Extraordinary Results Table

Games Discussion Ars Magica
21

The death of a Magus based on random chance of a die roll never sits well with me so yeah changing that to wounds or some sort of penalty or something sounds fun.

The idea of a story event happening is cool, but the fact that it has to be designed somewhat on the fly is a bit iffy. BUT the idea of there being a special event chart does sound cool. Though I want positive special events too.

Some issues causing only Personal issues and others causing Covenant issues are cool.

But yeah, I for one would never let a single roll ruin / destroy everything, with no ability to resist or turn it fun.

2 Likes
22

I like @Ezechiel3571's ideas; bad for the magus, but easy for the troupe. Serious damage to the magus is functionally equivalent, in that it costs vis, time, or both, but narratively different.

I feel that Disasters should not damage the rest of the covenant without a story event; I think that could lead to undesirable within-troupe dynamics.

I don't think story events should disappear, but the troupe should have the option to ignore them, and that option should be explicit in the table. (Incidentally, I tend to think of story events as being sufficiently disruptive to end the season of research. Adventure xp instead! But I suppose they do not have to be.)

Still thinking about this, so please keep posting if you have ideas or comments.

2 Likes
23

Yep. I did use story events a lot, especially to give spells or items of NPCs otherwise hard to explain properties. I would loath to lose this option.

24

I think there are a lot of things in AM that should be a higher priority to fix than possibly upgrading the extraordinary results table.

25

I love story events being created during downtime or end-of-session, but when my game sessions involve finishing up a plot for 45 minutes then advancing time and someone immediately rolls Special or Story event - sometimes twice! - the game does derail while we figure out what we have to decide.
Some kind of guide would be helpful, because I have no idea what the scale of 'special or story event' means. Did we wake up the dragon in the basement? Did my Merinita Creo Ignem study accidentally make a phoenix faerie? Did I realize that the vis used was infernal or divine? Did I discover my master's old notes on how he designed the lighting system in the main hall? DID I FIND OUT BLACKTHORN IS SCRYING ON US? There's no suggested metric.
I also wouldn't be adverse to delaying the result - 'special or story event that evolves over the next stress die weeks, at the storyguide's discression it may appear immediately'.

I admit I'm somewhat biased against the Story event because every other experiment someone is going to roll that stupid 'create extra plot with no guidelines' result.

2 Likes
26

There may be, but we are only making errata-level changes at the moment, and the higher priority changes at that level were (presumably) made a couple of years ago.

Statistically, this is not the case… But I understand the feeling.

That's up to the troupe. The rules are not intended to specify that. If the troupe wants to use the experiment to introduce the main plot for the next year, that's fine, and if they want it to be small, that's fine too.

I am wondering about options that say "Story event or X", so that there is an explicit alternative if the troupe do not want to mess about with a new story at that point.

Something like "Story event, or the magus takes two Heavy Wounds from an explosion. The story event can be anything, and storyguides might want to think about plot lines that could be triggered by a laboratory experiment. The story does not have to start immediately, so it is enough to have the basic idea, and then flesh it out between sessions when a magus rolls this result."

3 Likes
27

I just wanted to give the feedback that I don't think this is something that needs to be fiddled with at this point. It doesn't even rise to the level of errata.

1 Like
28

Rarefying an elemental could be another option on the chart, or something similar for non elemental forms.

1 Like
29

That's reasonable. One possible answer to "does this need tweaking?" is "no", and that is the conclusion we have reached for some questions. It doesn't appear to be the general opinion on this one, though.

30

When I designs system for RPG, I keep in mind that for first time SG discovering the system, the proposal "up to the SG to create an adventure" can be a daunting task, so having a simple, straight forward-to-implement outcome is preferable.
If there is the little sentence " this things happens or an adventure opens up", at least the SG who finds inconvenient to improvise an adventure on the spot knows what is the alternative.
It is always better than ask the player to reroll the dice and possibly get a worse outcome, leaving a frustrated/disappointed player.
Seasoned SG will always come up, if/when needed, with an house rule and will know how to accommodate the system for their needs.

1 Like
31

It's not that I dislike Story Event. I've just known it to happen more than statistically propable.

Maybe it should be, so that resolving the Story Event leads to the experiment counting as No Special Effect, so it works. But ignoring it leads to No Benefit?

1 Like
32

I can see the value of tweaking lab explosions damage, but I concur with silveroak that changing Special or story to something different is beyond the scope of errata. There are house rules for that. Of course, if you want to publish a new book that expands that chart, be my guess!

33

My 2 cents (not new cents but just casting my vote):

I don't mind "Special or story event" results, like David said they don't need to happen immediately. There should be some guidance on whether a story event wastes the season (as I have aways read it) or not. I do agree with others that story events seem to happen with more regularity than statistically should be normal. I do think the disaster table should be reworked and it should explicitly state that these rules are used instead of normal rules for supernatural botches. Automatic death is a boring option, lesser costs, monumentally bad story events, and the like seem better options for the disaster table. I also feel that the progression should be from bad to worse and, in my opinion, this makes the Warping/roll for twilight result misplaced in the table.

Despite loving "gambling with the lives of my characters" I rarely use experimentation and think the process should be changed some (at the very least reworking some of the disaster options).

1 Like
34

mutter mutter accessibility bias mutter mutter

Here's a concrete suggestion. It needs cross-references to Covenants.

Disaster (p. 109): Replace the table with the following:

You fail miserably. Roll a simple die + risk modifier – Perception, and compare to the following chart. Suffer the effect for the number you roll and for all lower numbers, unless explicitly told otherwise. For example, an explosion (7–8) also destroys the creation and inflicts Warping Points on the magus.

Roll Result

0 or less You spot the disaster before it occurs. Your season is still wasted; see Complete Failure.

1–2 Everyone in the lab gains Warping Points equal to the number of zeroes on the botch roll. Hermetic magi must roll for Twilight if they gain two or more.

3–4 Your creation is destroyed. If it is a single-season project, this is the same as a Complete Failure.

5–6 Your laboratory gains the Damaged Flaw.

7–8 Explosion! Your laboratory gains the Wrecked Flaw (instead of the Damaged Flaw), and anyone in the laboratory takes two Heavy Wounds.

9+ The storyguide picks one of the following.

A story event threatens the whole covenant. This may arise immediately from the explosion (a mundane fire, for example), or may be a lingering after-effect of the uncontrolled magic, causing a story some time later.

The explosion completely destroys the laboratory. The structure gains the Deformed and Unstable Flaws, and the whole laboratory must be rebuilt from nothing, rather than gaining the Wrecked Flaw. Anyone in the laboratory takes an additional Incapacitating Wound.

Special or Story Event (p. 109): Replace with the following:

The storyguide picks one of the following.

The creation requires additional raw vis. The magus must spend a number of additional pawns of vis that match the Technique or Form of the project equal to the magnitude of the effect (including modifications) plus the risk modifier. If he is unable to do so, either because he does not have the vis, or because he cannot handle enough vis in a single season, treat as a Complete Failure.

A story event happens. This can be anything; it could be used as an opportunity to introduce a major plot line, or as a brief and amusing distraction. It does not need to happen immediately; the uncontrolled magic might set something in motion, or it might be a result of using the creation in a particular context, some time later. The story event may be basically positive — the magus might attract the attention of a potential familiar, for example. Unless the story event requires otherwise, treat this as No Extraordinary Effects for the project itself.

Hey, there's an idea!

7 Likes
35

Sequentially, or simultaneously? I'm asking, because you know, when you choose not to resist Twilight, you're immune to damage.

Sigh Two options, David? I have 51, and I would develop the chart more if I still had an exciting experimenter in my game - I don't anymore. It's not "special" if there are less options than there would be on the other subchart.

I'm hopeful you'll eventually reconsider stopping the publications for this game line :wink:

1 Like
36

Good point. I think it would be good to have that as an option, so sequentially. The question is whether that needs to be explicit.

I think 51 would be excessive. However, yes, a third option for "some modification to the effect that doesn't necessarily fit into the other categories" would be sensible. How about:

The creation is modified in some way that does not necessarily fall under the categories of Side Effect or Modified Effect, although it may if desired. This allows the storyguide to introduce any sort of supernatural effect — the creation could even be strongly affected by a different realm. The result may be positive or negative from the magus's perspective, but should be interesting for the troupe.

Also, it just occurred to me that the severity of a botch is normally determined by the number of zeroes. We could drop the "0 or less" line, and then replace the five levels with one, two, three, four, and five zeroes. This makes the really bad explosions less likely. It would also be possible to add the risk modifier to the number of zeroes, but it is already adding to the number of botch dice.

Less chance of catastrophe might make experimentation more appealing, and this would make the rules more globally consistent. Thoughts?

3 Likes
37

Risk that can lead to fun things is cool, risk that can lead to death or permanent out of character less so. So yeah, modifying the potential so that there is less chance of the absolute worst things possible makes a lot of sense. And also makes it so people are more likely to use the chart and experiment on modified or new magics.

3 Likes
38

I think there needs to be serious consequences to the bad flow of experimentating but it should be things that push stories forward

Character is tainted by a given realm, gains the attention of a powerful entity, undergoes an aging crisis, Gains the Twillight prone flaw for a few years, Lab aquiresone of the traits of convenant (Gateway, Chaotic, etc.), etc.

Experimentation should not become the best way of lab work... should be high risk high reward.

W

1 Like
39

This for me is the important reason to keep "Special or story event" in experimentation.

40

Yeah, accessibility bias is a thing.

But I am confident that I've seen that result more than any other single one - partly because most of the time when someone rolls the 'roll twice' option it comes up as one or two of the results.