Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 12:47:14 PM
One virtue of a Vancian system is the segregation by spell level encourages a wide variety of spells. You have high and low level spells, and the system encourages mixing them up because you only have a finite number of each. Conversely, a spell point system encourages spending all your points on the most effective spell or spells, and just spamming them endlessly.

Ideally, a spell point system has higher costs for the more powerful spells - inducing a degree of conservatism in casting. If SP system casters are just able to spam the good stuff over and over; then the system shows a serious lack of playtesting...

Quote from: Jaeger on December 08, 2021, 05:38:37 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 12:47:14 PM
One virtue of a Vancian system is the segregation by spell level encourages a wide variety of spells. You have high and low level spells, and the system encourages mixing them up because you only have a finite number of each. Conversely, a spell point system encourages spending all your points on the most effective spell or spells, and just spamming them endlessly.

Ideally, a spell point system has higher costs for the more powerful spells - inducing a degree of conservatism in casting. If SP system casters are just able to spam the good stuff over and over; then the system shows a serious lack of playtesting...

There will still be an optimal choice, whether it's low cost and can be used as often as a fighter's sword, or whether it's high cost and must be used sparingly (which will eventually lead to the 5 min day). One of the frequently unheralded benefits of Vancian casting is there is not one optimal choice. At most, there will be one optimal choice per spell level. And because of the need to prep spells, there's a strong incentive not to just fill your third level slots with fireball, because you might need fly, so there's a further incentive toward variety.

There are other ways to create multiple local optima, but it must be carefully added to a spell point system. In a Vancian system, by contrast, it's the default.

Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 05:49:03 PMOne of the frequently unheralded benefits of Vancian casting is there is not one optimal choice. At most, there will be one optimal choice per spell level. And because of the need to prep spells, there's a strong incentive not to just fill your third level slots with fireball, because you might need fly, so there's a further incentive toward variety.

A completly arbitrary hoop-jumping incentive. The kind people raked 4e over the coals for. The 5 min adventuring day is unavoidable without context with any recharging resource unless there is time pressure.

Most systems outside of D&D just don't grant buckets of different abilities to spellcasters at all. The D&D spellcaster exists as a weird fusion trying to be every spellcasting type ever in a single class.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 08, 2021, 05:01:51 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 08, 2021, 02:46:16 PMMana points aren't chess. They're Accounting.

Im being fascetious. I just find the confidence with what you dismiss things you personally dislike and prop up things that you personally like, funny.

How reliable a magic effect is and the limits of their abilities depends on the myths and such. To say magic is unreliable in myth I find is not a fully accurate statement. From my experience with russian folk-tales (and eastern ones), the proper descriptor is arbitrary.

In a folk tale 'spellcasters' don't generally 'fail' a casting roll. Baba yaga just flies always and her spells work always, but have somekind of 'undo' clause (and not always). Spirit binders from eastern mythology might need to make a ritual (generally quick), but there is no chance in will fail until some bumbler messes up the paper runes or something.

Mythological magic is.....purely a construct of narrative. A way to make it work in a game would require it to be a narritivistic 'storygame'. So we instead compromise with making it somesort of limited resource.

If you wanna frame the designwork in terms of making it strategic, thats a completly different ballpark from making it mythological.

Edit: But so far Im rolling with Savage Worlds which is a spellcheck system+spellpoints. And the powers a character has are very limited.

Modiphious 2d20 had an interesting idea for sorcery which was instead of "checking for effect" instead a sorcerer can always succeed instead you "check for consequence" to see if the spell had any unintended consequences. Backlash, loss of control, other effect than what was intended etc. It might be possible to to come up with a system where the spell always goes off in the osr kind of like D&D but instead of limited use you suffer some kind of consequence to spellcasting. Mana systems aren't bad in that regard but could also do a strain type system, or a sort of wild magic table.

It is worth noting that ttrpgs are kinda awful at soft magic unless magic is purely an npc thing.

Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 05:49:03 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on December 08, 2021, 05:38:37 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 12:47:14 PM
One virtue of a Vancian system is the segregation by spell level encourages a wide variety of spells. You have high and low level spells, and the system encourages mixing them up because you only have a finite number of each. Conversely, a spell point system encourages spending all your points on the most effective spell or spells, and just spamming them endlessly.

Ideally, a spell point system has higher costs for the more powerful spells - inducing a degree of conservatism in casting. If SP system casters are just able to spam the good stuff over and over; then the system shows a serious lack of playtesting...

There will still be an optimal choice, whether it's low cost and can be used as often as a fighter's sword, or whether it's high cost and must be used sparingly (which will eventually lead to the 5 min day). One of the frequently unheralded benefits of Vancian casting is there is not one optimal choice. At most, there will be one optimal choice per spell level. And because of the need to prep spells, there's a strong incentive not to just fill your third level slots with fireball, because you might need fly, so there's a further incentive toward variety.

There are other ways to create multiple local optima, but it must be carefully added to a spell point system. In a Vancian system, by contrast, it's the default.

The "optimal" argument shows up mostly in MMOs and 10 foot room with an orc scenarios and is usually framed in terms of dps.  In an RPG, even in a simple system the optimal choice is very likely to be circumstantial.   Suppose you have spells that can slow your enemy, do damage, heal, create a barrier, summon help, buff your friend, alter the battlefield, call for help, flee, paralyze, do damage over time, set something on fire, etc., etc., etc.  Which one is optimal?  It's always going to depend a great deal on the situation.  A system with one optimal spell for all circumstances is exceptionally poorly designed.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 08, 2021, 05:55:24 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 05:49:03 PMOne of the frequently unheralded benefits of Vancian casting is there is not one optimal choice. At most, there will be one optimal choice per spell level. And because of the need to prep spells, there's a strong incentive not to just fill your third level slots with fireball, because you might need fly, so there's a further incentive toward variety.

A completly arbitrary hoop-jumping incentive. The kind people raked 4e over the coals for. The 5 min adventuring day is unavoidable without context with any recharging resource unless there is time pressure.

Most systems outside of D&D just don't grant buckets of different abilities to spellcasters at all. The D&D spellcaster exists as a weird fusion trying to be every spellcasting type ever in a single class.

It's not arbitrary, it's a design that encourages spellcasters to use a variety of different spells.

But it's true that the D&D spellcaster is too much all at once. That's the source of 99.99% of the balance problems, not to mention the difficulty in making new spellcasters seem unique and flavorful. The first step toward making different spellcasters feel unique is to ditch the generalist mage (the biggest sin of 2e). Give every spellcaster a constrained, unique spell list, and suddenly they'll all feel very different.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 08, 2021, 05:55:24 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 05:49:03 PMOne of the frequently unheralded benefits of Vancian casting is there is not one optimal choice. At most, there will be one optimal choice per spell level. And because of the need to prep spells, there's a strong incentive not to just fill your third level slots with fireball, because you might need fly, so there's a further incentive toward variety.

A completly arbitrary hoop-jumping incentive. The kind people raked 4e over the coals for. The 5 min adventuring day is unavoidable without context with any recharging resource unless there is time pressure.

Most systems outside of D&D just don't grant buckets of different abilities to spellcasters at all. The D&D spellcaster exists as a weird fusion trying to be every spellcasting type ever in a single class.

I mean, if you recover all of your Mana/Power Points/Energy at once, yes. If the system you have allows for a PC to regain them maybe once per hour (sorta like how Psionics worked in 2nd) then you'd have that be less of a problem. That, or make a way for there to be back up magical energy, in the form of Powerstones or Mana Potions.

A homebrew system my GM ran had magical energy regenerate very quickly, so if you went nova and blasted out a whole bunch of spells you'd have to flail around for a few rounds to get it back.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 08, 2021, 06:02:28 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 05:49:03 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on December 08, 2021, 05:38:37 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 12:47:14 PM
One virtue of a Vancian system is the segregation by spell level encourages a wide variety of spells. You have high and low level spells, and the system encourages mixing them up because you only have a finite number of each. Conversely, a spell point system encourages spending all your points on the most effective spell or spells, and just spamming them endlessly.

Ideally, a spell point system has higher costs for the more powerful spells - inducing a degree of conservatism in casting. If SP system casters are just able to spam the good stuff over and over; then the system shows a serious lack of playtesting...

There will still be an optimal choice, whether it's low cost and can be used as often as a fighter's sword, or whether it's high cost and must be used sparingly (which will eventually lead to the 5 min day). One of the frequently unheralded benefits of Vancian casting is there is not one optimal choice. At most, there will be one optimal choice per spell level. And because of the need to prep spells, there's a strong incentive not to just fill your third level slots with fireball, because you might need fly, so there's a further incentive toward variety.

There are other ways to create multiple local optima, but it must be carefully added to a spell point system. In a Vancian system, by contrast, it's the default.

The "optimal" argument shows up mostly in MMOs and 10 foot room with an orc scenarios and is usually framed in terms of dps.  In an RPG, even in a simple system the optimal choice is very likely to be circumstantial.   Suppose you have spells that can slow your enemy, do damage, heal, create a barrier, summon help, buff your friend, alter the battlefield, call for help, flee, paralyze, do damage over time, set something on fire, etc., etc., etc.  Which one is optimal?  It's always going to depend a great deal on the situation.  A system with one optimal spell for all circumstances is exceptionally poorly designed.

You're missing the point. I want a variety of spell effects, not all of them optimal. If you have broad generalist mages and a spell point system, then there will always be an optimal choice in every situation, and it will be the same optimal choice for all spellcasters. That's the kind of generic blandness I'm talking about, because the only real variety becomes player skill. I want spellcasters to feel different, and to sometimes have to make choices that don't involve the optimal choice. If the only spell you have memorized that's leftover is waterbreathing, how can you leverage it to help win a contest at the fair, or save the village from an invasion of wereboars?

Part of this is limiting and constraining the effects each type of caster has available, but it's also about limiting which spells can be used when. A spell point system with free choice of any spell is another half of the generalist mage problem.

Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 06:03:10 PMIt's not arbitrary, it's a design that encourages spellcasters to use a variety of different spells.

Well its arbitrary in terms of logical feel. Its also a forced arbitrary limitation like saying 'You can't use your silver sword against the werewolf because I feel you guys running away now would be cooler'.

QuoteThe first step toward making different spellcasters feel unique is to ditch the generalist mage (the biggest sin of 2e).

2e codified it, but its not like each previous edition had purely specialized spell lists based on purely specialized classes.

Quote from: PsyXypher on December 08, 2021, 06:10:05 PMI mean, if you recover all of your Mana/Power Points/Energy at once, yes. If the system you have allows for a PC to regain them maybe once per hour (sorta like how Psionics worked in 2nd) then you'd have that be less of a problem.

If magic works the way it does in D&D, then you basically have extremly OP characters all the time. That just storm through everything unless there is a nonstop slog of combat.

Quote from: Ocule on December 08, 2021, 05:58:40 PMIt is worth noting that ttrpgs are kinda awful at soft magic unless magic is purely an npc thing.

Yup.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 08, 2021, 06:15:18 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 06:03:10 PMIt's not arbitrary, it's a design that encourages spellcasters to use a variety of different spells.

Well its arbitrary in terms of logical feel. Its also a forced arbitrary limitation like saying 'You can't use your silver sword against the werewolf because I feel you guys running away now would be cooler'.

No, that's a DM explicitly telling the players they can't do something because of plot. It's pretty much the worst thing you can do in an old school game because it takes away all agency from the players.

The other is a set of ground rules for how the world works that are established at the start of the game and consistently applied. It's literally what old school games do best -- establish a coherent world over which the players gain power as they begin to understand how things work. It's sometimes called player skill, but I dislike that framing.

Here's that blog post from necropraxis. I'll have to try this out.

https://www.necropraxis.com/2013/11/01/spell-dice/

Quote from: Pat on December 08, 2021, 06:31:36 PMThe other is a set of ground rules for how the world works that are established at the start of the game and consistently applied. It's literally what old school games do best -- establish a coherent world over which the players gain power as they begin to understand how things work. It's sometimes called player skill, but I dislike that framing.

A per/day power slot based system is one of the most gamey systems I have seen in RPGs in terms of organic worldbuilding or mapping to any sort of literature or myth. 'I don't like you guys using optimal strategies so I apply this utterly arbitrary limitation on why you wouldn't use it'.
And I know you dislike framing player skill as a thing that exists.

The reason most modern RPGs turn away from a focus on player skill is because they then compete with videogames, which do that better and faster.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 08, 2021, 06:15:18 PM

If magic works the way it does in D&D, then you basically have extremly OP characters all the time. That just storm through everything unless there is a nonstop slog of combat.

Consider that you could say, nerf magic to account for that, I'm not sure if that's really an issue.

There's a few ways you could go about this. One is that you cap how much Mana you can have at time. If you can only cast around six spells in an encounter (and there's no guarantee you'll recover fully before your next fight) you'll probably be extra careful on how you use that energy. Your mage might decide it's time to pull out the shortbow instead of using that energy to cast Magic Missile. Or maybe your cleric decides to pull out his mace so he can see who needs healing at the end of the fight.

Quote from: PsyXypher on December 08, 2021, 06:45:40 PMConsider that you could say, nerf magic to account for that, I'm not sure if that's really an issue.

It isn't. This is me having a laugh at the question. Like of course there are much better systems for magic then D&D/OSR. Its largely stuck with for nostalgia.