My intent is to publically release "Analysis Hermetica", or "Atomization of Hermetic Theory", a reimagining of the system.
Improved combat and project management, most of the rules as centralized as can be.
Beyond all, meta-guidelines for making spells, produced in great detail that covers most common cases. This would include custom effects, parameters, even magic traditions.
I'd love to see a summation of combat. Call it something like blood and iron.
Resolve all the endless arguments regarding combat.
Do wound penalties affect the soak roll against magical damage?
Is there a wound penalty cap, and if so, is it -10.
Surprise, how does it work? 0 defence? If one is wounded, do you get 0 defence and then the wound penalty, or just 0. If the surprise is bad enough, does it require a roll, or does the SG say you kill him in his sleep and move on?
I could throw in more questions.
It could be tiny. I don't need rules about the stat different between a bec-de-corbin and a guissarme, all I want is a comprehensive, collected in 1 place concise summary of how people hurt others and get hurt.
This sounds incredibly interesting!!
I'd love to share my current musings with you and anyone interested, just let me know how to get to you. If you frequent Discord for example, that would be a good place for feedback (I can readily and easily talk there without much delay)
I already write novels, and Ars 5th is my absolute favorite system. I would love to be able to make "how-to" videos like NoNat1s does for Pathfinder 2e and several people do for 5th D&D, and also write Ars-based novels. I can think of so many ideas for this world!
Sadly I don't frequent Discord, not enough time on my hands 
You can either post about it here, or PM me about it, whatever you prefer (though I obviously would understand if typing it felt cumbersome to you).
He already did, here.
Way too atomic for my taste. I can't stop the feeling that magic itself get lost if we get to that level of detail though I imagine someone else might find it useful.
I have been tinkering with it for a long time, and it has since expanded into a general system overhaul. I agree that the granular approach to spell guidelines is an acquired taste... I'll probably revisit them at some point, to see what can be done there.
Interesting developments in Open Gaming, as folks have already heard. First, Wizards has backed off their effort to claim they can "de-authorize" the OGL 1.0a. Second, to make the point more strongly, they have released the 5.1 SRD under the Creative Commons license, which is explicitly irrevocable.
What does this mean for Open Magica? Not much really. It does amplify the notion that if we create a System Reference Document, we could release it under multiple licenses; then people could use the one that suits their specific purposes. Also, clearly work on distilling an SRD does not need to wait for a finalized ORC License. An Open Magica SRD could in theory be released under OGL 1.0a, ORC and some flavor of CC.
Nice, thanks!
You are welcome. I love that chapter because as all good fables it comes with a Moral: you are what you eat, so restrain yourself from eating holy men!
I'm a big fan of CC licencing. CC-BY means minimal fuss to the end user. CC-BY-SA enforces sharing and virality, which is great for building an ecosystem (but may deter people who may want to build their own little closed offshoot). Either would work if you want people to create content for Ars Magica.
CC-BY-SA usually discourages material made for profit, though. So if encouraging third parties to make Ars Magica stuff for profit is part of the intention of the license, it might not be the best option.
I love the idea of some kind of open licensing for ArM.
I've spent the last several years researching for a Saga set in city that the existing ArM materials don't pay much attention to. I've compiled a lot of information that I've written up and summarized for my players, as well as generated a number of Story Seeds from actual historical events, spent a lot of time corresponding with historians and archaeologists to nail down details so that I can instruct professional map artists to create campaign maps ...
I'd love to publish all this--and I'd prefer to get paid for my effort. I mean, sure I could put out a generic "Guide to FRPG in City X," but all the work I've done is tailored to Ars Magica.
I also have spent quite a while coming up with plots for Quaesitor-based adventures, and I think that would be fun to share.
Even if I don't end up publishing, I'd love to see more resources and tools out there.
I guess that depends on how much people fear their material being simply republished / repackaged (versus translated, used and built on) by a third party. Or how much they believe their derivative products are worth.
But while this is clearly possible under the licence, I've never seen it actually happen. And its certainly never happened to any of the small CC-BY-SA products I've published (I have the opposite problem: people asking for permission to do things like translation when they don't need any). At the sort of scale we're likely to be talking about for Ars Magica - people publishing a few adventures or alternative settings - I really don't think its going to be a problem.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17716/SRD-35-pdf
If the product is popular enough, it will definitely happen. I think that it would happen to Ars Magica. And almost everyone is discouraged by the risk, so as a matter of practical observation, CC-BY-SA does discourage for profit work, at least at the moment.
Isn't that OGL, rather than CC-BY-SA? But either way, I guess its a counterexample that it can happen. And you're right - the important thing is writer's perceptions, rather than the actual risk. Which pushes towards using CC-BY, and people who want to be viral can CC-BY-SA it themselves.
Well, that's just the SRD. The very basic product, that the publisher already publishes as-is for free, just with a different formatting. An OGL product will typically have parts released as OGC, but also parts NOT released explicitly as OGC, and that what makes the product unique and unrepublishable by a third party.
I'm not sure how that will work under the CC license. Can you designate only specific portions of your work as being under a CC, while using CC content in other parts? Say, using a certain spell from a CC-BY-SA source, releasing a different spell as CC-BY, but not releasing the character description that uses both these spells under CC at all ?
That is not clear, and certainly not straightforward. It probably can be done, but the OGL was designed to make it easy. ORC will, presumably, do the same.
I have seen products which say "these chapters are CC-BY; the other chapters are not". But you need to partition your material carefully. OGL designation is probably easier if you want to take a mixed approach.