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

[Dungeoneer]

I'm on record as being a fairly strong supporter of the 3.x / Pathfinder rules.

But more and more I'm coming to believe that if there's one thing 4e did right, it was ditching Vancian magic.

The longer I look at it, delve into various RPG rules structures, and see alternative magic systems, the more I feel such utter disdain and contempt for bog standard Vancian casting.

From a narrativist standpoint it's such an utterly contrived mechanic. I know that most of the time when we're playing in-game we don't think about it, but how much of the entire D&D ecology and its "normative features" are based on the basic features of Vancian casting? I realize its original inclusion in OD&D is due to a preference for it by one E. Gary Gygax, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that other than D&D and the original Jack Vance writings, there really are no other sources that use it.

But perhaps the real problems are

1: As above. Magic is too easy. It should cost a lot of crunch options.

2: Balance. (also above) The spells need to be more formula and less sacred cows. Too many spells are good because they have always been good, and need toning down. Like Entangle. It is ridiculously powerful at first level, and is still good at 20th.

I would like to see some kind of formula-based magic, or a strong cap on what easy casting can do.

Without getting into the war about Vancian casting, let me say that I would dearly love to play with a more nuanced magic system. Vancian casting in 3.x bugged me as well.

Obviously magic in a fantasy world is, well, not real, but it's so much cooler when it is internally consistent and follows some rules. A well-known and well-executed example from fiction is Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea books, where magical power is actually derived from speaking the primal language of creation, including the 'true names' of things.

This is much more interesting to me than very arbitrary spells which have limits and powers with no reason other than that the game rules dictate them.

D4H, I think I know exactly what you mean by a formula-based system of magic. I want a game where instead of casting a spell called fireball, I craft a custom fireball using a magical 'physics' system.

Even if not that, a system that is unique and original and ties organically into the game world would be something that I'd very much appreciate.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, but the vast majority were from third party publishers, in other words a source (well, many sources) most gamers wouldn't have trusted - and still wouldn't trust - enough to bother with. A niche market within a niche market, and all that. There is a HUGE difference between core D&D featuring pseudo-Vancian magic, and core D&D featuring, for example, 4e's Daily/Encounter/At Will powers system in its place.

True, but the point is that they still existed.

Perhaps you mean "justification"...?

I do. Much more appropriate. Thank you.

Yes, but in different ways. If two given sets of game mechanics do more or less the same thing, it doesn't mean they will feel the same in actual play, or indeed, that they will do exactly the same thing. Hell, they probably even look rather different on paper! Different mechanics are... different.

I was not implying that magic management was done in the same way. I was saying, rather, that magic management via the threat of running out of spells is not unique to Vancian magic. That is all. Of course different magic management systems will have a different flavor, and that's the point.

Some might be of the opinion that mechanics don't matter a great deal*, and don't all things considered contribute that much to the feel of a session or campaign, gamers' personal experiences of it, and so on. Well. I'm not one of those, let's just say.

* Some, such as yourself, it would seem.

The mechanics do matter. But I dislike Vancian magic from both a flavor and mechanics perspective.

It does appear that you are getting defensive over poor old 4e, and if so, I must ask, why? It isn't being attacked, you see. And, hey, if not, my bad. It is sometimes hard to tell exactly what people are meaning, even offline!

I have not mentioned 4e in this thread, only my disdain of Vancian magic. As far as magic systems go, I'm also not really a fan of 4e either, only a fan of how it helps balances classes and permits more encounters per day.

As for keeping it in the system, a major key to any product's success is differentiation. With manufactured goods, your primary bases of differentiation are distinctions of quality or quantity. With something like D&D, you differentiate based on intangibles like "flavor", and Vancian magic is one of those aspects that definitely affects the flavor of the game.

And do you honestly believe that Vancian magic is the only other magic system that would allow for D&D to differentiate itself? There are more magic systems than there are systems. And now that Pathfinder retains Vancian magic for the Sentimentalists, then D&D is more than capable of ditching Vancian magic. As for me, I think it's time to fire the Vancian magic system from D&D and forget all about it.

 

[Diamond Cross]

So is there such a thing as a magic system that is NOT buggy that is not influenced by a person's personal interests?

Personally, I don't think so. Everybody looks for different things in a game, and all rules have their problems and bugs to them. And changing them to suit one's interests sometimes works to create more bugs and problems, especially to people whoa re resistant to rules changes because they are used to using a certain set of rules.

 

[Aldarc]

So is there such a thing as a magic system that is NOT buggy that is not influenced by a person's personal interests?

Personally, I don't think so. Everybody looks for different things in a game, and all rules have their problems and bugs to them. And changing them to suit one's interests sometimes works to create more bugs and problems, especially to people whoa re resistant to rules changes because they are used to using a certain set of rules.

It's a miracle then that rules ever get changed following those sort of assumptions.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's a miracle then that rules ever get changed following those sort of assumptions.

Nah, the pressures to change, and the pressure not to change, are immense. Sometimes the pressures are balanced, and sometimes they are not. Think of it as sailing in strong winds, with multiple sails. You get the greatest speed when you ride on the knife's edge between flipping the craft port versus flipping it starboard versus losing all progress. (At least that's my understanding. Some sailing expert will now tell me why my analogy stinks. )

When the pressure gets strong enough, we get something different than Vancian magic--some of it even worth having. It is merely that some of the variants were apparently designed by someone who thought "not Vancian" had them halfway to success, and they could just coast from there.

I don't mind having a different set of sails, or even a different craft to sail. I do want to get somewhere useful and reasonably quickly with the variant, and not hurt myself in the process.

 

[innerdude]

Without getting into the war about Vancian casting, let me say that I would dearly love to play with a more nuanced magic system.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is ultimately my point. Call it sentiment, mechanical utility, internal consistency, making the D&D rules "different," narrativism, whatever, the fact is that Vancian casting may serve a particular purpose, but it is NOT a nuanced magic system.

1. There's zero chance of failure pre-casting. You prepare, you cast, and the only time it DOESN'T succeed is if the object/person on the other end makes a save. One thing I like in Savage Worlds, there's a chance your spell doesn't even go off as planned, and the only way to alleviate that probability is to continue to invest in that particular skill. And when you do fail, there's a chance of something bad happening. As a result, there's a real question to be made--"Hmmm, maaaybe I don't actually want to just cast this spell right now, because it's no guarantee it even works, and I might just jack myself up if I fail. "

2. It's situationally inflexible. Barring metamagic feats, there's no way to alter any particular casting of a given spell. If it's not in the spell description (or metamagic feat), it doesn't exist. As a result, the system forces the player to continuously be searching for some way to differentiate their character through spell lists, and metamagic. So regardless of "flavor," or making D&D "different," in actual character play it doesn't provide nearly as many interesting character and narrative choices as it seems.


From DannyAlcatraz:

One of the reasons I like HERO even for fantasy gaming is that I can have skill-based magic, Vancian magic, point based magic, fatigue based magic, at-will powers and any other kind if spellcasting I want in my campaign...even all of them together. In that last last kind of game, each would represent a different "hemetic tradition."

That means my hedge mages, warlocks, elementalists, sorcerers, witches, runecasters, truenamers, shadowcasters and the like can all look and feel very different.

3. This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Vancian magic is really only good at representing, well, Vancian magic. Sure, we could all use and/or create any subsystem we want, but the default system creates so many other implicit and explicit assumptions about the way the "game world" works that it's very, very difficult to remove that flavor from the game and feel totally confident that what you've replaced it with is effective, balanced, and appropriate.

 

[Dice4Hire]

double post

 

[Dice4Hire]

Who said anything about 3.5?

*sigh* What other system uses Vancian magic as much as 3.5 does, other than its clone Pathfinder? or its predecessor 2E?

 

[innerdude]

So basically the OP wants to get rid of Vancian spellcasting in Pathfinder because he doesnt like it.

He thinks that Savage Worlds and 4E got it right.

But even though there are many of us who dont mind the Vancian system at all his solution is STILL to get rid of it so that it can play like those other games . . . .

If it bothers them that much those people should try playing other games without it (of which there are many) instead of wanting to take away one of the few games that still uses it.

A valid observation.

But if there are more interesting, organic, nuanced, flexible, magic systems that ultimately provide better all-around play experiences than Vancian provides, then why keep Vancian around as the "default?" I'm saying, it's time to make something else to be the default--and for "Vancian" to be moved to one of the "variants," or "house rules."

I like the OGL framework. I like it as a class-based system. I like its general flexibility. I'm just beginning to think that Vancian casting is holding back the OGL rules from becoming something even better, from reaching its potential.

Is the "flavor" and "uniqueness" of Vancian casting enough of a feather in its cap to hang on to it indefinitely? Because I no longer really see it that way. I see it as dead weight, but to many it appears to be one of the unslaughterable sacred cows.

 

[Nagol]

*sigh* What other system uses Vancian magic as much as 3.5 does, other than its clone Pathfinder? or its predecessor 2E?

The Dying Earth?