Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2025, 03:16:36 PMD&D isn't designed for this sort of trade-off

Fixing D&D is not my ulterior motive, I can assure you. I've become pretty committed to using Mana Points in my next product, which will be a complete roleplaying game, that I very much look forward to sharing with this community in the coming months.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 22, 2025, 02:16:46 PMI like mana points, but in practice they became overpowered. My fault; should have given fewer. In my defense, I find MUs and clerics too powerful to begin with.

Here is my recent experience:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/10/spell-points-revisited.html

You know, that's the first time I realized I should be reading that as "methods et madness", not "method set madness"...

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 22, 2025, 05:32:35 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 22, 2025, 02:16:46 PMI like mana points, but in practice they became overpowered. My fault; should have given fewer. In my defense, I find MUs and clerics too powerful to begin with.

Here is my recent experience:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/10/spell-points-revisited.html

You know, that's the first time I realized I should be reading that as "methods et madness", not "method set madness"...

Lol, I don't remember why I did take. Probably methodsandmadness was taken and methods&madness didn't work.

I find mana points, as typically implemented, kind of boring.

Sure, it strikes some folks as "unrealistic" to "forget" a "memorized" spell. They can't get over the language. And others want to use their Kewlest Power every round.

But for me, mana systems miss out on what makes Vancian casters so interesting, which is qualitative choice. The Vancian caster has to decide when to use that fireball, not just when to stop using that fireball.

It makes all the difference for me.

I've seen a couple of attempts to combine the two approaches -- i.e. you get to cast each spell N times, or you have a separate mana pool for each spell. But those systems were necessarily more complex, and in play didn't wind up differing from a total mana pool -- because any "number of times" that is enough to make it feel un-Vancian is also enough to allow spamming of spells.

Quote from: Zalman on January 23, 2025, 08:23:07 AMI find mana points, as typically implemented, kind of boring.

Sure, it strikes some folks as "unrealistic" to "forget" a "memorized" spell. They can't get over the language. And others want to use their Kewlest Power every round.

But for me, mana systems miss out on what makes Vancian casters so interesting, which is qualitative choice. The Vancian caster has to decide when to use that fireball, not just when to stop using that fireball.

It makes all the difference for me.

I've seen a couple of attempts to combine the two approaches -- i.e. you get to cast each spell N times, or you have a separate mana pool for each spell. But those systems were necessarily more complex, and in play didn't wind up differing from a total mana pool -- because any "number of times" that is enough to make it feel un-Vancian is also enough to allow spamming of spells.

But wait, don't you still have a meaningful choice of when to use the fireball when you only have a limited number of mana points?

Quote from: SmallMountaineer on January 23, 2025, 08:54:06 AMBut wait, don't you still have a meaningful choice of when to use the fireball when you only have a limited number of mana points?

"Meaningful" in what way? Sure, a mana caster has to decide when to use any spell in general, just like any caster does. The Vancian caster also has this factor to consider, since their total number of spells is limited just as the mana caster's is.

The Vancian caster also has to decide when to use which spell. That's an additional "meaningful" choice that the mana caster does not have.

Magic systems that preserve the qualitative choice in addition to the quantitative one are more interesting to me.

Quote from: Zalman on January 23, 2025, 09:04:09 AM

Quote from: SmallMountaineer on January 23, 2025, 08:54:06 AMBut wait, don't you still have a meaningful choice of when to use the fireball when you only have a limited number of mana points?

"Meaningful" in what way? Sure, a mana caster has to decide when to use any spell in general, just like any caster does. The Vancian caster also has this factor to consider, since their total number of spells is limited just as the mana caster's is.

The Vancian caster also has to decide when to use which spell. That's an additional "meaningful" choice that the mana caster does not have.

Magic systems that preserve the qualitative choice in addition to the quantitative one are more interesting to me.

I disagree entirely, I think the Mana Points caster has to be as mindful of his mana points as the Vancian caster has to ponder which spells to remember for the day, as it's not only a matter of what he can cast now, but when he will be able to cast anything again. The arbitrary management of the slots and limits on uses - I can't cast this little firecracker spell anymore, but I can bring this lightning down three more times because I thought about it real hard this morning - sounds silly and often plays out silly.

Quote from: SmallMountaineer on January 23, 2025, 11:49:57 AM

Quote from: Zalman on January 23, 2025, 09:04:09 AMSure, a mana caster has to decide when to use any spell in general, just like any caster does. The Vancian caster also has this factor to consider, since their total number of spells is limited just as the mana caster's is.

The Vancian caster also has to decide when to use which spell. That's an additional "meaningful" choice that the mana caster does not have.

Magic systems that preserve the qualitative choice in addition to the quantitative one are more interesting to me.

I disagree entirely, I think the Mana Points caster has to be as mindful of his mana points as the Vancian caster has to ponder which spells to remember for the day, as it's not only a matter of what he can cast now, but when he will be able to cast anything again. The arbitrary management of the slots and limits on uses - I can't cast this little firecracker spell anymore, but I can bring this lightning down three more times because I thought about it real hard this morning - sounds silly and often plays out silly.

The main difference is that the Vancian caster has to assign spell slots at the start of the day (at least in original D&D and AD&D). In a spell point system, there's no decision to be made at the start of the day.

However, the limited slots often makes less choice for the spellcaster at the time of casting. For example, a 5th level magic user (AD&D) has 1 third-level slot for fireball. So he has to choose when to cast that one fireball. After that, though, he has no more fireball decisions to make.

A spell-point caster has to decide multiple times whether to cast a third-level spell, or save the points for more first-level spells.

I've made this point before, but it's been a while. I have no problem with spell slots, but I have a huge issue with memorization/preparation, and it has nothing to do with verisimilitude. I'm prepared to buy the justification that spells are semi-sentient entities that a wizard has to literally trap in their mind.

My problem with it is that it encourages boring, conservative use of magic. You don't know what you're going to face when you prepare your spells, so the majority of players will bias their selection towards spells which are maximally useful in the maximum number of situations. This is why even though D&D has hundreds of spells, you see the same 10-20 of them cast over and over in every campaign. Spells like knock, sleep, lightning bolt and fly will get prepared 100 times more than more specific-use spells because they're so reliable. In theory, you're supposed to anticipate the challenges of each adventuring day and prepare accordingly, but that gets tiresome and wastes game-time, so most players just pick a standard loadout and then rarely, if ever, change it.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 23, 2025, 01:36:20 PMI've made this point before, but it's been a while. I have no problem with spell slots, but I have a huge issue with memorization/preparation, and it has nothing to do with verisimilitude. I'm prepared to buy the justification that spells are semi-sentient entities that a wizard has to literally trap in their mind.

My problem with it is that it encourages boring, conservative use of magic. You don't know what you're going to face when you prepare your spells, so the majority of players will bias their selection towards spells which are maximally useful in the maximum number of situations. This is why even though D&D has hundreds of spells, you see the same 10-20 of them cast over and over in every campaign. Spells like knock, sleep, lightning bolt and fly will get prepared 100 times more than more specific-use spells because they're so reliable. In theory, you're supposed to anticipate the challenges of each adventuring day and prepare accordingly, but that gets tiresome and wastes game-time, so most players just pick a standard loadout and then rarely, if ever, change it.

It just occurred to me that a solution to this, assuming you want vancian magic, is to silo the spells.  Frex, you don't get 6 third level spells, you get 2 third level attack spells, 2 third level defense spells, and 2 third level utility spells.

Points are trash. D&D is the GOAT so you have to have the same kind of design or

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 23, 2025, 01:36:20 PMThis is why even though D&D has hundreds of spells, you see the same 10-20 of them cast over and over in every campaign.

Agreed, and it's a shame because some of the utility spells and other oddball spells can be fun, interesting, and just plain useful.  Magic-users have no way to foresee the day's events.  The easiest compromise is to retain the Vancian slots per level and ditch the pre-selection of specific spells.  Has anyone encountered any serious downsides to that approach?

Quote from: ReginaHart on February 01, 2025, 08:51:31 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 23, 2025, 01:36:20 PMThis is why even though D&D has hundreds of spells, you see the same 10-20 of them cast over and over in every campaign.

Agreed, and it's a shame because some of the utility spells and other oddball spells can be fun, interesting, and just plain useful.  Magic-users have no way to foresee the day's events.  The easiest compromise is to retain the Vancian slots per level and ditch the pre-selection of specific spells.  Has anyone encountered any serious downsides to that approach?

That's what I do in my games. Haven't had any trouble with it in OSR-like games. The existing limitations on spells known and spells per day are enough. Might be a bigger problem if you tried instituting it in modern D&D.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:08:08 PM

Quote from: ReginaHart on February 01, 2025, 08:51:31 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 23, 2025, 01:36:20 PMThis is why even though D&D has hundreds of spells, you see the same 10-20 of them cast over and over in every campaign.

Agreed, and it's a shame because some of the utility spells and other oddball spells can be fun, interesting, and just plain useful.  Magic-users have no way to foresee the day's events.  The easiest compromise is to retain the Vancian slots per level and ditch the pre-selection of specific spells.  Has anyone encountered any serious downsides to that approach?

That's what I do in my games. Haven't had any trouble with it in OSR-like games. The existing limitations on spells known and spells per day are enough. Might be a bigger problem if you tried instituting it in modern D&D.

The fewer spells on the list for each level, the better that method works.  Utility spells seem more useful when you don't have elventy-zillion to pick from.  It's also easier to remember what you have and be able to use it.

I remember the first time I played AD&D 2E. It was at a convention.  The GM made exactly one mistake in an otherwise excellent convention game.  He had all us pick our spells for our mid-level characters from not only the expanded list in the 2E PHB but also from one of the supplements--Unearthed Arcana I think, though that was long ago.  It was just too much detail for a bunch of players that weren't used to that many spell options. Not only did it delay the start of the game, every delay we had while playing in an otherwise action-packed evening was brought about by someone not understanding the spells on their list.  I handle that kind of thing better than most, but even me playing a cleric was a bit overwhelmed.

Quote from: ReginaHart on February 01, 2025, 08:51:31 PMAgreed, and it's a shame because some of the utility spells and other oddball spells can be fun, interesting, and just plain useful.  Magic-users have no way to foresee the day's events.  The easiest compromise is to retain the Vancian slots per level and ditch the pre-selection of specific spells.  Has anyone encountered any serious downsides to that approach?

One downside was analysis paralysis.  People had such a wide range of situational spells to pick from that it slowed their turns down substantially.  Another was that the spellcasters could deal with almost any situation on their own using their large toolkit of situational spells.  It made everyone else kind of extraneous in a lot of situations.