You don't thinkthat last sentence brings a certain combative tone? 8)
As you say, it's all David's call, but I changed the name of the Primus of Trerme and people have given me crap for years. If I really and truly rewrote Apromor, or did my version of Belin, people would lynch me in effigy at Grand Tribunal.
On what seems to me a related note, at the recent Uprising convention in Brisbane, I was co-facilitating a panel on getting yuorself published, and the freelancer co-facilitating with me advised the attendees that he thought writing for Ars was a bad idea, and that he would not do it. He'd considered it, decided against, and could make a coherent case. His reasoning was so logical I had no counter-argument. If you have say, six hours of writing time a week, and you can write Dresden or Doctor Who, you need to buy and read one book to be up to speed. Maybe two books. You can spend a hundred bucks or less and be up to speed and writing within a weekend. To write for Ars, you need to buy, read and understand about a thousand dollars worth of books before you even set pen to paper. That's about 5000 pages of sometimes high-crunch rules. You are going to be prepping for months, and the work is innately harder than in a less crunchy system.
The game's deep history's fun, but at the last Uprising, I know it cost us new authors for the line, who are going to do indie work instead, and what you are asking for here isn't even ArM5: it's the sort of deep history of the game which no new author is going to want to go near. I'm not trying to flame you, but I do want to point out to you that the more fans demand we mine the game's history, the shallower the author pool becomes and the harder it is to draw in new guys when one of the old guys changes jobs, gives up gaming, has a baby, gets sick, or whatever. The game really does need to look and press forward, IMO, because otherwise eventually David is going to have to just decanonise everything, or put Mark on retainer and get him to write everything, or something. Authors need to be attracted to the game, and a book like the one you suggest simply slams the door in the face of new authors, because the research load for fiunding out who these people are is just an added weight for someone who could, if they wanted, just write something wizardish in FUDGE.
See? A reference to a high crunch system as a deterrent.
If you want to write something wizard-ish instead of about Mythic Europe you certainly do not want to write for Ars. To do Apromor you would be needing only 3 books, though: Iberia tribunal, the current societates and the current core book. Besides that you would be kosher But I undertand this guy.
Both kinds of books are fine. I'm not too enthused at some of the "Legends" descriptions, but how cool they are and how fun is the material to play out is down to the details anyway.
A book on the established legends would also be nice, but would suffer from all the woes Timothy and David noted.
Now, you can kind of get that by having an experienced fan ride shotgun for you, but if the fan is going to say to you "You should write about Apromor! You just need to read these three books." then he'd be wrong, because if you say "Well, as part of his legacy, Apromor left spells for killing demons, and they work like this.." or "As part of his legacy he created magical spirits of destruction that you can store in your body and release, and their stats are..." or "he vanished when he challenged the Queen of All Faerie..." or anything contextual like that, then you hit a tripwire.
You need to know the line, or be willing to do rewrites when you hit tripwires (and we all do. One of the main points of playtesters is to say "Your maga doesn't have the flaw complusorary for her House." or "Um, that's not what you said in ToME" or "Didn't someone else write about nighwalkers?") and rewrites are not the fun bit of writing, for most people. I like them, but I'm weird that way.
Also keep in mind the barrier to entry for new players. My group does not have the zillion books I do. To them, self-contained is far better than some sort of book-spanning saga. Most of them have a corebook, or perhaps a book detailing their House.
Additionally, having new characters avoids the issue of making characters fit the many disparate expectations of the established player base, some of whom may have their own personal versions of Apromor, etc. sitting around.
I'm also in favor of this book - or at least have no problem with it - as I'd like the Order to have some notable folks outside of the Founding of the Order and the Golden Early Years. Sure, there are a couple here and there, but who are the movers and shakers, say, in 1120 or somesuch?
Unfortunately we only have about six months of this particular argument to enjoy before the book is published, so we should get in while the getting's good.
I did not consider it to be at the time. I was trying to subdue my passions and be as tactful as possible.
But anyone who knows me well knows that I am a coarse ne'er do-well and an urban barbarian 8)
Though there have been others, I know I am a primary culprit in that. Do realize, though, I did not mind the change of the Primus that much. It is just that I view that particular example and the first revision that opened the gate for other authors to change things indiscriminately (such as House Flambeau).
And you are comparing apples to oranges. Retconing and revising something that exists is entirely different that deleting it and replacing it with something new.
But that is neither here nor there. I was simply questioning the premise of the book and calling unknown magi "Legends". The reasoning has been well explained to me now, and I understand your point. I still am leery about accepting these new unknown magi as legendary, but I understand the cause and rationale and accept that. Perhaps my question can be boiled down to simply "wouldn't a different title be more appropriate?".
But you get to keep the books after you buy them and deduct the cost from your taxes. Sounds like a win-win situation to me
I would point out though, that by calling these new magi "Legends", it pretty much means future authors will need to comprehend and understand their place in history in order to be able to competently handle the Ars Magica mythos. For a book such as Magi of Hermes, these characters have little historical impact and thus are not essential to comprehending the mythos.
I dunno. Perhaps my real issue is that the title "Legends of Hermes" causes me to anticipate new and updated details on some of the classic characters of Ars history, and it is something of a let down to discover that these are only new magi with no connection to past history. Basically, the title suggest a work that I have really been hoping for, and in reality it is something else entirely.
Basically its an issue with the choice of title.
I thought he already did that.
I would not mind, though admittedly I do not think I am physically capable of doing that and paying rent at the same time.
Hell, I can't afford to pay my rent on time anyway
I do understand your point. But you are positing a potential problem that does not yet exist. The current author pool contains many who are familiar and well knowledgeable of Ars Mythos, yourself included.
Still, this is not the argument I am trying to make. It is indeed one of my favorite debate subjects, one that I have engaged in before and shall do so again and again, but here and now this has nothing to do with what I am saying. I may have misspoken and digressed here and earlier, so allow me to correct myself.
My point is and only is that I think the title (not the premise) is a poor choice. It makes me anticipate something that I shall not receive from the book.
Not very sympathetic. want a well researched book, I don't want fiat and fudge. To my ears, you are saying "if you don't accept the substandard work of lazy authors, you will be limited to only a small pool of hard working and talented writers".
Which is not what you mean to say, I understand. That's just my gut reaction of a counter argument.
Criticism is important. As a chef, I specifically encourage my co-workers and customers to give me feedback and criticism so that I may improve the product I produce.
Now, how to end this diplomatically without causing more trouble...
They are fun to me as well, and I do not understand why it isn't fun for everyone.
Then again, I am an old school comic book fan, and as I have said many times, retcons and revisions are a staple in the graphic story medium. My favorite comics, change as much as they characters may, retain a strong tie to their traditions and history.
For example, the Avengers is so very ripe with historical tradition, and is a constant source of stories and background material for that comic. I recently read "Captain America: Reborn", and that entire story was richly laden with the history of that character and of the Avengers; from the Invaders to Prince Namor throwing the "iceman" into the ocean, and from the Kree-Skrull War to the whole Hank Pym drama (Hawkeye is now Yellowjacket, and interesting turn of events).
Rewrites are fun material to read. It may be hard on some writers, but that's why it's called "work".
Creativity is not indulgent. Creativity is the whole point.
One reason for steering clear of the established legendary magi was precisely to avoid revisionism. It might just be possible to stay consistent with everything written about them, but with everyone's interpretation of what was written about them? No.
And there is no systematic attempt to dispose of all things old and great about Ars Magica, as you well know.
However, another reason was that, in the "classic" canon, there hadn't really been any significant magi since the Schism War. Actually, there hadn't really been any Hermetic history since the Schism War. This book is partly about filling in the gaps; Hermanus, Fortunata, and Thomae are all post-Schism War magi. Player characters could theoretically have met Thomae in their backstory.
As a more general issue of policy, I think it would be a truly terrible idea to rule that all significant parts of the background must have been described before 1993. That way lies almost immediate stagnation for the line. The magi in this book are legends, and all magi have heard of them, and heard their stories. They just haven't been written about in the published line yet. They aren't new in the game world. For people who are encountering the game in their teens now, these characters will have the same resonance as Apromor and co have for the COOFs.
I'd also like to make it clear that the focus of the book is on PC magi in 1220 interacting with (generally looking for and discovering) the legacy of these magi, not on providing huge amounts of history.
Well, the difference is that every player who has read the Flambeau house description in the core book knows about Apromor. Every one that read HoHMC would remember Myanmar. They are legends already established in ArM5 canon, and what you're bringing to the table are new legends from the player's perspective.
Which isn't a bad thing at all - I'm all for some more creative content, and filling up the history post-Schism sounds like a great idea too. There is clearly a COOF demand for more details on the Hermetic Past, however, from the idea of a "Founder's Time" campaign/book that keeps coming up to this discussion about what Legends "should" heave been about. I agree with all the points raised by you and Timothy against such content, but I'm just saying - there is a demand.
The House Diedne sourcebook was also of interest to some.
Having the Ars Magica 4th Ed rules as a free download , did not result in increased sales for 5th Ed.
Even if a poll were taken to guage interest , and money given for pre-orders , wait time could be 18 months plus.
I mean when you as the author have put in a draft, and the playtesters come back with "Bob in book X says you can't do that, because Aristotle says so." and you think "Bugger...that was a good idea, how can I twist it to save it?"
For some authors, the ones who are trying to be "professional" (which I have to say I don't understand. I annoy them a lot by refering to myself as a hobbyist.) rewrites are writing time that's utterly wasted. They hate them. They like to write very lean books, and there are fewer tripwires with a loose canon.
[/quote]
4th ed rules being a free download DID result in at least SOME increased 5th ed sales, since I started playing 4th ed and then buying 5th ed because of it.
As regards the current 'discussion' between Marko and others, I agree with all of you! Marko would have been less disappointed if the title/initial blurb had said that the book was about magi from the post-schism time. However, I think that it is more useful than a book about the truly 'legendary' magi from earlier on - for the same reasons that most people don't want the Founders' stats written down.
But I undertand this guy.
