If we stick with just the core mechanics, and ignore both the narrative complexity of sagas running decades and the added complexity of the supplements, we still have quite a few.
Lab totals adding up half a dozen scores, and a starting character having a hundred relevant totals, so you are never going to precalculate them.
Spell mechanics, where an effective magus player must be able to juggle at least fifty art combinations with some quite unobious interpretation, and manage extra magnitudes along four axes (R/D/T/size), where magnitudes move in steps of either 1 or 5.
Experience points being counted in two-digit numbers and multiplication by five.
Combat. With five different totals to be calculated, four for each strike, and who remembers that damage/soak are not rolled if there is an attack roll, but rolled if there is not.
Recovery being rolled, with catastrophic results if you are not careful getting a good healer to help you.
The constant judgment call of whether to use a stress or simple die.
As mentioned, a little too many bonuses to consider for ability rolls.
Now, I am necessarily suggesting that every complexity can be removed, but it is a fact that it puts people off.
In practice there are two things which makes the group lose momentum.
The lab rules which means that without suitable skill and understanding of mental arithmetics, you are not going to see what your magus is able to do, and be unable to direct him efficiently.
The combat system which takes a long time to get smoothrunning, even for most players with good arithmetics skill.
It is hard to see how to resolve 1 without losing the key point of ArM, but 2 sticks out like a sore thumb. It is particularly slow for people who make combat a minor part of the game, and therefore do not practice it often.
Some of my answers will explicitly compare the 5th edition to older editions.
This is because of @Echo's comments refering back to the 1st and second editions, above.
Why not? Even if you're not using Metacreator, surely you can simply use a spreadsheet to keep running track of those totals? I know I did, 15 years ago before I met Metacreator.
I'm a little curious about these "quite unobvious interpretations", but then, I may simply have been playing Ars for soo long that they seem reasonable to me.
The magnitude steps of 1 or 5 is indeed a bother, and one of the things I make sure to be very explicit about when introducing new people to the system.
This complexity entered into the game when the 4th edition changed spells levels from something that was estimated by each troupe, into something that could be calculated. In other words, it's a result of the internet. So why not use computers to solve this "problem"?
... stems from the above-mentioned fan community desire to have Arts based on XPs.
They specifically and explicitly were not in the first 3 editions. These editions also had much simpler libraries.
Most of these totals can be pre-calculated. The main difficulty here is that subtraction is a more complex mathematical operation than addition. Though either should be trivial.
As for the anomaly with damage/soak being rolled if there was no attack roll, I agree. Our local houserule was to make the finesse (targeting) roll an attack roll, and then use the system as normal. Much easier.
Depressingly realistic, especially given medieval medicine.
By comparison, the automatic recovery found in most other games, tends to make me feel that they are simple combat simulators.
But you're right, it's a complexity.
Isn't that usually obvious though? Or is that just our troupe?
I believe I mentioned this myself. And to me, it's a weird one.
Mostly it comes down to a single modifier, plus what's on your sheet.
And I honestly think that expecting people to know what's on their own character sheet is reasonable enough.
Absolutely. But I think the reputation of Ars Magica is much worse than reality.
Post character creation anyways. 5th edition's character creation is a mess.
This is not my feeling, but again, I may have become to used to it. Can I call a friend? (as they say) @Christian_Andersen: Does combat seem slow or complex to you? Has Martin complained? Anyone else that you can recall?
Sagas being long, and the lab system actively not just permitting but encouraging people to add to the setting and opportunities are probably one of the greatest draws of Ars Magica, and definitely a source of what is perceived as 'complexity'.
That would make me sad. One of the things that have always fascinated me with Ars Magica is that there are multiple magical traditions, that are actually, mechanically differentiated.
I recognize that it adds complexity. But I crave it.
as newcomer to Ars Magica I would like to add, that the rules for sagas running over decades is specifically what drew me to Ars magica.
After having read the rules on of the things I liked the most were: The wound recovery rules and the general rules for being wounded. Ars magica is the first system I have played in for over a decade where getting wounded is a problem.
The flexibility of the magic system is of course an obvious draw but the above were just as much reasons for me lobbying my group to try out the system.
The character creation of course sucks. My wife and I had to take an entire day of making random characters just to get confident enough in the system to feel ready to teach our group how to do it. There are way too many narrow abilities and character creation is not explained well enough. That is my main grievance with Ars magica 5th edition.
I dont mind the complex rules for all sorts of different hedge traditions either. Sure my group dont use them but its nice to know that they are there for when we are ready for them.
I really like the diverse traditions. But in the end there is a lot of clutter there. Faerie magic, infernal magic and divine magic all uses the Te+Fo combo, and they work well. Gruagach and other traditions do as well. You do not need a diversity of mechanics to have diverse traditions. They have new guidelines for sure, but their mechanics are identical to those of hermetic magi.
But the clutter is in other parts more than here. We do not need armor rules like the one sin lords of men. or complicated rules for sword production. That is for other game systems IMO. YMMV and I am sure it does. But for me a game that centres about the mystical world and has lots of rules for mundane economics is not doing a great job.
In general my main gripe with ArM5 is that magi are superheroes that will destroy Mythic Europe in less than 100 years. the Order of Hermes is too powerful unless you suspend disbelief into a Marvel Europe, not a mythical one. that is what I would try to correct. powerful for sure, but not continent-changing.
I know that for me, everything that has been proposed for elimination is a reason I play Ars Magica instead of simply grabbing some of the core concepts and implementing them in GURPs. if your modifications eliminate what makes the game distinct then you have no market.
I recall no complaints.
Ars Magica combat is IHMO simple. It has few choices and very simple calculations.
Rolling BOTH attack AND defense, is that more complex than just rolling attack then damage then subtract from HP?
Itâs not that I want things to be complex. I just want tactical choices, variation and at times real simulations but other times more cinematic is more fun.
I canât fathom that the math is hard. Granted, Iâm an engineer. But then again I use calculator for anything beyond the simplest things, depending on how accurate I need it to be.
Maybe find a game system with looser (or no) numbers? The theme and setting should be useful for anything.
I tried, but there where too many variations. Fifty TeFo combos, with/without familiar, with/without M. Theory Speciality, with/without nocturnal or other modi of work, with/without inventive genius, and if you want to plan your work and push limits, you need to keep the numbers in your head when you play with different possibilities. I don't complain, but then my head is fairly robust to numbers, and I can see why others are scared off.
Just to satisfy your curiosity. A couple of things which are not immediately, and puzzle new players until explained very carefully explained.
Lightning is Auram.
The target of WIngs of the Soaring Wind is not the person flying.
When you have seen enough examples, it all becomes clear. The problem is the time used to consider and explain alternatives interrupting the game.
In all groups I have played in, we have struggled to get combat run smoothly. There is simple a few more steps than in most other games.
Of course, the troupe style play with grogs on top of the main PCs add complexity here.
PC: Roll awareness, please.
Player 1: Does «keen eyes» apply?
Player 2: Does «good hearning» apply?
Player 3: Does «alertness» apply?
(Player 4-5 had found specialities too much to cope with)
By all means, some challenges are overcome with experience, some are overcome by good planning (which is much easier with experience), some are necessary because of the nature of the stories ArM wants to tell, but if once you consider a new edition or a similar system, it is worth thinking carefully of what can be changed to appeal to a wider audience.
Obviously, the members of this forum are people who can cope with whatever complexity Ars Magica has. My concern are the potential players who prefer simpler systems. My dream is a system which attracts more players to the long game of lab work and down-time advancement.
RPG complexity is not about the core die rolling mechanic. GURPS is generally regarded as complex, but everything is roll 3d6. Heck, outside of RPGs, we have ye old wargames like Third Reich whose core die rolling mechanic is even simpler. And let's not mention ASL.
Complexity is more about the number of options, and especially the number of special and corner cases. It's about weird rules that are counter-intuitive and hard to understand. Like, you know, the Sisyphean treadmill of explaining Parma and Magic Resistance. Or the cosmic horror that is MuVi. Or the inscrutable koan of Perdo, which cannot make something better yet is used to make weightless armor.
It's about the proliferation of diverse magic traditions whose deviations from a Hermetic baseline involve subtle and easy to miss wordings with unexpected implications.
It's about knowing that you have to keep a close eye on the text, because adding to a roll is not quite the same as adding to a total, and that modifying a Casting Score differs from modifying a Casting Total.
It's about a magnitude sometimes being 1 and sometimes being 5, except for traditions in which it is 3.
It's about appreciating the difference between an Art and an Ability, some of which are Difficult and Accelerated respectively, and understanding that an Art is sometimes not an Art at all but actually an Ability, even though Art is right there in the name.
Which honestly for AM breaks down into separate but inter-related categories of actual complexity and clarity of text. The second is something that could certainly be improved upon and if a 6th edition is to be made should be improved upon. Simple things like not calling turbs grogs, and having one meaning for specialists and separate word for the other concept would make the game much easier to understand.
Exactly. And I agree.
So the only reason to make a new edition is to make something which attracts myriads of new players.
Current fans do not need new rules, we need new players.
one thing has occurred to me recently- in old editions the Divine was seen as the enemy. The current version has gone to what I would see as the other extreem, describing movements which were the forefathers of Protestantism as being infernal because they were decried heresies at the time and making the Church far more monolithic than it was.
at the time of the earlier editions there was an appeal to being anti-Catholic between the huge athiest/pagan overlap with the subculture of gamers and certain scandals, plus the fact that it was a period in which church attendance was dropping precipitously. As culture swung toward a much slower decline in Christian religiosity the game moved to embrace the divine as something more benevolent, if inconvenient to mages.
Today Christianity has, at least in the US, seen a drop of 10% representation across the population within the last decade- if a 6th edition is going to come out, perhaps it is time to swing a bit more the other direction. After all this was a time when the Catholic church as a political institution was at war with the Holy Roan Empire, the middle east, northern Iberia and southern France simultaneously. Perhaps the Divine should be portrayed a bit less monolithically and benign.
I'd like to give what I'm doing in my IRL saga as the main (but only beta) storyguide:
"Roll an auditive awareness roll. Tel me your score, and the applicable specialty. I'll apply it or not, so that you do not get an inside clue on what will happen" (ie if I tell "alertness specialty", players know they are in trouble and act differently as if they didn't know).
Dumb players always ask "X specialty apply?", and I always say no to dumb players. Too bad for them not respecting the instructions.
I always say specifically for Awareness rolls which sense is important, and players know whether to add their speicality.
But I don't mind people asking, it takes so little time.
We're also open with regards to which Characteristic applies, and often two seem relevant, depending on how you do things. Or if a CHarm roll is asked for, a player might say their character does it in a different way, describe it, and want to use Intrigue instead.
As long as it makes sense we allow it. No reason to argue and draw the situation out
You are only shifting the complexity. The SG still need to process the specialities.
Your approach creates a new challenge with certain virtues, is it learning from mistakes? If the player does not handle the roll and the ease factor, the SG will also have consider if XP are gained.
The thing with all of these complexities, as others have said already, any one of the issues can be handled quite easily, but it takes a lot of experience to remember and to handle every issue.
Personally, I don't think we lose anything by dropping specialities completely, but some thresholds may have to be adjusted if we do, so it is not a straight-forward quick fix. That would certainly remove one distraction and speed up much of the interaction.
Remember, pre 5th ed Characteristics had specialities as well. I actually liked that, and it would be easy to HR into my game. But the impact is minor.
It would also be easy to disregard ability specializations, the impact is minor. I mean +/-1 should not rock the boat regarding Ease Factors, even though it may sometimes be a matter of succes or failure. Ability scope is very broad, and that is nice for short ability lists. More narrow abilities means longer lists. And that is why I like the specialities
