Mysteries no longer "Coming Soon"?

Games Discussion Ars Magica
41

In general my players, most of whom are newly introduced to AM, are most excited about the House books -- these books, they feel, will give them better background material on how to fit into their Houses. They are eating True Lineages up and are excited about Mystery Houses -- though they were also very, very confused about the differences between The Mysteries (Revised) and Mystery Houses. At the moment (though I am absolutely sure this will change upon publication!) they are not interested in non-Hermetic mysteries, only the Houses. They are also worried that the mechanics for how to advance in a Mystery House will be in The Mysteries (Revised); the players all want to pick up the supplement that contains "their" House, and thus a few of them are worried that they will have to pick up two books. I told them I do not know, but assured them that I would be picking up both books, so they should be set.

As to the Realms books, the group is most intersted in the Magic version. They are interested in RoP: Divine, but to a rather limited extent. The Infernal and Faerie books they are more looking upon as "monster manuals", while Magic would, once again, feed directly into what they are doing is players. This and they are all speculating as to what the "origin point" for the Magic realm is, the equivalent of Heaven, Hell, and Arcadia.

Covenants has gotten decidedly mixed reviews in my group. I am beginning to believe this book is the "White Album" of supplements -- everyone agrees there is brilliant material in here and some, to be kind, highly questionable material, but my players disagree amongst themselves as to which are which. For the most part, however, they view this as a "GM's Book", not a "Player Book". This may change with time, but at the moment that is how it is seen.

So, just a view from one group of 6 players + storyguide.

42

I think it's easy for fans to be armchair critics and accept spelling mistakes if it would allow for a product to come out faster or pick line ups that suit the needs of their specific troupe. Atlas, in addition to being very kind to it's fans, is a professional publisher and they have to make decisions that ultimately won't satisfy every fan boys dreams.

I have read books with poor syntax, bad index, missing maps or non-sensible charts. I don't like them and get upset to think that I paid for them. More importantly, they influence my decision to buy future products. I think it's important that time is invested into proof reading and play testing, and getting a book 'right' so that when it comes out we the buyer, are happy with what's inside it.

When Ars 5 came out I was blown away. I thought the rule mods were great, I thought the production value was fantastic, I art and 'feel' of the book was everything I wanted in Ars Magica. Then I got True Lineages and the Rhine book, two more fantastic books. Deep insight into the core houses, a fantastic interpretation of the heart of the Order. I was so happy with these books. Last night I recieved Covenants and again I like this book a lot from my brief glance at it.

I don't know why anyone would want to settle for less and faster. Atlas saved Ars when they made 4th edition and the 5th edition 'reboot' is in part a response to fan displeasure with inconsistency between books. I say take the time to get it right. Have each book display the production quality of the core book. Anything less would be disappointing.

Finally criticism is valuable but be kind. Atlas made this page for us, they read our material and actually respond. Lets try to encourage rather than discourage the producers of this game we love.

43

Splatbooks isn't a deragotory term (I think). HoH:MC will be a "splatbook" for me as it contains Cool New Stuff For My Character's House/Clan/Class (well, favorite house, anyways). I love having cool new options for my character as much as the next one, but I can appreciate that it would be better for the line to create a solid foundation (with RoP:TD and TL) before moving to such stock.

The books in terms of players/SG is an interesting distinction. As I see it:
Core: PC, SG.
GotF:SG. Some PC tidbits, of course, but largely SG.
TD: SG. Even more so.
TL: SG (Guernicus, Redcaps), and PC (for those from Houses).
TMRE: PC.
HoH:MC: PC.
Covenants: PC (almost entirely so)
tBCoC: SG. Duh.

Abosultely, you're right.
Oh Mysteries, as long as we await thee, tarry and delay as you must!

Oh, I'm a rabid Atlas fun. They roxxors. :slight_smile:

44

Speaking as one of the authors, I think splitting up the House books and the Realm books over the course of several years is a very intelligent one, because it means that I have precedents in already published material when I'm writing. You can expect certain things from Mystery Cults and The Infernal based on what was in True Lineages and The Divine, and that's because the books set a standard that the authors could follow. There's new and exciting things in each of them, but there's also material that further develops what was in their predecessors. We're all getting even better at it as we do more of them, I think.

Also, I have to say that I don't personally have time to come up with enough material that's worth publishing for more than a small part of four books a year (or even to write up those ideas if I did), but by spacing it out I find it's a lot easier to do my part. The publishing schedule meant that I started working on Mystery Cults a few months after True Lineages was finished, and I don't think I could have done both of them at the same time. If David had done all three House books first, or all four Realm books, I doubt they would be as good, because I think we, the authors, wouldn't have had enough time to develop them properly.

Plus I think that as a player, I would have gotten burned out on House books or Realm books if I got them all in a lump. Enough with the Order, let's hear about something else in Mythic Europe! It's a credit to the game and also the line editor that we are so excited about getting three fully developed Houses of Hermes books, even if it means we have to wait another year for the cycle to be complete, but I appreciate the variety a great deal, too. It's a nice mix of titles and material.

It is a shame about TMRE, though. I too am anxious to see it and sad that I won't have it in my hands for many more months. Take heart, though, for it sounds like Mystery Cults will be here before then, and that's some comfort! I have to say, that cover picture is incredible. I can't wait.

45

I'm surprised at the perception that The Divine is for storyguides, even more than Guardians of the Forest. Really? Of the five chapters, I'd imagined the first one as primarily for storyguides, and the second one as primarily for players. I'd call the last three an even mix between storyguide material and player material, since it's basically background that most characters in that religion can follow. Do you not have very many characters associated with the Divine realm? I guess in that case I can understand why it wouldn't have much for you to use, but I still found it odd that you would see it as much rooted on the storyguide side of the table as a tribunal book or an adventure.

And Covenants you see as almost entirely PC oriented? I'm surprised at that, too. I mean, the covenant is almost a character in itself, but in my experience the storyguide has largely been the person to see to its design and development. Whenever I've started a new saga, the storyguide has always been the one who had the idea for the covenant.

46

That's it. In my experience, only one person ever approached me with a Divine PC character and it too didn't make it into the saga. (I've had only about 15 companion PCs in all my ArM games, however, so that ain't saying much.) As such, I've found very little in The Divine for PCs. Mostly background material for the more mundane religious folk. In that respect I kinda know enough, at least to a sufficient level for character background, and I expect so do my players - so I felt it doesn't add much. The more esoteric and eclectic bits are largely only relevant to divine miracle workers, which as I said don't really come into my games as PCs.
As an SG, I am already using Tempers, plan to use Holy Magic, and can certainly see myself bringing on some divine regios and auras, angels, saints, divine beings, churchmen, or heretics to the table. Perhaps even some kabbalist, although I doubt Mythic Islam would make an appearance.

Looking at GotF, a lot if of course for the SG. But the Great Library of Durenmar is certainly for PCs, as are the Forest Paths. PCs are also more likely to get entangled with organizations detailed there, such as the Gilds or Irenicillia/Crintera for Bjornaer/Merinitia magi, which makes them kinda PC. Definitely an SG book, but still even this small extent is more than what TD offers to magi (which is basically just Holy Magic), and hence to PCs in my sagas.

Well, in retorspect, not almost entirely, no. Just mostly. I guess it's just that I don't intend to use Wealth, which kinda takes a large SG chunk out of it.

In my experience the covenant is always conceived by the SG but is often designed by all the players, so I'd say Chapter I: Hooks & Boons is half-half. Governance is definitely for PCs. Covenfolk is largely too, as PCs build them. The Library is for PCs, as is Sanctum,and Laboratories. Vis Sources and Wealth & Poverty are for SGs, yes.
The SG gets Wealth & Poverty, Vis Sources, Boons & Hooks, the Loyalty rules, the book trade guidelines, and of course gets to play with everything else under the excuse of making NPCs.
The PCs get the exceedingly useful Laboratories, some ideas on Sanctums, options when writing in Library, ideas for making Covenfolk, an extensive discussion of possibilities for covenant charter and oath, a list of boons & hooks to fret over in the first session, Rego Craft rules to play with, and enchantments and spells to invent.
At least, that's how I expect things to go in my games.

Covenants has stuff for both SG and PCs, but I expect the Laboratory, Library, and for some players the discussion of Sanctum and Governance to make it an invaluable PC resource.

47

Yes, I see Covenants as a SG book....I will explain.

The Covenant creation additions are to help the SG add flavor to the game. This certainly doesn't add anything to the character..
:slight_smile:

Currently, my lab in our game has LOTS of different things going on in it. There are pluses to lab scores (good equipment), problems from accidents, and various personal flavors added. My character spends a part of each year working on it. If I were to spend the time, I could work through and find out exactly what I need to spend on it (head hurts already). This could be less than what I putting in now. The problem is now I have to do all of the adding and subtracting. Of course this also adds a whole bunch of things that I might have to do as well...buy this, repair that, find this thingy etc. I see this as more story addition...
As I said elsewhere, I think this part of the Covenants book is just adding more work for for the players. Is the the information and the guidelines awesome? Sure thing. Does it allow the SG to 'put it to the players'? Yes.
I don't think that having to do all that work is worth a plus to a lab score (yeah, I can guess what you are going to say) that I already have. I would rather spend my precious game time actually GAMING (which is the fun part), not adding and subtracting.
Yes I think it more important to provide all the character information than provide additional SG info. I've been running RPG games for twenty eight years, and I almost NEVER use supplements for the SG; I make it up. The players on the other hand need the guidelines as to what they CAN do. Perhaps only a 'small portion' of players will be Initiated into a Mystery house...I don't know, but they should have that choice. This is kind of like saying certain Houses should be eliminated because very few are ever played :unamused: , or certain Virtues or Flaws should be eliminated because they are (almost) never used...
...as for my 1 to 4 ratio of players to SG's, I am being conservative there...and yes I know that the SG roll rotates (it does in our game), but I feel that more games will revolve around a single SG than multiple ones. I also have seen about ten AM games over the years (diff SG's) and most games average 4-6 players. With the exception of my current one, ALL of them have been single SG. (Most SG's don't want their plans upset by someone else)

48

Thnk you a lot for your explanations. It is reassuring to hear that at least the book is already written.

Wow, I understand you people are really working on a threadbare staff, but six months for repetead attempts at proofread :open_mouth: Unless you mean checking for rules consistency and playtest, that I may understand taking months if every time one has to start anew ... But for proofread proper, chacking on Capitalisation and Game Convention-specific spelling, argh, I have some experience with it, thanks to my scientific papers, and my collegues would have shooted me if I had taken more than 2-4 days for proofreading a whole book chapter. All this grief and delay for proofread really puzzles me. May I volunteer to do the proofread? I'm willing to sign all the non-disclosure forms you want.

Are we going to be able and use general Mysteries rules from the the first chapter of HoH:MC to use 4th ed. Mysteries in ArM 5th, as a stopgap measure? I'm itching to bring back theurgists, augurs, and alchemists.

Such as theurgists for Criamon and Merinita, and Alchemists for Verditius ? Old Mysteries book hinted at all kinds of juicy crossbreeding between theurgy, the Enigma, and faerie magic (and indeed exploring relationships between House and mainstream mysteries was one of the main reasons I am so interested in having TMRE and HoH:MC together; I'm really itching to do a Merinita or a Criamon theurgist), but both the rules and the setting information were very fuzzy and really hard to use (and were not helped by the fact that 4th ed canon rules for fearie magic were really bad: the 5th version is a huge improvement).

49

Yes, although it won't be a terribly close fit to the ArM5 Mysteries. As I said, a thorough rewrite turned out to be necessary, as there were some fundamental mismatches with ArM5 design philosophy.

That would be telling... :wink:

50

Tease

W

51

Such as ?? In a general sense, what we would have to rewrite manually, as it were, until TMRE finally ends gestation ?

Are general rules from TMRE and HoH: MC going to be all-encompassing ? I mean, ArM 5 is starting to look like somewhat crowded with quasi-mysteric organizations, including Forest Paths (GotF), Holy Traditions (RoP: D), Hermetic House Mysteries (HoH: MC), "Science of Magic" Mysteries (TMRE). This is all very good and juicy, mysteries are a very welcome and needed addition to ArM, both because they radically enrich the setting, and because they add a wholly new dimension for developing the character beyond expanding Arts, Abilities, and Spells. However, are the general Mysteries rules going to encompass and accomodate all of the above ??

And BTW, a question that I think might be answered even now: RoP: D rules that a character may only ever belong to and follow ONE Holy Tradition, ever. Now, I understand the reason for it, and I may see similar reasons for making membership in two different House Mysteries a no-no.

But what of following two Mysteries from different types, especially if their philosophies are complementary, or being able to customize one's Mystery Paths ? In 4th ed. mystery progression was strictly fixed, but you could subscribe to multiple Mysteries.

I am thinking of a Criamon or Merinita that also follows theurgy or augury, or a Zoroastrian Holy Magus that also follows alchemy or astrology or theurgy, or a Verditius that also follows alchemy. I'm well aware that in all likelihood game balance and character concept focus concerns (not to mention the sheer accumulation of Flaws from multiple initiations) prevent following more than two Mysteries at most, and only one can generally be fully mastered, as final goals of even similar mystery paths often conflict.

But I can think of several nice character concepts that might be created by combining two Mysteries, and I'd like to know in advance if canon 5th ed. rules are going to allow this (in 4th ed. you could be a theurgist and an augur), so I'll have different expectations about TMRE and HoH: MC. Or if, in alternative, there will be some significant degree of flexibility in structuring one's Mystery Path, so that say, my Merinita can pick some theurgy virtues, or my Criamon some augury ones, in addition or in substitution to the default list.

And for a more down-to-earth question... when is HoH:MC going to be available for preorder from Amazon and suchlike ?

52

Covenants is designed as a player book primarily. Each of the people saying this is nopt so seem to run campaigns where the SG designs the covenant. That's not, IMO, the intention in the core rules, and in Covenants it seriously isn't the intention.

Perhaps its because I come from a highly contractual style of play, but the idea of the boon and hook rules is that the SG and players, as a group, should look at the ideas and say "Hey...this would be cool." It's certainly been the way I've always played, although sometimes I've said "OK, it's in Cornwall." because I use the Matter of Britain a lot in my games. Austria wouldn't work.

So, I'd make the point that Covenants can be an SG book if the SG forecloses the option of negotiating the covenants design, yes. That being said, if the SG foreclosed your PC choice, then the core book would be an SG book too.

Basically I don't see it as a fair review to use a screwdriver as a hammer and then say you wanted a screwdriver, not a hammer. :slight_smile: We did design it as a player book...IMO.

53

The mystery mechanics are actually on the top of page 92 in the core book. Clearly the forest paths were designed with these rules in mind (IIRC one of the authors has confirmed this either here or on the Berk List).

Hoy magic is a major hermetic virtue so the Societa Sol Invictus and the Priory of Saint Nerious would fit into the Mystery system as presented in the core book. (However thier favored abilities do not require deeper initiation so these are exceedingly short mystery paths)

Holy traditions such as kabbalism and Ars notoria are exotic magical traditions which don't fit into the order at all (but I suppose they could still initiate in a mystery like the forest paths)

What you call "Science of Magic Mysteries (TMRE)" are not mysteries. Hermetic breakthroughs change hermeic magic for every magus who is expossed to them without any initiation. Hermetic breakthroughs are more powerful than mysteries (at least when looked at with respect to the entire order)

There is nothing to preclude this in the core rules, the forest paths are clearly compatible with house mysteries and seem to be compatible with the holy traditions. There were no prescriptions against magi frm mystery houses joining the Priory of Saint Nerious. I think that it would be awfully late in the game to preclude involvement in multiple mysteries. I Holy traditions appear to be an exception.

54

Yep, the basic rules are, even if I would expect them to somewhat more articulated :slight_smile: especially as regards initiating a mystery after character creation. E.g. I would expect picking Minor Hermetic Flaws to be possible to pay the price of initiation. The corebook and GotF together give a basic idea of what progressing in a Mystery is all about.

Holy Traditions indeed look like "compressed" mystery paths. Personally, I would see fit that they would indeed allow for deeper initiation, which would allow for accessing non-favored Holy Methods and Powers. I can see the point of limiting favored traditions, and making possible to belong to only one holy trad: since a character with the full set of holy methods and powers is the full equivalent of an hermetic magus, limiting the set of abilities accessible meant that holy companions would not be the equivalent of hermetic magi (according to the basic ArM development principle "no magical character as powerful as hermetic magi") and holy hermetic magi are not exceedingly powerful.

In comparison, House Mysteries and "mainstream" mysteries (theurgy, augury, alchemy) only grant additional abilities that while significant, are not exceedingly powerful by themselves (typically, they substitute a single Technique or Form at most), so they well "stack" on top of hermetic arts.

Holy magic is the divine equivalent of faerie magic (so similar that I expect an Infernal "Dark Magic" equivalent to exist in RoP: I, to be granted from diabloic pacting, and maybe a Magic equivalent as well, granting an increased affinity with the magic realm than the default Gift, even if I expect that TMRE Theurgy, if all similar to the $th Version, would fit this role admirably).

Neriusians, Zoroastrian, and Sol Invictus work well as "holy magic" traditions for pious Hermetics to initiate in, or for mythic divine companions, even if the latter should drop holy magic and be allowed to pick additional holy methods and powers as well.

Either in an hermetic "divine mystery", or a full career path of holy magic (via methods and powers) for mythic companions.

Err, by "science of magic" I meant the Mysteries (book) mystae, like alchemy, numerology (actually in a Hermes Portal article), augury, theurgy, and astrology. A better name would have been "historical magic", but I loathe the term, since elitist roleplayers often use it to despise "fantasy" magic systems. Both TMRE and HoH:MC Mysteries are additions or expansions to Bonisagus' Hermetic magic theory, actually pre-existing or independently-developed non-Hermetic magical practices which the initation process allow to fit in with Bonisagus' system.

Mysteries and Heremtic breakthroughs are opposite systems to for incorporating non-Hermetic magic and/or powers coming from different Realms in Hermetic theory and practice. One is definitely quicker, but needs to be repeated with each magus. The other is more uncertain, but definitive. Theoretically, a group of talented magic researchers might incorporate by breakthrough all the Virtues Mysteries teach, as well as the various Hermetic Virtues which indicate special lineage training (Diedne, Mercurian, Elemental, Ex Misc. Supernatural Virtues) or aptitude (Quiet, Subtle, Flexible, Life-Linked, Harnessed, Boosted, Tethered, Secondary, etc.). Bonisagus reserchers actually have their research program laid open before them, just by striving to duplicate and incorporate all the "special tricks" that the various mystae, lineages, etc. teach, or individual mages sport. If they did, mainstream Hermetic magic would become three times as powerful and flexible as it is. It would indibitably be a work of generations, as every Virtue would take one or two Major Breakthroughs.

55

That's no magical character that's more powerful than a specializd hermetic in their area of specialty. David's comments on the line direction have never to my recollection ruled out exotics that were as powerful in their specialty as a specialized hermetic or that were more powerful than hermetics in areas that hermetic magic does not address.

Here's the quote:

Whoops, somehow I read TMRE to mean HoH:TL sorry.

56

Yes it seems very clear to me that Covenants is a player book. The book details how the troupe should sit down and imagine how a covenant should be. Numerous hooks are detailed as unknown. This premise encourages multiple storyguides to gain access to future storylines and encourages troupe style play.

The governance material again is for the troupe and the lab material is clearly for individual players. In the past I've always been frustrated when a book is exclusively GM or Player material as I often have to fork the bill for both books. However I feel this is a book both players and GM's would like to have and I'm very happy with it.

I'm of the opinion that a core book should stand alone and supplements add neat, but non essential crunchy bits. I think covenants has a wide range of crunchy bits. The story hook material is to my taste as it's mainly ideas and loose on rules. The lab material and income add a wide range of number crunching that appeals to many players. I think includeing both allows for everyone to get something they like. I've have nearly every Ars product made, it's definetly the best material on covenants and I think it's a great addition to the Ars 5 line.

I can't wait to sit down with my troupe and 'rebuild' our covenant.

57

This book is so good that a couple of us in our troupe have talked about starting a new saga drawing on all the great stuff we've just been reading about.

I'm just waiting for the Mystery Cults book and then it's off to persuade the other two.

58

Did you just post about the unbearable pain of first grade arithmatic?

Exaclty how much work and time do you think that this would be for your game?

59

Here's the quote:

Yep, I think this approach is entirely understandable, as long as a middle ground is also allowed: the possibility for Hermetic mages to escape some lesser limits of magic via Mystery Initiation, too.

IIRC, in addition to have the greater degree of flexibility (which makes it the best choice yet, as long as you don't want to be a strict specialist in a narrowly defined area: as long as you want to excel in 2-3 different areas, being Hermetic is still the best, even if you aren't a complete generalist), Hermetic magic is able to break one unspoken, additional limit of magic: Generalized Magic Resistance (I would also add that non-Hermetic magical traditions are typically rather lousy at ensuring longevity).

Another reason I deem Mysteries so important for ArM and I'm so eager to have them back in ArM5 is that they allow a nicely-balanced but readily available way to break some limits of magic without the irreversibility of the breakthroughs.

Overall, I'm mostly fine with most of the limits of magic as they are, with the possibility for mysteries and breakthroughs to overcome them: the only one I have very severe reservations about is the Limit of Creation, specifically I find very obnoxious the heavy limits healing magic gets in ArM. IMO, requiring vis consumption on top of ritual requirements for healing is definitely excessive and unbalanced, and does not fit well with the philosophy of the magic system.

60

What is the Status of Mysteries (previously known as revised)?

I know it is cursed... so if you give me a guess I will not hold you to it. :wink: