Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5780468" data-attributes="member: 4937">It's easy enough to understand but also has the property of explaining nothing.I'm aware of that.  I just think that on the whole, they haven't been that successful, which suggests that maybe they aren't succeeding.Stop there for a bit.  Sorcerers and the AU variants are such minor variations on the core Vancian mechanics that I don't really consider them to be other than Vancian magic in the same since that the Wizard is 'Vancian magic'.  If the term is sufficiently descriptive of the loosely related to Dying Earth mechanics used by Wizards, then its sufficiently descriptive of the mechanics used by sorcerers, magisters, and greenbonds.  The sorcerer for example is a minor variation only in the time at which you make the spell selection - character creation rather than daily - which correspondingly changes the time frame in which they may be flexible in their spell choice.  But this is fundamentally a small change that allows them to use the rest of the standard D&D magic mechanics wholesale, right down to importing the wizard's spell list lock stock and barrel.  If the core of our disagreement is that sorcerers aren't Vancian as you use the term, but they are Vancian as I use the term, then we might as well not say much more.  You are never going to convince me that the sorcerer is a non-Vancian spellcasting class, nor that the people upset with Vancian spellcasting are therefore perfectly satisfied by the sorcerer.I fully agree that the Psion is a non-Vancian spellcaster, but its also never managed to make it into core and my perception is that psionics represent a niche market and psionic labelling tends to be a turn off.  I didn't say that it was true for most necessarily.  I only suggested that it was one of six common complaints which jointly seemed represent the majority of opinions of those who dislike Vancian spellcasting.  Under the label 'ignorance', I tend to put those who claim that for example, a system that use mana points would in and of itself simplify book keeping, increase flexibility, increase game balance, end the 15 minute game day, end the practice of wizards going nova, or even simply just those that claim there are no advantages to the existing system and they can't imagine how it could be defended by anyone.As far as confusion goes, this is the complaint that it makes no sense for a person to forget a spell after he has cast it, or that they can't immediate rememorize the spell they just cast if they have forgotten it.  These concerns can generally be alleviated by explaining the flavor in a way that they find more logical, but to me generally resemble the confused arguments presented by people who argue that hit points aren't realistic because they believe that hit points represent only the ability to sustain damage or because they think hit points represent only an abstract quality and not in part the ability to sustain damage.  The tend to be tying themselves up in knots because they don't understand the nature of the abstraction based on an erroneous assumption about the fluff surrounding the abstraction.  (My typical explanation goes something like, "When a wizard is studying his spells, he's actually engaged in a lengthy ritual to prepare the spell in his mind, stopping the ritual just short of completion to await the comparitively short phrase or gesture that will trigger the release of the spell.  Mortal spellcasters generally find it impossible to summon up enough power in the short time available in the midst of combat or other stressful situations.  Spells are simply known rituals that can be left in this nearly completed state where they will be useful in a hurry.  More powerful beings are less restricted and don't need as much preparation."  That explanation has seemed to satisfy several of my players over the years, though of course I would hardly expect it to satisfy everyone as not everyone's complaint has the same source.) I'm not sure that's a terribly useful distinction.  By "high simulation", I mean the stance that a game is most fun when it most perfectly simulates the genera or setting which serves as its inspiration so that it feels to the player as if he was journeying within the story.   Yes, but so would any particular choice of mechanic, unless like HERO or something its flexible enough to also emmulate Vancian.   Which, I feel, on the basis of the effects of the system and not necessarily the fluff, is Vancian.  That is to say, while for any given setting, you could match that settings explanation for how magic works more closely (assuming how magic works is in the slightest way explained), you could not simulate the narrative uses of magic more closely in more settings than you can with Vancian.  No, granted, there are some types and feels of games where Vancian doesn't work well - I wouldn't do Avatar the Last Airbender with Vancian (but I wouldn't do it with mana points either) - on the whole it serves better than anything I've found the general feel of magic that can at times be earth shattering but which for whatever reasons of story or character motivation is more usually held in reserve.  One of the central tropes of most fantasy stories is that magic is real and incredibly powerful, but its practicioners rarely use it or are reluctant to use it so that its only seen at critical moments.  That feel is very hard to capture with a game system while still allowing the player to feel like he's playing a magician.As for power gaming, again, I'm not saying that each of these complaints applies to everyone that doesn't like Vancian, or even that any one applies to the majority.  I'm only saying I've heard the complaint commonly.  And considering you don't address my statement except to say that its probably insulting, I'm not sure how valid of a rebuttle that actually is.And I think I'm going to mostly end my response here, because you don't say anything really explanatory from here on out.  It's not enough to say, "They have a different taste."  Please define that taste and why a different magic system better meets that taste.  It's not enough to say, "Oh, they like point buy."  Why do they like point buy?  When you say things like, "You make it sound as if EVERY game system would be absolutely BOGUS for using systems other than Vancian.", then its pretty clear to me that you don't get it.Well, I don't know how insulting it is for people who do like D&D, but I do know that a lot of people who don't like Vancian magic are very open about the fact that they don't like D&D and that they moved on from it because of Vancian magic (among other annoyances).  I recognize that there is a small(?) relatively economicly unimportant(?) group out there that play D&D with alternative magic systems and enjoy it, but their motivations are something I don't fully understand.  This is the lacking peice.  A good answer to my challenge might be to tell me about your D&D game where you banned Vancian magic and used the Psion as the Wizard, or where you used En Publishings 'Elements of Magic'.  That would be informative.  But trying to convince me that the other explanations I listed don't exist and are insulting is probably going to be futile, because I've seen them for myself and I'm not trying to insult anyone by giving an accounting of reality.  Likewise, I've been seeing alternative magic systems for D&D for 30 years now, including any number of D&D knockoffs where someone thought they could do D&D better.  Yet, they never seemed to catch on.</blockquote>

Verification