The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

[Hussar]

I guess one way of putting it is that if any wizard (or sorcerer, or god) ever did anything magical in any story from anywhere/when, any D&D (and every) wizard with a high enough level spell slot can probably do it. But, if a fighter is to do something in D&D, it had better be something that absolutely anyone could do, on demand, at any time.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...cal-and-mundane-abilities/page5#ixzz39f4oXyUf

This, right here, is the money quote. Why is a 15th level fighter being held to the standards of our world? He's already so far beyond anything in the real world that it's not even funny. This is a guy who can with just a sword and armour, stand toe to toe with a giant and reliably win. He's already, in modern terms, Captain America.

But, outside of poking things with pointy bits, he still has to be held to real world standards? Why?

 

[pemerton]

It's entirely possible that OD&D started as an incredibly gamist system, without even a semblance of universal rules, and then started shedding that in favor of rules-as-physics for the period where I was observing it. If you neglect 4E as an outlier, then that only really leaves three data points (2E, 3.0, 3.5), so it's not entirely unexpected for them to indicate a trend.

4e arrived before Pathfinder and created a lot of animus. You have to realize that there are people of my preferences who have been playing D&D since the OD&D days. So they have an emotional attachment. They don't like the idea of some upstarts coming in and totally changing the game and abandoning everything D&D stood for prior.

Emerikol, I have been playing D&D since 1982 (Moldvay Basic) and first played AD&D in 1983 (and bought books for it in 1984). It's incredibly insulting for you to describe me as an "upstart". I have a better knowledge than of the history of the game than many of the posters on this board - for instance, not very far upthread, Saelorn indicated a complete unfamiliarity with a range of rules from classic D&D that I have known about for 30 or more years.

The thing is, not everyone agrees the 4e "abandons everything that D&D stood for prior". I think it abandons all the things that never made sense in D&D (the pseudo-simulation) and embraces and perfects the things that D&D always got right (fortune-in-the-middle action resolution as a tool for genre-oriented heroic fantasy). I think that it is the only version of the game to deliver the sort of play that Moldvay outlined in the Foreword to his edition of the game. (Or was Moldvay an upstart too?)

In other words, people who hate 4e don't have a monopoly on loving D&D or on giving voice to the spirit of the game. 4e can't just be treated as an "outlier". For some of us, it captures the essence of what was good about the game from day 1, while shedding needless cruft that 2nd ed AD&D and 3E had increasingly bolted onto the core of the game.

 

[pemerton]

It is easy for players - new to fantasy games or otherwise - to say, "Yes, I see that this is meant to relate to the real world I recognise, whereas this thing over here is fantastical, so I can excuse the fact that it doesn't relate, but this thing over here isn't explicitly quantified as being something magical and yet it sounds fantastical and therefore I have a problem with it from the point of view of - take a deep breath - verisimilitude."

Those same new players might wonder why a thief has to make a check to fool onlookers with a simple card check, whereas a magic-user never has to make a check to wiggle his/her fingers perfectly, nor speak the complex words of a spell perfectly, no matter how much battle is raging around him/her, arrows flying, fireballs exploding, etc.

 

[pemerton]

I guess one way of putting it is that if any wizard (or sorcerer, or god) ever did anything magical in any story from anywhere/when, any D&D (and every) wizard with a high enough level spell slot can probably do it. But, if a fighter is to do something in D&D, it had better be something that absolutely anyone could do, on demand, at any time.

Nicely put.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The thing is, not everyone agrees the 4e "abandons everything that D&D stood for prior". I think it abandons all the things that never made sense in D&D (the pseudo-simulation) and embraces and perfects the things that D&D always got right (fortune-in-the-middle action resolution as a tool for genre-oriented heroic fantasy). I think that it is the only version of the game to deliver the sort of play that Moldvay outlined in the Foreword to his edition of the game. (Or was Moldvay an upstart too?).

I'll definitely agree that 4E has done the best job of any edition to deliver on the sort of promises originally laid out. Personally, though, I never saw merit in what it claimed to be, and took great inspiration from what it actually was (at least, for the period where I was observing it).

It makes the compromise of 5E kind of difficult to take, but I think they've done a good enough job that it can be run either way. I'll have to see the final product to be sure, of course.

 

[Minigiant]

The point @Manbearcat is making is that many parts of D&D magic are explained. For instance, the wizard has to copy spell formulae into his/her spellbook. And then has to read those formulae. And then, at least in AD&D (I'm not as sure about 5e) has to impress the mystic formulae upon his/her mind. Then, when casting, s/he has to speak certain words perfectly, and wiggle his/her fingers in just the right way, and pull the right material component out of his/her pouch at the right time.

If a player wants his/her bard to sing a song perfectly, a Perform check must be made. Why does the player of a wizard character not have to make a Perform check to recite the words of the spell properly?

If a player wants his/her thief to do a card trick without fumbling, a Sleight of Hand check mut be made. Why does the player of a wizard not have to make some sort of DEX check to wiggle his/her fingers properly, or to pull the right component out of the spell component pouch?

To remember facts requires an INT check. So why does forcing a spell formula into the brain of the caster not require an INT check also? Why does transcribing a spell into a spell book not require an INT check to avoid confusion/mistranslation (as a real-life teacher of complicated material, I can say that transcription by students is far from infallible), or a DEX check to get the copying right (I know more than one person who can't read his/her own handwriting)?

And flipping this around: if we are happy with a mechanical system that ignores the chances of a wizard mucking these things up, and that allows auto-success whenever the player makes the action declaration "I'm transcribing a spell", "I'm memorising a spell", "I'm casting a spell", then what is wrong with a system that similarly ignores the chance of a fighter or rogue mucking things up when the player declares "I'm cutting down that goblin" or "I'm hiding behind that tree/ogre/person." (DoaM would be an example of such a system. Some of the 4e powers for rogues that let the turn invisible etc are similar such examples. Others could probably be invented without much trouble.)

But many parts of D&D magic is unexplained. The usually comes with magic but D&D's magic is very vague even for magic systems.

D&D explains what is done to prepare a spell and the basic of how it they are cast but many spells don't even go more than the very basics of effect.

When you cast fly, you fly. There is no explanation how you control the flight. Nor how the nine you even go airborne. You don't spout wings because enemies can't attack the wings. Don't that you can even attack body parts.

You just fly.

When a fighter jumps up to a ledge, he rolls a check. In 3e you at least got a take 10 (no pressure) or take 20 (try until you succeed, assume at least 1 fail.). But this is explained by the fighter moving his legs and arms to reach high and leap with enough force to beat gravity and meet a height.

When a mage casts levitate to float up to a ledge, he floats up. But what else happens?


For example, there was a big argument on the WOTC forums a few months ago about what happens if you shoot a fireball at a target who is underwater?

Does the fireball explode on hitting the surface of the water due to the change in pressure? Does the bead go throught the water and ignore the surface pressure? Does the bead suffer from friction change from being underwater and have the range halved? Does the explosion have normal area or fireor a reduced one due to the water? Does it explode at all? Does it explode as steam or fire? Do affected targets get bonuses to their saves or penalties? Do they get resistance?

No one knows and there were a million opinions. Because no one knows how fireball the spell actually works or what it actually does.

 

[Scorpio616]

However, because Hide is not a supernatural ability, it becomes subject to the dreaded unwritten verisimilitude rules. Rules which seem clear per the RAW are now subject to whatever the group decides is believable for heroic characters in a world full of dragons and wizards to accomplish.

This is a FEATURE, not a bug. That reasonable people can say hold the phone, that isn't going to happen without magic is what separates table top play from a video game where one just hits a Stealth Hotkey and moves the character down a clear hallway past the orc guards.

 

[Hussar]

This is a FEATURE, not a bug. That reasonable people can say hold the phone, that isn't going to happen without magic is what separates table top play from a video game where one just hits a Stealth Hotkey and moves the character down a clear hallway past the orc guards.

But that's the thing. Why don't you have the same issue with the thousand other things that cause reasonable people to say hold the phone, this isn't going to happen without magic? Why is it people have no problems believing those six impossible things, but, that seventh one, man, that's a doozey!!

 

[Savage Wombat]

Different people have different thresholds for breaking their suspension of disbelief. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there exist gamers who are willing to accept magic and unwilling to accept legendary but non-magical feats.

If you think it's unreasonable of them, sure. If you think it makes for bad gameplay, fine. But this "I just can't understand how anyone could possibly think that way" hyperbolic stuff just hinders the argument.

 

[evileeyore]

4e arrived before Pathfinder and created a lot of animus. You have to realize that there are people of my preferences who have been playing D&D since the OD&D days. So they have an emotional attachment. They don't like the idea of some upstarts coming in and totally changing the game and abandoning everything D&D stood for prior.

Yeah, I felt that way about AD&D, so I totally get where you are coming from...

Though to me 4e was a return to the Grand Old Days of The D&D I knew form my youth, so we totally aren't in agreement here.

It's like there were two favorite restaurants in town. Both were nice. One though has gone to ruin and it's the one where you proposed to your wife twenty years ago. If you just want to eat sure you can go to the other restaurant. But there is an emotional and nostalgic attachment to D&D for many people.

Except in this case there are 50 or so different restaurants and the one you enjoy still exists, they just haven't changed anything in about 20 years...

And all of the LFQW stuff has been in more editions than not even by your own admissions. I consider it balderdash so it's just a code word for whatever you think about gaming to me.

What on earth is "LFQW"? Is that some new fangled sex thing you youngings have come up with?

The thing is, not everyone agrees the 4e "abandons everything that D&D stood for prior". I think it abandons all the things that never made sense in D&D (the pseudo-simulation) and embraces and perfects the things that D&D always got right (fortune-in-the-middle action resolution as a tool for genre-oriented heroic fantasy). I think that it is the only version of the game to deliver the sort of play that Moldvay outlined in the Foreword to his edition of the game. (Or was Moldvay an upstart too?)

PREACH IT FROM THE MOUNTAIN!




Though in my heathen nature I must still say I liked 3e more... but I'm a dirty gritty skills lurving type... which is why I loves my GURPS (even if she is needless complicated sometimes).