this would severely diminish the motivation to spend the time to actually invent spells.
I must disagree.
We have experimented with this.
It makes for more powerful magi, but not by much.
Limiting qualities for books and possibly strength of aurae can more than off-set this.
Not sure.
On one hand it would be cool, on the other hand, experience tells me that a specialist has little trouble when using the current rules. And thinking outside your teachings is hard.
Also, the feeling of satisfaction when something succeds tend to scale with how hard it was - I'm not really a fan of making things easier.
More likely I'd try to scale down the power levels a tad.
I'd just really ike some definitions of 'natural' vs 'unnatural' for the muto guidelines.
muVi could also use some love.
But isn't figuring those out yourself a great part of the fun?
So many people I play with really want to avoid 'stereotypes' with guidelines like these, where'd they go next?
Wow! Could you be a little more concrete?
Because I really think it is very simple, intuitive and streamlined as it is.
But then how would you do many of those "meta2 things? Purely on Magic Theory?
On one hand you want Spontaneous magic to be more dangerous, but easier to do. Why? What problem does it solve, and is the solution worse than the problem. I have a couple of characters that can spontaneous cast some 4th magnitude effects. Now I have to risk 5 botch dice when I do that? Umm, no thanks.
Some game play ramifications, is that players need to start keeping better track of guidelines. Spontaneous casting actually slows down the game, because someone has to pause and check, and do math to see if they can get the effect off. Full disclosure: I'm a big fan of formulaic spells and spell mastery. I write stories for players with full mind as to what spells they know, not what effects they might be able to manage. Specialists can do more, but are not anymore likely to do more now, since the risks are really high. This also affects the cost calculus of virtues and flaws that affect spontaneous magic.
This is a pretty common HR. Strike the XP from one source/season rule. Adventure adds XP, studying adds XP, etc. I don't think it's a huge thing.
Miner niggle, guidelines are based on a TeFo. Muto is pretty well defined for several of the forms. Muto Vim is a hot mess.
I like playing around. How-to's are good for someone new to the game/system. I prefer to do an interview of the prospective player and see what they want and then help them with character generation.
Not all Arts are created equal. It's true. That's life. That being said, I've noticed many a character have quite a lot of fun with Muto.
It's a fine wine, there's layers of complexity. When one starts fiddling with things, you really to make sure that you don't break some of the other things in the process.
Everyone has made excellent counterppoints to my suggestions. Perhaps this proves my deeper point that we don't need a 6th edition just yet?
Joking aside, I do wish the gap between formulaic and spontaneous magic was... if not narrower, at least different. The way I read it, spontaenous magic is so tough to pull off that it's almost not feasible. I tend to take Difficult Spontaneous Magic for every magi I make and it almost never causes me trouble.
Regarding Muto, to rephrase: I wish the guidelines were a bit more specific about what happens after a Muto effect ends. But I'll make a new thread for that one, no need to clog this one up.
That is because you have not studied the massive list of level 3 (level, not magnitude) spells compiled by Erik Tyrrell (I think it was him). Lots of non-fatiguing great sponts there with a high level of usefulness.
And I agree with Vespasian, Difficult Spontaneous Magic is a pretty minor virtue. Just means you always divide by two; meaning you are always subject to botching and failure. Several characters I've designed can do a lot of level 3 effects without the need for any die roll, or checking for botch. And if time isn't an issue, Artes Liberales, Philosophaie and Ceremonial Casting can make more effects accessible, too. Without the need for fatigue, or a die roll or a chance of botching...
If you want a flaw that causes you trouble, try Weak Spontaneous Magic... Or don't take a Difficult or Weak Spontaneous Magic, and play around with some things...
Yes, I think part of the issue is that there's quite a difference between a player looking rather abstractly through the rulebook and thinking, "well, there's not much to do with Muto Aquam compared to Creo Corpus", and actually playing a character who is good at Muto Aquam. In my experience, if a character is much better at (say) Muto Aquam than other Art combinations, then the player usually can find plenty of useful and fun things to do with it in play.
There is room for a 6th edition having more consistent rules. New rules should be built around a single, general, system. For exemple, the basics of the Mystery rules should be found in the Core Rule Book, and merged with those basic rules.
I would build the ArM6 rules around the three strenths of Ars Magica (as I percieve them) :
1 - Mythic Europe as a setting. What a stroke of genius! Everyone can relate to that world, and sources are plenty on the web.
2 - (Form + Technique) versus (Level) mechanics. This is very balanced and could (should) be easily used for all characters' powers.
3 - Troupe Style of Play. Not being mandatory, I've found I wouldn't enjoy as much the old "One Player = One character" type of campaign as I do the Troupe style. This section should be expended, to win more of those experienced players to Ars Magica.
Also, the Core Rule Book should be more appealing to new players. Put a choice of three prebuilt spring covenants to play with. Put in a few basic mysteries for all to play with (not just Verditus and Merinita). Give a basic, first adventure, for new players to see what an Ars Mag. game can be like.
Finally, abandon the thinking for expansion books: "It's not really in the book, but if the Troupe/Players/SG" wants to do it, they can by themselves". If the buyers ask for it, then it (probably) should be found in the book. That's why it is made in the first place: if you are cornered to give such an answer, something has (probably) gone wrong.
That being said, I applaud the efforts made by Atlas for Ars Magica so far: keep up the good work!
We do try to cover as much as possible, but there are limits to what we can fit in the books. We certainly don't deliberately leave things out just because we think players can work it out for themselves. On the other hand, given the choice between using precious word count on something that everyone can work out, and on something that requires serious research as well, we'll use it on the latter, because we want to save people as much effort as possible.
Just wanted to quote Iudicium because his post synthesize my own thoughts on this subject perfectly.
I also think the crunchy parts of supplements should be lightened in favor of background and stories. There are indeed too many rules systems for different traditions. We don't need all of those, in my opinion. I've been quite disappointed in Hedge Magic for that reason : I would have loved to read more about the culture and customs of these hedge traditions and less about the numbers of their spellcasting techniques. Same goes for City & Guild : extensive rules for the workshop, but Venice or Constantinople expedited in one paragraph ? That's a bit crazy to me. Other than that, ArM5 has been wonderful. Thanks for this great game !
Art and Academe is my favourite 5th Ed book because it's about what makes Mythic Europe different from, frankly, every other fantasy setting out there. It's about the world and, importantly, the mindset and beliefs of (educated) characters of the world, Magi and many companions. Yes, it does restrict and remove some options, but it grants others and leads to a very different world feel. There's nothing stopping me using the Techniques and Forms in Barsaive, but the resulting Elementalist or Nethermancer will cast his spells in a very different way and for different reasons. A&A doesn't say you can't make a gun; it says that vanilla Mythic Europe cannot have guns and here is why. You're always allowed to differ, but the limitations and changes do inspire creative use of the rules. Why use cannon when you have ballistae and a breakthrough by a Natural Philosopher making a reagent which causes stone to crumble, thus creating a massive arms race and prompting changes in fortification design? A wand with two effects, one a Waiting Ward on target and the other a Fire spell, allows you to arm a mob of slingers with explosive ammunition - if that doesn't give you stories, nothing will. The fact that the setting is geocentric means you can't go to the moon, but it does mean you can try to reach the Sphere of Fire - not only would an Ignem magus kill for purest fire to enhance his magic, but since flight is faster than swimming, how rapidly could you travel whilst there, and what strange creatures would you find? A magus with a focus in transforming animals can cause the mud under his enemies feet to spawn eels more rapidly than usual and then convert them to voracious wyrms to devour and bind his foes, and without the (to modern eyes) daftness of Spontaneous Generation, that spell combination just would not be.
To me, Ars Magica's strongest points are:
*The setting. It's not just medieval Europe, but Mythic Europe and there's flavour there.
*The Order of Hermes - yes, it's wholly artificial, but the I have always found the covenant meetings of Magi bickering and plotting (and eventually deciding to settle down to some serious research!) great fun and an excellent change in pace from most party-based games.
*The magic system. You can do things, but not all things, which encourages creative use of what you have. This combines with the above, and character longevity, means that I have never seen such grand and long term character goals as in Ars Magica. As for hedge systems ... system affects playstyle and attitudes, and so having all hedgies use hermetic arts and guidelines would be bland and kludgey. I think the current approach of using the same models (Technique/Form and Supernatural Ability) works as well as possible, though it does become unwieldly if you have one of each in a game.
but above all
*The way XP is handled. Ars Magica is the only game I know which has a good, causal link between what you do and what you get better at doing. The fact that long term play expectations mean you can plan sensibly (but not perfectly) is, again, great for supporting character plans and character goals. There are quibbles about the number of skills and their overlap, but the idea is solid.
I think even though the Technique/Form idea is great, having a bunch of guidelines for each combinations is an issue. It is too long to determine the level of an effect, it is too hard to maintain balance between different pairs, having different traditions is a crunch nightmare for both players and storyguide. And the icing on the cake is the strangeness of magnitude rules: one level below 5, 5 levels above. So much for ease of mental computation.
What the hell, why not have simple baselines rules for spells:
if it causes x damages (or wounds?) its level is x + duration + range + target + ...
if it gives x warping points its level is x + duration + range + target + ...
if it adds +x to interact with other people its level is x + duration + range + target + ...
if it subtracts -x to remind things its level is x + duration + range + target + ...
etc.
In Arm5 the magic system crunch stands next to the mundane sub-systems (skills/fatigue/wounds), not integrated within, each sub-system having its own subset of rules and own scale for numerical indicators. It is not just complex, it is also overly complicated wrt its complexity.
I designed a simple roleplaying system for my medieval campaigns and adventures (in French, sorry), with the goal to permit and encourage complex characters and behaviors but keep it smooth to use during play. First thing I decided: all numerical values are on the same scale. Then it became very easy to decide the level for a spell, or any other action. I am still testing it but just having a common scale helps a lot, making life easier for the players (who can better estimate their strengths) and the storyguide (difficulty estimation is streamlined when preparing and playing).
While i think, Arm could use some streamlining, i also think that its complexity serves greater purpose. For me complexity creates feeling of being magus. When i'm studying complex and overlapping system of arm, i can empathize my character and i like that. I'm reading over and over again all four RoP and Mysteries and i'm not (totally) sure what are spirit, angel, demon, daimon, fae and how they interact with true names, synthemata and names of power, although RoP: Magic brings light in darkness here. I get feeling that i'm wrestling same philosophical questions as my magus and that is wonderful!
While I somewhat agree with the "Aaagh, too many rules!" sentiment, there's a problem with lightening the crunchy parts. Namely, crunch sells better.
Let's say I'm running a Saga in Hibernia, and a Tribunal book for Transylvania just came out. I don't need it for my current Saga, my players aren't going anywhere near Transylvania for a bit, there aren't many Tremere around... so I might not buy the book until I need it. UNLESS, of course, I hear that there is a new magic system in it, or some really neat spell guidelines, cool spells, new rules for X or Y or Z. Those do have the potential to affect my Saga, so I'll run out and grab it.
So if crunch sells better, there's got to be a certain percentage of crunch in each new book. (Please note, I am not accusing Atlas of putting unnecessary crunch into books just to boost sales numbers. Unlike Certain Other Game Companies, they're really, really good about not doing that.) The bottom line is, we the players have a vested interest in having Ars Magica sell well so Atlas can keep publishing it, and keep up the quality of work we've been spoiled with. I'll put up with some crunch in pursuit of that goal.
whimper
My current Saga is actually in Novgorod. In the Ukrainian Carpathians. If you have a good throwing arm, you can hit Hungary with a rock from the covenant's parapet. So I'm really, really ticked at the fact I can't afford "Against The Dark" till next month.
I disagree, and I would not have bought C&G had it been the other way around.
What I'm looking for are solid, well-tested mechanics that are fun to play and support the setting's flavour -- with examples of how they can be used to this purpose. Getting that on my own is much harder than just looking up "mythical" information on Constantinople. Just read wikipedia, and you'll immediately see dozens of story opportunities.
Personally, I like it when the writers' creativity is kept in check. Because telling a writer "you can't do that" is often the best way to prevent that same writer from telling the players "you can't do that". I think David Chart has been a great line editor in this regard.
One of the strongest tensions I've seen between authors and players in rpgs is that many authors have these "cool ideas" that they'll try to impose on the game; and by doing so they disrupt the game for many players that have, so far, been playing in a certain way. When the writer gets criticized, his reaction is often along the lines "Oh, but how much cooler is it this way? And besides, you are free to ignore whatever I wrote, right?".
The first sentence is obviously false for that particular player. The second is also subtly false, or at least misleading. For if I, as a player, deviate from canon on rule X of supplement Y, then a lot of things that rely on rule X - for game balance, consistency between the game world and the rules etc. - will also be affected, and suddenly all Ars magica material I buy has much less value to me because I need to put a lot more effort into adapting it. This is not to say that I never make houserules; but every houserule I am forced to make by a game that does not match what I want reduces the value of the canon material to me.
Could you point me to where it says so in A&A or other books?
I agree that the universe complexity is great (different realms interacting, different techniques and forms, different traditions), and one of the things that makes Ars Magica great. However I believe it does not have to involve complex calculations and book browsing when spontaneously casting a spell.
As for True Names, knowing if it applies to angels is a matter of universe definition, let say a non-mathematical part of the system. It can be hard to know if it applies to a specific being if not explicitly written by the authors. However it does not have to be complex when applying it. For true names, it could be a simple flat bonus to casting total against the named creature.
Following Arm5 rules, to cast a spell to do some damage you have to
add the bonuses/maluses on the spell, forme, technique, stamina, mastery, stuff from supplement, etc. (good as it shows universe complexity, could be made easier by having character sheet taking them into account, smaller numbers to help mental calculations)
decide the spell level from the guidelines (bad, should either be taken into account in bonuses/maluses or be obvious from intended result, for instance lvl5 to do 5 damages, r/d/t is a great idea hindered by magnitude rules and character sheet)
maybe add some vis to help boost the spell (good idea, spending some points is quite clear, but do they have to be in a different scale! why not have uniform scale where +1 vis gives +1 casting level)
compute the spell penetration (taking into account the connections is good as it adds to universe complexity, but implementation is really bad as it is the third time I'm re-computing my spell results to optimize with a separate set of rules, should be simple set of bonuses for connections and maluses for resistance)
apply a various set of flaws/virtues linking your casting total and/or penetration (and target magic resistance) to fatigue, objects, environmental conditions (bad, should easily be taken into account into bonuses/maluses)
finally roll dices and apply the effect (and compute wounds from damages, armor, etc.)
