Ars Magica is a game that seems to polarize RPG'ers. I am part of a fairly nebulous group of gamers about 20 strong, and almost all of them have at least dabbled in ArM.

The opinion seems to be either “Love it!” or “Hate it!”

Ars Magica is NOT a game to use when introducing new converts to the wonders of Roleplaying. Unless they are math wizards or have an abiding love for spreadsheets, usually all you will do is scare them off. Thus, ArM groups are usually folks who have been gaming together for quite a while.

However, what this leads to are small cliques of people who develop a specific style of play, with all sorts of expectations about the games intentions. When I first found this game, I looked everywhere around Dallas for groups playing it. I found two, neither of which were actually interested in letting an outsider come into their Saga.

I have no evidence to support this, but I believe that most of the playtesting groups for 5th ed were just such cliques. To paraphrase one of my players:

"They've completely changed it to address their style of play, which I consider a niche... ... They've toned down the power level considerably. I don't like this because it reduces the breadth of things you can do, as well as your capabilities within your specialization. This is okay if your primary focus is on the story because such limitations become an on-going plot element, but I have learned over time that I am personally focused on what my character DOES within the context of those stories."

We're not power gamers, none of my Magi have ever tried to take over Mythic Europe, but since a Saga is most likely going to run for a year or two, bi-weekly in our group, it may hit 50-60 years by the time we decide to start up a different game.

It is claimed that the older versions of Studies made Magi too powerful after 100+ years. I’ve never run an actual Campaign that covered that much game time. If I wanted a low power Campaign, I just said “This Saga will be set over 5 game years… get used to the idea that your Magi will not get much more powerful by the time we finish.” However, if the game was set to run over 30 or 40 years, my players were right in hoping for a significant increase in power.

No game system will successfully be able to compete with the elevation of power that long-term advancement brings to characters. This is as true in the D20 system as it is in the 7th Sea Roll-and-Keep system as it is in the ArM system. Game systems are written for the new guys… we old timers just get whatever new edition comes out and strip it like piranhas, looking for interesting bits and discarding the rest. The very first thing most old-timers do is ignore the suggestions for XP awards.

This is not a complaint against any specific rule that upsets us, or a call for the Game designers to justify their changes. In fact, I am quite content that the lineup at Atlas are folks that I can trust “my Ars Magica” with, in the long run. I have no fear that it will turn into “Hermes: The Ordination.” We are old hands at the House Rule, and so we will take the 4 editions of my favorite game that I have copies of and cherry pick the best bits, making up rules whole cloth to suit whatever we feel needs improvement. And I will buy future supplements for further cherry picking.

There are lots of things that I/We like about 5th ed; (most of) the new Virtues/Flaws system, clear definition of the Gift, Warping and Twilight, the importance of Stats, and several others. I like the streamlining of the Laboratory Rules, personally.

But the lowering of the general power level (i.e.: the gain for a Season of Study and the evisceration of Vis Study) seems less of a “Fix” than a “Style.”

Agree with me?
Disagree with me?
Think I’m a heretic who should be burned atop a pile of crappy White Wolf supplements?
All responses are welcome, that’s what a discussion group is for.

*steps off soapbox*
J.

//But the lowering of the general power level (i.e.: the gain for a Season of Study and the evisceration of Vis Study) seems less of a “Fix” than a “Style.”//

I consider it a fix.

Hermetic study results have two aspects:
(1) Overall power level of the Order of Hermes, and power of an individual old (i. e. some 100 to 200 years out of gauntlet) magus.
(2) Power level of a player's character.

(1) The power level of the Order is determined in particular by the Vis study rules: to write a good Summa of level X on an Art, you first have to reach a considerably better understanding than level X of that Art yourself, which most likely you do by studying from Vis.
Vis study in ArM4 led easily to Magi with scores of 70 to 80 in their main Art, and hence - because of the 'Increased Understanding' part of the ArM4 twilight rules - to Summae of level 50 and beyond.
Access to such Summae became hence decisive for the speed of advancement of younger Magi, giving the 'lackeys' of older Magi a big, nearly unsurmountable advantage over the typical player characters within their spring covenant.
The ArM4 magic system also gets stretched to the limit by magi with many Art scores in the high 30s, or by magi with one score in the 70s. Basically ArM4 magi became rather unplayable some 50 to 80 years after their gauntlet.
So I understand well that ArM5 tuned down the power level of the Order, providing a more playable, consistent and IMO enjoyable game world, in which it is easier for typical player characters to make a difference.

(2)Power level of a player character in all ArM versions is first determined by the time she can spend for all kinds of study, and second by the resources available to her. If you want your ArM5 characters to be as powerful after ten adventures as your ArM4 characters were, just allow them more study time between the adventures.

Kind regards,

Berengar

There's style and then there's experience.

I do not know but I would guess that a lot of the advancement rule changes were influenced heavily by the Fourth Edition Covenants Project, where people made a bunch of magi from scratch and advanced them through 4th Edition rules through a couple of hundred years. I worked on that but I never turned in my entry because I only got to 75 years or so and I think the minimum was 100. You can still get copies of the two entries that actually got completed on the Downloads section of Atlas Games' ArM4 product page.

My experience with the covenants project taught me two things: 1) The character creation rules were totally out of whack with the study rules and 2) Vis study in 4th Edition eclipses all other methods of improving the Arts. I did not like either of these results.

Also, I did my own "covenants project" in making some NPCs, and one of them I gave access to a couple of pawns of vis per year in his favorite Art. He did what was to his best advantage: hoarded it for study and got his favorite Art into the mid-40s. I thought as the outset that he would use the vis to make all kinds of cool items and so forth, but in fact I found it was more valuable for study. This displeased me on two levels - of all the uses for vis, study was by far the most appealing; and it was pretty easy to get Arts in the mid-40s given even a modest supply of vis. Combine that with the way magic resistance worked in 4th and I think Arts in the mid-40s give you an unplayable super-character.

Having said all that, I would agree that the rate of character advancement boils down to a matter of preference. I am willing to go out on a limb and say most people's preference probably falls in the "slower than 4th Edition" category.

Going back to your main topic about cliques and old-timers, I wouldn't say so. My Ars group has players come in and out every year. That's how I met my wife. :-)

Edited 2/12/2005 10:29 am ET by SirGarlon

//(2)Power level of a player character in all ArM versions is first determined by the time she can spend for all kinds of study, and second by the resources available to her. If you want your ArM5 characters to be as powerful after ten adventures as your ArM4 characters were, just allow them more study time between the adventures.//

If you think Character Advancement is too powerful at the rear end of a Saga, just allow them _less_ study time between the adventures. And the Storyguide is ALWAYS in control of resources, even Level 50 Summae, no matter how much "sense" it makes that such Summae are out there.

Allowing more time between stories means that any Plot Element introduced must have longevity equal to the Magi, and patience to wait 2-3 (or 10) years to make its next move.

Having one or two stories every season certainly eats into the amount of game-group time that the game-world time covers, and keeps the Magi nicely in the low levels of power. Players may graduate from college before the Saga sees its second Tribunal Episode... but hey, the Magi are still low powered.

J.

//There's style and then there's experience.//

I agree, and I base my style off of 3 1/2 Campaigns since 1994. Maybe not as long as the folks who've been around since Lion Rampant days, but still enough to have formed an educated opinion.

//I do not know but I would guess that a lot of the advancement rule changes were influenced heavily by the Fourth Edition Covenants Project, //

I'd agree with this assumption, but I have never had a Saga last for anywhere close to that length of game-time. I know, that could be called OUR style of play. Maybe every other ArM group starts with a Spring covenant and plays it thru till the decay of Winter.

Maybe we're just not dedicated enough to have found the flaws in the system. :-)

//1) The character creation rules were totally out of whack with the study rules//

True, but that's not too major of a problem, until they start training apprentices.

You have not had an argument until you've tried to convince a Player that assembly line teaching methods are not in the Medieval Paradigm.

*shudders*

2) Vis study in 4th Edition eclipses all other methods of improving the Arts.

That, I will agree with wholeheartedly. The Vis-change I personally have the least problem with, but the screams from the pit where I keep my Players were bothering the neighbors, so I had to at least mention it.

//I am willing to go out on a limb and say most people's preference probably falls in the "slower than 4th Edition" category.//

So it seems, so it seems.

//Going back to your main topic about cliques and old-timers, I wouldn't say so. My Ars group has players come in and out every year. That's how I met my wife. :-) //

Congratulations, excellent way to expand a Hobby! And I'm glad to be proven wrong (in your group's instance). However, experience is still two to one, so you haven't convinced me yet.

Why the hell don't you live near Dallas? :-)
J.

Scotsman185: //If you think Character Advancement is too powerful at the rear end of a Saga, just allow them _less_ study time between the adventures. And the Storyguide is ALWAYS in control of resources, even Level 50 Summae, no matter how much "sense" it makes that such Summae are out there.//
Well, speed - in seasons - of ArM *player* character advancement is within a very broad range quite unimportant, and I gave you the reason for that above: a decent storyguide can always adjust his adventures so that his players' characters are at the right power level when the next adventure starts. No big deal.

Scotsman185: //And the Storyguide is ALWAYS in control of resources, even Level 50 Summae, no matter how much "sense" it makes that such Summae are out there.//
This is a truism with respect to *player* characters.

For the sake of consistency of the ArM game world, player and non-player advancement should of course follow the same rules.
And speed of ArM *non-player* character advancement is a different issue. Here the designer of ArM5 had to fix ArM4 study rules to make sure, that within the parameters established in ArM for Mythic Europe the power level of the Order, especially of the older members and established covenants, remained within bounds allowing meaningful adventures of typical player characters and healthy development of their covenants.

Part of the established ArM world are bicentenarian magi, living in covenants like Durenmar, Doissetep and Verdi. Magi from these covenants will with ArM4 character development rules write the level 50 Summae we are talking of, and make them available to their underlings.

Scotsman185 (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=532.15): //Hmmmm... not necessarily. Remember, this is a House whose members are famous for dying young, right after uttering the Phrase "Hey, Sodalis, watch this!"

Depending on the nature of a given Saga, an "old" Flambeau may be 30 years out of Gauntlet.//
You are obviously free to modify Mythic Europe as you see fit, also to accommodate a quicker advancement - and if you manage to do it in a consistent fashion more power to you. I hope, however, that you come up with better solutions than just killing off older non-player magi when they become too much of a challenge, or hindering their endeavours by SG fiat.
I for one am pleased to see study rules in ArM5 roughly compatible with the state of canonical Mythic Europe I knew and appreciated for fifteen years, though.

Scotsman185 (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=532.18): ////YMMV, but I just stuck to canon //

"Canon... they're more just guidelines, you see."//
As I said, YMMV. Modify at whim, and at your own risk.

Kind regards,

Berengar

I think I have discovered the crux of our disagreement, and it lies in our perceptions of the game, and our reliance on Game Mechanics.

//Well, speed - in seasons - of ArM *player* character advancement is within a very broad range quite unimportant, //

So the 5 faces sitting around my living room table, expectantly looking to me for entertainment, are less important than making sure my NPCs have appropriate levels of power?

That is an… interesting… style of GM’ing.

//and I gave you the reason for that above: a decent storyguide can always adjust his adventures so that his players' characters are at the right power level when the next adventure starts. No big deal.//

Indeed, a decent Storyguide can do just that. However, this has nothing to do with whether the Players are happy with what their Character’s can achieve. Your concept of Power Level revolves around your NPCs, our concept of Power Level revolves around our PCs.

Of the two, my NPCs gripe a whole lot less.

Scotsman185: //And the Storyguide is ALWAYS in control of resources//
Berengar: //This is a truism with respect to *player* characters. //

Wait… so you’re saying that the GM has control of the PCs resources, but somehow the NPCs of this mythical world are outside of that control?

I’ve heard of Players who get bored with a game and leave, but I’ve never run into such a rebellious NPC.

Now, in a Troupe Style Game, the Troupe would want to make sure that each of the GM’s is working with relatively the same concept of Power Level, but even the occasional mistake is quickly fixed, or just as quickly ignored. The (90% undetailed) world of Mythic Europe is much more amorphous than the concrete setting of the PCs Covenant.

//For the sake of consistency of the ArM game world, player and non-player advancement should of course follow the same rules. //

No… PC advancement should be delineated in the rules. NPC abilities, skills, Arts and motivations are all subject to the needs of the Plot. The advancement Rules can be used as a guide, and 5th ed gives a fairly good formula for determining higher levels of power, but they are by no means binding. NPCs can be created whole-cloth to suit whatever purpose the GM has for them.

Are you suggesting that in order to find out the Art Scores of a Magus 40 years out of his Gauntlet I should detail what he studied or did in each of those 160 Seasons? Did you actually do this for your NPCs in 4th ed? Frequently?

I bow in awe of your dedication, if so.

//Part of the established ArM world are bicentenarian magi, living in covenants like Durenmar, Doissetep and Verdi. Magi from these covenants will with ArM4 character development rules write the level 50 Summae we are talking of, and make them available to their underlings. //

Actually, that’s out the window in 5th ed. The new rules for Twilight and Warping suggest that most Magi don’t make it to 120 years after their Apprenticeship (ArM5, p32), which if started at age 7 means the ripe old age of 142.

So, right there they’ve eliminated the last 5 decades of Study from those Bicentenarian Magi.

And so far as writing a Level 50 Summae is concerned, in 4th ed a Magus with +2 Communication and a 6 in Scribe Latin would take 7 Seasons to Scribe such a Text. In 5th ed, it would take just as long.

If you are really concerned with having realistic NPC Magi, you should realize that very few Magi would want to take 2 years from their personal pursuits to do it. The Crotchety Nature of Bicentenarian Magi is even more legendary than their Power.

// I hope, however, that you come up with better solutions than just killing off older non-player magi when they become too much of a challenge, or hindering their endeavours by SG fiat.//

So is Canon so important that I should forego creating any important NPCs, instead waiting for an official tally of their Statistics, goals and plans? I had vague outlines for most of the Primi of the Order long before the publication of Houses of Hermes… should I ignore those outlines and plot hooks because a published work gives me different versions of the Primi?

Again, that is an… interesting… style of GM’ing.

Scotsman185: //"Canon... they're more just guidelines, you see."//
Berengar: //As I said, YMMV. Modify at whim, and at your own risk.//

Houses of Hermes, 4th ed, P 6: “These are for you to use, reinterpret or ignore as you see fit.”

ArM4 Rulebook, p 62: “In general though, don’t worry if you deviate a little from the Mythic Europe that is spelled out in this book and in Ars Magica’s supplements. This is a game, not a history class—do what feels right and have fun.”

ArM4 Rulebook, p 186: “Guidelines are provided below, but feel free to ignore them altogether and use your intuition to set the pace of advancement.”

ArM5 Rulebook, p 217, colored box: “The Rules and Background for Ars Magica as written do favor a particular style of play, but if that doesn’t match your style, you should change the rules and background so that it does.”

Very Interesting. Canon itself is telling me that I can freely ignore Canon, yet you caution me of the risks of ignoring the Sacred Texts.

My initial statement was not just that I do not like the new Study Rules, but also that the new rules were written for a specific style. Page 217 admits this. We have already determined how we will re-work the study rules so that they are better for us, yet still within the framework of the Text Writing Rules. This was not a problem.

The clearer Spell Guidelines, the much more detailed nature of the Gift and Twilight, the concept of Warping, the new Virtue/Flaw system; these are improvements to the Ars Magica system.

But the lowering of Power Level, the nebulous nature of the Combat System, the unhappy return to the vague guidelines for Covenant Creation; these are not. I apologize to those who worked long and hard to write them, but you knew you wouldn’t be able to please everyone. Such is the heartbreak of the Game Designer. :-)

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some House Rules to come up with.
J.

"Are you suggesting that in order to find out the Art Scores of a Magus 40 years out of his Gauntlet I should detail what he studied or did in each of those 160 Seasons? Did you actually do this for your NPCs in 4th ed? Frequently?"

I did this a few times in fourth edition for NPC's whose numbers were important to the plot. I recomend doing it once or twice just to see how characters are likely to change over time and get a handle on the lab rules.

"Actually, that’s out the window in 5th ed. The new rules for Twilight and Warping suggest that most Magi don’t make it to 120 years after their Apprenticeship (ArM5, p32), which if started at age 7 means the ripe old age of 142.

So, right there they’ve eliminated the last 5 decades of Study from those Bicentenarian Magi."

Notice the rules use of the word "most". I would wager that most magi didn't make it past 120 years after gauntlet in previous editions either. The top ages for magi have actually gone up in fifth edition rather than down because twilight is no longer a hard limit. If you can avoid having twilight episodes you will never be lost to twilight no matter how high your twilight score becomes. Older magi are very likely to use more mastered spells and have familiars bound to them with thick golden cords. I forsee magi getting very old in the new rules.

for an example of awe inspiring dedication check out this link on the new ageing rules: http://www.durenmar.de/aging/

"If you are really concerned with having realistic NPC Magi, you should realize that very few Magi would want to take 2 years from their personal pursuits to do it. The Crotchety Nature of Bicentenarian Magi is even more legendary than their Power."

A level 50 book would ensure their fame lasts for generations of magi. It would also keep them away from things that can botch and kill them for two years. (Just playing devil's advocate here)

"the unhappy return to the vague guidelines for Covenant Creation"

Not to take the conversation in a totally different direction but exactly what do you find preferable about the fourth edition covevanent rules (that I personally find to be unreasonably ambiguous, devoid of flavor, needlessly complex, and incoherent) in comparison to the fifth edition rules (that I find to be consise, descriptive, and flavorful)? (perhaps we'd best start another thread for that one.)

>> When I first found this game, I looked everywhere around Dallas for groups playing it. I found two, neither of which were actually interested in letting an outsider come into their Saga.

If you think Ars Magica is difficult to get a game of, try getting into GURPS Goblins!

Scotsman185: ////For the sake of consistency of the ArM game world, player and non-player advancement should of course follow the same rules. //

No… PC advancement should be delineated in the rules. NPC abilities, skills, Arts and motivations are all subject to the needs of the Plot.//
Which means, that a player character can never be sure in what kind of world she is acting, or make educated decisions?
Clearly players need to have an idea of the workings of their game world, requiring consistency in it, before their characters can relate to more than very basic plot. The more internally consistent the world is, the more intricate plot is possible.

Scotsman185 (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=543.1): //To paraphrase one of my players:

"They've completely changed it to address their style of play, which I consider a niche... This is okay if your primary focus is on the story because such limitations become an on-going plot element, but I have learned over time that I am personally focused on what my character DOES within the context of those stories."//
Indeed, that figures nicely.
Of course in a game where the capabilities of people around are at the whim of the SG(s) and potentially arbitrarily inconsistent, the players cannot develop a meaningful position of their characters in that world.
So they either quit, or they focus on the numerical advancement on their character sheets, as the only remaining sure thing.
The second is obviously a regressive way of gratification, not really a gaming style, but has its many followers.

The distinguishing feature of ArM IMO has always been its ingenious integration of our own world's rich history, providing meaningful background of any depth an SG cares to research, with a fantastic setting most players can relate to.
To preserve that meaning, the modern fantastic part - the Order of Hermes - is carefully fitted in, and must of course meet basic mechanical as well as social consistency requirements.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Which means, that a player character can never be sure in what kind of world she is acting, or make educated decisions? Clearly players need to have an idea of the workings of their game world, requiring consistency in it, before their characters can relate to more than very basic plot. //

If you are suggesting that Players may become irate when a newly Gauntleted NPC Magus is introduced with several Arts at 20 or better, then you are correct.

If you are suggesting that long-time Players may become irate because their 80 year old Magus doesn’t have comparable stats to the 80 year old NPCs from the beginnings of the Campaign… I doubt it.

Perhaps you have encountered Players who would demand justification or feel slighted at such a turn of events, or perhaps you have felt that way yourself. I have never encountered it, or felt that way myself.

// The more internally consistent the world is, the more intricate plot is possible. //

An interesting theory, but if true, why has there never been a consistent attempt to clarify what Might Scores mean in terms of powers and abilities for the creatures of the Realms? The Magical, Faerie and Infernal creatures of Mythic Europe are the PCs greatest challenge outside of rival Magi, yet the Players have no idea how the Storyguide determines their powers.

The only place where internal consistency seems to have been attempted is in the studies and laboratories of the Magi, because in those areas the GM has to be able to define what the PCs can and cannot do.

If a PC Magus wishes to break one of the rules of Magic, the Troupe needs to determine how he/she goes about that research. If the Storyguide wants an NPC to break one of the rules of Magic, then the Troupe only needs to agree on how that change is worked into the use of Magic. The research and skills used by the NPC are completely arbitrary.

Intricacies of Plot have nothing to do with mechanics of advancement, except in realizing that locks are meaningless to Magi, that mundane threats quickly become meaningless to Magi, and that the PCs need to realize that they have no way to judge their relative power against that of the age-undetermined rival Magus.

//Of course in a game where the capabilities of people around are at the whim of the SG(s) and potentially arbitrarily inconsistent, the players cannot develop a meaningful position of their characters in that world. //

Would you care to explain that better? I have never had a Player who demanded to see the stats of an NPC that they had just bested or been bested by, much less demanded that I justify those stats within game mechanics.

In fact, as I have stated before, most of my NPCs and “monsters” have only the most basic stats. If it is a physical challenge, the combat lasts until the PCs have taken enough damage and done enough damage to make it satisfying. If it is a mental challenge, then it is a puzzle for the Players, not the +5 Intelligence Magi.

Nothing is less satisfying, for Storyguide or Players, than to have an encounter become meaningless because of an unexpected turn. “Oh, I have all the stats done up, but I never thought you’d use Mentem against it. It has no defense, and becomes your pet.”

PCs make their own place in the world, and the Storyguide’s job is to keep them interested and challenged. The game is not about my knowing the intricacies of the Rules enough to cunningly craft the stats of the challenges, but to make sure the challenges are entertaining.

Are you the type of Storyguide who would stand by your stats and have the PCs fail at an important Plot Point because they could not overcome a monster or NPC?

//So they either quit, or they focus on the numerical advancement on their character sheets, as the only remaining sure thing. The second is obviously a regressive way of gratification, not really a gaming style, but has its many followers.//

The numerical advancement of the Characters is very important to many Players… as can be seen by the fact that almost every game has very specific rules for advancement.

There are a few games, patronized by what I refer to as the “failed drama student” style of gamers, where the advancement of the Characters is left vague, and only the angst and motivations of the Character is focused on. I very intentionally do not own any of those games.

Similarly, I do not care for those Games which require detailed knowledge of the Mechanics to advance a Character, and failing to take a very specific path means that your Character will never end up as you wanted it.

Advancement gives a Player the visceral thrill of knowing their Character is improving, while the Plot allows the Player to develop the non-stat aspects of the Character. They can work in tandem, but they do not need to be heavily influenced by each other.

//The distinguishing feature of ArM IMO has always been its ingenious integration of our own world's rich history, providing meaningful background of any depth an SG cares to research, with a fantastic setting most players can relate to.
To preserve that meaning, the modern fantastic part - the Order of Hermes - is carefully fitted in, and must of course meet basic mechanical as well as social consistency requirements.//

Mythic Europe and the OoH are some of the intriguing concepts of ArM, but the history starts to deviate the minute the Campaign starts. This is not to say that the PCs will try to assassinate Pope Innocent, but they may certainly decide to help the Cathars in Provence, or join the Reconquista, or aid the Moors against the Reconquista.

What would your reaction be to a Player who wanted to step outside the strictures of the Order of Hermes, or Mythic Europe? Perhaps the assassination of the Pope is desirable to the Covenant, so they pursue it. Or perhaps the oppressive nature of the Order causes the Players to rebel.

I have always seen the Order of Hermes as doomed. It has no provision for ambition in its members. It makes no bones that the purpose of the Order is to maintain the status quo. Any Campaign I run in Mythic Europe has the very real expectation that there will be some shakeup to the Order, perhaps even its dissolution. This does not mean that I do not like the Order of Hermes. This just means that I think change is exciting, and it gives the PCs a say in crafting how the Order will evolve after the crisis.

And if the Troupe doesn’t like the way it turns out, you just hit the reset button and start a new Campaign.

It is really strange how 4th edition came out.

If somebody said to me that 3rd edition came out after 4th edition, I propably would believe him as it fixed lots of 4th edition bugs... ;)

combat, laboratory and magic rules makes sense more in 3rd edition than 4th edition.

Next question is that did the same fellows do the 5th edition and 4th edition??

lets see, 4th edition:
Development, Editing, Layout, and Project Management: Jeff Tidball
Development, Editing, and Layout: John Nephew

5th edition:
game design: david chart

sorry nephew, I prefer chart's style.

//// The more internally consistent the world is, the more intricate plot is possible. //

An interesting theory, but if true, why has there never been a consistent attempt to clarify what Might Scores mean in terms of powers and abilities for the creatures of the Realms? The Magical, Faerie and Infernal creatures of Mythic Europe are the PCs greatest challenge outside of rival Magi, yet the Players have no idea how the Storyguide determines their powers.//

The magical, infernal and faerie creatures are even for most magi 'monstra': literally things to point at, to marvel about, not to understand.
A Character can - unless she has special knowledge represented by Magic, Infernal or Faerie Lore - not really relate to them, and if she has that knowledge will still likely consider them 'monstra'.

//The only place where internal consistency seems to have been attempted is in the studies and laboratories of the Magi, because in those areas the GM has to be able to define what the PCs can and cannot do.//

You give the wrong reason. Most of your players will have a magus as one of their Characters, so play members of the Order of Hermes, the society of magi. These Characters will interact a lot with other magi: their friends, rivals, enemies, neighbours, business partners, mentors, acquaintances and so on. In ArM5 this interaction will be even somewhat more intense, since due to some rules twists self-sufficient covenants will be - at least - rare.
These magus Characters understand implicitly what the other magi can or cannot do with their Hermetic Magic, and what kind of study is needed to achieve what level of competence. They also can roughly compare their own studies and study conditions with those of their neighbours.
So if a magus Character knows that - if he survives long enough and the Vis keeps coming - he will be able to write a level X Summa on Y, he will conclude that his neighbour, with similar interests, more Vis and better connections, will likely beat him to it. He also knows that in Durenmar covenant, over the centuries home of many bicentenarian magi, there is most probably a very powerful Summa on the same subject, the fruit of many decades of study and labor.

See how it would affect the Character if he knew that by some quirk of SG his Study Totals were always double or triple that of his neighbour? How would he react if he found in Durenmar only Summae he would have written 40 years our of Gauntlet?

//... The research and skills used by the NPC are completely arbitrary.//

Obviously not, as just shown.

//Intricacies of Plot have nothing to do with mechanics of advancement ...//

Of course they have. Many magi, Characters or NPC, see advancement in their art, or in the Order, as their goal in existence. A good Summa from Durenmar should hence be a prize nearly beyond every other, not 'ho hum' - and once you mess up the economy of goals of your Character and NPC magi by arbitrary assignment, you have messed up all your plotlines in the Order.

//The numerical advancement of the Characters is very important to many Players…//

That is not a problem, as long as the numbers on their Characters' sheets translate into something meaningful within the game world.
If they only say: "well, if the next monster or magus my SG throws at my Character has a Magic Resistance below Z, his spell W will destroy it", this is autoreferential within the gaming mechanics, and glorying in it is infantile.
If the numbers say: "AFAIK my magus can confidently challenge to Certamen any other magus in the Tribunal but Formidolosus and Operosa of Tremere", that is something meaningful in the game world and will affect the life, behaviour and outlook of the Character. The 'AFAIK' here depends of course on the player's in Character knowledge of age, life, interests and resources of the other magi in the Tribunal - so on your game world's consistency.

//Perhaps the assassination of the Pope is desirable to the Covenant, so they pursue it. Or perhaps the oppressive nature of the Order causes the Players to rebel.//

These are extreme plotlines - which nevertheless Characters *can* pursue, of course.
Whether they have a chance to succeed in them might not even matter to Characters embarking on them - but both goals can well be achieved within Mythic Europe. In a reasonably consistent game world, where players can think their way through problems instead of hacking away at them, each of them might be a good focus for an entire campaign.
Many medieval Popes were rumored to have died from poison, so why should not subtle magi have actually poisoned a few?
The founding of Novgorod Tribunal was actually the rebellion of a few eastern border covenants against the rest of the Order, so why should not magi Characters imitate them?

Kind regards,

Berengar

//These magus Characters understand implicitly what the other magi can or cannot do with their Hermetic Magic, and what kind of study is needed to achieve what level of competence. They also can roughly compare their own studies and study conditions with those of their neighbours.//

So, how does an Implicit Understanding work, with so many different choices as to how to spend time as a Magus?

A Bonisagus with 80 Seasons of Study, at 10 XP per Season, would have 800 XP to put into Arts. Those XP are all put into the Magus' specialty, giving a Score above 40 in that Art, and little else.

A Tremere with those same 80 Seasons gets the same XP, and spreads them liberally around, ending with something around a 10 in every Art.

A Verditius with those same 80 Seasons spends 20 of them enchanting items, thus significantly limiting his/her Art Scores.

A Flambeau with those same 80 seasons spends 20 of them pointing at 'monstra' and burning villages, taking Adventure XP, mastering all of his spells, and ramping his Parma up to an 8.

A Merinita Magus give up some of it's 80 seasons communing with the fey-infestation near the covenant. This does absolutely no good, but its what Merinita do.

So, after 20 years these Magi all have different levels of power in the Art Scores and Abilities, and are capable of writing vastly different Texts.

How exactly do you gain an "implicit understanding" of that?

Oh, I see, you take for granted that Magi with the exact same opportunites can be vastly different, and go with the flow.

> Next question is that did the same fellows do the 5th edition and
> 4th edition??
>
> lets see, 4th edition:
> Development, Editing, Layout, and Project Management: Jeff Tidball
> Development, Editing, and Layout: John Nephew
>
> 5th edition:
> game design: david chart
>
> sorry nephew, I prefer chart's style.

That's OK. I prefer his style, too, which is why I hired him to design/develop 5th edition.

-John Nephew
President, Atlas Games

//I did this a few times in fourth edition for NPC's whose numbers were important to the plot. I recomend doing it once or twice just to see how characters are likely to change over time and get a handle on the lab rules.//

I got my handle on the Lab Rules from arguing with my Players. If I were to simply go with my interpretation and run an NPC up to 100 years old, I would still have all those arguments.

Maybe you have Players who argue less? Wanna trade? I’ll give you two for one. :-)

//Notice the rules use of the word "most". I would wager that most magi didn't make it past 120 years after gauntlet in previous editions either. The top ages for magi have actually gone up in fifth edition rather than down because twilight is no longer a hard limit. If you can avoid having twilight episodes you will never be lost to twilight no matter how high your twilight score becomes. Older magi are very likely to use more mastered spells and have familiars bound to them with thick golden cords. I forsee magi getting very old in the new rules.//

Hmmmm… you see, that’s just the kind of thing that makes me distrust “rules improvement” between editions. I haven’t bothered to do a lot of the math, but that Durenmar thing you pointed to did it for me. Way more math than I would have done, spreadsheets or not.

If a significant portion of Magi live more than 120 years, why is that statement in the book? Gahhhhhhh.

Oh… and those Durenmar people… they frighten me.

And for a response about the Covenant Creation system, I believe I will start a new Thread. Look for it tomorrow, eh?

J.

>> sorry nephew, I prefer chart's style.

>That's OK. I prefer his style, too, which is why I hired him to >design/develop 5th edition.
>
>-John Nephew
>President, Atlas Games

Hehehehee... Hat of to you sir, for a eloquently, graceful reply to a blunt (bordering on rude) statement.
I've loved ArM4 since it came out btw, ArM5 is but another step on the ladder, and were only going up.
And everything one does is colored by the times one live through.

//So, how does an Implicit Understanding work, with so many different choices as to how to spend time as a Magus?

A Bonisagus with ...

A Tremere with ...//

See: once you have a consistent idea of how study works within the Order, all those tiny bits of information your maga can gather about another magus become more than just window dressing and proof of SG creativity. They actually become useful and actionable, they create and drive plot.
What is the house of the magus? What his covenant of apprenticeship? What was his parens known for? What Vis does he trade for? Which books does he covet? Which company does he seek? With whom does he exchange letters? What is his familiar like? What are the resources and problems of his covenant? When and why did he join it?
Nothing of this matters half as much if the magus in question was created at a whim, of course.

Kind regards,

Berengar

"Maybe you have Players who argue less? Wanna trade? I’ll give you two for one. :-)"

I'd love players that felt strongly enough about the rules to argue with me. My players still rely on me to tell them what to roll in any given situation, even when they're storyguiding (hopefully this will change in time).

"Hmmmm… you see, that’s just the kind of thing that makes me distrust “rules improvement” between editions. I haven’t bothered to do a lot of the math, but that Durenmar thing you pointed to did it for me. Way more math than I would have done, spreadsheets or not.

I'd wager that in in every single case (ok "every single case" is a pretty big claim so I probably wouldn't wager that much, perhaps a quarter)..

I'd wager that in every single case fifth edition will hold up better under mathmatical scrutiny than fourth edition. Remember that in fourth edition a naked man weilding two whips was more than the equal of two armored knights (unless they were on horses). Recall how abusable Faerie magic from the WGRE was. Remember how parma magica never actually worked against a spell cast by another magus. Remember how magical experimentation became less dangerous the more risks the experimenting magus took.

You might choose to rework some of the fifth edition rules to get the game that you want, (I'm sure that we all will)but your statement about distrusting the "rules improvements" in fifth strikes me as reactionary. Sure some things in fifth look odd to you, but fourth ed. is clearly buggier than a peat bog in June.

"If a significant portion of Magi live more than 120 years, why is that statement in the book? Gahhhhhhh.

Oh… and those Durenmar people… they frighten me."

The book says that most magi don't live more than 120 years past apprenticeship. Not most magi don't live to 120 years of age. Assuming an apprenticship that starts at age 10 and a fifteen year apprenticship 120 years of beng a magus makes them 145 years old. The Durnemar analysis shows the typical age of death at 133. Only 35% of magi live to see age 150. The Durenmar analysis has a fudge factor in it concerning how reckless the magus is. It turns out that recklessness is the single greatest determinent of longeveity in their calculations. So it's easy to see how the playtesters might have gotten a slightly lower life expectancy.

So Scottsman, talk to me about covenants.

Scotsman185: //So, how does an Implicit Understanding work, with so many different choices as to how to spend time as a Magus?
A Bonisagus with ...
A Tremere with ...//

Berengar: //See: once you have a consistent idea of how study works within the Order, //

But the examples I gave were not based on how study works, but on cliche's of the House's traits. I could just as easily create a Flambeau with a 40+ Ignem and a Bonisagus Monster Hunter. I used what passes for average in 5th ed for convenience.

In 4th ed, if I had introduced a seemingly-too-young Bonisagus with a 40 in Auram, it would have been mysterious, and perhaps driven the PCs to investigate the method by which she gained her power.

In 5th ed, since it is so "consistent," are you suggesting that the PCs will feel let down that this NPC got a break they did not get? Or are you suggesting that since the system is so consistent, that I dare not introduce such an NPC?

If such an introduction is still permissible... then I stand by my statement that Consistency is less preferable than Interesting.

And, going back to the initial statement that I made, discussing the general lowering of the power level, in 4th ed (with the exception of Vis Studies) it was only slightly less easy to "predict" the effects of Studies... but the predictions were larger numbers.

For the statistician (i.e.: "not me"), figuring the average of 3 Stress Dice + Aura is just as easy as figuring the average result for 1 Stress Die + Aura.

However, in all honesty, I _want_ there to be difficulty in prediction. If I ever have a game where my Players begin decoding how powerful an NPC is based on Game Mechanics, you can be damned sure those stats will change, mid-story.

//all those tiny bits of information your maga can gather about another magus become more than just window dressing and proof of SG creativity. They actually become useful and actionable, they create and drive plot.//

However, none of those bits of information will tell the Players what the exact scores of the NPC are. The Players may be able to figure out that the NPC is an Auram Expert (because I decide that such is known), that the NPC has an Eagle Familiar (because I decide that such is known), that the NPC apprenticed at Mistridge (because I decide that such is known), that the NPC's Covenant is wealthy and at odds with Doissetep (because I decide that such is known).

None of this gives the Players any idea what the NPC's Auram Score is (other than "probably high"), what the Bond Strengths are, whether or not the NPC suffered from "Stingy Master," or how many pawns of Vis the Covenant in question gets per year. That is all out-of-game information, and there is no way it can be determined in-game. All they will get are generalizations.

In fact, if some of the conclusions that the PCs reach seem more interesting than the ideas I started off with, I will probably change the concept of the NPC to meet their expectations.

Notice that the key phrase is "because I decide that such is known."

//Nothing of this matters half as much if the magus in question was created at a whim, of course.//

And here I strongly disagree with you. Stats don't matter half so much as creating a believable NPC that the PLAYERS like / dislike / love / hate / loathe / want-to-murder.

Only at the time that the Murder plan is enacted is it critical that I (as Storyguide) have a decent idea of the NPC's full set of Statistics. Before that, stats are just window-dressing.

You seem to imply that when I say "I create NPCs as needed" that I just liberally strew about Art Scores by throwing darts at a board. I have a formula (home-grown) based on the Age of the Magi that gives me a baseline of Arts Points, and I spread those around until they make sense to the concept of the Magus... if I need to detail the Arts at all. I figure that it is about 80% close to true, and that's good enough for me. I never said I did not have an idea of how advancement progresses, I said (and still say) that it was not necessary for the Players to know what my results were, or how I came by them.

Answer an earlier question: Do you run a majority of your NPCs through the entire Character Creation process to detail their abilities? Yes or No, with additional explanation as you think necessary.

//I'd love players that felt strongly enough about the rules to argue with me. My players still rely on me to tell them what to roll in any given situation, even when they're storyguiding (hopefully this will change in time). //

Yeah, sometimes I kind of enjoy the extended game mechanic discussions... but sometime I want to throw a rulebook at their head. You know... they're my friends, it goes without saying that sometimes I think they need to die.

//(I'm sure that we all will)but your statement about distrusting the "rules improvements" in fifth strikes me as reactionary. //

Bingo, nailed it in one. However, what I meant was that if a rule has been improved, I dislike seeing a statement in the Rulebook that does not follow out with how effective the Rule actually is.

Like I said, I would never bother with the detailed analysis of Aging/Warping/Twilight that website offered, so I would (did) take the statement at face value. And I recognized the difference between 120 years old and 120 years post-gauntlet.

Believe it or not, I was trying for brevity. Hardly seems likely, I know. :-)

//It turns out that recklessness is the single greatest determinent of longeveity in their calculations. //

As well it should be.
Screwupitor of Flambeau: "Hey Sodalis! Watch This!"
*****CRUNCH*****
Rodupbutticus of Tremere: "Well, I wasn't expecting that. Ewwwwwwwww."

//So Scottsman, talk to me about covenants.//

Coming right up... I've been slacking today.
J.

//If such an introduction is still permissible... then I stand by my statement that Consistency is less preferable than Interesting.//

For intelligent play 'consistent' is a necessary prerequisite of 'interesting'.

Nearly all those Hermetic magi have positive Int scores, will keep tabs on each other, and will draw conclusions.
You can of course wing the creation of your NPC magi, as long as they are still believable and allow still the conclusions a magus Character would rely on.

//... what the Bond Strengths are, whether or not the NPC suffered from "Stingy Master," or how many pawns of Vis the Covenant in question gets per year. That is all out-of-game information, and there is no way it can be determined in-game. All they will get are generalizations.//

A lot of this actually can be determined very well in-game:
While strength of an individual Bond is very hard to guess in ArM5, the Lab Total of the Bonds together can be guessed from the magus' age, his covenant's resources, and his main magical interests.
His main magical interests can be nicely guessed from the species of his familiar, which often already determines the Art combinations needed to bind it. So an InMe guy will rather bind a raven, and a PeCo girl a poisonous snake.
The quality of a just gauntleted magus' instruction can often be derived from the reputation of his parens as a scholar, magus and teacher.
Vis sources of another covenant can be found out by observing or bribing that covenant's staff, by observation of Vis trade, by studying that covenant's or its area's history, and by a lot of other means.
Nothing of this leads to absolute certainty, but all of it is valuable within a consistent setting.

To come to a conclusion of this erratically meandering discussion:
- If you advance IYC your magi Characters with study results vastly different from those for your NPC magi, or create the latter at a whim and with arbitrary capabilities unrelated to their age and background, such conclusions as given above are no longer viable, and you destroy the possibilities of intelligent plots involving the Order.
- If you advance both your player Characters and NPCs at 4th edition speed, you get a verrry high power level in the Order, with level 50 Summae in and corresponding influence and power of the great covenants like Durenmar. Playing an old NPC magus appropriately and believably then would become very hard. And a typical Spring covenant would have nearly no chance to build a position within the Order.

In the end ArM5 choose the best solution by reducing overall advancement in the Order, especially that advancement relying on Vis study and determining the power level of the Order very directly.

So the stats on your magus Character sheets at a given age are lower,
- but they have meaning within the Order of Hermes, as they are comparable to those of NPC magi,
- and they allow your magi Characters to make a difference in Mythic Europe far easier, as the power structure is not as much loaded in favor of the older magi from established covenants.
- You also can without adverse effect advance your magi Characters faster through the years, if for some reason you or your players are used to a certain rise of numerical stats per adventure played.

Kind regards,

Berengar

"Hehehehee... Hat of to you sir, for a eloquently, graceful reply to a blunt (bordering on rude) statement.
I've loved ArM4 since it came out btw, ArM5 is but another step on the ladder, and were only going up.
And everything one does is colored by the times one live through."

I agree, that was the most eloquent answer I have ever seen, teaches me about controlling my honesty a little more. ;)

Perhaps if I read 4th edition as carefully as 5th edition, I would learn to love it also, but it's too complex for me. I prefer my Amber and Nobilis to 4th edition Ars magica.

Sorry I was out of touch for a few days… did you miss me?

//For intelligent play 'consistent' is a necessary prerequisite of 'interesting'. //

Geez, Bery m’boy, you’re _almost_ good at this wordplay thing. However, you make the mistake of many in that you seem to imply that “Intelligent” is a synonym for “Proper.”

//You can of course wing the creation of your NPC magi, as long as they are still believable and allow still the conclusions a magus Character would rely on.
A lot of this actually can be determined very well in-game://

I’m suddenly reminded of a conversation held in another game: “A Challenge Rating 9 Creature means that a group of four 9th Level Characters should expend 1/4 of their resources to defeat it.”

Or, to translate, “A Magus with 10 years to study should have roughly 500 points of Arts, so if we average those around we should be able to figure out what he can do consistently.”

These discussions with you have enabled me to pinpoint exactly where the new system fails me, and that is in the fact that it creates almost cookie-cutter Magi. Not exactly similar, as evidenced by my examples from a previous post, but close enough to draw the conclusions you so salivate for.

The only thing that can determine the Power of a Magus in 5th ed is Time. There is no single action that the Player can take to increase Studies (outside of the two allowable Affinities). No Skill can be raised to improve studies, a la Concentration in 4th ed. No Ability is used in the formula, a la Intelligence… although I like the fact that Int is no longer of vital importance. Time, and time alone, determines the power of a Magus.

The slacker or the multi-skill dabbler is as powerful as the studious lab rat, so long as they are the same age.

Two Magi of the same relative age will have almost exactly the same number of points to put into arts. All that an individual Magus can do is LIMIT their power by performing Laboratory Work, going on Adventures, or pursuing interests other than their studies. Even more than in previous editions the Magi have little reason to pull their nose out of their books. I see the need for those Story Virtues and Story Flaws… nose rings for the Magi, to drag them along.

I always just relied on piquing the interest of a Player/Magi. It worked, on all but one memorable occasion.

Maybe your Players find you less interesting? :-)

//To come to a conclusion of this erratically meandering discussion://

See, there you go again, almost but not quite being insulting… you’re learning, my young paduan. However, as evidenced by this note, perhaps you should re-investigate the meaning of “Conclusion.”

//- If you advance … … or create the latter at a whim and with arbitrary capabilities unrelated to their age and background… …destroy the possibilities of intelligent plots involving the Order.//

Perhaps I was wrong, and you and your Players do suffer from the Failed Drama Student style of gaming. What you say would be true, if the thrust of the game was for the Players to sit and ponder over the motivations of their characters, coming up with specific childhood traumas to explain their foibles and eccentricities. Role playing for hours as a Magus investigates his nemesis.

However, the thrust of our games is to have an enjoyable evening of gaming, not to create some amazingly detailed drama-play.

In our group, all the intelligent (meaning “clever, considered, and well thought out”) plots come from the mind of the Storyguide-of-the-moment. We do not wait around for the Players to take initiative. If we did that, then we may as well start the Campaign 20 years after Gauntlet… because few PC Magi would give up study time unless forced into it by the Story.

However, I understand that what you consider intelligent plots (meaning “falling into line with your view of things”) may differ.

//In the end ArM5 choose the best solution by reducing overall advancement in the Order, especially that advancement relying on Vis study and determining the power level of the Order very directly. //

And again, I argue your use of the word Best.

I still say that the entire complaint you and yours seem to have about Power Level could have been “fixed” merely by the emasculation of the Vis-Study rules. If Texts still allowed a satisfactory increase in power, it would create a plateau in the 15+ range, after which Art Increase slows to a crawl and becomes prohibitively expensive.

Instead, you advocate that Magi must _always_ crawl forward in their studies, and until a Magus has hit 30+ years out of Gauntlet they will not be broadly capable. Perhaps your version of Capable does not include being able to consistently Spont a 15+ level spell in most Arts, but my group’s version of capable does.

The primary allure of Ars Magica exists in the Spontaneous Magic rules, so far as I and mine are concerned, and slowed Studies impedes the ability to do much with Spontaneous Magic.

And for every instance where “I am free…” to advance my players as fast as I wish, I counter that in any previous system “You were free…” to reduce those same Study results that so piqued you.

I stand by my statement, as verified by Herr Chart in another post, that the lowering of the general power level was a change to suit a particular Style, and not necessarily a Fix.

Just because you prefer that Style does not make it Intelligent (using either of the two “meanings” referenced above).

Hey there, Mr. Tyrell, I started a whole new Post about Covenant to talk to you, and I have gotten no response. Get with it, Man!!!!

Quit being such a Slacker! :-)
J.

//you seem to imply that “Intelligent” is a synonym for “Proper.”//
With intelligent play I mean, that players have the information available that their Characters have, and are enabled to think in the shoes of their Characters. There is other ways to play - but I hope you do not advocate that game rules should make such intelligent play impossible, especially not in a game where the heroes all are - more or less - scholars.

//The only thing that can determine the Power of a Magus in 5th ed is Time.//
No. Obviously it's resources *and* time dedicated to study.

//In our group, all the intelligent (meaning “clever, considered, and well thought out”) plots come from the mind of the Storyguide-of-the-moment.//
Well, could this hint at a limitation IYC? Is all the thought in a plot IYC on the SG-side? Are there no well-informed, well-researched and well-considered reactions of Characters IYC? Do IYC magi with Int +3 rush to assassinate a magus that has offended them without researching the investigative potential of the local Quaesitores before? And without looking for political support against him? If that's your 'style' ... I rest my case.

//If Texts still allowed a satisfactory increase in power, it would create a plateau in the 15+ range, after which Art Increase slows to a crawl and becomes prohibitively expensive.

Instead, you advocate that Magi must _always_ crawl forward in their studies, ...//
Did I? Show me - or admit to building a strawman.

//Perhaps your version of Capable does not include being able to consistently Spont a 15+ level spell in most Arts, but my group’s version of capable does.//
That's hard to believe. So numerical value of one's powers, independent of campaign context, determines capability for your group? Suit yourself, you still can achieve this also in ArM5 context.

//And for every instance where “I am free…” to advance my players as fast as I wish, I counter that in any previous system “You were free…” to reduce those same Study results//
As I told you two weeks before (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=543.2), in ArM you were indeed always free to advance your players' Characters as fast as you needed for your campaign and their tastes. At that time you objected (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=543.4).
Now it turns out - though that still appears to surprise you - that we always agreed here. Whatever that may tell a reader about you.

There was nothing new in your post but the occasional misunderstanding - even after you took a few days off. It's getting a little boring to argue with you, so I hope you will not mind that I restrict further reponses to new aspects of the subject of this thread only.

Kind regards,

Berengar

"Hey there, Mr. Tyrrell, I started a whole new Post about Covenant to talk to you, and I have gotten no response. Get with it, Man!!!!

Quit being such a Slacker! :-)"

It's up (if a bit rushed).

If I were a true slacker I'd have more time to post on message boards. :)

////The only thing that can determine the Power of a Magus in 5th ed is Time.////
//No. Obviously it's resources *and* time dedicated to study.//

Okay, you have made a valid point. If I were to create a Covenant of naked Magi, locked in empty laboratories with no vis, no texts, and no one to talk too, then the linear trend of advancement would be broken… thus proving my statement completely unfounded. Your skill at this is astounding.

However, show me a Covenant built by PCs that did not include (at least) adequate resources to advance Studies. I think it may be hard to find, and if found, I think it will probably be a Campaign that quickly changed gears once the Players got tired of it.

You yourself have spoken of the assumption that there are hundreds if not thousands of Texts that have been written over the centuries long history of the order. Resources for study are only a problem in very specific instances.

////In our group, all the intelligent (meaning “clever, considered, and well thought out”) plots come from the mind of the Storyguide-of-the-moment.////
//Well, could this hint at a limitation IYC? Is all the thought in a plot IYC on the SG-side?//

No, and No. The goal of our group is to enjoy the evening’s game. After that, the precious character sheets are put away for two weeks until the next session… which almost always starts with the question from someone “What did we do last time… Oh, yeah!”

A few Players do more than the normal bookkeeping, but I doubt any one of us regularly spends hours between sessions thinking about the actions their characters will take. Possibly in very specific circumstances, but not in general. That is our style, and we enjoy it immensely.

////Instead, you advocate that Magi must _always_ crawl forward in their studies////
//Did I? Show me - or admit to building a strawman.//

Fact: My group and I have always felt that Magical Advancement was too slow in 4th Ed.

Fact: You have stated that you think the slowing of Magical Advancement in 5th Ed is an improvement.

Conclusion: To our way of thinking, you advocate that Magi must crawl in their studies. (A crawl being, by inference, slower than an already slow pace.)

Did I build a Strawman? Not for me to judge. However, I will say that if the Scarecrow suit fits you, then you know what to ask the Wizard for when you meet him.

//So numerical value of one's powers, independent of campaign context, determines capability for your group? //

No, the ability to do something relatively useful with Spontaneous Magic on a regular basis and in more than 1 or 2 specialized Arts determines capability. Again, the versatility of Spont Magic is the key. That versatility is lessened by being unable to raise Arts to any meaningful level within a comfortable period of time.

//As I told you two weeks before … …Now it turns out … … Whatever that may tell a reader about you.//

Care to re-read that entry? I was not objecting to what you said, I was telling you that you could have applied the same logic that you suggested to meet your own ends.

Pray tell, gentle reader, what does that tell you about ole’ B?

// It's getting a little boring to argue with you, so I hope you will not mind that I restrict further reponses to new aspects of the subject of this thread only. //

While it breaks my heart, I will allow you to withdraw from the Field of Repartee. I admit defeat… I am utterly unable to put a dent in your self-complacency and your belief that the only way to play ArM is the method you prefer. Even at those times that I mock the Failed Drama Students, I allow that if they enjoy it then it is “proper” and “intelligent” for them. I just don’t like that style, and will seek out others.

As Always,
J.

Scotsman185 (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=543.24): //The only thing that can determine the Power of a Magus in 5th ed is Time. There is no single action that the Player can take to increase Studies (outside of the two allowable Affinities). ... Time, and time alone, determines the power of a Magus.

The slacker or the multi-skill dabbler is as powerful as the studious lab rat, so long as they are the same age.

Two Magi of the same relative age will have almost exactly the same number of points to put into arts.//

Me: //No. Obviously it's resources *and* time dedicated to study.//

Scotsman185: //If I were to create a Covenant of naked Magi, locked in empty laboratories with no vis, no texts, and no one to talk too, then the linear trend of advancement would be broken… thus proving my statement completely unfounded.//

Sigh. Two magi of the same age, but with different resources and different dedication to studies, will of course have different numbers of point to put into arts. This is *trivial*, good Sir - so can we agree on this, scrap your above allegations, and move on?

//After that, the precious character sheets are put away for two weeks until the next session… which almost always starts with the question from someone “What did we do last time… Oh, yeah!”

A few Players do more than the normal bookkeeping, but I doubt any one of us regularly spends hours between sessions thinking about the actions their characters will take. Possibly in very specific circumstances, but not in general. That is our style, and we enjoy it immensely.//

I sincerely hope that you do not clamor for rules only allowing this 'style', and understand that players in other ArM campaigns indeed know the game background enough to make well-informed decisions of their characters on the spot. Yes, that means without having to spend hours between sessions to ponder the actions of their characters.
Such players like ArM because of its deep, lovingly detailed background, stumble over inconsistencies in it, and wish them fixed. ArM5 did that fixing.

Scotsman185: //Fact: You have stated that you think the slowing of Magical Advancement in 5th Ed is an improvement.//

Good Sir, I stated, and state once again, that having a manageable power level of the Order of Hermes, and one consistent with advancement rules, is a necessary fix.
You want to have a speedy advancement of your players' Characters? Be my guest, ArM5 enables the simple campaign management to do that.
(1) A decent SG can - as we agreed upon earlier - time his campaign and the studies of his players' Characters in such a way that they advance at any pace he cares for.
(2) If his campaign at some moment needs still speedier advancement of players' Characters than normal progression of time would allow, the SG even can introduce some 'munchie cave', where Characters can enter a studying frenzy and advance - say - at double study totals in half the time.
All that is fair, if the SG wills it so and puts just a little thought into it, and nothing of this interferes with the consistency of the game world (provided 'munchie cave' was not accessible to the Order at large, of course).

Me: //As I told you two weeks before (...msg=543.2), in ArM you were indeed always free to advance your players' Characters as fast as you needed for your campaign and their tastes. At that time you objected (... msg=543.4).
Now it turns out - though that still appears to surprise you - that we always agreed here.//

Scotsman185: //I was not objecting to what you said, I was telling you that you could have applied the same logic that you suggested to meet your own ends.//

Good Sir, my ends, and - more importantly by far - the ends of the ArM5 author who made the changes, are a consistent game world and a playable Order of Hermes. Why pretend to be too dense to understand that?

If such consistency and playability were not provided by the published rules and background, they could not be achieved by trivial campaign management: they would require another redesign of the game.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Nine days since the last post. I can't take it any longer. Did your vitriol guns run out of juice? Get a necromancer to fill them up.. they always have some of that nasty green fluid laying around....

Anyways....

The last Ars campaign was with 4th Edition. Lasted about 2 years. We played 3 times a month on average. Our mages were about 15-20 years out of gauntlet and the resources we had to work with were in the 'good' to 'excellent' range. Some of us were walking around with these gigantic soaks that the SG couldn't get through unless he tossed a huge foe at us, which would kill half of the troupe and all of the grogs. Still, one of the top ten roleplaying experiences I have had.

Now we are on 5th Edition. Resources are rated as 'good', but not excellent. We started on 4th, and converted when the new edition came out. I am SG and have learned from experience. We are about 6 months into the campaign and my guys SUCK compared to the old campaign. Magic Might 12 Ogres almost killed them. In the old campaign, at the same timeline of 6 months, they would have had orge skin rugs in the grand hall. This time all they brought home were the bruises.

Here are my points (if indeed you have gotten this far, hehe).

1) The changes to spontaneous magic and penetration and vis (2 vs. 5 points per pawn) have forced magi to learn spells. The old game was raise the Arts as high as possible, and count on the spontaneous spell to get you out of the jam. Now, only the learned spell is going to have the penetration to do the job. This is a good thing.

2) The consistency in which the virtues and flaws need to be applied have helped to eliminate some of the mini-maxing. Another good thing.

3) The relative limits placed upon player created summae and tractae make it plainer for the players to see why the 50 quality Ignem book is just about impossible to find.

4) The overall slower development of the character. IM(not so)HO make the game funner to play and manage. Flame away if thee must, but I am sticking to my wands on this one.

//Nine days since the last post. I can't take it any longer. Did your vitriol guns run out of juice? Get a necromancer to fill them up.. they always have some of that nasty green fluid laying around....//
Hey, it appears that - quite contrary to my expectations - at least somebody was entertained by this thread.

//1) The changes to spontaneous magic and penetration and vis (2 vs. 5 points per pawn) have forced magi to learn spells. The old game was raise the Arts as high as possible, and count on the spontaneous spell to get you out of the jam. Now, only the learned spell is going to have the penetration to do the job. This is a good thing.//
There are several other assets besides formulaic spells which should work well in ArM5-campaigns. Did your group already make magic items to deal with problems - e. g. the ogres of your campaign? Did they try any tactics with one shot items already? How did familiars impact play so far?

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Nine days since the last post. I can't take it any longer. Did your vitriol guns run out of juice? Get a necromancer to fill them up.. they always have some of that nasty green fluid laying around....//

Nah, not out of Vitriol, just low on time. Gaming isn't my only geeky hobby, and Faire season just started in North Texas.

Besides... that wasn't vitriol. I talk to my friends worse than I've talked to ole'B so far. But his amusement factor is running low, instead of responding to the entire post as a whole, he likes to focus on specific wording.

He's either an english professor, or a Lawyer.

*eeep* Hope I don't get kicked off the Forum for calling someone a Lawyer. That was a low blow, and I apologize.

//The last Ars campaign was with 4th Edition. Lasted about 2 years. We played 3 times a month on average. //

I know that you are saying, in these few paragraphs, that you think the game was fixed... but I notice that even though the 4th ed game was "broken" you enjoyed it thoroughly and it lasted for years. In my experience, games that are truly broken tend to fall apart much more quickly... there are too many games out there to just stick with one despite its flaws.

Not that I would ever suggest that people play a game not produced by Atlas (he says, placating the Game Gods who read these forums). :-)

//We are about 6 months into the campaign and my guys SUCK compared to the old campaign. Magic Might 12 Ogres almost killed them. In the old campaign, at the same timeline of 6 months, they would have had orge skin rugs in the grand hall. This time all they brought home were the bruises.//

So then, as Storyguide, what was your intent during that particular encounter?
1) Did you set the Ogres up as an unstoppable wall to that avenue of the story?
2) Were the Magi supposed to overcome them and continue, but the Stats meant that didn't happen, thus stopping your story anyway?
3) Was it just a Bug-Hunt for Vis and you came up with random Stats that ended up being too tough for them?

And, I'll bet that with the old 6-month stats, and the new penetration rules, the Magi still would have had a tougher time. Penetration was a Fix, that I will agree with.

We are accepting of the concept that Baby Magi suck... it has always sucked to be just out of the Gauntlet. The argument we have (we = my group) is that the new rules mean that Baby Magi suck longer and harder than ever before. The longer part is the bigger gripe.

Ole'B looks at the Campaign as more important decades down the road. We don't. To us, the important part of a Campaign is the beginning, because if a game starts good, it will last. If it starts rocky, or sucky, or with a too high bruise-to-victory ratio... then it will get replaced by one of the dozen or so other Campaign ideas being tossed around our group. I've already shelved ArM5 for now because it's about third on my list of "Cool Campaign Ideas I Must Run."

As a GM, I usually have the idea in mind that "The PCs are going to win." I am there to entertain my Players. The Players entertain me by coming up with plans (either stupid or brilliant) that fit the moment and the feel of the session/Campaign. It's not a contest between my carefully crafted puzzles or mystery and their ability to solve them.

//Here are my points (if indeed you have gotten this far, hehe). //

I got here, and I really don't have any problem with your first three, but the fourth is... as I stated in my first post, and Herr Chart admitted... a change to fit a specific style of gaming.

No, I'm not going to link to that post... it's on here somewhere, do your own homework. ;-p

No game survives XP inflation, I've said that before. That's why the GM has to keep things in perspective. Only the GM knows how powerful his PCs are, and tailors encounters accordingly. A game-system that decides that PCs must be kept at low power for a loooong time... just to keep them from being TOO GOOD later on... is a game that does not have that much appeal to us. I say again, we aren't power gamers... our Covenant doesn't need to excrete Hermes Portals every Season... but we enjoy seeing definitive advancement. 5th ed's advancement isn't definitive, it just creeps along.

And no flaming on you from me... you've stated your opinions, and managed to do it without sounding like you consider yourself an Authority. I ain't arguin' with ole'B because of what he said, but because of the way he comes across.

Now... why the heck does your screen-name sound like you just got slugged in the gut? :-D
J

My group had its first true taste of 5e combat and rule changes last weekend, and it completely caught me off guard. I had orchestrated four encounters that I felt would be an increasing level of difficulty, culminating in the final battle with the evil wizard:

1) A confrontation with 9 armored and mounted knights, backed up by 10 swordsmen, and a handful of bowmen.
2) An attack by two dragons (lil' baby ones... Might 15).
3) A horde of animated corpses surrounding the evil wizard's tower (i.e. ReCo, not true undead - no Might).
4) The evil Corpus wizard, only slightly better than the PCs in Arts and skill levels, protected by his Parma 3 and his Aegis 20.

At this point, I should note the PC party consisted of 3 magi, 3 companions,and a 10 grogs.

The first battle set the tone for those to come (mostly). One wizard cast that earth wave spell (the name escapes me at the moment) at the knights every round on his initiative. That was sufficient to keep 8 of the 9 knights occuppied with falling down (the 9th knight had a relic and the meager magic resistance protected him from the initial wave, and he was clear of the area for the subsequent waves). Althought the knights were able to soak most damage, after 7 or 8 rounds of this, the Light wounds were enough to effectively remove them as a threat. It did take a long time to finally take down the 9th knight, but he was at -25 from light and medium wounds by the time he was knocked from his horse. He never got an offensive hit in.

A second wizard used multicastings (Mastery 3) of Pilum of Fire to assail the knights as well, but with their soak, this only continued to pile on Light and Medium wounds. Finally, while a companion put them out of their misery. The swordsmen and archers were easily dispatched by the party's grogs, with a little assistance from Pilum of Fire.

The second battle, against the dragons, was even more decisive. One of them managed to fling an archer to his near death, but by the time round two started, the Pilum of Fires, arrows, and other attacks had produced enough Light wounds to effectively eliminate the dragons as a threat. Further magical attacks continued to add on the Light wounds until a companion finally stepped up to make a mundane strike (and thus benefit from the accumulated penalties) and deliver the death blow.

By the time the party reached the wizard's tower, I had concluded the battle with the corpses would be a no-brainer, so simply ruled it would take 10 rounds for the grogs to dispatch the corpses. In the meantime, the magi could concentrate on the wizard attacking them from high within his tower.

Here the battle went the opposite direction. I anticipated the wizard would be a challenge, but he was almost overwhelming against 3 wizards. Their Pilums of Fire failed to penetrate the Aegis. Their Crystal Darts did likewise, with the exception of one lucky shot. The closest they came to threatening him was when one of them *almost* penetrated the Aegis with the Demise of the Mighty Castle spell (or whatever it is called). Meanwhile, he managed a few Wound That Weeps and a couple Pilums of Fire to induce about -6 penalties in all the wizards, and he Crushing Grasp of the Clenched Heart several grogs. By the time the party entered the tower itself, they pretty much had no possibility of success, even with vis expenditure and such. I had to pull major punches to give them any fighting chance whatsoever. Finally, shocker of shockers, while the evil magus teleported to his inner sanctum atop the tower, watching the door for the party to enter, one of the companions (a shapeshifter) flew to the top of the tower, entered the window, transformed to a bear, and slapped the magus. No Parma. Soak 7. But the damage was sufficient to knock him unconscious. Battle over.

The PCs killed him while he was unconscious.

My experience in this seems to be the opposite of that expressed by Hwhnn. My player's characters seemed more than capable of handling themselves against the mundane and lower-magical opponents. And the wizard, well, maybe I just underestimated him in my design.

I have come to realize the awesome potential inferred by the new mastery rules (i.e. multicasting), and the fact direct magical attacks (i.e. Pilum of Fire) no longer require aiming rolls. In addition, across all of the battles, none of the wizards had even lost a single fatigue level from spellcasting, such were the nature of their spells and Arts. This dispelled the assumption that fatigue would always work against the wizard in drawn out battle.

I am still pondering the results, trying to determine where I made mistakes in planning and implementation. There have been some minor issues I have discovered, but for the most part, it seems everything went as intended, under the new 5e rules.

"My experience in this seems to be the opposite of that expressed by Hwhnn. My player's characters seemed more than capable of handling themselves against the mundane and lower-magical opponents."

My impression is that a selection of fifth edition virtues and flaws is more powerful than a fourth edition suite of virtues and flaws was.

//I have come to realize the awesome potential inferred by the new mastery rules (i.e. multicasting), and the fact direct magical attacks (i.e. Pilum of Fire) no longer require aiming rolls. In addition, across all of the battles, none of the wizards had even lost a single fatigue level from spellcasting, such were the nature of their spells and Arts. This dispelled the assumption that fatigue would always work against the wizard in drawn out battle.//

Well, if you make battle mages, they should at least be good at combat.
Seems to me that your players had a good time. Overcomming acumulatingly great dangers is often fun.
But allthough I like a fight now and then, I think I would find magi with mastered battle spells, that they rely on exclusivly, and lob around 20-30 times per battle, quite boring.

I'm a little bit nonplussed about the discussion on wheter ArM5 magi are weaker in battle than ArM4 magi.
I grant that it takes a little bit of experience with the system to gauge the relative power levels of magi, monster and beasts. But you get a feel for it eventually, and I find it easier to get that feel in ArM5 than ArM4.
And when you get it, you can certanly tailor the opposition to make a suitable challenge for your pc's. That's the least problem as I see it.

My guys are didn't bind familiars yet. And they are not so keen on making magic items. They are still a bit stuck in 4th edition play.

After last week's adventure, I hope things have changed a bit. Four magi, wizards communion, and "botch-u-lato" strikes, giving all warping points and sending 2 of the four into temporary twilight. The only thing that saved them was that the "casting mage" of the wizards communion has "Enduring Magic", the virtue that extends the spell duration by a simple die. So the mobs were frozen long enough for the two wizzes to get back from twilight (only diameter duration) and finish the job off.

I was laughing my ass off.

I showed them the paragraphs in the book about making the wand with the "Agony of the Beast" with increased penetration. And we talked about two other things:

1) That the instant gratification needs of our current society is going to get you sent into an early twilight if you aren't careful enough. Life moves at a slower pace in Mythic Europe. Plus, with your potion, you are goign to live 3 to 4 times as long as the average mundane, so really there is no hurry.

2) We also spoke about the statistical study (sorry can't remember who did it so no credit where credit is due) about what are the causes of mage death that can be controlled and the only one was recklessness.

We will see this week what trouble they get themselve into. I gave them a year of downtime to study up, and hopefully increase themselves in trouble making power.

Man, that was so funny. I thought that they all were going crap their respective robes when that die came up a zero and then the subsequent roll confirmed the botch.

Well, that is all for today. Time to go down to engineering and speak to Mr. Scott.

Hwhnn

Captain to Engineering:

//I know that you are saying, in these few paragraphs, that you think the game was fixed... but I notice that even though the 4th ed game was "broken" you enjoyed it thoroughly and it lasted for years. In my experience, games that are truly broken tend to fall apart much more quickly... there are too many games out there to just stick with one despite its flaws.//

I do think that the vast majority of the flaws from 4th edition were fixed. And you are correct that we truely enjoyed 4th edition (and 3rd and 2nd). The game style is what we like.

//So then, as Storyguide, what was your intent during that particular encounter?
1) Did you set the Ogres up as an unstoppable wall to that avenue of the story?
2) Were the Magi supposed to overcome them and continue, but the Stats meant that didn't happen, thus stopping your story anyway?
3) Was it just a Bug-Hunt for Vis and you came up with random Stats that ended up being too tough for them? //

One ogre was a random encounter. They dealt with him pretty easily. I am figuring that is the end of that and on with the planned adventure. Plus, I got to give them a little vis. WHAT WAS I THINKING GIVING THEM VIS?!?!?!? They spend the time and spells to track the orge back to his lair (1 orge = lair = more ogres = more vis) and set out to kill them all. The one mage summons 200 zombies (yes, 200.. a couple of botches lead to a few warping points. They won't last long at this rate) and they attack. The zombies can't hit them, but they can stop them from moving around to engage the mages. After this long drawn out battle with mentum spells causing the ogres to do many funny things, the mages get most of the ogres (and their vis) but a botch seals up the orge cave and the mages decide to call it a day. They are all absolutely crazy.

//No game survives XP inflation, I've said that before. That's why the GM has to keep things in perspective. Only the GM knows how powerful his PCs are, and tailors encounters accordingly. A game-system that decides that PCs must be kept at low power for a loooong time... just to keep them from being TOO GOOD later on... is a game that does not have that much appeal to us. I say again, we aren't power gamers... our Covenant doesn't need to excrete Hermes Portals every Season... but we enjoy seeing definitive advancement. 5th ed's advancement isn't definitive, it just creeps along. //

My guys are a bit upset at the slowness also. We agree that it is best for the game overall, but when you are used to a certain level of play, you miss that. They want more power and that is all well and good. My job, IMO, is to help them get to that level at a rate that is consistent with 1) the rules, 2) their desires, 3) and game playability for the future. We had the problem of overpowerment (is this a word) in the last game and I am determined not to let it happen again.

Well, back up to the bridge for me. Uhura is looking fine today and there is alway Yeoman (insert name of nice looking blonde here).

Have fun in engineering.

Hwhnn