Is the Norwegian (and from earlier experiences Swedish and UK) model very strange?
I have never been to any con (playing RPGs) whit sessions shorter than 4 hours. Many even offer "Long" or "Double" slots (typically 6 hours) for RPGs now that the Eurogames wave have reduced typical board game slots to 3 hours.
I am one of the "guilty" to want con scenarios, and think the plan to reduce rules look-up and hopefully make things easy and fast for the players is a good one. I would prefer to have full character sheets also for the characters so that the players could take them home to remember and hopefully wish for more afterwards.
The idea of a "spont-table" (who had that one) with the totals preprinted sounds like a great game-aid. I would really like an Excel (or even better some sort of wiki) Character Sheet that automagically made the sheet for normal play. That would reduce the Spont-time at the table of my regular game quite a bit, I think.
In France too the minimum session duration is 4 hours, with 5 or 6 players.
I had no problem understanding the spontaneous rules after reading the rulebook, however I dare say they are clumsy to use in-game, leading to far too many computations.
It's easy to do yourself. It's just a 5 (Tech.) by 10 (Form) table that has the Sta + Tech + Form total written in each cell. You just need to add on aura and die roll, (and any options like Ceremonial Casting) when you use it (and then if doing Sponts divide the total appropriately). I do this for all my magi characters (and a similar one for Lab Totals). Remember to include any Virtues etc (I find it easier to do a separate table for Foci; so you have a Normal Casting Total Table, and a Focus Casting Total Table). Just remember to update it when your stats change --- which is normally between sessions (for the way we play, anyway).
It's a very simple step that makes life much easier, for players of all levels of experience.
For me, the problem is that you are don't actually seem to be doing this. By all means, I think it is a great idea to put some time and effort into developing (one or more) scenarios that are suitable for cons/novice players. I think that, yes, the apparent complexity of the rules is a potential barrier that you need to think about.
However, your approach, which seems to be:
a) to rewrite the rules so that they are not so complex, and/or
b) remove some of Latin jargon and replace it with different jargon.
The problems that I have with this is that:
a) means that you are not writing an ArM5 con scenario; you are writing another game that may be set in something loosely like Mythic Europe.
b) the Latin jargon is a big part of the appeal of ArM5. The Latin jargon, the magic system, are the central features of the ArM5 game. Without these you are not playing ArM5.
Like Fhtagn says, with your approach, the best outcome will be a great con game. But it won't be an ArM5 game.
It depends on the sense you mean, but it's basically a Noblis Miracles Menu.
For those not following what I'm doing on my blog. I agree with this, it's just that in my con game I am taking it further, so that instead of the players needing to break out the book, look through the spell guidelines and master the "Magnitudes add 1 up until 5, then 5." thing, my table has all of those calculations already done. So it just says "If you want to do this, it's a success but you need to spend Fatigue. If you want to do X+voice, then spend fatigue and roll a 6".
I've not rewritten the rules. I've just done all the sums for the player. I can't wait for someone to write an app for sponts...I presume you lean against such a play aid?
Yes, a jargon in English, so that its a bit intuitive.
I do the sums for the player and it's not real Ars anymore? That's just silliness.
So, again I point out that by your definition, when I play a Companion or a grog, then I'm not playing real Ars. And again I note that your definition of real Ars is narrower than I accept.
I don't accept your standard of what makes an Ars game an Ars game, though. I -like- playing companions.
I feel you're being rather disingenuous here. I prefer grogs to companions, myself, giving more of a split between long term and short term activities and plans. However, since we were discussing Arts scores and spontaneous magic, it seems reasonable to assume that we were discussing magi rather than companions or grogs.
My problem with a spont table is simple: It's inherently inflexible. The base guidelines are for things like, "Move dirt in an highly unnatural way" (Serf's Parma). You then need to consider the type of dirt, what sort of unnatural movement you want, how long you want it to last, how much dirt and so on. This gives you very, very different results for a spell to throw sand at someone's face and one to levitate ten flagstones in a row to allow you to cross a canyon, despite their using the same guideline. If you generate a list of common effects, all you have done is created a second class of formulaic effects which are more difficult to use and less effective, or at least so it will seem to the user.
Depends. An Android app which has N rows of buttons, ones for Guideline level(numerical), range, duration, target, etc and which then displays, once they're tapped, the required totals for casting with Fatigue and without, would save at a guess ten seconds per spell and be reasonably accessable during play. My players have all precalculated their TeFo totals for speed in play - it's the other modifiers which slow things down(Foci, Auras, etc). One where you navigate a menu selecting technique, form, guideline, local guideline modifiers (dirt->stone->metal) would be a largely useless save as a slightly faster way of flipping to the correct page and slower than having photocopied your common arts and stuck them to your character sheet. It wouldn't get rid of the consideration time, just speed up the maths a bit - fine for those who're not fond of doing sums, but adding several values in multiples of five is still fairly swift.
The two difficult bits with spontaneous spells, in my experience, are deciding what you want to do or finding inspiration for something cunning, and secondarily the division. For some reason, dividing things always takes people longer, I suspect because of less of an intuitive sense for error checking. Writing out a list of example effects usually, in my experience, hinders inspiration because when you look at a list you stop looking for things which aren't on it. The dividing issue could probably be sorted by inverting it and multiplying the difficulties (fewer sevens and nines are going to be involved that way), though that would increase spell penetration across the board. Frankly, I can't think of a better way of doing it than using the guideline tables more or less as-is and just giving them a wee table (sorely lacking in the core, in fact, where you have to trawl paragraphs to find numerical modifiers) describing the ranges etc and their modifiers in terms of magnitudes and levels. For a con game you can probably just treat all magnitudes of 1-3 as 0 and all of 4 and 5 as 5 and have a simple set of numbers to add, as well as some simple tables rather than the exhaustive but verbose (and therefore slow to read through when seeking a specific thing) lists on your blog.
I wonder if taking 15 minutes at the beginning of the game to explain the concept of spontaneous magic, and then running a exercice session of it, might help the players grasp the concept, at least.
Usually, an experienced Ars storyguide can quickly ball-park the power of an effect and tell the player whether it is easy or hard to do. So prepare a list of simple situations that each player must resolve using their character's specialties, and let them imagine a magical effect that would do the trick. Tell them if that effect would be easy, hard, or impossible to attain given the character's power (and offer a valid alternative if necessary).
Examples of situation could be:
Your character is cold, wet and exposed to the elements. How to you protect yourself from the weather and warm up? (Possibilities: Light a fire, dry yourself, create warm clothes, put together a shelter, etc.)
Your character is being pestered by bees. How do you get rid of the nuisance? (Possibilities: Ward against insects, fry them with fire, use wind, make your skin impervious to their sting, have birds eat them, etc.)
Best case would be to include that game into the scenario for some in-character experience, but it really isn't mandatory. It would certainly help the player get a feel of what they can do with spontaneous magic. And for a con game, I think the storyguide can be a little flexible on the rules and use his jugment on whether the spontaneous effect works (either fully, partially, or not at all) in a given situation.
Also, when building magi for a con game, I think that virtues and flaws that complicate calculations (focus) might simply be avoided or simplified -- cost-effectiveness is not really important, as long as the characters are somewhat balanced. So instead of saying that a Magical Focus doubles the lowest Art, simply say it gives a flat +5 to the casting total. Or don't use it at all and use only Puissant Arts. Yes, it makes for less complex characters, not as optimized, but I don't think it matters in the end.
Exactly. There are a lot of options in Ars, but for a con game you need to restrict them to a mangeable set. The description of the character will already be guiding the player as to what the character is good at, so even if the actual powers are broader than what is described, it's not a big issue. Keeping things simple and fluid are what's important.
The point is to highlight the good features of the system, like the flexibility of spontaneous magic and the rich background of Mythic Europe. Leave the complicated stuff out if possible.
Coming back to the subject of this topic, I wouldn't go so far as eliminating the art scores completely. Pre-calculating totals is good, but the players should be exposed to the underlying scores, IMHO, so they'll see where the totals come from.
My vote is simply, Write it if YOU want to. There is no perfect solution to what you´re trying to do so dont get too upset that people dont agree with how you(or most others) suggest it be done.
Agreed. You can't please everyone, so at least please yourself.
Experimentation with the system, streamlining it, or just looking at things in new ways is never bad, but it can be off-putting to those who have established preferences, or just want to use your work seamlessly within their own game.
The intent of the Tin Islands is not to be a standard supplement for Ars, so why attempt to please those who only want standard supplements?
Pre-calculating Casting Totals for each TeFo combination is a great idea.
However, for me, the problem is that you have gone a step beyond this. You have removed the capacity of the players to design spells on the fly. They instead just pick spells off a pre-determined list. It is the players going through the spell design process that is the essential essence of ArM. Without this, it is just the same as any other game.
This is supposedly meant to be an exciting introduction to ArM. Something that makes people want to play more ArM. You need to offer something "unique" and interesting. You need a selling point. That selling point is the magic system.
Such a play aid sounds great, as long as the players still get to make the design decisions for their spells.
The problem is that the English jargon lacks any soul. It is boring. And it is also often less clear.
"Spells which create or control wood" is a whole lot less exciting than Creo Herbam and Rego Herbam spells.
"Creo Herbam" has verisimilitude, the quicker you can get the players using this Hermetic vocabulary, the quicker they will feel like they are playing a game about medieval wizards.
Me too. I like playing companion characters. I like running scenarios that only include grogs.
However, the difference is that when experienced players play companions or grogs (or hedge wizards), they are doing so with the player knowledge that the Hermetic Arts exist, even if the Heremtic Arts are actually totally irrelevant to the particular adventure. In such a case, the players are still playing ArM, because they know that the Hermetic Arts and The Order of Hermes are a part of the game world. This is not the case for casual or novice players. They don't know about the Arts. Therefore you have to tell them about the Arts, you need to make the Arts and the magic system front and centre because it is a game for novice/casual players.
If it is a game for experienced players, then sure, you can just make it only involve grogs, companions or hedge wizards, or whatever.
Perhaps an analogy to help think about this is as follows:
a film set in early 1914 Europe doesn't need to tell the audience that it is set just prior to WWI. The audience can be expected to know this. The script writer can introduce cryptic references to WWI, which the audience will recognise and appreciate figuring out.
a film set in early 2344, Europe, just prior to an invasion by alien lizardmen, needs to tell the audience this. Cryptic references to things that the audience doesn't know about, like the imminent lizardman invasion, will be ignored and misunderstood by the audience. Although in a movie, the explanation can come later --- it may be only with a second viewing (when the audience already knows the end) that early references are understood.
A game for experienced players is like the film set in 1914 Europe --- the players bring an understanding of the setting to the game.
A game for novice players is like the film set in 2344 Europe --- the players don't understand the setting, the game needs to present the players with the information to understand it.
I think that you should write it. An introduction adventure is a great idea. But it needs to be an adventure that actually introduces the players to ArM, and not an introduction to something else.
What I feel about this issue. It is a highly personal impression on what I and my troupe like and hate about ars magica, so take it for what it is
I think that the current rules are overly complicated for what they achieve. You can get the same result with a way less complicated system.
I think that the problem is NOT in the core magic system at all (sponts and formulaics) but in the other hundreds of thousands of rules scattered around. The core book is really solid. It is in the supplements that you run into problems
When I used to go to Cons, I rarely grasped the whole gaming system of the game I was testing. It was the feeling of the game that mattered, and (specially) if the adventure was catchy. If it was, I would give the core book of the game an opportunity. If I ran into too much complication opr a setting I did not like, I passed over it. For example, I played Cult twice, and thought it to be the most stupid game ever, even if some of my friends think it is brilliant.
I discovered Ars Magica at a Con. I was given an introduction to the setting in terms of "medieval Europe, but where legends are true; there are dragons and faeries around, and demons and angels battle for your soul. You play a powerful wizard like Merlin". After that, we got an intro of what were the techniques and forms and off we went. We got RESTRICTED SPONTANEOUS MAGIC: we were not supposed to be using all the system, but were encouraged to use the Arts weheee we got positive numbers instead of zeroes. At the time we did not know that we could use Arts with a zero score, and frankly, it did not matter at all. All the characters were specialists. I loved it.
I still think that Ars is amazing because of the setting. The rules just get in the way for us most of the time. I still fail to see why you need debate rules when Com (or Pre, or Int) + social skill confronted roll is enough to get results without needing to nail down difficulties and specific contested rolls. The basic system works. The supplements destroy the elegance of the ruyles IMO. And the core rules could be shaken a little bit as well, but that is me. I found ArM5 core book to be a masterpuiece. I have found the ArM5 line to be less interesting, not because of the setting (which is ubber cool in all the books except the Realm ones) but because it contains too many rules that simply detract from the gaming experience for us. For my group, the extra rules are wasted space most of the time and just make ArM less permeable to new gamers.
Have to disagree with point 5 on extra supplements.
Maybe it is impenetrable to new gamers , but not if you have half a brain and are not number-phobic.
(i do not have a university education , just high school and they had stopped teaching Latin in the Catholic schools i went to)
(though i did get to be an altar boy back when they still had mass in Latin , prior to Vatican II)
I like the extra books , they enrich the Ars Magica experience for me.
Would be nice if you could get all the extra spell guidelines in one place though.
I did not say you can't understand it. I said that it made the game impenetrable as in "you will not play it because it gets more and more number crunching and more and more rules in every single published supplement". Quite different.
But that is exactly the reason i play , i like the number crunching.
And i see extra rules as opening up more possibilties , not limiting those already there.
We should probably start a new topic for this discussion , if anyone thinks it worthwhile or just say , YSMV.
The good things about the extra books are the sections that tell you how the order and Mythic Europe look like.
Take RoP:F for example. What is it good for?
Imagine, I have a story idea that deals with a being that kidnaps powerful mundanes and replaces them with his minions (those minions have the power of looking/sounding/smelling like the other person and mind-reading so they know what people expect them to do).
Without any of the RoP books that is done quickly. I take the supernatural creatures from ArM5 as role models, change the stats and powers as I like and play it. My players have no chance at guessing the powers by looking through the books - which is much more fun than your players starting to argue whether the creature must have a Magic Might of 13 or 14, and whether using a power cost 0, 1 or 2 Might points (the same players usually do not have Fairie Lore (Game Rules) 15.
Adding numbers stifles creativity, slows the game by extra rules that have to be looked up. There also is the danger of extra rules that unbalance the system.
If you add just background history/geography/sociology/ethnology, the storyguide can quickly make up modifiers and numbers.
