To me, 'Vancian' simply translates into 'illogical game design deemed necessary for balancing purposes'. And it's not wrong, either. I liked how 3.5 psionics worked (decidedly un-Vancian), but it was a messed up ... well, mess.
That 'illogical' game design is inspired by how magic works in a highly regarded series of speculative fiction works written by one of the world's greatest fantasy and science fiction authors of all time.
To me, 'Vancian' simply translates into 'illogical game design deemed necessary for balancing purposes'. And it's not wrong, either. I liked how 3.5 psionics worked (decidedly un-Vancian), but it was a messed up ... well, mess.
That 'illogical' game design is inspired by how magic works in a highly regarded series of speculative fiction works written by one of the world's greatest fantasy and science fiction authors of all time.
I think you're overstating Vance's prominence and regard, but it's irrelevant. (I've also seen people taking issue with how much original D&D's magic was actually like Vance's, but I've never read Vance, so have no opinion.)
"Works in fiction" and "works in a game" are two very different things. The rules of magic in fiction exist for dramatic purposes. In most cases, they will change to a degree in relation to the needs of the story.
The magic system of a game needs to be systemized and quantified in a way that fiction generally avoids. You need a solid definition of what characters of a given power level can do. (Not all games are as quantified as D&D, but they're all quantified.) It has to be understandable to the players and GM. Most importantly, it has to be fun to use.
That 'illogical' game design is inspired by how magic works in a highly regarded series of speculative fiction works written by one of the world's greatest fantasy and science fiction authors of all time.
It has very little to do with how magic actually worked in the Vance novels, and the fact that basically no-one emulates it is a sign that it's an anomaly rather than a good rule (the other thing D&D does that basically no-one emulates is armor class).
I don't think that anyone has pointed out that using the Vancian system in a novel is massively different than using it in a game because the novelist knows exactly what is going to happen - or they can go back and change things once they know - so the primary drawback isn't actually a thing. The character in the novel prepares the exact spells they will need to traverse the plot. No dynamic, free-form game can behave that way.
While breaking away from that system certainly did increase the power of casters and that there is now an imbalance that should be addressed, fixing it by going back would be the wrong move. It's just needlessly frustrating to encounter a challenge, know you could have had the right tool for it, but to not have access to that tool. It's great that you then need to think creatively about how to overcome the challenge without the tool, but a game can engage that kind of creative problem solving without dangling your plan A just out of reach like a grade school bully.
So, another question then. Is the current magic system the problem, or is it spell design? Is the sorcerer as big of a problem as the wizard, with their more limited spell selection.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
So, another question then. Is the current magic system the problem, or is it spell design?
Depends what problem you're concerned with.
If we look at things that games with clear D&D inspiration, but not actually D&D, have done that are notably different from D&D:
Most don't have anything like spell slots with levels. The most common models are
Spells have unlimited uses but generally modest effects.
Spells have a cost to use (magic points, fatigue, health, blood points, willpower, ...) but are otherwise unrestricted. This might be automatic or chance based.
Spells have limited uses that aren't linked to anything else.
Spells require some sort of buildup mechanic (i.e. you have to do X and Y to unlock Z).
cRPGs often use some sort of short to medium cooldown model.
If uses are limited, those uses either recover quite quickly (nothing corresponding to a long rest) or don't use a time-based recovery mechanic at all.
Taking a step back, what is the problem that we're diagnosing? I agree the original D&D system is...flawed to say the least, but what problem are we diagnosing with the current system?
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.
The magic system of a game needs to be systemized and quantified in a way that fiction generally avoids. You need a solid definition of what characters of a given power level can do. (Not all games are as quantified as D&D, but they're all quantified.) It has to be understandable to the players and GM. Most importantly, it has to be fun to use.
There was a time when Dungeons and Dragons was a tradition and not a game, it was kind of the point to have it be a work of fiction and not quantified as a system of rules. D&D since 1st edition AD&D has been systematically re-invented with each new edition away from being a collaborative storytelling tradition to being a mechanized game. Each edition erased more of the storytelling traditions and replaced them with game mechanics. Today D&D is better described as a board game.
What you described there is everything that is wrong with Dungeons and Dragons design today.
So no, I don't agree that magic should not be "systemized and quantified." That is quite literally the exact opposite of what collaborative storytelling is about.
Taking a step back, what is the problem that we're diagnosing? I agree the original D&D system is...flawed to say the least, but what problem are we diagnosing with the current system?
The old system was not flawed, it was simply not created for the purposes of a "game", it was designed for the purpose of collaborative storytelling. The "mechanisms" of the system only existed so far as to ensure that it was not an entirely free-form function. Just enough structure to govern a way to believe in the existence of magic. The purpose was not to "execute" magic, but to weave it into the rest of the games collaborative storytelling effort.
So no, I don't agree that magic should not be "systemized and quantified." That is quite literally the exact opposite of what collaborative storytelling is about.
Collaborative storytelling has very little to do with RPGs (I've seen 'stories' that were basically transcriptions of D&D sessions. Measured as stories, they were terrible). If you want actual collaborative storytelling, you don't want dice, and you don't want a DM.
So no, I don't agree that magic should not be "systemized and quantified." That is quite literally the exact opposite of what collaborative storytelling is about.
Collaborative storytelling has very little to do with RPGs (I've seen 'stories' that were basically transcriptions of D&D sessions. Measured as stories, they were terrible). If you want actual collaborative storytelling, you don't want dice, and you don't want a DM.
Redefining terms to make a point hardly makes for an honest conversation. You could for example,e say that Monopoly is a role-playing game because you play the role of a real estate mogul and that would be objectively true... but of course we both know that this is not the definition of the term in the context of a conversation about role-playing games.
The act of collaborative storytelling is the basic principle behind role-playing games. One player (GM) describes something and the other players respond, the result is a story.
Magic as a "system" in the context of collaborative storytelling is the idea that the depiction of a spell for example, is not about a rule of how you execute the spell, but using the description to come up with inventive ways to apply it to a story.
This idea was a core concept of class (original D&D) through to 1st edition AD&D. By 2nd edition the rules for spells became more and more specific, 3rd and 4th edition continued down that road. It was only with 5th edition some of the damage was undone and spells became more descriptive rather than instructive.
Suffice to say, their is a distinction between the two approaches to magic.
The point is however that Vancian magic was a structure that defined magic in a way that was by design, dynamic. Its how it worked in the novel, its why Gygax and Arneson liked it and put it into D&D. Needless to say it wasn't added for its mechanical application, they like the idea of having spells that were described as an effect that could be interpreted in different ways, giving spells a wide range of effects, so you could have 4-5 spells and do lots of interesting things with it.
For example the Light spell had many different applications beyond simply being used to create light. You could cast it on someones eyes and blind them, you could cast it on an object and cast the object into a pit etc.. you get the point.
In any case, this is why we have Vancian magic in D&D. Its a limiting factor that pushes players to get creative in their use. Can you cast sleep on a glass of water and use it as a sleeping potion? Perhaps.. perhaps not, it boils down to a GM to player conversation.. aka collaborative storytelling...aka role-playing. When you have a system where the rules tell you what you can do they also instruct you in all the things you can't do... but if the depiction of magic is vague and presumed to be up to your imagination, then anything is possible.
Redefining terms to make a point hardly makes for an honest conversation. You could for example,e say that Monopoly is a role-playing game because you play the role of a real estate mogul and that would be objectively true... but of course we both know that this is not the definition of the term in the context of a conversation about role-playing games.
The act of collaborative storytelling is the basic principle behind role-playing games. One player (GM) describes something and the other players respond, the result is a story.
No, the result is a sequence of events. It would be easier to turn into a story than a game of Monopoly, because it includes dialog, but the actual game is not a story, and thinking of gaming as storytelling tends to result in railroading and terrible game play.
Redefining terms to make a point hardly makes for an honest conversation. You could for example,e say that Monopoly is a role-playing game because you play the role of a real estate mogul and that would be objectively true... but of course we both know that this is not the definition of the term in the context of a conversation about role-playing games.
The act of collaborative storytelling is the basic principle behind role-playing games. One player (GM) describes something and the other players respond, the result is a story.
No, the result is a sequence of events. It would be easier to turn into a story than a game of Monopoly, because it includes dialog, but the actual game is not a story, and thinking of gaming as storytelling tends to result in railroading and terrible game play.
I've never had that problem.
Besides, how is "a sequence of events" different than a story?
Besides, how is "a sequence of events" different than a story?
A story has a plot. However, I think we're straying well away from the topic again, so maybe best to move this to another thread, as it doesn't really relate to Vancian magic.
I think you're overstating Vance's prominence and regard, but it's irrelevant. (I've also seen people taking issue with how much original D&D's magic was actually like Vance's, but I've never read Vance, so have no opinion.)
"Works in fiction" and "works in a game" are two very different things. The rules of magic in fiction exist for dramatic purposes. In most cases, they will change to a degree in relation to the needs of the story.
The magic system of a game needs to be systemized and quantified in a way that fiction generally avoids. You need a solid definition of what characters of a given power level can do. (Not all games are as quantified as D&D, but they're all quantified.) It has to be understandable to the players and GM. Most importantly, it has to be fun to use.
One need only look up Vance to see how many distinguished F and SF accolades the man won. I am not 'overstating' things just because you've not read his work and are ignorant of how important he is considered to be.
Vancian magic meets your own criteria. It is 'systemized' and 'quantified' and is quite explicit when it comes to defining what a character is capable of. (This isn't to point out to you that not all games use magic systems like this. Many are flexible. Many see players coming up with their own spells instead of their even being provided spell lists. There are even magic supplements for D&D intended to replace the magic system in place with such flexibility. TRPGs are many and great is the variety when it comes to how magic is handled. You don't get to just imperiously declare how it 'must be' done so you can then right off a system you personally don't like. Even though that system meets your own criteria.) And most importantly you are not the arbiter of what is fun for others.
It's just needlessly frustrating to encounter a challenge, know you could have had the right tool for it, but to not have access to that tool. It's great that you then need to think creatively about how to overcome the challenge without the tool, but a game can engage that kind of creative problem solving without dangling your plan A just out of reach like a grade school bully.
This 'problem' exists using the current magic system. Or are you forgetting that Wizards only have so many spell slots?
Even today if a Wizard has access to a spell as soon as they run out of slots of that level or greater they no longer have access to it. If that Wizard then faces an encounter in which that particular spell might have been useful how is that not exactly the same as what you have just described? That ''grade school bully" is now just dangling it in their face!
If the reason you have just given for disliking Vancian magic were legitimate you wouldn't like how magic is handled today either.
That 'illogical' game design is inspired by how magic works in a highly regarded series of speculative fiction works written by one of the world's greatest fantasy and science fiction authors of all time.
It has very little to do with how magic actually worked in the Vance novels, and the fact that basically no-one emulates it is a sign that it's an anomaly rather than a good rule (the other thing D&D does that basically no-one emulates is armor class).
I mean, Pathfinder uses both aspects last I looked, and between it and D&D is there much of a niche left for another system to attempt to emulate their format? I won't say it's an absolute rule- Pathfinder itself being a case in point although iirc it also took advantage of 4e to be the alternative active system for people who enjoyed 3e/3.5- but you need a decent degree of differentiation for a TTRPG system to really flourish in the market, so "no one else has copied the system" isn't necessarily a strong argument that something is flawed. One could argue that you don't see many other Vancian systems because there's a fairly narrow amount of space for using it without looking like a rip of D&D and Pathfinder, which are far more popular/recognized.
It has very little to do with how magic actually worked in the Vance novels, and the fact that basically no-one emulates it is a sign that it's an anomaly rather than a good rule (the other thing D&D does that basically no-one emulates is armor class).
If by 'basically no one' you mean the majority of clones of and alternative to D&D. OSR already listed just a handful of them. Among these being the most popular D&D-like games outside of Pathfinder.
Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics dominates at more than a few conventions. It—as well as ShadowDark and some other games—uses something similar to Vancian magic. One rolls to cast. But if you fail to cast a particular spell you have forgotten the incantation required to cast it until it is once again memorized. DCC—priding itself on being the game that best captures the look and feel of the works found in Appendix N—also has a whole line of products set in the world Vance's Dying Earth series! (Recently someone on the Micheal Moorcock forums said how it is criminal how few people today who play D&D have actually read Vance or Leiber. And he is right. There is nothing else that reads more like a D&D adventure than a Dying Earth tale or one of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. The game wouldn't even exist were Gary and Dave and others not readers of these authors.)
Most OSR games are based on B/X or BECMI. And use Vancian magic. There are so many of these games that the claim that 'basically no one' uses a Vancian magic system is outright false. For years games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Labyrinth Lord dominated at tables where old-school play was preferred. Old-School Essentials perhaps now holds this distinction. But even its predecessors remain popular. As popular as 5E? No. But it is so logically flawed to disregard the popularity of something because it is not as popular as something else. It's like invoking the Beatles to dismiss the popularity of Death. It's schoolyard behavior.
Collaborative storytelling has very little to do with RPGs (I've seen 'stories' that were basically transcriptions of D&D sessions. Measured as stories, they were terrible). If you want actual collaborative storytelling, you don't want dice, and you don't want a DM.
The inventors of role-playing games and those who have written extensively about the history and development of the hobby thoroughly disagree with you. The whole purpose of introducing a DM to what began as little more than a war game was to allow for the arbitration that would be required for the emergent storytelling that would then ensue when the game was no longer just a fighting game.
As for how 'terrible' you personally find transcriptions of D&D sessions to be these are immensely popular in Japan. With some of them having been adapted into some of the most beloved manga and anime.
A story has a plot. However, I think we're straying well away from the topic again, so maybe best to move this to another thread, as it doesn't really relate to Vancian magic.
I teach both literature and creative writing. Not all stories come with a plot. Go read examples of literary impressionism and see what I mean.
D&D is very much a form of storytelling. In the oral tradition. When people once sat and even many indigenous groups still today sit around the hearth and tell stories and these evolve in real time?
That is storytelling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That 'illogical' game design is inspired by how magic works in a highly regarded series of speculative fiction works written by one of the world's greatest fantasy and science fiction authors of all time.
I think you're overstating Vance's prominence and regard, but it's irrelevant. (I've also seen people taking issue with how much original D&D's magic was actually like Vance's, but I've never read Vance, so have no opinion.)
"Works in fiction" and "works in a game" are two very different things. The rules of magic in fiction exist for dramatic purposes. In most cases, they will change to a degree in relation to the needs of the story.
The magic system of a game needs to be systemized and quantified in a way that fiction generally avoids. You need a solid definition of what characters of a given power level can do. (Not all games are as quantified as D&D, but they're all quantified.) It has to be understandable to the players and GM. Most importantly, it has to be fun to use.
It has very little to do with how magic actually worked in the Vance novels, and the fact that basically no-one emulates it is a sign that it's an anomaly rather than a good rule (the other thing D&D does that basically no-one emulates is armor class).
I don't think that anyone has pointed out that using the Vancian system in a novel is massively different than using it in a game because the novelist knows exactly what is going to happen - or they can go back and change things once they know - so the primary drawback isn't actually a thing. The character in the novel prepares the exact spells they will need to traverse the plot. No dynamic, free-form game can behave that way.
While breaking away from that system certainly did increase the power of casters and that there is now an imbalance that should be addressed, fixing it by going back would be the wrong move. It's just needlessly frustrating to encounter a challenge, know you could have had the right tool for it, but to not have access to that tool. It's great that you then need to think creatively about how to overcome the challenge without the tool, but a game can engage that kind of creative problem solving without dangling your plan A just out of reach like a grade school bully.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
100%
So, another question then. Is the current magic system the problem, or is it spell design? Is the sorcerer as big of a problem as the wizard, with their more limited spell selection.
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
Depends what problem you're concerned with.
If we look at things that games with clear D&D inspiration, but not actually D&D, have done that are notably different from D&D:
Taking a step back, what is the problem that we're diagnosing? I agree the original D&D system is...flawed to say the least, but what problem are we diagnosing with the current system?
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.
There was a time when Dungeons and Dragons was a tradition and not a game, it was kind of the point to have it be a work of fiction and not quantified as a system of rules. D&D since 1st edition AD&D has been systematically re-invented with each new edition away from being a collaborative storytelling tradition to being a mechanized game. Each edition erased more of the storytelling traditions and replaced them with game mechanics. Today D&D is better described as a board game.
What you described there is everything that is wrong with Dungeons and Dragons design today.
So no, I don't agree that magic should not be "systemized and quantified." That is quite literally the exact opposite of what collaborative storytelling is about.
The old system was not flawed, it was simply not created for the purposes of a "game", it was designed for the purpose of collaborative storytelling. The "mechanisms" of the system only existed so far as to ensure that it was not an entirely free-form function. Just enough structure to govern a way to believe in the existence of magic. The purpose was not to "execute" magic, but to weave it into the rest of the games collaborative storytelling effort.
Collaborative storytelling has very little to do with RPGs (I've seen 'stories' that were basically transcriptions of D&D sessions. Measured as stories, they were terrible). If you want actual collaborative storytelling, you don't want dice, and you don't want a DM.
Redefining terms to make a point hardly makes for an honest conversation. You could for example,e say that Monopoly is a role-playing game because you play the role of a real estate mogul and that would be objectively true... but of course we both know that this is not the definition of the term in the context of a conversation about role-playing games.
The act of collaborative storytelling is the basic principle behind role-playing games. One player (GM) describes something and the other players respond, the result is a story.
Magic as a "system" in the context of collaborative storytelling is the idea that the depiction of a spell for example, is not about a rule of how you execute the spell, but using the description to come up with inventive ways to apply it to a story.
This idea was a core concept of class (original D&D) through to 1st edition AD&D. By 2nd edition the rules for spells became more and more specific, 3rd and 4th edition continued down that road. It was only with 5th edition some of the damage was undone and spells became more descriptive rather than instructive.
Suffice to say, their is a distinction between the two approaches to magic.
The point is however that Vancian magic was a structure that defined magic in a way that was by design, dynamic. Its how it worked in the novel, its why Gygax and Arneson liked it and put it into D&D. Needless to say it wasn't added for its mechanical application, they like the idea of having spells that were described as an effect that could be interpreted in different ways, giving spells a wide range of effects, so you could have 4-5 spells and do lots of interesting things with it.
For example the Light spell had many different applications beyond simply being used to create light. You could cast it on someones eyes and blind them, you could cast it on an object and cast the object into a pit etc.. you get the point.
In any case, this is why we have Vancian magic in D&D. Its a limiting factor that pushes players to get creative in their use. Can you cast sleep on a glass of water and use it as a sleeping potion? Perhaps.. perhaps not, it boils down to a GM to player conversation.. aka collaborative storytelling...aka role-playing. When you have a system where the rules tell you what you can do they also instruct you in all the things you can't do... but if the depiction of magic is vague and presumed to be up to your imagination, then anything is possible.
No, the result is a sequence of events. It would be easier to turn into a story than a game of Monopoly, because it includes dialog, but the actual game is not a story, and thinking of gaming as storytelling tends to result in railroading and terrible game play.
I've never had that problem.
Besides, how is "a sequence of events" different than a story?
A story has a plot. However, I think we're straying well away from the topic again, so maybe best to move this to another thread, as it doesn't really relate to Vancian magic.
One need only look up Vance to see how many distinguished F and SF accolades the man won. I am not 'overstating' things just because you've not read his work and are ignorant of how important he is considered to be.
Vancian magic meets your own criteria. It is 'systemized' and 'quantified' and is quite explicit when it comes to defining what a character is capable of. (This isn't to point out to you that not all games use magic systems like this. Many are flexible. Many see players coming up with their own spells instead of their even being provided spell lists. There are even magic supplements for D&D intended to replace the magic system in place with such flexibility. TRPGs are many and great is the variety when it comes to how magic is handled. You don't get to just imperiously declare how it 'must be' done so you can then right off a system you personally don't like. Even though that system meets your own criteria.) And most importantly you are not the arbiter of what is fun for others.
This 'problem' exists using the current magic system. Or are you forgetting that Wizards only have so many spell slots?
Even today if a Wizard has access to a spell as soon as they run out of slots of that level or greater they no longer have access to it. If that Wizard then faces an encounter in which that particular spell might have been useful how is that not exactly the same as what you have just described? That ''grade school bully" is now just dangling it in their face!
If the reason you have just given for disliking Vancian magic were legitimate you wouldn't like how magic is handled today either.
I mean, Pathfinder uses both aspects last I looked, and between it and D&D is there much of a niche left for another system to attempt to emulate their format? I won't say it's an absolute rule- Pathfinder itself being a case in point although iirc it also took advantage of 4e to be the alternative active system for people who enjoyed 3e/3.5- but you need a decent degree of differentiation for a TTRPG system to really flourish in the market, so "no one else has copied the system" isn't necessarily a strong argument that something is flawed. One could argue that you don't see many other Vancian systems because there's a fairly narrow amount of space for using it without looking like a rip of D&D and Pathfinder, which are far more popular/recognized.
I was referring to people who created their own system, not copied and pasted an existing game system.
If by 'basically no one' you mean the majority of clones of and alternative to D&D. OSR already listed just a handful of them. Among these being the most popular D&D-like games outside of Pathfinder.
Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics dominates at more than a few conventions. It—as well as ShadowDark and some other games—uses something similar to Vancian magic. One rolls to cast. But if you fail to cast a particular spell you have forgotten the incantation required to cast it until it is once again memorized. DCC—priding itself on being the game that best captures the look and feel of the works found in Appendix N—also has a whole line of products set in the world Vance's Dying Earth series! (Recently someone on the Micheal Moorcock forums said how it is criminal how few people today who play D&D have actually read Vance or Leiber. And he is right. There is nothing else that reads more like a D&D adventure than a Dying Earth tale or one of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. The game wouldn't even exist were Gary and Dave and others not readers of these authors.)
Most OSR games are based on B/X or BECMI. And use Vancian magic. There are so many of these games that the claim that 'basically no one' uses a Vancian magic system is outright false. For years games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Labyrinth Lord dominated at tables where old-school play was preferred. Old-School Essentials perhaps now holds this distinction. But even its predecessors remain popular. As popular as 5E? No. But it is so logically flawed to disregard the popularity of something because it is not as popular as something else. It's like invoking the Beatles to dismiss the popularity of Death. It's schoolyard behavior.
The inventors of role-playing games and those who have written extensively about the history and development of the hobby thoroughly disagree with you. The whole purpose of introducing a DM to what began as little more than a war game was to allow for the arbitration that would be required for the emergent storytelling that would then ensue when the game was no longer just a fighting game.
As for how 'terrible' you personally find transcriptions of D&D sessions to be these are immensely popular in Japan. With some of them having been adapted into some of the most beloved manga and anime.
I teach both literature and creative writing. Not all stories come with a plot. Go read examples of literary impressionism and see what I mean.
D&D is very much a form of storytelling. In the oral tradition. When people once sat and even many indigenous groups still today sit around the hearth and tell stories and these evolve in real time?
That is storytelling.