69 réponses à ce sujet

[I_Raps]

nicethugbert wrote...

So, my questions remain. Why are we interested in spellcasters not being able to cast spells? What else are they supposed to do to entertain the player?

Watching Sand getting chewed up by a *spoiler*  was quite entertaining.

Having to pick up hundreds of items dumped from no-longer-magic bags and relay them back up the rope in HoTU was not, speaking of anti-magic zones.

Modifié par I_Raps, 06 septembre 2010 - 05:59 .

[Thorsson64]

I feel sure that Vancian magic was made to stop a Wizard being insanely powerful. In Vance's books more complex spells also take a long time to cast. The books couldn't exist as written if the Wizards were too powerful. Poor Cugel would be fly-meat.



For those of you who have the misfortune not to have read these excellent books I list them here:



* The Dying Earth (collection of linked stories, 1950)

* The Eyes of the Overworld (novel, 1966)

* Cugel's Saga (novel, 1983)

* Rhialto the Marvellous (three linked stories, 1984)



I read the 2nd, 3rd, 4th as they came out, but it took me a long time to get a copy of the 1st via a reprint.



Now as a system maybe it's not great, but without a limiter on casting then you'd have to limit the spells' power, or find some other way to tone down casters. Warlock is toned down in several ways compared to a Wizard, for example.

[kamalpoe]

Keep in mind in PnP many spells used to have longer casting times, especially higher level spells. A few such as geas still do.

[nicethugbert]

Whatever magic system Vance created, he created it for a novel, an entirely deterministic environment, not a randomized environment like D&D. I never read the novels, but, I suspect it's a stretch to say there is a magic system in there. I suspect he made it up as he went along, that it's an arbitrary story telling device.



D&D itself is a story telling device, randomized and interactive.



So, what stories can you tell with a particular magic systems? TMGS is an example of what you can do with a particular Vancianish magic system in NWN2.

[nicethugbert]

IIRC, in D&D, you can put lower level spells in higher level slots at no cost. So, it's similar to spell points.



NWN2 lacks circle magic and magic research. But, D&D is sketchy on magic research anyway, so it's largely up to the DM.



It's up to the DM to make it all work but each system is best suited to a particular story style and pace.

[Haplose]

In DnD you can also get the metamagic feat Heighten spell which allows you to improve the DC of a lower level spell by putting it in a higher level slot.
Can be usefull sometimes.

But overall yeah, I do agree that the Vancian system makes little sense, except in a tighttly and intricately planned, paced and controlled environment. Yes, such as TGMS 
It realyl works well there.

Modifié par Haplose, 07 septembre 2010 - 06:12 .

[dunniteowl]

What's a Magic User Supposed to Do When Not Using Magic?
NTB, I don't know what a magic user is supposed to do when s/he can't cast spells, but what's a fighter to do when s/he can't wield a weapon to get through a situation?  Doesn't that also happen in D&D?  This is why I was totally plussed by the question.  As it stands and according to this discussion, the fact that there are times when a character cannot engage in it's specialty is, to my view, a non-issue.

There's always going to be some situations that cannot be solved with a single class' abilities that are their primary element of use.  Consider, though, that there are also going to be times when, say, a spellcaster may choose to NOT use spells to solve a situation.  Various reasons apply here.  Possibly they are going to reserve their spells for a more dangerous or problematic situation?  What if they are hoping that the melee fighting types can hold their own against whatever it is, allowing them to focus on using spells to overcome obstacles that they cannot?

And in the case of the other characters, they cannot always use their primary talents or class skills, either.

So what's a fighter supposed to do when he can't swing his pointy little piece of metal?
It goes 'round and 'round.

In any case, mages are supposed to be smart, so they should be able to figure something out when they can't cast a spell.  Study, education, research, intelligence (which in D&D stats is an amalgam of eduction, nascent intellect, awareness, logic and reason) and experience should make of a mage a formidable thinker and problem solver in any situation that isn't best solved by a drawn sword and brute force.  And in those instances, standing out of the way is what they are supposed to do, IIRC.

Ptolemy Was Wrong, Plain and Simple:
Again, I will add that all those Feats, and other such things -- while useful in their own right and serve to add variety -- sort of make my point re: the allusion to adding more to the system, vis-a-vis the Ptolemaic concept of just keep adding more to a system that already has some serious flaws in it's initial construction.

If anything, going from 2.0 to 3.0, then 3.5, and now 4.0, those were the times when the opportune moment to make serious changes to the magic framework was hot and no-one struck that iron.

And I also agree: Spell research has always been a bit 'dodgy' in that the game mechanics -- especially in cRPGs -- do not adequately reflect the scholarly and research aspects of being an Arcane mage.  Then again, while I haven't pored through my 3.5 materials, there is a wealth of information in my 1st and 2d edition AD&D materials that details the time, cost and material components necessary to conduct different types of spell research, item creation, enchantments to said items and the like to make a decent stab at creating at least a simulacrum of that for any interested party.

Of course, in a cRPG, such spell research is prohibitive in that the indicators are that most of such things take weeks, at least; months in some cases, and for new and different things, sometimes years.  That doesn't translate well to adventuring.

I am, and have been, creating a magic system that initially was based in a 2nd ed AD&D game framework.  It was originally going to use a simple spell point system, but when I dug it back out of mothballs, I realized I had to account for Druids, Mages, Bards, Clerics, Paladins, Rangers and now, Spellcasting PrCs, Warlocks, Sorcerors, all of whom use and accrue magical power in slightly different ways.

I could see a Vancian system for Arcane Magic.  Even owing for Deific and Nature magic (those would be for Clerics/Paladins and Druids/Rangers) as well as for Bardic magic (which I have trouble classifying as either Nature, Deific or Arcane) not using a method of holding the forms in their heads, waiting to be released.  I mean, it really just doesn't hold together.  A deifically granted magical power supposes that your deity grants this boon and allows it to be held within the being and used as this being sees fit, releasing it with the completion of a prayer or command, perhaps, that also works to invoke the name of their deity?  I guess.  But that's not really Vancian casting, even though the method and order and slotting of spells all works from that.  Vancian-like, yes, but not strictly Vancian.  The Vancian system really only applies to Arcane magic, scholarly study and research, training and preparation.

And this is ultimately, why I don't like the Vancian system as a whole.  As a game mechanic in D&D it is made to work, but for Clerics, Priests, Bards, Paladins, Rangers, Shamans, and any other character class that doesn't use specifically Arcane magic, there's really no basis for the mechanic in the first place.  It doesn't hold up within the framework of the way magic is posited to work, because with Deific, Nature and Arcane Magics (at least, possibly more) at loose in the world, the strictures of the Arcane study, research and education in the specific nature of magic and how it is held in the mind doesn't hold up for the other kinds of magic available.  And it in no way comes remotely close to explaining the nature of a Warlock or a Sorceror as a class of magic user that somehow just has, either an affinity for using magic untrained; or, due to some background lineage, has magic in their blood -- and so the rules no longer apply.

That's where I see the disconnect.  Of course, it's obvious I overthink things in this manner and so no-one should worry, really.  For me it's an academic pursuit of fitting magic -- any magic -- into a framework that allows you to be either a Druid, Shaman, Witch (using Ritual magic as well as Nature magic) or a Priest, Cleric, Monk or Paladin (as well as things like the Assassin, Pale Master, etc.) using Deific and/or Demonic and Ritual magics, or being a Bard *(using something I have termed Bardic magic, which might be an offshoot of Nature magic, as it taps into the flow of magic in all people, as well as creatures and nature) or some combination.

Vancian Casting is pretty much just that.  If, in the system I am working up, you wish to use a Vancian Rule of casting for Arcane mages, great!  There will be an allotment of spell points in your mana pool that matches the number and level of spells you can cast, and you can 'enforce' the limits of Y spells of X level, per level and use the whole Fire and Forget system and skip using the spell points, or use the spell points and allow a character to decide how many and of what type spells they can 'hold in their mind' as long as they have the alloted spell points to do so.  Or... you could decide that they have X spell points to use how they see fit.  Cast a 1st level spell, it costs this many points to cast.  Cast a level 2 spell and it costs this many.

If you wish to get more involved, you could say that, a level 6 mage could cast a level 1 spell as a 6th level *(you know how spells improve in power, range, area of effect as a mage's level increases) caster, or reduce the spell point cost and cast said spell at a lower level of power.  Or, hey, take a bit of a chance and 'pump' up that spell, by expending additional spell points and cast that 1st level spell as if you were a 7th or 8th level caster (and increase the risk, of course, of spell failure or loss of HPs as you accidentally draw off your own life force instead of your mana pool.)

That's the kind of system I envision.  One that allows for Vancian Casting, or any other form of casting -- all residing within one larger framework.  Sort of like using Newtonian Mechanics to describe your physical world, even though Einsteinian Mechanics does a more comprehensive job, or a more Hawking-esque set of mechanics going even further.  The Newtonian mechanics will work, and they work well for many things, but some things they cannot cover and so another system must be used.

All those Physics Models or Mechanics fit underneath an overarching system that allows them all to work, because this larger system's rules encompass them and more.  I see Vancian Casting as a subsystem of how magic could operate and I can also see how it could operate side by side with a deifically granted set of spells that don't work by the same rules, as well as a Druidic and/or Shamanic system that also works or operates in the same plane, with slightly different rules from Arcane or Deific magic.

And, ultimately, that's my beef with a Vancian System of magic.  It doesn't fit the concept of Shamanic/Druidic Magic, or Deifically granted spells, nor does it account for Warlocks, Sorcerors or Bards.  It cannot 'explain' how some creatures, due to their nascent magical nature, can use magic, either.  And so, like Ptolemy telling the rest of humanity, "The world is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around us" -- no matter how many more calculations, explanations and ideas you add to that framework to support and uphold the idea -- it's still wrong.  It cannot explain or encompass the entirety of, not only the whole idea, but even the observed data that indicates you're off the mark in the first place.

Now like I said, that's probably just me overthinking things.  I come at this from a writer's perspective of, "Does this idea logically and wholistically support itself within the framework of the system being created?"  As a board wargame designer, PnP module and game world designer, as well as a story teller, I have to say, "No, the Vancian system, in D&D, does not do this."  And no amount of extra ideas, added complexity to explain the movements, new classes, new casting methods or explanations that don't start from scratch is going to make that so.

All that said, I do play D&D and work within it's strictures as a player and I still have fun with it.  From a design standpoint I don't like it.  From a player's standpoint, I use the rules I am given and do the best I can.  And as long as I can do that and have a good time, then that's really enough, in the end.

best regards,
dunniteowl

Modifié par dunniteowl, 07 septembre 2010 - 02:23 .

[painofdungeoneternal]

We are sitting here talking about whether vancian magic makes sense. Meanwhile we don't have a problem with a caster saying "alakazaam, while rubbing your tummy and patting your head" which results in fire and brimstone appearing destroying all enemies while ignoring anyone you like.

It's an issue of suspending disbeleif. You can just not like it, fair enough.

Any system has to do a few things, give ways for a caster to do unusual things which he could not before ( choosing spells and swapping spells ). Make it so he has to do some ritual, point his finger and have reasons for it to work or fail. And it has to be set up so that the non casters are not completely useless compared to a caster, and all casting types need to be of comparable level.

After the above happens the lore has to happen, it is pretty poor in this area. Vancian as a system is not an issue, it just rubs video gamers the wrong way. The biggest issue is it's lore is obscure, and the folks writing movies and novels with wizards probably are getting their ideas from world of warcraft.

Now once you do one system, the lazy thing is to reuse it, clerics and the other non wizards really should have a different system. But even then, if the god decides you need to face mecca, can't eat pork, and you have to read 20 bible pages to get one casting of a given spell, and limits you to 10 or so of each level at most, even though arbitrary you basically go yes sir and do what that given god says the rules are.

My opinion is that most mana systems are laziness on the parts of the programmers. While we don't have a system like that, a system like that is still trivial to do. If a system is not cryptic, obtuse, and slightly illogical, well magic making sense is no different than having a "god of science". The guys casting spells should be the guys in the tin foil hats spouting about alien mind probes.

Modifié par painofdungeoneternal, 07 septembre 2010 - 03:31 .

[The Fred]

nicethugbert wrote...
NWN2 lacks circle magic and magic research. But, D&D is sketchy on magic research anyway, so it's largely up to the DM.

Incidentally, what is circle magic? I remember reading somewhere that they were sorry they couldn't add it for RWoTs (Red Wizards of Thay - plural RWoTs, RWsoT or just RWoT?) in MotB (Mask of the Betrayer).

[kamalpoe]

The Fred wrote...
Incidentally, what is circle magic? I remember reading somewhere that they were sorry they couldn't add it for RWoTs (Red Wizards of Thay - plural RWoTs, RWsoT or just RWoT?) in MotB (Mask of the Betrayer).

You team up with other wizards to cast a single spell, generally making it more powerful. Think of a bunch of wizards standing in a circle chanting.

[The Fred]

Cool, thought it might be something like that, but you know how it is when something's talked about but never actually explained. You just have to infer.



Anyway, back to the debate! Unless everyone's bored now. ;-)



Pain makes a good point: at what point does Vancian casting go from beyond something fantastical to something so ridiculous it shouldn't be believed? Does it, in fact, do that? I think there's also a distinction between wizards using it, which could make sense, clerics using it, which might I guess make sense depending on how you look at it ("Oh most holy Tyr, I pray that you might grant me two Shields of Faith, one Melf's Acid Arrow - non-cannon magic domain - and a Divine Power, that I might smite the infidel!"), and druids using it, which probably makes the least sense ("I'll just scribe X level Y spells and Z level Q spells in a complicated mathematical manner on my celtic rune bark").

[kamalpoe]

The Fred wrote...
 I think there's also a distinction between wizards using it, which could make sense, clerics using it, which might I guess make sense depending on how you look at it ("Oh most holy Tyr, I pray that you might grant me two Shields of Faith, one Melf's Acid Arrow - non-cannon magic domain - and a Divine Power, that I might smite the infidel!"), and druids using it, which probably makes the least sense ("I'll just scribe X level Y spells and Z level Q spells in a complicated mathematical manner on my celtic rune bark").

Most spells have material components, though the computer game doesn't implement this, and these components are normally used up in casting. So it makes sense in a "you've only got two pieces of celtic rune bark" sense.

In fact all Vancian casting makes much more sense when you realize there's material components. Only so many beholder eyes to use as spell components to go around (I heard beholders aren't too keen on giving them up.).

[I_Raps]

kamalpoe wrote...

Most spells have material components, though the computer game doesn't implement this, and these components are normally used up in casting. So it makes sense in a "you've only got two pieces of celtic rune bark" sense.

In fact all Vancian casting makes much more sense when you realize there's material components. Only so many beholder eyes to use as spell components to go around (I heard beholders aren't too keen on giving them up.).

I've never read any of the D&D fiction (I know, "shame on me") and I've often wondered - how do the writers deal with that?  Do they relate the "crushing his three perfect toadstools between his fingers" aspect of spellcasting or just let it pass in the background?

[painofdungeoneternal]

It's not that i have a thing against them. It's that they just aren't very creative. If you told 5 programmers who never played a game before, to develop a magic system, you'd most likely get mana or spell points, it's very easy and simple to set up. Which is fine, but make it "one" system, not every system. Note that i want to set up a witch/witch doctor, elementalist and a gish type melee caster with all 3 based on mana, which basically will make the lack of mana a non issue. A witch is much more what people think of when they think of divine magic.

Note that if you made it so i had 200+ first level spells, you'd have to really make the 1st level spells in D&D a lot less powerful. I'd never bother with high level spells really, especially if i get every 1st level spell. Especially if i have quicken ( even if it costs more ). I use my 1st level slots and quicken level one as a fake IGMS, which basically can take down one high level opponent.
Never underestimate a well timed low level spell, it's a mistake most who play casters make.

Modifié par painofdungeoneternal, 08 septembre 2010 - 03:35 .

[nicethugbert]

dunniteowl wrote...

What's a Magic User Supposed to Do When Not Using Magic?
NTB, I don't know what a magic user is supposed to do when s/he can't cast spells, but what's a fighter to do when s/he can't wield a weapon to get through a situation?  Doesn't that also happen in D&D?  This is why I was totally plussed by the question.  As it stands and according to this discussion, the fact that there are times when a character cannot engage in it's specialty is, to my view, a non-issue.

But nobody is complaining about attacks per day, attack slots, attack materials.  Weapon based attacks are not Vancian.  The implication through out this thread is that the Vancian system is not action oriented enough.  Are Vances novels action oriented?  Does TMGS lack action?  Whatever Vancian casters do when they run out of spells, it seems that they do it a lot and it doesn't seem to be popular.

[dunniteowl]

Hogwash NTB. There is no indication whatsoever that Vancian casting Isn't Action Oriented. You brought that in on your hat. No one here has said anything about it not being or is being action oriented. Myself included.

My entire point has been that Vancian Casting, per se, doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. It doesn't matter if it's Unseen Servant, Prismatic Spray, Sleep, Fireball or Mass Hallucination. It also doesn't matter that it's fantasy. Part of the concept of "suspension of disbelief" is that you create a system or framework and that framework has to be internally consistent (unless you're doing something like an insane asylum dream or similar) with itself.

The system utilized in standard D&D (and pretty well pulled into cRPGs with a heavy combat [ = action, if I'm not mistaken] emphasis to the majority of spells) is not internally consistent from class to class as to how magic functions, even though all casters have to use a Vancian Casting framework, with exceptions being Sorceror and Warlock.

That's been my point. Fighters have limits, too, but generally speaking, players don't like Fatigue Rules, Critical Misses and Fumbles that result in lost, broken or otherwise made useless weapons. The point in D&D is, with regard to Magic users, that at lower levels, a casting class has to be either smart or wise and know when to cast just the right spell at just the right time for the sake of the party's survival. At higher levels, it turns around and the caster is the primary encounter weapon, with the fighter and non-caster types doing quick mop-up.

And none of that bears on action versus non-action or how many attacks per round a fighter has versus how many spells a caster has to use per day.

It's pretty clear cut in any game using magic that magic is the bomb. At some point, the magic gets much more powerful than mere physical prowess in battle. As it should be. That's the one part that all magic systems (and is the most easy for folks to comprehend) have in common: Magic is powerful in it's own right. And it probably should take a sort of gifted out of the ordinary person to cast it.

The question has never been about action versus non-action. It's whether or not Vancian Casting actually truly makes sense and either should be scrapped (according to the OP) or such. I don't personally vote that D&D completely negate and remove Vancian casting, however I do believe that they should create a more all encompassing framework in which to put it, so that the other casting classes beyond Arcane mages (those would be the ones that require learning spells, studying them and then memorizing them) can use a secondary system (even if it uses spell slots) that doesn't use the same general rules of how magic works to explain magic in general.

Again, I make all my arguments in place with recognizing that part and parcel of the D&D mechanics, especially where magic is involved, a competent and properly used Resting System mechanic that doesn't involve characters sleeping for 5 seconds and BAM, fully charged is required.

Also, there's a lot to be said, still, for actually having to learn the spells somehow, and not have them gifted to the caster at level up, no matter where they happen to be. The acquisition of spells should be part of the equation in some fashion.

And, of course, this is just how I happen to view it. For the system I am creating, Vancian casting could fit handily inside it, but I don't intend to include it for my purposes. It also definitely won't be something I could cobble into NWN2, I'm pretty sure. So in that sense, it's a moot point other than for the sake of discussion.

Spell points or mana can work and work well for any magical system. Why is it easy to come up with? Not, because folks are not creative (I totally disagree with that assessment,) rather it's a concept that readily comes to mind, independant of computer games simply because our social culture, pretty much world wide, has this concept already well established.

Those programmers, though, not being used to magic implementation, might simply do a crappy job of it. I also maintain, that magic systems, in and of themselves, if they are easy to create, are probably not very well made, either. My personal experience in creating one from scratch is that, unless I don't care about how it inter-relates to the rest of the game mechanics, it's pretty fricking complex to integrate well.

It can definitely be simplified, but at a cost, or so that is my personal view. As to mana points or spell points being objectionable, I find that the resistance to them, conceptually, seems to be linked to seeing it done poorly in other games that use them. A negative experience, or oversimplification (such as how it is used (abused) in MMOs, Japanime Video games like FF or Onimusha) such that the system is pure cheese also heightens this perception that mana pools or spell points don't work well and are spam fests.

It doesn't have to be that way, though I guranty you, it takes a lot of consideration and work to make it operate in a way that doesn't just overwhelm all the other aspects of an RPG, especially a fantasy one where magic is so integral to the gaming experience.

Honestly, if there were no magic at all in D&D, would it have lasted this long? I personally don't think so.

However, as Arthur C. Clarke is oft quoted in these sorts of discussions, I would be remiss if I didn't also: "Technology sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."

This means, to me, that for a magic system to be as rich and powerful as an advanced technology, then it's probably just as complex in it's own ways as that technology is that makes it indistinguishable from. Additionally, this means that magic really is nothing more than the fantasy version of blasters, light sabers, the force, guided missiles, genetic/cyborg enhancements and any other tool that allows the characters to advance their way through encounters and to help tell the story.

I am sure that this is more just the way I see things and not a general consensus view. I am okay with that. I don't see, though, how the action/inaction or vs fighters actually fits in with the discussion. I also don't see any indication that bringing it up without an explanation in the first place gives it any real weight in the process, either. And in that regard, I find it to be a non-issue. I am not saying it doesn't deserve it's own level of discussion and consideration, I just don't see how it entered the fray in this particular case. Perhaps a worthy explication of it as it relates would be deserved?

regards,

dunniteowl

[Haplose]

I actually think Dragon Age was on pretty good track in regard to spellcasting systems.
Sadly they spoiled it greatly with the silly staff bolts (and mage staffs worn on backs, yuck!), rapid mana regeneration and ridiculously easy to get/make Lyrium pots.

But some of their ideas I really liked. Like the balancing between sustainables and instant effect spells. Only I think they didn't diffrentiate the mana cost enough.
It makes a lot of sense for lasting spells to have "upkeep" cost. So initial cast should be moderatly or very expensive, but then you need a constant stream of upkeep - or rather, how they did it in DAO, a part of your mana pool becomes reserved for upkeep.
Short duration spells (rounds per level) could have high upkeep, medium duration spells (turn/minute per level) could have moderate upkeep and long duration spells (hour per level or 24 hrs) could have low upkeep.

The added cumulating fatigue penalty added to spellcost for lasting spells (and armor in DAO, but that doesn't have to be transferred) was also a nice touch.
As was blood magic and the possibility to pay for spells with life force instead of mana.

All in all, it made for a spellpoint system that is pretty interesting and entertaining - as opposed to SP systems in many other games, such as Oblivion or Gothic, which had terrible spell systems (and firing spells really typically felt like firing a laser gun, no difference). Perhaps due to very limited selection of spell effects.

Modifié par Haplose, 08 septembre 2010 - 08:44 .

[nicethugbert]

Exactly, DNO, the closest that magic comes to making sense is when it resembles science.  Which would mean more reliance on research, components, crafting, items, all based on the notion of energy or substance conduits.  Few modules, if any, emphasize this.  I don't think there are more than a handful of NWN2 or NWN1 modules that use casting materials.  Rest restrictions are commonly modified to maintain a high encounter rate.  The only thing Vancian about NWN2 spell casting is spell slots, but , with the modified rest system it's more a kin to points or mana.

Even in TMGS, travel time, rest, encounter rate, and story are arranged to flow together and provide plenty of action while using the stock NWN2 spell casting system.  If it doesn't maintaining some semblance of reality, as opposed to an arcade, it at least prevents disruption of the story.

The Vancian system is a story telling device where research and materials are central.  For it to be action oriented, research and materials have to be prevalent.  Otheriwse, what does a spellcaster do when not spellcasting?  For Mages, in combat, not much.  Mages are useless without spells or scrolls/wands/rods/staves in combst.  But, nobody makes scrolls/wands/rods/staves easy for spellcasters to acquire or bountiful and the scroll/wand/staff/rod system is hobbled.  They simply make rest easy which does not solve the problem of mage inactivity.

Well, IIRC, there is a much improved wand/staff/rod system on the vault.  But, no one uses it because being a mage means letting others do all the busy work.

dunniteowl wrote...

Hogwash NTB. There is no indication whatsoever that Vancian casting Isn't Action Oriented. You brought that in on your hat. No one here has said anything about it not being or is being action oriented. Myself included.
My entire point has been that Vancian Casting, per se, doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. It doesn't matter if it's Unseen Servant, Prismatic Spray, Sleep, Fireball or Mass Hallucination. It also doesn't matter that it's fantasy. Part of the concept of "suspension of disbelief" is that you create a system or framework and that framework has to be internally consistent (unless you're doing something like an insane asylum dream or similar) with itself.
The system utilized in standard D&D (and pretty well pulled into cRPGs with a heavy combat [ = action, if I'm not mistaken] emphasis to the majority of spells) is not internally consistent from class to class as to how magic functions, even though all casters have to use a Vancian Casting framework, with exceptions being Sorceror and Warlock.
That's been my point. Fighters have limits, too, but generally speaking, players don't like Fatigue Rules, Critical Misses and Fumbles that result in lost, broken or otherwise made useless weapons. The point in D&D is, with regard to Magic users, that at lower levels, a casting class has to be either smart or wise and know when to cast just the right spell at just the right time for the sake of the party's survival. At higher levels, it turns around and the caster is the primary encounter weapon, with the fighter and non-caster types doing quick mop-up.
And none of that bears on action versus non-action or how many attacks per round a fighter has versus how many spells a caster has to use per day.
It's pretty clear cut in any game using magic that magic is the bomb. At some point, the magic gets much more powerful than mere physical prowess in battle. As it should be. That's the one part that all magic systems (and is the most easy for folks to comprehend) have in common: Magic is powerful in it's own right. And it probably should take a sort of gifted out of the ordinary person to cast it.
The question has never been about action versus non-action. It's whether or not Vancian Casting actually truly makes sense and either should be scrapped (according to the OP) or such. I don't personally vote that D&D completely negate and remove Vancian casting, however I do believe that they should create a more all encompassing framework in which to put it, so that the other casting classes beyond Arcane mages (those would be the ones that require learning spells, studying them and then memorizing them) can use a secondary system (even if it uses spell slots) that doesn't use the same general rules of how magic works to explain magic in general.
Again, I make all my arguments in place with recognizing that part and parcel of the D&D mechanics, especially where magic is involved, a competent and properly used Resting System mechanic that doesn't involve characters sleeping for 5 seconds and BAM, fully charged is required.
Also, there's a lot to be said, still, for actually having to learn the spells somehow, and not have them gifted to the caster at level up, no matter where they happen to be. The acquisition of spells should be part of the equation in some fashion.
And, of course, this is just how I happen to view it. For the system I am creating, Vancian casting could fit handily inside it, but I don't intend to include it for my purposes. It also definitely won't be something I could cobble into NWN2, I'm pretty sure. So in that sense, it's a moot point other than for the sake of discussion.
Spell points or mana can work and work well for any magical system. Why is it easy to come up with? Not, because folks are not creative (I totally disagree with that assessment,) rather it's a concept that readily comes to mind, independant of computer games simply because our social culture, pretty much world wide, has this concept already well established.
Those programmers, though, not being used to magic implementation, might simply do a crappy job of it. I also maintain, that magic systems, in and of themselves, if they are easy to create, are probably not very well made, either. My personal experience in creating one from scratch is that, unless I don't care about how it inter-relates to the rest of the game mechanics, it's pretty fricking complex to integrate well.
It can definitely be simplified, but at a cost, or so that is my personal view. As to mana points or spell points being objectionable, I find that the resistance to them, conceptually, seems to be linked to seeing it done poorly in other games that use them. A negative experience, or oversimplification (such as how it is used (abused) in MMOs, Japanime Video games like FF or Onimusha) such that the system is pure cheese also heightens this perception that mana pools or spell points don't work well and are spam fests.
It doesn't have to be that way, though I guranty you, it takes a lot of consideration and work to make it operate in a way that doesn't just overwhelm all the other aspects of an RPG, especially a fantasy one where magic is so integral to the gaming experience.
Honestly, if there were no magic at all in D&D, would it have lasted this long? I personally don't think so.
However, as Arthur C. Clarke is oft quoted in these sorts of discussions, I would be remiss if I didn't also: "Technology sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."
This means, to me, that for a magic system to be as rich and powerful as an advanced technology, then it's probably just as complex in it's own ways as that technology is that makes it indistinguishable from. Additionally, this means that magic really is nothing more than the fantasy version of blasters, light sabers, the force, guided missiles, genetic/cyborg enhancements and any other tool that allows the characters to advance their way through encounters and to help tell the story.
I am sure that this is more just the way I see things and not a general consensus view. I am okay with that. I don't see, though, how the action/inaction or vs fighters actually fits in with the discussion. I also don't see any indication that bringing it up without an explanation in the first place gives it any real weight in the process, either. And in that regard, I find it to be a non-issue. I am not saying it doesn't deserve it's own level of discussion and consideration, I just don't see how it entered the fray in this particular case. Perhaps a worthy explication of it as it relates would be deserved?
regards,
dunniteowl

Modifié par nicethugbert, 08 septembre 2010 - 05:07 .

[nicethugbert]

Haplose wrote...

I actually think Dragon Age was on pretty good track in regard to spellcasting systems.
Sadly they spoiled it greatly with the silly staff bolts (and mage staffs worn on backs, yuck!), rapid mana regeneration and ridiculously easy to get/make Lyrium pots.

But some of their ideas I really liked. Like the balancing between sustainables and instant effect spells. Only I think they didn't diffrentiate the mana cost enough.
It makes a lot of sense for lasting spells to have "upkeep" cost. So initial cast should be moderatly or very expensive, but then you need a constant stream of upkeep - or rather, how they did it in DAO, a part of your mana pool becomes reserved for upkeep.
Short duration spells (rounds per level) could have high upkeep, medium duration spells (turn/minute per level) could have moderate upkeep and long duration spells (hour per level or 24 hrs) could have low upkeep.

The added cumulating fatigue penalty added to spellcost for lasting spells (and armor in DAO, but that doesn't have to be transferred) was also a nice touch.
As was blood magic and the possibility to pay for spells with life force instead of mana.

All in all, it made for a spellpoint system that is pretty interesting and entertaining - as opposed to SP systems in many other games, such as Oblivion or Gothic, which had terrible spell systems (and firing spells really typically felt like firing a laser gun, no difference). Perhaps due to very limited selection of spell effects.

I liked the DAO spellcasting system but BW abused it to make the module into a slogfest.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 08 septembre 2010 - 05:34 .

[dunniteowl]

Okay, I get you now, NTB. And I agree. The divide in what can be done and what is being done is pretty large. Then again, you're talking about a major shift in mentality when it comes to playing a spell casting Arcane Mage. I have yet to play in any group (PnP) that used the spell components consistently or actually kept track of them. I have not played in more than two PnP groups that even used spell components at all. Their idea of spell components was:

DM: You enter the village as the morning reaches it's head. What are you going to do?

Fighter: I'm going to the tavern and see if I can find out the news in town.

Rogue: I'll tag along and scout the area for juicy targets.

Cleric: I'm going to find the local temple and speak with the staff.

Mage: I'm giong to buy spell components and stock up.



And that's about it. And I can see where focusing on the mage and how they have to get all their stuff collected, spells researched and whatnot could be an insane drag on any action oriented story, game or play style. We abstract a lot of stuff for the sake of continuing forward with the game. I think, to a large degree, we all get that.

I also think, to some degree, there's a reasonably sized core of players who seem to think that 'something' is missing, when it comes to the casting classes.

I wonder how well it would go for playing an Arcane Scholar of Candlekeep if someone out there with that PrC followed what an ASoC actually had to do as a mage scholar? You go out and find tidbits of scrolls, papers and tomes of magical and historical nature so you can bring them back to study, perhaps learning new spells, or more efficient spell casting so you can increase the spell power of your already known spells and other things.

Also, you go out and collect the more difficult and rare spell components to bring back so there is a ready stock for spell research, experimentation and study. Wow, exciting.

It could be. Try to imagine what getting rare spell components might actually involve. Or where do you go to get these ancient, mouldy tomes, papers and scrolls in the first place? And where do you even find out about half this stuff to go looking for it? I mean, honestly, for an adventuring ASoC, life could be pretty exciting if done properly.

And you're right NTB, there's too much focus on combat, hardly any attention given to what goes on during research and study, or collection of information and components, and the way resting is implemented in general just makes the situation worse, not better.

And I will say that Vancian Casting should, indeed, make that part of it's focus. After all, it's all about collecting the appropriate ingredients, the necessary education and study of different tomes, texts and librams in order to comprehend the essence of the spells and then making sure that you've deliberately and consciously chosen a selection of spells to carry with you (you're not taking your main spell book along with you, that's insanely unwise) and hope that while doing all this stuff, you might be fortunate enough to come back alive, and maybe have a new spell or two to boot.

Vancian Casting in this regard is more than just a name and a set of spell slots. It's all about meeting the odds and viscissitudes of adventuring and coming back in mostly one piece. As you say, that's a story telling device. I wonder that there aren't more story based adventures that focus on the travels, travails, and triumphs a mage must encounter as they learn and ply their profession?

Maybe there's more action there than you can shake a stick at, but the current set of spells (which are heavily combat and thief-replacement oriented) may be something to consider in that regard. And maybe it's action that might not necessarily benefit from charging, weapons drawn, screaming at your foes?

Time will tell.



best regards,

dunniteowl

[painofdungeoneternal]

I am not sure the problem is vancian. I think how the slots are set up is just a minor issue compared to larger issues being discussed.



The issues people have a problem with don't seem related to vancian slots beyond complaints about how it does not "make sense". But i don't see mana making more sense, it's just simpler ( unless you make a complex mana system ).



If you don't have material components, and have a game designed around lots of encounters, unlimited resting, vancian just loses all of the features which are needed to make it work. The fact is folks have an issue with the overall way spells are being done in NWN2, and since the design of PNP is a few big encounters, and this video game is a lot more like Diablo than PNP, well the system just does not fit.



And if you play arcade games, a arcade game system like mana ( which is what it is really ) will make more sense.



Likewise mana is usually implemented in a crappy manner. And it requires a lot of work to make it work right.



This all makes me think the overall system is just not that important, well it's a bit of a choice to determine the "style" of the game, but it's not what makes a magic system work well or what makes it broken.



The issue is in the details, how do you give players unlimited power, the ability to wish for anything really, how do you make that come true without completely leaving behind those who don't have access to that same pool of power. So the same work needs to be done to make mana work that needs to be done to make vancian work, or system x.



Now if you remove learning spells on level up completely and make folks scribe scrolls they find as they adventure, with some being very rare, well i could add in some very rare spells which are on the high side in power and not imbalance things. Suddenly scribing scrolls becomes more like vancian, and transfering spells becomes doable as well if scrolls are provided. Of course this entire idea does not really care if the caster is vancian or mana.



Same with material components, if you want them, go get em, require em for all spells. Of course make a material components bag and only require things for very powerful spells. This is the same fix if mana or vancian is used.



My thought here is we have wizards using pure vancian.



Cleric, druids basically using semi vancian, probably since they are jealous of wizards.



Sorcerors, Favored Souls and Spirit Shamans use a level slotted mana system, you get so many of a given level but via metamagic can use this just like mana really.



Now we just need to add a new set of 3 classes, each doing arcane, divine and nature spells but using a mana system. To a large degree this needs to follow what is doable in NWN2 using the spirit meter bar, since it's not really part of the engine. Pretty sure the spirit bar was added to enable this though.



Once that happens, what you prefer can be chosen by the list of available classes. Get rid of clerics and make em all favored souls. Or let all of them coexist and make it player choice. It becomes a matter of choice. The hard part is making all of them comparably balanced so the only real choice is one of them. And by balance i mean the most restricted system is vancian, so it should be almost unlimited in swapping spells as needed, while the others need other restrictions of some sort. If folks just want less restrictions overall, well they will find the game gets a lot less interesting.



The thing i always think about though is that "making sense" is not really a good criteria. It should be looked at how it allows people to play concepts, how it enables the player, and what it makes them worry about. To a large degree a system is successful if the end user keeps coming back and does not get bored, too few restrictions and they master it too easy and they move on to better challenges.