The way you described it it sounds to me like you have the arc and that’s what the campaign is. Player generated storylines seems counter to that mode of play. Maybe you’re more open than that but then, if I were you, I’d describe it as much less tight than you do.
I am very much into thr sandbox-style of gaming, i like to keep a few overarching plots in the background, like the Lotharingian schism or the actions of high nobles who were very busy, and then the players are free to get involved or not.
What i like about the single ST way is that the tone and themes of the saga are kept. So in a saga where the dissentions within the order are strong (leading up to a schism, cintera or another) the behaviour of most npc mages will fit within that feamework. In a saga about scarcity the famines and bad harvests that plague the mundanes come to the foreground.
Similarly, the themes of the saga inform my choice of stories that involve the flaws of the PCs. 'Religious' being used to push the mage to fight demons or relinquish key resources of the Covenant to the church give very different vibes.
1 Like
Yeah, as I said, it would probably be too radical a change, redefining the realms like that. Just throwing around ideas, really.
Here's a different way of looking at the whole thing: The realms aren't realms, in the sense of being separate "planes" (as they are called in other games). There is only the material world and the spirit world. The realms are realms in the same sense as human realms: separate kingdoms inhabiting different regions in the same "space" (although that's really not the correct word). Regiones are areas under the control of a particular realm, or faction. This fits in with what I said earlier about the divine and infernal powers warring over control of the world. And it also better reflects the historical view.
The Scriptures and the various deuterocanonica never portray Satan as ruling from Hell: he's called "The Prince of the Power of the Air" and the infernal powers are referred to as "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms". When Gabriel was sent to the prophet Daniel to give him the answer to his prayers, he said he had been delayed for twenty-one days fighting with the "Prince of the kingdom of Persia," and Michael came to his aid so that he could continue on his errand. Jesus said he "saw Satan fall as lighting" when the apostles went out into the countryside to preach and work miracles. All this denotes a conception that angels and demons inhabit the same "place", the world of spirits, or "intelligences" as the medievals called them. Plato's world of forms, if it exists, is this same place (as indeed early Christian and medieval theologians spent significant time theorizing).
So in this conception, divine and infernal regiones would be areas in which one or the other has the upper hand. The spiritual battle is somehow linked to the actions of men, as I mentioned before, but exactly how is not understood. Faeries are more neutral; not strictly neutral--they are like humans, some lean toward the divine, some the infernal, and some not really either way. Magical regiones are places where the power of the unseen world is strong, but unaligned with any of the other three. The reason magi can tap this power and have trouble in the other areas is that the spiritual beings in those areas are using up the vim themselves, and emanating the aura of their presence, in the same way that wizards leave a "signature" in their magic. This aura is simply foreign to most magi, unless their magic has been formed that way and is attuned to it, like House Merinata and Faerie. Divine magic, like the Ars Notoria, works better in a divine regio; diabolism in an infernal one, etc.
This answers the question "are magic and faerie the same?" with "both yes and no", and also eliminates the need to strictly define creatures as belonging to one of the realms: they are simply magical and either aligned with one or the other, or not.
2 Likes
I don't think a 6ed is a good idea at all. Any new edition would come with lots of arbitrary and inconsequential changes which are just confusing to old players without really helping new players either.
The only change which would be immensely useful would be to edit all the core rules together, collecting material from multiple supplements together. Inconsistencies should be resolved. It would also be nice to have one consistent ruleset for faerie and magic characters, and a separate discussion of PC and NPC design.
Instead of 6ed, it would be a lot more interesting to look at new games to take full advantage of old ideas. A game tailored to a non-Hermetic, low-fantasy Mythic Europe would be nice. One would need better combat rules, and if possible a more unified framework for hedge magic. Not to abandon ArM as we know it, but because it would be nice to try something different.
7 Likes
you mean like an edition 5.5? mostly minor revisions to old rules that have been impacted by material published at a later date and a better presentation of the core rules (including a rethink of what constitutes core rules).
I think you are on to something here. 5e is already so complete and so established that it would be very difficult to imagine what a 6th edition would look like. Maybe in time after Ars has made new developments in Europa lowmagica and/or Ars mythica (order of hermes but in a fantasy setting), it would make sense to bring Ars magica forward again.
3 Likes
You can call it what you want, 5.1, 5.5, 5½, 5¼, 5⅞, 6, 5bis, 5 revised; I don't find the name so important. But yes, 5ed written as it would have been if all the supplements were written and edited at the same time.
3 Likes
I am not going to fight you over the exact name either.
I agree that a reworked core rulebook that takes all the material published at a later date into account would be great.
Heck, I would be happy with something like the GURPS Compendiums. Make two, 'Character Creation' and 'Magic'.
There is already Burning Wheel and it is fantastic for engaging, low fantasy and semi-historical play but Wizards are so much cooler in this game.
I don't know how easy it would be to make more changes than my BW group did when two of us convinced the other two to give Ars Magica a shot and for it still to be Ars Magica.
Changes we made:
- used a fields of related knowledge (FoRKs in the parlance of BW) situational bonus which was defined. Something like +3 capped at ability score of FoRK for character having a related ability. This mostly ended up being used around lores but not only lores.
- more defined helping rules. I forget what they were and I’m not gonna go search for the document from a year or more ago. Might have also included defined situational bonuses for what are called Linked tests and the typical example is a pilot of a boat getting a bonus or penalty based on how well the navigator plotted the course.
Changes we wanted to make but could not see how:
- A tighter play loop between character actions on adventures and rewards such as confidence and XP from adventures. In BW advancement happens just after you use a skill in play. Artha, earned confidence points-like resource, is mostly gathered by playing to player-defined goals of the characters.
- using something more like BW’s Duel of Wits for debate.
Ars Magica, much as I love it, is a very “Trad Game” in many ways and I’d love to see a new edition incorporate some of the advancements in games since it was first created. Which definitely doesn’t have to be these changes from Burning Wheel, my group just came from there and we tried to make it more engaging to the BW purist among us and I don’t think he was wrong to want some of those things we could not bend Ars toward. But even just a change like the Apocalypse World “success, success with cost, failure” thing as opposed to merely “Success, Failure, and maybe extreme failure” thing we see in Ars (not that I recommend removing botches but if there was success with cost inserted in that string).
But I don’t really see a 6e happening, even if it does most Ars players aren’t going to want to see the rules reconstruction this would take. Quite a few of the suggestions I’ve seen here are “change this little/huge thing back to how it was then.” and maybe many of these changes are impossible while keeping a somewhat recognizable magic system
2 Likes
Yeah. I've had this same idea in mind for a while. I'm going to start a new thread.
Oh, there are two “minor” rule changes I would like to see to make supernatural things not just 100% effective vs anything without MR. Creature powers, items, and anything else that has no roll but where penetration is calculated and changed based on the local aura and Aegis should just fail if the Penetration dips below -10, similar to casting a formulaic spell. While in many cases this will change very little as most auras are not at high levels it improves the protection from Aegis of the Hearth, allowing it to actually protect the non-magi from the effects of beings. It also means the narrative effect of divine auras protecting towns and such actually has a little mechanical weight. Putting penetration into items will also become more important if you want the item to be used somewhere there is likely to be a different aura.
The second, along the same lines, is bring back personality trait resistance to Mentem and Mentem-like effects. Sure, personality flaws are essential traits so make that mind control fail but your cowardly boatman should definitely be easier to affect with a fear spell just as the brave knight should be less likely to be affected. The removal of these chances to resist turns a Mentem specialist into the sword for use on any mundane gordian knot. My first 5e saga had a mentem specialist who really stole the spotlight from a whole lot of social interactions that would likely have been fun (and, yes, I am aware there were playstyle issues there as well) and I didn’t really realize what my problem with it was until I read Greg Stolze’s bit in the Reign book about there not being mind control in this world and why he made that design decision.
But these are pretty simple changes to implement as houserules.
I am not familiar with BW, but Ars Magica have a couple of rare features which I would want to take over in such a game, namely troupe style and long term advancement. These could work well also in a hedge wizard game.
Maybe the Hedge Wizard rules should be revamped to be cooler; I have little experience from actual play. One of my main objections to Hermetic magic is the powerful and immediate spell casting, which seems to be adapted to fit into the combat system. Mythic magic would tend to be more laborious, in time, requisites, etc.
3 Likes
Since you've expressed this sentiment a number of times, I thought you might find this book interesting, if you haven't already read it:
1 Like
Something else I would do, if I were working on a new edition: I would start it out with a story, or perhaps a new trilogy or tetrology, revolving around the return of Diedne, which everyone's been waiting for for many years (and some have probably played at home). In ArM tradition, I'd leave it open for people to make their own choices in their own sagas, but the premise would be that the Diednes, some hidden in other houses, some outside the order, have been planning their revenge, or justice, for years, and the plot finally ripens when a rumor surfaces that there is clear evidence hidden somewhere, perhaps in Coeris, that the Tremeres fabricated the whole thing as part of one of their endless schemes.
The first story would probably be investigating and searching for the evidence. Then, in the second, the troupe would have to decide how to proceed. If they're pro-Tremere, they might try to bury it forever. If they're pro-Diedne, they would have to work very carefully to find allies in the Order before revealing it publicly, probably at a Grand Tribunal. In the finale, they'd have to deal with the Tremeres, and perhaps the Tytali--there would likely be a civil war in the Order. They'd need Flambeau on their side, and Jerbiton, since it was rumored to be the Jerbitons who broke the minds of the Tremeres last time. If they succeed in clearing Diedne, both would likely side with them out of a sense of justice and penance. Another possibility would be to get the Church involved: they're not nearly as blase about necromancy and vampirism as the Order seems to be. Perhaps the troupe could engineer a crusade against the Tremere lands in Transylvania. Or maybe just get the Templars or the Teutonic Knights on their side. Again, if the troupe is pro-Tremere, they could be working to get the tribunal to rule the other way, to prevent the second schism, their justification being that they are working to keep the Order together, even if the evidence is true, the end justifies the means, etc.
But in the core and house books, Diedne would be included. Also, the long-absent druidical magic.
1 Like
I know some games with an established world in the core rules, such as Shadowrun, have tended each edition to add some of the published modules as happening, and move the time on. I think AM could move the time on a bit, however, something as epic as Diedne's return, I consider is too big for the core rulebook.
Diedne's return is so epic, it dominates every story. The only way to do different stories, is to ignore the history in the core rules. I consider that fits better as a module, not core book. Maybe putting in in an optional rules or story seed section would work.
2 Likes
It would be bigger than that, even. Although troupes could choose not to play it that way, the intended outcome would be the removal of Tremere and Tytalus. They're both a danger to the rest of the Order: Tremere with its plotting, invasions, power-grabs, and prepper paranoia; Tytalus with its recklessness, violence, and intrigues for intrigue's sake. And sooner or later, either one of those tendencies, or the necromancy of the one or diabolism of the other is going to bring the wrath of the Church and the Nobles down on the Order.
Also, Renouncing them but failing to completely destroy them would create a great meta-plot for future sagas: give the Order an antagonist in the shadows, a shadowy rival order, a Sith to thier Jedi.
Someone in another thread said that in his saga, the Order moves over time in a Jerbiton direction: that is, less isolationist and more coexistent and cooperative with society. I think that's the right way to go. I'd even go so far as to repeal the court wizards ruling, perhaps as a response to the discovery of the Virgilians, and have Jerbitons working in European courts to counter them. But movement in that direction couldn't happen with those two houses around, constantly causing problems.
Advancing the timeline with some dramatic events isn't anything to be afraid of. The Sundering and the Schism were always "in the past," but The Tempest had the players being part of it and having the ability to affect the final outcome (although it, mistakenly I think, tried hard to railroad them into one choice at the end). I wouldn't advocate anything as grand or ridiculous as say, what they did with Forgotten Realms between 1st and 2nd edition, but these are very realistic and plausible events, and would make great stories.
I admit, it's partly personal. I have always wanted to see justice for the druids, and their very interesting magic back in the Order. I see what happened to them as similar to what happened to the Templars. And I have always disliked Tremere and Tytalus: if this game had alignments, they would be lawful evil and chaotic evil. And they really don't add anything interesting and unique to the Order, magically, unless you count necromancy as a good thing.
2 Likes
As a fan of the 5th Edition take of House Tremere, I strongly disagree. Ever since 4th Edition, people seem bent on making the Tremere and Tytalus into the bad guys of the Order, even though the official presentation in 5th Edition has changed. But prejudices are hard to overcome.
I'm not saying that the Diedne were the bad guys they were accused of being, nor that the Tremere (and Tytalus) are blameless. But eliminating these Houses altogether would be a loss for the game, IMHO. More than bringing back Diedne is worth to me.
The Order is about more than simply magic. It is even more a social construct than a magical one. You could have the Order using an assemblage of hedge traditions, bound together by a common Code and Parma Magica. IMO that would be more interesting than what you're proposing.
Just my 2 cents.
6 Likes
But that's exactly what makes it a good story: that it evokes strong feelings on either side. That's where the drama comes from, and good storytelling requires drama. The schism in the Order would be reflected in a schism in the player base, and people would be emotionally invested in the story and in their own sagas (and there would most likely be some lively debates here). And all that would create interest, excitement, and enthusiasm for the game.
The two houses in question wouldn't be removed from the books: the books would have information on all 13 houses. It would be up to each group to decide how the saga played out: whether Diedne's bid for reinstatment failed, and things go on as they have, or whether Tremere and/or Tytalus were annihilated as Diedne had been, or whether they were cast from the Order and formed a rival order, or whether some sort of compromise was reached, and the Order now has all 13 houses.
"But what would be the canon?" I hear some people asking. I think people talk too much about "canon". Who says everyone's saga has to be the same? People go online and argue about whether the "canon" of this thing or that includes these elements or those, and I think it's just silly. It's what you decide it is, in your own game or in your own mind. All the early D&D books, before there were any other RPGs, and the early ArM books too, kept giving reminders: "These rules are only guidelines and suggestions: you design your own world and decide what happens in your campaign." After all, it's just a game, much as we may love it, and its point is to have fun and be creative. We need to get back to that.
2 Likes
I see that you make it optional, but better than an optional major themes is many anchor points, like events, factions, personalities, and such, upon which different themes can be made out.
I agree that a Diedne supplement would be useful, to support the design of Diedne characters for whatever plot you have in mind. And with it, a hedge tradition on similar roots. The Diedne were mortal enemies of the druids, and I like to see a peaceful druid community, where the Diedne were militaristic.
In fact, I think it would be useful if canon made out more of the timeline and to a lesser extent focus on the 1220 snapshot. I have always had a preference for playing in the 11C, and I would love it if canon gave more help to such endeavours. Ars Magica is already great in that the cosmology is ambiguous and may be interpreted differently from saga to saga. The same should be the case for political trends etc.
But all of this is supplement stuff IMO, not core rule stuff. Introducing the Diedne as a major theme runs the risk of sidelining one house or another. That would not be good. It can be avoid, bui I wonder how many volumes you need to do that ...
3 Likes
Yes, exactly. I'd like to see druids done with the same quality as Volkri (sp?).
As far as core vs supplements, the only thing really core would be having Diedne listed with the other houses, in the core book and houses supplements. The RotD saga would be optional. Stories people can take or leave, like Dies Irae.