Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Play Advice: Ars Magica - my first dirty hippy game

Bottom of Page

1 to 80 of 114

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    • CommentAuthorJudd
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2007 edited
     # 1
    So there was this game and it said the following things to me:

    Want a sourcebook? Go to the library.

    Want a setting? Talk to your players and make one together.

    Want a game? Everyone shares in the GMing; go for it.

    It blew my mind.

    More to come...

    Comments and other experiences welcomed.
    • CommentAuthorlumpley
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2007
     # 2
    Ars Magica 4th was the last conventional RPG I bought. It was exactly what I'd expected it to be, but I bought it anyway.

    The section about co-GMing and troupe-style play, which should have been a fulfillment of the game's promise, instead was a bare nod: "we here at Ars Magica central understand that some people play the game in these weird ways. If you want to do that, well, good luck and don't look to us for help!"
  3.  # 3
    Hated the whole wizard thing, but the troupe style play opened my eyes to all sorts of interesting game play ideas. Also, the approach it took to history made me realize that for me to play a "historical" game I need to play in a made up analog otherwise I turn into the history dick who tells you why things would have happened differently.
    • CommentAuthorlumpley
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2007
     # 4
    Mm, it's true. I learned Dogs in the Vineyard's approach to history from Ars Magica geeks, by counterexample.
  5.  # 5
    Made my whole history with rpgs possible.

    That one page or so on troupe style play has informed 15+ years of experimental play (and design).
  6.  # 6
    Ars Magica illuminated the need for social conflict resolution systems for me, but it did so only in retrospect. That is, I saw social conflict res systems, thought back to horrible and endless council arguments among the magi, and went, "Wow this is useful."
  7.  # 7
    Yeah, even if I never play it, I think I'm going to hafta nab a copy if I can find one. And I'm getting that PDF of Covenants right now.
  8.  # 8
    Posted By: Robert BohlArs Magica illuminated the need for social conflict resolution systems for me, but it did so only in retrospect. That is, I saw social conflict res systems, thought back to horrible and endless council arguments among the magi, and went, "Wow this is useful."


    Absolutely agree.

    I think certamen is interesting from a conflict resolution standpoint - a way for players to set stakes, have a conflict, and then walk away with a lot more potential consequences than "I'm dead". And it was all done in-character, which is interesting. Actually, the fact it's IC might reduce its usefulness a bit.

    One of the big things about Ars M for me was that it made the PCs part of a society. Sure, the magi live seperately from medieval society as a whole, but (a) they have their own society (the Order) that they belong to, and (b) they still need to make a place for themselves in wider society, to co-exist with it. The scenario possibilities are just endless, and for someone rooted in the "find the evil artifact, kill the big bad guy" mode of thinking, as I was, a huge revelation.
    • CommentAuthorMark W
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2007
     # 9
    I have the 1st edition on my game shelf today. It's one of the few games from that era that's still got a warm place in my heart. It didn't work, but it at least talked about things like my best friend and I used to do when we "played D&D" in high school.
  10.  # 10
    I was very excited about playing the game when I heard what it was about and the troupe style play. We had used that method years before in other games we played and I wanted to see how it was implemented in this game.

    Once characters were made and the campaign began it quickly became apparent that the game rewarded seclusion and study over any other activity.

    I would like to say the system failed me but I think it works well for what it intends to do. I wanted to love the game but in the end felt a great bit of let down by the system.

    I guess the system didn’t mesh well with what I wanted out of it.
    • CommentAuthorxternal
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2007
     # 11
    Posted By: MickBradleyYeah, even if I never play it, I think I'm going to hafta nab a copy if I can find one. And I'm getting that PDF of Covenants right now.


    If you aren't aware, 4e is free and legal as pdf from e23: Ars Magica 4th Edition Core Rulebook

    Touching a 272 page pdf isn't as satisfying, though ;)
  12.  # 12
    I bought Ars 2nd when it came out. It's still the definitive version of the game for me. After that, it got kind of bloated for me in the rules department.
  13.  # 13
    Posted By: lumpleyArs Magica 4th was the last conventional RPG I bought. It was exactly what I'd expected it to be, but I bought it anyway.

    The section about co-GMing and troupe-style play, which should have been a fulfillment of the game's promise, instead was a bare nod: "we here at Ars Magica central understand that some people play the game in these weird ways. If you want to do that, well, good luck and don't look to us for help!"


    Seasons are what drive changing play roles because to improve, magi must take time off and consequently, the player must explore other means of participation. I've never heard of an Ars game where all the magi decided to study at the same time to fast-forward past the season and all go out together.
  14.  # 14
    My two longest running, and most successful, campaigns were with Ars Magica. Great game. In fact, the troupe play style and shared GMing were carried through to our subsequent vampire and werewolf games, and helped make them more fun too.
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2007
     # 15
    *sigh*

    Ars Magica...

    This game has been on my must-get list for ages, ever since I heard about troupe style and found the 4th edition pdf online. But back then, reading a 250+ pages pdf was a fucking chore and so I never did anything with it or really delved into the rules. Then, recently, I bought the fifth edition core and was extremly disappointed with this ... monster of a system. It looked like somebody took a relatively simple base mechanic and thought "Well, let's see how far we can overcomplicate this". Or maybe it was designed on a dare or something.

    So now it's standing amongst my other games and I feel kinda bad about buying it, which hasn't happened often. Right now I'm trying to decide wether to keep it and hopefully work out something useable or just sell the damn thing and be rid of it...

    Pitty, really. I always liked the IDEA of Ars Magica and the play it seemed to aim for. But the system... *sigh*
  16.  # 16
    Yeah, from 3rd edition on it accumulated more and more rules in supplements, chunks of which then got combined into the next core editions. And in doing so it got increasingly mechanical and nitpicky, and less appealing and fun. The hand-wringing over magic resistance, in particular, makes me wants to rip out my own soul.

    There was a 4th edition supplement called The Mysteries, which tried to introduce more "authentic" medieval magic into the game. But the way it worked was by coming up with a whole new set of complex magic rules (whole chunks of which were genuinely brilliant) and adding it over the top of the current magic rules (which, by 4th edition, were not sylphlike and wee). It didn't replace the existing rules, it was just piled on top of them. Faintly terrifying.

    I sometimes think about running a game again, but I'm sure I'd find it frustrating. But taking covenants, the order, the seperate character roles, troupe play, and shared situation creation as a core, and then coming up with a new conflict resolution system, I think there's a fab game in there more suited to my current tastes.

    Actually, that thought sets me a-tingling.

    Posted By: Jerry D. GraysonOnce characters were made and the campaign began it quickly became apparent that the game rewarded seclusion and study over any other activity.


    I don't quite get this.

    This was very much what companions and grogs were about - while the mages study, the companions are left to run things. And there are some situations that *need* a magus to resolve, so you have to go retrieve some from the lab. Plus there are built-in reasons for magi to leave the lab: vis, components, interactions with other covenants, and tribunals.
  17.  # 17
    So it's 1990 or 89 and my wife (probably still girlfriend) and I are driving down from the North around Birmingham (UK) and we pick up this hitch hiker. We get chatting as you do, and he evangelises on Ars Magica. So I buy it and end up playing a 10 year campaign and having some of my best roleplaying experiences with it. That was partly due to the time in my life, before kids, when we'd get together with friends for a weekend every month and play several games.

    I felt uncomfortable about the 'real history' thing so I set it in a fictional land, heavily influenced by Thomas Covenant, Lord of the Rings, Earthsea and so on. One of the best moments I had was when one Magi felt so neglected by the rest of his covenant that he turned up secretly to a grand tribunal to represent his covenant. The other PCs gave him such a hard time that he ended up locked in a prison cell for interrogation. Tensions were running high and we broke from the game and went out for a walk. On return the PCs went in to get the Magi only to find that his player had chosen for him to take his own life. The frustration on the part of the interrogators and the drama of the scene were intense.

    The story wrapped itself up eventually, and I've never managed to return successfully to the system, I've tried a couple of times.

    In terms of system, it was flawed and I was always tinkering. But it captured the feel of the game and the setting so very well - probably best in 2nd ed. The whole troupe play idea was brilliant. We did swap GMs once, but I don't think we were truly ready for that.

    We had downtime where the Magi studied, sometimes for a couple or years.

    I never met that hitch hiker again, but I'd like to shake him by the hand and say thanks.
  18.  # 18
    Posted By: Paul FrickerI never met that hitch hiker again, but I'd like to shake him by the hand and say thanks.


    It sounds like you were visited by the angel of roleplaying. He weaves in and out of history, finding games for those who are looking, and then vanishes...never to be seen again.
  19.  # 19
    I've found the structure pretty portable to other games. I'd use it in a second for any game with power disparities between characters as long as there was something akin to seasons to promote rotation.

    I think the last two editions looked like they had the "inmates running the asylum" problem, where the most dedicated, hardcore exclusive segment of the fanbase seems to have had the biggest say on how it evolved. 2nd Ed was quite freewheeling in terms of assumptions for setting. 3rd had a lot of jarring sub-WoD things (not tons and tons, but enough) and 4th-5th seemed to really be about the setting and bells and whistles instead of core ideas. John Nephew seemed to realize that the game was getting like this when I asked him about 5th.

    Plus, I think Ars' magic system is getting a little long in the tooth, honestly. It could stand to be a little more focused and intuitive. I'd also cut the number of spells by quite a bit. 5th is a bit better in this regard, in my opinion.
    •  
      CommentAuthoreruditus
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2007
     # 20
    There were some fantastic books for the series, though. The medieval Eurpoe book was really keen, giving you just enough info to get the stories flowing. I dug the medieval angel and demon supplements. I liked the latin focus and the hand gestures. For a trad game this had a lot going for it. I have every edition. I think this was really a story game for people fed up with the standard fantasy tropes (but still wanted to play fantasy). The goal was to explore the world of closeted academic with power. This is worth awesomeifying.

    Gosh, my first Story Game? Ars was close if not IT. Troupe style is what pushes it over the edge for story gaming if not a gentle nudge. If not SG enough then I think my first inclination would be to say Whispering Vault was my first solid Story Game.

    - Don
    • CommentAuthorlumpley
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2007
     # 21
    I have this weird sense that it'd surprise people how often I agree with you, Malcolm. This morning I especially agree about the inmates and the asylum. There WERE a lot of us out in the world playing troupe-style and co-GMed, and we weren't hard to find. I mean, there I was, waving my arms on the Berkeley list, getting into fights with David Chart. If they'd had any will to fulfill the weird-and-wiggly promise of the game, they could have. The techniques were there and available.
    • CommentAuthorJudd
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2007
     # 22
    The magic system with its Latin-ish verb-y things mixed with Latin-ish noun-y things and it just blew our fucking minds. Making up spells on the fly rocked. Suddenly we could talk to rocks and summon demons and damage a wizard's Gift. Neat stuff.

    I loved botches during spells. I prayed for botches. I wanted a little bit of a botch in every spell (i.e. I wanted Mortal Coil).

    I shied away from the parts that would intrigue me lately: troupe style and the Passions. I thought social rules were filled with The Poop and cut them out of any rules systems without mercy.
  23.  # 23
    I remember a black with white lettering copy of Ars Magica. I don't know what edition that is. I bought it because I loved wizards and Jonathan Tweet lived in the same town. The magic was a thing of beauty. The troupe style play was also mind-blowing, but it somehow didn't occur to us that we could use it for other games.
    • CommentAuthorFlynn
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2007
     # 24
    I have great love for this game but I struggle every time I run it. Matching the unbridled opportunities of characters and setting with the current rules just breeds disappointment for me every time.

    When I read some of Vincent's discussions of how he would create a game inspired by it, I was electrified. But since I'm still waiting for him to finish it, I've had design and begin playtest of my re-interpretation which I call Quadrivium. I'd love to share the current revised version of the rule, but it's slow going to convert my handwritten notes into a document for others.

    So since, I'm being lazy, I'll call Vincent out. When I spoke to you at GenCon, you mentioned you had conquered the issue that stymied you previously (e.g. multiple characters under a single player's control acting at contrary purposes) but that the game had changed significantly. So when do we get to see the latest version of the Ars Magica knockoff. Or is it available somewhere and I've just missed it?
    •  
      CommentAuthorHexabolic
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2007 edited
     # 25
    I'm running an Ars game right now, and it's intensely frustrating. I've played every edition but 4th, and my best experiences came with 2d, back in the mists of time. I remembered it as being awesome and not THAT hard to get up and running, so I suggested running it for my current group, using 5th. I have a pile of 2d and 3d edition books and material, but used 5th because parts of it seemed to offer real improvements on the core rules.

    Mistake...from hell. We met every two weeks, we had one rulebook, and all the players were newbs to it, two having only DnD experience and some WoD experience. It took us *months* before characters were ready. One player dropped out--the rest figured they'd put X amount of effort in, so they wanted to stick it out. They're still clueless on the rules, and it's the kind of game where in order to play through the downtime, you have to know something about what you want to do and how you want to do it. I really resonate with the comment here earlier that the game rewards magi withdrawal from play. Plus, the crunch is fairly high, with plenty of unique modifiers, die roll formulae, and special cases. If we continue, we're going to have to spend a lot of time to become comfortable with the system, much less achieve mastery. Players are definitely into their characters and want to keep playing, though I wonder if that'll continue to be the case once we hit the downtime challenges for Study, etc.

    Great characters, cool setting, wedded to a system so opaque and heavy that nobody but me groks it. Most of the players are casual, rules-light, story-oriented, and ALL of them could give a fig about rules so long as things make sense and offer sufficient structure. In an ideal world, I'd like to refactor the system side into something like FATE or Reign while keeping the flavor of magic and the setting, but I'm not sure I'm up for such a massive redesign effort. Keeping the Techniques and Forms progression seems central. The Covenant and troupe-style play isn't really a system thing, so I'm not worried about those parts. I also agree that a social conflict resolution mechanism would be a key addition--having played through innumerable council brangles that dragged on forever.

    I think it's true that the hardcore grognard mindset has come to dominate the design philosophy. IMO Ars has become a game geared to its own die-hard veterans, but it's not that accessible to players outside that circle. If you're an Ars fan, 5e has many parts that fit together elegantly, and it offers enormous density and tons of cool story hooks in the setting. All that said, I wish I'd chosen something different.
  26.  # 26
    That's really interesting stuff, Blake. I may bookmark it as a cautionary parable for when my enthusiasm inevitably gets the better of me and I find myself thinking Maybe it wouldn't be so bad....

    I'm very comforted that people are singling out 2nd edition as their favourite.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHexabolic
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2007
     # 27
    Thanks, Chris. Ars 5e is intricate, like a complex clockwork mechanism. The point about Mysteries is true, too, that supplements tend to expand on the magic angle by introducing new and different permutations and styles that function almost independently of the core Hermetic style. The rule density is breathtaking, and from a subject matter perspective it's all fascinating and loaded with cool (One example: the Tytalan sect that contacts the shades of the Titans to harness a form of Goetic magic) that I just want to go nuts with it. But the system continues to get in the way with all these limitations and special case applications, and my next reaction is to throw up my hands in frustration. If I don't want to invest the time, I can't imagine my group buying into it.

    The short form is: the system has become this bloated, overly complex entity. Atlas has done awesome stuff with the equally clockwork detail of the setting, IMO. The Houses of Hermes supplements are brilliant in terms of offering backstory and fleshing out the houses without metaplot.

    The more I talk about this, the more it becomes clear I need to do something with the system before it drives me completely up the friggin' wall.
  28.  # 28
    Posted By: Hexabolic The Covenant and troupe-style play isn't really a system thing, so I'm not worried about those parts. I also agree that a social conflict resolution mechanism would be a key addition--having played through innumerable council brangles that dragged on forever.


    Strongly disagree on both of these points. To have troupe style play you need a system to hand off intervals of play for your magi (seasons) and the magi/companion/grog divide, especially as far as the collective ownership of grogs.

    Social conflict resolution seems to me to contradict one of the basic charms of the game, which is that you, the player, make actual legal arguments based on what's codified in the setting instead of handing it off to systems. 3rd had some great listings of precedents that you could actually use to argue a case. Now if you had a system that didn't offload that it might be different, but it's not the kind of thing that would be simple to raft in while keeping those characteristics.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHituro
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2007
     # 29
    I own both 4th and 5th editions, and I agree that in many ways 4th is better, although the system has been simplified and streamlined in 5th.

    I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the magic system so far, to me it stands out far more than troupe play and covenant design, it is the finest mechanic for magic I have ever seen, not the perfect system for magic in any game, but the perfect execution of the magic in the setting, a beautiful marriage of background and mechanics. I know lots of people who play Ars Magica only for the magic system (and many who consequently prefer 5th to 4th because of the better spell guidelines, or 4th to 5th because of better magic resistance :). Interestingly that part of the system also forms the basis of World Tree, anyone played that?

    I've been in many Ars Magica games, and loved most of them. At the moment I'm in two play by email games, one 5th and one 4th and I find the magic system of 4th vaguer, but more flexible.

    The troupe style play never captured me that much, because I couldn't help but notice that the Magi had so much more fun than the grogs in your average scenaro!
    • CommentAuthorbartmoss
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2007
     # 30
    From what I remember when Ars Magica was first put out there in the market one of the main reasons was to create a game with a good magic system and where wizards were really wizards.

    When I came to it the game was in its 2nd Edition and ideas like "Troupe Style Play" and group held characters like "Grogs" where new ideas that we all found strange. I even think, back then, we were a little intimidated by the ideas and did not think you could run a game that way. For us late 2nd and early 3rd edition were firmly played because we liked the "pseudo medieval world" and the magic system (eventually we even played a game set in the 1600s).

    There was one attempt at troupe style play and it fell apart for the reason I always believed it would. A player attempted to use an Item that was introduced by the main GM in one of the co GMs scenario's. Now the co GM had no idea what the item was capable of, neither at this point did the player, however the main GM who was playing this knew that the effect would essentially end the co GMs plotline. This put an end to our attempts at "Troupe Play" for many many years. However my point is this, no system will help with "Troupe Play", unless that system is more to do with who runs what plot strands and where.

    When I did do "Troupe Play" again I simply said that any game that had anything to do with the covenant and its magi on official business was mine and mine alone. Therefore the co GMs had to run "non Arc" plots that were more involved with self contained events. Eventually some where run "along side" the main plot thread. For example I may have run a complex game of intrigue at a covenant for a few weeks and brought it to a close (but not a climax), then a co GM would say "six weeks ago the mages went to council, you find yourselves involved in the Doisetoep Tourney". However even though we acted a little braver it never really worked for the group.

    I do think that a good social conflict system would help with a lot of the aspects of the game, I disagree with Malcolm Shepherd on the issue of "using precedent" as in my mind there are not enough of them. Even then you could use a skill like Hermetic Law and make it a part of any social conflict system - allowing those who have it to use "cite precedent" as some form of method of persuasion to win an argument. I also like the idea that at any time in a "social conflict" one of the players can use the "go for certamen" tactic if they think that will play up their strengths. Though to be honest I never liked certamen because it took people away from the social aspect of the game as more often than not a strong mage with a good certamen would always win any argument if the Law of Hermes stated it was an official way to solve one.

    I have a strong affection for Ars Magica and have always believed the weaker parts of the system were present because the design goal was more about magic than anything else.
  31.  # 31
    Posted By: bartmossA player attempted to use an Item that was introduced by the main GM in one of the co GMs scenario's. Now the co GM had no idea what the item was capable of, neither at this point did the player, however the main GM who was playing this knew that the effect would essentially end the co GMs plotline.


    I have this hunch that certain things don't work well when you're trading off GMs within the same game, and plotlines seems to be one of those... (And maybe strange gizmos, too, but for those we might just need owners and underwriters--right Vincent? :)
  32.  # 32
    Posted By: lumpleyMm, it's true. I learned Dogs in the Vineyard's approach to history from Ars Magica geeks, by counterexample.


    Vincent, can you elaborate on this? Because (a) I love medieval history so I'm likely to be a (non-Ars) geek about it, and (b) I also like Dogs's approach to the setting. (Though part of me really wants to say, "Hey, it's (say) 1838, these are specific historical figures your guys know, let's have fun with this and cut loose.")

    Also - can someone provide a game that does fun Ars-style magic goodness, and community-building goodness, and historical stuff-ness, without all that detail-y cruft? Like, people have mentioned Mortal Coil - would that work for this? Because I very much want to play an Ars Magica game without the Ars Magica rules, if that makes sense.
  33.  # 33
    Posted By: HituroI couldn't help but notice that the Magi had so much more fun than the grogs in your average scenaro


    In the games I took part in, the opposite seemed to be true. At least, the people playing the grogs usually had a great time.

    Good-natured ribbing of magi and companions dealing with the outside world was also frequent.
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 34
    Posted By: HituroI find it interesting that no one has mentioned the magic system so far, to me it stands out far more than troupe play and covenant design, it is the finest mechanic for magic I have ever seen, not the perfect system for magic in any game, but the perfect execution of the magic in the setting, a beautiful marriage of background and mechanics.
    That's what I thought a few years ago, when I first found 4th edition. Now, with a few years, a dozen different games and a bit more exerience, my opinion of it is actually the opposite: It's clunky as hell for what it does, and unnecessarily so.

    There are games out thre that cover much of the same ground, but manage to do so in a much less complicated and tiresome way. So while I agree that the idea is awesome, the actual execution isn't.

    Which is SUCH A SHAME, because, like I said above, with a less clunky system Ars Magica would be most certainly be one of my favorite games. I like the setup, I like the communal Covenant creation, I like the idea of Mythic History, I like the idea of its magic system. But I can't ue the system, and when I, the resident systems geek, can't, I know that none of my players would ever touch it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHexabolic
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 35
    I've done troupe style play, with mixed results (including the "treading on another GM's plot" problem mentioned earlier), and I have come to view it as falling more under the aegis of social contract than mechanics. To be sure, though, if the other group members cannot assimilate the system enough to run it, that would be a mechanical obstacle.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHituro
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 36
    Posted By: Lord MinxThere are games out thre that cover much of the same ground, but manage to do so in a much less complicated and tiresome way. So while I agree that the idea is awesome, the actual execution isn't.
    [snip]

    but I can't use the system, and when I, the resident systems geek, can't, I know that none of my players would ever touch it.


    I'm interested in what you think does it better. I've seen many freeform, create a power, sort of systems and my impression of them is that they work very well when everyone is reading off the same page, because they are less constrained, but turn into arguments without resolution when people are in disagreement. Ars Magica tells you exactly what a spell will cost, as precisely (if you want it to) as a GURPS points cost.

    Many times that is blatant and annoying overkill that has to be ignored to make the game flow but sometimes its a lifesaver that other games just can't offer.
    •  
      CommentAuthornoclue
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 37
    David, have you checked out Mortal Coil? I've bought it but not played. I'm not sure how I feel about every aspect of the resource economy, but I love the idea of spend a point to declare a magical fact, but someone else gets to determine the price you pay to use it.
  38.  # 38
    Ars' system is conceptually fantastic -- It's just how it translated to dice rolls and numbers that gets screwy. *However*, some people really enjoy dealing with all of that. Same with the role of history. But it's a big barrier to casual play. Part of it is presentation. The raw, unified numbers for spontaneous spells need a dedicated quick reference.
  39.  # 39
    Loving this thread.

    Posted By: HituroI find it interesting that no one has mentioned the magic system so far,


    I think the reason for that is that Ars M is always lauded for its magic system, while covenent creation, and particularly tourpe play, are largely ignored, and treated like a particularly embarrassing stain that happened quite a while ago and no-one likes to draw attention to anymore. There's some love-distribution going on.

    Having said that, I'd like to talk about the magic system a bit.

    it is the finest mechanic for magic I have ever seen, not the perfect system for magic in any game, but the perfect execution of the magic in the setting, a beautiful marriage of background and mechanics. I know lots of people who play Ars Magica only for the magic system (and many who consequently prefer 5th to 4th because of the better spell guidelines, or 4th to 5th because of better magic resistance :).


    I think the Ars M magic system certainly stands out in RPGs as an outstanding example. But, to be blunt, I think this is partly because most other magic systems in RPGs suck, and Ars M looks great by comparison. It's faintly maddening that Ars M has been widely regarded as "the best magic system in gaming" for, like, 15-20 years. And it's changed little in that time. Can it really not be improved upon? (Rhetorical question, not aimed at anyone)

    As for it perfectly mixing system and setting, I'm not so sure.

    I'm going to use words like "actual" and "historical", here, with regards to magic. I'm not a believer in the genuine occult power of magic - I'm just referring to those accounts, evidence, and records of magical practices from history that we can see.

    Ars M Hermetic magic looks very little like actual magic from that period history, and a lot of effects that genuine magic focussed on aren't very achievable in the Ars M system. Cursing is a big one. Sure, Ars M lets you give someone boils, but if you want to curse them so their first love will have a tragic fate befall them, you're stuffed). Also blessing. Similarly, healing in Ars M is represented by a handful of simple spells, while as far as I can see, nine-tenths of historical magic was devoted to finding ornate, crazy methods of curing various ailments. There's surprisingly little spirit/demon summoning.

    This isn't innately bad; a good magic system isn't one that emulates a real-world tradition, but it does create a disconnect between system and setting.

    The Mysteries did a better job of representing medieval magical practices, but added them to the core Ars M system, rather than replacing it, so it was kind of a halfway house.

    It's also a very mechancial system, with a very simple engine. The Verb/Noun thing is a genius structure for freeform magic, but the specific verbs and nouns it uses are a bit crude. They're very physical and encourage a fairly modern-minded scientific approach to magic (rather than a medieval-minded scientific one, or just a magical one). And this leads to some of the soul-breaking arguements that I presume played a part in Vincent fleeing the game's boards. They certainly scared me off.

    It doesn't do a great job of catering to magical thought in general - that strange, frightening, but satisfying feeling you get when a spell disobeys the visible laws you know, but somehow make perfect sense. The sort of magic seen in fairytales and those fantasy stories that haunt you for years.

    Plus, some verb/noun combinations are problematic, or have little depth, or are kind of unintuitive (Demons and magic are the same thing, despite being different domains? Is the distinction between Rego and Muto Imagonem really useful? Vim ends up being a catch-all for all kinds of weird stuff.) There are cases where the framework butts up against its medieval cosmology awkwardly.

    There's also the fiddly issues: Magic resistance, and what it does and does not apply against, has always been a point of contention. There's the terrifying complexity of it all, once you start accounting for all the circumstances and modifiers. And there's the fact that lots of magi (and an entire house!) are all about ways to break the laws of magic...and there's no rules for breaking the laws of magic.

    I think Ars M's magic system did three things very well:-


      1) Freeform (to a degree) magic. Which BLEW OUR MINDS!
      2) Excellent range of downtime magical activities.
      3) It established the set of rules than governed it, and stuck to them. I think some of the laws could be more interesting, and impact play more, but the principle is good.
      4) Personalised magic. This is a biggie, and you see it more in the lab and character creation rules than in the magic system itself. But the ability for players to customise the rules that governed their own magus' magic was fantastic: being better at certain times of day or year, being able to craft a unique talisman, etc. Here the rules combine with character in a really nice way. I'd like to see more of this.


    I wish there were more great magic systems out there. I've heard good things about Unseen Armies, but never played it. Heck, D&D's Pact magic (in the Tome of Magic) is about 3 inches from unmitigated brilliance. The king is Mortal COil, I think: it's utter, utter genius, and lets you create subtle, atmospheric, satisfying magic systems in play with an ease that's kind of mystifying.

    I think Ars M's magic system is good - hang on; I'll rephrase that: I think there's a good system in there clogged with a lot of detritus. But it should have inspired more game designers to go further and push in new directions. As it is, it exploded in a blaze of remarkable invention and then has sat there ever since, gathering dust, alone.

    Also - can someone provide a game that does fun Ars-style magic goodness, and community-building goodness, and historical stuff-ness, without all that detail-y cruft? Like, people have mentioned Mortal Coil - would that work for this? Because I very much want to play an Ars Magica game without the Ars Magica rules, if that makes sense.


    Mortal Coil would absolutely work. What it doesn't have is formalised community rules, but you might be able to get some mileage out of requiring people to take passions related to the covenant. And Mortal Coil's Passion system is even better than its magic system. Or maybe you could stat the covenant up as a Mortal Coil character? That might work.
  40.  # 40
    Posted By: bartmoss
    I do think that a good social conflict system would help with a lot of the aspects of the game, I disagree with Malcolm Shepherd on the issue of "using precedent" as in my mind there are not enough of them. Even then you could use a skill like Hermetic Law and make it a part of any social conflict system - allowing those who have it to use "cite precedent" as some form of method of persuasion to win an argument.


    Bwuh? Over time, Ars has generated lots and lots of precedents. One 3e book has a chapter devoted to nothing but precedents and discussing examples of the Code in use is a time-honored tradition in the game. The game has what is probably one of the most detailed applications of a fictional system of law and government ever.

    Plus, I think the urge for a system rather misses the point. The whole idea wasn't to simulate an argument. It was to put forth an actual argument. The "Imagine, if you will, that I was t3h clever" business destroys the whole purpose of having a Code with significant in-world details. There's a reason the game doesn't just say that wizards have some picky laws and leaves it at that.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMatthijs
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 41
    I bought & played 2ed as soon as I heard about it. Liked it a lot, but I think what happened was that I was dropping out of gaming for a while right then, and when I got back it was through "Over the Edge" which blew my mind.

    (I sold that 2ed some years back, and still regret it. However, I managed to pick up a 1ed at an auction in Sweden years ago - it's one of my treasuresssss.)
  42.  # 42
    Posted By: Chris Gardiner
    I think the reason for that is that Ars M isalwayslauded for its magic system, while covenent creation, and particularly tourpe play, are largely ignored, and treated like a particularly embarrassing stain that happened quite a while ago and no-one likes to draw attention to anymore. There's some love-distribution going on.


    I seriously doubt that people have stopped playing rotating characters in sagas.

    Having said that, I'd like to talk about the magic system a bit.


    I think the Ars M magic system certainly stands out in RPGs as an outstanding example. But, to be blunt, I think this is partly because most other magic systems in RPGs suck, and Ars M looks great by comparison. It's faintly maddening that Ars M has been widely regarded as "the best magic system in gaming" for, like, 15-20 years. And it's changed little in that time. Can it really not be improved upon? (Rhetorical question, not aimed at anyone)


    Comparing magic systems is kind of like comparing fruit or tattoos. You can certainly talk about how well it does what it's supposed to be doing, but the idea that it should be doing something else is pretty wacky.


    As for it perfectly mixing system and setting, I'm not so sure.

    I'm going to use words like "actual" and "historical", here, with regards to magic. I'm not a believer in the genuine occult power of magic - I'm just referring to those accounts, evidence, and records of magical practices from history that we can see.

    Ars M Hermetic magic looks very little like actual magic from that period history, and a lot of effects that genuine magic focussed on aren't very achievable in the Ars M system. Cursing is a big one. Sure, Ars M lets you give someone boils, but if you want to curse them so their first love will have a tragic fate befall them, you're stuffed). Also blessing. Similarly, healing in Ars M is represented by a handful of simple spells, while as far as I can see, nine-tenths of historical magic was devoted to finding ornate, crazy methods of curing various ailments. There's surprisingly little spirit/demon summoning.

    This isn't innately bad; a good magic system isn't one that emulates a real-world tradition, but it does create a disconnect between system and setting.

    It's also a very mechancial system, with a very simple engine. The Verb/Noun thing is a genius structure for freeform magic, but the specific verbs and nouns it uses are a bit crude. They're very physical and encourage a fairly modern-minded scientific approach to magic (rather than a medieval-minded scientific one, or just a magical one). And this leads to some of the soul-breaking arguements that I presume played a part in Vincent fleeing the game's boards. They certainly scared me off.


    The game has always been open about not being about "real magic." It's about freethinking protoscientists and their communes. IIRC 2nd was specific about how everything about Magi was totally made up. The whole enterprise of the game is about playing people with anachronistic perspectives.

    I also think you're conflating mythology with historical occult practice. People in fairy stories curse people to have tragic love affairs. Medieval practitioners of what they thought was real magic probably didn't, tragic love affair-type curses being rather low on the utility scale. Ars Magi are, by intentional design, neither mythic-authentic nor occult-authentic.


    It doesn't do a great job of catering to magical thought in general - that strange, frightening, but satisfying feeling you get when a spell disobeys the visible laws you know, but somehow makeperfect sense. The sort of magic seen in fairytales and those fantasy stories that haunt you for years.


    Well yes. It's an apple stubbornly yet steadfastly refusing to be an orange. Again, medieval magic in any form is not really the game's objective. There are chunks of it you can raft on for flavour, but non-Hermetic magic in the game has always been pretty much a form of magic that did next to nothing, cost a lot and sucked, comparatively speaking. I think making the jump to pure fiction for everything to do with the order is probably one of the reasons the game has survived for so long. It makes the setting accessible to people by providing a beachhead of modernity within the historical milieu.


    Plus, some verb/noun combinations are problematic, or have little depth, or are kind of unintuitive (Demons and magic are the same thing, despite being different domains? Is the distinction between Rego and Muto Imagonem really useful? Vim ends up being a catch-all for all kinds of weird stuff.) There are cases where the framework butts up against its medieval cosmology awkwardly.


    Some combos are petty horrendous, true. I wish more people would just accept asymmetry. The aesthetic of balance seems to be a great motivator for people to talk themselves out of having fun, and I have no problem with effectiveness being clustered in certain areas. It actually makes extended play more fun by providing a frame of reference for character strategies. For instance, in the old Mage, conjunctional Correspondence rituals were some of the most potent spells around. In play, that meant that characters worked hard on developing clever applications and countermeasures and ramped up the in-game sense of danger considerably.

    I think Ars M's magic system is good - hang on; I'll rephrase that: I think there's a good systemin thereclogged with a lot of detritus. But it should have inspired more game designers to go further and push in new directions. As it is, it exploded in a blaze of remarkable invention and then has sat there ever since, gathering dust, alone.


    I think that Ars' magic is a system that at times reveals how vulnerable people are to simply being told something is a system and being talked up about it. The game talks about Form/Technique a lot, but the instanced application of them as game mechanics are actually very shaky and have only recently left the realm of "make shit up in this category." This is not in fact much of a system, though it shook boots in its time. 5th fixes this in a very scattered fashion which is still problematic when unified, non-just-make-shit-up systems exist.

    (Off Topic Aside: One of the things I loathe in games is when people talk or intimate about how clever their game is in the actual text. It's one of the major turnoffs for me in the way the Burning games are written. These kind of glad-handing jerkoff passages also *work really well*. People really do repeat this stuff verbatim in discussion. One of the major aesthetic decisions I've made s avoiding this kind of thing in my work and it's ended up being a real sacrifice. I don't write WW books about how cool you should think Splat X is for example.)

    There is a difference between the role of a system as a conceptual framework for narrative effect and as something that provides output that plus into game traits (buffs, damage, etc.). Ars spontaneous magic needs work on the latter, in my opinion. Once again, though, not everyone wants that kind of unified approach.
  43.  # 43
    The trouble with real medieval occultism is that a very large percentage of it is incomprehensible gibberish, and it's not at all clear how you'd game it.

    On the other hand, there definitely needs to be a Monster Manual for the Goetic demons.
    • CommentAuthorlumpley
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 44
    As far as co-GMing goes, any GM having a plot, at all, will break it. To make co-GMing work you have to find ways to roleplay that don't involve a GM having a plot.

    That's ... well, that's the sacrifice they made. They couldn't see how to play without following some GM's plot. From our perspective here and now that's plain stupid - if I swing a stick in this place all I'll hit is games where you don't follow the GM's plot - but even back in the mid 90s it seemed shortsighted. Lots and lots of us were playing games with no GM's plot, and what we wanted was some systemic backup, and like I say if they'd had the will Ars Magica could have given it to us.

    It's funny that I begrudge them. They didn't give it to us, so we made it ourselves, and now we're publishing. It's GOOD that they didn't, in the long run.
    •  
      CommentAuthornoclue
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 45
    Posted By: James_NostackThe trouble with real medieval occultism is that a very large percentage of it is incomprehensible gibberish


    James, I'm not sure what you mean here. The practice of medieval magic is mostly about the study of God's creation in order to get closer to and/or become like God. Its comprehensible from that viewpoint. The problem with gaming it is that it would be like making a game about chemistry professors. It tends not to be high drama. But its easy to codify.

    Then there's all sorts of stories and superstitions involving magic (witches etc) which are much easier to game. But much harder to codify into a system.
  46.  # 46
    Comparing magic systems is kind of like comparing fruit or tattoos. You can certainly talk about how well it does what it's supposed to be doing, but the idea that it should be doing something else is pretty wacky.


    There's some truth in this. I don't think many RPG magic systems are very magical, which obviously is a personal preference of mine. But I don't think it's crazy to want more of that in a game called "The Art of Magic" that's all about magi in a world where magical thought dominates.

    The game has always been open about not being about "real magic."


    Sure. Hence: "This isn't innately bad; a good magic system isn't one that emulates a real-world tradition, but it does create a disconnect between system and setting."

    I also think you're conflating mythology with historical occult practice.


    No, I'm saying Ars M's hermetic magic does neither of them, and the fact that it doesn't causes friction within its own setting. I agree very much with the idea that its semi-scientific magic is a draw for people (and "a beachhead of modernity within the historical milieu" is a lovely way to put it), but it's also the root of a lot of the nonsensical (to me) arguments the game inspires in its fans. Give some people an inch of real-world physics and you'll be arguing for miles. :)

    On the other hand, there definitely needs to be a Monster Manual for the Goetic demons.


    Ooo, yes.

    D&D's Tome of Magic actually uses these guys as vestiges of ancient beings you can bind into yourself to emulate their powers and myths. It's pretty cool.


    Plus, I think the urge for a system rather misses the point. The whole idea wasn't to simulate an argument. It was to put forth an actual argument. The "Imagine, if you will, that I was t3h clever" business destroys the whole purpose of having a Code with significant in-world details.


    Could you combine this with system, though? You could have an escalation thing where you start with reason, escalate to invoking the Hermetic laws, then escalate beyond that to breaking them. Or get certain benefits and complications when you invoke one of the pre-determined laws, or whatever.


    On a separate note, I think lots of Ars M's implied story, like how the Order gathers, educates, qualifies, and engages its members, is genius. It's all stuff that has genuine impact on pay, and is a great source of adventure ideas.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHexabolic
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 47
    Ars provides a core setting element of a democratic society existing on the margins of a feudal world. In practice, a lot of our games involved conflict between the larger social setting and the odd meritocratic aristocracy of the Order. The magic is the showcase mechanical element, and it does, I think provide a medieval-flavored vibe for the non-historian. Put another way, much of it is about color, Latin terminology and all.

    1) Freeform (to a degree) magic. Which BLEW OUR MINDS!
    2) Excellent range of downtime magical activities.
    3) It established the set of rules than governed it, and stuck to them. I think some of the laws could be more interesting, and impact play more, but the principle is good.
    4) Personalised magic. This is a biggie, and you see it more in the lab and character creation rules than in the magic system itself. But the ability for players to customise the rules that governed their own magus' magic was fantastic: being better at certain times of day or year, being able to craft a unique talisman, etc. Here the rules combine with character in a really nice way. I'd like to see more of this.


    I totally agree with this. My beef remains with the complexity that drags play down like a lead weight. If I could somehow streamline the magic system while preserving the color and the elements listed above, I think I could make the shared setting work, and the troupe style play would follow if the group cared to go there. I don't know much about Mortal Coil, but if I refactor the system, I will have to account for character conversion. Part of me wants to try the Dark Ages Mage system (very freeform in comparison) as a foundation and merge it with my Wushu-FATE bastard hybrid. It might work if I use d10. Anyone care to enlighten me on Mortal Coil?

    D&D's Tome of Magic actually uses these guys as vestiges of ancient beings you can bind into yourself to emulate their powers and myths. It's pretty cool.


    See my comment above about the House Tytalus Titanoi mystery cult binding the shades of the actual friggin' Titans. The books about the Houses are packed cover to cover with this kind of cool...along with a titanic load of special case supplemental magic rules.

    So how would we awesomify Ars?
    • CommentAuthorcydmab
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 48
    I'll just report my group's experience with Ars Magica, I decided to propose Ars Magica as a compromise between traditional games and story/hippy games (one of the other players was making noises about running a NWoD or a D20 game, which made me feel ill, so I suggested Ars Magica as a compromise)

    We spent two 4 hour sessions building characters, the covenant, and sketching out some world background as a group... and we still hadn't finished. This was pretty fun, but also kinda alarming to me.

    Four of us promised to GM on a rotating basis. The first two ran a session each, and then the last two reneged and passively failed to organize or run a game, causing the experiment to collapse. I think there's maybe some kind of lesson here about rotating GMs on a session by session basis. It's only going to work in accordance with the least enthusiastic player. Unless everyone is equally and highly enthusiastic, there can be a problem. My current feeling is one should rotate GMs scene by scene, not session by session.

    The rules clutter sapped my spirit to keep the game alive and hound people to live up to their promise to GM sessions. I was happy to let it die in favor of trying other games instead.
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 49
    Posted By: HituroI'm interested in what you think does it better.
    To do so, I have to point out what part of its system (or what ideas in its system) I like: Broad, freeform magic. That's it. That's what attracted me to Ars Magica, originally.

    Other systems that have broad, freeform magic without AMs complexity are, for example, Mage the Awakening and Mage the Ascension. I don't really like either game, for reasons other then their magic system, but freeform magic they do well, with much less complexity.

    Another, although pretty different approach, is Nobilis. Again, the system allows broad and very freeform magic and could easily be adapted for a more conventional magic system and its about as easy a system as it gets.

    The problem I have with AMs magic system is that, ultimately, a lot of it is, IMO, pointless for what it sets out to do. (And what I want out of it, obviously.) I've often read by people who like the system that this complexity is somehow "necessary" for this free-ranging magic style, but as other games show, it isn't. IMO, a large portion of the system could be cut out and streamlined, without losing anything in robustness or usefullness, while being much less work.

    Many times that is blatant and annoying overkill that has to be ignored to make the game flow but sometimes its a lifesaver that other games just can't offer.
    A system that has to be ignored "many times" to make a game fun is a badly designed system, IMO.
    • CommentAuthorMoreno R.
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 50
    I would really like to read Vincent's old posts in the Ars Magica mailing list.

    Vincent, did you save them?
    •  
      CommentAuthorHexabolic
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2007
     # 51
    I wonder...whether Heroquest might work....

    This might entail thread derailment, so I'll keep it brief. Keywords would work the same. Use...hmm..."Vulgar birth"..."House"..."Via" (for wizardly occupation, maybe)..."The Gift" for personalized magic traits. I could lump the Arts under the additional keyword "Hermetic Magic" and keep the Art scores all about the same, including adding the verb+noun Latin bits. To cast a spell, a character would need to match the spell's level as taken from the book...you could probably keep the spell descriptions and even effects as well, if you wanted the crunch. Alternatively, just use the Arts as described, throw in a bonus for "formulaic spells" and keep the division the same for spontaneous effects. Lots of bonuses for using wizardly foci and occultist jargon. Throw away the spell lists except as inspiration, and go!
    •  
      CommentAuthorHituro
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2007
     # 52
    Posted By: LordMinxA system that has to be ignored "many times" to make a game fun is a badly designed system, IMO.


    No its a well designed system that doesn't need to be applied all the time. GURPS has a combat system that I often ignore when it would be detrimental to the flow of play, so when your knight wades through the mooks they just get scattered without a roll, that doesn't make it badly designed, it just means I have to think about when to apply it.

    The Ars Magica spell design system, for example, doesn't need to be invoked in full every time you spont something minor (though many Ars GM's are the anal retentive types who *will*, sad to say), but it still does its job well when you *do* try and design a spell in full.
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2007
     # 53
    *shrug*

    I disagree. I want a system I don't have to ignore all the time to make a game fun. If it's built for Spell Design, but using it for that will result in unfun games often, then it's obviously a badly designed system. It doesn't matter wether it's mathematically sound, or fun to use sometimes, when a system has to be ignored when you do what it's designed to cover, then it sucks.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHexabolic
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2007
     # 54
    Some of that depends on the group's creative agenda/general temperament/prefs. I've had players who loved to tinker under the system's hood, but my current group is all about story and character and could care less about detailed mechanics.

    My take? In its current incarnation, Ars is hard to wield without embracing the detail. Put another way, there's a lot to hand wave past unless you (collectively as the group) are willing to dig into the minutiae. Maybe it's just a sign of my limitations as a GM, but I find ad libbing past a sheaf of rules details hard to distinguish from fiat. I'm very comfortable being spontaneous, but the system has enough fiddly bits and formulae that the players can see all over their sheets, it's tricky to cut to a personal interpretation of what subsystem to blow off. Especially, I might add, when the players are trying (casually) to learn the system.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHituro
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2007
     # 55
    Well I agree that Ars Magica players are, largely, not 'play it by the wire' sorts, they are usually methodical, history obsessed, and keen on systems, overly keen one might say (if you are not one of them). The average Ars Magica player, from what I have seen, really does love to use all those little modifiers and tweaks, and Ars Magica campaigns tend to have almost as many house rules as there are real rules!

    Even then, though, there is a difference between adding up every point when someone sponts a spell and just saying "you need second magnitude" and letting the details slide.

    Lord Minx ... didn't mean to sound snarky. It is a good system for spell design, its just that sometimes its more fun (I think) to let the magic happen than worry about spell design.
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007
     # 56
    Posted By: HituroLord Minx ... didn't mean to sound snarky. It is a good system for spell design, its just that sometimes its more fun (I think) to let the magic happen than worry about spell design.
    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, I'm afraid.

    As I said, good system for me is one that consistently makes the game more fun, without having to be fudged or ignored. It could produce high art or the unified field theory for all I care, if using it makes a game less fun, it's not a good game system.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHituro
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007
     # 57
    Posted By: Lord MinxAs I said, good system for me is one that consistently makes the game more fun, without having to be fudged or ignored. It could produce high art or the unified field theory for all I care, if using it makes a game less fun, it's not a good game system.


    I think we are *so* talking at cross purposes :) I think it is a good system, that does work perfectly for what it is for and consistently makes the game more fun and doesn't have to be fudged. I was just trying to suggest that there are times when you can cast a spell in Ars Magica without looking at the spell design system, just as there are times in D&D when you can hit a monster without invoking the combat system, on as there are times in GURPS when you can change an NPC's mind without rolling diplomacy.

    People complain that the magic system in Ars Magica is too crunchy and too detailed and gets in the way of fun. I'm trying to say that it isn't, because the kind of fun that people think it gets in the way of (quick and casual bits of magic) don't need it in the first place and that some Ars Magica players are wrong to invoke the crunchy system when it isn't needed.

    Is that more clear?
  58.  # 58
    I think you're both mistaken. Ars players are *not* wrong to invoke crunch if they enjoy it. Crunch is not something that has an universal effect on people's enjoyment and by and large, Ars is for people who want magical crunch. It does have a good framework to let you just bullshit it out, though, to the point where people confuse it for a full game system.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHituro
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007
     # 59
    Well I'm happy to be mistaken, all I know is I like it! :)

    But I have been in lots of Ars Magica games where I (or another player) says "I spont a quick spell to keep the rain off with my Re10 and Aq10" and someone still insists on working out whether I want Magnitude 4 or 5, and how much of a bonus I'd get if I was carrying an emerald. Clearly they do that because they like the crunch, but some players (like me) would much rather they didn't bother *every* time.
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007 edited
     # 60
    Posted By: Hituro
    Is that more clear?
    It's clear and has been pretty much from the beginning. I, personally, prefer systems that I can use WHENEVER the thing they mean to cover come up. Having a spell system and then not using it for a spell, because sometimes it ruins the fun, is not something I'm looking for in a game system.

    You're different and that's cool. Obviously, Ars Magica is designed more towards your preferences then mine. (Well and towards the detail-nuts, who are probably happier with the system then either of us. ^_^ )

    Posted By: Malcolm SheppardI think you're both mistaken. Ars players are *not* wrong to invoke crunch if they enjoy it. Crunch is not something that has an universal effect on people's enjoyment and by and large, Ars is for people who want magical crunch. It does have a good framework to let you just bullshit it out, though, to the point where people confuse it for a full game system.
    I think I always had a "for me" and "IMOs" in there, but yeah, I could have highlighted the fact that this is about my personal preference in systems a bit more. Ars Magica isn't "objectively bad design" (whatever that might mean.) or anything like that. It's just, sadly, designed in a way that makes it heart for me and others to use, even though we like many of its ideas.

    Like I said earlier, thats what makes it so sad. If I didn't like those ideas and wanted to use Ars Magica, I couldn't care less about the systems complexity. As is, though, it breaks my heart a bit.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHituro
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007
     # 61
    Okay I do get what your saying there Lord Minx, and maybe it does suit me more than you, though the more I have posted on this thread the more I realised how annoyed I get with the needless intrusions of the system ... heh :) I see system as supporting play, rather than defining it, while, if I read you right, you are looking for as nearly as seamless as possible integration of system and play, where the system is always supporting you at exactly the level you are playing at?

    Is there a system for magic that you feel gets closer to what you would like, and can that system be used for Ars Magica? People have mentioned Mage, which is certainly related and also looser. Nobilis miracles certainly have a similar feel but are again less crunchy in calculation.
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007 edited
     # 62
    Posted By: HituroOkay I do get what your saying there Lord Minx, and maybe it does suit me more than you, though the more I have posted on this thread the more I realised how annoyed I get with the needless intrusions of the system ... heh :) I see system as supporting play, rather than defining it, while, if I read you right, you are looking for as nearly as seamless as possible integration of system and play, where the system is always supporting you at exactly the level you are playing at?
    A bit yeah. Obviously, this is only something of a platonic ideal, never to be reached (or even wanted) in reall life. But I do want a system that doesn't just "fade into the background" or that's just used now and then when people feel like it. I want the system to be there and do its part of the heavy lifting too, a system that takes our input and prints out awesomeness and much and as often as possible.

    This is probably related to my distates for "just fudging it". I'm one of those guys that wonder "Why did I just spend 3 hours making characters when half of the time these things will be ignored or freeformed anyway?" or "Why did I bother buying, learning and explaining this game when I won't use it at its fullest?".

    I don't need many rules but every rules should have its plce and be active at the table, shaping play and producing fun.

    Is there a system for magic that you feel gets closer to what you would like, and can that system be used for Ars Magica? People have mentioned Mage, which is certainly related and also looser. Nobilis miracles certainly have a similar feel but are again less crunchy in calculation.
    I'm a big fan of the Nobilis approach, with stuff like "Create", "Change"... simply being steps that are available at a certain level. I also don't mind the abstractness, quite to the contrary. Often, solid-but-abstract rules are more adaptable to what happens at the gametable while still giving a good framework for communication and creation.

    Another system I'm very fond of is the above mentioned Heroquest, which I too have thought about using for something Ars Magica inspired. (Ars Magica, powered by HQ, would be an awesome thing, IMO.)

    In a way, I think (large portions of) my preferences boil down to this: I prefer simple and abstract rules able to cover virtually anything I throw at them. Specific subsystems that differ from the general system are ok, but I prefer them to be used before play, like when you design a Chancel, but not so much for actual play where they negate the advantages of the unified resolution system. (Something like Simple and Extended Contests is cool, though.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorHituro
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007
     # 63
    So you wouldn't object to the sort of detail the Ars Magica system uses when designing formulaic spells (which are similar in complexity to how Nobilis handles the exact costing for a gift), since they are used as preparation for play, but they are too much to encounter in the process of play?

    Of course this works to an extent in Ars Magica, you invoke complex rules to design a spell, but casting it is just a die roll. The problem comes when you use spontaneous magic, where you are doing something as complex as spell design, but on the fly. Even then I suspect it would be simple and elegant if only the details of each Form were not different! This again would be closer to Nobilis.
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007 edited
     # 64
    Posted By: HituroSo you wouldn't object to the sort of detail the Ars Magica system uses when designing formulaic spells (which are similar in complexity to how Nobilis handles the exact costing for a gift), since they are used as preparation for play, but they are too much to encounter in the process of play?
    Well, first I'd argue that Gift design in Nobilis isn't nearly as complex as spell design in Ars Magica. (Less "Attributes", less special cases, less rules, more abstraction...) Not even close, IMO.

    And as for the level of Detail: No. I'd object to that anyway, because it's that (to me) useless level of detail, with many subclauses and special rules, that create the criticised complexity in the first place. I don't need that.

    Even then I suspect it would be simple and elegant if only the details of each Form were not different!
    Yeah, if only they weren't different, and there wasn't that bothersome thing with levels and magnitudes, and if only they used a common scale so that Aquam 5 is as usefull as Animal 5 and they hadn't pages of rules for learning spells and found a way to neatly do Requisites and and and...

    Sadly, every individual rule isn't actually bad, or hard, or stupid. Many are actually nifty ideas that I'd like to have at the table. But through five editions, the game has collected such a huge amount of those tiny nifty rules that the collective weight is staggering and their interplay is, IMO, boggling. I'm one of those guys that learn systems inside out and I'm good at it. I have an easy time doing so and I enjoy it. But Ars Magica just wasn't worth the work it would have taken to really familiarize myself with all those tiny rules. And non of the people I play with would have even tried.

    Sad, really, because I'd love to play or run a game of Ars Magica light. Maybe I'll really do that HQ-hack someday. (Or steal liberally from Vincents rules and use Wushu.)
    •  
      CommentAuthornoclue
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007
     # 65
    David and Aaron: I think your debate is interesting on several levels and find myself agreeing with both of you when you seem to be disagreeing with each other. I know, pretty wishy washy. But, its an interesting question, whether a flawed system can be a good system. It seems like David is saying I like this system despite its flaws (flaws meaning "things I personally find unfun" not objective flaws) and Aaron is saying these flaws render the system itself "bad" for me. That's a very subjective dial, "how flawed is too flawed?"
    • CommentAuthorbartmoss
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007 edited
     # 66
    Response to Malcolm Shepherd.

    The problem we had with the "limited" (I know in comparison to most games there was a lot of legal precedent for use in politics) precedents set in Hermetic Law was simply that we eventually ran out of them. How many times can we argue these points, the problem for us was this. They were there, we used them and then another GM comes along and says "damn its that tired chestnut that we all know the way out of...."

    Also the reason why I am happier with a system approach to social situations in so I never have to sit through a predictable debate amongst players. I can usually guess who is going to come out on top in a council of mages played by players. Because the strongest personality wins all the time, its just they are at times not necessarily the "strongest social mage". Yes you are going to blame the players, and yes its the players fault for not roleplaying. But I have noticed that I only run games for humans and humans can be annoying like that. I am also a great believe in no one being perfect so I cannot hassle them too much.

    However we are both fans of the game and experiences differ always!
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    General

    As for the debate that has started about the Magic System. Well mmmm, the problem here is I am biased, I never had much difficulty with the Magic system. I know its not Medieval and its not based on real occult practice but I have a number of theories as to why.

    1. Basing it on actual occult theory would taken a great deal of research and someone would have come along and pointed out to everyone how very wrong they were and it should have been done some other way.

    2. The basic idea of the original game was to design a system in which mages could be mages.

    3. It was originally designed at a time and in a place in which selling a game about demon summoning may not have been a good idea. By the time the 3rd ed supplements came out these problems had died down somewhat.

    I always believed the Medieval setting was a little dodgy but that was down to the fact that they were trying to make it simple. The problem with the time was it was nowhere near as unified as people think, especially Southern France as depicted in 2nd Edition.

    Ars Magic had its faults and I stopped playing it in any large way sometime after 4th edition was released, and oddly enough it was a fantastic campaign in which my character was all about trying to "go beyond the laws of magic". What I liked about it was I would never achieve the goal in the game, and if there had been rules for it I think it would have probably been something way to many people wanted to attempt. And after all it would have meant probably creating multiple magic systems.
    • CommentAuthorbartmoss
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007
     # 67
    Posted By: Lord Minx*shrug*

    I disagree. I want a system I don't have to ignore all the time to make a game fun. If it's built for Spell Design, but using it for that will result in unfun games often, then it's obviously a badly designed system. It doesn't matter wether it's mathematically sound, or fun to usesometimes, when a system has to be ignored when you do what it's designed to cover, then it sucks.


    Unfortunately you are wrong when it comes to Ars Magica. The rule system does not suck.

    The spell design system is fine when you have a group of like minded people around a table who want to have fun.

    But then every game in existence works with that rule applied.
    • CommentAuthorlumpley
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007
     # 68
    This turn the thread has taken is giving me flashbacks.
  69.  # 69
    I think I made a bigger thing out of the emulation of medieval magic thing than I meant to. I don't wish Ars M used only medieval magic, I just think it:-

    a) Doesn't allow some effects that people familiar with medieval, historical, mythical, and legendary magics might expect to be able to do. (A couple of the alternate systems in supplements do cater a bit for this. There's a great cursing a blessing system that lets you apply Virtues and Flaws to people, for e.g.)

    b) Occasionally is at odds with its setting.

    c) Tends to encourage a very modern-scientific mode of thought which can destroy a fair bit of the atmosphere and lead to some frustrating debates.

    d) Is more complicated than it needs to be to achieve its effects.


    To get back to troupe play a bit: for those of you that used it, how did you divide up the game and its elements. Did you just take turns, and each GM had total control for their series? Were certain locations/NPCs the province of specific GMs? Did certain GMs run adventures for certain PCs? I'm really curious as to how people used it in play.
    •  
      CommentAuthornoclue
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007
     # 70
    Posted By: Chris GardinerDoesn't allow some effects that people familiar with medieval, historical, mythical, and legendary magics


    I want to sing a song like Taliesin did that makes it so rival enchanters "can only go blrrrm blrrrm with their fingers and lips like children." Or how about a curse that makes your face break out in black blotches and turns your bowels to water? Or course, that's mythic and pre-medieval.
  71.  # 71
    Posted By: Chris GardinerI think I made a bigger thing out of the emulation of medieval magic thing than I meant to. I don't wish Ars M used only medieval magic, I just think it:-

    a) Doesn't allow some effects that people familiar with medieval, historical, mythical, and legendary magics might expect to be able to do. (A couple of the alternate systems in supplements do cater a bit for this. There's a great cursing a blessing system that lets you apply Virtues and Flaws to people, for e.g.)

    b) Occasionally is at odds with its setting.

    c) Tends to encourage a very modern-scientific mode of thought which can destroy a fair bit of the atmosphere and lead to some frustrating debates.

    d) Is more complicated than it needs to be to achieve its effects.

    To get back to troupe play a bit: for those of you that used it, how did you divide up the game and its elements. Did you just take turns, and each GM had total control for their series? Were certain locations/NPCs the province of specific GMs? Did certain GMs run adventures for certain PCs? I'm really curious as to how people used it in play.


    A-C) I think that the game is pretty open about magi *not* having the medieval mindset. Part of the game's appeal comes from playing intellectually modern characters dealing with primitive knobs from the other estates. I don't think the system is at odds with the setting at all. It's at odds with medieval Europe in the same way that magi and covenants are.

    D) This really is a matter of taste. Some people are in the game for the system porn and notions of what they might do by flipping certain switches and getting pleasure from that, even if the narrative role of the result is relatively minor. This is a trait that some Ars fan shares with , GURPS, Hero, d20 and Burning Wheel fandom.

    Lastly, I find the assertion that multi-GM games don't work sort of funny and sort of sad. I can see how someone might think that if they projected their stereotypes about how 90s era designs played or something. Ars Magica works petty heavily with the idea that the covenant has access to a bunch of interesting zones; it flows petty naturally to assigning GMs to different geographic or even metaphysical areas. This is a precursor of Vampire's urban network based play, where more linear adventures are really more opportunities to change relationships in the social network. In Ars, the politicking is primarily PC-based in the covenant, so relationships with the outside world do not have a hard-coded theme outside of explorin the differences between covenant magi and outsiders.
    • CommentAuthorJudd
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007
     # 72
    Malcolm,

    My own assertion about troupe style play isn't that it didn't work. I just would have liked different parts of Ars to have been juiced up and taken farther in each edition and what initially turned me on about the game just differs quite a bit from where the latter editions took the game.

    I would've liked to have seen even more support for Troupe Style play.

    Judd
  73.  # 73
    Posted By: bartmossResponse to Malcolm Shepherd.

    The problem we had with the "limited" (I know in comparison to most games there was a lot of legal precedent for use in politics) precedents set in Hermetic Law was simply that we eventually ran out of them. How many times can we argue these points, the problem for us was this. They were there, we used them and then another GM comes along and says "damn its that tired chestnut that we all know the way out of...."


    Well, think the solution there is that you already have a precedent set by PCs. One of the advantages of the Code is that PCs do add to it over time:-)

    1. Basing it on actual occult theory would taken a great deal of research and someone would have come along and pointed out to everyone how very wrong they were and it should have been done some other way.


    Having worked on what are probably the two most popular RPGs about the occult ever and having read lots of feedback as a result, I can safely say that in most cases, people think they know a lot more than they really know.There's also a tendency to mistake deliberate changes for errors. For instance, I had a long discussion with a Nepalese gentleman about the Euthanatos where I eventually managed to explain to him that thee were deliberate changes from what he regarded as authentic Tantric practice because, well, the Euthanatos are a creepy fictional sect and needed to be divorced from an actual religion. On a less constructive note, Jim Densborough yammered about the inauthenticity of Atlantis according to his OTO-derived personal conceits, but was easily shut up when I referred him to Aleister Crowley's own writings on Atlantis.

    Basically, much of the history of supernatural belief is largely the result of people making shit up, to the point where in many cases people are unsure if thins have been made up whole cloth or not, so in many cases main shit up is about as good as anything you might research.

    I always believed the Medieval setting was a little dodgy but that was down to the fact that they were trying to make it simple. The problem with the time was it was nowhere near as unified as people think, especially Southern France as depicted in 2nd Edition.


    It never bugged me because there was an honest "fake it till you make it" vibe in the text, right down to telling you how to do faux-Provencal.
  74.  # 74
    Chris,

    The troupe play stuff that I recall enjoying was both shared GMing and shared characters.

    Everyone pitched in to play grogs when their magi and companions were not present, which led to some of them building up some pretty deep personalities and histories.

    The shared GMing required more care but still worked well. I was the main GM, having got the game organised, and two or three of the other players did some GMing periodically. That left another couple of players who never (or rarely) GMed. We took turns based on who had a cool idea for a story, or which magus had to go out of the covenant to gather vis or something. Those of us who did GMing used a system of reserving certain places and characters if we had plans for them, which worked fine. We even managed okay when GM A wanted to use something GM B had reserved, using the cunning technique of checking out if it would be okay ("I want to have the Duke do this and that during my story, is that okay with your plans for him?").

    Overall, this sharing of characters and GMing duties really helped make that game one of my more fondly remembered ones.
  75.  # 75
    Posted By: JuddMalcolm,

    My own assertion about troupe style play isn't that it didn't work. I just would have liked different parts of Ars to have been juiced up and taken farther in each edition and what initially turned me on about the game just differs quite a bit from where the latter editions took the game.

    I would've liked to have seen even more support for Troupe Style play.

    Judd


    I think Regio (which are one o the natural divisions for co-GMing) and study seasons and covenant seasons could have done with more integration into ongoing play, but I can't critique a lot of development just because know it's a matter of taste. I don't like how complicated Grog creation is, but on the other hand some people have a greater tolerance for that kind of thing. Other than that, I suppose you could include procedural advice for splitting duties. But troupe style play is actually pretty easy. I think there's more danger in overanalyzing it than lack of support. Like many things, I wonder if "support" is really important for totemistic, text-validating-your-play reasons instead of functional reasons.
    • CommentAuthorJudd
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007 edited
     # 76
    Posted By: Malcolm Sheppard But troupe style play is actually pretty easy. I think there's more danger in overanalyzing it than lack of support. Like many things, I wonder if "support" is really important for totemistic, text-validating-your-play reasons instead of functional reasons.


    No, I didn't use troupe style play because back then I didn't trust mechanics that deviated from how I was used to playing.

    I didn't want to be validated but supported.

    As I wrote, where the editions went and what they decided to accentuate took a left turn from what I found interesting about the game way-back-when.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHituro
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2007
     # 77
    I've played with (mainly) two sorts of troupe GM'ing style.

    In the most common there is a chief storyguide (or alpha) who runs the main storylines, threats to the covenant and so on. Then there are one or more beta storyguides, who either take one aspect of the setting (such as an enemy covenant), or run minor storylines in rotation.

    The other, which is a lot less common, is to just rotate SG duties, so that everyone gets a go. This tends to me much harder because it doesn't separate the information that each SG knows from each other, which can make some sorts of plots (mysteries and conspiracies) very difficult.

    The more general troupe play aspect is generally the same, players have a Magi each, a couple of companions and a pool of grogs. Players take grogs as needed, whenever one of their characters is not in the story, and will fairly often trade companions as well. Magi are almost always sacrosanct property of the one player though. This is always the big limitation of troupe play for me, players may play loads of characters but they only have one *real* character, the Magi, and invest in that what most people invest in their sole characters in other games.
  78.  # 78
    Mike,

    Thanks for talking a bit about your experiences with troupe play.

    This bit particularly struck me:-

    Everyone pitched in to play grogs when their magi and companions were not present, which led to some of them building up some pretty deep personalities and histories.


    Back when I first discovered Ars M, I never would have assumed that sharing a character could have made that character more nuanced and interesting (an attitude which seems nuts to me now - how could it not?)


    Hituro,

    Thanks, too.

    This is always the big limitation of troupe play for me, players may play loads of characters but they only have one *real* character, the Magi, and invest in that what most people invest in their sole characters in other games.


    Could you talk a bit more about that limitation? How is it limiting? Would you be looking for something even more communal from troupe play, maybe with no characters that aren't shared? Or did having that *real* character detract from the intensity with which the others were played?


    Judd,

    No, I didn't use troupe style play because back then I didn't trust mechanics that deviated from how I was used to playing.

    I didn't want to be validated but supported.


    This was my problem, as well. Troupe play was so different from the play I recognised (a lot of which had been shaped by explicit GM instructions in other games) that it might as well have come from the moon. I just had no idea how to use it in conjunction with how I understood GMing to work.

    I'm not sure that Ars M did a good enough job explaining why troupe play had value; what its advantages were. And some explicit guidelines or even rules on techniques like Mike and Hituro mentioned - of 'reserving' campaign elements, asking permission from other GMs to use their stuff, and alpha/beta GMing relationships - might have made a big difference to me. Those techniques don't really have any equivalents or grounding in the 'traditional' GMing role as Iunderstood it.

    But back then, to me and the people I gamed with, troupe play was clearly insane.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHituro
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2007
     # 79
    Posted By: Chris Gardiner
    Could you talk a bit more about that limitation? How is it limiting? Would you be looking for something even more communal from troupe play, maybe with no characters that aren't shared? Or did having that *real* character detract from the intensity with which the others were played?


    I think its the former, I would have been happy to share everything, Magi included.

    If you are sharing a character then you invest less in it than the character which is solely your own, just as people tend to invest more in their own personal project than they do in something shared at work. When the single owner character is also inherently more interesting (because he or she is a wizard, and has cool powers, and is in charge), and longer lasting (because the grogs grow old and die and the magi don't) then you will invest even more in that character and even less in the other one.

    If the Magi were shared too they would still get more attention, I suspect, but that would be balanced out by being everyone's attention, and you could focus on the other character's development more.

    Of course it also doesn't help that in the average example of troupe play the Magi go around doing something cool, the companions help and the grogs carry the baggage, stand around looking tough, and say "yes master" a lot :) Power imbalance in that way messes the troupe concept up. You aren't going to be able to invest a lot into a grog's development as a craftsman, or his grief for his lost wife, or his slowly falling in love, when the Magi are rushing you along to defeat the dragon and get its vis!

    In my experience troupe play works a lot better when the characters you are troupe playing are balanced in terms of the power (social, magical, physical whatever) that they have in relation to each other. So troupe play in Ars Magica goes a lot better when the Magi stay at home :)
    • CommentAuthorJudd
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2007 edited
     # 80
    Mistake.

1 to 80 of 114

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >