Maybe a number of minor discoveries is reasonable. Major and Hermetic breakthroughs very possibly not. And it is possible that these breakthroughs have been made and not shared, especially the bigger one. Someone, somewhere speculated that the control of apparent aging part of the Longevity Ritual could be a recent addition to Hermetic Theory.
If guidelines are something that requires a breakthrough (not saying they are) then that's OR. Or if guidelines can be discovered without OR, that's another pursuit of researchers from House Bonisagus or any other house. Something else to consider is that the numbers listed are guidelines to the necessary research points for a breakthrough, they could, if you think they are too easy and it's a problem for your saga's back story, be changed. Or, you could just add the listed breakthroughs in many supplements to your saga's back story, among others.
The solution I used was to start my game in 790. PCs study from vis or other Magi for arts. They have to invent their own spells or copy out their lab notes for another wizard to use. If anyone wants to make a discovery - they can. Also, I can just periodically have a discovery pop up and the PCs can make sure hilarity ensues.
Let's say half the researcher's time is spent on actual Original Research (this is a highly dedicated researcher, after all). A long-lived magus accumulates something like 220 Warping Points in his career (as per the implied guideline in the core book page 32), so this means he invested some 110 WPs into OR. Using 2nd magnitude inventions, this single researcher can produce 2 Hermetic breakthroughs, 2 Major breakthroughs, and 1 Minor breakthrough (or some other combination thereof).
Now multiply that by the number of Bonisagus researchers over the centuries, plus others who have done OR (and shared it). Yikes.
I'd advise anyone seeking to use the OR rules as they are to significantly increase the numbers, at least if they're after verisimilitude. Otherwise, Bonisagus should have long since been eclipsed by numerous other brilliant Bonisagus researchers with their Hermetic breakthroughs.
Though as I said, I think both the setting and the gameplay are better served by denying the option for OR entirely. Bonisagus cobbled Hermetic theory together from ancient and "hedge" (non-Hermetic) magic, and this is how you should improve on his work too.
I would reject a strategy from a player adopting a strategy of using only 2nd magnitude effects, exclusively, and would definitely increase the number of points needed for a breakthrough. Maybe what's needed her is some kind of handicap that favors higher level effects and those more warping is accrued period.
You're rejecting OR because it doesn't fit with the supposed history of the Order, is fair. But as a game construct, it does give players something to do, "to prove" and generates characters with motivations and purpose, and for that reason it is useful. Not everything has to be about verisimilitude. Indeed focusing on verisimilitude can kill any game.
We're on total agreement on the versimilitude aspect - that's why I said, above "at least if they're after verisimilitude".
I find that the goals OR allows players to pursue are essentially the same as those needed for integrating hedge, ancient and rival magic. In all cases the Breakthrough is sought, and the researcher needs to spend lots of time in the lab and be a theoretical genius (more so for integration than for OR, actually!). The only thing OR adds on top of that is the ability to pursue all these goals without generating adventures from them, which I think is counter-productive, and also incogruent with the setting's description about how prior OR was conducted (by Bonisagus). So I don't really see the benefit of employing this game construct. I'd only allow it as a "desparate move", an option to be adopted to finish a research project that is otherwise impossible, a way to ephasize the sacrifice and special efforts the PC is investing to gain the breakthrough.
On changing the rules - yes, I think increasing the points and requiring higher-level effects can work well. Again, I prefer the integration model where the troupe can dictate what the effects and their levels are so that it can set them as high as they want them to be. The need to gain new Insight sources also means the pacing is up to the troupe, regardless of points.
Integrating ancient and rival magic has the same problems of verisimilitude, though. It's either been done before or it hasn't. OR and whether or not it is too easy doesn't solve the underlying issue you and Heaven's Thunder Hammer appear to have, IMO.
Integration has the advantage that it's adventure-based, and thus SG controlled. No NPC has ever managed to develop the Breakthrough because no NPC has ever located the Lost Temple of the Hersaparaids before, nor used the Secret Hymns found therein to beseech the Gods from the top of Mount Olympus, nor was granted his wish by Zeus for he bore his Mythic Blood, nor.... There is a good rationale for why the PCs are the ones doing all the amazing progress, and it's the same rationale that sets PCs apart anyway - "PCs are Special" in that they're a whirlwind of adventure.
That said, the points total for Breakthroughs may need fiddling with even under Integration. Nevertheless, it is overall more controlled by the SG and better rewards high intelligence, inventive genius, and (assuming the SG picks the effects to be invented well) higher Art scores and aura. It's just a better model, IMHO.
This makes no sense, really. You're effectively imposing a preference of how new things get discovered on players, only because you think the story way is "better." There's absolutely no reason that NPCs haven't located the Lost Temple, used the Secret Hymns, or sought out the Gods from Mount Olympus. If PCs can make amazing progress on integrating ancient and other magics, then they can certainly do the same with original research and establishes the reason within the game, whether using OR or adventure and integration, that everyone else is lazy and the PCs are the only ones capable of moving the order forward. Frankly, you've just now countered earlier argument for verisimilitude.
And the SG does control the process for breakthroughs in OR. He determines the points necessary, and beyond the listed, meager guidelines for selecting what kind of breakthrough it is, decides what level of breakthrough a proposal is. It is even suggested that if a character is extraordinarily lucky at inventing the breakthrough that the SG add some additional points necessary, if I recall correctly.
I disagree that it is better controlled, I honestly don't know if it favors high int and inventive genius characters. Higher Art scores and aura can benefit OR, when you don't try and impose a player optimised strategy on a character who wouldn't necessarily know what's the best statistical method for getting to his goal the fastest way possible with the fewest warping points possible.
I am really going to regret wading into this, but Yair makes PERFECT sense.
The idea that NPCs are all "Lazy" is a straw man argument. No one is suggesting that. What we are saying is that cool stuff is for stories, and stories are for Player Characters. Now, I am NOT saying that only PCs can do Original Research. Rather, what we're saying is that a GM and his or her players should encounter Original Research -- personally or through NPCs -- when it suits the story that the table wants to tell. That may mean that we use Original Research performed by an NPC. A good example is the fella from Magi of Hermes who has invented Longevity Rituals that don't make the magus infertile. He's an NPC. He's made a Breakthrough. But this Breakthrough is irrelevant unless and until it introduces into an in game story.
It might be useful -- and again, I'm gonna regret this because it will inevitably get pushed too far -- to use Ars's own attitude towards history as a good analogy. In Ars Magica, medieval history proceeds as it did in the real world unless and until the Saga requires it to change. And so it is with Hermetic Magic. It stays pretty much the same until and unless the Saga requires it to change. That may be a PC doing the changing, or it could be an NPC. But the point is that change, just "because it would happen" or "because it makes sense", is ultimately a thought exercise. Without the context of a campaign or a story or some kind of actual Ars Magica play, Breakthroughs aren't going to happen. And just as how the ultimate answer to the question, "Why hasn't Hermetic Magic changed the world?" turned out to be "Well, it should have. But it hasn't. Because... well ... just because." The exact same answer applies to "Why aren't there more Breakthroughs."
Well, I was going to an extreme, much as Yair was saying that every Hermetic researcher under Original Research rules, discover 2 minors, 2 Hermetic and 1 major breakthrough in their lifetime, and then multiply this number by the number of Hermetic researchers ever in the Order. Of course, NPCs aren't lazy. There is absolutely no reason that a saga can't be built on the premise of integrating ancient magics or Original Research and use those developments to shape the saga.
Exactly, I agree with this completely. There's nothing to say that OR hasn't created any of the examples already for a saga at the start of the saga. This isn't always discussed when a saga starts, and it's often a player who says, I want to do OR and discover a suggestion in one of the particular supplements. OR is just an appropriate storytelling device for a character, shaping the narrative of that character than is doing integration and the stories that stem for that. It very well may be that the troupe might decide collectively that a certain integration or OR has already been made by an NPC, and that's perfectly fine, too. Your point and my point are the same, that it's all about the story. In Ars Magica, the story is a cooperative venture between at least the player and the SG, if not the player and the rest of the troupe (including the SG). If I go to the troupe/SG, and propose an OR path and character arc for my character, the last thing I want is to be told, no, you have to do it through integration (which may not even be appropriate to the proposal). There does need to be some common ground between player and the SG about the kinds of stories that are told. Original research, despite its reliance upon mechanics, is a perfectly valid character development path for a character. I mean, when I have a character actively pursuing OR and I get pulled out of the lab due to a story or personality flaw or covenant hook, you can be sure I'll make him grouse about all his lost research time...
a) Not every researcher is researching something possible. In-character, the Bonisagus researcher doesn't know what can be done or not. He just has a "Fantastic Idea for How Hermetic Theory Can Be Improved". So, maybe out of a dozen Bonisagus researchers, perhaps only one is actually researching something possible (or whatever balance you like). The point is that it is possible that the majority of researchers, whilst "doing research" and perhaps generating interesting side-effects and minor discoveries, might have an ultimate purpose that is futile. Perhaps, it just isn't possible to "find a way to use Herbam and Animal vis interchangably", or whatever. The PCs are different, because the troupe/storyguide usually negotiates out-of-character to find a project for the PC to work on that is possible (albeit, perhaps very difficult). So, PCs don't usually "waste" their time on impossible research projects.
b) The state of vanilla Hermetic magic in 1220 is the result of numerous improvements to Bonisagus' theories via research. Perhaps, the capability to use horoscopes as Sympathetic Connections was a breakthrough made 20 years ago. Perhaps, the ReCo guidelines around "teleportation" were only developed during the Schsim War. Maybe the target Group was introduced by one of Bonisagus' apprentices, and so forth...
Some good points here that I agree with - again, with my game in 790, it's really becoming quite clear to me that Hermetic Magic in the base rulebook - a good chunk of it should just not be possible and the capabilities of the magic system reduced considerably.
Previous hermetic magic just couldn't do some guidelines (say, CrIg couldn't make light without flame), some range/targets weren't integrated (say, no "voice" target), some guidelines existed but were harder (like, all CrIm to create illusions were 2 magnitudes higher...).
It also gives a nice way to introduce new guidelienes to players IMO: Instead of telling them "Oh, now, you know you could do this all along", you say "Bonisagi found how to do that"
I find this approach to be still incogruent with the rules in that it cannot accomodate the many Hermetic discoveries I'd expect. But more broadly, I just don't like this ever-expanding nature of Hermetic magic. Not only am I having problems seeing how this knowledge is being constantly disseminated throughout the Order, but I don't want it disseminated. I don't want wizards to be like scientists, always needing to keep up with the latest research in the field.
I also don't like the picture of the Order this creates, especially of those ignorant hedge-wizard Founders. Even digging a few generations back, to the founders of the covenant, can prove problematic (what items or lab texts have they left? Suddenly, you need to decide whether they had fireless light back in 1097, or does the item use higher base levels. Hermetic history becomes something of a mess.
And I much prefer Hermetic theory to progress using tie-ins to long-lost secrets of magic rather than sheer lab work.
At the end of the day, I remain convinced that integration generates more and better stories, is more under the SG control in both pacing and required scores and resources, and is overall just a better option. The OR rules were great for their time, but their time has passed.
Of course, the detail of "what happened when" only matters if the player characters have some way of travelling back in time, or earlier generations somehow turn up in the player character's time (perhaps by being stuck in regios). Generally, it's OK to just wave your hands and say "the Order collectively advanced Hermetic theory over the last few centuries".
If you are really worried just pick your timeline of advances carefully. Many possible historic advances have little impact in terms of bothersome artifacts like lab texts which you need to worry about. Say, it once took longer than a season to Open the Arts, say, it was once not possible to do non-Fatiguing Spontaneous magic, say it was once not possible to make Longevity Rituals for the non-Gifted, etc.
When thinking about the Founders, the potential advances of Hermetic theory don't mean that the Founders have to be useless. Remember the Founders are (mostly) members of non-Hermetic traditions that joined together to become the Order. The Founders had access to the powers of their native traditions and not everything that the Founders knew became Hermetic. This is obvious in the case of the Mystery Cult Houses. But there is heaps of potential for the other Houses to have lost (or not so lost) powerful pre-Hermetic secrets. One of the advantages of Hermetic magic is supposedly its breadth. So, it is entirely possible that the Founders were much more powerful than the typical 1220 Hermetic magus in specific sorts of effects, but a typical 1220 magus probably has access to a much broader range of effects than a Founder.
Yes. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was solely/mostly Original Research that advances the Order. Absolutely, some of the advances would be achieved via Integration (or a combination of Integration and Original Research) instead. I just think of it all as "research", although there are some game mechanical differences in the details of how they work.
The way that the history of the Order is portrayed Integration is perhaps the dominant method of advance, especially in the early Order. After all, that is the point of the boring half of 'Join or Die'.
Well that's the problem. Whatever the rules predict canonically there has been only one full on Hermetic Breakthrough in the 450 year history of the order, the invention of Parma Magica. I think the disparity lies in the nature of the game itself. I doubt the writers intended for the research rules to accurately simulate the setting's history. (HoH:TL pg 47) Instead the rules, like all RPG rules, are there to enable players to tell their own stories. For research to be meaningful the game designers had to make it challenging and costly. But a character's research still needs a reasonable chance of success. With breakthroughs being achievable in the scope of an average saga. Plus it helps if there is enough time left over to explore the breakthrough's ramifications.
So in the setting one "Hermetic breakthrough in 4.5 centuries". But If the system accounted for a research process that unlikely to bear fruit, no player would ever attempt it.
I tried writing up a simple Breakthrough simulator. https://blockly-demo.appspot.com/static/apps/code/index.html#dcd7vm Not absoulutly sure it works right but I am getting result's of between 54%-55% reliably in the intial experment. (My next goal will be adding a stabilization step)
One thing that isn't accounted for in the math is how many story events are generated during experimentation. Thanks to the errata you still get story events in addition to a discovery on results of 9 (6;1,3 with a +3 risk modifier). Changing a few blocks around my simulator Special/Story Events 14-15%. So more then a quarter of all breakthroughs come with a story event. That's before the roll to stabilize which I think has an equal chance to generate it's own special events.
To me this means a couple of things. Original Research seems pretty rife with the potential for stories. And, if most sagas are like what I experience, lot's of stories also means lots of time away from the lab. This could significantly change the math on how long reasearch would be expected to take.
