The books are by tribunals, not empires, so that is correct, this focuses on the Italian peninsula and related islands.
There may also be room for some little contributions towards the greater effort, too. For example, there would be lots of past winners from the contests at Verdi. Writing up a handful of them as examples while leaving a lot unstated for openings for SG's to insert their own could allow for a lot of creative examples of magic item creation. Maybe some people who couldn't invest enough time to write a chapter might be able to help out in efforts like this.
Well, no. All the books have been written through directed collaboration.
The problem is that, say, Marko writes something saying that Flambeau was Spanish, and Timothy writes something saying that Flambeau was Greek, and both of them want to put it into the book. Both think that their approach is vastly superior to the other. If you want a coherent book, you need someone with the authority to say "Flambeau was Spanish. Sorry, Timothy, you need to revise". If you're lucky, you don't need to use that authority very much, but it needs to be there. (The fact that it is there motivates the authors to find a compromise they both like, before one gets imposed.)
As I said, I agree with Timothy that this is unlikely to work.
A less tightly constructed frame also makes it easier to include small contributions, like Verdi contest winners, because you don't have to reject people's submissions for not fitting canon.
Why would Flambeau be Greek? Spain was at least in the midst of Reconquista, Greece might have been involved with a minor religious conflict between Constantinople and Rome. I realize this is an off the cuff example, but the fact is there are ways to pursue the questions according to cannon and historical context rather than just authority.
Flambeau is 8th century. The siege of Constantinople, when the Eastern Empire halted the advance of the Muslim armies, happened in 718 (relying on Wikipedia for exact dates...). Quite possibly within his lifetime, and certainly within that of his master. Arab attacks on the Eastern Empire continued until the mid 8th century, at which point the Eastern Empire started attacking them.
Normally, the authors have taken canon and historical context into account when making up their work. Often, when they discuss it with each other, they come up with a compromise. When they can't, there normally are no useful canonical or historical facts to use to break the deadlock; that's why there's a deadlock. In those cases, you need someone to decide. Those cases don't always come up, but they're not infrequent.
An even simpler problem is when two people want to do Ravenna. You can't have two versions of Ravenna in a book if you want it to be coherent, so you need some way to decide who gets to do Ravenna, or at least whose version of Ravenna will be in the book. If it's just a collection of articles, then if both people really want to do Ravenna, you can have two articles about Ravenna, and players can pick.
Presumably because the person volunteering to write him as Greek has an idea about it they really like. See also "Why are the Jerbitons now Greek?", "Since when have House Tytalus been lepers?", "Bonisagus and Trianoma had kids?" and "Stonehenge is a core Tribunal?"
Attacking the example doesn't attack the wider point, which is that in your model, you need to tell a volunteer that their work is not welcome, when they can instead write this idea they really like for their own blog, or Sub Rosa, or Project Redcap...and you are going to have to do it a lot, particularly if you want to cleave to canon, because canon's full of snares. I trip over them all the time - except on my blog where I get to just ignore them. There are really big bits of canon where I tried something, was told it was not allowed, and then needed to work from scratch. See Thomae's Flying Castle, for an example: the reason it's a con is because I couldn't have it straight. In this volunteer environment, I'm not sure why anyone would do that: why not just publish their first approach on the web?
I tell you what, though. Rather than arguing like this in a circle, those of you who think it'll work as a book, give it a go. Either you are right and it'll work as a book, or when it splits into pieces you can try to keep the goodwill level high enough to change models to the non-book model. The key bit's the middle bit; when it begins to disintergrate you need to spto the point where you need to shift models.
Yes, but we're in 1220 now, and Venice 16 years after the Fourth Crusade is definitely a major player in the Mediterranean. So I think we could rightly make Venice be now something similar to the big deal it erroneously was in 3rd edition.
I volunteer to put whatever is done into a PDF file, as I've done that before, though only for amateur projects.
Oh: 5th stats or no stats like Heirs to Merlin?
5th stats. Certainly.
I agree, 5th stats.
What about having the Tribunal led by a Triumvirate drawn from the three Domus Magnae, instead of the more usual model? If the Mercere/Redcap and Veditius members were also afforded Quaesitor status, they'd be co-equals. The parallel to parts of Roman history wouldn't be a bad thing either.
The triumvirate was a short lived piece of Roman history which wound up dividing the empire, I don't really see it being a huge influence on the Order of Hermes.
Hmmm... Separate from all the above posts, should we consider starting up a parent directory (probably as a PbP game) to contain all these threads?
There may have been a Triumvirate, but such things are unstable. The status of Verdi as Domus Magna is now questionable, anyway.
I propose a Roman civic system, with the magi as senators and an elected consulate, two magi. The Praeco chairs Tribunal, but the consuls administer and organize and manage, and should not be the Praeco, or Primi, or leaders of covenants - possibly not any office holders; no quaesitors or Redcaps. A power sharing arrangement.
Quaesitors are professionals, who must qualify. It is not a status to be granted by Tribunal.
There would be no Popular Assembly; who cares what the grogs think on mage issues?
Notion seconded. Put someone (anyone) in charge of it.
We will need a canon check thread. In there we put all the references we find to the Roman tribunal in published 5th edition material to reduce inconsistencies. We need one person to edit (copy and paste individual contributions into the first post of the thread (I volunteer for that). That means everyone can help find stuff, but it is all in one post - easy to find. No point in starting one yet - it'll go in the new forum folder (if we get one).
Example:
-
Covenants:
1.1 Magvillus
HoH:TL 43: ...
1.2 Harco -
Magi
2.1. Bilera ex Guernicus, Archmage
HoH:TL 43f.: interest in horticulture, vis gardening, small, soft-spoken, sharp-eyed, intuitive, quiet, disarming
I have put in a request for a forum for writing the Roman Tribunal.
To add fuel to the fire...
:mrgreen:
In the example, someone might have a really cool idea for a Greek Fambeau. Someone else might point out current Flambeau has an unknown identity but is prolly French. A third person might point out original Fambeau was a Visigoth from Hispania. They would call him Spanish (an anachronism), and a fourth person may say he is Portuguese.
A leader is needed, not to direct people, but to settle disputes and make a decision on which option works best with the material at hand.
A leader or a really strong consensus... who am I kidding, even I don't believe that's going to happen.