Where has WotC said this? This is a claim I've heard from fanboys at times, but I don't know if I've ever read or.heard WotC claim it at all. It's a pretty poor claim, while 5e is relatively very flexible, it certainly can't do everything. The usual example people use as a standard is Middle-Earth, and 5e is awful at that. It's good at D&D and can be serviceable at other settings (which is more than the other engines I've used), but it's certainly not universal. I've not really seen anyone else claim it is, though.
You know what, you make a good point; it was unfair of me to place WotC as the source of this idea. I don't know where the misconception of D&D as the Everything System comes from exactly, but I do know it's strangely pervasive. I see people all the time on these forums and elsewhere trying to "mod" D&D 5e into what is functionally a completely new game, and it seems like they feel this is a reasonable expectation. Some players--probably not the majority, but enough to be worth talking about--pick up D&D and think they're going to be able to make it a gritty low-magic survival game, or a campy modern sci-fi mystery romp, or a freeform improv theatre experience; and somehow all those people think they're meaningfully playing the same game. You don't really see this with other TTRPGs. Sure, there's the many "Powered by the Apocalypse" or "Forged in the Dark" indie games, but the people working on those generally understand that they are making something new outside the bounds of the base system. I don't know why D&D specifically has this problem with expectations wildly exceeding what the system is made for, but we can't ignore the effect it has on some players' game satisfaction.
I think this is just because to anyone not way into TTRPGs D&D is the only game system they have been exposed to and in many cases the only game they know anything about. I'm sure there are plenty of other wonderful systems but other than the old D20 Star Wars game I have never had any interest in trying any of them and it seems lots of casual players feel the same way. When someone talks about a TTRPG D&D is 100% my paradigm and I don't know enough about anything else (fully my own choice - I'm well aware loads of specialized systems exist) to even consider it.
I'm waaaaay too lazy to read other replies, but if no one else has mentioned it yet; you may try looking into Everyday Heroes. It's based on 5e system set in modern times. It's the d20 modern system updated to using 5e. With that said, some of the stories / modules, etc. incorporate some fantasy stuff, like they have some things based off highlander and the crow movies. But I think it's significantly less "high fantasy," than regular 5e.
So, I didn't really know where else to put this other than general...
There's a section in the 2014 Dungeon Master's Guide that talks about the various "flavors of fantasy" you can play with D&D. But as things have gone on, and clearly as we move into the 2024 books, it's becoming clear that the designers have clearly leaned in to the "High Fantasy" aesthetic. Sure, you can play swashbuckling campaigns, or embrace horror or dark fantasy vibe, but at the end of the day, D&D has become a game of "superhero fantasy." And nowhere is that clearer than in the plethora of magical powers being baked in to to the new class and ancestry options.
The game has just become overly reliant on magic. Everything is magic, everyone gets magic.
It all just feels like the designers are telling those of us who want less "over-the-top fantasy" in our settings to just go play something else.
Is it just me?
D&D has always kind of been high fantasy and overly reliant on magic. Look at the classes. You had Cleric (Magic) with Druid as a subclass (not akin to 5E version of subclass, but kind of a subset of the parent class). You had Magic-User (magic) with Illusionist as subclass. Fighter (mundane) with Paladin and Ranger as subclasses (both magic). And Thief (mundane but eventually could use spell scrolls) with Assassin as subclass (mundane). So most classes/subclasses were magical.
Dungeons were full of magic items (XP came from GP gathered and, at least how we played it but can’t remember if official, magic items sold counted as XP). Loot, including magical loot, was how you advanced in levels.
Early D&D was inspired by Howard, Leiber, Moorcock, and Vance. Magic exists in their works. But their heroes—and antiheroes—ain't superheroes sending infinite blasts of arcane or divine energy out of their hands.
Early D&D was inspired by "let's take our experience with miniatures wargaming and reskin howitzers as wizards". The classic weakness of wizardry wasn't "can only do it X times per day", it was "any significant magic takes minutes to hours to complete, during which time a swordswinging hero can turn me into giblets".
Early D&D was inspired by Howard, Leiber, Moorcock, and Vance. Magic exists in their works. But their heroes—and antiheroes—ain't superheroes sending infinite blasts of arcane or divine energy out of their hands.
Early D&D was inspired by "let's take our experience with miniatures wargaming and reskin howitzers as wizards". The classic weakness of wizardry wasn't "can only do it X times per day", it was "any significant magic takes minutes to hours to complete, during which time a swordswinging hero can turn me into giblets".
Pretty sure Merlin could turn people to newts with a word. Or Circe could. Or summon up a dozen skeletons in time to have bodyguards against the attacking heroes.
The 'classic weakness of wizardry' thing is only from games trying to insert play-balance. To the extent ritual (takes a long time to cast) magic is portrayed, it is either for divinations, or for WMD level attacks that the heroes must stop by way of epic battle.
Where has WotC said this? This is a claim I've heard from fanboys at times, but I don't know if I've ever read or.heard WotC claim it at all. It's a pretty poor claim, while 5e is relatively very flexible, it certainly can't do everything. The usual example people use as a standard is Middle-Earth, and 5e is awful at that. It's good at D&D and can be serviceable at other settings (which is more than the other engines I've used), but it's certainly not universal. I've not really seen anyone else claim it is, though.
You know what, you make a good point; it was unfair of me to place WotC as the source of this idea. I don't know where the misconception of D&D as the Everything System comes from exactly, but I do know it's strangely pervasive. I see people all the time on these forums and elsewhere trying to "mod" D&D 5e into what is functionally a completely new game, and it seems like they feel this is a reasonable expectation. Some players--probably not the majority, but enough to be worth talking about--pick up D&D and think they're going to be able to make it a gritty low-magic survival game, or a campy modern sci-fi mystery romp, or a freeform improv theatre experience; and somehow all those people think they're meaningfully playing the same game. You don't really see this with other TTRPGs. Sure, there's the many "Powered by the Apocalypse" or "Forged in the Dark" indie games, but the people working on those generally understand that they are making something new outside the bounds of the base system. I don't know why D&D specifically has this problem with expectations wildly exceeding what the system is made for, but we can't ignore the effect it has on some players' game satisfaction.
Fair, and agreed, but WotC has not corrected (that I am aware of) those claiming it is a platform an every genre TTRPG like they have with the new rule set being 5E not 5.5E or 6E et al, That said many of the outlier settings like Dark sun are purported to be to problematic for 5E, though we did get Spelljammer and Planescape but many feel they were a let down. Personally I like where 5E is, and will see where it goes, much like the fashion train all you have to do is stop buying the new if you don't like it, or not buy the old; no one is going to do much more than point and laugh when you do until it comes back in vogue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
If we cannot agree on definitions, then there is no common point to discuss.
I cannot think of any spellcaster protagonist in any S&S work who does not have at least some form of low level magic that is always there for them. But then, spellcaster protagonists are relatively rare. Actual D&D style parties are relatively rare in fiction. However, to the extent there are caster's in fiction, they pretty much always have some sort of on demand spell.
Definitions of? I provided academic criteria for S&S/heroic fantasy. Are you telling me the likes of Brian Murphy and of people like Lin Carter and L. Sprague de Camp before him or authors like Fritz Leiber and Michael Moorcock whose discussions arrived at these terms are "wrong"? Can you even articulate an argument as to why and how such criteria is "wrong"? Because so far your "argument" has been to invoke Conan fighting demons—which is irrelevant—mention of Hercules—which is irrelevant—and the waning of magic in Middle-Earth—which is irrelevant—and to erect straw men in which you claim I have said things I have not.
D&D-style parties were and remain quite common in old TSR novels and fiction today in that vein. Even the 5e DMG references Forgotten Realms series like the Icewind Dale Trilogy as examples of what it calls "heroic fantasy." (These are examples of high fantasy.) The works of Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman whether Dragonlance or otherwise also commonly feature parties of heroes. (These also examples of high fantasy.)
The magic system in D&D as has already been explained was originally inspired by how it works in Vance's Dying Earth novels. Novels that take place in a world in which magic is memorized and then forgotten until later relearned.
Sound familiar?
AD&D drew highly on the Vancian model. It is only from 4e that we see the magic system in the game referred to as "post-Vancian."
Early D&D was inspired by "let's take our experience with miniatures wargaming and reskin howitzers as wizards". The classic weakness of wizardry wasn't "can only do it X times per day", it was "any significant magic takes minutes to hours to complete, during which time a swordswinging hero can turn me into giblets".
Are you denying the influence of Vance on how magic worked in earlier editions of the game?
I'm curious/puzzled by this threads weird intervention into the backstory of the brand's past editions.
So are you basically saying you don't care for D&D's embrace of its present aesthetic? I know there's this pedantic point that what D&D's own present DMG uses is incorrect against some definitive academic definition you believe is out there. But that's not really the point of the thread. The DMG calls its default mode "high fantasy", OP seems to have wished for more support for the other modes of fantasy (which may or not fit pedantic definitions some scholars may or may not use). That's what this discussion is about. the present mode of D&D and how well it has or could accommodate other modes.
Yes, Vance etc., earlier editions of D&D, powerful magics was something that was more difficult for PCs to access and was more a challenge posed to the PCs. Early D&D. even had Conan and Lankmar modules. I don't think anyone can really dispute that D&D has evolved so that magic or magical abilities are more accessible. But the point isn't arguing how Appendix N expanded or not, or the purpose of Appendix N. It's whether present fans are happy with the current mode of the game ... which honestly is a weird thing to ask on a board supporting players of an edition that's been around for ten years.
Pretty sure Merlin could turn people to newts with a word. Or Circe could. Or summon up a dozen skeletons in time to have bodyguards against the attacking heroes.
The 'classic weakness of wizardry' thing is only from games trying to insert play-balance. To the extent ritual (takes a long time to cast) magic is portrayed, it is either for divinations, or for WMD level attacks that the heroes must stop by way of epic battle.
You've never read Vance, have you? Why do you think the way magic works in earlier editions of D&D is referred to as the Vancian magic system?
In the Dying Earth novels casters memorize syllables that enable them to cast spells but these are then forgotten and must be relearned. Sound familiar?
You've never read Vance, have you? Why do you think the way magic works in earlier editions of D&D is referred to as the Vancian magic system?
You might be surprised by just how much Vance you can read and never come across the 'vancian' magic system, as it only appeared in four of his more than fifty novels.
If we cannot agree on definitions, then there is no common point to discuss.
I cannot think of any spellcaster protagonist in any S&S work who does not have at least some form of low level magic that is always there for them. But then, spellcaster protagonists are relatively rare. Actual D&D style parties are relatively rare in fiction. However, to the extent there are caster's in fiction, they pretty much always have some sort of on demand spell.
Definitions of? I provided academic criteria for S&S/heroic fantasy. Are you telling me the likes of Brian Murphy and of people like Lin Carter and L. Sprague de Camp before him or authors like Fritz Leiber and Michael Moorcock whose discussions arrived at these terms are "wrong"? Can you even articulate an argument as to why and how such criteria is "wrong"? Because so far your "argument" has been to invoke Conan fighting demons—which is irrelevant—mention of Hercules—which is irrelevant—and the waning of magic in Middle-Earth—which is irrelevant—and to erect straw men in which you claim I have said things I have not.
D&D-style parties were and remain quite common in old TSR novels and fiction today in that vein. Even the 5e DMG references Forgotten Realms series like the Icewind Dale Trilogy as examples of what it calls "heroic fantasy." (These are examples of high fantasy.) The works of Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman whether Dragonlance or otherwise also commonly feature parties of heroes. (These also examples of high fantasy.)
The magic system in D&D as has already been explained was originally inspired by how it works in Vance's Dying Earth novels. Novels that take place in a world in which magic is memorized and then forgotten until later relearned.
Sound familiar?
AD&D drew highly on the Vancian model. It is only from 4e that we see the magic system in the game referred to as "post-Vancian."
0e was mostly inspired by Tolkien. 1e had many inspirations. Vance's Dying Sun novels were, indeed, the inspiration for the magic system but a great much more was inspired by Tolkien. They even had to change Hobbits to Halflings over copyright challenges. Tolkien is very much not irrelevant to this discussion.
However, we are talking about High Fantasy vs Sword and Sorcery. Can you please cite a source for your definitions? If you already have, I apologize for having missed it.
My issue with the definitions you are using is that you seem to be equating Sword and Sorcery with Sword and the occasional spell. Gandalf was called a wizard but was really a celestial being. Elrond, though, commanded the river to rise and attack the wraiths all the way from Rivendell. And don't tell me that took a lot of casting time, not when missing the timing would have washed away the Hobbits and Glorfindel, instead. Even in the 3rd Age, there was considerable magic still left in the world, even if the Numenorean wizards seem to have even been slain or have gone down with their island and the remaining Elven casters not being prominent in the story.
If the definition is not a question of what the world is like but what the party is like then the answer is easy. Just declare no full casters allowed in the party.
You might be surprised by just how much Vance you can read and never come across the 'vancian' magic system, as it only appeared in four of his more than fifty novels.
That ain't at all surprising. I am more than familiar with the fact he wrote science fiction novels and other things outside of his Dying Earth series.
The fact remains that what is commonly referred to as "the Vancian magic system" was inspired by how magic works in those novels. And that this system was at the heart of magic in earlier editions.
What you have done here is just another example of how people here insist on arguing but choose to argue against something that isn't even the point being made. It's infantile.
No. It wasn't. I only had to read that to know you have no idea what you are talking about. Please go and read comprehensive histories of D&D. Like those of Jon Peterson. Instead of just making things up.
Gygax and Arneson both made quite clear over the years they were much more inspired by Moorcock (e.g. the alignment system, the Eye and Hand of Vecna), Vance (e.g. the magic system), Leiber (the introduction and development of the thief and assassin classes), and other S&S authors than they ever were Lord of the Rings.
What inspiration comes from Tolkien? Halflings? A handful of monsters?
You have gone from talking about Conan fighting demons when that had ZERO bearing on any point I have made to now outright making things up.
No. It wasn't. I only had to read that to know you have no idea what you are talking about. Please go and read comprehensive histories of D&D. Like those of Jon Peterson. Instead of just making things up.
Gygax and Arneson both made quite clear over the years they were much more inspired by Moorcock (e.g. the alignment system, the Eye and Hand of Vecna), Vance (e.g. the magic system), Leiber (the introduction and development of the thief and assassin classes), and other S&S authors than they ever were Lord of the Rings.
What inspiration comes from Tolkien? Halflings? A handful of monsters?
You have gone from talking about Conan fighting demons when that had ZERO bearing on any point I have made to now outright making things up.
What they have said over the years could be distancing themselves from copyright claims. AND yes there are other sources of inspiration.
But what about a 'Vancian' system is incompatible with high fantasy and more importantly, what makes such a system better for storytelling?
Edit: And note, casters having attack cantrips does not change the fact the heavy hitting spells are prepared
What they have said over the years could be distancing themselves from copyright claims. AND yes there are other sources of inspiration.
But what about a 'Vancian' system is incompatible with high fantasy and more importantly, what makes such a system better for storytelling?
Edit: And note, casters having attack cantrips does not change the fact the heavy hitting spells are prepared
Shall we talk about Conan fighting demons again?
Every step of the way in this exchange you have resorted to making things up ("0e was mostly inspired by Tolkien.") and irrelevancies (Hercules and those aforementioned demons) and now pure speculation regarding copyright and the literature that mostly inspired Gygax and Arneson. Early D&D so obviously draws inspiration from Leiber and Moorcock and other S&S authors more than it does Lord of the Rings. And let's not forget that the pantheons of both author's works not only appeared in the first printings of Deities and Demigods but those of the latter were also the subject of a copyright infringement suit against TSR. Which is why later printings of Deities and Demigods had to remove them. Along with the Cthulhu Mythos entries. Lovecraft being another major influence on early D&D. Tolkien's works did serve as an inspiration. They are there in APPENDIX N. But more than Howard? Leiber? Moorcock? No. The game is even described as a "swords and sorcery game" in the 1e DMG. All those old Conan and Lankhmar supplements for AD&D went under your radar? You sure you weren't playing MERP? How Law and Chaos operate in Moorcock served as the foundation of the alignment system. But there are orcs and hobbits!
Is the Vancian magic system incompatible with high fantasy? Is it? Answer me this: Would you be okay with removing casters' ability to spam damage every round? Would you go back to using an earlier edition in which magic was rarer but more powerful? Because magic-users had fewer spells. But their effects were often greater. No? Why not? Why would that be? Because the game would no longer have that magic-heavy high fantasy feel to it that it now does?
Would you describe fantasy in which magic is rare but more powerful as high fantasy? I'm genuinely interested in knowing how you feel. Either way Vance's Dying Earth series is not an example of high fantasy.
Whether the Vancian magic system is "better for storytelling" or not is yet another example of how utterly irrelevant your points are to the original point that was made about how earlier editions of the game feel more S&S than high fantasy and how heroic fantasy is most commonly used synonymously with the former.
EDIT: Your own edit is again irrelevant. In earlier editions of the game casters could not shoot magic beams out of their fingertips round after round to spam damage. Which is just one of the reasons why the game then felt more like the literature that overwhelmingly inspired it in its infancy.
Would you go back to using an earlier edition in which magic was rarer but more powerful? Because magic-users had fewer spells. But their effects were greater. No? Why not? Why would that be? Because the game would no longer have that magic-heavy high fantasy feel to it that it now does?
Fewer spells does not equal rarer. You seem to be conflating a preference for the former mechanics with the amount of magic actually scene in the world and scope of adventures.
In those earlier editions, casters basically had to be carried the first few levels. If they lived they ended up very powerful but often felt just vulnerable and a bit useless until they did start to really come into their own.
Meanwhile, they still had magic. Magic was just as 'common,' even without cantrips. Any given person in real life may not drive every day. Those who do, likely only drive twice a day. Many take the bus instead of driving and others simply walk. But driving is common. The evening news is once a day and scheduled, but it is commonly watched.
Still waiting on someone to cite actual definitions, ideally with sources. To me, Sword and Sorcery is not 'swords, with occasional magic.' High fantasy, as I understand it, is not an antithesis to Sword and Sorcery but to 'Low Fantasy.' Sword and Sorcery can be high or low fantasy and quite often starts low and ends high as the main character(s) become more established. Not just Harry Potter started off knowing a few spells (and in that setting, people simply know spells and seem to always have them on demand, although some require conditions or components), but even Mickey Mouse as the 'Sorcerer's Apprentice' had a wand (focus) and could cast things. The latter is pretty clearly high fantasy, but the Potter is an interesting mix of Low (scenes set on Earth) and High (scenes set at Hogwarts/Wizarding World). And I am again using examples here to give some idea of where my definitions are, again, to try to find some common ground in terms of understanding of general definitions.
Sword and sorcery isn't about "less" magic but it is about magic being far harder to wield and very mysterious (and usually dangerous far all involved). The original Conan stories, which are considered by many to be the ur-texts for the genre, feature plenty of magic - but the hero never wields it, it's almost always something to be defeated, and it often has infernal connotations. Magical items and effects, though, are rare - you don't have cities with streetlights fueled by spells or artificer works, you don't have shops on every corner selling potions and scrolls, and you don't have every single adventurer wielding some magical ability.
I'm curious/puzzled by this threads weird intervention into the backstory of the brand's past editions.
So are you basically saying you don't care for D&D's embrace of its present aesthetic? I know there's this pedantic point that what D&D's own present DMG uses is incorrect against some definitive academic definition you believe is out there. But that's not really the point of the thread. The DMG calls its default mode "high fantasy", OP seems to have wished for more support for the other modes of fantasy (which may or not fit pedantic definitions some scholars may or may not use). That's what this discussion is about. the present mode of D&D and how well it has or could accommodate other modes.
Yeah, I couldn't care less about the True Definition of "high fantasy." What I care about is what DMG pg. 38 says: the default expectation for D&D is Heroic Fantasy, and they go on to describe exactly that means:
- Adventurers begin life as ordinary - Something impels them to a life of adventuring - Technology and society are based on medieval norms - Campaigns will typically involve dungeon-delving for treasure or monster-slaying
Those are the baseline assumptions of D&D. You are free to deviate from those if you want, but you shouldn't expect the books to do much to help you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think this is just because to anyone not way into TTRPGs D&D is the only game system they have been exposed to and in many cases the only game they know anything about. I'm sure there are plenty of other wonderful systems but other than the old D20 Star Wars game I have never had any interest in trying any of them and it seems lots of casual players feel the same way. When someone talks about a TTRPG D&D is 100% my paradigm and I don't know enough about anything else (fully my own choice - I'm well aware loads of specialized systems exist) to even consider it.
Other than a few ritual spells which you might never cast, it seems to me that the Totem Warrior could easily be reflavored as nonmagical.
Hey Fam,
I'm waaaaay too lazy to read other replies, but if no one else has mentioned it yet; you may try looking into Everyday Heroes. It's based on 5e system set in modern times. It's the d20 modern system updated to using 5e. With that said, some of the stories / modules, etc. incorporate some fantasy stuff, like they have some things based off highlander and the crow movies. But I think it's significantly less "high fantasy," than regular 5e.
D&D has always kind of been high fantasy and overly reliant on magic. Look at the classes. You had Cleric (Magic) with Druid as a subclass (not akin to 5E version of subclass, but kind of a subset of the parent class). You had Magic-User (magic) with Illusionist as subclass. Fighter (mundane) with Paladin and Ranger as subclasses (both magic). And Thief (mundane but eventually could use spell scrolls) with Assassin as subclass (mundane). So most classes/subclasses were magical.
Dungeons were full of magic items (XP came from GP gathered and, at least how we played it but can’t remember if official, magic items sold counted as XP). Loot, including magical loot, was how you advanced in levels.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Early D&D was inspired by "let's take our experience with miniatures wargaming and reskin howitzers as wizards". The classic weakness of wizardry wasn't "can only do it X times per day", it was "any significant magic takes minutes to hours to complete, during which time a swordswinging hero can turn me into giblets".
Pretty sure Merlin could turn people to newts with a word. Or Circe could. Or summon up a dozen skeletons in time to have bodyguards against the attacking heroes.
The 'classic weakness of wizardry' thing is only from games trying to insert play-balance. To the extent ritual (takes a long time to cast) magic is portrayed, it is either for divinations, or for WMD level attacks that the heroes must stop by way of epic battle.
Fair, and agreed, but WotC has not corrected (that I am aware of) those claiming it is a platform an every genre TTRPG like they have with the new rule set being 5E not 5.5E or 6E et al, That said many of the outlier settings like Dark sun are purported to be to problematic for 5E, though we did get Spelljammer and Planescape but many feel they were a let down. Personally I like where 5E is, and will see where it goes, much like the fashion train all you have to do is stop buying the new if you don't like it, or not buy the old; no one is going to do much more than point and laugh when you do until it comes back in vogue.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Definitions of? I provided academic criteria for S&S/heroic fantasy. Are you telling me the likes of Brian Murphy and of people like Lin Carter and L. Sprague de Camp before him or authors like Fritz Leiber and Michael Moorcock whose discussions arrived at these terms are "wrong"? Can you even articulate an argument as to why and how such criteria is "wrong"? Because so far your "argument" has been to invoke Conan fighting demons—which is irrelevant—mention of Hercules—which is irrelevant—and the waning of magic in Middle-Earth—which is irrelevant—and to erect straw men in which you claim I have said things I have not.
D&D-style parties were and remain quite common in old TSR novels and fiction today in that vein. Even the 5e DMG references Forgotten Realms series like the Icewind Dale Trilogy as examples of what it calls "heroic fantasy." (These are examples of high fantasy.) The works of Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman whether Dragonlance or otherwise also commonly feature parties of heroes. (These also examples of high fantasy.)
The magic system in D&D as has already been explained was originally inspired by how it works in Vance's Dying Earth novels. Novels that take place in a world in which magic is memorized and then forgotten until later relearned.
Sound familiar?
AD&D drew highly on the Vancian model. It is only from 4e that we see the magic system in the game referred to as "post-Vancian."
Are you denying the influence of Vance on how magic worked in earlier editions of the game?
I'm curious/puzzled by this threads weird intervention into the backstory of the brand's past editions.
So are you basically saying you don't care for D&D's embrace of its present aesthetic? I know there's this pedantic point that what D&D's own present DMG uses is incorrect against some definitive academic definition you believe is out there. But that's not really the point of the thread. The DMG calls its default mode "high fantasy", OP seems to have wished for more support for the other modes of fantasy (which may or not fit pedantic definitions some scholars may or may not use). That's what this discussion is about. the present mode of D&D and how well it has or could accommodate other modes.
Yes, Vance etc., earlier editions of D&D, powerful magics was something that was more difficult for PCs to access and was more a challenge posed to the PCs. Early D&D. even had Conan and Lankmar modules. I don't think anyone can really dispute that D&D has evolved so that magic or magical abilities are more accessible. But the point isn't arguing how Appendix N expanded or not, or the purpose of Appendix N. It's whether present fans are happy with the current mode of the game ... which honestly is a weird thing to ask on a board supporting players of an edition that's been around for ten years.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You've never read Vance, have you? Why do you think the way magic works in earlier editions of D&D is referred to as the Vancian magic system?
In the Dying Earth novels casters memorize syllables that enable them to cast spells but these are then forgotten and must be relearned. Sound familiar?
You might be surprised by just how much Vance you can read and never come across the 'vancian' magic system, as it only appeared in four of his more than fifty novels.
0e was mostly inspired by Tolkien. 1e had many inspirations. Vance's Dying Sun novels were, indeed, the inspiration for the magic system but a great much more was inspired by Tolkien. They even had to change Hobbits to Halflings over copyright challenges. Tolkien is very much not irrelevant to this discussion.
However, we are talking about High Fantasy vs Sword and Sorcery. Can you please cite a source for your definitions? If you already have, I apologize for having missed it.
My issue with the definitions you are using is that you seem to be equating Sword and Sorcery with Sword and the occasional spell. Gandalf was called a wizard but was really a celestial being. Elrond, though, commanded the river to rise and attack the wraiths all the way from Rivendell. And don't tell me that took a lot of casting time, not when missing the timing would have washed away the Hobbits and Glorfindel, instead. Even in the 3rd Age, there was considerable magic still left in the world, even if the Numenorean wizards seem to have even been slain or have gone down with their island and the remaining Elven casters not being prominent in the story.
If the definition is not a question of what the world is like but what the party is like then the answer is easy. Just declare no full casters allowed in the party.
That ain't at all surprising. I am more than familiar with the fact he wrote science fiction novels and other things outside of his Dying Earth series.
The fact remains that what is commonly referred to as "the Vancian magic system" was inspired by how magic works in those novels. And that this system was at the heart of magic in earlier editions.
What you have done here is just another example of how people here insist on arguing but choose to argue against something that isn't even the point being made. It's infantile.
No. It wasn't. I only had to read that to know you have no idea what you are talking about. Please go and read comprehensive histories of D&D. Like those of Jon Peterson. Instead of just making things up.
Gygax and Arneson both made quite clear over the years they were much more inspired by Moorcock (e.g. the alignment system, the Eye and Hand of Vecna), Vance (e.g. the magic system), Leiber (the introduction and development of the thief and assassin classes), and other S&S authors than they ever were Lord of the Rings.
What inspiration comes from Tolkien? Halflings? A handful of monsters?
You have gone from talking about Conan fighting demons when that had ZERO bearing on any point I have made to now outright making things up.
What they have said over the years could be distancing themselves from copyright claims. AND yes there are other sources of inspiration.
But what about a 'Vancian' system is incompatible with high fantasy and more importantly, what makes such a system better for storytelling?
Edit: And note, casters having attack cantrips does not change the fact the heavy hitting spells are prepared
Shall we talk about Conan fighting demons again?
Every step of the way in this exchange you have resorted to making things up ("0e was mostly inspired by Tolkien.") and irrelevancies (Hercules and those aforementioned demons) and now pure speculation regarding copyright and the literature that mostly inspired Gygax and Arneson. Early D&D so obviously draws inspiration from Leiber and Moorcock and other S&S authors more than it does Lord of the Rings. And let's not forget that the pantheons of both author's works not only appeared in the first printings of Deities and Demigods but those of the latter were also the subject of a copyright infringement suit against TSR. Which is why later printings of Deities and Demigods had to remove them. Along with the Cthulhu Mythos entries. Lovecraft being another major influence on early D&D. Tolkien's works did serve as an inspiration. They are there in APPENDIX N. But more than Howard? Leiber? Moorcock? No. The game is even described as a "swords and sorcery game" in the 1e DMG. All those old Conan and Lankhmar supplements for AD&D went under your radar? You sure you weren't playing MERP? How Law and Chaos operate in Moorcock served as the foundation of the alignment system. But there are orcs and hobbits!
Is the Vancian magic system incompatible with high fantasy? Is it? Answer me this: Would you be okay with removing casters' ability to spam damage every round? Would you go back to using an earlier edition in which magic was rarer but more powerful? Because magic-users had fewer spells. But their effects were often greater. No? Why not? Why would that be? Because the game would no longer have that magic-heavy high fantasy feel to it that it now does?
Would you describe fantasy in which magic is rare but more powerful as high fantasy? I'm genuinely interested in knowing how you feel. Either way Vance's Dying Earth series is not an example of high fantasy.
Whether the Vancian magic system is "better for storytelling" or not is yet another example of how utterly irrelevant your points are to the original point that was made about how earlier editions of the game feel more S&S than high fantasy and how heroic fantasy is most commonly used synonymously with the former.
EDIT: Your own edit is again irrelevant. In earlier editions of the game casters could not shoot magic beams out of their fingertips round after round to spam damage. Which is just one of the reasons why the game then felt more like the literature that overwhelmingly inspired it in its infancy.
Fewer spells does not equal rarer. You seem to be conflating a preference for the former mechanics with the amount of magic actually scene in the world and scope of adventures.
In those earlier editions, casters basically had to be carried the first few levels. If they lived they ended up very powerful but often felt just vulnerable and a bit useless until they did start to really come into their own.
Meanwhile, they still had magic. Magic was just as 'common,' even without cantrips. Any given person in real life may not drive every day. Those who do, likely only drive twice a day. Many take the bus instead of driving and others simply walk. But driving is common. The evening news is once a day and scheduled, but it is commonly watched.
Still waiting on someone to cite actual definitions, ideally with sources. To me, Sword and Sorcery is not 'swords, with occasional magic.' High fantasy, as I understand it, is not an antithesis to Sword and Sorcery but to 'Low Fantasy.' Sword and Sorcery can be high or low fantasy and quite often starts low and ends high as the main character(s) become more established. Not just Harry Potter started off knowing a few spells (and in that setting, people simply know spells and seem to always have them on demand, although some require conditions or components), but even Mickey Mouse as the 'Sorcerer's Apprentice' had a wand (focus) and could cast things. The latter is pretty clearly high fantasy, but the Potter is an interesting mix of Low (scenes set on Earth) and High (scenes set at Hogwarts/Wizarding World). And I am again using examples here to give some idea of where my definitions are, again, to try to find some common ground in terms of understanding of general definitions.
Sword and sorcery isn't about "less" magic but it is about magic being far harder to wield and very mysterious (and usually dangerous far all involved). The original Conan stories, which are considered by many to be the ur-texts for the genre, feature plenty of magic - but the hero never wields it, it's almost always something to be defeated, and it often has infernal connotations. Magical items and effects, though, are rare - you don't have cities with streetlights fueled by spells or artificer works, you don't have shops on every corner selling potions and scrolls, and you don't have every single adventurer wielding some magical ability.
Yeah, I couldn't care less about the True Definition of "high fantasy." What I care about is what DMG pg. 38 says: the default expectation for D&D is Heroic Fantasy, and they go on to describe exactly that means:
- Adventurers begin life as ordinary
- Something impels them to a life of adventuring
- Technology and society are based on medieval norms
- Campaigns will typically involve dungeon-delving for treasure or monster-slaying
Those are the baseline assumptions of D&D. You are free to deviate from those if you want, but you shouldn't expect the books to do much to help you.