I know tastes are subjective and I know people's tastes are different than yours, but you have not convinced me that it is a matter of taste. Some or all of your underlying reasons for preferring non-Vancian to Vancian may be matters of taste, but presumably you have underlying reasons.
So do you still only think that Non-Vancianites are a bunch of confused, ignorant, power gamers? Why do you honestly think that all these aesthetically different non-Vancian magic systems were developed both inside and outside of D&D? Why do you think that something as subjective as "the aesthetic of how magic should work" would not be a matter of taste?
I do not intend to frame you as guilty by association. Rather, I'm saying that that you seem to be saying that Vancian magic is something which is retained in D&D primarily for reasons of nostalgia, much like many say about hit points classes, armor reducing the chance to hit, and other classic D&D mechanics are dismissed in this way. In short, you seem to be saying that other people like these things merely as a matter taste and I'm rejecting that.
Nostalgia is definitely a part of it, and I certainly don't think you can deny otherwise. Even casual glances throughout this thread and other Vancian threads sends Vancianites into fervent ceremonious chanting of "If it's not Vancian, it's not D&D" and "D&D is not D&D without Vancian magic." But I have also proposed that the system stuck due to a concern for backwards compatibility of editions (sans 4E), which would include for Vancian magic.
As I understand your argument at this point, you are saying that when Vancian is removed and replaced with an alternate system, D&D remains the same game and the only choice between Vancian and non-Vancian is a matter of taste - like vanilla versus chocolate. This isn't very convincing. I'm trying to unearth what it is that non-Vancian is adding to the game (or what particular Vancian detracts from it), and if I seem to be needling you more than others, please take it as flattery; it is because I think you are more likely to have the answer than some others who are offering less rational and thoughtful reasoning.
D&D obviously does not remain "the same game" when you change out its parts, much like how D&D does not remain the same game between editions that change the mechanics (e.g. THACO to d20), nevertheless, it would still remain D&D, at least for the non-Vancianites. One person recently on ENWorld astutely compared D&D to the
Ship of Theseus paradox. It's worth noting that tastes differ among the vague category of non-Vancianites, as there will always be those who think that the existing system does not meet their requirements. And I accept that as a matter of taste, because it largely stems from a series of conflated factors, which I think ultimately derives from a subjective intuitive sense for what magic "is" and how it should be. The mechanics, in a number of respects, are the simply the means of simulating that particular aesthetic within a game system, that frequently comes with its own set of simulation aesthetic choices.
That seems like a perfectly fair and reasonable request. Now help me understand your love of point buy systems and what you dislike about Vancian; not that it is in my power to grant your request either, but just for the sake of communication.
It's not that I like point buy systems, but that point buy systems are probably the most common way to simulate a particular magical aesthetic that I find more to my sensibilities, and yes taste. For example, I did list True20's magic system as one I liked, since it also operates on the fact that casters can cast until they drop dead, as True20 relies on fatigue and condition mechanics. And it also focuses on casters having a smaller set of flexible spells. I cannot recall too many fictional mages that have anywhere near the enormous spell lists of D&D wizards. This is not to say they don't exist, but that I would say that most mages in fiction seemingly have a much smaller repertoire of spells. You can focus on a selection of spells in D&D, so let me stop you right there: In this matter, I do not think that it's the fault of Vancian magic, but of D&D game assumptions. The game, as often evident in adventures, generally assumes that wizards have access to certain spells and that they have that large flexible spell list. I find that problematic, though I do not lay that at the feet of Vancian magic.
I have veered off course, so let's go back to your original inquiry: "Now help me understand your love of point buy systems and what you dislike about Vancian." While the first and second parts can be inferred from what I write later, I will just be more direct about the first here: simulating magic as mana energy. Let me explain, because what that means isn't even sufficient to my own understanding, but as the words aren't coming to me, let's drawn an analogy instead, though it's not perfect when it comes to "recharging mana." Let's say that you have cash in various note values totaling $100. Mana systems view magic aesthetic more in these terms: As long as you have enough total cash to make purchases, you can expend your resources on whatever you want, however much you want, and when you need it until you are out of cash. It's ultimately not about power-spending, but about flexible spending and budgeting total expenditures, including potentially saving some reserves for the unexpected. Magic is viewed as a well. Vancian magic (as well as the D&D level spells per level per day system) would be entirely counterintuitive to this way of thinking. A D&D wizard who spent $100 instead of casting spells would have a set amount of coins, $1 notes, $5 notes, $10 notes, and $20 notes which they could only spend on a set list of pre-preparing $1 items, $5 items, $10 items, and $20 items. In other words, once they ran out of $1 notes, they could not use a $5 note to buy a $1 item. Well that's not entirely true: they could use one of the $5 or larger bills to pay for a $1 item, if they prepared for it in advance, but they would do so with the understanding that they don't be getting any change back. Or, if you used up your two $20 notes on two pre-prepared $20 items, you could not spend any of your remaining $80 to buy another $20 item. If checking accounts are far more intuitive, and can be fairly easily balanced and budgeted as a common practice of daily living, I'm fairly certain that spell point systems are more than capable of doing the same.
I find that really interesting, because when I encountered AE I found it to be only a very minor - very minor - variation on Vancian magic, and indeed so minor in its differences that it never struck me as being worth converting my houserules (which is about 80% 3.0e) over to what AE had done. I saw the tiny advantages of the system not being worth the effor or additional complexity and possible losses of balance. But you are seeming to say that this tiny advantage is to some people a huge improvement and sufficient to get them to accept the otherwise detestable and hated Vancian system. That I find really intriguing.
I'm glad we are making progress in this area at least. It's not just "tiny advantages of the system." The AU/AE system offers a different aesthetic to magic and how it operates.
Yes, but I'm perfectly happy to flavor even traditional Vancian in that way depending on the setting. Casting spells in some way fatigues the caster until they run out of joice, which is why a traditional D&D wizard can't simply immediately reprepare spells and requires rest before he may do so.
It doesn't quite work that way with Vancian magic, even if you reflavor it. For example, let's say that a wizard three third level spells per day. She prepares fireball 2x, and haste. After casting fireball the first time, she's obviously not out of "mana," as she can still cast fireball again. After casting fireball the second time, she's out of fireball spells. She has simply "fired and forgotten" fireball. But she's not out of "mana" or "energy," as she can still cast haste. Yet she cannot expend her "mana" to cast anymore fireballs or tap into her lower or higher level "mana energy" reserves to cast further 3rd level spells after casting haste. The traditional D&D wizard can run completely out of 1st level spells, while having all of his 2nd-9th level spells available. But trying her little heart out, this poor wizard cannot cast anymore 1st level spells - presuming she did not use upper level slots to prepare 1st level spells - despite having the "mana energy" for 2nd-9th level spells. And I think that this aspect, while not entirely Vancian, breaks simulation for some people, especially for those people who think of magic more holistically. But this is where the AU/AE system comes in and bridges the gap, not only between the wizard and sorcerer, but also between the artificiality of "spell levels" and "spells per day" with "spell points."
I appear to be far from the only person that defines it in this way, and far from the only one that sees the Sorcerer as being a trivially minor variation and part of a general family of related Vancian style spellcasting. Certainly I don't recall seeing Sorcerer mechanics utilized outside of the D&D family of games.
There are many mechanical systems for magic that I do not see outside of particular systems, so not seeing Sorcerer mechanics outside of D&D is hardly surprising. To speculate while building on my previous assertion, the Sorcerer was perceived as a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough for those people, which is probably why the Sorcerer mechanics do not appear outside of D&D. It may be non-Vancian, but it doesn't adequately simulate a particular brand of generic fantasy.
I don't think it is a matter of taste. I think that the Vancian system offers particular concrete advantages for D&D or any other system that involves regular combat and is seeking to emulate a particular feel of being within in a generic fantasy story. I don't see my logic as loose at all. It's as logically suited to simulation of a particular subset of generic fantasy as a system without expendable resources would be to simulating most anime style fantasy, comic books, or action adventure movies or a system involving encounter powers and manuevers would be to simulating the tropes of wuxia or Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers/Voltron. It's not a matter of taste, save in your preference for the genera being emulated.
You can keep asserting that it's not a matter of taste, but you have yet to convince me that it's true nor have you provided evidence otherwise. I have added in the orange words to your post as a reminder that the Vancian magic system is a particular ruleset with a particular set of advantages geared towards its own particular game assumptions about magic within its own particular brand of generic fantasy it simulates. But that does not mean that it fits all tastes is able to simulate all, or even most, generic fantasy or that it is the only magic system that offers concrete advantages.
You are better positioned I think to answer that question than I am. Tell me what it is like. How is it different or similar to normal D&D? What are you trying to achieve and why? I'll say this, I think that the point buy system with the manifester level cap is certainly more suited to emulation of generic fantasy than a lot of other mechanics I can think of.
Vancian magic definitely has its own unique tactical qualities that a number of people in D&D find appealing. But point buy systems present a different set of tactical challenges than are present in Vancian systems. Sometimes, much like with Vancian magic, it takes a while before players get a grasp of safe expenditures, but it has allowed players to "spam" lower manifestations as appropriate far more frequently, or to "spam" higher manifestations until dry at the risk of further challenges. But it's a flexibility that's at the discretion of players to spend their cash reserves as they see fit. I have occasionally houseruled in some systems that as long the caster has at least X points in reserve, then they can perform at-will cantrips or they can make a magic ranged attack as long as they have a focus (e.g. staff, wand, etc.), which worked out well. Another houserule that worked well was that a caster can recharge a 1d4 of mana points after an hour of rest, which is obviously less than the full recharge of the standard 6 hour rest. I admit that I have not yet had the opportunity to playtest which would work better for balance, increasing the mana recharge die (i.e. d4 to d6 to d8) or the die number (i.e., 1d4 to 2d4, etc.) as the caster increases in level. But this houserule kept the party moving without feeling either too stingy or too wasteful with their spells. I find it's easier to recharge mana points than to recharge spell slots.
