I'd forgotten the con cost for permanency. I do remember at the time thinking who the heck's spending all this con to create all these longsword+1
A long sword made sense to me. But how many people did it take to make a bag of 20 +1 sling bullets?
IIRC, just one: magic ammo was cheap to make and could be made in batches.
But you needed one permanency spell per sling bullet, iirc. And since it cost a point of constitution per cast, it would add up.
No, you needed one spell per 20 bullets/arrows/crossbow bolts. I'm not sure if you even needed the permanency spell, either. Since magic ammo stopped being magic once it was used, I think that it could be enchanted without that spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Sounds boring. You sit in the back waiting around while others fight. Halfway through the fight you realise that your one spell is actually useful, cast it, and then that's you done for the day in terms of real usefulness?
Sounds really bad.
It was. I tried it once. Died in the first session when I tried to hit something with my dagger after I got bored. Made a new fighter. It got better if you managed to get levels, but everyone else leveled up faster than you did too. A wizard needed something like 2500 exp to reach level 2. A fighter was 2k-ish. So your fighter who got to swing his sword every turn would hit 2k exp and level up to two. And you, who were there for every combat, was still level 1 because you didn't reach your level cap yet. You'd eventually be a full level or more behind everyone else, showing up for every session, earning every bit of exp they did...just because you were a wizard.
Now when you got the thing to higher levels, it really wasn't so bad. You had enough spell slots to memorize a decent loadout of stuff, and you usually didn't have a ton of combat every day because people ran out of health, and the cleric had to recharge you because...well you only recovered one HP per sleep; this is part of why clerics never really got to cast their other spells. The fighters and rangers (nobody ever played paladins, because nobody who rolled a 17 was wasting it in charisma to be locked into being lawful good) would run in and bash things. Thieves would try to backstab things. Clerics at least got to bash things with their mace, but wizards? Tough sledding for those chaps. I didn't have the fortitude to stick it out. Maybe if we had cantrips, or could at least use all mage weapons equally (had to buy proficiency with that dagger, so I couldn't even just pick up a sling and use it without a big penalty) it would have been more bearable. If I still had to play that system, I'd 100% take a sling over my dagger because chucking d4s from range is way better than sucking with a d4 in melee, but seriously, I'd never want to see Vancian magic return.
The more I learn about 1e the more surprised I get that it was ever popular enough to survive and evolve to what we have now. So many parts of it just seem deliberately designed to be frustrating
To me, Vancian magic, which, coincidently, I think is the coolest magic ever created, is as much a narrative construct as it is a game mechanic.
It's based on a novel, and I think that is important as it describes something about the setting and the nature of how magic is imagined to exist using this structure.
Basically the way it works is that magic is powerful but extremely limited. A Magic-User doesn't "know" magic, but they are capable of temporarily channelling it by making use of a printed magic language. You read the words, and they burn from the page into the mind of the caster who can call forth the words later when needed. When they expel the magic it returns to the original page on which it was written.
In the novel series on which this is based, the most powerful mages in the world could hold as many as 4 spells at a time. An intentional limit to create the combined drama of trying to prepare for something, meaning picking the right spells and exemplifying how powerful magic was.
It ensures that while magic is powerful, it is not so powerful that in a believable setting in which it exists, non-magic things become unnecessary. The point of the system in D&D was to explain why the medieval world still functions normally without mages essentially taking over everything. Yes they are powerful, but not so powerful that they can overthrow kingdoms and the order or the normal world.
D&D was once founded on the idea that the "system" had to make sense in a way that the "setting" would exist despite what magical things were added to it. So for example magic items exist, but they are so exceedingly rare, that most people don't have access to them. Magic was powerful, but so limited that it was only useful on a small scale. Magical creatures like Elves and Halflings exist, but they are dying and ancient and alien cultures who do not think like humans when it comes to the domination of the world etc... Monsters exist, but they are tucked away in distant frontiers away from the civilized world, in dungeons etc..
The system served the setting and that was the original purpose of vancian magic in D&D. Meaning that D&D was a setting and story first, not a game.
This has changed in modern day and its why modern players struggle to understand why things like this existed... Until you understand that the purpose of magic wasn't to be a fun game mechanic but as a love letter to a grim medieval setting in which story were told. Aka its less a mechanic and more a narrative construct.
I can see that being true. However, while role-playing games do need to have narrative constructs like that...they also need to be fun. Good games combine the two - the mechanics support the narrative and the narrative supports the mechanics, but are also fun at the same time.
It seems that D&D has drifted over the spectrum to the point now that the mechanics are fun...but don't always make sense in the setting. However, out of the two, I'm glad that it did change to what it is now. If I'd tried 1e instead of 5e, I don't think I'd have come back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Sounds boring. You sit in the back waiting around while others fight. Halfway through the fight you realise that your one spell is actually useful, cast it, and then that's you done for the day in terms of real usefulness?
Sounds really bad.
It's all about the frame of reference and context. If your frame of reference is a modern D&D session, and you place 1e AD&D in that context, then yeah, it's pretty terrible.
If the frame of reference is a classic D&D session (playstyle) and the game is used in that context, Magic-Users were critical to success and a vital component of an adventuring party. By default, narratively speaking they were the only ones that knew anything about magic. This wasn't a skill or an ability, it was an assumption. Class archetypes were not mechanical constructs in old school D&D, they were narrative ones. Mages were critical to the free-form experience within D&D because they were the only ones who could answer questions about magic.
Old school D&D was a game about exploration in all its forms and there were no skills, talents, feats or anything else on the character sheet to act as a mechanical resolution. Everything was driven by assumptions and the GM-to-player conversation. What can your character do, had few mechanical answers. It was in a word a game of imagination and make-believe. There were few mechanics and most magic was not used according to their mechanical effects, but according to their description. Its why the rules for what spells can do where so vague in AD&D, because the point of them wasn't to "execute a mechanic", but to use what it says in imaginative ways.
In any case, vancian magic was a part of that. It was not there for mechanical reasons or balance or any of that. It was their for narrative inspiration and to ensure that magic was indeed special, not common.
I can see that being true. However, while role-playing games do need to have narrative constructs like that...they also need to be fun. Good games combine the two - the mechanics support the narrative and the narrative supports the mechanics, but are also fun at the same time.
It seems that D&D has drifted over the spectrum to the point now that the mechanics are fun...but don't always make sense in the setting. However, out of the two, I'm glad that it did change to what it is now. If I'd tried 1e instead of 5e, I don't think I'd have come back.
It's a matter of taste and preference.
Think of it this way. Mechanics serve only one purpose in the game. To avoid role-playing something out. The more mechanics you have, the less role-playing you have to do. You can "skip" scenes that would require a GM-Player interaction by adding a mechanic.
For example. "We want to search the room".
If you have a skill that can replace that function, you can say "roll your X skill" and the result lets you say "you found something" or "you found nothing" or something inbetween.
If you don't have a mechanic for searching.. the GM responds "Where are you looking"... to which a player might say "describe the room" ... and so on and so on.. aka.. role-playing.
Modern D&D is concentrated on quick resolutions, Classic D&D was concentrated on role-playing everything out.
The core idea behind the latter was to make things up... Aka... You see some strange writing.. The fighter can't read it, but the magic-user knows its a ward. No skill check, just an assumption that "A magic-user would know that".
Think of it this way. Mechanics serve only one purpose in the game. To avoid role-playing something out. The more mechanics you have, the less role-playing you have to do. You can "skip" scenes that would require a GM-Player interaction by adding a mechanic.
I get what you're saying, but it's not that stark. Going back-and-forth with a GM ("describe your search", "describe the room," etc) is just another mechanic...a very freeform, narrative one, but it's not roleplaying. It's practically a game unto itself, very similar to doing lateral thinking puzzles/riddles, playing "20 questions," or playing "I spy."
Roleplaying is about why characters do things --- playing out motivations, goals, actions, and reactions (in other words, playing a "role"). Mechanics are abstractions for how they do things, so you can resolve actions that would be too hard/unsafe to do for real, or to turn them into fun gameplay, or to just give a consistent(?) framework for doing them.
...
On-topic, I think of vancian magic as an odd thing from an old book, that old D&D used to emulate some particular genres. As a game mechanic, it's fine if you are committed to those genres, but really terrible to base whole "classes" on. But really, that's a problem with class-based gameplay, rather than the magic itself.
In older forms of the game, where most things are resolved by everyone taking turns describing things, it's probably more tolerable.
Think of it this way. Mechanics serve only one purpose in the game. To avoid role-playing something out. The more mechanics you have, the less role-playing you have to do. You can "skip" scenes that would require a GM-Player interaction by adding a mechanic.
I get what you're saying, but it's not that stark. Going back-and-forth with a GM ("describe your search", "describe the room," etc) is just another mechanic...a very freeform, narrative one, but it's not roleplaying. It's practically a game unto itself, very similar to doing lateral thinking puzzles/riddles, playing "20 questions," or playing "I spy."
Roleplaying is about why characters do things --- playing out motivations, goals, actions, and reactions (in other words, playing a "role"). Mechanics are abstractions for how they do things, so you can resolve actions that would be too hard/unsafe to do for real, or to turn them into fun gameplay, or to just give a consistent(?) framework for doing them.
...
On-topic, I think of vancian magic as an odd thing from an old book, that old D&D used to emulate some particular genres. As a game mechanic, it's fine if you are committed to those genres, but really terrible to base whole "classes" on. But really, that's a problem with class-based gameplay, rather than the magic itself.
In older forms of the game, where most things are resolved by everyone taking turns describing things, it's probably more tolerable.
I think that's all true, but with any RPG, the question is always to what extent is role-playing represented by mechanics and to what degree it's about "making stuff up" in the interest of story. Also what constitutes story. Which is a whole other dynamic of old school D&D mechanics, as a lot of these mechanics make assumptions about "how" you are going to play the game and what it means to tell a story. For example in old school D&D, a story of scrappy dungeon delvers surviving wilderness travel, a dungeon and an encounter with the drow was considered "story", but I think today when people say "story" they are referring more to stories as in the sort you would see in a movie or tv show (plot, conflict, climax etc..).
In the searching example, it's true that this is a question of "how", but the larger point here is the interaction; its part of the story to have the experience. When you are asking questions, describing scenes/areas in greater detail, and interacting with the game in a narrative way, the experience is going to be very different than one in which a similar scene is a matter of executing a mechanic. One is designed to be part of the story (in the old school D&D sense) in a modern game, searching a room is not considered part of the story, its just a practical exercise thing, the story is more likely to be about what you find and what it means in the context of a larger plot.
I think in the context of the conversation when we look at "older game mechanics," like say AD&D where Vancian magic ruled supreme, you have to see the game through that lens. I totally get why someone would look at Vancian magic today as a RAW mechanic within the framework of what they are used to at a modern table and think "ok that's very strange and seems like a terrible mechanic". I get that, but if you consider what it meant to AD&D in that playstyle and framework, it was an important part of the narrative experience. Mages were limited but powerful, they had to prepare and plan, they sought out spell books and scrolls because it helped to grow their power and knowledge etc....
Its just a different type of experience, I totally get modern gaming and I'm not here to suggest one way is better or worse, but I do think that most modern players if they traveled back in time and actually had those experience from that perspective would undoubtedly see these old school mechanics and ideas like Vancian magic in a very different light. It might not change their mind, but it would certainly give a much different perspective.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I have not read the book, though I do know of its existence (and with my recent reacquaintance with fantasy novels, it's on my TBR list). I agree with a lot of what OSR4Ever says in how the system worked and what people enjoyed about it (I never did play anything earlier than 2e), but I might posit that you are not like to find that many more that enjoy the system today than you did back then. I think the reason the system has moved away from it, at least in part, is due to the general populace enjoying story more as "plot, conflict, etc." rather than the back-and-forth between player and DM. That's what they actually want, so that's what D&D has become.
I have not read the book, though I do know of its existence (and with my recent reacquaintance with fantasy novels, it's on my TBR list). I agree with a lot of what OSR4Ever says in how the system worked and what people enjoyed about it (I never did play anything earlier than 2e), but I might posit that you are not like to find that many more that enjoy the system today than you did back then. I think the reason the system has moved away from it, at least in part, is due to the general populace enjoying story more as "plot, conflict, etc." rather than the back-and-forth between player and DM. That's what they actually want, so that's what D&D has become.
Again, in my opinion.
I'm not going to argue that you are wrong, but then again, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "many". Last year's Ennie Awards were swept by Shadowdark, a game that exclusively functions on this syle of role-playing game. There are lots of modern fantasy RPG's in this vein that are well known.
Dungeon Crawl Classics, Mork Borg, Old School Essentials, Castles & Crusades, Forbidden Lands, Five Torches Deep, Basic Fantasy, Swords and Wizardry, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and Hyperborea just to name a few, have been released in the last few years. I doubt there is anyone on this forum that is not familiar with these names even if they don't play the games. Many of these titles have won awards, have been featured on major D&D-focused social media channels and have been funded into the multiple millions on Kickstarter.
Obviously, the popularity and economic success of these games pale in comparison to D&D of today, but there is absolutely no question that the sheer number of people playing this style of D&D today rivals the amount of people that played it this way in the 80's.
So I would argue that "many" people still play this way and that number is growing not shrinking. Most of these games feature some version of Vancian magic.
In any case, vancian magic was a part of that. It was not there for mechanical reasons or balance or any of that. It was their for narrative inspiration and to ensure that magic was indeed special, not common.
No, it really wasn't there for that. Vancian magic was there because the authors were old school wargamers and the way they knew to balance powerful effects was via ammunition.
I'm not going to argue that you are wrong, but then again, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "many". Last year's Ennie Awards were swept by Shadowdark, a game that exclusively functions on this syle of role-playing game. There are lots of modern fantasy RPG's in this vein that are well known.
Dungeon Crawl Classics, Mork Borg, Old School Essentials, Castles & Crusades, Forbidden Lands, Five Torches Deep, Basic Fantasy, Swords and Wizardry, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and Hyperborea just to name a few, have been released in the last few years. I doubt there is anyone on this forum that is not familiar with these names even if they don't play the games.
I mean, I mostly have only ever seen the names because you and a couple of other people mention them on occasion. Mork Borg is I think the only one I've seen mentioned in another context, and that's somebody on social media that I follow for other reasons. Pretty sure nobody I game with is into any of them.
Obviously, the popularity and economic success of these games pale in comparison to D&D of today, but there is absolutely no question that the sheer number of people playing this style of D&D today rivals the amount of people that played it this way in the 80's.
Perhaps; depends what you mean by "played it this way", because D&D sold a lot of copies in the 80s (hundreds of thousands certainly, almost certainly millions), and there's no evidence those games do anywhere near those numbers.
So I would argue that "many" people still play this way and that number is growing not shrinking. Most of these games feature some version of Vancian magic.
I'll not deny that it's an active, thriving RPG subculture, but it's not that big.
Also, given its nostalgic focus, the fact that it favors Vancean magic is less of an endorsement than it might be.
In any case, vancian magic was a part of that. It was not there for mechanical reasons or balance or any of that. It was their for narrative inspiration and to ensure that magic was indeed special, not common.
No, it really wasn't there for that. Vancian magic was there because the authors were old school wargamers and the way they knew to balance powerful effects was via ammunition.
Yes, it really was.
Design decisions in D&D (just like in historical war games) were driven by the desire to make sure that a fantasy setting (or historical setting) would make sense if the world actually worked as described by the rules. It's why Vancian magic was used, it was argued by Gygax, that it was powerful enough to make for a great fantasy but limited enough for the world to still make sense.
Folk, remember to stay on the topic of the original thread (Vancian Magic) and to try and focus on what that means in D&D (As this is a forum for discussing D&D, where as going in depth into other TTRPG systems would be more appropriate for Adohand's Kitchen). If you also find yourself responding to one user more than others, take a step back to think on if yours and theirs posts are remaining constructive or becoming more about debating each other.
For me, Vancian just means "prepare spells in advance of when you might know what you'll need that day." I totally get that the "fire and forget" aspect was key to vancian back in the day, but I'm comfortable still calling prepared casting "Vancian" even though modern iterations of the game have moved away from that aspect (and for good reason.)
No, you needed one spell per 20 bullets/arrows/crossbow bolts. I'm not sure if you even needed the permanency spell, either. Since magic ammo stopped being magic once it was used, I think that it could be enchanted without that spell.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Vancian magic, to me, always translated as "sacred cow of D&D that has to be killed slowly and cautiously".
The more I learn about 1e the more surprised I get that it was ever popular enough to survive and evolve to what we have now. So many parts of it just seem deliberately designed to be frustrating
To me, Vancian magic, which, coincidently, I think is the coolest magic ever created, is as much a narrative construct as it is a game mechanic.
It's based on a novel, and I think that is important as it describes something about the setting and the nature of how magic is imagined to exist using this structure.
Basically the way it works is that magic is powerful but extremely limited. A Magic-User doesn't "know" magic, but they are capable of temporarily channelling it by making use of a printed magic language. You read the words, and they burn from the page into the mind of the caster who can call forth the words later when needed. When they expel the magic it returns to the original page on which it was written.
In the novel series on which this is based, the most powerful mages in the world could hold as many as 4 spells at a time. An intentional limit to create the combined drama of trying to prepare for something, meaning picking the right spells and exemplifying how powerful magic was.
It ensures that while magic is powerful, it is not so powerful that in a believable setting in which it exists, non-magic things become unnecessary. The point of the system in D&D was to explain why the medieval world still functions normally without mages essentially taking over everything. Yes they are powerful, but not so powerful that they can overthrow kingdoms and the order or the normal world.
D&D was once founded on the idea that the "system" had to make sense in a way that the "setting" would exist despite what magical things were added to it. So for example magic items exist, but they are so exceedingly rare, that most people don't have access to them. Magic was powerful, but so limited that it was only useful on a small scale. Magical creatures like Elves and Halflings exist, but they are dying and ancient and alien cultures who do not think like humans when it comes to the domination of the world etc... Monsters exist, but they are tucked away in distant frontiers away from the civilized world, in dungeons etc..
The system served the setting and that was the original purpose of vancian magic in D&D. Meaning that D&D was a setting and story first, not a game.
This has changed in modern day and its why modern players struggle to understand why things like this existed... Until you understand that the purpose of magic wasn't to be a fun game mechanic but as a love letter to a grim medieval setting in which story were told. Aka its less a mechanic and more a narrative construct.
I can see that being true. However, while role-playing games do need to have narrative constructs like that...they also need to be fun. Good games combine the two - the mechanics support the narrative and the narrative supports the mechanics, but are also fun at the same time.
It seems that D&D has drifted over the spectrum to the point now that the mechanics are fun...but don't always make sense in the setting. However, out of the two, I'm glad that it did change to what it is now. If I'd tried 1e instead of 5e, I don't think I'd have come back.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's all about the frame of reference and context. If your frame of reference is a modern D&D session, and you place 1e AD&D in that context, then yeah, it's pretty terrible.
If the frame of reference is a classic D&D session (playstyle) and the game is used in that context, Magic-Users were critical to success and a vital component of an adventuring party. By default, narratively speaking they were the only ones that knew anything about magic. This wasn't a skill or an ability, it was an assumption. Class archetypes were not mechanical constructs in old school D&D, they were narrative ones. Mages were critical to the free-form experience within D&D because they were the only ones who could answer questions about magic.
Old school D&D was a game about exploration in all its forms and there were no skills, talents, feats or anything else on the character sheet to act as a mechanical resolution. Everything was driven by assumptions and the GM-to-player conversation. What can your character do, had few mechanical answers. It was in a word a game of imagination and make-believe. There were few mechanics and most magic was not used according to their mechanical effects, but according to their description. Its why the rules for what spells can do where so vague in AD&D, because the point of them wasn't to "execute a mechanic", but to use what it says in imaginative ways.
In any case, vancian magic was a part of that. It was not there for mechanical reasons or balance or any of that. It was their for narrative inspiration and to ensure that magic was indeed special, not common.
It's a matter of taste and preference.
Think of it this way. Mechanics serve only one purpose in the game. To avoid role-playing something out. The more mechanics you have, the less role-playing you have to do. You can "skip" scenes that would require a GM-Player interaction by adding a mechanic.
For example. "We want to search the room".
If you have a skill that can replace that function, you can say "roll your X skill" and the result lets you say "you found something" or "you found nothing" or something inbetween.
If you don't have a mechanic for searching.. the GM responds "Where are you looking"... to which a player might say "describe the room" ... and so on and so on.. aka.. role-playing.
Modern D&D is concentrated on quick resolutions, Classic D&D was concentrated on role-playing everything out.
The core idea behind the latter was to make things up... Aka... You see some strange writing.. The fighter can't read it, but the magic-user knows its a ward. No skill check, just an assumption that "A magic-user would know that".
Pretty much how the how game worked back then.
I get what you're saying, but it's not that stark. Going back-and-forth with a GM ("describe your search", "describe the room," etc) is just another mechanic...a very freeform, narrative one, but it's not roleplaying. It's practically a game unto itself, very similar to doing lateral thinking puzzles/riddles, playing "20 questions," or playing "I spy."
Roleplaying is about why characters do things --- playing out motivations, goals, actions, and reactions (in other words, playing a "role"). Mechanics are abstractions for how they do things, so you can resolve actions that would be too hard/unsafe to do for real, or to turn them into fun gameplay, or to just give a consistent(?) framework for doing them.
...
On-topic, I think of vancian magic as an odd thing from an old book, that old D&D used to emulate some particular genres. As a game mechanic, it's fine if you are committed to those genres, but really terrible to base whole "classes" on. But really, that's a problem with class-based gameplay, rather than the magic itself.
In older forms of the game, where most things are resolved by everyone taking turns describing things, it's probably more tolerable.
I think that's all true, but with any RPG, the question is always to what extent is role-playing represented by mechanics and to what degree it's about "making stuff up" in the interest of story. Also what constitutes story. Which is a whole other dynamic of old school D&D mechanics, as a lot of these mechanics make assumptions about "how" you are going to play the game and what it means to tell a story. For example in old school D&D, a story of scrappy dungeon delvers surviving wilderness travel, a dungeon and an encounter with the drow was considered "story", but I think today when people say "story" they are referring more to stories as in the sort you would see in a movie or tv show (plot, conflict, climax etc..).
In the searching example, it's true that this is a question of "how", but the larger point here is the interaction; its part of the story to have the experience. When you are asking questions, describing scenes/areas in greater detail, and interacting with the game in a narrative way, the experience is going to be very different than one in which a similar scene is a matter of executing a mechanic. One is designed to be part of the story (in the old school D&D sense) in a modern game, searching a room is not considered part of the story, its just a practical exercise thing, the story is more likely to be about what you find and what it means in the context of a larger plot.
I think in the context of the conversation when we look at "older game mechanics," like say AD&D where Vancian magic ruled supreme, you have to see the game through that lens. I totally get why someone would look at Vancian magic today as a RAW mechanic within the framework of what they are used to at a modern table and think "ok that's very strange and seems like a terrible mechanic". I get that, but if you consider what it meant to AD&D in that playstyle and framework, it was an important part of the narrative experience. Mages were limited but powerful, they had to prepare and plan, they sought out spell books and scrolls because it helped to grow their power and knowledge etc....
Its just a different type of experience, I totally get modern gaming and I'm not here to suggest one way is better or worse, but I do think that most modern players if they traveled back in time and actually had those experience from that perspective would undoubtedly see these old school mechanics and ideas like Vancian magic in a very different light. It might not change their mind, but it would certainly give a much different perspective.
*shrug*
I did it. It was bad. Never going back.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To me, Vance is just an anagram of Vecna ; )
well played sir, well played
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I have not read the book, though I do know of its existence (and with my recent reacquaintance with fantasy novels, it's on my TBR list). I agree with a lot of what OSR4Ever says in how the system worked and what people enjoyed about it (I never did play anything earlier than 2e), but I might posit that you are not like to find that many more that enjoy the system today than you did back then. I think the reason the system has moved away from it, at least in part, is due to the general populace enjoying story more as "plot, conflict, etc." rather than the back-and-forth between player and DM. That's what they actually want, so that's what D&D has become.
Again, in my opinion.
I'm not going to argue that you are wrong, but then again, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "many". Last year's Ennie Awards were swept by Shadowdark, a game that exclusively functions on this syle of role-playing game. There are lots of modern fantasy RPG's in this vein that are well known.
Dungeon Crawl Classics, Mork Borg, Old School Essentials, Castles & Crusades, Forbidden Lands, Five Torches Deep, Basic Fantasy, Swords and Wizardry, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and Hyperborea just to name a few, have been released in the last few years. I doubt there is anyone on this forum that is not familiar with these names even if they don't play the games. Many of these titles have won awards, have been featured on major D&D-focused social media channels and have been funded into the multiple millions on Kickstarter.
Obviously, the popularity and economic success of these games pale in comparison to D&D of today, but there is absolutely no question that the sheer number of people playing this style of D&D today rivals the amount of people that played it this way in the 80's.
So I would argue that "many" people still play this way and that number is growing not shrinking. Most of these games feature some version of Vancian magic.
No, it really wasn't there for that. Vancian magic was there because the authors were old school wargamers and the way they knew to balance powerful effects was via ammunition.
I mean, I mostly have only ever seen the names because you and a couple of other people mention them on occasion. Mork Borg is I think the only one I've seen mentioned in another context, and that's somebody on social media that I follow for other reasons. Pretty sure nobody I game with is into any of them.
Perhaps; depends what you mean by "played it this way", because D&D sold a lot of copies in the 80s (hundreds of thousands certainly, almost certainly millions), and there's no evidence those games do anywhere near those numbers.
I'll not deny that it's an active, thriving RPG subculture, but it's not that big.
Also, given its nostalgic focus, the fact that it favors Vancean magic is less of an endorsement than it might be.
Yes, it really was.
Design decisions in D&D (just like in historical war games) were driven by the desire to make sure that a fantasy setting (or historical setting) would make sense if the world actually worked as described by the rules. It's why Vancian magic was used, it was argued by Gygax, that it was powerful enough to make for a great fantasy but limited enough for the world to still make sense.
Folk, remember to stay on the topic of the original thread (Vancian Magic) and to try and focus on what that means in D&D (As this is a forum for discussing D&D, where as going in depth into other TTRPG systems would be more appropriate for Adohand's Kitchen). If you also find yourself responding to one user more than others, take a step back to think on if yours and theirs posts are remaining constructive or becoming more about debating each other.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
For me, Vancian just means "prepare spells in advance of when you might know what you'll need that day." I totally get that the "fire and forget" aspect was key to vancian back in the day, but I'm comfortable still calling prepared casting "Vancian" even though modern iterations of the game have moved away from that aspect (and for good reason.)
It means what it means.
It was how magic worked in Vance's Dying Earth series. And it was how magic used to work in D&D.