If the Arm6 rumor is true - what must be changed?

Games Discussion Ars Magica
81

However, having said that.

Thinking further ahead (further ahead than 5 years). Yes, I guess that there is a need for a new edition. In this case what I would propose is:

  • Move the setting. Move it another point in the history of the Order. Perhaps, the Eve of Schism War, or just after the Foundation (a few years after the Tribunal of 767, say). Or just after (or before) one of the other Crises of the Order.
  • Or move the setting to another point in real history. Perhaps just after the plagues of the 14th century. Or at the beginning of the Renaissance.
  • Keep the basic ideas. There is an Order. There are Houses and Tribunals and Covenants. There are the 15 Arts. There is the Parma Magica and The Gift. There are the Four Realms.
  • Keep the general sweep of Hermetic history the same (up to the new start point for the setting).
  • Keep the idea that there are things for characters to do that take Seasons of game time to do and there are things to do that are done quickly (in seconds, minutes, hours or days of game time).
  • Rewrite all the game mechanics. Some things will ultimately be very similar. For example, characteristics would probably still exist and be much the same and brought during character generation in much the same way...but not necessarily, maybe the new edition would have a new way of doing this.
  • Rewrite all the fluff. Maybe some of the Houses would change. Maybe the way Tribunals are organised would change. There may be more or less Tribunals. Maybe the details of Hermetic history would change (slightly). The details of the four Realms might change.
82

I guess I'm in the minority that would love to see a new edition. Granted, it wouldn't be around for another three years, but actually, when you think about it, after another three years of fifth edition supplements I think most people would be ready for a change.

We've had some great books this edition and we're blessed with some great talent contributing to the line (I do what I can too), but I can see that I'll be looking for the game to move forward before long. And if there's a three-year turn around, then I don't want to wait three years before we start putting it together.

What would change? Plenty. More than enough to justify a new edition. And not just the rules. There's room to play with the Houses still, and there's room to play with the Order as a whole and the Code and its peripheral rulings. All in the name of looking for the play opportunities and presenting them up front. We're almost up to the point of having completed all the Tribunals (across three editions, granted), so we're almost at the point of rewriting them in order to bring them up to the latest edition. Why not do that with a new edition?

And there are enough rules that look to be in need of attention to justify a shift. What happens if you get rid of the XP distinction between Art and Ability? Do you adjust some study source qualities to address that? Can we rework PeVi to make trapping a demon easier (and therefore a sensible option) than destroying it outright? Can we make Parma Magica a little less of a freebie and more an active part of play? Can Certamen ever reach its potential? Can we clarify Craft vs. Profession once and for all? Can we make the Verditius the craftsmen of the Order that they're supposed to be?

It's tough because the basis of the fifth edition is so bloody solid. I look across at Faerie and I dread changing it. I look across at books like Art & Academe, City & Guild, and Lords of Men and you get everything you need to play across academics, merchants, and the nobility. It's a great line of books, to say nothing of what's out there for the Tribunals, Houses, and extensions to core magic.

But the rules are, for my money, starting to creak under the weight of books. As a community, we have a sense of what works and what doesn't. But I don't think those things can necessarily be addressed individually. If you want to solve the pink dot problem, you're going to have to look at Resistance and Penetration. And if you look at those you need to look at Parma and/or Might and spell-casting. If you don't want wards to penetrate, we have to ask whether that's really what you mean... or do you mean it should be easier than plastering the critter across the wall with the same level spell? And if that's really what you mean, then how much easier should it be and why? These things need to be consistent and logical and I don't (so far) think that's achievable through making a list of exceptions to general rules. And while I think a public "swap shop" of ideas is grand, I wouldn't dream of using them in my game. Not to slight anyone, but it's hard enough keeping twenty-odd books straight let alone a hundred wiki pages too.

I respect David Chart's stated position that fifth edition is his vision for the game and that he might find it difficult to undertake a sixth edition without finding an equally strong but differentiated vision. My hope is that he can find way of looking at the Ars Magica universe. Different enough to justify the investment of time and energy in bringing the game on into another edition.

83

Why not just for once get ALL tribunal books out for ONE edition? And be the first to do it even.

Probably not, unless the change is a huge improvement and i doubt anything near that is at all possible.

Gah... BAD THINGS is what happens. You make companions and grogs nearly useless for one thing.

84

I'd be up for all of this. Even the contradictory stuff.

It's a common thing for players to play in times other than 1220. It feels pretty common for games to be set around the Schism War, or around 1066, or some such. So how about a source book that specifically supports that? But then the question gets asked... What did the Order and its magic look like back then? I think that's a question that's harder to answer in this edition than in a fresh take.

I'm up for changing the mechanics. The basics are, to my mind, rock solid. But I'd take a look at whether we needed stress/simple dice. Or even D10! Could things work with D6? What does that do to the numbers? Would a dice pool mechanic work? Would we as a community go for it? Would it add anything? I'm up for trying these things out and going in with the minimum preconceptions possible.

And what if the new edition had a narrative direction? What if there was a meta game available to players and troupes? It wouldn't limit players or troupes as these things are easily ignored. But in a game that encourages the player characters to extend their lives out to 150 years or more, what if there was a wider story (or stories) that went with them? Commercially, would content in support of this sell or would it need to be limited to footnotes and story seeds within the main game line? And what if we combine an earlier start with the meta-game idea: How does the Order contribute to or involve themselves in the crusades? That's generations-worth of history and conflict that could support stories.

Would more scenarios work? So a new House book (or Tribunal, or Realm) is launched, would a partner book providing scenarios/settings/characters in support of that book work? Or is that just too much cashing in?

It's long been a moan of mine (and I've bent Matt Ryan's ear on this more than once) that I don't just want books of stuff that my characters could do. I want content that tells me why I should want to do that stuff. I want opportunities for play. We're really good on story seeds in this edition. You could scour a single book and have enough story ideas to keep you going for months. But do they really offer anything for my Divine-touched swordsmith who has to spend a year making a sword with a lvl 10 effect that can only affect one named bearer? That year has just cut that character's involvement dead. That might be an unfair example, but there has to be a way of opening up these opportunities. Can the swordsmith work on the sword during the journey to Jerusalem? And what happens to make that viable? What good deeds does he perform that helps him? Suddenly, I don't mind that it's a year necessarily as I've got content that supports that character.

I find myself wanting less "cool stuff" and more "cool stuff to do". Once again, I think that's something that will be easier in a new edition.

85

I'm not sure I follow, but the point there is that I wouldn't be in a position to say yay or nay until it was looked at holistically. We have to scales for historical reasons, not necessarily in-game reasons. Add to that the apparent need for Accelerated Abilities and Difficult Arts and the lines are blurred anyway. So why not look at it and see if it can be refactored? If it doesn't work, then you're left with your default position.

86

A rant indeed.

I don't see a problem with changing the in-game setting between editions. No problem at all. We know your problem principally comes down to the Flambeau thing, and I think that's been done to death so I'm not going to rehash that one. But I think there's more potential for getting something fresh and entertaining when you offer an author the fewest barriers possible. All I'm concerned about is that the Realms and the Tribunals and the Houses are recognisable to me. Feel free to play with the details. Make Blackthorn into the dominant and domineering Covenant it sounds like, or have it teeter on the edge of winter and about to fall to the intrigues of Burnham. Just do what's interesting and gives me the most to play with. Make Guernicus a diabolist for all I care, just give me a way to find out and a bunch of stories that help me to support or condemn House Guernicus along the way. Don't like the hard-to-follow and often-skipped Criamon? Then do something else with them. I'm not going to go running back to my fifth edition book looking for discrepancies. So long as I could countenance playing one and there's enough for me to do with them, I'm all for it.

That doesn't make me any less appreciative of what's gone before. I'm a huge Eastenders fan (there... I've admitted it...) and love the old days. And I roll my eyes every now and then when things get a bit stale or some older characters that I enjoy leave. But ultimately they make way for new stories. And of course, unlike Eastenders, of which I'm a passive consumer, I could choose to disregard the latest and greatest Criamon treatment and go back to the old one that I now realise is as good as it gets.

Nobody is implying (or has implied as far as I know) that you're stupid for being a fan of the old stuff (I am too... that's why I go back and buy the old books where I can find and/or afford them). I think you've let a single issue cloud your thinking, but that's far from the same thing.

87

Yep. Apart from self-organizing, I agree. That is exactly my point. The very last thing that we want, in my opinion, ArM to become like is Wikipedia.

I doubt it. I think the more likely outcome would be much, much poorer quality for much, much more work. Frankly, I don't believe in the magic of the interwebs or the capacity of crowds to do anything much except occupy space.

/rant

I do think that "webstuff", like these Forums, Project:Redcap, Berklist, etc, all have a good role to play in supporting published material. But its not a place or technique to generate publishable material.

88

This is weird, there's a humongous amount of useful information about the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. There's also a useless amount of information on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I am sure there are people who feel the exact opposite. But the useless information does not hurt me in any way.

Look at how much useful information is hidden on this forum. A 6-page thread contains maybe 1 page of NPOV data, 3 pages of useful discussion and 2 pages of useless rant. Put the same information on a wiki and you'd get the NPOV data with a summary of the discussion, with the rest safely tucked on the matching Talk page.

Your issue is certainly not with the change of format. Is it because it'd become too easy to start new threads, or because old threads wouldn't die?

My experience is the exact opposite. I've been involved in pen-and-paper games, boardgames, computer games, web games; some as player, some as developer. I see a correlation between wiki and success. I don't know which is the chicken and which is the egg, but there's a link. Maybe my experience does not translate well because RPG require a creative mindset.

I picked the Dwarf Fortress example because of its huge well organized wiki, despite the game being too complex to be playable. The latest big version was out April 1st, is still buggy as hell, and every information about the new version is already up, with separate pages for the previous version. And it's all fan-driven with afaik no involvement from the developers.

89

My experience with the ArM wiki (HermesWeb) is that it has too few contributors. I fear the ArM fanbase is too small to support a massive shared-editing project like a wiki. The ArM wiki still trudges on, but has too few authors and edits, not enough eyeballs and not enough content that reflects the lore accumulated by the fanbase.

90

I'm stealing this suggestion from a post that Direwolf just made in another thread:

A new core book could include a brief description of each of the thirteen Tribunals, in the same way that it currently (ArM5 pages 11-12) includes brief descriptions of each of the twelve Houses.

91

True, if possible to squeeze it into the core book that would be even better. I doubt it though.

92

Just to prove the point that if you have 10 ArM players in a forum, you'll get 12 opinions... I disagree with Direwolf, kind of, on this point. OK maybe a small amount of material (a half-page each) on the Tribunals would fit into the core book, but I do not want the core book to try to be all things to everyone.

Part of what I loved about ArM2 and especially ArM3 was that that the authors had a wonderful ability to show the reader how to play the game. This did take up some space in the book and competed with other things. In ArM4-5, there is a lot more about what you can do, but the evocative language that makes the reader want to run out and roleplay a compelling character right now has been lost. I think this has to do with the personal style of the authors of the respective editions. Not to say I'm unhappy with David's writing, I think if he tried he could do a brilliant job of this kind of stuff. What I'm saying is I would like to see that stuff brought back in, to make a rule book that's more inspiring to make people want to create stories.

This could be done, BTW, in either an ArM5 revised or an ArM6. The trouble is that something else would have to be cut from the core book in order to make space. Frankly I have plenty of ideas about what could afford to be pushed out into supplements but I don't want to start a flame war over that. I do however hold the opinion that what the community seems to agree is essential to the rules and the setting, is too much to fit between one set of covers.

93

Which is why i originally made the suggestion for that info to be in a separate book, something of a core-companion with all the basics of the setting and game that couldnt be placed in the corebook itself.
It would still be BETTER to have all the basics in the core book, but as i said, i doubt thats possible because it would probably need at minimum an extra 10-15 pages in it and more likely alot more than that.

And its not supposed to be "all things to everyone", its supposed to give a starting point for all those who doesnt know anything about the setting. And that is something the current core book fails miserably in. As it is, houses are pretty much a bonus virtue and little else until you get the additional, THREE additional books. The info on tribunals are far worse still, less in the core book, many more books needed to cover them, some of which isnt even possible to get as they´re part of earlier versions no longer for sale. A basic set of mundane creatures and a few from each of the realms is another thing needed. And preferably also a few small and adaptable "scenarios" for players to start out with or integrate with their running campaign.

Which is why i think it much better that it ends up in a basic "companion" book together with the things i mention above.

94

Well I think the words "fails miserably" are a bit unkind but I heartily agree there's, ah, room for improvement in how the core book introduces the setting. :smiley:

I'd just like to point out, for those who don't know, that most of the out-of-print supplements are available as PDFs. That's not ideal but it is better than nothing.

Yeah, I seem to remember when ArM5 was in the planning stages there was an idea of having it come in 2 volumes, something like "basic rule book" and "basic Mythic Europe/Order of Hermes book." Now that there is a corpus of 5th Edition material to draw from, I hope that idea is something David would consider for a hypothetical ArM5 Revised.

95

I myself have always wanted a new version of the Wizard's Grimoire. The core book could have fewer example spells, and the new WG could have tone & tons of them (including some specialty spells that only apply to certain mysteries). A new WG could contain mystery mechanics and virtues that don't belong in the core book, yet are common enough that most magi would have interest in them (BTW, I believe that Alchemy & Astrology should be "common" mysteries for Hermetic magi, often self initiated and not dependant on a cult).

96

Mostly, I agree with you, but it would surely need to have extra mysteries and all: A pure spellbook probably wouldn't sell very well.

97

Oh, I am thinking it would include all kinds of extra magic rules and such, rules for auras, vis, mysteries, breakthroughs, and more. The core book should have a simplified section of magic essential to the game. Only the stuff needed for vanilla magi that are not trying anything fancy yet. The new WG I envision would essentially be a "Big Book of Magic Goodies".

98

I didnt say the core book fails miserably, only that in regards to setting and background, "minimalistic" is a severe understatement. With the real problem being that you need nearly all supplement books, including those for earlier editions, to make up for that lack.

Oh we have managed to aquire many, one way or another, but .pdf is no replacement for a real book. But more importantly you have to go through them all to get the general basics of the setting, and thats just not realistic for most players(or SGs either). A short overview and the basic info for all parts in a separate volume would be very preferable to get a better look at the setting in general. And THEN be far better prepared to pick what tribunals or houses etc that you want complete information on.

No need for AM5/6 or AM5 revised... Such a companion volume could be added at any time, because its complementary to everything else, it doesnt replace anything and isnt replaced by anything.
And as i said, there are many other extras that could be added to such a book to make it well worthwhile even for those who already have everything else AND is well versed in it to not need a "short version" of it.

99

As a way to have discussions about ArM there's nothing wrong with a Wiki, although I think a forum like this actually works better (if only it was easier to search). As a way for the community of players to generate and comment on spells, rules variants, items, share character ideas and that sort of stuff, again there is nothing wrong with a Wiki. That's a good use of the Wiki.

However, as a way to generate and / or disseminate the actual mainstream game content, I think a Wiki would be quite useless.

I think it is exactly because developing an RPG is a creative activity that it can't be done well via a wiki. The same applies to any sort of committee process. It's not about the technology; a group of people sitting in a school hall would be just as poor a creative content generator.

This seems to make my point.

You seem to be saying that the best thing about Dwarf Fortress is that it has a well organised wiki. However, this has merely resulted in an "unplayable", "too complex" game that is "buggy as hell".

If the wiki was meant to be a tool to create the Dwarf Fortress game, the situation you describe appears to be a failure.

100

Yes, and that's exactly what I feel is missing. The forum is ok to discuss but once a conclusion is reach it should be written somewhere. I never intended editors to let the community write books, but merely to easily reference the opinion and experience of actual players.

Your conclusion stems from false premise. Dwarf Fortress is a sim-like computer game about as "graphic" as Rogue. It is rather the reverse: the unplayable game resulted in a well organized wiki. :mrgreen: