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

[BryonD]

James Bond is magic, he'd have to be to survive all the ludicrously dangerous situations he's been in, and consistently save the world by a hair's breadth time after time.

He isn't magic like Dr Strange though, it's a different sense of the word magic. Dr Strange uses magic, James Bond is magic.

Another way to look at it is to say that James Bond, like Robin Hood, is a fictional character and can do the things he does not because he is magic but because he is part of the action hero genre. If James Bond were real he'd probably not get past the interview stage for MI6.

I think you are missing the real <> Larger than life <> Magic point.

I mean, yeah, I guess that is another way to look at it. But I personally find that way to be vastly over simplistic and unsatisfying. A more developed definition of magic, as a subset of things that can't happen in real life, is more rewarding for the game experience I want.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, you failed to demonstrate that point.

I have also, sadly, not yet gotten the Flat-Earthers to agree that our world is roughly spherical.

So many failures.

My point is that Robin Hood is a well known character and is not associated with magic. The question, if polled correctly, would easily demonstrate that obvious truth.

Ah, but you conflated the idea that "Robin Hood is a well known character and is not associated with magic" and that "Robin Hood could consistantly, and on demand, split an arrow."

Anyone who does not believe the second premise could easily believe the first. Moreover, if the second premise is not widely believed, your "point" in the first premise is moot. Given an absence of supernatural abilities, we can (I think) all agree that Robin Hood is not supernatural.

Nowhere here (Robin Hood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), for example, is Robin Hood said to be able to consistently and on demand split an arrow.

As a result, I think your protest

Your description of the question is completely flawed.

is flawed.




RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

As a supplement to Clarke's Law, it appears that any sufficiently advanced skill is also indistinguishable from magic.

I hope it doesn't surprise you that, in most (if not all) ancient cultures, great skill was often viewed as being supernatural in origin, either as favour of the gods or as favour of/purchased from less savoury supernatural beings.

Remember that people were accused -- and convicted of -- witchcraft because their fields/animals prospered when their neighbours' did not.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Actually, I disagree. I think Doug McCrae hits it rather well.

Look at the reaction to the 3e definition of Extraordinary in this thread. Is Extraordinary magic or not? Some are arguing that a high level fighter is inherently magical.

And, really, based on their own personal definition of magic, both sides are fairly right. If you define magic as D&D defines it - a specific set of rules that interact in very specific ways, then no, hippogriffs don't fly with magic and CAGI is not magical either. OTOH, if you define magic as "anything that allows you to regularly do superhuman things" then Robin Hood becomes a magic user.

The problem is, as usual in any thread of this length, neither side is willing to accept the other side's definition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The problem is, as usual in any thread of this length, neither side is willing to accept the other side's definition.

Not so. Accepting the other side's definition is not the same thing as believing that said definition becomes universal.

As I can accept that "bear" means to carry something while discussing an ursine "bear", without believing that the carrying term impacts the ursine term, likewise I can accept that the game system uses a term in a limited sense without believing that the game term impacts the meaning in common parlance.

As I've said before.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I mean, yeah, I guess that is another way to look at it. But I personally find that way to be vastly over simplistic and unsatisfying. A more developed definition of magic, as a subset of things that can't happen in real life, is more rewarding for the game experience I want.

I would also say that the above is an example of the other side accepting the broader definition, without necessarily being willing to apply that definition to the game.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Actually, one definition of magic includes the other -- which is distinguished by the limitation of its compass.

 

[RefinedBean]

Go back upthread.

I can't seem to find your case for it, other than "If Robin Hood could do that unerringly, it must be magic."

Either way, though, we're probably going to disagree. We have very different opinions on what constitutes magic in D&D (and its various editions), and if we haven't agreed so far...(shrug)

 

[Scribble]

Not so. Accepting the other side's definition is not the same thing as believing that said definition becomes universal.

As I can accept that "bear" means to carry something while discussing an ursine "bear", without believing that the carrying term impacts the ursine term, likewise I can accept that the game system uses a term in a limited sense without believing that the game term impacts the meaning in common parlance.

As I've said before.


RC

Isn't the reverse then true? You can accept that the meaning of magic in "common parlance" has no effect on game rules, and therefore classes having access to abilities that might (in common parlance) be described as magic, larger then life, super awesome, etc- is no different then it ever was? (As the game has always allowed for abilities and powers not in the "magic" system that could still be considered "magic.")

 

[Ariosto]

But we observe that it IS different -- else the issue should not have arisen in the first place.

The "no different then it ever was" line is curious, because if taken seriously it would negate the incentive to rush out and plop down hard-earned cash for the new product.