When attempting to use the rules for a Good and Bad Academic Reputation in A&A pg103 in an active campaign centred at the University of Cambridge, I felt there were some improvements that could be made. As this affects both SG's characters I thought I'd look for feedback here.
Firstly, the 5xp in Bad Rep for not writing a summa every 5 years seems very harsh. Most of the scholars described in game only have one or two Summae (e.g. Robert Grosseteste only has one), not the 10 expected by the rules in a 50 year tenure, and it seems meaningless to churn out vain summae quite so regularly (especially considering most scholars only have two abilities of 6+). Also academic rep is supposedly applicable to students, who definitely wont be writing a summa.
My other SG/professor also suggest the "publish or die" mentality is a bit modern. Therefore it'd suggest changing the summa guideline to be:
"Fail to write a summa of level equal to half the author's level in an ability within 5 years of achieving level 6 in an ability" +5xp
"Fail to update one's summa to the highest level available to the author within 5 years of achieving an even level above 6 in an ability (8, 10, etc)" +5xp (maybe less, only 3xp?)
This would encourage experts on a subject (6+ in an ability) to maintain a summa of the highest level instead of the writing of countless vain summae, which fits better with the actual scholarship of the time, which should be focussed on tractatuus (including commentaries, lecture notes and correspondences). Alternaticely, perhaps the bad reputation for not writing a summa should be scrapped entirely?
I also think the quality of ones teachings and writings should influence their academic reputation, so I propose the following guidelines for gaining a Good Academic Reputation:
+1xp Write an excellent tractatus (Q13-14)
+2xp Write a legendary tractatus (Q15+)
+1xp Give a great lecture (SQ15-24)
+2xp Give an outstanding lecture (SQ25+)
Once per ability:
+5xp Write a new summa of authority (L7+)
+2xp Write a highly instructive summa (L5+ AND Q15+)
A scholar should be judged just as much for what they DO write as what they don't write, so perhaps a new way to gain bad reputation:
Up to +5xp Write a controversial tract (e.g. defending women's rights in Canon Law, doubting the authorities in Artes Liberales, etc.)
Up to +10xp Write a potentially heretical tract (theology, maybe canon law)
Thanks for any feedback/thoughts you may have