Has the Vancian Magic Thread Burned Down the Forest Yet? (My Bad, People)

[MrGrenadine]

I agree that Vancian magic should go the way of the dodo. While some may like it...

Including me.

...likely out of sentimentality and a conservative emotional attachment to this clunky mechanic...

This is not even close, however.

I have despised Vancian Magic ever since I started D&D.

Well, that explains the slam above. But don't assume your personal preference is the onetrueway. That way lies madness.



I love the Vancian system. It makes sense to me both narratively, and in gamist terms as well. Feel free to HR it away in your own campaign, but I wouldn't play a game without it.

 

[innerdude]

Because, in making it go away it's being taken away from other players who do enjoy using the system. And usually it's about making other classes go away because they don't like them. That's why it can be considered inflammatory by some.

Another suggestion to is to try other kinds of systems before trying to change it to suit your preference, but the first thought is to make it go away so that nobody else can enjoy it?

Misery loves company and will always try to ruin other people's fun. That's what's wrong with this kind of thread. Let people have their fun and stop trying to change things in order to stop people from having their fun. And usually what happens to that person who wants to change things? They get told to go away.

How does suggesting replacing Vancian casting with an alternative magic system "take away your fun"? You can house rule it back in to any D&D style system you choose--just as we've been told we can house rule it out.

But apparently a portion of those who like Vancian magic are of the opinion that those of us who don't like it should be the ones to do all the house ruling and conversion work. Fair enough, I suppose, just be careful when you start claiming we're "taking away your fun." The door swings both ways.

Personally I'm rather surprised at the number of people defending it. Yeah, functionally it works relatively well. And yes, I realize that any magic system mechanic is in large part going to be a massive case of "suspension of disbelief." But it doesn't change the fact that in my opinion, it's the least "organic" feeling magic system out there. Meaning, if you were to create a mechanical representation of how magic works, it's by far the one I'd be least likely to "imagine up" in my own head.

Does that mean it has no merit at all? No. It's at least mechanically consistent, and certainly has lasted through 30 years of D&D gameplay, but I'm fairly certain that there are other systems, if implemented into the D&D experience from the ground up, that could be just as consistent, more fun, and make the in-game decisions more interesting and compelling than flipping through the books looking for just the right spell, and the perfect meta-magic feat chain to go with it.

I'm just not sure why that sentiment is offensive.

 

[pawsplay]

I like Vancian magic, simply because there's a moment of excitement when the magic-user says, "Ok, I am going to cast a spell." Take away Vancian, and you take away a little of that. No one cares in 4e if you cast a spell; you cast spells all the time. Vancian magic is about more than just spell memorization, though. It's about spells having powerful, yet somewhat inflexible effects you have to try to wring some utility out of. It's about spells doing more than just causing damage or moving things around, but drastically effecting the world environment. It's about finding spells in ancient tomes and copying them into your spellbook.

 

[The Shaman]

Im suprised that "Vancian magic" is not more common in fantasy literature.

Its an elegant way of showing you the reader the approximate parameters of the wizards power, so you have that nice balance of anticipation and suspense.

Its like the Q-gives-Bond-the gadgets scene.

Or Toodles the Tool Box on The Mickey Mouse Club - here are your four tools, now find a way to use them to solve the problem.


The dads with small kids are nodding along with me right now.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But apparently a portion of those who like Vancian magic are of the opinion that those of us who don't like it should be the ones to do all the house ruling and conversion work.

Because its one of the original elements of the game, and virtually unique to D&D. It helps define it; give it character.

There are scores of FRPGs that have other magic systems. Why do those of us who like D&D with Vancian casting need to just accept assertions that it should be done away with without defending the system's merits, mechanical and ephemeral?

 

[The Shaman]

Personally I'm rather surprised at the number of people defending it.

Really?

Yeah, functionally it works relatively well.

It's at least mechanically consistent, and certainly has lasted through 30 years of D&D gameplay . . .

And you're surprised at support for Vancian magic because . . . why again?

 

[noffham]

What astounds me about the Vancian haters is the assumption they seem to make that every wizard has access to every spell at all or even most times. What DM worth his or her salt lets the wizard character put any (or all) desired spells into the spell books?

Even researching spells can't supply every spell in the PHB let alone all the other splatbooks and compendiums. (Unless that is all the character ever does, in which case where is the in-play problem)?

I understand that post 2E D&D shifted the balance of power to the players from the DM's, but if those players then go and play wizards knowing every spell whenever they want it, then the issue seems to me to be with the players and not the system. There is (or should be) a social contract between the members of a play group and if one player gets away with being the "everything whenver I want it" fellow, he's violating someone's bailliwick there, no?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Part of it is that, unlike prior editions, 3Ed didn't include explicit rules on the contents of a Wizard's first spellbook. Or how learning spells via research (as opposed to through what you can transcribe from materials recovered while adventuring) was basically random.

 

[Aldarc]

This is not even close, however.

I would love to hear another reason then, as most arguments for Vancian magic I have heard, including those after your post suggest that sentimentality for D&D tradition plays a strong role its defense.

Well, that explains the slam above. But don't assume your personal preference is the onetrueway. That way lies madness.

I don't. Certainly no more than those who believe that D&D is not D&D without Vancian magic. Whose sanity is built on sturdier ground? Those who can envision D&D without Vancian magic or those who cannot?

I love the Vancian system. It makes sense to me both narratively, and in gamist terms as well. Feel free to HR it away in your own campaign, but I wouldn't play a game without it.

See, and that's one of the reasons why I disdain the Vancian system. It does not make sense to me from either narrative or gamist terms. Why can't you HR Vancian magic into your games?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why can't you HR Vancian magic into your games?

Why can't you play a game that doesn't use Vancian magic instead of insisting we change a game that does?