I'm sorry Marko, but I'd like to play some Nobilis or some 3rd ed, but I live in a AD&D town that never went to 3rd because the local GMS don't like it. I'm stuck. It isn't however, Rebecca Bogstrom's fault or the guy who wrote 3rd ed, and similarly, I don't really feel that me saying "House rule what you don't like" is something that somehow impacts on your game. My games all have a play contract - I don't see your problem as something I can solve.
As to Arawan it is tremendously frustrating to have to discuss these things with people who stridently argue mistakes have been made, but don't read the books that contain the detail related ot the thing they are discussing. I've put my view: that the fluff now matches the crunch, and Arawan's just restated his objection, and I've given the same answer again, so our discussion is now circular in so far as I can see.
Whilst I mostly like the new aura rules, because I do enjoy the idea that the Divine is allpowerful, much as the notion repulses me in real-world affairs. It makes for an interesting game world and means that religious decisions of Magi actually matter.
This doesn't make him seem like a powergamer. Sorry. Not at all. It makes him seem like someone who cares about his characters defining feature - the game is about magi. Specifically, what your characters can and cannot do or choose to do with your magic and how you use or advance it. As such discussing limitations to power and how that affects you isn't powergaming, it's an absolutely necessary part of the setting.
Oh, and everyone's self-worth is tied up in what they primarily do. True, some people may not regard their "job" as what they primarily do, regarding it as something to support their real calling. Nevertheless, even they, if you stunt their ability to do their job, will find their calling will suffer and this will call into doubt their self-worth. Even magi who regard magic as merely a tool will see the Divine as a challenge, either to be accomodated or opposed based on how it affects their goals.
This is deeply unhelpful, man. If the core has ruffled his feathers, telling him that all his problems are dealt with elsewhere does no good. Why, if the core irks him, would he want to spend the $100 or so to get all the books you've mentioned on the off chance that a comparitively antagonistic guy (you've been polite, but I do think your attitude has been rather aggressive) on an internet forum was telling the truth? I tried doing that with Mage: The Awakening and, frankly, the apologists there were just reading what they wanted into the supplements and most of what they claimed was nailed down was at best alluded to. You can't win people over that way.
Anyway ...
Arawn's point about auras affecting skills is well made though. In our saga, we tend to forget those rules most of the time, save when actually in Churches, but half our covenant have faerie blood and now refuse to enter the local church because "we're blind there". That -9 penalty to Second Sight really hurts. I'd not considered how that would affect the setting though - it does mean that your average village wise-woman with her small collection of Supernatural Abilities has to hit a skill level of 3 before she even breaks even and that does seem wrong. Possibly something which could be fixed by making such supernatural abilities accelerated abilities - something which might also help sort the muddle of penetration-type issues associated with things like Second Sight and Sense Holiness and Unholiness.
So, yes. Arawn - I disagree with some of your points and think that in play they work better and strengthen the setting, but not all of them. Keep arguing - there are enough problems with 5th ed for all the mostly smoother setting and rules that having a vocal body of people giving examples of what might be done better (hint: wards, penetrations on skills, dispelling, indeed everything metamagical) can only be healthy for the game when supplements and eventually the next edition come out. (Mind you, surely Arawn would be a Faerie of Dark Winter, rather than an advocate of the Magic realm?)
Fhtagn, there is absolutely nothing to be done about the core. If this isn't just him having a vent, if it is a serious request for change, then where is that change going to take place? It has to be in the supplements.
If my beef with Champions was "I can't play the Batman with the core rules" and someone said "That's the Dark Champions supplement" how is it any sort of discussion for me to then say "Well, I didn't like the core rules all that much, and I'm not going to buy a supplement, so I can't play Batman with Champions. I could play Batman with old Champions. People haven't thought this Batman thing through properly."
Yes, it was thought through properly, but it was a bit long for two pages in the core book, so it got more space in a supplement. Rather than complaining on the mailing list about the problem, perhaps reading the extensive answer in the supplement is the way to go?
Oh, there's no reason at all.
If he:
a) refuses to house rule
b) refuses to use the supplement that deals with his problem
c) refuses to accept that his read is just one interpretation and its not the one supported by the game.
then, yep, he's stuck with it.
Then there's nothing I can do. If he won't house rule, and he won't use the supplements and he won't change his mind on his interpretation of material in the core book, then there's no real point having a discussion with him, because I have no way of helping him with his problem.
I'm sorry that me pointing out that his problem is one of his own creation, rather than, as he suggested, one where the authors haven't thought stuff through, is percieved as rude. There it is though.
Good argument on the affect of the Dominion on hedge traditions, Arwan. Another threat the Dominion poses to the Order is not in its affect within cities and cathedrals, but rather in its ability to grow new auras in (formerly?) Magical places, to diminish Forest Spirits, and to support mundane encroachment.
I'd like to draw attention to another threat - Fearie corruption. There are several examples in canon of creatures and places who, at least possibly, were once Magical and are now Faerie. Before the Dominion spread through Europe, it seems it was the Faerie Realm that was in conflict with the Magical.
The problem is hence not so much the Dominion per se, but rather its extent. The fact that the Dominion has covered many, many places who were once Magical (or Faerie), the fact that it has turned many places of power to mundanity (by cleaving and trapping Forest Spirits, erecting cathedrals over magical places, and so on). I think that the canonic setting makes it clear that while many places of magic remain, and many of which under-exploited, many more were lost too; it is due to the Dominion and the mundanes that raw vis is so rare in Normandy, it is due to the action of the Saints that the ancient Hercylian Forest Spirit was cleaved and, eventually, entire forests dissipated of their Might.
I like the change from 4e in that now the Dominion is more important, which I think does the game good - it's now more of a challenge as an opponent, and more of a noticable influence in-game. I like it. I don't think this is what causes the Dominion and the Order to be at odds - I think that's more to do with the Dominion's spread, and that this is not unique to the Dominion (applicable to Fearie and Infernal auras too).
Actually, we havent hit this problem, for the simple reason that we just place "Supernatural abilities" as a kind of separate category, that auras doesnt affect at all.
I had actually never even thought seriously about this problem before.
Also, on the dominion spread, as it is a game of magic, it would be kind of "less than great" if all magic auras were just run over by dominion eventually. We handle it a bit less "heavyhandedly" you might say. A christian town MAY have a dominion aura that is more or less allcovering, but it may also have a dominion aura that covers little more than its church(es) because devotion there isnt strong enough to cause a "total" aura. Ie. just as longterm magic use in a place may cause its aura to increase(or appear) there is some EFFORT required for the dominion aura as well to appear or spread.
Just your basic common normal/average town where most are "practising christians" isnt enough to guarantee more than a dominion aura in the church and maybe a bit more.
Otherwise we start getting all too close to the (very) bad old idea of "Reason aura"(3ed).
This means that while the dominion is powerful where it IS, it isnt as allprevasive and "all-over" as RAW describes it.
Not everything I say is accurate and correct. My D&D analogy totally doesn't work. Ars Magica is an active and evolving game, and should not be tied to the 90's (it really started in the 80's anyway).
The point I would like to make here and now though, is indeed that the line and those that represent it need to make an effort to reach out to older edition players. Timothy is right in that the core rules cannot yet be changed (though I do advocate an edition 5 & a half), and even then I am one of those who prefers the newer Divine rule. But perhaps the descriptive text could be smoothed out? Give it more of a moderate flavor? The same could be said about the descriptions for the Gift. I remember the bitter Flame War between David Woods and David Chart back when 5th edition came out. I think mister Woods had a point about the way the Gift is described.
And sometimes Timothy, sometimes we plebians want to hear those on hight to admit they were wrong. That is a sticky point because I personally don't think the line is wrong about the Dominion. But perhaps one could admit the whole of the ramifications were not thought through? I mean, I, the old fart, just now thought about how Supernatural Abilities are affected. This thread has given me something to think about. Maybe the Divine/Dminion aura should be limited to the church sometimes.
And he is not grabbing at complaints. He is playing wise politics to gain supporters, and Delendar is indeed a serious issue.
Well, it would be David who could answer for his thought process with regard to Supernatural Abilities at the time the core book was written. I would just remind you though that people who write or playtest for the line agree not to discuss the product they have worked on before it is launched, and as Michelle has noted, the next product after RoP:M is Hedge Magic. This would naturally mean that any discussion of this that was in Hedge Magic would be out of bounds to authors or playtesters as a point of discussion.
I'm not hinting at content here by the way - I'm just saying that if you don't get a lot of replies to that particular example, about how young hedgies are found and nurtured, it may be that people don't feel comfortable talking about it as Hedge Magic comes into view. Again, this is not a hint on content, it's just a note saying that for some people, it seems better not to discuss hedgies at all, for the next few months, so as not to let anything slip.
That is a very good point Timothy. However, my point is more about politics an social science than about logic or gaming. It is about compromise, listening to peoples disputes (even if they are stupid), and finding something to say that makes them feel better. Why? Because they drive the economy
For example, I think Arwan has a point. It wasn't as clear at first, and I still disagree with the end conclusion. But I can see what he is getting at and have myself begun contemplating the issue. Simply saying "You have a point" or "This book that comes out in (x number of months) may have the answers you seek", or "Maybe you are right, try it out and let us know what the results are".
It's all politics man. Sometimes people just need to vent. Sometimes they need to argue before they accept a point. Sometimes they need to argue to solifify their own point. My own flame wat last year, as infamous as it made me, has galvanized my position. It has pushed me into creativity, into thourogh study of Spanish history, and has really forced me to improve my knowledge and ability so that I can win people over to my ideas.
I can't just walk into a group and say "Hey, I'm an idiot, let's impliment this house rule!". But I can say "I argued it out on the Berklist and the Forums, and there are those who agree and disagree with me, but for the following reasons I propose (house rule x)". Having baptized their argument in the fire, they have forged it into steel or it burned away.
Most of the earlier books were written from a point of view. Different people had (and still have) different myths. This hasn't changed with 5th Edition. The old gods still exist. They are, in there own areas, vastly powerful. You just won't see them wandering around in cities...
The conflict between the old gods and the Dominion has been inherent in at least the last three editions of Ars Magica. In this sense, each of the three other Realms is an "ages-old adversary" of the Divine. So, if you are referring to the gods and their followers, then yes, I agree that the Dominion is antagonistic to Magic and Faerie. I just don't agree that it is necessarily antagonistic to Mages.
A power that actually shuts down a mage's magic leaps to mind. The Dominion doesn't. As I've said before, the average Divine aura is a nuisance to a mage, not the end of the world. The Dominion does not stop a mage from performing magic, it just makes it a little harder (noticeably harder, unlike earlier editions).
In earlier editions, Divine auras could be mostly ignored by magi. This made them irrelevant to the game. Worse, all of the background material that talked about the dangerous spread of the Dominion made no sense. Now it does...
This is a perception thing. I find it much more difficult to run uphill than to run on across a flat field. I do not take this to mean that the hill is opposed to my running. You are seeing conflict where I am seeing difficulty.
Actually, "In the scheme of the One Truth," the Infernal is judged much more harshly than Magic. If you mean that in the schemes of the Infernal, Magic is judged to be more closely aligned than the Divine, then I would agree.
If you are talking about the religious beliefs of the people in Mythic Europe, I'd say go for it. It is a vital part of the setting.
If you're talking about modern, real world religion, I'd avoid it. The subject isn't really relevant to the topic at hand...
I thought that we were talking about magi exclusively. When referring to supernatural abilities, you are right. The Realm modifier for the Divine shuts down supernatural abilities. It is pretty overwhelming. We've been unintentionally house ruling these for some time now. We'll have to think about this.
Overall, I think that the Realm interactions work very well, but in this case...
There are always reactionaries. At least in 5th Edition he makes a valid point instead of just being a loon as in earlier editions...
Before deciding that hedge magic and lesser talents are doomed in 5th Edition, I'd wait for the upcoming Realms of Power: Magic book. So far, the related source books have done a good job of making the setting work. I'm willing to wait to pass judgment... I'm assuming that hedge mages set up shop in neutral or Magical auras in or near their communities, but, really, it hasn't been covered.
I'm curious (no really, I mean it). Can you make a specific list of the things that have changed in 5th Edition that hurt the game. (Possibly ignoring the few that you have already mentioned.)
Far from ignoring, overlooking, or disregarding the things that you have mentioned so far, I have tried to respond from the point of view of someone who actually plays using 5th Edition. With the exception of supernatural abilities (which I admit are unduly limited by the realm interactions), I have not seen in actual game play the problems that you have predicted.
For me, money from Ars Magica so far this year: $0.
Actually, I have expenses of at least AUD 200 which I may be over-reimbursed for at some later stage if the books involved come out, so in my economy at the moment, writing for Ars is effectively a recreational expense.
Even in a vastly great year, Ars authorship doesn't account for more than 3% of my income. I can think of one exception, when I was broke and back in university, but that was over a decade ago. Most years, Ars accounts for 1.5% of my income, before expenses.
So if the idea you are expressing is, as I interpret it, that I should try to find common ground with everyone who decides to come to the forum and talk about how bad things are, because they have some sort of economic power, then I'd point out to you that sure, Atlas may need to do that, but I'm not Atlas. The economic power that Arawan, or even all of Ars fandom, has over me is negligble.
I have done a version of option 2, there, repeatedly, as I recall, with books that are already out. You seem to mistake me for a line rep, and I'm not. I'm an author. This means I get paid a small fee on a per word basis by Atlas as a thanks for writing stuff for them sometimes, on a project by project basis. I don't make policy, or announce product, or anything like that, because it simply isn't what I do.
Indeed, when you say "You could do this..." you are dead wrong. I am legally obligated not to do #2, and I can't speak for Atlas when doing #1 or number #3. I know perfectly well what will happen if it goes with #3: he'll have a perfectly good and happy game. House rules let you tailor the game to you, and therefore a game with house rules will necessarily, for you, be better than the basic vanilla setting.
Mark, if a person just needs to vent, then they shouldn't ask for my opinion. I note that you think I'm not allowed to vent at them, right? If they want to argue a position, then they shouldn't just continue to posit axioms. That's not a discussion.
I really dislike this idea, for two reasons:
I do go into games and say "I want to play Ars and use rules X, Y, and Z." because play contracts are inevitable. Indeed, if you use Covenants you'll see its designed to trick you into solidifying your play contract with numbers. When you and your fellows agree to a game in which your covenant has flying magical cavalry, you are making a house rule for your game that says this is enjoyable for you and that threats will be scaled against it. When you say "I want a Castle" you are doing exactly the same thing as saying "I want a setting where the Dominion's weaker than book". The process is entirely the same.
The Berklist can rarely be successfully used as a way of sorting out the issues you have at your gaming table. You and your troupe can, of course, export your argument to fandom and ask it to rule on your views. The problem is that your game is -yours- and it is in a little bubble that is utterly separate from the concensus or common sense of the Berklist or the Forum. As long as you are having fun, we do not care and should not care what you are doing to have that fun, and if vanilla isn't fun for one of your players, us insisting that he eats the vanilla is not going to work at your table.
No, as one of the main instigators of conflict on many mailing lists in my younger days, I'd have to say that out of conflict comes creative people deciding to volunteer their time on some other thing where they won't be treated badly by self-important nerds. I say this as a self-imporant nerd.
Holy Shnike! I just looked at it extra close, and Arwan is totally right. I thought his issue was that the Divine suffers no penalties for other realms. I am cool with that. I support that a bajillion percent. But I just realized that I have been unconsciously using the old Realm table all this time. I am suck a jerk that I thought I had the game all memerized and stuff. Then I remember the guy saying that the faerie blooded had a -9 penalty to their Second Sight. So I’m sitting here at home (without internet) thinking “wow, a church with a Divine aura of 9. That is odd.†So just now I looked it up in 5th and 4th edition, and was stunned to realize that I have been doing it wrong all along.
The ArM5 Divine penalty is 3 times the aura, whereas in ArM4 it used to be only 1x. That doesn’t seem to work right. As for aesthetics, I am all for the Divine being totally immune to magic and such, but I want to be able to squeeze off a few spells or have a little lab with a penalty. And maybe I am a bit of a power gamer, but to tell the truth, I am more of a power DM. I like to play with power, and the issues and responsibilities that come with it. I think magi should be humbled by the Divine, but not crippled by it.
So I meet Arwan halfway on this one. I think the Divine being unaffected by all other auras is fine, but I think the 3x aura penalty is too steep.
Whereas I think it's fine (though perhaps x2 might be a better balance, who knows) but that the interplay with Supernatural Abilities is the killer because they scale differently. I find myself wondering if the sudden appearence of accellerated abilities isn't in some way to counter this - if so, it'd be trivial to do an erratum for the core SAs to fix it. Shapeshifting might be trickier, but I suppose making it one form per magnitude of ability doesn't really change things much.
You know, given that Divine auras aren't generally high mean that not only lacunae will be plentiful - it's only a short step from a low to no aura, but also that other auras can dominate in special times and places.
With the Dominion being weaker at night and the Infernal more powerful, you can easily have an Infernal aura, which has much lighter penalties, pop up in "haunted" places. People with second sight will quickly notice them, both because things are easier to notice there, and because there is likely more stuff to be noticed.
That also means that your average Shapeshifter won't be turning into a wolf in front of the Cathedral at high noon, but more likely in a secret place by the dark of the moon. Similarly, with hedge practitioners, the very first adaptation to the Dominion will be to work at night, in the "creepier" places of town or to meet out in the country.
And you can easily understand the lure of the Infernal. Sure, you go from -3 or -4 to -5 during the day, but wherever an Infernal aura can develop, and they're pretty easy to come by, you'll get a boost. And that boost is that much more significant for those who rely on regular Supernatural Abilities rather than Accelerated ones or Arts.
Understood, but you are missing my point entirely. I am talking about Atlas in a way, as I am referring to the Ars Magica economy. I would try to dissuade you from mercenary motives. I get no pay and none of the recognition you do. I only get infamy for being “that Flambeau guyâ€. Yet I am still dedicated to the prosperity of this game. Why? Because we are a community. A community that spans decades and straddles two centuries, a community that has transversed all the different owners and authors of the game. It’s not about money, and it is useless to argue economy with someone as poor as I am (I am like Socrates and Thomas Jefferson, a great mind that squanders wealth and will die penniless).
No, I do not make that mistake. But you are indeed over passionate about your defense of 5th edition sometimes. I am merely citing ways that you could be more constructive if you choose to be. But hey, free speech, say whatever you want to say.
And you are also a fan. You were a fan long before you were an author. You are an elder of the community. I am also an elder of the community. Search the Berklist Archives. I go back just as far as you. And as elders of this community, we both have a certain responsibility.
Then encourage him to do that. Not in a flippiant way either, but in a positive way that encourages feedback. Give him the illusion of having authority invested in him.
[/quote]
Free speech is sacrosanct and you do have the right to vent back. Just as I have the right to whisper wise council in your ear. And sometimes axioms and rhetoric are needed in an argument. They help us formulate our ideas. Sometimes I say something totally stupid and recant it the very next day. I needed to have said the stupid thing first in order for my ideas to evolve and grow.
Aw man! And I was feeling all proud of myself for that one! I thought it was clever and wise 8)
But do you walk into a game without any knowledge of what you are doing and start changing things? No, of course not. People look to your experience and wisdom before allowing you to do that. In my home location, I can get away with that easily because I am the guy that taught Ars to everyone, and they all know I am active in the online community. People call me up with questions about their sagas. Online, PbP gaming with the greater Ars community, I feel like I have to demonstrate even greater proficiency, because I am now gaming with grognyards as skilled as myself (a challenge and a reward!).
You are just bitter about the Berklist. You should come back to the list.
I respectfully disagree. I will paraphrase Gary Gygax from the first printing of the Dungeon Master’s Guide; he spoke of a common rule consensus so that characters could be easily transported from one game to the next. And nowadays I prefer to play with the greater Ars Community. And I feel I should have a good grip on vanilla before I start in on the cinnamon. I have been greatly influenced by the Berklist over the years, as it informs me what the greater community at large is doing by way of both vanilla and other flavors. It has helped me make informed decisions.
Those were good days man! I was there! Your flamewars by [i]far[/i] exceed anything I have ever done as “that Flambeau guyâ€. I admire that! And your very words are in agreement with me, out of conflict came good things.
As for myself, I am not a self important nerd. Just important 8) (I am such a dork that I am actually cool)
I stand by my idea that the community is not much aided by the idea that as an author I need to run an outreach program for everyone who doesn't like one of the elements of the new edition. I don't think it is doable, and I think a lot of people who come here to complain actually don't want me to, because they want me to agree that I'm wrong and I've wrecked their game, rather than, say, using the alternatives that are suggested. Just house rule it away. That you -can- houserule it away is explicitly stated in the rules multiple times.
As I have explained I can't use the options you have suggested. I cannot say that something was or wasn't thought through, because that's not my role and I don't have any of that sort of information anyway. I can't announce product.
I don't feel that my responsibility extends to meeting halfway people whose primary point is to complain about things and protest that none of the remedies provided are suitable.
It's not an illusion: people in their own game are the authors of their game. And I did, as I recall, back before this got iterative. As to the idea of him being authoritive in the sense of influencing the future of the line: the future of the line is simply not up to me. I have no role in deciding matters of policy for the line.
In any civilised community speech is not sacrosanct, though. If it were I'd be morally wrong to killfile Abe, and I don't believe I am. I don't have a moral duty to listen to him or you or anyone. (Americans: please, no reflexive attacks because I've criticsed one of your basic freedoms. I've paraphrasing Jefferson above, I believe. I'm noting that Marko is arguing from authority, but that the transfer of authority does not stand in this case.)
I'd also note that mutual venting in the form you are describing may well be outside the conditions of use for the forum.
I don't see that as a right you have. I'm here in an entirely voluntary sort of capacity and can leave if I wish and killfile whoever I choose. As can you or any of us. None of us have the "right" to be heard here except for the Atlasers. There is no obligiation to read everything on any participant.
I'm sorry that you seem to consider me some sort of resource to ablate your arguments on. This is not a role I would choose for myself. 8)
I'd say your point's a reducto ad absurdum: no-one has ever suggested that you or I or anyone do anything of the kind.
I'm not bitter about the Berklist at all. The Berklist is not there to referee for your table. It's yours. You need to fix it. We can't. I believed there to be a line to that effect in the FAQ.
Gary Gygax never played Ars, insofar as we are aware. There is no way that you can design seemless porting of characters between even vanilla campaigns, because sagas focus on what's important to -your- character and -you- as a player, as expressed by your selections of character virtues and flaws and covenant boons and hooks. It's tailored, not generic, and so if you import a character, you are really importing his story hooks and hoping they mesh with your saga as it stands. Sometimes this works, but its far from guaranteed, because a saga set as a series of firefights in the Levant during the Crusades and a character who is a Criamon pacifist are both vanilla, but not compatible without a lot of work. Even in Gygax's model, you had a hard time putting 5th level and 1st level characters in the same story. (Ars does power level differentiation a lot better than D&D, IMO.)
It's not just like adding an extra fighter to the party in D&D. That's part of D&D's genius, but that we've worked so hard to move away from that is part of ours.
And people think I am a hydra! 
, I love this!
We'll have to think about this.