Unpopular opinions go here

[Celebrim]

I'd like to read the argument that supports this. To me, the subgenre hardly exists at all in D&D now.

Agreed. The recent D&D movie was definitely not inspired by or in any way in the same genre as Tolkien's or Howard's glimpse back into a more ancient world.

There are almost no elements of "swords and sorcery" left in D&D except for the tendency to continue to eschew firearms. But aside from that, there is barely anything in modern D&D older than Dickens, and even that is fading as D&D's default setting moves more and more into the 20th century.

The fundamental problem is I think the inability to imagine anything distant enough into the past, along with the utter collapse of the contemporary readership of the sort of historical fiction source material that inspired all the "swords and sorcery" authors. No one (well almost no one) actually reads Ivanhoe, Robin Hood, Morte D'Arthur, or Doyle's "The White Company" or anything of the sort anymore much less writes fan fiction about it.

 

[Celebrim]

I hope that's not true. If it is that's incredibly sad.

Sad? Maybe. Predictable? Certainly.

Young authors write fan fiction about what they actually experience as a youth. That fan fiction becomes the guide to their adult fan fiction.

So yeah, almost everything written in fantasy since 1980 is heavily influenced by someone's RPG experiences. Sometimes, I can even tell which game they played.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not sure why you are choosing to engage in this so aggressively, but I will say that vancian is super simple in, say, B/X and more complex in 5E. Why are you asserting that there are no circumstances under which spell point systems could be complex?

You are putting words into my mouth because I didn't assert this, and I do not appreciate it in the slightest. I did not say that there are no circumstances under which spell point systems could be complex. Please look at my points below where I do implicitly acknowledge that spell point systems can be more complex.

Except, not really. The fact that a game may use a spell point system or a spell slot system says nothing about what what the decision points for those systems entail or their relative complexity. The argument that spell points are an added layer of complexity compared to spell slots is an an argument built on a house of unsupported assumptions.

Sorry, this doesn't fly. This is a fundamentally an argument of assumptions and not firsthand experience:

I can tell you with firsthand experience that I have run games with spell point magic systems that have run much faster than Vancian spell-slot casting in D&D. Whether a game has spell points or spell slots tells us nothing about the relative complexity of spellcasting or the decision process that players must work through. That spell point magic systems may have additional layers of complexity is a moot point that moves the goal posts, because additional layers of complexity can also be added to Vancian spell-slot style casting. So pointing out that this is something that spell point systems may hypothetically have without also recognizing that Vancian spell-slot style casting systems may also have their own added layers of complexity is engaging in special pleading.

I am, however, resisting against the blanket statement argument you put forth that spell point systems are more complex than Vancian spell slot systems or that they add/slow to the decision-making process/decision-paralysis of players. That is where I take umbrage. Well that and your most recent post where you put words into my mouth to make a strawman argument.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Except moreso, depending on what your spell point system allows you to do exactly. Maybe all your caster players have always been dedicated students of their spell lists, but mine haven't. It is excruciating as it is with some of them. They want to play a wizard, thematically, but have no desire to play a wizard, mechanically. Spell points would just turn an already painfully slow process absolutely glacial.

At the end of the day, if you don't want to engage with a magic system, you don't want to play a spellcaster. I'm of the opinion that D&D has a particularly hard one to keep track of since every spell is a special case, but even far simpler spell systems (which often don't give you as many to keep track of) still require some attention. People just don't get to have it both ways.

 

[Pedantic]

I'd like to read the argument that supports this. To me, the subgenre hardly exists at all in D&D now.

And yet, it's the go to place when we talk about the Fighter or the Rogue, or the structure of a classic dungeon or how name level/domain management might work.

I agree that it's increasingly marginalized in D&D, but I think most of D&D's proud nails are down to its ongoing influence.

 

[Reynard]

Sad? Maybe. Predictable? Certainly.

Young authors write fan fiction about what they actually experience as a youth. That fan fiction becomes the guide to their adult fan fiction.

So yeah, almost everything written in fantasy since 1980 is heavily influenced by someone's RPG experiences. Sometimes, I can even tell which game they played.

And some of those game inspired novels are modern classics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Any functional magic point buy system must stop players from "Going Nova". Going Nova is the main problem with any magic system in that players are always tempted to spend all their resources at once. This problem becomes more acute in point buy and if the rules allow for it, it really has no good solution. This means any good point buy system has some pretty hard caps on how much points you can invest into a spell to upcast it, as upcasting is almost always better than not upcasting for the same reason Johnny One Shot is able to pound every nail but Jack of all Trades can pound none. But if you strongly limit upcasting, then you are starting to approach a slot-based system anyway, particularly one that is quasi-Vancian like the 3e Sorcerer. Yes, point buy is a bit more flexible than that, but the tradeoffs are so huge in mental space of both design and play, that it's not at all clear to me that it's worth it.

I don't think this is even close to true IME. While its true that point-construction systems usually need a secondary capping system to prevent degenerate cases, once that's in place, the going-nova problem is pretty much gone, and I'm hard pressed to see how any of them approach a spell-slot system unless your definition of same is "spells don't individually have an unlimited top end", and I think that's kind of a bizarre usage if so.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am, however, resisting against the blanket statement argument you put forth that spell point systems are more complex than Vancian spell slot systems or that they add/slow to the decision-making process/decision-paralysis of players. That is where I take umbrage. Well that and your most recent post where you put words into my mouth to make a strawman argument.

As a simple and straight-forward case, anyone who tells me RuneQuest battle/spirit magic (which is very much a spellpoint system) is more complex than D&D spell slot magic (even that on a sorcerer, which its closest too) is going to get the laugh out of me it deserves. Now you can argue that's because that magic is simpler and less far reaching in other ways, but at the very least it absolutely says that a spell point system is not intrinsically more complex.

 

[overgeeked]

And some of those game inspired novels are modern classics.

Must be why I can't stand most modern fantasy.

 

[Voadam]

I don't think that's really the biggest problem with point buy magic, or even how in practice point buy magic works.

It was my experience in practice playing in various D&D games in different editions with different spell point magic systems.

The problem with point buy is simple - it's simply much harder to design and much harder to balance than some sort of slot-based system with fixed effects

I am not sure if you are talking spell points or if you are transitioning to talking about a build your own flexible spell system. Generally D&D spell point systems use the exact same spells as vancian slot wizards and clerics. Exceptions would be stuff like 2e and 3e psionics, 3e epic spells, etc.

and consequently requires orders of magnitude more playtesting to get right. This is true if we are talking about point buy chargen or point buy magic systems.

A typical point buy system is no more balanced than the typical prices on an equipment list. Numbers are pulled out of the air and chosen for reasons of elegance and the resulting system is about as well balanced as a Magic the Gathering card list. And how the players will ultimately respond to the system is fundamentally the same. Overtime they'll gravitate to "decks" of effects that are the most potent and under-costed.

Yes, this happens in spell-slot systems too but in point buy the situation is more acute and more pronounced. Initial divergence will be met with dissatisfaction as players realize that some other player's build with the same points is vastly more powerful and more useful in vastly more situations.

Eh, assuming you are talking about spell points, I disagree about spell points exacerbating this.

The advantages of 3rd level ranged fireball over 3rd level extends from the wizard lightning bolt are generally the same in vancian slots or spell points.

Most point buy replacements for D&D just put out a variation of a cost per level (using various formulae) and give a big pool of points. Which spells are chosen at each level are usually orthogonal to whether it is a slot or spell point system. Occassionally the system will provide a different incentive (taking multiples of the same spell in pre 4e D&D vancian casting for example).