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

[Raven Crowking]

We weren't trying to take the 4e to it's logical conclusion, at least not consciously, though we did deliberately build in ways to rationalize some facets of the 4e rules; the ease of resurrection, the prevalence of rituals, the widespread magic... I'm sure they were more. The process was more trying to preemptively cover our tails than orderly extrapolation.

This sounds rather like an attempt to follow the rules to their logical conclusions, even if not consciously.

And, as I said before, it seems the perfect setting for 4e.

You may call it a kind of genius if you like.

All I was trying to do in this thread was offer a possible explanation of how it worked that was consistent with rules (and didn't involve magic). Which I did, ad infinitum, or so it seems.

Well, you made a valiant effort, but not a successful one from where I am standing. Certainly, it was an effort that impressed some folks who already agreed with you, and sometimes that is the best that one can hope for.

And, while you didn't convince me with your arguments, at least I learned something, which is always nice.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

The ugliness comes from the fact that reality can be deathly boring when applied to heroic fantasy. I'm not saying it's true for all, but that's been my experience.

Also, and this might be my own naivete speaking since I've only played two and a half editions of D&D, has D&D ever been grounded in reality, at all? It seems to me it hasn't.

D&D has never strived to simulate any kind of reality. The default game world assumptions were that the laws of physics, and the way things interact with one another was similar to earth unless magic or supernatural forces showed up to make new rules. The world works pretty much as expected EXCEPT when magic says otherwise.

That was old school exception based design.

There isn't anything wrong with changing this set of assumptions as long as they are spelled out as the established norm. The default assumptions simply provided the baseline that required the least amount of effort.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm almost rubbing my hands with glee.

Why?

Also, and this might be my own naivete speaking since I've only played two and a half editions of D&D, has D&D ever been grounded in reality, at all? It seems to me it hasn't.

That depends upon what you mean by "grounded in reality". If you mean "Built upon a basis of reality with fantastic elements layered upon it", then yes. I would go so far as to say that this was a hallmark of D&D up until 3e, and was still a strong element in 3e. I mean, D&D devoted sections to the nomenclature of pole arms, and the type of clothing peasants might wear.

3e took a step away from that by introducing "mundane" equipment that was either alchemical in nature, or relatively impossible or unlikely to be of use (the gnome hammer that impales your forearm when you swing it, for example, or all those endless spikes). These elements were (rightly, IMHO) criticized. 4e takes a huge leap in the same direction, and it shouldn't be surprising that those who didn't like these elements in 3e like them even less now that they are all-pervasive.

If you mean "realistic", then no. Even the 2e Historical References made use of fantastic elements.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that D&D is better without fantastic elements. Moreover, as language is generally used, "grounded in reality" means using reality as a baseline, not including only realistic elements.

YMMV, though.


RC

 

[RefinedBean]

And this is just a product of poor presentation.

That could be. And I'll admit that I don't have much experience with realistic heroic fantasy systems. I couldn't even name any, really.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That could be. And I'll admit that I don't have much experience with realistic heroic fantasy systems. I couldn't even name any, really.

"[R]eality can be deathly boring when applied to heroic fantasy" does not imply that all systems within the game are realistic.

You are committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.


RC

 

[RefinedBean]

Why?

Because despite the heated disagreements in this thread, I've had an awesome time with the discussion. Learned things, presented cases, discussed rules...pretty much what ENworld is all about.

Plus, this thread has flirted close to being an Edition War, but hasn't yet, and (as far as I know) mods haven't had to get in on the action, which is always a plus.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Cool.

All good reasons for glee.


RC

 

[RefinedBean]

"[R]eality can be deathly boring when applied to heroic fantasy" does not imply that all systems within the game are realistic.

Fair enough. In the editions of D&D I've played, every system has been unrealistic. (shrug) YMMV, of course!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Fair enough. In the editions of D&D I've played, every system has been unrealistic. (shrug) YMMV, of course!

"Unrealistic" is a quality with variable settings. A system that attempts to model reality is "unrealistic" wherever it fails in that attempt. That doesn't make it "unrealistic" in the same way that cranking surrealism to 11 does.

Again, though, YMMV.

Or am I falling for the Fallcy of the Unbounded Middle? (<---Tick reference)


RC

 

[Umbran]

And this is just a product of poor presentation.

This statement amounts to "if you don't like it, then you aren't doing it right."

In the past, such assertions have been found to be condescending, mildly insulting, and just plain incorrect.

I'm sorry, RC, but people can find it boring even with good presentation. Not everyone finds everything interesting - including reality applied to their RPGs.