The degree of complexity in the magic system should match the combat system; in fact they should be designed together. I'm for keeping the "crunch" in magic and fixing combat to match.
I disagree. Ars Magica is a game primarily about wizards and it makes sense that magic and labwork is more detailed than combat.
I don't mind the combat system it works ok for us. Sure it takes time, and so does Spontaneous Magic - which we've heard a number of people complain about. But I'm ok with this as well. And a number of other things also chew up time, but it's up to the Troupe to try and find a way of playing that fits what they want to spend time on.
Combat however is often boring and uninspirational, unless you find ways to make it fun and exciting. I've had the best combat scenes where we involved the terrain and external circumstances, where people switched back and forth between fighting, other physical things, and magic. When we remembered to stress the magi so they'd need to remember to use shield grogs, and where concentration rolls were needed due to chaos on the battlefield and magi weren't sure to cast every round.
I don't think the initiative system needs changing, a system with action points needs to be very careful to not create inflation for some character builds so some characters act several times while other only have one action. IMHO that's too cinematic for ArM but it makes sense in Feng Shui. That being said I think actions points in some ways could work, if it just meant mixing movement in with actions which could be quick and risky or slow and sure but eat up more APs. Where the low-cost actions would be more imprecise attacks, weaker cast spells - but leave room for other, small actions. And the high-cost actions be better attacks, more powerfully cast spells etc.
Another idea could be to keep the initiative system but have characters declare how they perform their next round's worth of actions: Aggressive (powerful but risky), Defensive/Careful (forego attack but get better defense/slow but lower risk of failure), Deceptive (fool opposition into making mistake, reap benefits next round) etc. Not only combat but also magic and other exploits - uses of physcial or social abilities etc.
I like the shadowrun initiative system in shadowrun which is a game about futuristic cybernetics and related magic where microseconds matter.
I do not think it fits anything vaguely medieval. I'm not saying multiple attacks per round is something that shouldn't exist, simply that I don't think it should be based on initiative.
Multiple attacks are a primary source of power-combat-builds in any system, so personally I'm not a huge fan. I'm even not fully comfortable with multi-casting, but I give it a pass at the moment because at least it keeps the focus on magi.
One thing I would probably change is the notion that moving is an action. 'I want to move over there and cast a spell' is a classic example of the kind of action someone would take, so the system really should allow for that.
A truly vast number of games allow for 'move and attack' within a round. It feels weird having to break it up.
Unsurprisingly, I completely agree with Timothy here. Less so about the Seasons but I think he has a point about that as well.
I agree with Kid Gloves on both counts: allow a character to move and attack/cast, and avoid a system which allows some players to act more often than others. In such a system, the number of actions you can take is quite literally the amount of time you get to play the game. Players with fewer actions don't get to play the game as much as the people with more actions. That's not fun, and creates a dynamic in which players make characters with lots of actions not because their character concept fits, but because they just want a fair share of the GM's time.
I certainly wouldn't allow it to be common- perhaps someone with a combat ability of 10 or higher gets an extra attack at -5 to ability per attack. Other than that it should be limited to supernatural creatures, but still there should be something for it in the rules, because honestly when you look at extreme differences in ability it does happen, and in terms of tales of the supernatural it is definitely a thing... there should also be (IMO) an option to allow some degree of trading between attack and defense scores depending on how aggressive or defensive the character is being.
regarding seasons- this is something that I personally like- it was one of many elements back in 3rd edition when I started Ars Magica that made it clear that the game was somewhat based in 1980's paganism, that still needs to go. Gamers want a game that delivers adventure, and a season is too long, from a general playability perspective, to be spending reading books or in the lab. I think switching to months might create a more playable paradigm.
As far as combat goes, I think the game would benefit to offer two options; a narrative approach and a simulation approach. Right now, the combat is mostly narrative as far as movement and positioning goes, but is closer to a simulation as far as the resolution goes (for example, the bonuses for exertion, mounted advantage, trained groups). A lot of those mechanical advantages could just be represented by a variation in botch dice (for example, a trained group rolls fewer botch dice, or a man on foot rolls more botch dice if they're fighting someone mounted), making the fight more narrative. On the other end, the game could offer better support for grid movement and positioning, for the players who like to use miniatures.
While I'm on the subject of botch dice, a clearer idea of the number of botch dice used in situations would be very helpful. The game needs to establish standards better; how many when doing fatiguing spontaneous magic, how many with formulaic spells in combat, etc.
The silliest thing about D&D and most other RPG is how characters can get to level 10 within a year. Don't bring up this ludicrous idea.
4th edition had a weekly advance scheme. It's good for when a magus with a lab total of 65 wants to make a level 10 spell, BUT it makes the magi very asynchronous and so really discourages group planning. I think a more pertinent problem is the potential for ruined seasons, where a magus leaves his lab for a few days, gets wounded, and his season is ruined. This really discourages magi from leaving the lab at all. Being able to salvage a part of season's work would be a big improvement.
For example, if you have a lab total of 60 and were making a level 30 spell, but your season is ruined half-way, you would still get 15 levels accumulated to your goal (half of the excess). The next season you have only to accumulate 15 more excess, leaving you with 15 lab total to apply to something else (a level 5 and a level 3 spell.
This might tempt people to game the system, but if a project isn't finished until a season ends - in the above example, you only get that full 15 points at the season's end - then you won't have tons of partially complete projects hanging around. It would also encourage magi to buffer their lab total a bit rather than max it out every time. If you have a 60 lab total and are inventing a 20, even if you lose half the season (and thus half the excess), you'll have enough to finish.
Also, if you want to encourage adventure, lower the adventure XP award but make that award immediate and outside the regular advancement schedule. Players often refuse XP awards because they require the season to consolidate, and therefore often feel adventuring is an unrewarding activity unless they haul in vis/magic items.
Doesn't that already exist?
So, essentially back to first edition then?
True, but I must admit I accept that as inevitable, because most (all I can think of) attempts to fix this via rules, have made those tendencies even more extreme in the cases I've seen.
Agreed. I can see why, but it does limit/exclude a number of concepts.
Ofcourse, I remember talking with Christian about how "this character would make more sense with 10 points of Story Flaws." And then I was told "Just write 'Being a Tytalus' and call it a Major Flaw."
Not untrue.
They are also a relic of the 4th edition, and like most relics of that cursed abomination, I may be somewhat biased.
So, back to first edition then?
I'm really not. I think the current system underscores how Combat is not the main focus of the game. Which is also why I'm so very pleased that it's been relegated to a chapter not named Combat, near the back of the book, rather than the oh-so-popular Combat chapter early in many systems.
I might've prefered some more robust social interaction guidelines, but those are rare as hens' teeth anyway, so yeah.
Agreed. Further, As a self-declared student of the martial arts, I'm really pleased with Ars Magica, as it is one of the few systems where skill level is part of determining initiative, and how well you hit play a greater (or atleast equal) role in determining damage than Strength.
Agreed
Interesting point of view. I never did consider myself a pagan, not in the '80'ies and not now. And I love seasons.
Why?
So, you want us to be a D&D clone? I've played with plenty of people that wanted a soap opera, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. And seasons are awesome for that.
I've also played with a player who heralded that finally, here was a game where he could meaningfully become famous enough to say "Do you even know who I am?" as a threat, and it made sense that his reputation had made it all the way from Provencal to Ireland.
I think you may have a more narrow view of 'what gamers want' than I'm willing to accept.
An excellent point! Reputational drivers in stories should be leveraged more. It is probably say a little about my groups rather than the games, but i rarely see reputations having real gravity.
Only if you actually finish the season. Miss 20 days from the lab and the whole season is wasted no matter how much excess or how high the lab total is.
What about replacing the Characteristics (which I would integrate into the Virtues/Flaws) with functional totals that are commonly used directly in the game? Certamen, Laboratory, Debate, etc?
On Seasons:
What the seasonal advancement model brings to the table is a passage of time at a reasonable rate. Four 'blocks' per year means there's enough variety in a year to do different things, but its coarse enough that it allows an adventure to 'properly' finish before another begins.
As such, I don't think seasonal advancement is broken. It has a few areas where it struggles, but for the most part it works okay.
Any other systems are either going to result in a far more action-packed saga, with more adventures/year and subsequently less passage of time in the saga, or are going to end up with advancement happening so infrequently that the adventures/year will similarly be reduced.
I'm reasonably sure Herodotus refered to seasons in his Histories - though in his model, there were ony 3 of them.
And that text almost predates the roman republic.
Huh? How?
How are they upper caps to what PCs can archieve? Moving your (covenant's) season forward has always been a strong goal.
Again, how?
They are little more than a metaphor for the themes this saga wants to focus on.
It isn't just about broken or not broke, it is about what turns people away from the system. If we keep going on the basis of what the people already playing the game think could be improved we will see the audience shrink from being unprofitable to being an albatross.
I don't dislike seasons in themselves and I don't feel a need to speed character advancement up. I do feel that the combination of a seasonal model, emphasis on downtime action, and extended longevity of magi make it difficult to engage with the setting.
The timespan exhibited recently in Thrice-Told Tales makes for good "magical" flavor but it makes it hard to maintain a detailed setting with mundane politics and attitudes, much less mundane individuals. I find it curious, actually, that a game which burrows into the year 1220 in such accurate detail has never really come to grips with the fact that characters could easily have been around since 1120 and sagas can easily run to 1320, with enough downtime sessions for research and the like.