It's not possible to provide a reason for why it's 'ultimately better' given that is purely subjective.
Of course it's subjective. I'm still allowed to say it's better. I don't have to preface every one of my opinions with "in my opinion," you can mentally insert that yourself from the context when you read it.
(Though we do in fact have an objective measure of success - adoption of the current edition's mechanics - which unfortunately tends to get wrath of mod when brought into non-sales threads so I'll leave it there.)
The problem is that most of what made D&D special and unique as well as the reasons for things existing, have been slowly stripped away with each iteration of the game, to such a degree that most of what existed with purpose now exists as a stand-in.
For example 5e 2024 edition still uses 3d6 (3 to 18) for its attribute score, but there is absolutely no logical or mechanical reason left in the current edition that explains why. It's a stand-in mechanical structure that literally serves no purpose anymore. All the reasons why this was created and existed in the game have been stripped away a long time ago. Its almost like the game wants to hold on to its past, but it no longer understands its past and its this silly notion that as long as we have 3-18 its still D&D, when the reality is that D&D stopped being D&D a very long time ago and these old sacred cows are left in because removing them means admitting that fact.
Its the same with Vancian magic, the way it works today in 5e quite literally no longer has a point it, it no longer serves any purposes or has any narrative connection why it was created and what it was for. Its just an old sacred cow left in because removing it would mean that the game is no longer D&D, which again, is something that already happened long ago.
It is the strangest phenomenon about D&D where modern gaming rejects its past passionately, yet it insists that the very pieces that once defined that past, that once served a purpose (which it hates) remain in the game for posterity. Modern gaming has taken concepts like Vancian magic, stripped it of any recognizable purpose or reason for existing, yet continues to use this bizarre and completely unnecessary stripped-down version of it.
Why? Why not just redesign it for modern audiences?
Boy howdy did you lose me hard at this part after such a solid opener, though considering your username I really shouldn't have been surprised at your preferences 😛 just some quick counterpoints:
D&D is still special and unique even without AD&D Vancian casting, and the 5e iteration does still serve a purpose. It still fulfills both primary goals of old vancian - rewarding players for recon/preparation/system mastery, and still being easy to check off spell slots in a purely paper medium without fiddly MP or other tracking methods - while simultaneously being much more accessible to inexperienced players, neurodivergent ones who could get overwhelmed by choice, etc. It's a lot less punishing if you get your preparations wrong because there are fewer points of failure (e.g. in terms of quantity of spells.)
Rolling 3d6 for stats - or rather, 4d6kh3 as the PHB states - still serves a purpose. It creates a bell curve for stats that's weighted to the high end, which still allows for randomness in stat generation for the tables that enjoy that, but ends up with someone who has above-average capabilities - you know, the makings of a hero. If you want to prioritize consistency/balance/fairness over randomness, there are two other stat generation methods in the PHB you can use instead.
It was redesigned for modern audiences - that's where things like Point Buy and spontaneous casting came from, plus the various recovery powers and alternate resources (e.g. Arcane Recovery and Channel Divinity.). Leaving in rolling for stats and prepared casting alongside those is not a bad thing, options are good.
Boy howdy did you lose me hard at this part after such a solid opener, though considering your username I really shouldn't have been surprised at your preferences 😛 just some quick counterpoints:
D&D is still special and unique even without AD&D Vancian casting, and the 5e iteration does still serve a purpose. It still fulfills both primary goals of old vancian - rewarding players for recon/preparation/system mastery, and still being easy to check off spell slots in a purely paper medium without fiddly MP or other tracking methods - while simultaneously being much more accessible to inexperienced players, neurodivergent ones who could get overwhelmed by choice, etc. It's a lot less punishing if you get your preparations wrong because there are fewer points of failure (e.g. in terms of quantity of spells.)
Rolling 3d6 for stats - or rather, 4d6kh3 as the PHB states - still serves a purpose. It creates a bell curve for stats that's weighted to the high end, which still allows for randomness in stat generation for the tables that enjoy that, but ends up with someone who has above-average capabilities - you know, the makings of a hero. If you want to prioritize consistency/balance/fairness over randomness, there are two other stat generation methods in the PHB you can use instead.
It was redesigned for modern audiences - that's where things like Point Buy and spontaneous casting came from, plus the various recovery powers and alternate resources (e.g. Arcane Recovery and Channel Divinity.). Leaving in rolling for stats and prepared casting alongside those is not a bad thing, options are good.
See, here is the thing, and honestly, I'm not picking on you, just trying to make a point here. Everything you said is true, but the issue is that you don't see a problem in it, and that IS the problem.
Take for example, the second part about ability Scores. What you say is true, except for one important piece. Why? Why does D&D 5e use 4d6 to come up with a 3-18 for ability scores? It doesn't use those numbers for anything at all in any part of the game, either narratively or mechanically. Quite literally, the only purpose 3-18 serves is to look on a chart to figure out your ability score modifier.. That's it. So why does 5e still have these ability scores?
In AD&D, these scores mattered; they were a broad part of the core game mechanic. Everything from the narrative definition of what it meant to be a 9 or a 16, to limitations and requirements for classes and races, as well as for ability score checks using the actual ability score, not the modifier. They were altered by the age of your character, it limited what sorts of gear you could have, how many followers you could have or how much power you could attain. All sorts of stuff. Each of those mechanics existed as a link to the pulp fantasy narratives, essentially a design driven with purpose. None of that exists anymore in 5e anymore. These scores serve no purpose but they're still in there. Why?
Same goes for Vancian magic. It no longer serves the narrative design purpose for which it was added to AD&D, as was pointed out, no one knows or cares about the books in appendix N. anymore, there is no longer any narrative inspiration or link to pulp fantasy in modern D&D so why is it still using some watered down version of Vancian magic? Because it's streamlined? Really? That's the reason? A mechanic exists because it's easy execute? Is that really the design goal for modern D&D?
See this is the point I'm trying to make. Take any RPG, doesn't even have to be AD&D, take Blades in the Dark for example. Every mechanic in Blades in the Dark is put there for a purpose, created to illicit the narrative atmosphere and style of the game. This is true of almost any RPG design out there. You build mechanics to depict what the game is about.
5e doesn't do that at all. It's essentially a generic fantasy that grabs every random trope from every sort of fantasy ever conceived, thrown into a single directionless game with mechanics that exist for the soul purpose of being "easy" to execute. Its literally a game about nothing and the few classic links it has to mechanics from the past that once had a purpose it still uses, but with the purpose completely removed. You use the terminology and mimic the execution, but its not designed because of or for a reason, its just there because it's kind of familiar and "streamlined" for execution.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say. D&D is a mechanic that exists for the purpose of executing a mechanic because "thats fun"? To which I can only say.. if you say so, but to me, it's completely soulless. It doesn't illicit anything, it's not about anything, its not based on anything in particular. It goes through the motions, uses familiar terminology and art, but it's quite literally a game about nothing. The fact that it's streamlined for modern audiences makes it easier to sell a book for 60 bucks, but personally, I don't get it.
Take for example, the second part about ability Scores. What you say is true, except for one important piece. Why? Why does D&D 5e use 4d6 to come up with a 3-18 for ability scores? It doesn't use those numbers for anything at all in any part of the game, either narratively or mechanically.
Why did AD&D use 4d6 to come up with 3-18 for ability scores, when there was no meaningful difference between a stat of 8 and a stat of 14?
Take for example, the second part about ability Scores. What you say is true, except for one important piece. Why? Why does D&D 5e use 4d6 to come up with a 3-18 for ability scores? It doesn't use those numbers for anything at all in any part of the game, either narratively or mechanically.
Why did AD&D use 4d6 to come up with 3-18 for ability scores, when there was no meaningful difference between a stat of 8 and a stat of 14?
There was a huge difference. It could mean the difference between qualifying for a race or class or not. It affects the maximum level of spell you could cast, how many henchmen you could have, and our chances to recover from being raised from the dead, what equipment you could use.. Hell just the basic ability score check, its the difference between rolling a 14 or less or a 8 or less.
The impact was considerable even just between a 9 and 10 in most cases. Ability scores were used in so many mechanics.
The vast majority of players do not look to the system for narrative design or purpose. That is brought to the table by the DM and, to a lesser extent, the players. The system is simply the framework over which we lay our narrative and the system is D&D as long the people publishing it say it is.
To make an analogy, I love the band GWAR. I have been a GWAR fan from the first album released in 1988–almost as long as I have played D&D. One interesting thing about GWAR is that the members all wear costumes and have stage names. Over the years, there have been six different musicians portraying Flattus Maximus—lead guitar—and five different portraying Beefcake the Mighty—bass guitar. They each brought their own vibes to the positions. You can definitely tell there is a difference between the albums depending on who the members are but absolutely everything they release is GWAR—they are the band and they are the ones who decide what GWAR is and is not. I don’t get to decide the albums with Corey Smoot playing lead are not GWAR because they are quite different from the releases that come before and after his tenure, all I can say is whether it is the GWAR I like or not. Nor do I get to go around telling anyone who does like Corey Smoot’s playing and influence on the music that they don’t know and love the band like the real fans do.
It is all D&D. Whether or not you like it, it is all D&D because the people who make the system say it is. No matter how much the mechanics change. No matter what dice we roll. And most definitely regardless of anything to do with Vancian magic.
Everything from the narrative definition of what it meant to be a 9 or a 16
Still there, right in the PHB.
to limitations and requirements for classes and races
Still there for multiclassing.
it limited what sorts of gear you could have
Still there (carrying capacity, Heavy weapons...), albeit streamlined.
It's essentially a generic fantasy that grabs every random trope from every sort of fantasy ever conceived, thrown into a single directionless game with mechanics that exist for the soul purpose of being "easy" to execute. Its literally a game about nothing and the few classic links it has to mechanics from the past that once had a purpose it still uses, but with the purpose completely removed.
I'll assume you're speaking for yourself here.
Personally, I think D&D (yes, even 5e and 5.24) is incredibly specific in it's "direction." It's quite ideosyncratic. It would make a terrible "generic" system, but it sure does run "D&D," which is a very established brand.
That's the thing: D&D is a brand, and most of those historical and sacred cows in the systems exist for brand identity. The reason they don't remove them is because too many purists would complain that "it's not D&D anymore!" though, these days, its market has gotten big enough that its popularity could probably survive more changes. (Thus all the folks complaining about being left behind by the changes that have been happening in the last 5 years.) If D&D has no identity, then why did so many grognards complain about 4e changing the identity?
And no other game does what D&D does. Yes, I understand that "what it does" exactly has changed over time (predominantly in the shift from AD&D to 3e, which corresponded to WOTC acquiring it), but each and every version has a very distinct identity and feel.
Personally, I think D&D (yes, even 5e and 5.24) is incredibly specific in it's "direction."
I'll bite, what is the direction of 5e and 5.24? What is the design goal besides buzz words like "streamlined". What inspiration or specific direction does the game take?
Personally, I think D&D (yes, even 5e and 5.24) is incredibly specific in it's "direction."
I'll bite, what is the direction of 5e and 5.24? What is the design goal besides buzz words like "streamlined". What inspiration or specific direction does the game take?
I could cop out here and label it "D&D game" or "dungeon fantasy," which is what other game companies commonly do. It's a very recognizable style and genre of game.
But D&D itself, these days, calls itself "heroic fantasy" --- "Heroic fantasy features adventurers bringing magic to bear against monstrous threats—the default subgenre presented in the core D&D rulebooks" in the latest DMG, for example.
Now, in the literary world, "heroic fantasy" is usually considered a synonym for "sword and sorcery," which usually has a much more limited definition than the one the DMG uses. So it's not the best label.
Anyway, I might summarize as "magical heroic fantasy enmeshed in the systematic tropes of D&D" which is just circular enough to make one point while not excluding the other.
Personally, I could do without the systematic tropes (classes, races, alignment, levels, d20s...) but sometimes really enjoy a magical heroic dungeon crawl or whatever.
...
EDIT: actually, to bring this back on-topic...if I were to play a dungeon fantasy sort of game without those systematic tropes (especially without classes), I think a vancian or psuedo-vancian magic system could be perfectly servicable. Pure vancian, in particular, could treat plot-specific spells as macguffins, for example.
Stepping in a little bit just to cut off any edition warring. It makes perfect sense to discuss how 'Vancian magic' has changed with the editions, and it's influences, along with discussing preferences related to such, but best to avoid speaking about editions as a whole or simply focusing on what we don't like about an edition (especially if unrelated). A lot more fun and interesting to speak on what we love and why.
Boy howdy did you lose me hard at this part after such a solid opener, though considering your username I really shouldn't have been surprised at your preferences 😛 just some quick counterpoints:
D&D is still special and unique even without AD&D Vancian casting, and the 5e iteration does still serve a purpose. It still fulfills both primary goals of old vancian - rewarding players for recon/preparation/system mastery, and still being easy to check off spell slots in a purely paper medium without fiddly MP or other tracking methods - while simultaneously being much more accessible to inexperienced players, neurodivergent ones who could get overwhelmed by choice, etc. It's a lot less punishing if you get your preparations wrong because there are fewer points of failure (e.g. in terms of quantity of spells.)
Rolling 3d6 for stats - or rather, 4d6kh3 as the PHB states - still serves a purpose. It creates a bell curve for stats that's weighted to the high end, which still allows for randomness in stat generation for the tables that enjoy that, but ends up with someone who has above-average capabilities - you know, the makings of a hero. If you want to prioritize consistency/balance/fairness over randomness, there are two other stat generation methods in the PHB you can use instead.
It was redesigned for modern audiences - that's where things like Point Buy and spontaneous casting came from, plus the various recovery powers and alternate resources (e.g. Arcane Recovery and Channel Divinity.). Leaving in rolling for stats and prepared casting alongside those is not a bad thing, options are good.
See, here is the thing, and honestly, I'm not picking on you, just trying to make a point here. Everything you said is true, but the issue is that you don't see a problem in it, and that IS the problem.
Take for example, the second part about ability Scores. What you say is true, except for one important piece. Why? Why does D&D 5e use 4d6 to come up with a 3-18 for ability scores? It doesn't use those numbers for anything at all in any part of the game, either narratively or mechanically. Quite literally, the only purpose 3-18 serves is to look on a chart to figure out your ability score modifier.. That's it. So why does 5e still have these ability scores?
In AD&D, these scores mattered; they were a broad part of the core game mechanic. Everything from the narrative definition of what it meant to be a 9 or a 16, to limitations and requirements for classes and races, as well as for ability score checks using the actual ability score, not the modifier. They were altered by the age of your character, it limited what sorts of gear you could have, how many followers you could have or how much power you could attain. All sorts of stuff. Each of those mechanics existed as a link to the pulp fantasy narratives, essentially a design driven with purpose. None of that exists anymore in 5e anymore. These scores serve no purpose but they're still in there. Why?
Same goes for Vancian magic. It no longer serves the narrative design purpose for which it was added to AD&D, as was pointed out, no one knows or cares about the books in appendix N. anymore, there is no longer any narrative inspiration or link to pulp fantasy in modern D&D so why is it still using some watered down version of Vancian magic? Because it's streamlined? Really? That's the reason? A mechanic exists because it's easy execute? Is that really the design goal for modern D&D?
See this is the point I'm trying to make. Take any RPG, doesn't even have to be AD&D, take Blades in the Dark for example. Every mechanic in Blades in the Dark is put there for a purpose, created to illicit the narrative atmosphere and style of the game. This is true of almost any RPG design out there. You build mechanics to depict what the game is about.
5e doesn't do that at all. It's essentially a generic fantasy that grabs every random trope from every sort of fantasy ever conceived, thrown into a single directionless game with mechanics that exist for the soul purpose of being "easy" to execute. Its literally a game about nothing and the few classic links it has to mechanics from the past that once had a purpose it still uses, but with the purpose completely removed. You use the terminology and mimic the execution, but its not designed because of or for a reason, its just there because it's kind of familiar and "streamlined" for execution.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say. D&D is a mechanic that exists for the purpose of executing a mechanic because "thats fun"? To which I can only say.. if you say so, but to me, it's completely soulless. It doesn't illicit anything, it's not about anything, its not based on anything in particular. It goes through the motions, uses familiar terminology and art, but it's quite literally a game about nothing. The fact that it's streamlined for modern audiences makes it easier to sell a book for 60 bucks, but personally, I don't get it.
The ability scores do serve quite a few purposes: multiclassing restriction, heavy weapons, heavy armor, feat restrictions, and not to mention increasing it rather than the modifier allows more granular ASIs. There isn't really a reason why 4d6 take top 3 is used over other rolls, other than the numbers working out well. This is even the standard in pathfinder.
TBH, I had never heard of Vancian Magic before reading this thread, but the current system has many advantages. With a mana system, you can't afford to really cast low level spells most of the time, as that reduces the amount of high level spells you can cast. The spell slot system lets you use low level slots without worry over reducing combat abilities.
Personally, I think D&D (yes, even 5e and 5.24) is incredibly specific in it's "direction."
I'll bite, what is the direction of 5e and 5.24? What is the design goal besides buzz words like "streamlined". What inspiration or specific direction does the game take?
Heroic Fantasy, I.e. fantasy superheroes (comparing the PCs to the average inhabitant of the world.) And the modern approach to Vancian supports that objective, because it rewards preparation while minimizing the chances that a spellcaster will have plenty of resources left for the day but still feel useless / unable to contribute because they prepared too many of the wrong things, or too few of the right things, or otherwise got punished for their OOC lack of knowledge.
Note that superheroes can still fail, or die, or be put in danger. But as a DM, it's your job to challenge the players - not for them to fight against their own abilities to be able to contribute.
Of course it's subjective. I'm still allowed to say it's better. I don't have to preface every one of my opinions with "in my opinion," you can mentally insert that yourself from the context when you read it.
You literally stated before that you were 'not' stating opinions when I said people were either making false claims or just stating opinions: "None of those opinions came from me." Now you are admitting to having stated what is an opinion. But I am supposed to believe you are engaging in good faith ...
You probably aren't going to believe it. But they were, or at least they weren't good at that point. (And, AFAIK, neither of them produced any particularly interesting designs afterward.)
Your subjective opinion that something constitutes 'bad game design' doesn't make it so. Many are the criticisms leveled at 5E. Even from Mearls—someone who worked on it! I think it is terrible game design in more than one aspect. Lazy game design even. But you dismiss such criticisms because it's your plaything of choice. And that's your right.
But don't think for a second yours leveled at AD&D or classic basic are going to be taken seriously either.
You have gone from pretending you get to make the rules for what a magic system requires despite the reality many games have magic systems that fall outside of your criteria to understating Vance's importance as a F and SF author. To then moving the goalposts and saying it's just how magic works in the DE series that has had no real influence. To now just rushing to personal opinion because you have no real argument to be made against the Vancian magic system. You could have shared your thoughts on it but you can't help but try to make things descend into needless edition wars.
We have been warned not to get into needless 'edition wars.'
We should stay on topic. Which is what 'Vancian magic' means. Not let's just argue about what rules are 'better.'
The idea that the game as it is now has no spirit, passion, setting or inspiration is also merely an opinion.
It is a matter of opinion. But if others are going to trash older editions because they want to get into 'edition wars' instead of just talking about what Vancian magic means like the original post asked surely they can learn to take as well as give?
Take for example, the second part about ability Scores. What you say is true, except for one important piece. Why? Why does D&D 5e use 4d6 to come up with a 3-18 for ability scores? It doesn't use those numbers for anything at all in any part of the game, either narratively or mechanically.
Why did AD&D use 4d6 to come up with 3-18 for ability scores, when there was no meaningful difference between a stat of 8 and a stat of 14?
There were meaningful differences. Just because an 8 meant a -1 and a 14 + 1 and you personally believe that's only marginally different doesn't mean that was the only role ability scores played. Not in an edition in which far more restrictions were in place about what could be used or worn or done if a character did not have a minimum of something in an ability score. The smaller margins by which bonuses or penalties increased or decreased respectively wasn't so much the point. Because more were the rules in what I would describe as a more integrated system in which actual ability scores played more of a role. Now it's just about getting that higher bonus! The ability score numbers themselves are quite meaningless. This is why some hacks of 5E do away with them altogether and you just use the smaller number!
It's a bit like asking what was the point of Alignment. When it too played more a role.
The vast majority of players do not look to the system for narrative design or purpose. That is brought to the table by the DM and, to a lesser extent, the players. The system is simply the framework over which we lay our narrative and the system is D&D as long the people publishing it say it is.
Look at the games that are most receiving accolades for innovative design in tabletop role-playing.
They are games with a clear goal in mind. Games with stellar world building. Games like Dune: Adventures In The Imperium. Based on Herbert. Cloud Empress. Inspired as it is by Miyazaki's Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind.
Because to achieve the design of a game capable of emulating such things takes considerable talent.
That's not to say it takes 'none' to design something generic but that is what games like BRP and GURPS are for.
D&D used to have a real sense of itself. Magic felt occult. The game felt like the fiction that had inspired it. In an effort to be the game that does everything it no longer even feels like a fantasy adventure game to me. When I meet people who have never played D&D who want to try D&D because they watched Stranger Things or Freaks & Geeks I show them an older edition when the game really felt like that.
Ok, after pages and pages of discussion. I will reveal how i view it. It isn't simple, so apologies in advance. i also mention these, because they can be adapted or wiggled in flavor wise into 5E, but can take serious massaging to make work with the current D&D Magic system and design philosophy. Have seen all of the approaches tried in D&D, some with obnoxious results.
Full-Vancian: Both Fire and Forget, and structured specific functions. Like magic Grenades, you prepare a spell that does what it is going to do. You use the spell, it does what it is programmed to do, then it is gone. Venneer of mystery to magic, but it is still very systematized and mechanical. This is like the older editions, and some classes in Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Have also seen this in homebrew 5E as one time use items like Alchemical grenades.
Half-vancian: Fixed function spells that are defined. Instead of fire and forget, the spells are more like machines that perform a function, and you provide power/fuel/ammo to them. This is where i would put 5E's magic system, where it does what it says in the text, but can have wiggle room if the DM allows. Spells have fixed functions and damage areas, only going up in damage with Upcasting, or increasing in a very specified way. Also how most magic in video games function.
Vancian lite: Has a vancian underlying concept that comes up now and then. I would say something like Dungeon Crawl Classics, where you cast the spell with a roll, and only ever lose the spell when you fumble it, and then it becomes unusable until the next day. There aren't spell slots, your Dice and modifiers determine your power. A higher roll means you get to pick a more potent expression of the same spell. A simple magic Missile becomes a near orbital bombardment when you start roll in the 30s. Another example is the Game "Noita" where spells with fixed functions can be chained and modified together to become insanely powerful, and only unpredictable if not thought through. Similar arguments for the magic system in "Magicka."
Pseudo-Vancian: " Its a VIBE" The concept is evolving and need not Fit the previous Criteria' Has some minor Trappings of Vancian magic while not functioning like the classic examples. Stuff like Magic in Discworld. Where the magic is alive in a sense, and has things like spells taking up mental space, but performing in ways that are not so predictable, or even systemically coherent. Witchs and wizards have different abilities and philosophies, despite using the same magic. Wizards are like Physicists that can make all your cabbages explode, where witches can repel sunlight by staring at the lightrays and making them shy away, but also use a lot of psychology and mind tricks in order to cure aliments. ( Like telling someone with bad posture to stand straight or lay straight against a tree or board so the wood absorbs the knots, when they are really just correcting their posture, or massaging the muscles as part of the examination. ) Wizards also might loose their magic if they fall in love, but then again, they might not, cause both happen in different books. Wizard magic is also supposedly accessible to men only, but then it will just go ahead and empower a little girl because it felt like it, and it does not care about your preconceptions.
Not Vancian at all: Completely separated from Jack Vance's Dying Earth style. This would be more free form magic systems that might not translate into a game as well. Examples include Wheel of Time's Channeling, Many superhero type magicians like Zatana, Wanda Maximoff and Psykers from 40K. The rules are more loose, or narrative in focus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
D&D used to have a real sense of itself. Magic felt occult. The game felt like the fiction that had inspired it.
I'm sorry, but no. The magic system does a terrible job of emulating the fiction that is the most obvious source of inspiration for the game (which is not Jack Vance. It's Tolkien).
The actual origin of the magic system in D&D is the fantasy supplement to the Chainmail board game. Which didn't even use Vancian magic (wizards had a limited number of spells they could cast, but did not have to choose ahead of time what those spells were). The named influences in the Chainmail board game are Tolkien and Robert E Howard.
The vast majority of players do not look to the system for narrative design or purpose. That is brought to the table by the DM and, to a lesser extent, the players. The system is simply the framework over which we lay our narrative and the system is D&D as long the people publishing it say it is.
Look at the games that are most receiving accolades for innovative design in tabletop role-playing.
They are games with a clear goal in mind. Games with stellar world building. Games like Dune: Adventures In The Imperium. Based on Herbert. Cloud Empress. Inspired as it is by Miyazaki's Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind.
Because to achieve the design of a game capable of emulating such things takes considerable talent.
That's not to say it takes 'none' to design something generic but that is what games like BRP and GURPS are for.
D&D used to have a real sense of itself. Magic felt occult. The game felt like the fiction that had inspired it. In an effort to be the game that does everything it no longer even feels like a fantasy adventure game to me. When I meet people who have never played D&D who want to try D&D because they watched Stranger Things or Freaks & Geeks I show them an older edition when the game really felt like that.
It’s rich to cry about others playing at edition wars when it is you who can’t respect that scads and scads of people hold no reverence for Vance while thoroughly enjoying D&D. If your game feels soulless, it’s prolly time to look in the mirror. It is definitely not a call to tell others how they’ve ruined the game for you or that they don’t really know what they’re doing. At no time have I ever feel like a certain edition was more D&D than another edition. At no time did magic feel more occult than it does now. Never has the game lost its sense of self in my estimation. (Though I do admit that I never played 4e at all; I skipped right from 3.x/PF1 into 5e)
So what does Vancian magic mean to me? Back in the day, it was awful and clumsy and the progenitor to a bunch of silly ways to balance the game that didn’t actually work so playing a wizard felt useless at low levels and ridiculously OP at high levels. We didn’t know any better at the time; there were not a lot of alternatives to explore. These days, it flies under the radar except when it is the whip used by some to flagellate the others they wish to separate themselves from and feel superior to. It is a relic of the past that some people cling to but that does not make it required material for a game to qualify as D&D any more than THAC0, saving throws against rods, staves and wands, referring to some chart or other to adjudicate a situation, or any of the many other defunct rules from past editions are.
It might be helpful to decide if you want D&D to be innovative or if you want it to be the tried and true, staid old product that is basically the backbone of the TTRPG industry. What is innovative about including a 50 year old system like Vancian magic? That is the opposite of innovation. Not only that but I contend that people who choose D&D are not striving for innovation in the first place. They choose D&D because it is the most commonly played system with the largest audience that garners the best chance of finding a group, not because it’s revolutionary. Everyone knows D&D is the vanilla ice cream of roleplaying games so why are you acting like it’s not D&D because there’s no vegan ube gelato on the menu while simultaneously excoriating us for not truly appreciating vanilla? Choose a lane.
You literally stated before that you were 'not' stating opinions when I said people were either making false claims or just stating opinions: "None of those opinions came from me." Now you are admitting to having stated what is an opinion. But I am supposed to believe you are engaging in good faith ...
None of the opinions/"false claims" you listed (Vancian not being based on the Dying Earth novels, no thought going into its selection for D&D's magic system, Vance being an insignificant author) came from me. That's what I was saying. Your attempt at a "gotcha" is summarily rejected.
Your subjective opinion that something constitutes 'bad game design' doesn't make it so. Many are the criticisms leveled at 5E. Even from Mearls—someone who worked on it! I think it is terrible game design in more than one aspect. Lazy game design even. But you dismiss such criticisms because it's your plaything of choice. And that's your right.
But don't think for a second yours leveled at AD&D or classic basic are going to be taken seriously either.
It's not that Vancian is bad design in a vacuum, it's bad for what 5e wants to be (Heroic Fantasy, as I stated, not to mention an on-ramp to the TTRPG hobby for newcomers more generally.) A magic system that punishes spellcaster players, sometimes harshly, for lacking knowledge both of what their own spells do and what might be coming their way the next adventuring day does not align with those two goals for 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Of course it's subjective. I'm still allowed to say it's better. I don't have to preface every one of my opinions with "in my opinion," you can mentally insert that yourself from the context when you read it.
(Though we do in fact have an objective measure of success - adoption of the current edition's mechanics - which unfortunately tends to get wrath of mod when brought into non-sales threads so I'll leave it there.)
Boy howdy did you lose me hard at this part after such a solid opener, though considering your username I really shouldn't have been surprised at your preferences 😛 just some quick counterpoints:
See, here is the thing, and honestly, I'm not picking on you, just trying to make a point here. Everything you said is true, but the issue is that you don't see a problem in it, and that IS the problem.
Take for example, the second part about ability Scores. What you say is true, except for one important piece. Why? Why does D&D 5e use 4d6 to come up with a 3-18 for ability scores? It doesn't use those numbers for anything at all in any part of the game, either narratively or mechanically. Quite literally, the only purpose 3-18 serves is to look on a chart to figure out your ability score modifier.. That's it. So why does 5e still have these ability scores?
In AD&D, these scores mattered; they were a broad part of the core game mechanic. Everything from the narrative definition of what it meant to be a 9 or a 16, to limitations and requirements for classes and races, as well as for ability score checks using the actual ability score, not the modifier. They were altered by the age of your character, it limited what sorts of gear you could have, how many followers you could have or how much power you could attain. All sorts of stuff. Each of those mechanics existed as a link to the pulp fantasy narratives, essentially a design driven with purpose. None of that exists anymore in 5e anymore. These scores serve no purpose but they're still in there. Why?
Same goes for Vancian magic. It no longer serves the narrative design purpose for which it was added to AD&D, as was pointed out, no one knows or cares about the books in appendix N. anymore, there is no longer any narrative inspiration or link to pulp fantasy in modern D&D so why is it still using some watered down version of Vancian magic? Because it's streamlined? Really? That's the reason? A mechanic exists because it's easy execute? Is that really the design goal for modern D&D?
See this is the point I'm trying to make. Take any RPG, doesn't even have to be AD&D, take Blades in the Dark for example. Every mechanic in Blades in the Dark is put there for a purpose, created to illicit the narrative atmosphere and style of the game. This is true of almost any RPG design out there. You build mechanics to depict what the game is about.
5e doesn't do that at all. It's essentially a generic fantasy that grabs every random trope from every sort of fantasy ever conceived, thrown into a single directionless game with mechanics that exist for the soul purpose of being "easy" to execute. Its literally a game about nothing and the few classic links it has to mechanics from the past that once had a purpose it still uses, but with the purpose completely removed. You use the terminology and mimic the execution, but its not designed because of or for a reason, its just there because it's kind of familiar and "streamlined" for execution.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say. D&D is a mechanic that exists for the purpose of executing a mechanic because "thats fun"? To which I can only say.. if you say so, but to me, it's completely soulless. It doesn't illicit anything, it's not about anything, its not based on anything in particular. It goes through the motions, uses familiar terminology and art, but it's quite literally a game about nothing. The fact that it's streamlined for modern audiences makes it easier to sell a book for 60 bucks, but personally, I don't get it.
Why did AD&D use 4d6 to come up with 3-18 for ability scores, when there was no meaningful difference between a stat of 8 and a stat of 14?
There was a huge difference. It could mean the difference between qualifying for a race or class or not. It affects the maximum level of spell you could cast, how many henchmen you could have, and our chances to recover from being raised from the dead, what equipment you could use.. Hell just the basic ability score check, its the difference between rolling a 14 or less or a 8 or less.
The impact was considerable even just between a 9 and 10 in most cases. Ability scores were used in so many mechanics.
The vast majority of players do not look to the system for narrative design or purpose. That is brought to the table by the DM and, to a lesser extent, the players. The system is simply the framework over which we lay our narrative and the system is D&D as long the people publishing it say it is.
To make an analogy, I love the band GWAR. I have been a GWAR fan from the first album released in 1988–almost as long as I have played D&D. One interesting thing about GWAR is that the members all wear costumes and have stage names. Over the years, there have been six different musicians portraying Flattus Maximus—lead guitar—and five different portraying Beefcake the Mighty—bass guitar. They each brought their own vibes to the positions. You can definitely tell there is a difference between the albums depending on who the members are but absolutely everything they release is GWAR—they are the band and they are the ones who decide what GWAR is and is not. I don’t get to decide the albums with Corey Smoot playing lead are not GWAR because they are quite different from the releases that come before and after his tenure, all I can say is whether it is the GWAR I like or not. Nor do I get to go around telling anyone who does like Corey Smoot’s playing and influence on the music that they don’t know and love the band like the real fans do.
It is all D&D. Whether or not you like it, it is all D&D because the people who make the system say it is. No matter how much the mechanics change. No matter what dice we roll. And most definitely regardless of anything to do with Vancian magic.
Still there, right in the PHB.
Still there for multiclassing.
Still there (carrying capacity, Heavy weapons...), albeit streamlined.
I'll assume you're speaking for yourself here.
Personally, I think D&D (yes, even 5e and 5.24) is incredibly specific in it's "direction." It's quite ideosyncratic. It would make a terrible "generic" system, but it sure does run "D&D," which is a very established brand.
That's the thing: D&D is a brand, and most of those historical and sacred cows in the systems exist for brand identity. The reason they don't remove them is because too many purists would complain that "it's not D&D anymore!" though, these days, its market has gotten big enough that its popularity could probably survive more changes. (Thus all the folks complaining about being left behind by the changes that have been happening in the last 5 years.) If D&D has no identity, then why did so many grognards complain about 4e changing the identity?
And no other game does what D&D does. Yes, I understand that "what it does" exactly has changed over time (predominantly in the shift from AD&D to 3e, which corresponded to WOTC acquiring it), but each and every version has a very distinct identity and feel.
I'll bite, what is the direction of 5e and 5.24? What is the design goal besides buzz words like "streamlined". What inspiration or specific direction does the game take?
I could cop out here and label it "D&D game" or "dungeon fantasy," which is what other game companies commonly do. It's a very recognizable style and genre of game.
But D&D itself, these days, calls itself "heroic fantasy" --- "Heroic fantasy features adventurers bringing magic to bear against monstrous threats—the default subgenre presented in the core D&D rulebooks" in the latest DMG, for example.
Now, in the literary world, "heroic fantasy" is usually considered a synonym for "sword and sorcery," which usually has a much more limited definition than the one the DMG uses. So it's not the best label.
Anyway, I might summarize as "magical heroic fantasy enmeshed in the systematic tropes of D&D" which is just circular enough to make one point while not excluding the other.
Personally, I could do without the systematic tropes (classes, races, alignment, levels, d20s...) but sometimes really enjoy a magical heroic dungeon crawl or whatever.
...
EDIT: actually, to bring this back on-topic...if I were to play a dungeon fantasy sort of game without those systematic tropes (especially without classes), I think a vancian or psuedo-vancian magic system could be perfectly servicable. Pure vancian, in particular, could treat plot-specific spells as macguffins, for example.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorStepping in a little bit just to cut off any edition warring. It makes perfect sense to discuss how 'Vancian magic' has changed with the editions, and it's influences, along with discussing preferences related to such, but best to avoid speaking about editions as a whole or simply focusing on what we don't like about an edition (especially if unrelated). A lot more fun and interesting to speak on what we love and why.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
The ability scores do serve quite a few purposes: multiclassing restriction, heavy weapons, heavy armor, feat restrictions, and not to mention increasing it rather than the modifier allows more granular ASIs. There isn't really a reason why 4d6 take top 3 is used over other rolls, other than the numbers working out well. This is even the standard in pathfinder.
TBH, I had never heard of Vancian Magic before reading this thread, but the current system has many advantages. With a mana system, you can't afford to really cast low level spells most of the time, as that reduces the amount of high level spells you can cast. The spell slot system lets you use low level slots without worry over reducing combat abilities.
Heroic Fantasy, I.e. fantasy superheroes (comparing the PCs to the average inhabitant of the world.) And the modern approach to Vancian supports that objective, because it rewards preparation while minimizing the chances that a spellcaster will have plenty of resources left for the day but still feel useless / unable to contribute because they prepared too many of the wrong things, or too few of the right things, or otherwise got punished for their OOC lack of knowledge.
Note that superheroes can still fail, or die, or be put in danger. But as a DM, it's your job to challenge the players - not for them to fight against their own abilities to be able to contribute.
You literally stated before that you were 'not' stating opinions when I said people were either making false claims or just stating opinions: "None of those opinions came from me." Now you are admitting to having stated what is an opinion. But I am supposed to believe you are engaging in good faith ...
Your subjective opinion that something constitutes 'bad game design' doesn't make it so. Many are the criticisms leveled at 5E. Even from Mearls—someone who worked on it! I think it is terrible game design in more than one aspect. Lazy game design even. But you dismiss such criticisms because it's your plaything of choice. And that's your right.
But don't think for a second yours leveled at AD&D or classic basic are going to be taken seriously either.
You have gone from pretending you get to make the rules for what a magic system requires despite the reality many games have magic systems that fall outside of your criteria to understating Vance's importance as a F and SF author. To then moving the goalposts and saying it's just how magic works in the DE series that has had no real influence. To now just rushing to personal opinion because you have no real argument to be made against the Vancian magic system. You could have shared your thoughts on it but you can't help but try to make things descend into needless edition wars.
We have been warned not to get into needless 'edition wars.'
We should stay on topic. Which is what 'Vancian magic' means. Not let's just argue about what rules are 'better.'
It is a matter of opinion. But if others are going to trash older editions because they want to get into 'edition wars' instead of just talking about what Vancian magic means like the original post asked surely they can learn to take as well as give?
There were meaningful differences. Just because an 8 meant a -1 and a 14 + 1 and you personally believe that's only marginally different doesn't mean that was the only role ability scores played. Not in an edition in which far more restrictions were in place about what could be used or worn or done if a character did not have a minimum of something in an ability score. The smaller margins by which bonuses or penalties increased or decreased respectively wasn't so much the point. Because more were the rules in what I would describe as a more integrated system in which actual ability scores played more of a role. Now it's just about getting that higher bonus! The ability score numbers themselves are quite meaningless. This is why some hacks of 5E do away with them altogether and you just use the smaller number!
It's a bit like asking what was the point of Alignment. When it too played more a role.
Look at the games that are most receiving accolades for innovative design in tabletop role-playing.
They are games with a clear goal in mind. Games with stellar world building. Games like Dune: Adventures In The Imperium. Based on Herbert. Cloud Empress. Inspired as it is by Miyazaki's Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind.
Because to achieve the design of a game capable of emulating such things takes considerable talent.
That's not to say it takes 'none' to design something generic but that is what games like BRP and GURPS are for.
D&D used to have a real sense of itself. Magic felt occult. The game felt like the fiction that had inspired it. In an effort to be the game that does everything it no longer even feels like a fantasy adventure game to me. When I meet people who have never played D&D who want to try D&D because they watched Stranger Things or Freaks & Geeks I show them an older edition when the game really felt like that.
Ok, after pages and pages of discussion. I will reveal how i view it. It isn't simple, so apologies in advance.
i also mention these, because they can be adapted or wiggled in flavor wise into 5E, but can take serious massaging to make work with the current D&D Magic system and design philosophy.
Have seen all of the approaches tried in D&D, some with obnoxious results.
Full-Vancian: Both Fire and Forget, and structured specific functions. Like magic Grenades, you prepare a spell that does what it is going to do. You use the spell, it does what it is programmed to do, then it is gone. Venneer of mystery to magic, but it is still very systematized and mechanical.
This is like the older editions, and some classes in Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
Have also seen this in homebrew 5E as one time use items like Alchemical grenades.
Half-vancian: Fixed function spells that are defined. Instead of fire and forget, the spells are more like machines that perform a function, and you provide power/fuel/ammo to them. This is where i would put 5E's magic system, where it does what it says in the text, but can have wiggle room if the DM allows. Spells have fixed functions and damage areas, only going up in damage with Upcasting, or increasing in a very specified way.
Also how most magic in video games function.
Vancian lite: Has a vancian underlying concept that comes up now and then. I would say something like Dungeon Crawl Classics, where you cast the spell with a roll, and only ever lose the spell when you fumble it, and then it becomes unusable until the next day. There aren't spell slots, your Dice and modifiers determine your power. A higher roll means you get to pick a more potent expression of the same spell. A simple magic Missile becomes a near orbital bombardment when you start roll in the 30s.
Another example is the Game "Noita" where spells with fixed functions can be chained and modified together to become insanely powerful, and only unpredictable if not thought through.
Similar arguments for the magic system in "Magicka."
Pseudo-Vancian: " Its a VIBE" The concept is evolving and need not Fit the previous Criteria' Has some minor Trappings of Vancian magic while not functioning like the classic examples. Stuff like Magic in Discworld. Where the magic is alive in a sense, and has things like spells taking up mental space, but performing in ways that are not so predictable, or even systemically coherent. Witchs and wizards have different abilities and philosophies, despite using the same magic.
Wizards are like Physicists that can make all your cabbages explode, where witches can repel sunlight by staring at the lightrays and making them shy away, but also use a lot of psychology and mind tricks in order to cure aliments. ( Like telling someone with bad posture to stand straight or lay straight against a tree or board so the wood absorbs the knots, when they are really just correcting their posture, or massaging the muscles as part of the examination. )
Wizards also might loose their magic if they fall in love, but then again, they might not, cause both happen in different books. Wizard magic is also supposedly accessible to men only, but then it will just go ahead and empower a little girl because it felt like it, and it does not care about your preconceptions.
Not Vancian at all: Completely separated from Jack Vance's Dying Earth style. This would be more free form magic systems that might not translate into a game as well. Examples include Wheel of Time's Channeling, Many superhero type magicians like Zatana, Wanda Maximoff and Psykers from 40K. The rules are more loose, or narrative in focus.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
I'm sorry, but no. The magic system does a terrible job of emulating the fiction that is the most obvious source of inspiration for the game (which is not Jack Vance. It's Tolkien).
The actual origin of the magic system in D&D is the fantasy supplement to the Chainmail board game. Which didn't even use Vancian magic (wizards had a limited number of spells they could cast, but did not have to choose ahead of time what those spells were). The named influences in the Chainmail board game are Tolkien and Robert E Howard.
It’s rich to cry about others playing at edition wars when it is you who can’t respect that scads and scads of people hold no reverence for Vance while thoroughly enjoying D&D. If your game feels soulless, it’s prolly time to look in the mirror. It is definitely not a call to tell others how they’ve ruined the game for you or that they don’t really know what they’re doing. At no time have I ever feel like a certain edition was more D&D than another edition. At no time did magic feel more occult than it does now. Never has the game lost its sense of self in my estimation. (Though I do admit that I never played 4e at all; I skipped right from 3.x/PF1 into 5e)
So what does Vancian magic mean to me? Back in the day, it was awful and clumsy and the progenitor to a bunch of silly ways to balance the game that didn’t actually work so playing a wizard felt useless at low levels and ridiculously OP at high levels. We didn’t know any better at the time; there were not a lot of alternatives to explore. These days, it flies under the radar except when it is the whip used by some to flagellate the others they wish to separate themselves from and feel superior to. It is a relic of the past that some people cling to but that does not make it required material for a game to qualify as D&D any more than THAC0, saving throws against rods, staves and wands, referring to some chart or other to adjudicate a situation, or any of the many other defunct rules from past editions are.
It might be helpful to decide if you want D&D to be innovative or if you want it to be the tried and true, staid old product that is basically the backbone of the TTRPG industry. What is innovative about including a 50 year old system like Vancian magic? That is the opposite of innovation. Not only that but I contend that people who choose D&D are not striving for innovation in the first place. They choose D&D because it is the most commonly played system with the largest audience that garners the best chance of finding a group, not because it’s revolutionary. Everyone knows D&D is the vanilla ice cream of roleplaying games so why are you acting like it’s not D&D because there’s no vegan ube gelato on the menu while simultaneously excoriating us for not truly appreciating vanilla? Choose a lane.
None of the opinions/"false claims" you listed (Vancian not being based on the Dying Earth novels, no thought going into its selection for D&D's magic system, Vance being an insignificant author) came from me. That's what I was saying. Your attempt at a "gotcha" is summarily rejected.
It's not that Vancian is bad design in a vacuum, it's bad for what 5e wants to be (Heroic Fantasy, as I stated, not to mention an on-ramp to the TTRPG hobby for newcomers more generally.) A magic system that punishes spellcaster players, sometimes harshly, for lacking knowledge both of what their own spells do and what might be coming their way the next adventuring day does not align with those two goals for 5e.