Most Ridiculous Rules in RPGS

[ClintACK]

Let's flip it around.

D&D doesn't just have "Vancian" magic, it has Vancian health!

Hit points.

You have 12 hit points. Being bitten by eleven garter snakes leaves you mad and sore, but fully upright and functional. But a twelfth garter snake biting your ankle drops you to the ground unconscious and bleeding out.

And then there's about a 50-50 chance you'll fully recover on your own, even if you're left there alone and bleeding for hours. Unless two more garter snakes come along, in which case it's instant death.

Sure. That sounds right.

(Someone really needs to come up with a D&D Emergency Room webcomic.)


And don't get me started on Raise Dead. When was the last time any NPC in any campaign was raised from the dead? It's routine for PCs, but a wealthy merchant dies -- and doesn't have a contract with the local church? A powerful duke dies, and his chaplain doesn't bring him back as a matter of course? A dragon with a whole cult of followers... anyway, you get the idea.

Particularly at high levels, there really ought to be more attention paid to *how* you dispose of an enemy's mortal remains.

[Jay R]

Hardly, but we'll have to disagree. There is literally no explanation you can offer that won't sound like a ridiculous excuse for a rotten concept, as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed. As long as you insist on believing things about it that everybody else knows are not true, tthen nobody else can convince you of anything.

Perfume on a pig, as it were... as I said earlier, it's all just ways to cover up for the raw silliness of "I forgot my spells. Again."

Exactly. As long as you try to pretend that it ever said or meant "forgetting" in the real-world non-magical sense, rather than being a magical effect, you will always be incapable of understanding what the concept has been for over a sixty years. Casting a spell is intended as a magical effect. It really is.

It doesn't mean that. It never meant that. Neither Jack Vance nor any rules-writer ever meant that.

We agree with you completely that the interpretation "I forgot my spells. Again" is ridiculous. Our area of disagreement is that you believe that your simplistic, magic-denying approach is the intent of either Jack Vance and the rules-makers. Nobody else does.

[Max_Killjoy]

Agreed. As long as you insist on believing things about it that everybody else knows are not true, tthen nobody else can convince you of anything.

If your argument comes down to "well you must be ignorant if you don't agree with me", then we really are done.

It doesn't mean that. It never meant that. Neither Jack Vance nor any rules-writer ever meant that.

Well, then, I guess they shouldn't have said that, and neither should some of the system's advocates, either.

[Max_Killjoy]

That is apparent. Dying Earth just rubs you the wrong way.

The system in question "rubbed me the wrong way" long before I'd ever heard of Dying Earth or saw it referred to as "Vancian".

So what is a reasonable concept for how magic works, to you? Is the problem that you can't believe the mind/memory itself could be affected by or changed by magic?

No. It's that knowledge isn't magic. If you know how to do something, then you know how to do it, you don't forget how to do it every time you do it, and then have to redo it again.

Plus, the idea of discrete rote processes that only ever accomplish one exact thing and exactly one thing only, in a very preprogrammed fashion, and operate like some sort of ammunition that has to be painstakingly and carefully preloaded prior to combat, doesn't really fit the idea of someone who understands and manipulates the arcane forces of the universe.

The whole thing ends up being like claiming that a baseball player has to relearn how to swing his bat every day, or he can't swing at all, and if he doesn't prepare the enough "swing versus curveball in the low inside corner" instead of "swing versus high fastball" or "swing versus inside changeup", then he's screwed as soon as the pitcher throws the fourth or fifth curveball against him.

Or claiming that if I didn't memorize the right filters on the inventory report before I go to work in the morning, I won't know how to look at the warehouses I need to look at -- I'll only be able to set up the filters for the warehouses I studied the settings for that morning.

[The Glyphstone]

Out of curiosity, I did a Find scan through my copy of the 3.5 PHB. It never once uses the words 'memorize' or 'forget' in relation to wizards and spells, but exclusively refers to it as 'preparing'. For that matter, it also specifically elaborates on how the 'preparation' process in the morning is casting almost all of a spell minus the last few trigger words.

Anyone have a copy of the 4E or 5E PHBs they can poke into and check for the same?

[Max_Killjoy]

Out of curiosity, I did a Find scan through my copy of the 3.5 PHB. It never once uses the words 'memorize' or 'forget' in relation to wizards and spells, but exclusively refers to it as 'preparing'. For that matter, it also specifically elaborates on how the 'preparation' process in the morning is casting almost all of a spell minus the last few trigger words.

Anyone have a copy of the 4E or 5E PHBs they can poke into and check for the same?

http://www.dyingearth.com/files/GARY...CK%20VANCE.pdf

Just what portions of these works, the subsequent AD&D game, stemmed from inspiration related to the writing of Jack Vance? Several elements, the unquestioned foremost being the magic system used in these games. To my way of thinking, the concept of a spell itself being magical, that its written form carried energy, seemed a perfect way to balance the mage against other types of characters in the game. The memorization of the spell required time and concentration so as to impart not merely the written content but also its magical energies. When subsequently cast — by speaking or some other means — the words or gestures, or whatever triggered the magical force of the spell, leaving a blank place in the brain where the previously memorized spell had been held. Because I explained this often, attributing its inspiration to Jack Vance, the D&D magic system of memorized then forgotten spells was dubbed by gamers “the Vancian magic system”.

And I'd say that all the subsequent stuff about "oh well it's a prepared ritual that you hold at the last moment until you fire it off" strikes me both as an attempt to get out from under the baggage of the "Vancian" system, and as nothing like most understandings of how magical rituals work. Interrupting the ritual partway through almost always ruins the ritual or causes something to go terribly wrong in almost any real world belief about ritual-magic-working, or any fiction presentation of rituals.

[ClintACK]

... and as nothing like most understandings of how magical rituals work. Interrupting the ritual partway through almost always ruins the ritual or causes something to go terribly wrong in almost any real world belief about ritual-magic-working, or any fiction presentation of rituals.

Hmm... It's not so much interrupting the ritual -- it's that the ritual is designed with a break point. And there's *tons* of lore like that -- where you do a long magic ritual but the magic effect doesn't happen until it's triggered later.


Burying your photograph at a crossroads (or rubbing the lamp or calling upon a fairy) may grant you a wish. But nothing magic actually happens until you speak the words. Hours to assemble the right ingredients and bury them at midnight under a full moon. Seconds to say, "I wish I could play the guitar like nobody's business."


Single-use magic items (scrolls, potions, alchemical vials...) are all essentially long magic rituals whose effects are triggered by a single quick action. (Would it help if you imagine the wizard ritually preparing and charging up three balls of bat guano when the player decides to prepare fireball three times?)


The Mummy's Curse -- is essentially a magic ritual waiting to be triggered when someone breaks the seal on the tomb. In fact most curses seem to have a trigger condition (either to set it off or to break it). See Sleeping Beauty. Or Beauty and the Beast. Or Snow White's apple.

A coven of witches prepare a hex bag. Later the witch approaches you and touches you with it -- sealing the prepared curse to you. (Or hides it in your bed where you'll sleep over it and have nightmares. Or whatever)


A voodoo doll -- usually created in a long ritual involving gathering ingredients (like hair or nails from the victim), chanting and heating wax and crafting the doll. But it doesn't have any actual effect until the quick action of jabbing it with a pin. And witches/voudons are routinely portrayed in stories as carrying around the doll and only using it later.


In Navajo tradition, a Skin-walker is a witch who transforms into an animal shape. There's a whole thing where they kill and skin an animal and do ritual magic to prepare the skin, so that later they can use it to quickly transform into that animal.


In Game of Thrones,

Spoiler

Show

the Red Woman does a long blood magic ritual with Gendry (one of Rob's bastards) and three leeches. Then there's a break point. The spell won't actually take effect until Stannis picks up a leech, speaks the name of an enemy, and throws the leech in the fire. You could imagine him walking through a dungeon with a torch and some leeches in his pocket...

In the Dresden Files, book 12, Changes...

Spoiler

Show

the RC Vampires spend days sacrificing humans at their temple to charge up a massive death spell. It is triggered (and its target determined) when one more victim is sacrificed in the right way. Days to prepare the ritual, moments to finish it.

In Lawrence Watt-Evans' Ethshar series...

Spoiler

Show

Wizardry works with long rituals and rare ingredients. Some spells are quick -- like Thrindle's Combustion (a pinch of sulfur, a flick of your dagger, and something's on fire). But the really powerful ones -- like the greater petrification spell seen in the Unwelcome Warlock and the Vondish Ambassador -- are hours of ritual followed by the last step being done in the presence of your target. To use it as an attack, a powerful wizard prepared the whole ritual, then flew on a flying carpet into Vond's presence and jabbed his dagger into the chalice to complete the ritual.

In the TV series Supernatural...

Spoiler

Show

the Enochian blood spell to banish angels would take too long to be useful in combat, so they always prepare it ahead of time one way or another, and then trigger it with a bloody palm to the sigil after a pithy one-liner.

Examples from the works of Jack Vance and Roger Zelazny have already been mentioned in this thread.




"Prepared magic" is hardly a new idea. It has at least as long a tradition as Harry-Potter-style technologically reliable insta-magic.



Edited to add:

You don't have to *like* Vancian magic. By and large I don't like it either. I think 5e wizards are *much* more playable than 1e wizards.

But it's not necessarily silly and it does have a long tradition behind it.

[charcoalninja]

4E skill DC depends on the level of the character doing the skill and not the difficulty of the circumstance independent of whoever is doing it.

I'm sure this was corrected in 7 pages of thread but this is wrong and is an error that is constantly repeated enough that it needs to be correct every time I see it.

4e DCs did not work that way. What made for a challenging skill action scaled with level so a challenging roll for level 1 is like 15 and for level 30 might be 40. However the level 1 guy us running across ice while the level 30 guy is running across a span of frictionless omni ice that formed the first glaciers on Cania.

Please read your books people and stop spreading misinformation.

[digiman619]

In the Dresden Files, book 12, Changes...

Spoiler

Show

the RC Vampires spend days sacrificing humans at their temple to charge up a massive death spell. It is triggered (and its target determined) when one more victim is sacrificed in the right way. Days to prepare the ritual, moments to finish it.

Spoiler: My response

Show

In fairness, in the Dresden files ONLY rituals work like that because they are explicitly contacting otherworldly things; Harry regular magic is closer to a spell-point system.

[Thrudd]

The system in question "rubbed me the wrong way" long before I'd ever heard of Dying Earth or saw it referred to as "Vancian".





No. It's that knowledge isn't magic. If you know how to do something, then you know how to do it, you don't forget how to do it every time you do it, and then have to redo it again.

Plus, the idea of discrete rote processes that only ever accomplish one exact thing and exactly one thing only, in a very preprogrammed fashion, and operate like some sort of ammunition that has to be painstakingly and carefully preloaded prior to combat, doesn't really fit the idea of someone who understands and manipulates the arcane forces of the universe.

The whole thing ends up being like claiming that a baseball player has to relearn how to swing his bat every day, or he can't swing at all, and if he doesn't prepare the enough "swing versus curveball in the low inside corner" instead of "swing versus high fastball" or "swing versus inside changeup", then he's screwed as soon as the pitcher throws the fourth or fifth curveball against him.

Or claiming that if I didn't memorize the right filters on the inventory report before I go to work in the morning, I won't know how to look at the warehouses I need to look at -- I'll only be able to set up the filters for the warehouses I studied the settings for that morning.

It would be an entirely different game if the magic system operated only according to real-world folklore and religious rituals. That might be an interesting setting to play in, but fantasy is not required to only be representative of real world religious beliefs.

Since there is no such thing as "real" magic, at least not the type generally present in fantasy settings, there is nothing off limits in terms of what is believable. It's only a mater of clarity and consistency. If the creator of a setting says magic works a certain way, that is how it works.

You've got Vancian magic all wrong, your examples demonstrate you aren't clear on what it is despite having it plainly described multiple times. In Dying Earth and early D&D, magic spells are not something a person "knows". A spell isn't knowledge you possess, it is a tool, a relic of a past age, that you are trained how to use (and which you possess in physical form as books/scrolls). Your brain is just a vessel temporarily housing it. That you abjectly refuse to accept this concept as a possibility makes no sense. It is a valid and imaginative choice made by the author and creator of that setting, which was clearly explained and elaborated on in a series if stories.

Yes, 3e's explanation of how magic works abandoned that setting and made a different but equally valid interpretation that allowed them to use a similar mechanic to represent it. That is more like Zelazny's Merlin, conducting rituals which store the energy for later triggering. The limiting factor is again explained as a matter of mental endurance. Personally, I think the earlier explanation works better for the "spell slot" mechanic.

There are as many systems of magic as there are authors of fantasy stories, and the only way to compare them is by how well the author describes their setting. There are few consistent elements from one to the next, and many go into little or no detail at all regarding how magic works from the point of view of the wizard.

Whatever your frame of reference is for how magic is "supposed" to be, it seems very limited.

What is the acceptable explanation for magic?

[ClintACK]

Spoiler: My response

Show

In fairness, in the Dresden files ONLY rituals work like that because they are explicitly contacting otherworldly things; Harry regular magic is closer to a spell-point system.

Spoiler

Show

Leaving aside sponsored magic rituals (like the coven in Blood Rites), DF magic is Evocation (what you can do in an instant) and Thaumaturgy (what you can do with time to carry out a ritual).

We usually see Dresden doing Evocation -- Fuego or Forzare or Ventas Servitas -- because he's usually doing things in a rush. And, yeah. It's definitely like a spell-point system -- or perhaps like a hybrid hit point/spell point/exhaustion system with an option to overchannel with longer-term consequences.

Thaumaturgy is the ritual stuff. Like when he takes time to make a circle and gather power and charge up a tracking spell, then breaks the circle and uses the spell.

But yeah... Harry basically does either evocation or ritual magic that he uses immediately. To the extent that he "prepares" magic for later, it's either potions or charging up something like his force rings.

So... mostly agree.

There are definitely hints that other wizards do more preparation and less on-the-fly evocation. (Like the Merlin's bandolier of potion vials.) But nothing particularly like "preparing spells".

[The Glyphstone]

http://www.dyingearth.com/files/GARY...CK%20VANCE.pdf

That...is not from the 4E or 5E PHBs, so it's irrelevant. I'm fully aware that AD&D explicitly tapped and mentioned the Dying Earth books, since Gygax was still around to be actively writing and editing them. But he had no part in 3.0 or 3.5, as clearly shown by 'memorization' no longer being a part of the fluff, and I was curious if WoTC had reverted their stance in a later edition.

[Max_Killjoy]

That...is not from the 4E or 5E PHBs, so it's irrelevant. I'm fully aware that AD&D explicitly tapped and mentioned the Dying Earth books, since Gygax was still around to be actively writing and editing them. But he had no part in 3.0 or 3.5, as clearly shown by 'memorization' no longer being a part of the fluff, and I was curious if WoTC had reverted their stance in a later edition.

As long as the D&D family tree (or at least the main branches) use "Vancian" magic, it's fair to look back at why and how that original design decision was made, and it's absolutely fair to hold the game to those creator statements.

You've got Vancian magic all wrong, your examples demonstrate you aren't clear on what it is despite having it plainly described multiple times. In Dying Earth and early D&D, magic spells are not something a person "knows". A spell isn't knowledge you possess, it is a tool, a relic of a past age, that you are trained how to use (and which you possess in physical form as books/scrolls). Your brain is just a vessel temporarily housing it.

The more you try to explain it, the more laughable the "Vancian" concept gets.

What is the acceptable explanation for magic?

I thought the thread was about rules we find ridiculous... not "and how would you replace them".

[AMFV]

As long as the D&D family tree (or at least the main branches) use "Vancian" magic, it's fair to look back at why and how that original design decision was made, and it's absolutely fair to hold the game to those creator statements.

That's completely not the case, they don't use the same explanations in-universe. And the things that are true in the Dying Earth are not largely true in D&D, they're completely different settings with different rules. Just the inspiration doesn't mean that it's linked. You can't claim that any more than you could claim that it's ridiculous that trolls in D&D live under bridges.

I thought the thread was about rules we find ridiculous... not "and how would you replace them".

The issue is that you said "no explanation" then around five people provided many of the varying explanations, including some that referenced the real world. Then you continued to claim that there was no explanation after people had provided such. So they're trying to find out what level of explanation would be sufficient for you.

[An Enemy Spy]

Racial Holy War. The game is literally unplayable because the neo nazis behind it were too busy vomiting racial slurs onto a piece of paper to actually bother coming up with combat rules. This has the unintentionally funny side effect that all the degenerate subhuman races were impossible for the white supremacist "heroes" to actually beat in a fight.

[Dimers]

That...is not from the 4E or 5E PHBs, so it's irrelevant. I'm fully aware that AD&D explicitly tapped and mentioned the Dying Earth books, since Gygax was still around to be actively writing and editing them. But he had no part in 3.0 or 3.5, as clearly shown by 'memorization' no longer being a part of the fluff, and I was curious if WoTC had reverted their stance in a later edition.

Spoiler: 5e: short answer is 'no'

Show

In 5e, there are cantrips and there are other spells (of levels 1-9). You never run out of cantrips -- once you know a cantrip, you can cast it every action until you drop dead from exhaustion. Some classes prepare a sub-list of spells from a large list (clerics, paladins, druids), some prepare a sub-list from a list that depends on prior access to learning (wizard), some know only a short list but can cast from that list without setting in stone any particular sub-list (sorcerer, ranger, bard, warlock (more or less), arcane trickster, eldritch knight). None of them reference memorization or forgetting. The closest 5e comes to that is replacing spells previously known upon level-up.

4e uses highly gamist structure and language with little attempt to justify its mechanics. Something as convoluted as packets of spell power that are memorized and then wiped from the mind upon use? --fuhgeddaboudit. EDIT: Er, no pun intended.

[Telok]

4e DCs did not work that way. What made for a challenging skill action scaled with level so a challenging roll for level 1 is like 15 and for level 30 might be 40.

Quite true, the DC of a level 3 lock and the DC of a level 30 lock are completely different and don't change when PCs level up. What does change as PCs level up is the level of the lock. Level 3 PCs don't encounter level 30 locks and level 30 PCs don't encounter level 3 locks. So in play what the players see is DCs that go up with character level, because the challenge level goes up and the DCs are directly tied to challenge level.

Sure, you can say that there could be a game where a level 3 party is confronted by a level 30 lock that they have to pick. You can also put a level 3 party up against a level 30 dragon and let it stomp them. 4e doesn't do that, it has the level of the challenge scale with the level of the characters. Which means that players keep rolling against ever increasing DCs as they level up.

[Avilan the Grey]

There are rules that are based on mathematical formulas which, if you don't use common sense, will become ridiculous under extreme circumstances.

Two examples. Two different (swedish) RPGs, from memory:

The carrying rule: You move slower the more you carry. However sooner or later you will start moving backwards. At increasing speeds.
(Basically the rules do not specify that you stop at speed 0). Theoretically you could, if you carry enough, go at the speed of light. Backwards.

The Explosions do more damage in small spaces rule: Another game tries to emulate that hand grenades etc do more damage if you are in a confide space with them when they go boom.
However the formula used "breaks thru" at a certain size of space and well... The end result before it was corrected in a later edition made you HEAL if you pulled the pin from a grenade, held it in your hand, and managed to squeeze yourself into a standard size old-fashioned outdoor trashcan (the kind you have standing in your yard). The number basically went haywire when there was too little space between you and the wall.

[CharonsHelper]

Quite true, the DC of a level 3 lock and the DC of a level 30 lock are completely different and don't change when PCs level up. What does change as PCs level up is the level of the lock. Level 3 PCs don't encounter level 30 locks and level 30 PCs don't encounter level 3 locks. So in play what the players see is DCs that go up with character level, because the challenge level goes up and the DCs are directly tied to challenge level.

Sure, you can say that there could be a game where a level 3 party is confronted by a level 30 lock that they have to pick. You can also put a level 3 party up against a level 30 dragon and let it stomp them. 4e doesn't do that, it has the level of the challenge scale with the level of the characters. Which means that players keep rolling against ever increasing DCs as they level up.

Sort of, but that's kind of like saying that pitching in MLB is exactly the same as pitching in little league because even though the batters are better, the pitchers are proportionally better. And my nephew pitched a shut-out last night, and that's the same thing as when famous & highly paid pitcher X pitched a shut-out against The Dodgers.

The #s being the same doesn't make the act itself the same. And if your GM has EVERY challenge be perfectly balanced against character skill with no other differences, that sounds like a GM problem rather than a system problem.

[Thrudd]

The more you try to explain it, the more laughable the "Vancian" concept gets.

I thought the thread was about rules we find ridiculous... not "and how would you replace them".

Alright, alright, you win. I accept your right to find the system ridiculous. We just disagree.

[Ceiling_Squid]

I only "don't have one" if we're operating under the false dichotomy that any magic at all justifies absolutely any magic you feel like, and that all magic is equivalent.

I.E. the difference between realism and verisimilitude, which too many people conflate.

All magic is not equivalent. A little justification and consistency goes a long way towards swallowing it.

And "it's magic, it's all ridiculous!" certainly doesn't fly. One can have verisimilitude without being realistic.

[Thrudd]

I.E. the difference between realism and verisimilitude, which too many people conflate.

All magic is not equivalent. A little justification and consistency goes a long way towards swallowing it.

And "it's magic, it's all ridiculous!" certainly doesn't fly. One can have verisimilitude without being realistic.

Which, in this case, there is justification and consistency for the magic in question. It's just some people don't like it or prefer something different for their settings. It has as consistent a justification as any system of fantasy magic, perfectly capable of creating a world with a sense of verisimilitude.

[veti]

What bugs me about D&D magic - and this is true in, as far as I can recall, every other system I've played as well - is how neatly defined all the spells are. They produce exactly this effect, no more and no less. Like, you can use your mastery of the element of fire to create a 6-metre-radius ball of fire that will torch everyone within it, but you can't use it to - y'know - light a campfire, or boil a kettle of water.

This isn't "ridiculous" as such, but it annoys the heck out of me. I guess what really bugs me is that nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has come up with an RPG magic system that really conveys the idea of "mastering" arcane forces, as opposed to just "pulling the levers on someone else's pre-existing machine".

[Thrudd]

What bugs me about D&D magic - and this is true in, as far as I can recall, every other system I've played as well - is how neatly defined all the spells are. They produce exactly this effect, no more and no less. Like, you can use your mastery of the element of fire to create a 6-metre-radius ball of fire that will torch everyone within it, but you can't use it to - y'know - light a campfire, or boil a kettle of water.

This isn't "ridiculous" as such, but it annoys the heck out of me. I guess what really bugs me is that nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has come up with an RPG magic system that really conveys the idea of "mastering" arcane forces, as opposed to just "pulling the levers on someone else's pre-existing machine".

Yeah, having such an open-ended magic system comes with its own problems. World of Darkness does that in the Mage games, and GURPS can do it, too. In Mage, you gain skill in general categories of magic called disciplines and can create any effect that you can justify as being related to that category; the level of your skill in each discipline determines how powerful/extensive/long lasting the effect can be. The problems can be that what you can accomplish is highly dependent on the GM's rulings. The benefit of neatly defined spells is obvious for a game that has a tactical element.

It's true, D&D wizards don't "master arcane forces". They gather and learn how to use spells that someone else created, by means most wizards don't and never will understand. To try to fluff it otherwise does cause verisimilitude conflicts, which annoys me about some of the D&D rule books that make this mistake and cause confusion in players. Why are there just these specific spells with such specific effects? They are probably just a small set of what was once a far more extensive repertoire created by the people that really had mastered the arcane forces, that has now been lost. Why did the masters of the arcane codify spells in this manner? Maybe for their own reference/posterity, or as a shortcut to access the effects that were commonly used, or to allow less masterful people to access some useful magical effects.

Although 5e cantrips sort of give that feel, of being able to create a lot of minor and open ended effects at will.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Dungeon Crawl Classics has an... interesting magic system. For each spell (of which there are a finite number, handed down by the god of magic), each spell has a variety of ways to cast it, similar to the '____ law' magic of Rolemaster. Each caster, however, casts each spell differently, rolling on a three-page table. They might have it boosted in power, they might age when they cast it, they might have to sacrifice blood to get a tiny result. Very random, but very individualized.

[GorinichSerpant]

Yeah, having such an open-ended magic system comes with its own problems. World of Darkness does that in the Mage games, and GURPS can do it, too. In Mage, you gain skill in general categories of magic called disciplines and can create any effect that you can justify as being related to that category; the level of your skill in each discipline determines how powerful/extensive/long lasting the effect can be. The problems can be that what you can accomplish is highly dependent on the GM's rulings. The benefit of neatly defined spells is obvious for a game that has a tactical element.

It's true, D&D wizards don't "master arcane forces". They gather and learn how to use spells that someone else created, by means most wizards don't and never will understand. To try to fluff it otherwise does cause verisimilitude conflicts, which annoys me about some of the D&D rule books that make this mistake and cause confusion in players. Why are there just these specific spells with such specific effects? They are probably just a small set of what was once a far more extensive repertoire created by the people that really had mastered the arcane forces, that has now been lost. Why did the masters of the arcane codify spells in this manner? Maybe for their own reference/posterity, or as a shortcut to access the effects that were commonly used, or to allow less masterful people to access some useful magical effects.

Although 5e cantrips sort of give that feel, of being able to create a lot of minor and open ended effects at will.

So what you're telling me is that Wizards have convinced everyone including themselves that they are delving into the inner workings of the universe when in reality they are just gathering tricks, bobs and ends from old books?
That is fantastic.

[PersonMan]

As long as the D&D family tree (or at least the main branches) use "Vancian" magic, it's fair to look back at why and how that original design decision was made, and it's absolutely fair to hold the game to those creator statements.

So the current explanation, which is different from the old one, is ridiculous because in the past the old explanation was ridiculous?

I'd imagine that 3.5e's psionics are also insane because 2e's psionics were crazy, and you can look back at the original design decisions and ignore that they've been changed/overruled since then.

[Max_Killjoy]

So the current explanation, which is different from the old one, is ridiculous because in the past the old explanation was ridiculous?

It's not as if the system was built, and then "Vancian" magic was found to offer a fitting explanation. No.

The "slots and discrete fixed spells", "fire and literally forget" system was designed around Gygax's understanding of the "magic" of Vance's Dying Earth. It was built from the ground up to emulate that "magic".

Any subsequent explanation is a retroactive attempt to paint over that ugly wallpaper.

It's like those businesses that are located in what used to be houses, subsequently remodeled for commercial use. As long as that building is used, you'll always be able to tell that it was originally built as a house, not a business. ( And please, please, can we not get into this moronic cycle of arguing about the analogy? )

If one really thinks that Vancian magic makes any sort of sense (which obviously I don't, I think it's ridiculous to the core and utterly nonsensical even in Vance's original form) and wants that sort of "magic" in their game, then the general D&D system works for that. But any setting with almost any other explanation for magic should probably drop that system and never look back.

[Frozen_Feet]

So what you're telling me is that Wizards have convinced everyone including themselves that they are delving into the inner workings of the universe when in reality they are just gathering tricks, bobs and ends from old books?
That is fantastic.

You needed something else than D&D rules to tell you that? That is literally how magic-users are described as functioning.

[Conradine]

At least half of the rules in FATAL are worse than that specific one. Including the 60% difference between male and female strength.

Actually, that is fairly accurate.