D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic

[Desdichado]

I haven't seen Dresden Files get brought up yet. I think that's a pretty good example of a Vancian magic system that I do like. It's not that spells get wiped from memory, but that they tax the user and become harder to cast repeatedly.

Anyway, that's what I'd like to see.

I like Dresden style magic. I don't know why you call that Vancian, though. There's nothing Vancian about the notion that using magic is physically taxing and makes you tired. Vancian doesn't refer to just limiting the amount of magic that magic-users can use, it's a very specific type of magic use assumptions.

That would be a failing on the part of the fiction writers, not the system. (I don't read game fiction.)

Actually, it's not. Game fiction is never worse than when the mechanics of the game are obvious in the prose.

And I do agree that it's compelling evidence that the magic system from D&D is completely unlike much of anything in the fantasy genre so much so that even D&D fiction doesn't consistently portray it as it is in the game, and when they do it's awkward and facile. Surely you can see that that's an issue that a lot of gamers will take exception with? Your arguments in favor of Vancian magic seem to be the proverbial tilting at windmills, because you're trying to convince people to like something that they just don't like. You really can't argue issues of taste very effectively.

 

[Mercutio01]

I like Dresden style magic. I don't know why you call that Vancian, though. There's nothing Vancian about the notion that using magic is physically taxing and makes you tired. Vancian doesn't refer to just limiting the amount of magic that magic-users can use, it's a very specific type of magic use assumptions.

No, but he does consult ancient tomes, wizards of higher power, and otherwise research, practice, and memorize spells to use. Some spells are one-off. Some are more common.

I think there is more of Vance about Dresden than you do, obviously. It's not just the taxing spell-use. It's the research for spells, deliberate creation and preparation of specific spells for use, and, realistically, the scry and prepare method that commonly is decried by people who don't like Vancian magic. That, and Dresden has a pistol for when he can't use magic. Sounds just like a D&D-style wizard to me.

 

[Dausuul]

No, but he does consult ancient tomes, wizards of higher power, and otherwise research, practice, and memorize spells to use. Some spells are one-off. Some are more common.

None of that makes it Vancian. In the D&D context, the defining trait of Vancian magic is that spells are expended upon casting. At any given time, you have X fireballs and Y lightning bolts prepared. You can run out of fireballs and still have plenty of lightning bolts left. I often describe it as "use it and lose it."

This does not describe Harry Dresden in the slightest. Dresden appears to run on a fatigue-based or perhaps a spell point system. The closest he comes to Vancian magic is his force-rings that charge up over time, but magic items don't typically count. As for using a gun, that doesn't make him Vancian any more than Glamdring made Gandalf Vancian.

Now, you can play games with the dictionary if you like and try to redefine "Vancian," but all you accomplish with that is obfuscation. What we're talking about here is the kind of magic where you prep your spells and lose them upon casting. It doesn't matter what you call it.

 

[Mercutio01]

None of that makes it Vancian. In the D&D context, the defining trait of Vancian magic is that spells are expended upon casting. At any given time, you have X fireballs and Y lightning bolts prepared. You can run out of fireballs and still have plenty of lightning bolts left. I often describe it as "use it and lose it."

A) What's with the hostility? Totally uncalled for.

B) I just finished, literally yesterday, reading "Eyes of the Overworld" which followed from "Tales of a Dying Earth."

What I described seems very much Vancian. Now, that may not be D&D's take on Vance, so I can see where your disagreement comes from, but it was stated that no fiction now adheres to the Vancian system. The system you just described isn't actually Vance's magic system.

Incidentally, many of Dresden's spells are expended upon casting. Except for the very common ones of "Fuego" and "Forzare" just about everything else he casts is cast once and then not again. I'd say that the spell fatigue is in addition to the Vancian system.

C) One of the most common anti-Vance positions is that wizards shouldn't resort to mundane weapons when out of magic. By referencing Harry's pistol (and shotgun, and some other weapons he has), I was pointing out that there is, in fact, fiction that does support wizards using mundane weapons when magic is either undesirable or unavailable. That doesn't make him "Vancian," you are correct, but I do believe it answers the concern. Now, it doesn't solve the problem for people who don't like that, and that becomes personal taste. I won't call out taste as being bad or good. I was merely stating there there are wizards in popular fiction who run out of magic and resort to mundane weapons.

EDIT - I'm not looking to pick a fight. I was answering the call for fiction that emulates Vance. I happen to think Dresden does emulate Vance, including the memorizing of spells that may or may not be used, and once used are unavailable again without preparation. Obviously you don't think that counts.

 

[gamerprinter]

Thanks. And to clarify, I don't mean that everyone should be a caster or no one should. I'd have no problem playing a thief who could hide from just about anything and steal thoughts from peoples minds or a fighter who was quite literally immune to magic. A high magic warrior even if he can't directly cast spells.

And I have no problem with casters in low magic games. They just have to be low magic casters (like the Bard).

But when a third level wizard with Int 14 makes a better cat burglar (spider climb or levitate and knock to break in, tenser's disk and mount to carry off the loot, and charm and sleep for the guards) than a fifth level rogue does, something's gone badly wrong. Sure, he can only do it once a night to the minor aristocracy - but that's quite enough. When Fagin would have been better off teaching casting than to pick a pocket or two something's gone wrong.

Well the rogue has never been represented well in D&D, IMO.

 

[Desdichado]

Incidentally, many of Dresden's spells are expended upon casting. Except for the very common ones of "Fuego" and "Forzare" just about everything else he casts is cast once and then not again. I'd say that the spell fatigue is in addition to the Vancian system.

No they're not. If he needed to, and he's not too tired to do so, Dresden could cast them all again immediately. They don't go away and he has to go study them again because they burn themselves out of his mind.

Mostly he doesn't cast them again, because once he's cast a spell the first time, he gets the effect that he hoped for in casting the spell making the idea of casting it again moot.

I agree with Dasuul that that's specifically what is meant when folks refer to D&D magic as Vancian (although I also agree that it might be a bit of a misnomer, as it's not clear that Vance's magic actually operates exactly that way in the Dying Earth series). That doesn't describe Dresden style magic at all.

 

[Mercutio01]

So, if the specific problem is the wizard class in D&D, what do people who don't like Vancian magic think of sorcerers and warlocks? (I'm thinking specifically as they were implemented in 3E). Also, does the same anti-Vancian feeling apply to clerics, who work essentially the same way as wizards do, mechanically at least?

I'm honestly more curious about the second question, now that I think about it. Clerics work almost exactly the same way as Wizards, in that they have to sleep, prepare specific spells, and then once those spells are cast, they're gone. The fiction in the rules is a bit different, but the mechanical effects are pretty much identical. Is there the same feeling exhibited towards the two classes? Why or why not?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, it's not. Game fiction is never worse than when the mechanics of the game are obvious in the prose.

No, it's solidly a failing of the writers & editors if they cannot stay within the boundaries of the underlying IP. It's no different than a scriptwriting team for a TV series ignoring important elements from the continuity bible of a movie or novel. Or would you prefer Gandalf slaying the Balor with a single, nicely timed barrage of disintegrate rays and continuing with the Company of the Ring? Or King Arthur utterly kicking Mordred's ass in a complete rout of his forces and living to reign for another 40 years?

Or, using RW examples, did you like the changes that were made to Earthsea in the miniseries? Did you ever read David Brin's The Postman and wonder why there was a Kevin Costner movie using its title...and not much else?

I'm not saying that the game mechanics need to be obvious- you don't need to have casters naming the specific spells they're casting or the like- but if you can't follow the established rules of the underlying IP when translating it to another medium, there had better be a damn good reason...and "I don't like it" or "It's holding me back" are insufficient, IMHO.

An exhausted Vancian caster in fiction need not say "I'm all out of spell-slots until I rememorize spells and rest for 8 hours"- "I've tapped all my mystic reserves- I can do naught else 'till I recuperate somewhat" or the like would suffice.

 

[Desdichado]

Ah, but you're presuming that Vancian magic is something that readers of D&D novels want to see. I'd say that in general, mechanics showing through the prose is a complaint that I've seen over and over again from reviewers (and have myself) while I've rarely (if ever) seen anyone say that they wish they could see more of the mechanics in the novels.

In other words, it's only a problem if getting the details of how magic works is more important to you than having good prose in your D&D fiction. Since I'd venture a guess that for most readers that's not true, it's not a failing at all. In fact, it may be done purposefully and with full intent for all I know--although we'd have to ask some of the novel writers who occasionally hang out to comment to get a definitive answer, no doubt.

In any case, I certainly don't see it as a failing, because having prose that is rigorous about demonstrating the magic system of D&D (which is likely always meant to have been an abstraction rather than anything else) in all it's gameplay mechanical wonkiness is something that I'd see as a detriment. And frankly, D&D fiction has enough detriments going for it as it is--it doesn't need to be further handicapped by making writers know the rules of the game and make sure that their fiction adheres to it.

I also think your examples of taking an adaptation of a novel into a movie and changing aspects of the plot are not comparable, to say the least. And I haven't read any of those except Lord of the Rings anyway.

 

[Thanael]

Sepulchrave's SH pulled it off pretty well, even talking about the valences of spells. The wizard talk there was very entertaining. (And so were the wizards come to think of it.)

But as i said above i think it's more the spells themselves and the spell-levels and the spellbooks and swapping spells with other wizards and researching new ones, than the fire and forget spell slots and that define D&D magic.