What is Vancian magic and does DnD have it?

[Cadfan]

1. Vancian magic, particularly of the D&D-Vancian variety, tends to assume that a spell is a *thing.* It is a *thing* that you have stuffed into your head. When you cast it, you are letting that *thing* out. Look at the spellthief to get an extreme example of the implications of this point of view- if a spell is a *thing* inside of your head, someone could possibly take that *thing* out of your head and run away with it. This point of view has been in the background of D&D magic for some time, but is sometimes stressed and sometimes ignored.

2. Not a fan of the Dying Earth books. Too much casual rape. I know, written in an earlier time, main character isn't a "hero" by any stretch of the imagination, prose is still excellent... but about the point where Cugel sells one woman off to be raped with only a twinge of guilt that he rapidly ignores, rapes another, and then shrugs and walks away when she's drowned as a result of his own actions, I quit reading. Technically neither woman was an absolute saint, and maybe I'm hypocritical for not putting the book down after all the casual murders Cugel commits, but I am what I am, I guess.

I'd rather read Matthew Hughes.

 

[mmadsen]

For a long time I've wanted to cook up an OD&D variant in which most spells would be at the power level of The Excellent Prismatic Spray, but each spell could only be used once per adventure, and a magician's brain could only hold 1-6 of such charms. A wizard's staying power would then come from magic items.

Yes, it would be more Vancian to give magic-users fewer spell slots but more powerful spells -- for instance, an Nth-level magic-user could memorize N levels worth of spells.

 

[pawsplay]

The point I'm trying to make is that when people say "4E Magic is not Vancian", what they mean is that its not like 2E magic, without really referencing the works of Jack Vance.

You're going to lose that argument.

4e spells:
- Require less preparation.
- Do not have names that are quite as colorful
- Can not be usefully amassed or stolen in the form of spellbooks
- Are less like magic bombs and more like magic guns

The only way 4e magic is substantially similar to Vancian magic is that arcane magic involves manipulating arcane forces through some kind of enlightened state of consciousness, and wizards occasionally read books.

Compare to 3e, where:
- Spells are prepared, fire-and-forget
- Spells are often weirdly named, and may refer to specific casters
- Spells are valuable to wizards, who can add them to their spell books
- Spells must be husbanded so that you do not run out.

Thus, 4e is substantially and noticeably less Vancian, both in the conventional as well as the literal sense, than 3e and previous editions.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

- Spells are often weirdly named, and may refer to specific casters

Like Fireball or Magic Missile?

Some D&D spells are wierdly named. I find them awesome. But far from many are that wierdly named. And 4E has them, too. Bigbys Icy Grasp or Mordekainens Mansion are 4E spells.

I think the best thing about the "Vancian" magic is that the spells have an "interesting description". In Shadowrun, there is a spell like Manabolt and it doesn't do much interesting except dealing damage. There is no place for a Meteor Swarm or Bigby's Clenching Fist in that system. That's something the Vancian system adds to D&D.

 

[Starfox]

2. Not a fan of the Dying Earth books. Too much casual rape.

Cugel the Clever is not a hero. He is a universally despised crook. Because we see the world trough his eyes, he sometimes appears to be a hero, but he definitely is not. Part of what makes him a villain is the parts you describe, and there is more.

Reading Vance and expecting black-and-white morality will indeed leave you disappointed.

 

[Starfox]

You're going to lose that argument...

You miss my point. Its irrelevant to my argument if the different editions are actually more or less like magic in Vance's work. The argument you are making tries to use the works of Jack Vance as a lever in an argument; what I'm saying is that this lever won't convince people, since the works of Jack Vance are not relevant to their interpretation of the term "vancian magic".

What I am saying is that the expression "vancian magic" has been disassociated with the works of Jack Vance the author.

 

[pawsplay]

Maybe you're right. But I suspect the posting vocabulary of a few message board posting birds are not going to have the staying power of Jack Vance's body of work.

 

[Starfox]

Maybe you're right. But I suspect the posting vocabulary of a few message board posting birds are not going to have the staying power of Jack Vance's body of work.

Hehe, very true indeed. Just wanted to present the point really.

 

[Cadfan]

Cugel the Clever is not a hero. He is a universally despised crook. Because we see the world trough his eyes, he sometimes appears to be a hero, but he definitely is not. Part of what makes him a villain is the parts you describe, and there is more.

Reading Vance and expecting black-and-white morality will indeed leave you disappointed.

I totally understand that. That doesn't make it fun to read.

 

[Umbran]

Reading Vance and expecting black-and-white morality will indeed leave you disappointed.

Sorry for the OT hijack, but there's a point here...

I don't buy that as an excuse. Even in the day Vance wrote, rape was not "moral grey area". Rape doesn't make one a "despised crook" - it makes you a villain.

It isn't as if this is the only work which turns people off by this route. Donaldson's Covenant the Unbeliever is beautifully written otherwise, but he turns off a whole mess of his readers by having the character commit rape early in the first book.

"This work is morally grey, and the character is not a hero" is not an excuse for being gratuitous about it. Peter David's Apropos of Nothing manages to do the job well without.