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

[LostSoul]

In the 4E rules the storytelling style is in fact the default playstyle.

I think the default playstyle is the "delve" - PCs go into a dungeon for pretty flimsy in-character reasons, they face encounters within a small level range, and they don't really care how or why their powers work, just that they do.

Which is not really a style I really care that much for. I think the DM was intended to have more of a role in 4E, but with later-day 3E being all about "RAW", I think that's helped to define how 4E is played.

(I've made a lot of posts to things like "How do I trip someone" with the answer "It's a DM call". The generally accepted answer is, I think, "You can't, it's not in the RAW.")

 

[Ariosto]

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics.

If that makes sense to you, then probably so does 4E.

 

[fanboy2000]

If that makes sense to you, then probably so does 4E.

Well, the sentence you quoted is almost verbatim from the 3.5 Rules Compendium. On page 118, the compendium says "extraordinary abilities aren't magical, though they may break the laws of physics."

For whatever it's worth, that statement makes sense to me.

Aside: that page also describes a game called "Name that Special Ability Type" where people open-up a monster manual and try to guess what the special ability type a given special ability is. I'm not entirely sure what this means in terms of how difficult special ability types are to figure out in 3.5.

 

[Mallus]

If that makes sense to you, then probably so does 4E.

I imagine that statement makes sense to anyone familiar with action movies.

 

[BryonD]

What are your settings simulating?

Settings that greatly exceed the limitations you described in the post I first replied to.

It's my experience that those particular devils are hard to avoid when dealing with fantasy (though as writers like Pratchett demonstrate, humor is a wonderful antidote to pretentiousness. Also to the ponderousness that accompanies deliberately trying for grandeur).

Noted. So what?
I repeat the question, do you accept that I achieve it? Or even, do you accept that I just *might* be achieving it?

Your prior statements were rather definitive that any claim of success must be "the twin devils pretentiousness and preposterous-ness". Now you have back down to "hard to avoid". Fine, it is hard to avoid. At least for some people. Is it possible that your experience is inadequate to make this judgment for everyone everywhere? Or do you claim absolute knowledge here? (Please recall your recent accusation of self-delusion when answering)

It's not a question of what I've experienced, it's a question of the criteria I've used to evaluate what I experienced.

Sure. It was a jokey quip, but still... I take it back. Do you retract your insinuation that I don't recognize, or haven't experienced, quality? I don't mind if you don't, but so long as we're retracting things...

No, I don't. I don' because I made no such accusation. I simply pointed out that you yourself said so.

And just to be clear, you have changed the phrasing here. You said:

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.

I replied that I was sorry you had never experienced better.
I AM sorry that you have never experienced better.
You may very well have still experienced "quality".
"Quality" is different than what I said.
But either you lied in the quote or there is better out there and you have had the misfortune of never experiencing it. I'm not accusing you of lying. I'm honestly sorry you have never experienced better than that what you describe.

I have experienced better. Much better.

And no amount of accusation of self-deception or pretentiousness has any bearing on the truth of that.

And as long as your assessment is tied to the presumption that no one else has ever achieved or experienced anything that you yourself have not achieved or experienced, then your assessment will be fatally flawed.

 

[BryonD]

If that makes sense to you, then probably so does 4E.

Just to throw in here....

I'm 100% on board with that statement. I see no need at all for FRPG games to limit "the impossible" to just magic. Granted, my personal preference is that there is a justification for why they can do what they do. But a 20th level rogue climbing on the underside of smooth glass just because he is that cool works for me. And lots of extrodinary abilities fall into this area.


Hell, actually spliting an arrow with another arrow under any remotely normal conditions is against physics. But if my high level ranger can't show up at the local tournament and split the sheriff's arrow, then I probably don't want to spend time on that game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There is a degree to which this is true. There are an infinite number of potential logical systems, and no rational way to select between them.

However, within any given system of logic, it is possible to determine if a conclusion is logical or not. Likewise, within any given system of comprehension, it is possible to determine what system is most comprehensive.

But beware that that a consistent formal logic is incomplete, that means there are true properties that you cannot prove via your logic.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think the default playstyle is the "delve" - PCs go into a dungeon for pretty flimsy in-character reasons, they face encounters within a small level range, and they don't really care how or why their powers work, just that they do.

Which is not really a style I really care that much for. I think the DM was intended to have more of a role in 4E, but with later-day 3E being all about "RAW", I think that's helped to define how 4E is played.

(I've made a lot of posts to things like "How do I trip someone" with the answer "It's a DM call". The generally accepted answer is, I think, "You can't, it's not in the RAW.")

I would say that a popular adventure format for 4E is the delve rather than playstyle. The collaborative storytelling playstyle can be a delve, or any other type of adventure. The game can operate with rules that have consistent explanations of abilities within the game world and still be played as collaborative fiction. Older edition systems can be played this way and not suffer from that style at all.

The older edition rules also worked (and were written) for a different style of play. In the default style for these rules the players roleplayed thier character's reactions to events within the game world with the DM acting as a judge and moderator of those interactions. The story came out of the results of those interactions. There is a subtle but important difference in these styles of play.

The largest change brought about by 4E is the default playing style is that of collaborative storytelling. When abilities simply function on the basis of importance to the story rather than any connection to how things are modeled in the game world, then storytelling is the only style of play where the actions in the game make sense. This is where the majority of dissapointment in the 4E system comes from (at least from me). If storytelling was your preferred style of play with earlier systems then 4E is like a dream come true. If exploration/roleplaying with the DM as a judge is your preferred playstyle then 4E just isn't going to work.

As far as being bound to the almighty RAW is concerned its very easy to see only back as far as 3E with the massive rules bloat. There were times before the era of more rules just to sell more books that games didn't assume that players wouldn't think for themselves.

 

[D'karr]

If exploration/roleplaying with the DM as a judge is your preferred playstyle then 4E just isn't going to work.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I'm currently running a 4e campaign, and exploration/roleplaying are alive and well. So I don't see how this could be justified, unless you are using a very narrow lens to look at the game.

There were times before the era of more rules just to sell more books that games didn't assume that players wouldn't think for themselves.

I see no reason to assume that 4e, or 3e for that matter, restricts players to only concern themselves with rules. That is a function of the gaming group, not of the rules themselves. As far as simplicity and few rules go, I routinely run the game with just the information on the DM screen. So you can virtually run the game with very few "rules." In any case I fail to see how any of that prevents players from thinking for themselves.

 

[BryonD]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I'm currently running a 4e campaign, and exploration/roleplaying are alive and well. So I don't see how this could be justified, unless you are using a very narrow lens to look at the game.

I agree.
See my sig.