Will the Magic System be shown the door?

[Henry]

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.

I'd say "no" for my opinion, because it's the FAST recharge times (1 round, 1 mintue, 1 hour, etc.) that give me the "martial arts movie" feeling that I don't like for my D&D fantasy. Heroes who have to rest up for a long time (half a day, a day, a week, etc.) after blowing all their hit points and powers are more what I look for than just, "OK, it's the next scene, you've got all your powers back and you're healed up." Good for martial arts cinema, good for Feng Shui, Good for Superheroes, bad for my D&D fantasy.

 

[DogBackward]

...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.

You're playing a game where high level mages can stop time, call meteors to fall to the earth, kill with a word, and literally warp the fabric of space and time to their will. And you're worried about making it a super-powered system? It's fantasy, dude, it already is super-powered. It's just that only the magical types are super.

And it's about options. If you don't like a more action-oriented style that allows pure melee guys to be as active in battle as mages, don't use it. Just because they put a new book out doesn't mean it's automatically part of the overall flavor. They put it out for those people who want such things. If they didn't put out what their fans and customers asked for, they'd go out of business.

And if you want to stick with the "roots of the game", then play 1e. Games evolve as time passes, they become different as the tastes of their players become different. If your opinion was the majority, they wouldn't be making these newer books and changes.

I, for one, rejoice every time a new book is released, even if I don't personally want it. The more books that are out, the more options that are available, the better. We'll get more people involved who like that sort of thing, which means more support for WotC, which means more material, support for material, and all that jazz. And hopefully, if we get enough people interested in DnD, and they buy enough stuff, Wizards will finally have enough money to hire some proofreaders...

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'd say "no" for my opinion, because it's the FAST recharge times (1 round, 1 mintue, 1 hour, etc.) that give me the "martial arts movie" feeling that I don't like for my D&D fantasy. Heroes who have to rest up for a long time (half a day, a day, a week, etc.) after blowing all their hit points and powers are more what I look for than just, "OK, it's the next scene, you've got all your powers back and you're healed up." Good for martial arts cinema, good for Feng Shui, Good for Superheroes, bad for my D&D fantasy.

Ah, I see your point!

And everybody has different preferences... perhaps they should introduce some kind of "adaptable rule-set"? Like: If you want "gritty", then give X spell slots, re-charging each X days/weeks, if you want fast paced, you get X/5, but can regain every some minutes/hours?

That would be great. Even if it's only in a "Variant Rule"-appendix in the PHB or DMG. But'll probably never happen...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Those are also 8 years old at least. I'm sure if you asked D&D'ers in 1990 if halflings should be allowed to be wizards, most of them would have said no as well. Plus, the pro-vancian camp may not be their target audience. If you're going to do something, do something right. Sure, you lose a few bitter old gamers, but they wouldnt like anything but a reprint of the 1st edition PHB anyways. Or OD&D, or whatever game they want to be playing, but dont for whatever bizarre reason. I want 4th edition to be a good system in its own right, rather than overly faithful to a game that its creator doesnt even play anymore.

I'm all in favor of killing off vancian casting entirely. Gygax managed to trick people into thinking it was somehow iconic, which has always puzzled me. When you ask a person on the streets about wizards, the last thing anyone thinks of is a guy who memorizes three magic missiles, one jump, and two scorching rays. Monte Cook's AE system is at least approaching the image people think of, while keeping some spell slot semblance. Thats the minimum I can see them doing.

With the loss of "per day" spells, so ends the irritating D&D day, where you fight until the healer/wizard is out then fart around in a rope trick. You also no longer need "filler" encounters whose main purpose is to weed out spells from the magic users so they cant "nova" in any meaningful encounter. It only seems like a good thing to me.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

Trust me, I don't take opinion polls on boards like EN World as representative of anything - even EN World itself.

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.

Eight years ago, Harry Potter was a relatively new phenomena. Eight years ago, Final Fantasy 7 had only two years before busted console RPGs out of niche genre status outside Japan and made them a major, if not THE major, determinant of console sales. Eight years ago, the Lord of the Rings movies had not even begun principle production. Eight years ago, Everquest had just come out to rave reviews and World of Warcraft was hardly a glimmer in Blizzard's eye. Eight years ago, the Matrix was brand new, and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon had yet to introduce the wider moviegoing audience to its wuxia roots.

The fantasy genre has changed in the past ten years in a way it hasn't since the initial release and popularity of D&D - if not since Tolkien wrote The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

Whether the spell system issue has changed or not, never in D&D's history has the been a time when the average person's view of fantasy, and the prospective young player's view of fantasy, has changed so much.

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.

Assuming this is correct (it's been a while since I saw excerps from the survey), then it's even less relevant what the existing playerbase thinks of a system. New players, who would be the most important, will have either nopreconceived notions of a magic system or preconceived notions of a magic system derived primarily from works that didn't even exist when D&D 3e hit the market.

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.

Effects-based magic isn't simple, I agree. Though I love it so, it's totally inappropriate for D&D.

Encounter-based but still slot-based magic systems (ala Book of Nine Swords or, from the looks of it, Star Wars Saga) are about the same level of complexity as Vancian per day casting, simply changing per day for per encounter or giving a simple refresh method.

The warlock fire-and-fire-again system is much, MUCH simpler than Vancian magic. Pick your spells and use them forever.

Spell points are hit points for the mind - simpler, IMO, and at the very least no more complex. In any case, they are much, MUCH more familiar to the vast majority of new players; if new players are indeed the lifeblood of the hobby, then spell points are only logical.

 

[GreatLemur]

I'd say "no" for my opinion, because it's the FAST recharge times (1 round, 1 mintue, 1 hour, etc.) that give me the "martial arts movie" feeling that I don't like for my D&D fantasy. Heroes who have to rest up for a long time (half a day, a day, a week, etc.) after blowing all their hit points and powers are more what I look for than just, "OK, it's the next scene, you've got all your powers back and you're healed up." Good for martial arts cinema, good for Feng Shui, Good for Superheroes, bad for my D&D fantasy.

Wow. That really strikes me as strange. I've always really hated the "okay, now we have to rest for eight hours in the middle of the dungeon" phenomenon. This kind of thing never seemed like a vital or even common element of the fantasy genre to me, just the D&D fantasy sub-genre.

Effects-based magic isn't simple, I agree. Though I love it so, it's totally inappropriate for D&D.

Encounter-based but still slot-based magic systems (ala Book of Nine Swords or, from the looks of it, Star Wars Saga) are about the same level of complexity as Vancian per day casting, simply changing per day for per encounter or giving a simple refresh method.

The warlock fire-and-fire-again system is much, MUCH simpler than Vancian magic. Pick your spells and use them forever.

Spell points are hit points for the mind - simpler, IMO, and at the very least no more complex. In any case, they are much, MUCH more familiar to the vast majority of new players; if new players are indeed the lifeblood of the hobby, then spell points are only logical.

Damn, you beat me to it.

 

[Henry]

You're playing a game where high level mages can stop time, call meteors to fall to the earth, kill with a word, and literally warp the fabric of space and time to their will. And you're worried about making it a super-powered system? It's fantasy, dude, it already is super-powered. It's just that only the magical types are super.

This argument never loses its luster. Except to me, that is. IMO there's still a world of difference between a mage using resources sparingly (or paying the price) and someone who can do their best trick over and over again two dozen times a day (which a "per encounter" system would encourage).

And it's about options. If you don't like a more action-oriented style that allows pure melee guys to be as active in battle as mages, don't use it.

However, if "per day" is removed from the core system in favor of "per encounter", rather than being alongside it, then it's no longer about options, is it? I'm all for it being part of the whole, but I'm not for removal of the Vancian system in favor of other systems, which is what this thread is about.

And if you want to stick with the "roots of the game", then play 1e. Games evolve as time passes, they become different as the tastes of their players become different. If your opinion was the majority, they wouldn't be making these newer books and changes.

To me, the argument misses the point that a game can evolve but still keep its core values still intact. Incrementally eliminating the need to weigh your progress vs. your strength is an important part of D&D to me.

If my opinion were the majority, it will still be part of the default system whenever the next edition of the game comes out. If not, then it won't. If it won't, then I'll have to evaluate the edition to make sure it's what I want to play. If not, there's still tons of choices out there, from keeping what I've got to moving on to other systems (Warhammer's really connecting with me these days, might even be that!)

I, for one, rejoice every time a new book is released, even if I don't personally want it. The more books that are out, the more options that are available, the better.

Yep, me, too. Otherwise, WotC is going to have to work harder to get my money. Heck, my favorite magic system isn't even Vancian, it's something more akin to Green Ronin's True Sorcery, or the Jedi powers fueled by VP as it is in the 2002 Revised Core Rules. That way, you're not hosed for the entire day, but you're FORCED to weigh your stamina to keep going versus yoru effectiveness in combat, and in a few hours you've got enough to be effective again, even though you're not up to full strength.

 

[Henry]

Ah, I see your point!

And everybody has different preferences... perhaps they should introduce some kind of "adaptable rule-set"? Like: If you want "gritty", then give X spell slots, re-charging each X days/weeks, if you want fast paced, you get X/5, but can regain every some minutes/hours?

That would be great. Even if it's only in a "Variant Rule"-appendix in the PHB or DMG. But'll probably never happen...

That, I'd love, Default it to "per encounter" if you want, but find a way that you can use the same base classes and magics, etc. but just vary the time intervals, while keeping the whole of classes and characters still balanced... heck of a holy grail, but it would fit my bill.

 

[DogBackward]

Ah, see, my post was only a response to what I quoted, not the thread in general. I despise vancian magic, myself, but I'm all about options in my games.

 

[Henry]

Wow. That really strikes me as strange. I've always really hated the "okay, now we have to rest for eight hours in the middle of the dungeon" phenomenon. This kind of thing never seemed like a vital or even common element of the fantasy genre to me, just the D&D fantasy sub-genre.

While true that it most often happens that way, I've always seen it more as, "guys and gals, we REALLY need to get out of this dungeon and find safety, because there's no way I'm holing up in hostile territory to rest." OR "do we REALLY need to fight this battle, rather than sneak around it, because Lord Death plans to perform the sacrifice in six hours, and we need to be strong enough to defeat him." Per-encounter seems to me to foster fighting all the way through, nonstop, because there's no need to recover any resources, since all of it recovers pretty quickly, from hit points to spells/maneuvers/inspiration points.