Re: The Death of Tarkas Brain Lab IV

On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 07:52  PM, woodelf wrote:

>> Still, considering the similarities between 3e and AM, I would
>> think you would have an easier time converting 3e stuff to AM
>> than 2e stuff.
>
> I actually started the conversion (high-fantasy version of Ars
> Magica) back around '93, so it was pretty firmly AD&D2-based.

Ahh, cool. While I have never run or played in an Ars game, I
do like the system, so I can understand why someone would
use it as a base for high fantasy. When I bought Ars I had the
same intention as you. For a long time I had a game system
of my own design (The Engine) that was heavily influenced
by AM, most notably the way stats, skills and resolution worked.


> For the
> most part, it's equally compatible with all 3 editions, but i've
> decided to include spell lists from both AD&D2 and D&D3E.

So are you not using the AM magic system? Or are you just
using D&D spells as AM spells within the Ars system?

I really, really wish Atlas Games would do a d20 Ars.


>  there are *many* more spells in
> D&D3E that tie directly into the mechanics, and thus need significant
> altering.

Gotcha. From a d20 standpoint that is a good thing, but for
conversion's sake I can see where that would be problematic.


>> The core of my construction system is there, but there was a lot
>> of thought put into it to both improve on the concept and make
>> it suitable for 3e. I think it is an all around better system,
>> regardless of edition.
>
> so, there are changes beyond those necessary for edition
> compatibility, because you made improvements while you were at
> it--that's what i wanted to know.

Yup. The improvements are not extensive, for the most part.
Little things here and there, but no major new systems. The
new materials are, well, new, but they should fit into most SJ
games. If not, the names and particulars can be changed while
keeping their stats. Tons are of a different size, and hull points
are replaced with hit points. Hardness was added, hit points
are figured a bit differently, and what the hit points represent
has been slightly altered.

Basically, the overall way the system works, the steps you go
through to make a ship are the same. The niggling details
differ, though.


>> It is a beta because it has not been sufficiently tested. I myself
>> have not been able to give it a real test, and interest in the
>> system by others is seriously lacking, and no one has indicated
>> to me that they have made use of it.
>
> So, enough changes have been made that it might actually work less
> well than the 2e version? Or did you also consider that "beta", and i
> just missed the notice?

Technically, the system may very well turn out to be inferior to
its predecessor.  Not so much because "enough changes have been made
that it might actually work less well" as the numbers the changes are
based on are wrong or ill-conceived.
Of course I don't actually believe that, but it is possible. I am
only human. I put a serious amount of time and thought into my
numbers and system, including many, many hours setting up and playing
with numbers in Excel. But, mistakes can be made.
I also used the spreadsheet on BtM (The Shipyard) to create a
lot of ships and the numbers always looked good.

The 2e version was not a beta version. It has received a lot of
playtesting over the years, by myself and others. It created
ships that perhaps not everyone agreed with (this is SJ, after
all), but they worked well and many other people seemed to
agree. Some day the 3e version will get well used and tested
by myself. I doubt it will get the same kind of use by others
that the 2e system did.



Leroy Van Camp III
malacoda@????????.net
ICQ #20039817

"My hamster had five babies last week. This morning when I
looked in the cage she had ate two of them little babies.

What the heck. Had a couple myself."

               Earl, Red Meat