I think we disagree about how to do that rather, since that's what I want too (though I want it to be simulated well for immersion's sake too). Legendary figures to me do die, but they die well and in circumstances of their choosing. Take Flambeau, for instance. Casting Last Flight of the Phoenix is a hell of a source of legends. Or Tennyson's poem, Ulysses, where Odysseus heads off to die somewhere new:
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
If you choose to storm the castle, you run the risk of death, but it's death from storming a castle, not old age. If you can't fail, why bother trying? Dying in your bed isn't legendary or mythic, though people may desire it. ::shrugs:: I suppose I want my Mythic to be real and self-consistent, rather than just cool. I don't want rules to dictate coolness, but to allow it. I want PCs to be special because of where they are and the opportunities the meet, rather than because the rules say so. Oh well, to each his own.
Probably. As you say, legendary heroes die well and in circumstances of their choosing - an I want mechanics that yield that. Flambeau didn't fall to a lucky stress-rolled high Penetration in that fateful battle. Odysseus didn't fall to a Trojan arrow from same nameless archer. When a prince of Amber scaled its stairs, single-handledly fighting off an entire garrison, he succumbed to numbers - but was not slain, but captured.
What I'm advocating is not immunity from failure, or even from death. It is... more like insurance against accidental, meaningless death. When a PC should die, he instead is afflicted by an appropriate Flaw, as decided by the troupe. If none is available - he dies. So if a PC wantonly jumps off a cliff - he dies. Such an anti-heroic action character is no hero. And if he sets out to die in a suicidal last-strike - then he does die, for this is only appropriate. But if he is stabbed in a tavern brawl, he does not perish. If he falls off his horse in a riding accident, he doesn't die.
Whereas I want the story to be cool, and think the rules should serve this rather than make it more difficult. Especially in a game like Ars Magica, where the players invest so heavily in their characters on the one hand and the SG hangs plots on their background and interests on the other, I don't want accidental death to marr the storyline and the literary appropriateness of the tale. I want PC deaths to be dictated by the story, not the rules.
As you say - to each his own.
Indeed, the investment in character being destroyed by dice in a system with an unforgiving combat system is why I posted that thread on "Miracle Cards" a while back. New players especially don't need to be turned off by Ars' by-the-book mortality rate. Other ways exist to navigate the issue and are noted in this thread.
Hm... we've veered a good ways off course from Original Research.
V
I think that you are missing the point. Yes, NPC characters can achieve breakthroughs. But NPC characters achieve or don't achieve largely by troupe fiat. If the story has an NPC character who achieved a breakthrough --- then that's what you have, otherwise the story can't happen. Conversely, if the story requires an NPC that futilely works on some project, but never succeeds, then that's what happens. Of course, you can have an NPC work using the same rules as a PC, for example if the story is a race between an NPC and PC magus then sure, it absolutely makes sense for the NPC and PC magus to be using the same rules.
Perhaps, if you think of it this way. You, the storyguide, want to tell a story where one of the required NPCs is a powerful magus who has botched a powerful spell and entered Twilight. I would be very surprised if you then started rolling casting totals for him, estimating how many high magnitude spells that he casts in a season, how much vis he might use, what sort of aura he might be standing in, etc, so that you can work out how long it will take, and where the magus will be when he botches. I think most storyguides would just say "OK, this is the powerful magus, he is here, this is the spell, he botches, now the story begins." Same thing with NPC breakthroughs.
I think, he means player as an inclusive term that includes the storyguide. If a PC player wants to try for a breakthrough and the troupe agrees that it is possible, then the original research rules are there to give an indication of what needs to be done, and how long it might take. Of course, the storyguide may have more or less votes than the other players when the troupe is deciding what is possible --- that depends on your troupe.
Bear in mind that the thing that makes PCs "special" is that they are the main characters in the story. In the context of the game world they are meant to be exactly equivalent to any other similar character. A PC magus does not inherently have, in the game world, any special Abilities etc that NPC characters do not have access to. However, in the context of the story the PC characters are special --- because they are the main characters of the story.
I didn't catch your responses first time around. Just spotted them as Richard has responded, but I'll reply too as that's only polite.
Firstly, we have to accept that we're not, as far as I know, at the stage where we have an Ars Magica MMORPG. That means that you have a core group of five or six players (using the term inclusively) who play the heroes of the saga. Now, you also have someone nominated as the storyguide. That person can change from story to story (or even within the same story... but that's a post for another day). And that person can present whatever background, images, challenges, allies, and enemies he likes. And that includes thrusting young things who think they've made the ultimate breakthrough, or the dusty old codger who has slaved away all his life and has finally achieved something of note. Those are all part of the story.
What we don't have is several hundred magi simulators all churning away working towards a breakthrough each. Answer this question: How many NPC magi in your saga have made breakthroughs through original research? I'm guessing not many. Of those, how many made that breakthrough unbidden simply because the rules dictated it? And how many of them made the breakthrough because that was part of the story.
Without writing your stories for you, the chances are that as a storyguide you're more likely to use researchers on the cusp of making a breakthrough to enhance the stories that your players want to tell, not supplant them.
NP Character actions make as much sense as the storyguide allows them to. And because we're not talking about the magus simulator churning away in the darkness, that NP character might never make the breakthrough until the story or players (inclusive) need/want him to.
The rules are there to provide a structure and support for player activity. They balance player activities off against other player activities and against NPCs where they touch the story.
Until somebody wakes up one morning surprised at the sight of a hundred magi cluttering up his hard drive with breakthroughs that he knew nothing about, I'm not going to be swayed by the "rules need to model what might really happen" argument.
I think it makes a nice contrast with modern thinking. Hermes Trismagistus already did write down all of magic in the Emerald Tablets. The ancients did know anything that was to be known. The task is to rediscover the past wisdom, and to learn the secrets of Creation (from angels or demons, for example) - not to invent some new theories no one else ever thought of. God already knows the Truth, and his angels (and demons!) have been teaching it to people in parts. You can't invent new stuff, you need to uncover the Truth that's already known.
I am with fhtagn here: innovation is possible. In the world of Acadme there is innovation. Sometimes the old authors are wrong and people demonstrate (both by induction and deduction) such matters. Sometimes the old authors dusagree among themselves as well, so they must be contrasted and made to agree. And sometimes a pure gfenius thinks the system upside down and makes a revolutionary change of perspective that shows how everybody after God was wrong in his thinking.
All that is happening in ME.
We play both approaches: sometimes someone somewhere makes a discovery because it advances the plot of my saga, or we all want a discovery in hermetic magic because all the troupe thinks that it would be a cool ability to have available and we think it is not setting-breaking. That is pure troupe- fiat developments. If a player wants to play a lab rat we also make that possible, but for true developments we require him to have inventive genious (nt a really strong requirement if you want a lab rat...). So far it has not happened but the path of evolution, centered into going OUT of the lab "ancient magic style" for sources of inspiration is what we would use. This has been discussed even if no player so far has decided to go along with the lab scientist character. It is way better than simply burying the character for 100 seasons in the lab and come out with a portable Aegis after that. That is not a story, and if it is not a story it is not worth telling as a troupe.
Cheers,
Xavi
Yes: I agree that this is a problem.
He has some weird Virtue, presumably.
You don't know that...but I see your broader point. And yes, back when Free Expression was "this je ne se quoi" rather than "+3 on stuff", it did give you an out for genius.
IMC: I tell people they can't get mysteries they have just thought up, because they aren't amusing. Similarly, charatcwers can do superhuman things if we think its a good idea. It requires a metagame agreement.
Hi,
One of the things I'd do, were I sufficiently SMArMy (or perhaps sufficiently less SMArMy and more MArMy), is to drastically reduce the number of skills that a character gets to take, eliminate experience gains for most activities, and expand "social status" virtues to include professions. A character would not be, say, a master sword-smith because he has accumulated a laundry list of skills, with ratings, but because he has virtues that let him rise above mere apprentices and mere blacksmiths. Apprenticeships of all kinds are less about accumulating experience points, year by year, but about Initiation, to gain the necessary virtues!
That's what I think too. I'd want to expose virtues of this kind and make them accessible. So a character who knows enough philosophy to clerk isn't in the same league as a learned doctor who isn't in the same league as Aquinas. It's not just about a five point difference, often overcome by a good stress die.
Anyway,
Ken
I suppose you could house-rule it so that only characters with Inventive Genius or the like can actually produce original research, if you want to slow it down. Or hand out a fat penalty to anyone without it.
Also, you could make experimentation dangerous in your saga and limit resources, to cut back on the ability of magi to get big bonuses to research work.
I much prefer the inspiration mechanic in Ancient Magic.
The greatest boon is that they both work together, points from either approach contributing to the same goal. It's what I'm relying on in my saga actually. My Verditius really wants to re-invent / integrate Heronic techniques. His first step was Original Research, even before discovering a source of Heronic literature.
I don't think the carrot or the stick needs to be applied to limit or slow research/integration. Not every player necessarily wants to go down that route. Given that there are a number of Houses, Mystery Cults, and Ancient Magic integrations to choose from (not to mention plain old Hermetic magic, Holy Magic, Cthonic Magic, and just outright Diabolism to explore), I'd be surprised if a regular troupe didn't have a pretty even spread of interests. I don't think you'll get to the point of having too many breakthroughs in one saga.
I don't think it is a question of too many breakthroughs in a saga; especially in the case of minor breakthroughs, there might not be much utility for magi to have multiple new R/D/T rather than one new one. What I think it is a question of is effort: making discoveries rare and making players work for them increases their satisfaction when they are eventually successful.
Original Research especially can be frustratingly difficult given the need for experimentation and landing on a Discovery each time. As a player currently using those rules, I'm not sure I'd want to make the process any harder than it is.