Some more thoughts on Ars Magica

My last post on Ars Magica had 187 views, and only one comment about someone who had actually played the game. I think it's kind of telling that they basically ripped the themes from the game and ditched the rest.

It seems like AM is a game many people have read, been very impressed by and then not played as written! I guess that those who kept the covenant management system are the same kind of people who play merchant campaigns in Traveller, keeping tabs on earnings, losses and mortgage payment. I have enough of that in real life.

The really detailed magic system is another matter. It seems like everyone loves the idea of being able to craft spells on the fly and using some kind of and system, just like spell points and all those ideas. But, even though I'm not a fan of the classic system of D&D it's easy and it works, even though it lacks flavour. Maybe this is the part of AM which actually change how people play.

Then there's that part which I find kind of funny, namely the "troupe style play", which is actually just they old way to play, reinvented. Having multiple characters per player is not new, and that I've even tried myself with great success.

"it is recommended that the GM keep the number of players in his party small - two or three players with up to four characters apiece is ideal."

That's T&T 5th ed. from 1979.  Something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue. Maybe I'll get to run Ars Magica one day, and then it will be nothing like written, I bet.

A depressing read

Since Traveller is a game I have a very complicated relationship to, I don't know if I dare to get ideas about starting a game of Traveller. But, you can always read your gamebooks, right?

I've been reading 1248 Sourcebook 1: Out of the Darkness lately. It's number one in a series of books expanding the time line and concepts of the Traveller edition knows as TNE, or The New Era. TNE have caught a lot of flak from the fans, and for good reasons.

The guys at GDW lasting impression in the rpg hobby is How To Ruin Your Game Setting. A sad one.
This book have a long section where all the threads from older sources are tied up into a long history from 1116 to 1248 Imperial time. Many times I find time lines be of little use, but in this case its kind of needed, since older source have included information about what would happen, and tying it all together takes some time.

It's an impressive effort, and author Martin J. Dougherty have managed to include a lot of back history, and reasonably often making sense of them. Still, the lasting impression is one of failure.

Mind you, it's not a failure by the author in his task of assembling the data and presenting a gameable setting. In that I think it probably does as well as could be hoped for. No, the impression of failure is rather the theme of 132 years of pure misery in the game setting. Step by step civilization is rebuilt after the madness that was the civil war of the Rebellion, and the senseless slaughter that came after with the unleashing of Virus. But, as soon as someone forms some stellar state that can rebuild, another hammer comes along and beats them into dust again. Frankly, it's unbelievably depressing.

More problematic is the idea of 130 years of warfare. Considering that multiple times the wars degenerate into orbital bombardment with spinal guns and nuclear warheads (case in point - Vland) it's hard to believe that anything would be left. And you know what, smoking ruins makes for a boring game setting.

So, while something emerges that looks like a setting that could actually be fun to game in, the way there is depressing. To say the least.