Manbearcat
Legend
Vancian casting is not a mere rules construct. The fact that wizards have a wide variety of spells they can cast but have to limit their choices and study a few every day is a setting element.
<SNIP>
That I can choose to play such a character is a big part of the game for me, and is part of what defines D&D for me.
On neither of these would you get much disagreement.
Regarding the first, however, I suspect there is a large contingency of players out there whereby the setting element of "Vancian" versus "Spell Pool" versus "Spontaneous" versus "Spell Points" is relatively indistinguishable from one another with regards to its input on their play experience. That granularity of resource management does not affect them either because they've inductively evaluated it or actively played the different sub-types of resource management and determined that the meta-game input of the "button pushing" into the equation of "What is DnD" pales in comparison to the input of "how does this spell affect the world and what does casting it say about my character and the narrative in this scene." I've DMed all of the various sub-systems in S & P, UA, and house rules throughout 20 years and neither myself nor my players bat an eye if one is changed out for the other. But yes, Vancian does have a "setting affect" as source and means is certainly an input to flavor. Its just a smaller input to some (likely moreso to those who have actually played with different resource management schemes over the years...within DnD).
Regarding the second...ABSOLUTELY. People being excluded from their favored archetypes due to the rigid tastes of others (of whom their inclusion has no affect) is an appalling thought and I think such a thing imposed upon our community, or demanded by it, would speak very poorly of our weird, little world.