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

[Bumbles]

Hey no problem... though I'd be curious to see VCR instructions on a D&D 3.5 scroll...or were you just being witty and I missed it.

Well, I'm pretty sure it's not a magical item.

I think somebody cursed the toaster though.

 

[RefinedBean]

Hey guys, I'm back. I brought donuts!

I'm thinking we should all get together and really hash this stuff out over a beer at GenCon. And then play some Dread.

At any rate, maybe part of the problem we're all encountering in coming to a consensus (because, you know, I assume we're going SOMEWHERE with this debate ) is that the words "mundane" and "magical" are really very loaded. Dependent on setting, group preference.

Regardless of edition, are a Fighter's abilities "mundane?" Are a monk's abilities "magical?" Where do we draw the line between them? The thing is, there's many, MANY ways we could draw that line, because we all have different attitudes/thoughts on the matter.

I mean honestly, if we wanted to answer the OP's question in the thread title, I think we could all conclude that magic is equally important for both editions. It's D&D. There's gonna be magic, in one way or another, and it's probably going to be important.

That was a bit rant-y, apologies. Long day so far.

 

[Scribble]

well, i'm pretty sure it's not a magical item.

I think somebody cursed the toaster though.

action frank!!!!

 

[Imaro]

Going by the rules as written for intimidate for example:

If you beat the check you can force the NPC to act on your behalf, or be friendly towards you. The "effect" lasts while you're in their pressence.

You can also cause them to gain the "shaken" effect while in combat.

Why are these not the same as spells? You are effecting the nature of the NPC (it can no longer act hostily) or casuing it to gain some type of effect, for a durration of time.

Scribble I'll try to explain this but I feel like you may just not see the difference no matter what I post...

The Intimidate skill, and I'm looking at it right now still does not give a player control over an NPC... yes the PC is influenced by you but he will still act towards that influence in the manner the DM sees fit. The same as I presented in my example, you don't get to dictate what the NPC does, where he goes or anything else.

Shaken in and of itself does not allow you to control the actions of an NPC, plain and simple...like intimidate it creates a condition on the NPC but it is still nowhere near forcing the NPC to do what you want it to do over what the DM, consistency, common sense or anything else would have it do in that situation.

I already went through some of the characteristics of spells that differentiate them from other abilities...affected by anti-magic, can be dispelled, placed on scrolls, couterspelled, components needed etc. Not going to list all of them but hopefully you get the jist.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Not at all. A roleplaying game is about portraying a fictional character within a given game world. Simulation/realism is a separate issue from this and isn't connected. If you are participating in a roleplaying game, then you are deciding how your character will respond to events in the game as opposed to actively telling a story during such participation. After the action takes place, a story may be made out the events.

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.

Well I do loves me some cake. Too many powers is a minor issue. The bigger problem is the lack of definition between the magical and mundane. The blending of it all together into "superpowers" is an unwanted genre shift to me. If I want to play a supers game I will, there is no need to morph a fantasy game into one. This has nothing to do with the scale of the abilities. D&D has always featured a steadily rising power curve. The only "realism" that has ever been important (to me) has been the relative consistent reality of the game world, which includes magic that is identifiable as such.I have never seen a game in which humans fighting huge dragons ever approached what I would call realistic.

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. .

[bolded part] I do want to tell you, because its a fact.

IMHO 4E is too much about about combat. The rules presentation supports the grid first/ world second approach to the game.I also have stated on more than one occasion that 4E does not inhibit roleplaying and I stand by that. Unless the mad-cow has advanced in my brain, I do not recall complaining about a lack of 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.

Yes. I never claimed that D&D at its core was an implied low magic game. Please enlighten me about these contadictions. 4E has adjusted the scale of things to remove the " zero to hero" aspect of power gain that had been there before. Fledgling adventurers are virtual X-men at 1st level in 4E which is a dramatic change from prior editions.

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.

Why tone down fantastic elements? Its a fantasy world and I think it should have them. Heroes are powerful beings and get to operate outside the regular laws of the world, and thats called magic or supernatural power. If there is no underlying mundane world how do the heroes stand out from everyone else? Old D&D took a semi-medieval world and overlayed a layer of the fantastic. This made the fantasy elements really stand out. If the whole world is over the top fantastical then everything seems kind of the same.

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.

I see 4E as world where fireballs aren't blazing. Can you really kill anything but a constructed pinata monster with that thing?

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is the player though that has the power. The player has the narrative power over the enemies, the fighter doesn't.

Hogwash.

You can say that the player has the power to choose to attack a goblin, and the fighter does not, with no difference whatsoever.

If a player has a power, then the player can exercise that power regardless of the character being used.....regardless of whether or not a character is used at all.

In one campaign I ran, for instance, players were given Swashbuckler Cards. These cards were used by the player, regardless of the character, and could be used regardless of whether the character was conscious, unconscious, living, or dead. They were an asset that the player had, not the character.

Conversely, if my 3.5 wizard memorizes sleep, then the ability to cast sleep is an ability that the character has, not the player. The player decides when the character uses that ability, but the ability does not reside with the player.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Once more, with feeling...

The question is, who is taking over the NPC?

In previous editions, use of certain spells allowed a player character to control an NPC being controlled by the DM. This is explicitly described as being magic, the control can be detected by use of magic, often dispelled by use of magic, etc.

In the new edition, use of certain powers --that shall remain nameless!-- allow the player to control an NPC being controlled by the DM.

Hogwash, for reasons described above.

 

[Kask]

ExploderWizard, have you tried C&C? It is much closer to actual D&D than 4.0 and has the flavor that made D&D a worldwide phenomenon.

 

[RefinedBean]

If a player has a power, then the player can exercise that power regardless of the character being used.....regardless of whether or not a character is used at all.

What?

 

[Scribble]

Scribble I'll try to explain this but I feel like you may just not see the difference no matter what I post...

Possibly, but not intentionally. I honestly don't understand how you see a difference.

The Intimidate skill, and I'm looking at it right now still does not give a player control over an NPC... yes the PC is influenced by you but he will still act towards that influence in the manner the DM sees fit.

But the same is true for many spells. I guess that's what is confusing to me. I feel like you've given elements that make a mundane thing into a spell, but not the reverse, and I feel that's equaly important.

The same as I presented in my example, you don't get to dictate what the NPC does, where he goes or anything else.

Sure you do. You are dictating that the enemy stop being hostile.

Shaken in and of itself does not allow you to control the actions of an NPC, plain and simple...like intimidate it creates a condition on the NPC but it is still nowhere near forcing the NPC to do what you want it to do over what the DM, consistency, common sense or anything else would have it do in that situation.

Ok I can accept that for the shaken part, and going by your points below, it's not a spell. (It doesn't go on a scroll, it can't be counterspelled, isn't effected by anitmagic, doesn't require components well I guess you could say maybe verbal and somantic...)

Which is why I guess this way of thinking is weird for me. Because essentialy I see the same overal effect if you DID make a spell for achieving this effect, so a "spell" version wouldn't need to be handled in a different way. The same end result applies, so why do I need a second system to handle it? It just seems redundant to someone like me.

I already went through some of the characteristics of spells that differentiate them from other abilities...affected by anti-magic, can be dispelled, placed on scrolls, couterspelled, components needed etc. Not going to list all of them but hopefully you get the jist.

Ok so Cagi:

Can't be counterspelled, dispelled, or effected by antimagic, can't be placed on a scroll, and doesn't need components (unless you count weapon?)