Deleting duplicate, apologies
If I did blow him off, and I admit to being brusque, its because his tone seems to be that the setting is basically broken now. I don't agree, and I don't agree with the implication that this is obvious and that it's somehow amazing that the developers didn't see this.
That may seem a bit precious, indeed it may be a bit precious, but I think it is fair, if he is going to ask me to question the basic premise of what I'm doing, to in return ask him to check the basic premise of what he is doing, and see if things are as messed up as he seems to suggest.
Well, Marko has put his money where his mouth is - I've seen a draft article for some ideas on Sub Rosa on some ideas on House Flambeau he's written which go some way to reconciling some of the past history with the current version. It's not an easy task, but I think he's written something that will appeal to both camps. Hopefully others agree.
After all, isn't it "Join or Die" they say...
(in reference to complaining about revision to canon without being prepared to contribute via either an Open Call or via the fanzine).
Lachie
(still waiting for that call by the way, Mr Line Editor... 
)
I think we should all bear this in mind - Arawn has only had a chance to read the ArM5 corebook. There's a lot of stuff that comes into play with the HoH books and TMRE in particular that really shines in the context the corebook sets.
I don't agree with ArM5 being broken by any stretch but it's certainly not the OTE either. Marko pointed out that many of the improvements came from ArM4 developments and that's certainly true but I think David has done a great job actually streamlining and refining the jumble of sub-systems that existed in ArM4 into a more mature overall system and backbone for ArM5. The new supplements hand off the core rules in a much more logical and balanced way - even the order of release seems to have been carefully planned to make this work (define the Divine realm as it's the most powerful, deal with the core True Lineage Houses that dictate the Order's culture and structure, a "vanilla" Hermetic Heartland Tribunal book, flesh out Covenants and then start filling in the spaces left over).
In a way, the most recent and sophisticated supplements apart from the Tribunal books (TMRE, Ancient Magic, Art & Academe, RoP: Magic and Faerie when they come out) are the "icing on the cake" - you don't really need these later supplements to have a cranking ArM5 game of the vanilla "castle-on-the-hill-in-the-forest" style and there's nothing wrong with that.
Arawn, I think you should give ArM5 more of a chance.
The Divine is a big shift but a logical one.
There are actually several ways around the MR for non-Hermetics issue (admittedly most of them Infernal based but hey it's a good Story Hook). Charms against Magic exist as an optional rule as a Bonisagus Breakthrough and are referred to as Parmulae and yes they're Hermetic only but it's a potential Universal MR. Infernal beings can grant Universal MR to summoners - given it's so hard to tell Infernal/Divine with even Hermetic Magic this is not a big deal. There's an Invisibility to Magic Virtue which although of lesser power is still an interesting option.
Parma is meant to be better than anything else. It just more obviously is in ArM5.
I had a long debate with the Line Editor about Universal MR for non-Hermetics in ArM5 and the "Hermetic glass ceiling" on the Berklist about 2 years ago. We agreed to disagree.
Having said that, I think the potential for hedge magic characters (even with less than Universal MR) is much better in ArM5 than it ever was in ArM4, where many of the traditions were broken and caught up in the power-inflation cycle or open to abuse. With supplements such as RoP:Divine and particularly the summoners in RoP:Infernal and all the Ex-Misc traditions and powers in HoH: Societas there's the ability to play all sorts of interesting non-vanilla characters.
Finally, House Ex-Miscellanea is really interesting and varied like it is supposed to be with herbalists, astrologers, wind witches, sahir, Thessalians, sirens and cunning folk.
If you can get your head around it those two major differences, ArM5 is really what ArM4 was desperately trying to evolve into but was locked into a paradigm that couldn't deliver what it promised.
Cheers,
Lachie
Ahh, it all makes a bit more sense now (the same way Criamon Mystery Paths make more sense now that I fully understand TMRE - man, but that was an unfortunate rejigging of release schedule for the reception of the Criamon Chapter but hey, things happen).
My greatest regret at the moment is that I appear to have stored SoI instead of the Mythic Seas in my temporary move to rural Oz (I know, I know, of all the books why on earth did I choose that one when City & Guild covers everything now so much better... sorry Timothy. My bad).
Still if you read SoI for the location ideas but infuse it with HoH: MC Criamon it's a pretty thorough start for a weird but potentially interesting Saga I suspect. I really thought Criamon in previous editions were a waste of space...
Sheila did that! I'm impressed but a bit confused - did she write Oleron (I'm guessing Mark wrote Fudarus given the Tytalus angle but the bio implies she wrote a chunk of the Brittany section).
At this point I am hoping Sheila mentioned her trip on list: I thought she had during the UK Tribunal discussions.
No, she didn't write Oleron: that was one of mine. The actual name of her covenant escapes me for the moment because it is past midnight and I've only had three cups of coffee today.
Timothy and David,
Thank you both for adressing the elephant in the room. I know I have been a jerk in the past and I will probably be a jerk in the future (its in my blood, lousy Greeks). But I feel a huge weight lifted now that we have all spoken about the issue in a civil manner. I can talk to other points later. Timothy, you were not dismissive about the realms. I was pointing to you as an example of a proper approach; focusing on theme and philosophy. The issue of cannon you are a bit dismissive about IMHO, and it is good that we are talking instead of flaming.
I just want to reinforce what Timothy has said and give my support to David's decision to do a partial reset. Before ArM5, there were 16 years of real world supplements that made up Ars Magica cannon. Many of the things in the old cannon conflicted with other things in cannon or made no sense. Not all old cannon was good cannon either. The Tribunal book on Rome comes to mind. How loudly will you complain if someone writes about Rome and it's not filled with demons?
I own and have read every Ars supplement (except Bats of Mercille) and there is no way that I would have ever agreed to write for Ars Magica if David expected that I know and conform everything to what had been previously written. Not too long ago, I finished working on a book that may be released shortly. I wrote about something that was mentioned in other ArM5 books, so I looked for any other possible references to it in ArM5 cannon to make sure I was consistent. Even though we have fewer books now, I still missed something. Luckily, what I wrote did not contradict the previous cannon. I only had maybe 10 supplements to check. If I had been forced to check 30+, it would would have been a nightmare.
Not only would doing the fact-checking for 16 years of cannon be a thankless task, but it also would have seriously stiffled my ability to write what I wanted to write. Writing an Ars Magica supplement does not pay the bills. It does not make you rich. For my Ancient Magic chapter, I think I lost money given the number of books I bought while doing research for it. Authors have to do it because they think its fun to write. When you eliminate an author's potential choices, you make it less fun to do the writing.
Would you rather have fewer authors and fewer books, but rigid adherence to all cannon before ArM5 or more authors and more books? Regardless of your opinion of new cannon, you always have the option of ignoring it, which is much easier to ignore than a new rule. It's my experience as a storyguide and GM that I have to remind the players of cannon all the time because they generally don't read it as closely as a storyguide or just don't care. They are more interested in having fun than some historical "fact" in an Ars Magica fluff piece.
Will you wince if I tell you I really liked ToH-Rome? I did. I thought is was cool. I also liked Iberia. I already liked the game. Now mind you, I do turn down the volume knob on the Infernal aspects of each. But if someone were to revamp these two books and make no mention of demons whatsoever, I would be disappointed.
With all due respect, I simply don’t believe that for a moment. Writers of comic books with decades worth of storylines manage to do it. By this point, there should have been some sort of writer’s bible for Ars Magica, they do it all the time for television; but instead of taking that effort, it was decided it was easier to chuck it all out.
You got to keep the books, right? That’s payment in my opinion. Crap, the books I have on Spanish history alone total up more than a c-note (maybe two), and that was just because I love history and running a RPG in medieval Spain (back when Flambeau was a Spaniard). Me, I spend all my money on books anyways. That is why I am poor. Like Socrates. 
And as for constraints of old cannon, I find that rather ironic considering that you are the one that gave us back the Varidian’s Tomb story.
I would rather that authors respect the fact that the fans are fans because they like what is, and that authors expand rather than retcon. Case in point, the Tytalus chapter gave us every single scrap of Tytalus lore scattered throughout all of old cannon, not missing one single speck, and MS (I use initials) nearly tripled the amount of information we had previously. There is a solid example of someone having a lot of creative room while still respecting past cannon.
You would think so, but it has always been my experience that it is actually the other way around. Rules are easier to fudge than setting.
My experiences are different. My first saga heavily depended upon “fluff†elements, well, because we were much younger and still learning. That “fluff†turned into the cornerstone for that saga (which prospered long and gloriously), which further set the tone for all my sagas thereafter. That “fluff†meant something to me as a storyguide and as a player.
But I will concede this. I have faced no obstacles in insisting on playing it my way. I created a Flambeau magus for the Novus Mane game, and I have been perfectly able to play him the way I want and to quote legend from old cannon. No one has said nay to it yet. However, this is also the first time I have gamed outside of my own little group in a long time, which is also quite healthy. And also understand that I am much more understanding and accepting than I was originally. At first, I felt like I was slapped, like I was told my style of gaming was wrong. This was not the truth by any means, and I way over reacted. I am not trying to justify that. I do want to emphasize the cause of that initial reaction though, and for people to realize that I am not just a pedantic troll.
There is many things I feel the urge to respond to, but I'll go for the most important.
It's been 6-7 years since I play and lurks on this and the old forum of Ars Magica. There is a tendency that I would like to "adress" here and now...
I do hope that Ars Magica products are made for the users at large: those who never logged on this forum. I'm sure the writers and Line editor, John Post up here thinks like that, I don't want to imply otherwise.
The reason I see that it is the "in crowd" preferences that influence more the line is, because I don't see how we could write books otherwise. Not because their preferences are better (though that counts toward becoming a writer, I'm sure).
I don't want for that "in-crowd" to care about the old fan base when they write books ! I want you to trash things up for the betterment of the game.
Go.
Forward.
Please, don't let yourself be slowed by nostalgia or nostalgic people.
Or course, this doesn't mean to destroy for the sake of destroying. But when you feel there is something to be done to the setting, I don't want the "in-crowd" to do it half-heartedly.
There are things bad in the 5th because they were borrowed from the earlier edition.
There were things I liked more in the old editions: I simply imported them to my campaign when needed. That doesn't mean that I dislike the new edition.
Franckly, I'm a bit pissed out when I hear people talks as if the Ars Magica line owed them their approval to be valid. I heard that a lot on the berklist (i'm there for a few months). Don't get me wrong: I do think that this fan base is important for the game: it gives a nest for the writer to test ideas, discuss about the game, etc.
It's good to hear the old players opinions.
I respect how people may feel about new material. I think those people need to realise that those feeling comes from their own choice of investing a lot of emotion in the game. I am not responsible for the emotionnal investment old players put in the game. If that makes you feel bad, then act on it: the responsibility is yours, and not the one of the writers, NOT AT ALL. The Ars Magica line is a moving thing, I like it that way. Something not moving is something dead.
I do hope the writers thinks about satisfiing the many 1000 people playing at large more than the 20 or 30 (?) people that frequent the berklist and this forum.
Do you know what would be perfect ? That the fanbase thinks the same.
Democracy thinking is not necessarily to let all the people have their say. It is to have an open discussion trying to find a "solution" to each problem that most people would agree to.
For the fanbase to be a motor for the betterment of the game, it must not slip into some nostalgic "refusal of novelty".
This really speaks to the heart of this discussion. What David Chart says here applies to all of 5th Editon.
Some things were changed that I didn't like. I lived with them (and got used to them) because I truly believed that this edition was, overall, a vast improvement over earlier ones. (And I really liked the earlier ones!) Most people had the same experience. That says to me that David Chart and crew have done a great job overall!
If you look at Marko Markoko's posts, you will find that, despite his "rants" 
about House Flambeau, he has repeatedly said that he thinks 5th Edition is an improvement over 4th. He even said that he likes many of the changes made. I think that the question that he is raising has more to do with the breadth of the changes. Some changes were necessary to make the game more playable. Some changes were made just because someone decided to change them. I suspect that he has the most trouble with the latter.
I don't expect an author to have an exhaustive knowledge of sixteen years worth of Ars Magica supplements, but if said author is going to write about some aspect of Mythic Europe, I do expect him to have a firm grasp of the key points already presented about that aspect. If changes are going to be made to any of those key points, it should be for a very good reason and the author should be prepared to explain why.
Sit vis vobiscum,
ShopKeepJon
I can't resist the urge to take this as a perfect exemple of what I want the writers not to take into account:
(Sorry, Mark F. it's nothing against you, I hope you understand 
)
I don't want Ars magica writers to lose time with "some sort of writer’s bible for Ars Magica". The Ars Magica line is about giving material for the players to use. Not about constructing a perfectly coherent Mythic Europe. I don't think most people care about coherency of the setting. Most people build their own campaign, and put in it what material they find the most interesting.
Most players don't read Ars Magica books as they do of comic books ! AM books are tools, and should be tools. They help us have a better time at having a night of rpg.
I want the writers to do a complete 20 pages of description of what could be an (interesting) tribuanl. I feel deprived of not having that already.
How do you play out tribunals ? How do you play out the realms interactions ?
What do I care if the Prima of House XYZ in the cannon setting is no more my prefered NPC ? If I like that that much, I just add it to my campaign, no fuss about it ?!
I beg please the writers to take the easier way and "chuck it all out" if that means we would get more interesting material. Go ahead, please.
[Once again, I'm not speaking about cutting for the sake of cutting things off. I just say that sort of things is of secondary importance.]
On a related note, I once had a problem with what I viewed as an unnecessary change. I sent a PM to David Chart asking (politely) why it was so. (Since it had to do with religion, I didn't want to post it to a forum. ) Much to my surprise, I got back a clear and reasonable response. He had a reason and it was a good one. It made me feel much better about 5th Edition and its Line Developer.
I'm not saying that there is a good reason for everything. Sometimes, someone just didn't like the old way and changed it on a whim. What I am saying is that it may be worth asking for an explanation before we get really worked up over any changes....
Sit vis vobiscum,
ShopKeepJon
(Edited to correct grammer, grrr...)
My experience has been very different. Most of the people that I have gamed with and talked to care very much about the consistency of the setting. It gives us a base from which to work. With a consistent setting, I can say, "We'll be using Mythic Europe as presented except for X,Y, and Z."
Without consistency, running Ars Magica is a lot more work. Sure I throw out or change what doesn't work for my campaign, but I like having a clear baseline.
5th Edition has, so far, done a good job of being internally consistent with itself. I appreciate that. I can, however, see why people would complain about large changes to the setting as presented in earlier editions. If people don't want to throw out all of their pre-5th Edition books, it takes a lot of work to reconcile them with the new version of Mythic Europe and a lot of work to explain to the players which parts will be used and which not...
Sit vis vobiscum,
ShopKeepJon
I am impressed with the level of the discussion, and I am honored to be on the same forum page as each of you. This is heady Berklist level discussion, which just goes to show you that the Forums are maturing indeed.
Jon is right when he points out that it is most likey the unnessecary revisions that bother me. I think ArM5 is great. And I am not so reactionaty as to want every demon and vampire and reason aura intact. I very much appreciated when Timothy grappled the vampire issue head on instead of ignoring it. With house Flambeau, I would not have minded if they put a different spin on him and maybe portrayed him in a different light. But every single Landmark was taken away from me; his heritage, his name, his master, the fons et origio, his whole history. I realy did use these things heavilly in my game. However, in the same chapter, there is some magnificent writing concerning Apromor, House culture, and the tournament rules are totally kick @. Now, unless it was done for space considerations, there was no need to trash the one thing in order to have the other. We could have had both. And I would rather have one book conflict with another rather than invalidate another. Look, old fans deserve respect too. Should I not be rewarded for my loyalty? Should I not be able to draw upon hudreds of dollars worth of earlier edition books for background ideas? Or should I say "Okay, my time is done, no more gaming for me ecause I am too old, let other people rip it all up and exclude me." hm?
Look, in consideration of the whole of their work, there is not a single author I am disappointed with. TF and I have had poor relations for a while, but I think we can overcome that (we [i]have[/] been fellow Berklisters for over a decade, remember? I am the one who coined the phrase "baby eating pagan" in reference to the Diedne; let us engage in fellowship once again). Anyway, despite our different opinions, he is one of my favorite authors. It has all been a net positive.
Someone wrote this...
With all due respect, that statement is so very wrong I don't know where to begin. Free speech is sacrosanct, and is more important to a democracy than the right to vote. I make my voice heard because of my love for the game, because I want to influence its direction, maybe correct what I see as mistakes. I am also willing to take the responsability to put forth creative effort. I wrote a Sub Rosa article that hopefully will bein the next issue, and in it I try to reconcile the old Flambeau story with the new. I can go with the revised concept, I just wanted to put my Landmarks back. Arts, Parts, and Points
There is room for both creativity and respect for the past. they are not mutually exclusive. Case in point: House Ex-Miscellanea. MS and ED gave us many times more new material than old. But they left every single landmark in place (Robes of Dust Dawn, Beast Masters and so on).
Yes, well, what I meant was the consistency is not a primary factor for a good game. I wasn't clear about that, but having coherency is important. But that a point. And that was my point.
The fact that people do make houserules, adjustment, like you said there (exemple for X, Y and Z) goes along what I want to say about the majority of gamers : minor glitch are not what makes a game bad.
What I want to say, is that there should not, in my opinion, be too much efforts made to comply with previous edition material. Writers should tackle the real challenge about making usable material for the line.
If they have 10 hours to write something about the philosophy of flambeau, I want them to take more time to ponder if this is consistent with 5th material and "zeitgeist" (esprit du temps, way of thinking, paradigm), better than losing time trying to accomodate with the old edition, if that is not possible. Flambeau is a good exemple to that effect.
It's better when the new material is compliant with the old material. I don't want to imply otherwise. But this should be secondary to the usefullness and quality of the new material in itself.
I can agree with you that far. To me, compatability with old material is a huge plus, but yes, it is more important for it to be a useful and viable part of the game. Some changes were needed and do make sense, such as the Realm interactions. Deleting Roto in favor of Poena was unnescecary, despite TF's many good reasons. The main effect it has had upon me is that the name Roto is now burned into my memory, which is kind of the opposite of his intent I think.
And I really don't care about Roto. Long live Poena.
But I did care about Delendar and Reculed. I do not agree that it was nessecary to retcon things as much as they have been. Some new growth and change is good, but it has to be used in moderation. Yes, attracting new fans is important, but retaining old fans and showing them respect as a reward for their loyalty, this is also important.
Me? I'm a tick. Y'all ain't never gonna shake me loose
Well, as long as we're not playing Deadlands, I'm OK with that...
Sit vis vobiscum,
ShopKeepJon
(hum, posted at the same time...)
I am all too pleased to debate a point, from time to time, in good communication.
No.
I think loyalty should find it's reward in itself. But more importantly, I think you choose to stay loyal because it profit you in some way. Otherwise you would have changed game.
Does because old books were not considered anymore, they become a waste ? I don't think so: our group buyed a lot of those for story and rules ideas.
If that happen, does that mean that you should change game ?!? O_o
Asking the question is answering it.
I didn't meant to say democracy is not about allowing free speech. It is, and it is very important as you pointed out.
What I wanted to say, with the term "democracy thinking" is more about decision making process. The government cannot wait until everyone have had their say, before acting : that's what I meant. What they do, if they are reasonnable enough, is try to find something that everyone could agree to.
I didn't liked that robe. What about a powerfull object that can't protect you from someone who happen to have some magic resistance ?? How powerfull is that... think about relics, familiar, etc. (see up here in this thread...) I found it...mostly bizarre.
Hum, you seem to have a step in advance on me, each time I post, you have already posted an answer !
Hehe, no problem on this side. I can be too. I just doesn't play anymore... (today I make an exception ;p) You know, it's me who started the debate about wards having to penetrate, years ago... it's a shame some people are still deluded (joking, of course
I think we agree mostly on what we say. You put a bit more emphasis on respecting old material, bacause you use it more than me, and that is previsible.
I think many disagreement are of this nature on forum and on the list.
Coming back to the topic, I think it is the same about Arawn. (correct me if I'm wrong ! )
People start by saying out loud what they thinks, and it comes out bigger for others than it was originally meant.
For Arawn, the realm balance/imbalance was an important thing, and the new edition "trashed" his old way of thinking, because the facts were now different.
We responded in a measured way.
I think our answers were good.
I think such an issue can be discussed, but in a subjective way. Philosophically, I think I think the best answer is to dismiss this issue because it is not an issue : it can be houseruled.
Same with the setting.
My main point is that in the end, people should not be wary of houserule. They are really a necessity and roleplaying games. You cannot do without them (or very rarely, haven't seen that happen)