I am of the opinion that we should turn this into a purely-politics type game.  Everyone create characters, every RL "Season" get XP for character development...  30 per year breaks down to 7.5 per season.  Maybe bonus XP dependent on storytelling the adventures of your Covenant in a storytelling thread.... allowing up to 15 XP per season?

Most of the Magi spend most of their time time out adventuring, so a purely-tribunal sort of game (could even break it down to parts of the world) would be a fun way to play our favorite characters, and not need GMing or the sort...  Thoughts?

Well, here is a summary of the interests of those who I mentioned discussing it (individual placements/votes at the right):

1. Exploring magical/mystical places 1,1,2,2
   
2. Character development 1,1,2,3
   
3. Roleplaying, relationships, diplomacy 2,3,3,3
   
4. Combat 4,4,4,5
   
5. Management of the covenant and covenfolk 4,5,5,5
   
6. Historically realistic setting 6,6,6,6

As exploring and character development easily beat out relationships/diplomacy, I don't think relationships/diplomacy is where I would try to go with this.



Out of curiosity, how do you manage purely politics without GMing? Personally, I find politics to require the heaviest GMing because someone secretly needs to know the goals of all sorts of NPCs and of groups that might include PCs among the NPCs or not. I find heavy exploring and character development less GM-heavy since the GM is barely needed for development and exploring can involve isolated places so that all sorts of connections need not be known and can be handled by lots of GMs not in the know about lots of background info on NPCs.

On the troupe-style end, I could see focusing on points 1, 2, and 4 for exactly that non-GM dependent reason and have an alpha storyteller whose responsibility is more point 3.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:14, Sun 14 May 2017.

The problem with a more-than-politics, is that it's stops being a community, and becomes a game.  Pure-politics simply means roleplaying without rules, by my definition.  Maybe we could start defining covenants around the world, building each according to the desires of people living in the area...

I don't know all the hows/wheres, just throwing ideas out there.

Were I made aware of the voting, I would have chosen Character Development as first, Roleplaying as 2nd, Covenants as 3rd.

Oh, you mean this here? I was thinking about for the creation of a future game, not as what to do with this forum.

The original idea of Ars was a one magus/one companion setup with grogs being a communal resource for role-playing.  Having multiple companions muddies the waters and widens the cast too far in my opinion so I agree with callen there.  It's nice to have a big ensemble cast but it can get tiresome if you feel like you must play all of them.

In the case of the game callen mentions, the covenant premise was designed around a group of active players with solid Magi concepts/characters who decided to bow out.  Characters like that are big holes to fill in the Saga.  Primarily because they were so invested in being the heart of the covenant as designed.  I've always been curious as to why someone would design a character to be so vested and then bow out (barring IRL issues, of course).  I've seen it in several games I've played in.

The covenant itself is sometimes a game breaker I've noticed.  Creating a new covenant takes time, interest and a very granular rule-set...not to mention a very clear vision of it as a very large character in your game.  Joining an existing covenant gives the characters a quicker entrance into playing but can restrict the numbers of players (from an already stated small base) interested in joining it and relegates then to being junior members or outsiders for a period of time.

 I've ran Sagas with the troupe joining a failing covenant, resurrecting one that had been lost and starting a wholly new covenant and all of those methods seemed to have their own unique issues.  It's super handy when you have a couple of players enthusiastically take charge of handling big portions of creating the covenant but that runs the risk of burn out or losing interest.  Idk what the answer is beyond having players and StoryGuides whose interest doesn't burn out after a while.

One way to use zylphyr's idea would be to have a large pool of characters existing in the same world. A GM could offer to run an adventure--rather than a whole saga--and anyone who's interested could join that adventure. The challenge would be coordinating it all--having a standard system for seasons, power level, items, and XP. (I'm thinking of something similar to Paizo's Pathfinder Society.) Characters could participate in tribunal politics if they want, or leave it alone. Whatever works. :)

The data Callen so kindly compiled was based on four responses: mine, his, and two other people who haven't joined this forum yet. I'd love to see the rest of your opinions--how would you rank those four aspects of Ars Magica?

(I was the oddball who said that covenant management is more fun than combat. :) )

One thing that has been tried on a small scale is Sagas existing in the same 'universe' so to speak. Callen and Shadowsmith's games nominally exist together though they may never have characters interact.

I've always thought that was a solid concept but the limited number of players and StoryGuides probably precludes that from being a prominent feature but would make for a really cool Grand Tribunal!
This message was last edited by the player at 00:59, Mon 15 May 2017.

1. Roleplaying, relationships, diplomacy
   
2. Management of the covenant and covenfolk
   
3. Historically realistic setting
   
4. Character development
   
5. Exploring magical/mystical places
   
6. Combat

I never realized how much of an oddball I was when it came to Ars Magica until I saw how different my preferences were than those expressed so far.

I do think, in terms of RPOL, that covenant creation would be a more arduous task than in person, because it requires a hefty dialogue to come to consensus.  I think a way to combat that problem would be for the storyguide to create some sort of "default" covenant, complete with charter, and then let the players change it if they want.  That would streamline the discussion to only actual ideas that the players feel about strongly.

1. Roleplaying, relationships, diplomacy
   
2. Character development
   
3. Exploring magical/mystical places
   
4. Management of the covenant and covenfolk
   
5. Combat
   
6. Historically realistic setting

  "Historicity" is not something that draws the to Ars Magica though I do enjoy the more grounded setting.  Some folks enjoy the minutiae of medieval life but I am not one of them.  A sense of atmosphere is all I require.
  Combat is deadly and should be avoided if at all possible but that doesn't mean that you have to be helpless.  Certamen falls into this category for me as well.  If push comes to shove, characters I play will fight but I'm not one who goes looking for a fight.

Because my vote would be harder to count/notice if anyone is keeping track, I'm re-writing it to format here:

1. Character Development.
2. Roleplaying, relationships, diplomacy.
3. Management of Covenant and Covenfolk.
4. Exploring Magical/Mystical places.
5. Combat.
6. Historically realistic setting.

Currently places the votes at (where lowest is best):


Character Development: 14
Roleplaying:           15
Exploring:             18
Coven:                 28
Combat:                33
Realism:               39

However, I think the later votes may be a vote for what they'd like here, as to opposed in an actual game, because given an actual game, exploring for me would go up one rank, and the coven down 1 rank.

Here is the current tally of preferences (presumably for a game, as opposed to here, as zylphyr pointed out). I'm not sure I really want to think of them as votes, though that just gets into semantics I guess.

I don't usually just do sums of votes because of oddities that tend to arise. For instance 1, 1, 1, 2, 6 would lose to 2, 2, 2, 3, 1 (with voters in the same order) just because a single voter rated them 6 and 1 even though four out of five prefer the first. That's why thing like the skating system are set to counter-balance the effects of marks on either extreme. Right now I think any method would get the same order (2nd v 3rd would split the same way with tie-breakers), though.

1. Character development 1,1,1,2,2,3,4
   
2. Roleplaying, relationships, diplomacy 1,1,2,2,3,3,3
   
3. Exploring magical/mystical places 1,1,2,2,3,3,5
   
4. Management of the covenant and covenfolk 2,4,4,4,5,5,5
   
5. Combat 4,4,4,5,5,5,6
   
6. Historically realistic setting 3,6,6,6,6,6,6

We still have a small enough sample size that it doesn't necessarily tell us what is normal for Ars Magica players in general. Just what is normal for our 7 participants. :)

In reply to statesman88 (msg # 14):

Good Afternoon All.  Thanks for having me.

I’ll admit upfront that I joined for very specific reasons.  I love Ars Magica.  But I’ve never been involved in a game that lasted longer than the first story.  There are varying patterns around the game disintegrations, but it usually comes down to power struggles of some kind in either the covenant building or character creation stages.  Then again, most of the games I was part of were on one particular forum.  So that may have had something to do with it as well.

Over the years (decades) I’ve accumulated several games I was going to run when it was my turn to SG.  But because the main game came apart, I never got that turn.  Recently I decided I was going to try to run some of those storylines here on RPOL.net. I had gotten as far as creating the forum and putting up the first post before other games and RL demanded my attention.

With two of my other games starting to wind down and my job situation settling, I was thinking about going back to work up some of these dormant stories.  My approach is a bit different than the usual ArM game though.  Essentially, the games are either one shots or mini-campaigns.  Sandboxes for one or two characters.  That way, it wouldn’t matter as much if people left.

It may be that I’m now a bit gun shy about troupe style play.  But I wanted to see how such an approach might sound, as well as perhaps get some feedback about which game ideas sound the most interesting.  A couple of them are below to give an idea of what I’m talking about.

Thanks.

- ‘Judges’.  A mini-campaign for one or two magi, at least one from House Guernicus.  The game follows a Quaesitor fresh from gauntlet as they begin their career in Hermetic law enforcement.  There would be the odd Scooby mystery style game.  But I would also want to focus on Hermetic and Tribunal politics, diplomacy with the Mundane and Fae, and probably the oddball ‘How Many Diabolists Can You Spot In This Picture’ style game.

- ‘The Cat Came Back’.  Styled after Deadly Legacy and similar mini campaigns.  A magical cat hires a couple of magi and their entourage to find the missing Jerbiton whose familiar he was supposed to become.  Would involve travel across Mythic Europe, intrigue, and some action sequences.  Originally this was going to be a lead off for a troupe game as it would give the characters’ familiarity with a few possible covenant sights across three tribunals.

-An apprentice style game.  The difference here is that this would be less Harry Potter and more Charles Dickens.  Players would not only have to learn magic.  They would have to survive it.  The original concept had players unable to directly choose what house they went to.  Also, there would be a lot of in house rules as I’m not a huge fan of some of the cannon rules for apprentices.

In reply to statesman88 (msg # 14):

One question on ya'lls votes.  When you say 'Character Development', do you mean the mechanical development through the game rules?  Or Development in a more story related way?  It's been my experience different people mean that term in different ways.  Didn't want to assume.  Thanks.

What issues do you have with the Apprentice supplement?  I've read through it but haven't really digested it mentally.

In reply to warjoski (msg # 16):

I lumped mechanical growth and personal story development together. But they're not the same thing. If you want a system of gamer motivations that's more rigorous, Google the research of Nick Yee. :)

I'm currently running Griffin Hall, an apprentice game set in a Winter covenant (link to another game). I started with seven players and I'm down to four. At some point, I might be recruiting for a new apprentice or two, but not yet.

I actually love building and managing a covenant, but I've watched it kill game after game here on RPoL. I could see having it as a side thread for one or two players while the main story is something more active and appealing to the larger audience.

In reply to witchdoctor (msg # 17):

I like the way they work out the growth mechanics.  In fact I think it's very well done.

Where it falls apart for me is that part of the apprentice system is based on the carbon copy approach.  I don't have my copy of the book in front of me at the moment.  So I can't give specific quotes.  But in a nutshell, if the master has a flaw or virtue, the apprentice ends up with it.  If the apprentice has a flaw or virtue the master doesn't, it will be lost at some point.  This is just in relation to Gift related flaws and virtues for the most part.  Though I believe it also can apply to others in some cases.  And I am not speaking of flaws or virtues required by a lineage or tradition.

For example if the Master has Deficient Ignem, than it stands to reason his Apprentice will probably have some difficulty with Ignem.  I believe the cannon would require that difficulty to be Deficient Ignem.  That seems somewhat arbitrary to me.  It could be the Master's Gift just lacks something causing the flaw.  The Apprentice's Gift might not have that lack.  I would prefer the player handling the apprentice have some leeway as to how their character progresses in virtues and flaws.  No child is ever going to turn out exactly like their parents.

In reply to warjoski (msg # 20):

That doesn't sound right. The master may choose to teach Hermetic Virtues they have and may give Hermetic Flaws they have to make the process easier. But generally, outside of the House Virtue, they don't pass on any V/F automatically.

I've always enjoyed the idea of a covenant having apprentices running around but have never gotten far enough along in a saga to really have that.  Some may find the idea tedious but bringing up the next generation of magi was always something  I looked forward to. Most Tribunals have an absolutely haphazard way of discovering and treating Gifted children (with the notable exception of the Thebans) that makes me wonder how The Order manages to perpetuate itself...

In reply to callen (msg # 21):

You are correct. My mistake.  I was misremembering part of the book detailing childhood.

What type of Saga would interest you all individually?  Setting, theme, goals?

I love games where my character is able to build or create something that will make a lasting change to the world. This could be a building, an organization, or a greater understanding of magic.

I could see having a lot of fun playing a group of wizard/explorers. We could have a covenant that travels on a group of wagons. Or if we want to go High Fantasy, a small flying island.

That could be a really cool thing. Something a bit different, too. I like that it would make a small group of characters intimately involved with each other much more so than at a typical covenant. Here are some variants on the same thing, depending on how the characters approach it:

• Wagon train of sorts.
• Flying island.
• Flying castle.
• Ship(s) (flying or not).
• A Tardis (lower-tech, of course), care of a Merinita with Glamour.

I feel obligated to add "giant turtle" to that list. Not a incomprehensibly large one, like A'Tuin of Discworld: just 150 feet or so in diameter, walking slowly from place to place.