Will the Magic System be shown the door?

[GreatLemur]

Ideally, i'd like to see a completely separate Book of Magic for 4th edition. Give us oodles of options and a modular spell system with built-in templates and meta-magic. Incorporating some ideas such as what Monte Cook introduced with Arcana Unearthed would also be great.

See, I would dig the hell out of that. My ideal future for D&D magic would be a long list of effects and modifiers rather than spells (that is, Energy Blast would be an effect, with potential modifiers like Energy Type, Damage, Range, Area of Effect, etc.) with selection of about three or four different systems (like prepared Vancian, spontaneous Vancian, at-will, spell points, casting checks, etc.) that can all use this same set of effects. Then individual DMs could decide which components are used in which magic types in their own worlds.

It's pretty unlikely, though, at least as part of the core rules. D&D generally stays away from that level of complexity and modularity.

 

[Psion]

Nope. The surveys that lead up to 3e demonstrated that the bulk of players like the psueodo-Vancian system.

There may be consolations or baby steps for those who want something different, but despite how vociferously they express their disdain, they are still in the minority.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Nope. The surveys that lead up to 3e demonstrated that the bulk of players like the psueodo-Vancian system.

There may be consolations or baby steps for those who want something different, but despite how vociferously they express their disdain, they are still in the minority.

True, as far as it goes. However, those surveys are more than eight years old, and were strongly - I daresay exclusively - focused on the EXISTING playerbase.

People who only played D&D hadn't really experienced something like the Warlock or the Book of Nine Swords maneuvers at the time of the surveys. Perhaps the majority of existing players still prefer Vancian magic - indeed, I think it likely, if only because the majority never touch a book outside of a PHB -, but I'd be VERY surprised if the percentage isn't lower than it was at the end of 2e. Furthermore, the end of 2e was at or near D&D's lowest ebb of popularity, one of truly a handful of times when it was only the industry leader, not, for all intents and purposes, the entire industry; at that time, people who didn't like core aspects of D&D were much less likely to be active players (and thus much less likely included in the WotC surveys) than at any other time in the game's history.

At the same time, if 4e is marketed heavily towards people who have never played D&D before, with the existing fanbase considered something of an adendum to the core business of attracting new fans, a survey that covered only at-that-time D&D players certainly won't guide the design team.

That's not to say 4e will dump the Vancian magic system and the baggage that goes with it (such as the egregious 1-20 power curve) - but to cite the pre-3e surveys as reasons for Wizards not to make the switch 8-10 years later seems... questionable, at best.

 

[Mark CMG]

So, an additional question might be, "Would the people who considered the Magic System a sacred cow eight years ago, who now have up to seven years of 3.x under their belt, still require the same Magic System be included with a new edition of D&D?"

 

[Henry]

I'm still in love with the "Vancian" system. Per encounter is not my cup of tea, and though I like systems like Book of 9 swords, I still can't shake the feeling of the whole paradigm moving to a more "wuxia" or super-powered system, away from the roots of the game.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

So, an additional question might be, "Would the people who considered the Magic System a sacred cow eight years ago, who now have up to seven years of 3.x under their belt, still require the same Magic System be included with a new edition of D&D?"

Let me consult my magic d8...

"Yes and No"

Well, there you have it folks.

Seriously, though. What do people mean by "requiring" it? WotC will do what they think is best with their system. No matter what path they choose, some will likely be happy, others will be filled with hat that knows no bounds. Myself, it matters little to me. I know the vancian system and could keep using it, but wouldn't cry if they replace it with something different if it is useable.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'm still in love with the "Vancian" system. Per encounter is not my cup of tea, and though I like systems like Book of 9 swords, I still can't shake the feeling of the whole paradigm moving to a more "wuxia" or super-powered system, away from the roots of the game.

Question: Do you like the system in itself, or the flavour? - Just curious.

 

[GreatLemur]

True, as far as it goes. However, those surveys are more than eight years old, and were strongly - I daresay exclusively - focused on the EXISTING playerbase.

A very good point. If WotC polled, say, the millions of World of Warcraft players they would love to lure to the table top, how likely is it that they'd be in favor of fire-and-forget magic?

Jesus, it's about two-and-a-half decades since my parents bought me the red box, and it still doesn't feel right to me.

 

[Ron]

True, as far as it goes. However, those surveys are more than eight years old, and were strongly - I daresay exclusively - focused on the EXISTING playerbase.

People who only played D&D hadn't really experienced something like the Warlock or the Book of Nine Swords maneuvers at the time of the surveys. Perhaps the majority of existing players still prefer Vancian magic - indeed, I think it likely, if only because the majority never touch a book outside of a PHB -, but I'd be VERY surprised if the percentage isn't lower than it was at the end of 2e. Furthermore, the end of 2e was at or near D&D's lowest ebb of popularity, one of truly a handful of times when it was only the industry leader, not, for all intents and purposes, the entire industry; at that time, people who didn't like core aspects of D&D were much less likely to be active players (and thus much less likely included in the WotC surveys) than at any other time in the game's history.

At the same time, if 4e is marketed heavily towards people who have never played D&D before, with the existing fanbase considered something of an adendum to the core business of attracting new fans, a survey that covered only at-that-time D&D players certainly won't guide the design team.

That's not to say 4e will dump the Vancian magic system and the baggage that goes with it (such as the egregious 1-20 power curve) - but to cite the pre-3e surveys as reasons for Wizards not to make the switch 8-10 years later seems... questionable, at best.

Although I cannot say for your particular case, many posters tend to view opinion polls in boards such as EN World as representative of the opinion of gamers in general. This is a fallacy. Wizards' survey, despite being old, is probably their best map of the true preferencies among their customers. I doubt it has changed significantly in the last eight years. If I recall correctly, the survey showed most players are lost after a few years dabbling with D&D and thus you should not expect them to be exposed to a diversity of alternative magic system.

Pseudo-Vancian magic is dead simple and thus help new and occasional players to enjoy D&D. I would say that the great advantage D&D has over most other systems is the easiness of creating a character even without mastering the rules -- an advantage that, in my opinion, was partially lost with the more complicated rules introduced with d20. To add something such as power points, that requires more complex bookkeeping, or effect based magic, as seem in Hero, would likely turn the game less attractive to newbies gamers.

 

[WhatGravitas]

To add something such as power points, that requires more complex bookkeeping, or effect based magic, as seem in Hero, would likely turn the game less attractive to newbies gamers.

Very true. But what about a Vancian-lite, a bit akin to ToB? Like a minilist of Vancian-like memorization, that can be "recharged" after some minutes? Would keep the ease of Vancian, but allow more flexible planning. With a sufficiently significant time drawback (about an hour) it'd be enough to avoid perma-buffing and gives sense of urgency, but allows fast paced plots.

IMO, if they're booting Vancian, it'll be replaced by something like that or something equally simple.