Drew J

Last I checked DT and KOTD were actually pretty expensive.

Our general approach to ads is pretty much opportunistic. If we see a great deal, and we have some money free, we may nab it. For instance, we recently got a good deal on two full-page color ads in the Games Quarterly Catalog, one of which is a co-op (sharing costs with a distributor who is also features in the ad). Too, we take opportunities to provide editorial content to publications when we can -- for instance, that intro scenario for Rune that Michelle wrote that appeared in Game Trade Magazine back when Rune was released, or the upcoming article (rules variants or something) about Dungeoneer in GTM.

I honestly don't know much about the demographics of either comic, except that they sell quite well (better than the typical RPG book).

We do try and cross-promote with ads in the backs of books. I think the Feng Shui book that just went to press has an Unknown Armies ad, for example. I don't know any way to measure if it's effective, but it doesn't hurt (since the ads take up space that would otherwise be blank, filling out the signatures/press sheets in the book-making process).

Anyway, I'd like to see more flexibility in the Ars Magica 5th ed setting. As it is, the game is really fixed in the early 13th century and has very concrete notions of the Order of Hermes. What about giving options for setting it earlier, before the Order of Hermes existed, or perhaps during its birth? Beyond this, I would like to see rules addressed for mages who aren't members of the order. After all, magic and spell users existed before the order came into being, and there must be some wizards who want to sudy on their own and not belong to an order. What about them? How do they learn spells and such? The Order of Hermes is cool but too inflexible and not very mysterious. Magic shouldn't be their province alone.

Rules-wise, combat really needs a shakdown. The armour system is very unrealistic. I'd like to see some optional rules for hit locations for those of us that aren't satisfied with the realism (or lack thereof) of the current combat rules.

Finally, I would like to see alternate settings discussed and detailed a bit. AM should be playable in worlds other than Mythic Europe. Open the game up in this regard. Sure, mythic Europe would always be the default setting, but let's see some ideas about other worlds, other potential magic systems, etc.

Setting
We already have a great wealth of mundane and mystical information on the core setting, and we can go pretty much anywhere in Mythic Europe and know that the source material caters for us in some way. The issue for me is not where, but when.

The current start date of 1220 is not that far before black powder is invented/discovered and begins to be used in weapons. I have to admit that over the last few months I've had a real hankering to move the start date on a few years and start to embrace this later medieval period. We've done it before with the move from 1197 to 1220.

Another benefit of this is that those of us who have played twenty - thirty year or longer sagas get to start a new one in a new time and stil be supported by ongoing releases.

As far as "before he order" goes, I'm not sure that I'd want to dwell on this too much. I think it is much more valuable to move forward than back. With all the Hedge Magic traditions available, I think we have enough material to fudge "early" magics.

I have to admit, when the next version of the Houses/Order of Hermes book comes around, as well as all the other changes and enhancements to the content I'd like to see some info on the magical abilities of each of the founders.

Other worlds
You can apply the "rules" to any setting you can imagine. I wouldn't advocate spending time and resources on putting out an official alternate setting. That just isn't what the game is. My take is that this is a job for the troupe. If you want twenty houses spread over 5 mystical planes fighting the dragon lords of wibbet for control over the ruby cricket ball held in secret by the Warne brotherhood, feel free. The rules, funnily enough, will fit.

Combat
Less is more.
This is tricky. In a typical gaming group, you may have four players, and the PC party may be made up of a few grogs and a couple of magi/companions, and the players all want every character to get stuck in. So, in order to give a fair fight and prevent the bad guys being outnumbered you have to throw a an equal number or greater of antagonists.

I find handling this amount of stuff going on to be a nightmare. I want a system that is quick, resolving fights in a matter of rounds but without taking away from a sense of danger.

A thought strikes, better write before it goes:
Handling multiple combatants against one - instead of the initiative penalties, could we add the init/atk/dam of the multiple attackers? Might make things more dangerous and a little easier.

Anyway, I don't want a more "realistic" armour system as that always means complicated. I want quick, easy, dangerous and approximate.

Mark

I agree with you there. I would like the setting and some of the rules to move forward based on the experience of the years of solid plytesting we've all done.

"I'd like to see non-hermetic wizards addressed"

For a while, it seemed we couldn't open a source book without tripping over a new magical tradition. Even scenarios (Bishop's Staff) had to introduce a new form of magic. Look to Mysteries, Blood and Sand and Fire and Ice as well as Hedge Magic. They should give you an excellent starting point. Based on inspiration from F&I, I put together a consistent shape changing lineage which I have used and will make a return in our current saga.

"creation rules for non-human races"

Okay, this one rankles a little. Which non-human races? Do you mean faeries and Djinn or Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits and Orcs? To be honest, I don't think that Ars has any business giving rules on how to create non-human races unless they are intrinsic to the setting (faerie blooded companions etc). In any case, the troupe is free to make up as many virtues/flaws as they like and bonuses can be wrapped up in those (Dwarven +2 consisting of -1 dwarf flaw, +3 tough virtue etc). See, the trouble is, which world would you want them for? In a custom world we played in years ago, dwarves were not short, in fact they were actually hulking great viking types for reasons too long to go into. Can I have rules for making those?

As to broadening the appeal, I think that can be achieved by putting out some high quality source material frequently enough that the game is always on the shelf and just plain making it available and attractive as a product. I do not think that providing alternate world settings is the way to do it. If I want to play dwarves and elves, I'll play D20, magic system be damned. If I want to use the magic system and play dwarves and elves, I'll crib the general setting from elsewhere or make my own. This is where troupe creativity comes in. For us, I know we'd much rather just pick up another system for the high fantasy stuff; the right tool for the right job.

Mark

Here's where I disagree with you. I'm not sure that an Ars resource should give "rules" for generating other worlds. I wouldn't feel comfortable parting with my money for that, and I'd feel outright cheated if this appeared in a core rulebook. I just don't see it as necessary for Ars.

What kind of rules would you go for? Hero classes have to have good personality traits? Nasty creatures have 11 flaws and 13 virtues? These examples use Ars mechanics, but the rules are arbitrary - to be honest, I'm not sure I even like the Grog = 3 v/f rule as it stands but there you go. I'm not trying to belittle your argument, but the fundamental thing is, you can't dictate to someone how their own unique game world should work.

I have to admit, and this mat just shoot my argument down, that when it came to deciding what my version of Coeris was going to be like, I had no idea and had to search around for inspiration before I could take the plunge and put pen to paper. For things like this when creating your own game world, then fair enough, inspiration is good, but I wasn't artificially constrained by a set of rules.

For instance, the shapechanging tradition I mentioned above was supposed to be Trollsnyr, but there were aspects that didn't fit so I junked them. I could do that irrespective of whether I was playing in ME or elsewhere.

What I do encourage and look forward to is more Coriolis Ars cross overs. I'm sure John Nephew has an informed opinion on how this could work for raising exposure. I've never played Feng Shui, but an Ars/FS coriolis supplement would be a riot (remember that musketeer film with more honk kong kung foo than the matrix).

"I think AM can be 'the right tool for the right job'"

Again, I disagree (sorry John). If we get together and fancy a quick session of floor plans, orcs, swing swords and picking locks, rolling up Ars characters (with or without Metacreator) just takes too long.

I love Ars, and currently it is the only game I have any real desire to play, but I recognise its limitations. I agree with you that it is more flexible than it first appears, given the V/F system, arbitrary magic might and powers, regio to model planes etc the rules could be applied to other settings. Look at Rune which took the core engine and tweaked it a little. Rules work fine so far as my experience goes (I'm working on a Rune/Ars crossover story at the moment for our troupe).

I think your ideas about using Ars in alternate settings is a grand one. I wouldn't like to see it explicitly supported in the core materials as I think there is too much other stuff that could be done to support the world that is there already.

Mark

I think the day AM gets turned into a D&D clone is a very long way off, so we can all rest easy on that.

Just to be cheeky, I see now you've used "rules/ideas for using the magic system in games that don't have an Order of Hermes". This is more in line with something I would advocate in the coriolis line. I don't know whether you've seen the Black Monks supplement which is a great example of how Ars principles can be applied in a D20 game. This isn't too far from (although not exactly) what you are looking for. Switch it around a little, scenario/setting for generic D20 setting, and then suggestions for using it with the Ars rules.

You are not alone in wanting the variations you've mentioned so I'm hoping that John Nephew can find a sales angle on it for you.

As an aside, many years ago, we had a live roleplaying system and setting inspired by AM's treatment of europe. Of course, we fantasised it a little more, but there was no mistaking the origins, so I fully understand where you're coming from.

Mark

"Coriolis products stand at the intersection of the d20 System and our other roleplaying game titles. Using the rules you know from our Penumbra line, you can now sample the flavors of our other game lines without worrying about unusual crunchy bits."

Coriolis is Atlas Games dual stat line. In the case of Black Monks of Glastonbury (nice sourcebook by the way) it is a set of saga information set very firmly in Mythic Europe but providing game mechanics for both D20 and Ars systems.

In particular it discusses how to use Ars staples (Vis, regio, Covenants, Aegis of the Hearth etc) in the D20 system. Of course the rules for using these are couched in D20 terms, but the concepts are kept largely intact. I was particularly impressed with their take on Vis.

Not a scenario as such, more a saga setting with lots of hooks for long term involvement with Glastonbury Abbey. The important thing is that the book is a fully formed Ars supplement. It is also a fully formed D20 supplement. Double bubble.

The other books look pretty flexible too.

Mark

I came across the ars magica core book about three weeks ago now. I was trying to figure out what to play (I had run a game of White wolf's exalted and was looking for something different)

the game came highly recomended so i read it. The first thing that I noticed is that the character creation 'section' is just terrible. for someone just coming into the game it's annoying in the extreme to have to flip around looking for how to make a character only to realize that you're trying to make three characters at the same time. so the first thing I would do is change the character section and clarify character creation. out of all the games I've read, ars magica has the worst character creation section of them all (yes I've read a sizable ammount of games)

Beyond this, I would change the covenent creation rules a little bit. just balance all the costs and it should be fine.

clear up this rediculous 'sigil' business.

a chapter on the workings of the order would be a very nice jumping off point. I think it would be more usefull then the general history section (it doesn't really give enough to allow you to forgo research if you want to be faithfull and is wasted on those who intend to ignore history and make their own setting). it would be nice to have a general idea of what tribunal is, what it does, etc. it's all left rather vague and it's the one thing I can't look up in a history book if I want to be faithfull.

balance the skills a little. some of them are redundent/useless while others are far far far too powerfull and usefull (finesse is, as near as I can tell, far too usefull)I found there where far too many social skills to take, a starting character is going to be very hard pressed to take all the skills he 'should' have.

The occurence and abundence of Vis is left a little too vague for my taste but I appreciate that it's left to the storyguide to decide how much he wants. still, it'd be nice to have a better idea of where to start.

A clear and complete section on how to resist magic, it's a little spread out and makes learning it very annoying. I would also add a table with all the methods of casting magic.

What type of situation is certamen used in. I actually still don't know this. it'd be nice to have a less lenghty describtion of how it's done and more about when/why and what are the outcomes of a victory.

anyway, those are the problems as seen through the eyes of a new player. you want to draw more players to the game, work on that. I can't speak as to how to keep the old guard tho.

Of dear, oh dear, the 5th Edition of Ars Magica? We stopped playing the game soon after the 4th ed. came out. We had been playing with the 2nd ed. and 3rd ed. books, with success. There were minor problems with the previous editions I agree, but the 4th was not an improvement at all.

Somehow, the spirit of the game was lost. The previously great layouts were made boring and non imaginative (in the new books). Did not capture the mood. Diedne as the 13th house was dropped out, and some of the previous supplements were no longer mentioned (like Maleficum or Shaman...).

About the 4th edition rules I cannot say much: at least the combat was made worse.

In my opinion the 5th ed. should be a backpedaled version of the game to the the 3rd edition. With one exception. Make the darn rules open gaming content (like WotC), and focus on the spirit of the era and roleplaying. Combine the history of the order, make new use of it by designing a future for it. make the world to a living being, give it a direction, make it attractive (good layout).

Today, too many game houses focus on the rules mambo jambo (creating feats and other rules lawyering). Start the line of adventures which can easily be adopted to campaings. Make adventures which are focused on tales, folk lore and religions.

Promote true exchange between different troupes where they actually create Tribunal together with their Covenants.

Divide the 5th ed. into two books: the Rules (the ogc with nice attractive layout and extensive examples) and the World (the mood, the past, the official future, the society, the order of Hermes).

--
Tomi 'myrpg' Suuronen, the mighty something

"We stopped playing the game soon after the 4th ed. came out"

Not, I assume, because of the rules change. It would be a rare event indeed for a troupe to stop playing an enjoyable game because the rules changed.

"There were minor problems with the previous editions I agree, but the 4th was not an improvement at all."

While the 4th edition still has its problems (that I am looking for the 5th to iron out) I do see the 4th as an improvement over the 3rd. It lost the realm of reason which really, in my opinion, tainted the game somewhat. It also introduced a much more impressive set of study rules which not only added variety but couched study in convincing terms and also introduced story elements (I've studied all I can from book X, so now I need to trade up). It also introduced more consistent form-technique-level-effects which provide guidlines when creating new spells. These and other changes (codifying abilities etc) made a positive impact.

"Today, too many game houses focus on the rules mambo jambo (creating feats and other rules lawyering). Start the line of adventures which can easily be adopted to campaings. Make adventures which are focused on tales, folk lore and religions."

Atlas Games produces a dual stat series under the coriolis name. Black Monks of Glastonbury was a D20/Ars supplement. I liked it a lot. It gave tips on using it in other settings. I think it would be a shrewd move on Atlas' part to see if they can't publish a few more D20/Ars scenarios. The Bishop's Staff for instance was pretty basic and could have transported to pretty much any fantasy setting. That would have been a fair candidate.

"Make the darn rules open gaming content (like WotC)..."

Now I know I am misreading this one. This can't be your intention as you've played Ars since early editions, but it sounds like you are advocating Ars D20. Okay, perhaps you are, but I really don't see it happening. D20 is great, but please, the right tool for the right job. I am comfortable with the way the stats work, and the abilities, and the virtues, and the arts and stress, quality and simple dice etc. That isn't to say that these things can't be replicated in other rules systems but I would prefer the basic rules to stay as they are.

The usual argument in favour of Ars D20 is "make it generic and attract a million new players". One, I don't buy it. People play a game because of the setting and the kind of stories it suggests and supports, not the shape of the dice involved. Two, I won't buy it. I have invested a great deal of cash in a big stack of books over the last 12 or so years. They all use essentially the same rules. I can pick up the Maleficium (3rd) and use it more or less straight (change a few ability references etc) in my 4th edition saga. If the game switches to D20 I just won't be interested in buying the 5th edition rules. I'll just keep playing the 4th. A 5th edition will bring new editions of older books, and if I'm not using the new rules, why bother with the new editions?

Ars D20 just doesn't reward or support the existing user base.

"Promote true exchange between different troupes where they actually create Tribunal together with their Covenants."

I needed more information on Iberia. I went to Project Redcap. Got what I needed thanks to kind souls posting their hard work on the net. Cheers guys.

"Combine the history of the order, make new use of it by designing a future for it. make the world to a living being, give it a direction, make it attractive (good layout)."

Well, yeah, but you mentioned that Diedne was dropped out. Thing is, it wasn't just "never existed" it is an integral part of the history of the Order. As far as I recall, each edition has moved its official starting date forward, so in effect, the game does move with the times so to speak. Personally I want to move it out to the middle of the 13th century so we can start getting an inkling of early gunpowder weapons, but that's just me and I doubt that would get much support this time around.

As for layout, this has been a bugbear of mine. The art in the fourth edition rule book was generally terrible, although to be honest, some of it was better than some of the 3rd edition images.

I think I'm much more positive about the 4th edition than yourself there and so I think it follows that I'm also much more positive and trusting about Ars 5.

Mark

You are right, we did not stop playing because of the rule changes, but for other non-game reasons. Two were in the army, one moved into another country, and some other things kept rest of the people too busy.

However, the rule changes made it easier. To my experience when the rules are changed it usually means that there will be some compliance problems with the previous supplement books and rule books with the new material created. Our troupe had two 3rd edition rule books and one 2nd edition book. I personally have still 10 Ars Magica books, of which 2 are for the new 4th edition. I do like some of the changes made into to the 4th edition: the books rules, adjusted spell levels, and etc.

But for running a game today for a group of new players who does not have the 3rd edition book available or any of the previous supplements (well, those can be photocopied, but it is still wrong) makes the gaming harder. It is very difficult for a player to crasp the feel of the game when some content is used from the 3rd edition books and some content from the 4th edition. And worse, when some content is used from the 3rd ed. rule book, and some from the 4th.

This is why I would like to see the Ars Magica's own rules under the open gaming content. Ars Magica in d20? No way, Hose! My intent has nothing to do with d20 mission to rule the gaming industry. I would like to have the rules in an editable form. Replace the necessary parts for my troupe only in the 4th ed. with 3rd edition content. It would make my/our gaming much easier when the rules are compiled to one simple source.

Also, I have been very aware of the Project Redcap, and used it very often at the time (so many years ago). There is fancy stuff there ;)

I hope the 5th edition will be better than 4th (at least for the layout).

--
Tomi

For those of us who had the spirit of the 3rd edition, 4th was a revelation that allowed us to finally get on to truly enjoying the game.

I have a slight suspicion that not too many new players were drawn to the game. I further suspect that the free PDF is a way of making entry to the game easier.

As the Gods well know, this makes it a helluva lot easier introducing the game to new players. It would be even better if the old flavour, or spirit of the game was still there in my opinion.

To keep with the original post for the thread, that is what is needed. Something that will make people want to try this system. The rules that have been made simpler(better IMHO, but others might like an optional, more complex system) will help retain the players.

I don't know what made it so; but lots of new people joined the Ars crowd with the 3rd edition.

Ars 4th is not a pretty book. It's just down to the rules, so a new player is lost in what the game is, how it should be played. There are no teaser texts and the artwork is not inpiring. I still remember 2 or 3 images of each of these RPGs that remind me of the games, and how it should be played.

Rules are a second thought, but having nice rules is important after the first impression has been made with the general text.

In general to bring more customers you should thing of looking for a new RPG as looking for a car. The engine is not the most important part. If the exterior (or book cover) does not catch your eye, you wont look in the interior. If the interior does not make you want to go in, you will not ask about the engine. Of course if the car is really cheap you can buy it no matter what.

What about changing imaginem from a form to a technique? I've always disliked that perception and images were looked at as a form, which to me needs to be more substantial than an illusion. Aquam, Auram, Ignem, Terram, Animal, Herbam, Corpus, and Vim all are "tangibles." Well, vim is semi-tangible. And mentem, while intangible, is the realm of the mind and human thought, which while intangible, is certainly significant.

If Imaginem (which might need to be changed in either conjugation or in name entirely) were a technique, I don't believe it would conflict with any of the other Techniques. If it were defined as the technique of "disguising" it would be independent of the others. It would not be a true creation, since the very nature of the illusion is that it does not truly exist in any way. Likewise, removing a sense would be, in truth, cloaking something behind an illusion. (I never liked Perdo Imaginem being the destruction of one's image, particularly with some spells allowing that image to still exist in reflective media). The same would be such for muto; you're disguising the person, not changing them. Given that images are non-existent as such, they cannot be controlled by rego. Intellego, perceiving, could be the antithesis of Imaginem, much in the way that Creo and Perdo are opposites.

With imaginem as a technique, then the nature of the created illusion would be the form. Animal would be used to create the illusion of something which was animal based. The taste of an apple would be herbam.

Another imaginem concept I always hated was that an illusory flame could actually emit light, which I thought should be the sole realm of ignem. With imaginem as a technique, an illusionary flame (an ImIg spell, for argument) would still cast light without treading into the realm of the already dominant form.

Truald

I wonder what the downside of this would be...

Ed

Superb!

And, not only that, but we have a few books to go even before that happens:

Living Lore
Cause and Cure
The Fallen Fane

We still have the best part of a year to go, but that must mean that the majority of the edition is pretty well locked down.

So can we have any hints as to what has been shaken up in the new edition?

Mark

As for 5th Ed -- you're right that it's fairly well locked down, as far as the big changes. It is in, I believe, what should be the final round of playtesting (and it's pretty safe to say its had more playtesting than any previous edition of the game). It's too soon for us to spill too many of the beans, though... And work is starting on the supplements that will be released after 5th edition. (We expect one book to be released more or less at the same time as the new edition, and four ArM releases in 2005.)

-jn

In the Atlas Blog you describe "The Fallen Fane" as a "live action" book. I'm intrigued - is this going to be Ars LARPica?

Niall

I've been playing Ars Magica since 1st edition, and have been published in Redcap.

The creation of the meta character, the covenant, needs to be given more attention in a 5th edition. It should be tied right in to character creation.

The ties to Mythic Europe need to be retained. That historical underpinning, along with the magic system, troupe style, and the covenant meta character are what makes Ars Magica unique.

Combat needs to be revised. The 4th edition system is seriously flawed compared to the other editions. Combat ranges in melee, fighting multiple opponents, and the initiative system need fixing. In addition, for a so called "lethal" system, it is now extremely hard to hurt anyone, due Encumbrance reducing the Attack score. A chain mail armored knight on foot with kite shield and long sword typically ends up with stats like +4 Atk and +15 Defense. He's almost impossible to hurt, yet is unable to hurt anyone else in turn. Unfortunately, it appears creatures were not similarly adjusted, and most have similar stats to 2nd/3rd edition. This makes it very hard to hit creatures in combat.

Although the core Hermetic magic system is the best magic system out there, Atlas' attempts to provide rules for varients has gotten out of hand. Ars Magica now has a least a dozen different magic rules, with more being added with every supplement. I realize the hedge wizards out there use a different way of using magic, but the system for them doing so needs to be simplified.

Off the top of my head, here's a list of the different magic systems in place for non-hermitics:
-Fairie magic for both fairies and fairie magi
-Four different types of hedge wizards in Hedge Magic
-Scottish magic in the Lions of the North
-Jewish Magic in Kabbalah
-Shamans
-Four pretty radical varients of Hermetic magic in Mysteries

I'm sure I've missed several other systems as well, since I don't have all the Tribunal books. The Mysteries supplement is the one that really went over the top. The fluff ideas in the book were fine, but should've been developed more from a conspiracy or political point of view. The variation in magical outlook could've been handled by simply recommending Affinities and other already existing virtues and flaws for members of these secret societies. Instead, we are presented with a method or earning virtues (which I am never happy with conceptually) via initiation, and then allowing these mages to use magic in ways that radically differ from the Hermetic tradition. The Storyguide ends up needing to master 6 or more different magic systems. My troupe has ignored the Mysteries supplement for that reason. The learning curve for this game is high enough already.

David's welcome to pipe in with more, if he happens on through.

Also, ArM5 isn't in quite the final round of playtesting, but it is in the final round where the rules are going to get changed by much. The next round will involve new people, and test whether people who haven't read four previous editions and five previous versions of this edition can understand the manuscript...

Since nobody else have discussed skills I thought I might.

I have played Ars Magica since the 3 ed was fresh off the press, and I must say that the 4th is lots better with regards to the skills system. But is still leaves a lot to be desired. There is still no clear definition between the various skills. Many of them overlap, and it is far from clear why this should be so.

I just started a new campaign, the first I had to do was explain why 14 of the skills were completely superflous. I won't go into a detailed discussion here, but I have a shorter list of skills for those interested. It has been debated with the five alphagm's I'm lucky enough to know, so it should hold some merit at least.

My second topic, the spells guidelines, has been discussed at great length here before so I will just add my wishes for a general reworking, continuing the work from 4th ed. The most important feature I would like to see addressed would be to look at each form in relation to each other. I.e: Should it easier to speak to a fire element, rather than an element of water? Both are inheritly mutable, and produce noise of their own, unless some other rationale is found, than the base guideline should be the same when performed at the same range/target/duration. Or Perdo: Wood destroys itself easier than stone, so at the same R/T/D. Additional magnitudes as 4th ed with regards to living/unliving and the hiearchy of metals.

Regarding layout: I was really happy with 4th ed. The map, or another one, should come back in full colour. Likewise tribunalmaps, listing all covenants mentioned to date. Also, if you want to sell to new players: include a much better story in the main book. I concur with so many others on the forum, 4th ed did not succed in explaining why this was a great game to play. We who started in a campaign, or better yet with 2nd and 3rd ed know it is good, newbies don't and are more likely to buy your supplements later on. For you own good, test this thourougly!

In ending, I would like to summarize the best ideas mentioned about covenants. They can indeed be seen as the most important characters in the saga, and should be treated as such in the main book. This to me means: more guidelines for improving your convenant, not only creating it. In Twelth Night (3ed) they included many features that tied in game events to the characteristics of the covenant. Very good, albeit a strange covenant/story in and of itself. Include more possibilities for particular virtues flaws for covenants in the tribunal books where local history allows.

Also, if you want playtesters/proofreaders: I have a new campaign starting up with no less than 4 new players, coordinating 2(soon to be three I hope) covenants across tribunal borders. More covenants that are set in eastern europe are welcome to join us in creating a living world, just post me a way to get in touch with you!

Salvete Sodales,

Victor ex Tremere

SYL

At the same time as the release of 5th edition, we expect to publish a revision of the classic adventure The Broken Covenant of Calebais.

Please, please please... less historical accuracy, more mythic.

I first got into Ars Magica with the 3rd Edition done by WW. I loved the game and all the background material. However, I've noticed in 4th Edition the books lean towards requiring a Medival Studies degree, which I believe losses you alot of prospective customers.

You need to stress that Mythic Europe does not have to equal historical Europe. I don't want to feel contrained by historical personages, and dates when I run a Saga, and would rather focus on creating a believable, fun game, than worry about historical accuracy.

I'm very much looking forward to the new edition, and am hoping it washes away the majority of my house rules.

I used to play Ars Magica a fair bit but have been busy with other things. Still, I'm sure I'll buy the 5th Edition when it comes out.

The bits about good layout and intelligent organization, keeping flavour text seperated from rules text, a solid index, appropriate illustrations (medieval and/or pre-raphaelite in flavour) pretty much goes without saying.

On historicity vs mythical/ fantasy I am clearly in favour of the historical. I understand why some are not and think the best approach would be one where there is room for both. One way to do that is to have the underlying events be historical, and provide the over the top fantasy stuff as exactly that. It's legendary but here are the rules for it if you chose to have flying long boats with greek fire ballistae in your game. If you don't want flying long boats with greek fire ballistae in your game but they figure in some of the published material, here's a good explanation for how those rumours appeared in spite of the absence of such crafts.

One thing I'd like to see are some simple yet good game mechanics for travelling, whether by land or by sea.

Something I like from the covenant rules (if I recall them correctly, though now I can't quite remember which edition I'm thinking of) is having mundane comforts have game mechanical impact. Things like living in a covenant with leaky roofs and drafty walls giving a minus to aging rolls, or having a surplus of well fed servants giving a bonus to social rolls when entertaining visitors are a great in my opinion.

Another thing I'd really like to see the areas covered by the tribunals make more sense. I mean, why on earth do the British Isles have three tribunals (one each for Ireland, Scotland and England) while a magus in the south of Sweden and one in Moscow have to pretend they have common affairs to sort out? How exactly did the Normandy tribunal come about? Or the Transylvania one (I mean, other than to provide a setting for Dracula style/ WoD crossover campaigns)?

Related to this (and to the reforming the house system mentioned earlier) the political structure of the order would feel nice with a more medieval feel to it... either by being more feudal (liege-vassal) or perhaps based on monastic orders (mother and daughter houses).

One thought would be to have each covenant declare which tribunal it belongs to (usually the close one) which carries with it a certain set of responsibilities but also results in appropriate support. A new covenant becomes a prize for the elders of the tribunal and it gives an incentive to found daughter covenants (to increase the prestige of the tribunal)... in other words, it creates great opportunity for medieval flavoured politics.

... but perhaps that sort of reorganization is best for my house rules :).

Even more far fetched... in no way do I want Ars Magica V to be D20 style, but the one part of that game that I really enjoy is the tactical table top component. I'd love to see something like that for Ars Magica... it's not like all the bits aren't there, they just need to be put together... and sure, it can be optional :). It would allow me to use my ancients minis and it puts a bit more focus on grogs again.

That's what I have to say on the subject, now that it's too late. I'm looking forward to the 5th edition and hope everything goes well with it.

Jacob

We should be formally announcing 5th Edition at Gen Con next week, along with some shocking details. :)

-John Nephew
President, Atlas Games

Definitely. Substantial changes to an established background - whether retroactive or not - are extremely dangerous for an RPG:
when 1993 - with a far healthier RPG market than today - GDW released "Traveller: The New Era" without the Imperium they found that they killed their game off.

2nd and later editions of RPGs must continue to support their existing customers' existing campaigns - it is that simple.

Kind regards,

Berengar

If you haven't checked the blog today I'd advise you doing so. I'm not sure November can come quick enough.

The sample characters posted on the main site also give a few tantalising hints as to the changes. What is a "Warping Score"? What is with the body level notation? Sounds interesting.

And it looks like there is some great support coming up.

Nice one Atlas.

I would guess that Warping measures aura-induced distortions for covenfolk.

And have they reduced the base characteristic points from 7 to 5?

Gene

Also, I *think* that while the combat stats are the same (init, attack, defence, damage) their values may have changed from the fourth edition.

My feelings exactly, but I'm in the minority of 1 in my Ars MAgica group. I would much prefer to spend the research time imagining the institutions that would be needed for a society in which magic is the key to political power, than knowing the history of this King, or that Count, or sanitation in the middle ages

But Magic is *not* the "key to political power" in the Ars Magica world!

Ever since ArM1, the order of Hermes has been a closeted, hidden institution, set aside from the majority of the world. That world is "largely" the world as it was in history, but with myth brought to life: the Nobles hold political and economic power, the Church holds sway over their souls, Demons try to corrupt and steal souls, ...

Having said that, it's not necessary to know the detailed history of this or that King/Count/... you can either
(a) ignore it - who cares about the Count when you are hidden in deep forest or a magical Regio;
(b) make it up "Count William" in England; "Compte Guillaume" in France,...
(c) look it up in an ArM product (falling back to (b) if not listed). [C) encourages you to locate things in areas that ArM books address and package up for you]
(d) look things up in other books ... a few people do (d) and they do tend to be the more vocal and strident, so they get seen/heard on the Internet... but fact is, most ArM players don't post on the Internet - they just get on with playing the game. There are far more people who've bought the book or downloaded the free 4th Ed PDF file, than have ever posted to any of the forums that discuss ArM.

(there's also an (e) which is "go to HTTP://redcap.org/ and see what people write up and post about their own Sagas, as listed int eh extensive index of on-line write-ups" - and see what you can pinch from there)

I'd say that the key is to present a "feeling" of reality, so that the players are drawn in and feel involved - and even small things can do that. (Of course, if the group has History buffs in it, then just encourage them to do the work for th others, to the level that satisfies them!)

I understand that. But I would like to play Ars Magica in a world where magic did underpin political power.

Then we would be trying to peice together all of the institutions that magicians would need.

IMHO, it would be much more fun than learning about medieval history.

Having developed a very deep interest in Medieval History through playing Ars Magica, you'll forgive me if I disagree. But anyway...

The beauty of Ars Magica is that it is so open. You don't need to maintain any historical accuracy at all. If you want a peasant uprising, who cares whether there really was one or not. The same applies to the more magical aspects. If your saga wants a closer integration of magic into society then do it and have fun doing it.

But always remember that the game itself is written from and supports the idea that the Order is somewhat circumspect about drawing attention to itself. For the most part that actually has no bearing on the supplements themselvs (the Bishop's Staff probably works well if the Order is openly acknowledged, and I'm sure the new Calebais edition makes no stipulations).

Every game needs a baseline from which the players can improvise. Ars takes a (somewhat) more historical and less fanciful line and we are left to play as we will.

Choosing where to set your saga is a big decision and the nature of the history yet to unfold can be a big aspect of that decision.

Hi Mark it's Keith

I know you have read shed loads of medieval history, and I agree medieval history, like all history is interesting. But how can you know it's more fun than using your imagination to invent the sort of society where magic IS the dominant force that underpinned political power, until you have tried it?

I think we have been having this debate ever since I suggested that House Gernicus must have the Vis source equivelent of a land registry (about 2 years ago). Otherwise no-one could keep track of who has legal rights to a Vis source. I seem to remember a remark about a 'Harry Pooter' world.

>> Ars takes a (somewhat) more historical and less fanciful line and we are left to play as we will.

This thread (or this sub-thread) stems from the statement by Icote:

"Please, please please... less historical accuracy, more mythic."

The 4th edition is far more tied up with history than previous editions, and he is saying that he hopes the 5th edition rectifies this.

Personally, I agree with him. In contrast to the 4th edition, Ars Magica 2nd edition the focus is on Magicians as outsiders. Quoting from the introduction:

"While nobles wage their petty wars, friars preach to the forlorn flocks...a mystical order of wizards dwells on the outskirts of civilisation...

As a wizard, you stand in stark contrast to medieval society. While the rest of society is ignorant, largely illiterate, bound to a decadent hieachy, and fearfull of what lies beyond civilisation, you are learned, creative, free form social constraints..."

Pesonally, I play Ars Magica for the magic, and would prefer it if the 5th edition is rebalanced towards magic as opposed to history.

As to your first point, well to an extent you are right, I haven't gone down that route using Ars, but I have been gaming for ages and I have simply found Ars more interesting than other more magic-integrated-with-the-world settings. Having said that, Eberron, which Simon will run sooner or later sounds great.

It is all about the setting. Ars is set in Mythic Europe. I love the Mythic Europe conceit and I think that trying to integrate the Order of Hermes fully into the world takes the edge off things a little. That's not to say that other magical traditions are not more closely aligned to the mundane, just that I like the Order where they are.

The land registry question... Ah, yes. The actual debate was over whether there would be a widely published volume which would list there whereabouts of magi, their names, houses, covenants and sigils. While I maintain that Magvillus (and perhaps Harco) has such information, I doubt it would be "published" with a copy sent out to covenants (which was the implication at the time). That was the element which spawned the infamous "potter" debate complete with school register, company switchboard and Outlook address book references.

A registry of Vis sources WOULD, in my opinion, be maintained by each tribunal with that information no dout filtering up to Magvillus in due course.

This part of the thread as you pointed out was to do with history in Ars:

"Pesonally, I play Ars Magica for the magic, and would prefer it if the 5th edition is rebalanced towards magic as opposed to history"

To be fair, in our saga, we haven't had that much "history". What we do have, being based in Verona itself is a fair amount of mundane entanglement and I think it is this that is really at the heart of your concern.

We all like different things so that is to be expected but within the context of our saga I think you take the quote "free from social constraints" too much to heart. That is the bit that has caused the most discussion in our troupe.

Yes, by and large the Order exists on the edge of society looking in (if they look at all), but I still maintain that magi are members of that society and I would not like Arm5 to take them away from that society.

For players out there I would suggest looking at the baseline and then deciding how you want to play. I've heard rumours of people even wantint to take it as far away as a GURPS Goblins setting...

Actually, that may be me. I have advertised to run a GURPS Goblins/Ars Magica setting, and asked for players.

The interest shown has been underwhelming, with a take-up of exactly zero. I believe I have even asked you, and the rest of the Sturday night crowd, but no dice, your all far too sensible.

I therefore now consider myself a 'fringe' role-player, an outsider in a minority of one.

In the highly unlikely chance that you interested, I'll send the group a brake down on Ars Goblinicus.

No I haven't, but the conversation I had with Mark was at our game meeting (although some of it spilled over to a discussion group), and occurred before the publication of "Sanctuary of Ice".

So tell me, what's the Vis land registry called?

Edited 9/21/2004 10:39 am ET by EasyPeasy

Basically the Alpine magi practice population control. Every covenant has to prove it has 10 pawns of vis per magus per season from renewable resources. Their proofs are written into the code, so that the ownership of many vis sources is a matter of public record. Individuals may also own sources, and be in the code for them, and covenants may trade sources, and have this read into the code. The Quaesitores administer it, and the Bavarian Common (a cluster of sources which are held in common by all covenants in the Tribunal: an old compromise that prevented a war.)

Btw, before SoI, I thought our sagas were fairly vis rich (certainly people almost never complained about lack of vis, lack of proper type of vis yes, but they had a hoard of other types for trade should they find someone to trade with), but we Never had renewable vis sources equaling 10 pawns per magus per year. ;-)

Jan

This means that the Tarragon Vale hoard is accruing at 40 per year, as there were four magi before the Vanishing Away. After 20 years that is 800 pawns, and it will keep growing until the Quasitores decide to bite the bullet and declare the covenant deceased.

It -doesn't- exclude the aegis and your other standard expenses though, though, as another poster has said.

Also, if you look at the covenant creation rules, 10 pawns per magus per year is pretty simple.

Compared to us, life in the Greater Alps does sound quite wealthy. We are going to feel the pinch when we come to make longevity potions and items etc.

Hence the Alpine population control.