Quote from: finarvyn on September 13, 2022, 04:26:28 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on September 13, 2022, 12:31:59 AMThere's a new S&S game about to drop called "Swords & Chaos" that is based on their Siege Engine but brings in elements from DCC, Modiphius Conan & other games to get the right vibe.  We will be trying that next.

Is this being published by Troll Lord Games? If so, I must have missed an e-mail but color me interested! 

The kickstarter has finished: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/blackspirefantasy/swords-and-chaos/description

No, I don't think it's Troll Lord Games doing Swords & Chaos.  It's a group out of MI.

It is, however, based on the Siege Engine from TLG.

Bummer that I missed it. Looks like it's based of the type of S&S literature that I enjoy the most. 

Quote from: finarvyn on September 13, 2022, 04:26:28 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on September 13, 2022, 12:31:59 AMThere's a new S&S game about to drop called "Swords & Chaos" that is based on their Siege Engine but brings in elements from DCC, Modiphius Conan & other games to get the right vibe.  We will be trying that next.

Is this being published by Troll Lord Games? If so, I must have missed an e-mail but color me interested! 

No, it's by a new outfit called Blackspire Fantasy.  Here is the most recent KS update, which includes info on ordering if you were not a KS backer: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/blackspirefantasy/swords-and-chaos/posts/3591337

Also, since we've been talking about it, I'll note that it does not use Vancian spell-casting and there is a corruption system built into spellcasting that seems adapted from DCC from the previews we've seen.  The full pdf should drop soon.

Nice! The link you provided had a section about adding if you missed the KS, so I will have to check back to see if they end up with some guidelines on that process. (They acknowledge that they want this option, but I didn't actually see a process outlined.)

Thanks for the tip! 

Quote from: Brooding Paladin on September 13, 2022, 11:19:13 AM

Honest question, not intended to provoke, but what do you hate about Vancian magic?  Maybe I don't get out much, but the alternative is usually the "sorcerer" approach to magic where you just have a certain amount of mana/spell points, etc. that you can cast at will.

Just to put it in the proper context, I'm referring to the original designs around vancian magic, where casters needed to memorize spells and any little distraction caused them to lose it completely for the whole day.

That right there is my primary complaint. It's an entire magic system built up around an obscure book series and doesn't accurately model the way magic is depicted in the majority of pulp fiction

Also, "forgetting spells" is a shit mechanic. I get that DnD magic is generally more powerful than standard attacks and that a mitigating factor needed to be put in place, but the "5-minute wizard" always sucked to play. The fighter can fight all day, and the cleric can turn undead whenever they wanted, but the mage could only use magic once or twice and was then pretty much useless. The 3e Sorcerer was a big step in a better direction, and 5e is divergent enough where I wouldn't really call it "vancian" anymore. Personally, I thought the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook was a better "magic" system than any of the above (it butchered everything PSIONICS was, but it was still a better SYSTEM).

I should probably mention that I really have nothing against 'spell levels', but I also feel there are better approaches. As a gate to more powerful spells, I get why they exist, but they always felt lame. Like, why are minor illusion and major illusion two different spells and not just different versions of the same spell? I'd much prefer a system where you just had "illusion" and got better at it as you level up. No need to learn a new spell. Then, if you just wanted to cast the "minor" version, you could; nothing's stopping you.

QuoteI've kinda always liked the need to think about what spells to prepare and determine an approach to what the party is about to do rather than just going in all guns blazing.  And there's few things sweeter than seeing the look on the player's face when he/she chose just the right spell to prepare.

That's probably the look of shock and relief.
As opposed to the look of exasperation and disappointment.

QuoteOf course, the opposite can be true but I usually have some method available for the caster to trade out a spell or have one in reserve (Ring of Spell Storing, etc.).

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? You need to have these contrivances to make up for where the system is lacking. Magic items is actually another one of my peeves. They are totally out of hand, imho. AD&D had its creep, but WotC D&D got really bad with the magic item bloat. It gets to the point where the magic classes become redundant. I hesitate to say "useless" only because spells get stupid powerful at mid-high level.

But I'm going off on tangents...
In short, I just don't like the way vancian magic feels in play. It makes playing a mage feel like a crutch, where you need to micro manage everything and hope you pick the right spells. It's probably the reason later versions introduced spell-swapping, either on-the-fly or with a few minutes prep. But honestly, once you hit the point where you need special rules that change the core function of the magic system, you're probably better off scraping it for something simpler.

QuoteJust wondering what you prefer better since our tastes run kind of similar (it seems).

Skill-based magic. Progressive-leveling on spells. Chance of failure instead of "forgetting." And maybe an option for indefinite durations with concentration, rather than fixed durations (active spells could make subsequent castings more difficult). On the fence with that last one, but I like the idea in concept.

That's a great summary, Effete.  Thanks for typing it out.  Yeah, I guess I sort of compensated for some of the shortcomings without even realizing it.  Thanks for the perspective.

Effete's complaints about Vancian spell-casting mirror my own, and are why I'm increasingly drawn to using Chainmail's roll-to-cast system in D&D style games: the cap is action economics (i.e., one spell-cast attempt/round) and spells known, no limit on "spells per day" or need to "memorize". If you know a spell you can cast it.

The system I'm currently playing, The Dark Eye, works around some of the issues by having Arcane Energy, essentially a mana pool.  Each spell has a base AE cost and you can speed the casting of the spells or the effectiveness of the spells by spending additional AE.  That feels closer to a good solution.  The effectiveness of the spell is then determined by the QL (Quality Level) achieved with the dice rolled for the attributes associated with the spell being cast.  There exists the potential that the spell will fail as well.

Checks a lot of boxes except the mechanic used is overly fiddly (check three dice, three attributes, buy down rolls to achieve success, check the remaining pool, determine QL, find the related effect on the spell you cast  ) and the spells are kinda meh.

Quote from: rhialto on September 14, 2022, 05:35:03 AM
Effete's complaints about Vancian spell-casting mirror my own, and are why I'm increasingly drawn to using Chainmail's roll-to-cast system in D&D style games: the cap is action economics (i.e., one spell-cast attempt/round) and spells known, no limit on "spells per day" or need to "memorize". If you know a spell you can cast it.

I've done this before in some campaigns and it's a great alternative.