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

[Emirikol]

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?



jh

 

[jdrakeh]

D&D arcane magic is inspired by Vance, at best. . .

In Vance's The Dying Earth novels, spells are extremely complex word strings that must be memorized (ala D&D) and recited correctly. Reciting a spell incorrectly (whether from a written text or from memory) will change its effect, usually for the worse. This latter aspect of Vance's magic is not represented in the core D&D magic system (I think the closest that D&D ever came to modeling this aspect of Vance's magic was with the introduction of "Wild Magic" in AD&D 2e, and even that wasn't the same thing).

Another aspect of magic in The Dying Earth is that anybody can attmept to use it (i.e., if somebody can read a spell, they can attmept to memorize and/or recite it). This also isn't reflected in D&D by default -- the game has very specific rules about who can and cannot cast spells, which doesn't at all jibe with Vance's stories (Cugel, purely a rogue, manages to use magic in the stories, for example).

Finally, memorization of spells in The Dying Earth isn't a necessity -- the only time characters are seen doing it is when they don't want to be bothered with carrying around a big ass, iron-hinged, tome of knowldge with them because they'll be travelling or when they're using spells as concealed weapons (or attempting to, in Cugel's case).

Really, the only thing D&D magic has in common with Vance's magic as seen in The Dying Earth is the fact that it can be memorized. Well, and those shamelessly 'borrowed' spells (e.g., Prisimatic Spray) and magic items (e.g., "Ioun Stones"). As for Leiber's magic. . .

I beleve that the only place this shows up in D&D (overtly, anyhow) is via magic items -- the "Cloak of Invisibility" for example, first appeared by that same proper name in the Leiber short story Bazaar of the Bizarre in 1963. Tolkien? I'm 90% certain that specific spells (e.g., fireball) were inspired by Tolkien, though that's purely speculation on my part.

Overall, the D&D arcane magic system is much more original than many people give it credit for. D&D holy magic, on the other hand, is pretty obviously a pastiche of real life religious beliefs (e.g., power in exhange for prayer).

 

[Emirikol]

D&D arcane magic is inspired by Vance, at best. . .

So when people are saying that D&D's magic system is "vancian," tis' not really then.

The reason why I ask is because sooooooo many people get hung upon that word,and it doesn't even seem applicable.

jh

 

[Cam Banks]

"Memorization" is a thing of the past, too. "Preparation" is the current explanation for what wizards do in the morning, and the description of that reads a heck of a lot more like what Merlin from the second of Roger Zelazny's Amber series of novels does when he "hangs" a spell on the Logrus. He casts it almost all the way, leaving only a couple of gestures, words, and so forth left to complete the total effect and release the spell.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[rgard]

So when people are saying that D&D's magic system is "vancian," tis' not really then.

The reason why I ask is because sooooooo many people get hung upon that word,and it doesn't even seem applicable.

jh

'Vancian' has become short hand for D&D's magic system...the part that has wizards memorizing spells for the day.

That said, I remember reading somewhere that Gary Gygax said that the magic system he created for D&D was inspired by some of Vance's work.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[jdrakeh]

So when people are saying that D&D's magic system is "vancian," tis' not really then.

Nope. It's about as "Vancian" as magic in Mage: The Awakening is (i.e., not very). Only the naming conventions of certain D&D spells and the memorization thing are remotely Vancian (and the latter is, as discussed above, only tangentically Vancian at best).

The reason why I ask is because sooooooo many people get hung upon that word,and it doesn't even seem applicable.

Yeah, its' really not applicable, as anybody who has actually read The Dying Earth and the subsequent two novels (Eyes of the Overworld and Cugel's Saga, respectively) can tell you.

I think that the term gets bandied about so much because Gygax, at one time, cited Vance's stories as a primary influence on D&D magic (which they undoubtedly were) and because most gamers have never actually read said novels.

Somwhere along the way "inspired by" became construed (incorrectly) by many gamers to mean "a direct adaptation of" -- which isn't the case.

 

[Glyfair]

Another aspect of magic in The Dying Earth is that anybody can attmept to use it (i.e., if somebody can read a spell, they can attmept to memorize and/or recite it). This also isn't reflected in D&D by default -- the game has very specific rules about who can and cannot cast spells, which doesn't at all jibe with Vance's stories (Cugel, purely a rogue, manages to use magic in the stories, for example).

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.

Is is perfect Vancian? Not really (of course, the Dying Earth RPG attempts to come as close as possible). However, it's clear that Vancian magic is the primary influence on the system (more so than any other single source) and thus the D&D magic system can be called Vancian.

'Vancian' has become short hand for D&D's magic system...the part that has wizards memorizing spells for the day.

That said, I remember reading somewhere that Gary Gygax said that the magic system he created for D&D was inspired by some of Vance's work.

It should be noted that Gary is clearly a big fan of Vance's and used many things from his works in the game. In fact, he regularly corresponded (corresponds?) with Vance. Just compare their language use and you'll see a connection.

 

[Psion]

"Memorization" is a thing of the past, too. "Preparation" is the current explanation for what wizards do in the morning, and the description of that reads a heck of a lot more like what Merlin from the second of Roger Zelazny's Amber series of novels does when he "hangs" a spell on the Logrus.

This is what I was going to say, but I'll repeat it for emphasis.

Further, in another thread, someone muses about how "no way is novel X or Y Vancian". In many novels -- especially wherein the protagonist is not magically talented or the author doesn't really care so much to expound on how magic works -- if the spell casters in those novels were operating by D&D rules, you would never see any visible signs of it. So I don't agree with the oft asserted notion that D&D magic is inherently at odds with the bulk of fantasy literature.

 

[rgard]

<snip>


It should be noted that Gary is clearly a big fan of Vance's and used many things from his works in the game. In fact, he regularly corresponded (corresponds?) with Vance. Just compare their language use and you'll see a connection.

Cool, I didn't know that.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Mishihari Lord]

"Memorization" is a thing of the past, too. "Preparation" is the current explanation for what wizards do in the morning, and the description of that reads a heck of a lot more like what Merlin from the second of Roger Zelazny's Amber series of novels does when he "hangs" a spell on the Logrus. He casts it almost all the way, leaving only a couple of gestures, words, and so forth left to complete the total effect and release the spell.

Cheers,
Cam

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.

At this point it doesn't really matter whether what people refer to as "Vancian" actually came from the books at all, because everyone who would use the word has a shared understanding of what it means.

It's still a style of magic that I fnd unsatisfactory because it doesn't reflect any of the fantasy literature I would be interested in emulating in my game (okay, except Zelazny, but I think he copied D&D and not vice versa). It works alright for a game, but that's about it.