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.
Have you read that article from 1976 published in The Strategic Review?
It's called "The Dungeons & Dragons Magic System."
Gygax—even using the term "Vancian"—articulates how the magic system for D&D is inspired by how it works in Vance's DE stories. And if you have read Vance's DE stories that much is obvious.
You are ignoring the words of the very individual who came up with the magic system for the game.
Even some of the spells in D&D are directly inspired by those in Vance's stories: Imprisonment and Evard’s Black Tentacles being just two examples. Nothing reads more like a classic D&D adventure than do those stories and those by Leiber. Not even Tolkien and Howard.
Tolkien and Howard are considered by many to be the two pillars of the genre.
Neither is named as an 'influence' on Chainmail. The actual text reads, "we are including a brief set of rules which will allow the medieval miniatures wargamer to add a new facet to his hobby, and either refight the epic struggles related by J.R.R. Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, and other fantasy writers."
Right before it then reads, "or you can devise your own "world, " and conduct fantastic campaigns and conflicts based on it."
Tolkien and Howard are merely named along with the phrase and other fantasy writers as examples of authors whose works might serve as inspiration for players' games.
Both were influences on Gygax. Howard in particular. But so was Vance:
When I began to add elements of fantasy to medieval miniatures wargames around 1969, of course the work of Jack Vance influenced what I did. Along with Robert E. Howard, de Camp & Pratt, A. Merritt. Michael Moorcock, Roger Zelazny, Poul Anderson, J.R.R. Tolkien, P.J. Farmer, Bram Stoker—and not a few others, including the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm and Andrew Lang, and conventional mythologies—his writing was there in my memory.
Gygax himself has explicitly stated that Vance's DE stories inspired the magic system for D&D. And anyone who has read them can plainly see this. However different that in Chainmail is and its being the game that came before is irrelevant.
In 2001, Gygax talked not only about Vance's DE stories being the inspiration for the magic system but also about his influence elsewhere in D&D. The character of Cugel's role in the development of the Thief class. Spells. Magic items.
Gygax even later sought permission from Vance to use things obviously inspired by Vance.
Magic in those DE stories worked in ways that were conducive to adventuring. Wizards were not shackled to labs or towers like in so much of the genre, magic was not ritualistic in nature and could be then used in combat and during exploration, and magic was not world-breakingly powerful. How magic works in those stories made the most sense for a game of adventure:
The "memorize then fire and forget" principal for casting spells Jack Vance assumed in his fantasy stories seemed perfect to me for use by D&D magic-users. It required forethought by the player and limited the power of the class all at once.
Wizards are semi-divine beings in Tolkien: The Maiar. They are basically angels sent by the Valar. Where in Chainmail or early D&D do we see anything like that? Magic in both Chainmail and early D&D is used by mortals who learn magic through years of study. There is nothing Tolkien-esque about it.
The fantasy supplement for Chainmail is where we see the first instance of what would later be known as Alignment. Something that was inspired by the works of Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock. Not Tolkien. Not Howard.
Gygax explains why the Vancian magic system was used—even using that term—in that article from 1976 and did so again in an EnWorld Q&A from 2007.
Read the article from 1976, read the 2001 article also written by Gygax about Vance's influence on D&D, read comprehensive histories of the hobby, instead of misrepresenting what it actually says in Chainmail to try to rewrite history.
I run old-school D&D. Using a clone of classic basic. I only ever play in 5E games. I never run them.
How about Mearls?
Am I to believe any criticisms of his means he must be a 'bad DM'? That he is 'bad' at D&D?
He led the design for 5E.
By the same token are those who don't like how old-school D&D played just 'bad' at DM-ing old-school D&D or just plain 'bad' at old-school D&D?
Why does any criticism of the current ruleset mean the critic is just 'doing it wrong' but it's perfectly okay to trash earlier editions but then that can't possibly be you and not the game?
Can we not get into edition wars?
This thread is about what Vancian magic means. Not how 'bad' it was.
Have you read that article from 1976 published in The Strategic Review?
It's called "The Dungeons & Dragons Magic System."
Gygax—even using the term "Vancian"—articulates how the magic system for D&D is inspired by how it works in Vance's DE stories. And if you have read Vance's DE stories that much is obvious.
You are ignoring the words of the very individual who came up with the magic system for the game.
Even some of the spells in D&D are directly inspired by those in Vance's stories: Imprisonment and Evard’s Black Tentacles being just two examples. Nothing reads more like a classic D&D adventure than do those stories and those by Leiber. Not even Tolkien and Howard.
Tolkien and Howard are considered by many to be the two pillars of the genre.
Neither is named as an 'influence' on Chainmail. The actual text reads, "we are including a brief set of rules which will allow the medieval miniatures wargamer to add a new facet to his hobby, and either refight the epic struggles related by J.R.R. Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, and other fantasy writers."
Right before it then reads, "or you can devise your own "world, " and conduct fantastic campaigns and conflicts based on it."
Tolkien and Howard are merely named along with the phrase and other fantasy writers as examples of authors whose works might serve as inspiration for players' games.
Both were influences on Gygax. Howard in particular. But so was Vance:
When I began to add elements of fantasy to medieval miniatures wargames around 1969, of course the work of Jack Vance influenced what I did. Along with Robert E. Howard, de Camp & Pratt, A. Merritt. Michael Moorcock, Roger Zelazny, Poul Anderson, J.R.R. Tolkien, P.J. Farmer, Bram Stoker—and not a few others, including the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm and Andrew Lang, and conventional mythologies—his writing was there in my memory.
Gygax himself has explicitly stated that Vance's DE stories inspired the magic system for D&D. And anyone who has read them can plainly see this. However different that in Chainmail is and its being the game that came before is irrelevant.
In 2001, Gygax talked not only about Vance's DE stories being the inspiration for the magic system but also about his influence elsewhere in D&D. The character of Cugel's role in the development of the Thief class. Spells. Magic items.
Gygax even later sought permission from Vance to use things obviously inspired by Vance.
Magic in those DE stories worked in ways that were conducive to adventuring. Wizards were not shackled to labs or towers like in so much of the genre, magic was not ritualistic in nature and could be then used in combat and during exploration, and magic was not world-breakingly powerful. How magic works in those stories made the most sense for a game of adventure:
The "memorize then fire and forget" principal for casting spells Jack Vance assumed in his fantasy stories seemed perfect to me for use by D&D magic-users. It required forethought by the player and limited the power of the class all at once.
Wizards are semi-divine beings in Tolkien: The Maiar. They are basically angels sent by the Valar. Where in Chainmail or early D&D do we see anything like that? Magic in both Chainmail and early D&D is used by mortals who learn magic through years of study. There is nothing Tolkien-esque about it.
The fantasy supplement for Chainmail is where we see the first instance of what would later be known as Alignment. Something that was inspired by the works of Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock. Not Tolkien. Not Howard.
Gygax explains why the Vancian magic system was used—even using that term—in that article from 1976 and did so again in an EnWorld Q&A from 2007.
Read the article from 1976, read the 2001 article also written by Gygax about Vance's influence on D&D, read comprehensive histories of the hobby, instead of misrepresenting what it actually says in Chainmail to try to rewrite history.
I run old-school D&D. Using a clone of classic basic. I only ever play in 5E games. I never run them.
How about Mearls?
Am I to believe any criticisms of his means he must be a 'bad DM'? That he is 'bad' at D&D?
He led the design for 5E.
By the same token are those who don't like how old-school D&D played just 'bad' at DM-ing old-school D&D or just plain 'bad' at old-school D&D?
Why does any criticism of the current ruleset mean the critic is just 'doing it wrong' but it's perfectly okay to trash earlier editions but then that can't possibly be you and not the game?
Can we not get into edition wars?
This thread is about what Vancian magic means. Not how 'bad' it was.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorAs this keeps getting into edition wars and unhealthy arguments rather than discussion, this thread has been locked.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources