D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic

[timbannock]

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.)

My earliest experiences were that D&D was fun, and Vancian magic was just one of many things that was *just there.* I didn't like it, but it didn't kill the game, same way that saving throws with 4+ words in their name didn't turn me off, even though that was just stupid.

After a couple years, the first thing I would houserule was the magic system. The cleanest explanation for it is what was in the Castle Keeper's Guide, called the spell slot system, I believe. You have a # of slots equal to the number of spells you can cast per day. You can spontaneously cast whatever you know, using up the appropriate slots.

Memorization was gone. In-game explanation varied, but usually revolved around "spellcasting wears you out." Some people might have been bothered that their character was "worn out" but was still at full power otherwise, but it's not like they were going to ask me to deal them HP damage or nail them with the fatigued condition. That would just be suicide for a spellcaster!

To sum up: everything else was cool. D&D is cool. Vancian spellcasting's just a holdover of something that was a neat idea once, but now connects with absolutely no one save for the rare Dying Earth fan (of whom I've met none).

 

[Celebrim]

Here you admit that "Vancian" spellcasting is ill-suited to simulating magic in the writings of Jack Vance.

I admit no such thing. Where did I say 'Vancian' in that quote? The system I'm referring to is clearly the specificly mentioned 'D&D Vancian system' from the passage I quoted, and not 'Vancian spellcasting' in general. Even if that isn't completely clear, its definately made clear by the contrast I draw in the second quoted passage.

Here you deride the claim that "Vancian" spellcasting is ill-suited to simulating magic in the writings of Jack Vance (compared to other systems).

*bangs head on desk*

So, loosely speaking, Vancian spell casting is the fire and forget daily spells as seen in such stories as the Tales of Dying Earth.

One again...

D&D's spellcasting is generally accepted to be Vancian.

However, D&D's spellcasting and D&D's spellcasting classes have features not found specifically in Tales of Dying Earth and vica versa. For example, even Archmages in Tales of Dying Earth only can cast a handful of spells per day and spells like "The Spell of the Long Hour" don't explicitly show up in D&D spell lists. If you wanted to do high simulation, by which I mean "if you wanted to make a game which as closely as possible emulated the setting of 'Dying Earth', then you'd certainly use a Vancian spell casting system for your magic, but it would have slightly different features than the standard D&D game. For example, it might look something like the Dying Earth RPG.

That in no way implies that the best way to implement high simulation of the Dying Earth setting would be something other than Vancian mechanics.

It does imply that D&D's specific take on Vancian spellcasting is not a perfect simulation of that found Tales of Dying Earth, but would be a better simulation of it than a non-Vancian spellcasting system. That's not too complicated of an argument is it?

 

[Celebrim]

A good portion of the problem seems to come from the fact that people are taking a variaty of positions on what Vancian spellcasting is, and for various reasons therefore I think that people are talking past each other.

For me, if I look at the system and see:

a) A list of spells or powers that produce well defined results.
b) A list of slots, which may or may not be interchangable at some point, which are filled with these powers and which give the spellcaster access to the spells.
c) A refresh rate on the spells such that they can only be used one time each and then don't refresh until some period of time has passed, usually after one in game day. However, the time period in question could be something like 'once you leave the dungeon', 'once you have rested completely', or 'once every X hours' (which on a technical basis was true of low level AD&D spells, though this rule was often ignored), and it would still for my purposes be Vancian.

Now, a system could be more or less strictly Vancian depending on how many additional features it has similar to the D&D Wizard (spells are written in old tomes, preselection and preparation of the powers, use of incantations, etc.) and its inspiration in the source material, but for my purposes anything like the above makes me think 'Vancian' when I see it.

So it confuses the heck out of me when people talk about how they hate Vancian, and then go on to talk about how they are ok with the mechanics for Sorcerers or Magisters or would be happy with a short list of selectable daily powers, because all of those to me are basically Vancian variants which can quite happily and easily coexist alongside the traditional D&D Wizard and indeed largely share mechanics.

When I think of 'non-Vancian', I'm thinking of something like the following:

a) An 'at will' resourceless system where players buy spell powers at character creation time in a manner similar to a fighter buys combat feats, and thereafter may use at will any spell that they have learned whenever they want. This might be similar to M&M or HERO without some of the more advanced options that let you broadly simulate anything. 4e without daily or encounter powers at all, as some have said they wished for, would also be an example.
b) A 'mana point' system similar to GURPS or the 3.5 Psion where you buy powers at character creation time, and then have a single shared resource that you must spend to activate your powers.
c) A free form system (also called BSing), where you buy access to spell seeds of various sorts during character creation, and then during the game you narrate the effect you wish to create and the DM adjudicates it based on how powerful he thinks the effect is, how creative he finds it, and other aspects of your narration.
d) Some combination of the above. For example, EnWorld's Elements of Magic uses both spell seeds to create spells with specific effects and mana points to limit the player's access to those spells.

So how many of the "D&D lovers who hate Vancian Magic", really mean, "I hate the D&D wizard, but are fine with something like the Sorcerer", and how many of them hate it in any form and prefer something that is definately non-Vancian.

 

[1Mac]

I admit no such thing. Where did I say 'Vancian' in that quote?

You were responding to NeonChameolon and quoted him as saying:

What you are ignoring, Celebrim, is that if you want to go effects based in that way D&D "Vancian" casting doesn't even resemble the works of Jack Vance. This is ultimately a problem with the wizard class rather than the spellcasting system.

You responded: "I agree," and continued as I quoted you above. I can't see this as anything but an affirmation that "Vancian" casting "doesn't even resemble the works of Jack Vance."

That in no way implies that the best way to implement high simulation of the Dying Earth setting would be something other than Vancian mechanics.

That's not what NeonChameleon said, and I believe the confusion here is in treating "Vancian" and "3e style" magic as interchangeable synonyms, which they are not. He said that 4e casting is a better representation of Vance's magic than 3e casting, which is commonly called "Vancian", i.e. fire-and-forget. But as many acknowledge and as you pointed out upthread, Daily powers are also a fire-and-forget. So 4e AEDU casting is also a "Vancian" mechanic, but it also as other features like At-Will casting that 3e "Vancian" magic lacks, but which are also featured in Vance's writings. Therefore 4e better captures the magic found in Vance's writings than 3e.

For what it's worth, I don't really care that DnD magic emulate a particular writer. As I said way upthread, the magic system in 3e is a weird, proud nail mars the elegance of the unified d20 mechanic. I'd rather have cohesion than authorly simulation.

 

[1Mac]

I was outposted!

So how many of the "D&D lovers who hate Vancian Magic", really mean, "I hate the D&D wizard, but are fine with something like the Sorcerer", and how many of them hate it in any form and prefer something that is definately non-Vancian.

I see you agree with me that "Vancian" is a term that is confusingly-defined. I get the sense that I'm a minority, but I'm more of the second. My preferences would be for something more test-based, like how skills and attacks work.

 

[Celebrim]

You responded: "I agree," and continued as I quoted you above. I can't see this as anything but an affirmation that "Vancian" casting "doesn't even resemble the works of Jack Vance."

I responded with agreement that "D&D Vancian spellcasting" (what he said), didn't resemble (exactly) the works of Jack Vance

That's not what NeonChameleon said, and I believe the confusion here is in treating "Vancian" and "3e style" magic as interchangeable synonyms, which they are not. He said that 4e casting is a better representation of Vance's magic than 3e casting, which is commonly called "Vancian", i.e. fire-and-forget. But as many acknowledge and as you pointed out upthread, Daily powers are also a fire-and-forget. So 4e AEDU casting is also a "Vancian" mechanic...

No, AEDU, is not a Vancian mechanic. Only the 'D' part in that, taken in isolation, is Vancian. The 'at will' powers found in the setting are akin more to the 'at will' sorts of powers found in D&D since the beginning, when they didn't even need to be explicitly defined as powers.

For what it's worth, I don't really care that DnD magic emulate a particular writer.

For what it is worth, I don't either, except that I would like that it emulates the writings of myself as the DM. At this point, I only care that it emulates D&D.

As I said way upthread, the magic system in 3e is a weird, proud nail mars the elegance of the unified d20 mechanic. I'd rather have cohesion than authorly simulation.

I would not want to bring spell casting under the d20 mechanic, by for example, doing magic as skills per GURPS. I for one have decided that unified mechanics is not a desirable feature of a game in and of itself. Whatever it does to theoretical elegance, having a unified spell list with only check boxes for tracking resources is the best system I've found from the perspective of the GM. I would not want to track mana point usage of monsters or multiple monsters in a D&D like game. I might allow a player to have a well designed class that used an alternative system provided it was balanced with the Vancian spellcaster, but I would not ever want to see the D&D Wizard with its traditional mechanics kicked to the curb as a core character type. It is a deal breaker for me.

 

[Celebrim]

I see you agree with me that "Vancian" is a term that is confusingly-defined.

I would say 'ill-defined' since I don't think there is a widely agreed upon, widely known, official definition.

I get the sense that I'm a minority, but I'm more of the second. My preferences would be for something more test-based, like how skills and attacks work.

You realize of course that you could have a Vancian test-based system, right.

 

[1Mac]

No, AEDU, is not a Vancian mechanic. Only the 'D' part in that, taken in isolation, is Vancian.

We're talking Vancian in the sense of fire-and-forget, right? Is it not fair to say that AEDU has fire-and-forget components?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That may be true, but I don't see how that prevents us from judging that Leiber or "Product X" are obscure. If Hussar says "Jack Vance is obscure," and you respond, "that's because Barnes and Noble doesn't carry him," that's not an actual argument against Hussar's proposition.

That's not what Hussar said- he made the assertion that Vance & Zelazy are obscure based on sales figures. The problem with that, as I pointed out, is that sales figures can only measure what is selling out of what given stores offer for sale.

I would dare say that currently, JRRT outsells James Joyce, J.D. Salinger, Omar Khyam and Jane Austen, none of whom are obscure.

And compared to Stephen King?

So sales figures is not really a good way to measure "obscurity", just current popularity.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, considering how much someone like Jane Austen is used in public schools, and universities, it would not surprise me to learn that Jane Austen sells roughly in the same ballpark as Tolkien. At least in total numbers. Same goes for Salinger. Considering that Penguin Publishing has made a small empire out of the reprint market of classic novels, I don't think you can totally discount sales figures.

I do agree that sales are the only metric. Of course not. But, look at public libraries then. How many Vance books do you find in your local library? Growing up, with my mother a librarian, the only way I could get Vance was to order outside of our area - the books had to come from Ottawa or Toronto.

I have no problem whatsoever in saying Jack Vance is a fairly obscure genre author.