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

[ExploderWizard]

If that's how you feel, that's how you feel, but this is how I've approached D&D and all RPGs since I started playing.

If I liked a concept/power/rule/idea/whatever it's because it inspired soemthing in my imagination, and I couldn't care less how the designer "shows his work" so to speak. I don't need the designer to tell me why soemthing happens. Just give me the results.

Calling it the "boardgame first" concept feels to me like a quick snipe to push your point of view rather then an actual valid argument. You might as well be saying "Oh yeah??? Well you smell like cheese!"

It isn't my intent to insult you or anyone else. For a roleplaying game, the why behind a rule is very important to me. The rules of board and war games I can accept more at face value for simple reasons of game balance or whatever. I think its because I view actual rules in a competetive style game as more important than those in a roleplaying game. In an rpg I am content with good guidelines provided they make some kind of sense. If I understand the why behind a general guideline in an rpg, its more satisfying to me than a dozen codified rules that simply work the way they do "just because".

Rpgs are games, but different type of animal to me. Thats just how my brain works.

 

[Mad Mac]

If that's how you feel, that's how you feel, but this is how I've approached D&D and all RPGs since I started playing.

If I liked a concept/power/rule/idea/whatever it's because it inspired soemthing in my imagination, and I couldn't care less how the designer "shows his work" so to speak. I don't need the designer to tell me why soemthing happens. Just give me the results.

Yeah, I hear you. Personally, I started playing D&D by playing a few games at school, and then went home and "taught" my little brother to play by stealing a few bits and pieces I had picked up and then making up the rest. It wasn't for a few more years until we had all the books, so we continued to just snip bits of rules or concepts from D&D books, boardgames, choose your own adventure books, or whatever else sparked our imagination. We used to write up a new set of "rules" every time we started up a new game.

As a result, I've never seen official rules as anything more than a guideline, either as a player or a DM, and I don't feel every rule needs to be justified to me either. If I like it, I'll make it work in my imagination, and if I don't I'll just change it or ignore it.

 

[Scribble]

It isn't my intent to insult you or anyone else. For a roleplaying game, the why behind a rule is very important to me. The rules of board and war games I can accept more at face value for simple reasons of game balance or whatever. I think its because I view actual rules in a competetive style game as more important than those in a roleplaying game. In an rpg I am content with good guidelines provided they make some kind of sense. If I understand the why behind a general guideline in an rpg, its more satisfying to me than a dozen codified rules that simply work the way they do "just because".

Rpgs are games, but different type of animal to me. Thats just how my brain works.

It's all good, I misread internet intent as much as the next I guess.

I understand what you're saying. I think there are two types of players personally.

The type that needs/wants the rules to indicate how or why an effect happens, and the type that needs/wants the rules to only indicate what happens when the effect takes place.

I'm of the second camp (mostly) and pretty much always have been. I can play either style, but I notice I have a lot more fun when I play games more in the second style- They get my imagination going more. I look at a rule/effect/option and start to envision all the scenes that might play out when it's used. The first style makes me feel like I have to scan/memorize too many rules elements to achieve an effect I want. Like you said: It's just how my brain is wired I guess.

I personaly feel D&D through the ages has been more in my camp then the first camp, but 3e pushed it more towards the second camp. I liked a lot of the things 3e added to the game, but that part ended up always bugging me.

4e to me, feels like the updates I liked in 3e but with more of a gameplay style from the older editions.

To each his own though.

 

[Mallus]

... the target had no nature previous to the power's use...

The way I see it (ie, the correct way ), the target is a fictional character. It has whatever nature the author says it has. Usually the author is the DM. In certain, limited situations, it's one of the players. Clear as crystal, no?

...the target's nature can actually be changed by the power.

You could say that... so long as you recognize that the change is occurring at the metagame level. There's no corresponding in-game force acting on the target, no magic, psionics, etc. causing the change.

These powers are a lot like the Swashbuckler Cards that made the rounds on ENWorld a few years ago (I think they were Barsoomcore's doing). They produce in-game effects controlled by the players that don't neccessarily originate from their characters.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I also wonder if the whole "magic" vs "mundane" distinction isn't a little stretched.

While magic is something that doesn't exist in our world, it is clearly something that exists in the game world. And if we take the rules of the game actually as an attempt to "simulate" the reality of the game world, that would suggest, since magic has rules, it is actually part of the natural world. And therefore it stands to reason that you should be able to cast Fireball or Invisibility even without the power on your list. You just need to try very hard, and the long-standing training of a mage makes this considerably easier to you.

But a "narrative" approach avoids this. Magic isn't really all the spells and rituals described in the book. It is way more. But players are only given narration rights for the ones described in the book (and those the DM allows, maybe by relying on p.42 or just on a gut instinct.)

 

[Mallus]

Magic isn't really all the spells and rituals described in the book. It is way more. But players are only given narration rights for the ones described in the book (and those the DM allows, maybe by relying on p.42 or just on a gut instinct.)

This is how I've always played D&D (ed. 1-4)

 

[Fanaelialae]

Meaning no offense to anyone, but I find the whole CAGI argument a little silly.

I could walk into Perth Amboy right now, find a group of guys, insult their mothers and get my ass kicked. Walking there would be the most strenuous part of it (apart from taking the hypothetical beating, of course). Am I a sorcerer with unknowable and terrible powers? (If I were, I probably wouldn't have taken the beat down in my example.)

Why is it a power? Because in addition to luring the enemy in, the fighter's "kung-fu" is so awesome that he makes them seriously regret it. I could probably lure in the aforementioned guys, but I doubt I could make an attack against all of them at the same time- that would take serious skills that are probably beyond me, despite that I've had several years of martial arts training.

Why is it an encounter? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.... Additionally, like other martial encounter/daily powers, it's tiring. Yes, that does sacrifice some degree of realism for simplicity. Whether you like that trade-off or not is a matter of preference, but it still doesn't make it magic.

Is CAGI perfect? Considering the amount of persistent debate that surrounds it, obviously not. It probably would have been more agreeable to most had it included an Attack vs Will to lure the enemy in, then the AE attack. Of course, another way of looking at it is that there is an Attack vs Will but the power grants the player an automatic natural 20. I get the feeling that some would have been happier had that been literally spelled out in the PHB. Nonetheless, flawed powers happen (I'm sure anyone who tries can find powers that are flawed for various reasons in any RPG that has anything even resembling powers).

Whether you like it or not, 4E grants non-magical narrative control to players. The intimidate skill is a great example of this (forcing a bloodied enemy to surrender). If you believe that narrative control ought to be restricted to magical effects that's fine, but it's really more a matter of personal preference than objective law of good role playing game design.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But... The most reviled? AFAIAC that's hyperbole, and you might want to walk that back a little bit.

The quote was among the most reviled.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So you would say "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is objectively true and anyone who disagrees with that statement is wrong?

I would say that is (part of) the implied setting.

I wouldn't try to play games about what can, or cannot be, called "objectively true" about any implied criteria.


RC

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The quote was among the most reviled.

My bad.

But still... Seriously?

I'm genuinely confused because I think that by and large, you and I are coming at this with the same set of experiences and assumptions.