Mercurius
Legend
Hopefully everyone reading this knows what I’m talking about, the question being: Should 5E include Vancian “fire-and-forget” magic or something else? Let’s take this inquiry as an example of a key question to 5E design, a question that I would posit the answer to isn’t and can’t be a direct “yes” or “no.” The answer is (or should be) if you want. Or, if you’d prefer, yes and no.
Think of it this way. With half a dozen or more official versions of D&D out there, not to mention dozens of retro-clones, close cousins and evil step children, the only way WotC can hope to “heal” the fractured D&D community is to create One Edition to Rule Them All, or at least one edition to please as many people as possible. And the only way to do that is to create a game that is simple enough at its core with modular options that can be customized to suit a specific game group, campaign, and even individual characters (although the trick then will be to nourish a community feeling, a “unity in diversity”).
So back to the initial question: To Vance or not to Vance. The answer is, well, yes, but only if you want to. Want to play a wizard with Vancian magic? Sure. But what if another PC in the same group doesn’t like Vancian magic and wants a powers structure or free-form casting or something akin to Ars Magica’s technique/form structure? Well, why not? A modular design would allow for different sub-systems, different approaches. This extends to character development as well. Want a straightforward and traditional character that levels up and all you have to do is adjust the numbers and write down a new power of some kind? Sure, that’s easily do-able. Or would you prefer a classless character in which you can pick-and-choose what you can do as you develop? That’s possible as well.
This won’t be easy, but it is possible. And, I would say, it is not the inevitable next stage in D&D game design, but something that must happen. Otherwise 5E will just be another small group of designers’ chosen version of D&D. From what Mike Mearls has said, though, I think they’re going for more. Let’s support them and help them make the best version of D&D yet.
Think of it this way. With half a dozen or more official versions of D&D out there, not to mention dozens of retro-clones, close cousins and evil step children, the only way WotC can hope to “heal” the fractured D&D community is to create One Edition to Rule Them All, or at least one edition to please as many people as possible. And the only way to do that is to create a game that is simple enough at its core with modular options that can be customized to suit a specific game group, campaign, and even individual characters (although the trick then will be to nourish a community feeling, a “unity in diversity”).
So back to the initial question: To Vance or not to Vance. The answer is, well, yes, but only if you want to. Want to play a wizard with Vancian magic? Sure. But what if another PC in the same group doesn’t like Vancian magic and wants a powers structure or free-form casting or something akin to Ars Magica’s technique/form structure? Well, why not? A modular design would allow for different sub-systems, different approaches. This extends to character development as well. Want a straightforward and traditional character that levels up and all you have to do is adjust the numbers and write down a new power of some kind? Sure, that’s easily do-able. Or would you prefer a classless character in which you can pick-and-choose what you can do as you develop? That’s possible as well.
This won’t be easy, but it is possible. And, I would say, it is not the inevitable next stage in D&D game design, but something that must happen. Otherwise 5E will just be another small group of designers’ chosen version of D&D. From what Mike Mearls has said, though, I think they’re going for more. Let’s support them and help them make the best version of D&D yet.
