Pendragon vs. Ars Magica
Mark Rouleau
>I'm interested in running a game set in a fantasy Medeival Europe and am
>trying to decide between Pendragon and Ars Magica.
>
>Could any of you who've played both please tell me which you like better
>and why? Or, if you liked both, what the main differences are?
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>- Dan
Hoo Boy.
1st both games hold certain similarities. They are both very sophisticated
(not necessarily in rule mechanics, but in flavor. Both expect a lot from the
players and gamemaster, and play best when ROLE-playing, not ROLL-playing.)
Both are set in medieval europe. Pendragon is set during a mythical time of
the 6th c. when the "magic of camelot" produces many technical and magical
advances. Ars Magica is set sometime between 1197 and 1220 A.D. depending on
which edition you use.
Both have a collapsable time scale. As a knight in Pendragon, you may found
an entire dynasty, accrueing wealth and fame as the years go by, eventually
role-playing your children and grandchildren, if you so desire. Ars Magica's
wizards gain power as the seasons pass, often spending *years* on experiments,
until they eventually succumb to magical Twilight.
Pendragon deals primarily with Knights, Knightly deeds, and Chivalrous
behaviour. Using a stripped down version of Chaosium's Basic Role-Playing
System, you generate a knight based on ethnic region (Briton, Scot, etc.). In
addition to generating skills, you also determine Passions (such as Loyalty to
Lord) and Personality Traits (Chaste vs. Lustful, for example.)
As a knight you adventure, developing your Glory, your personal holdings, your
political connections, and your passions. Magic is de-emphasized (rules for
magic don't appear until fourth edition) and exists primarily at gamemaster's
fiat. (which is a kind of car, I think . . .)
Ars Magica is, in many ways, the flip side to Pendragon, from the wizard's
POV. Players are members of a Covenant (group of wizards bound together for
mutual protection.) You can play a wizard (vastly powerful magic-wielder), a
companion (a useful member of the covenant who is not necesarily magical, such
as a knight, ranger, bard, etc. . .) or a grog (cannon fodder.)
Rules are based around a simple system-- a d10 + approp. attribute + approp.
skill has to beat a target number. Magic is very heavily emphasized; in fact,
a mage is vastly superior to other types of characters.
Magic is based on Techniques (create, destroy, change, etc.), and Forms (Air,
Plant, Fire, etc.) By matching a technique to a form, a player can
theoretically create any kind of spell imaginable. P.S. there's some latin
involved.
My own preference is to Ars Magica. It's the only game i ever played where I
felt I got exactly the character I had wanted to play. Despite (or maybe
because of) the power imbalance between character types, companion and grog
characters are as fun to play as the mages. (It seems as though the most
memorable characters are always the grogs . . .)
If you do pick up ArM, please consider either the fourth edition (by atlas
games) or the second edition, by Lion Rampant. (I'd recommend 4th
wholeheartedly except for some ghastly ommissions. Where are the rules for
True Miracles, AG? As it stands, that +3 "virtue" just doesn't seem worth it
:-)
My .02.
Mark Rouleau
_________________________________________________
"...we all know that a lot of water has passed
under the bridge, gone out to sea, turned into
a cloud, come back and rained on many a parade."
--The Rutles, "Archaeology."
Mark Rouleau
_________________________________________________
"...we all know that a lot of water has passed
under the bridge, gone out to sea, turned into
a cloud, come back and rained on many a parade."
--The Rutles, "Archaeology."
Dave Nalle
>I'm interested in running a game set in a fantasy Medeival Europe and am
>trying to decide between Pendragon and Ars Magica.
>
>Could any of you who've played both please tell me which you like better
>and why? Or, if you liked both, what the main differences are?
I'd advise against both games for several faults which they have in comon.
1st, neither of them does a particularly good job of bringing a medieval
fantasy world to life. Pendragon presents a very specialized sub-genre of
medieval fantasy and Ars Magica's background is just sort of lame and
twisted.
2nd, both present rule systems which are designed to restrict creativity
and discourage roleplaying. This isn't always a bad thing, and it is
intentional because they are presenting very strucured settings, but if
you want to have a fun campaign and interesting roleplaying these
restrictions are going to bog things down.
Both games can be fun to play, but I don't think you'll ever have a good,
long-term campaign with either.
Dave
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I write both as an individual and as a company representative
Quest for the Grail Website: http://www.ccsi.com/~graball/quest
Scriptorium Website: http://www.ccsi.com/~graball/scriptorium
David R. Henry
Dave Nalle writes:
>>I'm interested in running a game set in a fantasy Medeival Europe and am
>>trying to decide between Pendragon and Ars Magica.
>
>I'd advise against both games for several faults which they have in comon.
>
>1st, neither of them does a particularly good job of bringing a medieval
>fantasy world to life. Pendragon presents a very specialized sub-genre of
>medieval fantasy and Ars Magica's background is just sort of lame and
>twisted.
On the contrary, Pendragon sets out to do nothing more than present
that very specialized sub-genre of medieval fantasy, and does it
very well. Don't knock the game for not being what it never wanted
to be.
>2nd, both present rule systems which are designed to restrict creativity
>and discourage roleplaying.
Hardly. Ars Magica in any form hasn't been any more "restrictive" than
buying Disadvantages a la Champions, while the Passions and Traits of
Pendragon are only restrictive in the hands of a poor GM and players
who don't understand what they're there for.
>Both games can be fun to play, but I don't think you'll ever have a good,
>long-term campaign with either.
I've had long, fun campaigns with both systems, and depending on what
you want, I'd recommend either one of them. Pendragon actually does
a better job of recreating a very specific and unique setting and
mood, but the world for Ars Magica is, by definition, wider and
less structured, allowing more freedom in campaign placement.
--
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu
"When the Martians land, will the press have access?"
Lyle Youngblood
Could someone please e-mail me the address to re-subscribe to TML.
Assuming it is still running?
Thank You,
Lyle Youngblood
Dan Davenport
Lydia Leong wrote:
>
<<snip of a ton of useful information from Lydia and Mark for which I'm
extremely grateful>>
So, which do you think would work better: using Ars Magica rules for the
Pendragon setting or using the Pendragon rules for the Ars Magica
setting?
(The latter was proposed by our GM when he realized that a majority of
our group was getting discouraged with the complexity of creating AM
characters -- unfortunately, we ended up playing neither AM or
Pendragon. :-( )
Peter Hentges
Mark Rouleau wrote:
> Hoo Boy.
I'll second that...tough choice. I, too, side in favor of Ars Magica
in the end, however.
> If you do pick up ArM, please consider either the fourth edition (by atlas
> games) or the second edition, by Lion Rampant. (I'd recommend 4th
> wholeheartedly except for some ghastly ommissions. Where are the rules for
> True Miracles, AG? As it stands, that +3 "virtue" just doesn't seem worth it
> :-)
Checking the ArM4 index, I find "Miracles" on p. 244 where it explains
that such grand acts of God aren't subject to mechanistic restrictions
(God not playing dice, afterall ;). This is certainly an improvement
over ArM3 where, as we calculated in the Trident Underground Warehouse
one afternoon, you were guaranteed a miracle by simply exchanging 20
chainmail hauberks for relics of local saints down at the local
market....
Above the entry for Miracles is the entry on True Faith where it
explains
that those with Faith Points get a pretty decent magic resistance (esp.
if combined with relics).
[O] Peter Hentges
[O] Egret hen pest
[O] JBRU
True Faith where it
Lydia Leong
In article <5c1cik$1k...@node2.frontiernet.net>,
Mark Rouleau <mrou...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>I'm interested in running a game set in a fantasy Medeival Europe and am
>>trying to decide between Pendragon and Ars Magica.
>>
>>and why? Or, if you liked both, what the main differences are?
Ah, my two all-time favorite games. :)
>1st both games hold certain similarities. They are both very sophisticated
>(not necessarily in rule mechanics, but in flavor. Both expect a lot from the
>players and gamemaster, and play best when ROLE-playing, not ROLL-playing.)
This is very true. Both games are heavily story/setting/character-oriented,
requiring some amount of sophistication from both the GameMaster and the
players.
In terms of game mechanics, Pendragon is a fairly simple system; it's
the sort of system that your players will feel completely comfortable
with after a single session of play (20-siders for everything, except
for six-siders for damage, basically).
Ars Magica, by contrast, is a fairly complex system, due to the sheer
number of things it has to account for, particularly in the area of
magic. The rules take some time to master, due to the large number of
special cases in magic-related activities, but the basic
task-resolution system is straightforward.
>Both are set in medieval europe. Pendragon is set during a mythical time of
>the 6th c. when the "magic of camelot" produces many technical and magical
>advances. Ars Magica is set sometime between 1197 and 1220 A.D. depending on
>which edition you use.
Pendragon occupies what I think of as "mythic time"; anything between
about the fourth century and the sixteenth century can conceivably fit
reasonably into a Pendragon game. The game uses Malory as its primary
source, but integrates in other Arthurian literature. This means that
it is really concerned with flavor, more than history. Normal modern
notions of causality don't necessary apply in Pendragon; this is the
sort of game world where there really are knights who do nothing but
stand at bridges and challenge all comers, just like one sees in the
tales of Malory.
Ars Magica, on the other hand, is very grounded in history, albeit a
history where the reality of God, Satan, Faerie, and Magic is a
certainty. This is the sort of game where some level of historical
research is very useful -- it's possible to run an Ars Magica without
it, but research really brings out the richness of the game setting,
by allowing you to put mythic spins on mundane events.
>Both have a collapsable time scale.
Both games are epics, essentially. Ars Magica's structure pretty much
_requires_ time spent away from adventuring, with at least a few years
passing during a campaign. With Pendragon, it's fairly easy to simply
have a bunch of questing knights-errant wander from adventure to
adventure; long-term multi-generational development is not strictly
necessary (of three campaigns thus far, generating previous family
history has always been important, but we've always just concentrated
on a single generation of characters).
>Pendragon deals primarily with Knights, Knightly deeds, and Chivalrous
>behaviour.
Pendragon Fourth Edition also provides an option to play all
magicians, instead of knights. I'm not convinced of the strength of
the magic system in Pendragon; while it does a nice job of conveying
what magicians can do in this world, Pendragon magic in general really
ought to be the mysterious sort, in my opinion. Still, I've heard that
a group of all magicians can be an interesting thing to play (you quest
for enlightenment rather than glory, basically).
>Ars Magica is, in many ways, the flip side to Pendragon, from the wizard's
>POV.
It should be noted that Ars Magica emphasizes "Troupe Play", allowing
players to switch off between multiple characters, and cooperative
design of the covenant and the world the characters inhabit. Players
are also encouraged to trade off GameMastering duties.
The Troupe idea also works well for Pendragon, by the way, though the
system doesn't officially support it -- squires and ladies make for
good supporting characters, much as Grogs and Companions do in Ars
Magica.
>My own preference is to Ars Magica.
Mine is Pendragon. :)
Pendragon is much less work for the GameMaster; I particularly like
being able to sketch NPCs in a handful of Significant Traits, and the
slightly odd nature of the world makes it easy for the GameMaster to
"wing it" -- because things do occur in the middle of nowhere for no
readily apparent reason, players who insist on wandering off in totally
unexpected directions aren't too difficult to cope with.
Pendragon also requires less book-keeping in general; a detailed Ars
Magica covenant contains a ton of NPCs and probably on the order of
two dozen PCs, all of which need to be kept track of for each year
of game time.
>If you do pick up ArM, please consider either the fourth edition (by atlas
>games) or the second edition, by Lion Rampant. (I'd recommend 4th
>wholeheartedly except for some ghastly ommissions. Where are the rules for
>True Miracles, AG? As it stands, that +3 "virtue" just doesn't seem worth it
I wholeheartedly recommend 4th edition. 4th edition contains a great deal
of material that simply isn't present in 2nd edition, and I think the
rules are in general cleaner and better presented.
As for rules for miracles -- I dunno. I think miracles should be miracles,
not governed by game mechanics. ;)
Which brings up a final point: With Pendragon, you will get a fairly
brief section on rules, together with a ton of background, in the main
rulebook. With Ars Magica, you will get a book of rules with minimum
background. Either game can be run with just the core rulebook, but I
highly recommend _The Boy King_ for Pendragon, and _Order of Hermes_
(or _Houses of Hermes_) for Ars Magica.
The emphasis of Pendragon is upon individual character development;
this is a game which is best played by small groups (four players) and
which absolutely not be run with groups larger than six (IMHO). The
emphasis of Ars Magica is the development of the characters and
covenant as a whole.
Both games are superb RPGs, well worth trying out.
-- Lydia
Jason Langlois
Dave Nalle wrote:
>
> >I'm interested in running a game set in a fantasy Medeival Europe and am
> >trying to decide between Pendragon and Ars Magica.
> >
> >Could any of you who've played both please tell me which you like better
> >and why? Or, if you liked both, what the main differences are?
>
> fantasy world to life. Pendragon presents a very specialized sub-genre of
> medieval fantasy and Ars Magica's background is just sort of lame and
> twisted.
Pendragon, from what I can tell, attempts to represent a mythical
medieval time. The era of Beowulf, Arthur and Charlemagne. With the
supplements BEYOND THE WALL, PAGAN SHORES, and LAND OF GIANTS it
allows you to play Pict warriors, Irish tribesmen, and Northman raiders.
There is an attempt to work from a historical base, and then modify
what is real to what is mythic, based on the source material.
This isn't a specialized sub-genre of medieval fantasy -- it IS
medieval fantasy. The Arthurian cycle has its roots in the Middle
Ages, even. To reduce that whole genre to a sub-genre is rather petty
and small-minded.
>
> 2nd, both present rule systems which are designed to restrict creativity
> and discourage roleplaying. This isn't always a bad thing, and it is
> intentional because they are presenting very strucured settings, but if
> you want to have a fun campaign and interesting roleplaying these
> restrictions are going to bog things down.
As others have pointed out, in the hands of a good GM, Pendragon doesn't
restrict -- it enhances. The Personality Traits and Passions reflect
your play of the character, and help ensure a fairly consistent
behaviour
for your PC. They help you with your roleplay, rather than hindering
it.
I've never had a game bog down over these (the Battle rules, maybe, but
not over the roleplaying).
> Both games can be fun to play, but I don't think you'll ever have a good,
> long-term campaign with either.
Pendragon encourages the investment of effort a long term campaign
needs.
Your characters visibly grow. The face not only physical, but moral and
spiritual challenges in their lives. They make decisions that affect
not only them, but their lands and their families. Played with the
generational rules, they foster a sense of building a better life for
your character's children, and leaving them better off then you were.
There is a mythic quality to the world, that provides you with examples
and ambitions befitting a hero of the time.
I'd reccomend it to anyone as a good RPG.
David Chart
In article <graball-2101...@savage1.ccsi.com>,
gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) wrote:
> >I'm interested in running a game set in a fantasy Medeival Europe and am
> >trying to decide between Pendragon and Ars Magica.
> >
> >Could any of you who've played both please tell me which you like better
> >and why? Or, if you liked both, what the main differences are?
>
> I'd advise against both games for several faults which they have in comon.
>
> 1st, neither of them does a particularly good job of bringing a medieval
> fantasy world to life. Pendragon presents a very specialized sub-genre of
> medieval fantasy and Ars Magica's background is just sort of lame and
> twisted.
>
Aha, I finally understand. ;-) (All comments relate to Ars Magica.)
Which version of ArM has a lame and twisted background? I could see these
adjectives applying to ArM3 (deeeeeemons, give me more deeeeeemons), but
not really to ArM2 or ArM4 (I've never seen ArM1, alas).
> 2nd, both present rule systems which are designed to restrict creativity
> and discourage roleplaying.
If you're referring to ArM's personality traits, these have been heavily
cut down in ArM4. Two paragraphs, I think, and one sentence saying that
you *could* roll them, but noting that you are free to ignore the rolls.
Personally, I think that it is useful to summarise a character in a few
words, at least for the first few sessions of playing it. After that, it
is no longer an 'it', and the words and numbers are less useful.
If, OTOH, you are more of the Over The Edge school of game mechanics, then
this is simply a philosophical difference, and de gustibus non disputandum
(there's no arguing with taste).
> This isn't always a bad thing, and it is
> intentional because they are presenting very strucured settings, but if
> you want to have a fun campaign and interesting roleplaying these
> restrictions are going to bog things down.
>
> Both games can be fun to play, but I don't think you'll ever have a good,
> long-term campaign with either.
>
Three and a half years, the same group. People get jobs in Cambridge to
stay in the Saga. I'd call that a good, long-term campaign.
--
David Chart
Trinity College non insanior
Cambridge isti tamen te me esse opinari uolunt
UK
Mark Rouleau
In article <5c2hri$t...@theurgy.digex.net>, ly...@theurgy.digex.net (Lydia Leong) wrote:
SNIP!!
>Ars Magica, by contrast, is a fairly complex system, due to the sheer
>number of things it has to account for, particularly in the area of
>magic. The rules take some time to master, due to the large number of
>special cases in magic-related activities, but the basic
>task-resolution system is straightforward.
my only comment here is: don't let the above frighten you. ArM uses a very
simple and flexible task resolution system, the basics of which can be taught
to players in about five minutes. The complexity is really due to the
sophistication of the magic system.
In a starting campaign, we let beginning players start playing as grogs. As
they grew more comfortable with the system, some graduated to companions (and
others *prefered* grog characters!) and magi. Me, I played mostly companions,
'cause I found them more interesting, and more flexible in some ways.
The beauty of ArM is you're never forced into a particular role. (That player
who preferred playing grogs created some of the most memorable characters I
have ever seen . . .)
Pax.
Mark Rouleau
1) If players feel intimidated by ArM, maybe you should try finding one of
the old "jump start kits" from Lion Rampant (sadly out of print.) Let them
feel comfortable with the system, THEN let them create their own characters.
Another method our old gaming group used was to allow new players to start as
grogs. As they became more comfortable with the system, many (but not all,)
began creating companion and magi characters. Believe me, in Ars Magica a
grog can be as interesting and important as a magi.
I have often toyed with an ArM campaign set in Arthurian times. If anyone has
tried this, please let me know how you handled it/ how it turned out.
AtlasGames
> I'd advise against both games for several faults which they have in
comon.
Geez, Dave, and I was hoping that by using your Marmyadose font for the
headers in ArM4, we might bribe you over to the game after all these
years... ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------
[O] John A. Nephew Atlas...@aol.com
[0] President, Atlas Games Cust. Service (612) 638-0098
[O] Atlas Web Page: http://members.aol.com/atlasgames/
Canticle
Dave Nalle <gra...@infinity.ccsi.com> wrote in article
<graball-2101...@savage1.ccsi.com>...
: 1st, neither of them does a particularly good job of bringing a medieval
: fantasy world to life. Pendragon presents a very specialized sub-genre
of
: medieval fantasy and Ars Magica's background is just sort of lame and
: twisted.
Pendragon, I agree on, but I think you must be referring to Ars Magica's
less than wonderful tenure under White Wolf...I still wince at some of
those supplements. I've always liked Ars Magica because it wasn't as lame
as so many other fantasy systems.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Jeff Franzmann ~ 'Well, you see, here's my point. I've
~ Campaign Outfitters Netrep ~ noticed that people who value their life
~ Editor in Chief, CPI ~ tend to die young and tragically. I don't
~Winnipeg, Manitoba ~ care one way or the other, so I can
~ CANADA ~ reasonably expect immortality'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Campaign Outfitters Homepage: http://www.aratar.mb.ca/~campaign
Canticle Publishing Homepage : http://www.aratar.mb.ca/~canticle
White Crow
Dave Nalle <gra...@infinity.ccsi.com> wrote:
: 1st, neither of them does a particularly good job of bringing a medieval
: fantasy world to life. Pendragon presents a very specialized sub-genre of
: medieval fantasy and Ars Magica's background is just sort of lame and
: twisted.
WEll, as a recent Ars Magica 4th edition convert, I'm going to take
exception with your comments regarding this ggame. (note the obligatory
YMMV and IMO, etc). I can't comment on Pendragon, but AM's background is
real world Europe. Lame and twisted? I find it richly intriguing. It's
a very low-magic feel to the setting, but IMO that's the nice part.
: 2nd, both present rule systems which are designed to restrict creativity
: and discourage roleplaying. This isn't always a bad thing, and it is
: intentional because they are presenting very strucured settings, but if
: you want to have a fun campaign and interesting roleplaying these
: restrictions are going to bog things down.
I haven't had any problems with the game stifling roleplaying or
creativity while Ive been playing it. You practically *have* to design
your own spells (that's a good thing, imo, as it allows for much more
customized magi), and there's lots of intrigue and social stuff going on.
At least in the saga (campaign) I'm playing in, and the new one that will
be forming shortly. My current maga talks her way out of everything, and
very rarely uses combat. That sounds like roleplaying to me!:)
: Both games can be fun to play, but I don't think you'll ever have a good,
: long-term campaign with either.
Again, I beg to differ. But that's just me. Both of the AM games I'm in
(or about to be in) will be long-term campaigns. And with the study
rules and troupe style of AM, it's designed to be long-term in campaign
style.
The White Crow
My Flock: Seth (5yo human), Danny (SO), Synth (CAG), Ao-Chan and Midori
(DSH).
"A thing doesn't have to change the world to be important." Steve Jobs
Dave Nalle
In article <19970122082...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
atlas...@aol.com (AtlasGames) wrote:
> > I'd advise against both games for several faults which they have in
> comon.
>
> Geez, Dave, and I was hoping that by using your Marmyadose font for the
> headers in ArM4, we might bribe you over to the game after all these
> years... ;)
Interesting idea. I haven't seen ArM4 yet, so I can't really judge it. Who
knows what improvements (even non-graphical) may have been made. And
BTW...I did give ArM a bit of a plug in my column in Renaissance Magazine
a few months ago.
Ultimately the question with ArM4 for me is whether you are giving up the
basic concept of dehumanizing and objectifying the characters?
David Chart
In article <graball-2201...@198.6.201.80>,
gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) wrote:
>
> Ultimately the question with ArM4 for me is whether you are giving up the
> basic concept of dehumanizing and objectifying the characters?
>
Yep. We had this *big* argument during the design phase, and I said "Nope,
we are not going to base this edition around objectifying and dehumanizing
the characters. No, not even faerie characters are going to be
dehumanized. I want subjective and human characters." Everyone agreed with
me.
(The above is not strictly true. Or, indeed, vaguely true.)
I'm still not entirely sure what you mean, Dave...
Bruce Baugh
On 21 Jan 1997 21:46:12 GMT, Jason Langlois <ja...@london.myra.com>
wrote:
>This isn't a specialized sub-genre of medieval fantasy -- it IS
>medieval fantasy. The Arthurian cycle has its roots in the Middle
>Ages, even. To reduce that whole genre to a sub-genre is rather petty
>and small-minded.
Indeed, it's more than one genre, depending on what approach one
brings to questions of social relations, society and magic, magic and
religion, and so on. In the real world, the Arthurian cycle has worked
as drama, tragedy, morality play, comedy, and more.
>I've never had a game bog down over these (the Battle rules, maybe, but
>not over the roleplaying).
Just so. Pendragon and Ars Magica hamper roleplaying only if
"roleplaying" is defined to be incompatible with genre, group
consensus, historical reality or folklore, and indeed anything but
unmitigated player whim.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@kenosis.com <*> http://www.kenosis.com
Moderator, comp.os.ms-windows.win95.moderated
List manager, Christlib, Christian/libertarian mailing list
Host, new sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Lydia Leong
In article <graball-2101...@savage1.ccsi.com>,
Dave Nalle <gra...@infinity.ccsi.com> wrote:
> Someone wrote:
>>I'm interested in running a game set in a fantasy Medeival Europe and am
>>trying to decide between Pendragon and Ars Magica.
>
Ah, Dav'nalleous speaks again. ;)
>1st, neither of them does a particularly good job of bringing a medieval
>fantasy world to life. Pendragon presents a very specialized sub-genre of
>medieval fantasy and Ars Magica's background is just sort of lame and
>twisted.
I don't think that Pendragon _tries_ to present anything other than a
very specialized sub-genre of medieval fantasy. It's a game of Arthurian
romance, no more, no less -- and I think it succeeds superbly in being
just that. As for Ars Magica, well, it's essentially historical medieval
Europe with the peasant superstitions being real... what's lame and
twisted about that?
>2nd, both present rule systems which are designed to restrict creativity
>and discourage roleplaying.
I don't see how you can justify this.
Certainly Pendragon can devolve into a game of "roll X Trait or
Passion" but it would take a _totally_ incompetent GM (and probably
the sort of person who wouldn't be interested in GM'ing Pendragon in
the first place) to let the game slip into that state (and heck, an
incompetent Call of Cthulhu GM could do much the same... it's not
really a failing of the system). But my experience is that Pendragon
is a game which is focused almost solely upon roleplaying -- it was
groundbreaking in its time for its emphasis on personality and
emotions, for that matter. The emphasis on characters, dynasties,
and non-materialistic goals is at the core of the game.
Similarly, Ars Magica can devolve into a game of who-can-blow-things-up,
but you could just as easily say that about any RPG on the amrket. The
collaborative storytelling and multiple character approach seems to me
to encourage characterization and storyline over mechanics. The historical
backdrop provides an immensely rich background, as well, to the person
who is willing to do a little research.
>Both games can be fun to play, but I don't think you'll ever have a good,
>long-term campaign with either.
I think there's ample evidence to the contrary -- check out Project: Redcap
(http://telmaron.com/ars-magica/Redcap/) for lots of links to Ars Magica
campaigns. I have personally played in a campaign for over a year of
weekly sessions; I'd be running a campaign of Ars Magica 4th edition now,
if I had the time to do so. Unfortunately, I don't presently have time
to spend doing the research that I feel necessary for me, personally,
to run an Ars Magica Saga; instead, I'm running a Pendragon campaign
(my third long-term campaign, I might note).
Ars Magica holds the fascination of playing in psuedo-history, and I
adore the flexibility of the magic system, and the Troupe orientation
of the game.
The attraction of Pendragon for me is the intensely passionate fervor of
games. This is where I get to listen to players speechmake about the
ideals of justice, extravagantly compliment a maiden, exchange insults
with an enemy, yield humbly before a foe, brag about their heroic exploits
before the King's court, grovel for mercy before the altar of a chapel...
this is epic melodrama, and I love it. :)
-- Lydia
AtlasGames
<<Ultimately the question with ArM4 for me is whether you are giving up
the
basic concept of dehumanizing and objectifying the characters?>>
Well, but then what would be the FUN?! ;)
In any case, Dave, I'll have to get you a copy when the reprinting
arrives, if only for you to see how your font works out.
Mark Grundy
In article 21019700...@savage1.ccsi.com, gra...@infinity.ccsi.com
(Dave Nalle) writes:
|>I'm interested in running a game set in a fantasy Medeival Europe and am
|>trying to decide between Pendragon and Ars Magica.
|>
|>Could any of you who've played both please tell me which you like better
|>and why? Or, if you liked both, what the main differences are?
|I'd advise against both games for several faults which they have in comon.
|1st, neither of them does a particularly good job of bringing a medieval
|fantasy world to life. Pendragon presents a very specialized sub-genre of
|medieval fantasy and Ars Magica's background is just sort of lame and
|twisted.
|2nd, both present rule systems which are designed to restrict creativity
|and discourage roleplaying. This isn't always a bad thing, and it is
|intentional because they are presenting very strucured settings, but if
|you want to have a fun campaign and interesting roleplaying these
|restrictions are going to bog things down.
My followup is with regard to Pendragon only, since I don't know Ars Mag
very well.
Pendragon is specifically Arthurian romance, but I've seen it used to
support Japanese feudal play, modern Mafia play and Ancient Egypt too. It
works best when you're interested in passions and romance. I wouldn't
recommend it either for `standard fantasy mediaeval Europe'.
David's comment about the Pendragon rule system being restrictive is a common
complaint from players. The problem arises from rules representing
passions (love, duty, honour) and personality traits -- (modesty, pride,
honesty etc...). If the GM wants, he can cripple your character interpretation
by insisting that the numbers rule your play. You get a better game if you
use the numbers to support play instead of constraining it; and use them
to trace the history of the character's growth toward better knighthood. When
it's done this way they work well to focus players on what's important about
the game.
|Both games can be fun to play, but I don't think you'll ever have a good,
|long-term campaign with either.
The longest Pendragon campaign I know of has run for over ten years.
My own Pendragon has run for six. You have to play a game to judge its
quality, so I shan't make any claims. I have some story transcripts around
though, for those who want a feel for the kind of gaming we do.
Cheers,
Mark
The Nomad
Dan Davenport <dan...@flash.net> wrote:
>(The latter was proposed by our GM when he realized that a majority of
>our group was getting discouraged with the complexity of creating AM
>characters -- unfortunately, we ended up playing neither AM or
>Pendragon. :-( )
Hmm. I love Ars M deeply, but I recall that one of the few Ars games I
ever got going spent 5 game sessions (about 12 hours) creating
characters and the Covenant.
But when we had finished, it was possibly the best and most compelling
entry point for a campaign I had ever seen.
The Nomad
Quality really is proportional to time spent.
"My name was Mike. His name is Bob."
Dave Nalle
In article <5c400r$s...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mrou...@frontiernet.net
(Mark Rouleau) wrote:
> The beauty of ArM is you're never forced into a particular role. (That
player
> who preferred playing grogs created some of the most memorable characters I
> have ever seen . . .)
Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose stereotypical and
unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
Mark Rouleau
In article <graball-2301...@mushfiqur.ccsi.com>, gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) wrote:
>In article <5c400r$s...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mrou...@frontiernet.net
>(Mark Rouleau) wrote:
>
>> The beauty of ArM is you're never forced into a particular role. (That
>player
>> who preferred playing grogs created some of the most memorable characters I
>> have ever seen . . .)
>
>Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
>with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose stereotypical and
>unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
>
>Dave
>
alternate-universe variant of the ArM rules, which fell into your lap through
some interdimensional wormhole.
3 "rigidly defined classes"? ROTFL. Those classes are
1) characters who use magic.
2) characters who don't use magic.
3) bodyguards and spear-carriers.
Very constricting. (smirk.)
Carl Perkins
gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) writes...
}In article <5c400r$s...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mrou...@frontiernet.net
}(Mark Rouleau) wrote:
}
}> The beauty of ArM is you're never forced into a particular role. (That
}player
}> who preferred playing grogs created some of the most memorable characters I
}> have ever seen . . .)
}
}Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
Yes.
}with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose stereotypical and
}unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
No.
}Dave
--- Carl
AG Jeff
>>>In any case, Dave, I'll have to get you a copy when the reprinting
arrives, if only for you to see how your font works out.<<<
That font that's missing a capital "Q", btw.
--Jeff
Soraya Ghiasi
In article <graball-2301...@mushfiqur.ccsi.com>,
Dave Nalle <gra...@infinity.ccsi.com> wrote:
>In article <5c400r$s...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mrou...@frontiernet.net
>(Mark Rouleau) wrote:
>
>> The beauty of ArM is you're never forced into a particular role. (That
>player
>> who preferred playing grogs created some of the most memorable characters I
>> have ever seen . . .)
>
>Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
>unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
>
us. Yes, Ars Magica has 3 different levels of characters, but what you
do with the characters in each is entirely up to you. If you want to
make characters that fall into your own rigid pre-defined conception of
the categories, then do so. Don't act astonished when others managed to
get memorable characters from any category.
And as a side note - ArM has worked very well for our long-term saga.
We're finally winding this saga down after nearly 4 years. Why? It
certainly isn't because we've run out of ideas or that the characters
have grown stale or that we're bored with the current setting. It's time
to move on to an edition that everyone can get a copy of and to build up
a new saga with the input of the players who have joined more recently.
Soraya
AtlasGames
<<1) If players feel intimidated by ArM, maybe you should try finding one
of
the old "jump start kits" from Lion Rampant (sadly out of print.) >>
Actually, the revised STORMRIDER: JUMP-START KIT is still very in-print
and available, though it was published for 2nd Edition. Ask for it from
your local store.
Dave Nalle
In article <dc132-22019...@reshep.trin.cam.ac.uk>, dc...@cam.ac.uk
(David Chart) wrote:
> Which version of ArM has a lame and twisted background? I could see these
> adjectives applying to ArM3 (deeeeeemons, give me more deeeeeemons), but
> not really to ArM2 or ArM4 (I've never seen ArM1, alas).
All the versions I've seen - that would be 1, 2 and 3 share the same basic
flaws in channeling characters down restrictive paths and warping the medieval
background to serve a dungeon-crawling mentality. But I haven't seen the
4th edition yet, so I can't really comment on it.
> > 2nd, both present rule systems which are designed to restrict creativity
> > and discourage roleplaying.
>
> If you're referring to ArM's personality traits, these have been heavily
> cut down in ArM4. Two paragraphs, I think, and one sentence saying that
> you *could* roll them, but noting that you are free to ignore the rolls.
> Personally, I think that it is useful to summarise a character in a few
> words, at least for the first few sessions of playing it. After that, it
> is no longer an 'it', and the words and numbers are less useful.
That's definitely one of the problems. I'm glad they addressed it. Did they
also get rid of Grogs?
> > Both games can be fun to play, but I don't think you'll ever have a good,
> > long-term campaign with either.
>
> Three and a half years, the same group. People get jobs in Cambridge to
> stay in the Saga. I'd call that a good, long-term campaign.
Perhaps I should say that I couldn't stand to play under the oppressive
structure of ArM for a prolonged campaign.
Dave Nalle
In article <5c6on7$k...@theurgy.digex.net>, ly...@theurgy.digex.net (Lydia
Leong) wrote:
> In article <graball-2101...@savage1.ccsi.com>,
> Dave Nalle <gra...@infinity.ccsi.com> wrote:
> > Someone wrote:
> >>I'm interested in running a game set in a fantasy Medeival Europe and am
> >>trying to decide between Pendragon and Ars Magica.
> >
> >I'd advise against both games for several faults which they have in comon.
>
> Ah, Dav'nalleous speaks again. ;)
I was absent for like 2 years, so you've had enough of a break.
> >1st, neither of them does a particularly good job of bringing a medieval
> >fantasy world to life. Pendragon presents a very specialized sub-genre of
> >medieval fantasy and Ars Magica's background is just sort of lame and
> >twisted.
>
> I don't think that Pendragon _tries_ to present anything other than a
> very specialized sub-genre of medieval fantasy. It's a game of Arthurian
> romance, no more, no less -- and I think it succeeds superbly in being
> just that.
Didn't say it wasn't an excellent game in achieving those goals. But the
original poster asked about general medieval fantasy games and I warned him
off Pendragon because it isn't all that general or all that medieval. Unless
you specifically want to play within the severe restrictions of the Arthurian
genre it's not the game you're looking for.
> As for Ars Magica, well, it's essentially historical medieval
> Europe with the peasant superstitions being real... what's lame and
> twisted about that?
Except that it's not particularly historical, the background material is
extraordinarily weak (I haven't seen 4th edition yet), and traditionally it
has emphasized plot and action to the detriment of actual roleplaying. I'll
be plain about it. I don't like ArM and I don't like the approach it takes
to roleplaying. But I hear 4th edition has addressed a lot of my complaints,
so maybe it's just what he was looking for.
> >2nd, both present rule systems which are designed to restrict creativity
> >and discourage roleplaying.
>
> I don't see how you can justify this.
It's very simple. Both games provide excessive restrictions on the kind
of characters you can create and the roles which players can take in the
world. There are reasons for this in both games. In Pendragon the setting
justifies the restrictive nature of the mechanics. In ArM the justification
is 'storytelling'. But IMO the net result in either case is to stifle any
player creativity.
> Certainly Pendragon can devolve into a game of "roll X Trait or
> Passion" but it would take a _totally_ incompetent GM (and probably
> the sort of person who wouldn't be interested in GM'ing Pendragon in
> the first place) to let the game slip into that state (and heck, an
> incompetent Call of Cthulhu GM could do much the same... it's not
> really a failing of the system). But my experience is that Pendragon
> is a game which is focused almost solely upon roleplaying -- it was
> groundbreaking in its time for its emphasis on personality and
> emotions, for that matter. The emphasis on characters, dynasties,
> and non-materialistic goals is at the core of the game.
Not roleplaying as I understand it. Pendragon is all about the dynamics
of the setting. You can roleplay a character, but you do it the way the
designers tell you to do it or you run into brick walls. For me roleplaying
is not about acting out the actions of a character according to someone
else's script, it's about creating an interesting and original personality
and exploring how that character would interract with his environment and
other characters.
> Similarly, Ars Magica can devolve into a game of who-can-blow-things-up,
> but you could just as easily say that about any RPG on the amrket. The
> collaborative storytelling and multiple character approach seems to me
> to encourage characterization and storyline over mechanics.
I believe that collaborative storytelling and multiple characters work
directly against roleplaying. They reduce the significance of characters
as individuals and confuse and distract the players. They take a good
portion of the creative and imaginative work out of the hands of the
players and put it in the mechanics or the hands of the GM or other
players. Personally I find these things to be an abomination. The reason
I've always been so vocal in my objections to ArM is that these elements
strike me as genuinely evil and antithetical to the most desirable aspects
of roleplaying.
> The historical
> backdrop provides an immensely rich background, as well, to the person
> who is willing to do a little research.
In other words, the idea of the background is rich if you're willing to
actually create the background for yourself?
> >Both games can be fun to play, but I don't think you'll ever have a good,
> >long-term campaign with either.
>
> I think there's ample evidence to the contrary -- check out Project: Redcap
> (http://telmaron.com/ars-magica/Redcap/) for lots of links to Ars Magica
> campaigns. I have personally played in a campaign for over a year of
> weekly sessions; I'd be running a campaign of Ars Magica 4th edition now,
> if I had the time to do so. Unfortunately, I don't presently have time
> to spend doing the research that I feel necessary for me, personally,
> to run an Ars Magica Saga; instead, I'm running a Pendragon campaign
> (my third long-term campaign, I might note).
As I said in a previous post, I should probably have said that I would never
be able to put up with the restrictions of these systems for an extended
campaign.
I believe that roleplaying mechanics should exist to assist and encourage
roleplaying, not to set limits on your imagination.
David Chart
>
> Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
> with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose stereotypical and
> unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
>
and in a different article:
> Not exactly. You can give the character plenty of personality, as long as
> it falls within the narrow pre-defined limits of the game system.
> Creativity isn't allowed.
The only position I can think of which is consistent with you having read
the same Ars Magica as the rest of us is that you think that all RPGs
should be totally generic.
The limits of Ars Magica arise from the fact that it is a game about
wizards in Medieval Europe. You are limited to characters who are either
wizards or from Medieval Europe. If one were to think that all RPGs should
be totally generic, then this would be a (culpable) limit on creativity.
Otherwise, it is a limit, but one that many RPGs will create, for good
reasons.
Still, it's a stretch to define "Anyone from Medieval Europe who isn't a
Wizard" as a "rigidly defined character class".
If this is where you are coming from, could you say so? If not, please
explain, because I really am having trouble seeing ArM from this
perspective.
Loki
One day, it occurred to White Crow <whyt...@io.com> to write:
>Dave Nalle <gra...@infinity.ccsi.com> wrote:
>: 1st, neither of them does a particularly good job of bringing a medieval
>: fantasy world to life. Pendragon presents a very specialized sub-genre of
>: medieval fantasy and Ars Magica's background is just sort of lame and
>: twisted.
>WEll, as a recent Ars Magica 4th edition convert, I'm going to take
>exception with your comments regarding this ggame. (note the
>obligatory YMMV and IMO, etc). I can't comment on Pendragon, but
>AM's background is real world Europe. Lame and twisted? I find it
>richly intriguing. It's a very low-magic feel to the setting, but
>IMO that's the nice part.
AM's background is not* real world Europe. It's what they call Mythic
Europe, in which the key difference is that at least some of the
things that the medievals believed about the supernatural elements in
their world were true.
Loki --- Brynjolfr --- Redvision
f3...@unb.ca --- redv...@geocities.com --- d_fl...@husky1.stmarys.ca
Geek Code-> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/5742/#Geek
Goth Code-> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/5742/#Goth
Mark Rouleau
In article <dc132-24019...@131.111.213.149>, dc...@cam.ac.uk (David Chart) wrote:
(some nonsense about ArM being a "rigid" game snipped.)
>
>The only position I can think of which is consistent with you having read
>the same Ars Magica as the rest of us is that you think that all RPGs
>should be totally generic.
>
>The limits of Ars Magica arise from the fact that it is a game about
>wizards in Medieval Europe. You are limited to characters who are either
>wizards or from Medieval Europe. If one were to think that all RPGs should
>be totally generic, then this would be a (culpable) limit on creativity.
>Otherwise, it is a limit, but one that many RPGs will create, for good
>reasons.
>
>Still, it's a stretch to define "Anyone from Medieval Europe who isn't a
>Wizard" as a "rigidly defined character class".
>
players to play in Medieval Europe. One could set an ArM campaign in Middle
Earth with surprisingly little fudging (use the Faeries supplement and the
regular virtues and flaws to generate the non-humans, eliminate
medieval-specific ideas, and de-latinize the latin stuff. Shouldn't be too
hard.) Or set it in modern times--update the skill list and, for the
ambitious little worldbuilder, change the forms and techniques to match up
with the modern day.
The basic Ars Magica system has a *lot* of flexibility inherent in it. Some
settings take more work than others, though.
(And others seem perfectly natural. Harn Magica, anybody?)
Cheers.
Jens Hage
Dave Nalle <gra...@infinity.ccsi.com> wrote:
: In article <5c400r$s...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mrou...@frontiernet.net
: (Mark Rouleau) wrote:
: > The beauty of ArM is you're never forced into a particular role. (That
: player
: > who preferred playing grogs created some of the most memorable characters I
: > have ever seen . . .)
: Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
: with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose stereotypical and
: unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
Excuse me? Are you talking about the same game that I'm reading? ArM,
right? I'm assuming that the previous editions were similiar to ArM 3 or
4, since I oly have copies of those two, but if you can't create an
infinite number of characters from any of the three "rigidly defined"
character classes (I'll be honest, Shadowrun has more rigidly defined
classes) then I suspect you, not the system. Heck, I can come up with
about fifty, and I'm a -lousy- RPer.
Jens "Really confused" Hage
Mark Rouleau
>(David Chart) wrote:
>
>> Which version of ArM has a lame and twisted background? I could see these
>> adjectives applying to ArM3 (deeeeeemons, give me more deeeeeemons), but
>> not really to ArM2 or ArM4 (I've never seen ArM1, alas).
>
>All the versions I've seen - that would be 1, 2 and 3 share the same basic
>flaws in channeling characters down restrictive paths
you mean restrictive paths like magic-user/ non-magic-user/ spear-carrier?
> and warping the medieval
>background to serve a dungeon-crawling mentality. But I haven't seen the
>4th edition yet, so I can't really comment on it.
>
Would you please elaborate. I understand the words. I understand the
sentence structure. However, I cannot put your words in a context with
ArM1, 2, 3, 4. If anything, Ars Magica is a dramatic escape from the "dungeon
crawling mentality," esp. as its focuses tend to be more political/ social in
nature.
Heck, most dungeon crawls, as I understand them, focus around the accumulation
of wealth. Money is very unimportant compared to social status.
>> > 2nd, both present rule systems which are designed to restrict creativity
>> > and discourage roleplaying.
>>
>> If you're referring to ArM's personality traits, these have been heavily
>> cut down in ArM4. Two paragraphs, I think, and one sentence saying that
>> you *could* roll them, but noting that you are free to ignore the rolls.
>> Personally, I think that it is useful to summarise a character in a few
>> words, at least for the first few sessions of playing it. After that, it
>> is no longer an 'it', and the words and numbers are less useful.
>
>That's definitely one of the problems. I'm glad they addressed it. Did they
>also get rid of Grogs?
where do grogs stifle creativity and gameplay? I always felt they helped,
because
1) players (in this case magi & companions) were not forced to "load up" on
combat skills in order to be viable. Grogs took care of combat, players took
care of, well, playing.
2) They, as spear-carriers, often presented another view of the ars magica
world, kind of like the grave-diggers in Hamlet. I don't know how else to
describe it-- sometimes the petty lives of the grogs are more fascinating than
the lives of the rich and powerful. I have memories of some very successful
campaigns to prove it.
3) There was this grog (can't remember name) who took the +1 Virtue, Common
Sense. (a virtue the rest of the characters sorely lacked.) Much comedy
ensued.
4) Grogs give beginning players a good way to ease themselves into the game.
Letting new players play grogs gives them an opportunity to "jump into" the
game and learn the game mechanics on the fly.
>
>> > Both games can be fun to play, but I don't think you'll ever have a good,
>> > long-term campaign with either.
>>
>> Three and a half years, the same group. People get jobs in Cambridge to
>> stay in the Saga. I'd call that a good, long-term campaign.
>
>Perhaps I should say that I couldn't stand to play under the oppressive
>structure of ArM for a prolonged campaign.
>
>Dave
>
Truly, when I think of oppressive structures, I think Ars Magica. Huh?
Anthony Ragan
gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) screamed into the Void:
>All the versions I've seen - that would be 1, 2 and 3 share the same basic
>flaws in channeling characters down restrictive paths and warping the medieval
>background to serve a dungeon-crawling mentality.
Que? I've read all four editions, Dave. Of all the things good and
bad I can think of to say about ArM in _any_ incarnation,
"dungeon-crawling mentality" would never be among them.
I think Dave's been into the mushrooms again... :)
*****
--Anthony Ragan
Snotling in Chief, Staadtholder van Marienburg
Iris...@worldnet.att.net (primary) & Iris...@aol.com (secondary)
The Warhammer FRP FAQ is at:
ftp://ftp.pvv.unit.no/pub/warhammer/FAQ3.2
Composed with Agent 99!
Loki
One day, it occurred to gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) to
write:
>mrou...@frontiernet.net (Mark Rouleau) wrote:
>> The beauty of ArM is you're never forced into a particular role.
>> (That player who preferred playing grogs created some of the most
>> memorable characters I have ever seen . . .)
>Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The
>game with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose
>stereotypical and unrealistic roles on the players and stifles
>creativity?
Just how, pray tell, do you come to perceive the grog/companion/magus
distinction as rigidly defined?
Darin J Eblom
In article <19970124062...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
RagnarokGC <ragna...@aol.com> wrote:
[many things, and with merit, as always]
Ok, so I was going to stay out of it, but I think I can add a bit
here, both in support of Dave and against him, in some ways...
Just to add a little history (and to give myself some credibility),
I'm part of the original Lion Rampant. I've known Dave for years, and
understand his disagreement with parts of ArM.
See, Dave feels that a campaign is defined by the individual
character, so he prefers to see the player having complete control of
the creation and play of that character. In ArM, the *campaign*
defines the character, and the Grogs are the quinessential expression
of this.
When ArM players get together and swap stories, it is the Grogs that
are spoken of. Why? Aren't grogs much simpler than Magi? Yes.
Aren't grogs far less powerful than Magi? Yes again. So why do
people always talk about Bolt's tragic "death" or Luinda's affair with
Emil?
Because we were there....
Everyone who plays in the ArM campaign gets a chance to define a
grog's personality, a chance to live a day in their muddy boots. This
is not a character that you can play "Hands off! It's MINE!". That is
the domain of Magi and Companions. Instead, the character is
constantly redefined, learning the lessons from the previous
adventure, coping with a tragedy, bursting with pride or love.
Experience from playing grogs tells you "Hey, I have some great ideas,
but when we ALL pool our creative power, we define a character that is
more human than all the others, and is more indicitive of us a group
of friends who have chosen to get together in this way."
I enjoyed playing Merin of house Pendule. I constantly giggle about
that famous rock head Eoldmanric. But neither character would be
complete without the grogs constantly sucking up to Merin for healing
favors, or leaving rocks by the 'Magical Rock Tree' for Eoldmanric to
wonder about.
Arguement boils down to this: Do you prefer Sonnets or Free-form poetry.
Grogs are the sonnet; it is in those limitations that we do our best work.
ttfn - woody
(who uses troupe-style play in ALL his campaigns...)
--
[O] Darin J. Eblom | pre...@io.com | THE Control Addict and Sommerite|
[O] AG FTP : ftp.io.com/pub/Atlas | Deadbeat Club Codename: C. Robin |
[O] IF YOU HAVE TO ASK... YOU'VE EARNED IT --> [ O O O ] |
Carl Perkins
In article <19970124062...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ragna...@aol.com (RagnarokGC) writes...
}Mark Rouleau smirked:
}
}>3 "rigidly defined classes"? ROTFL. Those classes are
}>
}>1) characters who use magic.
}
}other characters.
Well, they are vastly more powerful (at least until they get loade with
fatigue) in most situations. If you consider that to be "inherently better",
then they are.
}>2) characters who don't use magic.
}
}AKA characters who are marginally good at a variety of things, but can't
}do magic and are therefore considered second-class citizens.
Actually, they - meaning the ones that hang around the covenants - are
typically supposed to be *really* good at at least one thing, as far as I can
tell. Since the basic paradigm includes a "might makes right" deal, then they
are second class, which is not bad - being second beats being third or worse.
}3) bodyguards and spear-carriers.
}
}AKA mindless, inflexible drones that the system forces you to play whether
}you want to or not.
Where, exactly, does it say that they are "inflexible drones"? I have read
all the character creation bits of ArM (4th edition, of course) and nowhere in
there is there *any* limit on their mental abilities or personality unless the
player specifically and deliberately takes flaws or picks personality
characteristics that make them that way.
BTW, the Grog category also includes bunches of people who are not specifically
bodyguards and spear-carriers. For example, one of the types listed in that
section is cooks. The cook that travels with your magus probably knows how
to use a sword or other combat skill(s), but is probably not particularly
good with it. All of the basic servants and workers in a covenant are in
the Grog category. Ever seen "Blackadder"? Baldrick is a Grog, and, in
Ars Magica, Blackadder would either be a Companion or an "other" - someone
not associated with a covenant; he always has other people telling him what to
do, the King/Queen/General etc. Yet both of them could be fun characters to
play.
}Look. When I posted on ArM I had no intention of sparking a debate, much
}less one where I'm alone against the world.
If you are the only one with your opinion, perhaps you might consider that
you could be wrong...
}IMO ArM forces players to create characters within strictures which are
}dictated only by the rule system and have no justification in human nature
}or in the setting. I would have though that the reasons why I have this
}opinion would be glaringly obvious, but apparently my mind is so twisted
}that no one else has even an inkling of things which stand out to me like
}a sore thumb.
}Dave
As far as I can tell, not one single part of the opinions you have stated is
actually supported by anything in the rules. In fact, I'd say that they are
mostly directly contradicted by the rules.
--- Carl
Robbie Westmoreland
[followups set to rec.games.frp.advocacy, since that's the group in
which, the charter be damned, this discussion is appropriate]
In article <19970124062...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
RagnarokGC <ragna...@aol.com> wrote:
[Dave Nalle doesn't like the Ars Magica character structure]
$Look. When I posted on ArM I had no intention of sparking a debate, much
$less one where I'm alone against the world.
$
$I just threw out some opinions on ArM which I've had for so long that I
$sort of assumed that they would be obvious to most RPGers who are familiar
$with the game. I didn't think that anyone would disagree with me.
$
$I suppose this is all a matter of perspective. From my point of view RPGs
$are primarily about the character. The game system should mostly be about
$making an interesting and completely developed character. It should
$encourage you to put depth and variety into the character and it should
$not deny you any options which are believable within the context of the
$setting.
$
$IMO ArM forces players to create characters within strictures which are
$dictated only by the rule system and have no justification in human nature
$or in the setting. I would have though that the reasons why I have this
$opinion would be glaringly obvious, but apparently my mind is so twisted
$that no one else has even an inkling of things which stand out to me like
$a sore thumb.
Dave also said, in response to another message:
$I have never complained about any specific rule of Ars Magica. What I
$have a problem with are the broader conceptual problems of the game. My
$first major concern is with the definition of the three classes of
$characters, particularly the Grogs. I find the three classes to be
$extremely limiting and I think that the Grog class is genuinely offensive.
$ This may seem weird, but I think that this aspect of ArM appeals to an
$elitist attitude in roleplaying, and I find that very troubling. I also
$have a big disagreement with the entire concept of 'troupe' style
$roleplaying. I think it reduces the creative element of roleplaying and
$replaces it with relatively insubstantial portrayal elements.
$
$I may make a more substantial post on this as a separate thread.
So I'm starting a separate thread. Those of you who wish to simply
make fun of Dave's assessment of Ars Magica, post (as I did ;) to the
appropriate subjects. This one is about concepts of characterization
in a game.
I see two issues in Dave's critique of the Ars Magica characterization
philosophy. The first is that Dave doesn't like the character class/
social class distinction enforced by the creation process. The second
is that Dave doesn't like "troupe" style play and the way it affects
individuality. Allow me to separate these issues. (Thanks!)
Issue 1: Magi are centerpieces, Companions are secondary, and Grogs
are trod-upon
I assume that this sort of character-restriction is the element of
Pendragon that Dave also dislikes. Some characters are, mechanically
and in setting, more important than others and more powerful as well.
There are two things I'd like to say in response to this. The first
is that, in the Ars Magica setting, centered around wizards, I think
that this mechanical distinction is appropriate. The game is about
wizards, and would have to be written about something else to change
the balance that Dave dislikes so. From time to time, people have
suggested using the core rules structure for Ars Magica to play a game
about medieval nobles or heroes, and central to those suggestions have
been rearrangment of the mechanical distinctions among the "classes."
My second response is more to the point. Ars Magica and Pendragon are
intended to simulate a historical perception more than a historical
reality. That perception is that some people are inherently superior to
other people. In an attempt to simulate that perception, some character-
types are, mechanically, enhanced. In Pendragon, as in romantic
Arthurian legend, there are Knights, there are Mythic People and Creatures,
and there is everyone else. In a hypothetical Mythic Europe that
expanded play to include some non-magus feature characters, there would
be Wizards, Heroes and Saints, there would be Secondary Support
Characters, and there would be Everyone Else. The system is designed
to simulate a setting in which individual equality is unthinkable.
This appears to strike Dave as bad, verging on immoral. I think it
obvious that he's never played a full Ars Magica saga, because I know
for a fact that those downtrodden Grog characters often steal the
show in play. On the other hand, does he have a point? It is my
initial opinion that my personal feelig that all people are equally
important need not conflict with the game simulation mechanics that
imply otherwise. Comments invited.
Dave's second position, on troupe style and the style encouraged by
Ars Magica, appears to be that the emphasis of a role-playing game
should be on development and explroation of individual characters.
Ars Magica, by implying that all characters play a specific role in
the game, and by encouraging troupe-style, character-group development,
runs contrary to Dave's philosophy of gaming. I find this inteeresting.
While I enjoy a game in which each person is playing an individual
character, I find myself deriving at least as much enjoyment from the
development of a community of characters in a role-playing game. In
fact, I've been trying to take the Covenant concept of Ars Magica and
use it in other settings, such as a swashbuckling pirate game, or a
low fantasy horror game.
Are there others who find the concept of a game that starts by saying
"your character will play a role in x device, so you should make
a character that will fit that device" to be as repugnant as Dave
seems to?
I guess my question is: "Are Dave's sentiments an overlap of
real-world libertarian ideas into a game setting, or is there a
legitimate flaw in games that don't allow completely open-ended
individuation in characters?
Mark Rouleau
>
>When ArM players get together and swap stories, it is the Grogs that
>are spoken of. Why? Aren't grogs much simpler than Magi? Yes.
>Aren't grogs far less powerful than Magi? Yes again. So why do
>people always talk about Bolt's tragic "death" or Luinda's affair with
>Emil?
>
>Because we were there....
I hated to snip your eloquent defense of grogs, but my newsreader gets mad
when there's more included than new text.
Let me just add that there are many ArM players who play nothing BUT grogs. I
can remember one player who had a whole clan of 'em, complete with family
tree. :-)
His characters kept stealing the show. (esp. the one with the virtue "Common
Sense.) We kept voting them to status as "honorary Custos," whereupon the
characters promptly became less interesting, and died.
If I were about a dozen years younger, I'd put it this way:
GROGZ RULE!!!!!!!!!!
Ya know, I wonder whatever became of the Blacksquirrel clan . . .
>
>ttfn - woody
>(who uses troupe-style play in ALL his campaigns...)
Mark Rouleau
Mark Rouleau
>Mark Rouleau smirked:
>>3 "rigidly defined classes"? ROTFL. Those classes are
>>
>>1) characters who use magic.
>
>AKA characters who use magic and are therefore inherently better than all
>other characters.
>
1. It's still not a rigidly defined class. (see your own comment, above.)
2. Power is a relative term. Nothing inherent in Ars Magica (any edition)
sets mages as "the only class worth playing"--if this is what you're getting
at. I suppose an immature power-gamer might be drawn solely to the Mage as a
character--till that guy with a sword gets inside his defenses and chops him
in half.
>>2) characters who don't use magic.
>
>AKA characters who are marginally good at a variety of things, but can't
>do magic and are therefore considered second-class citizens.
"2nd class citizens"? Custos (companions) are *valued* members of the
covenant due to the *expert* skills they bring in.
>3) bodyguards and spear-carriers.
>
>AKA mindless, inflexible drones that the system forces you to play whether
>you want to or not.
Mindless? Inflexible? If you are so talentless that you choose to play them
that way, I suppose. Strikes me as a fault of the player, not the system.
>
Look. When I posted on ArM I had no intention of sparking a debate, much
>less one where I'm alone against the world.
Then you shouldn't have posted such obvious flamebait. (hell, when I saw your
first post, I thought it was a troll by a 14 year old using your name . . .)
>
>I just threw out some opinions on ArM which I've had for so long that I
>sort of assumed that they would be obvious to most RPGers who are familiar
>with the game. I didn't think that anyone would disagree with me.
>
They do when your comments are so out of whack with the experiences of those
who have played the game.
>I suppose this is all a matter of perspective. From my point of view RPGs
>are primarily about the character. The game system should mostly be about
>making an interesting and completely developed character. It should
>encourage you to put depth and variety into the character and it should
>not deny you any options which are believable within the context of the
>setting.
>
All of these comments fit (any edition) Ars Magica perfectly.
>
>Ah well. And let me add that I wouldn't be so vehement about ArM if I
>didn't think it was one of the best RPGs on the market. I can laugh at a
>game like Synnibar which is almost completely without merit. I get more
>incensed by a game which has many excellent characteristics, but falls
>short in one of the few areas which I think is absolutely essential.
>
>Dave
Peter Register
In article <19970124062...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ragna...@aol.com (RagnarokGC) wrote:
>Mark Rouleau smirked:
>
>>3 "rigidly defined classes"? ROTFL. Those classes are
>>
>>1) characters who use magic.
>
>AKA characters who use magic and are therefore inherently better than all
>other characters.
>
Better than? Perhaps, yes perhaps, a bit more powerful than your non-magic
using character. But better than? I've had a few companion characters who
would take issue with that.
>>2) characters who don't use magic.
>
>AKA characters who are marginally good at a variety of things, but can't
>do magic and are therefore considered second-class citizens.
>
Considered second-class citizens by who? Mages? Well, sure, some mages don't
think much about non-magic using peoples. *shrug* Who cares. The system
supports whatever flavor of game play you choose. We've had many all
companion or all grog sessions. The earth didn't stop. Not once do I recall
the players, or their characters, feeling like they were wasting their time
because a mage wasn't along for the ride.
>3) bodyguards and spear-carriers.
>
>AKA mindless, inflexible drones that the system forces you to play whether
>you want to or not.
>
>I suppose this is all a matter of perspective. From my point of view RPGs
>are primarily about the character. The game system should mostly be about
>making an interesting and completely developed character. It should
>encourage you to put depth and variety into the character and it should
>not deny you any options which are believable within the context of the
>setting.
How does the system do this? I just don't get it. I've watched you complain
about this, seemingly for quite a long time now, and I just don't see how the
system prevents you from playing any type of character, within the world-view
(no cyborg/mutant/net-runners), that you choose to.
-peter
Avram Grumer
>Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
>with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose stereotypical and
>unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
I wouldn't describe Companion and Grog as "rigidly defined" or say that
they "stifle creativity," seeing as how they basically just desribe power
level, and leave the nature of what the character can do pretty open. An
_Ars Magica_ Companion is much less constrained in what he can do than a
_D&D_ thief.
--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.crossover.com/agrumer Work: agr...@crossover.com
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach him how to fish, and you drive up the price of
bait and tackle, and disrupt the local ecosystem.
Theodore M Kostek
>In article <graball-2301...@mushfiqur.ccsi.com>,
>gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) wrote:
>
>>
>> Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
>> with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose stereotypical and
>> unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
I am the guy who asked the orginal question; quite a little flame war I seem
to have spawned.
Anyway, I bought the game the other day. While I have not had time to read
things carefully, I think that I can see where Dave might be coming from.
I don@t agree with his conclusions, though.
Consider a mage. You have to belong to one of the twelve houses, and the
houses have been given
distinctive characteristics. Ex: theres a house for pyromaniacs, there`s a
house for Internal Affairs, a house for animal lovers, etc. At first this
had me a bit confused, but then I thought of making an analogy with US
political parties: the Rep party, broadly speaking, is pro-`right to bear
arms`, but not every Rep shares this view. And even within the frame of
the general beliefs, there@s room for lots of diversity: Newt vs Dole, for
example.
Anyway, I am pretty happy with what I have seen so far. My problem is to
either find or start a game near me....
tmk
David Chart
>
> I suppose this is all a matter of perspective. From my point of view RPGs
> are primarily about the character. The game system should mostly be about
> making an interesting and completely developed character. It should
> encourage you to put depth and variety into the character and it should
> not deny you any options which are believable within the context of the
> setting.
>
I agree with this bit.
> IMO ArM forces players to create characters within strictures which are
> dictated only by the rule system and have no justification in human nature
> or in the setting.
I don't agree with this bit. The difference between magi and non-magi is
part of the setting, reflected in the rules, and thus options believable
in context. Companions are now exactly the same as magi, except that they
don't have magic (same skill points, same V/F numbers).
Grogs are promoted NPCs, not demoted PCs. To pinch a distinction from
.advocacy, they are characters developed in play, not at the start. Thus,
their generation is deliberately simple, but they can end up with well
developed personalities. Or stay as near-NPCs, depending on the grog and
the Saga.
> I would have though that the reasons why I have this
> opinion would be glaringly obvious, but apparently my mind is so twisted
> that no one else has even an inkling of things which stand out to me like
> a sore thumb.
>
No, I finally have an inkling of it. I think you're wrong, but I think I
can finally see where you're coming from.
> Ah well. And let me add that I wouldn't be so vehement about ArM if I
> didn't think it was one of the best RPGs on the market.
Good grief. There was no need to send Pralix to get you after all!
Avram Grumer
In article <5c7pip$k...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mrou...@frontiernet.net
(Mark Rouleau) wrote:
>1) characters who use magic.
>2) characters who don't use magic.
>3) bodyguards and spear-carriers.
As I recall (from _Ars Magica_ 2, which I haven't looked at in a while),
Companions (and maybe Grogs, too) are allowed to take have Virtues that let
them have limited magic, they just don't get access to the full magic
system.
--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.crossover.com/agrumer Work: agr...@crossover.com
The plight at the end of the carpal tunnel may be an oncoming strain.
Mark Rouleau
>
>As I recall (from _Ars Magica_ 2, which I haven't looked at in a while),
>Companions (and maybe Grogs, too) are allowed to take have Virtues that let
>them have limited magic, they just don't get access to the full magic
>system.
>
Yeah, I know. But I was trying to keep things SIMPLE for Mr. Nalle.
Actually, saying that just about any character has access to magic really
hurts his (rather bizarre) assertation that Ars Magica character types
"restrict creativity."
Mark Rouleau
In article <5cb93o$s...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, kos...@widget.ecn.purdue.edu (Theodore M Kostek) wrote:
>>In article <graball-2301...@mushfiqur.ccsi.com>,
>I am the guy who asked the orginal question; quite a little flame war I seem
>to have spawned.
>
>Anyway, I bought the game the other day. While I have not had time to read
>things carefully, I think that I can see where Dave might be coming from.
>I don@t agree with his conclusions, though.
>
>Consider a mage. You have to belong to one of the twelve houses, and the
>houses have been given
>distinctive characteristics. Ex: theres a house for pyromaniacs, there`s a
>house for Internal Affairs, a house for animal lovers, etc.
(snip.)
To head off the inevitable posting by Mr. Nalle, I would like to point out
that there is a House Ex Miscellanea in all editions of Ars Magica. This
house is for mages who don't see themselves as fitting into any of the other
eleven houses.
>
>Anyway, I am pretty happy with what I have seen so far. My problem is to
>either find or start a game near me....
>
>tmk
Mark Rouleau
Nick Janow
ca...@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins) writes:
>+ Dave Nalle writes:
>+
>+ Look. When I posted on ArM I had no intention of sparking a debate,
>+ much less one where I'm alone against the world.
>
> If you are the only one with your opinion, perhaps you might consider
> that you could be wrong...
That won't happen. In an earlier debate (I think it was "rolled vs concept
characters"), Dave clearly stated that anyone who didn't agree with his
statements "was wrong, and just didn't know they were wrong yet". I think
I still have the exact quote somewhere in my archives.
--
The Nomad
gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) wrote:
>Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
>with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose stereotypical and
>unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
Hmm, let me see...
Magus: The one who does magic.
Companion: The one who does everything but magic.
Grog: The Ars M equivalent of the Star Trek Redshirt. Equivalent to an
AD+D companion, but rather better realised and roleplayed.
Yeah, I can see the rigid, unrealistic definitions already.
Dave, are you sure you're talking about the same Ars M as the rest of
_us_?
The Nomad
"My name was Mike. His name is Bob."
russell wallace
>In article <graball-2301...@mushfiqur.ccsi.com>,
>gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) wrote:
>> Not exactly. You can give the character plenty of personality, as long as
>> it falls within the narrow pre-defined limits of the game system.
>> Creativity isn't allowed.
So you keep saying. I'll ask you once again: just *how* do you find
Ars Magica disallows creativity? I certainly haven't found this to be
the case.
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwal...@tcd.ie
russell wallace
>Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
>with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose stereotypical and
>unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
I really don't see how you can justify this statement.
Look, nobody's forcing you to play a grog if you don't want to (and I'll
have to say I definitely wouldn't). Given that, the remaining
distinction is effectively between people who are mages and people who
aren't, and *all* games which include magic necessarily have that
distinction. How exactly is that stfling creativity?
Loki
One day, it occurred to ragna...@aol.com (RagnarokGC) to write:
>Mark Rouleau smirked:
>>3 "rigidly defined classes"? ROTFL. Those classes are
>>
>>1) characters who use magic.
>AKA characters who use magic and are therefore inherently better than all
>other characters.
They aren't, you know. They're just more powerful.
>>2) characters who don't use magic.
>AKA characters who are marginally good at a variety of things, but can't
>do magic and are therefore considered second-class citizens.
They aren't, you know. Maybe they are by the Order of Hermes'
standards, but...
>3) bodyguards and spear-carriers.
>AKA mindless, inflexible drones that the system forces you to play whether
>you want to or not.
They aren't, you know. And you don't have to play them if you don't
want to. Some people only play mages or companions or grogs. Some
people have preferences one way or the other.
>Look. When I posted on ArM I had no intention of sparking a debate, much
>less one where I'm alone against the world.
Flames are funny that way. :)
>I just threw out some opinions on ArM which I've had for so long that I
>sort of assumed that they would be obvious to most RPGers who are familiar
>with the game. I didn't think that anyone would disagree with me.
What, you didn't think people play and like ArM?
>I suppose this is all a matter of perspective. From my point of view RPGs
>are primarily about the character. The game system should mostly be about
>making an interesting and completely developed character. It should
>encourage you to put depth and variety into the character and it should
>not deny you any options which are believable within the context of the
>setting.
Right.
>IMO ArM forces players to create characters within strictures which are
>dictated only by the rule system and have no justification in human nature
>or in the setting. I would have though that the reasons why I have this
>opinion would be glaringly obvious, but apparently my mind is so twisted
>that no one else has even an inkling of things which stand out to me like
>a sore thumb.
Apparently.
>Ah well. And let me add that I wouldn't be so vehement about ArM if I
>didn't think it was one of the best RPGs on the market. I can laugh at a
>game like Synnibar which is almost completely without merit. I get more
>incensed by a game which has many excellent characteristics, but falls
>short in one of the few areas which I think is absolutely essential.
Now, let's hear it from the Synnibar fans. :)
Loki
One day, it occurred to atm...@vax.oxford.ac.uk (PAUL SHERLIKER) to
write:
> Similarly, AM differs in some other important ways from most games.
>If you find the idea of sharing a world with another referee repulsive, you
>won't like it - and indeed, this can be a problem at times, and may make
>long term plots a little harder to manage.
This isn't really a true problem with ArM I don't think. You don't
have to rotate storyguides, and if you're the kind of GM who is like
me and gets possessive of worlds every so often, you're probably also
the kind of GM who is like me and doesn't crave being a player when
this happens.
RagnarokGC
Thanks, Robbie. You summed my position up fairly well, though perhaps not
in exactly the way that I would have expressed it.
The one thing I would add is that my concern about the character classes
in ArM really doesn't have that much to do with the relative power levels
of the types of characters, but with the opportunities available to them
and the genuine difficulty in the system of making a complex character who
crosses the boundries of the classes or combines elements of the classes.
I'm just as troubled by the difficulty of creating a truly incompetent
character in ArM as I am by the social advantages which certain characters
have.
I want to be able to create characters who are multifaceted, complex human
beings. I don't want to have to go outside the game system to do that. I
want to come up with a character idea which makes sense in the context of
the world and then be able to express that character through the game
mechanics without having to change the concept substantially. For a lot
of characters -- particularly the kind I like to make -- that's not so
easy in ArM.
Dave
RagnarokGC
>>Arguement boils down to this: Do you prefer Sonnets or Free-form poetry.
Grogs are the sonnet; it is in those limitations that we do our best
work.<<
Maybe it's a very subtle distinction, but while I agree that some of the
best roleplaying comes from playing a character under adverse
circumstances, I think the adversity should come from the game world and
the situations the character gets into, not from restrictions imposed by
the rules.
Dave
RagnarokGC
Some seem to have misconstrued my comments about the elitism inherent in
ArM. I'm not so much complaining about the fact that some characters are
more powerful than others, or even that some are essentially socially more
advantaged than others. A more important problem is that the combination
of very limiting classes and troupe style play means that it may happen
that a player is essentially forced (if only by social pressure) to play a
character he doesn't want to play and has no interest in, or to play a
character who can't really fully participate in the action of the game.
It's even worse when that character is one shared with other players
because then the player can put no individual stamp on the character and
his relationship with it is too temporary for him to have a chance to do
the work to make that character transcend the limits of the class.
Dave
russell wallace
>Mark Rouleau smirked:
>>3 "rigidly defined classes"? ROTFL. Those classes are
>>
>>1) characters who use magic.
>AKA characters who use magic and are therefore inherently better than all
>other characters.
>>2) characters who don't use magic.
>AKA characters who are marginally good at a variety of things, but can't
>do magic and are therefore considered second-class citizens.
Your problem then is that companions aren't as powerful as mages? You
would prefer mages and non-mages to be balanced? Couldn't you solve
this problem by giving companions more character points to start off
with?
>3) bodyguards and spear-carriers.
>AKA mindless, inflexible drones that the system forces you to play whether
>you want to or not.
It does? Not in my experience. Can you elaborate?
>Look. When I posted on ArM I had no intention of sparking a debate, much
>less one where I'm alone against the world.
>I just threw out some opinions on ArM which I've had for so long that I
>sort of assumed that they would be obvious to most RPGers who are familiar
>with the game. I didn't think that anyone would disagree with me.
They aren't obvious to me; I genuinely don't understand the reasoning
behind your opinions (other than the one about balance, which is
admittedly true).
>IMO ArM forces players to create characters within strictures which are
>dictated only by the rule system and have no justification in human nature
>or in the setting. I would have though that the reasons why I have this
>opinion would be glaringly obvious, but apparently my mind is so twisted
>that no one else has even an inkling of things which stand out to me like
>a sore thumb.
They aren't obvious to me. Could you give some examples of what you
find to be these strictures?
John Elder
ragna...@aol.com (RagnarokGC) writes:
>Dave
No.
Your first posts were to the effect that Ars Magica did not allow
creativity for the players. I have found it to be the opposite. Some of
the best characters and most creative characters have been in the Ars
campaign I was in. Myself, I played a artificer who still believed that
God controlled his actions, quite different from the sample characters.
But isn't that what role-playing is about, creating what you want. If you
felt stifled by Ars' system, then all I can say is you didn't really try.
You also accuse Ars of creating a "dungeon crawling" mentality. In the 2-3
years I played Ars, we went into one "dungeon". Most sessions were spent
playing in character, rarely did we ever pick up a die, and I never once
looked for a trap or secret door. :)
John E.
--
Alex Williams
He's just steamed because Dav'nalleus isn't really as interesting as
most of the historical Ars Magica antagonists.
Well, that, and the fact he can't push Ysgarth on the homeless for
bedding or fires.
--
Alexander Williams {tha...@alf.dec.com / zan...@photobooks.com}
Prefect of the 8,000,000th Terran Overlord Government Experimental
Strike Legion, Primary Transport TOG "Bellatores Inquieti"
======================================================================
Andrew Young
In article <324322...@philm.demon.co.uk>, Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk wrote:
[snip]
>I would recommed that people don't bother trying to argue with Dave's
>opinions. A few quick corrective posts, to save newbies from the effects of
>his wilder flights of fancy, maybe - but don't bother *debating*. It's
>shouting in a bucket.
Amen brother. I first encountered him on the net about 5 years ago, and
quickly learned the futility of trying any sort of discourse with him. He
knows the Truth, and all who disagree are just Wrong.
I now resort to Ad Hominem. It likely makes me look small, but I don't care.
It makes me feel a bit better :-)
Philip Masters
In article: <graball-2301...@mushfiqur.ccsi.com>
> Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
> with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose stereotypical and
> unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
Umm, there's a big difference between broad character categories (related
to social roles) and rigid character classes...
Why the heck am I bothering to get involved here? In all the years I've
been encountering Dave's opinions, no appeal to logic, semantics, or
emotion has ever shifted him one inch from the opinion that the sun shines
out of Ysgarth's back cover. (Though to be fair, his dedication to his own
creation, despite the game's utter obscurity in market terms, does achieve
a kind of tragic nobility.) His classification of all other games as
running from "second-rate" to "actively evil" is merely the flipside of
this.
And his arguments from abstract theory - into which, no ray of real-world
experience is ever permitted to intrude - has a sort of Gallic academic
purity.
(And I'm not even a full-time Ars Magica fan...)
I would recommed that people don't bother trying to argue with Dave's
opinions. A few quick corrective posts, to save newbies from the effects of
his wilder flights of fancy, maybe - but don't bother *debating*. It's
shouting in a bucket.
--
Phil Masters
Old Home Page:
http://www.taynet.co.uk/~gdx/users/masters/index.htm
New Home Page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Phil_Masters
Dan Davenport
As the instigator of this thread, please allow me to give some more
factors that would influence my choice between the two games. Namely, my
players and myself.
1) Me: I will GM, and I HATE needlessly complex rules. I don't have time
to write my own adventures, so whichever one I choose needs to have
plenty already published.
My concerns regarding Ars Magica: rules complexity (I know the basic
system is simple, but the various permutations seem complex)and
character creation time (my players aren't hard-core rpgers, so I need
to be able to get going quickly).
My concerns regarding Pendragon: consensual-reality magic and religion
(reminding me of 3rd ed. Ars Magica), weak magic (casting time,
sleep/aging costs, and can magic even kill?), and lack of roles for
women (aside from magic users, but see above).
2) Player #1 (my wife): Loves faeries, and would probably love to play
one. Would probably be even more frustrated than myself by complex
rules, if that's possible.
3) Player #2 (my friend): Has made great strides graduating from
Munchkinhood to a place somewhere between Real Man and Real Roleplayer
-- but says that he will not play a "wimpy wizard" no matter what.
4) Player #3 (my wife's friend, and Player #2's girlfriend): A little
like Pheobe on "Friends", although not as hopelessly goofy. Into Tarot
and other mystic sh*t (to quote _Over the Edge_) -- in fact, she's
playing a neo-pagan shaman in our current OtE game.
Well, that's us. Which do you think suits our little group best?
- Dan
Mark Rouleau
>
>Why the heck am I bothering to get involved here? In all the years I've
>been encountering Dave's opinions, no appeal to logic, semantics, or
>emotion has ever shifted him one inch from the opinion that the sun shines
>out of Ysgarth's back cover. (Though to be fair, his dedication to his own
>creation, despite the game's utter obscurity in market terms, does achieve
>a kind of tragic nobility.) His classification of all other games as
>running from "second-rate" to "actively evil" is merely the flipside of
>this.
>
>And his arguments from abstract theory - into which, no ray of real-world
>experience is ever permitted to intrude - has a sort of Gallic academic
>purity.
>
>(And I'm not even a full-time Ars Magica fan...)
>
Sheesh. And I had fantastic, witty responses to his latest posted nonsense.
But you're right. There's no point in arguing with someone who makes bizarre
claims and backs them up with the same assertations.
No discussion, no logic, just . . . assertations.
I, unfortunately was fooled by this because he capitalized the first letter of
each sentence, spelled most or all of the words in his sentences correctly,
and ended each sentence with a period.
Most of the trolls on the 'Net are a little less subtle.
I shall, therefore, refrain from further postings in regards to Mr. Nalle.
And I do feel a little stupid about having been drawn into a fight.
And, to add some closure to this thread: Pendragon vs. Ars Magica? Both
great games, readily available at finer hobby shops everywhere. Go buy them.
Go buy both of them. Buy multiple copies of each, then buy all the
supplements.
You won't be dissappointed.
Pax.
Michael T. Richter
> The one thing I would add is that my concern about the character classes
> in ArM really doesn't have that much to do with the relative power levels
> of the types of characters, but with the opportunities available to them
> and the genuine difficulty in the system of making a complex character
who
> crosses the boundries of the classes or combines elements of the classes.
> I'm just as troubled by the difficulty of creating a truly incompetent
> character in ArM as I am by the social advantages which certain
characters
> have.
Oh my God! A medieval game in which some characters have *social
advantages*! This, surely, cannot possibly be played! Everyone knows that
True Role-Playing can only be done on a libertarian ticket!
> I want to be able to create characters who are multifaceted, complex
human
> beings. I don't want to have to go outside the game system to do that.
I
> want to come up with a character idea which makes sense in the context of
> the world and then be able to express that character through the game
> mechanics without having to change the concept substantially. For a lot
> of characters -- particularly the kind I like to make -- that's not so
> easy in ArM.
Give me a character which fits the ArM world paradigm (pseudo-medieval,
remember, with the addition of magic and monsters) and tell me how ArM
prevents you from enacting it.
I have repeatedly asked you for specifics. You have repeatedly responded
to other people with vague generalities. Try again, Dave.
--
Michael T. Richter
m...@go.away.spamming.idiots.igs.net
http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
Michael T. Richter
> Why the heck am I bothering to get involved here? In all the years I've
> been encountering Dave's opinions, no appeal to logic, semantics, or
> emotion has ever shifted him one inch from the opinion that the sun
shines
> out of Ysgarth's back cover. (Though to be fair, his dedication to his
own
> creation, despite the game's utter obscurity in market terms, does
achieve
> a kind of tragic nobility.) His classification of all other games as
> running from "second-rate" to "actively evil" is merely the flipside of
> this.
That and his rather humourous claim that most other games borrowed
techniques that he pioneered in Ysgarth...
> I would recommed that people don't bother trying to argue with Dave's
> opinions. A few quick corrective posts, to save newbies from the effects
of
> his wilder flights of fancy, maybe - but don't bother *debating*. It's
> shouting in a bucket.
This is especially true when trying to pump him for specifics. I have
repeatedly asked for specifics. First he said that Ars didn't allow for
creativity *in the rules*. I asked him to point out the rules which
prohibit this. He answers to someone else that he doesn't like
Magi/Companions/Grogs because they constrict characterisation possibilities
(after going through a not-so-neat segue into "elitism").
I've now asked him for specific characters which fit into the Ars setting
which cannot be made with the Ars rules. Any bets as to whether he'll
answer this?
Dave Nalle
I'm responding to both posters here because our server never picked up the
original posting.
In article <01bc0b26$246c4770$3611f8ce@retrotech>, "Michael T. Richter"
<m...@spam.types.need.not.reply.igs.net> wrote:
> > Why the heck am I bothering to get involved here? In all the years I've
> > been encountering Dave's opinions, no appeal to logic, semantics, or
> > emotion has ever shifted him one inch from the opinion that the sun
> shines
> > out of Ysgarth's back cover.
Actually, not only do I feel that Ysgarth is far from perfect, but we're
currently working on revising and improving it. I think that the concepts
and style of roleplaying embodied in Ysgarth are very desirable, but there
are other games which have great ideas of their own.
> (Though to be fair, his dedication to his
> own
> > creation, despite the game's utter obscurity in market terms, does
> achieve
> > a kind of tragic nobility.) His classification of all other games as
> > running from "second-rate" to "actively evil" is merely the flipside of
> > this.
I love it when people say this. Apparently all it takes is for me to say
something negative about one or two games and instantly I'm running down
all games for the benefit of Ysgarth. All I have to do is point out the
many favorable reviews I've written of other games over the years to show
how silly this is. The fact that I dislike some games doesn't mean that I
dislike or despise all games which are not Ysgarth. Hell, I've even
written positive reviews and endorsed Ars Magica within a limited
context. I'm probably one of the most widely published game reviewers
around, and I while I tailor my reviews to the audience, I've also
genuinely liked many of the games that I've reviewed, and said so in
print.
Here on this newsgroup I get singled out for negative comments, but I
guess that's because I think of this as a forum for airing opinions, and
I'm not likely to speak out (or at least not to be noticed speaking out)
if I say something like Call of Cthulhu is a great game (which it is). No
one reacts to that at all, and there's not much of a discussion in
flinging praises of an acknowledgedly excellent game around.
> That and his rather humourous claim that most other games borrowed
> techniques that he pioneered in Ysgarth...
That was indeed a humorous claim, and as I posted almost immediately
afterwards it WAS intended as humor...a quality lost on many people.
> > I would recommed that people don't bother trying to argue with Dave's
> > opinions. A few quick corrective posts, to save newbies from the effects
> of
> > his wilder flights of fancy, maybe - but don't bother *debating*. It's
> > shouting in a bucket.
I'm actually rather easily persuaded and my opinions are always changing.
I'm rather eager to see the new ArM, because I'm hoping it comes closer to
achieving its potential.
> This is especially true when trying to pump him for specifics. I have
> repeatedly asked for specifics. First he said that Ars didn't allow for
> creativity *in the rules*.
As should have been obvious, I was referring to The Rules, not some
specific rule. I was referring to the general thrust of the mechanics.
> I asked him to point out the rules which
> prohibit this. He answers to someone else that he doesn't like
> Magi/Companions/Grogs because they constrict characterisation possibilities
> (after going through a not-so-neat segue into "elitism").
As I've made clear all along, my complaint is not about the kind of dice
you roll or what skills are available, it is about the structure of
character development, and I think I've discussed that in fairly
significant detail.
> I've now asked him for specific characters which fit into the Ars setting
> which cannot be made with the Ars rules. Any bets as to whether he'll
> answer this?
I actually missed the original posting on this, but I'll see what I can
come up with. I actually dug up my copy of ArM3 so I could respond more
specifically.
Dave
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I write both as an individual and as a company representative
Quest for the Grail Website: http://www.ccsi.com/~graball/quest
Scriptorium Website: http://www.ccsi.com/~graball/scriptorium
RagnarokGC
>>And, to add some closure to this thread: Pendragon vs. Ars Magica?
Both
great games, readily available at finer hobby shops everywhere. Go buy
them.
Go buy both of them. Buy multiple copies of each, then buy all the
supplements.<<
Good point. I've got both games and all the supplements for Pendragon
(I'm pretty sure) and most of the supplements for ArM.
As for the rest of your comments, the fact that they're both great games
in many ways doesn't make my opinions any less valid.
Dave
RagnarokGC
>>He's just steamed because Dav'nalleus isn't really as interesting as
most of the historical Ars Magica antagonists.<<
Which is probably because I'm not an Ars Magica antagonist, just someone
who questions a few of the ideas the game presents.
>>Well, that, and the fact he can't push Ysgarth on the homeless for
bedding or fires.<<
Well, it's made of paper, so it would burn. But I'm sure I can find
better uses.
Dave
RagnarokGC
M. Rouleau wrote:
>>As I recall (from _Ars Magica_ 2, which I haven't looked at in a while),
>>Companions (and maybe Grogs, too) are allowed to take have Virtues that
let
>>them have limited magic, they just don't get access to the full magic
>>system.
Yes, there are several traits which will allow a Grog to have limited
Magic (at least in ArM3), but that's really beside the point. The real
problem with Grogs is that they are intrinsically NOT treated as real
characters in the structure of the game. It doesn't have anything to
do with how powerful they are or what they can or cannot do, it's
inherent in how they are played. Grogs are shared. Grogs are "made
by all players" therefore lacking any individual creative stamp. Grogs
are basically NPCs which everyone plays. My problem with this is that
they're treated like NPCs and I subscribe to the "NPCs should be people
too" philosophy.
>Yeah, I know. But I was trying to keep things SIMPLE for Mr. Nalle.
I'm not sure why I've been specially priveleged to have to endure the
sneering attacks of Ars Magica fanatics who won't even consider that
there might be things about their game that aren't the perfect epitome
of good roleplaying. If someone doesn't like a game I like I try to
explain the good things about it and I respect their opinions. I find
that
I get very few converts when I just insult them...perhaps something
about ArM has bred a different perspective, though there could be a
different explanation
>Actually, saying that just about any character has access to magic really
>hurts his (rather bizarre) assertation that Ars Magica character types
>"restrict creativity."
IMO even providing things like the Vocations in ArM encourages
complacency on the part of players. If there's a ready made template
there far too many players will rely on it instead of using their
imaginations.
Now that I've fished out my ArM rules I'm noticing all sorts of things I
could bring up as examples of the skewed direction I think the game
takes with roleplaying, but after reading a slew of insulting posts today
I
am pretty sure that there aren't enough open minds out there to
justify the effort.
If the few rational folks who are interested in this topic would like to
discuss my issues with ArM in detail in email, send me a note at
gra...@infinity.ccsi.com.
Dave
woodelf
> Truly, when I think of oppressive structures, I think Ars Magica. Huh?
well, i think of King Arthur in a silly crown with a guy behind him
clapping coconut halves together. guess that shows my education...
woodelf
nbar...@students.wisc.edu
woo...@yar.cs.wisc.edu
http://dax.cs.wisc.edu/~woodelf
We are Dreamers, Shapers, Singers, and Makers. --Elric
woodelf
> That's definitely one of the problems. I'm glad they addressed it. Did they
> also get rid of Grogs?
then who would be on all those battlefields, fighting for the feudal lords?
if you mean, "did they drop the distinction between Grog and Companion?"
the answer is "no." but it's an artificial one, in any case, and has no
impact on the actual characters. if someone walked up to you (IRL), and
declared that you were a plebian, because you weren't cognoscenti (sp?),
would that have any impact on who you really are? so that person has
categorized you, what difference does that make, except to that person and
those that listen to him or her? similarly, the mages walk down the line
at the covenant, tapping each person on the shoulder: "duck, duck, duck,
duck, duck, duck, duck, goose, duck, duck, duck, goose, goose, duck, duck,
duck, goose, duck, goose, duck." just because the mages say so doesn't
make it so (however much they'd like it to be that way). we, the players,
get final say, overruling our characters even. and we can (and in my
experience, do) choose to consider the grogs just as much people as
everyone else. the tension between that knowledge and the elitist beliefs
of many of the mages is useful, and we all enjoy it (even the player of the
mage in question) when one of the mages finds out the hard way that he
should give credit where due.
I did not realize that similarity was required for the exercise of
compassion. --Delenn
woodelf
> In article <5c400r$s...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mrou...@frontiernet.net
> (Mark Rouleau) wrote:
>
> > The beauty of ArM is you're never forced into a particular role. (That
> player
> > who preferred playing grogs created some of the most memorable characters I
> > have ever seen . . .)
>
> Pardon? Are you talking about the same ArM as the rest of us? The game
> with 3 rigidly defined character classes which impose stereotypical and
> unrealistic roles on the players and stifles creativity?
yes, dave he is. *you* are the one talking about a different game. the
only distinction made between the three groups is how important they seem
*to the mages.* this does not mean that mages are always right (though i
wouldn't say that too loudly around many of them). the roles are
stereotypical and unrealistic because, despite their claims to the
contrary, the society of mages (as a whole), is as bigoted and prejudiced
as the rest of medieval europe. they see people as having a definite place
in society, and whatever that place is, it is beneath their own. but what
does this have to do with the players' attitudes? and even the mages might
concede that grogs can be interesting, just not important. no roles are
imposed by the rules, but roles are usually imposed by the social structure
*within the game.* taking troupe style play to its logical extreme, we've
dropped the hard distinction between grog and companion. mages are still
distinct, because the society produces mages that are a class apart; either
you have learned hermetic magic, or you haven't. we only allow one mage
per player (or shaman, gruagach, goetist, etc., as fits the setting), but
otherwise don't worry about absolute numbers. we generally create the rest
of the members of the covenant, and build them with 7 virtue points if we
need it, 3 if we don't. some of the 7-point people end up being minor
figures, rarely roleplayed and very NPC-like. many of the 3-point people
are important to the color of the story, and a reasonable few become
favored characters. when we were still hung-up about the idea of each
player only having one companion-level character, for fareness, we spent
quite some time trying to decide if many characters fit that slot or not.
for such rigidly defined roles, it sure is hard to tell them apart (grog
and companion, that is). if you are truly playing troupe-style, balance
between players isn't an issue; the only reason we limit it to one
magus-level character per person is habit, and the desire to make sure that
the nominal centers of the in-game social structure get properly fleshed
out, with maximal attention from the players. we've (the players) never
seen grogs as cannon fodder (though some of the mages (character, that is)
have). every one is a person, with at least a name, description, reason
for hanging out with wizards, and sketched personality. most have a full
personality, background, family, and so on. to be perfectly honest, it
never occurred to me that the system was designed to, or even could be made
to, promote the lesser consideration of the grogs; just because they get
fewer points to spend doesn't make them lesser. and the mages' attitude is
meaningless: if the other characters in your AD&D game see the theif as
some sort of low-life expendable scum, does that mean she actually is?
because the combat corps in Underground see the boosted as mere goods, to
be used, abuse, and replaced as needed, does that mean they actually are?
i think you are making a huge mistake to assume that, because the attitude
of the dominant *characters* has been visited on the game, that attitude is
one shared by the *players*.
Wouldn't it be awful if life *were* fair, and we really deserved all the
terrible things that happened to us? --Marcus Cole
woodelf
> 1) Me: I will GM, and I HATE needlessly complex rules. I don't have time
> to write my own adventures, so whichever one I choose needs to have
> plenty already published.
>
> My concerns regarding Ars Magica: rules complexity (I know the basic
> system is simple, but the various permutations seem complex)and
> character creation time (my players aren't hard-core rpgers, so I need
> to be able to get going quickly).
actually, i have all of the rolls for magic that you'll use outside the lab
written in 3 lines on the bottom of my custom mage sheets. and all of the
other rolls (skills/combat/etc.) fit in about two lines on the regular
character sheet.
> 2) Player #1 (my wife): Loves faeries, and would probably love to play
> one. Would probably be even more frustrated than myself by complex
> rules, if that's possible.
>
> 3) Player #2 (my friend): Has made great strides graduating from
> Munchkinhood to a place somewhere between Real Man and Real Roleplayer
> -- but says that he will not play a "wimpy wizard" no matter what.
>
> 4) Player #3 (my wife's friend, and Player #2's girlfriend): A little
> like Pheobe on "Friends", although not as hopelessly goofy. Into Tarot
> and other mystic sh*t (to quote _Over the Edge_) -- in fact, she's
> playing a neo-pagan shaman in our current OtE game.
>
> Well, that's us. Which do you think suits our little group best?
Ars Magica, with the Shaman rules. give the ex-Real Man a shamanistic
shapeshifter for his companion type, and point out hte benefits of a
Tytalus or fire-slinging Flambeau. player #3 can play a shaman (the rules
may not be that authentic, but they'll *certainly* catch the fancy of
someone into new-agey mystic sh*t.) for your wife there are faerie
companion rules (you can improvise with the core rules, or there is much
more in the Faeries supplement). and she can play a Merenita for her mage,
and explore her own fascination with meeting faeries.
Ivanova is always right. I will listen to Ivanova. I will not ignore
Ivanova's recommendations. Ivanova is God. And if this ever happens
again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out. - Ivanova
woodelf
In article <5cbc18$n...@news.rchland.ibm.com>,
seu...@nordruth.rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) wrote:
> Now *THAT'S* a good one. Ars Magica is probably the RPG *least* suitable
> for dungeon crawling campaigns.
they did a respectable job of it with Broken Covenant of Calebais.
In article <5capnv$l...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mrou...@frontiernet.net
(Mark Rouleau) wrote:
> Let me just add that there are many ArM players who play nothing BUT
grogs. I
> can remember one player who had a whole clan of 'em, complete with family
> tree. :-)
and there's the guy who's run an ars magica event at the last 3-4 gencons
(at least) which is explicitly grog-only.
I was told by the people running that way that I could find the
Technomages here. --Vir Koto
cgv...@access.digex.net
woodelf wrote:
> i think you are making a huge mistake to assume that, because the attitude
> of the dominant *characters* has been visited on the game, that attitude is
> one shared by the *players*.
Unfortunately, to the casual observer, that observation is probably an
accurate one. Them and the hack and slashers.
Yes, I know I'm jumping into the middle of this argument. And I do
apologize. But I just ccouldn't help but ad my $.001!
Note the smilie!
;-)
Best,
Chris
cgv...@access.digex.net
Damn! Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!
Loki
One day, it occurred to seu...@nordruth.rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
to write:
>In article <graball-2301...@mushfiqur.ccsi.com>, gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) writes:
>|> In article <dc132-22019...@reshep.trin.cam.ac.uk>, dc...@cam.ac.uk
>|> (David Chart) wrote:
>|> > Which version of ArM has a lame and twisted background? I could see these
>|> > adjectives applying to ArM3 (deeeeeemons, give me more deeeeeemons), but
>|> > not really to ArM2 or ArM4 (I've never seen ArM1, alas).
>|> All the versions I've seen - that would be 1, 2 and 3 share the same basic
>|> flaws in channeling characters down restrictive paths and warping the medieval
>|> background to serve a dungeon-crawling mentality. But I haven't seen the
>|> 4th edition yet, so I can't really comment on it.
>Now *THAT'S* a good one. Ars Magica is probably the RPG *least* suitable
>for dungeon crawling campaigns.
Well, no. There's always Teenagers from Outer Space and Toon. :) :) :)
Loki
One day, it occurred to ragna...@aol.com (RagnarokGC) to write:
>Some seem to have misconstrued my comments about the elitism inherent in
>ArM. I'm not so much complaining about the fact that some characters are
>more powerful than others, or even that some are essentially socially more
>advantaged than others. A more important problem is that the combination
>of very limiting classes and troupe style play means that it may happen
>that a player is essentially forced (if only by social pressure) to play a
>character he doesn't want to play and has no interest in, or to play a
>character who can't really fully participate in the action of the game.
>It's even worse when that character is one shared with other players
>because then the player can put no individual stamp on the character and
>his relationship with it is too temporary for him to have a chance to do
>the work to make that character transcend the limits of the class.
This can happen with all game systems. All it takes is a group of
immature gamers. Haven't you ever heard the AD&D routine with newbies:
"What character class should I play?" "We don't have a cleric. Play a
cleric." Bah. It's obnoxious, and it happens *all *the *time ---
because all gamesystems have some kinds of character classes built
into the system.
Only grogs get passed around much in Ars Magica. And, TBH, in many AM
games they don't get passed around.
The most common cause of characters being played by players who didn't
create them, in my experience, is flaky players. When players don't
show up and their characters have* to be played, the game suffers. IMO
AM gets out of that pretty well by setting up a system where, when you
have flaky players, you can simply not use their characters fairly
easily. (Unless you have a player who plays all the grogs - that
player then has to be reliable.) This is often a big problem with
White Wolf's games, though, which are oriented towards small groups;
when you have 3 players and 1 doesn't make it, it's a problem.
Loki
One day, it occurred to ragna...@aol.com (RagnarokGC) to write:
>The one thing I would add is that my concern about the character classes
>in ArM really doesn't have that much to do with the relative power levels
>of the types of characters, but with the opportunities available to them
>and the genuine difficulty in the system of making a complex character who
>crosses the boundries of the classes or combines elements of the classes.
>I'm just as troubled by the difficulty of creating a truly incompetent
>character in ArM as I am by the social advantages which certain characters
>have.
Ars Magica is a medieval game, in many senses of the word.
In the medieval mindset, the upper classes *are* superior. Ars Magica
simply takes that as given and true. The upper classes (in this case,
magi) are literally better: not just more capable, but having more
options open to them.
It seems to me, Dave, that what you want to do here is to impose a
modern interpretation of the middle ages on Ars Magica. One may make
arguments about whether or not this is a good idea, but IMO in AM's
case it's impossible: because the underlying idea behind AM is that
you're playing in a world where the perceptions of the medieval people
are correct, where the upper classes are better, where magic, angels,
fey and demons really do exist, and so on.
The medievals really did think differently.
>I want to be able to create characters who are multifaceted, complex human
>beings. I don't want to have to go outside the game system to do that. I
>want to come up with a character idea which makes sense in the context of
>the world and then be able to express that character through the game
>mechanics without having to change the concept substantially. For a lot
>of characters -- particularly the kind I like to make -- that's not so
>easy in ArM.
You want to create characters who are human beings as they are
perceived in the modern era.
Mark Rouleau
>1) Me: I will GM, and I HATE needlessly complex rules. I don't have time
>to write my own adventures, so whichever one I choose needs to have
>plenty already published.
>
Oodles of both. ArM probably has more published adventures; the focus of
Pendragon's adventures is perhaps a bit tighter (which may be due to
Pendragon's more focused background.)
>My concerns regarding Ars Magica: rules complexity (I know the basic
>system is simple, but the various permutations seem complex)and
>character creation time (my players aren't hard-core rpgers, so I need
>to be able to get going quickly).
Honestly, it's not as bad as it looks. There's some calculations involved,
but 99% of them can be pre-figured before gametime. More importantly, the
rules will give you logical results without having to resort to a more complex
system.
I've generally found that the Ars Magica rules play better than they read.
If, for example, the combat system seems complex, try working up some fighters
and have them go at it. I think you'll find that the system plays very
smoothly.
>
>My concerns regarding Pendragon: consensual-reality magic and religion
>(reminding me of 3rd ed. Ars Magica), weak magic (casting time,
>sleep/aging costs, and can magic even kill?), and lack of roles for
>women (aside from magic users, but see above).
These are, unfortunately, weaknesses of a "strictly arthurian" setting. OTOH,
Knights Adventurous had some neat rules for female knights. Don't know if
they made it to the latest editions . . .
As to magic, it probably works best in Pendragon as a GM-controlled plot
device.
>
>2) Player #1 (my wife): Loves faeries, and would probably love to play
>one. Would probably be even more frustrated than myself by complex
>rules, if that's possible.
>
Check out the Faeries supplement for character creation rules. You may also
want to invest in Stormrider: Jump Start kit for your first gaming session.
>3) Player #2 (my friend): Has made great strides graduating from
>Munchkinhood to a place somewhere between Real Man and Real Roleplayer
>-- but says that he will not play a "wimpy wizard" no matter what.
nothing about ars magica that says your magi can't have a conan-like build and
+3 skill with a battle axe. And if he's a graduated Munchkin, you might want
to mention to him that Ars Magica makes few bows to "game balance." Magi are
vastly more powerful than other characters.
>
>4) Player #3 (my wife's friend, and Player #2's girlfriend): A little
>like Pheobe on "Friends", although not as hopelessly goofy. Into Tarot
>and other mystic sh*t (to quote _Over the Edge_) -- in fact, she's
>playing a neo-pagan shaman in our current OtE game.
>
>Well, that's us. Which do you think suits our little group best?
>
>- Dan
Players #1&3 probably wouldn't feel comfortable with the lack of player magic
in Pendragon. Player 2 can, if he chooses, relegate himself to companions &
grogs, should wizardry not be his "thing." Heck, nothing in the rules says
that you have to have ANY magi in ArM. (I've been trying to "break" ArM for
years. Still haven't succeeded. :)
Check out the jump start kit for Ars Magica, as well as the Faeries
supplement. Don't worry too much about game mechanics. If your players don't
know the rules, they'll never be able to tell when you're making something up
anyway.
Michael T. Richter
>>> 2nd, both present rule systems which are designed to restrict
creativity
>>> and discourage roleplaying.
>> I don't see how you can justify this.
> It's very simple. Both games provide excessive restrictions on the kind
> of characters you can create and the roles which players can take in the
> world. There are reasons for this in both games. In Pendragon the
setting
TIRED REFRAIN:
Specifics, please, Dave. Please provide *specifics* for which kinds of
characters (suitable to the pseudo-medieval setting, of course) are not
supported by Ars Magica.
Generalisms will not get you squat right now. I'll be on you like this
until you provide specifics or shut up. Look to the T4 threads of the past
for evidence. I won't go away bored...
> I believe that collaborative storytelling and multiple characters work
> directly against roleplaying. They reduce the significance of characters
> as individuals and confuse and distract the players. They take a good
This is contrafactual (nothing new to you, I know). As I pointed out twice
already, I have seen much more creative role-playing from a group of
players with ArM than I have with the same players and an earlier version
of Ysgarth.
> portion of the creative and imaginative work out of the hands of the
> players and put it in the mechanics or the hands of the GM or other
> players. Personally I find these things to be an abomination. The
reason
The first part of this is contrafactual. The second part is irrelevant.
Until you can find something specific, your opinions are worth nothing.
I have not yet seen any creative and imaginative work taken out of my hands
in Ars Magica, neither by GM nor by mechanics. Indeed the first Saga I
played in had players excited over the possibilities for their characters
and their covenant. We spent hours detailing each. The characters were
more diverse than, I will say this again and again!, THE CHARACTERS MADE
FOR YSGARTH BY THE SAME PEOPLE.
> I've always been so vocal in my objections to ArM is that these elements
> strike me as genuinely evil and antithetical to the most desirable
aspects
> of roleplaying.
"Genuinely evil"!?!?!?!? It's a game, in God's name! A *GAME*!! Get this
through your thick skull!
Starvation is genuinely evil. Murder is genuinely evil. Rape is genuinely
evil. War is genuinely evil. Brian Mulroney is genuinely evil (inside
Canadian joke here). ARS MAGIC IS A THRICE-GOD-DAMNED *G*A*M*E!!!!!
When you start using terms like "genuinely evil" to describe a game
mechanic, you blow all your credibility to perdition and back. Get a grip.
Get a life.
> As I said in a previous post, I should probably have said that I would
never
> be able to put up with the restrictions of these systems for an extended
> campaign.
You've said it, yes. You haven't yet substantiated it. Describe for me a
character (suitable to the pseudo-medieval background, of course) which
cannot be supported in Ars Magica. When you've completed this obviously
simple task, then I'll buy the above statements. Until then, I'll assume
that you're only pissed because Ysgarth isn't getting any recognition while
Ars attracts thousands of regular players.
> I believe that roleplaying mechanics should exist to assist and encourage
> roleplaying, not to set limits on your imagination.
SUBSTANTIATE THIS OFT-REPEATED CLAIM, NALLE! JUST *ONCE* IN YOUR MISERABLE
LITTLE LIFE USE SOMETHING OTHER THAN VAGUE GENERALISMS. JUST
*ONCE*!!!!!!!!!!!!
Michael T. Richter
> As for the rest of your comments, the fact that they're both great games
> in many ways doesn't make my opinions any less valid.
That's true. It is the fact that you have not yet backed up any of your
opinions with facts or specifics which makes your opinions invalid.
Michael T. Richter
> No discussion, no logic, just . . . assertations.
> I, unfortunately was fooled by this because he capitalized the first
letter of
> each sentence, spelled most or all of the words in his sentences
correctly,
> and ended each sentence with a period.
Dave Nalle is an English major. He knows the conventional syntactic forms
(sort of) but knows nothing of semantic content. He also, apparently, is
completely ignorant of any logical form other than "proof by assertion".
He's probably read a bit too much Carroll for his own good -- quite
possibly not realising that the Red Queen was a satirical construct...
> Most of the trolls on the 'Net are a little less subtle.
He's not trolling: that's the scary part. He honestly believes that Ars
Magica is the greatest evil to have ever inflicted role-playing. I rarely
use the word "delusional" seriously when talking about people. I will make
an exception in Nalle's case.
> I shall, therefore, refrain from further postings in regards to Mr.
Nalle.
You do that and you leave him with the field. His opinions will be the
only ones seen on Pendragon, Ars Magica and every other game he hates which
is not whatever Ysgarth is this week.
This is not a good thing.
> And, to add some closure to this thread: Pendragon vs. Ars Magica? Both
> great games, readily available at finer hobby shops everywhere. Go buy
them.
> Go buy both of them. Buy multiple copies of each, then buy all the
> supplements.
> You won't be dissappointed.
I'll agree with you on Ars. I've never been a fan of Pendragon (ironically
enough, probably for the same reason that Nalle doesn't like it).
Michael T. Richter
> I love it when people say this. Apparently all it takes is for me to say
> something negative about one or two games and instantly I'm running down
> all games for the benefit of Ysgarth. All I have to do is point out the
> many favorable reviews I've written of other games over the years to show
> how silly this is. The fact that I dislike some games doesn't mean that
I
Point away, Nalle. I haven't seen a positive review from you yet. Not
once. And I've tilted against your particular windmill for over six years.
(Remember Fight-o-Net's RECFRP echo?)
> context. I'm probably one of the most widely published game reviewers
> around, and I while I tailor my reviews to the audience, I've also
> genuinely liked many of the games that I've reviewed, and said so in
> print.
All it takes to become a published game reviewer, Nalle, is a cock-sure
"I'm a gaming god" attitude and the ability to (sort of) write in complete
sentences. Most gaming magazines are starved for input and welcome anyone
who can write in complete sentences. This does not mean that your reviews
actually have any value.
Given that you have not yet managed to substantiate your claims over Ars
Magica, I'm pretty sure that your reviews are more of the same vague
generalities over and over again. You can prove me wrong by finally
substantiating your claims with Ars Magica.
> Here on this newsgroup I get singled out for negative comments, but I
> guess that's because I think of this as a forum for airing opinions, and
> I'm not likely to speak out (or at least not to be noticed speaking out)
> if I say something like Call of Cthulhu is a great game (which it is).
No
> one reacts to that at all, and there's not much of a discussion in
> flinging praises of an acknowledgedly excellent game around.
Wow! For the first time in over six years, I've heard Dave Nalle actually
say something other than what amounts to "this game sucks because I say
so". Further, this is the absolute *first* time I've seen you say
something positive about a game! This is surely a day to mark off in my
Pilot!
>> That and his rather humourous claim that most other games borrowed
>> techniques that he pioneered in Ysgarth...
> That was indeed a humorous claim, and as I posted almost immediately
> afterwards it WAS intended as humor...a quality lost on many people.
Lost because it wasn't funny. Lost because it wasn't written in such a way
as to even begin to look like an ironic statement. Lost because, deep
down, I suspect you weren't trying to be funny and only retrofitted the
"irony" explanation after several people jumped on you.
My substantiation? You tried to defend that position for several messages
before you finally settled on the "humour" explanation...
> I'm actually rather easily persuaded and my opinions are always changing.
This is contrafactual. I have not seen you change an opinion on over six
years except when brow-beaten into it. Even then, you do not come across
as having graciously changed your mind -- you instead came across as having
decided to shut up because you had been beaten up for too long.
> As should have been obvious, I was referring to The Rules, not some
> specific rule. I was referring to the general thrust of the mechanics.
I changed my requirements. I asked you instead to come up with a character
suitable to the setting which would not be supported by the game.
> As I've made clear all along, my complaint is not about the kind of dice
> you roll or what skills are available, it is about the structure of
> character development, and I think I've discussed that in fairly
> significant detail.
No you haven't. You substituted one set of vague generalisms for another.
Specifics are things like:
"It is impossible, in the Traveller character generation system, to make a
Noble who, as a hobby, is a competition sharpshooter. Or, alternatively,
it is assumed that an Entertainer will never be interested in, say,
archaeology. The game system simply does not support skills which are not
directly related to the profession in the opinion of the author. (I am
ignoring here that the opinion of what is relevant to a given profession is
often... skewed.) Given that in real life people often have skills -- even
at significant levels -- unrelated to their professions, this mechanism is
broken."
Do you see what a "specific" is now? It is more than "proof by assertion"
or vague statements about feelings. It is a description of something
specific unsupported by existing rules and an explanation of why this is a
Bad Thing.
> > I've now asked him for specific characters which fit into the Ars
setting
> > which cannot be made with the Ars rules. Any bets as to whether he'll
> > answer this?
> I actually missed the original posting on this, but I'll see what I can
> come up with. I actually dug up my copy of ArM3 so I could respond more
> specifically.
But I thought you had already been specific:
> ... and I think I've discussed that in fairly significant detail.
Does the above ring a bell?
Michael T. Richter
> Now that I've fished out my ArM rules I'm noticing all sorts of things I
> could bring up as examples of the skewed direction I think the game
> takes with roleplaying, but after reading a slew of insulting posts today
> I
> am pretty sure that there aren't enough open minds out there to
> justify the effort.
The last ditch effort of someone who has lost an argument: "You're all too
close-minded for me to go through the effort of actually substantiating my
claims."
Dave Nalle, this is my kill file. Kill file, Dave Nalle.
Anthony Ragan
nbar...@students.wisc.edu (woodelf) screamed into the Void:
>...similarly, the mages walk down the line
>at the covenant, tapping each person on the shoulder: "duck, duck, duck,
>duck, duck, duck, duck, goose, duck, duck, duck, goose, goose, duck, duck,
>duck, goose, duck, goose, duck." just because the mages say so doesn't
>make it so (however much they'd like it to be that way).
Unless there's one helluva Muto Corporem spell being cast....
*****
--Anthony Ragan
Snotling in Chief, Staadtholder van Marienburg
Iris...@worldnet.att.net (primary) & Iris...@aol.com (secondary)
The Warhammer FRP FAQ is at:
ftp://ftp.pvv.unit.no/pub/warhammer/FAQ3.2
Composed with Agent 99!
WinningerR
>>>>The one thing I would add is that my concern about the character
classes
>in ArM really doesn't have that much to do with the relative power levels
>of the types of characters, but with the opportunities available to them
>and the genuine difficulty in the system of making a complex character
who
>crosses the boundries of the classes or combines elements of the classes.
>I'm just as troubled by the difficulty of creating a truly incompetent
>character in ArM as I am by the social advantages which certain
characters
>have.<<<
Complaining about the fact that an ArM "Grog" is inherently inferior to a
mage, in my mind, is like complaining about the fact that your BOOT HILL
GM won't let you play a Wookie.
Dan Davenport
> >in ArM really doesn't have that much to do with the relative power levels
> >of the types of characters, but with the opportunities available to them
> >and the genuine difficulty in the system of making a complex character who
> >crosses the boundries of the classes or combines elements of the classes.
> >I'm just as troubled by the difficulty of creating a truly incompetent
> >character in ArM as I am by the social advantages which certain characters
> >have.
>
>
> In the medieval mindset, the upper classes *are* superior. Ars Magica
> simply takes that as given and true. The upper classes (in this case,
> magi) are literally better: not just more capable, but having more
> options open to them.
>
> It seems to me, Dave, that what you want to do here is to impose a
> modern interpretation of the middle ages on Ars Magica. One may make
> arguments about whether or not this is a good idea, but IMO in AM's
> case it's impossible: because the underlying idea behind AM is that
> you're playing in a world where the perceptions of the medieval people
> are correct, where the upper classes are better, where magic, angels,
> fey and demons really do exist, and so on.
>
don't like the way things are, your character can convince a bunch of
people to see things your way and consensually alter the game setting to
meet your needs. ;-)
-Dan
Mr. Tines
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 24 Jan 1997 06:26:23 GMT, in
<19970124062...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
ragna...@aol.com (RagnarokGC) wrote.....
> Mark Rouleau smirked:
> 3) bodyguards and spear-carriers.
>
> AKA mindless, inflexible drones that the system forces you to play
whether
> you want to or not.
That you call them mindless and inflexible, I think, speaks volumes about
your view of the common man, and nothing about the system. Certainly in
the experience I have of the system (3rd edition) I was not - indeed no-one
was - forced to play such a character. We just converted over the
characters from the sort-of-mediaeval-Germany AD&D campaign we were
playing, and kept on going.
> Look. When I posted on ArM I had no intention of sparking a debate, much
> less one where I'm alone against the world.
>
> I just threw out some opinions on ArM which I've had for so long that I
> sort of assumed that they would be obvious to most RPGers who are
familiar
> with the game. I didn't think that anyone would disagree with me.
Indeed, they are so un-obvious (certainly in dispassionate reading of the
3rd or 4th edition core rules; as opposed to the evangelisation that came
from the immediate disciples of Tweet and Rein*Hagen about the One True Way
of Ars Magica), that it seems hard to see how to agree.
> I suppose this is all a matter of perspective. From my point of view
RPGs
> are primarily about the character. The game system should mostly be
about
> making an interesting and completely developed character. It should
> encourage you to put depth and variety into the character and it should
> not deny you any options which are believable within the context of the
> setting.
This sounds like a description of Ars Magica to me; I cannot fathom your
plaint. Which believable options do you feel that you are denied?
> IMO ArM forces players to create characters within strictures which are
> dictated only by the rule system and have no justification in human
nature
> or in the setting. I would have though that the reasons why I have this
> opinion would be glaringly obvious, but apparently my mind is so twisted
> that no one else has even an inkling of things which stand out to me like
> a sore thumb.
Certainly some specific instances would be of assistance to my
comprehension of your position. I have certainly not found any character
from the High Middle Ages that I could not express within the general
framework of the game
- --
_______ PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ (also mr_tines at geocities-dot-com) key on keyservers
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (PGP preferred on principle)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.63ui
iQCVAwUBMuucVooUd45Z7dNFAQHSwQP/XRUkUU1M2dmPzrQV+slXKL064JK1cKnq
n8Dj9v8dZKw6MuUi3h1S2Y0uttrIqGRufpDHcJgdvBBldFh3Q0sZHttFtyiGO5wK
lW+7iRZ8uPqdUSqpJHLSPITeCGKIZcVXqx/3gvZicYuifToU+wxLYv1rI4XczX0t
Oz1MsJ8egnE=
=P6BP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael T. Richter
>> ...similarly, the mages walk down the line
>> at the covenant, tapping each person on the shoulder: "duck, duck, duck,
>> duck, duck, duck, duck, goose, duck, duck, duck, goose, goose, duck,
duck,
>> duck, goose, duck, goose, duck." just because the mages say so doesn't
>> make it so (however much they'd like it to be that way).
> Unless there's one helluva Muto Corporem spell being cast....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That is a great one. I'm going to have to figure out just how that spell
would work out...
woodelf
In article <19970126064...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ragna...@aol.com (RagnarokGC) wrote:
> I'm not sure why I've been specially priveleged to have to endure the
> sneering attacks of Ars Magica fanatics who won't even consider that
> there might be things about their game that aren't the perfect epitome
> of good roleplaying. If someone doesn't like a game I like I try to
> explain the good things about it and I respect their opinions. I find
> that
> I get very few converts when I just insult them...perhaps something
> about ArM has bred a different perspective, though there could be a
> different explanation
i just looked at a couple of my recent posts, and realized that, assuming
you really are trying to be constructive, and the message is getting lost
in the medium, i might have been a bit harsh. didn't really mean for the
comments to be that way; tone doesn't come across well here.
in the interests of attempting to make sure we're actually communicating
(you know, the talking *and* listening parts), let me attempt something. i
believe i understand your point. i will reiterate it, and, provide my
counter. that way, you know whether i'm actually arguing the same thing
that you are.
you are saying that the nature of troupe-style play and the mechanics of
character creation categorically relegate grogs to "not-quite-people"
status. you take umbrage at this for two reasons: you find it inherently
distasteful because it goes against the idea that all people are, in
essence, equal. and you think it is bad game design because, by
dehumanizing the grogs and making them less important, they do not serve
their proper purpose (as characters) of a creative outlet, and are too
easily treated as faceless statistics, no more important than a fine sword:
useful, but nothing more.
as for the inequality, i've already addressed that in a previous post. in
a nutshell, i don't think that it would be appropriate for the characters
to be socially equal, due to the setting. the middle ages were heavily
stratified along social lines. and, in any case, this is as seen from the
mages' point of view; just because they say grogs are inferior doesn't mean
that they are.
onto the thornier point: is it good game design? several good points have
been raised on both sides of this issue. one person mentioned that she
notices that switching "ownership" of the grogs limits identification with
them, thus making it easier to sacrifice them because they are less real.
this certainly is a valid argument, but starts from a premise that iv'e
never personally witnessed: in all of our Ars games, the grogs are just as
real as the other characters, each one well-fleshed-out and a person to the
players.
[from another post by you]
> I believe that collaborative storytelling and multiple characters work
> directly against roleplaying. They reduce the significance of characters
> as individuals and confuse and distract the players. They take a good
> portion of the creative and imaginative work out of the hands of the
> players and put it in the mechanics or the hands of the GM or other
> players. Personally I find these things to be an abomination. The reason
> I've always been so vocal in my objections to ArM is that these elements
> strike me as genuinely evil and antithetical to the most desirable aspects
> of roleplaying.
here i will strongly disagree with you. before my reasons, can you
elaborate on *why* you think that troupe-style must inherently reduce the
significance of individual characters or cunfuse and distract the players?
first of all, in my experience, i good roleplayer tends to have more than
one character concept in her head at any time. troupe-style gives her an
opportunity to express several of these concepts at once. what's more,
they can be expressed at any level of immersion. if there is a concept
that you want to try once, but knwo you'd get sick of quickly, you can
invest a grog with it. you get to play the grog, and, if you actually *do*
get sick of it, you need never do so again; someone else can play that grog
in the future. but, at any given moment (and generally in blocks of time
on the order of one game session), the player is only truly playing one
character, investing all of her personality into that one character. the
other characters are still people, but they are people whose lives we don't
care to drop in on at the moment. in fact, i'm rather confused as to how
you can see being able to create, say, 15 fully-realized people is less
creative or imaginative than creating 1. would you say that a novel with
10 characters has less believable characters than one with 1 character
(autobiographical characters excluded)? if an author can fully realize
multiple characters, why can't a roleplayer?
as for the idea that so many characters necessitates falling back on the
mechanics, or turning them into faceless NPC-types: again, i've never seen
this happen. [my claim may be merely anecdotal, but the fact that there is
even one counter example invalidates your claim that such a thing is
inherent to troupe-style play. it may be a more likely pitfall, but i
don't think it's inevitable.] in our games, we have never used mechanics
to determine how a character acts, with perhaps a couple exceptions. every
one of those exceptions was a case where a major character (magus or
companion) had conflicting elements of personality. the player just
couldn't figure out which would prevail in a particular situation, so used
the personality traits to determine. it produced much the same result as
would happen if a real person found themselves in a situation where they
didn't know what they should do: eventually, one responce wins out, but
predicting which one based on the person's previous actions is unlikely at
best.
btw, what do you consider the most desirable aspects of roleplaying? after
fun (which is sort of a meta-aspect, one that is not directly dependent on
any of the others), i'd say that experience is the most desirable outcome.
i want the opportunity to live lives i have never lived, experience
situations i can never experience, and believe things that i will never
believe. secondarily, i wish to tell a good story. what "good" means in
this context varies with my mood: sometimes i want entertaining, sometimes
moving, sometimes something else.
> IMO even providing things like the Vocations in ArM encourages
> complacency on the part of players. If there's a ready made template
> there far too many players will rely on it instead of using their
> imaginations.
well, how do you propose informing a player whose only knowledge of
medieval life comes from AD&D and tolkien what life was like, and what
different professions were competant at, and so on? it seems to me that
the vocations--which are, after all, only guidelines, and don't even come
into play if you use the detailed system of character creation--are a
rather good way of doing that.
Wouldn't it be awful if life *were* fair, and we really deserved all the
lmai...@intelcom.fr
Dave Nalle wrote:
> It's very simple. Both games provide excessive restrictions on the kind
> of characters you can create and the roles which players can take in the
> world. There are reasons for this in both games. In Pendragon the setting
> justifies the restrictive nature of the mechanics. In ArM the justification
> is 'storytelling'. But IMO the net result in either case is to stifle any
> player creativity.
No more than any setting-specific game. As a player, you are always
constrained by the setting limitations on characters, roles, abilities,
knowledge and technology. You might even be constrained by mentality
requirements (medieval settings tend to favor this).
So where's the specific problem?
> Not roleplaying as I understand it. Pendragon is all about the dynamics
> of the setting. You can roleplay a character, but you do it the way the
> designers tell you to do it or you run into brick walls. For me roleplaying
> is not about acting out the actions of a character according to someone
> else's script, it's about creating an interesting and original personality
> and exploring how that character would interract with his environment and
> other characters.
There's nothing that prevents you from doing it in either game. The fact
that
you're playing a knight in Pendragon, for instance, is independant of
the
personality you can breathe into the character, or the interactions he
might
have with the rest of the world.
> I believe that collaborative storytelling and multiple characters work
> directly against roleplaying. They reduce the significance of characters
> as individuals and confuse and distract the players. They take a good
??? How can giving a portion of the GM's work back into the hands of the
players can reduce the significance of characters?
> portion of the creative and imaginative work out of the hands of the
> players and put it in the mechanics or the hands of the GM or other
As I understand it, cooperative storytelling is nothing more than saying
"we are all co-responsible for creating a good story, and, as such, we
must all share the burden of creating a world and making it interesting
and alive."
Once again, I fail to see how this can be detrimental to roleplaying.
> players. Personally I find these things to be an abomination. The reason
Such big words for so small a thing.
> I've always been so vocal in my objections to ArM is that these elements
> strike me as genuinely evil and antithetical to the most desirable aspects
> of roleplaying.
Don't understand "evil" the way you put it.
> In other words, the idea of the background is rich if you're willing to
> actually create the background for yourself?
Well, not really. The background is rich because the game has the
potential
to go beyond the basic medieval setting. As it doesn't follow the
medieval
pattern, it has infinite alernatives, infinite possibilities.
> As I said in a previous post, I should probably have said that I would never
> be able to put up with the restrictions of these systems for an extended
> campaign.
>
> I believe that roleplaying mechanics should exist to assist and encourage
> roleplaying, not to set limits on your imagination.
Well, if evil has ever been in the eye of the beholder...
--
------------------------- Luc Maillet -----
INTELCOM
11-13 rue G. Peri 2 place de Montelimar
31000 Toulouse 31500 Toulouse
05-61-99-48-13 05-61-26-89-62
Darin J Eblom
woodelf <nbar...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>In article <19970126064...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>ragna...@aol.com (RagnarokGC) wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why I've been specially priveleged to have to endure the
>> sneering attacks of Ars Magica fanatics who won't even consider that
>> there might be things about their game that aren't the perfect epitome
>> of good roleplaying. If someone doesn't like a game I like I try to
>> explain the good things about it and I respect their opinions. I find
>> that
>> I get very few converts when I just insult them...perhaps something
>> about ArM has bred a different perspective, though there could be a
>> different explanation
I guess I haven't noticed people being too harsh on you, Dave. I kind
of feel that when you catagorize a game as being an 'abomination' or
'evil', you just open yourself up to those with stick who want to
knock some sense in you... ;-)
>onto the thornier point: is it good game design? several good points have
>been raised on both sides of this issue. one person mentioned that she
>notices that switching "ownership" of the grogs limits identification with
>them, thus making it easier to sacrifice them because they are less real.
>this certainly is a valid argument, but starts from a premise that iv'e
>never personally witnessed: in all of our Ars games, the grogs are just as
>real as the other characters, each one well-fleshed-out and a person to the
>players.
My belief, based entirely on experience with ArM from original
playtest to now, is completely the opposite. Players identify MORE
with the grogs than any other character except their personal
Magi/Companion. While it is expected that a player connects with the
latter two, it sems strange to many that the former is such an
important part both to the campaign as well as to the identification
of the players of Ars Magica.
Can a grog be played as a soulless NPC? Sure, but that is boring.
And there are few of us on this newsgroup who take the boring route.
Instead, in each Story within the Saga, Bolt (a grog) again goes out
to face the unknown. Each time there is another chapter added to his
life, wether it is about him finally shedding the influence of that
troublemaker Rufus, the discovery of a new brewing process for ale, or
the the fact that he has discovered that he has a taste for vegetables
(Horrors!). Each chapter is added to the previous. Bolt goes from a
simple character to a valuable and beloved member of the adventure.
And we've ALL played a part in it. We've each added something to
him. Bolt is not a reflection of my creativity, but of the combined
imagination of this group of friends who play games together. And
when Bolt is at risk, we are all worried for him, because he is NOT a
throwaway character. When he 'died', the entire gaming group was in
shock. We tried to imagine Patina without Bolt. How would Luinda or
Rufus feel about this? What about his family?
For every Bolt there is a Mite. Mite was mostly faceless, brought
along as a shield grog occasionally, more NPC than anything else. Mite
was mostly used to introduce new players to the game.
Mite is the kind of character dave would go nuts about. Bolt is the
kind of character Dave can't understand. I refuse to sacrifice Bolt
because of Mite.
ttfn - woody
--
[O] Darin J. Eblom | pre...@io.com | THE Control Addict and Sommerite |
[O] SAVE THE GROGS! Play Ars Magica! | Deadbeat Club Codename: C. Robin |
[O] IF YOU HAVE TO ASK... YOU'VE EARNED IT --> [ O O O ] |
Peter Hentges
woodelf wrote:
> Ars Magica, with the Shaman rules.
> may not be that authentic, but they'll *certainly* catch the fancy of
> someone into new-agey mystic sh*t.)
Actually, the representations in Shamans are accurate. The authors
did their homework (a hallmark of most ArM supplements, actually);
any resemblance to new-agey mystic shit is purely coincidental.
[O] Peter Hentges
[O] Egret hen pest
[O] JBRU
Michael Cugley
woodelf wrote:
> those that listen to him or her? similarly, the mages walk down the line
> at the covenant, tapping each person on the shoulder: "duck, duck, duck,
> duck, duck, duck, duck, goose, duck, duck, duck, goose, goose, duck, duck,
> duck, goose, duck, goose, duck." just because the mages say so doesn't
> make it so
That rather depends on the Mage in question...
Mike the .sigless
Peter Hentges
Dan Davenport wrote:
> 1) Me: I will GM, and I HATE needlessly complex rules. I don't have time
> to write my own adventures, so whichever one I choose needs to have
> plenty already published.
I'm not sure either game has a number of published adventures. Pendragon
may win out on this score. ArM's supplements tend to be in the
"resource"
vein, giving you background on which it is easy to build your own
adventures with minimal work. If you choose ArM, you'd likely want to
pick up one of the "Tribunal" books; I'd suggest "Lion of the North"
for "straight-out-of-the-box" play. (Iberia and Rome, though both good,
suffer from the "development" they received at the hands of White Wolf.)
> My concerns regarding Ars Magica: rules complexity (I know the basic
> system is simple, but the various permutations seem complex)and
> character creation time (my players aren't hard-core rpgers, so I need
> to be able to get going quickly).
Magic is the most complex piece of ArM. Even there, the basic pieces
are fairly simple and you can add complexities as you feel comfortable
with them. Further, the fourth edition of ArM adds some additional
simplicity to the magic system.
> 2) Player #1 (my wife): Loves faeries, and would probably love to play
> one. Would probably be even more frustrated than myself by complex
> rules, if that's possible.
Would love ArM...wherin she could play a faerie. Could get frustrated by
ArM's magic rules (due to their complexity). This would not impact a
faerie character, however, as only the mages use the full magic rules.
> 3) Player #2 (my friend): Has made great strides graduating from
> Munchkinhood to a place somewhere between Real Man and Real Roleplayer
> -- but says that he will not play a "wimpy wizard" no matter what.
I've yet to see a "wimpy" wizard in ArM.... But if your friend doesn't
want to play a wizard, there are plenty of options in ArM. How's he
feel about valiant knights, pious clerics, scurrilous bandit chieftans,
wilely street urchins, rugged huntsmen, or any of the other myriad
characters available in ArM?
> 4) Player #3 (my wife's friend, and Player #2's girlfriend): A little
> like Pheobe on "Friends", although not as hopelessly goofy. Into Tarot
> and other mystic sh*t (to quote _Over the Edge_) -- in fact, she's
> playing a neo-pagan shaman in our current OtE game.
Sounds like she'd enjoy bits of ArM's magic system (plenty of mystic
shit there) if she can get past the complexity. (Which is a degree
above that of OTE.)
So it sounds like you'd be best off setting up the game with the mages
being NPCs who head the covenant that your three PCs are associated
with. That way, you can control the complexity of the game by
introducing
what magic you are comfortable with and have a ready hook to send the
characters off on various adventures. (The magi command/ask you to....)
Lydia Leong
In article <graball-2301...@198.6.201.73>,
Dave Nalle <gra...@infinity.ccsi.com> wrote:
>It's very simple. Both games provide excessive restrictions on the kind
>of characters you can create and the roles which players can take in the
>world. There are reasons for this in both games. In Pendragon the setting
>justifies the restrictive nature of the mechanics. In ArM the justification
>is 'storytelling'. But IMO the net result in either case is to stifle any
>player creativity.
I think I have to disagree with you very strongly.
The objective of Pendragon is really to roleplay knights in a setting
which attempts to recapture the feel of the Arthurian tales,
particularly Mallory.
If you want to play a bunch of sneaky mercenaries in a gritty
historical medieval England, Pendragon is _not_ the system you want.
I don't think of this as a failure; Pendragon makes no pretense to be
all things to all people. It is a system that does one thing very
well... and only that one thing (though I've seen a neat adventure by
Mark Grundy which uses Pendragon mechanics very effectively to do a
modern mafia family story).
Now, within that "knight" archetype, you can have a huge amount of
variation in character background; indeed, Pendragon's family history
emphasis produces very interesting, detailed family histories.
Yes, there is a certain behavior model that knights are expected to
fall within, but I've seen players contrive very interesting things
while still remaining within that model. Arthurian characters are not
necessarily knights in shining armor, and there is ample opportunity
for both villainy and heroism. The constraints of knighthood result
in a certain directed brand of creativity, I think. It is a mood
piece, just like, say, Call of Cthulhu.
I think others have adequately addressed this point with respect to
Ars Magica.
-- Lydia
woodelf
> Actually, the representations in Shamans are accurate. The authors
> did their homework (a hallmark of most ArM supplements, actually);
> any resemblance to new-agey mystic shit is purely coincidental.
or because new-agey mystic shit is an attempt to revive old shamanic
traditions. i wouldn't be in a place to know. i'd just heard many
complaints that it had nothing to do with old-world pre-christian
shamanistic practices, from people that i thought knew what they were
talking about.
Green must fight Purple. Purple must fight Green. Is only way.
--Green Drazi
Just my luck, I get stuck with a race that only speaks in macros.
--Ivanova
Carl Perkins
In article <nbarmore-ya0240800...@144.92.88.10>, nbar...@students.wisc.edu (woodelf) writes...
}In article <graball-2301...@mushfiqur.ccsi.com>,
}gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) wrote:
}
}> That's definitely one of the problems. I'm glad they addressed it. Did they
}> also get rid of Grogs?
}
}then who would be on all those battlefields, fighting for the feudal lords?
}if you mean, "did they drop the distinction between Grog and Companion?"
}the answer is "no." but it's an artificial one, in any case, and has no
}impact on the actual characters.
}woodelf
Actually, there is one difference - the companion type is allowed to take
up to 10 points of virtues and flaws, whereas the grogs can only take up to
3. They also each have to take one from the appropriate list, which is
different for each. That is each and every difference between the two,
as far as I can recall, from a mechanical point of view.
--- Carl
Doug Lampert
In article <32eb93dc...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Anthony Ragan <iris...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>nbar...@students.wisc.edu (woodelf) screamed into the Void:
>>...similarly, the mages walk down the line
>>at the covenant, tapping each person on the shoulder: "duck, duck, duck,
>>duck, duck, duck, duck, goose, duck, duck, duck, goose, goose, duck, duck,
>>duck, goose, duck, goose, duck." just because the mages say so doesn't
>>make it so (however much they'd like it to be that way).
>Unless there's one helluva Muto Corporem spell being cast....
Do not forget the Animal and Aurem requisats, or it still will not
work.
DougL
[These lines included to satisfy my reader that there is more
new than included text. This is the same high teck reader that
is incapable of spellchecking, or considering anything but
subjects in its kill files. So ignore all of this.]