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

[Raven Crowking]

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

Indeed.

When you disavow the "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" interpretation, Schrödinger and quantum mechanical effects must either be accepted or ignored.

Thus far, within this discussion at least, no criteria for disagreement have been raised that offer more than wishful thinking and/or intentional disregard of the factors that arise from this implied portion of the 4e setting.


RC

 

[Storminator]

Sigh..that's a lot of work man. What the heck, I'll take a shot at it.

...SNIP...

Primal is the 4th one, but it's harder, so I'm taking a break. I might add it later if there is any interest.

Mad Mac,

This is a great post, and easily the best thing in this thread. Please follow up with the Primal Source as well.

I'd suggest making a blog post of this so you can add to it when other sources come out.

XP coming up.

PS

 

[Storminator]

XP coming up.

PS

Or not! Can someone help me out here?

PS

 

[LostSoul]

I find statements like these just a tad hilarious coming from fans of 4E.

I asked questions, I didn't make statements.

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?

I was talking about colour, its importance to play, and the way you translate mechanics into fiction.

My question: "Does that distinction have to come from the rules? Can the group make that distinction for themselves?"

What I'm trying to ask here is if the meaningful distinction between something like mundane and magical (or anything, like the Dark and Light Side of the Force) must come from the rules, or if players can create meaning on their own.

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

What I'm trying to ask here is, when you have rules that create meaning by themselves, how does that affect play vs. when the rules don't have any meaning?

A simple example: imagine a Star Wars game. In one game, there are a list of evil acts, and if you do one of them you get a Dark Side point and get some bonus dice. Each time you get a Dark Side point you roll 1d6. If the roll is lower than your current total you turn to the Dark Side and your PC is removed from play.

In another, there's no list. PCs call on the Dark Side in order to get bonus dice whenever they like. They still have to roll to see if they turn to the Dark Side, though what that means is undefined except that the PC is removed from play.


What does this mean in regards to 4E? I don't know. Maybe nothing.

 

[LostSoul]

Or not! Can someone help me out here?

Covered.

 

[Mad Mac]

Mad Mac,

This is a great post, and easily the best thing in this thread. Please follow up with the Primal Source as well.

I'd suggest making a blog post of this so you can add to it when other sources come out.

XP coming up.

Flattery will get you anywhere. Ok, coming up.

Primal

Primal is the power of spirits, weather, land, tree's and nature. It is the power of the earth itself and all natural living creatures. Primal powers have a theme of endurance and transformation.

Primal classes lean towards defender as a secondary role. All primal classes have more hps and staying power than is normally expected of their role, except the Shaman who comes equipped with a permanent spirit bodyguard.

Primal classes are geared towards the use of light armor and melee weapons. They don't often have Dex or Int as primary stats, but have class features that let them use other stats to boost their AC.

Primal classes tend to use weapons or implements, but not both. Their unique two-handed implement, the totem, enforces this. Unlike Divine characters, a primal Shaman or Druid with a totem will normally carry no weapons except their own powers (or claws)

Primal powers frequently call upon spirts, weather, earth and plants. They are heavily biased towards using powers with the Cold, Lightning, and psychic keywords. (Note that wind, earth and plant are not keywords and usually deal untyped damage)

Primal classes make very little use of teleportation, and use of conjurations is limited primarily to the Shaman's spirit calling. They don't currently have any summoning powers.

Transformation is the other primary theme for primal, and primal classes are loaded with powers that transform and enhance their own body. Druids wildshape, Wardens polymorph, and Barbarians rage, and for all these classes, use of their transformation abilities is essential to unlocking their other class abilities and powers. The Shaman is unique in his use to spirtits to enhance allies instead of his own body.

Primal Powers are called evocations, as they evoke the power of specific primal spirits. The Barbarian Rages by channeling the spirits of assorted magical beasts, while the Warden physically transforms himself into avatars of spirit creatures. The Druid transforms himself into actual beasts, and the Shamans directly calls upon primal spirits to aid him and his allies in battle.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I asked questions, I didn't make statements.

My mistake. Fair enough.

I was talking about colour, its importance to play, and the way you translate mechanics into fiction.

My question: "Does that distinction have to come from the rules? Can the group make that distinction for themselves?"

What I'm trying to ask here is if the meaningful distinction between something like mundane and magical (or anything, like the Dark and Light Side of the Force) must come from the rules, or if players can create meaning on their own.

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

What I'm trying to ask here is, when you have rules that create meaning by themselves, how does that affect play vs. when the rules don't have any meaning?

If the rules don't have any meaning then there is no reason for thier inclusion IMHO. In an rpg, anything that is defined as a rule should have some meaning within the implied setting. Rules existing just for the sake of being rules are more appropriate for competitive games.Thus:

RPG (cooperative experience) tone and flavor > rigidly defined rules

War/boardgame (competitive experience) rigidly defined rules > tone and flavor.

A simple example: imagine a Star Wars game. In one game, there are a list of evil acts, and if you do one of them you get a Dark Side point and get some bonus dice. Each time you get a Dark Side point you roll 1d6. If the roll is lower than your current total you turn to the Dark Side and your PC is removed from play.

In another, there's no list. PCs call on the Dark Side in order to get bonus dice whenever they like. They still have to roll to see if they turn to the Dark Side, though what that means is undefined except that the PC is removed from play.


What does this mean in regards to 4E? I don't know. Maybe nothing.

The difference in your example is the lack of definition for an evil act. In both cases turning to the dark side means the end of the character as a PC. I guess it would depend on how close to the source material the players wanted to stay.

In the first case, the acts are defined for you. The rules spell out exactly what causes a dark side point. Players may find twisted things to do that are not officially on the list in order to avoid dark side points.

In the second case the players could decide that any use of the force for offensive purposes regardless of the actual act would result in a dark side point (per Yoda ).

A truly radical modification of this example would be to challenge the notion of the character being removed from play after joining the dark side. Why is this a rule? Does it serve a purpose in the implied setting?

What does this mean to 4E. Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Starbuck_II]

A simple example: imagine a Star Wars game. In one game, there are a list of evil acts, and if you do one of them you get a Dark Side point and get some bonus dice. Each time you get a Dark Side point you roll 1d6. If the roll is lower than your current total you turn to the Dark Side and your PC is removed from play.

In another, there's no list. PCs call on the Dark Side in order to get bonus dice whenever they like. They still have to roll to see if they turn to the Dark Side, though what that means is undefined except that the PC is removed from play.

In game 1: You know what you need to do in order to do Dark Side. No one does it by accident, but lack of memory.
In game 2: You choose to do Dark Side: 100% control. But this is dangerous as you don't know when it will take you over.

Game 1 is a little loose in fear of dark side. Game 2 is like Russian Roulette: Are you ready to take the chance?

 

[Imaro]

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

What I'm trying to ask here is, when you have rules that create meaning by themselves, how does that affect play vs. when the rules don't have any meaning?

A simple example: imagine a Star Wars game. In one game, there are a list of evil acts, and if you do one of them you get a Dark Side point and get some bonus dice. Each time you get a Dark Side point you roll 1d6. If the roll is lower than your current total you turn to the Dark Side and your PC is removed from play.

In another, there's no list. PCs call on the Dark Side in order to get bonus dice whenever they like. They still have to roll to see if they turn to the Dark Side, though what that means is undefined except that the PC is removed from play.

What does this mean in regards to 4E? I don't know. Maybe nothing.

Well the difference I see in the two approaches is this...

In example one, the group has a baseline, it facilitates quick understanding and cohesion of the "Dark Side" aspect of the game for all players. It let's those who just want to play, play without having to create mechanics, define the meaning of and often times bicker about what is or isn't an evil act. It also provides the DM with a very stable point from which to make rulings or modify things to suit his specific campaign.

In example two there is no baseline to begin with and thus time must be spent defining what is or isn't a dark side act (or else the same problems that so many complained about with the 3.5 Paladin's code and alignment will quickly arise). The DM has no examples to draw from and there is still the very real posibility that no matter how much beforehand discussion takes place...all the people in the group still aren't on the same page as far as what is or isn't a dark side act even after play has begun. There is also the distinct possibility that with numerous, even just slightly, divergent views on what the dark side is... eventually the dark side itself becomes meaningless as far as theme, narrative or anything else beyond it's effect of removing one's PC.

I mean what happens if I don't ask for extra dice (call on the dark side) but I use the force to slaughter an audience hall full of innocent people... is it or is it not a dark side act since I didn't ask for extra dice?

 

[LostSoul]

My mistake. Fair enough.

No prob.

If the rules don't have any meaning then there is no reason for thier inclusion IMHO. In an rpg, anything that is defined as a rule should have some meaning within the implied setting. Rules existing just for the sake of being rules are more appropriate for competitive games.Thus:

RPG (cooperative experience) tone and flavor > rigidly defined rules

War/boardgame (competitive experience) rigidly defined rules > tone and flavor.

I agree with you.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this!

Let's assume all abilities are magic in 4E (or all abilities are mundane, which is strange, but a possible interpretation - I guess that would be the Dying Earth-type math-magic). There's no distinction in the rules, no reason to say one thing is magic and another is mundane. I can make an attack vs. Fort, close blast 3, deal 1d6 + stat mod and push 3 with a Thunderwave or (conceivably) a martial power. (That wouldn't be a bad power for a staff or longspear.)

Spoilers for a Keep on the Shadowfell:

[sblock]

Magic Circle: Ninaran followed Kalarel’s instructions
in creating this magic circle to raise the dead. The circle
pulsates with a sickly glow.
With a DC 15 Arcana or Religion check, a PC can
determine that the magic circle is the reason for the animated
undead, and that it can be disabled with the Arcana
skill. If a PC makes three DC 15 Arcana checks before
getting three failures, the circle is disabled and the animated
dead fall and become mere corpses again.

[text quoted from the free .pdf, I hope that's kosher]​

[/sblock]

Can my fighter disable that magic circle with Arcana? What if he's not trained in Arcana? What if he wanted to use it to Dominate the NPCs? Can he disable it with a martial attack?

If the answer is no, why not?

What's the difference between playing a game where the rules tell us this and one where the rules don't say anything?

(I think, more specifically, I'm interested in how this relates to gamism; that is, players overcoming challenges through smart choices based on their own skill and experience with the game or setting. I think that these gaps in interpretations may open a space for players to learn about a particular DM's world and, through experience, become more adept at overcoming challenges in that world.)