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

[Bluenose]

When you're arguing to change the status quo of any system- a company's hiring practices, the rules of a game, - the burden of proof that the system needs change, that burden of convincing others, is upon the person seeking the change.

So, Vancian magic should stay because it was in the game originally and shouldn't be changed unless someone can prove it should.

How about classes? 3e changed the status quo. Or saving throws? Those used to be absolutes rather than against a target unmber. Or the benefit of stats (Str/Int/Wis/Con/Dex/Cha)? Who provided the burden of proof that those had to be changed? Perhaps nobody showed how the skilsl system needed a dramatic revamp.

Unless you're actually playing OD&D you're playing a game that has already been changed in major ways from its original version.

 

[Ranes]

The 3e designers didn't come forward and tell us what they wanted or intended. Nor did the 2e designers. Nor did Gary with 1e AD&D. Of course, you can argue that none of these people needed to provide us with a case for the changes they wanted to make, because it was their system, one way or another, to do with as they liked.

Had they been fans on a message board making an appeal for the system to change, they would have had to make their case.

That's what's going on here.

 

[Mon]

Ah, yes, but I'd say it's a matter of what the mechanics are attempting to emulate. So game mechanics can be made to feel intuitive and an "organic" aspect of magical metaphysics. Spell points are like the HP of magic.

Indeed. Vancian magic isn't attempting to emulate an organic flavour of magic so you won't get much traction saying it fails at that. Vancian attemts to emulate another flavour of magic. Why is one flavour better than the other? It's not, outside the realm of personal preference.

Because the "advantages" of Vancian magic cannot necessarily be claimed to be unique to the Vancian magic system and there are other advantages that non-Vancian systems have that cannot be replicated by a pure Vancian magic system.

All of those "advantages" are based on personal preference, so how can you claim this as fact? Do spell point systems give the same interesting tactical decision that vancian does? What about build-on-the fly systems? Fatigue systems? Unlimited spammability systems? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope.

When we get past all of that posturing, the thing vancian can't replicate is an adherence to your personal preference for flavour/play style. However is does adhere to these things for other people (possibly within only a limited scope, as is the case with me).

Myth and fantasy may rarely show how magic works, but do you think most people would identify Vancian magic as being the prevalent form of myth and fantasy?

It depends greatly on what it is that they're reading.

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.

It may be relatively common, but so what?. It is just one example of one flavour of magic - not definitive, not universal, not even in the majority. I would say most fantasy I have read doesn't go very far into "how/why" much at all. From those that do, a great many sources refer to conjuring spirits/demons/things to do the magic for you, or praying to gods to do it for you, or just speaking certain words, or only ever using long rituals. None of which imply spell points (or vancian). Each is different.

Also, spell slots too represent a resource representing how much mojo you have before you're tapped out.

I do agree that Vancian magic can be used alongside other systems, but the problem is that its only really applicable to one class, yet other classes are constrained by the application of the whole. Plus, I think that a mixed Vancian magic system, would be far more flexible and organic than a pure Vancian magic system.

Yeah I am with you on that, but the premise of this thread is that it should be obliterated from the game. Go the way of the Dodo as someone said upthread. [ EDIT - heh that was you! ] I do not agree with that premise, and that is the premise I am discussing.

In DA's hypothetical, he has said that pro-Vancians would be changing all game systems to Vancian.

In a hypothetical. But the thing is, outside that hypothetical they're not. Anti-vanicans, however, are trying to abolish vancian within this very thread!

If I could make an addmendum: Vancian works fine for some people. All too frequently, the magical assumptions of Vancian magic is not compatible with the sort of worlds I want or mages I want for my worlds.

Fine, that is a personal addendum that applies to you individually and your own personal preferences.

However there is no call (or justification) for imposing your individual preference on others who were happily playing the game as-is before you came along and told them all that they're having badwrongfun and everything should be officially changed to suit you.

But in D&D, the cleric, the wizard, the druid, the ranger, the paladin, the sorcerer (to an extent), all operate using the same magical assumptions.

Indeed.

 

[Mon]

First of all, how does the argument "It makes D&D unique and flavorful!" add any weight whatsoever to the "burden of proof"?

This is basically another way of saying, "I like it!"

Because it is one of the many obstacles you'll need to overcome if you wish to affect change. Not the main thing, for sure, but part of it.

Also, how is that different from your reasoning for change, which is basically saying "I don't like it!"?

But here's my reasons why the "status quo" should change:

<other stuff>

That's a great justification for your own very valid and well thought-out preference. Not far off the same for many others as well, I'm sure.

However it isn't for mine. Nor for many other people who are participating in this thread.

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.

Sure thing. However many others also like the 3.x rules as-is, vancian included. Aren't they equally entitled to play the game that prefer? Why should a long-established and much loved aspect for them change just so your preference can be pandered to?

And I'd like it even more if Vancian casting wasn't the default.

You are entitled to that opinion. I maybe even share it, or at least understand it. But I won't try to impose it on anyone else, or call for the stewards of the game* to do so on my behalf.

Might I suggest a compromise? Instead of calling for the obliteration of vancian magic in PF2.0, advocate the retention of a vancian class (probably wizard), and the use of another system for sorcerers, clerics, druids, and so on?

[aside - I like the way you're making your points with civility. Respect. Have some XP (up-thread)]

* [EDIT - I am not insinuating that the creators of a possible PFv2.0 (presumably paizo) are the true and only stewards of the game or anything like that... I'm edition neutral! WotC are equally "stewards" IMO. I was using the term to refer to the folks who do the designing of a game that we all share, is all].

 

[Diamond Cross]

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

Then you really haven't read my full message yet.

If you want to change the system for your group and your group only that's fine. But it's unfair to those of us who do like the system and want to use it to "make it go away" completely. Making it go away completely means taking it away from people who do like and enjoy the system, forcing them to use the system you (generic not specific) prefer, and that's just not fair to those who do like and enjoy the system. I would not presume to do the same thing to you out of common courtesy, respect and consideration. That's how it ruins the fun.

And it's also a huge tradition for D&D. It's what D&D started with. Many people like tradition. There's nothing wrong with that. Or at least there shouldn't be. I'll never understand this attitude of it always must be shiny and new or it's useless.

And yes, common courtesy and respect works both ways as well. people should respect people who like tradition and a specific system and people who like shiny and new should be respected as well. It shouldn't matter what system a person uses, that's tribalism, it should only matter how one enjoys the game and have fun with their friends.

 

[Diamond Cross]

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."

I simply do not agree. That's what this entire argument is all about, as evidenced by "The Vancian system has got to go away". It's funny what people see and don't see.

And the first thing most people do is to try to change them system to suit how they think a system should be. You yourself have made arguments on what you think a good system is and in short have made arguments why the Vancian system should be changed because according to you it is not a true system because it's an artificial system. Which to me is a completely nonsensical argument because it's an rpg and all rpgs use systems to try to represent what people can do in any given situation, diceless or not. And all arguments are about how you think the system should be changed to suit your tastes in disregard to how other people might feel about changing something they love, so of course, there will be resistance to your suggestions.


Few people even think to try other systems that they might like before trying to change a system to suit their tastes as well.

So it is indeed an apt analogy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How about classes? 3e changed the status quo. Or saving throws? Those used to be absolutes rather than against a target unmber. Or the benefit of stats (Str/Int/Wis/Con/Dex/Cha)? Who provided the burden of proof that those had to be changed? Perhaps nobody showed how the skilsl system needed a dramatic revamp.

Two different things going on here: trying to convince fans of D&D in a forum that the game should be changed and convincing the IP holders & designers of the same. The former is about winning hearts & minds of fans. The latter is about convincing a company to risk money by spending it on redesigning a successful product.

In this thread, we've just been talking, doing the former. What you're jumping to in this post is the latter.

However, even in the latter, the same thing happens- it's just more structured and focused on a smaller number of people. The company (presumably) does market research and gathers consumer feedback. That data is then analyzed and presented to the decision-makers in the company. If and only if the decision makers are convinced that change is a good idea will there be change.

In the former, you have thousands to convince, in the latter, just a few people- perhaps as few as a dozen in a typical mid-sized company.

So, noting the changes in the game over time, its clear the IP holders & designers WERE persuaded that certain changes needed to occur. And then the performance of the revised games in the market- along with customer feedback (direct and indirect) shows them whether the changes were good or not.

 

[BryonD]

So, Vancian magic should stay because it was in the game originally and shouldn't be changed unless someone can prove it should.

You must keep in mind that the goal being discussed is keeping large portions of fans of the prior ideas intact. So, towards THAT goal, the answer to your question is easily "yes". That doesn't mean you can't get rid of vancian magic and easily make an "as good" or even "better" game.

But if you make a game that is vastly better than Monopoly and you call it Monopoly, but it doesn't involve anything to do with buying or trading property, then the game won't be Monopoly. It was in the game originally and now is strongly associated with it and it needs to stay.

How about classes?

People complained about changes in classes when 2E, 3E, and 4E came along. I'm sure people complained about class changes before then as well, I just was not there to be part of it.

However, I don't think those struck as fundamental a chord with the fan base as Vancian magic does.

 

[Aldarc]

"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.

Who's ordering prime rib?

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.

Can't you recreate a Vancian magic system with GURPS?

Indeed. Vancian magic isn't attempting to emulate an organic flavour of magic so you won't get much traction saying it fails at that. Vancian attemts to emulate another flavour of magic. Why is one flavour better than the other? It's not, outside the realm of personal preference.

A greater breadth of emulation.

All of those "advantages" are based on personal preference, so how can you claim this as fact? Do spell point systems give the same interesting tactical decision that vancian does? What about build-on-the fly systems? Fatigue systems? Unlimited spammability systems? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope.

And on what basis are you making the argument that spell point systems do not provide similar interesting tactical decisions?

When we get past all of that posturing, the thing vancian can't replicate is an adherence to your personal preference for flavour/play style. However is does adhere to these things for other people (possibly within only a limited scope, as is the case with me).

I happen to have multiple magical preferences. Vancian just happens to not be included in any of them.

It depends greatly on what it is that they're reading.

Stop dodging the question.

Also, spell slots too represent a resource representing how much mojo you have before you're tapped out.

But spell slots are statically tied to specific spell levels unless you have a mixed Vancian system like in Arcana Evolved that allows for a fluid degree of spell-weaving of spell slots. In D&D's Vancian system, if you run out of level 5 spells, but have level 4 and level 6 spells you are not out of mojo, but you are somehow unable to cast further level 5 spells? Huh?

In a hypothetical. But the thing is, outside that hypothetical they're not. Anti-vanicans, however, are trying to abolish vancian within this very thread!

Why would they? Pro-Vancians have a stranglehold on the most popular roleplaying game system?

I simply do not agree. That's what this entire argument is all about, as evidenced by "The Vancian system has got to go away". It's funny what people see and don't see.

Few people even think to try other systems that they might like before trying to change a system to suit their tastes as well.

<snip>

So it is indeed an apt analogy.

No it is not an apt analogy, because again you ignore how the Coke analogy neuters any criticism or desire for changes in the game. Your analogy's solution is "STFU and drink another Cola" or play another system, as you are flagrantly suggesting here.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Who's ordering prime rib?

The people who entered the steakhouse and ordered prime rib = the people who played D&D with Vancian magic and want Vancian magic.

Can't you recreate a Vancian magic system with GURPS?

Asked and answered previously: I don't know.

And on what basis are you making the argument that spell point systems do not provide similar interesting tactical decisions?

(Not directed at me) Nobody is saying that SP systems can't provide interesting tactical decisions. They don't provide the same tactical decisions, though...at least, not until the SP well is running low.

I happen to have multiple magical preferences. Vancian just happens to not be included in any of them.

I happen to have multiple magical preferences, and Vancian magic just happens to be included.

With all of the games out there without Vancian magic, why do you feel the need to remove it from its home system?

Why would they? Pro-Vancians have a stranglehold on the most popular roleplaying game system?

Here's something you could do to make everyone happy. Leave D&D alone and make your own clone of D&D with a non-Vancian magic system. There is no copyright in rules mechanics, so you'd be perfectly free to do so.

No it is not an apt analogy, because again you ignore how the Coke analogy neuters any criticism or desire for changes in the game. Your analogy's solution is "STFU and drink another Cola" or play another system, as you are flagrantly suggesting here.

You're perfectly able to go to Coke and see if they have produced something more to your liking- they have over a thousand products in their line.

You're perfectly able to go to one of Coke's competitors and do likewise.

You're perfectly able to make your own, custom cola drink.

You're also perfectly able to go to Coke and lobby for them to change their formula to suit your tastes.

But if you choose that last option, don't be surprised to find that people might disagree strongly with your desires.