D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic

[Aldarc]

I'll be perfectly honest, in this case, I really don't understand why people don't like what I like. I have some theories, but they seem wanting.

People have different tastes in regards to "magic." That explanation seems easy enough to understand.

1) They don't like D&D:

You should go ahead and just claim that they also hate America while you're at it. I think we can come up with much better - and far less insulting - reasons than that, especially on a thread about people who dislike Vancian magic, but like D&D. As I explained earlier in this thread, there are many people who see Vancian magic as something that can be removed or replaced from D&D's magic system without losing anything integral to the D&D experience. It's why people can play many of these alternate systems throughout the game (e.g., psionic power points, incarnum, sorcerers, Arcana Unearthed, etc.) while still be playing D&D just as much as classes that uses Vancian magic. If these other alternate systems can be played as "D&D" with equal validity as "Vancian magic," then it would be erroneous to say that solely Vancian magic is D&D or that people who dislike Vancian magic must ipso facto hate D&D.

2) Ignorance:

There indeed may be ignorance, but I don't think that's true for most. We're all gamers here, and I think many detractors have a fairly good grasp of Vancian magic. Many have also played alternative systems. We are all gamers after all.

3) Confusion:

If the people who understand it, but hate it and the people who don't understand it, but then hate it after explanation both hate it, then how is this not a good reason for these people not to remove Vancian magic from the game? If they hate it, then they hate it. That's just as viable a reason as for those who love it and want it kept. The difference is that the lovers are the ruling class who stamp out any and all dissenters.

4) High Simulation:

For me it's not "high simulation" but "maximizing simulation." Vancian magic by nature of its mechanics and assumptions inherently restricts the sort of worlds I can construct in my D&D settings. And I would prefer having a magic system that acts more as a "line of best fit," or the maximum number of settings of different types and feels.

5) Wizard Power Gamers:

Considering that many of these alternate systems that people have proposed do place limitations (e.g., fatigue, mana points, reduced power level, etc.), I'm not sure how viable this criticism actually is. The reasons that you listed do not imply that these players are somehow "power gamers," and again it's insulting to suggest that when it's really just about playing a preferred simulation or mechanical system of magic.

Some people who hate the Vancian magic system simply hate all the restrictions it tacks on to characters that cast arcane spells - no armor, slow casting times, disruptable, must choose spells ahead of time, limited number of fire and forget slots, spell books, spell components, small number of spells relative to encounters at lower levels, and so forth. The system doesn't feel right to them because they feel that all these restrictions are arbitrary and reduce their fun. They'd prefer a system that lets them use magic all the time, in varied ways, to solve problems as they encounter them. In some cases, part of why they are chaffing at the system is, consciously or unconsciously, because they feel the system reduces their spotlight. In other cases, it's because they want to play Wizard X from one of their favorite stories, and they don't feel like they can achieve that level of awesomeness mucking around with all these blasted restrictions.

How is #5 bogus if the rules clearly do restrict players from a magic system that does not let them simulate magic that's appropriate to their tastes? If it doesn't, then it clearly doesn't, and that makes #5 just as viable a reason not to Vance as anything else. You're right. I'm not sure if you "get" the criticisms of Vancian magic or the desires of people who would want alternate systems if you are going to be rudely dismissive of other people's desire for alternate magic systems.

6) Percieved lack of balance:

This I think is bogus, as you can change a number of the spells per day and per level to a balanced level. Also the particular "game breaker" spells can be removed.

The thing is, other than #1 and possibly #6, I think that most of the above reasons are bogus. Yet, #2-#5 seem to be the most common complaints I hear about Vancian magic, not just in the past, but even in this thread. It's very frustrating to me to hear these same complaints over and over again when I feel that they are groundless; but I'm self-consciousness enough to consider that if lots of people are saying the same thing maybe it has more merit than it seems. So, would anyone care to enlighten me on what I'm missing, or even defend #2-#5?

You make it sound as if EVERY game system would be absolutely BOGUS for using systems other than Vancian. What's worse is the insinuation that since #2-5 are bogus, that this must mean that detractors hate D&D. Do you realize how insulting that is for people who do like D&D? How dare people want to play something other than Vancian magic? Clearly the only way to play guitar is thrash metal.

 

[Voadam]

5) Wizard Power Gamers: Some people who hate the Vancian magic system simply hate all the restrictions it tacks on to characters that cast arcane spells - no armor, slow casting times, disruptable, must choose spells ahead of time, limited number of fire and forget slots, spell books, spell components, small number of spells relative to encounters at lower levels, and so forth. The system doesn't feel right to them because they feel that all these restrictions are arbitrary and reduce their fun. They'd prefer a system that lets them use magic all the time, in varied ways, to solve problems as they encounter them. In some cases, part of why they are chaffing at the system is, consciously or unconsciously, because they feel the system reduces their spotlight. In other cases, it's because they want to play Wizard X from one of their favorite stories, and they don't feel like they can achieve that level of awesomeness mucking around with all these blasted restrictions.

I have heard people say wizards are ridiculously weak at low levels with their one shot bazooka and they hate the limited use of magic.

I've never heard someone say D&D wizards are generally underpowered and need to be powered up outside of low level wizards and wizards without magic. Mid to high level wizards have been powerhouses of power since the beginning in every edition. Spells are powerful, even at low levels. 1d6/level damage to multiple targets is very potent compared to a d8 +X sword blow. Wizards can nova with their spells.

Vancian is the preparation of fire and forget spells. Not the armor restrictions, the casting times, the potential to be disrupted.

The criticisms of the fire and forget is not generally a wizard power grab but style and visualization of how magic should feel and play with resource management and power levels.

 

[Celebrim]

I have heard people say wizards are ridiculously weak at low levels with their one shot bazooka and they hate the limited use of magic.

I've never heard someone say D&D wizards are generally underpowered and need to be powered up outside of low level wizards and wizards without magic.

No, I don't think I've ever heard it put in those terms either. But I have heard simultaneous chaffing against existing restrictions and proposed alternatives from many quarters. I have heard a lot of people who essentially want to have their cake and eat it too. And in a lot cases, I have had the impression that the fundamental complaint was, "I play D&D Wizards to be awesome, but these additional restrictions reduce my ability to be awesome." It's not that they think the Wizard is weak (if it was, they wouldn't be playing it), it's that what they are looking for goes beyond what it can deliver.

Mid to high level wizards have been powerhouses of power since the beginning in every edition. Spells are powerful, even at low levels. 1d6/level damage to multiple targets is very potent compared to a d8 +X sword blow. Wizards can nova with their spells.

Certainly can nova with their spells, and fireballs are a potent thing, but it wasn't hard for a 1e fighter subclass character post Unearthed Arcana to consistantly drop 100 points of sword blow damage per turn on monsters, while at the same time high HD monsters would pass saves 50% of the time or more. A level 15 Wizard firing off a lightning bolt every round was doing on average ~40 points of damage per round assuming the target lacked magic resistance. That's enough to just about drop most monsters single handedly. But his 15th level Cavalier or 15th level Fighter companion with respectable equipment would be dealing 2 to 3 times that each round. No joke; when I say that high level fighters dominated in 1e I mean it. Wizards may have dominated mass combat and general utility, but if you wanted to drop Orcus in one round before he touched anyone with his death no save wand, you had a team of high level fighters/paladins/cavaliers/rangers/etc.

And in 3e, direct damage with a wizard given the level caps, the fact that monsters had constitution bonuses, and the generally better saves meant that you were not using your spellcaster in anything like an optimal fashion.

The criticisms of the fire and forget is not generally a wizard power grab but style and visualization of how magic should feel and play with resource management and power levels.

I'm not sure that these are entirely unrelated. Since you don't specify what the 'style and visualization of how magic should feel and play' is, I can only conjecture. In my experience, at least as it relates to the complaint under the heading of Wizard power gaming, the style and visualization that the player had in his head was that of magic as deus ex machina which is actually often the role it serves as in stories. Because they were basing their internal visualization of how magic should feel and play off of the deus ex machina appearances of various stories, the fact that it lacked severely less than the power of plot grated on them and this disatisfaction voiced itself in a whole array of complaints against the 'unrealistic' restrictions placed on them. These players are the sort that like psionic system, but don't think power expenditure should be limited to manifester level. The boards get some DM complaining about players of this sort about every other week, and I for one based on my experience don't think the players are ignoring the rules on accident.

It is because that is what they are looking for in a magic system.

But, explain to me what this nebulous 'style and visualization' is.

 

[Celebrim]

People have different tastes in regards to "magic." That explanation seems easy enough to understand.

It's easy enough to understand but also has the property of explaining nothing.

As I explained earlier in this thread, there are many people who see Vancian magic as something that can be removed or replaced from D&D's magic system without losing anything integral to the D&D experience.

I'm aware of that. I just think that on the whole, they haven't been that successful, which suggests that maybe they aren't succeeding.

It's why people can play many of these alternate systems throughout the game (e.g., psionic power points, incarnum, sorcerers, Arcana Unearthed, etc.)

Stop there for a bit. Sorcerers and the AU variants are such minor variations on the core Vancian mechanics that I don't really consider them to be other than Vancian magic in the same since that the Wizard is 'Vancian magic'. If the term is sufficiently descriptive of the loosely related to Dying Earth mechanics used by Wizards, then its sufficiently descriptive of the mechanics used by sorcerers, magisters, and greenbonds. The sorcerer for example is a minor variation only in the time at which you make the spell selection - character creation rather than daily - which correspondingly changes the time frame in which they may be flexible in their spell choice. But this is fundamentally a small change that allows them to use the rest of the standard D&D magic mechanics wholesale, right down to importing the wizard's spell list lock stock and barrel. If the core of our disagreement is that sorcerers aren't Vancian as you use the term, but they are Vancian as I use the term, then we might as well not say much more. You are never going to convince me that the sorcerer is a non-Vancian spellcasting class, nor that the people upset with Vancian spellcasting are therefore perfectly satisfied by the sorcerer.

I fully agree that the Psion is a non-Vancian spellcaster, but its also never managed to make it into core and my perception is that psionics represent a niche market and psionic labelling tends to be a turn off.

There indeed may be ignorance, but I don't think that's true for most.

I didn't say that it was true for most necessarily. I only suggested that it was one of six common complaints which jointly seemed represent the majority of opinions of those who dislike Vancian spellcasting. Under the label 'ignorance', I tend to put those who claim that for example, a system that use mana points would in and of itself simplify book keeping, increase flexibility, increase game balance, end the 15 minute game day, end the practice of wizards going nova, or even simply just those that claim there are no advantages to the existing system and they can't imagine how it could be defended by anyone.

As far as confusion goes, this is the complaint that it makes no sense for a person to forget a spell after he has cast it, or that they can't immediate rememorize the spell they just cast if they have forgotten it. These concerns can generally be alleviated by explaining the flavor in a way that they find more logical, but to me generally resemble the confused arguments presented by people who argue that hit points aren't realistic because they believe that hit points represent only the ability to sustain damage or because they think hit points represent only an abstract quality and not in part the ability to sustain damage. The tend to be tying themselves up in knots because they don't understand the nature of the abstraction based on an erroneous assumption about the fluff surrounding the abstraction.

(My typical explanation goes something like, "When a wizard is studying his spells, he's actually engaged in a lengthy ritual to prepare the spell in his mind, stopping the ritual just short of completion to await the comparitively short phrase or gesture that will trigger the release of the spell. Mortal spellcasters generally find it impossible to summon up enough power in the short time available in the midst of combat or other stressful situations. Spells are simply known rituals that can be left in this nearly completed state where they will be useful in a hurry. More powerful beings are less restricted and don't need as much preparation." That explanation has seemed to satisfy several of my players over the years, though of course I would hardly expect it to satisfy everyone as not everyone's complaint has the same source.)

For me it's not "high simulation" but "maximizing simulation."

I'm not sure that's a terribly useful distinction. By "high simulation", I mean the stance that a game is most fun when it most perfectly simulates the genera or setting which serves as its inspiration so that it feels to the player as if he was journeying within the story.

Vancian magic by nature of its mechanics and assumptions inherently restricts the sort of worlds I can construct in my D&D settings.

Yes, but so would any particular choice of mechanic, unless like HERO or something its flexible enough to also emmulate Vancian.

And I would prefer having a magic system that acts more as a "line of best fit," or the maximum number of settings of different types and feels.

Which, I feel, on the basis of the effects of the system and not necessarily the fluff, is Vancian. That is to say, while for any given setting, you could match that settings explanation for how magic works more closely (assuming how magic works is in the slightest way explained), you could not simulate the narrative uses of magic more closely in more settings than you can with Vancian. No, granted, there are some types and feels of games where Vancian doesn't work well - I wouldn't do Avatar the Last Airbender with Vancian (but I wouldn't do it with mana points either) - on the whole it serves better than anything I've found the general feel of magic that can at times be earth shattering but which for whatever reasons of story or character motivation is more usually held in reserve. One of the central tropes of most fantasy stories is that magic is real and incredibly powerful, but its practicioners rarely use it or are reluctant to use it so that its only seen at critical moments. That feel is very hard to capture with a game system while still allowing the player to feel like he's playing a magician.

As for power gaming, again, I'm not saying that each of these complaints applies to everyone that doesn't like Vancian, or even that any one applies to the majority. I'm only saying I've heard the complaint commonly. And considering you don't address my statement except to say that its probably insulting, I'm not sure how valid of a rebuttle that actually is.

And I think I'm going to mostly end my response here, because you don't say anything really explanatory from here on out. It's not enough to say, "They have a different taste." Please define that taste and why a different magic system better meets that taste. It's not enough to say, "Oh, they like point buy." Why do they like point buy? When you say things like, "You make it sound as if EVERY game system would be absolutely BOGUS for using systems other than Vancian.", then its pretty clear to me that you don't get it.

What's worse is the insinuation that since #2-5 are bogus, that this must mean that detractors hate D&D. Do you realize how insulting that is for people who do like D&D?

Well, I don't know how insulting it is for people who do like D&D, but I do know that a lot of people who don't like Vancian magic are very open about the fact that they don't like D&D and that they moved on from it because of Vancian magic (among other annoyances). I recognize that there is a small(?) relatively economicly unimportant(?) group out there that play D&D with alternative magic systems and enjoy it, but their motivations are something I don't fully understand. This is the lacking peice. A good answer to my challenge might be to tell me about your D&D game where you banned Vancian magic and used the Psion as the Wizard, or where you used En Publishings 'Elements of Magic'. That would be informative. But trying to convince me that the other explanations I listed don't exist and are insulting is probably going to be futile, because I've seen them for myself and I'm not trying to insult anyone by giving an accounting of reality. Likewise, I've been seeing alternative magic systems for D&D for 30 years now, including any number of D&D knockoffs where someone thought they could do D&D better. Yet, they never seemed to catch on.

 

[Aldarc]

It's easy enough to understand but also has the property of explaining nothing.

It explains quite a bit, but the question is whether or not it an explanation that meets your satisfaction.

I'm aware of that. I just think that on the whole, they haven't been that successful, which suggests that maybe they aren't succeeding.

Their lack of success of gaining traction is not necessarily indicative of the value or lack thereof of non-Vancian magic. Would you not also agree that there people who are attached to Vancian magic for sentimental reasons, such as "Vancian magic is D&D"? Or how that Vancian magic is "how things have always been done"? Would you also not agree that Vancian magic may have been retained due to issues such as backwards compatibility? Or that anything that isn't Vancian is not D&D? Or that people who dislike Vancian magic must somehow dislike D&D? Or how about people who insinuate that detractors of Vancian magic should just play something other than D&D?

Stop there for a bit. Sorcerers and the AU variants are such minor variations on the core Vancian mechanics that I don't really consider them to be other than Vancian magic in the same since that the Wizard is 'Vancian magic'. If the term is sufficiently descriptive of the loosely related to Dying Earth mechanics used by Wizards, then its sufficiently descriptive of the mechanics used by sorcerers, magisters, and greenbonds. The sorcerer for example is a minor variation only in the time at which you make the spell selection - character creation rather than daily - which correspondingly changes the time frame in which they may be flexible in their spell choice. But this is fundamentally a small change that allows them to use the rest of the standard D&D magic mechanics wholesale, right down to importing the wizard's spell list lock stock and barrel. If the core of our disagreement is that sorcerers aren't Vancian as you use the term, but they are Vancian as I use the term, then we might as well not say much more. You are never going to convince me that the sorcerer is a non-Vancian spellcasting class, nor that the people upset with Vancian spellcasting are therefore perfectly satisfied by the sorcerer.

Vancian magic is "fire and forget." Spontaneous casting used by sorcerers, magisters, and greenbonds is not Vancian. Being variants of Vancian magic does not make them Vancian. A sorcerer does not prepare a certain number of spells per day (e.g. two fireballs), but instead simply knows fireball and can cast that known spell a potential amount of times per day that is not dependent on their preparation of those spells. Magisters in AU prepare a set number of spells per day, but they do not forget them once cast, but can spontaneously cast any prepared spell. Furthermore, they can weave spells up or down slots. If you think that the Sorcerer and Arcana Unearthed spell systems are Vancian, then you have a far more liberal understanding of Vancian magic than most ardent Vancianites.

I fully agree that the Psion is a non-Vancian spellcaster, but its also never managed to make it into core and my perception is that psionics represent a niche market and psionic labelling tends to be a turn off.

Psionics have never managed to make it into core, largely because of how "psionic labelling tends to be a turn off." Nevertheless, psionics are core in 3e (SRD approved). What matters, however, is that the non-Vancian system of the Psion can be used alongside of Vancian casters while still being considered "D&D." And it should be just as easy to modify and reflavor the psionic caster system and spell list to an arcane/divine magic system.

I didn't say that it was true for most necessarily. I only suggested that it was one of six common complaints which jointly seemed represent the majority of opinions of those who dislike Vancian spellcasting. Under the label 'ignorance', I tend to put those who claim that for example, a system that use mana points would in and of itself simplify book keeping, increase flexibility, increase game balance, end the 15 minute game day, end the practice of wizards going nova, or even simply just those that claim there are no advantages to the existing system and they can't imagine how it could be defended by anyone.

There are benefits to both systems. I think that there are some aspects of Vancian book-keeping that certain people find tedious, but Vancianites don't, and vice versa. I think it's just a matter of recognizing that the Vancian magic system is incapable of satisfying everyone who otherwise enjoys D&D.

As far as confusion goes, this is the complaint that it makes no sense for a person to forget a spell after he has cast it, or that they can't immediate rememorize the spell they just cast if they have forgotten it. These concerns can generally be alleviated by explaining the flavor in a way that they find more logical, but to me generally resemble the confused arguments presented by people who argue that hit points aren't realistic because they believe that hit points represent only the ability to sustain damage or because they think hit points represent only an abstract quality and not in part the ability to sustain damage. The tend to be tying themselves up in knots because they don't understand the nature of the abstraction based on an erroneous assumption about the fluff surrounding the abstraction.

These things can be explained in ways that are logical, but it's not really a matter of logic - as logical explanations can be used to justify any fictional metaphysical system - but what certain people find intuitive. And for some people, other magic systems are more intuitive than others. This intuitive sense is partially a matter of taste, preference, and background with other magic systems, whether in other games (video and tabletop) or fiction. This does not make Vancian magic bad, but it can be restrictive against those preferences.

(My typical explanation goes something like, "When a wizard is studying his spells, he's actually engaged in a lengthy ritual to prepare the spell in his mind, stopping the ritual just short of completion to await the comparitively short phrase or gesture that will trigger the release of the spell. Mortal spellcasters generally find it impossible to summon up enough power in the short time available in the midst of combat or other stressful situations. Spells are simply known rituals that can be left in this nearly completed state where they will be useful in a hurry. More powerful beings are less restricted and don't need as much preparation." That explanation has seemed to satisfy several of my players over the years, though of course I would hardly expect it to satisfy everyone as not everyone's complaint has the same source.)

Which may works for you and your settings, but not necessarily for others and their settings. I hope you can at least sympathize with that reality.

I'm not sure that's a terribly useful distinction. By "high simulation", I mean the stance that a game is most fun when it most perfectly simulates the genera or setting which serves as its inspiration so that it feels to the player as if he was journeying within the story.

For me, it is a useful distinction, because people are not necessarily seeking to simulate a particular setting or genera, but want a system that flexibly allows them to simulate the most number of settings or genera.

Yes, but so would any particular choice of mechanic, unless like HERO or something its flexible enough to also emmulate Vancian.

Which is largely my point. The mechanics of any particular system inherently would, and that's why Vancian is not going to necessarily work for everyone and what leads to detractors of the system, because it feels like a yoke on the necks of their creativity and flexibility.

Which, I feel, on the basis of the effects of the system and not necessarily the fluff, is Vancian. That is to say, while for any given setting, you could match that settings explanation for how magic works more closely (assuming how magic works is in the slightest way explained), you could not simulate the narrative uses of magic more closely in more settings than you can with Vancian. No, granted, there are some types and feels of games where Vancian doesn't work well - I wouldn't do Avatar the Last Airbender with Vancian (but I wouldn't do it with mana points either) - on the whole it serves better than anything I've found the general feel of magic that can at times be earth shattering but which for whatever reasons of story or character motivation is more usually held in reserve. One of the central tropes of most fantasy stories is that magic is real and incredibly powerful, but its practicioners rarely use it or are reluctant to use it so that its only seen at critical moments. That feel is very hard to capture with a game system while still allowing the player to feel like he's playing a magician.

I'm not an advocate of forcing square pegs down round holes, and if you are keenly aware that there are potential settings, both adapted and homebrew, in which Vancian is not appropriate, then you should be equally keen to allow for the existence of alternate magic systems within D&D. Yet you are not.

As for power gaming, again, I'm not saying that each of these complaints applies to everyone that doesn't like Vancian, or even that any one applies to the majority. I'm only saying I've heard the complaint commonly. And considering you don't address my statement except to say that its probably insulting, I'm not sure how valid of a rebuttle that actually is.

But I did address your point. You skipped over it:

Considering that many of these alternate systems that people have proposed do place limitations (e.g., fatigue, mana points, reduced power level, etc.), I'm not sure how viable this criticism actually is. The reasons that you listed do not imply that these players are somehow "power gamers," and again it's insulting to suggest that when it's really just about playing a preferred simulation or mechanical system of magic.

And I think I'm going to mostly end my response here, because you don't say anything really explanatory from here on out. It's not enough to say, "They have a different taste." Please define that taste and why a different magic system better meets that taste. It's not enough to say, "Oh, they like point buy." Why do they like point buy? When you say things like, "You make it sound as if EVERY game system would be absolutely BOGUS for using systems other than Vancian.", then its pretty clear to me that you don't get it.

I get the feeling that you will be dismissive of anything anyone could possibly provide, as you do not seem keen on listening but simply in preserving the status quo with Vancian magic.

Well, I don't know how insulting it is for people who do like D&D, but I do know that a lot of people who don't like Vancian magic are very open about the fact that they don't like D&D and that they moved on from it because of Vancian magic (among other annoyances). I recognize that there is a small(?) relatively economicly unimportant(?) group out there that play D&D with alternative magic systems and enjoy it, but their motivations are something I don't fully understand.

This bit is filled with a number of unsubstantiated assumptions that are unfairly frame those D&D players wanting alternatives to Vancian magic, and I would love if you could actually back up your claims here.

This is the lacking peice. A good answer to my challenge might be to tell me about your D&D game where you banned Vancian magic and used the Psion as the Wizard, or where you used En Publishings 'Elements of Magic'. That would be informative.

When I get the time, I will. But replacing the Vancian system wizard with a reworked wizard (i.e. psion) worked well. It mostly involved either reflavoring the effects to be more like wizard spells, or converting wizard spells - particularly utility spells - into the psionic system.

But trying to convince me that the other explanations I listed don't exist and are insulting is probably going to be futile, because I've seen them for myself and I'm not trying to insult anyone by giving an accounting of reality.

[/quote]I am not telling you that your insinuations are insulting to serve as explanations to your inquiries. I'm telling you because your "accounting of reality" is rude, dismissive, insulting, and unproductive to civil discussions, and that you could be aware of how your posts are coming across and that you should cut it out.

Likewise, I've been seeing alternative magic systems for D&D for 30 years now, including any number of D&D knockoffs where someone thought they could do D&D better. Yet, they never seemed to catch on.

Brand recognition goes a long way, don't you agree?

 

[Desdichado]

Holy cow, Celebrim. Way to not engage in the discussion.

Vancian magic is highly controversial. When it was announced at GenCOn... what was it, 2007? that Vancian magic would be out, the entire crowd cheered. This is not the opinion of a statistically insignificant, minor element of the community. I don't know how big it is, but that was more like the reaction against disco at Chicago in 1980--a significant grassroots, groundswell movement.

Your attempts to marginalize everyone who doesn't like Vancian magic are absurd. And your demand (in bold text no less) that its not valid enough to not like something unless they can explain to you exactly why they don't like it is almost laughable in its overweening arrogance.

 

[Hussar]

Well, Celebrim, I think that while you have hit some of the criticisms, they actually aren't the really pertinent ones. At least for me.

Vancian magic, for me, forces players to choose broad effects over specific effects. That's it, in a nutshell. The mechanics are extremely limiting on how the game gets played. While there may be the odd exception, by and large, any general effect trumps specific.

So, after a while, every wizard looks pretty much the same. I mean, there's a reason that sleep, magic missile and fireball are all iconic wizard spells, while, say, Illusory Script, isn't. The rules a filled with spells that are almost never used, or are pretty much only used by DM's because the effect is so specific that no one in their right mind would give up the slot to take it.

Which brings up the next issue. Fire and forget magic only exists in D&D. It's the only place you see it. It's pretty bad when the premiere fantasy RPG models Gandalf with a druid. And the argument is pretty solid for making Gandalf a druid and not a wizard. When iconic characters from genre fiction don't actually fit the class that supposed to model them, I'd blame the system for that.

I can understand liking Fire and Forget magic. It has a lot going for it. It's easy, it's simple, it does get the job done in a fairly straightforward way. As far as mechanics go, it's certainly not a bad one.

OTOH, there are better ways of doing things. You can create wizards without fire and forget magic that represent "Guy who waves his hands and makes the bad mens fall down" in a way that is less restrictive than F&F magic. The various psionic systems work well. 4e's mix of at wills and dailies isn't a bad way to go either.

The point you're missing Celebrim, is not everyone wants to play a wizard that stands around, warming the pines until it's time to kick the point after. Some people want to play wizards that can interact with the action of the game just as often as everyone else.

I don't understand why their tastes are somehow less important than yours.

 

[Hussar]

I'll admit, my eyes went crossed a bit at the walls of text, but this last bit caught my eye:

Likewise, I've been seeing alternative magic systems for D&D for 30 years now, including any number of D&D knockoffs where someone thought they could do D&D better. Yet, they never seemed to catch on.

Are you honestly saying that Vancian casting is the reason D&D is popular?

 

[Celebrim]

It explains quite a bit, but the question is whether or not it an explanation that meets your satisfaction.

It neither explains nor is an answer to my satisfaction. It did prompt me to reread the thread from the start just so I could track your stance in it, which was more informative than your answers are.

Their lack of success of gaining traction is not necessarily indicative of the value or lack thereof of non-Vancian magic. Would you not also agree that there people who are attached to Vancian magic for sentimental reasons, such as "Vancian magic is D&D"? Or how that Vancian magic is "how things have always been done"? Would you also not agree that Vancian magic may have been retained due to issues such as backwards compatibility?

I'm sure that those have a role, but when you make this argument I'm reminded by those that have denounced hit points and classes and other D&D mechanics as primitive, archiac, useless, and only retained because they were the way things have always been done. At one point, I probably would have counted myself among that group, but I later came to see it was not so, that hit points and classes had strengths and that they were retained not primarily from nostalgia but because they were good mechanics. So I deny that these are the defining reasons as well. Vancian magic was retained in a clear form into 3e because it was a solid mechanic, and I believe 4e suffers on the whole from its lack.

Or that anything that isn't Vancian is not D&D?

I'm not going to go that far, because I think things are still D&D even without magic. But, the question of 'What is D&D?' is a difficult one and seems to lack a definitive answer. I think it is matter of opinion whether D&D is not D&D any more if Vancian magic removed, but I find it easier to see the logic of a person who says, "Without Vancian as option, it's not D&D." than someone who says, "Without Vancian as an option, it's still D&D." So without addressing the other issues, I feel confident that while having an option other than Vancian is a good idea, kicking it to the curb is probably a very bad idea if you are trying to establish some sort of base line D&D rule set or experience.

Or that people who dislike Vancian magic must somehow dislike D&D? Or how about people who insinuate that detractors of Vancian magic should just play something other than D&D?

Generally speaking, many of them do. When 4e was announced, we got a flurry of interest from people who said, "If they drop Vancian spellcasting, I may come back to D&D. Vancian spellcasting drove me away from the game." Whether 4e kicked Vancian far enough to the curb to satisfy them, I don't know. Likewise, while you can play anything that you want, I think some sort of explanation for why you are playing D&D when you don't like its core mechanics would be helpful. From what I can tell so far, its because in your case you are most unhappy only with Vancian in its purist form and that the presence of variants is something you can tolerate. Plus I also gather that you feel, as I don't, that the 3.5 psionic system is a very strong system. For my part, I think it could be a strong system, but its being limited by its ancestory as a 'psionic system' (which it truly to my mind ceased to be in 2e).

Vancian magic is "fire and forget." Spontaneous casting used by sorcerers, magisters, and greenbonds is not Vancian.

Even though they are fire and forget? I think you are defining fire and forget pretty narrowly here. I define 'fire and forget' as having discrete non-interchangable packets of powers which when expanded become inaccessible over some in game time frame. Thus, I consider both the Wizard in 1e and the monsters in 1e with their list of spell-like abilities useable 1/day or 3/day to be Vancian. Both are systems that have been with D&D since the beginning, and both use a common set of rules. The 3e Sorcerer is still Vancian because, after you've expended your 3rd level spell slots, you cannot merge your unexpended 2nd level spells slots to produce a 3rd level spell. This is not true non-Vancian systems, but is a typical feature of core D&D magic systems and generally not associated with other game systems. Likewise, the 1e or 3e monster with two different spell like abilities, each usuable 3/day, is a Vancian spellcaster. The fact that they all can use a common spell list to my mind is pretty definite proof of that.

Being variants of Vancian magic does not make them Vancian.

Subclasses of a class are still members of the general class.

I don't know what you tried to refer me to, but after reading the thread, far from being hyper-liberal on this point I would call myself a moderate. Other posters defined as Vancian ANY system which restricted powers on a #/time frame basis, as opposed to systems without expendable resources or with a fungible mana point system. And while that might be over broad, I can see their point.

What matters, however, is that the non-Vancian system of the Psion can be used alongside of Vancian casters while still being considered "D&D." And it should be just as easy to modify and reflavor the psionic caster system and spell list to an arcane/divine magic system.

I'm sympathetic to this approach, but I'm not very sympathetic to it replacing the Vancian system as the core system. For one thing, from the DM's perspective, monsters are easier to write up and to run using the Vancian system or a variant than they would be using a spell-point system or a variant. Bookkeeping and math put a much bigger burden on the DM - who must run multiple NPC's and manage a game - than they do on the individual player who must only run a single character.

Not that you've yet explained what this matter of taste is that drives you to spell point systems. And no, I'm not going to buy that there is no logical explanation.

Which may works for you and your settings, but not necessarily for others and their settings. I hope you can at least sympathize with that reality.

As I said, I wouldn't run something like Avatar the Last Airbender with Vancian magic, but on the other hand, I wouldn't be that offended if people who saw the homebrew I put together to run the game claimed that I'd departed so far from standard play that the game wasn't D&D any more.

I'm not an advocate of forcing square pegs down round holes, and if you are keenly aware that there are potential settings, both adapted and homebrew, in which Vancian is not appropriate, then you should be equally keen to allow for the existence of alternate magic systems within D&D. Yet you are not.

That seems to be a huge and illogical leap. I'm by no means saying that alternate magic systems can't be provided for D&D. I'm saying that Vancian is D&D's core magical mechanic, and the further you depart from it the less your variant will strike the majority of people as being D&D. But by all means play the game you enjoy, and if there is a market for it by all means D&D's publishers should be trying to meet it. Though, I think they'd do a better job of meeting it if we could well define what it is that people liked about a given variant compared to Vancian.

I get the feeling that you will be dismissive of anything anyone could possibly provide, as you do not seem keen on listening but simply in preserving the status quo with Vancian magic.

On the contrary, I'm both interested in listening and in preserving the status quo with Vancian magic. (Though obviously, I have a broader view of what that status quo is than merely 'like the 1e Wizard'.)

I am not telling you that your insinuations are insulting to serve as explanations to your inquiries. I'm telling you because your "accounting of reality" is rude, dismissive, insulting, and unproductive to civil discussions, and that you could be aware of how your posts are coming across and that you should cut it out.

I don't take a lot of responcibility for people getting offended for things that aren't offensive. Are you completely sure that the problem isn't that you have a dog in this fight? Because you've repeatedly made assertions about my stance that are false, and given the fact that you've repeatedly and to my point of view wildly misinterpretted me, I'm not about to apologize for how you think I'm coming off.

Brand recognition goes a long way, don't you agree?

Not as far as some claim. Historically speaking, first to market brands end up losing to second to market brands more often than not because second to market brands are usually able to learn from the first ones mistakes and provide a superior product at a lower cost. That D&D endured is not I think primarily attributable to being first.

 

[Celebrim]

Holy cow, Celebrim. Way to not engage in the discussion.

???

Vancian magic is highly controversial. When it was announced at GenCOn... what was it, 2007? that Vancian magic would be out, the entire crowd cheered.

I'm not in a position to speculate on what percentage of the crowd was actually cheering, what their motives were, or whether they suffered buyers remorse. I wouldn't have been surprised in 2007 if they announced classes were out, hit points were out, armor class was out, and saving throws were and they probably also would have gotten cheers. I remember the timbre of the boards about that time. There were a lot here that wanted D&D kicked to the curb entirely and replaced with an indy inspired nar system, and others that wanted an ultra rules light frame work. And virtually everyone was absolutely certain that what was under the wrapping paper was going to be exactly the pony they wanted. I got a three day ban for being overly negative after suggesting that it might not be an indy nar system they were making and the whole skill challenge system didn't seem to me like it was going to work out. No body wanted to hear a negative assessment back then.

And, given the dynamics of crowds, they probably would have gotten cheers for most any assertion that they made.

History however judges how it worked out, with a new edition under production less than 4 years after the launch, groundswell not just for 3e inspired games but older editions, endless complaints about the lack of flexibility 4e Wizards have, and prior attempts to patch Vancian back into the system to apologize to the fan base they offended.

Your attempts to marginalize everyone who doesn't like Vancian magic are absurd. And your demand (in bold text no less) that its not valid enough to not like something unless they can explain to you exactly why they don't like it is almost laughable in its overweening arrogance.

Among other things, that bold text was emphasis added by someone else. And its perfectly valid to like or not like something even though you can't explain why, but it isn't very informative. And note, "valid" is not my word in that section. That's something you added. My word was "explanatory". I don't know what you consider to be engaging in discussion, but I've got to tell you that I consider misquoting and twisting other peoples words to try put them in as negative light as possible to not be engaging in discussion.