>>3883701
Not enough info desu
Technically, Dark Souls is Vancian while Final Fantasy 1 (NES) is not. But people call FF1 a vancian game because there are spell levels like D&D and your mana is allocated on a per spell-level basis.

The big problem with old school D&D and videogames is the amount emphasis placed on pre-crawl preparation, which detracts from live in-the-moment decision making. This tends to be worse at lowest levels and highest levels.

I prefer it, usually translates to better encounter design.

>>3883701
Both are good when finely tuned.
Unfortunately most often vancian gives you too little to work with, and mana is a bottomless pool that shouldn't even be called a "resource"

Vancian magic is there for nerds who are only good at memorization to enjoy a power fantasy. It has it's place. Us chads just need to accept fighters, rogues, and sorcerers as our place.

>>3883703
FF1 on the NES did not use mana. It used strict-Vancian. It was only the remake that converted to using mana.

>>3883723
Wrong. Games like EQ1 used mana as a long-term resource management gate on content consumption speeds and it's widely regarded as the textbook example of a correct use case for mana systems in game design.

>>3883741
Yes, that's why I said most, not all.

>>3883740
He's talking about how it's more like a sorcerer as individual spells don't disappear. I'd call it simplified Vancian, certainly not mana based.

Vancian filters plebs

>>3883741
>management gate on content consumption speeds
Most soulless phrase I've seen this year. Must be an actual modern developer.

>>3883758
Ok. Well. The reason we have games is because someone sat down to design them at some point. And games are better now than they used to be because someone decided to apply some attempt at rigor to understand what makes a game work and what makes a game better.
It's ok if you don't understand this. That's what separates you from people who make games. Maybe you could exercise a little more respect, though, seeing as you presumably enjoy games and want to keep playing them.

>>3883771
>content consumption speeds
No one who has uttered this phrase has ever made a game worth playing.
I have zero respect for you as a human being or even as a slug.

>>3883701
Every party member or class should have an entirely different resource management system.

>>3883785
You mean like WoW?

>>3883740
It was mana. It just doesn't seem that way because there are 8 mana pools and all the spells cost 1mp. What if instead of 8 pools there were only 4. Say, white, black, deep, and summon.

The essence of vancian systems is that each spell is a single charge that is expended on casting. The essense of mana is that it is like a commodity fuel that is burned up when a spell is cast.

>>3883803
That's not what any of this means. That's not how any of this works. You're bullshitting and trying to arbitrarily redefine terms because you got caught making dumb shit up. Shut the fuck up.

>>3883701
>Is there anyone who actually genuinely likes Vancian magic?
Yeah, I love it.

>>3883803
It's like a game where you have 10 weapons that all use the same ammo.

>>3883803
The spells are gone when you cast them in FF1, following the same logic and numbers and spell levels as D&D's Vancian magic, it's just that all your bought spells are considered prememorized and usable at the player's discretion, there's no preparation, which was probably done to simplify the implementation. It's certainly not mana based, just semi-Vancian.

>>3883805
You have to be fucking with me.
Please be trolling.
Please be deliberately trying to derail the thread.
>The essence of vancian systems is that each spell is a single charge that is expended on casting.
>The essense of mana is that it is like a fuel that is burned up when a spell is cast.
If you think you have a better definition, by all means please try and articulate one so I can figure out where you are confused.

>>3883750
> I'd call it simplified Vancian, certainly not mana based.
It's not a standard, boring mana system, but it's not Vancian either.
It's a mana system inspired by the D&D (Vancian) system.
(I'm not sure D&D sorcerers even existed at the time FF1 was made, incidentally).

>>3883741
EQ is a great example of how fucking lame and constraining a (standard, single-pool) Mana system can be. After crowd control and tanking are handled, the game boils down into the most efficient way to convert all the mana you have over a specified period of time into the most amount of damage possible. In reality this boils down to casting the same, most efficient spell over and over at a medium pace and using all available regeneration buffs to maximize the amount of mana available. If you're a DoT class you might have to alternate spells to avoid stacking issues. That's it.

A Vancian system (or a more sophisticated, multi-pool mana system) could trigger more variety in spell use while offer more ways to balance the overpowered mana regeneration abilities.

>>3883816
>The spells are gone when you cast them in FF1
No, they aren't.
D&D Sorcerers do not use the Vancian system
You can cast any spell in that level as many times as you have mana points for that level.
If the spell was gone when you cast it, it would be Vancian. But it's not.

Just for once can we have a fucking discussion on this board without people derailing with god damn semantics arguments? It should not be this fucking hard.
The definition of Vancian Magic is very clear.
It means "fire and forget."

Dark Souls counts.
Each spell has non-transferrable charges, restored at the bonfire.
There are no mana pools.

Final Fantasy 1 does not.
Mana is divided into 8 pools, spells are associated to a single pool and cost 1 mana to cast.

>>3883701
I think Vancian is cool. I don't prefer it over Mana, but don't have anything against it either.

>>3883802
No, like Mage Knight: Apocalypse

>>3883835
>Just for once can we have a fucking discussion on this board without people derailing with god damn semantics arguments
Your entire argument is semantic. Mana pools are almost invariably universal and not segregated by spell level. Why can't you accept that, like the sorcerer, it's a modified Vancian system, with spell slots.

>>3883835
You are wrong, dude. You were just wrong. You can be wrong. It's ok to be wrong. What's not ok is you doubling down and arguing stupid shit even though you're demonstrably wrong. Grow the fuck up. Fix that shit.
You were wrong and we're all moving on now.

>>3883701

Vancian is one of the worst parts of archaic RPG systems, never flexible enough and you always end up carting around dead slots.
Casters are nerfed enough on flexibility in CRPGs due to the pre-canned nature of the medium, they don't need this additional restriction.

I'm playing FF1 right now for a timely reminder of how Vancian sucks compared to the flexibility of MP.
For example, spot healing on the healer with a small Cure vs. wiping an encounter with Dia on undead. Either or tradeoff which sucks
Dead levels on the BLM, WHM where only 1 truly good spell exists and the rest are so niche they hardly apply anywhere like nullification of lightning damage. I could put those dead slots to use via MP.

Similar in Pathfinder and D&D Vancian and even worse is their sad attempts to backfill and patch V casting with metamagic that just adds bloat and complexity with things like Bolster Spell, Empowered Spell, Enhance Spell. One glance at those nearly identical descriptions in name tells you a lot about Vancian being a bad system causing bloat and overlap. The other patch against Vancian being Sorcerers and the awful half baked Arcanist class which uses an obscene combination of both Vancian and crappy mana points based on CHA when you're INT casting.

D&D 5th addresses this better with upcasting at least, giving you more flexibility to enhance lower levelled spells, but you could do this in an MP system also.

Vancian should have been thrown out along with the binary limitations and legacy of THAC0 and D20 in general for more percentile based stuff all around long, long ago, but grognards are gonna grognard, what can you do? Calcified boomergrogs at least grasp some balance better than fresh faced DEI hacks that can't design shit either. Gygax threw out Vancian in DJ for percentile based stuff long ago, no one has come close to his replacement D&D design yet. Runner up imo was GURPS.

>>3883835
>Dark Souls counts
No, it doesn't, according to your standards. You don't prepare individual spells segregated by level that are fire and forget, rather you set a spell to slots which act like multi-use scrolls with a set number of charges that refill on rest.

File: cvd.png (1.17 MB, 1416x813)

1.17 MB PNG

>>3883835
Sorceror can't upconvert a level 1 spell without a ton of feats.
You can't downconvert a level 9 slot without a ton of feats.
MP is flexible between all the spells in your book.
See the difference? Sorceror is still Vancian in essence, just Vancian with a patch. Sorcerors still operate on slots that are restricted by level.

FF1 is vancian, one of the most restricted form of vancian since there is no metamagic.
It is slightly less restricted than D&D wizard because it's not memorized per spell but per level slot but still. It's equivalent to D&D Sorc but inferior since no metamagic.


>>3883832
FF1 J-release 1987 US 1990
The Complete Wizard's Handbook (1990) did not introduce spontaneous casting as a core mechanic for wizards. However, it did include the Amazon Sorceress kit, which functioned as a type of spontaneous caster within the context of the AD&D 2nd edition rules.
This kit allowed for a form of spontaneous spellcasting, but it was specific to that particular subclass and not a general rule for wizards. The concept of spontaneous casting as a distinct class feature was not standardized until the release of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition in 2000

It's true Vancian is retroactively applied to FF1, not a term in circulation back in those days at all TMK, grogs came together later on the Internet to apply that label, it isn't found in any D&D sourcebook TMK but there it is.

>>3883741
Yeah EQ1 was pretty legit for that, and it gave enchanters a reason to exist as a true support class.
If you make a restriction without a well designed counter, it tends to evolve into pointless bloat as they try to patch around it because everyone hates it.

If you design a restriction with a good counter it becomes something fun to play.
Metamagic feats and slots are just complex bloat that is not fun.

Enchanters were fun, and they were a support class that wasn't a green bar go up green dps pumper (healer) based on utility and cc that was unique and fun.

This is the kind of unique design philosophy that was lost over time for everyone copying the trinity, which is part of what makes MP "boring".

>>3883871
The downfall of the enchanter was how game-breaking charm was. They needed to implement a slow component on charms to bring pet dps in line with player characters. But the same could be said for magicians, beastlords and to a lesser extent necromancers, too.
EQ1 existed in a time when the actual hardware was a serious limitation, but most of its problems were due to design. It was a pioneer in an era when the concept of game design didn't even really exist. Everything was done ad hoc, with no rigor or analysis of data.
Which then led to ridiculous and toxic reactions by the dev team later. Like mobs just being completely immune to ALL your spells for no reason other than that the devs didn't know how to make the creature challenging otherwise. If 75% slow is too severe, guys, just don't make slow spells scale that high. Chopping mob damage down to 1/4th is fucking INSANE and should never have happened. But it's fucking wrong to just make enemies immune to your class's only reason for existing. For just one example. Or haste scaling that high.

>>3883701
I think Vancian Magic is perfect...for tabletop games.
I think in most realistic contexts, people are bad with numbers. They don't quite comprehend what a big pool of mana actually is and will quickly expunge it with the expectation on the GM they will refill it SOON. Especially when there's multiple casters in the party. And at a certain point, the scaling of such gets so high and potent, you really can't actually balance that amount. That's why 5e's Spell Point variant rule still have a rather strict "Any spell 5th level and above can only be cast once per day" rule. Vancian does a great job of always mattering, even when it drowns you in spells (because bother D&D and Pathfinder1e was bad at spell economy). And it maintains the nuance of spell design, that spells can have degrees of effectiveness and ability to solve problems. If it was far more viable to bundle and pass out literal (Touhou) Spell Cards to people and ask to organize 10-30 of that like they are making a Magic deck, I think most people would get it.

All this is for the understanding you have 3+ other guys next you and you are writing everything down on paper, though. When it's just you and the computing device who is really good at numbers and bad at compromising with humans, MP just makes far more sense. Especially in non-D&D simulator games. That level of resource management is not the appeal; spell design cannot be as expressive or nuanced in a stratified world or having to accommodate your own 4-6 dude's spell lists; you aren't wasting other peoples' time running back and forth to an inn to recover resources. The benefits of Vancian Casting does not apply to a video game, especially as they get more and more streamlined.

It makes sense to design when your game is literally trying to translate D&D into a video game, but not much else.

>>3883701
It's fun in BG3, and bg3 is good

Mana is boring and a catch all. Keeping track of it on pen and paper is even more annoying.

>>3883912
Also, having to spend time to memorize every spell on at a time demonstrates the difficulty of having to prepare and cast actual reality bending miracles on a daily basis. Having your mana refill by drinking some blue gatorade kind of dilutes that idea.

>>3883859
FF11 is a wonderful game that could benefit greatly from a meta-enabling romhack. The game's content balance does not take full advantage of the depth of its subjob system's potential. The odd levels where things like staff paladin are viable should be expounded upon.

I prefer vancian casting because it allows wizards to better play the reality warping support role which is never implemented in an MP system without a heavy cost at the wizard's total power or versitility.

in dnd i am extremely fond of cordellion psionics however. Fucking hilarious that stranger things makes people play dnd by doing a show about a psion and then that generation cant accept psions at their tables.

If you think there is anything wrong with the d20 itself than you are a certifable retard though and belong in a gas chamber. Metamagic is based.

>>3883701
Vancian magic is great in the writings of Jack Vance, which you should read. Stop playing video games and read Tales of the Dying Earth

Read everything Fritz Lieber ever wrote while you're at it

>>3883727
This but unironically.

>>3883918
MP isn't the reason wizards are neutered in video games, things like fighters complaining in multiplayer are, or devs without imagination not being able to balance the actual power wizards are supposed to have aka reality warping in a single player game. See: Magic Carpet II for an example of magic done right, with an MP system.

D20 gets stupid about range bound within 20 when percentile is easy to do on computers.
Is it really a lot of fun to have numbers like +75 ac and then roll a 20, which gets dumber as the AC and to hit get even more astronomically higher (looking at you Pathfinder) Soon the d20 hardly matters in comparison to the giant bonuses. Then it's strictly binary hit or miss, where usually some percent of damage going through is more interesting.

5th handles it better by a strict range bound discipline but then again you still have these dumb scenarios:
>super genius at arcane fails identifying magic missile because he rolled a 1
>super faith priest at religion fails recognizing one of the major deities in a statue because he flubbed a 10 roll
It always feels off and deserts you just when you should be looking cool.
Better would be some kind of percentile system with less range in the rolls and more granular outcomes instead of strictly pass/fail:
>you don't know what kind of spell it is because you were distracted but it is definitely evocation
>you don't know which deity it is because the statue is eroded too much but it could be Helm or Ilmater

20 is fine for reddit table toppers that just want Whose Line Is It Anyway games all the time with nonsensical shit happening nonstop but CRPG are capable of a lot better systems with easy math handling.

>>3883701
I generally prefer it, because games that have it are more likely to actually have a semblance of resource management. It also provides a reason to use a variety of spells instead of just sticking with the few most powerful ones.

File: ffmq-wolp-spells.png (439 KB, 1312x1123)

439 KB PNG

>>3883854
>Your entire argument is semantic.
No, my argument is that strict Vancian tends to get cumbersome in videogames, but that there are interesting alternatives. For example, a mana pool system that isn't pointlessly constrained by the binary-brain idea that the only possible way to do it is to have one single mana pool per caster from which ALL spells are cast.

I brought up FF1 as an example of a way to do mana pools that winds up being more like Vancian. And there can be MANY more possibilities that could yield some interesting discussion beyond the endless back and forth of:
><drooling> i hink vancian sux
>hurrrr Mana is for plebs
Maybe there are ways to divide up mana pools I hadn't considered.
Maybe there are ways to do Vancian-style spell charges other than old school D&D.
None of you dumb fuckers want to do that, though.

>Mana pools are almost invariably universal and not segregated by spell level.
Yes, because people are retarded. I had a glimmer of hope, now dashed, that this thread could move beyond generic stupidity.

>>3883866
>Sorceror can't upconvert a level 1 spell without a ton of feats.
>You can't downconvert a level 9 slot without a ton of feats.
>MP is flexible between all the spells in your book.
>See the difference?
Yes of course I see.
YOU aren't seeing the relevant difference
Each spell level has a POOL of casts per day.
All spells for that level share that pool.

Vancian = Each spell is prepared individually and is gone once cast.
Mana = Each spell cast consumes a shared resource.

This is the dividing point.
This is extremely clear and non-ambiguous.
This is based on the most fundamental, essential mechanics of each one.

A shared pool of any kind is (at minimum) a mana system, not a Vancian system.

Is Final Fantasy Mystic Quest (picrel) a Mana system or Vancian system?

>>3883701
Vancian = Caster gets to do fuck all all day and you just keep him around to unload everything at the boss.
Mana = Every class is the same just with different animations.

They both suck.

But vancian sucks less cause it gives the mage an actual identity, instead of just being orange ball dps.

>>3883859
>For example, spot healing on the healer with a small Cure vs. wiping an encounter with Dia on undead. Either or tradeoff which sucks
Why does it suck? You have to make a meaningful decision on which to use instead of being able to do everything, that sounds good to me.
>only 1 truly good spell exists and the rest are so niche they hardly apply anywhere like nullification of lightning damage
You're gonna use all charges of that level to cast the useful invs spell most of the time, but it's good to know you can use alit instead if you need it, and spamming either is not gonna prevent you from using cure since it's on a different level.

>Vancian = Caster gets to do fuck all all day and you just keep him around to unload everything at the boss.
You're just gimping yourself for no reason if you just save everything for the boss, like the people who keep saving consumables and end the game with 99 of everything.

>>3884033
dropped my quote
>>3884023

>>3884033
>You're just gimping yourself for no reason if you just save everything for the boss, like the people who keep saving consumables and end the game with 99 of everything.
It was a hyperbole.
I meant, boss, tough encounters, specific situations etc.

Point is you are not like the martial who goes all out, all day, you mostly do nothing, except when the situation calls for it.
E.g. a tough fight so let's use a cc.
So you only really do something for 1 round in a moderate fight, and 0 rounds in trash fights.

It's pretty shit and boring, especially if it's your MC.

The tradeoff is that once you go high level you are a God, due to large amount of OP spells.
And that's why I think magic should remain overpowered in the endgame and not these idiotic attempts at "balance" they are trying to do these days.

You can't balance Vancian casting with no resource classes, it's absurd.

Let the mage be a God in the end, he has earned it.
It makes the class unique and it makes sense that in a world which is defined by "magic", the magic user would be OP and not on equal footing with an average Joe with a sword.

>>3883913
The problem is that in a videogame it's harder to balance the amount of mundane prep work involved in selecting spells for the "day" with the actual parts of the game that are dynamic and exciting (making decisions in the heat of combat).

Taking 2nd edition D&D as an example, at low levels the preparation part isn't too bad. You barely know any spells to begin with and only have 1-4 slots to fill each day. The main downside is severe lack of endurance. You only get a few casts per day so you either really need to make them count, or you need to be really sure you don't over-extend yourself on a day.

But at higher levels, preparation turns into a real fucking chore if you have a lot of spells and a lot of slots. There's a good chance you aren't even going to bother casting like 50% of these spells anyway but you still have to commit to a bunch of individual selections for spells that MIGHT be useful. So you memorize a bunch of shit and if it turns out you didn't memorize acid arrow and run into a troll... oh well just burn it with fire I guess. The result (in a videogame, especially a party-based game where the player is responsible for multiple characters) is a lot of hassle given the payoff in terms of fun gameplay.

>>3884048
>with the actual parts of the game that are dynamic and exciting (making decisions in the heat of combat).
Preparation is fun to a lot of people. The ARPG thread here has people saying the genre devolves into tons of prepwork for build autism only for the combat where you actually use the builds to be just mindless clicking. Yet people like those games. What you think is a chore preventing you from getting to the fun part is the fun part to others.

>>3884055
>the genre devolves into tons of prepwork for build autism only for the combat where you actually use the builds to be just mindless clicking. Yet people like those games. What you think is a chore preventing you from getting to the fun part is the fun part to others.
The ARPG subgenre evolves to incorporate heavy gambling mechanics, rare drop tables, intentional grindiness, and microtransactions to manipulate the dopamine systems of addiction-prone gamers and ensnare them. They literally have psychologists on staff to maximize their addictive potential.

>>3884055
>Preparation is fun to a lot of people.
I'm not saying it isn't.
That's why I avoided the term "fun."
I almost omitted "mundane" as being too pejorative.
>What you think is a chore preventing you from getting to the fun part is the fun part to others.
I'm not making a retarded binary argument.
I'm describing a continuum where what starts out as a reasonable amount of preparation adding depth and consequences, becomes more of a hassle as the number of required inconsequential decisions increases.

I also explicitly picked D&D(2e) as an example, not an entirely different game where the fun is entirely focused on preparation/build/loadout. How many of those Not-Diablos use a vancian spellcasting system, by the way? I'm guessing the answer is: None, and so we really don't know whether those ARPG fans would actually enjoy prepping individual spells the way AD&D 2e does it.

>>3884048
>The result (in a videogame, especially a party-based game where the player is responsible for multiple characters) is a lot of hassle given the payoff in terms of fun gameplay.
If we're talking about videogames exclusively, a lot of the hassle of the decision-making gets solved with foreknowledge. And game designers assume this foreknowledge because nodoby beats these games on the first run without dying and reloading a bunch of times.
As an example, how many players died at the hands of Tarnesh in BG1?
So let's say that the game throws a bunch of vampires at you. You die, reload and prepare with lots of negative energy protection. But the nextbig encounter is against mindflayers... so you die. Reload, load up a bunch of psychic protections and so on and so for.
Basically vancian magic in this context is just a soft lock for areas and quests.

>>3883701
Dark Souls did Vancian really well and really fit the setting.

>>3884104
Dark Souls does not have Vancian magic

>>3884080
Trying to discover the optimal solution to a fight or dungeon as some kind of puzzle is part of the gameplay loop. I also think your examples aren't always as you say, for example, if the town NPCs are telling you that people are appearing dead with bite marks on their necks and you have to invade a castle as your next dungeon, you should prepare for vampires. If you're entering the obvious ice dungeon, you should have protection against ice. But you can't be blamed for dying because designers put a fire breathing monster in the ice dungeon of course, or maybe they're just purposefully punishing overspecializing.

>>3884080
Yeah I was specifically not talking about that.
And honestly I find that to be another major problem with Vancian magic in videogames, although that is much more specifically a problem with AD&D and probably other "adapted tabletop" RPGs. Namely: savescumming.

RPGs traditionally had a "death is final" mindset. Even when resurrection is theoretically possible, there's no "game over, try again" mechanic. The world just continues on. Either the character's party escapes and brings him back to life, or they wipe and stay dead forever, and the players have to roll a new party. You're not supposed to learn from dying, you're not supposed to die in the first place. The spell preparation dynamic should be fair, the player should have enough clues about what's coming to make reasonably appropriate selections.

So yeah. All the Infinity Engine games are notoriously bad about this, especially since an encounter can go very poorly for reasons that a player may find to be unfair (eg one of your units takes an unexpected path around an obstacle and wanders into cloudkill). A bit of foreknowledge applied to preparation turns a total clusterfuck disaster into an easy victory.

>>3884107
no, it really does. You have to rest at a bonfire to attune them. You have only so many uses and then you have to rest at a bonfire to get them back. It works extremely well and much easier to understand than most d&d implementations.

>>3884014
If your argument is "this thread is dumb", I fully agree. But, you aren't making it better, because you brought up a semantic argument about FF1 and then failed your own definition by mentioning DS1 as Vancian. Basically, you are as dumb as any of us.

>>3884116
Dying and adjusting tactics isn't "savescumming", it's "metagaming".
The fact is in the IE games or even in tabletop you can easily scout ahead and you can often know what kind of enemies you will be facing in a particular area, there are many tools. People having a tendency to metagame and not set a generalized spelbook aimed at multiple common threats and adjusting it to the area is on them, it's basically guide culture.

>>3884107
It most certainly does.
Each attuned spell is granted a fixed number of NON-TRANSFERABLE charges.
It's "fire and forget," it's just that each spell carries a different number of charges (per attunement slot)

There's no way to use the loaded charge of one spell to cast a different spell. It can never be done. You must have another attunement slot, or you must "de-attune" the first spell so you can attune the second. Swap the word "attune" with "memorize" and you have traditional Vancian magic. That you get multiple charges per attunement doesn't change the essential dynamics.

>>3884110
Yeah, but that's not so much the system itself as how the game is designed. BG2 does it both well and awfully bad at the same time. I mention BG2 because that's what I'm currently playing.

>>3884116
Well, nobody is supposed to buy a game, die once and never play again. And I doubt the no reloads crowd play with that house rule without hving beaten the game conventionally dozens of times before.
Bottom line is, savescumming, foreknowledge, metagaming, etc. either by design or by flaw are an integral part of the games' mechanics in some cases, like IE games.

>>3884116
What you're describing, isn't that how Wizardry works? I haven't played it but I heard it's the case that your party dies and you have to make a new one and then decide to continue with them or to drag the old party's corpses back for reviving.

>>3884120
>Dying and adjusting tactics isn't "savescumming", it's "metagaming".
It doesn't matter what you fucking call it.

>>3884128
It does, because it strikes to the heart of roleplay. Savescumming is trying to get randomized chest to drop a specific item by reloading or restarting your Wizard in Nethack over and over to get a magic marker. Metagaming is using personal knowledge your character hasn't learned, like knowing there are beholders up ahead. Easily solved by scouting and researching and knowing the environment you are entering and finding those things out in game. This is roleplaying as an adventurer.

>>3884125
>Each attuned spell is granted a fixed number of NON-TRANSFERABLE charges.
Not how Vancian works. Spells are a single charge and each one takes a slot, fire and forget. Spells in Dark Souls 1 simply operate like the flask as refreshing consumables.
>That you get multiple charges per attunement doesn't change the essential dynamics.
It does.

DS1 is obviously its own system.

>>3884118
>If your argument is "this thread is dumb", I fully agree.
This thread is dumb because people like you don't understand things, stubbornly double-down and refuse to learn things when given the opportunity.
Glad we agree you are retarded.

>then failed your own definition by mentioning DS1 as Vancian
DS1 is Vancian. I simply didn't bother debunking the stupid counter-argument immediately because I didn't have time before. (the one here: >>3883861)
It's a laughably failed attempt to apply the clear and simple definitions provided. In Dark Souls you get multiple charges per attunement slot. This is not all that different from casting Melf's Minute Meteors, for example. It's easy to see how D&D's system could be tweaked so that every spell worked more like MMM.

The essential property of a mana system is that the mana pool is the shared resource.
Whether it's multiple pools or a single pool,
you have multiple spells consuming mana from one pool.
Taken to the extreme,
where each spell has its own dedicated mana pool
that no other spells share,
the concept of the pool becomes pointless.
What's the point of calling it mana if there's no pool of mana to draw from?
So a different word is needed.
This, conveniently, happens to be "Vancian."

>>3884131
>Spells are a single charge
You made up that part. Each DkS spell consumes a single attunement slot. This is equivalent to a memorization slot in Vancian magic. But since Dark Souls is oriented heavily around solo action combat, most of the spells just shoot some kind of projectile or fireburst, or have some other simple effect that you're probably going to use repeatedly, it would be stupid to require a whole attunement slot for every single spell charge.

>Spells in Dark Souls 1 simply operate like the flask as refreshing consumables.
The difference is the requirement of an attunement slot, which is a character trait. This ties it to the character's capacity to do magic, making it different from the magically-replenishing estus flasks.

The idea of spells as consumable items IS VANCIAN. You don't even seem to realize you're arguing my own fucking point. The only difference is that spell capacity is in the wizard's brain and gets replenished through the act of memorization. In terms of videogame mechanics, the concept of "memorization" is largely unnecessary. Later versions of D&D called it "preparation" instead of memorization, and Dark Souls calls it "attunement." It doesn't really matter what you call it, the essential element is that each attuned/memorized/prepared spell does not consume a shared Mana resource to cast.

>>3884131
>In Jack Vance's works, particularly within the Dying Earth series, magic functions as a system where spells are complex sequences of words, thoughts, and actions that are memorized by the caster and then expended upon casting.
That's it. That's all Vancian means, so fire and forget is all you need to fit the description and Dark Souls does that.

>>3884129
Again, I DONT fucking care what you call it.
The effect is negative either way.
Metagaming or savescumming, both result in a very lame an awkward dynamic in the (otherwise awesome) Infinity Engine games where fights that can be interesting, challenging and costly on an initial try are completely an utterly trivialized on the second try.

In Baldur's Gate, if a character dies, you're faced with the question of reloading and trying the encounter again, or pressing on and going through the hassle of having a character revived.

D&D is designed for ONLY the latter option to be valid. You're supposed to accept the consequences and costs of the encounter and press on. But the practical reality is that it's usually WAY fucking easier and maybe even more fun to just reload and do the encounter again. And because of the extreme importance of preparation, is likely to be a complete pushover on the second try. As a bonus you'll probably come out with more surplus consumables and unused spells the second time around, when all you really wanted was to avoid the tedious hassle of having to do lug a character to the temple for resurrection and re-equipping all their gear and re-organizing their inventory and so on.

>>3884133
>This thread is dumb because people like you don't understand things, stubbornly double-down and refuse to learn things when given the opportunity.
You are the biggest retard on this board, just look at how long you waffle on and say something that takes one sentence and how you are trying to twist the definition of Vancian magic, which is just the magic of oldschool D&D, to suit your unhinged points. Please, stop softlocking yourself.
>>3884138
>You made up that part.
No. All spells are individually memorized in Vancian, that's its whole thing. Want more of the same spell? You have to use a full slot. DS1 is not Vancian.
>The idea of spells as consumable items IS VANCIAN
No, a scroll is not Vancian, a wand is not Vancian.
>The only difference is that spell capacity is in the wizard's brain
Which changes as you level allowing you to hold more INDIVIDUAL spells and as long as they are in your SPELLBOOK and you have access to that spellbook.

Please, continue, you are incredibly amusing in your arrogance.

>>3884142
You do care, you responded. Promptly and aggressively. What you hate is being wrong and not understanding the words you use, which is often.
You don't have to metagame to beat these games. Scout, Wizard's Eye, Invisibility, pay attention to the environment and warnings from NPCs.

>>3884143
>No, a scroll is not Vancian, a wand is not Vancian.
True, because they aren't connected to a person's innate traits and abilities. You should read the whole post and think about it before posting kneejerk retorts.

>>3884142
Unless you assume that a game is meant to be played only once, certain degree of metagaming is unavoidable, at least in the IE games.

>>3884146
Attunement is basically equipment load, like carrying capacity for strength. it's not advancing along a class gaining mastery. You unlock slots to hold more consumables, like adding charges to the Estus.

Do you enjoy losing?

>>3884144
I care about making the point I wanted to make about the Infinity Engine save/reload dynamics and the dissonance between tabletop RPG conventions and videogames.

You are unable to comprehend or respond to the actual point and so are instead nitpicking word choices that I don't fucking care about at all. On this point I'll use whatever fucking term you want if it meant you'd actually respond to the salient point.

>>3884150
That has nothing to do with it being Vancian or not. Vancian does not equal Dungeons and Dragons.

>>3884151
You don't have a point. It's all semantics and this thread is retarded. There's no "Vancian vs. Mana" in RPGs, there are many systems and a game needs a system designed for it specifically.

>>3884150
>Attunement is basically equipment load
But it's not equipment load, because Endurance is for that.
>Do you enjoy losing?
I enjoy losing against a smart person where I learn something interesting I hadn't considered before.
I hate winning against complete idiots where I have to spoonfeed basic shit, which is what's happening here (and is what usually happens on /vrpg/).

>>3884152
>Vancian does not equal Dungeons and Dragons.
It absolutely does.

>>3884154
>But it's not equipment load, because Endurance is for that.
Can you retards stop using semantic arguments and engage with the whole post? Gosh!

>>3884143
>>3884146
Acshually, the very first Dying Earth story, Turjan of Miir, had a wizard giving Turjan a crystal, then having him sleep, and the crystal was something he would crush once to teleport back to the wizard's house the next day. Doesn't mean much I know, but it's technically vancian magic by the actual Jack Vance requiring using a consumable item.

>>3884148
Yes, the point is that the metagaming in Baldur's Gate is way too easy and powerful, and it's due to the very high impact of pre-battle preparation as compared to in-battle, "reactive" decisions.
>>3884153
The thread is retarded mostly because of you.
>There's no "Vancian vs. Mana" in RPGs,
There aren't many others. Although if you wanted to have an interesting discussion, you could try thinking of others. If you weren't an idiot you would have done that from the start instead of diving headlong into a semantics debate where you have everything wrong and retarded.

Vancian: "Fire and forget," casters have an innate spell capacity and each cast consumes a single charge.
Mana: Spells cost Mana. When you cast a spell, mana is subtracted from a mana pool.
Cooldown: Spells recharge automatically on a timer after being cast.
At-will: Spells can be used at any time without limitation.
Item-based: Spells are cast from items or weapons wielded by the player.
Mutex/Concentration: Continuous effects that have some mechanism of exclusion so only one (or a very few) effects can be active simultaneously (this category is popular for Bard Song).

Many systems can use some combination of the two. Everquest is a mana system, but restricts casters to 8 simultaneously memorized spells. Changing a spell requires entering meditation state and memorizing the spell from the spellbook into an active slot, and from there it will consume mana when cast.

>>3884158
It's necessary because you are trying to make arguments by changing the meaning of words and pretending to not understand what they really mean.
It's a sign of desperation and someone who is losing an argument badly.

>>3883701
I prefer mana-based immensely.
It means you can actually carry a large amount of spells that you might need, instead of having to load up on few spells that you'll most likely need.
It's the difference between holding five different utility spells, and one magic missiles which you'll definitely use, and using those six magic missiles because you didn't need any of the others.
It helps the fantasy of being the one in the party with a vast knowledge, and a variety of tools to deal with every situation.

Vancian came from a time where game designers (not even of the video variety) were seemingly just afraid of magic entirely. They don't want it too be too powerful, so they put way too many limitations on it. Meanwhile, anyone with a physical weapon can swing all day long without any limits until enough time passes that you gain some fatigue.

It's all a matter of balancing, but I think it's a lot easier to balance out mana-based systems while still keeping them fun to interact with.

Demon's Souls originally started with a mana based system with a ring that allows you to regenerate your magic over time. This ended up being insanely overpowered, so they walked it back in Dark Souls where you could attune one Soul Arrow scroll to get 30 uses. Despite what some people seem to think, the magic is a bit undertuned in that game, save for a couple broken spells like Homing Soul Mass, and Dark Bead.
In Dark Souls 3, they reintroduced the magic meter, and it's generally considered the weakest that Magic has ever been in the series, but I consider it and Elden Ring to be the most fun to use. Simply because you can carry many situational spells without feeling like you're wasting space by not just taking more plain damage instead.

>>3884169
plus, it's a lot easier to design ways to regain your spells with a mana based system.

Let's say you rest for four hours. How many spell slots do you get back? which spells can you now use, and how do you split it evenly?
If you get none for that sort of rest, then why not just limit your rests to 8 hours minimum?

Meanwhile, with Mana, you get back whatever equivalent of 4 hours of Mana is in that time. It doesn't have to be all of it. Resting 8 hours doesn't even have to restore it all if your mana pool is that big.
It also allows for stuff like temporary Mana pool boosts from buffs or enchantments. Mana cost reductions through gear, Mana restore potions, and so on. you can probably think of a few more.

>>3884169
>They don't want it too be too powerful, so they put way too many limitations on it. Meanwhile, anyone with a physical weapon can swing all day long without any limits until enough time passes that you gain some fatigue.
That's balanced. A wizard will have a lot of utility but a lot of limitations. A fighter will have no limitations, but no utility. A thief or rogue will have a lot of out of combat utility with no limitations, but be weak at combat and so on. If you want
>the fantasy of being the one in the party with a vast knowledge, and a variety of tools to deal with every situation.
it might make the wizard a class with a lot of utility and little to no limitations. At which point to balance the fighter you start giving them "not-magic" skills, make the thief good at fighting, and at some point the classes all blur together.

>>3884175
>at some point the classes all blur together.
that's just balance itself

>>3883701
Vancian is the perfect choice in linear games but dogshit everywhere else meanwhile mana is just garbage.
FF1 have the perfect system for open ended games.
So if the game is linear go with vancian (ds1 was a good example, even without spell levels), for everything else go FF1

>>3884178
Balance is letting the wizard spend his spells to buff everyone and take out the big threat while the fighter fights everyone else, and the thief disarms the trap in the chest after the combat. Lack of balance is all the classes being able to perform the same role, so you just min-max by picking the one that's best at everything or best at the most important roles having a whole team of wizards or a whole team of whatever else.

>>3884175
It isn't balanced without a well experienced DM who can dynamically change the route of the session seamlessly to account for how the mage is using his spells. When we're talking about video games, that all goes out the window. You either rest after every combat encounter and save-scum until you don't get jumped by random spawns, or you restrict rests, which means the mage either uses no spells until the end, or all spells at the beginning. Anything else requires a guide to know how long the dungeon is on a first playthrough.

How often will you be using utility versus dealing damage?
It's pretty obvious which of the two is more valuable to the party for the vast majority of the time.

I don't want every class to be good at everything. I just want the wizards to not have to choose between being dead weight for the party on the off chance they become useful for a moment, and being mildly useful most of the time until they come across something they could do if they only had the divine premonition to pack the right spell last night. (aka, read ahead to see what this dungeon has.)

What's more. All this doesn't even account for the RPGs that don't have a party system. At least in a party system, you don't have to choose between one and the other. You're encouraged to have both.

>>3884184
>which means the mage either uses no spells until the end, or all spells at the beginning. Anything else requires a guide to know how long the dungeon is on a first playthrough.
Or you just take the risks? That's how I've been playing FF1 for example, or how I've played kingmaker (although this was so long ago I don't remember exactly how resting worked there). I will absolutely spend my aoe spells to take out a group if I feel like I can get through the dungeon with my resources. If I was wrong and should've saved resources, now I'm in a bad situation where I might barely win or just get a game over. Which is no big deal, take the game over and try again.

>>3884159
Vanican magic isn't about the consumables found in settings using Vancian magic. It's about spellbooks and spells disappearing from the mind once cast. This is the reality. There's no debate here. Very few games use Vancian magic.
>>3884165
>There aren't many others
There aren't many Vancian based games. The thread is D&D vs. not-D&D which is dumb, because D&D based RPGs are attempting to simulate D&D in vidya, not be well designed RPGs in and of themselves.
>>3884168
Indeed.

>walks into graveyard
HOW DO I KNOW DER BE UNDEAD HERE! FUCK DIS, RELOAD! SHITTU GAMU!

>>3884192
>The thread is D&D vs. not-D&D which is dumb, because D&D based RPGs are attempting to simulate D&D in vidya, not be well designed RPGs in and of themselves.
Other than Dark Souls, what might a non-D&D Vancian system look like in a videogame?

What about the chad shadowrun drain system?

>>3884179
How does linearity matter?

>>3884196
There are no non-D&D Vancian magic systems. Vancian magic is entirely based around the magic of D&D, that's where the term originated, it didn't mean "the magic of Jack Vance" but "the magic system inspired by Vance found in D&D". Dark Souls isn't Vancian magic, no spellbooks, no spells disappearing from the mind, this is non-debatable, I don't even know if it was in any way inspired by D&D, since the devs of Dark Souls don't seem that familiar with D&D or RPGs in general. The whole thing was kinda weakly made up to begin with. Like how can you memorize Fireball twice and forget it once?

>>3884199
You have a semi-decent point, but most of what you've said is flawed or very wrong in some way. Vancian does indeed refer to Jack Vance, not D&D. Dark Souls isn't strictly Vancian, but having integer uses per rest of each specific spell individually is a variant of Vancian magic, even though you can rest to refresh them. Because it could be done strictly Vancian by just assuming the character has a spellbook they're preparing from and then they always choose to prepare the exact same number of uses for some stupid reason. And yes it's true that none of it makes sense and it's stupid as a game design.

But everything is debatable. Everything. Especially whatever it is you're trying to prevent debate about.

In particular, the things that you're wrong about because you're desperately scrambling to manipulate context and control terminology without any authority to do so. You don't get to decide what people talk about. You need to shut the fuck up, you stupid little cunt, because no one's gonna ever respect you while you're behaving like that, and not just because you're fucking wrong about everything.

>>3884196
I'll assume you're not talking about the brand / IP owned by WotC, because Pathfinder is there. It's still D&D under the hood, it's just updated, more balanced and patched and owned by a different corp.

Dark And Darker uses a Vancian-like system very much like Dark Souls. FF1 used very VERY slightly modified Vancian. EQ1 was directly inspired by D&D 2e and although it uses a mana system for resources, you still have to prepare from your spellbook which specific spells you can cast at any given moment, and there's a limit to how many you can have prepared and ready at any given time. This was considered a somewhat common house rule from tabletop in those days, rather than a radical departure. It's sort of like how the Elephant In The Room splat is considered default in PF1e these days, and it was not considered "non-Vancian" at the time, even though nowadays we categorize it as a hybrid system.

Pokemon is technically vancian. A pokemon memorizes 4 moves which have limited uses until they rest, and have to forget an old move to learn a new one

>>3884184
In tabletop and games both, mages have scrolls. Stockpile and use your fucking scrolls, dude. Especially for things where the minimum caster level is sufficient. You don't need ten slots for Fly or Teleport. You scribe scrolls so you have it when you need because it's niche. You use your real spell slots for things you commonly need to cast and which need caster levels under it or good save DC. Like Dispel and Slow.
Scrolls, dude. Scrolls. And Wands. The math has been extremely rigorously vetted. If you're following the WBL or XP tracks, one or two wands will last you till level 20 even if you're casting from it every single fight. If you're using some other leveling system, it's still unlikely that a wand won't be a good investment because you'd need to quadruple or quintuple your encounter rate per level before the cost savings margin gets narrower in certain use cases. And Scrolls are merely double the price per-charge, but you can decide on a per-charge basis how many you want to buy so it's more efficient by the time the story is over in most cases (like Fly, for example, because it lasts minutes whereas Overland Flight lasts hours, so by the time you get Overland you won't need any more Fly castings, realistically, which means you probably only need two or three castings in your entire career).

>>3884182
Ya. I have to agree. It's a fucking team game, guys. Having a specialized niche is good for party dynamics. If you're wasting your spells on shit that the fighter should be dealing with, one of you is not doing your job correctly.

>>3884213
>lots of butthurt
Wow, you really hate being wrong.
>Because it could be done strictly Vancian by just assuming the character has a spellbook they're preparing from and then they always choose to prepare the exact same number of uses for some stupid reason
Same with FF1, you could assume that whatever spells you happen to use were what your character prepared for that day. :)

>>3884232
That's not how any of this works, kiddo. You may leave before the jannies come for you.

>>3884220
>pokemon switching to mana
Would make non-damage attacks less of a handicap at least; and not as annoying being forced to put hm on everything.

>>3884199
>There are no non-D&D Vancian magic systems
That's not what I asked.
I asked you to hypothesize, and you cannot.
You're unable to reason on this topic for some reason.
>Dark Souls isn't Vancian magic
It definitely is, mechanically.
The ways that DkS is not Vancian are largely irrelevant.
But that's why I asked you to IGNORE Dark Souls and to conceptualize a game that uses what you consider to be Vancian magic. Just to try and get the discussion to go somewhere interesting and somehow route around your weird and stupid fixations and difficulty with language.

>>3884218
>FF1 used very VERY slightly modified Vancian.
They modified it into a mana system with mana divided by level.
The reason people think it's Vancian is because it's so clearly based on D&D's specific implementation of Vancian casting.
The similarities between FF1 and D&D are what make people think it's Vancian.
>EQ1 was directly inspired by D&D 2e
Unlikely. The inspiration is far more likely indirect, via the text MUDs it was based on.
And yes, EQ1 has a memorization concept borrowed from Vancian but it definitely cannot be considered a Vancian system as a whole. It's undeniably a mana system. (Other than bards which are more of a ritual/state-based system)

>>3884270
>Unlikely. The inspiration is far more likely indirect, via the text MUDs it was based on.
... You know the original creators have gone on record in literally hundreds of interviews talking explicitly about that specific topic, right? It's not something you can just guess about. People like Brad literally said directly that they based it all on D&D and that their intention was to create a persistent world D&D campaign with a few house rules (like a mana system to hybridize Vancian). It's not like it was that long ago. Those interviews are all over YouTube, you can just literally go watch them.

>>3884277
Did you even fucking play the game?

>>3884199
>Like how can you memorize Fireball twice and forget it once?
Like in IE games?

>>3884258
Wrongly aimed mockery here. You have multiple people arguing with you.
>>3884266
I don't think copying anything from Vancian is useful. Systems need to be coherent with the setting, just like how D&D did magic.
>The ways that DkS is not Vancian are largely irrelevant.
Ditto for FF1. :)
>>3884289
In D&D, yes.

>>3884296
>In D&D, yes.
It never made much sense to me, but never gave it much thought beyond "well, that's a game mechanic".
My guess is that the origin of Vancian magic, as in the way Jack Vance created it, was meant to be a narrative device to limit how powerful mages could become and prevent any challenge from becoming irrelevant.
And I guess it was adapted to D&D because of proximity, familiarity and convenience.
Anyway, both vancian and mana-based magic systems are ways of respurce management from a game mechanics perspective, and from a narrative perspective just showcase how ridiculous fantasy worlds where people just walk around with reality bending power at their fingertips are.
In that regard I kinda liked the nerf to magic that was in the Dark Sun universe, speaking from a narrative perspective alone, but it would probably suck as a game mechanic.
No, I haven't played the Dark Sun games, I don't know how right or wrong I am in that regard.

>>3884300
That's kinda my point, a lot of this shit wasn't really thought out. Everything was new with RPGs and people were just making stuff up. In many ways, it's all still very new. That's why System A vs. System B or theorycrafting a fake game is pointless.

>>3884304
If you think it's pointless you shouldn't post.

>>3884300
I’m fond of the cost of spells like haste causing permanent aging

>>3884304
Agreed with your post except for:
>That's why System A vs. System B or theorycrafting a fake game is pointless.
If RPG enthusiasts love something is precisely debating about game systems and mechanics.
In that regard, while I don't hate it, I've got no love for the vancian system, whether it's a narrative device or a game mechanic. Classes like sorcerers in D&D make more sense: you get a limited number of castings from a given list of spells. Yeah, they have their own shortcomings implementationwise, but still. And yeah, it basically acts as a mana pool at the end of the day.
Anyway, whether the game is more lineal (fixed encounters) or more procedural, a mana system can do whatever the vancian system does, but not the other way around. In short, the vancian system is obsolete and the only reason is still in use is due to tradition and its heavy link to D&D. Lots of D&D purists would tear their clothes off if it were changed.

>>3884312
>Lots of D&D purists would tear their clothes off if it were changed
D&D has already been ran into the ground. It’s dead. Who gives a shit about anymore? No “purist” is still playing 5th ed.

>>3884289
>Like how can you memorize Fireball twice and forget it once?
On one hand, magic is supposed to be mysterious and esoteric. You could just accept it as a property of magic. On the other hand, an explanation I've heard is that the mage does the whole spell but stops at the last step which could be a word or gesture, then during the fight they just complete the spell, and there's a limit to how many you can prepare in a day if you're not experienced enough.

>>3884309
If it's pointless, why shouldn't I post? If it actually mattered, posting would matter.
>>3884312
>If RPG enthusiasts love something is precisely debating about game systems and mechanics.
Yeah, seen it too many times. All talk, no walk.
>>3884316
It made a little more sense when material components were part of every spell, but you really shouldn't be able to memorize a particular spell more than once or have it that as a wizard grows in power, they are able to focus certain spells and get multiple casts out of them. A kind of specialization that isn't as lame as what they came up with with schools of magic.

>>3884336
Because you are shitting up this thread with idiocy on a topic you obviously don't understand at all. You don't even really believe it's pointless, you are just performing as a pathetic cope for your ego, as if everyone is down on your level.

>>3884339
You should cry about it more, that'll show me. :)

>>3884296
You're samefagging, and now you're lying about it.

>>3884280
A lot. Guess how I know you didn't.

File: 1703957748812338.jpg (54 KB, 1010x746)

54 KB JPG

>>3884378
>You're samefagging
lmao

>>3884300
Jack Vance wasn't designing a game. He was writing novels. Gygax just happened to like his novels.
Vance's magic wasn't really systematized, but the biggest mistake people make when trying to describe it is using "memorization" metaphors. There is no memorization. Spells are like grenades. You have to go through the tedious process of assembling each one. When you pull the pin and throw the grenade it goes boom and it's gone. You don't forget about it, you just have to prepare another one.
The preparation process is lengthy and tedious and you need a "recipe book" to make sure you do it correctly or you might make a dangerous mistake. During preparation, you do almost the entire ritual which involved a lot of finger wiggling and hand waving and chanting and various material components and diagram drawings or whatever. But you only ALMOST complete the ritual. The very last gesture and word of the ritual you just ... don't do. Until there's a time when you actually want to cast the spell. Then you do the gesture and say the words and your ritual is then complete and the spell goes off. That last word and gesture is like pulling the pin and throwing the grenade. The grenade just sits there waiting for the pin to be pulled before it can go off.

And like a grenade, you have to make each one. And when each one is expended, it's gone. If you want multiples of the same one, you have to make multiples of the same kind.

There is no memory, involved. You don't "forget" spells. At all. At fucking all. That isn't how it works. That's never been how it works. That's never been how it's described.

For example, crtl+f on this page for memorize:
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic

You'll find similar phrasing in all editions of D&D.

File: Tsr 02100 AD& D Player's (...).png (103 KB, 463x189)

103 KB PNG

>>3884384
I absolutely love the confidence with which you state incorrect things. Don't change, kiddo.

File: AD& D Player's Handbook.png (171 KB, 469x337)

171 KB PNG

>>3884387
Here's the section of CHARACTER SPELLS with more details.

>>3884379
Clearly you spent more time trolling the official message boards desperately hoping for a blue name to respond in your thread than actually playing the game.

>>3884296
>>The ways that DkS is not Vancian are largely irrelevant.
>Ditto for FF1. :)
Wrong.
The only ways Dark Souls is not "Vancian" are objectively irrelevant in the sense that they do not involve any actual game mechanics.
The game doesn't use the actual term "memorization." In Dark Souls they don't call it "memorization" and attunement is not memory so it's technically not exactly Vancian magic as depicted in the novels.

Mechanically, there's no functional difference between calling it attunement and calling it memorization. There are only minor "roleplay" distinctions, how you're supposed to imagine the magic working and what it means. Functionally speaking, it's purely Vancian.

With FF1, the distinction are mechanically very relevant. If you are a red mage with CURE and FIRE memorized, and only one charge left. You may cast either one, but ONLY one. If you cast CURE, you can no longer cast FIRE. If you cast FIRE, you can no longer cast CURE. This means the spells are not "fire and forget." This means that, mechanically, functionally, RELEVANTLY, the system is not Vancian.

>>3884363
I can tell it stings.
Unfortunately not enough for you to make any good posts.

>>3884398
>The only ways Dark Souls is not "Vancian" are objectively irrelevant in the sense that they do not involve any actual game mechanics.
Wrong. The spells have multiple innate charges. Very relevant.
>With FF1, the distinction are mechanically very relevant.
What if you only buy one spell per level? There's no choice and the assumption could be made that you are filling your slots with a single spell that you have for that level.
>>3884400
More, please.

>>3884389
This style of Vancian magic preparation stuff is something I've always considered a little bit retarded
>Oh it's in the brain but it's so powerful that your brain wipes it after you cast it because le discharge
Preparing specific uses of X amount of spells is kind of lame and high commitment compared to knowing and committing certain spells with Y amount of uses spread through all the spells in a given category. Of course, categories and tiers of magic is a bit retarded too but that's more of a personal opinion

>>3884416
Really, the material components were always the better resource limitation. Many spells that are overpowered in video games wouldn't be if people hadn't simply ignored that aspect of it because they were lazy.

>>3884420
Yeah physical resource based casting is much more wizard-like, but the issue comes from that type of immersion not really being something you can manage in a video game
>players will either hoard or complain
>quests need to be designed in ways that clue you in to proper spell usage (handholding)
It's not as fun when your Wizard has Wizard-vision to tell him what the monsters are so he can get some cattails from a swamp two miles down to prepare grease or something. It's a pretty difficult situation to solve in video games

>>3884438
>It's not as fun when your Wizard has Wizard-vision to tell him what the monsters are
I think that's when asking the locals about the area and possibly researching what types of monsters there are in the world can be rewarded. You can do it like how the Witcher does, with preparation for an enemy being their strength, which I think plays into the Wizard and even adventurer fantasy as well. It's more interesting to be given the tools to form a game plan. However, that kind of design takes effort, so it's easier to just sprinkle trash monsters willy nilly or have ambush set pieces every 50 feet.

>>3884389
>>3884387
I love how you pretend the way it's phrased isn't exactly what they said. Looks like you found an ancient snippet of text that uses the word memorize, but you forgot to read it for comprehension. I'm sure you definitely play the 1976 version of the game. Here on video game rpgs where obscure tabletop rules that only three people in the world still use are totally gonna win you an argument about a fantasy setting in a novel. Three different media involved in a nonsense argument about semantics where you're the side who's claiming that "memory" rhetoric doesn't make sense...
The irony. You want so desperately to be a victim, and you just cannot let it go.
Maybe if you bickered over semantics less you'd have better reading comprehension skills, but at the very least you wouldn't lose so many arguments in such dramatic fashion.
I searched the magic section of the PF1e rules, and it's correct that there is no usage of "memory" terminology. So your archeological expedition into a completely irrelevant blurb was for naught.

>>3884420
None of the overpowered spells are in video games because they do things that are completely beyond the scope of video games. Like scrying and making backup clones and creating demiplanes.

>>3883811
You shut your whore mouth. Deus Ex: Invisible War is a great game, except when you run out of universal ammo. Then it is a really bad game except that melee is the best weapon and it doesn't use ammo. Maybe that was intended?

>>3884197
>>3884196

Actually prefer this kind of stuff.
Unreliable magic that can damage you puts back a risk vs. reward balance and restores some of the mystique to magic which should be untamable and unpredictable by nature.

Magic in modern gaming and writing usually behaves too much like restockable grenades and removes the mystical portent from the force itself. This cheapens most gaming and sadly fantasy narratives when a fireball is essentially something you just buy at the grocery store like a dozen eggs and even the most normie peasant stumbling out of the pub half drunk because The Sacksvilles lost 4-0 to Proudfeet football match knows what a fireball is.

Shadowrun, though it has been a while was like 'sure you could level this building but it might instantly put you in the hospital too' iirc.
That would be an interesting way to balance a quadratic wizard/shaman vs. linear fighter/street sam in a video game and still keep shock and awe level spells.

File: PoR.png (430 KB, 900x675)

430 KB PNG

>>3884479
I went to the first version of D&D I learned, the AD&D Player's Manual, because that's where I learned about memorizing spells, which is how it was referred to. "That" anon was wrong when he said this
>There is no memory, involved. You don't "forget" spells. At all. At fucking all. That isn't how it works. That's never been how it works. That's never been how it's described.
The reason people talk about memorizing spells is because that's what it was referred to for many years. You can fuck right off dumbass, you're simply and utterly wrong, this is from the people who invented the damn system. Here's some ancient vidya to support it, kiddo.

>>3884481
This doesn't even make sense in response to what I posted. I said "overpowered spells in video games", I'm not talking about overpowered spells in tabletop. You do get that this is /vrpg/, right?

File: baldur-manual.pdf.png (399 KB, 829x366)

399 KB PNG

>>3884489
Here's another archeological find. BG manual. Guess we can't talk about that game any more here, it's obsolete.

>>3884479
NTA but why does a wizard memorizing their spells trigger you so? And what is it you think you're so proud of here to continue filling the thread with pointless ego stroking trash? Autism about ancient fantasy novels? This last post of yours is pure schizobabble and you bring up PF to settle an origins of RPG argument after making allusions to 1976? Dude, what?

The argument in which YOU said "There is no memory, involved. You don't "forget" spells. At all. At fucking all. That isn't how it works. That's never been how it works. That's never been how it's described."
Like, what? Of course they memorize and they still memorize in 5th.

Maybe type out what you're going to post in notepad and review how self defeating it is before putting it on the board might help you.

Jack Vance is what doesn't matter, no one ever used the term Vancian for years playing these things and it was only retroactively applied by grogs.
You are a calcified grog, but your brain still seems to work so there is a hope you can change this bullshit reactionary behavior perhaps.

>>3884312
>>3884336
>>3884438
If the focus of the game was the wizard itself like a single character game such as the Witcher resource gathering, investigation etc. can be pretty cool. Resource collecting was even fun in Skyrim for Alchemy for this reason.

When the wizard is just one of the party but he needs cartloads of dino bones which seems odd when the fighter doesn't need whetstones and sheathe oil or armor repair, and which aren't immersive to kill a dino through time travel and acquire it's very boring and tedious to fill up on them at several shops so you might as well remove tedium and only keep what is fun and immersive in the video game.

And what do you gain out of it? "Balance" where the intended effect is the wizard hoards spells for the boss. Also boring. Everyone loved nuking slimes with Bahamut in FF7. Find a more fun way to balance things.

>>3884048
Preparation is fun. It is strategizing what you might find in the future. It is black-coded to hate planning.

>>3884316
I wasn't so much looking for a rational explanation as pointing out how a narrative device runs into these problems when it's converted into a game mechanic.

>>3884384
>Jack Vance wasn't designing a game. He was writing novels. Gygax just happened to like his novels.
That is what I was pointing at. Jack Vance understood that he needed to limit nages' prowess or else he couldn't put them under a credible threat, so he came up with this nerf purely as a narrative device for that purpose. Gygax tried to adapt it to D&D and, I assume, after a few trials and errors, the end result was what he considered best as a game mechanic. That's it.

>>3884438
Ultima VI had a combo of mana (magical points) and reagents needed to cast a spell. Spells were divided in eight circles, each spell consumed a number of points equal to the circle. Magic points were dependant on INT and class. The more powerful the spell, the more reagents it needed. Magic points regenerated over time.
I think that balanced things reasonably well. You needed to keep track of your MP and sink money in reagents, but the payoff was that magic not only drastically affected combat, also had a lot of utility.

I don't like vancian magic systems because it never rewards spell specialization meaningfully.

>>3883701
You should read Rhialto the Marvelous by Jack Vance and understand that its about whimsical charm and creativity. Better games would be designed if they did not strictly adhere to dungeons and dragons rulesets which are rather limiting. BG3 for instance did well because the game designers did not limit themselves to only things players could do. They got creative. Take the hag, for instance. Mirror images, teleportation, strange masks that possess the npcs, illusions on walls. All were there to support a creative narrative. Yet some game designers limit the bad guys to casting melfs acid arrow, magic missle, fireball and just walk around being evil.

So really you shouldnt limit yourself to thinking in terms of Mana or Vancian, but come up with something interesting.

>>3884499
Reading comprehension failure and binary-brain nigger response.

>>3884408
>Wrong. The spells have multiple innate charges. Very relevant.
It's not relevant at all. It's really rather hilarious you struggle so hard with the idea of a bundle. Your brain is seriously broken somehow.
>What if you only buy one spell per level?
Then you wouldn't have enough information to understand the system and thus would not be in a position to analyze and compare it to other systems.

>>3884420
>>3884438
I think material components can be interesting but the problem I always had with component-based magic is that it's not sufficiently different from technology. Like OK in a fantasy story, sure if you can enchant a ripe acorn covered in bat shit into an explosive, that's pretty cool. But if you want bombs in a videogame, maybe just make a game with bombs.

Since Dark Souls has already come up, that game has both firebombs (inventory-limited) and pyromancy (attunement/spell limited). The physics aren't quite identical but pyromancers throw fireballs that explode and firebombs are just thrown explosives.

>>3884590
lmao, I love how you get increasingly incoherent as the argument stretches on. It's easy to see the exact point that you start phoning it in and repeating your tired phrases.

File: yellow-dragon-spells.png (42 KB, 807x262)

42 KB PNG

>>3884698
There's nothing incoherent in the post.

If you are assign spells to slots, and the spells get refreshed on some kind of rest/preparation cycle, you're dealing with a Vancian system or at least what amounts to a Vancian spell system in a videogame RPG. Whether the spells you assign to a slot contain one charge or multiple charges makes no difference at all.

This is especially true given that each assigned spell contains a FIXED number of charges.
When you memorize Soul Arrow you get 30 charges.
When you memorize Combustion you get 16 charges.
When you memorize Crystal Magic Weapon you get 3 charges.
This means there's no other (non-Vancian) system or mechanic influencing the number of spell charges.
There's only the specification of the spell itself.
This makes it consistent with Vancian magic.

It's not a mana system
because there's no mana, no shared resource pool
just the specific number of charges for the specific spell you have memorized.

It's not a component-limited system
because there are no consumable components
just the spells in your head.

It's not a cooldown system
because spells don't refresh until you rest at a bonfire

It's not a "uses per day" system
because you have to attune spells to slots

>>3883701
They're both awful.
Magic should take time to "charge up", as the wizard does all the hand gestures and chanting. Then it can have really powerful effects while still carrying risk and not making mages objectively superior to other classes. It would encourage teamwork and synergy.

>>3884597
Also pop culture has bizarre ideas about when explosives became a thing. Like, people think swords and sorcery means medieval and therefore there's no gunpowder. Which is just... fucking hilarious. You want knights without gunpowder you have to go back far enough that those knights don't have shiny armor... And even then there was gunpowder it just wasn't common enough to expect it on a battlefield. There's a reason sorcerers had a reputation for literally throwing fireballs...

>>3884590
You are such an insufferable dumbass, and your comment style is so identifiable. You're all over like three boards spamming panicked rage bullshit every time you get called out for being so fucking stupid. Just shut up, kid. Shut the fuck up before you piss off someone who feels like doing something about it. Go play with your sonichu amulet or what the fuck ever.

>>3884763
absolutely seething

>>3884729
lol, as long as you're having fun, cutie.

File: adxup3.jpg (54 KB, 588x500)

54 KB JPG

>>3883701

>>3884175
Just have wizard gameplay offer immense late-game power at the cost of a rough rest of the game where you have to be a master ruseman in order to not get mauled to death whereas the fighter class would offer a linear curve instead. The player would pick their class based on the kind of experience they want, and then it would be up to the robustness of the game design to allow for both styles to be playable and fun if different
>>3884750
I don't recall seeing this outside of Dragon's Dogma. The sorcerer starting to levitate as the Nuke the Entire Area spell that could be interrupted at any time was about ready was extremely cathartic; more than made up for how limiting blue vocations could feel at times
DD aside, I agree that casting speed could be an interesting limitation, especially in settings where mana is pulled from the ambient air anyway. You'd get a sense of progression beyond raw stats as you figure out ways to deal with interruptions, which means you'd in theory naturally pay attention to all sorts of smaller game mechanics instead of reducing your entire experience to, for example, DS's Soul Spear spam

>>3885061
>casting speed could be an interesting limitation
It was in AD&D, since it was phase based and spells had casting times.

>>3884763
He's chutzpahposting, it's his only gimmick. He bores his opponent to death with refuting gibberish mixed with occasional salient points and forces them to reread the same childish insults ad nauseam. It's one of the weaker styles, in my humble opinion.

>>3885183
Responding to arguments on the internet with IRL threats is a pretty good sign you're the one losing, both the argument and your composure.

>>3885187
I agree that it's pathetic, but caring about winning arguments, rather than understanding yourself better, on the internet is already an instant loss in my learned opinion.

>>3884517
I generally wish that RPGs would do less to encourage specialization, not more. It's boring to have characters who are only good at one thing.

>>3883701
>Is there anyone who actually genuinely likes Vancian magic?
They are, Vatican magicians. They like the Vancian magic, it even sounds simular.

>>3885217
>rather than understanding yourself better
The actual point is to understand the topic better, which in this case involves a combination of sharing ideas and using the Socratic method (aka argument/refutation/rebuttal) on disputed points.

>>3883920
How does he explain the magic there?

I played an RPG recently where mana recharged at a rate of about 1/5th of your bar per turn, with no other way to replenish it out of battle or anything. Made for some very interesting encounter design.

>>3885242
No, the point of communication is self-knowledge when it comes to subjective preference.
There has been zero use of the Socratic method in this thread, because of the ego of primary antagonist precludes its use. This is the Chutzpah-Weasel method, where the object is to continue an argument ad infinitum through the use of semantics and pretense. It's very easy to understand.

>>3885265
Why do you do this?

>>3883701
>Is there anyone who actually genuinely likes Vancian magic?
gary gygax and all of the grognards that suck him off
>This sucks
yes

>>3885271
To teach you.

>>3885285
You aren't teaching anything, you are just lying and it's trivial to see. You're obsessed and malicious.

>>3885292
>same childish insults ad nauseam

>>3885318
There's been arguments made. The only reason socratic method isn't working is because people ignore the points, restate contrary opinions, then cry "gibberish" and throw insults and threats when arguments are posted in response.

It's you who has nothing but childish insults. It's you who has resorted to blatant lies, misdirection and dishonest rhetoric while stubbornly refusing to engage with the topic and respond to points. You won't make an argument, but you can't just let it go either. It's pathetic.

>>3885348
No, I'm here specifically to mock you for being an awful poster and waste your time because I know you will never stop replying. You cannot have an argument with someone who is as incoherent as you are.
But, again, it's everyone else who is the problem, right? Everyone is an idiot but you. Very Socratic of you.

>>3885349
>everyone is an idiot but you
And here we get to the root of your insecurity, why you are so mad at me that you've been reduced to openly trolling. You can't stand the fact that I might be right. You are too weak to stand up for your own ideas and respond to any challenge I might have with better arguments, thus earning the right to insult me. Your ego can't handle it.

All because I wanted to discuss alternative mana pool systems but you (or your samefag) got triggered by the semantics.

>>3883701
Vancian magic is just straight up better. it is a lot harder to do right though, especially for video games.

In d&d video games there is almost never a use for spells in non-combat situations. The spell list is usually sparse with not many options besides useless traps. You don't really have to choose what to prepare and even in a game with a nice spell list there rarely is enough enemy variety to punish those choices.

If they do manage to navigate the pitfalls and implement a good spell list, with uses for magic outside of combat and encounters that can punish spell selections, it is still a video game. You'll only ever get that risk/reward factor the first time you play, possibly never for those who scout properly or savescum or use a guide etc.

>>3883703
the emphasis on preparation is not a problem, it's one of the core gameplay elements of the system even if you don't like it.

>>3884517
in d&d that's more rp fluff than gameplay. in all of these settings most wizards can't cast every spell or even close. many of them are only good at 1 school and don't even know all the spells of that school that they are skilled enough to cast

>>3883701
I'm mostly thinking of Elminage Gothic in my head.
It limits magic use for the purposes of resource management in a less complicated way that I can just look and see that my wizard can cast an aoe fire spell exactly 7 times during the 3 floor dungeon instead of having to do math based on mana costs.
Charges are based on tier, so I can use low-tier single-target magic or other utility magic without losing uses of high-tier aoe magic.
I don't remember exactly how it worked in Elminage Gothic but in other DRPG I see charges shared between 3 spells sharing the same tier and school. This is helpful because it allows for magic that is less commonly used to be able to be used when it needs to be while still allowing the charge to be used for a generally useful skill 90% of the time.

Either way it's only a system for games that are predicated on resource management trying not to run out before getting in and out of the dungeon. Other games mana can be about trying not to run out in a single battle, or trying to minimize how much money you're spending on an infinite mana potions or how much time you're spending going and getting more because of a weight limit.

>>3885350
>u r samefagging
This is another thing you do a lot, in every thread you participate in, that makes arguing with you pointless. You lack basic trust.

>>3884779
ew, watching you all over this thread reacting with your dumb hot takes within seconds any time someone says anything
fucking ew, dude

>>3885180
The standardization / simplification of action economy wasn't a bad change in later editions. You can still interrupt enemy spells, you just have to specifically Ready your action to do so. Archers excel at the task.
>>3885061
Dragon's Dogma 1 and 2 are absolutely fucking unique and peerless in the way they make being a mage feel just so fucking satisfying. I don't know of any other game that has anything remotely like it in terms of feel and gameplay.

>>3885407
Master of Magic trumps it in the powerful wizard fantasy by far.

>>3884805
Unless the cooldown is over a day, lunatic is easier.

>>3883701
Mana-based > prepared casting (not advertising some boomer)

>>3883723
>Unfortunately most often vancian gives you too little to work with, and mana is a bottomless pool that shouldn't even be called a "resource"
this basically

Blood magic. Spells cost HP and you can kill yourself through over-casting.

File: g_hunter.png (2.32 MB, 2511x1290)

2.32 MB PNG

>>3885282
Gygax himself ditched Vancian. We SHOULD be calling mana Heka instead in a better timeline in which DJ was adopted more widely than D&D.

>Heka is used to cast spells, with each casting having a base cost and sometimes additional costs.
>The system allows for the storage of Heka in reservoirs such as crystals or gems for later use.
>Heka regenerates over time, typically through rest, and is spent to power a wide range of effects, including offensive and defensive spells like shields, Heka darts, and mental or spiritual attacks.
>The potency of magic in Mythus is notable, with spellcasters often starting with access to fourth- or fifth-grade spells, equivalent to high-level spellcasters in other systems.
>However, spellcasting can be a lengthy process, and many spells require multiple combat turns (CTs) to cast, during which they can be interrupted or lost if the caster takes damage.
>A character can also perform a "hasty casting" to reduce casting time, but this increases the difficulty of the casting roll and doubles the Heka cost.

>>3885407
Magic Carpet 1 & 2 but they're very archaic, and weirdly enough EDF 5 Air Raider if you put your brain on a hook and forget that technology isn't magic but the power fantasy, shock and awe are certainly there.

It's true that developers with imagination and risk taking ability barely exist anymore, sad to say.

>>3884420
You're basically just describing the Atelier games, except the end result there isn't spells but instead Alchemy-created items.

>>3885413
You mean like Age Of Wonders? I don't know, I don't think clicking a button and having a sound effect announce that you've enchanted your units to do +1 damage is really the same feeling. Yes, DD2 is technically not an RPG it's an adventure game, but it's still a lot closer to being an RPG than strategy games like MoM are.

>>3885493
Just wait till you find out about mana-based resource management with prepared casting.

>>3885821
>You mean like Age Of Wonders?
No.
Master of Magic has you creating portals to other dimensions, summoning fantastical creatures, levitating your wizard's tower, calling down meteors, blessing the land and making it fruitful, summoning armageddon, changing the terrain, calling forth heroes, crafting magical artifacts to equip them, and many other spells. One of the most robust archmage simulators ever made. Really cool magic.

>>3885826
All of that is happening in Age Of Wonders, too, anon. AoW is the modern spiritual successor of MoM. Literally every single one of those things is happening in AoW. AoW4 is still getting DLCs developed in fact.

>>3885826
>>3886252
Also forgot to mention, I don't know how good the project is gonna end up being but there's also a little indie game called Archmage Rises being developed for this power fantasy. It's in early access (of fucking course), and who knows what'll become of it. But anyway you can search for it on Steam.

the better system is whichever one is implemented in such a way where it can't be abused (i.e being able to rest/ make camp anywhere and after every fight, or chugging mana potions mid combat without taking up your turn), or better yet, which doesn't make you want to abuse or cheese the system while still providing a meaningful challenge. something like the game not requiring you to use spells so long as you use your knowledge of the rules, the environment, weaknesses and strengths etc
in truth though, there's no reason why you should be only able to cast a weak spell once before needing to rest, and a stronger one of the same school three times or so. mana has always made more sense

>>3884023
>Mana = Every class is the same just with different animations.
>implying flavor and class identity aren't the most important aspects of RPGs
Also, in a good game where you make a party, each class should be specialized so that the blunt weapon user and the fire mage deal more damage to the heavily armored enemy than the sword using knight or the thief.
You fucking math nerds are the worst, you get into RPGs to, what, calculate probability and play craps against goblins? To learn systems? For fuck's sake go be an accountant if all you want to do is crunch numbers all day.
>>3883900 has it right, Vancian makes sense in a GAME, mind you, where the DM tells you night is setting and wolves are howling and you ought to set up camp before you get too tired.

>>3884080
>So let's say that the game throws a bunch of vampires at you. You die, reload and prepare with lots of negative energy protection. But the nextbig encounter is against mindflayers... so you die. Reload, load up a bunch of psychic protections and so on and so for.
A very bad system unless the game tells you straight up- there are vampires ahead, and you'd better load up on this type of equipment which helps you tons against you. I don't understand how people try and justify trial and error "gameplay loops" in ROLEPLAYING GAMES of all things. Character knowledge should take precedence over player knowledge.

>>3886259
I'm posting like a retard but
>>3884104
>>3884133
make good points, DS1 is vancian and is the best implementation of it I've seen, where you can rest whenever you feel like it but there's immediate punishment for that, that you can't abuse the system

>>3884194
>wander in strange fields and stumble across a burial site
>FUCK there's a graveyard here I should have fucking known based on my adventurer skills

>>3884296
>>3884232 and all the other retards who say DS isn't vancian
the distinction between vancian and mana-based is that in one system, spells have the feature of only being able to be used a number of times before having to rest, and in the other, spells can be used however many times provided you have the mana to cast them. arbitrary distinctions such as
>HOW you cast them
>HOW you memorize them
>HOW many uses you get
>whether the spellbook is a book or more like a notepad
>honestly could be a leaflet I guess? like a pamphlet? I don't know
Are not worth considering and honestly point to retardation if brought up.
It's akin to saying that a mana-based system isn't mana based if some spells are cast with health, or if there are once-per-day-use powers, or hey it's not mana it's actually called arkanum in this game
just stop being fucking faggots about this whole thing

>>3886286
You need to emphasize more that the distinction is about the *fungibility* of the resource being tracked. The way you phrased it leaves open room for bad faith reinterpretation to respond with something like "but there's limited uses in both systems".

>>3884133
It isn't an accident. Jack Vance was a real person who really did write fantasy novels in which his magic worked a specific way.

>>3883701
You suck.
It's hereditary, too.

>>3886286
>spells have the feature of only being able to be used a number of times before having to rest
This is just not Vancian. It's a "use per rest period". Vancian is a specific system, almost invariably used by D&D based games. What's the purpose of even saying "Vanician" to describe other systems? Pointless.

>>3886301
There's always more clarity to be provided when arguing with fucking faggots, but sure.
>>3886286
>spells have the feature of only being able to be used a set number of times before having to rest, independent of a secondary dedicated resource pool
>and in the other, spells can be used however many times provided your dedicated resource pool is filled enough to cast them, and all the spells draw from the same pool
And then you argue about how Fireball uses is not a resource pool. It would take too long to iron out all of the kinks to be honest, hence my saying just don't be a faggot about it.
You don't happen to be the guy arguing for flamethrowers being energy weapons?

>>3886335
>This is just not Vancian. It's a "use per rest period". Vancian is a specific system, almost invariably used by D&D based games.
Yes you fucking asshole, it's all derivations of the same system. You realize that what you're saying is nearly identical to my prediction of "hey it's not mana it's actually called arkanum in this game"
A bun is a derivation from bread, it's not a different food

>>3886341
You're the retard here, bro.
Picking a loadout isn't hard to come up with in a game, DS1 creators probably weren't influenced by Vancian magic at all.
>it's all derivations of the same system
No, Vancian is very fucking specific. It's a whole thing of how spells work apart from mechanics. Like, you're just being dumb, since even in D&D not all magic is used in a Vancian manner. Maybe try using other words, but then you couldn't have a retarded dichotomy thread like "Vancian vs. Mana".

>>3886348
>No, Vancian is very fucking specific
so we agree dark souls is not vancian?

File: It_is_a_mystery.png (573 B, 800x450)

573 B PNG

>>3886354

>>3884194
Anon the vast majority of CRPGs won't have you knowing ahead of time that you intentionally walking into a graveyard. You'll just be exploring a big-ass area and stumble into it halfway through having expended all your resources already and some cases ambushed with no chance to retreat and prepare without savescumming.

>>3883701
I generally prefer Mana-based, but I also do like the Vancian D&D-style upcasting. Magic games usually have too much fucking filler spell-wise, just let me supercharge a spell for improved effect to keep it relevant all game. Maybe give spells additional effects at various supercharge/upcasting thresholds.

>>3883701
I like Vancian magic in a very specific dungeon crawler who's name escapes me at the moment. When you dive into a dungeon, your casters begin with a certain amount of spell charges and you have to completely ration them out over the whole thing. There's encounters with deadly enemies you'll need them for, times you'll need to use resurrection to continue the run, but ultimately you have to be careful with it all and not burn through charges too quickly.

Non-casters might have infinite use attacks, but their lifetime in the field is still tethered to the casters who can only keep going for so long. You try and use your fighters and such to mitigate long term damage, but some of it will bleed through and you'll need casters to fix it.

>>3887227
>Anon the vast majority of CRPGs won't have you knowing ahead of time that you intentionally walking into a graveyard
No, you often do, just like in reality, graveyards tend to be telegraphed and locals know about local threats. Going back to Pool of Radiance. But at that point, it's not a problem with the magic system, it's a problem of campaign design.

>>3883701
Vance and Gygax did

>>3887330
And arguably not even Vance.
It really says a lot that, although Gygax was a Vance fan, his primary (as stated in interviews on the topic) motivation for using it was specifically because it was such a clunky, clumsy, awkward and unintuitive mechanic that it could function to cripple mages.

>>3883859
Retard alert

>>3887227
Read nigger READ

>>3887861
He can't pass the Will save to avoid cringing helplessly.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/vampire#Weaknesses

>>3885244
NTA but in Dying Earth spells are analogous to formulas that require memorization, but even the most capable wizards can only keep a few in their head at any given time. IIRC it really doesn't appear all that often in Dying Earth and I am somewhat surprised it has become so influential. Outside of the sections with Turjan, I can't really think of an example of the system being used in DE or Eyes of the Underworld.

>>3887796
Very pleonastic post.
It's funny that people are both crying about these restrictions, mad that they don't have the ability to have the perfect spell ready at all times, and also lamenting that wizards are overpowered.

>>3888219
Sometimes you need to emphasize something. Maybe if you spent less time trawling through wiktionary for obscure words to make you seem smart, you'd have time to develop some reading comprehension skills to become actually smarter.
The whole "wizards are OP" bullshit meme emerged from bad faith flamewars back in the early oughties. If I try to characterize and emphasize the "bad faith" part, you'd pitch a fit about that, too, so all I can do is rely upon your meager reading comprehension and social skills to interpret it properly.

>>3888347
>if you spent less time trawling through wiktionary for obscure words to make you seem smart
Had to look that one up, huh? :)
I first learned it in George Carlin's book "When will Jesus bring the porkchops?" where he has a section called Superfluous Pleonastic Tautologies.
I'm sorry that seeing a word you don't know upsets you, it's not a personal attack.
>If I try to characterize and emphasize the "bad faith" part, you'd pitch a fit about that
Why would I?

>>3883803
>>3883740
fyi I see what you mean. You could cast as many of your level 1 spells as you wanted as opposed to having to 'memorize' 2 cures and a bless ahead of time.