Imaro
Legend
That's why I specifically cited taking over the actions of an NPC controlled by the DM with no chance for it to resist... That's not comparable to hitting the NPC with a sword, you're still not controlling what it does.
How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition
- Thread starter Hexmage-EN
- Start date
That's why I specifically cited taking over the actions of an NPC controlled by the DM with no chance for it to resist... That's not comparable to hitting the NPC with a sword, you're still not controlling what it does.
Scribble
First Post
Ok so a miss chance is the criteria for mundane vrs magic? So then anything that allows a saving throw is mundane?
Just about all spells in prior editions by this argument are mundane effects.
Fanaelialae
Legend
It seems to me that your statement is purely subjective.
At least in the games that I've played in, gamist narrative elements have often been used, even in previous editions of D&D.
A classic example is the cavalry that rides over the hill just in the nick of time. Sure, they might have been teleported there via magic, but it could just as easily be the DM creating an exciting scene (and they've been riding for days to get there in time).
CAGI just puts this power (in a limited sense) within the player's realm of possibility (once per encounter).
It's like an example that another poster in another thread used (sorry, my memory is terrible and I can't seem to locate the post atm). It's an ability called Master of Disguise (from a game called Spirit of the Century) that allows a character to disappear from a scene and later reappear in the place of an NPC (turns out that the NPC was the character in disguise all along). It's very gamist/narrativist, but also very cool, IMO.
As I said, this is nothing new to D&D. Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate were able to alter NPC behavior even in 3.x (it's been a while, but I don't think those proficiencies existed in 2nd ed so there's no real basis for comparison AFAIK). A Diplomacy specialist at high levels could convert almost any NPC into a fanatical follower with a few (non-magical) words.
CAGI isn't necessarily the best designed ability out there (similar in that sense, perhaps, to high level Diplomacy in 3.x), but it also isn't necessarily magic either. It's Conan tricking the enemy into closing with him, for example. Conan wasn't exactly a rocket-scientist, but every now and again he managed to "get one over" on people much smarter than he was. If ever a situation arises where I say there's absolutely no way that enemy would do that, I'd inform the player before he used his power and that's that. That's partly the reason the DM exists ("No, I don't care what that supplement says, you're animal companion cannot have his own mount".).
CAGI certainly could have a supernatural explanation, but I honestly think anyone who can't admit that it could have a mundane, gamist, narrativist explanation is wearing blinders. As for which is a better explanation, I certainly admit that it's open to debate.
Well, I am coming from a perspective but little informed by 3E or even 2E. I have plentiful experience with other RPGs (maybe even a majority of those published in the first decade after D&D), and have generally been on (if not ahead of) the cutting edge in experimental techniques.
I refer back to the "lingua franca" particularly characteristic of D&D in that period when other efforts were making their mark on the very basis of their novelty. The distinction was very notable when I became a RuneQuest enthusiast. Some considered the approach better or worse, but there was no question as to its being something other than D&D.
I refer back to the "lingua franca" particularly characteristic of D&D in that period when other efforts were making their mark on the very basis of their novelty. The distinction was very notable when I became a RuneQuest enthusiast. Some considered the approach better or worse, but there was no question as to its being something other than D&D.
Scribble
First Post
Exactly. If you wanted to, you could say CaGI is the warrior tapping into some supernatural warrior art. And possibly if you are playing from the "rules dictate what happens in the world" viewpoint then maybe that's the easiest explanation for you?
It's certainly not the ONLY way it can be explained or utilized, and it most definitely isn't the universaly "most D&D way" to look at the rule.
Imaro
Legend
Maybe that's your criteria but I never said that... I cited a specific example of a power in 4e. The real question would be have their ever been mundane examples of this type of "narrative" control in other editions of D&D that didn't involve magic?
Your logic is that since A & B share characteristic 1 then A=B without looking at any other characteristics. Not sound at all. By this logic all cats have 4 legs...so any animal with 4 legs must be a cat...
Raven Crowking
First Post
Ironic.
Assuming that you are reading what I've written, rather than just responding blindly, you will know that the viewpoint I am espousing is one that I accepted as being superior to my own, and that my own viewpoint was largely similar to your current viewpoint prior to my accepting it.
Not accepting just any old alternate viewpoint is not the same thing as not accepting a well thought out and internally consistent alternate viewpoint. One can be (and should be) open-minded without leaving their mind wide open to any old idea that might be out there.
RC
Last edited:
A roleplaying game is all about telling a collaborative story. Whether the mechanics have the design goal of simulating realistic events, or providing a framework for a narrative, it is primarily about telling a collaborative story. That's what makes it a roleplaying game rather than strictly a wargame or some other type of game.
You're just trying to have your cake every which way Exploder. You complain that people have too many superhuman powers in 4e rather than plain mundane powers, but have you actually read 1e - 3e adventures? You are killing Zuggutmoy the demon lord at 8th level in the Temple of Elemental Evil. You are knocking down giants left and right in the G-series. You fight dinosaur sized dragons with 4 foot long peice of metal as part of the very name of the game. However, there isn't a power that says "leaping strike" or "thunderous blow", so that's all reasonable. Nevermind that the fighter would have to be doing something superhuman to take on a creature that is 10x his size in melee combat, it is the fact that it is explicit that makes it a problem.
Then you want to tell me that the game didn't start out as a storytelling game, but then you want to tell me that 4e in other threads (and probably this one too if we go back far enough) that 4e is too much about combat and powers and doesn't have enough storytelling. You're always contradicting yourself, because you want to claim that certain elements of 4e aren't part of D&D, but D&D has always had them. The game has always been about superhuman heroics, powerful monsters, common magic, dungeon crawling, and high fantasy. That's what it is, and that's what it has always been.
Okay, but you should really tone down the fantastic elements if you want the world to be consistent. A mundane world can only survive with dragons, giants, trolls, and demons hanging around in dungeons if those things are separated from the world somehow. D20 Modern's concept of shadow perhaps, where supernatural things are kept secret from the world at large.
But people using actual magic? Creatures that are almost invincible unless slain by demigod adventurers (cause let's face it, that's what a giant slayer is)? Fireballs which slay entire legions of troops? How can that world be possibly mundane? The story simply makes no sense unless you assume that the world itself and the heroes in it are fantastical. The only reason one could possibly think otherwise would be to swallow a huge amount of suspension of disbelief or even worse, assume its reasonable because you absorbed it at a time when you were too young to really question it.
So 4e went a little more fantastic and mythological for its cosmology, and ditched the mundane "simulation" parts which didn't make sense with the larger story. I could see someone wanting a world where the fireballs aren't blazing, and giants don't roam the world, but a gritty sword and sorcery type setting where glimpses of fantastic elements intruded into the world... but that isn't any edition of D&D.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Intentionally misunderstanding an argument is a good sign that the person so doing understands how weak their own position is.
RC
In other words, while it is true that "gamist narrative elements have often been used", the statement is (based on my experience, and on the texts that became more explicit as it was realized that the game appealed to far more than the initially assumed audience) not a very accurate stereotype or archetype of seminal D&D play.
Similar Threads
