System Changes

[avenger314]

Since our feedback has been solicited, I'll provide it with honor:

-Shorten the gap between successfully casting a spontaenous spell and successfully casting a formulaic spell. The incentive for taking the time to learn a formulaic spell could perhaps be measured in botch dice: Casting a spontaneous spell could give +1 botch die/magnitude if a zero is rolled. You CAN cast a spont spell in dire need, and your total is just as good as a formulaic spell--but woe betide you on that 1-in-10 chance you threaten a botch.

-Have advancement be more balanced between seasons and quick adventures. Allow more incentives for magi to go on a quest, provide less pressure for magi to slam their sanctum doors shut when a quest beckons. As it stands now, the only benefits to going out are getting loot or solving a problem. Maybe award adventure XP in addition to study XP.

-Make it easier to learn/study magic outside current experience, such as a magic item or a non-hermetic effect.

-Better guidelines on some of the Arts, especially Muto. (Take it as a compliment that I higlight Muto in particular, it means I think you did an excellent job with the other 14 Arts).

-Better ways to make a 'type' of mage, as opposed to an art specialist. For example, guidelines and opportunities to make a necromancer, summoner, warder, beast mage, etc. There are some good options already existing, just listing an example for some useful 'how-to's.

-A more intuitive, streamlined combat section.

-Less 'meta-useful' Arts. This one is harder to explain. What I mean is, some Arts are incredibly useful in addition to their spells, some less so. For example, Creo, Intelligo, Vim, and Corpus are used in many different totals for all types of Magi, including creating vis, making longevity rituals, investigating lab enchantments, etc. Arts like Muto or Aquam, significantly less so--they do not factor into any important totals.

This is all I have for the moment. Again, I compliment you on Ars Magica. I first played it in 3rd ed many years ago, but only for a session or two. I ran a 4th ed saga from start to finish. We all enjoyed it even though we had some arguments about the rules. 5th ed was magnificent: I ran a saga and I hope to start another in a couple months, once I move back closer to home and my friends.

[gerg]

Just a note that physical forms (Auram, Aquam, Ignem, Terram, Herbam, Animal, Corpus) add their Form Bonus to your Soak against relevant damage, so they have some "meta-usefulness" as well.

[Vespasian]

@avenger314

-Shorten the gap between successfully casting a spontaenous spell and successfully casting a formulaic spell. The incentive for taking the time to learn a formulaic spell could perhaps be measured in botch dice: Casting a spontaneous spell could give +1 botch die/magnitude if a zero is rolled. You CAN cast a spont spell in dire need, and your total is just as good as a formulaic spell--but woe betide you on that 1-in-10 chance you threaten a botch.

this would severely diminish the motivation to spend the time to actually invent spells.
I must disagree.

-Have advancement be more balanced between seasons and quick adventures. Allow more incentives for magi to go on a quest, provide less pressure for magi to slam their sanctum doors shut when a quest beckons. As it stands now, the only benefits to going out are getting loot or solving a problem. Maybe award adventure XP in addition to study XP.

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.

-Make it easier to learn/study magic outside current experience, such as a magic item or a non-hermetic effect.

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.

-Better guidelines on some of the Arts, especially Muto. (Take it as a compliment that I higlight Muto in particular, it means I think you did an excellent job with the other 14 Arts).

I'd just really ike some definitions of 'natural' vs 'unnatural' for the muto guidelines.
muVi could also use some love.

-Better ways to make a 'type' of mage, as opposed to an art specialist. For example, guidelines and opportunities to make a necromancer, summoner, warder, beast mage, etc. There are some good options already existing, just listing an example for some useful 'how-to's.

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?

-A more intuitive, streamlined combat section.

Wow! Could you be a little more concrete?
Because I really think it is very simple, intuitive and streamlined as it is.

-Less 'meta-useful' Arts. This one is harder to explain. What I mean is, some Arts are incredibly useful in addition to their spells, some less so. For example, Creo, Intelligo, Vim, and Corpus are used in many different totals for all types of Magi, including creating vis, making longevity rituals, investigating lab enchantments, etc. Arts like Muto or Aquam, significantly less so--they do not factor into any important totals.

But then how would you do many of those "meta2 things? Purely on Magic Theory?

Not attacking, just disagreeing

[Jonathan.Link]

@avenger314

-Shorten the gap between successfully casting a spontaenous spell and successfully casting a formulaic spell. The incentive for taking the time to learn a formulaic spell could perhaps be measured in botch dice: Casting a spontaneous spell could give +1 botch die/magnitude if a zero is rolled. You CAN cast a spont spell in dire need, and your total is just as good as a formulaic spell--but woe betide you on that 1-in-10 chance you threaten a botch.

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.

@avenger314

-Have advancement be more balanced between seasons and quick adventures. Allow more incentives for magi to go on a quest, provide less pressure for magi to slam their sanctum doors shut when a quest beckons. As it stands now, the only benefits to going out are getting loot or solving a problem. Maybe award adventure XP in addition to study XP.

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.

@avenger314

-Better guidelines on some of the Arts, especially Muto. (Take it as a compliment that I higlight Muto in particular, it means I think you did an excellent job with the other 14 Arts).

Miner niggle, guidelines are based on a TeFo. Muto is pretty well defined for several of the forms. Muto Vim is a hot mess.

@avenger314

-Better ways to make a 'type' of mage, as opposed to an art specialist. For example, guidelines and opportunities to make a necromancer, summoner, warder, beast mage, etc. There are some good options already existing, just listing an example for some useful 'how-to's.

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.

@avenger314

-A more intuitive, streamlined combat section.

-Less 'meta-useful' Arts. This one is harder to explain. What I mean is, some Arts are incredibly useful in addition to their spells, some less so. For example, Creo, Intelligo, Vim, and Corpus are used in many different totals for all types of Magi, including creating vis, making longevity rituals, investigating lab enchantments, etc. Arts like Muto or Aquam, significantly less so--they do not factor into any important totals.

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.

@avenger314

This is all I have for the moment. Again, I compliment you on Ars Magica. I first played it in 3rd ed many years ago, but only for a session or two. I ran a 4th ed saga from start to finish. We all enjoyed it even though we had some arguments about the rules. 5th ed was magnificent: I ran a saga and I hope to start another in a couple months, once I move back closer to home and my friends.

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.

[avenger314]

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.

[Xavi]

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.

[Vespasian]

@avenger314

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.

Difficult Spontaneous Magic is generally a cheap-ish flaw.

There is a risk of tiring yourself out, and ofcourse the die is always stress - meaning there is a risk of botching.

Sometimes it is really nice to be able to cast minor effects without a diceroll.

[Jonathan.Link]

Here's the list of level 3 spells...

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...

[Richard_Love]

@Jonathan.Link

@avenger314

-Less 'meta-useful' Arts. This one is harder to explain. What I mean is, some Arts are incredibly useful in addition to their spells, some less so. For example, Creo, Intelligo, Vim, and Corpus are used in many different totals for all types of Magi, including creating vis, making longevity rituals, investigating lab enchantments, etc. Arts like Muto or Aquam, significantly less so--they do not factor into any important totals.

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.

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.

[Iudicium]

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!

[David_Chart]

@Iudicium

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.

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.

@Iudicium

That being said, I applaud the efforts made by Atlas for Ars Magica so far: keep up the good work!

Thanks! We do our best.

[Clemens]

@Iudicium

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!

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 !

[Fhtagn]

@Timothy Ferguson

I'd get rid of A&A: it's a great book, but it's the big book of "Timothy, you can't do that." when I'm writing, and if I keep stubbing my toes on it, new authors will have the same and worse. Also, it prevents the characters ever discovering something new on a cosmological level if you take it as Canon. I personally hate the idea that anyone's game is Canon, although I know many of you disagree, but there really shouldn't be a book telling me why I can't make a firearm (even though the Chinese have them in 1220), or why I can't discover the Earth goes about the sun (even though some ancient Greeks had worked it out), -unless- there's a pretty clear statement that if I want to have fun, then there's no actual reason I can't and canon be darned.

Ack, no! No!

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.

[Imrryran]

@Fhtagn

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.

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).

[archdeama]

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.

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!

[cunningrat1]

@Clemens

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.

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.

[Tellus]

@cunningrat1

and a Tribunal book for Transylvania just came out

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.

There is actually! To new types of hedgies

[cunningrat1]

@Tellus

There is actually! To new types of hedgies

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.

[Tellus]

@cunningrat1

@Tellus

There is actually! To new types of hedgies

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.

that's... 2 weeks? Are you even sure your local store will have it by then?

[ezzelino]

@Clemens

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.

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.