Where did the DND magic system come from?

[Hand of Evil]

I point you to the Archive, see threads Gary Q&A:
http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/f-52.html

 

[Gentlegamer]

Magic in Dungeons & Dragons (1974) is wholly mnemonic, taken from Vance's Dying Earth. The sympathetic magic of Camp and Pratt's Incomplete Enchanter was mixed with it to create a hybrid in AD&D that allowed for powerful magic with checks and balances.

 

[Melan]

The memorization system, aside from its fictional roots, is a translation of wargame concepts to the roleplaying form. The "wizard" is not unlike artillery in that it can be used to destroy several enemies at once, but has to be protected from attackers in turn due to greater vulnerability. Lightning bolts are very similar to cannon shots, fireballs to shelling. OD&D has more wargame analogies like this, like referring to giants as "mobile catapults".

Vance's system is an excellent fit for a game that was developed from wargaming. It is no coincident that the system works, and works well.

 

[Von Ether]

The memorization system, aside from its fictional roots, is a translation of wargame concepts to the roleplaying form. The "wizard" is not unlike artillery in that it can be used to destroy several enemies at once, but has to be protected from attackers in turn due to greater vulnerability. Lightning bolts are very similar to cannon shots, fireballs to shelling. OD&D has more wargame analogies like this, like referring to giants as "mobile catapults".

Vance's system is an excellent fit for a game that was developed from wargaming. It is no coincident that the system works, and works well.

This is the same guy who changed his game from using all d6 to various dice so he could collate faster. I'm sure the "real" reason is that the mechanics worked for him (especialy since the game was originally just a rules addendum to a wargame) and any literary "roots" is 30 years of gloss and homage to his favorte author. It's no conicdence that GG's own fiction books are similarly verbose by today's standards.

It's sort of like the relationship between George Lucas and the mythologist Campbell. Lucas was just making a fun movie, never intending to "retell" the Hero's Journey. Campbell was looking for some modern example to liven up his academic discussions.

In both cases the synergy didn't hurt either side.

 

[rogueattorney]

This is the same guy who changed his game from using all d6 to various dice so he could collate faster. I'm sure the "real" reason is that the mechanics worked for him (especialy since the game was originally just a rules addendum to a wargame) and any literary "roots" is 30 years of gloss and homage to his favorte author. It's no conicdence that GG's own fiction books are similarly verbose by today's standards.

That article I referenced above was written in 1976. But go ahead and believe whatever the hell you want. I'm sure you know what you're talking about more than the guy who wrote the damn game.

R.A.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

'cause Gary liked it.

Just so

And Jack Vance is my favorite author in the imaginative literature genre, although many others come a close second.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

That article I referenced above was written in 1976. But go ahead and believe whatever the hell you want. I'm sure you know what you're talking about more than the guy who wrote the damn game.

R.A.

Heh!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Such commentators never ceases to amuse, eh?

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Victim]

With each edition of D&D spells have gotten weaker and more limited in their use, but thankfully the 3rd edition had to wit to grant them bonus spells like clerics in exchange.

Ben

I'd actually call 2nd to 3.0 as a major boost. While some effects were weakened, overall the possibilities of hasted double casting and the nerfing of MR (fixed percentage, often high) to SR (level based check, usually 50% or less) outweight the losses.

It's actually unfortunate that DnD's magic isn't more Vancian. Where's the dang Gyrator? Most spells also lost all the cool proper names and descriptors.

 

[fuindordm]

I'd actually call 2nd to 3.0 as a major boost. While some effects were weakened, overall the possibilities of hasted double casting and the nerfing of MR (fixed percentage, often high) to SR (level based check, usually 50% or less) outweight the losses.

It's actually unfortunate that DnD's magic isn't more Vancian. Where's the dang Gyrator? Most spells also lost all the cool proper names and descriptors.

Not to mention their dangers to the unwary. I regret that 3rd edition made all the spells so user-friendly. No more dispelling a flying mage, or fireball backlash, or aging effects. Magic now seems so... tame.

 

[Von Ether]

Originally Posted by Kid Charlemagne
'cause Gary liked it.
-------

Just so

And Jack Vance is my favorite author in the imaginative literature genre, although many others come a close second.

Cheers,
Gary

Isn't that what I said?