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.
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.
While I think that D&D /is/ collaborative story telling, I don't think Vancian magic helps tell the story. I've read most of the arguments people have made in favor of it. To me, it sounds almost like folks are trying to justify the system. I'm sure it worked well in Vance's books. I do not feel it does anything to improve the experience of D&D. I've played with Vancian magic in game, and I have used the subsequent systems as well. In my mind, it's no question that dumping Vancian magic made playing magic users a more pleasant experience.
That said, the pendulum needs to swing back the other way a bit. Without any restrictions at all, magic users are a bit too good. I am not sure where the happy medium is, but I'd rather have the overtuned wizards that we have now, than the undertuned and punished ones we had back in 2e. I say wizards specifically, because I am not convinced that the other spell casters are huge problems. It's the flexibility that wizards have to swap their loadouts super easy that I think cause the majority of the issues.
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.
While I think that D&D /is/ collaborative story telling, I don't think Vancian magic helps tell the story. I've read most of the arguments people have made in favor of it. To me, it sounds almost like folks are trying to justify the system. I'm sure it worked well in Vance's books. I do not feel it does anything to improve the experience of D&D. I've played with Vancian magic in game, and I have used the subsequent systems as well. In my mind, it's no question that dumping Vancian magic made playing magic users a more pleasant experience.
That said, the pendulum needs to swing back the other way a bit. Without any restrictions at all, magic users are a bit too good. I am not sure where the happy medium is, but I'd rather have the overtuned wizards that we have now, than the undertuned and punished ones we had back in 2e. I say wizards specifically, because I am not convinced that the other spell casters are huge problems. It's the flexibility that wizards have to swap their loadouts super easy that I think cause the majority of the issues.
Yeah. There were so many little things that kept magic users in check. Besides the vancian part of the discussion, and memorizing a spell multiple times to cast it multiple times, and casting times which was brought up earlier. They needed more xp to level. They had to roll percentile die when they wanted to try and learn a new spell, and you failed, that was it, you could never learn that spell. They needed an int score of 10+spell level to cast spells of that level. So a 19 int to cast 9th level spells — at a time when asi didn’t exist and you basically needed someone to cast a wish on you to get above an 18. Or really to get any ability score increase.
Again, I don’t want to go back. But it does feel like they could be reined in a bit. Though, as I say that I’m thinking that I play in a group where I’m a wizard, we have a champion fighter (24 version) and I certainly don’t feel like my character outshines that one. Or any of the others in the group. Certainly, there’s times when I can solve a problem with a spell very easily, but there’s lots of times when they are outshining me. Could just be that I have a fantastic DM, which I do.
Yeah. There were so many little things that kept magic users in check.
Yes and no. Low level spellcasters were certainly absolutely terrible in AD&D. High level spellcasters were godlike, far more potent than they are in 5e.
With the exception of 4e (which treated magic so much differently than any other edition of D&D that it barely belongs in the same discussion), in every edition spellcasters were terrible at low levels (1-2 definitely, 3-4 maybe), okay at mid levels (5-8 or so), and increasingly overpowered and gamebreaking at higher levels, and the blame for this is solidly on the spellcasting system -- the phrase 'linear fighter, quadratic wizard' was coined way back in the 80s.
While I think that D&D /is/ collaborative story telling, I don't think Vancian magic helps tell the story. I've read most of the arguments people have made in favor of it. To me, it sounds almost like folks are trying to justify the system. I'm sure it worked well in Vance's books. I do not feel it does anything to improve the experience of D&D. I've played with Vancian magic in game, and I have used the subsequent systems as well. In my mind, it's no question that dumping Vancian magic made playing magic users a more pleasant experience.
That said, the pendulum needs to swing back the other way a bit. Without any restrictions at all, magic users are a bit too good. I am not sure where the happy medium is, but I'd rather have the overtuned wizards that we have now, than the undertuned and punished ones we had back in 2e. I say wizards specifically, because I am not convinced that the other spell casters are huge problems. It's the flexibility that wizards have to swap their loadouts super easy that I think cause the majority of the issues.
Whether you like it or not, or think it works for your game is an entirely different topic and mostly driven by personal tastes, which, as far as I'm concerned, requires no debate. Taste is taste and it's a matter for each player/table to determine their preference.
The topic is about the meaning and purpose of Vancian magic, and understanding why it exists at all is an important part of understanding it as a whole.
I think one way to look at Vancian magic and the concept of role-playing "systems" in a game in general is to understand that they are not all intended to be "fun" mechanics; they are more often intended to create a sense of drama, limitations, and often even drawbacks.
I mean for example is it fun to only have 1 Bonus action, rather than, say 3 Bonus actions? Is failing a skill check "fun"? Is casting a spell only to have an enemy make its saving throw "fun"? All of these limitations, drawbacks and potential failures could be construed by someone as not fun game mechanics. There are games that take the approach of taking something deemed "unfun" by the designer and altering how it works. For example, in Draw Steel, there is no such thing as a failed attack, when you make an attack, the question isn't if you hit or miss (everything is an auto hit), its a question of how much damage you do (a little or a lot). The designer of that game decided that missing attacks is not a fun mechanic.
As you point out "Without any restrictions at all, magic users are a bit too good." This is a common complaint about modern D&D by old-school gamers, though I think most would agree they are a bit more than just "a bit too good". Old Old-school gamers don't think its a fun mechanic to have the concept of The Magic-User being reduced to just a common thing anyone can do, The point of Vancian magic was to make Magic-Users very special. Evidence for that is in how OSR games typically debict mages as a unique class. You can look at pretty much any system, and it would be so.
About 75% of the classes/sub-classes in modern 2024 D&D are spellcasters of one form or another, it's more common to have magic abilities than it is to have good martial abilities in modern D&D. Modern D&D is in effect a game about different types of Wizards.
Vancian magic was one part of a larger eco-system of mechanics that defined the realities of a fantasy world, most notably that fantasy world was not "high fantasy" or "power fantasy", D&D was a low magic, low fantasy based mostly on a real medieval world. What magic did exist in the world was presumed to be the hands of the players, meaning it was a kind of expectation of the game that IF powerful magic-users existed, it was typically as a member of an adventure party or a villain in the story or some rare NPC that would help the players. It was intended to be limited, special, unique, rare.. whatever word you want to use to describe anything but common.
Powerful magic did exist, in fact, the magic in old-school vancian systems like AD&D was incredibly potent, came at very high levels and it was a rare part of the setting. Isolated to the Magic-User and Druid classes.
Modern D&D is a superhero power fantasy, and in that context, where everyone is a powerful magic wielder, Vancian magic doesn't make much sense, so with that I can agree. It is a system of magic that originated as an intentionally limiting concept, it doesn't fit into a setting where pretty much everyone is a powerful spellcaster superhero of one form or another.
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.
Sure, but just because it works well in a series of novels (however well-regarded), doesn't mean it's the best fit for a tabletop game though. It's a totally different medium.
Vancian has advantages to be sure - instead of other RPGs that use things like mana points, your magic user can just have a sheet of paper that says Shield | Shield | Magic Missile | Mage Armor, and cross off each one as you use it, making it very easy to keep track of which spells you have left even between sessions.
But Vancian has disadvantages too, chief of which was every spellcaster player needing to guess what challenges they're going to be up against a day in advance. That's not the easiest ask for even an experienced player, and even when they get it right they need to figure out how many times they'll need each solution (do I prepare 2 fireballs or 4?) It's clunky design for a game where the players aren't supposed to have that kind of knowledge of what's coming. (And yes, divinations exist, but that just creates the secondary problem of pestering the DM before every long rest.)
It's clunky design for a game where the players aren't supposed to have that kind of knowledge of what's coming. (And yes, divinations exist, but that just creates the secondary problem of pestering the DM before every long rest.)
I'm very much not keen for a return to Vancian, but one solution could be that the Divination allows you to retcon your spell choice.
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.
But Vancian has disadvantages too, chief of which was every spellcaster player needing to guess what challenges they're going to be up against a day in advance. That's not the easiest ask for even an experienced player, and even when they get it right they need to figure out how many times they'll need each solution (do I prepare 2 fireballs or 4?) It's clunky design for a game where the players aren't supposed to have that kind of knowledge of what's coming. (And yes, divinations exist, but that just creates the secondary problem of pestering the DM before every long rest.)
Those limitations could be very fun...but it's a poor choice to make an entire character "just" to make-or-break their experience on those limitations. If "what spells did you think to prepare/memorize" were more of a party resource, than a character's function, it'd be a lot more reasonable. I think it's very similar to the "clerics are just heal bots" problem.
Older-school D&D mostly dealt with this, initially by happenstance, by being so freeform, thus more forgiving. Being "just a heal bot" or "just a fire-and-forget wizard with only the two wrong spells" mattered less if everyone was spending most of their time not-in-combat and with their actions less limited by their character stats. Older-school games were less pure-combat (despite their wargame roots), "because" the combat was kinda terrible and half-baked.
Really, this was a side-effect of how new the hobby was back then, and how long it took for the market to mature. It took awhile for the industry to figure itself out and know how to differentiate playstyles. Saying that vancian magic enabled a storytelling style of game is putting the cart before the horse --- but the OSR movement, given the benefit of hindsight, is able to turn that around.
Personally, I think vancian magic is very wargame-y. It can also be a good bit of worldbuilding, if you want "wizards" to feel rare and special.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
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.
While I think that D&D /is/ collaborative story telling, I don't think Vancian magic helps tell the story. I've read most of the arguments people have made in favor of it. To me, it sounds almost like folks are trying to justify the system. I'm sure it worked well in Vance's books. I do not feel it does anything to improve the experience of D&D. I've played with Vancian magic in game, and I have used the subsequent systems as well. In my mind, it's no question that dumping Vancian magic made playing magic users a more pleasant experience.
That said, the pendulum needs to swing back the other way a bit. Without any restrictions at all, magic users are a bit too good. I am not sure where the happy medium is, but I'd rather have the overtuned wizards that we have now, than the undertuned and punished ones we had back in 2e. I say wizards specifically, because I am not convinced that the other spell casters are huge problems. It's the flexibility that wizards have to swap their loadouts super easy that I think cause the majority of the issues.
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
Yeah. There were so many little things that kept magic users in check. Besides the vancian part of the discussion, and memorizing a spell multiple times to cast it multiple times, and casting times which was brought up earlier. They needed more xp to level. They had to roll percentile die when they wanted to try and learn a new spell, and you failed, that was it, you could never learn that spell. They needed an int score of 10+spell level to cast spells of that level. So a 19 int to cast 9th level spells — at a time when asi didn’t exist and you basically needed someone to cast a wish on you to get above an 18. Or really to get any ability score increase.
Again, I don’t want to go back. But it does feel like they could be reined in a bit. Though, as I say that I’m thinking that I play in a group where I’m a wizard, we have a champion fighter (24 version) and I certainly don’t feel like my character outshines that one. Or any of the others in the group. Certainly, there’s times when I can solve a problem with a spell very easily, but there’s lots of times when they are outshining me. Could just be that I have a fantastic DM, which I do.
Yes and no. Low level spellcasters were certainly absolutely terrible in AD&D. High level spellcasters were godlike, far more potent than they are in 5e.
With the exception of 4e (which treated magic so much differently than any other edition of D&D that it barely belongs in the same discussion), in every edition spellcasters were terrible at low levels (1-2 definitely, 3-4 maybe), okay at mid levels (5-8 or so), and increasingly overpowered and gamebreaking at higher levels, and the blame for this is solidly on the spellcasting system -- the phrase 'linear fighter, quadratic wizard' was coined way back in the 80s.
Whether you like it or not, or think it works for your game is an entirely different topic and mostly driven by personal tastes, which, as far as I'm concerned, requires no debate. Taste is taste and it's a matter for each player/table to determine their preference.
The topic is about the meaning and purpose of Vancian magic, and understanding why it exists at all is an important part of understanding it as a whole.
I think one way to look at Vancian magic and the concept of role-playing "systems" in a game in general is to understand that they are not all intended to be "fun" mechanics; they are more often intended to create a sense of drama, limitations, and often even drawbacks.
I mean for example is it fun to only have 1 Bonus action, rather than, say 3 Bonus actions? Is failing a skill check "fun"? Is casting a spell only to have an enemy make its saving throw "fun"? All of these limitations, drawbacks and potential failures could be construed by someone as not fun game mechanics. There are games that take the approach of taking something deemed "unfun" by the designer and altering how it works. For example, in Draw Steel, there is no such thing as a failed attack, when you make an attack, the question isn't if you hit or miss (everything is an auto hit), its a question of how much damage you do (a little or a lot). The designer of that game decided that missing attacks is not a fun mechanic.
As you point out "Without any restrictions at all, magic users are a bit too good." This is a common complaint about modern D&D by old-school gamers, though I think most would agree they are a bit more than just "a bit too good". Old Old-school gamers don't think its a fun mechanic to have the concept of The Magic-User being reduced to just a common thing anyone can do, The point of Vancian magic was to make Magic-Users very special. Evidence for that is in how OSR games typically debict mages as a unique class. You can look at pretty much any system, and it would be so.
About 75% of the classes/sub-classes in modern 2024 D&D are spellcasters of one form or another, it's more common to have magic abilities than it is to have good martial abilities in modern D&D. Modern D&D is in effect a game about different types of Wizards.
Vancian magic was one part of a larger eco-system of mechanics that defined the realities of a fantasy world, most notably that fantasy world was not "high fantasy" or "power fantasy", D&D was a low magic, low fantasy based mostly on a real medieval world. What magic did exist in the world was presumed to be the hands of the players, meaning it was a kind of expectation of the game that IF powerful magic-users existed, it was typically as a member of an adventure party or a villain in the story or some rare NPC that would help the players. It was intended to be limited, special, unique, rare.. whatever word you want to use to describe anything but common.
Powerful magic did exist, in fact, the magic in old-school vancian systems like AD&D was incredibly potent, came at very high levels and it was a rare part of the setting. Isolated to the Magic-User and Druid classes.
Modern D&D is a superhero power fantasy, and in that context, where everyone is a powerful magic wielder, Vancian magic doesn't make much sense, so with that I can agree. It is a system of magic that originated as an intentionally limiting concept, it doesn't fit into a setting where pretty much everyone is a powerful spellcaster superhero of one form or another.
Sure, but just because it works well in a series of novels (however well-regarded), doesn't mean it's the best fit for a tabletop game though. It's a totally different medium.
Vancian has advantages to be sure - instead of other RPGs that use things like mana points, your magic user can just have a sheet of paper that says Shield |
Shield| Magic Missile | Mage Armor, and cross off each one as you use it, making it very easy to keep track of which spells you have left even between sessions.But Vancian has disadvantages too, chief of which was every spellcaster player needing to guess what challenges they're going to be up against a day in advance. That's not the easiest ask for even an experienced player, and even when they get it right they need to figure out how many times they'll need each solution (do I prepare 2 fireballs or 4?) It's clunky design for a game where the players aren't supposed to have that kind of knowledge of what's coming. (And yes, divinations exist, but that just creates the secondary problem of pestering the DM before every long rest.)
I'm very much not keen for a return to Vancian, but one solution could be that the Divination allows you to retcon your spell choice.
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.
Those limitations could be very fun...but it's a poor choice to make an entire character "just" to make-or-break their experience on those limitations. If "what spells did you think to prepare/memorize" were more of a party resource, than a character's function, it'd be a lot more reasonable. I think it's very similar to the "clerics are just heal bots" problem.
Older-school D&D mostly dealt with this, initially by happenstance, by being so freeform, thus more forgiving. Being "just a heal bot" or "just a fire-and-forget wizard with only the two wrong spells" mattered less if everyone was spending most of their time not-in-combat and with their actions less limited by their character stats. Older-school games were less pure-combat (despite their wargame roots), "because" the combat was kinda terrible and half-baked.
Really, this was a side-effect of how new the hobby was back then, and how long it took for the market to mature. It took awhile for the industry to figure itself out and know how to differentiate playstyles. Saying that vancian magic enabled a storytelling style of game is putting the cart before the horse --- but the OSR movement, given the benefit of hindsight, is able to turn that around.
Personally, I think vancian magic is very wargame-y. It can also be a good bit of worldbuilding, if you want "wizards" to feel rare and special.