DCC RPG's "Vancian" Casting

Benoist · March 09, 2011, 04:46:43 PM

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?

Melan · March 09, 2011, 05:12:55 PM

Not really interested. Too fiddly, plus a great virtue of the D&D system is that it works.

Benoist · March 09, 2011, 05:46:07 PM

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.

estar · March 09, 2011, 05:48:15 PM

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.

estar · March 09, 2011, 05:52:48 PM

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.

Benoist · March 09, 2011, 06:11:52 PM

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?

LordVreeg · March 09, 2011, 06:12:59 PM

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.

estar · March 10, 2011, 01:35:32 AM

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.

The Butcher · March 10, 2011, 06:04:30 AM

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.

mhensley · March 10, 2011, 06:40:00 AM

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.

Dirk Remmecke · March 10, 2011, 07:38:48 AM

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.

Hackmaster · March 10, 2011, 08:28:07 AM

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

One Horse Town · March 10, 2011, 04:36:05 PM

In theory, i like it. In practise, i suspect it gets wearing.

jgants · March 10, 2011, 05:35:56 PM

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.

kregmosier · March 10, 2011, 05:39:48 PM

I'm all for it...let's do this.