The original research is to figure out how to do it again. And on purpose.
2 Likes
Yes, there is. In principle, everything (even in the corebook) is optional, of course.
However, some rules in later supplements are explicitly mentioned as optional; for example, some combat rules in LoM. These are generally rules that have the potential to change game balance; so, when discussing mechanical balance, it's worth understanding whether one is looking at the "baseline scenario" or to something departing from it. More specifically, the laboratory rules of Covenants allow for significant power-boosting of labs. Then one should really understand whether one is discussing "vanilla" labwork as described in the corebook, or "powered-up" labwork as described in Covenants. Not making this distinction clear risks having people comparing oranges and apples.
Furthermore, optional rules typically come in whole packages, which should be evaluated in their entirety. Covenants lab rules certainly allow one to significantly improve lab safety (at the cost of extra seasons of work, maintenance etc.) - but they also allow significant boosting of lab totals for the same seasons of work. So it is not a fair comparison to say "oh, experimentation can save you seasons of work, and as for catastrophic events <handwave> there are ways to mitigate that". Because those ways cost time and other resources, that could be used directly to improve the Lab total.
1 Like
In fact, this was one of the mechanics of ArM3 that I miss. Learning from books was fast and safe, but capped - it could only get you to a certain point. Beyond that, your best bet was studying from vis directly, with risks - including that of not learning anything during the season. Beyond that, at a certain point the best way to learn was simply to experiment and hope for Discoveries.
Ohh... clever!
2 Likes
To be honest, for me covenant is so core, that I have a hard time comprehending why someone would play without the lab part. Although I haven't really used the loyalty section very much in the past.
I can answer that: I don't like it.
1- too min-maxable, with a lot of stuff to track
2- means doing a lot more penny counting for the covenant as a whole to track all of the lab related expenditures and synergies with other things in the covenant etc
4 Likes
I've built a spreadsheet to automate the income and expense tracking of the covenant. So I make changes when we hire more guards, have exceptional income and expenses, both vis and mundane, but I don't track pennies, and it barely takes any time to update stuff. I've had games without finance management, and I find it very hard to make any decisions. The abstraction of it is okay if money is never going to be a significant part of the game, in an existing stable covenant. If the game is about being junior magi in Durenmar... I don't expect to see things laid out. But I tend to expect being able to understand how well things are going in an all-player magi spring covenant. If a GM enters a story about the covenant's sudden economic downturn in an all player magi game where finances were hidden from players, it feels forced, because I'm now dealing with a story about my character's lack of responsibility despite never having had the opportunity to be responsible in the first place. Having the detailed finances available with known income and expense, I feel responsible for the success and failure of the covenant. If I spend too much and I don't pay attention to how much income is coming in or whether I'm running a borderline budget with no reserves... it's the result of my decisions and I can deal with the outcomes if I have bad luck. On the other hand, if the finances are opaque, it feels unfair unless there's a RP reason for things to be opaque. And frankly, I love customizing a laboratory. Ars is as much a game about the covenant and what our magi's homes look like than it is about the magic we use. I love that I can be excentric, and have a lab on wheels in one game, a palatial sanctum in another, and a frozen diminutive cave inhabited by gremlins in a third. It's flavorful. And yes, you can optimize things, but those are also seasons you're not building up your arts. There's a cost to everything - better spells with a lower casting total is not always the best decision.
5 Likes
And if you like that feeling of control, awesome, but it's artificial. The SG decides how the covenant is doing. I appreciate no decent SG should say with no warning "Oh yeah, you are poor because you spent too much on those mercenaries in an earlier season." What do you do?, however, the SG decides if they want the party to focus on the mundane affairs of the covenant.
If people want to do the accounting and count pennies good for them, however, I find that kind of accounting a bit dull and feel that it detracts from the game. I personally feel a general vague idea of the wealth is fine.
Things like -
-
Everything is run down, the fields overgrown, and barely enough income to pay the staff you have, let alone improve things. Quick action is needed to rescue the mundane assets of this covenant.
-
Everything is decent. While the covenant can't make grand purchases such as a grand cathedral with all the trimmings, small purchases of new buildings, a few new grogs to hire, and basic maintenance are all easily within reach.
-
The covenant has ridiculous wealth. Each senior magi having a personal chef is expected. The only consideration about a new building would be if it fits the aesthetic.
There are clearly more than 3 options, but just showing examples of how hand waving finances can work.
There are clearly more than 3 options, yes. And yes, handwaving it can work. Much like handwaving RL finance can work. But like handwaving RL finance can work, handwaving covenant finances can result in unpleasant stories which could be less of a nuisance otherwise. Anyhow, this thread is about experimentation - I'll stop here. 
By default finances should be opaque to the magi. An operation feeding half a dozen posh wizards is never going to be trivial, and understanding what is going on takes both skill and effort.
Yes, I agree, a finance system is needed to keep a balancing cap on the lab improvement, by controlling the upkeep. The problem is that whenever finances is an issue, the players come up with some more or less naïve idea, and we end up handwaving it anyway. The alternative would be a rather boring story about how hard the idea would be to implement.
3 Likes
I think you're looking at this the wrong way.
Yes, most mages wouldn't experiment very often, and would rather max their Lab to whatever they want, be it spells, items, texts, or a few Arts. And that's great for them.
But some Magi will want to do more experimental work. It can be that they're crazy (or just Bonisagus), or that they like the risk, or that they're seeking for those glimpses of knowledge. Or maybe they just don't have good books or lots of Vis to study from, and experimentation gives them that chance.
Whatever their reason is, it's a valid reason, for them. It might not be the safest, or the most advantageous, but it's their choice.
One small thing, Experimentation can be done in most Lab activities, so of the task-based bonuses, it's the one that gives the Magus the most flexibility, if he chooses to pursue it. He can do it for items, spells, his familiar, his LR. And it applies to every Form and Tech combination.
I sometimes think of (Hermetic) experimentation as 'gambling'. Some people like it, some people don't. Some people get very hooked on it.
You can win big - or you can loose your house.
2 Likes
You make a very important point.
Obviously, there would be no point in experimentation rules if they were so good that everybody wanted to use them every time. Then they would just replace the base rule.
The entire point is that some people are more risk adverse than others, and some are simply risk seeking. This is true for both players and magi. (And a few situations may be so desperate that even risk adverse people are pushed to take a chance, but those cases are probably less important.)
2 Likes
Experimentation is very risky, and may yield some reward. If you don't do it often, it's IMHO not that important to look at the average bonus if 5.5. If you only do it once, it's more important that you might roll only 1 or 2. So is this worth anything in your lab project? is it worth enough?
Using Covenants, you can use non-standard routines and overtime to get at least as much or even more bonus. I don't find experimentation too tempting unless with magi with Inventive Genius.
Personally I would never experiment with a thing which was ireplacable, so not on Talismans, Familiars or if I ever find a Hermetic Device needing identification. Depending on my vis-wealth I might or might not do it with devices. Lesser devices are littel risk, but an invested device which is ruined or filled with a useless effect? No thanks.
But I like experimentaiton for Charged Devices, what do you have to lose except time? Well, your lab for one.
Also, whenever Experimentation is used, I see a propability not backed up by statistics to roll Story Event which makes Storyguides groan. This may be an example of drama overruling statistics.
3 Likes
That's one of the most unfair rules of the game. The player reaps the benefit on a good roll, and the SG takes the hit when the die says story event.
1 Like
As the one most likely to 'take the hit' whenever @Christian_Andersen rolls that story event these days, I have to agree. :-/
1 Like