((This may post twice... our network went screwy, so I apologize if this shows up as two threads.))

//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.)//

I don’t necessarily think that 4th ed’s rules were perfect, but I think they were an improvement over previous rules, and 5th ed stepped away from that.

The main problem with the flavor driven covenant creation is that the Troupe will have different interpretations of what the entries mean. For instance, take “while the Covenant is hard to get into, it could not withstand a serious military assault without the use of Magic,” a sentence detailing the Baseline, page 71.

As Storyguide, I may say that sentence means a 10’ stone wall atop a slight rise, with a fortified gatehouse. However, one Player thinks the rise should be atop a hill with a 40-degree approach, and three sheer sides. Another student of architecture thinks it should mean two curtain walls, and anything less is likely to be overrun. It leaves much to the interpretation. In my Troupe, that means it leaves much to the Argument.

If a Covenant has a specified number of points to build with, just like the Characters have, then the Troupe can decide to put those points into the areas that concern them. Flavor is added as needed, so that incredible details like Doissetep filling an entire mountaintop are agreed on after the basic details are worked out. Sometimes flavor costs more, sometimes it doesn’t.

The Covenant is described as “the single most important character in most Ars Magica Sagas,” but the system for building one is far simpler and less precise than for building a Player Character.

Character Generation doesn’t have entries like “Art Scores: Good. You may assign Art Scores that you think are typical for a newly Gauntleted magus.” Or “Art Scores: Superior. Your may assign Art Scores that you think are better than a newly Gauntleted magus.”

I prefer a more codified system for creating something as important as the Covenant. Let the Troupe decide on Color and Flavor, but keep the Basic Mechanics sound.

-----
That being said, I also took the Covenant completely out of the hands of the Troupe for the current/future Saga. I wanted to design a Covenant that would give the Magi every creature comfort they wanted, but would have little in the way of Magical Resources. I wanted the Magi to have to go out and get the Books and Vis, while reveling in luxury at home. This is in direct opposition to the usual “+5 Aura, 50 Pawns per year, chock-full Library’o’Power… but drafty corridors, few servants, no income and we have to steal food from the local villages.”

I also stole the Idea direct from the website about Prospectus Locus. Plaigarism being the sincerest form of flattery, I hope the originators won't mind me throwing my destructive PCs into their beloved idea. Forgive me, if any of you are on this Forum. :-)

Yes I've been busy. I had hoped to reaquaint myself with the fourth edition covenant creation rules first but I haven't had the time.

"I don’t necessarily think that 4th ed’s rules were perfect, but I think they were an improvement over previous rules, and 5th ed stepped away from that."

Our opinions and experiences differ on this point. I found the third edition covenant rules provided my groups more enjoyment than the fourth edition version of them.

"The main problem with the flavor driven covenant creation is that the Troupe will have different interpretations of what the entries mean. For instance, take “while the Covenant is hard to get into, it could not withstand a serious military assault without the use of Magic,” a sentence detailing the Baseline, page 71.

As Storyguide, I may say that sentence means a 10’ stone wall atop a slight rise, with a fortified gatehouse. However, one Player thinks the rise should be atop a hill with a 40-degree approach, and three sheer sides. Another student of architecture thinks it should mean two curtain walls, and anything less is likely to be overrun. It leaves much to the interpretation. In my Troupe, that means it leaves much to the Argument."

It has been years (3?)since I made up a covenant in fourth edition. I always thought that it was odd to pay points for every approach equally. How many covenants are there where an approaching party can't get to the side of eaisiest approach?

Putting more the qualitative things into a virtue/flaw type system (i.e. boons and hooks)was an elegant way to avoid potential holes in the system. Not just the silly exploitations like taking ten bonus labs each with a -5 quality and thereby scoreing your covenant a mess of points to spend on other things but also the sort of issues that happen to players who aren't trying to finesse the system such as taking negative relations with everything on earth when the storyguide can only pile so many stories about how disliked the covenant is on the players before everyone gets sick of it.

My Ars Magica group is apparently less argumentatve than your's, but I've played in some contentious D20 and Champions games. It has not been my experience that more specificity in the rules leads to fewer arguments.

"If a Covenant has a specified number of points to build with, just like the Characters have, then the Troupe can decide to put those points into the areas that concern them. Flavor is added as needed, so that incredible details like Doissetep filling an entire mountaintop are agreed on after the basic details are worked out. Sometimes flavor costs more, sometimes it doesn’t."

I'm not sure that I understand you point here. Fourth edition did allow you to create a covenant in any season and each season had a range of build points to choose from (or have I forgotten something)?

The character creation rules allow you to create any character from a five year old invalid to a two hundered year old archmage. Similarily the covenant creation rules allow you to start with any quantity of resources that you wish.

Is your point that the present rules only provide strict accounting for issues concerning magic items, vis, books, and skilled servitors while other issues are covered by hooks and boons? Is it a problem that you can no longer, while designing the covenant, sacrifice the points you were going to spend on your good mundane library in order to have better relations with the local monistary.

"The Covenant is described as “the single most important character in most Ars Magica Sagas,” but the system for building one is far simpler and less precise than for building a Player Character.

Character Generation doesn’t have entries like “Art Scores: Good. You may assign Art Scores that you think are typical for a newly Gauntleted magus.” Or “Art Scores: Superior. Your may assign Art Scores that you think are better than a newly Gauntleted magus.”

I prefer a more codified system for creating something as important as the Covenant. Let the Troupe decide on Color and Flavor, but keep the Basic Mechanics sound."

The fifth edition rules do force specifics in the areas that are used by the players (magic items, vis, books, and skilled servitors) it does not nail down issues that are more often dealt with by the storyguide (relations with outside factions, vunerability to attack, ease of aquiring supplies).

My experience of what goes on in a game maps pretty well with the style of the fifth edition rules: The only time I ever had a covenent attacked by a military force was a third edition covenant, I only rarely used the accessibility of supplies as a story hook, and mundane relations were always changed by the actions of the PC's regardless what history the covenant had. As a result I was not eager to have players nerf their covenant in these areas so they could get more vis and a bigger library. (Perhaps I just run the game in a manner more similar to david and the (other) playtesters than you do so I'm missing the problem that they (we) built into the system.

My experience in using the rules was that when my group finished the covenant creation process in fifth edition we had a bunch of stories, when we finished in fourth edition we had a bunch of numbers.

Now I'm going to get roasted for foolishly posting without reference to either rulebook.

What areas have you found in which the fifth edition covenant creation system has not been sufficently specific for your group?

Sorry there, Erik. Now it was my turn to be a Slacker.

//Now I'm going to get roasted for foolishly posting without reference to either rulebook.//

Not by me. I do it all the time. If someone wants to check my statements, they can do the work and then call me on it. No sense making it easy for them. LOL.

//What areas have you found in which the fifth edition covenant creation system has not been sufficently specific for your group? //

Like I said, I got past that by plunking my new Characters down into a Covenant of my own creation (barring pre-admitted plaigarism). It's more of a general sense of Malaise while reading the rules. I finished that chapter (on both reads) with absolutely no excitement about building a Covenant, or even working back through our Covenant to see how it figured up.

To me, it was very much like the Covenants Book from 2nd Ed... a bunch of ideas for things that you can do if you want too. That's now exactly the intent of the rules, I know, but it was the feeling I had.

You've confirmed my suspiciions, by the way. I knew you were a Playtester, and I bet you had a lot to do with the Covenant rules, the way you glowingly speak of them. Such Pride... shameful. ;-)

Anyway, I don't think this thread is going to get much more traffic, but it was worth a shot.

Hasta Luego, Senor,
J.

Any rules are easy to abuse by creative players, that's what makes them fun to game with. Hope you have luck with that PBEM game. I've never tried any games where I couldn't look at my Players... I'm old fashioned that way.

J.

I like the detail and numbers in 4th Edition... and liked the 2nd Edition "Covenants" supplement as well. I always hoped a more indepth supplement would be released for 4th Edition, but it never came. I tend to be a very detail-oriented person and like to capture as much "realism" as possible, much to the detriment of my players.

We started a completely new saga once 5th Edition came out, completely breakinmg away from the 4th Edition saga we had played for over a year. In that saga, I had implemented many of the rules from "HarnMaster" and its "Manors" supplement to provide a more accurate accounting of covenant life. I worked out exactly how much income the covenant got in coin and kind from all of its various sources, including crops, animals, business endeavors; etc. and calculated exactly how much in expenses the covenant had to spend on each magus, companion, grog, and covenfolk, as well as miscellaneous expenses, etc. The characters could tell immediately what kind of a financial situation they were in and knew if they could afford to add just one more grog to the turb.

I felt this would give them the information necessary to make the "in game" decisions as to how to advance the covenant, bring in new sources of wealth, etc. The truth is, the players hated it. They weren't interested in perusing over the 10 page spreadsheet that detailed every mundane aspect of their covenant. What I thought of as color and depth, they thought of as irrelevent and drudgery.

The new saga is more tailored toward the player's desires in the game, rather than my own as the SG. Unfortunately, we have sacrificed a great deal of what I feel gives Ars Magica its color and appeal, but in the end, I think the players are finally beginning to enjoy playing.

//The new saga is more tailored toward the player's desires in the game, rather than my own as the SG. Unfortunately, we have sacrificed a great deal of what I feel gives Ars Magica its color and appeal, but in the end, I think the players are finally beginning to enjoy playing.//

Yeah, nothing is more annoying than going to great lengths on things that you find fascinating, and then realizing that no one else in the game appreciates it. I've done it a lot... but I re-use them in other Games, and they eventually prove vital to some game down the road. THEY WILL APPRECIATE MY WORK DAMMIT!!!!!

*ahem* sorry... back in control now.

Anyway, back to the Covenants. I have re-read the 5th ed rules again, and I'm still unenthused about them. I would almost rather have just suggestions and guidelines rather than the half-system. Suggestions almost always spawn off ideas, and a fully fledged system gives you a skeleton to work from. The feeling I got out of the Half-system is "I finish it, and I'm done. I have color, I have stats, I'm done."

With Color only, I as GM get to determine stat'esque things such as defensibility or availability of supplies... with the weaknesses I wish the Covenant to have. With a full System, I have all the Stats covered, and I and the Troupe can fill in the cool color things without fudging those.

With the 5th ed system, the Covenant gets a little of each. If I try to manipulate a weakness I can see the question of "Where did we get that? Where do the rules say that can happen?" If I try to add Color, I can see the question "That sounds like something we should get a Boon for..."

Like I said, 4th ed wasn't the perfect system. It pretty much gave Stats with no color, but Color is free.

J.

Well, my group is a pretty dysfunctional group, especially when it comes to Ars Magica. Many of the core concepts (i.e. the Covenant as a central Player, the distinction between the need for grogs and companions, etc) completely elude them. I started with two players (still have them both), introduced a third at a later point to try and end the apparent OOC rivalry between the other two. The third guy eventually quit after whining about how he couldn't play his character because his character would know more about things than he did, thus reducing him to an indecisive whelp... and if he did do something that ended up not coming out as he had envisioned, he would complain that his character would have known not to have done it to begin with. Geesh.

Fortunately, we have just added a new third player and he has brought a lot of spark and initiative to the group, as well as a potential fourth player that is playing a companion now and then until he can determine if he can commit for the long haul (we play every week, for the most part).

Initially, we tried doing a 5th Edition covenant, but the players were more concerned with munchkinism than with creating a story. Every book they bought had to be the maximum Level, with the highest Quality, so they would never have to go hunting for a book. They wanted an ungodly amount of vis so they wouldn't have to do vis hunts or harvests. I finally said, "Enough! Each magus gets 100 points to buy his personal possessions and items" and we have gone from there.

Ultimately we have thrown out nearly all aspects of "covenant" life. All they really have to concern themselves with is their characters. They don't have to worry about where their food and goods come from, etc. That is all "behind the scenes" filler, and grogs now grow on trees.

would rather the 5th Ed rulebook (which is already fat and full, and cuts short other sections like the beastiary)

a) eliminated Covenant rules entirely

b) cut more other sections to make room for an expanded Covenant section

c) put in a modest description, and left it for a forthcoming Covenants book (pre-announced by John Nephew)

Note that it's hard to add small amounts to printed books 'cos the pages come in bindings, with a certain number per stitched fold; and that the size and weight of the book pushes cost up and up.

Note that other favoured sections: Mystery Houses (and Mysteries in general), the 4 Realms, a bestiary, and others are all shorter than we'd like.

Me - I'm waiting to fill my shelf with shiny new 5e books... full of details and interesting Stuff!

//would rather the 5th Ed rulebook...
a) eliminated Covenant rules entirely
b) cut more other sections to make room for an expanded Covenant section
c) put in a modest description, and left it for a forthcoming Covenants book (pre-announced by John Nephew)?//

Of the three choices, I would rather have C. However, I know that since the goal of 5th ed is to entice NEW players, and not please old ArM Addicts like me who are already hooked, that would have been a mistake.

What I actually would have preferred is that the current section be more in the vein of the (similarly sized) section from 4th Ed. Like I said, I don't begrudge the presence of the system, but the mechanics of the system. ((Sorry there, Mr. Tyrell, but I'm at it again... viciously disparaging your work. :-p ))

//Note that other favoured sections: Mystery Houses (and Mysteries in general)... //

You see, here's my other Heresy. I could never get interested in The Mysteries. I read a borrowed copy of the book once, and decided I didn't need it. Since the book was available to the rest of the group as well, and no one else ever brought it up as coolness they desired, it was a non-issue.

I don't like the re-grouping of the houses. I long ago ruled that a Magus could change their House affiliation if they had reason. A Magus started out with a Lineage based on his Master's House, but if he wished to change Houses it was possible. There were repurcussions, and some Houses (i.e.: Tremere) were likely to get in "a bit of a tiff" about it... but if you wished to face the consequences it was certainly allowable.

//Me - I'm waiting to fill my shelf with shiny new 5e books... full of details and interesting Stuff!//

I as well. Waiting... and dreading. I look forward to seeing the new stuff start flooding out of Atlas, but my money situation cringes at the thought of buying all those books that I may not use for another year or two. *glurg*

J.

// //Note that other favoured sections: Mystery Houses (and Mysteries in general)... //

You see, here's my other Heresy. I could never get interested in The Mysteries. I read a borrowed copy of the book once, and decided I didn't need it. Since the book was available to the rest of the group as well, and no one else ever brought it up as coolness they desired, it was a non-issue.//

Burn Heretic! :-)

My favorite pre-5th Edition books are The Mysteries, The Maleficium, and Shamans. I particular like the Theurgy mystery, as it fits with the character concepts that I personally like for my magi (much like diabolism, heh heh).

I tried to introduce the Mysteries into my campaign, but met similar resistance. The players/characters seemed interested in pursuing some aspects of it, but never made it manifest into play. They would say, "I want to learn theurgy", but then 10 years of game time will pass and they don't spend a single season trying to pursue it, etc. This has been an ongoing problem with my players, though, so it doesn't reflect on The Mysteries itself. My players are very ingrained in the "instant gratification" aspect of games like AD&D and WoD, where you simply kill things, earn XP, and advance, earning whatever abilities come with the advancement. Having to plan out their own personal advancement seems anathema to them.

> //would rather the 5th Ed rulebook...
> a) eliminated Covenant rules entirely
> b) cut more other sections to make room for an expanded Covenant
> section
> c) put in a modest description, and left it for a forthcoming
> Covenants book (pre-announced by John Nephew)?//
>
> Of the three choices, I would rather have C. However, I know that
> since the goal of 5th ed is to entice NEW players, and not please
> old ArM Addicts like me who are already hooked, that would have been
> a mistake.

isn't (C) what we got anyway? We have a modest single chapter, and a book coming later...

> ...
>
> I don't like the re-grouping of the houses. I long ago ruled that a
> Magus could change their House affiliation if they had reason. A
> Magus started out with a Lineage based on his Master's House, but if
> he wished to change Houses it was possible. There were
> repurcussions, and some Houses (i.e.: Tremere) were likely to get in
> "a bit of a tiff" about it... but if you wished to face the
> consequences it was certainly allowable.

I believe you can in 5th Ed! (for some Houses...)
the 4 "association" Houses: Flambeau, Jerbiton, Tytalus and Ex Misc all take magi from a variety of sources: a magus passing their Gauntlet and with an inclination to the style of any of those 4 Houses may apply and expect to be accepted.
(Ex Misc always have accepted "others"; also there was mention in various 4e sources that if you were expelled from your House, you had a certain time limit (1 year? next Tribunal?) to be accepted into another House, or be cast out of the Order. Normally, the House of last resort was ex Misc - taking "anybody" - but by implication, you could join other Houses).

You might also try to join one of the Mystery Houses, and if you are chosen and pass their tests, and undergo their Initiation rites, you could gain their House Mystery Virtue and become one of them... Leaving a Mystery House is another matter, as you are privy to deep secrets that the House may wish to remain covered up...

You can't normally expect to join one of the 4 True Lineages: Bonisagus, Tremere, Mercere or Guernicus - as to be one of a lineage, you need a parens of that lineage. On the other hand, leaving such a House and joining one of the Associations is presumably something that must happen with some frequency.
(Why anyone would want to cease to be a Quaesitor, I don't know... <grin>).

If you quit Tremere, you even get your sigil back, for what the sigil is worth. You lose the privilege of the advice of your parens in how to wield your vote with greatest influence, and lose the backing of a close-knit and powerful cabal... From the Tremere point of view, you lose more by leaving than they lose by losing you...

Can an outsider join Mercere? Well, it's not clear. The core write-up makes it clear they are a lineage, and we'll learn more when True Lineages finally hits the shelves, but until then we must speculate that they choose their (non-magical) candidates young, and train them themselves, afetr which they become Redcaps. So: an outside mundane could join if they spend 15 years apprenticed to a Redcap - but then they have become part fo the Lineage!
As for Gifted Redcaps, well 4th Ed Magical Redcaps were a very tiny group, all related: see Sanctuary of Ice as well as Houses of Hermes... I'd not expect an outside magus to be accepted in such a close knit group - though one could easily see a Verditius magus choosing to work alongside House Mercere, dedicating themselves to making enchanted devices for Merceres...