Vancian? Why can't we let it go?

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's a complete strawman to suggest that giving people options to play non-Vancian magic within D&D is tantamount to throwing excising Vancian magic from D&D.

I agree that you can play D&D without Vancian magic AND without expunging it: D&D (going back to AD&D at least) has had a wide variety of alternative systems within it for supernatural effects.

However, AFAIK, none of the non-Vancian D&D clones- Ranes' point of departure- has adopted such a manifold approach. Generally speaking, they seem to have a single unified approach to casting.

This, coupled with the fairly common heated rhetoric of those who deeply dislike Vancian casting- actually calling for its removal* and the like, resulted in my formulating the question as I did.












* in fact, while not actually heated, DonTadow's original, politely worded post to start this thread seems to suggest doing exactly that- removing Vancian casting from the game entirely.

 

[Griego]

Yep.

As noted before, the casters in Vance's work HAD to use non-magical resources, since they had few spells.

Gandalf may use a magic sword, but ultimately, he's using a sword, not casting.

Many of the casters in the Thieves' World shared setting are as prone to using mundane means to achieving their ends as they are magical...and are skilled in those ways as well.

Mages in Niven's "Warlock" series cannot afford to be profligate with magic because it is basically a finite resource, so they rarely cast spells.

In Shanarra, magic can be a corrupting influence on caster and target, so magic is not a tool of first resort.

In humorous fantasy, the wizards of Discworld rarely cast spells because magic doesn't necessarily make things easier- deciding whether to cast or not is something that requires insight and wisdom...plus a snack, probably.

These examples work well in fiction, but at the table, I dunno. If I were an arcane caster, I'd want to be casting spells, not swinging a sword or shooting a crossbow, nor would I want to be hunting about for mundane solutions to problems, most of the time. Occasionally having to resort to such things would be OK and even fun, but having to do it all the time would be going against the idea of a spell-caster, and pretty boring. That's not to say there isn't room for the once-in-a-while spell caster who uses every means at his or her disposal to win the day, but when I think of a spell caster, I'm thinking of someone who slings a lot of spells, causing some serious disruption in the dungeon or on the field. Major fireworks. I wanna blow stuff up!

 

[Aldarc]

I agree that you can play D&D without Vancian magic AND without expunging it: D&D (going back to AD&D at least) has had a wide variety of alternative systems within it for supernatural effects.

However, AFAIK, none of the non-Vancian D&D clones- Ranes' point of departure- has adopted such a manifold approach. Generally speaking, they seem to have a single unified approach to casting.

This, coupled with the fairly common heated rhetoric of those who deeply dislike Vancian casting- actually calling for its removal and the like, resulted in my formulating the question as I did.

Do you honestly believe that if you removed Vancian magic from D&D that there would not be D&D clones that would quickly pick up the mantle and create a Vancian magic system?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Do you honestly believe that if you removed Vancian magic from D&D that there would not be D&D clones that would quickly pick up the mantle and create a Vancian magic system?

I honestly believe that if you removed Vancian magic from D&D you would no longer have a unity edition of D&D aimed at the bulk of fans of every edition.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

1) When wizards aren't using their "Vancian" spells they aren't shooting crossbows.
Does anyone who enjoys the vancian system of spells also think that a wizard with a crossbow is a good look, or something any self respecting wizard would honestly do? I'm curious to know, though if you say yes, I'm going to go with House on this one. All people lie.

I agree. They should be using daggers or darts. Think of a wizard as a gunslinger. He has few bullets, and no easy way of resupplying. He has to conserve them and not use them all up on a mangy coyotes in the desert, else he'll be out of ammo when Pat Garret comes calling. I like magic to be a rare, wonderful thing. It should be coveted, treasured. If a wizard can do anything beyond simple parlor tricks - mage hand, dancing lights, etc, without having some resource to manage, magic BECOMES a crossbow. Using mundane means occasionally, and saving magic for when you absolutely need it, makes magic special, spamming it makes it LESS magical, not more.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Do you honestly believe that if you removed Vancian magic from D&D that there would not be D&D clones that would quickly pick up the mantle and create a Vancian magic system?

No, I fully expect a Vancian clone to arise if Vancian magic were entirely excised from D&D. Which is why I also asked:

Is it somehow bad to play one of those clones instead of D&D? If this is so, how do you think lovers of Vancian magic would feel if they had to play a D&D clone that had Vancian magic because it was excised from D&D?

To reconstruct the context, then, if playing the non-Vancian D&D clones is bad because they're not D&D enough, enough so that people want want to reshape D&D into a non-Vanvian system, how is it any better to the gaming community to make Vancian fans play a Vancian clone instead of Vancian D&D?

 

[Aldarc]

I honestly believe that if you removed Vancian magic from D&D you would no longer have a unity edition of D&D aimed at the bulk of fans of every edition.

Except that's completely irrelevant to my question, as I'm not talking about D&D Next, but strictly about whether a Vancian magic system would be created for a D&D clone if Vancian magic was removed. If yes, then dismissively telling non-Vancianites that can just go play another D&D clone with non-Vancian magic is a moot point, because removing Vancian magic could just as easily produce a D&D-clone with Vancian magic that the Vancianites can play. The point being is that it's a situation that no one on either side of the fence ultimately wants, hence my appraisal of Ranes's argument: "Really? What that tells me is that people want a viable way to play D&D without Vancian magic, and this certainly does not require expunging Vancian magic from D&D."

No, I fully expect a Vancian clone to arise if Vancian magic were entirely excised from D&D. Which is why I also asked:

To reconstruct the context, then, if playing the non-Vancian D&D clones is bad because they're not D&D enough, enough so that people want want to reshape D&D into a non-Vanvian system, how is it any better to the gaming community to make Vancian fans play a Vancian clone instead of Vancian D&D?

So I'll answer your original question: I assume that Vancian fans would feel precisely the same as those non-Vancian fans who are told to go play another game system instead and are exiled into the wilderness to create a D&D clone with non-Vancian magic. Not exactly a comforting feeling, which I'm sure you would not want to be a part of.

Edit: I would give you XP, Danny, as I genuinely think we've come a long way in reaching a mutual understanding in our conversations, but I'm afraid that you are likely only a few XP away from ascending to godhood.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Except that's completely irrelevant to my question, as I'm not talking about D&D Next, . . .

And here I am in a subforum devoted to D&D Next (New Horizons: The Upcoming Edition of D&D) trying to keep discussion relevant to D&D Next. What was l thinking!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Really? What that tells me is that people want a viable way to play D&D without Vancian magic, and this certainly does not require expunging Vancian magic from D&D."

Well, I just edited a post up-page to point out that DonTadow seems to be arguing precisely for that in this thread's original post.* IOW, while anti-Vancian sentiments do not necessarily imply expunging Vancian magic from D&D, there is a strongly vocal subset who DO argue for that position.

Not exactly a comforting feeling, which I'm sure you would not want to be a part of.

Right, which is why my personal feeling is that D&D needs to keep its Vancian core with rules flexible enough to handle other supernatural systems- point-based psionics, fatigue-based arcana, incarnum, truenaming, shadow, runecasting, etc.- as it has (with various levels of successful integration) since 1Ed.











* DonTadow, please correct me if I've mischaacterized your position.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, I just edited a post up-page to point out that DonTadow seems to be arguing precisely for that in this thread's original post. IOW, while anti-Vancian sentiments do not necessarily imply expunging Vancian magic from D&D, there is a strongly vocal subset who DO argue for that position.

You mean like the strongly vocal subset who insist that non-Vancian magic has no place in the core of D&D?

Right, which is why my personal feeling is that D&D needs to keep its Vancian core with rules flexible enough to handle other supernatural systems- point-based psionics, fatigue-based arcana, incarnum, truenaming, shadow, runecasting, etc.- as it has (with various levels of successful integration) since 1Ed.

I don't want to feel required to resculpt a "point-based psionics" system for a player wanting to play a point-based wizard. The problem, which already see right at once, is that these "other" supernatural systems are never given as much support as the "core" magic system. The non-Vancian material is practically never assumed in published adventures and materials. It's all Vancian, all the time. And this hardly makes the non-Vancianites feel as equal members of the D&D gaming community. It's effectively advocating for "separate and unequal" under D&D.