D & D How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition

[Ariosto]

Mallus, the relevance of your quips is obscure.

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by LostSoul

Yeah, I get the level of abstraction of HP and all that. That's just the example.

I want to talk about the effects that abstraction in 4E - hp or healing surges or skill challenges or power sources - has on player choice.

Lostsoul, I think I undeerstand what you're getting at with this question and if so I believe it is definitely an interesting conundrum to explore, so let me try to answer from my own experiences in 4e...

The greater abstraction, IMO, of 4e leads to a process that is mostly non-narrativist and non-simulationist in nature when the game is being played. To expound on that a little...

I have found, IME, that when making a decision (especially in combat but outside as well in such matters as skill challenges) are actually making decisions based on gamist (as in the behind the scenes mechanics) as opposed to what best fits a believable world or best suits the narrative. To further expound here's some examples...

In a skill challenge a simulationist approach would be to use a skill that interacts with the "reality" rules of the simulated world in a believable manner as to arrive at the result one wants. So you would not use your History score to recall knowledge of rock formations in order to help you climb a sheer cliff face, it's (from most perspectives anyway) unbelievable to think that reading about rocks in some way taught or helped you climb cliffs. However Athletics to actually climb would be totally acceptable to players and GM's in a simulationist game.

A narrative approach would be to use whatever skill is best suited to the story, whether they are good, bad or irrelevant in order to achieve the desired narrative flow of the story. In fact you would actually choose to use a bad skill on purpose if a failure would be more to the liking of everyone's sense of the "story", of course many narrative based games will reward the choice to fail with a special type of reward, meta-mechanic, or beenie... since the most important thing in a narrative game is sustaining the narrative flow, theme, etc. that the players want... not competing and succeeding against mechanical challenges.

Finally the gamist approach, and what I see in majority of D&D 4e games is to select the skill you have the highest score in and then try and justify it's use... not because it is appropriate narratively or because it interacts with the world in a way that it believably simulates a coherent reality... but because mechanically it is the optimal choice.

You can also apply these things to combat as well (and honestly I believe it is why the majority of players in 4e choose to only use powers as opposed to ad-hoc moves and stunts. If I'm an avenger who pumped up Wis because my powers are based on it... why would I ever try a maneuver that relies on Strength or Dexterity (unless I'm a Pursuing Avenger) and risk a way bigger failure chance? It's a mechanics first way of thinking.

I think both D&D 4e's abstraction and it's decidely gamist bent encourage and even reward this behavior as opposeed to the other two (and of course you can consciously choose to play it in a different style, but I am talking about what the default suggests), and thus your players, when making decisions, will either embrace "choose a superior mechanic first, and everything else later" attitude... or will eventually come around to this way of thinking as the game progresses and this way of play is enforced and rewarded more and more.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Mallus, the relevance of your quips is obscure.

Just consider it a new level of abstraction.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

Just consider it a new level of abstraction.

Hush, you. Or I'll explain how CaGI works again!

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

That was funny, and I will send you XP for it when my ability to do so refreshes.

Firelance -

Apparently, I must spread some XP around first.

But, as soon as I can, you've got XP coming.

RC

[fanboy2000]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Tolkien seems to have considered orcs and elves similar enough to humans, and their world similar enough to ours, to apply what he knew of war.

This reminds me of something. Every time I start a new game of D&D I have a speech. In that speech, I tell the victims that "I know nothing about real world combat or war. So any argument about why you should do something founded solely one what is possible in the real world will fall on deaf ears."

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Mallus

Hush, you. Or I'll explain how CaGI works again!

Out of curiosity, how did you manage to come up with what, to my mind, is the perfect fit for 4e as a setting if you don't believe that the rules naturally lend themselves to surrealism? I mean, you have a world where everything is essentially surreal (AFAICT), and hence everything being sorta kinda magic makes sense. Heck, even the weird movement rules kinda make sense within your world set-up (which seems to me to take place well outside normal space and time, in a kind of subconscious existentialist construct).

I mean, if you create a setting that takes the implied setting to its logical conclusions, and those conclusions are surreal, how can you not also accept that the implied setting is surreal?

I submit that you are a paradox, Sir!

(I mean that in a good way)


RC

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Mallus, the relevance of your quips is obscure.

> VERBOSE

The relative realism of Tolkien's depiction of warfare is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the original version(s) of D&D featured realistic portrayals of medieval warfare, or the larger point that the game was once more grounded in the real world. Where is the connection?

The majority of combat in early D&D took place in a dungeon environment, so any claim that the the game was once more 'about' real medieval warfare seems specious, at best. Did some groups use OD&D/AD&D to run more grounded, realistic campaigns? Of course. But other groups used them to run things like Arduin.

The level of realism in a campaign is best seen as something the specific players/DM bring to the table. It's not something that rises from the particular rule set.

> BRIEF

[Ariosto]

Mallus, the connection is that "orcs" in particular entered the bestiary of popular fantasy via Tolkien's work. For elves, one might cite such an acknowledged influence on D&D as Poul Anderson. The point is that fantasy need not be utterly unrelated to reality. Chainmail, and the factors it was designed to model, was part of the assumed knowledge base for OD&D players.

The addition of Underworld mazes and other fantasy elements is not inherently a subtraction from the nature of spear and byrnie, flesh and blood -- any more than adding starships changes shotguns. Although some enjoyed elaborate systems, it was sufficient that the rules did not get in the way of applying sensible tactics and strategies.

The ghastly wounds and long recovery periods (to mention just two elements of verisimilitude) in Arduin certainly resemble better what I know of armed violence than what I see in 4E.

[Ariosto]

Although prior experience with "medieval wargames campaigns playable with paper and pencil and miniature figures" was an asset in understanding the original presentation so that one might referee the game, it was not a prerequisite for participation as a player.

The beauty of a basis in reality is that everyone is acquainted with it. One need be no student of matters medieval, or acquainted with the exploits of John Carter, Conan, or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. The rules are "strictly fantasy", but fantasy of a sort only occasionally so bizarre as Alice's adventures in Wonderland.

With 4E, one has no such foundation. From what I have heard, prior experience with certain video games is an asset in learning the rules ... but learn the rules one must, for there is no other guide.

[Keefe the Thief]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

With 4E, one has no such foundation. From what I have heard, prior experience with certain video games is an asset in learning the rules ... but learn the rules one must, for there is no other guide.

Where did you hear that, and what videogames are that? I´m curious.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

Out of curiosity, how did you manage to come up with what, to my mind, is the perfect fit for 4e as a setting if you don't believe that the rules naturally lend themselves to surrealism?

Luck? Genius? (talented collaborators?)

I mean, you have a world where everything is essentially surreal (AFAICT), and hence everything being sorta kinda magic makes sense.

I think our intent was to create a setting that was open to interpretation. If you believe everything in it is magical, that's perfectly fair. If you believe all the characters are, in fact, dead, and the whole thing is some kind of afterlife, that works too. We stayed away from a 'definitive' version of the setting, even as we were writing it.

I mean, if you create a setting that takes the implied setting to its logical conclusions, and those conclusions are surreal, how can you not also accept that the implied setting is surreal?

We weren't trying to take the 4e to it's logical conclusion, at least not consciously, though we did deliberately build in ways to rationalize some facets of the 4e rules; the ease of resurrection, the prevalence of rituals, the widespread magic... I'm sure they were more. The process was more trying to preemptively cover our tails than orderly extrapolation.

I still don't accept that 4e neccessarily leads to a surreal setting, it just did in our case. I mean, in our setting, CaGI probably is magic (at least for some characters). All I was trying to do in this thread was offer a possible explanation of how it worked that was consistent with rules (and didn't involve magic). Which I did, ad infinitum, or so it seems.

I submit that you are a paradox, Sir!

Thanks!

[RefinedBean]

Holy crap, this thread is still going. I'm almost rubbing my hands with glee.

Have we answered the OP's question yet? I'd have to say that since this thread has been going for over 20 pages, it's safe to assume that magic is equally important to both 3E and 4E.

Originally Posted by Ariosto

The beauty of a basis in reality is that everyone is acquainted with it.

The ugliness comes from the fact that reality can be deathly boring when applied to heroic fantasy. I'm not saying it's true for all, but that's been my experience.

Also, and this might be my own naivete speaking since I've only played two and a half editions of D&D, has D&D ever been grounded in reality, at all? It seems to me it hasn't.

[ExploderWizard]

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

Where did you hear that, and what videogames are that? I´m curious.

Not having much to do with the actual RAW, but if a would-be player had experirnce playing City of Heroes then he or she could come to the game with a good working knowledge about the roles of Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader and how they work as a team.

CAGI would be instantly understood by anyone who had experience with a World of Warcraft warrior (provided they played one long enough to learn challenging shout) as well as a good working knowledge of how stance powers work.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

The beauty of a basis in reality is that everyone is acquainted with it.

This is an absolutely true observation.

Originally Posted by RefinedBean

The ugliness comes from the fact that reality can be deathly boring when applied to heroic fantasy.

And this is just a product of poor presentation.


RC