Is D&D magic purely Vancian? Let's settle this.

[Mishihari Lord]

So I don't agree with the oft asserted notion that D&D magic is inherently at odds with the bulk of fantasy literature.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Most of the books I think of off the top of my head include more flexibility in what magic you can do and the idea of fatigue being the limiter in what you can cast. Looking at my bookcase, quick example of this are books by Glen Cook, Robert Jordan, CS Freidman, David Eddings, Patricia Wrede, Raymond Feist, Robert Asprin, Weiss & Hickman, and Moorcock, to start with. Zelazny's iffy, because while his characters can cast prepared spells, they can also perform spontaneous magic. Rowling's stuff doesn't really fit fatigue-based magic, but it's not D&D either. The only one I see that I can really agree with you on is my Fritz Leiber books, where magic isn't really explained much.

 

[Glyfair]

Most of the books I think of off the top of my head include more flexibility in what magic you can do and the idea of fatigue being the limiter in what you can cast.

I think that is less a case of differences with the D&D magic system, as differences with the D&D system. D&D just doesn't handle fatigue at all (3E touches on it in some areas with nonlethal damage, but only in special cases). You can fight all day without feeling the effects.

In fact, much of the D&D fiction has the casters being fatigued from casting spells (and fighters being tired after a long battle). It's considered part of the world, but not part of the system.

IMO, it's probably best that way. Fatigue is very much a headache to deal with in RPGs. I remember the fatigue system added to Runequest 3 being the most hated change to the system. It worked well from a simulation POV, but was more trouble than it was worth.

 

[argo]

Is D&D magic purely Vancian or is it a mix with something else? Is it really how it worked in Jack Vance's books (I've never read any).

After two three decades of sacred cows and incestuous self-refrencing DnD isn't "purely" anything. Its become a sub-genre unto itself.

That said, magic in DnD (espically arcane magic) clearly owes more to Vance than any other single source. Maybe more than all other sources combined. From using books to prep your spells to the idea of a wizard having a maximum number of "slots" he can memorize per day to specific spells and items you will will find Vance all over the place.

Likewise, compare DnD's magic with other fantasy RPG's and I think you will see it remains closer to Vance's work than any other (at least that I can think of offhand).

So I think that naming DnD magic "Vancian Magic" is indeed appropriate.

Later.

 

[Cam Banks]

The "Curse of the Magi" from Dragonlance was Margaret and Tracy's own way of explaining why a mage can't cast unlimited spells a day, and was limited by his experience level, as has always been the case with D&D wizards. In other words, eventually the mage doesn't have the power to handle all of the spells he's readying for the day and reaches his limit. Raistlin's coughing and frailty after casting spells comes directly from this.

And, of course, in true irony, it comes around full circle when the Dragonlance Campaign Setting includes a variant rule for the Curse of the Magi to explain what was once inspired by the rules as they stood to begin with.

Oh, and I don't think there's any way Zelazny took his "hanging spells" idea from D&D. He was inspired by a lot of people, most obviously Philip Jose Farmer, but not so much the Gygax.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Thurbane]

Has anyone played the Dying Earth RPG? I saw it in my local store the other week and was considering getting it, as I'm a big fan of the novels...

 

[Psion]

People say it's more like Zelazny's books now, but that's no change at all. When I read the books, the first thing I thought was "Hey, he copied D&D magic!"

The change from "memorization" to "preparation" is over-hyped too. Mechanically, it's exactly the same.

I disagree. It has some implications that were hard to plate over in earlier editions that all the sudden become very easy to explain. Why can you not cast a spell from a spellbook, but a scroll? That was a tough nugget to understand in 1e and 2e, but is trivial in 3e.

 

[Particle_Man]

I believe that is represented in the older D&D rules by thieves having the ability to use scrolls (which eventually morphed into the "Use Magic Device" skill). I don't think any non-spellcaster character besides Cugel used any spells in the books.

In one of Leiber's Fafrd and the Grey Mouser stories, the Mouser tries to show off his ability with the magic and reads a spell from a scroll to help out some wizards protecting the prince on his side of a war between brothers. But he screws up, accidentally killing the wizards and leaving the prince unprotected from the curses of the OTHER brother's wizards. Oops!

I think this is what got reflected in the "chance to screw up" part of the reading scrolls way too powerful for you to mess with, which has morphed into a "fail by too much and you screw up" UMD rule in 3E.

 

[Tarek]

Vance certainly inspired the system of memorization in D&D.

It is not purely Vancian, though, since with Vance, magic was rather more limited for even the best magician. One high-level mage could only memorize, let's see... Free Action, a nasty Telekinesis variant, Water Breathing/Airy Water, and hrmm.... Strength, I think it was?

1st edition thieves also had the ability to read magic scrolls, and this ability was subject to a 'miscast chance', both of which were directly inspired by Cugel 'the clever'. That character was definitely a Chaotic Evil Thief.

And in 1st edition Unearthed Arcana, the variant rule of casting from spellbook was introduced. You *can* cast from a spellbook, but it wipes out the spell and possibly a couple others going both forward and backwards in the the book, and in case of severe failure, it wipes the entire book clean.


Zelazny is another matter... he uses different magic systems for different 'worlds.' In Amber, magic is something that can be prepared and 'hung' on the 'Pattern/Logrus' until needed. In Madwand, magic varies a lot... but is spontaneous and depends on being able to see the underlying structures of reality in different ways, and the only limitation is the perception of the individual.

If you really want a more free-form magic system, perhaps the best I have ever seen is that of Green Ronin's "True Sorcery" magic system, particularily the version for Glen Cook's Black Company series.

 

[Glyfair]

In one of Leiber's Fafrd and the Grey Mouser stories, the Mouser tries to show off his ability with the magic and reads a spell from a scroll to help out some wizards protecting the prince on his side of a war between brothers. But he screws up, accidentally killing the wizards and leaving the prince unprotected from the curses of the OTHER brother's wizards. Oops!

I think this is what got reflected in the "chance to screw up" part of the reading scrolls way too powerful for you to mess with, which has morphed into a "fail by too much and you screw up" UMD rule in 3E.

Except, when Gygax and company did Fahrd and the Grey Mouser in the Dragon's Giants in the Earth Column[.I], they give Mouser a few wizard levels. Cugel, on the other hand, is pure thief.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Is D&D magic purely Vancian or is it a mix with something else? Is it really how it worked in Jack Vance's books (I've never read any).

Aren't there some Tolkien and Robert E Howard magical elements mixed in there?

I would say that Vance was the main inspiration, but it's gone a way afield since. Tolkien's books inspired nothing of the D&D spellcasting, though surely they inspired many other elements of the game (treants=ent, halflings=hobbit, balors=balrog, worgs=warg, werebear=Beorn, giant eagles=Gwahir and kin; the particular takes on dwarves and arguably elves; et. al.).