PDA

View Full Version : Vanican Spell Casting: Celery Magic



Cluedrew
2017-09-17, 09:10 PM
So I mentioned celery magic recently and it caused some confusion. I was actually just talking about Vanican spell casting as a flavourless as a celery. Which I don't eat that often, but I recall it having a rather weak taste. Crunchy though, I'm sure I could extend the metaphor to include that.

As far as I can tell, the official version Vanican magic closeted academics spending years of study pealing away the secrets of the universe, which culminates into the ability to memorize/prepare spells from their spell book and change the world with it.

That doesn't sound like a bad thing except... well it really doesn't seem to back it up.

If it takes years of study to become a good wizard, why do the most powerful wizards get that way by wandering around and slaying monsters? Actually, there is some explanation there, discovering secrets from a previous golden age. But those ancient secrets seem to be ready to go spells half the time, it feels like a loot drop, not a discovery. Which tramples the feel it seems to be going for.

And then here is the whole memorize/prepare issue. Because I honestly have heard both used and supported.
Memorize: All that is required to use the spell is the knowledge of its inner workings. Every spell slot represents your ability to know these inner workings and hence cast magic. Casting a spell takes that knowledge from you, and you must re-learn the spell again.
Prepare: Casting a spell requires a bit of supernatural energy. If you don't have a natural source of it you must prepare a 'knot' of it before hand. This not can be untied, unleashing the power and form stored in it.
Apparently prepare is the correct one now a days, but when I read D&D fiction it always seemed to come from the memorize school. When they went into detail at all or even followed the vanican spell casting rules.

Which brings us back to the secrets of the universe bit. What sort of secrets? No I'm not asking formula or anything like that. But really there doesn't really seem to be any intermediate steps between knowledge and breaking the laws of physics. I mean there is almost always a gap (even if they worked out the full chain of events of how they worked, I doubt many would read all of that). This wider gap though, it just compounds the lack of inner logic the system has.

Seriously, what unites animating skeletons with flying with opening doors with seeing the future? I can't see any connection, behind the nebulous concept of magic. To me it makes it feel all scattered and random. The schools do help a bit, but on the whole it just come off as a scattered list of "wouldn't it be cool if?" without any thought about how they come together or fit into the world. Its a bit like a superhero setting, except all the same power source.

So in summery, D&D goes against the thin flavour of its magic, doesn't consistently explain the parts it does talk about and hands out abilities pretty much randomly. So yeah, I don't think it is a great magic system. It has its strong points and I'm sure people will point them out, but on the whole, I'm not impressed.

Lacco
2017-09-18, 03:46 AM
Disclaimer: I have only basic knowledge of Vancian/D&D magic system.

So... I'll bite. Let me ask: What could be - from your point of view - done to make a magic system with flavor?

From my side:
- multiple possible approaches to magic (spells, rituals, charms, alchemy, runic magic, elemental magic, "folk" magic, divine casting) that each have their own merits, different effects and dangers,
- interesting ways for both mundanes and magic-users to combat magic (counterspelling/disrupting, using amulets, throwing salt over one's shoulder?),
- interesting ways of learning new/more powerful magic (dungeon-delving to find a lost rune of Yrrs that you are missing for the ritual of thousand suns followed by hours of research to put it into work),
- ability to weave multiple spells into one (I always liked the idea from Pratchett - that average mage weaves many protective spells into each spell - however, combining spells should be possible on certain level),
- while I loved the spell titles from D&D, I would welcome multiple "brands" of them (Melf's Acid Arrow comes to mind, how about Ichran's Corrosive Dart - the one that works similar, but is more effective in destroying items?),
- putting resources into the spell could make magic more powerful ("resources" means both additional mana/power/oomph by meditating/collecting mana crystals/whatever, as well as burning thrice-blessed incense from gardens of light; however there is always danger/chance associated with this),
- putting resources into spell to modify/change its effects (well, instead of the blessed incense I now burn the cask of the high priest - to reverse the effect).

The approaches to magic should be also modular - so you can make a spellbook dependent caster and a guy who just improvises his magic - the first one should be able to cast more powerful, but formalized spells, the other one would have the advantage of flexibility while sacrificing some "oomph". Yes, I like the sound little too much.

I love the idea that mundanes can affect the spells by doing relatively mundane things (e.g. wearing a red ribbon on wrist to combat mind-influencing spells) which however can backfire (if you subscribe to the "wear a red ribbon" belief, you make yourself more prone to mind control once you don't wear it - either through pure superstition, or the red ribbon working). I wish for a system where some spells can be neutralized if you stand in a circle of salt, others will be deflected by certain rune, but some will be powered up by these things.

I would like a system, that has "safe" spots (e.g. you can cast 2 powerful spells per day or 3-5 less powerful ones before you get too tired - similar to spell slots from D&D...) however you can cross these thresholds for more power and more risk (...or you can cast 5 very potent spells but you risk internal bleeding or becoming tainted).

Ideally, the magic system should have generic rules ("circles" are usually for protection, you can not bring back the dead) that can be reversed/exploited or even broken with the right materials and power (with the right ritual you will damage everything OUTSIDE the circle, you can lock the soul in dead body).

And the "ancient secrets" should be really powerful. Like "blacken the sun" powerful.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-09-18, 06:22 AM
I will only comment on the prepare vs memorize portion:

Memorize is the pre 3e term as I understand things. The reason it's in so much fiction is that the heyday of the forgotten realms books was during 2e, so most of the "classic" stories use that terminology.

Prepare is what is used in 5e and I think in 3e. 4e didn't have vancian casting, so it used neither.

Dimers
2017-09-18, 06:34 AM
Coincidentally, just a couple days ago I started reading my first Jack Vance. ... So far, his presentation of :smalleek:Magic!!:smalleek: is no more consistent, thematic or justified than most D&D. Which I guess means D&D is being true to the source material. :smallamused:

EDIT: As far as I can tell, the "limited memorization" thing is a plot device in Vance's stories, just like it's (supposedly) a balance mechanism in D&D. It's there to explain why a few uber-wizards haven't already killed their rivals and taken over everything.

Yeah, typical celery is pretty flavorless. Organic is often much stronger, but it's not actually a taste that everyone will enjoy. Try it if you get a chance to without heavy investment. Whole Foods is good for that -- their produce department will give you a taste of nearly anything, just for asking.

spinningdice
2017-09-18, 06:57 AM
I like the idea of adding more theme to magic, but the idea of making such fundamental changes to D&D (any edition) seems like more effort than it's worth.

One of the things I love about Brandon Sanderson's stories is how consistent magic is, it doesn't usually give you the explanation off the bat, but the magic in his books adheres to strict rules, and finding new ways to work within the rules are where characters get powerful.

I am all for spell variations, have a hundred variations of Magic Missile in your game, sure if you know one you probably don't need another, but they each work slightly differently (places with actual schooled wizards probably have a consistent version). Even if you don't change the spells, change the names, stick them on index cards so you don't have to remember what the original spell is called. Maybe with enough education you can learn which school they learned to cast in by the colour of their magic missiles or shields.

I also like rituals (not the 5e term - though that mechanic is welcome) spellcasting outside the normal systems, ancient rites involving sacrifice and specific requirements and granting unusual power.

Cluedrew
2017-09-18, 07:01 AM
To lacco36: Well... a lot of those things might help. Actually I think Ars Magica managed to present a D&D like magic system far better than D&D did. But I think D&D really should hone in on a flavour. Or several, it could probably also hone in on several, separating them out into more distinct magic systems. Other things, like the mundane counters, would definitely help, magic sort of exists as an override, which really makes it seem like a video game special ability as opposed to part of the story world.

To PhoenixPhyre: Yeah, I read a lot of old fiction which probably is why it is so confusing for me.

To Dimers: Thank you for the information about celery.

Swordsaged.

Lacco
2017-09-18, 08:17 AM
One of the things I love about Brandon Sanderson's stories is how consistent magic is, it doesn't usually give you the explanation off the bat, but the magic in his books adheres to strict rules, and finding new ways to work within the rules are where characters get powerful.

That's something I'd like to have in RPG magic system. Will have to check B. Sanderson.


I am all for spell variations, have a hundred variations of Magic Missile in your game, sure if you know one you probably don't need another, but they each work slightly differently (places with actual schooled wizards probably have a consistent version). Even if you don't change the spells, change the names, stick them on index cards so you don't have to remember what the original spell is called. Maybe with enough education you can learn which school they learned to cast in by the colour of their magic missiles or shields.

And maybe, you'll find out that most of the missiles have certain colour due to their "frequency" which may allow you to bypass certain wards (of the same frequency)...? That's something I'd like to have - a minor, but possibly relevant side effect.


I also like rituals (not the 5e term - though that mechanic is welcome) spellcasting outside the normal systems, ancient rites involving sacrifice and specific requirements and granting unusual power.

I liked the Shadowrun's approach - most spells could be done as rituals, which actually allowed you to bypass some of the "rules" for spells (range, line of sight), as well as allowed you to use more power.

Still, there should be "strange rituals" and "ancient rites".


To lacco36: Well... a lot of those things might help. Actually I think Ars Magica managed to present a D&D like magic system far better than D&D did. But I think D&D really should hone in on a flavour. Or several, it could probably also hone in on several, separating them out into more distinct magic systems. Other things, like the mundane counters, would definitely help, magic sort of exists as an override, which really makes it seem like a video game special ability as opposed to part of the story world.

I must say that I have only once seen Ars Magica rules (seen, not read through) so I'll have to check them out before continuing the debate.

And since you usually present interesting counterpoints and have interesting ideas, I'd like to hear your opinion on what should be present in flavorful (is that a word...?) magic system. The reason is, that I am myself trying to work a magic system in some of my games and would like to have some points for improvement.

Anonymouswizard
2017-09-18, 08:22 AM
This reminds me of Unknown Armies, which adds a lot of flavour to a spellpoint system. One of the magic systems, Adepts, fuel magic via charges. There are three levels, minor are easy to gain but don't fuel powerful spells, significants are harder to gain but fuel better spells, and good luck seeing a major if you're not a Mechanomancer. Every Adept is crazy and obsessed with something, to the point where their obsession allows them to see a 'paradox' which they can use to generate magic from some activity, and they can use that magic to cast spells within their theme (books, flesh warping, chance, cities, farms). In generally the more powerful or versatile your theme the more difficult it is to get this magic. Entropomancers have it easy in exchange for having an average lifespan of about three sessions (you generate a sig if you choose to perform an action that has a one in ten chance of death. Carry a revolver and you can generate sigs on demand).

Then you get systems like Mutants & Masterminds and Savage Worlds, where you're supposed to fluff your character and powers to fit your character. So there's a 'single person attack power' that can be fire bolt, screaming skull, laser blast, or concussion based on your character (and M&M goes much further than Savage Worlds because it's based around superheroes).

Max_Killjoy
2017-09-18, 08:56 AM
To lacco36: Well... a lot of those things might help. Actually I think Ars Magica managed to present a D&D like magic system far better than D&D did. But I think D&D really should hone in on a flavour. Or several, it could probably also hone in on several, separating them out into more distinct magic systems. Other things, like the mundane counters, would definitely help, magic sort of exists as an override, which really makes it seem like a video game special ability as opposed to part of the story world.


If they zeroed in on a particular flavor, that would run counter to the kitchen-sink faux-universal positioning they do in selling the system. :smallconfused:

spinningdice
2017-09-18, 08:58 AM
Now I have somewhat of a love for Ars Magicka, but I know my regular D&D group would use any system like that to make fights drag on even longer.
So I'll content myself with simple changes.

Another thing I've toyed with but never actually tried implementing is allowing Inspiration to be used for "stunts". I.e. you want to bend a spell to do something not RAW but seems plausible, spend your Inspiration to do it (i.e. use a Magic Missile to disarm someone, or Use a shield on someone else, or something)... Not limited to spells, but spells would allow a good range of effects.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-09-18, 09:45 AM
If they zeroed in on a particular flavor, that would run counter to the kitchen-sink faux-universal positioning they do in selling the system. :smallconfused:

Honestly, this is something I'm confused about. I haven't seen any official marketing (or text in the books) that claims to be universal. Broader than a single setting? Sure. But fundamentally, 4e and 5e (the two editions I happen to own the books for) have a relatively narrow official theme: adventurers in a faux-medieval setting doing heroic things. At least those two editions (that I have seen) never promised to be able to tell all stories or cover all settings. The d20 system did (somewhat) by trying to be modular. Did it succeed? YMMV. But this idea that D&D as a whole pretends to cover everything doesn't jibe with my experience or the text in the books that I own.


Now I have somewhat of a love for Ars Magicka, but I know my regular D&D group would use any system like that to make fights drag on even longer.
So I'll content myself with simple changes.

Another thing I've toyed with but never actually tried implementing is allowing Inspiration to be used for "stunts". I.e. you want to bend a spell to do something not RAW but seems plausible, spend your Inspiration to do it (i.e. use a Magic Missile to disarm someone, or Use a shield on someone else, or something)... Not limited to spells, but spells would allow a good range of effects.

I like this idea, although I wouldn't necessarily confine it just to using inspiration. Give me a plausible (even hand-wavy) reason to accept it, and I'll at least consider something else. Try to power-game it, and I'll shut that down.

On topic, the thing that bugs me most about the basic D&D magic system is the ravioli nature (to use another food analogy) of the choices. At level up, any caster gets to pick from a huge list of atomic (unconnected) spells. Unlike feats, spells don't depend on each other. You don't need fire bolt to get to fire ball, a caster without any transmutation spells picked before can suddenly decide to pick up shapechange. This seems completely alien to me (especially when combined with the conceit that every spell caster knows about all other spells that have ever been defined anywhere in any splat book). From my experience, people specialize. A great sword-smith isn't necessarily a great gold-smith. A computational quantum chemist may be no better than average at experimental synthesis of organic molecules (or even worse than the average--theoreticians are stereotypically bad experimentalists). So why would wizards (or clerics, or ...) be any different? The school-based specializations are simultaneously too broad and too narrow--the spells are still arbitrarily mixed together based more on whim and history than any type of thematic system.

I know SoP tried to fix it, but I'm not sure the disease is worth the cost of the cure (and anyway that doesn't apply beyond 3.5). I've thought about creating thematic lists for NPCs, but haven't gotten much further than trying to categorize them. It's a hard problem I'm not sure how to solve.

Max_Killjoy
2017-09-18, 10:22 AM
Honestly, this is something I'm confused about. I haven't seen any official marketing (or text in the books) that claims to be universal. Broader than a single setting? Sure. But fundamentally, 4e and 5e (the two editions I happen to own the books for) have a relatively narrow official theme: adventurers in a faux-medieval setting doing heroic things. At least those two editions (that I have seen) never promised to be able to tell all stories or cover all settings. The d20 system did (somewhat) by trying to be modular. Did it succeed? YMMV. But this idea that D&D as a whole pretends to cover everything doesn't jibe with my experience or the text in the books that I own.


1) Most of my experience is with earlier editions, where it was a case of clearly presenting D&D as THE fantasy gaming system, even if they never used words like "universal".

2) The open-ended d20 push appeared to be a claim that the basic d20/levels/classes setup was even more universal and could be used for literally anything.

3) For a time, several publishers were doing books as "here's the game in our system, and also here's the game in d20", further pushing the universality angle even if not in so many words.

4) Many players treated D&D/d20 as a universal system, and wanted to use it for everything. There were conversions out there for almost anything, and the default "let's stat up this fictional setting no one has officially published" for many players was a D&D/d20 hack... and often settings that were published using other systems would get a "D&D/d20 hack" as well.

5) While I don't have a lot of exposure to 4e or 5e, the discussions about those systems appear to reflect the same as the above.

spinningdice
2017-09-18, 10:36 AM
If you wanted to depart, but not too far, it would be "relatively easy" to move from spells to "spell chains", i.e. rather than picking spells you pick a 10 spell chain (or maybe a tree to allow some later branching?), then you'd get access to X amount of spell chains instead of picking and choosing freely each level.
You'd still be able to pick unrelated themes (i.e. first chain - fire, second chain - Invisibility, but at least you'd then be tied to the theme rather than all over the place)

5e sort of moved towards this, in that most classes seem to have less spells in general, but many spells are able to be cast at higher level (Starfinder also uses a similar concept).

Part of me wishes that they'd done something like that for the sorcerer, give them a tight theme while the wizard can understand anything he can get his hands on.

VoxRationis
2017-09-18, 10:51 AM
I find that Vancian magic actually does have a lot of flavor, but it tends to get washed out in D&D play because that flavor is very different from the Tolkienesque high fantasy element which also pervades D&D. Vancian wizards are cruel and cunning, solitary creatures who hole up in laboratories filled with strange apparatuses, plotting various kinds of revenge against their rivals. Their spells are bright, flashy, specific in use, and tend to have people's names attached because they were developed long ago (even a wizard's understanding of magic is incomplete). They pore over secrets of ancient days of glory, long since past, and jealously guard every scrap of lore they find. This has a good feel to it. The problem is that people also wanted stuff from Lord of the Rings in their game, and the two tones don't really mesh well. So the basic Vancian system got some of its flavor stripped out (and this effect increased over time) in order to make the two influences play nice.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-09-18, 11:33 AM
1)
5) While I don't have a lot of exposure to 4e or 5e, the discussions about those systems appear to reflect the same as the above.

So it seems that they've learned their lessons. Neither 4e nor 5e claim to be universal--I was just rereading the 5e PHB introduction and it's clear that it's a) dungeon-oriented b) medieval fantasy with c) heroic adventurers doing heroic things.

For example, the blurb on the back of the PHB:



Dungeons and Dragons immerses you in a world of adventure. Explore ancient ruins and deadly dungeons. Battle monsters while searching for legendary treasures. Gain experience and power as you trek across uncharted lands with your companions.

The world needs heroes. Will you answer the call?


Everything in the book (and in all the official stuff I've seen) stresses this point. There's no attempt at being universal--that was an hubristic statement of the d20 system (which was abandoned with 4e). It doesn't even claim to do all medieval fantasy--no claim about it being suited for political adventures (intrigue is mentioned as a possible element of a campaign, but in the wording it's clear that they're thinking much more of skull-and-dagger, stealth intrigue than on political negotiations), the average person's life (no claims that being an average joe running a shop is a suitable game), or even modern/futuristic settings.

I don't have the 4e books at hand here at work, but I was reading them yesterday and they match. This delusion (because that's what it is) that D&D is universal was in force for 3e (certainly), but died with that system. Memes, however, seem to be eternal.

One major part often missed is that different editions of D&D are actually different games. They share similarities, but there is no expectation of continuity of mechanics or presentation. Some things are kept for legacy reasons, but there is no expectation of direct portability (unlike, for example, 3.0 -> 3.5 or 3.5 -> PF).


My plan of attack for 5e (which is much simpler of a spell system than 3.5e) was to generate a bunch of overlapping themed lists. Necromancy might be a theme, same with healer or guardian. Different classes would have access to a subset of the set of lists, and then each character would pick a primary and maybe a secondary. Most of the spells would come from those lists, with each class giving different types of access to other lists. Wizards, for example, might have to pick from one list for their guaranteed spells but could scribe in spells from scrolls from a selection of other lists. Sorcerers might be able to emulate another spell on-the-fly a certain number of times per day (basically having a "floating" spell selection). Bards (who in 5e can occasionally pick from other lists) might have a relatively narrow set of primary lists but be able to pick some spells from any list. Or something like that. Never quite got that far. My attempt at thematizing the spells can be seen in this google doc (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Of2RXwi0a3n0KWswQitrXjH6FHO_wCQk8zm6XWYRHxM/edit?usp=sharing). It's highly incomplete (all the spells are there, but more needs to be done to spread them out better).

Joe the Rat
2017-09-18, 12:11 PM
Vancian Casting is Onion Magic: There's a lot of flavor there, but it's in everything, so you rarely notice it.


Vancian wizards are cruel and cunning, solitary creatures who hole up in laboratories filled with strange apparatuses, plotting various kinds of revenge against their rivals. Their spells are bright, flashy, specific in use, and tend to have people's names attached because they were developed long ago (even a wizard's understanding of magic is incomplete).

...and the spells in themselves are almost alive. They want to be read. You look at the spell page, and the runes are reaching out to your mind, looking for a place to lodge themselves. Spells are so much more than words and intonations - that's just the part you use to release the meme-like construct-entity sitting in your brain to give you the ability to breathe water for a time, or to rend you foe asunder with the thousands of burning needles of the Most Excellent Prismatic Spray. That's not flavorful?

The trouble is that the explanations - the flavor - is lost going into D&D. We can back-fill our explanations, and get some really cool ideas about hanging spells and spell valences and single-use mana circuits... but it is missing. Chalk it up to avoiding too much copy, or the need to appeal to fans of other magic systems. How long until we got the utilitarian ritual casting of spells (or fragments thereof) by non-magicians, as noted in The Hobbit?

The spell-slot system is one we take for granted. It's been there as long as there's been polyhedron dice in the hobby.

I think the best take on Vancian flavor (outside of the Dying Earth RPG itself) is Dungeon Crawl Classics. All of the 753 known spells are from a bygone era, everything is either discovered in old tomes or dusty scraps, or given to you by strange patrons, and messing with magic is in general a Bad Idea. The catch is that it isn't fire and forget casting - but you can lose a spell (potentially in a huff) if you screw up badly on your casting.

Max_Killjoy
2017-09-18, 12:11 PM
I find that Vancian magic actually does have a lot of flavor, but it tends to get washed out in D&D play because that flavor is very different from the Tolkienesque high fantasy element which also pervades D&D. Vancian wizards are cruel and cunning, solitary creatures who hole up in laboratories filled with strange apparatuses, plotting various kinds of revenge against their rivals. Their spells are bright, flashy, specific in use, and tend to have people's names attached because they were developed long ago (even a wizard's understanding of magic is incomplete). They pore over secrets of ancient days of glory, long since past, and jealously guard every scrap of lore they find. This has a good feel to it. The problem is that people also wanted stuff from Lord of the Rings in their game, and the two tones don't really mesh well. So the basic Vancian system got some of its flavor stripped out (and this effect increased over time) in order to make the two influences play nice.

Based on PhoenixPhyre's response, I'm going to posit that this is a legacy of editions before 5th.

However, it does tie into the sort of "we can do all kinds of fantasy gaming" approach from earlier editions -- trying to do the sort of dark-far-future post-fall fantasy (ie, Vance), and epic Tolkienesque fantasy, in the same system and setting, turns into a kitchen-sink mush.

(I didn't bring that up for nothing.)

Maybe it's not as much of an issue in later editions, but at one point any solution to these issues in D&D, including the spell system, was to first figure out your setting, and then hammer D&D into a system that reflected that setting.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-09-18, 12:22 PM
Based on PhoenixPhyre's response, I'm going to posit that this is a legacy of editions before 5th.

However, it does tie into the sort of "we can do all kinds of fantasy gaming" approach from earlier editions -- trying to do the sort of dark-far-future post-fall fantasy (ie, Vance), and epic Tolkienesque fantasy, in the same system and setting, turns into a kitchen-sink mush.

(I didn't bring that up for nothing.)

Maybe it's not as much of an issue in later editions, but at one point any solution to these issues in D&D, including the spell system, was to first figure out your setting, and then hammer D&D into a system that reflected that setting.

Or, decide on your system and hammer the setting into place. That's what I've (somewhat) tried to do with mine. My setting won't work in 3.X or 4e. I originally built it for 4e, and when I switched to 5e, I engineered a cataclysm that, in-universe, changed how magic and just about everything else worked. What you do have to do in advance is decide what tone and (general) style you're going for and adjust the modular parts of the system to match. Going outside of "heroic dungeon-and-monster-oriented medieval fantasy" means swapping progressively more parts of the system until it's a homebrew system in all but name. Definitely not worth my time, but, as always, YMMV. Just don't claim you're playing stock Xth edition D&D.

The d20 system tried to obscure this basic reality (which holds in different ways for all games, not just D&D) to claim universality. It failed. Even GURPS (where generic is in the name) does what it does by being super modular, and explicitly so. It's more of a game-building toolkit than a ready-to-play game. Each game has a genre/style/tone (some wider, some narrower) it works best for. The further you move from it, the worse it works.

Max_Killjoy
2017-09-18, 12:25 PM
Or, decide on your system and hammer the setting into place. That's what I've (somewhat) tried to do with mine. My setting won't work in 3.X or 4e. I originally built it for 4e, and when I switched to 5e, I engineered a cataclysm that, in-universe, changed how magic and just about everything else worked. What you do have to do in advance is decide what tone and (general) style you're going for and adjust the modular parts of the system to match. Going outside of "heroic dungeon-and-monster-oriented medieval fantasy" means swapping progressively more parts of the system until it's a homebrew system in all but name. Definitely not worth my time, but, as always, YMMV. Just don't claim you're playing stock Xth edition D&D.

The d20 system tried to obscure this basic reality (which holds in different ways for all games, not just D&D) to claim universality. It failed. Even GURPS (where generic is in the name) does what it does by being super modular, and explicitly so. It's more of a game-building toolkit than a ready-to-play game. Each game has a genre/style/tone (some wider, some narrower) it works best for. The further you move from it, the worse it works.

I completely agree.

(HERO, one of my favorites, is also a toolkit.)

Thrudd
2017-09-18, 12:51 PM
In my interpretation, based mostly on Turjan of Miir and Mazirian the Magician, the "spells" and the "secrets of the universe" are not the same thing. You don't learn spells by studying the workings of the universe or doing lab experiments. They don't arise out of that knowledge.

Spells are an ancient sort of technology from an impossibly advanced lost civilization, that make use of a specific form of mental/psychic training to unleash specific "magical" effects. There are a finite number of spells known to still exist, and most wizards (who themselves are not great in number) have only got their hands on a few of them. Turjan was an exceptional wizard that had managed to collect almost all of the hundred spells still known to exist (in D&D there's more than a hundred, but still a finite number).

The special mental training required to wield this technology involves creating partitions in your mind which hold the psychic energy of a spell in stasis, waiting to be unleashed - the more powerful the spell, the stronger the mind must be to hold it. Some spells required greater energy to hold than others. This is where the "spell slot" and "spell level" idea comes from - even the strongest, best trained minds can hold only a few spells at a time. Mazirian was an especially strong wizard who could hold six spells at the same time, or four stronger spells.

Wizards collect and jealously hoard whatever spells they can get their hands on. As we know, having spells is a game changer and can keep you safe or defeat your enemies with a few words and gestures. In D&D, spells are found in dungeons, either because the dungeon is the ruins of ancient civilization where spells might have been left, because they are some other wizard's place where he has stashed some of his valuables, or because some other wizard who was out looking for new spells got killed and their stuff swept into a pile of other stuff the ogre doesn't know what to do with.

There may be some spell-like effects that wizards accomplish through their experiments and scientific knowledge, but those are not actual "spells". Turjan and Pandelume were able to grow a human being in a vat. That isn't a spell - it's a science experiment. In D&D, this would not be emulated in the form of a spell, but by more piecemeal adjudication based on the rules of magical experiments for high level magic users with laboratories.

Early editions of D&D held closest to the source of inspiration, making small changes for the purposes of gameplay. Later editions changed and added more extremely, to the point where I agree that it no longer makes sense. This is a great failing of the later game designers, who lost sight of the fiction and attempted to include contradictory concepts of magic into a single game mechanic that never really changed. It become only a game contrivance and abstraction, rather than actually representing anything.

So, spells are just one technology/tool that wizards use, and one of the many sorts of ancient information/technology/scientific knowledge that they seek. Spells are not the end-all be-all, nor the sole source or method of conveyance of "magic". In Dying Earth, and in D&D, most wizards don't actually know how to create spells, or exactly how they work - else there would not only be 100 of them left. They are like a laser gun with inner workings that can't be analyzed or understood easily, but with a trigger mechanism and fuel source that have been handed down through long tradition.

One possible goal of the experimentation and knowledge seeking that very high level wizards perform may by to unlock the secrets of how to actually create spells, how to change them, what lets them really work. It is only for the most powerful, most knowledgeable, to potentially invent a new spell or even make modifications to those that are already known. If one such were to share their secrets and teach them widely, it would alter everything about the setting and you'd need to invent new game mechanics to represent the use of that knowledge/technology. So if you are running D&D, be very careful with how much and what sort of knowledge you declare to be widespread in your setting.

Anonymouswizard
2017-09-18, 01:49 PM
Or, decide on your system and hammer the setting into place.

This, I've discovered few of my setting ideas work with D&D, so I'm instead going to be using either Fantasy AGE or Keltia, depending on the setting (one is low fantasy iron age, the other is more heroic fantasy early renaissance).

Max_Killjoy
2017-09-18, 01:54 PM
In my interpretation, based mostly on Turjan of Miir and Mazirian the Magician, the "spells" and the "secrets of the universe" are not the same thing. You don't learn spells by studying the workings of the universe or doing lab experiments. They don't arise out of that knowledge.

Spells are an ancient sort of technology from an impossibly advanced lost civilization, that make use of a specific form of mental/psychic training to unleash specific "magical" effects. There are a finite number of spells known to still exist, and most wizards (who themselves are not great in number) have only got their hands on a few of them. Turjan was an exceptional wizard that had managed to collect almost all of the hundred spells still known to exist (in D&D there's more than a hundred, but still a finite number).

The special mental training required to wield this technology involves creating partitions in your mind which hold the psychic energy of a spell in stasis, waiting to be unleashed - the more powerful the spell, the stronger the mind must be to hold it. Some spells required greater energy to hold than others. This is where the "spell slot" and "spell level" idea comes from - even the strongest, best trained minds can hold only a few spells at a time. Mazirian was an especially strong wizard who could hold six spells at the same time, or four stronger spells.

Wizards collect and jealously hoard whatever spells they can get their hands on. As we know, having spells is a game changer and can keep you safe or defeat your enemies with a few words and gestures. In D&D, spells are found in dungeons, either because the dungeon is the ruins of ancient civilization where spells might have been left, because they are some other wizard's place where he has stashed some of his valuables, or because some other wizard who was out looking for new spells got killed and their stuff swept into a pile of other stuff the ogre doesn't know what to do with.

There may be some spell-like effects that wizards accomplish through their experiments and scientific knowledge, but those are not actual "spells". Turjan and Pandelume were able to grow a human being in a vat. That isn't a spell - it's a science experiment. In D&D, this would not be emulated in the form of a spell, but by more piecemeal adjudication based on the rules of magical experiments for high level magic users with laboratories.

Early editions of D&D held closest to the source of inspiration, making small changes for the purposes of gameplay. Later editions changed and added more extremely, to the point where I agree that it no longer makes sense. This is a great failing of the later game designers, who lost sight of the fiction and attempted to include contradictory concepts of magic into a single game mechanic that never really changed. It become only a game contrivance and abstraction, rather than actually representing anything.

So, spells are just one technology/tool that wizards use, and one of the many sorts of ancient information/technology/scientific knowledge that they seek. Spells are not the end-all be-all, nor the sole source or method of conveyance of "magic". In Dying Earth, and in D&D, most wizards don't actually know how to create spells, or exactly how they work - else there would not only be 100 of them left. They are like a laser gun with inner workings that can't be analyzed or understood easily, but with a trigger mechanism and fuel source that have been handed down through long tradition.

One possible goal of the experimentation and knowledge seeking that very high level wizards perform may by to unlock the secrets of how to actually create spells, how to change them, what lets them really work. It is only for the most powerful, most knowledgeable, to potentially invent a new spell or even make modifications to those that are already known. If one such were to share their secrets and teach them widely, it would alter everything about the setting and you'd need to invent new game mechanics to represent the use of that knowledge/technology. So if you are running D&D, be very careful with how much and what sort of knowledge you declare to be widespread in your setting.


That part I bolded is why I get so adamant in support of setting and tone and system all needing to support each other.

How can you tell if your system is working if the results can't be fact-checked against the "reality" of the setting?

Vogie
2017-09-18, 02:59 PM
Seriously, what unites animating skeletons with flying with opening doors with seeing the future? I can't see any connection, behind the nebulous concept of magic. To me it makes it feel all scattered and random. The schools do help a bit, but on the whole it just come off as a scattered list of "wouldn't it be cool if?" without any thought about how they come together or fit into the world. Its a bit like a superhero setting, except all the same power source.

So in summery, D&D goes against the thin flavour of its magic, doesn't consistently explain the parts it does talk about and hands out abilities pretty much randomly. So yeah, I don't think it is a great magic system. It has its strong points and I'm sure people will point them out, but on the whole, I'm not impressed.

I do agree that the lack of connections, even within the schools of magic, seem like they're a bit all over the place. I prefer the approach used in Godsfall, where nearly all magic comes in the form of a rebirthing of the 30+ fallen gods of yore. Which does make it more superhero-y, so the godlings of force eventually learn all of the things that are force related, from mage hand and telekinetic projectile all the way up to shields, flight, and crushing eyeballs in the target's skull.

Moving it back to arcana, it makes sense that a wizard could then turn around and study another wizard's spells, and figure out how to mimic the spell or ritual. Sorcerers, however, are less sensible, as there isn't really a reason why one with a Phoenix Bloodline would know ray of frost or a Sea Sorcerer would know Scorching Ray.

At the same time, I do wish there was some more ability to "level up" abilities in more niche reasons. 5e includes some per-level scaling in some spells (such as Firebolt) and a way to upcast spells, so casting low level spells, at high level, amplifies the spell in a defined way (Typically by increasing damage by a linear amount, or increasing number of projectiles or targets). A way to adjust how the spells can be upcast, perhaps?

I'd almost like to see some way to have chosen individual spells gain XP, allowing an individual player to customize their abilities in their own way. This could be a way to create "Signature spells" or a way to weave in your specialty into other spells. A wizard that focuses on Fire and invisibility, like the example above, could blend his specializations to create, possibly, Ghostfire-ball (reducing or eliminating the dexterity save to avoid damage, as it's invisible) or some other combination (invisibility spells also reduce fire damage taken, et cetera). Similarly an Ice-focused mage should be able to make their own versions of fire or lightning spells (Chain Frosting?).

Perhaps you could use the spell XP on a specific spell to make it more powerful in niche instances (my "Embrittling Ray of Frost grants the Brittle condition to metal and wood, making it take 1d8 additional damage when struck by a melee attack" or her "Engineered Contagion will inflict the disease after one saving throw if the target is a giant", et cetera).

Frozen_Feet
2017-09-18, 03:11 PM
If it takes years of study to become a good wizard, why do the most powerful wizards get that way by wandering around and slaying monsters.
Actually, there is some explanation there, discovering secrets from a previous golden age. But those ancient secrets seem to be ready to go spells half the time, it feels like a loot drop, not a discovery. Which tramples the feel it seems to be going for?

The mechanical answer to that actually is that the years of studying predate the adventure. In each edition of D&D, starting ages for Wizards (and Clerics and Druids, but we're not focusing on them) are much higher than for less complex classes (in d20, +2d6 years for humans compared to +1d4 years for rogues or +1d6 years for Fighters).

So first a Wizard spend years learning the basics, then they embark on a journey to loot lost civilizations for their knowledge, then once they've hoarded enough they retreat back to their tower/sanctuary/private demiplane to study more


And then here is the whole memorize/prepare issue. Because I honestly have heard both used and supported.
Memorize: All that is required to use the spell is the knowledge of its inner workings. Every spell slot represents your ability to know these inner workings and hence cast magic. Casting a spell takes that knowledge from you, and you must re-learn the spell again.
Prepare: Casting a spell requires a bit of supernatural energy. If you don't have a natural source of it you must prepare a 'knot' of it before hand. This not can be untied, unleashing the power and form stored in it.
Apparently prepare is the correct one now a days, but when I read D&D fiction it always seemed to come from the memorize school. When they went into detail at all or even followed the vanican spell casting rules.

The two slightly different types exist partially because of the divide between arcane and divine magic.

The original idea for Wizards, in Vance's Dying Earth (etc.), was that the knowledge of a spell is highly complex and esoteric and resists being committed to long-term memory. (Possibly, details of the spell itself change with each casting.) So a Wizars could only hold to the idea of a spell for one casting, and could only hold in mind a few spells. That's where the memorization angle comes from.

For Clerics, who are more D&D specific conceit and inspired by real world religions (seriosly, many classic Cleric spells are biblical miracles), the idea was that instead of committing a spell to memory, the spell is granted by a higher being as part of a sort of prayer-driven contract. Hence preparation: the Cleric prepares spells by communing with and appeasing spirits.


Which brings us back to the secrets of the universe bit. What sort of secrets? No I'm not asking formula or anything like that. But really there doesn't really seem to be any intermediate steps between knowledge and breaking the laws of physics. [ . . . ] Seriously, what unites animating skeletons with flying with opening doors with seeing the future? I can't see any connection, behind the nebulous concept of magic. To me it makes it feel all scattered and random. The schools do help a bit, but on the whole it just come off as a scattered list of "wouldn't it be cool if?" without any thought about how they come together or fit into the world. Its a bit like a superhero setting, except all the same power source.

It's feels random and non-unified because it is. In Vance's work, spells were functional black boxes: Wizards understood what spells do and how to use them, but not how they work or why.

This has more-or-less carried through all editions of D&D. Divine magic has its crap together slightly better, but then again it runs on literal divine intervention.

The good part of the system is its plug-and-play nature. Want to introduce a new super power to your setting? Just make it into a spell and put it on some spell list - there, you're done!

But that also turned into a weakness. Since it was easy to make anything to spell, in late 2e and d20 there was a spell for everything. Creating massive rules bloat and play imbalance because someone had bright ideas of Clerics knowing their entire spell list or Wizards having no limit to how many spells they could learn.

Another weakness is that in order to keep this kitchen sink setting neutral, the default rules had to be scrubbed clean of any deep explanations. Hence, D&D has many smaller, more obscure magic systems with better flavour, and it has individual settings (such as Forgotten Realms) with semi-reasonable theories of "unified magic". But on a systems level, there is no such theory, it would not even be possible because it would require doing away with its plug-and-play nature and heavy redoing of which sorts of spells are available and to who.

The conclusion I'd take away from this is that the d20 system is usefull as a library of ready-made material to drae from, but if you want to use it for play, the only sane way is to cherry-pick for those spells which fit your setting and theory of magic, and ignore the rest. Any idea of having all existing spells available for a single game is, shall we say, RAW stupidity.

Thrudd
2017-09-18, 04:17 PM
That part I bolded is why I get so adamant in support of setting and tone and system all needing to support each other.

How can you tell if your system is working if the results can't be fact-checked against the "reality" of the setting?

Absolutely, 100%. That's why I have an overall dislike of the later editions of D&D, the published settings, and the practice of "refluffing" in which people take the divorce between mechanics and fiction to the most extreme abstract level possible (like "why can't I just say that the spell effects come from a friendly ghost that follows my character around? Or out of a gun that is possessed by the devil?").

Anonymouswizard
2017-09-18, 04:27 PM
Absolutely, 100%. That's why I have an overall dislike of the later editions of D&D, the published settings, and the practice of "refluffing" in which people take the divorce between mechanics and fiction to the most extreme abstract level possible (like "why can't I just say that the spell effects come from a friendly ghost that follows my character around? Or out of a gun that is possessed by the devil?").

Eh, refluffing can be really useful. I'm designing characters for an Eldritch Skies one shot, and for the sorcerer I wanted them to be more defensive. So I picked two spells easily, but picking a third one from the Eldritch Skies spells that didn't have a significant overlap, would be overly useful in the adventure, or would be useless was hard. Thankfully I'm running the Savage Worlds edition, which is a system that expects you to fluff your powers, so I took the SW Fear power and fluffed it as giving the recipient an unregulated vision of hyperspace (a side effect is it'll be useless on anybody with hyperspace exposure level 3 or higher).

However, the idea here is that the rules are generic, and your trappings (the fluff for the powers) should affect how they act slightly.

Beleriphon
2017-09-18, 04:29 PM
That part I bolded is why I get so adamant in support of setting and tone and system all needing to support each other.

How can you tell if your system is working if the results can't be fact-checked against the "reality" of the setting?

Because the system is a kludge to get people to play a game, you can't never really fact-check against the in setting reality, only against the expected result you want the system to do. So if you want characters to survive massive fights again hordes of mooks, but still plausibly die after being thrown off a cliff then D&D's hit point system handling all damage/luck/whatever of a character is probably not the go to mechanics. Because that mechanic doesn't reinforce what you want from the game, and the situations in the game.


Eh, refluffing can be really useful. I'm designing characters for an Eldritch Skies one shot, and for the sorcerer I wanted them to be more defensive. So I picked two spells easily, but picking a third one from the Eldritch Skies spells that didn't have a significant overlap, would be overly useful in the adventure, or would be useless was hard. Thankfully I'm running the Savage Worlds edition, which is a system that expects you to fluff your powers, so I took the SW Fear power and fluffed it as giving the recipient an unregulated vision of hyperspace (a side effect is it'll be useless on anybody with hyperspace exposure level 3 or higher).

However, the idea here is that the rules are generic, and your trappings (the fluff for the powers) should affect how they act slightly.

After a fashion D&D spells are just names applied to a pile of numbers and game mechanics. Mutants and Masterminds, in particular 3E, goes with generic effects. A fireball, Cyclops optic blasts, and a sword all Damage with different modifiers to determine range, damage amount, and other stuff interact. Each one though uses the same damage rules in the end.

FreddyNoNose
2017-09-18, 04:39 PM
If you want to know about why the memorization was used you need to understand one thing: War gaming.

Anonymouswizard
2017-09-18, 04:53 PM
After a fashion D&D spells are just names applied to a pile of numbers and game mechanics. Mutants and Masterminds, in particular 3E, goes with generic effects. A fireball, Cyclops optic blasts, and a sword all Damage with different modifiers to determine range, damage amount, and other stuff interact. Each one though uses the same damage rules in the end.

I like generic effects I can modify to make more unique, it makes a system more flexible. I like M&M when it's being used as intended, as effects, and as such 'I have twelve swords I can summon' is a damage effect with elven (or less) alternate effects, not the Summon power (I kid you not, that happened in my first game of M&M). I like how the Savage Worlds standard powers system (which is magic, miracles, psionics, weird science, and a basic superpowers variant) is essentially generic powers to fluff, and the superpowers system basically a stripped down version of Mutants & Masterminds powers (although not quite the same power level).

I don't mind how D&D spells are generic, but the way they're used is pretty specific. Of course Savage Worlds defaults to a spell point system (although it has the option for no power points it just makes spellcasters more powerful*), but that represents how most magicians in media are better (although you might want to add damage, fatigue, or something else for running out of Power Points). Mutants and Masterminds suffers from the fact you can't reliably add limitations such as a mana pools to this stuff (the closest, Limited (five uses) isn't as bad if used correctly).

* Sure, it's not game breaking to cast something like Bolt all day long, but blast is much more powerful and has a small penalty, and anything that cost PP to maintain can now last as long as you want/

Thrudd
2017-09-18, 04:58 PM
Eh, refluffing can be really useful. I'm designing characters for an Eldritch Skies one shot, and for the sorcerer I wanted them to be more defensive. So I picked two spells easily, but picking a third one from the Eldritch Skies spells that didn't have a significant overlap, would be overly useful in the adventure, or would be useless was hard. Thankfully I'm running the Savage Worlds edition, which is a system that expects you to fluff your powers, so I took the SW Fear power and fluffed it as giving the recipient an unregulated vision of hyperspace (a side effect is it'll be useless on anybody with hyperspace exposure level 3 or higher).

However, the idea here is that the rules are generic, and your trappings (the fluff for the powers) should affect how they act slightly.

A generic enough system does not have the same issue, because it purposefully keeps the game mechanics divorced from any possible setting details. "Refluffing" is only a problem where the mechanics and the setting are irrevocably entwined, as they are with D&D's spell casting system. It's not that you can't do it, but it is kludgy and falls apart for anyone trying to apply setting-logic to the resolution of mechanics. When the mechanics work a certain way because the setting is assumed to be a certain way, you can't just change that on a character by character basis. You need to change the whole setting.

Anonymouswizard
2017-09-18, 05:02 PM
A generic enough system does not have the same issue, because it purposefully keeps the game mechanics divorced from any possible setting details. "Refluffing" is only a problem where the mechanics and the setting are irrevocably entwined, as they are with D&D's spell casting system. It's not that you can't do it, but it is kludgy and falls apart for anyone trying to apply setting-logic to the resolution of mechanics.

Oh sure, I find myself disappointed when a system with an attached setting can't come up with more then generic spells. You have a setting so add some flavour!

I find Fantasy AGE does it quite well, with spells specific enough to be cool (and in narrowly defined themes), but generic enough to fit most settings. You'll be banning Arcana wholesale, not individual spells. You'll begin with the basic two themes of spells, and end up with access to several themes and powerful spells (although there's annoyingly few Arcana, GR really needs to release that Companion).

Max_Killjoy
2017-09-18, 05:44 PM
A generic enough system does not have the same issue, because it purposefully keeps the game mechanics divorced from any possible setting details. "Refluffing" is only a problem where the mechanics and the setting are irrevocably entwined, as they are with D&D's spell casting system. It's not that you can't do it, but it is kludgy and falls apart for anyone trying to apply setting-logic to the resolution of mechanics. When the mechanics work a certain way because the setting is assumed to be a certain way, you can't just change that on a character by character basis. You need to change the whole setting.

To expand on this...

If you start with something like HERO, which is an intentional toolkit, you can use the tools to get to a place where the system particulars you end up with reflect the setting.

If you start with something like D&D, which carries a legacy of being based on some very specific inspirations but has had the serial numbers filed off repeatedly and has been treated, at least by players, as "generic", you have much more potential to end up with a mess.

Cluedrew
2017-09-19, 07:31 PM
When you invent stupid terms like Celery Magic people don't like it.I will flat out admit that Celery Magic is not a great term. It was actually a joke that no one got. The only reason it stayed in the title was for people who saw the original and were confused.

But I think I am almost creating a history of how the spell system ended up where it is:
Started by trying to mimic a very particular magic system.
Adjustments where made to the system for gameplay purposes. Most of these seem to cut across the existing lore about magic or and tended to come with no additional flavour.
Spell bloat happened, spells for everything were created. Which is why it covers so much and, yes, there is a spell for that.
Some of the particular details of the system where removed flavour-wise to make the system more generic.
Which leads to the not-well-justified-yes-magic we have today. Does that follow?