Haffrung's synopsis is great, but it is also worth noting that the game can be played in another (albeit unintended) mode, focusing on the characters or even 'grogs' and treating the mages as NPC's. The campaign I ran evolved to be like this, and it was actually more fun than the standard style of play they assume. What it turns into is an awesome high-medieval european fantasy roleplaying game, with exceptionally deep background material on the setting.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966961While we're on the subject of Ars Magica...

Rank the Editions 1-5 in order for what you thought was the best
1. Setting presentation and info
2. System Mechanics
3. Supplements coverage and quality

What think this is the SATs or something?

Out the core rulebooks 2nd edition was probably the best in terms system design and level of detail. First edition had some obvious issues, and the core book bloat started with 3rd and 4th.
The supplements for 5th edition range from good to pretty damn good and are of more consistent quality than the supplements for previous editions. But as Haffrung, the actual mechanics are pretty in depth. Maybe not quite as system neutral as Harn setting stuff, the 5th edition work well for adaptions to other setting and other sets of rules. It helps they invariably include a in-game viewpoint of how the stuff works. The more useful supplement are the ones that detail with "big" idea like the Infernal, or the Divine, or City Life, etc. The Adventure books can be good as well. The least useful are Grimoires and similar books. Except for when they deal with non-hermetic magic. There you can get some useful ideas.

Same rule for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition books except the quality is more uneven. My personal favorites are Pax Dei, and the Malefictum. My concept of demons became way less just another monster to something far more threatening to the well-being of the PCs. The two versions of Faeries and The Medieval Handbook were useful for fantasy campaigns.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;966877There has been something of a redressing of ideas found in modern versions of D&D that account for some of the innovations brought forward in games like Ars Magica - Jonathan Tweet was the developer of 3E after all - and 5E actually has some settings that incorporate Harry Potter style institutions and authentically researched medieval settings. Indeed, 5E is close to having ubiquitous options for magic use in most of it's classes, so it's not a stretch to get close to running something like Ars Magica within it's current ruleset. However, I think it's a stretch to suggest that you could get anywhere closet running things like troupe style play, covenant design, improvised magic and personalised styles of magic with 1E AD&D.

I'd bet that D&D 1e and 5e would be about equally adequate:).
Which is to say that if I want an Ars Magica campaign, I'm going to order Ars Magica 5e, not D&D 5e, or maybe I'd just take out Sorcerers of Ur-Turuk for an "AM lite" experience. But equal edition numbers do not equal games make;)!

Quote from: Larsdangly;966903Between the class-based character system and emphasis on henchmen and hirelings, D&D is basically the Ur-troupe-style-play game.

No it's not. In D&D, Henchmen and hirelings are explicitly meant as NPCs - played like drones by the GM. In Troupe style play, the notion is that players get multiple characters to play - each in differing scenarios as appropriate. You share GMing, or Storytelling duties, and the single combining factor is the Covenant. Levelling up becomes less of a gameplay factor (although the wizards generally get more powerful still with experience) because the power levels are so differentiated between characters in given scenarios - while multiple story threads could be playing out simultaneously. Your are essentially changing the structure of campaign play into a soap-opera format.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966961While we're on the subject of Ars Magica...

Rank the Editions 1-5 in order for what you thought was the best
1. Setting presentation and info
2. System Mechanics
3. Supplements coverage and quality

Personally, the classic edition is 2nd edition, which is basically a refined version of 1st edition, with each resultant edition after adding a degree of complication to the rules and setting. Contrary to most fans, I am actually thinking these days that the Mythic Europe setting is a hindrance to the game rather than a boon. 2nd edition could more or less be run in a fantasy setting of your own making, even though they took the basis in Mythic Europe, but later editions were so well researched (practically PhD level) it felt intimidating to build a campaign in them at all. Moreover, it was so detailed it became almost like a canon of itself, that you were intruding on. Similarly, the character generation process became more cumbersome in later editions. The simpler game, was basically more accessible and put a greater emphasis on the core concepts of the game I felt. The quality of supplements was more limited, as a semi-amateur effort but the game also had a whimsical tone that never quite made it past White Wolf's attempt to link it to the World of Darkness games. 3rd edition was also the most questionable in terms of it's historical research, although it was probably the easiest on the eye.

So, for me:

#1 Has 5th first, 4th second, 3rd...3rd!, 2nd and 1st last -in terms of the actual amount of info - but I still prefer how they did it for 2nd.
#2 Has 2nd first, then 1st, 5th (which was more polished at least), 4th, 3rd last, just because it's less convoluted and complex.  
#3 Has 5th first, then 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st in terms of consistency and quality, although again, I prefer the conciseness of the early editions.

The 4th Edition of Ars Magica is a free download on the Atlas Games website.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;967030No it's not. In D&D, Henchmen and hirelings are explicitly meant as NPCs - played like drones by the GM. In Troupe style play, the notion is that players get multiple characters to play - each in differing scenarios as appropriate. You share GMing, or Storytelling duties, and the single combining factor is the Covenant. Levelling up becomes less of a gameplay factor (although the wizards generally get more powerful still with experience) because the power levels are so differentiated between characters in given scenarios - while multiple story threads could be playing out simultaneously. Your are essentially changing the structure of campaign play into a soap-opera format.

This is a narrow interpretation of both games. You can absolutely play D&D in a troupe fashion, and in my experience it is the norm. Most players in campaigns I've run have a stable of characters, and the combination of character death, new character arrivals and henchmen/hirelings means there is always a varied group kicking around. There might be a paragraph somewhere in the 1E DMG that says the DM treats all these as NPC puppets, but Gary said all kinds of crap no one pays attention to.

Quote from: Larsdangly;967090This is a narrow interpretation of both games. You can absolutely play D&D in a troupe fashion, and in my experience it is the norm.

It is a narrow interpretation for sure but I think to claim troupe play in D&D is 'the norm' seems highly unlikely. As I recall most ignored the hirelings rules in the DMG entirely.

Quote from: Voros;967092It is a narrow interpretation for sure but I think to claim troupe play in D&D is 'the norm' seems highly unlikely. As I recall most ignored the hirelings rules in the DMG entirely.

As far as we know, yes - and this contributed to the early D&D getting a reputation for lethality;).

Quote from: Larsdangly;967090This is a narrow interpretation of both games. You can absolutely play D&D in a troupe fashion, and in my experience it is the norm. Most players in campaigns I've run have a stable of characters, and the combination of character death, new character arrivals and henchmen/hirelings means there is always a varied group kicking around. There might be a paragraph somewhere in the 1E DMG that says the DM treats all these as NPC puppets, but Gary said all kinds of crap no one pays attention to.

It's an interpretation of what was actually written in both games. You have misinterpreted the fact that Hirelings and Henchmen were defined in the AD&D DM's Guide as being NPC. There is no mention in the game whatsoever of Troupe style play, and while it may have previously existed in some groups' play (I don't suppose the ideas in Ars Magica emerged in a vacuum, and there are plenty of previously released games that lend themselves well to Troupe play - like Traveller for example), the term itself was coined, in print for RPG use, in Ars Magica.

You are engaging in nothing more than revisionism here.

Second edition had the tightest rules. There was a loophole in combat that I don't quite remember. The upshot is that rather than saying "this over here? It's a problem, and here's why. Acknowledge, don't let the players do it, and move on." they created a much more complicated combat system. This is an old memory though.

The various covenant books were great. Unfortunately, they never had the team and funding to just update all of them during the same edition. So the geographic splats run across 2nd through 5th editions. Good luck with that. Of those, I think the best were from the 4th (?) edition- Ultima Thule which detailed Nordic and Finnish magic, and The Dragon and the Bear which discussed shamanism of the steppes and the Russian invasion of the Mongols.

I don't really remember anything about "this is Mythic Europe". I think there was a book called "Mythic Europe", but I don't remember it being really that useful. History books were more than sufficient for my needs.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;967127the term itself was coined, in print for RPG use, in Ars Magica.

Can anyone verify whether this is true re: "troupe play"? I know we had troupes for FASA Star Trek, but I don't think it was ever discussed in the rulebooks.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;967127You are engaging in nothing more than revisionism here.

I have no idea how widespread it was, but when we played AD&D back in the day:

* Each player often ran two PCs, or ran one PC and a henchman.

* We took turns DMing adventures in the same game world, with the PCs leaving or joining the party as needed.

* When a PC died, any new replacement PC started at 1st level.

Consequently, there were new PCs of various levels routinely joining and leaving the campaign.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;967127It's an interpretation of what was actually written in both games. You have misinterpreted the fact that Hirelings and Henchmen were defined in the AD&D DM's Guide as being NPC. There is no mention in the game whatsoever of Troupe style play, and while it may have previously existed in some groups' play (I don't suppose the ideas in Ars Magica emerged in a vacuum, and there are plenty of previously released games that lend themselves well to Troupe play - like Traveller for example), the term itself was coined, in print for RPG use, in Ars Magica.

You are engaging in nothing more than revisionism here.

When a term is defined doesn't mean the idea behind it was new or novel at the time. It could be that it didn't have a label at the time. Having said that troupe play was a OPTION that some people used for running their campaigns including various editions of D&D. Rotating referees, a hierarchy of character in a single campaign under the player's controls, etc were all done since Blackmoor and Greyhawk and before.

Ars Magica defined a term for this style, put their own spin on it, and made it a central feature of their game. And making it a central features was distinctive as not many RPGs before or since, had that mechanic explicitly as part of their game.

Henchmen and Hirelings were mentioned as NPCs, however your own bias is what labels them as "GM Puppets".  A good GM would flesh them out as completely as any PC or NPC.  P or NP simply defines who roleplays the character.

That having been said, I've seen many tables where Hirelings and Henchmen were run by the player, the GM only stepping in when the Hireling or Henchman's loyalty was in question, using the rules to adjudicate.  So, in AD&D you had...

A PC of highest level, the Main PC.
Lower level PCs of that player and Henchmen, NPCs having a character class.
Hirelings, less important NPCs, usually without a true character class.

Now, was AD&D specifically designed for every campaign to include these three Tiers of character in an adventuring party?  Well, kind of, yeah.  Of course, not to the extent of a Covenant, but both present in the rules, as well as at many tables, a type of quasi/proto/ur Troupe was present.

Does that mean Ars Magica took it from D&D, they said, "Hey, let's do Wizard/Companion/Grog, it will be like Character/Henchman/Hireling?  I doubt it, but was it floating around in someone's head?  Maybe, who knows.

I do know that my Ranger Lord in AD&D when faced with clearing out a section of the Vesve Forest in Greyhawk, would assign missions to his Followers and Henchmen, augmented with Hireling troops and lots of times we'd run those adventures while the PC Ranger was off doing something else with the main party or leading his own different mission.  The GM had us play each other's Followers/Henchmen so it would be more fun to interact with them.  We didn't call it "Troupe Play", and it wasn't the exact setup described in the books, but it wasn't unique to our table.

As a result, I think it would be trivial to institute a Troupe Play type of setup in AD&D, since I've already done that many times as Player and GM.

That doesn't take away from Ars Magica, who coined the term, and designed an entire game and setting around that specific type of play.  They were the first to do that, and the game's probably still the best at it.