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

[Ariosto]

One might reasonably expect dismay in some quarters if the science-fictional physics of Traveller were shoe-horned into Marvel Super Heroes -- or vice-versa. The notion that a role-playing game (or even D&D as some sort of "special case") can have no particular character seems to me untenable.

 

[RefinedBean]

On what basis?

On the basis that you probably didn't know Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson personally. Maybe they liked to play Toon. Maybe they secretly LOVED it.

You invoked their names as a defense of D&D in general. Partially, I agree with you! It's fairly ludicrous to think that 35+ years of gamers lacked imagination. But they really haven't been crazy relevant to the direction of D&D as a game/brand for a while.

I'm not defending Fanboy, really. I'm just saying there were better, more informative ways to make your point.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ah, I think I get it now!

Does that distinction have to come from the rules? Can the group make that distinction for themselves?

What do you see as the effect on play if players make this distinction, even if it does not exist in the rules?

If we are discussing the implied setting of the game?

Then the distinction must come from the game.

If we are discussing the implied setting of your campaign world?

Then you may (and should!!!) make whatever changes to the game seem appropriate to you.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

While I mean what I said above, that explanation is really just a cover for my annoyance at this:

I still hold that to be true.

I find myself far more influenced by those who see something clearly and like it than by those who seem to unconsciously ignore fundamental aspects of something and like it. Would they still like it if they were conscious of those aspects? Who knows.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

You honestly think this has to be elaborated on or completely spelled out for you and your group in the rules, instead of having your group decide on what's best/most fun for them?

This is a game of pretend. I don't need any meaningful distinction between X and Y written down because I create the distinction myself, in play.

Ah, I think I get it now!

Does that distinction have to come from the rules? Can the group make that distinction for themselves?

What do you see as the effect on play if players make this distinction, even if it does not exist in the rules?

I find statements like these just a tad hilarious coming from fans of 4E.
If a gaming group wants to decide more for themselves exactly what is what, then why choose a ruleset that spans hundreds of pages just to tell the players exactly what they can and cannot do?

Why have the exact effects of every power spelled out in such detail if the players should decide whats best/ most fun for them?

Both the 3E and 4E rulesets are focused on telling players exactly what to do. The main difference is that 3E attempted to attach that heavy handedness to a kind of semi-logical simulation and 4E didn't bother with that. 4E just says: "This is what happens, flavor to your taste."

I am entirely on board with the idea that not every fiddly detail needs to be spelled out in the rules thats why I like basic D&D so much.
I prefer to use my imagination to create solutions to game situations that are not covered by the rules rather than creating rationalizations for rules that don't make much sense.

 

[Imaro]

The Schools vs Domain (or alignment restricted spells) thing was really only in 3rd, and even then it was a very minor difference. Mechanically they work very much the same way.

Yeah, I used that because RefinedBean said he was only familiar with 3.x before 4e. But again arcane and divine magic are not totally seperate power sources pre 4e, they are subsets of the same power source, so really looking for gigantic differences in these two isn't exactly a fair comparison in the context we are discussing... a better example would be to compare psionics vs. magic in 3.5.

The difference between the two comes out mostly in the theme and focus of their respective spell lists, which is also how it works in 4th edition.

Yes, but again they are both the same power source in 3e.

You could easily create anti arcane/divine ect zones or similar effects in 4th edition if you were so inclined. These were taken out of the game for design reasons, but the keyword system has a lot of flexibility for this sort of thing.

Oh, I totally agree here... but in the end you can do-it-yourself with alot of games, so that really isn't an argument for or against the point I am making. Design reasons are exactly what I'm talking about... the problem is that many of these things provided a distinct line between the magical and the mundane that is blurred, IMO, in 4e. And let's not even begin to discuss primal power... is it magical, is it mundane... it seems to power classes that would be either or (Barbarian vs. Shaman).

Really, anti-magic zones, vsm components, spell interruption, this is mostly stuff they invented to nerf magic-users more than anything else.

The funny thing is that while you may be correct in the reason these things were introduced... personally I don't know for sure... they still also resonate with the mythology of magic use. Places where magic is diminished, materials for spells, spells being interupted in the middle of their casting are all things straight out of mythology.

A lot of things you are bringing up as well point towards 3rd edition's handling of things, which is not the same as earlier editions in many respects.

Yes, but again I and RefinedBean only have the context of 3.x to discuss as far as pre 4e D&D goes so that is what I am sticking to.

 

[Imaro]

You make good points, Imaro. When I thought up the Rage/Spell(Rage) comparison, I had forgotten how complex the spellcasting system was in 3.5.

I've pretty much forgotten what our spirited debate is about, so let me regroup here.

It seems like we're really arguing over whether or not all classes should use a single system.

Your argument: because everyone uses the same system, there's no fundamental differences between the power sources. It might as well be named Power Source: Fun or what-not, since it's all push-pull-slide. A fundamental difference between the classes is defined by different mechanics.

My argument: because everyone uses the same system, there's only a need for a gaming group to differentiate between the sources if they see fit. WotC provides the base fluff for beginning groups to work off of, and experienced groups can (and will) take things into their own hands, describing the push-pull-slide of powers as they like.

We're edging really close to simulationism/gamism debate, which leads to madness. We might want to call it here.

RefinedBean, we can agree to disagree... but I did want to clear up that I'm not necessarily talking about simulationism vs. gamism. I think you've got the jist kof what I'm talking about as far as subsytems go... but I don't agree it boils down to simulationism and gamism. Different subsystems can be used in a gamist sense to create different interactions, strategies and tactics in a game without necessarily simulating anything...

For an example of what I am talking about, earlier LostSoul posted that the reason there are 50 million ways (regeneration, healing surges, healing word, temporary hit points, etc.) to essentially do the same thing (negate damage) is because the different methods allow for a greater mechanical difference and tactical richness in the game which can lead to a wider range of tactics and interactions. This has nothing to do with simulationism (though it does have the added benefit of making these ways of healing feel different in play) and everything to do with the gamist parts.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I still hold that to be true.

I find myself far more influenced by those who see something clearly and like it than by those who seem to unconsciously ignore fundamental aspects of something and like it. Would they still like it if they were conscious of those aspects? Who knows.


RC

I don't think you necessarily give people enough credit. IMO, there is at least a significant portion of people here who see the fundamentals of 4E clearly and like it (though I don't deny that there are also those who see clearly and hate it).

For example, I'm currently playing around with some gestalt rules for 4E that I found in the House Rules section of these forums and modified a bit. One of my players wanted to create a PC based on the character Hunk (from the Resident Evil series). Basically, an elite, modern (zombie-killing) commando.

It took the player a little while to get out of the old mindset (he was unhappy for a while that Ranger didn't offer him the variety he was looking for), but we eventually settled upon a gestalt of Druid and Warlock. Reflavoring Wild Shape, he assumes a martial arts stance so that he can riot kick zombies (and anything else that gets too close) using Savage Rend. His Eldritch Blast became a spray of bullets from his machine gun (his implements were reflavored as special ammo clips that he uses for his gun). Faerie Fire became a mustard gas grenade, Obscuring Mist became a smoke bomb, Fiery Bolt became a napalm canister that he tosses at enemies and shoots, etc.

If he had wanted to have fighting techniques specialized for killing undead, I would have recommended a divine class instead of Warlock, though he still would have used technology instead of magic (sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic).

I can understand that the above may not be everyone's cup of tea (for varying reasons) but for us it works beautifully. I honestly don't think we're unconsciously ignoring anything (If you think we are, could you please elaborate as to what you think that is?).

We recognize that there's a certain degree of magic/mundane transparency in the system but for us it is a strength, not a weakness. Falkland (the commando PC) is a martial character because he uses grenades and a gun (rather than Primal/Arcane as his classes would indicate) which are not inherently magical in nature. The player constantly remarks to me how awesome he thinks his character is and how Falkland is exactly what he envisioned.

If this is ignorance, then I suppose I was wrong and ignorance really is bliss!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think you necessarily give people enough credit. IMO, there is at least a significant portion of people here who see the fundamentals of 4E clearly and like it (though I don't deny that there are also those who see clearly and hate it).

There certainly are. I've had the please of conversing with several of them. In a number of cases, seeing 4e clearly has allowed people to make rules changes that make the game work better for what they want. Others like what they see right off.

In another thread, when I listed out the possibilities of interpreting damage in 4e (Schrödinger's Wounding), it was forcibly brought to my attention that I had skipped one possibility -- that everyone and everything in 4e was, indeed, magical. "Mundane" (in the sense that it existed in all pre-4e D&D) has no real place in 4e.

This is so different from what had come before it that I didn't see it clearly. Indeed, the next time I listed the possibilities in that thread, I had to be reminded again. Nor was it the interpretation generally favoured or seen by pro-4e gamers.....not by a long shot. Looking at the 4e rules and designer statements more closely, though, has convinced me that this "blind spot" is actually an intended, as well as an actual, part of the implied 4e setting.

Before I was blind.

Now I see.



RC

 

[Starbuck_II]

This is so different from what had come before it that I didn't see it clearly. Indeed, the next time I listed the possibilities in that thread, I had to be reminded again. Nor was it the interpretation generally favoured or seen by pro-4e gamers.....not by a long shot. Looking at the 4e rules and designer statements more closely, though, has convinced me that this "blind spot" is actually an intended, as well as an actual, part of the implied 4e setting.

Before I was blind.

Now I see.

RC

Well, it isn't called "points of light" for nothing. When blind all you see is darkness.