Breakthrough: Hermetic Teacher

The discussion in this thread is about a campaign that Doctorcomics may start sometime. You have seen the book's author and also Timothy Ferguson recommend to remove Apprentices, in particular the part on which Virtues a parens can teach to his apprentice, from arguments in player canon discussion, and hence from that "common frame of reference" you are touting. So what do you still want to argue canon about from Apprentices? Does your "common frame of reference" have any value besides ArM5 games? AFAIK you are not an author anyway, or discussing with authors here.

Cheers

I mean if the rules apply, then it's fine. If the rules don't apply, then you can't play fast and loose with them. My problem with the characterization of playing fast and loose with the rules, which you have to admit is a reference to RAW, and not a reference to how it is applied in this particular instance. If you don't wish to discuss RAW, don't bring it up, and certainly don't say that someone else is playing fast and loose with the rules, when in actuality they aren't doing anything of the sort.

Timothy, to my mind, never recommended to remove Apprentices from canon, is that your take on what he said based on his comment in a thread about Apprentices? His example didn't even mention Apprentices. His advice was general and could be applied to any rule or book. The SG of the game can propose whatever he wants. The players either agree to it or don't, and you move on.

Doctorcomics started this thread with a premise, based on RAW. Why ask about breakthroughs, otherwise? Bringing this back around to the OP, I wouldn't even attempt to integrate Gentle Gift into Hermetic Theory and make it a part of all magi, I think that takes a lot away from the setting. There are two problems that need to be resolved, how to prevent a room full of students from hating and mistrusting each other so much that they don't try killing each other and how to teach Hermetic Arts to more than one student at a time. My personal suggestion for the first problem, is to integrate Unaffected by the Gift, despite it being a general virtue, because when magi have their Parma up, that's what it's like, they are unaffected by anyone else's Gift.

If you want to take the author's ideas to a logical (and in-the-book RAW) conclusion, a troupe can ignore each and every rule in the book if doing so makes the game un-fun for them: Lords of Men, pg. 125 (I think - it's about Incapacitating damage, and what to do when PC's get killed.) Which, in turn, is just a re-statement of the "rule 0: have fun" rule, which I think is in the core rulebook somewhere. So, yes: if it doesn't work for your table, then it is RAW to ignore the rule.

That seems to be what the author was talking about. For him, teaching Gentle Gift isn't fun for his troupe, so he'd have a problem with it. But the rules don't explicitly disallow it (as he had a chance to do when he was writing up the list of "allowable virtues," but decided not to include it), so it's a troupe call (like everything else). He just was part of setting up the framework, and it's up to the troupe to decide what the consequences are, via storylines.

However, responding to each and every rules question with "go with what is fun and ignore everything else" is not an answer to a question about the rules. If that was the case, then the core rulebook would be significantly smaller and less useful. As Jonathan said - here on the forums we only have RAW - we aren't a part of each other's troupes, so we can't claim "X is wrong" - rather, we can say only "the rules say X, and for our troupe we've done Y".

And we've got the rules saying "you can teach Hermetic Virtues" - Gentle Gift is a Hermetic virtue. Therefore, you can teach it. We've also got the author who wrote that saying "I'd not do that, but instead of prohibiting the ones I didn't think were appropriate I decided to write out the framework, and let everyone's troupes determine the consequences for themselves".

(And on a side note - if you're going to fully integrate Gentle Gift as opposed to simply have folks teach it, it's probably not necessary to use the Hermetic Research rules for it - I believe that, since Gentle Gift occurs naturally, you can use the less-Warp-inducing Integration rules, instead. Ie, the ones listed in Ancient Magics and Hedge Magic, rather than the ones in True Lineages.)

EDIT - that being said, if the author of the book says "I'd probably not do that", I would personally take a long and hard look as to why he said that. As Jonathan mentioned, getting rid of the Gift penalty significantly changes the game. Now, if you WANT to play through that (as had been mentioned, either through natural selection, or as an experitment in alt-history, or whatever) then that's certainly up to the troupe. But I happen to agree that everyone having the gift would radically change the Order - to the point where it probably wouldn't be recognizable as the Order any more. If that's what you want, then go for it - but it's definitely a high-level, genre-changing event.

1 Like

Thank you Mr. Shchultz. Yes, we have the rules to teach Hermetic Virtues, and the Gentle Gift is a Hermetic Virtue. Pretty clean. And I don't think integrating would change most games very much. To be good at the social stuff requires stats and skills most Magi don't have, and are unlikely to get because they don't care. As we saw in the thread about defending one's covenant against an army, Lamech says "Which is why the companions or redcaps do the talking. "Why yes, we had our engineers/wizards/nuns deploy siege weapons/magic/divine wrath against those invaders. You're welcome." The Gift only has repercussions if they actually talk to the magi. (And even then, rego mentum spells can used to smooth a few things over.)". Given that attitude, which seems common, at least on this board, how much will the setting really change? Instead of starting with a -3 to social, they will earn a -3 by not having enough social skills to stop talking about mind control in public......

Very good point. Spending all the time in your lab/fortress researching and studying in an attempt to gain ultimate power does not a people person make. The dynamics won't change much. Companions will still do all the talking because they know the difference between a king and a random peasant.

To sum things up:

In the discussion thread Apprentices: In my hands... about Apprentices, and in particular about patent problems in this book with grafting some new rules, how to generate apprentices in play, onto already existing rules from some 25 or so books, the book's author wrote the following (as already quoted before):

So the author explains how and why he decided to keep the specific issue of which Virtues a parens can teach to his apprentice open. He did not write rules about it to not hamper player imagination, plain and simple. He did not do so to enable 'canon experts' on the forum to use the rules omission to determine, just what is possible in the ArM5 game world.
I knew then already that such experts would not just vanish because of the author's statement, so pushed on, and got the following whipping of 'canon experts' from Timothy Ferguson - as also already quoted:

You can't have it any clearer and louder, how using Matt Ryan's omission to argue, that all Hermetic Virtues can be taught from parens to apprentice by canon, is playing fast and loose with Apprentices. That omission is explicitly meant to provide an open "basic state from which negotiation ensues", nothing more - and requires that negotiation to take place for each campaign.

About that we agree.

Cheers

I think one issue is that the term "fast and loose" isn't particularly meaningful in this conversation. On one hand, the rules are very explicit as to what can be done. The rules also expliticly allow (via "Rule 0") for everything to be negotiable and story/fun-based. And while the rules allow for certian activities to occur, they are expliticly set up that it really is up to the Troupe to decide how those rules should and should not be implemented. Which, in turn, lead into "can and can not" within the context of the Saga - because basically it's all in the heads of the players and the GM, anyway.

As such, something can be completely within the structure of the rules, and yet (potentially) violate the story/fun-based aspect of it.

Which is more important? Well, it depends on what kind of question you're asking. If you're asking how the rules actually operate (as a basis for understanding their implementation/consequences), then you'll get one answer. If you understand how the rules work, but are instead asking about the likely consequences to your story (or maybe what the unintended consequences would be, in a simulationist sort of way), then you'll get another answer.

But simply saying that a rules-based answer is "playing fast and loose" because it completely answers the rules side while not necessarily addressing the story/fun aspect seems.... somewhat pedantic, to me. Rule 0 is implicit in every game mechanic out there. OK, so the author called attention to it here. Good for him. It's about as relevant to the discussion as explicitly mentioning botch vs. quality vs. simple die rolls: which is to say, it's part of almost every game mechanic, but unless something is being seriously misunderstood there's no strong reason to mention it.

EDIT - it sounds like "death of a thousand qualifications" - anytime anyone discusses the rules without explicitly mentioning Rule 0, they can be accused of playing fast and loose with them. As such, it doesn't act as a meaningful qualifier. All the rules are like that. The rules in Apprentices are no different. Or to put it another way: How is the author's mention of Rule 0 in any way unique to Apprentices?

1 Like

Are you talking about me? Did you call me this for some reason? I wasn't pushing anything. I am so staying out of this flame war. My sole goal was to understand the rules for Hermetic Breakthroughs. Which I now do. The idea of teaching Immune to the Gift as a Mystery Cult Initiation would be neat if I wanted a secret magical school, a mystery. But Oxford Magica, if I ever get a chance to run it, will not be a secret or hidden, and I'll just use the Hermetic Breakthroughs I've been talking about all along because, well, it's easy as a GM to say, "it's a hundred years later and these breakthroughs have been made."

Easy.

Wasn't calling you out, just pointing out that you started the thread and motivations were not something you asked for help with. As to Mystery Cults, you don't even need to do that. Gentle Gift can be taught, by canon, right now, using the rules for learning Supernatural Virtues (With no minus for Arts because it's a Hermetic Virtue!) and given that your school will be public, a far better bet then "immune to the Gift". As to the group teaching of the Arts virtue, I don't think you need that either. Books work just fine for beginners, which I assume the students will be. You can use some of the book rules to vary things a little, like Correspondence to represent homework, and Annotations from previous students. Looks to be a fun setting, and I hope you pull it off!

Also note that Mystery Cults aren't necessarily secret - the four mystery cults of the Order of Hermes, for example, are very public about the fact that they're mystery cults. Their external mysteries, for example (ie, the first ones granted), are very well known. What's secret about them is how their upper-level magic works. They're like the modern-day Masons, in that respect: pretty much anyone can join, but access to the higher-ranking stuff is restricted.

Also, regarding teaching Gentle Gift - I think there is a penalty for teaching it, if it's not the first Hermetic virtue they have - something like a -9 penalty, or something (someone mentioned it earlier in the thread). But yeah - generally it's possible with a moderately-dedicated teaching staff to do this.

But to re-iterate - in terms of game mechanics, it's actually easier to incorporate Gentle Gift (as a naturally-occurring Hermetic Virtue) into Hermetic theory than it is to try and create a completely new technique: samples to study are easier to find (just go as the Jerbitons), and you don't gain warping points for doing so. But if that would affect your saga in a way you wouldn't care for, then sure - go ahead and do your own Breakthrough idea.

That's a claim that doesn't get any better by repeating it. There are no free for all rules of learning all Supernatural Virtues. For the last try on this thread, see:

and

Entering House Criamon, espousing the Path of Walking Backwards and attempting (HoH:MC p.70) The Avenue of Surrender and the Station of Service to Harmony, as mentioned by jebrick on this thread, is so far your best choice to convince your troupe to let you have a go.

Cheers

Alas, One Shot, you missed a memo. My memory was correct, but the remembered location was wrong. P29 of True Lineages, "Breakthroughs in Play", paragraph three. "Major Breakthroughs still work within the Hermetic system, and are often Hermetic Virtues, so that learning one is not as difficult as learning a Supernatural Virtue. You do not need to subtract your total Hermetic Arts score from the Source Quality of the teaching score. A second exception is that, although Major Breakthroughs will most likely teach a Hermetic Virtue that does not have an associated Ability in game terms, they may still be taught in this manner.". The Gentle Gift is a Hermetic Virtue, it can be taught, and easily because you don't have to subtract your Hermetic Arts total. Canon. Cheers!

1 Like

(Underscore in misquoted rules text mine.) The text you misquote above reads rather

(Underscore of relevant difference again mine.) So the underlined section of the real text refers to ArM5 p.166, which explains how a character with the Gift can indeed be taught supernatural abilities.

No help for your claim of "by canon" in this. Even in the second attempt.

Cheers

EDIT: You used the same misquote already in your post Breakthrough: Hermetic Teacher - #51 by Saxonous , but without sufficiently explaining for what kind of argument. So I did not bother to check then.

Saxononus, the rules for "what do you do after you've got a breakthrough" are more fully listed in Hedge Magic, pg. 16.

Pg. 16 also discusses the difference between Breakthrough rules in HoH:TL, Hedge Magic, and Ancient Magics - the main difference being where the breakthrough points come from. For Original Research, the magi is making stuff up, and so it's more dangerous. For Hedge Magic and Ancient Magic, someone has already done the heavy lifting, so it's easier to get the Breakthrough points, but you've got to leave the lab to go find sources to study.

Or somebody did that for you, and provided you with a lab text for an Insight.8)
This kind of sharing the effort for a Breakthrough tme works very well in a campaign. It keeps a key character for each Breakthrough, who commits and tracks the research, and will finally publish its results, and represent them to the Order. But it lets others - like seekers, experts for exotic magic, mystagogues and initiates - contribute, and make the research part of a story.

Cheers

Ah, one shot, you missed part of the quote, " A second exception is that, although Major Breakthroughs will most likely teach a Hermetic Virtue that does not have an associated Ability in game terms, they may still be taught in this manner.", so no, it does not "only cover supernatural abilities". Hermetic Virtues can be taught. Canon.

A second canon source is Houses of Hermes, Mystery Cults, P.128 Automata (Major House Mystery). Knowing this Mystery grants the Major Hermetic Virtue Craft Automata,
an Ability with an initial score of 1. Verditius magi learn this through Initiation and Ordeal, but other Hermetic magi can learn this as a Supernatural Ability. Because this Mystery was developed with Hermetic magi in mind, magi wishing to learn it do not have to subtract the total of their Arts scores from the source’s Study Total (ArM5, page 166), although they do have to subtract the total of any other Supernatural Virtues they may have.". While an ability, it shows the difference between Hermetic and Supernatural, Hermetic was developed with Hermetic magic in mind, and so they do not have to subtract their Arts scores from the Study Total. Cheers!

The specific example you give is indeed an example of learning a hermetic virtue (that has an associated ability) as an ability. The rules seem to say that if you're learning a Hermetic virtue that has an ability associated with it, you only have to subtract the levels of Supernatural Abilities your character has from your source quality.

However, in reading through the HoH:TL rules, I have no idea what they're talking about regarding non-ability-based Hermetic Virtues. That is, It's not clear to me how they're describing how one might learn a hermetic virtue that doesn't have an ability associated with it.

Therefore, we can look to later publications for clarification - specifically, both Hedge Magic (pg. 16) and Ancient Magic (pg. 9), which also have rules for Breakthroughs and Integration. In fact, both books have callouts that describe how these rules interact with the Breakthrough rules of HoH:TL. They describe them as being different primarily in how the breakthrough points are discovered. (Which heavily implies that AFTER the breakthrough is discovered, all three rulesets are identical.) And both HM and AM are both very clear regarding how non-ability-based Hermetic Virtues are learned: either being the magus who made the breakthrough (and you get it for 'free'), or else via mystery cult initiation.

Alternate rules for learning Virtues would be the Apprentice rules, pg. 40 - which we've discussed in this thread.

It seems real clear to me, that to learn a Hermetic Virtue without an associated ability, you do the same thing you would to learn a Hermetic Virtue with an associated ability. Generate a teaching source total, and if it exceeds zero after subtracting your Supernatural Virtues, both with and without abilities, not including the Arts (because it was designed for Hermetics), you've learned it. Very simple, yes, but it's supposed to be. It would be a heck of a thing to spend 60 years on a Major Breakthrough and then have to create, over decades, the Mystery Cult to teach it.......

My understanding of the "teach a Hermetic virtue" rules in HoH:TL was that it was a way of teaching a Virtue gained as part of a Breakthrough, not just "any old" Hermetic Virtue. Interpreting it otherwise relegates the rules for teaching Hermetic Virtues in Apprentices to uselessness.

Now, if a magus wants to investigate how to more seamlessly integrate the Gentle Gift into Hermetic theory, and generates a Breakthrough to do so, the Gentle Gift he gained from his Breakthrough would then be teachable under this method. Even if the magus had the Gentle Gift previously, he could still generate such a Breakthrough to make his Gentle Gift "teachable."

I would be very resistant to having something like this work in any saga I'm participating in, but that's a "rule zero" reaction and not a RAW interpretation. I personally feel that Gentle Gift is something inherent, and it would take something along the lines of a Mystery initiation or Twilight effect to change it. This isn't just about teaching a Breakthrough - I'm similarly against teaching Gentle Gift to an apprentice, because even though it has a tangible cost, it feels "wrong" to me. In my opinion, if a magus wants an apprentice with the Gentle Gift, he should go find one - "making" one shouldn't be an option IMO.

It doesn't say that, and seems to be the difference between Hermetic and Supernatural Virtues, so I think, in canon, there's no "special" breakthrough Hermetic Virtues. As to "zero rule", oh sure. I don't agree with canon allowing Mystery scripts to be re-written to taste. Mind, given what I know of players, I think the only real effect of people realizing they can learn "The Gentle Gift" is a vast increase in 'Blatant Gift" flaws.......