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

[Raven Crowking]

This statement amounts to "if you don't like it, then you aren't doing it right."

In the past, such assertions have been found to be condescending, mildly insulting, and just plain incorrect.

I'm sorry, RC, but people can find it boring even with good presentation. Not everyone finds everything interesting - including reality applied to their RPGs.

Sure, but what I was quoting didn't say "I find realism boring". The exact words were "can be". This indicates that the problem is not whether or not realism is interesting, but rather whether this particular example is interesting. That is an issue of presentation.


RC

 

[Imaro]

The point is that there are so few examples of this in the game that when it does come up it seems to be more of an excuse than a feature. If there were larger sections in the PHB and DMG with guidelines and mechanics for shared narrative control then I would be more inclined to accept this view. As it stands the "shared narrative control" argument seems more like an excuse.

I was looking in "Dungeons and Dragons 4E for Dummies" yesterday at the bookstore and saw a section dealing with suspension of disbelief. Basically, it said that the DM should make rulings that don't challenge their basic assumptions of the game world. The example presented was a scenario in which a player asks if he could cast Fly on himself and carry someone else across a pit.

IMO they should have used an example that involved using a Martial power to slow or knock prone an ooze, or to slide a Huge dragon and control how it moves, or to force someone to move wherever you want by glowering at them.

QFT, This is also my biggest problem with the "narrative control" excuse, it's being used in a sense that it can virtually encompass and serve as the reasoning for anything... yet, unlike magic, is never actually referenced in any of the corebooks only by fans who are trying to defend some of 4e's wonkier aspects.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

The power system is an interesting experiment and works reasonably well for magic, but I feel like the mechanics don't fit non-magical abilities. I also think there's too much of an emphasis on making new powers. Abilities and spells in Third Edition were designed to create mechanical models of

Really, I feel like 4E is an experiment, an experiment that introduced lots of new concepts. I think several elements of 4E should be retained in the next edition, but the power system as is isn't one of those things. The next edition should be a game that combines the best elements of both 3E and 4E.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If we are to accept the assertion that the game rules in no way represent the way the game world works and that the "narrative control" reason is sufficient as an explanation of why things work the way they do, then perhaps we have overlooked a possibilty of game world reality: That the inhabitants of the game world know that they are part of a story and act accordingly. If the world around you does not seem to operate in any sort of logical fashion then you may come to realize that you, and the entire world are fictional. Its a fantastic world where no one questions the absurd, minions know their role, and everyone works together in harmony for the greater good of the plot. It works.

 

[Mallus]

This is also my biggest problem with the "narrative control" excuse...

It's not an 'excuse', Imaro, just an explanation offered that's consistent with the rules text. And there's nothing to excuse, the system works fine, though how it works in clearly not to everyone's taste.

... only by fans who are trying to defend some of 4e's wonkier aspects.

I think what's wonky is that some people aren't satisfied in simply not liking 4e (which, obviously, is a perfectly valid response to it). They feel the need to create nonsensical explanations/interpretations for certain rules, ones that are clearly contradicted by the text (ie, 'even Martial powers are magic'), and then use them as 'proof' that the new design is bad.

 

[Mallus]

If we are to accept the assertion that the game rules in no way represent the way the game world works...

No set of game rules are a sufficient physics. Just sayin'...

That the inhabitants of the game world know that they are part of a story and act accordingly.

You know, that's kinda brilliant. It's Six Characters in Search of the Dungeon. I may have to use that someday.

If the world around you does not seem to operate in any sort of logical fashion...

The game worlds I've ever seem operate, at best, in a quasi-logical fashion, sometimes, on occasion. Mostly they operate in the nutty and contrived way necessary to fulfill their function as backdrops to fantasy adventure stories.

 

[BryonD]

The game worlds I've ever seem operate, at best, in a quasi-logical fashion, sometimes, on occasion. Mostly they operate in the nutty and contrived way necessary to fulfill there function as backdrops to fantasy adventure stories.

Thats too bad. Maybe one day you'll stumble into what else there can be.

 

[Mallus]

Maybe one day you'll stumble into what else there can be.

You mean like self-deception?

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Let me see if I've got this straight:

Pre-3E: Rounds took up a minute of in-game time. The options selected by the players were assumed to have occurred within that timeframe in some way. Combat mechanics were geared towards abstraction.

3E: Rounds took up six seconds. Combat mechanics were geared towards simulation, and as such non-magical abilities were either always usable whenever certain conditions were met or caused the character using them to become fatigued.

4E: Rounds take up six seconds. An opportunity to use a limited-use mundane power is assumed to only occur either once an encounter or once a day. The optimal opportunity to use that power is assumed to have occurred whenever the player chooses to use that power. Combat mechanics are more abstract than 3E and more simulationist than pre-3E.

I hate to keep using this as an example for fear of offending you, Raven, but your Rogue's Living Shadows ability could be explained that last way. Instead of your Rogue saying "Okay, time to turn on my super sneak ability", the player is deciding that he's going to use a once daily allowance to assume that conditions are optimal for his Rogue to go unnoticed.

I can't say I'm particularly a fan of this approach, but on further inspection I think I agree that the 4E designers intended for Martial powers to be instances of player narrative control. I wish they would have been more forthright with this concept if this is indeed the case. Perhaps they could have made mention that "Magic powers allow a character to influence the world; Martial powers allow a player to determine when unique opportunities for action occur for his character."

I guess all Martial powers are intended to be like this. Encounter powers aren't usable only once because they're too tiring, but because they are allowances for a player to assume that the optimal chance to attack has arrived. Another example: the Ranger has a power that grants bonuses to skill checks that is described as a flash of insight. This implies that the Ranger doesn't actively try to think of something but that the player has a limited capacity for choosing when an idea pops into his character's head.

I think another problem with this approach is that it leads to the false conclusion that characters can only do something if they have the power for it. The Rogue doesn't have to have the "Sand in the Eyes" power to throw sand at an enemy's eyes. Any character can do that whenever they want; that power just grants the player the optimal opportunity for that course of action to succeed.

 

[Mallus]

Let me see if I've got this straight:

Yes. Clearly and concisely stated.