D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic

[Gentlegamer]

So what's the point of this tangent line of inquiry? That Jane Austen's magic system is more popular than Jack Vance's?

Fun Fact: Reading Pride and Prejudice is a real world Sleep spell.

 

[Aldarc]

Fun Fact: Reading Pride and Prejudice is a real world Sleep spell.

I'm unashamed to say that I actually highly enjoyed that book. The dialogue and characterization of what amounts to the commonplace felt eerily "real," while also being dryly witty.

I believe both sides were talking about within the context of fantasy initially, then about the principle of using sales as a measuring stick of obscurity in general. That's when the discussion went cross-genre.

Ah. Shouldn't age also be considered? Vance may be better known to certain age groups than with others, which I imagine has only increased as a trend with time. If people are more familiar with, and want to simulate in RP, these more contemporaneous literary magic systems than they are with Vance, at what point, if any at all, should D&D discard Vancian magic?

(Disclaimer: I'm not saying we should get rid of Vancian magic.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Shouldn't age also be considered? Vance may be better known to certain age groups than with others, which I imagine has only increased as a trend with time.

Age is a factor, but it also doesn't have a direct correlation with obscurity...actually, it may be inversely correlated for most.

 

[Gentlegamer]

By the way, I first encountered Vance in Eyes of the Overworld at my local public library; the same place I found Dragonlance and Lord of the Rings (read before The Hobbit, ironically).

I came upon Eyes of the Overworld while browsing the "sci-fi" section of the card catalog. Yes, actual cards.

That library is also where I found Choose Your Own Adventure, Endless Quest, and Dragon Magazine, all things that primed me for when I was introduced to "D&D," as related in this thread.

 

[Aldarc]

Age is a factor, but it also doesn't have a direct correlation with obscurity...actually, it may be inversely correlated for most.

From personal experience: I never heard of Vance prior to my exposure to D&D in high school. My initial exposure to fantasy and sci-fi though was in middle school when my father let me borrow his old fantasy books that were still stored at his parent's house, which included such as the works of Moorcock, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E. Howard, etc. But Vance? Didn't see him there. Never even heard of him. From there I moved on to other speculative fiction series such as Dune, all things Middle Earth, The Wheel of Time, The Black Company, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Earthsea, etc. But since my exposure to D&D in high school 10-12 years ago, I can probably count the number of times Vance's name has been mentioned in conversation with fellow fantasy-reading geeks on one hand.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I completely agree. The system is completely unsuited to high simulationism. If you're primary goal in system creation was emulate the tales of dying earth, you'd use a completely different system. As a generalist mechanic for a wide range of simulation, it's a good mix of versimilitude, mechanical simplicity, and gamist resource management.

This is something you claim and that as far as I can tell no one else agrees with. It's not even close to simulationist for anything that bears any resemblance to the works of Jack Vance.

You mean, you'd let spellcaster fill up a small number of daily power slots with the power of their choosing? I may be being clueless here, but isn't... that... Vancian... spellcasting...???

By the time that a wizard has dozens of spells, he fears not a housecat in melee combat even without his spells. Besides which, the 'housecat problem' is a specific problem with hit dice based systems that is completely unrelated to whatever magic system we adopt and has separate solutions. So this is a total red herring.

Ok, now you are reaching. The Deed of Paksenarrion is based on 1e AD&D in detail. Up until the last 20% of the book, you can pretty much see the hit points, class levels, and other mechanics through the text.

I'll concede the point that Paksenarrion is a piece of D&D fiction as a reaction to bad paladins. And then point out that this makes it an exception that quite literally proves the rule. (I've never played Hommlet so missed that one). Paksenarrion was quite literally written with D&D books as research making it another demonstration that the stories that resemble the D&D rules are ... stories that use D&D rules as the underlying basis.

That is absolutely ridiculous to the point that I think you are trolling.

Reported.

It's reasonable to suggest that the dying Earth RPG is better high simulation for 'Tales of Dying Earth' than D&D's more generic Vancian spellcasting. It laughable to suggest that at non-Vancian spellcasting better emulates Vancian spellcasting than ... Vancian spellcasting.

It would do if "Vancian" casting had anything to do with the works of Jack Vance except taking one fraction of the work very much out of context. A Vancian wizard can count the number of spells he has at any one time on his fingers. And the number he casts in a story on the fingers of one hand. A D&D wizard with that few spells is in imminent danger from a housecat.

"Vancian" magic doesn't just mean rationed. As far as I know, no one calls spell point systems Vancian. It's fire and forget that's the critical aspect of Vancian magic. And the ability to completely reload your spells in a way that you can say "Today I'm an Evoker. Tomorrow I think I'll be an illusionist."

Jack Vance's heroes are much more generally competent and consistent at the core and with a few stand out spells they need to decide on in advance. AEDU with the D being changed to Vancian preparation would be a superb match. Everything being Vancian for a class takes it a long way from Jack Vance.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

From personal experience: I never heard of Vance prior to my exposure to D&D in high school. My initial exposure to fantasy and sci-fi though was in middle school when my father let me borrow his old fantasy books that were still stored at his parent's house, which included such as the works of Moorcock, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E. Howard, etc. But Vance? Didn't see him there. Never even heard of him. From there I moved on to other speculative fiction series such as Dune, all things Middle Earth, The Wheel of Time, The Black Company, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Earthsea, etc. But since my exposure to D&D in high school 10-12 years ago, I can probably count the number of times Vance's name has been mentioned in conversation with fellow fantasy-reading geeks on one hand.

My experience is much the same (though I didn't first hear of Vance through my father or friends).

But again, you really can't look at relative obscurity through such a small sample size as the reading habits you and your closest friends and family have.

Vance may be obscure to you, but to the sci-fi fantasy world in general, he's a fairly well known commodity. To the subset of gamers who started off with D&D in the 1970s, he's even more well-known because he's specifically listed as a source of inspiration in the DMG.

 

[Klaus]

This thread has made me curious: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons/316128-5e-vance-not-vance-question.html

I personally see Vancian magic as one of D&D's defining features, something that sets it apart from other FRPGs. Something that adds to its unique character.

Not everyone feels likewise, I know. Lovers of Vancian magic may even be in the minority of D&D players at this point.

So for those who really despise Vancian magic as much as some clearly do, I have to ask: What is it about D&D that attracted you to the game?

(Please: This isn't about discussing the merits or deficiencies of Vancian magic, this is about the OTHER aspects of D&D that led people to overcome their dislike of it to play and enjoy the game.)

Gary said in one of the many FAQs that he chose Vancian magic because it was the only magic "system" he could find in literature, and he needed to codify and limit what a magic-user could do.

While Vancian magic does have its flavor, it is one of the hardiest parts to explain to someone new to the game ("why does my wizard have the memory span of a goldfish?"). Spells & Power (in 2e) and Unearthed Arcana (in 3e) offered several new ways of handling magic, such as recharging, channeling, etc. Many of these systems worked better even within D&D stories than Vancian magic. For instance, in the Dragonlance novels, casting a spell is taxing to Raistlin's health, leaving him exhausted and having to catch his breath before doing it again. This is a very clear example of the Con-based variant in Unearthed Arcana, or the Encounter spells in 4e.

As to what made me love D&D? The D&D cartoon, the Paladin In Hell illustration in the 1e PHB, stuff like that.

 

[gamerprinter]

Vance may be obscure to you, but to the sci-fi fantasy world in general, he's a fairly well known commodity. To the subset of gamers who started off with D&D in the 1970s, he's even more well-known because he's specifically listed as a source of inspiration in the DMG.

I've read plenty of Jack Vance, not even knowing he had anything to do with Vancian magic - perhaps I didn't read the story where that magic concept even existed. I've read mostly Sci-Fi stuff from Vance. And this was years after playing D&D.

 

[Ranes]

To the subset of gamers who started off with D&D in the 1970s, he's even more well-known because he's specifically listed as a source of inspiration in the DMG.

That's exactly where I discovered Vance.