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

ExploderWizard said:

I think the lack of a mechanism for the ability makes perfect sense in a storytelling game. For those using the game system who are not wishing to play a storytelling game then there are issues.

Click to expand...

That is a key difference. The storytelling game has been coming into its own with new titles. Changing an established role-playing game into a game of that type is bound to create some friction.

"It's not magic, just narrative control" highlights the difference.

It may present difficulties over a wider range of approaches than some other games, because it does not have a storytelling foundation. By that, I mean that "narrative control" for players is not the focus around which the rules are built. The whole thing is muddled, which is more awkward in a rules-heavy design than in one that "supports" different modes mainly by not getting in their way.

The same sort of awkwardness is evident in 3E, with its attempt to change the "game balance" concept while retaining elements designed with quite another model in mind.

ExploderWizard said:

I think the lack of a mechanism for the ability makes perfect sense in a storytelling game. For those using the game system who are not wishing to play a storytelling game then there are issues.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say I play a "storytelling game." Yet the lack of a "mechanic" for that part doesn't bother me. The reason is that I just don't need/want a rule or a die role for every conceivable action or part of an action. That road gets way to cumbersome for me, and doesn't help me in any way. Just give me the abstracted idea basically and I'm happy.

If, as the DM i find CAGI (or any rule) to be disruptive, or harmful to our gameplay in some way, I will override parts of it as needed. The same is true for monster abilities, as I'm not playing against my players. I'm the neutral ref between players and the challenge.

Raven Crowking said:

Oh, I don't argue that 4e "isn't D&D", and I don't argue that there is no relationship between (say) 1e and 4e. If you believe otherwise, please point out to me what I said that made you believe so.

I am talking only about one specific change to the implied setting of the game, from TSR-D&D to 4e.

Click to expand...

This statement is part of what makes me believe what I said. It's not a change in the "implied setting." D&D characters have ALWAYS been able to do this stuff. (In fact I think it's closer to how it was originally when D&D characters were indicated to be more then the common person.)

It's a world where heroes fight monsters, and even "non magical" beings/characters can do things above and beyond what normal people can/should be able to do. It's a world of "larger then life heroes and villains" where physics only need apply at the VERY most basic level. It's a world where archers can split arrows because they're THAT good, and things like wood grain have no impact. It's a world where Conan can bend metal bars with his bare hands, or fall off a cliff and survive. It's a world where men with swords can somehow defeat creatures 10 times their size without first having to somehow get to their level, or hamstring them somehow. It's a world where there are countless creatures stronger/faster/better then humans yet still we somehow seem to be on top.

And it's a game system where "games should be fun not work," and certain things are just left to approximates rather then endless strings of rolls, charts, and tables. It's a game where Conan survives that cliff fall because he had enough hit points, but the players add in things like "you manage to grab on to the edges, and to the weeds just enough to slow your decent and survive the fall."

It's a world where the fundane replaces the mundane. It's fantasy, same as it ever was.

Sure the rules have been changed to achieve what the designers hope to be a better/easier/more fun play experience. In my opinion they achieved their goal overall. You might (and probably do) disagree.

Maybe I misunderstand your point though. What IS your overall point?

Scribble said:

This statement is part of what makes me believe what I said. It's not a change in the "implied setting."

Click to expand...

Likewise, my pastiche of Howard is exactly the same as the real thing, and since New Coke and Classic Coke are both Coke, there is no way to discuss changes in flavour. These things are ridiculous to assert.




RC

Scribble said:

I wouldn't say I play a "storytelling game." Yet the lack of a "mechanic" for that part doesn't bother me. The reason is that I just don't need/want a rule or a die role for every conceivable action or part of an action. That road gets way to cumbersome for me, and doesn't help me in any way. Just give me the abstracted idea basically and I'm happy.

If, as the DM i find CAGI (or any rule) to be disruptive, or harmful to our gameplay in some way, I will override parts of it as needed. The same is true for monster abilities, as I'm not playing against my players. I'm the neutral ref between players and the challenge.

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of excessive die rolling either. As far as mechanics go a power just working because the power says it does is self justifying. It doesn't answer anything. I never mentioned extra die rolls. The power (unless ruled magic or supernatural) would work in some situations and not in others. No extra die rolls or mechanics, just the application of plausability vs. gamism within the environment of the game world.

ExploderWizard said:

I'm not a fan of excessive die rolling either. As far as mechanics go a power just working because the power says it does is self justifying. It doesn't answer anything. I never mentioned extra die rolls. The power (unless ruled magic or supernatural) would work in some situations and not in others. No extra die rolls or mechanics, just the application of plausability vs. gamism within the environment of the game world.

Click to expand...

Well see that's the issue I guess.

I'm completely satisfied by the rules not indicating what situations (aside from when it impacts other rules) the element would work in, because I will handle those, and I don't expect the designer to have thought of all situations.

The power says, "this is how it works." I expect it to be "self satisfying." I'm not using it for any other purpose then what it indicates. If I find at some point I don't accept that, then I change it.

Raven CrowKing said:

Likewise, my pastiche of Howard is exactly the same as the real thing, and since New Coke and Classic Coke are both Coke, there is no way to discuss changes in flavour. These things are ridiculous to assert.

Click to expand...

I think you're combining elements that shouldn't be combined.

Coke changed the recipe (rules) which upset a lot of people. It didn't cease to be their caramel colored trademark cola beverage. Just a new edition of the same concept (implied setting.)

Your Conan hyperbole is faulty. It implies that I'm arguing that a conan with a host of new powers and abilities would be the same. Which I am not.

I don't believe the characters are utilizing anything out of line with what was accepted in the older editions.

The old Conan was always able to lift insanely heavy objects, so the fact that the Conan in the new story lifts a huge bronze statue is not out of line.

Sure there might be a few areas where Conan's abilities get slightly more flashy, but not enough so that it constitutes a whole new "implied setting."

Scribble said:

It implies that I'm arguing that a conan with a host of new powers and abilities would be the same. Which I am not.

Click to expand...

I fail to see the difference. I don't believe that Conan in my pastiche is utilizing anything out of line with what was accepted in the older stories.


RC