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

[Imaro]

Maybe in your case this is true?

My case? I don't "handwave" as I've said- the rules of the game do not imply what is happening in the game world. The world determines what rules I use to determine outcome. This is why the "abstract" rules do not bother me (and even are a plus) because I can more easily utilize them as I want/need.

I'm a little confused here... in general don't the rules imply things about the setting? I mean the fact that a basic melee attack relies on strength and targets armor class implies something about the way the world works... doesn't it? Or that a basic ranged attack uses Dex and targets AC. Or that there are "power sources" that categorize powers... or that monsters exist or that weapons can't be used as implements by Wizards...and so on.

Don't these things imply something, however insignificant you may think it is, about the world in which the game takes place? Or is all of this meaningless? I mean even if you change it, you've just changed what it implies... not the fact of whether it implies anything or not.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think that the power system itself could be the cause of 4E's verisimilitude problems, especially in regard to Martial powers. It's not that the system itself is flawed, but that there are too many powers. Martial characters went from having a few options to having the exact same amount of options as every other class. The only way they could accomplish this was by increasing the level of abstraction, which resulted in several powers that make little sense in certain situations.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm a little confused here... in general don't the rules imply things about the setting? I mean the fact that a basic melee attack relies on strength and targets armor class implies something about the way the world works... doesn't it? Or that a basic ranged attack uses Dex and targets AC. Or that there are "power sources" that categorize powers... or that monsters exist or that weapons can't be used as implements by Wizards...and so on.

Don't these things imply something, however insignificant you may think it is, about the world in which the game takes place? Or is all of this meaningless? I mean even if you change it, you've just changed what it implies... not the fact of whether it implies anything or not.

Not in my opinion, and I suspect Scribbles and some others here. A basic attack (or a normal attack in other editions), the roll of the die does not represent a sword stroke, Fights do not in my experience proceed in 6 second increments, or in initiative order. The die roll tells you wheither you are winning or loosing at the moment.

What actually happened is the wite up infered from the game results after the combat is over.

 

[LostSoul]

Lostsoul, I think I undeerstand what you're getting at with this question and if so I believe it is definitely an interesting conundrum to explore, so let me try to answer from my own experiences in 4e...

Thanks Imaro! I appreciate the response. (I need to spread more XP around, etc.)

Finally the gamist approach, and what I see in majority of D&D 4e games is to select the skill you have the highest score in and then try and justify it's use... not because it is appropriate narratively or because it interacts with the world in a way that it believably simulates a coherent reality... but because mechanically it is the optimal choice.

...

I think both D&D 4e's abstraction and it's decidely gamist bent encourage and even reward this behavior as opposeed to the other two (and of course you can consciously choose to play it in a different style, but I am talking about what the default suggests), and thus your players, when making decisions, will either embrace "choose a superior mechanic first, and everything else later" attitude... or will eventually come around to this way of thinking as the game progresses and this way of play is enforced and rewarded more and more.

Let me start off by saying that I want the players to make gamist choices - to try and "win" because they are good players. "Winning" means different things based on the PC's goals, and I want it to be firmly grounded in the game world. That's not too hard from my DM's point of view; I set up the threats, especially long-term ones the PCs can't deal with now, and they try and knock them down.

Good players will achieve their PC's goals, and poor players will be struggling to keep their heads above water.

So, skill challenges/skill checks. What you're saying is that the situation in the game world becomes less important than a high number on the character sheet because of this abstraction. If I can't know what "Arcana" means (is it just knowledge about arcane lore or the ability to manipulate it?), then how does one decide when it can be used and when it can't?

What's the point of a player making smart choices in order to use his best abilities when any ability can be used at any time, and all the smart choices can be found on the WotC Char-Op boards?

What do you think about this solution: the DM, as a referee and lorekeeper of the world, has a tight rein over what the skills mean in the gameworld. He uses the in-game situation to decide what skills can be used, which ones can't, and which ones give a bonus/penalty or auto-success/failure. By adding elements to the gameworld - that can be discovered by the players through experience - smart players can translate their knowledge of the game world into situations where their best skills come into play.

That's a lot of babble, but I can't think of an example right now to ground it in actual play. Hmm...

 

[alleynbard]

I'm a little confused here... in general don't the rules imply things about the setting? I mean the fact that a basic melee attack relies on strength and targets armor class implies something about the way the world works... doesn't it? Or that a basic ranged attack uses Dex and targets AC. Or that there are "power sources" that categorize powers... or that monsters exist or that weapons can't be used as implements by Wizards...and so on.

Don't these things imply something, however insignificant you may think it is, about the world in which the game takes place? Or is all of this meaningless? I mean even if you change it, you've just changed what it implies... not the fact of whether it implies anything or not.

I get what you are saying here and agree. I can't say whether Scribble meant exactly that or not, but I can answer for myself.

Even when a rule or power is not "simulationist" it implies something about what is going on in the setting. For instance, if a power causes forced movement, it does imply that somehow the character is doing something to cause that movement to happen.

What I have noticed is that situation can change from encounter to encounter depending on a variety of factors. For instance, Come and Get It might be a taunt or it could be the character firing a warning shot at the creature he is targeting (or tossing a rock, throwing a dagger, etc.), garnering its attention. It depends on the situation. It also depends on how the character described his action to me.

This isn't always true though. If a spell caused a cloud of noxious gas and forced movement, I would imagine I would rule the movement is for the same reason every time (the creatures are stumbling away from the nasty gas). Now, another DM might state the gas burst moves so fast it knocks creatures out of the way (as odd as that sounds). Both are right within the context of the game but are very different ways of interpreting it.

So how I interpret the power manifesting isn't necessarily related expressly to the rule. The environment feeds into it as well. But the power/rule does give the basic structure of what happens.

Not sure if that helps the discussion at all, but that is how I see it.

 

[Mallus]

Do you have any idea how deeply ironic a statement this is?

4E is anything but humanocentric....

Fiction can be full of 'human interest' even though it technically about non-human characters. You'll note this is how most science fiction and fantasy that features alien characters you care about works.

For instance, Watership Down.

 

[Scribble]

I'm a little confused here... in general don't the rules imply things about the setting? I mean the fact that a basic melee attack relies on strength and targets armor class implies something about the way the world works... doesn't it? Or that a basic ranged attack uses Dex and targets AC. Or that there are "power sources" that categorize powers... or that monsters exist or that weapons can't be used as implements by Wizards...and so on.

Don't these things imply something, however insignificant you may think it is, about the world in which the game takes place? Or is all of this meaningless? I mean even if you change it, you've just changed what it implies... not the fact of whether it implies anything or not.

It's a way of looking at the rules/vrs world Imaro. I guess it's akin to one of those weird picture in a picture things? You know where like you see an old lady, but then if you "refocus" you see a young lady turning away? It's like that I guess.

Like when I see the rules, they don't translate into an image in my head. Like the fact that someone makes a melee attack using strength doesn't cause me to picture a physical attack against the enemy. It's kind of the opposite way around. I see the attack in my head, which causes me to utilize a rule that works to quickly get the game element out of the way, and get me back to my imaginary event.

In anycase remind me, and I will try to elaborate more on Monday. Right now I'm late for my weekly game. Have a good weekend!

 

[Imaro]

Not in my opinion, and I suspect Scribbles and some others here. A basic attack (or a normal attack in other editions), the roll of the die does not represent a sword stroke, Fights do not in my experience proceed in 6 second increments, or in initiative order. The die roll tells you wheither you are winning or loosing at the moment.

What actually happened is the wite up infered from the game results after the combat is over.

I think you're missing my point, and it's probably my fault that I didn't go into depth with any one example (as I didn't want a singular example to become the focus of what I was stating) but let me go further...

Using armor raises AC... yet it doesn't raise Ref, Fort or Will defenses... thus we can surmise that in this hypothetical D&D world that attacks which target Ref, Will or Fort are not affected by armor, but those that target AC are... right? Now going a little further... a basic melee and ranged attack (barring magic) always target AC... thus it is implied, because of these rules, that Armor makes you harder to hit when someone wields a weapon against you...right? The fact that all basic melee and ranged attacks use Str and Dex respectively also implies that these weapons are used (again barring magic or some other extraordinary exception) better by someone with greater physical prowess...right?

And so on, what I'm saying is that the rules very much create implied things about the world by how they interact.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think that the power system itself could be the cause of 4E's verisimilitude problems, especially in regard to Martial powers. It's not that the system itself is flawed, but that there are too many powers. Martial characters went from having a few options to having the exact same amount of options as every other class. The only way they could accomplish this was by increasing the level of abstraction, which resulted in several powers that make little sense in certain situations.

It certainly is one issue. There are some people who liked fighters because they were so simple and didn't have so many options. You could roleplay a fighter knowing that (system wise) the experience was going to be mechanically simple. In 4E you are pushed toward more of a magic user level of resource juggling and managing power (spell) effects.

There is nothing "forcing " you to do this of course. You could just make basic attacks I suppose. With the bloated HP totals of things it would be like hitting with a spitball. I don't imagine that would last more than a session or two before the fighter gets booted from the group while the rest of the party joins the LFG channel in search of a tank.

 

[Mad Mac]

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think that the power system itself could be the cause of 4E's verisimilitude problems, especially in regard to Martial powers. It's not that the system itself is flawed, but that there are too many powers. Martial characters went from having a few options to having the exact same amount of options as every other class. The only way they could accomplish this was by increasing the level of abstraction, which resulted in several powers that make little sense in certain situations.

It's not really as bad as all that. You choose your own powers, so you can always stay away from powers you personally find weird or complicated. If you want a simple fighter, grab an axe or a hammer and stick to the "hitting stuff really hard" line of powers.

Alternately, just play a ranger and use twin strike 90% of the time like everyone else does.