The Vancian magic irks me a bit. I prefer the Tome of Battle system of Encounter/Daily/Stance.
That's why I'm trying to make my own RPG system.
D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic
- Thread starter Dannyalcatraz
- Start date
The Vancian magic irks me a bit. I prefer the Tome of Battle system of Encounter/Daily/Stance.
That's why I'm trying to make my own RPG system.
Lwaxy
Cute but dangerous
Bear in mind that when I started playing the only choice was D&D.
Ditto.
Desdichado
Hero
I'm not very familiar with 4e really, but the rituals are pretty much the same thing that was in 3.x Unearthed Arcana and d20 Modern's Urban Arcana under the different name of incantations, weren't they?
Roland55
First Post
I like Vancian magic.
However, as long as there are so many interesting and clever people who hate it, I'm going to support some kind of magic-using system that ISN'T Vancian ... probably even in the Core.
Playing D&D is all about fun to me. How can I have fun if I can't play with clever and interesting people?
However, as long as there are so many interesting and clever people who hate it, I'm going to support some kind of magic-using system that ISN'T Vancian ... probably even in the Core.
Playing D&D is all about fun to me. How can I have fun if I can't play with clever and interesting people?
Celebrim
Legend
I'll be perfectly honest, in this case, I really don't understand why people don't like what I like. I have some theories, but they seem wanting.
1) They don't like D&D: Some people don't like the game that D&D produces, with its combat/tactical subgame, regular low consequence combat, strong GM authority and narrative control, rules heavy but high abstraction, and near competition between the GM and the players among other things. They want an entirely different game altogether, and its not surprising that for some other style of game some other style of magic is better suited. For example, these players might prefer a BSing style of magic, where the players are free to create and narrative virtually any effect within a wide range of possibilities provided by their powers. Such a system has its advantages, and arguably for some people one of those advantages is it encourages you to play a different sort of game than is usually played in D&D.
2) Ignorance: Some people like want they don't in fact have experience with. The vast majority of their experience is with D&D, and the various limitations and problems with the system have become grating, so that they can only now focus on the negatives in the system and none of the positives. Lacking perspective, they imagine that there is such a thing as a perfect system without drawbacks or that anything would be better than what they have. They long for the greener grass in other pastures, which seems just so much richer, varied, and logical than what they have. Lacking long experience with these other systems, the drawbacks, limitations, and annoyances of these systems just haven't become apparant to them.
3) Confusion: Some people seem offended by the system because the fluff has never been explained to them in a way that they can make heads or tails of. It all seems like a confusing illogical mess for which no coherent explanation can be made. They get particularly upset about the notion of 'forgetting' a spell that you know, for example, and can't see how this makes any sense at all.
4) High Simulation: Some people believe that Vancian magic is in fact a high simulation of the sort of magic found in Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories, where it may in fact make sense, but that it makes no sense whatsoever to apply it to other settings. They believe that not only does the system not strongly emulate the magic found in other stories, but that of all the systems that you could choose, it's the least intuitive sort that matches the fewest number of stories. Or at the very least, they believe that the magic system should be crafted from the ground up to match the setting and perfectly capture how magic works and is used in whatever specific story you are using as your model.
5) Wizard Power Gamers: Some people who hate the Vancian magic system simply hate all the restrictions it tacks on to characters that cast arcane spells - no armor, slow casting times, disruptable, must choose spells ahead of time, limited number of fire and forget slots, spell books, spell components, small number of spells relative to encounters at lower levels, and so forth. The system doesn't feel right to them because they feel that all these restrictions are arbitrary and reduce their fun. They'd prefer a system that lets them use magic all the time, in varied ways, to solve problems as they encounter them. In some cases, part of why they are chaffing at the system is, consciously or unconsciously, because they feel the system reduces their spotlight. In other cases, it's because they want to play Wizard X from one of their favorite stories, and they don't feel like they can achieve that level of awesomeness mucking around with all these blasted restrictions.
6) Percieved lack of balance: The general perception among some gamers is that the Vancian system doesn't achieve it goal of balance very well. Spellcasters at low levels are too weak; spellcasters at high levels are too strong.
The thing is, other than #1 and possibly #6, I think that most of the above reasons are bogus. Yet, #2-#5 seem to be the most common complaints I hear about Vancian magic, not just in the past, but even in this thread. It's very frustrating to me to hear these same complaints over and over again when I feel that they are groundless; but I'm self-consciousness enough to consider that if lots of people are saying the same thing maybe it has more merit than it seems. So, would anyone care to enlighten me on what I'm missing, or even defend #2-#5?
1) They don't like D&D: Some people don't like the game that D&D produces, with its combat/tactical subgame, regular low consequence combat, strong GM authority and narrative control, rules heavy but high abstraction, and near competition between the GM and the players among other things. They want an entirely different game altogether, and its not surprising that for some other style of game some other style of magic is better suited. For example, these players might prefer a BSing style of magic, where the players are free to create and narrative virtually any effect within a wide range of possibilities provided by their powers. Such a system has its advantages, and arguably for some people one of those advantages is it encourages you to play a different sort of game than is usually played in D&D.
2) Ignorance: Some people like want they don't in fact have experience with. The vast majority of their experience is with D&D, and the various limitations and problems with the system have become grating, so that they can only now focus on the negatives in the system and none of the positives. Lacking perspective, they imagine that there is such a thing as a perfect system without drawbacks or that anything would be better than what they have. They long for the greener grass in other pastures, which seems just so much richer, varied, and logical than what they have. Lacking long experience with these other systems, the drawbacks, limitations, and annoyances of these systems just haven't become apparant to them.
3) Confusion: Some people seem offended by the system because the fluff has never been explained to them in a way that they can make heads or tails of. It all seems like a confusing illogical mess for which no coherent explanation can be made. They get particularly upset about the notion of 'forgetting' a spell that you know, for example, and can't see how this makes any sense at all.
4) High Simulation: Some people believe that Vancian magic is in fact a high simulation of the sort of magic found in Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories, where it may in fact make sense, but that it makes no sense whatsoever to apply it to other settings. They believe that not only does the system not strongly emulate the magic found in other stories, but that of all the systems that you could choose, it's the least intuitive sort that matches the fewest number of stories. Or at the very least, they believe that the magic system should be crafted from the ground up to match the setting and perfectly capture how magic works and is used in whatever specific story you are using as your model.
5) Wizard Power Gamers: Some people who hate the Vancian magic system simply hate all the restrictions it tacks on to characters that cast arcane spells - no armor, slow casting times, disruptable, must choose spells ahead of time, limited number of fire and forget slots, spell books, spell components, small number of spells relative to encounters at lower levels, and so forth. The system doesn't feel right to them because they feel that all these restrictions are arbitrary and reduce their fun. They'd prefer a system that lets them use magic all the time, in varied ways, to solve problems as they encounter them. In some cases, part of why they are chaffing at the system is, consciously or unconsciously, because they feel the system reduces their spotlight. In other cases, it's because they want to play Wizard X from one of their favorite stories, and they don't feel like they can achieve that level of awesomeness mucking around with all these blasted restrictions.
6) Percieved lack of balance: The general perception among some gamers is that the Vancian system doesn't achieve it goal of balance very well. Spellcasters at low levels are too weak; spellcasters at high levels are too strong.
The thing is, other than #1 and possibly #6, I think that most of the above reasons are bogus. Yet, #2-#5 seem to be the most common complaints I hear about Vancian magic, not just in the past, but even in this thread. It's very frustrating to me to hear these same complaints over and over again when I feel that they are groundless; but I'm self-consciousness enough to consider that if lots of people are saying the same thing maybe it has more merit than it seems. So, would anyone care to enlighten me on what I'm missing, or even defend #2-#5?
Last edited:
Lord Zardoz
Explorer
I am not dead set against the concept of Vancian magic, but I also think that having it in the game as implemented up until 3rd edition was not an asset. The number of alternate implemnetations and customized rulesets for spell casting should be seen as an indicator of that.
I am ok with the 'memorize -> use -> forget' cycle on paper. In practice, I would rather not deal with a 15 minute adventuring day and a mechanic for that made non casters the weakest class after you factored in power creep.
END COMMUNICATION
I am ok with the 'memorize -> use -> forget' cycle on paper. In practice, I would rather not deal with a 15 minute adventuring day and a mechanic for that made non casters the weakest class after you factored in power creep.
END COMMUNICATION
This can be flipped. A lot of people have gone on to other and have been exposed to other ideas and ways of doing things that people having only played D&D might not be aware or ever considered. Ideas that they think would improve D&D for themselves and others either by replicating what they see in inspirational material (e.g., fantasy literature, mythology, fantasy movies) , making aspects more wieldy or easier to handle, and/or increasing suspension of disbelief despite liking the most or all of the remaining mechanical system as a whole.
Celebrim
Legend
Or alternately, the fact that most of these alternatives were discarded, were never very successful, and in most cases have been completely discarded should be seen as an indication that Vancian has on the whole been an asset.
In practice, none of this has to do with Vancian magic. What 15 minute adventuring day? I've rarely seen it happen, but when I have seen it, it's been as common in games without Vancian magic as those with it. Usually its an encounter design problem, and not a system problem.
The lack of balance between non-casters and casters in 3e was due to a number of factors. Casters in 3e gots lots of love, losing many of the restrictions on them that had kept them in check. In practice it was far too easy for a spellcaster to avoid being disrupted when casting, to the extent that I rarely saw it happen (unlike 1e, assuming the group used something like the actual rules). Casters in 3e benefited hugely from the ill-considered decision to add spell level to a spells DC and from the general problem that the difficulty of passing as save in general went up with level rather than down (as in 1e). Meanwhile, the designers were overly conservative with regards to feats, skills, and the class design of non-spellcasting classes. In point of fact, in AD&D 1.5 (post Unearthed Arcana) I generally experienced fighters and their sub-classes as the most powerful classes at high levels. Vancian magic is not the sole or perhaps even primary cause of the disparity between spellcasters and non-spellcasters at high levels.
Celebrim
Legend
That isn't actually a flip. It's part of the core assumption of what I wrote and was included fully in my reasoning when I wrote it. It still falls under the area of ignorance, in as much as a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when it makes you think you now know better.
Having extensive understanding of the design philosophy and mechanics and years of playing D&D and other systems to understand the strengths and weakness of subsystems is not ignorance.
The problem with your post and why it might be wanting.
1. You can like D&D as a whole and not like some of the subsystems or their applications.
2. Ignorance: yes, if people don't have an understanding behind the philosophy and mechanics of Vancian, yes there may be ignorance. If people understand them and still dislike it and want something else, that is not ignorance. There may be ignorance about the drawbacks of implementing another system if they don't have the proper experience, but they may not be ignorant of the benefits it would bring.
And as I stated above, some people do have the understanding of everything involved and, for them, they are not ignorant on the subject.
3. Confusion. Many people understand Vancian and don't like it. For many of those that do not have an understanding, they still don't like the mechanic. after having it explained
4. High Simulation: Many players do not know the origin of Vancian magic. For many that do, they have not read the books, but know from boards and other sources that it is not truly Vancian just takes cues. So, there is no confusion.
For many , it just does not does not work for them. It is not a matter of having magic built from the ground up to match a particular setting that they saw in a book or movie. It is just a matter of wanting something closer to how they think magic should work based upon a collection of sources. It might also not wanting to have to not deal with long lists of spells in books.
To claim this is not a valid reason is dismissive.
5. Power gaming
a. No armor, slow casting, disruptable is not even about Vancian magic. It is how wizards and sorcerers were often portrayed in many sources that inspired D&D. Dislike does not, necessarily, have to be power gaming. For some people, the dislike may go to the source material with which they are familiar (I, personally, like no armor, slow casting, and disruptable).
b. dislike for pre-choosing and "fire and forget" is not necessarily about power gaming. It, probably, has more to do with going back to the source material with which people are familiar, consciously or unconsciously, and feeling a disconnect as you noted. It is however, wrong to assume it is a power-gaming issue or desire for spotlight.
Many people that don't like the pre-selecting or "forgetting" aspects, would be happy with a system that allows them to continually use the powers they know, but kept their power level in check with everyone else. They might also be happy with a system of fatigue or spontaneous casting (as per the sorcerer or the Unearthed Arcana variant: Spontaneous divine casting).
6. yep, that's common reason
Maybe, I misread your initial post, but it does read like you are too self concious of your own preference and others not liking it as you stated. Individuals don't have to be powergamers, confused, or be ignorant of D&D, Vancian and the drawbacks of other systems to dislike Vancian and want something. Their dislike for Vancian also does not need to indicate a dislike for the game as a whole- just one piece which some people think defines D&D and others do not .
In the end, we are just dealing with subjective preference and I think the designers have their hands full.
Similar Threads
