Quote from: Consonant DudeIt's extremely complicated. You see, one of the real charms of magic in D&D is the extensive list of very flavorful spells. Those spells are balanced by "levels" according to (roughly) how powerful they are, but this is only relative to the Vancian spellcasting system.

For instance, they've determined that Arcane Sight and Fireball have roughly the same utility (3rd level wizard spells) but if you devise a system allowing a very powerful wizard to cast an unlimited, or quasi-unlimited number of 3rd level spells, you're fucking up balance big time.

Why is that complex? Give each level of spell a component cost, a spell point cost, a hit point cost... Its been done dozens of times in dosens of systems, and it needn't be in any way complex. Yet it doesn't regularly get houseruled that way, there haven't been loads of suggestions for alternate systems in Dragon (nearly everything else has been reassessed in Dragon, at least in older editions, over the years).

QuoteYou'd have to review carefully each single spell in the PHB (and any subsequent supplement), their duration, effect, etc... because now you can have multiple targets (several magic missiles for instance) or extended durations on other spells (protection VS evil/chaos/whatever).

You're going looking for complexity where there isn't any. Spells are allready ranked by power level, so you need to come up with a crude nine sets of 'costs' or restrictions (or in older editions 9 for mages, 7 for priests). Not hard at all. Not desireable or flavoursome, but not in any way difficult.

QuoteMost gamers wouldn't even have the wits to design a basic, decent system using mana or something else (in the process having to re-balance all the classes), and very few would be able to pass the existing spelllist through a fine comb and see all the rammifications.

Believe me, I've seen that sort of projects for armor, HPs, spellcasting and they fail because of D&D's main strength: a vast, (for the most part) internally consistent ruleset. You change some little thing here and it creeps up over there.

An interesting couple of statements, every part of which I disagree with

If its a few points here and there that need tweaking, and thats all it is, then most experienced gamers could handle that very easily. While houseruling seems to have become less common in 3rd ed, it isn't any more difficult.

Such projects that I have seen for armour (mostly involving damage reduction to make the combat less simulationist and more abstract)  and hit points (usually involving hit location) have worked just fine; it isn't desperately difficult to fit that in.

As for the mostly internally consistent ruleset... No. D&D didn't just get invented all of a sudden; its made up of many different contributions that have been re-engineered over and over until there is a facade of unity. On the one occasion someone tried to come up with a single unified mechanic, if you look at the rules changes requested for 4th ed over at the Wizards site, it didn't really work as a unified mechanic. D&D never has been that kind of game, I doubt whether it ever will or should be.

QuoteIt would take months and months for a single, talented individual to accomplish what you are suggesting and he is likely to get a cold reception from many conservative players anyway because "it's not haw it's wrutten in da bookz".

Thinking about it in the cold light of morning, I think it would take about an hour. Any attempt to over-complicated it would make you gibber, but why over complicate it?

Quote from: CabThinking about it in the cold light of morning, I think it would take about an hour. Any attempt to over-complicated it would make you gibber, but why over complicate it?

We obviously disagree on the complexity. If it's so easy to do it right, why haven't you done it already?

An alternative spellcasting system that doesn't require users copious amount of notes in their books, that works well with the rest of the system would sell like hotcake as a .pdf.

I've heard lots of people say it's trivial to change features such as the way damage works, spellcasting or armor/hitting but where are those alternative systems?

Quote from: Consonant DudeWe obviously disagree on the complexity. If it's so easy to do it right, why haven't you done it already?

Because I absolutely don't want to use such a system, I think that Vancian magic is the way forward.

QuoteAn alternative spellcasting system that doesn't require users copious amount of notes in their books, that works well with the rest of the system would sell like hotcake as a .pdf.

I've heard lots of people say it's trivial to change features such as the way damage works, spellcasting or armor/hitting but where are those alternative systems?

Very few such .pdf products make much money, and for the most part groups play using Vancian magic and really rather enjoy it. I think that the lack of fan-contributed free or for sale alternatives speaks volumes for the fact that few creative gamers find Vancian magic problematic.

Quote from: CabBecause I absolutely don't want to use such a system, I think that Vancian magic is the way forward.



Very few such .pdf products make much money, and for the most part groups play using Vancian magic and really rather enjoy it. I think that the lack of fan-contributed free or for sale alternatives speaks volumes for the fact that few creative gamers find Vancian magic problematic.

Interestingly: When D&D is translated for wider audiences (read:Gaming platforms) often the strict vancian magic that you are certain everyone just adores as the 'way forward'... you do realize Jack Vance's heyday was thirty or fourty years ago don't you?... is the first thing to go.

Vancian magic is no better, or worse than any other. Its a lot less instinctive, as is this supposed new system where abilities/spells are 'per encounter'... than other types.  Its the oddity of going 'well, this is a real pickle... If only I knew the Knock spell I would be out of this jam in a piffle. Wait, I do know the knock spell! Alas, I still can't cast it, though I have power to spare...'

People like to think of things that are known being... well, you know... known.  Vancian magic is somewhat 'counterintuitive' from that perspective, and from the aspect of 'fantasy literature' roots, Vance's style of magic don't read much like other, more widely read authors do.  If you parse my odd sentance structure there, I promise it makes sense.

THe reason spell memorization isn't a big deal, is because there's already alternatives written into the game, in the form of alternative classes and rules that can be used in place of it.  

You've got the Sorceror, which can spontaneous cast any spell he knows, the Cleric, who still has memorization but can still always cast his healing spells at the expense of a mem'd spell, and you've even got the Warlock, which has a pretty limited set of cool tricks, but can do them all day long if he feels like it.

Unearthed Arcana also already has spell point rules, and they're even OGL'd, so they can be had for free on the web.  

You don't see waves of people posting house rules not just because they're happy with the rules as is, but also because those who aren't have plenty of alternative avenues within the rules already available.

I'm not a big fan of Vancian Magic, but a huge fan of Zelazney's magic. Functionally the two are incredibly similar, but the difference between hanging a spell and memorizing a spell make the flavor of Zelazny's setup vastly superior IMO.

Quote from: SpikeInterestingly: When D&D is translated for wider audiences (read:Gaming platforms) often the strict vancian magic that you are certain everyone just adores as the 'way forward'... you do realize Jack Vance's heyday was thirty or fourty years ago don't you?... is the first thing to go.

The age of something in a game system is neither here nor there; 'fighting man', or 'figher' has been in systems that became D&D for longer than Vancian magic, doesn't make it outdated. As for D&D being translated for 'wider audiences' being associated with dropping Vancian magic... No, don't recall encountering that happening in D&D. I've seen different interpretations in novels linked to the game, and the magic in that dreadful Dungeons and Dragons film was different of course... Maybe you're right, but I've never seen the link. I've never seen the D&D game successfully translated for a wider audience, though.

QuoteVancian magic is no better, or worse than any other. Its a lot less instinctive, as is this supposed new system where abilities/spells are 'per encounter'... than other types.  Its the oddity of going 'well, this is a real pickle... If only I knew the Knock spell I would be out of this jam in a piffle. Wait, I do know the knock spell! Alas, I still can't cast it, though I have power to spare...'

Thats part of the knack of playing a mage, anticipating the spells you're most likely to need. You'll get it wrong sometimes of course, but thats part of the game. Not sure why theres any real need to change it; if there was, I'm once again drawn back to the question of why people haven't been house-ruling away from it in their droves since, well, the late heyday of Vance.

QuotePeople like to think of things that are known being... well, you know... known.  Vancian magic is somewhat 'counterintuitive' from that perspective, and from the aspect of 'fantasy literature' roots, Vance's style of magic don't read much like other, more widely read authors do.  If you parse my odd sentance structure there, I promise it makes sense.

Hmmm... Vancian magic isn't the most common in literature, but there are parallels. The way Merlin 'hangs' spells in the Amber chronicles is a good example; its just like memorisation, you do the hard work of putting the energy in place early on, then you release that energy with the spell casting later. Thing is, though, I can't think of a single 'unifying' method by which magic in fantasy literature works, at least not one that immediately translates as something handy for gaming.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not a big fan of Vancian Magic, but a huge fan of Zelazney's magic. Functionally the two are incredibly similar, but the difference between hanging a spell and memorizing a spell make the flavor of Zelazny's setup vastly superior IMO.

I always visualised the whole spell memorisation thing to be rather akin to hanging the spell. Just makes a kind of sense.

Quote from: CabI always visualised the whole spell memorisation thing to be rather akin to hanging the spell. Just makes a kind of sense.

Yeah, me too. But that doesn't stop the descriptive underlinings of the rule from bringing the suckage.

Quote from: CabThe age of something in a game system is neither here nor there; 'fighting man', or 'figher' has been in systems that became D&D for longer than Vancian magic, doesn't make it outdated. As for D&D being translated for 'wider audiences' being associated with dropping Vancian magic... No, don't recall encountering that happening in D&D. I've seen different interpretations in novels linked to the game, and the magic in that dreadful Dungeons and Dragons film was different of course... Maybe you're right, but I've never seen the link. I've never seen the D&D game successfully translated for a wider audience, though.
.

You are mistaken in your reading comprehension there. I am not talking about the age of 'vancian magic' within the game, I am talking about Vancian Magic in the general sense.  The entire concept dates back to a set of fiction books written (as far as I recall) between 1960 and 1970 or so, with a +/- of about 5 years.   This fourty year old concept is 'the way forward'... despite having only one near example you could site, being Amber, which is only slightly newer.  Most depictions of mages seem to have some variation of 'at will' spell casting, in fiction.

The limited nature of your arguement is pathetically apparent when you bring in the 'fighter' or 'fighting man' statements. Unlike Mages, 'Fighters' have had real world counterparts for the entire lenght of human history, and despite some osterich behavior from overly civilized decadent western nations, will continue to be a part of the history of humanity for the forseeable future and beyond.  Thus they have absolutely nothing to do at all with the viability of vancian magic as a game design, the topic at hand.

The thing you missed most was the thrust of my statement. I'll lay it out for you so you can't miss it... though I suspect you will given the general style of your posting.

'Something that dates back to the origins of our hobby is not properly called 'the way forward'. That phrase implies a change from 'how things are done'.  The proper method of labeling your Vancian Magic then relies on terms involving 'solid foundations' or 'proven systems' or even 'tradition'.  All those terms imply that something that has persisted for thirty odd years is worth keeping around.'

In short I was poking fun at your use of the exact opposite choice of phrases to defend your obviously favorite magic system.   As I play 'fighting guy' in almost every character, I have no particular bias, other than yes, it is fucking annoying to have to stop after every encounter, no matter how silly, so the Mage can rest for eight hours. I've had games I've played in slow to a crawl, where exploring a simple dungeon took months of character time because of this phenomenon.  As a GM it doesn't happen so much, as I am perfectly willing to punish this sort of turtle play as brutally as logic demands.

I don't mind getting rid of Vancian magic per se, but I don't like how everyone's abilities appear to be continually getting ramped up.

I want D&D to feel like D&D, not Exalted or WoW.

Quote from: jgantsI don't mind getting rid of Vancian magic per se, but I don't like how everyone's abilities appear to be continually getting ramped up.

I'm concerned about this as well. This was one of the rare bits of bad design in 3rd edition and there are indications it will get worse.

Green Ronin gets d20 right in that respect: if survivability/character importance is an issue, just start your campaign at a higher level. This allows you to scale things nicely if you want to run an adventure with very young/novice heroes.

Quote from: SpikeYou are mistaken in your reading comprehension there. I am not talking about the age of 'vancian magic' within the game, I am talking about Vancian Magic in the general sense.  The entire concept dates back to a set of fiction books written (as far as I recall) between 1960 and 1970 or so, with a +/- of about 5 years.

Try nearly 60 years ago. The first Dying Earth book came out in 1950, before Lord of the Rings was even published.

To be fair, the presentation of "Vancian" magic in D&D lacks a lot of the distinctive flavour of Dying Earth magic - probably sensibly, since Gygax and Arneson were going for a fairly generic fantasy game, but I still have a soft spot for the whimisical nature of the books

I don't want to argue semantics...oh who am I kidding..

Quote from: Spike'Something that dates back to the origins of our hobby is not properly called 'the way forward'. That phrase implies a change from 'how things are done'.

In this we must disagree. I've never seen 'the way forward' as having an explicit or implicit requirement that it include a break from the past.

Quote from: SpikeThe proper method of labeling your Vancian Magic then relies on terms involving 'solid foundations' or 'proven systems' or even 'tradition'. All those terms imply that something that has persisted for thirty odd years is worth keeping around.'

This is true. These are very accurate terms for Vancian Magic in the D&D system. However, I disagree that all of them imply something is worth keeping around; particularly these days terms like 'tradition' are often disparaged.
 
In other words, the terms 'tradition' (or 'solid foundation') and 'the way forward' are not mutually exclusive; in fact are often used in conjunction. "Building on this solid foundation is the way forward."

Quote from: SpikeAs I play 'fighting guy' in almost every character, I have no particular bias, other than yes, it is fucking annoying to have to stop after every encounter, no matter how silly, so the Mage can rest for eight hours. I've had games I've played in slow to a crawl, where exploring a simple dungeon took months of character time because of this phenomenon.  As a GM it doesn't happen so much, as I am perfectly willing to punish this sort of turtle play as brutally as logic demands.

I think Cab's point is this is not the Vancian Magic system at fault.  For example, once the Cleric has cast his allottment of CLW, if the party is still, or suddenly becomes, weak, the party will stop. If there is a trap that the rogue cannot disarm, the party will stop.  If the fighter is down to extremely low HP (like, say 2), the party will stop.

Whereas I would counter by saying it's not just Vancian Magic - a lot of other influences (players too afraid to lose a treasured character, not thinking creatively, unwillingness to run the fuck away, etc) lead to this effect. Vancian Magic and it's priestly counterpart are a big chunk, but not insurmountable nor the only influence.

Quote from: jgantsI don't mind getting rid of Vancian magic per se, but I don't like how everyone's abilities appear to be continually getting ramped up.

I want D&D to feel like D&D, not Exalted or WoW.

It's not my cuppa either.  I've referred to it as the arms race. I'm sure there are tons of folks who like it (hell, D&D wouldn't be heading in that direction if they didn't think there was a market). But this was my thought after reading Bo9S and hearing the reasoning run in the lines of "well, fighters were underpowered, so this is a good thing."

Now we hear that magic users are underpowered and per-encounter casting is a good thing. As you say, it seems everything keeps getting ramped up - and that might be a good thing for a lot, if not most, folks - just not my thing.

As always, much of this depends on the implementation as I could see some ways to do this that don't introduce the arms race without supplements - the core remains fairly low power but sets the mechanic up for later levels/expansions.  If done right, it could end up serving all different kinds of tastes along the spectrum....

Quote from: SpikeMost depictions of mages seem to have some variation of 'at will' spell casting, in fiction, including D&D Fiction.

Just wanted to add a little to your point.