Where my perspective is that I want the flexibility to make my own worlds. D&D allows that, so long as they fit within the genre of swords and sorcery style fantasy. It also lacks any form of structural design elements beyond combat capabilities.
Ars magica has a great system, for a very narrow range of alternate histories where magic exists. I would like to broaden the scope.
1 Like
I like this revision.
I'd also add that you should include the point, in the second section, that:
"Virtues are about the stories you know you'll have, while Flaws are about the stories you'll be surprised with over the course of play."
(or approximately. I'm quoting you. Poorly, but it's a fundamental element that's really helped me explain Flaws in play that has got people not trying to figure out how to minimize them.)
That's the Saint Marinos I mentioned before.
Wow, no. Flaws are either stories that get in the way or elements that limit how you are able to deal with events around you.
- Story Flaws in particular are stories you're a fool if you're not expecting, even if your character doesn't.
- Personality Flaws also tend to generate stories - or at least scenes - that are, maybe, harder to predict.
But to claim that they are stories to be surprised over? Hardly.
I'm rather more surprised when someone comes up with a story based on my virtues...
2 Likes
I think it appears later and is backdated to the C13th.
Also, it's told by people who hate Catholics, so...
You force me to hunt it down. Specifically:
but as I noted, I was remembering it poorly, and relying on David to remember it better, hopefully with my prompt.
But I think my point falls in line with it, too. I make someone with Puissant Ability, I want to have stories where that character uses that ability. The SG goes in knowing I want that, and I have a reasonable expectation to use that ability. I expect my virtues to be the signposts to the playstyle I am hoping to see from arc to arc.
I make a character with Tormenting Master, I'm not expecting the wizard to show up all the time, their appearance will be a surprise. I don't expect flaws to be a part of every story, I expect them to be the spice that seasons the main course.
When you say "in the way," I see that as obstacles, which are at the heart of the stories-- the personalized challenges to overcome alongside the arc's external challenges.
When I say "surprised over" I mean that those Flaw-inspired stories are unexpected. For instance, the wizard went to meet with their Parens, and the Companion traveling with them was recognized by an old acquaintance in town who leaned on the Companion's Favors flaw, which created an entire subplot, separate from the wizard's primary mission.
You don't know when stories, arcs, scenes, events incorporating flaws will come up. They're "unexpected."
You plan on stories utilizing the elements of your Virtues, because those are the things you've built your character to do, and the SG is supposed to be paying attention to what characters are good at, and tailoring material to them is part of the gig.
1 Like
I would think that the 13th century has enough different works telling it. Backdating all of them would not have been possible.
Of course, neither is taking them as relevant historical sources on Pope Joan, Johannes Anglicus etc.
EDIT: The 13th century sources about Pope Joan are Dominican chroniclers, preachers and an early inquisitor: people who have their ear on the ground and are credible sources for hearsay and gossip of others. It is very telling that they believed it.
So it makes sense in your standard 1220 saga to have rumors about Pope Joan among clergy and townspeople.
1 Like
One difference being, at least according to the wiki article, that Saint Marina is still venerated by both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics as a saint, with this story told, which would be very difficult for Catholic haters to accomplish.
Which can be confirmed here on a website supported by the Catholic church.
@Jank, @Timothy_Ferguson and I were writing about 13th century sources mentioning Pope Joan.
Saint Marina is a Catholic saint. No Catholic haters involved there.
1 Like
That was not clear. Pope Joan is clearly a legend even if true, which is improbable. One does not keep their head down and make pope (except 1 time in the middle of the 12th century- pope Eugene III, but...)
@Colleen -- I very much approve of the adjustment of this flaw to "gender non-conforming," but was also concerned. The idea of Ars Magica explicitly defining playing a character of the female gender as a flaw didn't seem in-line with the conversations I'd had with the creators Jonathan Tweet, or Mark Rein*Hagen, or especially Lisa Stevens, who was responsible for editing and compiling the first and second editions of the game.
I have access to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions, so I reviewed them closely and didn't see it, and I am checking with a friend I know with a 1st edition, but I'm really trying find the reference you mentioned. I think it's important for the language here to be considerate in the edition going forward, and think the modification to "gender non-conforming" is good, but I also want to also understand the legacy of the game I love. Knowing the source of your experience would be important.
I also know that perceptions can be muddled or conflated with house rules on occasion. The existence of such text has really no impact on changing the flaw, but does reflect on the reputation of Ars-- I'd rather not have to have conversations with new players that begin, "Isn't there an edition of that game where being female identifying was a flaw?" It becomes an obstacle I don't want to need to overcome later.
Thanks for sharing your experiences and thoughts; they're very appreciated.
2 Likes
Hi,
I think that transvestite entered ARS magica in third edition, which perhaps itself encapsulates the entire problem. Third edition was extra special in some ways, especially as the line matured, if we wish to use that word. It was progressive in a very early 90s way, which is to say not at all progressive by today's standards. New paragraph new paragraph
I think it is fair to call that kind of sensitivity exploitative, though I do not believe it was deliberate. By some measure, it could be said that simply allowing the issue to be put into the spotlight is a step forward. I don't think it's true, neither then nor now, but it is an easy mistake to make. New paragraph
I suspect that any choice we make today will not hold up well 20 years from now. And some of those reasons 20 years from now will probably be good reasons, rather than just the flavor of the day.
I think it would be best for the flaw to be utterly removed. The flaws that are listed and the virtues and aspects of a character called out that are neither flaws nor virtue, represent areas that the game wants us to especially think about. By any name, an attribute of gender conforming or gender non-conforming or transvestite announces quote look pay attention to this unquote. New paragraph
A sidebar or section talking about gender roles with historical examples that be lie expectations might be more useful and more interesting say something about the world and let players do something with it.
But if this is something that we really do want to call out within the setting, then sure, we need something, similar to the way the game seems to need material about Judaism, even though no matter what is written it never sits comfortably. Though better than most games that try.
That said, I really like the proposed section about how story and personality flaws work.
Anyway,
Ken
5 Likes
To me these are all points about why the game should move away from being historical and towards a more fantasy setting as well. I mean if you do manage to strip all the bigotry out of the middle ages is it still the middle ages anymore? How do you stay out of that cesspool of controversy?
also worth consideration- if we stick to the idea of the middle ages as the people in the middle ages saw it, are homosexuals in the game generally condemned to hell? After all that would have been as much the prevailing opinion as demons allotted to the seven deadly sins.
1 Like
We've gotten a bunch of notices about posts in this thread being flagged for inappropriateness. I can see that it's a fraught subject, but I'd like to ask that if you want to join the conversation that you consider your words carefully. If we get more flag notifications I'll likely close the thread. Thank you for respecting your fellow forum users.
6 Likes
Hi Ben---
(direct answer) I'm not sure about the edition! This was mid 2000s but I don't know if my group was 'cutting edge' or using an older version. I hadn't considered that it might have been a house rule passed off as RAW... that's possible.... especially given the guys in the group. I was told I had to take the flaw, and it would limit my characters social reactions. Played for a few weeks, but wound up not feeling comfortable with the vibe. Years later I read a free online rulebook for Ars Magica (I think that was 4th edition?) saw that the rule had changed, and then started buying the 5th edition materials since that's what folks were currently playing. Thank you for checking earlier materials, I only have 4&5.
(less direct answer) I'm not sure how much the edition, or my faulty memory matters. My basic point was that being a woman isn't a flaw despite social realities of the time period, so why does trans or non binary identity need to be a flaw? I was only using my experiences to explain why the topic mattered to me, and why I was bringing up a sensitive subject.
Honestly, I'm kinda surprised that my recollection is an issue at all! I made a small proposal in a much larger series of errata suggestions. That post was shifted into it's own thread, at which point it triggered a whole lot of reactions. Some of those reactions were very angry/intense, so I tried to disengage and not respond rather than get sucked into an unhealthy dynamic, and even said as much in a post.
7 Likes
There's a couple of points to respond to here, but first I wanted to say, "thank you for replying; I appreciate it."
Most important here, I feel, was having the courage to say "couldn't we change the perception of this game element?" And I don't want to minimize it, but rather acknowledge it. I think the conversation out of it has been beneficial. It was a brave thing.
But, the concerning underlying point to your statement, which prompted me to go research, is that there could be an unidentified mechanical equivalent of a historical offense in the game. The memory isn't the point, the further, potentially hidden, hurtful choice was. A mechanical choice of that kind of tone deafness, on par with say Space:1889's only available character class for women being "adventurer" (or similar)-- that should be identified and resolved is not the sort of thing you want to discover on accident or have put up in counter-point, should you recommend this game to people, and I'm pretty regularly recommending it. I am sure there are other elements which could be considered insensitive, but that would have been pretty egregious. However, it also really didn't seem in-line with the values of the people I knew involved in Ars' creation and continued development, which also drove me to look. We can't address a problem we don't know about, and what was suggested was a pretty big problem, even if it was historical. It also would have fundamentally shifted perceptions of people involved in the game's creation; it was a question I, personally, really needed resolved.
Thank you again for your response. I appreciate it.
-Ben.
1 Like
I don't want to blow this out of proportion. Your post was far too well thought through for one issue to make a difference.
It is a fact though that the claim made many of us curious. Even if I did not post at the time, I was looking forward to the answer to the question made by others, because I wanted to look into it and understand how players and designers thought at the time. It's a different topic, but still one I would have found illuminating to look into.
If it turns out to be a case of faulty memory, as you put it, nobody is going to hold that against you (or at least I hope so). Thanks for clearing it up. Now I am happy to move on.
5 Likes
The topic of engagement, I think it's worth looking in to.
What is posted, not who posted it, should be the main reason to agree or disagree on an issue. The prevailing attitude seemed to be remove the flaw, until 3 key moments. We discovered a trans-gendered individual added the flaw to the books initially; a member of the LGBTQIA+ community recommended keep the flaw; and then someone who described themself as obese also said obese should be there, and the tone changed.
While clearly one should give a bit more weight to someone with a degree of lived experience, the forum is a tiny microcosm of the world. No group of people agree on everything. I am confident there are many people in the LGBTQIA+ community who would want the flaw removed, and many who want it kept.
Prior to post 78, it was a few dissenters saying keep the flaw, and most people were saying it is horrible, similar flaws are horrible, it must go, burn it with fire, if it must be kept the name flaw must be removed, Atlas should do better, etc. Post 78 we get someone saying the same as the dissenting voices previously but they say they are part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Third highest like count on the page, and the first saying keep the flaw that goes more than 3 likes.
The dynamic changes. That is mildly concerning. Is the outcome due to a well considered combination of arguments looked at based on their merit, or would it just depend on who was at the forum on any certain day and how they present?
I think earlier on I should have mentioned I have a genetic disorder called Dariers Disease (if you are bored,look it up. In Mythic Europe I'd be shunned, and also not have Bepanthan or Elocon). Maybe I could have changed the dynamic 50 posts earlier.
1 Like
Oh, this is a very good question, and one that I had not fully grasped in your original post.
First of all, remember that "Flaws" in ArM5 are aspects of a character that allow you to take Virtues, i.e. perks. Flaws are of three types: "normal" Flaws, that handicap the character (so they "balance" the perks); Story Flaws, that allow the SG to drag the character into external events (by taking them, you are "bribed" for making the SG's job easier); and Personality Flaws, that mostly constrain the behaviour of the character, allowing both more colourful characterization and more story opportunities.
Transvestite is a Personality Flaw. As written it does not make a character transgender (at least not in the sense of a mismatch between birth sex and gender self-image); neither does it make a character non-binary per se. It just says that one has chosen not to follow societal roles assigned to one's sex/gender, thus constraining behaviour and raising interesting story possibilities. Bradamante (the famous female warrior from Orlando Furioso) is a typical character with this Flaw -- she fights with men and attired as a man, but she still feels and looks a woman, and is attracted to men. A woman leading a congregation as a (rather heretical!) priest would be another good match.
Why is Female not a Flaw in ArM5? The answer "because it would not be politically correct" is not the only one; it's also not the most interesting one, in my opinion.
It would be hard to make Female a "normal" Flaw. The average female probably does incur, on average, slight in-game mechanical handicaps compared to the average male. For example, females are on average slightly smaller and slightly weaker than males. Also, in medieval times, they are often beholden to their husbands and fathers. However, they also enjoy a number of perks: for example, they are often far more shielded from violence by custom. The crux is that in that "average" there's a whole lot of perks and handicaps packaged together, most of them of really small mechanical impact, and typically eclipsed by an individual's own specific characteristics. So it is far more effective to just ignore the vast majority of those little "nudges", select the aspects that are most relevant to the character, and upgrade them to full Virtues and Flaws, that are often available to male characters too. I would stress this is true of social status too: a sizable minority of women in the middle ages were the head of their household, de facto if not in name.
It would be even harder to make it a Story Flaw. Just being female does not mean external stories tend to hit a character any harder or in any very specific way. Sure, one can be a coveted Heirress, an Envied Beauty, etc. but those are not intrinsecally tied to being female -- despite perhaps being associated more often to females in folklore.
A slight case could be made about Female being a Personality Flaw: it could be argued it's an internal trait that tends to constrains a character's behaviour, and generates story opportunities; note that this could be equally argued about a Male Personality Flaw. But it is too vague, generic and stereotypical to make for good characterization. It is much more effective to force a player, who wants to play a character strongly defined by being female, to think more deeply about the specific way in which being female defines the character -- and take the corresponding Personality Flaw. Transvestite is a fitting example: it's strongly character-defining, and a story magnet, to be female for a warrior or a would-be priest in most of medieval Europe. Hence, in this particular case, Transvestite is a good Personality Flaw for a female character.
3 Likes
ugh. Some of y'all really do know how to leech all the joy out of a game.
I raised a suggestion. I didn't want an endless argument. When the topic blew up, in my first response, I tried to reply to as many folks as possible, but the interface limited me to ~10 name mentions, so I scaled it back. After that, it seemed a fool's errand to reply to every thing that was posted, especially because there were so many other thoughtful voices in the mix, so I didn't bother.
One person kept calling me out by name, and put up several posts asking the same question over and over. To me, that indicated a sense of entitlement... that I was somehow required to respond to him merely because he wanted attention. As a forum reader, I'd seen lots of threads devolve from rich discussions into these ping-pong parleys between just two people. It's a bad outcome.
I answered Ben's question for two simple reasons. The first was that he asked nicely. The second is more complicated, but here goes...
In my late teens I played a few sessions of Ars Magica. I was told the rules required me to take a certain flaw, so I did. During play, I was told that flaw meant there were penalties to some actions (trying to threaten an innkeeper) but bonuses to others (just try to flirt with the innkeeper.) I eventually stopped playing with those guys. But I've always been kind of embarrassed about the whole episode.
Fast forward over a decade. It wasn't until Ben's post that I realized..."wait, what if that wasn't in the real rules at all?" It's a pretty sad realization that I was not only dumb enough to play act some weird as*****s weird turnon, but I'd been gaslit into doing it. I'm also kind of ashamed at myself for never insisting on seeing the written text. And more embarrassed that I brought my misunderstanding up here.
So... since people are harping on it "Yes, I was wrong about the text in earlier editions. Yes I'm an idiot."
Does my limited bad experience still matter? Well, yes, it kind of does.
I still don't play table top games very often because that sort of stuff keeps happening, and not just to me. An earlier post'er told a really sweet story about playing with his young niece. That story got me in the feels because I grew up playing rpg's with with parents and uncles. But eleven year old girls don't stay eleven year old girls forever. They become seventeen year old girls, and twenty year old women, and sometimes even seventy year old men. And as they do, the tabletop can become less like arcadia and a lot more infernal.
The "transvestite" flaw irked me so much because I saw it as a way for some bigot to weaponize the rules against another player. I thought that was what happened to me. In fact, what happened to me wasn't supported by the rule set; but the RAW could put a butch woman or more effeminate man in the same pickle. All the while, a bigot could hide behind their supposed mastery of, and fidelity to, the core rules.
This thread has spiraled so far off the original point. For the record, I never tabbed anyone's post as inappropriate. I just tried to turn my own attention to more enjoyable threads.
12 Likes