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

[D'karr]

Because a player might feel like the DM was infringing on his fun? The right to have powers function as written is part if the guaranteed fun contract that players are entitled to. If you were to rule that a power doesn't function due to consistency/common sense issues for player A then you couldn't let a power that made sense function for player B because that be unfair to player A and could result in unfun.

If that is the entirety of the reason, then I see why threads like this seem so silly. The rules should not be seen as a straight-jacket for the DM.

Since your argument on that seems so facetious, I honestly don't know if you are being serious, then I'll point to some of the places in the rules that gives some guidance in this respect.

PHB pg. 8
Referee: When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.

PHB pg. 10
The Dungeon Master decides whether or not something you try actually works. Some actions automatically succeed (you can move around without
trouble, usually), some require one or more die rolls, called checks (breaking down a locked door, for example), and some simply can’t succeed.

PHB pg. 54
You can use a power whenever you are able to take the action the power requires. (Certain conditions, as defined in Chapter 9, prohibit you from taking actions.) Your DM might rule that you can’t use powers in special circumstances, such as when your hands are tied.

DMG pg. 7
It’s not the DM’s job to entertain the players and make sure they have fun. Every person playing the game is responsible for the fun of the game. Everyone speeds the game along, heightens the drama, helps set how much roleplaying the group is comfortable with, and brings the game world to life with their imaginations...

Remember that the “right way” to play D&D is the way that you and your players agree on and enjoy.

DMG pg. 12
Then take a little time to describe to the players how you want the game to go. Let them give you input. It’s their game, too. Lay that groundwork early, so your players can make informed choices and help you maintain the type of game you want to run.

DMG pg. 16
Narration: A big part of the DM’s job is letting the players know what’s going on. Give the players the information they need and keep it lively.

Dispensing Information: Give the characters theinformation they need to make smart choices.

DMG pg. 22
Portraying Rules Situations: It’s easy to fall into the rut of describing events merely in terms of the applicable rules. Although it’s important that the players understand what’s going on in such terms, the D&D game can be at its dullest if everyone talks in “gamespeak.”

DMG pg. 23
Your narration of the fantastic world of the game needs to seem real—not as a simulation of the real world, but as if the game world were a real place with coherent, logical rules. Actions should have logical consequences, and the things the PCs do should have an impact on the world.

Those are just some of the ones that I was able to look up in a reasonable amount of time. There is more than enough guidance in both books that allow the DM to "modify" the rules to fit a specific situation. Or that give him guidance on how to adjudicate special situations. As long as the DM is not being an asshat, I can't see anyone getting up in arms about a specific change to a specific power during a specific situation.

The big thing should be that the player's are kept informed. So if the DM decides that Spells can't be used when tied up, that is clearly a "house-rule" (though there is a precedent in the power descriptions that specifies special circumstances). I see no reason why a DM could not say that is the way he wants to run a specific game and let the players be informed.

 

[Scribble]

Stated or not, the philosophy to which Exploder Wizard referred seems to me pretty clearly expressed in the design. To apply realistic considerations wholesale would, I think, be likely to mess up the game unless done with care on par with the designers' original work. The return on personal effort does not appeal to me -- but who can say what might arise from collective effort over the next few tears?

In the meantime, 4E is definitely not what I would choose for any scenario in which verisimilitude matters. Its strengths by design lie in other areas.

I think that applies to pretty much every edition of D&D.

D&D seems to bow in most cases to unrealistic but fun, and even the "realistic" parts tend to be realistic only so far as the common person understands.

If you're talking about splitting arrows being special because it's an "impossibly" hard task that only those above and beyond the normal mortal can accomplish- that's D&D reality.

If you're talking about splitting arrows being special because of the nature of wood grain patterns and their effect on physics and aerodynamics... you're out of the range od D&D reality, and into something completely different.

 

[Mallus]

Stated or not, the philosophy to which Exploder Wizard referred seems to me pretty clearly expressed in the design.

Honestly, it doesn't to me. "Don't sweat the small stuff on a formal level" != "never use common sense rulings".

To apply realistic considerations wholesale would, I think, be likely to mess up the game unless done with care on par with the designers' original work.

Can you give an example of what you mean? I think you're saying that 4e will come down like a house of cards if you start applying conditional DM rulings to it's power framework, and from personal experience, that just isn't the case.

In the meantime, 4E is definitely not what I would choose for any scenario in which verisimilitude matters.

For what's it's worth, I more interesting in the maintenance of verisimilitude when it comes to the fictional people in the game world; the way NPC's react to events.

I'm not looking for the rules to be the physics for the game world. I don't think they can, nnot without bowdlerizing the meaning of 'physics'.

 

[LostSoul]

To apply realistic considerations wholesale would, I think, be likely to mess up the game unless done with care on par with the designers' original work.

Why?

Are there reasons other than players feeling that their DM is judging things unfairly?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So far, we have only the same arguments going past each other from each side.

If we could agree on a set of terms (such as what "magic" means), maybe we would also agree on more than we expect.


RC

 

[Scribble]

Can't find the quote... guess I AM going nutso. It was asking if people actually DO play the game and make changes to the rules to make them more "realistic" basically.

Sometimes, but not always. I used to do this a LOT back in the day, but now that I'm older I don't feel like it adds anything to the game. Usually if I do, it's because as a group, we've decided something seems wonky, or doesn't fit our play style. In fact, I'm somewhat more apt to allow a rule to apply to an action even LESS realistic if the player just wants to do something fun, has a good explanation, and it won't amount to game crashage.

Now, as Mallus stated, my verisimilitude comes from the setting, the characters, and the world as opposed to the rules.

 

[Scribble]

So far, we have only the same arguments going past each other from each side.

If we could agree on a set of terms (such as what "magic" means), maybe we would also agree on more than we expect.


RC

Are you looking for an in game explanation or out of game explanation?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sometimes, but not always. I used to do this a LOT back in the day, but now that I'm older I don't feel like it adds anything to the game. Usually if I do, it's because as a group, we've decided something seems wonky, or doesn't fit our play style. In fact, I'm somewhat more apt to allow a rule to apply to an action even LESS realistic if the player just wants to do something fun, has a good explanation, and it won't amount to game crashage.

Now, as Mallus stated, my verisimilitude comes from the setting, the characters, and the world as opposed to the rules.

I don't even know how this is supposed to relate to what I wrote (that you were quoting).

 

[Scribble]

I don't even know how this is supposed to relate to what I wrote (that you were quoting).

It's not. I was quoting something else, but somehow that quote got in there.... not sure how I managed that one? I will change.

Interesting- I can't seem to find the original thing I wanted to quote. Did you edit your post or something?

The thing I was quoting asked if people actually play that way (changing the rules to match what is more "realistic" basically.)

 

[BryonD]

For what's it's worth, I more interesting in the maintenance of verisimilitude when it comes to the fictional people in the game world; the way NPC's react to events.

I'm not looking for the rules to be the physics for the game world. I don't think they can, nnot without bowdlerizing the meaning of 'physics'.

I completely agree with your priorities.
However, for me the way people react to events is not between the covers of a book.
I spend money for good models for how the world works.
The rest I already have for free.

I'm certain I could sit around a table with my friends and 100% ad hoc an RPG that would provide us the same fun as 4E. Why should I pay WotC for zero value added?

As to the idea that you can't model the physics of the game world, I obviously again greatly disagree. I'm certain we could quibble back and forth about what constitutes "bowdlerizing the meaning of 'physics'". But I have a high standard of "good enough" and I meet my own standard.

Edit: It is also a false choice to compare these priorities. My true priority is neither A nor B, but rather C: Both A and B.