That's exactly my feelings and experiences as well. I have less interest in rehabilitating a subsystem - like Vancian Magic, than getting on with running and playing the game I want to run using rules that already do what I want.

I have no interest in playing D&D rules for their own sake.

Quote from: tenbones on November 22, 2023, 12:06:44 PM
I'll use a different analogy.

That's really not necessary. It's not like I'm having difficulty understanding where you're coming from. It's you who are having trouble understanding others. And your analogy verifies that insofar as it really doesn't address my point.

QuoteDepends 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.

Just to clarify, what you're talking about appreciating here has zero to do with where I thought you were lacking appreciation. So you're still in the "not appreciating" column. The heart of the matter is when you put emphasis on *I*. Why do you assume that what you want is different from what I want? I haven't really talked about what I want. I haven't said I play by the rules because it's the rules. And so far, no matter how many stars you put around 'I' you haven't said a single thing that about what you want that differs from what I want. I'm sure there's something somewhere. But so far nothing that anyone has mentioned. Nothing that is germane enough to have reared its head.

This is significant. Because when you stop saying I and start acknowledging that it's we, that we want this other thing that isn't just playing chess for the sake of playing chess, and we want this thing that isn't just using the rules of D&D for the sake of using the rules of D&D, then the actual difference between us is I see that the "Vancian" magic system can be a useful tool in getting what we want and you don't see it. And that's why I say you're at 3 and not 7. To assume facts not in evidence and insist that we just must want something different is a grotesque evasion of this simple fact.

QuoteVancian 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.

Suppose we want the same thing. So far no difference between us pertaining to this subject has come up. The question of whether or not it's a good mechanic then, it turns out, does not necessarily depend on what you want in the game. We might just like different mechanics.

And just an FYI, Gary wrote in detail about why he made the magic system the way it is, what he was trying to achieve. And it had a lot more to do with when you take wizards out of story books and give them to players to play, he wanted to make sure they had a reason to go around in robes rather than armor, to use wands or staves when they could just cast spells themselves, to need eye of newt and other weird things, and so on. The need to study spells daily was to reinforce the image of the wizard who was always consulting his spell books.

QuoteI 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.

Again with the 'I' stuff. Okay, I didn't play those exact same games. But I saw plenty of action cartoons where someone might throw up a magic shield against a magical beam of power. If the beam persisted, though, the defending spellcaster might become drained. It certainly seemed like the caster was expending some invisible resource rather than the spell having some fixed, pre-set duration. D&D did not set my expectations for how magic should work. If anything, it challenged my expectations. I have no particular reason to believe it set the expectation for anyone. Your experiences are not that unique.

QuoteD&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.

Well, I mean, I've actually already stated the exact opposite in this thread. My favorite magic system, the one I consider the best, is actually a magic point system. It's got a ridiculous amount of content and lets you do pretty much anything you want. Of course there are always going to be tradeoffs for the spellcaster. And what I found was players doing was accepting the drawback of longer casting times for more powerful spells, then getting around the drawback by using magical triggers, essentially preparing in advance the spells they thought they would most likely need.

They weren't doing it out of D&D inertia. They were doing it because when just about every conceivable pairing of pros and cons is on the table, preparing spells in advance is a highly desirable thing. They didn't do that exclusively. They kept some points available for the quick spells and even for some slower ones likely to be useful in situations that are not time-sensitive. But their A-game comes from the prepared spells. And so I have to ask the question if this is all really worth the extra complexity.

You can answer that question for yourself any way you like, but it is clearly a legitimate question. So when you say things like "it's like pretending no advancements have been made", it's like you're pretending that's not a legitimate question. And if you've simply just never considered the question before, that's the sort of thing that puts you at 3 rather than 7.

QuoteIronically if you're trying to replace Vancian magic - which is what this thread is asking about - why are we debating why?

Well, for one, I'm not debating anything. And two, I'm not entirely sure that's really what the thread is about. Being an experienced DM who is expected to know what players mean when they tell me what they want to do, working in sales, and being married to a woman, all of these things have taught me that what people say isn't always what they mean. In this thread, the evident premise is the OP has no clue what he wants. That might not actually be true. This might all be for the sake of discussion. But that is nonetheless the premise here. The OP doesn't list a single thing he wants. Only that he doesn't want a Vancian magic system. And the only reasons he gives for that I dispute. So I'm looking at an OP that has no clue what he wants and doesn't even know the first thing about what he doesn't want. That might not be your assessment at all. And in fact the OP can certainly chime in with extra information to correct me. But for the time being, this is my assessment of the OP, and given that, what would you have me do? I've played along and listed a couple of alternate systems I like and I've tried to correct what I thought was wrong.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AM

Quote from: tenbones on November 22, 2023, 12:06:44 PM
I'll use a different analogy.

The OP doesn't list a single thing he wants. Only that he doesn't want a Vancian magic system. And the only reasons he gives for that I dispute. So I'm looking at an OP that has no clue what he wants and doesn't even know the first thing about what he doesn't want.

Well, that's easy.  Read the title of the thread, and do that.  I just want people to talk about their favorite non-Vancian magic system. 

I do think it's weird that most of the thread is pushback against the idea that D&D and Vancian are not universally popular.

I also don't like word wall posts.  You can't read thru the whole thing while sitting on the toilet without your legs going numb, so there is that. 

This thread has gotten into some very deep philosophical territory from where it began:

"Best options to replace Vancian magic?"

Quote from: squirewaldo on November 23, 2023, 08:56:27 AM
This thread has gotten into some very deep philosophical territory from where it began:

"Best options to replace Vancian magic?"

Yup.  Too much overthinking and not enough games name dropped to check out. 

What prompted me was actually my own mistake.  I mentioned the Scroll Reader from Tiny D6. 

It almost seemed like a way to re-work Vancian magic that's less weird.  It didn't end up working as I thought.  In Tiny D6 games the Scroll Readers are the only people able to use magic spell scrolls, which lose all power and turn into a blank page after being read. In that game normies can't use scrolls at all.  Also, the scroll reader needs to be constantly finding replacement scrolls. 

But that gave me an idea.   I would have preferred this;

A Scroll Reader can re-use scrolls.  The scroll only goes blank for a day after being used.  They travel the world searching for more scrolls to become more powerful.  For convenience Scroll Readers typically bind up the many scrolls they own as a single book they keep locked shut for safety, and on a shoulder strap so it's always close at hand.  The Scroll Reader still matters as well, as they're own level sets how strong the magic is, and how many scrolls per day you can read before the ability to have them come back is gone.  Also, you can infer that a desperate Scoll Reader can keep reading off ALL of their scrolls, permanently loosing the scrolls beyond their scrolls-per-day limit. 

This way Vancian magic style "use and forget" is still a thing, sort of.  You don't forget.  The page in your spell book goes blank. 

It also explains why wizards seem to always carry spell tomes around everywhere they go. 

That's how I would do it. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 18, 2023, 12:58:20 PM
The Vancian system largely exists to prevent wizards from being able to spam fireballs every round (which 5th edition ignored). So any system that replaces it has to find a way to perform the same task.

Or you could just design a system such that it doesn't break because of something as simple as throwing a fireball every round.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 23, 2023, 10:02:24 AM

Quote from: squirewaldo on November 23, 2023, 08:56:27 AM
This thread has gotten into some very deep philosophical territory from where it began:

"Best options to replace Vancian magic?"

Yup.  Too much overthinking and not enough games name dropped to check out. 

What prompted me was actually my own mistake.  I mentioned the Scroll Reader from Tiny D6. 

It almost seemed like a way to re-work Vancian magic that's less weird.  It didn't end up working as I thought.  In Tiny D6 games the Scroll Readers are the only people able to use magic spell scrolls, which lose all power and turn into a blank page after being read. In that game normies can't use scrolls at all.  Also, the scroll reader needs to be constantly finding replacement scrolls. 

But that gave me an idea.   I would have preferred this;

A Scroll Reader can re-use scrolls.  The scroll only goes blank for a day after being used.  They travel the world searching for more scrolls to become more powerful.  For convenience Scroll Readers typically bind up the many scrolls they own as a single book they keep locked shut for safety, and on a shoulder strap so it's always close at hand.  The Scroll Reader still matters as well, as they're own level sets how strong the magic is, and how many scrolls per day you can read before the ability to have them come back is gone.  Also, you can infer that a desperate Scoll Reader can keep reading off ALL of their scrolls, permanently loosing the scrolls beyond their scrolls-per-day limit. 

This way Vancian magic style "use and forget" is still a thing, sort of.  You don't forget.  The page in your spell book goes blank. 

It also explains why wizards seem to always carry spell tomes around everywhere they go. 

That's how I would do it.

Yeah, I think that would work, or treat it as a page in the tome goes blank for a day. Or perhaps even just the magic user is unable to read it for a day?

I did include 2 alternatives that I rather like above!

Take care and have a nice turkey day!

Wizards in D&D should be like the wizard in Diablo 3.

Quote from: Domina on November 23, 2023, 11:36:45 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 18, 2023, 12:58:20 PM
The Vancian system largely exists to prevent wizards from being able to spam fireballs every round (which 5th edition ignored). So any system that replaces it has to find a way to perform the same task.

Or you could just design a system such that it doesn't break because of something as simple as throwing a fireball every round.

That is how dungeons and delvers dice pool works.  A wizard's fireball is unlimited ammo, does 1 damage, and has a range of 5 spaces on a battle map.   You hit with a skill check of Intellect attribute + Arcane skill. 

An archer has 20 shots per quiver, 2 damage per shot, and a range of 10 squares on a battle map.  Skill check is Agility + Ranged. 

In a duel between the two my money is on the archer.

Quote from: squirewaldo on November 23, 2023, 11:57:35 AM

Yeah, I think that would work, or treat it as a page in the tome goes blank for a day. Or perhaps even just the magic user is unable to read it for a day?

I did include 2 alternatives that I rather like above!

Take care and have a nice turkey day!

It could even be as simple as the magic just doesn't work if you try to re-read a scroll twice a day.

If you want three fireballs a day, you better own three separate fireball scrolls. 

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AM
That's really not necessary. It's not like I'm having difficulty understanding where you're coming from. It's you who are having trouble understanding others. And your analogy verifies that insofar as it really doesn't address my point.

I'm not having trouble understanding you. I'm wondering why you're telling me something I already know.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AMJust to clarify, what you're talking about appreciating here has zero to do with where I thought you were lacking appreciation. So you're still in the "not appreciating" column. The heart of the matter is when you put emphasis on *I*. Why do you assume that what you want is different from what I want? I haven't really talked about what I want. I haven't said I play by the rules because it's the rules. And so far, no matter how many stars you put around 'I' you haven't said a single thing that about what you want that differs from what I want. I'm sure there's something somewhere. But so far nothing that anyone has mentioned. Nothing that is germane enough to have reared its head.

Because you're assigning this condition of "Me" (or "I" from my subjective standpoint) - and I'm certainly not going to talk about what others want, thus I'm speaking from *my* perspective. And you're missing the point that I'm making about *myself* in this analogy: The abstraction of Chess is being likened to the abstraction of Vancian magic in what it does mechanically vs. what the abstraction is intended to do. You're losing sight of the fact that *not* all D&D settings assume "magic" is the same, or its even governed in the same way. The universal constant here (and then not really) is Vancian Magic Mechanics. I didn't make this up - TSR did. Yet even they give you other options because they too realize their player base, and even some of their founding developers *DIDN'T LIKE IT*.

The degree to which this exist is irrelevant - because Vancian is the general rule, we all played it, we're all generally fine with it. But the whole point is this thread is talking about alternatives. Not how to defend its existence. I actually don't care what you think of Vancian Magic, or to what degree you like/dislike it. I'm only speaking to the points you're making about my points. /shrug.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AMThis is significant. Because when you stop saying I and start acknowledging that it's we, that we want this other thing that isn't just playing chess for the sake of playing chess, and we want this thing that isn't just using the rules of D&D for the sake of using the rules of D&D, then the actual difference between us is I see that the "Vancian" magic system can be a useful tool in getting what we want and you don't see it. And that's why I say you're at 3 and not 7. To assume facts not in evidence and insist that we just must want something different is a grotesque evasion of this simple fact.

So when TSR/WotC gave us alternative rules to use Magic, including alternative systems that were Magic under another name (Psionics) across many editions, that was some lone gunman thinking "I think Vancian Magic sucks and I'm going to do this, because who cares what the fucking players, and other developers think?" Yes, people wanted something other than Vancian Magic since the inception. But not enough to give a shit about it outside of forums and Letters to the Editor sections of Dragon, and BBS's back in the day. Get over it. If Dave Arneson didn't like it and use it in Blackmoor, and he gets the credit he deserves, then at least that should matter, or nothing matters other than the fact "Vancian Magic" is unique to D&D alone. You're being obtuse if you believe it's nothing more than a mutated Wargaming mechanic. Literally everyone knows this from that era.

I'm glad you like it. Who cares? What is your alternative?

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AMSuppose we want the same thing. So far no difference between us pertaining to this subject has come up. The question of whether or not it's a good mechanic then, it turns out, does not necessarily depend on what you want in the game. We might just like different mechanics.

And just an FYI, Gary wrote in detail about why he made the magic system the way it is, what he was trying to achieve. And it had a lot more to do with when you take wizards out of story books and give them to players to play, he wanted to make sure they had a reason to go around in robes rather than armor, to use wands or staves when they could just cast spells themselves, to need eye of newt and other weird things, and so on. The need to study spells daily was to reinforce the image of the wizard who was always consulting his spell books.

Great. Now explain how Vancian Magic achieves that. You're confusing the Vancian Magic subsystem with class-design. AGAIN - it doesn't serve the purpose today in 5e that it did in Basic. The games are different. I actually don't care whether you like/dislike the same mechanics as myself. I care whether the mechanics of the game I'm running, support what I want in my setting. Your mileage may vary.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AM
Again with the 'I' stuff. Okay, I didn't play those exact same games. But I saw plenty of action cartoons where someone might throw up a magic shield against a magical beam of power. If the beam persisted, though, the defending spellcaster might become drained. It certainly seemed like the caster was expending some invisible resource rather than the spell having some fixed, pre-set duration. D&D did not set my expectations for how magic should work. If anything, it challenged my expectations. I have no particular reason to believe it set the expectation for anyone. Your experiences are not that unique.

Because you seem to question the notion that Vancian magic is exists as some ubiquitous phenomenon that is fine and dandy as if nothing else existed? Sharpen your inference skills. It's precisely why I brought it up - it's not unique to me. DUH.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AMWell, I mean, I've actually already stated the exact opposite in this thread. My favorite magic system, the one I consider the best, is actually a magic point system. It's got a ridiculous amount of content and lets you do pretty much anything you want. Of course there are always going to be tradeoffs for the spellcaster. And what I found was players doing was accepting the drawback of longer casting times for more powerful spells, then getting around the drawback by using magical triggers, essentially preparing in advance the spells they thought they would most likely need.

Well then why in the fuck are you defending Vancian Magic in a thread about alternatives to Vancian Magic? You're *that guy*.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 23, 2023, 12:45:21 PM

Quote from: squirewaldo on November 23, 2023, 11:57:35 AM

Yeah, I think that would work, or treat it as a page in the tome goes blank for a day. Or perhaps even just the magic user is unable to read it for a day?

I did include 2 alternatives that I rather like above!

Take care and have a nice turkey day!

It could even be as simple as the magic just doesn't work if you try to re-read a scroll twice a day.

If you want three fireballs a day, you better own three separate fireball scrolls.

Yeah that would work!

I still prefer the "Four-by-Five" Magic System for the Fudge RPG by Steffan O'Sullivan, the Microlite20 system. Both allow you to do anything you like, but have costs and limitations. In the case of 4x5 you have to have the 'ingredients' to make the magic, and in the case of Microlite20 you have to have a high enough level, like with 3.5, and enough HP to eat the cost.

Ultimately its about having fun and working out something with your friends.

Quote from: Domina on November 23, 2023, 11:36:45 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 18, 2023, 12:58:20 PM
The Vancian system largely exists to prevent wizards from being able to spam fireballs every round (which 5th edition ignored). So any system that replaces it has to find a way to perform the same task.

Or you could just design a system such that it doesn't break because of something as simple as throwing a fireball every round.

Yeah. Especially, I dislike the concept of wizard as limited-ammo artillery, which I feel comes more from modern-era wargaming than the inspirational fantasy fiction. Gandalf isn't artillery - he'll throw burning pine cones repeatedly, or fight with a sword most of the time. I think a good model for replacement is the Warlock, as Chris24601 cited earlier.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 21, 2023, 06:59:49 PM
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."

I think one could easily do other flavors of magician by a similar means. A Gandalf-like wizard, a nature magician, a priest, etc. I could easily make something that works for me and my games, but I don't think I have a good enough handle on what D&D players expect in terms of balance to make something that other people would use.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 18, 2023, 08:37:41 PM
I think the best magic system is the one from Dangerous Journeys Mythus Magick.

I agree; the DJ magic system is very cool.

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:50:49 PM

Quote from: Domina on November 23, 2023, 11:36:45 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 18, 2023, 12:58:20 PM
The Vancian system largely exists to prevent wizards from being able to spam fireballs every round (which 5th edition ignored). So any system that replaces it has to find a way to perform the same task.

Or you could just design a system such that it doesn't break because of something as simple as throwing a fireball every round.

Yeah. Especially, I dislike the concept of wizard as limited-ammo artillery, which I feel comes more from modern-era wargaming than the inspirational fantasy fiction. Gandalf isn't artillery - he'll throw burning pine cones repeatedly, or fight with a sword most of the time. I think a good model for replacement is the Warlock, as Chris24601 cited earlier.

Honestly I think trying to recreate a character like Gandalf in a roleplaying game is futile, since his magic is so ill-defined and the way he uses it dictated is by plot needs, rather than a gamer trying to maximize his power in every situation.

Setting genre emulation aside, a wizard whose primary job is just to repeatedly zap people with magic is a pretty dull character. There's a standard defense of the Firebolt and Eldritch Blast cantrips in 5e which goes something like "well, all the martial classes get a standard attack that improves as they level up. Casters should too". That's always struck me as missing the point. "I hit it with my sword" for round after round is every bit as dull as spamming Eldritch Blast is. I'd rather see the focus on making fighters more interesting to play, rather than making wizards less so.

I prefer the wizard as a utility caster to the wizard-as-blaster. I'd like to see more games experiment with stripping out direct-attack spells entirely, kind of like LOTFP does. If a wizard has to have combat spells, it ought to be things that alter the battlefield or inflict negative effects on the enemies, but I'd rather see wizard players more encouraged to use their magic for exploration/roleplay/puzzle-solving.   

Yes, I'm aware that you can play a wizard that way in pretty much any edition of D&D, but my experience has been that almost no one does, which suggests to me that the systems in place do not encourage it. I'm also generally the guy that will argue that you're better off accepting D&D for what it is, and if you want something else, play a different game. I wouldn't really suggest what I'm talking about here as a quick fix. You could achieve it within the D&D framework, but I suspect it would take something close to a ground-up rebuild of the system.

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:50:49 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 21, 2023, 06:59:49 PM
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."

I think one could easily do other flavors of magician by a similar means. A Gandalf-like wizard, a nature magician, a priest, etc. I could easily make something that works for me and my games, but I don't think I have a good enough handle on what D&D players expect in terms of balance to make something that other people would use.

IIRC, 3.5 did some yeoman's work with a lot of their half-caster classes. The Duskblade is one of my favorite iterations of the "spellsword" archetype in D&D, and I remember really liking the Beguiler as well. The wizard spy/assassin is one of my favorite high fantasy archetypes, and it tends to be underserved in a lot of roleplaying games.