Quote from: VisionStorm on August 21, 2022, 08:34:42 AM
That's pretty much the way I always handled it when I started DMing. I'm still to this day not sure what balancing issue spell preparation is supposed to solve.

There's a rumor that Gygax just hated wizards and wanted to make them unappealing to play. No idea if there's anything to that.

The real truth is probably just that Gygax was a big Vance fan. There's three problems there. 1) in Vance's novels, spells are generally a good deal more powerful than they are in D&D. 2) the protagonist in a story can always have the right spells prepared, because the author knows what is going to happen, and 3) Vance's wizards tend to also be capable fighters and/or thieves. Whereas the classic D&D wizard is next-to-useless at anything other than magic.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 21, 2022, 10:12:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 21, 2022, 08:34:42 AM
That's pretty much the way I always handled it when I started DMing. I'm still to this day not sure what balancing issue spell preparation is supposed to solve.

There's a lot more involved in Vancian-style D&D magic than it first appears, and part of what makes it such that some people love and some hate it is that the way it is does addresses those multiple issues.  Whether a person wants some or even all of those issues addressed is another question.

There is, of course, doing a game version that pays more than a little homage to the Dying Earth magic.  It's already diluted for game play purposes in AD&D, and by the time we get to WotC versions, this aspect is practically gone in all but name.  It's a handful of powerful, sometimes encounter-ending, spells, for which the caster must carefully save for just the right moment and select with some care and thought of what will be encountered.  If one assumes that some of the slots that, say, an AD&D or B/X caster has at 5th to 7th level are representing magic baubles and/or sandestin capabilities, then you can kind of stretch it to the point.  When you get up into 11th level range, we are thinking some of the Dying Earth earlier age casters, with their vats and laboratories and libraries.  Or you could assume a mild Renaissance of sorts from that earlier age, which is breaking from the Dying Earth tone but has a little of a logical, if tenuous, connection.  While the flavor necessarily dies into the mechanical side in the next two points, the "Save or Die" part is very much here in this first one.

Then there is the game side of the mechanic of preparation in a slot.  This is very much an "operational" resource game.  Not surprisingly, it fits the best in a game where husbanding hit points, choosing your fights carefully when possible, encumbrance is a real, enforced issue, a lot of resources are magical items with limited charges, and even the non-casters often can be worn down from less than full capability or have limited shots at things.  Consider AD&D thief low numbers on many skills or the paladin cure abilities.  Not surprising, again, the fighter stands out for being least limited in this respect, simply trying to maintain adequate hit points as long as possible.  If you aren't playing an operational game, or if you think you are but take all that other stuff out or neuter it--and are thus only paying lip service to an operational game--then slots also don't make a whole lot of sense.  There might be a niche where you want to deliberately force casters into the operational role that no one else has, but I doubt it would work very well.

Finally, there is the aspect of gating D&D spells behind different spell levels, while having the capacity for casting each spell level be a separate thing.  This is the aspect most likely to be useful separated from the other two.  That's because while it is true that spell slots/spell levels  in the D&D original can suck in some ways, all the alternatives also can suck in some ways.  Very much depends on what you want.  In particular, "mana points" or any of their varieties, when cast as a replace for different levels of slots--nearly always suck.  The exceptions are game that don't have spells of widely different power levels, where the need to handle that distinction doesn't arise, and thus mana points work as well as anything else and better than many options.  Various mana point alternatives proposed, even semi-officially, as a replacement dropped straight into a D&D game otherwise unchanged--are some of the suckiest options ever contrived.  That's because the original spell levels build on a geometric power level. So straight level to mana points (e.g. 1 point for 1st level spells, 2 points for 2nd level spells, etc.) are doomed out of the gate, while mana point systems that try to capture the real curve become so contrived that they lose much of a mana point system's main reason, simplicity. 

As for spells in the books being the "wrong" level--that's a setting concern.  Don't like the implied setting, move the spell.  For example, I nearly always want invisibility to be more impressive, and usually more like a 3rd or 4th level spell in D&D terms.  That just reflects the way I think it fits in the pecking order of the setting's abilities. 

In short, the D&D system as originally contrived addresses very well the flavor, operational aspect, and desire to have a huge scale of different power levels in spell effects.  If you want one of those things without the others, then D&D Vancian is unlikely to be a good fit, but you'd need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.   If you don't care about any of those things, then D&D Vancian magic is a bad fit.

One of the many issues with Vancian magic is that it emulates a specific book series I never even read or was aware of till years after I got into RPGs, and I doubt anyone in my gaming circle was aware of it either. I'm not sure why D&D needs to emulate such a specific literary source.

I can sorta get the "operational" resource management side of things, but even then it's such a situational thing that relies on a level of foreknowledge characters rarely even have—on top of having such limited spell slots, at lower levels specially—I just don't see the point of dealing with the extra hassle.

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 21, 2022, 11:26:51 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 21, 2022, 08:34:42 AM
That's pretty much the way I always handled it when I started DMing. I'm still to this day not sure what balancing issue spell preparation is supposed to solve.

There's a rumor that Gygax just hated wizards and wanted to make them unappealing to play. No idea if there's anything to that.

The real truth is probably just that Gygax was a big Vance fan. There's three problems there. 1) in Vance's novels, spells are generally a good deal more powerful than they are in D&D. 2) the protagonist in a story can always have the right spells prepared, because the author knows what is going to happen, and 3) Vance's wizards tend to also be capable fighters and/or thieves. Whereas the classic D&D wizard is next-to-useless at anything other than magic.

Yup, plus in a book there's a lot of dramatic elements involved that are also under the control of the author and can add to the excitement of the story. But in the game, these are purely game mechanics, so they just become extra complications in practice.

D&D has been moving subtly away from pure Vancian magic ever since they introduced the sorcerer back in 3.0. It must have proved pretty popular, because "spontaneous casting classes" started to proliferate in the expanded books, 3.5, and Pathfinder. Not sure what 4th edition did with it, but I would expect there to be even less of a Vancian tone to that game.

If I'm not mistaken, there are now at least three "spontaneous casting" core classes in D&D (sorcerer, warlock, and bard). And cantrips strike me as being something that was done at least partially to alleviate spell preparation.  I believe 5th edition also slightly tweaked the way spell preparation works, so that you no longer prepare a certain number of each spell, but instead just prepare a list of spells, which you can then use more or less of depending on circumstances.

I would guess that the designers of 5e would like to have ditched spell preparation entirely, and that its continued existence was meant as an olive branch to the old guard. For better or worse, Vancian magic is pretty central to the identity of D&D, so totally overhauling it would be a big step.

I hated the chase system in Savage Worlds with a burning white hot passion. It felt like a kludge and it dragged out an encounter far longer than it should've lasted.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2022, 11:21:34 PM
It's a long list.

How about multiple degrees of success mechanics for starters.

There's no good reason to think the range of degrees of success would sync to the number of identifiable degrees of success within a particular situation. In fact, it usually doesn't. The same could technically be said about a binary mechanic--that it's usually possible to articulate more than just 2 possible outcomes in a situation. However, a binary mechanic does sync perfectly with a question you can always ask about any task in any situation. "Did the character attain the results he or she set out to achieve with the task?"

If you want to do degrees of success seriously, it needs to be dynamic to match the situation rather than tied to the core mechanic itself. The good news is, we have a very ubiquitous and time-tested example of this. Damage in combat. For whatever reason, there's resistance to acknowledging damage as degrees of success. But that's exactly what it is. And systems that do not include degrees of success in the core mechanic have always been able to produce damage numbers. Even if it's just as simple as picking up another die and rolling it.

At the end of the day, I don't know why we need to make things more complicated than they need to be. And why we can't just insert extra detail when and where we want it rather than clutter up the places where we don't need it. I don't know why uniformity of mechanics is held up as a gold standard over and beyond just doing what makes sense.

I wouldn't say it's automatically bad so much as usually time and tedium consuming.

The way I address this with my homebrew system is that by default it's a Pass/ Fail success count system which has partial success rules the players (including the GM) may invoke. This is generally faster than forcing it to be a default always-on mechanic and lets players do things like veto a failed lockpick attempt triggering an alarm. It's not that these mechanics are bad...it's that when you do want to have them, it's a solid bet that one of the players will think to invoke the optional rule.

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 21, 2022, 11:18:12 AMHaving an "Enemy" is NOT a real "disadvantage". That's just extra XP/play opportunities waiting to happen (IF the GM ever even brings them up, which there's no guarantee they will). ...Same with RP "disadvantages". PROVE to me that you can RP your character that way in a meaningful way during actual play and MAYBE you'll get extra XP for good RP.

That's a requirement of all disadvantages, though. If the GM doesn't create situations which enforce their effects, or doesn't have rules support on how to enforce them, they're unlikely to cause the PC enough problems to justify the character-power reward that taking them gave the player.

Now that I think about it, it strikes me that all character creation should really be taken as a blueprint for the GM on designing the campaign, rather than (as is traditionally done) the other way around. A player who takes a particular class, or set of skills, or range of powers for his PC is telling the GM, "These are the abilities I want to use in the game." A player who takes disadvantages is saying, "These are the things I'm agreeing to have my PC endure as problems in the game." A GM who isn't going to shape his campaign to the players' choices undermines a lot of the effect of giving them such choices in the first place.

I suppose I should chime in on Vancian magic.

Ever since I first read the rules when I stared playing 3.5, I never once thought this was a fun mechanic. The mechanic which surprised me by being unfun was Hero System's Endurance system (I think it was 4E at the time, but I don't remember) which I would describe as "Unified Cooldown," although I don't know if that's actually a word anyone else uses.

Hero System is really fidgety with the bookkeeping, so in retrospect I can understand why D&D uses Vancian. I still don't like Vancian, and I would absolutely prefer a better way to manage unified cooldown. The best I've come up with to date is to put a counter on one side of a character sheet and slide a paperclip along it like it's an abacus. Ideal? No, it's still fidgety. But I think a paperclip slider abacus is way better than Vancian (damning with faint praise, I know.)

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 21, 2022, 11:29:15 AMOne of the many issues with Vancian magic is that it emulates a specific book series I never even read or was aware of till years after I got into RPGs, and I doubt anyone in my gaming circle was aware of it either. I'm not sure why D&D needs to emulate such a specific literary source.

The system that Dave Arneson originally used in his pre-D&D game was to allow each wizard a limited number of spells but each of these spells had to be crafted before casting. You would then expend these "spell balls" in order to cast the spells. To craft a spell required a certain amount of money or rare resources. The cost and rarity increasing with the spell's power (there were no spell levels at this time). When Gygax was simplifying the game for publication as OD&D, he removed the crafting requirement for spells and simply replaced it with the "memorization" idea from Vance. So the spell system wasn't really designed as Vancian originally.

I kinda like the idea of forcing players to spend resources to prepare their allotment of spells as it prevents most of the "I cast this spell every day and destroy the economy" situations. Also, not having spell levels means that the player has fewer overall spells, but all these spells are higher in power so are more significant.

Note that much of Arneson's idea for pre-crafting spells got transferred into the rules for spell scrolls. Something that also doesn't have much in common with fantasy fiction.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on August 21, 2022, 03:29:02 PM
Now that I think about it, it strikes me that all character creation should really be taken as a blueprint for the GM on designing the campaign, rather than (as is traditionally done) the other way around. A player who takes a particular class, or set of skills, or range of powers for his PC is telling the GM, "These are the abilities I want to use in the game." A player who takes disadvantages is saying, "These are the things I'm agreeing to have my PC endure as problems in the game." A GM who isn't going to shape his campaign to the players' choices undermines a lot of the effect of giving them such choices in the first place.

This 100%.

Savage Worlds has been one of my primary systems over the last 10 years, and it heavily encourages taking Hindrances for your character. Some are mechanical, such as slowing your Pace or imposing penalties on certain skills, while others are purely roleplay. In either case, if the GM doesn't introduce (or even impose) opportunities for those Hindrances to come into play, the game is all the worse for it.

Several years ago I was at a FLGS trying to get some people interested in SW. One kid took the Curious Hindrance, but then ignored every "mystery hook" I threw at him and just wanted to be a murder-hobo. So I told him if he continues to ignore his Hindrance, he'll receive penalties on all his rolls for being mentally distracted. He shouted that I couldn't do that! That his character has agency! Blahblahblah. I responded by saying if he was playing a paladin that went around killing innocent people, I would absolutely be in the right to revoke his character's abilities, and that this was no different. He created a character with certain traits and an expectation to play them, and I as GM have an obligation to see that through.

On a more general note, this speaks to a problem I've seen with pre-written adventures. Many times they have obstacles that can only be navigated in one way. If the party is composed of classes ill-equiped to tackle the situation, the adventure usually becomes more difficult than intended. The better-written adventures simply state a goal, then leave the path to that goal up to the GM and players to discover.

Quote from: Fheredin on August 21, 2022, 03:37:46 PM
I still don't like Vancian, and I would absolutely prefer a better way to manage unified cooldown. The best I've come up with to date is to put a counter on one side of a character sheet and slide a paperclip along it like it's an abacus. Ideal? No, it's still fidgety. But I think a paperclip slider abacus is way better than Vancian (damning with faint praise, I know.)

As long as you remember to slide the clip.
I remember playing Pictionary as a kid, and there was always someone who forgot to flip the timer before they began.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 21, 2022, 04:06:28 PM

Note that much of Arneson's idea for pre-crafting spells got transferred into the rules for spell scrolls. Something that also doesn't have much in common with fantasy fiction.

There's a Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser story ("The Lords of Quarmall" if memory serves) where the Mouser ---who has some magical training, but isn't really a wizard-- has a single ultra-powerful spell on a scroll that he uses. I always took that as an inspiration for the spell scroll system. If nothing else I'm pretty confident its the origin point for the idea that thieves can use magic scrolls and other wizard tools.

Quote from: Effete on August 21, 2022, 04:28:48 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on August 21, 2022, 03:29:02 PM
Now that I think about it, it strikes me that all character creation should really be taken as a blueprint for the GM on designing the campaign, rather than (as is traditionally done) the other way around. A player who takes a particular class, or set of skills, or range of powers for his PC is telling the GM, "These are the abilities I want to use in the game." A player who takes disadvantages is saying, "These are the things I'm agreeing to have my PC endure as problems in the game." A GM who isn't going to shape his campaign to the players' choices undermines a lot of the effect of giving them such choices in the first place.

This 100%.

Savage Worlds has been one of my primary systems over the last 10 years, and it heavily encourages taking Hindrances for your character. Some are mechanical, such as slowing your Pace or imposing penalties on certain skills, while others are purely roleplay. In either case, if the GM doesn't introduce (or even impose) opportunities for those Hindrances to come into play, the game is all the worse for it.

Several years ago I was at a FLGS trying to get some people interested in SW. One kid took the Curious Hindrance, but then ignored every "mystery hook" I threw at him and just wanted to be a murder-hobo. So I told him if he continues to ignore his Hindrance, he'll receive penalties on all his rolls for being mentally distracted. He shouted that I couldn't do that! That his character has agency! Blahblahblah. I responded by saying if he was playing a paladin that went around killing innocent people, I would absolutely be in the right to revoke his character's abilities, and that this was no different. He created a character with certain traits and an expectation to play them, and I as GM have an obligation to see that through.

On a more general note, this speaks to a problem I've seen with pre-written adventures. Many times they have obstacles that can only be navigated in one way. If the party is composed of classes ill-equiped to tackle the situation, the adventure usually becomes more difficult than intended. The better-written adventures simply state a goal, then leave the path to that goal up to the GM and players to discover.

@both

Applies+Oranges

You get XP for every combat encounter and you can (and IMO should) also get XP for every meaningful social encounter (or just about any challenge or accomplishment in the game), but you don't get XP from taking extra damage cuz you have Fire Vulnerability or for failing a resistance check cuz you got Poison Vulnerability. And everyone can easily and naturally acquire "enemies" as a normal, direct consequence of play, but suddenly acquiring fire or poison vulnerability would be very unlikely and is not a normal part of play.

Even if they all rely on the GM actually bringing up those circumstances during play, they're not really analogous at all. You can easily handle and properly compensate characters for having RP "disadvantages" by simply giving them XP when they come up, the way GMs have always been able to do before the concept of Disadvantages was introduced into RPGs. And you don't even need to coerce players into RPing their characters or threaten to penalize them or take their character's abilities away*. You simply don't give them the XP award if they don't. The entire thing just automatically sorts itself out without the GM adjusting their game or holding the judgement hammer over the player's head.

But the same cannot be said for purely mechanical disadvantages; just about the only way you can compensate characters for those is extra points or some other benefit, like +1 advantage per disadvantage taken.

I also don't like the idea of GMs bending circumstances in play to fit the character's sheet. Just because someone got fire vulnerability that doesn't mean that the GM should alter their scenarios around the idea that that character specifically has to face a fire hazard at some point during play. That's just a metagaming and roundabout way of doing things.

Could GMs use background details about characters to spice things up from time to time? Absolutely. Would that make the game better? You betcha...at least some times. But just because a player wrote something down in their character's sheet that doesn't mean that the GM "should" build their adventure or base all improvised scenarios around that one character just to justify them getting extra build points that they don't need as compensation when XP awards have always been able to solve that problem (for RP stuff at least) since before "Disadvantages" were even invented.

*which might make sense for a paladin, cuz their abilities are expressly tied to certain RP preconditions with specific stipulations that the player knowns in advance cuz they're written in the game book (and even then it isn't perfect), but not for every random personality trait, like being "curious" (which don't specify that you get a penalty for not RPing, and have no clear consequence to them).

Re: Vancian magic

I'm a fan of Vancian magic in D&D. To me, it's one of the distinctive elements that makes D&D feel like D&D, along with things like an emphasis on class/level over general skills, et cetera.

That said, I'm perfectly fine with other magic systems in other RPGs. I guess I don't have a strong preference for any specific magic system, but if I'm playing D&D without Vancian magic it makes it feel less like "D&D" and more like something else. That's not necessarily bad, but it could be. Usually if I choose D&D I want it to feel like D&D.

With all that said, I've also run D&D-based campaigns or mini-campaigns that replaced Vancian magic with something else because of the setting. I look on that kind of thing more like a "variant," and I'm fine with tailoring the rules to suit a specific setting. But discarding Vancian magic isn't something I'd do for a "standard" kind of D&D campaign.

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 21, 2022, 10:02:35 PM
@both

Applies+Oranges

Just to be clear, my post wasn't intended to be a response to you. I was remarking specifically on what Stephen wrote about how to address games that use Disadvantages/Flaws/etc.

I understand your point and I would agree that some systems do not need such a mechanic. But for other systems, they're more integrated and serve a wider purpose than just making the character interesting. I'm not looking for a debate, since I can honestly see it go both ways.