Quote from: David Johansen on November 19, 2023, 02:42:50 PM
Palladium's Rifts system is a great example of how not to do spell points, with each spell's level and cost assigned arbitrarily.  Rolemaster's spell point per level is so much cleaner.  GURPS is decent but you'll still be constantly looking up spell costs.  Both have some kind of underlying rationale to spell level placement though Rolemaster's is less useful for guessing as it varies by class.

For my own, The Arcane Confabulation, I eventually settled on accumulated penalties with increasing radius as casting spells churns up the miasma in the aether.  This makes the careful accumulation of power through preparation and the careful stilling of the aether after casting important but not essential features of spell casting.  Leaving the aether in turmoil results in two headed calfs and other negative influences over time so sloppy and lazy magicians have a way of becoming very unpopular.

Spell casting that has side effects to everyone around you instead of you is a new one.

I've seen plenty of games that have a skill check system with various penalties for failure ranging from, "It just doesn't work," to, "You blow up."

I don't think I've seen one that poisons the surrounding land, plants, and animals.  It makes a bit of sense, though. 

Quote from: rkhigdon on November 20, 2023, 12:15:35 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 20, 2023, 10:57:04 AM
People cling to Vancian magic because they're brand loyalists and/or it's a tradition they can't let go of (for whatever reason).

Or maybe they just like it.  I see no reason to be dismissive towards those who's opinion might diverge from yours.

Or maybe, much like AC, THACO, HP, Classes, etc. etc. everything in D&D has come under endless debates for literally 40+ years... Sure *you* may like it. But let's not pretend that other methods of handling magic that is *not* Vancian, is not equally long established. The point of the thread is literally talking about replacing Vancian magic. There is a reason for that.

Quote from: Mishihari on November 20, 2023, 04:31:00 PM
I'd say it's more because it's like hp, which is convenient as a game mechanic but does weird, unrealistic things to the setting if you take its impact to the logical conclusions.  So if you care more about gameplay than experiencing the fictional world then it's great for you.

Alternately, there seem to be plenty of folks whose primary experience with fantasy is D&D and thus D&D as a setting their normal.  While I enjoy playing D&D, I feel the setting implied by the rules and included material is pretty meh.

D&D isn't a setting. It's a set of rules. You'll note that your fondness of things like HP, are even now in 5e a constant complaint because beyond a certain point (post 10th level) the same inherent math issues that St. Gary correctly identified WAY back in original D&D - the game was never meant to go beyond 10th level - is now a problem because of weak designers who don't know how to scale the system with the assumptions of play (at that level).

You're kind of underscoring my point. It's convenient if that's all you know. And most people grew up on D&D. Is it the best set of mechanics? Unless you're making ad populum argument, I'd say no. And if you are - well I can't do anything about that.

I care about gameplay and mechanics that underpin that gameplay. Vancian magic is an artifact that isn't horrible, but it's not representative of what people *really* think of Magic outside of TTRPG's. And when it is, it's due to habit. Much like people love to discuss assigning Alignment to fictional characters as if alignment is as narrow as most of their arguments and justifications for such (which ironically renders the point of alignment silly). Hence Batman can be all alignments depending on ones justification du jour.

Vancian magic is a wargaming artifact. Good GM's can make it work, just like they can make anything work. If you like it, great! I have sentimental love for it, but nothing more. The thread is about alternatives.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2023, 11:24:42 AM

QuotePeople cling to Vancian magic because they're brand loyalists and/or it's a tradition they can't let go of (for whatever reason).

I mean people who play with Gygaxian intention of game first, setting second, players third - well treat it as part of game, and that's gamist aspect is feature not bug for them.

I don't ascribe to GNS theory. Singular tribalizing and trivializing how people engage in gaming was a cancer to the hobby then, and it remains that way now. Different doses in different amounts of "gamist", "simulationist" and "narrative" elements all make for a good game. Pretending that just because a portion of players like to pretend the mechanics *is* the game seem to be missing the point and it certainly makes for a reductionist take on D&D as a whole. Which is yet one of many bad reasons to lean on that notion as a defense of Vancian magic (which I don't even hate, I just think it's clunky today).

So we're really just talking mechanics, right? Very few people play TTRPG's, even now, with "Gygaxian Intention" whatever the fuck that is. People play D&D *because* that's likely  what their friends play, and that's what the GM is likely running, and you're stuck with it and it might be the only thing you know.

And millions of people love it and stick with it for those reasons. If you're a Gygax fan you should be like me and decrying how the system has been fucked up for several editions for reasons that have *nothing* to do with what you think gamists want. And if they do - they're doing it for reasons of scarcity more than because they're into "Gygaxian Intention" (heh I love this... I need to use it on my group.)

Quote from: Votan on November 20, 2023, 12:56:20 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 20, 2023, 10:57:04 AM
People cling to Vancian magic because they're brand loyalists and/or it's a tradition they can't let go of (for whatever reason).

What I find hard with replacing Vancian magic is how to handle the "alpha strike". This was a problem in (for example) 3E psionics, where a character could burn magic very quickly to achieve large effects. Some of this is present is 5E as well, with the jokes about perpetual long rests.

A nice feature about Vancian magic is that every time you cast the caster now has fewer options. It makes them consider the opportunity cost of firing off a spell. A very good fatigue system might do the same. But that is the part that of the system that is hard to replace with spell points and such. The extremely powerful spells of D&D look a bit out pf place in a power point system.

I like to compare to Rolemaster, which did power points reasonably ok and made each type of spell effect a costly planning in advance exercise (you learned one list at a time and never had enough points). It shifted the strategic point of focus, but kept it in play and mages tended to have specialties and themes.

It's a good point. The *real* problem is the bloat of magic in general in D&D. Spells aren't "balanced" against anything inherent into the system now, or really ever. The idea is that wizards were *frail* in 1e and 2e so sub-5th level they really were glass-cannons, and no one really complained. But we all knew back in the day that there were spells that simply were fucking powerful as all hell.

Flash forward to 3e and beyond there are practically so many options that I honestly don't know why they even bother with Vancian magic as a mechanic. The big problem is that spells and the classes that use them simply do rules-exceptions that post 5th level scale fantastically higher than non-casters. Is it 3x-era bad? Nah. But in a case by case basis Vancian Magic as a mechanic doesn't curtail the deeper issue.

So this means if you're going to play D&D you either gotta roll your sleeves up and retool the system. A system which doesn't even really conform to most other forms of task resolution - but then they don't really have to since you fire-and-forget most of them (literally) and their effects vary widely to the point of being mini-mechanic sub-systems unto themselves.

As a GM I'm going to make the setting demand what is needed of the system - not the other way around. Its one of the reasons I don't GM D&D anymore. Because they've mutated the system into something I find unwieldy, and their settings have become garbage too. But! I'll run the fuck out of any of their 3e settings and earlier but I'll use a set of mechanics that I can get more precision out of with less work. And you have to do that work if you're committed.

This is why I don't worry about "alpha strikes" in general. If such things were possible in my games it would mean you've figured out something that was never intended by my setting's demands, not because someone wrote it down in some obscure book, and I'm somehow beholden to include it. But it's also my job as the GM to set that stage LONG before any of my players even commit pencil to paper on their characters.

Fantasy Craft's magic system could be utilized - it's spell points and their spells scale accordingly. But it also balances stats so Casters are Glass Cannons(tm) and they can't stat-dump. And it's a skill-check to use their magic. Best d20 system that requires very little modification (since it's a toolkit system). Worth a look for an alternative.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on November 20, 2023, 11:15:20 PM
Vancian magic is the solution to the quadratic wizards and it speeds up game play.  A player being forced to select the spells they would cast for the day and the number of times they'd cast them and not being able to pick from a list does two things:

1st) Game play is greatly sped up by not waiting for a player to decide if they should cast spell A, or B .... Z, instead they have a short list, pick it and move on

2nd) Vancian magic limits the total abilities of a Wizard.  If they have two fireballs and they find an ice monster, do they cast one of them now or do they save it later for later on?  Make them pick and hurt at expending a resource.

You're inherently comparing Vancian magic to some sort of magic system where a PC has two dozen or more options. But that's not true of all magic systems. For example, in my Vinland game, the prophetess character had three abilities - Hex/Bless, Second Sight, and Speak with Spirits. (She gained three more over the campaign, but those were more rarely used since they were long rituals.) These each just had a line or two to describe them. But it was powerful and made her very important, without being overpowered.

I generally agree with your #1. My problem with many RPG magic systems is having a dozen or more fiddly little abilities -- which often are defined to have to be limited by slots, components, etc. This isn't particularly magical - it can often feel convoluted and fiddly rather than wondrous. Even with Vancian casting, a spell-caster's turn is often slow because there are tricky tradeoffs and one of a dozen slots to choose from.

In terms of game design, I think looking at how magicians work in RPG-like board games is a good comparison. There, magic characters tend to have just 3 or 4 abilities. Warlocks have similarities in that most of their abilities are always-on or at-will, like having a special familiar and/or invocations.

Quote from: tenbones on November 21, 2023, 02:01:48 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on November 20, 2023, 04:31:00 PM
I'd say it's more because it's like hp, which is convenient as a game mechanic but does weird, unrealistic things to the setting if you take its impact to the logical conclusions.  So if you care more about gameplay than experiencing the fictional world then it's great for you.

Alternately, there seem to be plenty of folks whose primary experience with fantasy is D&D and thus D&D as a setting their normal.  While I enjoy playing D&D, I feel the setting implied by the rules and included material is pretty meh.

D&D isn't a setting. It's a set of rules. You'll note that your fondness of things like HP, are even now in 5e a constant complaint because beyond a certain point (post 10th level) the same inherent math issues that St. Gary correctly identified WAY back in original D&D - the game was never meant to go beyond 10th level - is now a problem because of weak designers who don't know how to scale the system with the assumptions of play (at that level).

You're kind of underscoring my point. It's convenient if that's all you know. And most people grew up on D&D. Is it the best set of mechanics? Unless you're making ad populum argument, I'd say no. And if you are - well I can't do anything about that.

I care about gameplay and mechanics that underpin that gameplay. Vancian magic is an artifact that isn't horrible, but it's not representative of what people *really* think of Magic outside of TTRPG's. And when it is, it's due to habit. Much like people love to discuss assigning Alignment to fictional characters as if alignment is as narrow as most of their arguments and justifications for such (which ironically renders the point of alignment silly). Hence Batman can be all alignments depending on ones justification du jour.

Vancian magic is a wargaming artifact. Good GM's can make it work, just like they can make anything work. If you like it, great! I have sentimental love for it, but nothing more. The thread is about alternatives.

I think you're misunderstanding where I'm at.  I'm not a fan of Vancian magic or hp, but I acknowledge that they accomplish several good things mechanicwise. 

I disagree strongly that D&D isn't a setting.  The rules say many, many things about how the physics of the setting works and imply many more.  Sure you can play Greyhawk or Dark Sun or Planescape or whatever the space gerbil setting was called, but they're all recognizably D&D.  Even in the game novels you can tell if a game was written based on D&D without being told.  Many folks are so used to D&D and its relatives that they assume it represents all of fantasy.  It doesn't.  You just can't do Amber or The Adept or Witch World or many others with D&D without changing either the game or the setting beyond recognizability.  In some cases you can hammer the square peg into the round hole if you hit it hard enough, but it leaves gaps, flaws in the game.  I believe that for an RPG to be any good, the rules and setting need to be reflections of each other.

Apparently Dave Arneson was a fan of spell points. Vancian magic for D&D was Gary's idea. Gary thought the latter would have been simpler to manage. He may well have been right during the first few levels. But even in the upper single digit caster levels, Vancian magic seems to begin to show its limitations. Honestly, none of the rules I have seen for handling magic have been amazing. Good enough is good enough for me, though. I find levels 1-5 the most fun in old school systems anyway.

One thing I dislike about traditional D&D magic is choosing spells EVERY DAY. And IIRC the cleric can access ALL SPELLS - or, at the very least, the GM has to go through all spells and tell the PCs which ones are available.

Also, fighters take long to replenish their HP while casters get all their spell backs every day. IIRC someone suggested that in early D&D (or Chainmail) you picked spells by expedition which would make more sense (i.e., choose your spells when you're in civilization).

Spell "levels" dissociated from PC level (and dungeon level - or even SPELL POWER because some spells of the same level are just stronger than others) is another thing I dislike, but I find so ingrained that it is hard to change now.

AD&D casting has some awesome aspects that were lost in time, however; finding random spells, roll to see if you can learn them, spell research, etc. Maybe the whole game could be build around that.

Might be misremembering, haven't used traditional D&D magic for a while.

But I find that he "Vancian" idea of spells disappearing from your mind is not a bad one. It is magic, could happen in a million of ways; lately I've been thinking in terms of living spells or spirits that you bound and release.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2023, 06:02:50 PM
Because it does not fit fiction we try to operate in.
Which means Vancian magic is only good for D&D settings where magic is Vancian in world. It's terrible for any TTRPG with specifically different form of magic. It would be utter shit for Mage the Ascencion. It would not fit with Warhammer. And so on.

Meh. You can attach whatever fiction you want to it.

I was pondering this one, and had a bit of an idea.

Magic-users get a certain number of spell points per day. They can choose to 'fix' spells into those spell points, which lets them cast quickly, OR -- they can 'shape' a spell using unused spell points, which grants flexibility but takes longer.

Let's say you're Bob the Wizard, with 15 spell points. You know a few cantrips (0 SP), magic dart (1 SP), analyze spell (1 SP), shield (2 SP), conjure animal (2 SP) and explosion (3 SP). You prepare the following:

1x explosion (3 SP)
2x magic dart (2 SP total)
2x shield (4 SP total)
And Bob has 4 uncommitted spell points.

He can cast any of his prepared spells without making a roll and swiftly, too. But to cast analyze spell or conjure animal, he has to shape the spell, which takes longer (and runs the risk of failure).

I like the idea of flexible spells but found it a bit slow in play.

Sometimes I want to go full minimalist - you one spell point per level, a fireball causes 2d6 damage, you can spend 5 FP to create a 10d6 fireball.

Every impressive spell (wish etc.) becomes a lengthy ritual instead.

But I find balancing spells tiresome and boring, so I just go with existing spells and ignore "balance". High-level casters feel incredibly powerful, however; especially clerics feel indispensable to the party.

My games are B/X inspired, but I think AD&D-style fighters are needed to balance MUs and clerics.

Quote from: David Johansen on November 20, 2023, 09:47:59 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2023, 07:56:29 PM

I do not remember such mechanics.
In 1e of Warhammer you got spell points - roll 2d10 or 2d8 per level of Wizard, that was permanent pool, refreshing daily.
In 2e and 4e you can cast indefinitely but casting is risky, and you can hurt yourself. So yeah there is aspect of burning yourself down if you use magic too often (or with first spell in life if you were really unlucky)

In Warhammer Mass Combat Roleplay, aka Warhammer Fantasy Battle First edtion wizards have a life energy level that is depleted by casting spells in addition to their basic magic points.  Using magic can kill you.

Yep, that is the old mechanic I was recalling

Quote from: Mishihari on November 21, 2023, 03:25:11 AM

I think you're misunderstanding where I'm at.  I'm not a fan of Vancian magic or hp, but I acknowledge that they accomplish several good things mechanicwise.

Outside of Vancian Magic itself - this would be an interesting thread to discuss those things. Make it happen! I'd be happy to discuss. I don't think there is much light between us but it'd be fun to see where we land with everyone else too.

Quote from: Mishihari on November 21, 2023, 03:25:11 AMI disagree strongly that D&D isn't a setting.  The rules say many, many things about how the physics of the setting works and imply many more.  Sure you can play Greyhawk or Dark Sun or Planescape or whatever the space gerbil setting was called, but they're all recognizably D&D.

No. They're distinct settings. The rules are largely the same - the rules don't describe the explicit natures of those settings. It's easy to prove: remove all the rules from fluff, and what do you have? The setting fluff between all their different IP's read entirely different from their conceits. The rules themselves only attempt to describe them and even then the GM has a tremendous influence on how those rules are actually expressed - GM's emphasize the things they wish to emphasize in order to maintain coherence. It's precisely the loss of this coherency that has allowed this assumption that the *rules are the game*. This is why the "freakshow" is so prevalent in 5e.

I'll further point out - I run Savage Worlds Greybox Forgotten Realms. *Entirely* different set of rules, and it handles the conceits of the 1e Greybox Realms with as much fidelity at the original rules. In fact, it's better, because the Savage Worlds rules are more flexible, and scale better than D&D. There is zero-need to cling to HP, Vancian Magic, AC, Alpha-strike Builds, because the entire nature of the ruleset is designed to be modulated and tweaked to fit the needs of the game. It's much harder to do that in d20 - but it's to be expected given that d20 is the original ruleset. The *real* issue is how they tried to "improve" it in the weirdest most inefficient manners over succeeding editions.

Quote from: Mishihari on November 21, 2023, 03:25:11 AMEven in the game novels you can tell if a game was written based on D&D without being told.  Many folks are so used to D&D and its relatives that they assume it represents all of fantasy.  It doesn't.  You just can't do Amber or The Adept or Witch World or many others with D&D without changing either the game or the setting beyond recognizability.  In some cases you can hammer the square peg into the round hole if you hit it hard enough, but it leaves gaps, flaws in the game.  I believe that for an RPG to be any good, the rules and setting need to be reflections of each other.

What do you expect a game-novel to do if not represent the mechanics of the game... somewhat. Ironically, one of things about the game novels of D&D is the fictional changes they made in the novels eventually got reciprocated back into the game mechanics via gear, spells etc. which only caused more incohesion to the rules. OR they ignore the rules outright. YES people think of D&D Fantasy *as* fantasy. It's a legitimate (if lame) genre of fiction - gamelit.

But that's not an argument that the rules *are* the game. Quite the opposite. It's an argument that people don't read *good* fantasy fiction, and worse, D&D tropes that exist because of mechanics are seen as a means of describing fictional secondary worlds. This is a far cry from playing a game in those worlds. Mind you, I'm speaking of non-D&D settings.

This is kind of an argument ad populum. It's like those lame videos about people statting DC and Marvel Superheroes in 5e stats. As if those rules can fully describe the realities of Supers gaming in the Marvel or DC. They can't. But when d20 is all one knows, whattya gonna do?

If one subscribes to the rules-are-the-game, then why have a setting at all? And to that end - this seems to be what WotC is going for in 6e. So maybe we're talking about two different things and different ways of playing TTRPG's? I think playing the rules as the game is low-grade gaming. But anyhow...

Vancian Magic - go with spell points, or retrofit an exisiting d20 parallel version like Fantasy Craft (or just go play Fantasy Craft). My better solution: go take your favorite set of mechanics, and convert your D&D setting to it.

Quote from: tenbones on November 21, 2023, 01:52:31 AM
Or maybe, much like AC, THACO, HP, Classes, etc. etc. everything in D&D has come under endless debates for literally 40+ years... Sure *you* may like it. But let's not pretend that other methods of handling magic that is *not* Vancian, is not equally long established. The point of the thread is literally talking about replacing Vancian magic. There is a reason for that.

Look, I like you so I don't really want to get into it, but that is not the point at all.  I, in fact, don't particularly care if people use Vancian magic or not.  You'll notice that I included my preferred tweaks to Vancian magic earlier in the thread, and I've literally played magic dozens of different ways in D&D since I started playing in 1975/76.  That is certainly what the thread is about.

I take exception to the statement that only brand loyalists or people who can't escape from the past use Vancian magic is unnecessarily combative and really has no place in the discussion.