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

[Imaro]

It's not an 'excuse', Imaro, just an explanation offered that's consistent with the rules text. And there's nothing to excuse, the system works fine, though how it works in clearly not to everyone's taste.

It's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks. I've played rpg's based around narrative control... and the fact of the matter is they go through great lengths to explain this as the basis of the game because without such explanations the game can be approached from and interpreted in a way that makes it seem absurd or non-sensical. Answer me this how does someone who has never been exposed to a "narrative control" rpg suppose to even know what that is, much less come to the conclusion that certain powers in 4e are supposed to be interpreted by switching one's perspective into a narrativist mode? I would classify that as bad design. Good design should be based around a totally uninformed person playing the game for the first time.

The only way I can see 4e being based on narrative control (and let me not forget, it's only certain-particular-specific-individual-powers that do this) is that the designers made a big mistake and didn't think it mattered if the lens through which certain, but not all, powers were suppose to be interpreted through was narrative...even though D&D has never been based around giving narrative power to characters in very specific instances before (this was the realm of magic in previous editions). If so that's a pretty big mistake for professional game designers to make, and again bad design.

That is why I feel the whole "narrative control" is an excuse made up by fans of the way 4e chooses to implement it's mechanics and not something with any real merit to it as far as the actual design of the game is concerned.

I think what's wonky is that some people aren't satisfied in simply not liking 4e (which, obviously, is a perfectly valid response to it). They feel the need to create nonsensical explanations/interpretations for certain rules, ones that are clearly contradicted by the text (ie, 'even Martial powers are magic'), and then use them as 'proof' that the new design is bad.

You know what Mallus, the funny thing is to me this isn't about just admiting you do or don't like 4e, since there are people of both opinions on both sides. Though I guess it's easier to try and paint in broad strokes so that now if you like 4e you must say these particular powers make sense and if you don't then you must believe they don't within the context we are discussing.

Concerning explanations/interpretations... let's just say I find the arguments and lengths that the side arguing that these powers are easily explainable as mundane abilities is just as nonsensical, perhaps moreso than you find mine and others who believe this is not the case.

As far as the text, which one is it, is the fluff text relevant or not... it seems the answer often changes depending on whether the fluff supports a proponents view or not. If it's not and malleable as you and many others have claimed it is irrelevant to the discussion of how something works (putting aside the fact that most, if not all the text deals what happens in the moment of the effect... not what caused it) and the only thing we have to go buy are the mechanics in determining the why's of a power...right? thus if the mechanics of a power work in a way more similar to magic than not... the easiest and simplest conclusion to draw is that it is magic (though perhaps called something else).

 

[Kask]

That is why I feel the whole "narrative control" is an excuse made up by fans of the way 4e chooses to implement it's mechanics and not something with any real merit to it as far as the actual design of the game is concerned.

Of course it is. It isn't mentioned nor explained in the rule books, NO designer has said that this is the way the game was designed. It is just a way to try and explain an area of poor design. I can understand fans trying to figure out what the heck the designers were thinking (or even if they were) as it is human nature to try and make sens of nonsensical things in life.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Of course it is. It isn't mentioned nor explained in the rule books, NO designer has said that this is the way the game was designed. It is just a way to try and explain an area of poor design. I can understand fans trying to figure out what the heck the designers were thinking (or even if they were) as it is human nature to try and make sens of nonsensical things in life.

Would you mind taking a look at my last post an commenting on it? I was skeptical at first, but now I'm pretty sure that the designers did intend for Martial powers to be instances of player narrative control; not just the ones that strain credibility, but every single one that isn't At-Will.

I have no idea why the designers wouldn't state that this is the case, though.

 

[Mallus]

It's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks.

That's true. But it's also an explanation that isn't contradicted by the rulebooks, unlike the "everything is magic" position, which is.

Answer me this how does someone who has never been exposed to a "narrative control" rpg suppose to even know what that is, much less come to the conclusion that certain powers in 4e are supposed to be interpreted by switching one's perspective into a narrativist mode?

I don't know. All I'm providing is what seemed like the obvious answer to me.

I would classify that as bad design.

I think it's good design, but I'm using different criteria. The 4e combat engine is a lot of fun, ergo, it's good. The fact it requires narration provided by the DM and players to make it make sense isn't a problem.

If so that's a pretty big mistake for professional game designers to make, and again bad design.

Again, the fights are fun (for us).

Concerning explanations/interpretations... let's just say I find the arguments and lengths that the side arguing that these powers are easily explainable as mundane abilities is just as nonsensical, perhaps moreso than you find mine and others who believe this is not the case.

You can either believe the designers where crazy, liars, or that they have some inkling of what they were doing (this is a classic C.S. Lewis argument, BTW). I choose to believe the latter.

... the easiest and simplest conclusion to draw is that it is magic (though perhaps called something else).

So you believe the 4e designers are liars (because they explicitly label all Martial powers are something other than magic)?

 

[Mallus]

I can understand fans trying to figure out what the heck the designers were thinking (or even if they were).

I can understand not liking the approach the 4e design team took to abstracting combat --it does diverge radically from the previous editions-- but to suggest no thought went into their design process is ludicrous.

 

[Kask]

Would you mind taking a look at my last post an commenting on it?

I read it. Interesting, however it is not likely. Purposely redesigning the flagship RPG product on the planet to operate off of an almost unheard RPG concept and then, neither mention it in the rules nor in a designer interview after almost a year of withering criticism, is incredibly unlikey.

 

[Mallus]

I read it. Interesting, however it is not likely.

Is it any more likely that the team of veteran RPG designers who created a playable and robust game engine had no idea what they were doing?

4e provides effects, not explanations. That's a choice made consistently throughout the rule set.

 

[Imaro]

So you believe the 4e designers are liars (because they explicitly label all Martial powers are something other than magic)?

Go...go... super hyperbole. No actually I believe the designers knew what they were doing (as oposed to some of the fans who have constantly pushed the "narrative control" excuse)... and what I believe is that the designers gave themselves a mighty big out, concerning the "magicalness" of Martial powers, when they stated this in the PHB...

Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordianry mortals. Martial characters use their own strength and willpower to vanquish their enemies. Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers to grant fighters, rangers, rogues and warlords among others their power. Martial powers are called exploits.

So. looking at this we see some martial exploits allow one to do things beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals...

We also see that they are only called out as "not magic" when dealing with magic in the traditional sense... however this means they could be and probably are magical in the non-traditional (which seems to be the same boat Primal is in since it is neither arcane or divine) sense.

They use strength and willpower through training (doesn't say what type perhaps focusing magic through willpower into their bodies) and dedication to vanquish enemies... their willpower could easily be a channel for non-traditional magic...and their training a way to draw on it along with their mundane strength in order to achieve exploits.

Now you could argue I'm making all this up, just like the "narrative control" excuse... the difference is that I'm citing actual text from the book that supports my reasoning of certain exploits as magic, I've yet to see someone do the same for the "narrative control" explanation.

 

[Ariosto]

You don't think a player exercising narrative control is a form of roleplaying?

I do not consider exercising narrative control a form of roleplaying, unless it is in fact an aspect of a role. That might indeed be the case with a magician, superhero, deity or functional equivalent -- with predicate assumptions as to the nature of the underlying "reality".

 

[Mallus]

Now you could argue I'm making all this up, just like the "narrative control" excuse...

Yes you are. Not that there's anything wrong with it. If your explanation works better for you, by all means use it.

...the difference is that I'm citing actual text from the book that supports my reasoning of certain exploits as magic, I've yet to see someone do the same for the "narrative control" explanation.

True, but the 'narrative control' thing works better as an explanation for some powers. But, to each his own. Whatever way you find to translate the mechanics into satisfying narrative is cool.