Traditional D&D style "Vancian" fire-and-forget magic is useful because it's easy to master mechanically, but difficult to master in play. You don't really need to learn a significant new mechanic to use magic, and though there is a high level of learning for spellcasters, it is a manageable sort of just-in-time learning as the magic-user player doesn't need to master all spells, just the ones in his or her character's spell book.
However, the drawbacks to me are a sense of danger and risk in using spells that seems to match the Sword and Sorcery genre (after all, spells incur no inherent risk to the caster such as failure or magical mishap), and a need for different types of characters to use very different mechanics in play, making it harder to teach new players how to play since learning to play one kind of character does not necessarily teach transferable skills to learn how to play another.
I have certainly thought about some tinkering with the standard Swords and Wizardry magic system. But at this point, I'm leaving the rules be since I think too much fiddling with the magic rules can upset the applecart, and at that point I might as well be re-tooling the system from scratch. In the end, I don't love Vancian spellcasting, but I think it's a tool that does get the job done with a minimum of new design and without needing to worry about the difficulty of teaching the system to new players.
So what is my problem? Fluff. Vibe. Feel. Mojo. The sense that this doesn't feel right. The solution? I have to be better as a DM of talking about the fluff side of magic, making it feel more dangerous, powerful, and eerie. Then get over the tinkering desire to make it "just right" for my tastes rather than workable for the game and the players.
Different types of characters using different mechanics is a feature, not a bug; it vastly increases replay value when trying a new class gives you a whole new experience.
ReplyDeleteAs for the danger and risk in using spells, maybe you could make a minor tweak: memorized spells are reliable, but you can attempt to cast a spell directly out of a spell-book or scroll with a chance of some kind of backfire. It would make spell-casters a bit more versatile, but no more powerful (particularly if you had to sacrifice a memorized spell to do it), and would let you add as much magic is mysterious and dangerous as you liked depending on just what the failure chances were and how bad the failure could get. An open-ended die roll is useful for things like that: most of the time the failure is an inconvenience, some of the time it's a danger, and once in a long long while it's a catastrophe.
I see where you are coming from with different mechanics, but I don't altogether buy it across the board. Having played and run games with unified mechanics and non-unified mechanics, I find that it's generally easier to teach unified mechanics than non-unified mechanics. Knowing to always pick up a d20 or 3d6 or a d10 for every dot in an attribute every time helps speed up learning and play. Knowing to always roll low or high or above a target number is also helpful. Having a sense of how to play the game that is transferable to later game play is helpful, and I often find learning to play a fighter or thief has a lot of transferability most editions of D&D, but learning to play a spellcaster -- especially M-Us, is a skill learned all on its own, and tends to be something mastered only by a limited subset of players.
ReplyDeleteThat said, a simple system, like OD&D or S&W, makes the mechanics simple enough that the difference adds a nice but manageable level of complexity to game play. It's a feature in this case.
In something as complex as 3.x D&D, I see it as a problem, leading in my experience to players not wanting to learn how to play a new kind of character because the system mastery component can be overwhelming. Then it looks more like a bug.
I wish people would stop using the phrase vancian magic to describe D&D's system- since it's not Vance's magic from Dying Earth anyway. Not even close.
ReplyDeleteHis magic had consequences. Dire. And it wasn't fire and forget or even memorize- the spell crawled inside your mind and LIVED there. ANd then when cast it crawled out of your mind. Like a living thing.
Your point is well taken, but I used Vancian as the common term. And, you know, because Gary Gygax used the term and directly stated that he'd modeled the D&D system after Vance (Strategic Review vol. 2, issue 2, April 1976; The Dragon 16, July 1978; The Dragon 33, January 1980), specifically using the term "Vancian" to describe the system.
ReplyDeleteVancian should probably be written as "Vancian" in this context. But that is just annoying. :)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I have a couple of thoughts. First, have you looked at Spellcraft & Swordplay? What Jason did there, IMO, was very cleverly go back to the Chainmail rules and come up with an spell-roll system. It just begs to be fleshed out with dire consequences for failing the role. If you haven't looked at it, he just released a free pdf of the Basic Game.
Second, I'm hoping that an article I wrote will come out in the next issue of Fight On! where I talk about re-envisioning the spell system as one of summoning and binding demons, but without having to do any serious mechanical house-ruling.
I made an attempt to adapt the chainmail rules a while back, but I think it adds complexity to the system that defeats the strengths of the fire-and-forget mechanics. But I'm currently reading through S&S to see how I like it.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, though, I think I can feel happy with a simple refluffing of the magic system. Your article sounds great, and I look forward to it -- I think it feels better to explain the system as binding demons or spirits that do the magic or as a system of hanging nearly cast spells on a matrix of mental patterns (per Zelazny's second Amber series) rather than memorizing and forgetting spells.
Re the first point--my S&S game so far has seen the magic roll work pretty well. It's dead simple, is the thing. But YMMV and all.
ReplyDeleteRe the second--what's funny is how many years...er decades...it's taken me to realzie that you can fluff the magic system in lots of ways others than fire-and-forget. I wish I'd realzied that a long time ago.
Also, I just remembered that I metion this blog in the article, because it was our discussion re using the magic sword rules for bound demons that kicked me into writing the thing. So thanks.
I've been toying with adding a couple of things to my next campaign, ideas that I've read recently but can't remember where. The first was that magic-users could produce small spell effects at will based on spells currently memorised, with a duration of segments equal to caster level. So the player has a light spell memorised, he can at will produce a small globe of light, say the size of an orange, for a very short duration. This probably needs to have some limit on frequency to prevent overuse and abuse.
ReplyDeleteThe other change is the use of rituals. The magic-user can cast straight from his spellbook without losing his spell, but only by performing a complex and time-consuming ritual, say 1 turn/spell level. This would involve paraphenalia, chanting, incense, etc., not very pratical in the middle of a hostile dungeon, but offering some interesting gaming situations should the players want to attempt it.
The combination would give low-level magic-users more utility without greatly overpowering their abilities, at the same time maintaining the Vancian spell system. It would certainly make playing a low-level magic-user more interesting.
It may seem like a very small thing but to increase the focus on the "fluff" aspects of magic one of the easiest things to do is just rename the spells.
ReplyDeleteInstead of finding a scroll with Fireball, they find a scroll with Donen's Blinding Bolt of Elemental Projection. Mechanically it is a Fireball but the name gives the freedom to describe the spell in a completely new manner. Maybe instead of a small sphere that flies through the air to explode in a ball of red and yellow flame, it is a dark purple beam that shoots from the palm and pulses into an area of blue and green flame. And it also asks the question, "who is the Donen?" What other crazy stuff did he do?