Quote from: rkhigdon on November 21, 2023, 03:18:17 PM
Look, I like you so I don't really want to get into it, but that is not the point at all.  I, in fact, don't particularly care if people use Vancian magic or not.  You'll notice that I included my preferred tweaks to Vancian magic earlier in the thread, and I've literally played magic dozens of different ways in D&D since I started playing in 1975/76.  That is certainly what the thread is about.

I take exception to the statement that only brand loyalists or people who can't escape from the past use Vancian magic is unnecessarily combative and really has no place in the discussion.

On the journey from 1 to 10, 1 being old school D&D exactly as is, 10 being ultimate RPG enlightenment, it's easy when you're at 3 to look back and wonder why all these silly people can't leave those archaic mechanics behind, but when you get to be about 7 or 8 and still looking forward, trying to get to 10, you start seeing some things, not everything, just some things circling back to how they were at 1, and you gain a newfound appreciation for those things. And you're a lot more understanding about why some people choose to just stay at 1.

I don't think he's being combative. I think he just genuinely doesn't understand, let alone appreciate for himself, why or how things at 1 are actually good. You can't force a 3 to be a 7.

The best option to replace Vancian inside a D&D framework is, IMHO the 3.5e Warlock.

Warlocks got a small number of at-will spell-like abilities (about a dozen total by level 20... only 6-7 by level 10) that form their magical toolkit. That put them more on par with non-spellcasting PCs in terms of effectiveness and often required using their abilities creatively.

Later editions refined them by giving them different slates of magic based on their patron, but the gist was still "here's your specialty subset of magic you can use as often as a fighter can swing a sword or do their special maneuvers."

A more system agnostic example would the Benders from Avatar... each (except the Avatar) has their particular element that forms their toolbox, most with some subspecialties (healing and bloodbending for water, tremorsense and metalbending for earth, etc.)... all of which were essentially at-will magic (needing to learn techniques might suggest skill-based, but once learned benders could then use those techniques consistently... which makes it more akin to a level-based system with downtime training needed to access new benefits).

The main advantages are keeping the options down to a manageable number that is easier to evaluate next to what non-casters receive because it operates on the same at-will use level and, if the particular school they use is well defined, should encourage some out of the box attempts to use their tools in creative ways.

QuoteMeh. You can attach whatever fiction you want to it.

No you cannot without bending yourself into pretzel. Game and setting needs to cooperate, otherwise everything is just pretentious and false to the bone.
And maybe Savages are universal toolkit, but D&D definitely is not.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 21, 2023, 04:44:29 PM
You can't force a 3 to be a 7.

That's what alcohol is for...

Quote from: Votan on November 20, 2023, 12:49:20 PM

Quote from: RulesLiteOSRpls on November 20, 2023, 10:34:54 AM
I find a quasi-Vancian system can still make sense. In this version, a magic-user isn't memorizing in the morning. They're just doing all of the ritual work to have a spell ready to fire on a moment's notice. In the evening, of course they can't use that same spell again yet because they haven't had the chance to ready themselves for it. As for why they can't just immediately re-prepare? Maybe the preparation process itself takes a toll on the magic-user's mind or body, necessitating a break from the process for a while.

Merlin in Roger Zelanzy's Amber series actually described doing exactly that -- leaving everything but a few key words out that can be executed to complete the ritual later.

It's funny, that's actually how I remember thinking the magic system worked in D&D when I first picked up the books as a kid. I don't think any of us had read the Amber novels, but I know one of my friend's mother did (because she named him after one of the characters); maybe that idea filtered down to him somehow.

I like that explanation as well, even in non-Vancian systems. It helps explain how you can cast a spell (which in lore is supposed to be quite a complex thing) in 3 to 6 seconds. 

I like Vancian magic well enough in standard games. In more historical fantasy games I sometimes enjoy running these days however I prefer using Pundit's own historically inspired magic system based in Hermeticism and folk practices. You can tweak it to add new stuff you come up with or increase the power of magic to be more on par with traditional fantasy if you want while keeping the feel.

For example, I've considered dropping in Lovecraftian Grimoires with fittingly Lovecraftian ceremonial magic and summoning rituals, adding spells from Aquelarre or historical sources, etc.
Apollonius had a nice spell for summoning a house servant in the Greek Papyri for example. Diabolists the PC's fight might have access to unsavory rites from the Book of Eibon, Grimoire of Pope Honorius, or things associated with witches' Black Sabbaths, flight ointments and the like (Medieval Chaos Sorcery is something I'd like Pundit to explore, where precisely do chaos cult skeletons come from, etc.?).

Currently Running: Lion & Dragon (S&C)

Currently Smoking: RPGPundit Presents #6: Pipeweed

(I am become shill, merchant of worlds  )

Quote from: Votan on November 20, 2023, 12:49:20 PM

Quote from: RulesLiteOSRpls on November 20, 2023, 10:34:54 AM
I find a quasi-Vancian system can still make sense. In this version, a magic-user isn't memorizing in the morning. They're just doing all of the ritual work to have a spell ready to fire on a moment's notice. In the evening, of course they can't use that same spell again yet because they haven't had the chance to ready themselves for it. As for why they can't just immediately re-prepare? Maybe the preparation process itself takes a toll on the magic-user's mind or body, necessitating a break from the process for a while.

Merlin in Roger Zelanzy's Amber series actually described doing exactly that -- leaving everything but a few key words out that can be executed to complete the ritual later.

That's an interesting case.  I remember reading the books and thinking "Wow, that's straight out of D&D."  I recently read an article in the complete collection of Zelazny's short works describing how he started playing D&D with George RR Martin and various others.  I've misplaced the book so I can't confirm the timing, but I suspect that this was a case of D&D ideas acting as inspiration for fantasy literature rather than the more usual other way around.

Quote from: rkhigdon on November 21, 2023, 03:18:17 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 21, 2023, 01:52:31 AM
Or maybe, much like AC, THACO, HP, Classes, etc. etc. everything in D&D has come under endless debates for literally 40+ years... Sure *you* may like it. But let's not pretend that other methods of handling magic that is *not* Vancian, is not equally long established. The point of the thread is literally talking about replacing Vancian magic. There is a reason for that.

Look, I like you so I don't really want to get into it, but that is not the point at all.  I, in fact, don't particularly care if people use Vancian magic or not.  You'll notice that I included my preferred tweaks to Vancian magic earlier in the thread, and I've literally played magic dozens of different ways in D&D since I started playing in 1975/76.  That is certainly what the thread is about.

I take exception to the statement that only brand loyalists or people who can't escape from the past use Vancian magic is unnecessarily combative and really has no place in the discussion.

I'm really just discussing the point, not trying to be dramatic.

There is a reason WE ALL have tweaked D&D over the years. It's a tradition to homebrew things that "don't sit right". I specifically bring up the Usual Suspects(tm) (HP, AC, Class, Alignment, etc. etc.) *because*, like you - I'm of the same vintage, and we've both seen these discussions a bazillion times. And people have written screeds pro/con on this stuff for enough pages to make a few trilogies of the worst novels if printed out.

That *means* something. That means there has always been some kind of dissatisfaction with these things in expression. Yes it *could* be the GM. Or it could be that the abstractions themselves don't make sense with the narrative being wrought by the game in conjunction with one another. Players are players, not game-designers. But GM's, once they get their training-wheels off, are almost always armchair designers because their games are "supposed" to operate the way they think it should in their heads. And there is always something... not right.

Vancian magic sticks in the craw of a *lot* of people because of its idiosyncratic nature - both in fiction and in mechanical practice at the table. I don't really know of any other magic system in TTRPG's that's not a direct d20 analog that uses it.

Without spending TOO much time on it... this is what I'd do.


Non-Vancian D&D magic - big riff off of the 3e Talislanta system
1) I'd leverage all the Schools of Magic to create real distinctions in the formulas below. Each school has different *discrete* modifications to the basic spell effects list. Caster classes would be able to choose from a limited number of schools.

2) Spells must be rolled like any other skill. Failure causes problems. Spell level is based on what level the caster *chooses* to cast the effect at. Thus a caster can scale his spells accordingly, where going beyond his means (i.e. Class level) incurs a penalty risk for failure, for the reward of a greater effect. The inverse is true too - where a caster can make a spell *impossible* to fail by downshifting the level of the effect below his minimum threshold. Failure to cast means backlash - 1d6/level of the attempted spell.

3) BASIC Spell effect list available to all schools. Each school would have their own "effects" which modify these spells:

Shields - Personal Caster only protection. Absorbs 2-damage per level. Duration 1rd/level of spell.
Barriers - Area-effect protection 5-feet per level. Walls, Cones, Bridges, Cylinders (each have their own scaling dimension outlined). 2hp/lvl. 1rd/lvl duration.
Bolts - 10ft/lvl range. 1d4 damage/lvl no cap. School effects may apply special conditions depending on the trappings of the school.

4) School Spell Lists: Each school of magic would have on top of the Basic Spell effects. example:
Necromancy School - Animate Dead, Contact Lower Plane, Domination, Energy Drain, Necromantic Aura (Damage Field), Necromantic Bolt, etc.

Each school would have their own set of effects modified by their school. In this manner, you'd get the effects of pretty much any/all D&D specific spells but they would be curated closer towards making the school trappings matter over the discrete effects rather than the random exceptions they do now. The idea is the make the effects cleave *much closer* to the regular task-resolution mechanics of the rest of the system. You incorporate the scaling needs not to the class assumptions - but to the player's agency, because now there is risk involved.

5) Spells per day - You can cast 1 spell per day per level. PERIOD.
Optional rules: You get a bonus spell per bonus from Intelligence. You may cast beyond your capacity at penalty.

It would not take very much work once you curated the basics of each school.

Super-high level magic like Wish, Time Stop etc. would *require* specific levels to even cast. This doesn't mean lower-level casters couldn't try to cast them, but it means the penalties of even trying to attempt to cast them successfully would warrant severe caution less they fail. Magic backlash should be commensurate to the level of the spell being cast.

Obviously there are a few other details - but this would be a basic framework I'd try. I have others of course...

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 21, 2023, 04:44:29 PM

Quote from: rkhigdon on November 21, 2023, 03:18:17 PM
Look, I like you so I don't really want to get into it, but that is not the point at all.  I, in fact, don't particularly care if people use Vancian magic or not.  You'll notice that I included my preferred tweaks to Vancian magic earlier in the thread, and I've literally played magic dozens of different ways in D&D since I started playing in 1975/76.  That is certainly what the thread is about.

I take exception to the statement that only brand loyalists or people who can't escape from the past use Vancian magic is unnecessarily combative and really has no place in the discussion.

On the journey from 1 to 10, 1 being old school D&D exactly as is, 10 being ultimate RPG enlightenment, it's easy when you're at 3 to look back and wonder why all these silly people can't leave those archaic mechanics behind, but when you get to be about 7 or 8 and still looking forward, trying to get to 10, you start seeing some things, not everything, just some things circling back to how they were at 1, and you gain a newfound appreciation for those things. And you're a lot more understanding about why some people choose to just stay at 1.

I don't think he's being combative. I think he just genuinely doesn't understand, let alone appreciate for himself, why or how things at 1 are actually good. You can't force a 3 to be a 7.

I'll use a different analogy.

Some people play chess because they enjoy it in and of itself. They don't *care* or even know what it's supposed to represent - a war. Each move of each piece is an abstraction of something potentially epic, each move is a potential machination of incredible subtlety - a move to cover other moves. But it's just pieces being moved on a checker-board for most people.

Depends on the resolution in which you decide to play the game. *I* want more resolution. It's not that I don't appreciate Chess as a game. I do very much. Just like I appreciate D&D. But they're just rules, not what I demand from my TTRPG experience.

I want people to feel the game, to be immersed in their Knight PC running down the evil Bishop and lancing that fucker through the head. I want that Evil Black Bishop to summon diabolical monsters to defend himself. I *don't* want it to be relegate to a simple move on a checkerboard where the Knight takes Bishop - and let's all pretend that's a TTRPG and defend it.

Vancian Magic is what it is - a mechanic. Is it a good one? Depends on what you want in your game. I think it's a low-resolution mechanic because it serves Gygax's wargaming needs *at the time* of its inception. I conceive of magic operating a little more dynamically, a little more dangerously than what is presented in D&D. And it's not simply that I started with D&D - I did - but I also played Bard Games Atlantis, Talislanta, I also played Palladium Fantasy, among other games during that same era. D&D-style Fantasy is not solely the province of D&D, it just happens to be the most popular because that's what most people stuck with. I don't need to be beholden to a mechanic that doesn't serve what I want in my game. It's like pretending *no* advancements have been made since the inception of D&D Basic. If that's what you're contending, (which I don't believe you are), then we have some unspoken claims that would need resolving first, heh.

Ironically if you're trying to replace Vancian magic - which is what this thread is asking about - why are we debating why? I'm not in here to wax nostalgic about Vancian Magic and how we should protect it. Why should I be trying to convince him to stick with something they don't care about? This is not a controversial topic at this point, even WotC has given their own spins on it. What's the issue?

I don't place any limits on how often you can use your fun abilities.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 21, 2023, 04:44:29 PM

Quote from: rkhigdon on November 21, 2023, 03:18:17 PM
Look, I like you so I don't really want to get into it, but that is not the point at all.  I, in fact, don't particularly care if people use Vancian magic or not.  You'll notice that I included my preferred tweaks to Vancian magic earlier in the thread, and I've literally played magic dozens of different ways in D&D since I started playing in 1975/76.  That is certainly what the thread is about.

I take exception to the statement that only brand loyalists or people who can't escape from the past use Vancian magic is unnecessarily combative and really has no place in the discussion.

On the journey from 1 to 10, 1 being old school D&D exactly as is, 10 being ultimate RPG enlightenment, it's easy when you're at 3 to look back and wonder why all these silly people can't leave those archaic mechanics behind, but when you get to be about 7 or 8 and still looking forward, trying to get to 10, you start seeing some things, not everything, just some things circling back to how they were at 1, and you gain a newfound appreciation for those things. And you're a lot more understanding about why some people choose to just stay at 1.

I don't think he's being combative. I think he just genuinely doesn't understand, let alone appreciate for himself, why or how things at 1 are actually good. You can't force a 3 to be a 7.

You're not enlightened, you don't have any special insight into game design, and there is nothing particularly remarkable about D&D.

Quote from: Domina on November 22, 2023, 12:13:26 PM
I don't place any limits on how often you can use your fun abilities.

Free of context.

D&D style fantasy demands limits as a conceit (barely these days). Otherwise you're in my territory of Supers. ZERO LIMITS BABY!

Quote from: tenbones on November 22, 2023, 12:25:09 PM

Quote from: Domina on November 22, 2023, 12:13:26 PM
I don't place any limits on how often you can use your fun abilities.

Free of context.

D&D style fantasy demands limits as a conceit (barely these days). Otherwise you're in my territory of Supers. ZERO LIMITS BABY!

I've run plenty of fantasy games without any such limits. It's not demanded.

Quote from: Mishihari on November 21, 2023, 11:52:29 PM

Quote from: Votan on November 20, 2023, 12:49:20 PM

Quote from: RulesLiteOSRpls on November 20, 2023, 10:34:54 AM
I find a quasi-Vancian system can still make sense. In this version, a magic-user isn't memorizing in the morning. They're just doing all of the ritual work to have a spell ready to fire on a moment's notice. In the evening, of course they can't use that same spell again yet because they haven't had the chance to ready themselves for it. As for why they can't just immediately re-prepare? Maybe the preparation process itself takes a toll on the magic-user's mind or body, necessitating a break from the process for a while.

Merlin in Roger Zelanzy's Amber series actually described doing exactly that -- leaving everything but a few key words out that can be executed to complete the ritual later.

That's an interesting case.  I remember reading the books and thinking "Wow, that's straight out of D&D."  I recently read an article in the complete collection of Zelazny's short works describing how he started playing D&D with George RR Martin and various others.  I've misplaced the book so I can't confirm the timing, but I suspect that this was a case of D&D ideas acting as inspiration for fantasy literature rather than the more usual other way around.

He wrote that first scene with Merlin long before he was playing the game, which was late in his life.  Though he had been around writers who were playing well before that, so that the idea could have percolated that way.  OTOH, Zelazny was so widely read, he could have picked it up from any number of sources.

Quote from: tenbones on November 22, 2023, 11:52:12 AM
There is a reason WE ALL have tweaked D&D over the years. It's a tradition to homebrew things that "don't sit right". I specifically bring up the Usual Suspects(tm) (HP, AC, Class, Alignment, etc. etc.) *because*, like you - I'm of the same vintage, and we've both seen these discussions a bazillion times. And people have written screeds pro/con on this stuff for enough pages to make a few trilogies of the worst novels if printed out.

That *means* something. That means there has always been some kind of dissatisfaction with these things in expression. Yes it *could* be the GM. Or it could be that the abstractions themselves don't make sense with the narrative being wrought by the game in conjunction with one another. Players are players, not game-designers. But GM's, once they get their training-wheels off, are almost always armchair designers because their games are "supposed" to operate the way they think it should in their heads. And there is always something... not right.

Vancian magic sticks in the craw of a *lot* of people because of its idiosyncratic nature - both in fiction and in mechanical practice at the table. I don't really know of any other magic system in TTRPG's that's not a direct d20 analog that uses it.

It's funny.  I went down all those roads--magic points, effects-based (multiple systems and house rules), variations on the slots, etc.  And where I ended up isn't AD&D 1E Vancian, either.  But it took me a long time to realize that in my "D&D-like" games my dissatisfaction with magic was not the core Vancian mechanics but all the cruft that had built up around it.  That's especially true in the WotC versions.  The idea of limited slots for magic is adjacent to limited slots for equipment--a compromise for a certain kind of game play at the expense of exact fidelity to a setting.  However, that only works if:

1. You prioritize that game play.
2. You are willing to limit your setting to something that makes sense with that compromise so as to minimize the dissatisfaction, and then enjoy the game play that comes out of that from the trade. 

That's not compatible with wizards having 30 spells on the first level spell list, or a zillion caster types with complicated interplay of cross-over spells, or many spells that are practically pointless.  To do those things is to take the game play advantage that was bought with that trade and toss it in the garbage.  That's not even getting to trying to shoehorn slots into a magic setting where they in no way fit. I can see some "only adequate" fits working with the right kind of mind set for the game, but everyone has a limit.

Net effect is that I want my "D&D-like" games to play like D&D, and that includes some kind of minimal Vancian magic.  If I want to play something different, I'd rather use a different system than try to force it onto a D&D model.