D&D General It's all Jack Vance's fault

[Tales and Chronicles]

Having read Vance fairly recently, it strikes me how idiosyncratic and bizarre the "magic" system he picked was. It's a very odd approach, one that's completely at odds with virtually every take on magic in mythology, and almost more like super-science than "magic" as we know it.

The equivalent would be, I think, if say, D&D was created today, and the creators decided to model the "magic" system on Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series. It's a wildly idiosyncratic take, has no real connection to mythology, and in that case resembles superpowers more than "magic".

I don't really believe they particularly "thought it through", either. I think they just grabbed a system which was easy to implement and which they were fans of. Implementing something like a more Earthsea-esque take on magic would require a whole entire approach to rules-making which didn't even really exist at the time.

As for the influence on other RPGs and fantasy videogames and so on, I think it's been curiously limited. You can really split them into two groups - those directly emulating D&D, which often have Vancian systems, and those not emulating D&D, where close-to-none have Vancian systems. In videogames literally only D&D/Pathfinder games have Vancian systems, and not even all of those!

The vast majority of other games, tabletop top or video, go for spell-point-type systems, where spell-points can come back either extremely quickly or extremely slowly, and where pool depth varies greatly as well.

I think it's kind of weird and unhelpful that D&D has stuck to the system so tightly, and I also think that, if D&D did abandon Vancian magic, it would not meaningfully impair D&D's popularity, and would probably gradually and slightly increase it. People are obsessed with certain spells, but very few people actually care about the Vancian aspect. As 5E showed by moving hard away from "standard Vancian". Also D&D hasn't done a good job of emulating Vance, because D&D Wizards can cast dozens of spells, whereas Vance's ones often have like 1-6 spells memorized (and when they're used, they're gone, no more "using slots" on that spell). The only TTRPG I know which really does that is Worlds Without Number.


I mean, this is really only true of a very specific set of spell point rules.

Those that:

A) Are intended to be retrofitted directly to an existing edition of D&D.

and also

B) Are designed around a very deep, long-rest replenished spell-point pool.

If you design an RPG to use spell-points or another related mechanism from the outside, you don't get these problems. If you design a retrofit spell-point system that doesn't use a very deep, long-rest pool, but say a more shallow pool that replenishes on shorter rests or continually, you don't get the the same issues.

So it's completely solvable. As countless other RPGs show.

It's also of note that, in the early days of D&D, one of the most successful and long-running D&D variants used spell points (and a number of other "before-their-time" rules, like non-casters having actual defined abilities in a way not really seen until 4E/5E, well or Earthdawn I guess), and I think it's very easy to envision a timeline where, perhaps, that became the dominant style of D&D, and this conversation wouldn't even be happening.

Quite right.

There's also the solution to simply make the spell balanced and useful in certain specific situations. No more ''fireball is overtuned because its classic!'' nonsense. Of course if you use spell points and make some spells categorically better than other of the same group, you'll end up with casters spamming them with all their available spell points, never going close to using those points on lower level spells. Why use 6 spell points on a Tidal Wave when you can use the same amount of a Fireball?

The designers just to make spells mostly equal in power/usefulness with the others in their group/spell level and make upcasting better. A upcasted Burning Hand and a Fireball should be in the same ballpark, just not usable in the same situation!

 

[Oofta]

So what are the options?

• A complicated system to see if you can even cast a spell? So if you can crank up your odds of success (people will usually find loopholes) you can cast any spell you want? In addition, it's going to add extra time and overhead to play while simultaneously making it frustrating to play a caster.
• Spell points or mana? That sounds great and it works well enough in video games. The problem is that it can be a lot of extra tracking and overhead. It also leads to weird situations where people can spam relatively powerful spells because they have enough mana to cast higher level spells.
• Just describe what you are doing and let the GM figure out if it works? Sounds like a massive headache for the DM and incredibly inconsistent.
• Something else?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

So what are the options?

• A complicated system to see if you can even cast a spell? So if you can crank up your odds of success (people will usually find loopholes) you can cast any spell you want? In addition, it's going to add extra time and overhead to play while simultaneously making it frustrating to play a caster.
• Spell points or mana? That sounds great and it works well enough in video games. The problem is that it can be a lot of extra tracking and overhead. It also leads to weird situations where people can spam relatively powerful spells because they have enough mana to cast higher level spells.
• Just describe what you are doing and let the GM figure out if it works? Sounds like a massive headache for the DM and incredibly inconsistent.
• Something else?

Remove spells entirely and let magic come from charged items or consumables!

 

[Oofta]

Remove spells entirely and let magic come from charged items or consumables!

So something like artificers with every spell imbued into an item?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So what are the options?

• A complicated system to see if you can even cast a spell? So if you can crank up your odds of success (people will usually find loopholes) you can cast any spell you want? In addition, it's going to add extra time and overhead to play while simultaneously making it frustrating to play a caster.
• Spell points or mana? That sounds great and it works well enough in video games. The problem is that it can be a lot of extra tracking and overhead. It also leads to weird situations where people can spam relatively powerful spells because they have enough mana to cast higher level spells.
• Just describe what you are doing and let the GM figure out if it works? Sounds like a massive headache for the DM and incredibly inconsistent.
• Something else?

I mean, this is a weird question, because it's so easy to answer, because other RPGs exist. Here are some options from other RPGs:

1) A simple system where you know certain spells and make a relatively simple test to see if you can cast them. There's no need for it to be complicated, frustrating, or full of loopholes.

Good examples would be tons of PtbA games, including Dungeon World (which is a good illustration of how you don't really need Vancian to do a D&D-emulating game), the extremely well-designed "Resistance"-systems games like Spire and Heart, or even certain editions of Shadowrun (which is a nightmare of a game, but not because of the actual spell system). White Wolf games also often take this sort of approach.

2) A spell-point system that is designed in from the ground up. It doesn't need to require "a lot of extra tracking and overhead", and the problem re: "spam powerful spells" literally doesn't have to happen - just have a shallower pool that is easier to refresh.

You can absolutely create those problems - but that's a design choice. Neither is inherent to spell-point systems.

Vast numbers of games have taken this approach and experimented with all kinds of different pools.

3) Various games present systems which allow you to essentially create magical efforts on the fly, and don't require the DM to "figure out of it works", because they have a well-designed and well-explained system to support that.

This often works best in a magic-centric game, or one where all the PCs are casters, but arguably 3E and 5E also work best in that situation! Still, loads of games have done it well.

4) An actual Vancian system, like say, Worlds Without Number.

5) A system where you burn endurance or some other resource rather than spell points or slots.

6) Some combination of the above.

I mean, @Oofta, do you really want this answered, because we could just make a giant list of RPGs and go through their magic/magic-equivalent systems, and I think we'll find most of them are pretty functional, and whilst you might not think they're "better" than quasi-Vancian slot-based (which 5E uses), they're certainly workable, and some are outright impressive.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

So something like artificers with every spell imbued into an item?

Yep.

Could even take inspiration from the new playtest's Thief feature that gives a bonus to item recharge, or something like that.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, this is a weird question, because it's so easy to answer, because other RPGs exist. Here are some options from other RPGs:

1) A simple system where you know certain spells and make a relatively simple test to see if you can cast them. There's no need for it to be complicated, frustrating, or full of loopholes.

Good examples would be tons of PtbA games, including Dungeon World, the extremely well-designed "Resistance"-systems games like Spire and Heart, or even certain editions of Shadowrun (which is a nightmare of a game, but not because of the actual spell system). White Wolf games also often take this sort of approach.

2) A spell-point system that is designed in from the ground up. It doesn't need to require "a lot of extra tracking and overhead", and the problem re: "spam powerful spells" literally doesn't have to happen - just have a shallower pool that is easier to refresh.

You can absolutely create those problems - but that's a design choice. Neither is inherent to spell-point systems.

Vast numbers of games have taken this approach and experimented with all kinds of different pools.

3) Various games present systems which allow you to essentially create magical efforts on the fly, and don't require the DM to "figure out of it works", because they have a well-designed and well-explained system to support that.

This often works best in a magic-centric game, or one where all the PCs are casters, but arguably 3E and 5E also work best in that situation! Still, loads of games have done it well.

4) An actual Vancian system, like say, Worlds Without Number.

5) A system where you burn endurance or some other resource rather than spell points or slots.

6) Some combination of the above.

I mean, @Oofta, do you really want this answered, because we could just make a giant list of RPGs and go through their magic/magic-equivalent systems, and I think we'll find most of them are pretty functional, and whilst you might not think they're "better" than quasi-Vancian slot-based (which 5E uses), they're certainly workable, and some are outright impressive.

But we still want it to follow the D&D style, right? Different systems have different goals, different options. It's water under the bridge now, D&D has it's own style and expectations.

Just saying "Game X does it better" doesn't really add much to the conversation. Believe it or not, many people do not have enough time or the options to get the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in game theory and design.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But we still want it to follow the D&D style, right? Different systems have different goals, different options. It's water under the bridge now, D&D has it's own style and expectations.

Just saying "Game X does it better" doesn't really add much to the conversation. Believe it or not, many people do not have enough time or the options to get the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in game theory and design.

What is "the D&D style" in this context?

You're asking "what are the alternatives to Vancian magic?". So if you're asking that in good faith, you presumably are willing to accept a non-Vancian system as being in "the D&D style", yes? Is the "D&D style" just being roughly compatible with existing D&D spell lists? Or is it something else?

But you listed a set of possibilities, and it's obvious from other games that those are very far from the only possibilities, and several things you seemed to think were inherent, are not.

As for "does it better", well I didn't really say that, did I? I think what I posted was a pretty helpful look at some other approaches, and I think you suggesting I'm not "adding to the conversation" is a bit odd, frankly. I'm saying "here are different approaches, many of them work well" (not all of them, to be sure!).

I do agree that I should probably have some kind of degree-equivalence though Then I could get some damn respect (I am quite sure I would get none!)

EDIT - So if we assume in "the D&D style" means you cast mostly fire-and-forget spells, that are individual and well-defined, we could certainly adapt a system like Dungeon World, where you make a test when casting a spell, and get a result between you cast the spell and keep it, cast the spell and lose it, and just the spell fails. This is pretty different to D&D because it eliminates the biggest non-combat issue with spells - that being that they can't fail, they always succeed. Or we could adapt a spell-point system that didn't have the flaws you noted. Obviously we'd want to redesign D&D's spells a bit, but it wouldn't have to be drastic, fireball would still be fireball and so on (far less drastic than 4E, for example, perhaps less drastic than 2E to 3E).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Check out Spheres of Power, @Oofta. It started as an alternative to Vancian magic for Pathfinder that was meant to preserve the overall versatility and power of magic while reducing the individual versatility and power of any specific character. As you can surmise from the link, they adapted it for 5e, and I know multiple people who enjoy the 5e version thereof.

It is, technically, a "spell point" system...but one that works very, very differently from the way D&D magic works. It's closer to certain kinds of "rune magic," that is, each Talent you have within a Sphere is almost like a specific rune with a specific function.

 

[Stormonu]

If folks can track spell slots, I don't see the issue in tracking spell points, and I think the latter would be somewhat easier to track a single pool of points than X spells of Y slots.

I kinda wish Sorcerers were 100% spell point casters - it would make them more noticeably different than Wizards.