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

[Aldarc]

You missed my point, which is that if it is OK for you to lobby for changing a Vancian-centric game to non-Vancian, its equally OK for others to lobby for changing non-Vancian games to Vancian.

I don't think those are equivalent though. Arguing for Vancian magic across the board is an argument for a specific magic system to be ubiquitous. I would prefer for a specific magic system to be removed (or at least greatly diminished) from a specific game brand.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why not just permanently give the magic-user the +4 armor bonus and be done with it? And that's certainly the logic 4e took in this instance by essentially leveling out defenses to a certain degree. The cost-to-effectiveness ratio for this particular spell is almost nil. At the cost of 1 spell slot, I get X. Always. Forever.

Because not every caster uses Mage Armor. Because low level spells probably shouldn't have permanent effects that powerful, etc.

Of course, some will simply say, "Fine, then play Savage Worlds," which is a valid answer, I suppose, but the idea here was to point out that there can be significant changes to the overall feel and structure of a magic system that create different, interesting choices. And Vancian magic in its current iteration (I do realize that I could houserule it) does not have the same ability to model the same types of interesting character and tactical choices without some massive restructuring.

Every magic system has strengths and weaknesses. I think it would be nifty to do a Vancian caster in Mage...but I don't think that will ever happen.

(Of course, I can simply run HERO and have all the various magic systems run side-by-side...)

But another reason to not simply play Savage Worlds all the time is because I happen to like a lot of the 3.x rules structures. I like feats. I like the general feel of class progressions. I like the campaign settings and modules based on the 3.x rules, and don't always want to have to convert them on the fly to another system. As a GM, there are a lot of compelling things about the 3.x rules. They're supported. They're popular. The industry's best producer of modules and adventures actively supports it.

You could also import those things you like about 3.X into Savage World.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would prefer for a specific magic system to be removed (or at least greatly diminished) from a specific game brand.

Again, one at a time, various players could go to various boards and make the identical argument. Not as some plot to make Vancian magic the only system out there, but as individual expressions of personal choice.

"I want Vancian magic to replace GURPS' magic system, but only GURPS- the other RPGs are fine as is." posts one over at SJG.

Then someone else goes over to Palladium boards and suggests that Palladium RPG needs to go to a Vancian casting system, because they'd like it better that way.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

This is not an assertion that Vancian magic should be ubiquitous- I wouldn't want that at all. Rather, it is an illustration that D&D players could make the same assertion you just made, but with the positions reversed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Spell points basically represent a mana pool or the amount of magic from which a mage can draw before being "tapped out" of magic. That's quite prevalent.

Actually, Defiler/Preserver stuff from Dark Sun was closer than spell points for simulating mana pools, because in mana based traditions, mana is gathered from the land, from the universal web of life that surrounds the caster. Sometimes it is stored in objects. It is NOT a personal resource in large amounts.

For a SP system to be more accurate than Dark Sun's take, the caster would have to make some kind of skill check to gather mana unto himself in amounts sufficient to do magic. If he can't gather mana, he cannot cast. If he can only gather a little, he can only cast weak spells.

His amount of mana would vary from place to place and over time- kind of like the wild magic/dead magic zones in some D&D campaigns- not start with the same amount after a night's rest.

(Clear example in classic fantasy- Larry Niven's The Magic Goes Away series of books & stories; see also Polynesian legends.)

 

[Aldarc]

Again, one at a time, various players could go to various boards and make the identical argument. Not as some plot to make Vancian magic the only system out there, but as individual expressions of personal choice.

"I want Vancian magic to replace GURPS' magic system, but only GURPS- the other RPGs are fine as is." posts one over at SJG.

Then someone else goes over to Palladium boards and suggests that Palladium RPG needs to go to a Vancian casting system, because they'd like it better that way.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

This is not an assertion that Vancian magic should be ubiquitous- I wouldn't want that at all. Rather, it is an illustration that D&D players could make the same assertion you just made, but with the positions reversed.

In which case, I would wish them well in their desire to make changes that they want to see in systems. Honestly, truthfully, that's my gut reaction. But again, I do not know how many times I must also remind you, I am not advocating for a particular magic system, merely against the Vancian magic in D&D. I have yet to say, "I want [system X] to replace the D&D Vancian magic system."

But correct me if I am wrong, but can't you replicate Vancian magic in some GURPS systems?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I am not advocating for a particular magic system, merely against the Vancian magic in D&D. I have yet to say, "I want [system X] to replace the D&D Vancian magic system."

While different statements, they share a common point of attack and substantially the same end result, and will be responded to in virtually identical ways.

In USA history, racism has been a pernicious problem. At one point, we were denied the right to vote. Once that was declared illegal, racists tried to do things like have literacy tests for voters...which would have eliminated most blacks from voting again because at one point it was a crime to teach them to read & write. Different methods, same odious results.

So even though you aren't suggesting a particular substitute for Vancian magic, a position of "substitute anything for Vancian to make the game better" is going to get the same response because the end result is identical.

But correct me if I am wrong, but can't you replicate Vancian magic in some GURPS systems?

I don't know GURPS that well, but I can DEFINITELY do it in HERO.

 

[Aldarc]

While different statements, they share a common point of attack and substantially the same end result, and will be responded to in virtually identical ways.

It's a matter of semantics, I suppose. The difference is on the emphasis. But the two do not necessarily have the same end result, unless you strictly count the removal of [system X] as the end result shared. But me saying, "I want the removal of [system X]" is not equivalent in the end result to me saying "I want [system Y] to replace [system X]." The approach of the conversation would also be quite different between the two statements, as one would be forced to argue as to the virtues of the system he/she wants to use in lieu of [system X], while the other would be on [system X]. The (critial) response would also be against the proposed [system Y] in addition to the virtues of [system X]. Note how most of the conversation in this thread is entirely focused on [system X] as opposed to only tangentially discussing the particulars of alt systems.

I don't know GURPS that well, but I can DEFINITELY do it in HERO.

And can you also create other magic systems in HERO? If so, then I find it hard to understand how Vancian magic could replace the system, if the system is flexible enough to accomodate other systems.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

unless you strictly count the removal of [system X] as the end result shared.

I do, and I'm sure most people who like their D&D with Vancian magic would as well.

And can you also create other magic systems in HERO?

Yep.

If so, then I find it hard to understand how Vancian magic could replace the system, if the system is flexible enough to accomodate other systems.

New Rule for HERO 555Ed "The previous rules for designing a character's powers apply only to non-magical power systems. All magical PCs must use Vancian magic, which works as follows..."

 

[Aldarc]

I do, and I'm sure most people who like their D&D with Vancian magic would as well.

I do not, as I see the end result as what replaces it not by its removal. That's only one component of the end result. The end result is about what it is and not about what it isn't.

New Rule for HERO 555Ed "The previous rules for designing a character's powers apply only to non-magical power systems. All magical PCs must use Vancian magic, which works as follows..."

It would be hard for HERO to claim to be a generic RPG system if it did that, now wouldn't it? I do not think the same is true for D&D's claim to be D&D. But I guess you can keep trying to shoehorn that hypothetical scenario until it fits, eh?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I do not, as I see the end result as what replaces it not by its removal. That's only one component of the end result. The end result is about what it is and not about what it isn't.

"Sir, you ordered prime rib, but we've decided to give you a swordfish steak instead. Please enjoy."

"Sir, you ordered prime rib, but we've decided to give you something else. Please enjoy."

Sir doesn't really care that you have or haven't decided what to replace his steak with, he's just pissed off that you took his steak.

It would be hard for HERO to claim to be a generic RPG system if it did that, now wouldn't it? I do not think the same is true for D&D's claim to be D&D. But I guess you can keep trying to shoehorn that hypothetical scenario until it fits, eh?

Yes, it wouldn't be as generic at that point.

But actually, Aldarc, I didn't use HERO as an example. I used GURPS. When you asked, I said I could model D&D with HERO, and we went down that tangent.