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

[Mon]

It doesn't feel like magic.

That's cool. It does for me (and many others, it would seem...)

It doesn't even feel like a science. It's not the spells I dislike about the system. It's not a magic system. It's a mechanic system. (I agree that both the spells themselves and the number are something of red herrings when debating about the merits of Vancian magic.)

It feels like a pseudo-science, to me.

I dislike Vancian magic because of how it disrupts the flow of combat and adventuring. When the magic is gone, the party stops. That is why I prefer magic systems in which magic is more fluid and suitable for running multiple independent encounters.

...or it facilitates the staging and timing of adventuring.

For spell point systems, the party stops when the points are gone.

For fatigue systems, the party stops when exhaustion sets in.

When the tanks run out of hit points, the party stops.

What's the difference?

Not saying those other systems are bad, just that any means of all of limiting the spamming of magical resources has this limitation to some extent. Of course, systems that don't limit spamming (like warlock invocations, or CleverNickName's excellent Spells On Demand system which balances around the action economy instead) don't face this limitation. However they have limitations of their own.

I dislike how the magic of Vancian systems does not allow for the shaping of magic. A fireball spell acts in the same way at 5th level as it does at 25th level. The only difference is the number of d6 dice used.

Who says magic is shaped? Sure it is described that way in some books... but not all (or even most).

Also while the Vancian system may make sense for wizards, which is the class that most Vancian supporters have come to its defense in this thread, it makes little sense for clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, and other non-wizards. So it feels as if the wizard is holding the other magic classes on the Vancian leash.

Yeah, I agree on this point.

But it would not take much tinkering to make it feel more magical. For example, the mixed-Vancian system of Arcana Evolved allows for magic and spell slots to be far more organically flexible in its implementation. There are minor and major effects. The spell slot system is an artificial construct, but it's also one that mimics a mana pool and allows for organizing the weaving and spell grouping of powers.

Yeah, I like that system too. It would be good for sorcerers or some other class whose magic is described as being organic/artistic/shaped.

I would also appreciate it if you were able to articulate a defense of Vancian magic that consists of something other than an appeal to tradition.

Sure. Note that such defenses have been mounted within this very thread before, if you care to read back through it.

Here it is...

It is simple to learn at the start with but can scale with complexity if you want to go all the way to high levels in a full casting class.

It neatly facilitates resource management.

It codifies spells so that they have a set of direct rules or tight guidelines for adjudication.

If you want to devise a new magical effect, you can research it. Almost every player of casters in my games has created unique spells for their characters. Fun!

It feels wizardy (partly for the reason above)

It works.

Sure, non-vancian systems can achieve these things too, but why kill it if it does the job? If you want to alter the status quo, the onus is on you to demonstrate why it must be obliterated from the game.

For my part, I would like to see vancian gone for clerics because it fails at the "feels clericy" point above. Same for "feels druidy" and "feels sorcerery" (Just IMO, of course). However if it doesn't go away, that's cool too.

 

[billd91]

And do you think that a non-Vancian magic system would be incapable at fulfulling these things as well?

Maybe it would, but why does it matter for D&D? D&D was designed with a Vancian magical system. It's one of the quintessential elements that has defined D&D compared to other fantasy RPGs. Would the Mona Lisa be the same if she were changed to have bushy eyebrows and be a guy? Bushy eyebrow men could for good portraits, right?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And do you think that a non-Vancian magic system would be incapable at fulfulling these things as well?

In addition, how would you like it if pro-Vancians took on changing all the other FRPGs out there to Vancian systems, using the same kind of arguments you're asserting?

 

[Aldarc]

...if your DM lets you. If the DM doesn't, you keep going.

And in 30+ years, the universal response to the party crying "we've run out of magic, lets stop" has been, "well, you can't stop HERE."

You call it universal, but in my experience, anything called "universal" rarely is. And this also is true in this case as well.

What do you think would happen if your party didn't have casters other than psionicists and the PP ran out? I think you'd say something like "When the PP is gone, the party stops- it's what generally happens when you are all out of band-aids and your artillery/utility is drained."

Psionic powers do not have the same sort of oomph or mentality of play stopping as with wizards and clerics. But a psionicist spending all of their pp rarely happened due to the feats of 3.0 that required unspent pp and the revised 3.5 which had feats requiring expending psionic focus (and regaining it required at least 1 pp in reserve). Many of these psionic feats allowed psionic characters utility.

Well, except for the last 2, I know for a fact that they can. But to change the status quo, you need to provide a reason to make the change.

No system out there is objectively better. Different, yes. Better, no.

Since no system is better, why change?

What a bizarre argument for the sake of protectionism. I do not think anyone is making an objective claim about Vancian magic's quality. If no system is objectively better (or presumably worse), then that necessarily moves it into the realm of subjective argumentation. But this is where the conversation has always been. If Vancian magic is not inherently worse, is there anything which suggests that it's inherently "better" than other systems? And if a system is deemed subjectively better, then wouldn't that be a valid reason to change? So why change? Because I think there are subjectively better systems out there that make for more unique magic. But the thing is that Vancian magic is not unique to D&D. This is basically the system used in Magic the Gathering. And can't many flexible systems such as GURPS or HERO be used to adopt Vancian systems?

 

[Leatherhead]

Why is this a problem? When I settle in a the table and feel like playing a fighter, this is often exactly what I want to do. You don't need to make lots of fiddly choices or look up powers or all that. You get to lay in to the enemies. Having character types that play differently is a plus for the game.

It's not about classing playing differently, it's about a classing having overspecialization to the point of crippling it outside of said specialization. And then people expecting said class to perform at the level of other, more rounded, classes.

Because, despite protests to the otherwise, you cannot solve every problem by swinging a sword. Furthermore, you cannot contribute to every solution by swinging a sword. But most importantly, not every fight can be won by swinging a sword. And what is a fighter good at? Swinging a sword (or substitute weapon of choice).

It's completely broken game design. In a game where a character is supposed to do anything they can think of, such myopia screws the game. Unless the game is bent over backwards to reach well within the tip of a sword, the fighter becomes useless. And when the fighter becomes useless, the player stops having fun.

Normally, that would be enough to stop people from playing the fighter altogether. But for some reason people insist that the fighter must be accommodated, and whenever the fighter isn't accommodated, something is wrong with the game. Maybe this is because they love Conan or some other warrior in literature, maybe it's because they don't want to learn complex rules and just like bashing skulls, or maybe it's because that guy playing the wizard over there is a jerk and they don't want to be like that guy at all (including playing a similar class). But for whatever reason, people insist upon playing the fighter, and in tern, insist that the world is written around it.

Sorry if that rambling wasn't clear. I have gotten about one hour of sleep from being sick for the past few days.

 

[Aldarc]

That's cool. It does for me (and many others, it would seem...)

But not all or necessarily most.

It feels like a pseudo-science, to me.

Fair enough. But it does not even feel like a pseudo-science to me. It feels strictly like an artificially constructed game mechanic to me. There is no 'magic' to this magic system.

...or it facilitates the staging and timing of adventuring.

True for other magic systems, no?

For spell point systems, the party stops when the points are gone.

For fatigue systems, the party stops when exhaustion sets in.

When the tanks run out of hit points, the party stops.

What's the difference?

Not saying those other systems are bad, just that any means of all of limiting the spamming of magical resources has this limitation to some extent. Of course, systems that don't limit spamming (like warlock invocations, or CleverNickName's excellent Spells On Demand system which balances around the action economy instead) don't face this limitation. However they have limitations of their own.

The difference is what's gained, namely a more 'magical' flavor to the magic that more closely mirrors fiction, myth, and fantasy. It allows for a greater breadth of worlds to play in than those limited by the assumptions of Vancian magic.

Who says magic is shaped? Sure it is described that way in some books... but not all (or even most).

How does that number compare to the number of non-D&D fantasy novels that use Vancian magic?

Yeah, I like that system too. It would be good for sorcerers or some other class whose magic is described as being organic/artistic/shaped.

I also like the system as the universal spell system allows for class to be differentiated in more flavorful ways.

Sure. Note that such defenses have been mounted within this very thread before, if you care to read back through it.

Here it is... <snip>

Again, many of these things could be said for other magic systems as well. Would it really be hard to research or create new spells in other magic systems? For example, I've seen players create plenty of new spells for their characters in True Sorcery or True20. They even chose to use spellbooks for their characters.

Sure, non-vancian systems can achieve these things too, but why kill it if it does the job? If you want to alter the status quo, the onus is on you to demonstrate why it must be obliterated from the game.

I do not think it must be obliterated, but I would greatly like for it to be far less prominent of a magical assumption.

Maybe it would, but why does it matter for D&D? D&D was designed with a Vancian magical system. It's one of the quintessential elements that has defined D&D compared to other fantasy RPGs. Would the Mona Lisa be the same if she were changed to have bushy eyebrows and be a guy? Bushy eyebrow men could for good portraits, right?

False analogy. There are not multiple editions of the Mona Lisa and it certainly is not a construct designed to facilitate a game experience. Many things could be argued to be "quintessential" to D&D have been changed throughout game editions.

In addition, how would you like it if pro-Vancians took on changing all the other FRPGs out there to Vancian systems, using the same kind of arguments you're asserting?

Arguments such as...? But which game systems would pro-Vancians be changing to Vancian magic?

 

[The Shaman]

Yet you insist on harangue those of us who do not like the game as-is? Lovely double-standards.

With all due respect, Aldarc, this is a false equivalency.

Your argument comes down to, "I can't stand cola, so the Coca-Cola Company needs to change to flavor of Coke to something I like," while dismissing the fact that there are already other flavors of Coke out there, as well as scores of other sodas.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Arguments such as...?

It doesn't feel like magic.
It doesn't even feel like a science.
It's not a magic system. It's a mechanic system.
I dislike non-Vancian magic because of how it disrupts the flow of combat and adventuring. When the:

1. casters are out of PP
2. casters are fatigued
3. caster has a big penalty to his magic skill roll
4. caster has been slapped with a rune of anti-magic
5. caster's truename has been revealed

the party stops.

But which game systems would pro-Vancians be changing to Vancian magic?

All of them, so that all the world can bask in the glory of Vancian magic. They shouldn't mind because- even though its not superior to any other system- its every bit as good as the systems they prefer. And they could always HR their non-Vancian system back in, of course.

How does that number compare to the number of non-D&D fantasy novels that use Vancian magic?

How many non-D&D fantasy novels use power points?

 

[Aldarc]

With all due respect, Aldarc, this is a false equivalency.

Your argument comes down to, "I can't stand cola, so the Coca-Cola Company needs to change to flavor of Coke to something I like," while dismissing the fact that there are already other flavors of Coke out there, as well as scores of other sodas.

I feel as if your summation of my argument is insulting. I do not feel as if that's a fair representation of my argument, nor do I think that's close. And with all due respect to you as well, I think this is blatantly a false analogy. Soft drinks are not game systems. Plus, if you take this line of reasoning to its extent, then there is little in a system which you can make an argument for changing or improving. Because there are "already other flavors of Coke out there, as well as scores of other sodas." But such a line of reasoning is not productive for the very discussions we have on this forum regarding things we want out of a system. For example, let's play around with another substitution based on some recent threads of late: 'I can't stand 4E class powers, so WotC needs to change the flavor of 4E to something I like."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think this is blatantly a false analogy.

I think it rings pretty true.

Coke is a company that has many, many products, to be sure, but the one everyone knows is Coke. If you were to say to them that you don't like their primary product because of the flavor, thus, it should be changed, you'd have to convince them this is a good idea.

WotC has other products, but the one name with real brand power is "D&D." You don't like the flavor of Vancian magic. That's all well and good, but if you want it changed, you need to do some 'splainin.