Narsham wrote:SkeleTony wrote:"Precisely" is an unnecessary( and loaded) qualifier here. I think the two ARE equally nonsensical in terms of accurately representing their genres but all that is required for the analogy to be valid is that the Vancian system not make sense and not accurately represent the genre.
Are you arguing that the fantasy genre has anything even vaguely approaching a coherent magic system with unified rules?
You seem to be aiming for a straw man here. Let's try and stay on point. MIne being that the fantasy genre as a whiole, as far as magic is concerned, almost universally resembles a spell-point and/or 'fatigue' system and NOT AT ALL the Vancian nonsense.
Most books of fantasy do not explicitly detail ANY limitations on their spellcasters.
True but an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. RPG rules are abstractions. Ideally they are supposed to, as closely as possible resemble how things work within the genre they are supposed to represent. So while no Conan book states "Conan operates by the GURPS system where he has a ST score of 19...", we judge the GURPS system(or the HERO or the D20 or the D6 or the RQ system...) by how well or poorly it is able to resemble such quantification within the game. In this light some games are exceptional and some are poor and most fall somewhere in between.
Gandalf rarely uses magic but there's no indication that he couldn't use it all day if he wanted to.
I would contest that but this is another irrelevant conclusion anyway. Gandfalf is not even a human wizard. According to Tolkien he is one of the "Istari" and his "magic" is not a learned craft but rather a hereditary power(like breathing or memorization or some such for us). If Wizards in D&D were like Gandalf no one would play any other class(race actually) because the wizards would be all powerful.
Eddings' characters are limited by their willpower. Cook and Erikson's magic systems are nearly impossible to quantify. I'd respond to you that NO magic system will properly "represent the genre."
Wrong. As I have continually said, sure there are 'alternatives' within the genre adn sure there should ideally be alternatives that GMs are free to use for unique game settings. But that does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority DO have certain commonalities including the limitation that they cannot just cast spells indefinitely without becoming drained or fatigued. I don't know how many countless times I have read a book or watched a movie where a wizard must summon up his last remaining vestiges of power to cast one final spell to defeat a dragon or evil overlord or some such and NEVER do tehy just "forget" the spell the need because they cast it earlier or memorized the wrong spell or some such.
Just admit it guy, the Vancian system is ridiculous. You are in an impossible position here.
SkeleTony wrote: The RQ system has had at least three different magic systems operating simultaneously: the MP-based spirit magic system, the MP+skill-based sorcery system, and the divine magic system, which is all about sacrificing POW for points of Rune magic which is cast and forgotten (but can be recovered by some casters).
D&D has clerical "realms" and/or "domains" and mages use a different thing(akin to "schools"). D&D uses AC based system to determine if you are hit by a thrown axe or something and the ludicrous "save throws" to (partially) avoid fireball/breath damage.
RQ's system makes sense and is easy to use. Simply identifying that it employs slightly varying means for achieving magical effects in order to portray it as cumbersome is just plain dishonest(at least as dishonest as my above comparison of D&D's different systems). It makes no sense for clerics to be casting "spells" in the same way as wizards(though I would grant that convenience if all else about the system were well done). If we pretended for a moment that 'faith healers' like Benny Hinn for actually achieving the feats they claim and portray then they would not be casting spells like a wizard. They would be using deity-granted powers that ALWAYS require a sacrifice similar to the RQ POW sacrifice.
I was prepared to have a debate on this topic, but perhaps you're not interested in actually reading a response from someone who disagrees with you? Where precisely do I "dishonestly" indicate that RQ has a cumbersome system?
I quote:
"The RQ system has had at least three different magic systems operating simultaneously: the MP-based spirit magic system, the MP+skill-based sorcery system, and the divine magic system, which is all about sacrificing POW for points of Rune magic which is cast and forgotten (but can be recovered by some casters)"
Now go back and read the point that this was offered in response to. If you were NOT implying that RQ was cumbersome or too complex or some such then your statement makes no sense at all.
I think the RQ system works quite well, thank you, and I ran a 3rd edition RQ campaign for years. My point is that the RQ system is partly slot-based.
False. As I already refuted before. It is not "slot based" by any stretch.
In other words, a system you put forward as superior to the slot-based system actually INCLUDES the slot-based mechanic as part of its operation.
False. Divine magic in RQ resembles mythological divine magic of folklore and legends on earth in that priests get their spells, not from books or by having to memorize them the night before or some such but by sacrificing to their deities. Many of these spells, especially for lowly initiates are limited or one-use castings/powers. None of this resembles the "fire and forget" system.
Claiming that "clerics" and "wizards" should cast spells differently relies upon some objective definition of "cleric" and "wizard" which is not intrinsic to the idea of magic.
That is a pretty bold assertion there. Folklore and fiction both disagree with you.
I could simply state that in MY campaign, wizards receive their spells from the Magic god and are thus simply a special case of cleric, or that no deities ACTUALLY grant any magic at all and all magic is wizardry. A distinction can be intrinsic or it can be artificially imposed.
Yes you could and I would be the LAST guy to say a word in contention with you doing your own unique thing in your own unique campaign/game. But your unique ideas should not be the basis for a generic fantasy RPG system.
You are trying to make an argument grounded in "genre," without really articulating what you see as the fantasy genre. Myth? Joseph Campbell? Tolkien? Is Susanna Clarke fantasy? Saberhagen's Sword series? Any of Zelazny's stuff? Are you including or excluding medieval and Renaissance models of magic (which were also many and varied, fiction or "real")? On what grounds can you reject the many books in the genre which were written AFTER Vance's stuff (and D&D) and which uses similar systems?
AGAIN, such as...? Are you talking about the Dragonlance/Forgotten Realms books?! Because you should be able to answer your own question here if so.
And I am taking the whole of the heroic fantasy genre(beginning roughly with the pulp offerings of the 1920s and 30s until NOW) for the most part but also taking the precursory mythology and folklore of the last few thousand years into account also. You know...like D&D supposedly does. Zelazny, Moorcock, Saberhagen's "Book of Swords", Silverberg's fantasy stuff, Howard's Conan, Lieber's Newhon/Lankmahr books, Tolkien, etc.
Do Warhammer novels not count as fantasy?
This is going to sound strange to you I am guessing but, though they are based on the Warhammer GAME, that game DOES represent the genre far better than D&D, even with all it's flaws so I would include them also because of this fact. Now if Warhammer used some bizarre system wherein cast seplls required you to count backwards from 69 or somerthing then no, the novels based on such a system would not count here.
Harry Potter?
Nope. Children's contemporary fantasy is not what D&D or any other sword & sorcery RPG is based upon. If you are really THIS confused about what the genre is and is not then why are you even trying to debate me on this point?!
For that matter, how precisely can you prove that Gandalf "ran out of spell points" at some point?
You can't. Why are you asking inane and loaded questions? Go take a look at the Middle Earth Role Playing game system then look at D&D and you tell me which seems closer to the genre. I know that Gandalf became drained/fatigued through his contests of sorcery(read his recounting of the fight with the Balrog for example) but I do not recall Gandalf EVER saying "I am sorry Hobbits...I did not memorize the "Summon Eagle spell so we are S.O.L I am afraid. I could have zapped the ring wraiths with a lightning bolt but I cast that spell and forgot it earlier..."
Seems like what you really want is for KotC 2 to be a different game system--not D&D.
Is D&D Online a "Different game system" because they use a spell point system? What about Unearthed Arcana(for 3rd edition)?
So I strongly suspect this whole thread is moot, anyway. Why play KotC if you hate the D&D system?
I don't play it and that is why. But let's not drag out anymore straw men here such as "if you hate (the whole) system...". I hate the magic system. The rest of the system could be designed a LOT better but it is acceptable.
How will the changes you propose (and BTW, you haven't said "use this system," you have only attacked the current one) make KotC 2 a better game? Perhaps more to the point, what exactly are your positive suggestions?
What possible good could come from me suggesting anything positive here?! If THIS is the reaction I get by saying that a nonsensical system is in fact nonsensical(something even D&D's designers have been saying for years, let alone the rest of the industry) then what sort of reaction would you expect if I went even further to start suggesting specific changes(beyond what I HAVE already stated which you seem to ignore when convenient for you)?