Quote from: Xanther;935460The mid-points, which is what game design is all about, is to give more slots in a fire-n-forget system (but you might get spam issues (just choosing a lot of hammers) as spells tend to be more powerful in such systems).  In a spell point system you lower the number of spell slots, not so much only a combat spell chosen, but not so many to make it a spell selection meaningless.

I rather like the idea of somewhat randomized spell lists combined with a spell slot system. This could be completely random, themed (e.g. I pick 2 evocations and 1 conjuration but don't get to choose which ones), or involve trade offs (yes, you can have magic missile but you lose these other choices).

For spell points, I like the idea of trade offs or pressure against always choosing the best spell for a particular situation (like general combat). For instance, maybe there's a penalty for casting the same spell over and over again, so you have to switch it up. Or have spell chains, where choosing one type of spell means you have to choose another type of spell as a follow up, and so on in a branching tree structure. Or maybe spells are tied to circumstances, so the dynamic changes whether the moon or the sun is high in the sky.

Quote from: Pat;935462To borrow your words, that's bogus and utter bullshit.

Though that's not because I think your conclusions are off the wall. It's because your premise is wrong -- you're disagreeing with something I never said.

In that case I apologize.

QuoteSpell points do away with those separate pools segregated by level, and put all the spells into a single pool where they all compete with each other. Instead of a 5th level magic-user having 3 optimal general-use offensive spells for each of the 3 spell levels, there's now 1. Which means if fireball is better in terms of point cost and damage output than magic missile, then magic missile will basically vanish (or vice versa).

This is based on an assumption on how the memorization mechanic works, there is nothing to say you can't keep the same slot structure (that is a limited number of level 3 slots that can only be use for level 3).  It also comes down to how you balance mana cost with level.  So it is not an inherent situation with spell point systems, although it is a weakness.  I use a system where you have a certain number of levels you can memorize.

QuoteMy ideal solution is actually neither. I'd prefer a system that encourages casters to choose some of those second and third tier spells, without going to the spell point extreme where a magic-user will always have the solution to every problem as long as they know the right spell.

Well if a separate thread appears in game design I can go on about how I think I've found that solution.

Quote from: Xanther;935464Sorry Ashakyre, I'm a big proponent of mana point systems and almost all the complaints I've seen (besides of course stylistic preference) are based on bad design not a fundamental flaw with the concept.

I can share what I've done that works, the very specific details, maybe better if you have a thread under game design.  I originally did mana points as a change to our AD&D game.  After got things balanced, you would be surprised how much the modules played the same under the new magic system.  Ran this through so many of the modules, multiple times, with multiple groups.

Your answers are pointing towards the information Im looking for. Actually, everybody has been making good points.

Quote from: Pat;935465I rather like the idea of somewhat randomized spell lists combined with a spell slot system. This could be completely random, themed (e.g. I pick 2 evocations and 1 conjuration but don't get to choose which ones), or involve trade offs (yes, you can have magic missile but you lose these other choices).

I do like the flavor of some randomness but found you can players to choose a good selection with well designed spells and a campaign that has more than just combat as a means to all ends.

QuoteFor spell points, I like the idea of trade offs or pressure against always choosing the best spell for a particular situation (like general combat). For instance, maybe there's a penalty for casting the same spell over and over again, so you have to switch it up. Or have spell chains, where choosing one type of spell means you have to choose another type of spell as a follow up, and so on in a branching tree structure. Or maybe spells are tied to circumstances, so the dynamic changes whether the moon or the sun is high in the sky.

I like it to, but found it overly complicated for the pay off.  So in the end, if players want to use the same spell over and over in combat, so be it.  I don't see any difference than the fighter using the same weapon over and over.  What I do is design adventures where no one weapon or spell is going to be optimal, and in fact sub-optimal in certain situations.  

One easy way to limit combat spell spamming, have a chance of spell failure and if there is some failure the spell backfires on the caster.  Maybe not a full effect, but a combat spell backfiring hurt the caster (maybe 1 HP per level of spell) whereas a utility spell would not.  No need to track casting the odds themselves do the work for you.  In general, I only impose spell failure possibility in high stress casting situations like combat.

To expand the discussion... there's a certain quality to a Vancian system I can't quite articulate, and it seems lost in my system. I'm not sure it has to do with the numbers. (It might, I'm not sure.)

A mana point system like mine (it could just be a design problem on my end) feels good in terms of the sense of having magical power flow through you, and you get tired after a while and need to recharge. Very wheel of time -esque. But the spells feel a little industrial, too efficient, too figured out. In a Vancian system, for whatever reasons, magic feels arcane and weird and unknowable. There's more reasons for a mage to study books, use runes, learn languages.

In a Vancian system, a spell can feel like a random thing a very specific historical person tinkered with and figured out. In a mana point system, spells feel likeraw natural power.

For those who feel me out, how do I get the best of both worlds in a mana point system?

Quote from: Xanther;935471I do like the flavor of some randomness but found you can players to choose a good selection with well designed spells and a campaign that has more than just combat as a means to all ends.

I'm actually not a fan of "well designed spells". I like spells that are all over the board, in terms of effectiveness. I like that there are weaker and less effective spells. I just want the less effective spells to show up, too. And they will, if, for instance, you're playing a caster and your best 3rd level offensive spell is flaming arrow. Your friend with fireball may be a better overall blaster, but you might have better defensive spells to compensate.

Which points to another alternative -- don't just pay points to cast spells, also require them to pay points to choose spells in the first place. If fireball and flame arrow cost the same to cast, but you have to give up a wider selection spells if you choose fireball, it's a real choice again.

(And from a practical standpoint, it's really really hard to make every spell equally effective without making them all very similar, so removing that pressure is a good thing.)

Quote from: Xanther;935471I like it to, but found it overly complicated for the pay off.  So in the end, if players want to use the same spell over and over in combat, so be it.  I don't see any difference than the fighter using the same weapon over and over.  What I do is design adventures where no one weapon or spell is going to be optimal, and in fact sub-optimal in certain situations.  

True about fighters, but I don't think it's inherently more complex than the current magic system. But that really boils down to different preferences.

I find the whole chain thing to be a fascinating mechanic. It's shown up in all kinds of games, but I'd love to see it applied to magic in an RPG.

Quote from: Xanther;935471In general, I only impose spell failure possibility in high stress casting situations like combat.

I'd usually do that with most skills... but I tend to lump spell failure under the vagaries of magic and beyond the control of the magic user... though there should be additional penalties if the magic user is attacked/distracted while casting.
I generally want magic to be tool that remains a bit scary and mysterious... but powerful enough that some people still dare to use it.
I don't mind if it gets a bit 'fussy' because the fuss can be used as adventure hooks.

Quote from: Xanther;935446I've found exactly the opposite.  First, this kind of behavior is only followed when you have very few spells you can memorize, which is an essential limiting factor when you have fire-and-forget spells.  That is, a fire-and-forget scenario means players never fill a slot with a utility spell, they don't have a repertoire of different spells (in fact you can't have a repertoire if you can only memorize 1 or 2 spells) far from it.  The Fireball example is the posterchild of why fire-and-forget limits spell casting.  If given a choice, I have never seen a player (or myself) in 35+ years of playing choose anything but Fireball when first given the chance.  When you can have one 3rd level spell you can use once, you choose the most powerful get-out-o-the-shit spell you can.

Only if you have shitty referees who design nothing but situations where "FIREBALL" is the correct answer every time, shitty fighters who stand around doing nothing while the magic user does everything with FIREBALL, and shitty magic users who insist on killing everything with FIREBALL.

In other words, bullshit on toast au gratin.  In 44 years of this stupid hobby I've observed just the OPPOSITE.  Yes, if you have only one third level spell you pick the SAVE ME choice.  But any group of players too stupid to take advantage of the versatility of magic is too stupid to shit unassisted, as is any referee stupid enough to design a world where that works.

Quote from: Pat;935474I'm actually not a fan of "well designed spells". I like spells that are all over the board, in terms of effectiveness. I like that there are weaker and less effective spells. I just want the less effective spells to show up, too. And they will, if, for instance, you're playing a caster and your best 3rd level offensive spell is flaming arrow. Your friend with fireball may be a better overall blaster, but you might have better defensive spells to compensate.

I think you might confuse my well designed spells with the balance concept D&D 3.5 had.  By well designed I think of general power level for what the spell is designed for, it really is about having a certain power feel for a 1st level spell.  I want the 3rd level utility spell to attract the player just as much as the 3rd level combat spell.  They will never be the same as they serve different purposes.

I don't divide spells by uses, but more by type in my approach.  So yes you can choose a blaster path (in my game Elemental magic) but another may choose the path that provides illusions, enchantments and divination (the Mentalist magic path).  I do like to make the power level (which I realize is purely subjective for many spells) the same within a spell level so all spells of a certain level cost the same to cast or power and take the same number of memorizations "slots."

QuoteWhich points to another alternative -- don't just pay points to cast spells, also require them to pay points to choose spells in the first place. If fireball and flame arrow cost the same to cast, but you have to give up a wider selection spells if you choose fireball, it's a real choice again.

This is similar to the TFT system. It works well and would be easy to add onto even a fire-n-forget system.  In addition you needed a minimum IQ to learn certain spells.  I do like this and have thought about including it.  I Like making Fireball vs Flame Arrow both different in casting cost and in acquiring.

Quote(And from a practical standpoint, it's really really hard to make every spell equally effective without making them all very similar, so removing that pressure is a good thing.)

I don't mean equally effective in terms of game mechanics, but more in how enticing they are to players.   How do you compare a spell that give you infravision to one that sends forth magical bolts of energy?  

When it comes to pure combat spells (attack and defense) there is the matter of how equal you want attack and defense to be, that's simple numbers, and how you differentiate between damage types, if you do.   I can go into how I balance it all, but the general principal is no one spell (at a given level) does all things, so you need to choose ones that go with your tactics (or vice versa)  I love having players manage resources by having to choose between several good, but different, options.

QuoteTrue about fighters, but I don't think it's inherently more complex than the current magic system. But that really boils down to different preferences.

My preference has always been to play spell casters so I designed a system I like to play.  I like how in spell point systems I can control how much power I channel into a spell.  I could cast, e.g., 3 weak Magic Missiles or one uber Magic Missile, but the choice is mine, or one Magic Missile and one Read Magic, etc..  My overall goal is to make utility spells come up more in the game.  I still want magic to be a limited resource (level appropriate of course) that must be used wisely, there is a chance it fails and it can hurt you when it does.

QuoteI find the whole chain thing to be a fascinating mechanic. It's shown up in all kinds of games, but I'd love to see it applied to magic in an RPG.

I do to.  It shows up in combat in all kinds of computer games.   It seems like a lot of work though, if putting any specific rules around it, and you run the risk of players always just doing those chains because they are so good.

Quote from: tenbones;935420What about the mechanics of 3e Expanded Psionics? I believe they tried to leverage that as their optional spellpoint system in 3e later? You have "spells" but your points you pump into the "spell" increases/expands the effects. This allows for dynamic scaling that the standard D&D Vancian rules keeps locked down by level/slot.

That goes all the way back to OD&D. The optional PSI powers used points to fuel powers.

I like both as depending on the system both have their place and uses.

I do though like 5e's system as it functions as both slots and points and with some limitations on how much you can apply and to what spells.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;935500Only if you have shitty referees who design nothing but situations where "FIREBALL" is the correct answer every time, shitty fighters who stand around doing nothing while the magic user does everything with FIREBALL, and shitty magic users who insist on killing everything with FIREBALL.

In other words, bullshit on toast au gratin.  In 44 years of this stupid hobby I've observed just the OPPOSITE.  Yes, if you have only one third level spell you pick the SAVE ME choice.  But any group of players too stupid to take advantage of the versatility of magic is too stupid to shit unassisted, as is any referee stupid enough to design a world where that works.

I agree with you on shitty referees, but even with good referees where Fireball doesn't work even half the time, when you have one fire-n-forget third level spell; I agree you pick the save me choice.  That is the whole point really.   In a spell point system you can still only be able to cast one spell of that level, but it is possible to have it be from among a larger number of choices, even if small like 2 or 3.  

I've been at this about 10 years less than you, and never played in the original games, but never saw anyone (no matter how much they wanted to) when they had less than 4 spells to choose from, pick Tongues or Fireball; or Read Magic or Mending or Message over Sleep or Magic Missile.  Well except for me, I've chosen Mending; and believe Unseen Servant is one of the best 1st level AD&D spells ever.

"Vancian" spell-slots (D&D): positives - small number of spells "on hand" forces the player to limit their entire spell book to a few "useful" abilities promoting planning and creative use of spells on hand. negatives - you can't change your "hand" until your party gets a long-rest, you end up throwing darts at everything, etc.

"Mana-point" systems: positives - caster feels he can access any spell at any time, mana-cost limits total castings per day. negatives - option paralysis as the caster must consult their entire spellbook for each problem, but can generally resolve anything conflict/obstacles if they have the right spell and enough mana.

My preferred solution:

Earthdawn-style "Matrix" casting (pseudo-Vancian): Casters have "slots" that they can change out on the fly. High mana spells take multiple rounds to prepare.

(Metaphysics history: Before the Scourge, mages learned spells by incorporating spell patterns into their own astral pattern, drawing mana through themselves, suffering mana-burn/shadowrun-style-drain if they messed up. Spells could be used as often as you like, but some require gathering enough mana in order to cast. Then the Horrors arrive, and it is discovered that this form of spellcasting makes you light up in the astral plane like a "FREE BUFFET" at a lovecraftian-casino. Many active mages go missing or are driven mad by things at the edges of their sight. The Nethermancer mages then experimented with storing Spell Patterns in the astral imprints of mundane objects, rings, wands, etc. Casting with these "Spell Matrix Objects" required touching them, and drawing the mana through them for a number of rounds depending on the power required by the spell. This reduces the astral "flare" and allowed spellcasting without the things from the dungeon dimensions taking notice. They then learned how to separate the astral "matrix" from the object and tie it to their own pattern like a small balloon - and the Spell Matrix Talent was born.)

Phew, Ok, so... Each mage has a number of "spell matrices", artificial blobs of raw mana that are connected to their astral pattern. They can re-shape these matrices to hold the core "pattern" of a spell, draw mana through the Matrix into the physical plane, and there-by manifest the spell effect. Spells that require more mana take a number of rounds to "weave mana threads into the spell pattern" (thus fleshing it out from the basics in the matrix to the full mana-pattern representing the desired effect).

You can take 15 minutes of meditation to swap out all your matrices for any spell in your spellbook. You can take 1 combat round to try to swap 1 matrix "on the fly" (and if you botch, you wipe out all your matrices). Basic procedure is: select a spell in a Matrix, roll Threadweaving against the spell difficulty until it is fully charged, roll Spellcasting against target's Mystic Defense, calculate # of successes and determine spell effects. Spells have descriptors that allow you to spend additional Spellcasting successes on additional effects, and as a mage Circles up they can "overweave" a spell and add one or two extra threads for extra effects. Commonly, 1 extra thread allows you to cast a Buff on your whole team at once, instead of individually. So, your Elementalist can take 1 round to swap Fireball out for Air Armor, take 1-2 rounds casting it on all 10 of his companions, then a final round swapping back to Fireball. You only had to stall kicking that door down by 30 seconds instead of 1-2 minutes of time to cast Air Armor on all your companions (& track separate durations ACK !!!).

Quote from: estar;935456I played 20 years of GURPS with it moderately complex mana based spell system. (...) I had many players come up with combo of a handful of spells and that what they do nearly all the damn time.

I once changed the AD&D spell system to a mana-based, open, verb+noun system (à la Ars Magica).
The first thing the magic-using players did was rebuilding their standard AD&D spells (knock, magic missile, sleep)... and thanks to not having to memorize them "spamming" the game with them.

I was pretty disappointed. I felt like I had them handed the world and all they wanted to do was staying in their backyard.

The downsides listed seem mostly to be potential issues with any magic system (too complex, too much book-keeping, too powerful). The interesting difference to me is that in some ways a spell point system sometimes encourages more varied use of spells (as a spell you wouldn't ever learn now gets cast when it becomes useful) but on the other hand it sometimes encourages less varied use of spells (as you can always cast the "best spell" for the situation).
My approach is to have spell lists with separate mana pools for each list.  That means that you cannot cast all spells – only the lists you took – and you can run out of mana in one list so have to resort to another list. This forces you to be creative with your spells, and keeps the number to choose from manageable. People also don't want to run out in one list in case they need a different spell from that list later, so switch to using a different list rather than spamming the spell. It does require you to do slightly more book-keeping than a single pool, but usually I just make a note when a spell is cast under their name and the spell list, and only if it looks like they might run out in that list do I start putting numbers down.