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

[Raven Crowking]

I liked your car analogy better.

Not surprising.

However, both analogies are equally valid.

The REH pastiche analogy simply makes the absurdity of claiming that the two are the same thing a little more obvious, for those who are not used to using a more subtle standard of measurement.

Not that recognizing the differences between a Model T and a Corvette ought to require anything approaching a subtle standard of measurement.

Nor should recognizing the difference between the "larger than life" qualities of TSR-D&D and 4e.


RC

 

[RefinedBean]

Nor should recognizing the difference between the "larger than life" qualities of TSR-D&D and 4e.

I guess I just don't see any difference. It's all been crazy, out-there, earth-shattering heroics for at least the two editions I've played.

We can go ahead and say that your measure of difference between one insanity and another is more "subtle," but that doesn't make it correct.

The only people who are in charge of saying what magic is and isn't in D&D is WotC, really, and ain't nothin' changing it. I suppose it's merely a happy coincidence that I enjoy what they've presented so far, and agree with it.

 

[Scribble]

This is true only insofar as automobiles haven't changed from the Model T Ford to the most recent Corvette. They still have wheels (most often four) and an engine, so they are exactly the same thing.

Sure, but you can't argue:

1. The Corvette is no longer an automobile because it's faster then a model T.

2. Movement is a new function of Automobiles as of the Corvette.

Which seems to be some of the arguments you've been making.

4e is not 1e, I will not argue that. (Even though I feel it's closer to 1e then we've had in a while.) But the changes made, don't take it out of the realm of anything D&D wasn't already doing.

 

[RefinedBean]

But the changes made, don't take it out of the realm of anything D&D wasn't already doing.

The argument seems to be, since some of the non-magical classes are now doing what some of the magical classes were doing in previous editions, that makes it magic.

I think.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

For me, magic is more something like "use sulfur and bat guano to create a bead that explodes into a blast of flames" or "pray to the god and your wounds will heal!"
The cause (bat guano) and effect (fireball) are magic - you're using something symbolic to achieve something in (game world) reality. Of course, this is possible in the real world, too - you push a button and somewhere else a door opens, for example - the button was just a symbol for opening the door, but thanks to some kind of mechanismn it opened the door. Magic introduces such a mechanism that is totally invisible but yet ever present. It is as if you never needed to install the wires and the door mechanism, it's just there.

I wouldn't assume such a "hidden" mechanism for martial abilities. If the fighter uses Come and Get It, there is a clearly visible thing going on - even if it's just him saying "Come and Get it!" to his enemies and them reacting to it. That's why I also tend to assume the "narrative" approach here it's the player using Come and Get It, the Fighter just says something to provoke his enemies (or maybe he uses a lasso, or shakes the tree the Goblin archers are hiding on, or whatever.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

I wouldn't assume such a "hidden" mechanism for martial abilities. If the fighter uses Come and Get It, there is a clearly visible thing going on - even if it's just him saying "Come and Get it!" to his enemies and them reacting to it. That's why I also tend to assume the "narrative" approach here it's the player using Come and Get It, the Fighter just says something to provoke his enemies (or maybe he uses a lasso, or shakes the tree the Goblin archers are hiding on, or whatever.)

I think the lack of a mechanism for the ability makes perfect sense in a storytelling game. For those using the game system who are not wishing to play a storytelling game then there are issues.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the lack of a mechanism for the ability makes perfect sense in a storytelling game. For those using the game system who are not wishing to play a storytelling game then there are issues.

Luckiky, I like my hack'n'slash storytelling game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I guess I just don't see any difference.

And, of course, because you don't see it, it isn't there.

In the same way, perhaps, that someone "couldn't see" the difference between my pastiche of Robert E. Howard, making Conan roughly the size of Paul Bunyan, breathing spurts of flame through his nostrils, and fighting robot assassins sent from the future, and REH's work.

It's all been crazy, out-there, earth-shattering heroics for at least the two editions I've played.

If your metric is that limited, I think I see the problem.

The only people who are in charge of saying what magic is and isn't in D&D is WotC, really, and ain't nothin' changing it.

Game terms do not change the meaning of common parlance.

Sure, but you can't argue:

1. The Corvette is no longer an automobile because it's faster then a model T.

2. Movement is a new function of Automobiles as of the Corvette.

Which seems to be some of the arguments you've been making.

4e is not 1e, I will not argue that. (Even though I feel it's closer to 1e then we've had in a while.) But the changes made, don't take it out of the realm of anything D&D wasn't already doing.

Oh, I don't argue that 4e "isn't D&D", and I don't argue that there is no relationship between (say) 1e and 4e. If you believe otherwise, please point out to me what I said that made you believe so.

I am talking only about one specific change to the implied setting of the game, from TSR-D&D to 4e.


RC

 

[RefinedBean]

Game terms do not change the meaning of common parlance.

Common parlance means jack-squat in D&D. One of the classes is named "Fighter," of all things. Every class FIGHTS.

And you say my metric is limited. So be it; I think my metric is pretty standard for what most D&D players use, so if that means it's limited, well, there ya go.

But once again, we're both just using personal opinions on what magic is and isn't to tackle the issue from both sides. There's no one right answer, and there never will be.

I'm going to excuse myself from the discussion; I've done my best to make my points. Magic is the same in 4E as it was in any other edition: spells, prayers, rituals, and DM fiat. And magic is as important in 4E as it was in 3E.

Y'all have fun.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Common parlance means jack-squat in D&D.

If you really feel that way, I suppose you don't actually believe that "Every class FIGHTS". Either that, or you accept that common parlance and game terms are both applicable to discussions of the game.

It seems to me that there are some to whom common parlance is only applicable when it supports their position; otherwise it is not. However, to others common parlance is applicable to any discussion wherein common terms are being used, while game terms are applicable to game mechanics.

If one can only discuss a ruleset from within the limitations of the terms defined by that ruleset, one will have limited discussions indeed.


RC