Hi, I'm new and this is my first post here. I hope I'm within bounds of what's considered decent conversation and that I haven't misformatted this message into total unclarity; I don't seem to be able to make the text to which I'm responding look different from the text I'm writing. (All of the buttons to italicize and change color or size and so forth are non-functional.)
Some of the rest of my troupe and I were talking about infinite-insight summae, commentaries, seminal works, and so forth, so I was very interested in your collective takes on these sorts of things. I found a lot to agree with and a lot to disagree with in this very thoughtful post:
[quote="YR7"]
I don't like authorities as inifnite-level as that leads to stagnation in the game. People need to go out and get new tractatus or raw vis (or adventure!) to reach high levels of Ability. With infintie-level authorities, you end up with characters that are content to just stay and read ad infinitum. Not interesting.
I'm not sure I agree; whether this is true or not would depend on the structure of the canons in the various disciplines. If the character's specialty is philosophy, then it's true, she wouldn't need to go adventuring once she's got Plato and Aristotle on hand. But then, that's actually true about philosophers, and is one reason we don't play philosophers (or at least don't rely on their philosophizing to generate adventure or any special powers they may wish to use). But are magical texts quite so canonized? Or is there basically a summa and then a whole pile of tractatus on each art? Or are most magical texts spell books, which provide very limited insight? If that were the case, then the idea of infinite-level summae can be a good one that just doesn't apply to magical texts, which happen to be the most desirable and most obscure books in the game.
Ars Magica's system is really not good at representing the accumulative structure of knowledge. Real learning typically start at the basic Authorities (or textbooks, nowdays), moves on to commentaries on these, then to commentaries on the commentaries, and so on... occasionally making references to previous levels in this chain.
I think that this is partly true and partly false. It's true that some works are more fundamental than others, but it's not clear that AM5 fails to show that. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of studying summae vs. studying tractatus when beginning to study a discipline. Once your ability is at the same level as that of the summa, the summa is no longer useful. But tractatus are still useful at whatever level the character has. So it's plain that the natural course of study is: summae first, tractatus later. The writer has proposed a more rigorous version of the same, looser, system from the rules.
What's needed, it seems to me, is something that better reflects both the foundational nature of the seminal texts and their diversity. You can't be a very good philosopher (to continue the example) unless you are familiar with, let's say, both Plato and Aristotle. To simulate the structure of the discipline and its canon, why not tie various disciplines to various texts, and say that you can't progress beyond level x without having read that text? It seems to me that this would achieve the writer's goal of really making certain texts foundational, without requiring quite so much work structuring the canon in a tree structure with increasingly narrow dependencies.
Also, it's worth pointing out that you can often learn at least something from a work that depends on another work, without having read the other work. So various tractatus might come with prerequisites — I think that's an excellent idea that just shouldn't be applied to every book — but some might come with semi-prerequisites: if you haven't read the appropriate background, the book is of lower, but not no, quality for you. (Consider, for instance, the discussions early in Aristotle's Metaphysics of his predecessor philosophers. It's enormously helpful to already be familiar with the predecessors, but not strictly necessary to gain some limited insight from the discussion.)
I think the way to model an Authority is by constructing a Commentary system.
I think that the idea of imposing greater structure on the canons of the various disciplines is a great idea, and I love the idea of commentaries. As I suggested, I might implement it differently: everything other than the seminal works is, in a sense, a commentary, since you can't understand them without understanding the seminal works at a certain stage.
But commentaries aren't just any books that you have to have read a different book to understand; commentaries have as their role to facilitate understanding of the object of the commentary. Why not allow a specific category of books, neither summa nor tractatus, the function of which is to increase the quality of a summa when read concurrently? Like tractatus, commentaries can be used only once; a 'commentary' that can be used more than once is plainly an independent summa, a commentary in name only. (Consider St. Thomas's 'Commentary' on Aristotle's Ethics, which is not generally read for help with Aristotle and, I suspect, never was.)
A more abstract requirement can be a certain score in the subject matter. While it may be appealing, such a requirement does not lead to authoritive texts or to schools of commentary traditions (building upon different authoritive texts and commentaries thereof).
That's true, but there's no reason the two ideas can't be combined. One of the amazing facts about certain seminal works is that they seem to be infinitely deep. I will never be able to read Aristotle without coming away with an insight. But that's not true of everybody; it takes some pretty good familiarity with philosophy, beyond what you can get from reading Aristotle, to be able to gain limitless insight from the text. So, for some seminal works, we might suggest that you can't get past a certain level of ability without having read them, but, on the other hand, once you have some rather higher level of ability in the discipline, you can return to that text forever. And of course any text might have a pre-requisite level.
For example, we could let Aristotle's Metaphysics be a level 4 and also limitless level summa, quality whatever-it-is. You can't progress beyond level 4 in philosophiae without having read it, but if you have level, say, 8, then you can read it forever. If you have, I don't know, Theophrastus's commentaries in Aristotle (are there any such?), then you can double the quality of the Metaphysics for one season.
I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts about any of this.