What Mythic Europe do YOU want?

Games Discussion Ars Magica
21

I'm been avoiding this thread because i didn't want to vote on it. Initially I thought some of the detail that followed an option sort of tainted the option in a manner I didn't like. But I just can't shut up.

I guess I feel that because every campaign is indepenant I sort of feel that the answer to this question is novel at best.

So I play in a game where the 2nd/3rd edition inclusion of Tremere dabbleing in vampirism resulted in the Renounciation and destruction of House Tremere. So what?

I love the Ars5 version of the Tremere and I don't expect anyone to follow the nuanced covenant-centric history of my game. My specific game has dramatically changed the nature of the Order of Hermes. It has also changed the nature of the Church. In a world where the Church 'for sure' knows that magic is real, in a real world history where the Church at least discussed what to do with heretical off shoots, Inquisition and Crusade were not the only answers. Our campaign had a tenative 'get to know you better' truce between the Church and Order. No one save the top-dogs seems to like this, but the upper echelon is pushing it forward as the massess of both wizards and priests protest.

This is my campaign, I wouldn't expect anyone but the troupe I'm part of to play in it. So I'm just not sure about this topic. I suppose if the publishers of Ars are reading this then I would adamantly say, No fundamental change.

I say that because the core setting is so inspiring it allows you to have the options above. It allows you to make a Order at odds or at peace with the Church. It allows you to have a militant Order or a democratic Order or a completely disorganized weak Order of Hermes. The core setting allows for each of us to explore Mythic Europe in exactly the way we want to explore it and not make us right or wrong.

I guess writing this post and has made up my mind. For me personally, the answer would be a change in world, Order, and History. In terms of how I'll vote, "No Fundamental Change."

22

While I agree that history can and in some way does change, I also like to think that there is also a thrust for time to generally pull itself back onto track.

Say Alexander was stopped from conquoring much of the world. Then someone else with a goal of hellenization then did the conquest. There may be some subtle differances and names could change but essentially the central events will still occur in some way.

Control a pope so his thoughts are really friendly towards magi and some cardinals will essentially take it upon themselves "for the good of the church" to attack magi and rebalance the equation.

I do though allow for more room in changing the history of the Order because I do not believe the history of the Order is really fixed. Players can make more changes or the storyteller can play more with how the history of the order occurs.

If players want to set up a library to rival Duremar than all the more power to them.

If players want to see if they can add the strength of lyncanthropes, vampirism, or mummification to their nature to help them survive longer or better than let them do it and let the story unfold.

If players want to set up a covenant in a faerie realm or decide to help the fae retake England then again, let the story go. It may even have elements far better then you originally thought and present scenarios that have not been discovered.

Use flaws and story hooks to move things along but don't let them be the stars of the show. The ingenuity of players should be the stars as they reach out with near limitless characters to make a future of their choosing.

23

I don't think history has a thrust (though the Divine might provide one in game); stuff just happens. Some stuff is harder to derail than others, like Europeans finding the New World and subsequent smallpox genocide. But there's probably room for individuals making big differences, too: what if Alexander hadn't died so young, and had left an heir? World War II might have been inevitable after Versailles but the Holocaust was probably Hitler's mad dream. George Washington might not have set a precedent of taking only 2 terms and the US could have had a much different 19th century -- Manifest Destiny probably still manifesting, but a faster move to centralized or even strongman government, perhaps. Lincoln might not have been assassinated and managed Reconstruction better. Someone besides Bonaparte might have hijacked the French Revolution, but someone else might not have conquered Europe. No asteroid and the dinosaurs keep on going... some things are set by geography and economics, others are sensititive to random events or cataclysms.

24

If you start a game with a "historicaly accurate Mythic Europe" (an apparently silly statement but it's clear what you meant) then no changes that characters make will be sufficient to make it feel to me like forgoten realms. You'll still have the church, the history, the languages, the holy land, etcetera... . in fact, putting a shapchanged pretender on the throne of england and having them solidify royal control of wales will push you more into historical Europe than leaving the stting alone and trating it with kid gloves.

I'd say that more often then not I've had the begining of saga planned out and hte ends of sagas roughly sketched. But there have also been games that I 've played troupe style which didn't work as well with this sort of planing (not that everyone didn't have a rough agenda for their own plot). However I didn't always have my end of saga mesh with written history and I don't believe that you could make a convincing case doing so isn't a good deal more restrictive than failing to do so.

If you sart a game with the idea of having the Mongols attack and the PC's after great trial and tribulation turn them back in hungary (perhaps by causing them great problems at home) then you've got a plan that fits fairly close to history. Yet if the players through wit, brillience, and really buckling down and mastering mentem manage after great trials and tribulation to send the mongols south into the holy land overrunning much of islamic civilisation and manipulate them into setting up the covenant as the overlords of Kiev as the city grows in culture and importance to dwarf its historical state then how do you handle it?

Do you keep putting larger and larger barriers in the way of the PC's in order to keep history on the "right tracks" even if the obsticles are completely out of proportion to what is justified in the setting? Or do you put whatever opposition in their way that will be the most fun (and hurting susspension of disbeleif is not fun in my book) and let the cards fall where they may scrapping your ending completely and taking the game and history in an entirely different dirrection?

A loaded question to be sure, but I'm trying to see how are you frameing things so that preventing characters from seriously changing history is somehow not restrictive.

Could your provence saga have ended differently with the covenants surviveing the crusade untouched and provential culture relatively unharmed, the cathar question resolved through negotiation or some such or would you have proceeded down your conjectured path regardless of the actions of the PC's in this particular area?

25

I think the trick for those who DO like keeping history totally accurate is also allowing the players to feel like the make any difference. If you railroad history, they'll feel impotent and soon begin to chafe. By the nature of roleplaying games, characters are history makers, no idle followers. They need to feel important, at least at the local scale. Rob them of that, and their love of the game will diminish, which is a bad thing, 'cuz this is such a cool game.

26

Yes, I'd concur with that, in the abovementioned saga, the players could and did shape the details of events, though they were unable to prevent the eventual outcome.

I think I'd agree rather less with this assertion, however. The choices a player character makes and their consequences need to be important to that player and character to create an emotive, dramatic story, but I wouldn't say that it is important for the enjoyment of the game that they affect the wider world.

I suppose it could, but had it done so, it would have had far less emotive impact. My intention was to tell a story of decline and fall brought about by pride and folly, brought out on different levels throughout the saga through recurring motifs and allegories, and personal subplots exploring the same themes. I'm a firm believer in the 'smoke and mirrors' school of writing and running roleplaying games. To have allowed the players to, for instance, stop the crusade, protect the Cathars, and save the Order would have subverted the purpose of the story, and, in my opinion, cheapened the roleplaying experience. To use Ron Edwards' terminology, I'm interested in narrative, not simulation.

To answer your question, I don't think that sticking, however approximately, to established history, or to an overarching plot, restricts the elements of the game that are, to me, fun and important; well-realised characters facing meaningful personal choices when confronted with dramatic situations. As I have said in another post, I am not attempting to insist that this is the only way to play, merely to make the case for this particular style of game.

27

Of course, this is a matter for personal taste. I feel uncomfortable in sagas where my character is limited by a preordained plot. I feel railroaded and impotent. The SG may have a plot in mind, but if the players can't steer it in another direction then I think he's clinging too much to it. It's their tale as much as it is his, roleplaying isn't novel writing.
In the longest recent D&D campaign which I DMd, the PCs were initially going to get enmeshed with a court's politics. They instead fled the country when confronted by an attempt to pin a murder on them. Then their goal changed to spies, and I designed a border war they would be a part of. Then they moved too deep into enemy lands, and I started a plot of them corrupting the enemy capital instead. Then the campaign ended, but that's not the point. The point is the story changed in response to the character's actions.

Then again, I just don't care for melancholic tales of decline and fall. I like optimistic tales of rejuvination and triumph through tribulations. Differet tastes.

28

Our troupe is very free form. As a troupe we often very casually engage in table talk concerning the goals of our characters and what we want them to do. Now while we all have clear and specific goals for our characters we realize that none of us are gauranteed to accomplish those goals or perhaps we accomplish them, but not in the manner we anticipated or the time we thought it would take.

As a GM I typically have clear motives for characters and those motives allow me to alter the plans or course of the adventure as needed. This allows me to circumvent the issue of a linear adventure. Certain scenes may still play out, but I feel the troupe believes it can do whatever it wants.

Our gaming sessions are often like improv theatre. We play with dice, and rules, but we also use Whimsy Cards and encourage table talk. These last two elements allow the players to engage in the storytelling process.

I may have an adventure where the troupe is going to be set up for murder, but maybe they figure out my clues and don't fall for the trap. I could as GM make them get setup for murder anyway, but they out witted me and that should be rewarded. I think it's simple to change the story to, "Now what's the bad guy going to do?" Does he blame someone else, does he think someone suspects him, if so does he try to run? I reshape my plans as would any person who has had their plans changed rather than ignore the actions of the players and force my message across.

In terms of tales of decline and fall vs. rejuvination and triumph. I don't think I play either. As Kryslin will attest to, my stories typically involve a variant on the burden of responsiblity theme, "With great power comes great bureaucracy."

People that are actively involved in politics, simply don't have time to adventure, and the more problems they try to solve, the more issues they need to address. Our campaign is divided into senior magi and junior magi and while the senior magi get to make all the important decisions, I think it's the juniors that have all the fun.

And if were going to bring Lord of the Rings into it, consider how much time Gandalf spent riding between Kingdoms talking with Kings compared to fighting the Balrog. I'd have white hair to I had to negotiate that mess.

29

Quoted for emphasis.
Don't get me wrong, while I am heavily in the "Change The World" camp, the setting does and should accomodate all the options. Its part of what makes it great.

I am surprised so many people want No Fundumental Change. I guess many games are about problems within the setting so a change in the world isn't conductive for the saga.

30

For my part the main thing I knew was wanting something other than No Fundamental Change. I ended up voting for "Change in the World", but you could count my vote as spread out over the changes.

And, you know: given the assumptions that a Platonic/Aristotelian worldview makes sense and modern scientific inquiry doesn't, the history of Mythic Europe is going to have start changing in a few centuries, unless you commit White Wolf and have reality itself change. This is a world where illness is really caused by bad air, or demons, not germs, where Newtonian momentum doesn't exist, where magic is never going to figure out "oxygen", where humans really are distinct from animals... the scientific revolution is going to go splat. What will Mythic Galileo see in his telescope? Will he have a working telescope?

31

Tangential, but: What are Whimsy Cards?

32

Evidence that Tuura is a true grongdad. :slight_smile:

See here.

33

Thanks!

34

Cranky OLD grongdad thank you. Yeah I picked them up the same day I bought Ars2.

I've never seen that list on line before. We laminated our cards and recently someone in the troupe had the radical of idea of retireing them and making new cards on better card stock. Our home made cards are actually better quality than the ones I paid for so many years ago.

Whimsy's are long gone in terms of ability to purchase them, but I suppose a savy troupe could easily make them. There are rules to Whimsy's but we sort of through them out years ago (though I still have the Lion Rampart Rules page).

Other games and companies have emulated Whimsy's, Atlas has the Dork 20 cards, I think Torg had cards (never played it). Whimsy's illegitimate offspring were Storypaths, which I have somewhere. I'm sure other companies have swiped the idea as well.

Basically each member of the troupe has these cards that have ideas or bits or inspiration, such as "Second Chance". The basic idea is that during the course of storytelling, a troupe member sees an opportunity to contribute to the story so they put down their Whimsy Card and improve the story.

Player, "Second Chance. Osco doesn't call the man an ass, he calls him Sir in a very nice voice."

As a storyguide I try my best to make everyone happy and provide an exciting adventure. But some element of being a storyguide involves just listening to all the players. I feel that as I navigate the players, my ability to see all the options narrow. Furthermore, I do not believe all my ideas are the best idea. So it's very refreshing to me to have someone either shout out or write a note and pass it with a Whimsy and add a storytelling element that simply never occured to me. Sometimes these ideas are terrible (and I veto them), but sometimes they are sheer brilliance, and idea or an opportunity that is much better than what I planned. That's another thing, Whimsy's make the Storyguide look good when in fact it's the players that are doing all the work. LOL

Ars has always pushed troupe style play. It encourages the style as multiple Storyguides and the ensemble cast allows players to have influence over all levels of the game. I feel that Whimsy's take that shared storytelling experience and takes it to the next level. Much of the multiple storyteller process allows for group collaboration in the plotting and the over all course of the game. But Whimsy's allow the troupe to make that shared storytelling experience an active element during play.

My troupe of friends and players have been active players of Ars since 2nd edition. We obviously love the game, but I think it's Whimsy's that allowed each participant to sincerly have an active stake in each and every session. That constant feeling of being a contributeing member to the story, and our friendship is likely the reason we keep gaming together. That and the kick ass magic system/setting. :wink: