I have to state that I agree with Arthur on this. The advancement used for this one character does not abide by what silveroak stated would be standard advancement, and puts this one character on a plane far above the rest of us. Not to mention that once the game starts, those of us that wish to aspire to that level will be at a serious disadvantage due to spending time traveling and providing service that, as Arthur pointed out, it doesn't appear this one character was supposed to.
I'm happy with my character, and am looking forward to playing her and advancing in-game. But I'm concerned about the divide in balance and power level right at the start, as well as confused as to how advancement in-game will be handled now to insure that the rest of us get the same treatment this character got.
It's an advantage in one way in that one of the first things my character will do is to scribe spells for trade, that trade being for summae for the younger magi to learn from.
It's not so much a question of fairness between the magi, to me, but much more about tome and internal consistency of the setting. As I've mentioned, if there are that many powerful books available, and if they are that easy to find, then the case a covenant dedicated to scribing copies to dissiminate knowledge becomes quite weak. If magi starting out a new covenant are crippled from an advancement point of view, then they need very powerful reasons for not joining an existing covenant instead -- something that was not taken into account when creating our characters.
There is also a powerful dissonance between the resources available to build the covenant and the ease with which power can be accumulated. If powerful books are so easy to come by, how come we start only with one exceptional book and a pair of mid-powered ones?It should have been easy for the magi to obtain a few starter books (L5 to L10 summae and a few tractatus) before the saga starts. Same with vis. The only thing we seem to have in abundance at the start will be mundane resources -- in the form of buildings and sources of income, mostly -- which are the one thing that magi are less suited to acquiring because of the interference clause of the Code.
There is also the fact that if good sources of advancement (books or teacher) are available, apprentices would be much more powerful out of Gauntlet.
But I've written enough on that subject. Sorry for the rant.
Ah, here's another way in which the setting gets broken by too-easy advancement. There is no market for trade. If it was easy for you to get access to lab texts for those spells, then it is just as easy for others. So why would they want to trade lab texts for commonly available spells? Particularly for summae?
Standard rules include two options, 30 xp/year or working things out by season. As to the library at Aegaea, it is a covenant which has lasted for over 200 years, which to me suggests over 2500 build points, with a "surprisingly good" library, having sound books totaling just over half their minimum build points does not strike me as being unreasonable.
Serverus- this is not an issue of favoritism, you could advance in the same way that Orion has if you want to advance your character as well. I have already stated that I was surprised so many people took freshly gauntleted magi. The question is as to the rate of development itself when using seasonal advancement- Arthur believes that advancing by season should roughly parallel the points assignments for simply picking a set number of years advancement, whereas I personally feel that given what are (to me) canonically available resources to advance at that low of a rate is silly, and artificially restrains the characters.
I never stated anything about favoritism. I am concerned about our characters in-game being able to advance in the same way with the same rules. And I'm concerned because I'm just not seeing how this is going to be possible.
How you advance in game is a very complex question, because it involves what you choose to do, what resources we spend build points on at the covenant, and whether you pursue some opportunities (such as initiation or research) that were not available as part of the pre-game development of another character. You will have magi traveling to the covenant looking to offer trade to study from the unique book you possess, and much of that trade will probably be in summae or tractae, which means a rapidly growing library. Like I said earlier, I actually expect that in game advancement will be higher than pre-game.
Arthur and Severus, would you please look over Orion's revised post-gauntlet development and let me know if this better fits your ideas as to what should be possible?
FWIW, the average Quality that Orien gets each season is 11. From what silveroak says, what with adventure xp (which Orien didn't have), you can expect higher numbers than that.
Slightly les powerful, but then he's using the same unlimited access and uninterrupted years of studying (or doing whatever pleases him), so it is no big surprise.
Sure, but you include the seasons where you learn spells and perform other lab work (a total of 27 seasons). You also put a number of adventures in the third tribunal period where you did not indicate any xp (3 seasons).
If you take out lab time (which yields spell levels and other benefits), then the average rises to almost 14.
By comparison, the 'standard' 30 xp per year is an average of less than 7, which also diminishes when lab activity takes place and includes spell levels.
Overall, you received a total base (before virtues) of 1219 xp and 530 spell levels, plus 12 seasons of other lab work (talisman, familiar, personal LR and to get tokens).
So the comparison is basically 1750 points (ignoring the 12 seasons of lab work) for 28 years, compared to the 'standard' 840 points (30/year). Still seems quite rich to me. Sorry.
I took three full seasons out of each Tribunal to dedicate to covenant business. (That's not counting seasons when he performed a task that could take ten days of fewer.) I labelled those "Adventure," though perhaps I should have labelled them "Covenant Requirements." From my experience, in-game, covenant requirements have been less than one season per year, on average. I thought that one every other year was fair. I could up it if the troupe feels that our own covenant will require more service from each magus than that.
I fear that this is in danger of comparing apples to oranges. The question (as I see it) is not whether Orien's advancement matches the 30 xp/year stated in the book. The question is how does Orien's advancement compare with the advancement that magi can expect in this saga. silveroak has already stated that he expects advancement to be greater than 30 xp/year. Now, you can certainly take issue with that. It's clear that you prefer a lower-powered game than some. (And I have nothing to say against lower powered games. I like them. I just think they shouldn't be the sum total of all sagas out there.)
silveroak has stated that this will be a higher-powered game. Fair enough. Some games are higher-level; some games are lower level. This one is higher-level. Like it, or don't like it. That's up to you. But please don't try and make it into something that it's not. As Severus stated, the question is one of fairness. How will the advancement of magi in this saga compare with that of Orien? silveroak has indicated that he thinks it will be comparable. And I agree. For one thing, there will be adventure xp to account for, which Orien didn't get. Spells will be available, since Orien will scribe them and others will have access to them. And silveroak says that he expects our library to fill up at a reasonable speed. And consider that to make Orien take 30 xp/year is to flip the unfairness the other way. In that case, Orien will have advanced worse than silveroak has said that magi will after the saga starts.
Again, maybe this is all too fast for your tastes. I get that. Not every saga is for every player. And while I'd be sorry to lose you as a player, I'd understand. But I'd rather not change the saga from what silveroak said it was going to be into something else. I'm eager to play that saga. Yes, it may be higher-powered. But I expect the challenges will be comparable to the power level.
I am looking forward to this game. And I expect, from various comments, that it is likely to be high powered.
I am not sure that is relevant to the question of how Orien did or should be advanced.
(For clarity, Trogdor, as far as I can tell you complied with the letter and spirit of what SilverOak said.)
I voted for a preference in the poll. I can in fact live with any model, including the one Orien used. (of course, I have no experience with actually playing ArM, so I ought to be prepared to accept whatever the troupe wants.)
Arthur, I think I understand your negative reaction. I hope you will stay, as I have found your observations and your characters to be interesting.
In fact, one of th things that is helpful for me is to know that in some regards this is probably not typical of other games. Which is fine.
What I have said is that I tend to go high powered- but this is to be a troop game, so where there are disagreements it will be put to a vote or discussion- feel free to try and change it- just make sure what we end up with works for everyone.
12 seasons out of 28 years. 3 of those are penned up as lobying for the new covenant, which hardly count as service to Aegaea.
That is really bare bone, in my opinion. I would expect more from the new member of the covenant. But that is just my opinion.
I apologize if this feels targeted at your characer and at you. It really is not. You spent quite some time advancing your character based on the parameters that were provided for that (which contradicted what was initially announced for the saga, btw). These parameters (and the implications) should have been discussed in more details before being used. In a way, it is unfair to you the player because I am commenting on your character as an example of what those parameters produce, rather than simply discussing the parameters themselves. My apologies for that.
Nah. It is comparing regular apples to organically grown ones.
I'm not clamoring for a low-powered saga. I'm just seeing this as a slide from the mid-powered saga towards the high-powered one. Because...
Actually, as I quotes previously, the initial announcement of the saga made it clear that "standard advancement rules" would apply. Standard advancement rules are 30 points per year after Gauntlet. That is not a high-powered saga. Later, he mentioned that he tends to slide towards the high-powered end of the scale, but that he was trying to keep things under control for this saga, thus the covenant starting with only 150 build points.
Then the post-Gauntlet advancement rules were changed to very detailed advancement, and then parameters for available books were grafted to that. And those parameters were far above what the standard advancement rules result in. I should have objected at that time, but I read that post quickly because I had no intention on advancing my magus before the saga started.
I don't consider that 30 points per year before saga start would be unfair, even if the pace of advancement during the saga is a bit higher (say the equivalent of 40-45 points per year). After all, you benefit from starting play with a stronger magus, so it is a trade off.
My objection is based on the fact that it was not announced as a high-powered saga. It was announced as a 'standard' powered saga. That power level was only recently cranked up by the parameters for books available for pre-saga advancement.
Had it been announced as a high-powered saga, I would not have signed up, because I don't find them enjoyable. And if it turns out to be a high powered saga, I will simply step down and wish the other players all the fun you can get out of it. Because I signed up for a standard-power saga.
Don't worry about it. I'm fairly thick-skinned. I realize that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm just the one who happened to step into it first.
I like that analogy. I'm going to have to steal it sometime.
Fair enough.
There's some of that. But I would also expect that an older magus would have greater challenges to face than a younger one. At least that's been my experience in sagas with a mix of older and younger magi.
I think the basis of Arthurs arguement can simply be noted as Hey i was thinking this one thing, when we got to it, it was another, I am also a personal fan of logistic sense if it requires an art at 40 for a lvl 20 summae to be made...where did we get these from, shits crazy. Though high powers great, Id like my pc to have the time over his life time to achieve it and not be able to be an archmagi by 45....turning crete into a personal watering log i sit on weekend. Lil magi have more challenges that dont require dragons, and world emcompassing clusterfucks...and again new covenant, the place should be made of the bare minimum with a few new guys and a fewer older ones...and turn that into a self help circle looking out for our buddies.
Coming back a little on the concept of fairness, I just realize this morning why fast advancement post-Gauntlet bothers me so much.
For one thing, it makes a number of virtues pretty useless. When you can expect to gain over 60 xp per year, you are essentially penalized for having taken a virtue like Educated, Highly Trained and even Skilled Parens. Why bother with a virtue that gives you 50 or 60 xp before play when you can simply advance your magus by a single year after Gauntlet to get the same benefits?
For another, it encourages a character design where having the magus Gauntlet as young as possible is the best way to go. All those pre-apprenticeship years (at 15 xp per year), which can add so much color to the character, become very much inefficient when those same years taken after Gauntlet can be so much more beneficial from a stats point of view (at 60 xp per year or more). With fast advancement post-Gauntlet, for every year (past the minimum of 21) that the player decides to start his magus, essentially means he loses 45 xp (or more) on character design. That is particularly important if the player would like his magus to have kid during play (i.e. before taking LR).
It is also increases the divide between magi characters and mundane ones. An older companion (such as the schoolmaster that I have just begun working on) actually becomes weaker (stats-wise) the older he is, when compared to a magus of the same age. Again, this penalizes a fairly good number of character designs.
To some degree this is already true- at 30 xp/year compared to a max of 20/year for a non-magus or 15/year pre gauntlet... my issue is that it seems arbitrary to say 30 points a year when the rules make it clear that magi have more free time than people with the wealthy virtue (which gets 20 xp per year by working 1 season/yr) and have access to books which routinely provide 11-13 xp per season at the low end or can study from vis which would provide an average of 9xp per season. Typical trade is sound boks, which with quality 13 means levels 15-18
