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

[Kask]

You made that up.

Yes, I made an example of a virus. So?

 

[fanboy2000]

This isn't remotely magical. I'm talking more about abilities like come and get it or powers that move others about without a physical shove. A compulsion that forces enemies to rush toward you is magical/supernatural. These abilities work regardless of language, or the presence of a mind so no mundane explanation fits.

I just looked-up Come and Get It. It's an interesting power. The flavor text says call, the effect line says pull. Both of these can, technically, be accomplished in real life without magic. It is possible to call an enemy toward you, and it's possible to pull an enemy toward you.

Consider: Olof the fighter standing on a battle field with no one adjacent to him has eight adjacent squares. Conceivably, this power can work on a maximum of 8 targets. From experience, I guesstimate that, in most games, Olof won't have 8 empty squares around him. Also, in most games, Olof won't have the maximum amount of enemies he could fit around him. Now, it's easy to for Olof to shout "Get over here!" and for the bad guys to come running to him. This fits the mundane "player gets temporary control over the narrative" position Mallus is espousing. This is, I think, a new idea in D&D. As Kask points out, players had 0 control over NPCs in previous editions. While in 4e this is a mundane explanation, in 2e it would indeed be magic. Having it be magic in 2e doesn't make it magic in 4e though because they are still two different game systems. As different from each other as AD&D 1e was from the White Box.

The other explanation is that Olof runs around and literally pulls as many bad guys toward him as he can. In this scenario, Olof kind of performing a circular charge, combining a move and an attack where the bad guys get, literally, pulled in toward him just before he attacks them all. Why, then, doesn't Olof get a bunch of opportunity attacks? The gamest answer is that, in an exception base rules system like 4e D&D, this power is an exception to rule that moving through other creatures spaces provokes an opportunity action. An in game explanation is that so few people do (because of the energy exerted performing it) it's a surprise and the bad guys are caught off guard. This kind of explanation isn't that new to D&D because D&D, at least in 3.x, has allowed martial character to do some fairly extraordinary things in the past. Not this specifically, to be sure, but extraordinary to be sure.

Personally, I like both explanations. I love it when people narrate their actions this way. With NPC and Monsters, I often don't narrate the same powers the same way. As the DM in a 4e game, I often have several bad guys with the same powers so it keeps me and the players interested if I mix-up the narration.

 

[billd91]

Why not? What are spells other that little prepackaged bits of narrative control ("I take over his mind", "I make him burn"). What the heck else are they?

If that's the case, what attacks the PCs make aren't asserting narrative control? "I make him bleed." "I make him feel the pain of my sword." "I make him drop to the floor unconscious (thanks to taking him below 0 hp)."

Are algorithmically adjudicated ways to affect the environment, like attacking and doing damage, really a part of player narrative control? Are any other, even non-algorithmically adjudicated actions also asserting narrative control? And if they are, what distinction does narrative control actually have from other things PCs do during the course of the game?

 

[fanboy2000]

If that's the case, what attacks the PCs make aren't asserting narrative control?

Good question, I would say none.

 

[RefinedBean]

And isn't this control merely the illusion of control, since the DM has final say in everything that's going on (even the effectiveness of powers, skill use, etc.)?

We've all been playing one fun, cooperative LIE!

Absurdity aside, I think it's important to view 4E through the lens of both prior editions AND other modern systems and games, if only to get a sense of where the game is headed and what it's been responding to.

As far as this whole magic nonsense, magic is whatever the DM considers to be magic, and that's always worked fine for me.

 

[Crothian]

I stated that looking at it from prior editions, it would be magic. 4.0 rules set could consider it flatulence. That's not what I'm referring to.

Cavemen can look a computer and call it magic, that doesn't make it magic though.

 

[Mallus]

Cavemen can look a computer and call it magic, that doesn't make it magic though.

And if you want to discuss computers in a meaningful way, you probably shouldn't start from a caveman's perspective.

 

[Scribble]

If that's the case, what attacks the PCs make aren't asserting narrative control? "I make him bleed." "I make him feel the pain of my sword." "I make him drop to the floor unconscious (thanks to taking him below 0 hp)."

Are algorithmically adjudicated ways to affect the environment, like attacking and doing damage, really a part of player narrative control? Are any other, even non-algorithmically adjudicated actions also asserting narrative control? And if they are, what distinction does narrative control actually have from other things PCs do during the course of the game?

Well, going with the narrative control idea, there are a few different "types" of narrative control.

1. Narrative control that is resolved by dice.

2. Narrative control resolved by the DM.

3. Narrative control resolved by the player.

Most of the game revolves around type 1. People try to do things, and the dice see if they work. The players control the PC actions, the DM controls the NPC actions.

Sometimes the game requires more "override" on the part of the DM... In the end the DM has the "ultimate" authority to say whether or not soemthing happens/works/etc...

Powers like Come and Get it, just to me represent option 3. Players can direct the general narrative sometimes, but in limited predetermined fashion.


I'm not really a huge follower of the narrative control explaination, not that I think it's bad if that's how you like to play. I just think there are always ways to explain things if your imagination is working (and your not just looking for a reason to dislike something...)

 

[Scribble]

And if you want to discuss computers in a meaningful way, you probably shouldn't start from a caveman's perspective.

I'm just a caveman your honor, unaccustomed to your modern ways...

 

[Mallus]

Good question, I would say none.

Me too.

The differences lie in how narrative control/authority gets parceled out. Sometimes it's a negotiation between the player and DM (ie, "On my turn Grod does X"), sometimes it involves the formal task-resolution system and randomizers (ie, "On my turn Grod attempts to hit X... I rolled an 18"), and sometimes it's just a matter of spending some resource token (ie, "I cast Fireball", "I use Come and Get It").