Link to the thread/designer blog of Joseph Goodman describing what the Vancian magic system of the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG would look like:
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=8530
OK. That's the first entry that really got me interested. That does sound cool and different.
What do you guys think? Thumbs up/down?
Not really interested. Too fiddly, plus a great virtue of the D&D system is that it works.
Quote from: Melan;444914Not really interested. Too fiddly, plus a great virtue of the D&D system is that it works.
I share the feeling that D&D's system works perfectly as it is. At the same time, I guess that's specifically the fiddliness of that alternative I find interesting. It could lead to all sorts of interesting surprises in game play. And the roll's modifiers seem okay in my book (not too heavily slanted towards failure, not too nitpicky, etc). IDK, I'd like to try it out.
It works well but it will live or die on it's presentation. Presenting just as tables inline within rulebooks traditionally won't be received well. At the very least make the result charts available as a PDF for printing. The system as a whole is not as involved as Iron Crown's Spell Law. It just there is a lot of tables.
But aside from that it does work as Mr. Goodman describe and captures the essence of mercurial magic in a straightforward form.
In my own playtest the caster killed himself by too good of a result with enlarging a door. It popped out straight out at him (I rolled it) and smashed him after he failed his reflex save.
First time I seen somebody directly by an ordinary door.
Quote from: Benoist;444918I share the feeling that D&D's system works perfectly as it is. At the same time, I guess that's specifically the fiddliness of that alternative I find interesting. It could lead to all sorts of interesting surprises in game play. And the roll's modifiers seem okay in my book (not too heavily slanted towards failure, not too nitpicky, etc). IDK, I'd like to try it out.
I think it will result in Goodman Games developing a Kenzer Co style customer base which is not altogether a bad thing for a RPG company these days.
Even in playtest form the system has style and the passion of Mr. Goodman for the subject shows.
Hey Rob: your example of the door killing a PC is both hilarious and awesome. This is the sort of stuff I had in mind when I wrote about the "interesting surprises." Glad this sort of stuff is possible. Did you have some guidelines on how the spell would work, or was that your personal extrapolation?
Quote from: Benoist;444904Link to the thread/designer blog of Joseph Goodman describing what the Vancian magic system of the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG would look like:
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=8530
OK. That's the first entry that really got me interested. That does sound cool and different.
What do you guys think? Thumbs up/down?
I never liked mechanics that didn't include rules for spell failure, casters trying spells that were a bit beyond them, nor mechanics that did not include spells becoming easier with practise. D&D's version of Vancian magic was one of the reasons (and there were many) I left. To simple and unflexible a format, in my opinion.
Still not crazy about what is in that OP, however.
Quote from: Benoist;444925Hey Rob: your example of the door killing a PC is both hilarious and awesome. This is the sort of stuff I had in mind when I wrote about the "interesting surprises." Glad this sort of stuff is possible. Did you have some guidelines on how the spell would work, or was that your personal extrapolation?
The flavor text of the spell.
Quote(1) target visibly enlarges, (2) target disappears then re-appears at greater size, (3) hundreds of tiny workmen appear to chop apart target's body and re-assemble it in greater volume, (4) target reverse-ages to size and appearance of a baby, then amazingly grows back to adult appearance at larger than his former size
The result that he rolled
QuoteThe target doubles in size. A normal man is as an ogre with this result, receiving a +4 bonus to Strength and a -2 penalty to Agility.
He was trying to use the spell to pop the door so the party can get in and pop it did.
Speaking strictly for myself, much as I believe TSR-era D&D's systems, as-written, generally work (and much as I am attached to D&D's traditions), I've always felt that the predictability of magic in D&D made it feel a bit less magical. This is one of the rare places in which D&D, to me, breaks with the genre(s) it emulates.
The trick, though, is to make magic unpredictable without wrecking game balance, and making the game suck big time for low-to-mid-level spellcasters. Jason Vey's Spellcraft & Swordplay has an interesting take on it (a memorized spell is only gone when you fail a spellcasting roll; as long as you get successes, you can cast it again and again), but I'm not sure how it works out in actual play.
I think it sounds great, but I do worry that the number of tables involved will slow play. Wizards should have a print out of every chart for each spell he has.
Quote from: Benoist;444904What do you guys think?
That's way too fiddly for my liking, and the opposite of what I am looking for in a D&D clone.
So far the only that struck a chord in me was the cover which has a "very early Games Workshop" vibe. It could have been package design or an ad for early 80's GW miniatures.
And that is a good thing in my book.
I like the concept.
The "d20 + caster level + ability mod vs 10 + 2 x spell level" seemed like a good way to implement.
He lost me with the table. A simple table or two that applied to all spells would be fine, but that table was way too verbose and complicated. I can't fathom doing a table like that for every single spell.
I'd like to see spell failure in D&D 3.5/PF, it might help balance out the overpowered casters at higher level.s
In theory, i like it. In practise, i suspect it gets wearing.
Quote from: One Horse Town;445190In theory, i like it. In practise, i suspect it gets wearing.
My thoughts as well.
I also disliked that the magic-user in D&D had no chance for failure or for something going wrong with the spell.
But in practice, even the godawful Powers and Perils seemed to have a more straightforward system than this.
I'm all for it...let's do this.
It sounds very very cool. A table for each individual spell, talk about magical and unique. Ben might have just sold me on this one.
As far as wieldiness goes, this just screams for spell cards. Hand out whatever spells they memorize, have the table text on the card for the players to read, and if they fail and lose the spell, hand it back.
Quote from: estar;444919In my own playtest the caster killed himself by too good of a result with enlarging a door. It popped out straight out at him (I rolled it) and smashed him after he failed his reflex save.
First time I seen somebody directly by an ordinary door.
Awesome.
If I were that player I would want to keep that character sheet forever.
Rolemaster wins for its simple "Extraordinary Spell Failure" rules. Want to cast a spell above your level? Go for it. But beware the critical failure tables...
Similarly, my first impression was to think that tables for every spell would be cumbersome and laborious. I've come to the conclusion that, if edited a bit and after some more play testing/tweaking, it might work very well.
For players, it will be fun to print up your own spellbook and refer to it a bit like the wizard you're roleplaying. However, for the DM running the NPCs, it might be a bit more laborious, with much page flipping.
Quote from: MelanNot really interested. Too fiddly, plus a great virtue of the D&D system is that it works.
OK, granted I've not read/played/DMd any D&D editions other than 1e AD&D, but I think you're implying this is more fiddly than D&D, a statement which I find utterly amazing. Yep, it's no Trail of Cthulhu, but D&D bloat vs the planned 64 page dcc rpg just does not compute.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;445063That's way too fiddly for my liking, and the opposite of what I am looking for in a D&D clone.
1. It's hard to know if it's fiddly or not, since it's only an early draft of a playtest rule. If it doesn't play well, it will get changed.
2. DCC RPG is
not a D&D clone.
Intriguing, but looks clunky. Great idea, but needs work.
Quote from: The Butcher;445059Jason Vey's Spellcraft & Swordplay has an interesting take on it (a memorized spell is only gone when you fail a spellcasting roll; as long as you get successes, you can cast it again and again), but I'm not sure how it works out in actual play.
It makes casters more powerful. I added such a mechanic in S&W. You make a Magic Saving Throw with a -2 modifier per level of the spell.
So your 1st level mage in S&W has a save of 15 with +2 vs. Magic so you need a 15 to keep your 1st level spell...75% chance to fail.
Your 10th level mage in S&W has a save of 6 with his +2 bonus so you keep 1st level spells on a 8 or higher (60%) and keep 5th level spells on a 14 or higher.
Also, if you fumble (natural 1 or modified 0 or below), your spell goes wild and something strange happens. I later added that if you roll the exact save number on the die, you keep the spell, but the one you just launched goes wild.
So essentially the "chance of recall" does little or nothing for low level guys who are the ones who actually need more spells than the 10th level mages.
Also, spell failure doesn't make sense for Clerics.
Presentation can make a big difference.
Some spell descriptions in Advanced D&D are pretty ornate, and commensurately awkward to sort out in the old format that buries details in paragraphs.
However, a format that broke down such a spell into something that looks more like a handful of 4e powers could be quite easy to manage. Listings might be even more convenient on physical cards or in a digital spreadsheet or database program than in a book.
Different people are likely to have different responses. For instance, some strongly prefer either the 3e/ 4e D&D "ascending AC" or the 2e "THAC0", while I find the old matrices more expeditious than either.
Quote from: SpinachcatAlso, spell failure doesn't make sense for Clerics.
That depends, I think, on the extent to which their "Lord works in mysterious ways". The understanding of clerical magic as propitiatory prayer rather than automatically functioning "technology" may be less current today than it was when the AD&D books specified that spells were imparted -- and could be denied -- by a deity either directly or via its messengers.