D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic

[Bedrockgames]

I think there is plenty to criticize with Vancian casting, but I also think it is one of those things that makes D&D what it is. If the goal is to bring back 1e, 2e, and 3e fans, I just don't see how you do it without including cancan magic. My suggestion is you use older editions as the foundation with enough opt out and opt in rules to satisfy 4e fans (make Healing Surges an optional ad on, make vancien casting an opt out rule).

 

[Aldarc]

The fact that some newer systems use something does not mean it is no longer part of D&D's identity.

It does mean I'll have alternatives should I want to use Vancian-style magic and an evolving system should D&D next iteration not support it well enough.

Hardly a unifying thought though.

Just because something was a part of something's identity or past does not give it intrinsic value or quality.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just because something was a part of something's identity or past does not give it intrinsic value or quality.

I think they've run into a brand identity problem and will be asking "what makes it D&D" to the fanbase. I think related to that question will be "why did many people not transition to 4e". The problem they face is 4e fans still make up a good size of the customer base, so how do they handle contradictory responses to these questions. For example what do they do if 55% say vancian casting is essential but 45% say its junk and shouldn't be in the game. I believe on a lot of key questions this is where they are right now, which may explain the modular design approach.

 

[Janx]

Here's a new reason:

System investment.

There are few RPGs out there that you can spend as much money on as D&D. I have a couple thousand dollars in 2e books. None of them are campaign specific. All of them usable in a "current" 2e campaign.

How many other systems have that much material out? Gurps? Most Gurps books are setting related, meaning that if your not playing "The Old West" then buying the Old West book won't do you any good.

It took some persuading to get my gang to switch to 3e from 2e because of this. And they basically merged editions when 3.5 came out (did not replace any books, just bought and used new 3.5 material). They absolutely will not move to 4e, not because it sucks, but because at this point, we've gone through 2 upgrades and see no need to replace a working system.

 

[Aldarc]

I think they've run into a brand identity problem and will be asking "what makes it D&D" to the fanbase. I think related to that question will be "why did many people not transition to 4e". The problem they face is 4e fans still make up a good size of the customer base, so how do they handle contradictory responses to these questions. For example what do they do if 55% say vancian casting is essential but 45% say its junk and shouldn't be in the game. I believe on a lot of key questions this is where they are right now, which may explain the modular design approach.

This is highly likely. As long as Vancian magic fans of D&D give an equal place at the table for non-Vancian magic fans of D&D, then I will be content.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Vancian magic seems different. Despite there being many FRPGs that have non-Vancian casting that are also quite excellent games, there is still a large and vocal portion of the D&D-playing community that utterly loathe Vancian casting. Hate it to the point that they want to see it eradicated from the game entirely (see the thread I linked to in my OP).

I think the answer to your question is:

HYPERBOLE

They don't actually "utterly loathe" it. They just have to say it that way to make their point seem more important. Just like almost every other person who complains about things here. Every problem comes across as the biggest travesty to the game and the industry we've ever seen... because that's the only way they can feel like they can get their point across without getting lost in the morass of a thread.

And in actuality... the people who don't like Vancian magic are no different than the people who don't like Feat Taxes or Healing Surges. No different at all. It's all just personal opinion of what makes a good D&D game for them.

 

[Hussar]

I certainly don't hate Vancian casting, but, I wouldn't be sad to see it go. So, here's my list of reasons:

1. Vancian casting gives too much primacy to broad effects and makes specific effects too costly. IOW, if you have the choice between memorizing Fireball or Illusory Script, well, I'll bet dollars to donuts on which choice gets made. Spells with specific effects either get cast after a night's rest or get whacked on scrolls (depending on edition) while the typical spells nearly always get memorized. It makes magic very predictable.

2. It mirrors virtually no genre fiction. There's a reason it's called Vancian. Unfortunately, while I love Jack Vance, I am under no illusions as to how widely read he is. Basing the entire magic system off of a very obscure genre writer from a book that was out of print before I was even born isn't really speaking to anyone other than other big honking genre nerds like me.

3. It's very, very hard to balance. Even after 30 years of development, we still are rejiggering spells and effects to keep them in line with each other. There's just too darn many discrete effects.

4. It's very discouraging to players who don't want to spend umpteen hours reading gaming books trying to figure out what they can do. Even a reasonably low level caster, say 7th level in 3e, could have 20 different spells in his spell book (and this is a pretty low estimate). That's an awful lot of crap to track.

5. Vancian casting makes for hodge-podge casters. This gets reined in a bit with specialist casters, but, by and large, you have core casters with a suite of effects that are all over the place - no theme, no unifying concept. They've got a little of this, and a little of that. It makes casters ... what's the right word? Mushy.

So, there, that's my 5 reasons for strongly disliking Vancian casting.

If I had my druthers, Vancian casters would be replaced by either sorcerer mechanics or the Shadow-caster mechanics from the 3.5 Tome of Magic. (With the mechanics cleaned up a bit.)

 

[Aldarc]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: With respect to Dannyalcatraz's original post, he did not really create this thread to discuss the merits of Vancian magic. Instead, the prompt is more about why the non-Vancian magic fans stick around to play D&D when there are other game systems with magic systems more to their liking.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, that's fair. Although, to be honest, the two are tied. Of my 5 issues, none of them are so egregious that I need to look for a new system.

IOW, Vancian casting is annoying, and IMNSHO, a dinosaur collection of mechanics that is in dire need of a massive meteor strike, BUT, since I like the rest of the game enough, I can live with it.

 

[Dausuul]

I find when I sit down and talk to people who "hate*" Vancian magic, the specific things they hate about it are a few spells from the wizard spell list (yes, the wizard list list is the first one to fly off the tongue, with the other casters thrown in after a bit of reminding). So it's not so much the fire and forget mechanics, as it is "wizards can do what?!"

Which, in my mind, translates into nobody actually hating Vancian magic.

In my mind, that translates to "you haven't talked to enough people." Specific spells can be banned. My beef with Vancian magic is the "use it and lose it" aspect, where once you use Spell X you can't use it again. I find it way too finicky and mechanistic; it makes my character feel like an accountant instead of a wizard.

For my money, the single most irritating thing about 4E was the decision to give that mechanic to every single class.