Quote from: Peregrin;361252Foster, I'm just curious.  How are spell/mana points worse than fire-and-forget?  Fantasy Craft managed to use them in conjunction with making spellcasting a skill to help give melee users a significant edge without resorting to 'all-you-can-eat' low-powered bits.  The fact that they also refresh per scene rather than in an allotted amount of game-time means that spellcasters won't be sucking their thumbs later on in an adventure, either.  Also, from a fluff-perspective, I think spell/mana points can help give the feeling that you're channeling energy but that it's also limited rather than something you can just innately pull out of thin-air.

I don't think spell/manna points are "worse" than fire-and-forget spells, just that they impart a different feel that doesn't match as well what I want for magic-users. Also, I must confess I'm utterly unfamiliar with FantasyCraft's implementation and had more in mind RuneQuest (or, for that matter, AD&D psionics) -- where the caster has a certain number of points available, knows various spells each with an associated point-cost, and can cast any of those spells in any combination until he runs out of points, in which case he has to wait until his points refresh and can then cast some more.

This has a very "internal" feel to me -- the spells are part of the character's mind or psyche, and his use of them is limited only by his personal energy reservoir. Whereas in the Vancian (for lack of a better word) system, spells are entirely external to the caster -- they're formulas in books that he studies and enacts in order to tap into external power sources to achieve specific effects. The power neither comes from the caster nor is it being channeled through him -- it's already out there in the world and he's just learned the methods of triggering and manipulating it.

I like magic that feels not like the caster needs to have any particular inborn talent or ability, but that it's something he's learned and mastered through mental accuity and years of study and practice. In this regard I think it's also important to remember that the "casting time" of spells (in AD&D) is really just the "triggering time" -- the time needed to complete the formula and trigger the effect in a particular time and place -- but that before you can get to that point even the simplest level 1 spells require a considerable investment of study and preparation time up-front. Power Word Kill is triggered in a single segment (6 seconds), but in order to be able to do that you have to have first done 2 hours 15 minutes of arduous study and preparation, and to have had at least 12 hours of rest prior to that to be in the proper mental state to even make the attempt. Poster 837204563 mentioned upthread the notion of "all spells as rituals" as a potential rules-change, but when you include the rest and preparation times they already are, it's just that most of the ritual has been performed offstage before the session starts.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361262Take the d20 system's core mechanic of d20+modifiers vs. ascending target number representing difficulty. All in all a lot more elegant than AD&D's old way of percentage roles, high rolls, low rolls, d10 rolls for initiative. Or looking everything up amidst numerous fucking charts.

If only it were that simple.

Without even digging into the books, I can probably name a half dozen modifiers in 3.x that apply consistently (BaB, Str bonus, etc), another half-dozen that are situational (spells, magic items), and all of them have to be checked against the others to make sure they can stack.  4e may have trimmed the list a bit, but added another whole section of complexities with the powers and their effects, especially the movement effects.

And those modifiers are scattered among at least two books, and gods help you if you are using splats.  Further, with the 4e design goal of 'each monster is special', you now have an additional set of books to reference for modifiers and movement effects.  

You have a unique definition of 'streamlined'.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361269My point is that the challenge resolution mechanic which has formed the core of the game system since third edition is a definite improvement over the older systems to all but the most delusional TSR holdouts.

That might be your point, but you have yet to show how it is valid.  In other words, your positive assertion doesn't make it true.  In fact, as I have just shown, your premise isn't even necessarily correct.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361269Could have used a D10, could have used a D100.

My point is that the challenge resolution mechanic which has formed the core of the game system since third edition is a definite improvement over the older systems to all but the most delusional TSR holdouts.

It'd be great if they actually managed to make the game surrounding that core mechanic run smoothly.  3.x was basically 'Cross-Reference Edition', and 4e just runs slow as shit unless you study which specific encounter builds to avoid.  That's ignoring the real problems with the systems, like cascading stat effects in 3.x, or feat bloat.

Not a TSR holdout here, either.  I was born in '87, I could give a shit about when the game was made, but I can certainly tell OD&D/Basic is a hell of a lot easier to work with than 3.x from a DM's perspective, and a lot easier than 4e from a player's perspective (my demo games with new players have indicated to me that, despite being advertised as noob friendly, 4e fails by overwhelming new entrants).

That's not to say I hate 3e or 4e -- I don't.  But they're not better in every aspect, and they're certainly different games from older editions, to the point of almost being unrecognizable in terms of gameplay style, so what's better for an adventure-path style game that 3e or 4e encourages may not be as good for site-based/sandbox play like older editions.

4E=Norton antivirus
it gets bigger and slower every iteration and they keep telling you its getting better

Quote from: T. Foster;361232I suppose I'm too hung up on Vance (and Bellairs, and the second Amber series, and Susanna Clarke) but I don't want magic-users to have intrinsic, at-will, infinitely usable magical abilities. I want them to be ordinary humans and spells to be something difficult that require a lot of study, a lot of practice, and a lot of preparation, so that casting a spell, even a lowly "1st level" one, is a big fucking deal.

Hell yeah.  (What's the Old Norse for that?)

FWIW, I'm not against a manna/spell-point system.  I'm just don't like it in my D&D game.  To me, so-called Vancian-magic is part of what makes D&D feel like D&D.  

(On the other hand, I'd readily play a D&D-based game with a different magic system—like Spell Law, for example—but it wouldn't have them same feel, to me.)

Quote from: T. Foster;361272I don't think spell/manna points are "worse" than fire-and-forget spells, just that they impart a different feel that doesn't match as well what I want for magic-users.

Gotcha, and I can totally empathize.  I also prefer mechanics that help put forth a certain flavor.

Quote from: Peregrin;361281Gotcha, and I can totally empathize.  I also prefer mechanics that help put forth a certain flavor.

To echo what Philotomy said above, even though I like the Vancian system (or something like it) for magic-users, I wouldn't be opposed to a spell-point-type system for another type of caster, someone whose magic was inborn rather than learned -- like psionics (if the psionics rules in OD&D/AD&D didn't suck) or the magic used by elves and faeries (a la the notion from Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, that human magic -- the complex formulas contained in spell books -- is an attempt to reproduce via scholarship the same effects that elves and faeries perform naturally and instinctually).

Quote from: T. Foster;361286...even though I like the Vancian system...for magic-users, I wouldn't be opposed to a spell-point-type system for another type of caster...like psionics...or the magic used by elves and faeries (a la the notion from Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, that human magic -- the complex formulas contained in spell books -- is an attempt to reproduce via scholarship the same effects that elves and faeries perform naturally and instinctually).

Yeah, what he said.  (This is my all-too-common refrain following T. Foster's posts...)

Quote from: T. Foster;361286To echo what Philotomy said above, even though I like the Vancian system (or something like it) for magic-users, I wouldn't be opposed to a spell-point-type system for another type of caster, someone whose magic was inborn rather than learned -- like psionics (if the psionics rules in OD&D/AD&D didn't suck) or the magic used by elves and faeries (a la the notion from Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, that human magic -- the complex formulas contained in spell books -- is an attempt to reproduce via scholarship the same effects that elves and faeries perform naturally and instinctually).

That would be cool.  It's also one of the reasons I'm fond of the implied setting that Burning Wheel has (say what you will about the system/game).  Elves have their own distinct magic via spell songs, and humans/orcs use sorcery.  It helps distinguish the cultures/races a bit.

That's one of the things I really don't get out of 4e and it's power-system -- that sort of "world-flavor."  It works wonderfully from a game perspective, but from a world-building perspective is just lacks panache.  You no longer have differing sorts of resource management for each class (let alone different types of magic) and I think that takes away something from the game.

Back in the day, there was one 1E AD&D game I played in where the DM had a houseruled magic system based on expending hit points to cast spells, instead of the default AD&D vancian system.  This homebrewed system did something like cast a level X spell, at the cost of X hit points.

In practice at low levels, it wasn't any better that the default vancian slots system.  With a d4 hit dice for magic users, a level 1 magic user typically had at most 3 hit points to expend in casting spells without falling unconscious (ie. for a magic user with 4 hit points at level 1, without any constitution bonus).

Quote from: Peregrin;361290That's one of the things I really don't get out of 4e and it's power-system -- that sort of "world-flavor."  It works wonderfully from a game perspective, but from a world-building perspective is just lacks panache.  You no longer have differing sorts of resource management for each class (let alone different types of magic) and I think that takes away something from the game.

It is in that sense hardly worse than 3e. In that game, you have:

* 7 pseudo-Vancian (2 spont.; effectively only 3 spell lists with a few extra spells chucked in)

* 4 non-casters (mostly with variations of "I hit things")

Not exactly the stuff of world-building (for me.) If mechanics are taken to be that significant, that is.

if you do not play 4E you have brain damage

Quote from: steelmax73;361297if you do not play 4E you have brain damage

Duhr?

Steelmax is a 4E haters sock puppet account trying to incite you guys into anti-4E unity once again. I would just ignore him.