HOWEVER, there have been hundreds of rules added to the basic RAW in the supplements. C&G, Covenants, the mysteries, house books .... Most of those are not expansions on mechanics like new spell guidelines, but totally new mechanics. That clutters the game and just seems to show that the rules are badly written. I do ot agree with the later (IMO Ars has a really solid core mechanics system) so adding lots of lots of new rules just seems odd and complicates something unecessarily.
And to me if you need a new rule for every new aspect of the game you want to talk about it means that the basic rules are crap or that you are introducing unneeded complication that could be solved with basic mechanics anyway.
Certainly, I agree with this sentiment. There are lots of difficult to find, fiddly rules littered through-out the supplements, lots of unique mechanics, and lots of rules for things that don't need rules. Generally, the core rules are good; but there is a tendency for the rules in supplements to be a bit useless. I know that I've written one or two things that I am now embarrassed about!
I think that an ArM6 should have a tighter quality control over new rules than ArM5. Of course, there is the balancing fact that from a purely marketing point of view people tend to like to buy supplements that have new rules in them.
Rules bloat is, IMO, an inevitable consequence of the basic gaming business model that calls for a core rules followed by lots and lots of supplements. Unless you can somehow change the business model - and the consumer expectation that supplents with new rules are essential to a "living" game - it's going to happen eventually with every edition of any game.
Personally, I think ArsM is better about this then some but then again, I've been fairly discriminating in my selection of supplements so it might just be a factor of the ones I've bought.
I think what needs to be done is that ArM6 needs to be written with a constant eye to how you are going to implement the supplements, so that there are as few extra rules presented in supplements as possible.
Things like Initiation, Traditions and Methods and Powers, etc (each of these is used by at least three or four different supplements at the moment) could be incorporated into the RAW as written (and made more consistent as a result), and then the supplements simply present new Traditions, Initiations (or guidelines for the new Methods and Powers), etc without needing to present all of the rules,
It's okay to have rules in supplements, but ideally it should be minimalised,
That, and there should be a conscious effort to avoid little niche rules for odd things...
Lots and lots of supplements are fine, but they don't necessarily mean lots and lots of new rules. Ars Magica has an incredibly rich setting, with potential to go in as much detail as you want, and I'm fairly sure most ArM fans would buy books with a higher ratio of fluff:crunch.
[/quote]
Personally, I think ArsM is better about this then some but then again, I've been fairly discriminating in my selection of supplements so it might just be a factor of the ones I've bought.
[/quote]
I agree ArM has the potential to be better about this than some, but I don't think it has. Many extremely important rules can only be found in supplements, such as the "research" rules in GotF or faerie familiar rules in HoH:MC and so on.
Yes, I fully agree. Things like new Mystery Cults, new Traditions, creatures, invested items; in short: flavour, are fine. But when you need the core book + 1 book for your house + 1 book for any mystery cults + 1 because of this and that Virtue + 1 for the mechanics on auras and so on, you end up needing a portable library to play anything.
I think having more XP at Chargen would solve the problem, and more defined "careers" or "paths" so that people know much more clearly what they should be buying at Chargen.
I also use for example, House Rules that let all wizards make a roll to know about Demons, Faeries, the Divine etc without having to have a skill in it. I think this type of rule should be suitable for PC/NPC's in the right category.
Overall, I like the ability system. It is simulationist, and that's ok. The game has always been.
I transformed Area Lore and Languages in accelarated abilities. For me, it made a lot more sense as it gives less power to the dice roll and more to the actual knowledge. Also people can easily have a lot more basic Languages or Area Lores. I'm even toying with the idea of removing completely the distinction between Arts and Abilities, using the 1-3-6 table for Abilities too. I like the "granularity" that it would bring and also the fact that it gives less power to dice roll and more to the development of the character. It would mean some adjustments though, so that's why I haven't tried it so far...
Yeah, you will really need to revise ease factors severely. I wouldnt recommend it unless you´re willing to do a LOT of work. And either way you will almost certainly end up making companions far less useful and apart from the magi.
Mmm, certainly some advantages with that. One potential pitfall i can see right away though, writing speed for summae is heavily influenced by language skill... I guess you could simply halve the score for this.
For Area lore it certainly seems to make good sense and work ok straight away. Not sure if its as good for languages, but its certainly worth thinking about.
Making the game less simulationist and more focused on storytelling is as much a matter of attitude as it is rules. AM was considered a pioneer in storytelling when it first came out. The mechanics haven't changed that much since then, it's the attitude players seem to have.
One thing I always emphasize is that character generation rules are for game purposes, to provide roughly equivalent characters for each player, and nothing more than that. I've never understood why anyone should care whether a unicorn has equal numbers of virtues and flaws. Nor do I think that NPCs should all have the same starting points as PCs. That's taking the game system way too far as a model of the laws of the universe. Treat it as a game and work from there.
Hand the book to someone who has never played Ars Magica and have him create a magus without an experienced storyguide. This was my example of how hard Ars Magica is to create a magus. Simplifying that process would make the game more accessible to new players. I don't care how long it takes a player with an experienced GM to guide him to create a character. I'm talking about people new to the game. By the standards of independent RPGs developed in the last 10 years, Ars Magica is overly complicated. That is a turn off to new players and potential customers.
Thank you. That's the best compliment I have ever gotten on this board. It's not that I don't care about the "loyal" fan base, it's that I want more people to play the game. I was at Gen Con last week. There were six Ars Magica games scheduled. I ran four of them. That's sad and pathetic. If we as a group want a better product, getting more people to play the game is more important that worrying about ruffling the feathers of some atavistic grognards. The mere suggestion that character generation could be simplified, without any specifics being discussed, was met with several people proclaiming they would never buy that product. That's just a ridiculous over reaction and a good way to doom the game to a small niche of people in a niche hobby.
I have to agree, that's the top flaw my players see in the game. Character generation is complicated, computing casting scores is complicated (for spontaneous magic, or too much bookeeping to note them for each formulaic spell), etc. And they are right.
In my opinion 10 points of virtues and flaws is just too many, some are almost forgotten and not played, some add points that must be added to already complex formulas. I am thinking at reducing this to one or two flaws and virtues for my next game and give some virtues and flaws later on in the saga when something remarkable happen.
As for the casting total, the more we play the more I (the storyguide) have to do the computation for casting total. I'm considering using some excel spreadsheet to compute automatically the casting totals for each of them so that I just ask them to roll, the problem being then keeping track of there skills.
The spells levels are an other problem. For formulaic spells it is no problem designing them and computing their levels following the (quite complex) rules and (numerous) guidelines from the book. But for spontaneous spells it kinda breaks the charm, asking me some time to check the guidelines, think if it would break one of the limits of magic, add the magnitudes for d/t/r, etc. In itself the double system magnitude + level is quite painful to support. I think it would be better only to have magnitude in game, even if it would require big changes in the arts scores and spell guidelines. One day I should try to make arts like abilities and use only magnitudes for spell guidelines (converting levels 1-5 to magnitudes 1-5 and 10-30 to 6-10). Maybe it would not break that much the system? Still having simple spells easy, simple effects with wide range quite difficult and powerful effects on any range much harder to cast. In any case (requiring a major rework of the guidelines and penetration rules or not) it would make the rule quite simpler.
The second flaw my players see in Ars Magica is that the social skills are too numerous, but on this point I have to disagree with them: being a professional liar is a full time job, not everyone is capable of that.
Yes it would totally break the current system.
As an example, Pilum of fire would become a level 40 spell. You just TRY casting that running Arts as Abilities!
A starting character wont even be able to cast what is currently Base 5 guideline spells most of the time.
You suddenly make specialists and Magic Focus hyperimportant. While most magi becomes so weak as to be unimportant.
Stick to stratifying the levels into magnitudes if you want to make a big change. New magi will have far harder times picking spells, and spontaneous magic without fatigue still becomes almost useless, but THIS might still be playable.
Personally i have preferred to stretch the distance between low, middle and high level guidelines instead.
And also stretched out the R/D/T levels a bit.
IF instead what you mean is that you want to make magnitudes replace levels completely, and that a previous guideline 30 would now need a casting total of 10+RDT, that unfortunately is far worse still.
PoF then becomes a "level" 8 spell, meaning that you probably wont find even a single magi that cant cast it.
And then you up it to +20 damage +1, raise range to Sight +1, Group +2, Size+1 +1, and whooptido, your new spell becomes "level" 13 and kills 100 foes at a time. Which is still a level that few magi will have problem reaching, lets say Cr 3, Ig 3 and Sta +3 and you will rarely fail, for a total of 60 XP.
RAW AM, that spell would be level 45, not so easy to reach. 60XP there would amount to the Arts at score 7 for a casting total of 17, a suitable number for casting the UNmodified PoF.
Lazy players... :mrgreen: Draft one of them to keep up to date on casting totals perhaps?
10 is too much?... That not all come into play all the time, so what? The important thing is that the game runs well, not that every single virtue or flaw sees action all the time.
And some adding points to formulas is often exactly why you want to get them from the start!
If you dont want them to ever affect play, why have them at all, just get rid of them a be done with it. That will make characters ever so much more boring and bland however.
Thats fine, but the players might want specific ones rather than what you give, be prepared for whining.
Yes, but the question is if you can simplify it much without loosing something good at the same time...
Sure, but thats not the same as bad. Simplified usually means skimping on depth somewhere.
So, do you want AM to be one of the games with more depth or less? The current system is hard to improve much without loosing good things while doing it.
To some yes. But regardless how much you simplify a game, you wont make it allcovering massmarket game.
D&D 4E did the big "we must simplify to get more players", well i certainly wont be getting it, totally lost its character. It might take 10% less time to run a game with it, but who cares when its much less fun.
And just as there are players who dont want anything more complicated than "Risk", but guess what? Still lots of people who buy games like "World in Flames" or "Flat Top" at the other end of the scale, or "Axis & Allies" on the lower side or "Battletech" on the upper side of the middle between those extremes.
And your solution to this sounds like making a dumbed down version. The very basic parts of the game means that to play it, you simply have to have a certain degree of complexity.
And if you simplify it, the game will end up being a more complex version of D&D, trying to compete DIRECTLY with it but without the greater depth that is one of its main selling points NOW.
That i think would spell complete disaster.
My point is magnitude AND levels are too much. Keeping only magnitudes makes sense because I prefer to add 1 when I increase a level than to add 5. And it would permit to increase arts as abilities, still simplifying the experience rules. It might be needed to increase the difficulty for some high level spells, or just have casting total = Tech + Form, or other solutions to re-balance the numbers, but I think it is a much needed change as this complexity adds nothing to the game.
lol
The problem is a bit more complex :
casting total is only used when playing magi (i.e. not all sessions)
not everybody can play every week, for instance for my group one evening every two weeks (excluding school holidays) is slightly above the average frequency
it has multiple parts (technique, form, stamina, etc.)
for some players it has modifiers from virtues/flaws
its parts are on different sheets (which is a character sheet problem rather than a rules problem I guess)
I'd advocate using only technique + form + die, just like attribute + ability + die for other skills. Sure it would reduce stamina importance for magi, but is it that a great loss? Not in my opinion.
However, ritual casting total might be more complex, as it is seldom used and never during a confrontation.
Sure you can get used to complex computations, but the computation is still complex. In the end if it is great to have complex concepts in a game, like Magic in AM, but having complex computation to do to be able to use them is a flaw which should be avoided as much as possible.
Characters having less flaw and character using only a part of them (player and storyguide forgetting the others, and I really mean forgotten not "does not apply all the time") are equally bland. I don't think the problem is the number of flaws or virtues. The problem is the number at character creation. This is not specific to Ars Magica, but characters at beginning are always quite bland, the players flesh them evening after evening during the stories, the flaws and virtues should arrive story after story as well. That's important for personality, story and social V&F as if you play their creation you will be much more able to play them later and won't let them fall into oblivion. That's also important for more "mechanical" V&F because if you acquire one in a story, then in following story you will integrate them more easily in your computation. Much more easily than if you get a few of them at the same time at character creation.
I don't fear whining. But you are right, the players should know (have a rough idea) what to expect from their actions, so that they are satisfied by what they obtain doing them.
HOW is it complex? And how on earth do you mean that just excluding Stamina makes it any less complex?
Not bothering with the effects of the local aura, sure that i can understand, but OTOH that is something the SG can simply and arbitrarily say there is a x aura of strength y here and thats it.
Having A+B instead of A+B+C, to me that is zero difference in complexity.
In that case i suggest you stick with levels only instead and NOT try to rebalance everything, because THAT is going to take a few years even if you´re diligent.
And then we´re back with the bad old "magi get enough XP to be anything" which hurt 2ed so badly.
Thats not enough. You still roll a die that can add up to 9 very easily. And how will you modify the rules for what is successful casting and how much is needed not to get fatigue? You will have to write a whole new game system to make it work. And trust me, that is NOT easy(i´ve done it several times, but i also have far more unfinished game systems than i have finished ones).
I would rather say your suggested change will make the game into a munchkins dream unless you rewrite it completely, its a change that isnt needed and at least in my opinion not wanted.
And, the difference between levels and magnitudes actually adds a plenty to the game.
Try modifying a few magic items lab totals using only magnitudes for example. Will every single raise now be based on magnitudes? That would mean +7 to get "Unlimited uses per day". Instead of +10 levels(/+2 magnitudes).
Will you remove +Int or Magic Theory from lab totals as well?
Sorry but all i see on the path you´re aiming for is chaos and unplayability.
That is something you should take care of from the start. Always make sure you have all relevant stuff on the same paper(or in the same file if you use a laptop to keep track).
Have each player keep a separate paper listing Arts in one area and then all other modifiers and possible modifiers for each type of activity, casting formulaic, spontaneous, ritual and lab (and anything else) separately. That means you look up the involved arts and then add whats relevant for the activity from a single paper.
Since Arts change a lot, i´ve never been a fan of keeping a casting total for every formulaic spell, you just have to retype it all the time which becomes makework.
AM doesnt HAVE complex computations at all.
Lets look at computations from some other games shall we?
From modded BT: 1%+(SI*Vessel Mass)/750 +1/100kt total
Final ASF cost modifier:
(Equipment Cost)*(2+(Tonnage/33))
(Engine Rating= Tonnage*(Thrust-4)
To hit chance in B5W tactical space wargame, one of the simpler such games: Target Size rating from direction of shot+Offensive EW-Defensive EW+Weapon Fire Control Rating-Range penalty(range/penalty range increase)-Shields/Web/Intercepting fire modifier if any-Jammer modification if any
...
...
...
Oh I see your point and I agree that a simple mechanical conversion (the only one I would try by myself) would greatly unbalance the game.
However I have to insist : the rules are complex and would benefit from some simplification and streamlining. The re-balance you fear so much could be done in ArM 6th edition and I hope it will as the current complexity does neither improve realism nor fun. I have to say I would never play the games you quote (except on a computer) they are far to complex for my tastes and those of my friends. We are no big fans of simulationist games, which really gain in adding complexity. If you compare AM to these games, I know why you are used to its complexity and do not even see it.
