Hardly... Attributes, defenses, saves, skills, and monster design in modern D&D are just slight variations of what already existed. Do you really think it's design when you decide "ok if you're a strength 17 you get +4 instead of +3... or reverse AC math?
Um.... none of those things are slight variants.
The fundamental change between AD&D and 3e is that in AD&D, everything you might want to do had its own special mechanic, generally involving table lookup. 3e collapsed the vast majority of those things into a single consistent mechanic (roll a d20, add bonuses, compare to target number), turned most of the table lookup into predictable and simple equations, rethought a lot of core mechanics (in AD&D, there was typically very little difference between an ability score of 8 and an ability score of 14), ...
You're citing an intended feature of the game as a bug. The whole point of AD&D was to be a guide to a method and tradition, it was not a rulebook. You're applying modern thinking to a classic premise. You didn't play AD&D; you created an AD&D game in your own vision.
Um... I suggest actually reading the AD&D DMG? Also, for clarity, I'm not criticizing the AD&D rules having gaps (every RPG has those), I'm saying that the rules that were actually published were essentially unusable as a body.
Hardly... Attributes, defenses, saves, skills, and monster design in modern D&D are just slight variations of what already existed. Do you really think it's design when you decide "ok if you're a strength 17 you get +4 instead of +3... or reverse AC math?
Um.... none of those things are slight variants.
The fundamental change between AD&D and 3e is that in AD&D, everything you might want to do had its own special mechanic, generally involving table lookup. 3e collapsed the vast majority of those things into a single consistent mechanic (roll a d20, add bonuses, compare to target number), turned most of the table lookup into predictable and simple equations, rethought a lot of core mechanics (in AD&D, there was typically very little difference between an ability score of 8 and an ability score of 14), ...
You're citing an intended feature of the game as a bug. The whole point of AD&D was to be a guide to a method and tradition, it was not a rulebook. You're applying modern thinking to a classic premise. You didn't play AD&D; you created an AD&D game in your own vision.
Um... I suggest actually reading the AD&D DMG? Also, for clarity, I'm not criticizing the AD&D rules having gaps (every RPG has those), I'm saying that the rules that were actually published were essentially unusable as a body.
I think this is kind of the principle misunderstanding of Vancian magic in particular but globally about how D&D was designed and how it was intended to be used. You're still looking at it like it's a "rulebook" in the modern sense, which I'm trying to explain to you (using an actual example of an actual AD&D game in progress in a video form). AD&D is a tradition and the most important part of that tradition was to take the many examples of "how you might handle different situations in a role-playing session"... from the instructions in the Dungeon Masters Guide to teach you how to participate in that tradition. It's not a rulebook, it's a guide.
The goal isn't to play this conceptualized idea of a "rule system" like you would in modern 5e (aka read the rules, follow the instructions), the point was to learn how to run a role-playing campaign and more importantly on how to devise your own method, structure and style for that tradition. It is the intention of AD&D for you to take it and make it your own and that tradition which you know today as "homebrewing", was the ONLY way to play AD&D... that is not a bug or a problem to be solved; it's quite literally the entire point of AD&D.
I understand modern gaming and I understand why people want everything to be quantified into clear, streamlined mechanics and I fully understand why someone would take a game like AD&D and start messing with it to create their own version. Well 5e is one such version, but its not yours; its someone else's version of the game. Its no more official or legitimate than every other DM that has ever run a D&D campaign.
The 'post-Vancian' system now in place incurs similar limitations. If that Wizard uses up all its spell slots of a particular spell's level and greater then encounters something against which that particular spell would have been useful or even critical ...
And this has happened to me in almost every session of 5E I have ever played in in which I played a caster.
It still exists to an extent but it's a great deal more forgiving in 5e. Because you only have to prepare a spell once to have as many iterations of it as you need (or more accurately, have ammunition for), there's a lot less guesswork involved. It also means that in a pinch, you can use a higher level spell slot for that thing you really need. e.g. the party gets ambushed by some trolls and you've used up all your 3rd-level fireballs for the day but you have a 4th-level slot you've been saving, well, not only do you get to save the day, but the last one actually hits harder than the previous ones. Or your Fighter gets paralyzed by that lich and you have a 5th level slot, now might be the time for that clutch Freedom of Movement you weren't sure you'd need.
The fundamental change between AD&D and 3e is that in AD&D, everything you might want to do had its own special mechanic, generally involving table lookup. 3e collapsed the vast majority of those things into a single consistent mechanic (roll a d20, add bonuses, compare to target number), turned most of the table lookup into predictable and simple equations, rethought a lot of core mechanics (in AD&D, there was typically very little difference between an ability score of 8 and an ability score of 14), ...
Um... I suggest actually reading the AD&D DMG? Also, for clarity, I'm not criticizing the AD&D rules having gaps (every RPG has those), I'm saying that the rules that were actually published were essentially unusable as a body.
So the d20 system dumbed things down is what you're saying? All those tables you hate so much calculated in hours of discussions about how this or that class would be superior at something. Now we have a 'proficiency system' that sees a Wizard wielding a weapon with which it is proficient as proficiently as a Fighter. That doesn't just simplify things. It's laughably simplistic.
I have read the 1e DMG. I still use it at my table.
You have claimed in this thread that the way Vancian magic works has 'little to do' with how it works in Vance's Dying Earth. Which is false. A wizard in those stories must memorize a spell but upon casting it it is wiped from his or her mind until it is memorized again. Even the types of spells that appear in Vance's stories resemble those in the game. A conscious decision was made to have magic portable (and not tethered to a lab or something), fast and easy (and not requiring rituals the length of a mass), and small but versatile (and not world-breaking). Have you even read the Dying Earth stories or are you just making things up? Because you also claimed D&D isn't a storytelling process when it very much qualifies as one. You claimed a story has to have a predetermined 'plot'' when there are movements in literature that do away with plot altogether. And traditional oral storytelling has an evolving plot that emerges in real time much like it does in D&D.
The 'post-Vancian' system now in place incurs similar limitations. If that Wizard uses up all its spell slots of a particular spell's level and greater then encounters something against which that particular spell would have been useful or even critical ...
And this has happened to me in almost every session of 5E I have ever played in in which I played a caster.
It still exists to an extent but it's a great deal more forgiving in 5e. Because you only have to prepare a spell once to have as many iterations of it as you need (or more accurately, have ammunition for), there's a lot less guesswork involved. It also means that in a pinch, you can use a higher level spell slot for that thing you really need. e.g. the party gets ambushed by some trolls and you've used up all your 3rd-level fireballs for the day but you have a 4th-level slot you've been saving, well, not only do you get to save the day, but the last one actually hits harder than the previous ones. Or your Fighter gets paralyzed by that lich and you have a 5th level slot, now might be the time for that clutch Freedom of Movement you weren't sure you'd need.
I did say if that Wizard uses up all its spell slots of a particular spell's level and greater. Meaning that Wizard won't have available a spell slot of a greater level.
I can't say I can call it a good design, even for then. It was exploring a completely new design space, and that is going to lead to making choices that you can't know will be bad.
Nonetheless, a lot of its systems design choices are questionable. They're explicable due to the way it was developed (piecemeal, adding on to existing wargame rules, then adding more subsystems as needed, and replacing others), but nobody ever sat down and made it a coherent design. (Maybe that was the way that wargame design was often done back then, but it seems unlikely.)
Am I to believe Gygax and Arneson were 'bad game designers' like you expected me to believe I was 'overstating the prominence and regard' of a recipient of the World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement, a grand master of Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and an inductee into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame? Winner of Hugo Awards, Nebula Awards, Jupiter Awards, and World Fantasy Awards?
The fundamentals of D&D are still there. Those six ability scores. Those iconic classes. The game has changed but don't pretend anything at all revolutionary has happened since 1974.
As I spelled out elsewhere this trend to understate Gygax's role is like a modern guitar play understating the importance of earlier guitarists just because they don't like the blues. To call it disrespectful would be an understatement. Because you have devoted no small part of yourself to a hobby that would not even exist were it not for those who came before you.
Am I to believe Gygax and Arneson were 'bad game designers' like you expected me to believe I was 'overstating the prominence and regard' of a recipient of the World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement, a grand master of Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and an inductee into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame?
Believe it or not, people can be important and successful and still make mistakes. Yes, there are plenty of ideas in early D&D that have stood the test of time very well. There are also plenty of ideas that are hot garbage, and both are outnumbered by the number of ideas that are ... okay but nothing special.
As for Vance... he's definitely top 100. That doesn't mean his concept of magic was particularly influential.
Believe it or not, people can be important and successful and still make mistakes. Yes, there are plenty of ideas in early D&D that have stood the test of time very well. There are also plenty of ideas that are hot garbage, and both are outnumbered by the number of ideas that are ... okay but nothing special.
As for Vance... he's definitely top 100. That doesn't mean his concept of magic was particularly influential.
Nor particularly well-suited for an evolving game.
When D&D was a more niche hobby for wargaming enthusiasts, those were probably the kind of people that would meticulously plan out "tomorrow I'll need 3 flame strikes, 4 cure wounds, 2 restorations" etc. That's not a reasonable expectation for a mainstream audience, especially newer players who might need to look up what restoration does every time they cast it.
Am I to believe Gygax and Arneson were 'bad game designers' like you expected me to believe I was 'overstating the prominence and regard' of a recipient of the World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement, a grand master of Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and an inductee into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame?
Believe it or not, people can be important and successful and still make mistakes. Yes, there are plenty of ideas in early D&D that have stood the test of time very well. There are also plenty of ideas that are hot garbage, and both are outnumbered by the number of ideas that are ... okay but nothing special.
As for Vance... he's definitely top 100. That doesn't mean his concept of magic was particularly influential.
Only influential enough to have been the basis for how magic was handled in more editions of the world's most popular tabletop fantasy role-playing game than there have been since. And in most games based on it to this day.
As I mentioned before I teach literature and creative writing. Mentioned this to you when you suggested a story must contain a predetermined plot when you claimed playing D&D was not a form of storytelling. It is. You initially understated Vance's 'prominence and regard'—he is one of the most influential fantasy and science fiction writers of the 20th century—and are now moving the goalposts to say it's just how magic functions in some of his works that's not at all influential. The way 'magic'—if it can be called that—works in Herbert's Dune series has seen little replication in games or even in other fiction. But to claim it's nothing would be absurd.
Beyond your own actual mistakes when it comes to what constitutes a story and the significance of Vance as a writer your comments about those made by the game's pioneers is your personal opinion. Many still play AD&D. Some still even play OD&D. And countless are the games based on B/X. What you call 'hot garbage' they see as better game design than what is seen is modern D&D. Those of us still fond of older editions see plenty of 'hot garbage' in 2014/2024. Opinions. We all have them.
Believe it or not, people can be important and successful and still make mistakes. Yes, there are plenty of ideas in early D&D that have stood the test of time very well. There are also plenty of ideas that are hot garbage, and both are outnumbered by the number of ideas that are ... okay but nothing special.
As for Vance... he's definitely top 100. That doesn't mean his concept of magic was particularly influential.
Nor particularly well-suited for an evolving game.
When D&D was a more niche hobby for wargaming enthusiasts, those were probably the kind of people that would meticulously plan out "tomorrow I'll need 3 flame strikes, 4 cure wounds, 2 restorations" etc. That's not a reasonable expectation for a mainstream audience, especially newer players who might need to look up what restoration does every time they cast it.
It was more a strategy game. While I never really fit the mold—being more 'freak' than 'geek' if you will—that forethought required by players was part of the charm.
Believe it or not, people can be important and successful and still make mistakes. Yes, there are plenty of ideas in early D&D that have stood the test of time very well. There are also plenty of ideas that are hot garbage, and both are outnumbered by the number of ideas that are ... okay but nothing special.
As for Vance... he's definitely top 100. That doesn't mean his concept of magic was particularly influential.
Nor particularly well-suited for an evolving game.
When D&D was a more niche hobby for wargaming enthusiasts, those were probably the kind of people that would meticulously plan out "tomorrow I'll need 3 flame strikes, 4 cure wounds, 2 restorations" etc. That's not a reasonable expectation for a mainstream audience, especially newer players who might need to look up what restoration does every time they cast it.
It was more a strategy game. While I never really fit the mold—being more 'freak' than 'geek' if you will—that forethought required by players was part of the charm.
There's nothing wrong with finding that charming, all kinds of niche gameplay expressions have their charm. That's what houserules are for. If you and your table want to return to "hard vancian" of not just preparing the spells themselves but the slots that go with them, you can absolutely do that. The printed game does not have to follow suit, your table has the tools it needs to find your own localized bliss.
There's nothing wrong with finding that charming, all kinds of niche gameplay expressions have their charm. That's what houserules are for. If you and your table want to return to "hard vancian" of not just preparing the spells themselves but the slots that go with them, you can absolutely do that. The printed game does not have to follow suit, your table has the tools it needs to find your own localized bliss.
I play in 5E games—both 2014 and 2024—but when I DM use a version of the game based on the 1983 revision of the basic rules. The current printed version does not have to follow suit. And I would not suggest it does. I have simply explained the reasoning behind the Vancian magic system. And had to wade through a number of false claims to do so: Vancian magic in the game has 'little to do' with how it works in Vance's Dying Earth series, 'little to no' thought went into the decision to use it, Vance is an author of 'little to no' significance, D&D 'isn't ' a form of storytelling because a story 'must' have a predetermined plot ...
Beyond those false claims all I see are opinions. And opinions are fine. If you don't like something don't play it. Ultimately it comes down to what you want to play.
I play in 5E games—both 2014 and 2024—but when I DM use a version of the game based on the 1983 revision of the basic rules. The current printed version does not have to follow suit. And I would not suggest it does. I have simply explained the reasoning behind the Vancian magic system. And had to wade through a number of false claims to do so: Vancian magic in the game has 'little to do' with how it works in Vance's Dying Earth series, 'little to no' thought went into the decision to use it, Vance is an author of 'little to no' significance, D&D 'isn't ' a form of storytelling because a story 'must' have a predetermined plot ...
Beyond those false claims all I see are opinions. And opinions are fine. If you don't like something don't play it. Ultimately it comes down to what you want to play.
None of those opinions came from me, so wade on. What I was supplying is the reason why 5e's looser version of Vancian is the way it is, and why it's ultimately better for the printed game.
Believe it or not, people can be important and successful and still make mistakes. Yes, there are plenty of ideas in early D&D that have stood the test of time very well. There are also plenty of ideas that are hot garbage, and both are outnumbered by the number of ideas that are ... okay but nothing special.
As for Vance... he's definitely top 100. That doesn't mean his concept of magic was particularly influential.
Nor particularly well-suited for an evolving game.
When D&D was a more niche hobby for wargaming enthusiasts, those were probably the kind of people that would meticulously plan out "tomorrow I'll need 3 flame strikes, 4 cure wounds, 2 restorations" etc. That's not a reasonable expectation for a mainstream audience, especially newer players who might need to look up what restoration does every time they cast it.
Agreed. AD&D was definitely not for a mainstream audience, but that was also the point of AD&D. It was a Gygax and Arneson invention, but more generally, it was super fans of pulp fantasy, war games (and gaming in general) inventing/creating something for other super fanatics. The 1st edition AD&D DMG was written as a conversation and love letter between one veteran gamer and fan for other gamers and fans.
This is why modern games have developed and evolved the way they have. Every evolution of the game has been about stripping it down and streamlining, making it more accessible, easier to use, easier to learn and teach, and easier to read and, most importantly, easier to sell to the masses.
The problem is that most of what made D&D special and unique as well as the reasons for things existing, have been slowly stripped away with each iteration of the game, to such a degree that most of what existed with purpose now exists as a stand-in.
For example 5e 2024 edition still uses 3d6 (3 to 18) for its attribute score, but there is absolutely no logical or mechanical reason left in the current edition that explains why. It's a stand-in mechanical structure that literally serves no purpose anymore. All the reasons why this was created and existed in the game have been stripped away a long time ago. Its almost like the game wants to hold on to its past, but it no longer understands its past and its this silly notion that as long as we have 3-18 its still D&D, when the reality is that D&D stopped being D&D a very long time ago and these old sacred cows are left in because removing them means admitting that fact.
Its the same with Vancian magic, the way it works today in 5e quite literally no longer has a point it, it no longer serves any purposes or has any narrative connection why it was created and what it was for. Its just an old sacred cow left in because removing it would mean that the game is no longer D&D, which again, is something that already happened long ago.
It is the strangest phenomenon about D&D where modern gaming rejects its past passionately, yet it insists that the very pieces that once defined that past, that once served a purpose (which it hates) remain in the game for posterity. Modern gaming has taken concepts like Vancian magic, stripped it of any recognizable purpose or reason for existing, yet continues to use this bizarre and completely unnecessary stripped-down version of it.
Why? Why not just redesign it for modern audiences?
None of those opinions came from me, so wade on. What I was supplying is the reason why 5e's looser version of Vancian is the way it is, and why it's ultimately better for the printed game.
What you might have provided is the reason you prefer the current magic system for the printed game. It's not possible to provide a reason for why it's 'ultimately better' given that is purely subjective.
Like I have said. Anything beyond false claims made about Vance, etc. has been little more than opinion.
What alternative magic system are you proposing? D&D's had rules for alternate magic systems for numerous editions now: spell points date back to at least 3.5 and the functionally identical psyonics rules date back to AD&D. There were also a host of other options in previous editions like the Warlock (only knew a few spells but had no limit on how often they could be cast) and the Truenamer (a skill check system that was interesting in theory but an actual dumpster fire in execution). What change would actually improve the game vs the current rules?
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.
My contributions to this thread have been to explain Gygax's reasoning behind the Vancian magic system and to then correct some people who made false claims about Vance being 'no one' of significance, the influence of his DE stories on how magic once worked in D&D, and about what does or does not constitute a story.
I'm not asking that improvements be made. I prefer Vancian magic. I DM using a game using it. I avoid playing casters as much as I can when playing anything 'post-Vancian.'
But if it's what you like have it it. If I gave you a list of things I would do to 'improve' the game you would only say these would 'not' be improvements. Because people like different things, something too many seem to forget too easily around here.
What alternative magic system are you proposing? D&D's had rules for alternate magic systems for numerous editions now: spell points date back to at least 3.5 and the functionally identical psyonics rules date back to AD&D. There were also a host of other options in previous editions like the Warlock (only knew a few spells but had no limit on how often they could be cast) and the Truenamer (a skill check system that was interesting in theory but an actual dumpster fire in execution). What change would actually improve the game vs the current rules?
Yeah but that is the crux of the problem for modern D&D. It has no idea as a system what it's trying to achieve narratively as an RPG, so how do you build a design goal for something like the magic system? Because that's what its about, its not about us coming up with a "system", there are a million and one ways to do something mechanically. the question is what are you trying to achieve with that system in the context of a narrative role-playing game.
In AD&D this was clear. The goal was to replicate a pulp magic system from a specific classic fantasy novel beloved by the designer of the game.
The question is, what is modern D&D's design goal? When you're designing for the masses and to the mainstream, the answer is "streamlined" or "easy to use" for example, but these are not the ambitions or design goals of a passionate RPG designer trying to create something; these are ambitions of a corporation trying to sell something.
Hence the issue. Modern D&D has no spirit, passion, setting or inspiration of its own, its a corporate product designed to sell books, but it's completely devoid of anything interesting enough to produce a worthwhile design goal for an RPG.
So yeah, I have no answer and neither does Wizards of the Coast, which is why modern D&D is just a lifeless and cold game mechanic, there is nothing behind it. They slap "fantasy art" on every page of the book, throw in a few creative adjectives but it's all derivative of a D&D that once existed in which things meant something. Now it's just pretty pictures.
I can't say I can call it a good design, even for then. It was exploring a completely new design space, and that is going to lead to making choices that you can't know will be bad.
Nonetheless, a lot of its systems design choices are questionable. They're explicable due to the way it was developed (piecemeal, adding on to existing wargame rules, then adding more subsystems as needed, and replacing others), but nobody ever sat down and made it a coherent design. (Maybe that was the way that wargame design was often done back then, but it seems unlikely.)
Am I to believe Gygax and Arneson were 'bad game designers'
You probably aren't going to believe it. But they were, or at least they weren't good at that point. (And, AFAIK, neither of them produced any particularly interesting designs afterward.)
They had a good idea. They caught lightning in a bottle. But the mechanical structure they built up around it is an incoherent mishmash of systems, some good, some bad, some adequate.
(I'm pretty sure that more of the criticism lands on Gygax. He was involved longer, and Arneson doesn't seem to have been a mechanics guy.)
And, as I said, they were staking out unexplored territory. That excuses a lot, but it doesn't make bad design good.
Vancean magic is one of the less good parts. It's too rigid. It's a wargame mechanic in a more freeform world.
The fundamentals of D&D are still there. Those six ability scores. Those iconic classes. The game has changed but don't pretend anything at all revolutionary has happened since 1974.
Some of the mechanics, good, bad, or indifferent, became institutionalized in the core concept of D&D. This makes them harder to change without backlash, The magic system has changed, but iteratively, keeping the useful core idea (spells as specific powers) while paring back the things that made the original magic rules bad for gameplay.
As for 'revolutionary'? 4e. 4e was 100% revolutionary. 4e pared the game back to its core concepts, asked the question "What is D&D?", chose an answer, and designed from there. You may not like the system. You may not think it fit your definition of D&D. But it did what it tried to do. Did it fail? Perhaps so, but that is the risk of revolution. (And discussions of its failings, commercial, mechanical, or artistic, are likely out of scope of this discussion. It is worth noting that it completely tossed all the vestiges of the original magic system, though.)
3e was certainly a sea change. Whether it was revolutionary, or just a restructuring of what was already there is debatable.
5e isn't revolutionary. It's iterative, a retrenchment and retreat from the bold move that was 4e. It's built on the revolutions of 3e and 4e, so would probably look pretty revolutionary if you were to go straight from 1e/2e to it.
The idea that the game as it is now has no spirit, passion, setting or inspiration is also merely an opinion. Plenty of people who started playing three and four decades ago have never heard of Jack Vance, have never read his novels and have no particular attachment to the way his magic works—MPA and I both in this thread alone. It is wholly possible to love D&D without any appreciation for Jack Vance because there is nothing inherent about his magic system or any other rule and the game is as soulful as we, the players make it.
Some people are accustomed to Fahrenheit but that doesn’t make it the only way to measure temperature nor does that make it a superior scale than Celsius or Kelvin; it’s just what they’re used to. Any claims to the contrary are just one group of people yelling at the clouds because that other group of people are ruining everything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Um.... none of those things are slight variants.
The fundamental change between AD&D and 3e is that in AD&D, everything you might want to do had its own special mechanic, generally involving table lookup. 3e collapsed the vast majority of those things into a single consistent mechanic (roll a d20, add bonuses, compare to target number), turned most of the table lookup into predictable and simple equations, rethought a lot of core mechanics (in AD&D, there was typically very little difference between an ability score of 8 and an ability score of 14), ...
Um... I suggest actually reading the AD&D DMG? Also, for clarity, I'm not criticizing the AD&D rules having gaps (every RPG has those), I'm saying that the rules that were actually published were essentially unusable as a body.
I think this is kind of the principle misunderstanding of Vancian magic in particular but globally about how D&D was designed and how it was intended to be used. You're still looking at it like it's a "rulebook" in the modern sense, which I'm trying to explain to you (using an actual example of an actual AD&D game in progress in a video form). AD&D is a tradition and the most important part of that tradition was to take the many examples of "how you might handle different situations in a role-playing session"... from the instructions in the Dungeon Masters Guide to teach you how to participate in that tradition. It's not a rulebook, it's a guide.
The goal isn't to play this conceptualized idea of a "rule system" like you would in modern 5e (aka read the rules, follow the instructions), the point was to learn how to run a role-playing campaign and more importantly on how to devise your own method, structure and style for that tradition. It is the intention of AD&D for you to take it and make it your own and that tradition which you know today as "homebrewing", was the ONLY way to play AD&D... that is not a bug or a problem to be solved; it's quite literally the entire point of AD&D.
I understand modern gaming and I understand why people want everything to be quantified into clear, streamlined mechanics and I fully understand why someone would take a game like AD&D and start messing with it to create their own version. Well 5e is one such version, but its not yours; its someone else's version of the game. Its no more official or legitimate than every other DM that has ever run a D&D campaign.
It still exists to an extent but it's a great deal more forgiving in 5e. Because you only have to prepare a spell once to have as many iterations of it as you need (or more accurately, have ammunition for), there's a lot less guesswork involved. It also means that in a pinch, you can use a higher level spell slot for that thing you really need. e.g. the party gets ambushed by some trolls and you've used up all your 3rd-level fireballs for the day but you have a 4th-level slot you've been saving, well, not only do you get to save the day, but the last one actually hits harder than the previous ones. Or your Fighter gets paralyzed by that lich and you have a 5th level slot, now might be the time for that clutch Freedom of Movement you weren't sure you'd need.
So the d20 system dumbed things down is what you're saying? All those tables you hate so much calculated in hours of discussions about how this or that class would be superior at something. Now we have a 'proficiency system' that sees a Wizard wielding a weapon with which it is proficient as proficiently as a Fighter. That doesn't just simplify things. It's laughably simplistic.
I have read the 1e DMG. I still use it at my table.
You have claimed in this thread that the way Vancian magic works has 'little to do' with how it works in Vance's Dying Earth. Which is false. A wizard in those stories must memorize a spell but upon casting it it is wiped from his or her mind until it is memorized again. Even the types of spells that appear in Vance's stories resemble those in the game. A conscious decision was made to have magic portable (and not tethered to a lab or something), fast and easy (and not requiring rituals the length of a mass), and small but versatile (and not world-breaking). Have you even read the Dying Earth stories or are you just making things up? Because you also claimed D&D isn't a storytelling process when it very much qualifies as one. You claimed a story has to have a predetermined 'plot'' when there are movements in literature that do away with plot altogether. And traditional oral storytelling has an evolving plot that emerges in real time much like it does in D&D.
I did say if that Wizard uses up all its spell slots of a particular spell's level and greater. Meaning that Wizard won't have available a spell slot of a greater level.
5E is more forgiving. I'll grant you that.
Am I to believe Gygax and Arneson were 'bad game designers' like you expected me to believe I was 'overstating the prominence and regard' of a recipient of the World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement, a grand master of Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and an inductee into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame? Winner of Hugo Awards, Nebula Awards, Jupiter Awards, and World Fantasy Awards?
The fundamentals of D&D are still there. Those six ability scores. Those iconic classes. The game has changed but don't pretend anything at all revolutionary has happened since 1974.
As I spelled out elsewhere this trend to understate Gygax's role is like a modern guitar play understating the importance of earlier guitarists just because they don't like the blues. To call it disrespectful would be an understatement. Because you have devoted no small part of yourself to a hobby that would not even exist were it not for those who came before you.
Believe it or not, people can be important and successful and still make mistakes. Yes, there are plenty of ideas in early D&D that have stood the test of time very well. There are also plenty of ideas that are hot garbage, and both are outnumbered by the number of ideas that are ... okay but nothing special.
As for Vance... he's definitely top 100. That doesn't mean his concept of magic was particularly influential.
Nor particularly well-suited for an evolving game.
When D&D was a more niche hobby for wargaming enthusiasts, those were probably the kind of people that would meticulously plan out "tomorrow I'll need 3 flame strikes, 4 cure wounds, 2 restorations" etc. That's not a reasonable expectation for a mainstream audience, especially newer players who might need to look up what restoration does every time they cast it.
Only influential enough to have been the basis for how magic was handled in more editions of the world's most popular tabletop fantasy role-playing game than there have been since. And in most games based on it to this day.
As I mentioned before I teach literature and creative writing. Mentioned this to you when you suggested a story must contain a predetermined plot when you claimed playing D&D was not a form of storytelling. It is. You initially understated Vance's 'prominence and regard'—he is one of the most influential fantasy and science fiction writers of the 20th century—and are now moving the goalposts to say it's just how magic functions in some of his works that's not at all influential. The way 'magic'—if it can be called that—works in Herbert's Dune series has seen little replication in games or even in other fiction. But to claim it's nothing would be absurd.
Beyond your own actual mistakes when it comes to what constitutes a story and the significance of Vance as a writer your comments about those made by the game's pioneers is your personal opinion. Many still play AD&D. Some still even play OD&D. And countless are the games based on B/X. What you call 'hot garbage' they see as better game design than what is seen is modern D&D. Those of us still fond of older editions see plenty of 'hot garbage' in 2014/2024. Opinions. We all have them.
It was more a strategy game. While I never really fit the mold—being more 'freak' than 'geek' if you will—that forethought required by players was part of the charm.
There's nothing wrong with finding that charming, all kinds of niche gameplay expressions have their charm. That's what houserules are for. If you and your table want to return to "hard vancian" of not just preparing the spells themselves but the slots that go with them, you can absolutely do that. The printed game does not have to follow suit, your table has the tools it needs to find your own localized bliss.
I play in 5E games—both 2014 and 2024—but when I DM use a version of the game based on the 1983 revision of the basic rules. The current printed version does not have to follow suit. And I would not suggest it does. I have simply explained the reasoning behind the Vancian magic system. And had to wade through a number of false claims to do so: Vancian magic in the game has 'little to do' with how it works in Vance's Dying Earth series, 'little to no' thought went into the decision to use it, Vance is an author of 'little to no' significance, D&D 'isn't ' a form of storytelling because a story 'must' have a predetermined plot ...
Beyond those false claims all I see are opinions. And opinions are fine. If you don't like something don't play it. Ultimately it comes down to what you want to play.
None of those opinions came from me, so wade on. What I was supplying is the reason why 5e's looser version of Vancian is the way it is, and why it's ultimately better for the printed game.
Agreed. AD&D was definitely not for a mainstream audience, but that was also the point of AD&D. It was a Gygax and Arneson invention, but more generally, it was super fans of pulp fantasy, war games (and gaming in general) inventing/creating something for other super fanatics. The 1st edition AD&D DMG was written as a conversation and love letter between one veteran gamer and fan for other gamers and fans.
This is why modern games have developed and evolved the way they have. Every evolution of the game has been about stripping it down and streamlining, making it more accessible, easier to use, easier to learn and teach, and easier to read and, most importantly, easier to sell to the masses.
The problem is that most of what made D&D special and unique as well as the reasons for things existing, have been slowly stripped away with each iteration of the game, to such a degree that most of what existed with purpose now exists as a stand-in.
For example 5e 2024 edition still uses 3d6 (3 to 18) for its attribute score, but there is absolutely no logical or mechanical reason left in the current edition that explains why. It's a stand-in mechanical structure that literally serves no purpose anymore. All the reasons why this was created and existed in the game have been stripped away a long time ago. Its almost like the game wants to hold on to its past, but it no longer understands its past and its this silly notion that as long as we have 3-18 its still D&D, when the reality is that D&D stopped being D&D a very long time ago and these old sacred cows are left in because removing them means admitting that fact.
Its the same with Vancian magic, the way it works today in 5e quite literally no longer has a point it, it no longer serves any purposes or has any narrative connection why it was created and what it was for. Its just an old sacred cow left in because removing it would mean that the game is no longer D&D, which again, is something that already happened long ago.
It is the strangest phenomenon about D&D where modern gaming rejects its past passionately, yet it insists that the very pieces that once defined that past, that once served a purpose (which it hates) remain in the game for posterity. Modern gaming has taken concepts like Vancian magic, stripped it of any recognizable purpose or reason for existing, yet continues to use this bizarre and completely unnecessary stripped-down version of it.
Why? Why not just redesign it for modern audiences?
What you might have provided is the reason you prefer the current magic system for the printed game. It's not possible to provide a reason for why it's 'ultimately better' given that is purely subjective.
Like I have said. Anything beyond false claims made about Vance, etc. has been little more than opinion.
What alternative magic system are you proposing? D&D's had rules for alternate magic systems for numerous editions now: spell points date back to at least 3.5 and the functionally identical psyonics rules date back to AD&D. There were also a host of other options in previous editions like the Warlock (only knew a few spells but had no limit on how often they could be cast) and the Truenamer (a skill check system that was interesting in theory but an actual dumpster fire in execution). What change would actually improve the game vs the current rules?
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.
My contributions to this thread have been to explain Gygax's reasoning behind the Vancian magic system and to then correct some people who made false claims about Vance being 'no one' of significance, the influence of his DE stories on how magic once worked in D&D, and about what does or does not constitute a story.
I'm not asking that improvements be made. I prefer Vancian magic. I DM using a game using it. I avoid playing casters as much as I can when playing anything 'post-Vancian.'
But if it's what you like have it it. If I gave you a list of things I would do to 'improve' the game you would only say these would 'not' be improvements. Because people like different things, something too many seem to forget too easily around here.
Yeah but that is the crux of the problem for modern D&D. It has no idea as a system what it's trying to achieve narratively as an RPG, so how do you build a design goal for something like the magic system? Because that's what its about, its not about us coming up with a "system", there are a million and one ways to do something mechanically. the question is what are you trying to achieve with that system in the context of a narrative role-playing game.
In AD&D this was clear. The goal was to replicate a pulp magic system from a specific classic fantasy novel beloved by the designer of the game.
The question is, what is modern D&D's design goal? When you're designing for the masses and to the mainstream, the answer is "streamlined" or "easy to use" for example, but these are not the ambitions or design goals of a passionate RPG designer trying to create something; these are ambitions of a corporation trying to sell something.
Hence the issue. Modern D&D has no spirit, passion, setting or inspiration of its own, its a corporate product designed to sell books, but it's completely devoid of anything interesting enough to produce a worthwhile design goal for an RPG.
So yeah, I have no answer and neither does Wizards of the Coast, which is why modern D&D is just a lifeless and cold game mechanic, there is nothing behind it. They slap "fantasy art" on every page of the book, throw in a few creative adjectives but it's all derivative of a D&D that once existed in which things meant something. Now it's just pretty pictures.
You probably aren't going to believe it. But they were, or at least they weren't good at that point. (And, AFAIK, neither of them produced any particularly interesting designs afterward.)
They had a good idea. They caught lightning in a bottle. But the mechanical structure they built up around it is an incoherent mishmash of systems, some good, some bad, some adequate.
(I'm pretty sure that more of the criticism lands on Gygax. He was involved longer, and Arneson doesn't seem to have been a mechanics guy.)
And, as I said, they were staking out unexplored territory. That excuses a lot, but it doesn't make bad design good.
Vancean magic is one of the less good parts. It's too rigid. It's a wargame mechanic in a more freeform world.
Some of the mechanics, good, bad, or indifferent, became institutionalized in the core concept of D&D. This makes them harder to change without backlash, The magic system has changed, but iteratively, keeping the useful core idea (spells as specific powers) while paring back the things that made the original magic rules bad for gameplay.
As for 'revolutionary'? 4e. 4e was 100% revolutionary. 4e pared the game back to its core concepts, asked the question "What is D&D?", chose an answer, and designed from there. You may not like the system. You may not think it fit your definition of D&D. But it did what it tried to do. Did it fail? Perhaps so, but that is the risk of revolution. (And discussions of its failings, commercial, mechanical, or artistic, are likely out of scope of this discussion. It is worth noting that it completely tossed all the vestiges of the original magic system, though.)
3e was certainly a sea change. Whether it was revolutionary, or just a restructuring of what was already there is debatable.
5e isn't revolutionary. It's iterative, a retrenchment and retreat from the bold move that was 4e. It's built on the revolutions of 3e and 4e, so would probably look pretty revolutionary if you were to go straight from 1e/2e to it.
The idea that the game as it is now has no spirit, passion, setting or inspiration is also merely an opinion. Plenty of people who started playing three and four decades ago have never heard of Jack Vance, have never read his novels and have no particular attachment to the way his magic works—MPA and I both in this thread alone. It is wholly possible to love D&D without any appreciation for Jack Vance because there is nothing inherent about his magic system or any other rule and the game is as soulful as we, the players make it.
Some people are accustomed to Fahrenheit but that doesn’t make it the only way to measure temperature nor does that make it a superior scale than Celsius or Kelvin; it’s just what they’re used to. Any claims to the contrary are just one group of people yelling at the clouds because that other group of people are ruining everything.