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

[Raven Crowking]

I hate to keep using this as an example for fear of offending you, Raven,

You are far, far from offending me, Hexmage. I greatly appreciate the feedback, as well as the rational tone of the conversation!

but your Rogue's Living Shadows ability could be explained that last way. Instead of your Rogue saying "Okay, time to turn on my super sneak ability", the player is deciding that he's going to use a once daily allowance to assume that conditions are optimal for his Rogue to go unnoticed.

I have said in the past, and I will probably say in the future, that there are some things that 4e does very well. I am not "down" on all aspects of 4e, but there are aspects of 4e that I am very down on -- in terms of my personal preferences; I don't mind that others have different personal preferences.

RCFG is intended specifically as a fusion of what I like from 3e with what I like from "retro clones". There is nothing in RCFG derived from 4e mechanics, although there is a considerable amount idea-wise derived from conversations here on EN World about the snippets we were getting, what they meant, and whether or not 3e failed where the 4e ads nudge/winked that they did, prior to the release of 4e.

I will, again, remind you that this is an Epic level ability,

Fifteenth level is called “Epic” level. No character can progress beyond 15th level, although characters can continue to grow without further levelling. At the moment of his death (and sometimes, if the character is willing, before actual physical death), the character ascends to the outer planes and becomes a minor figure in the local pantheon, such as a saint, an angel, or a demigod.​

and is something of an exception in the ruleset. If, however, you believe that the ability as worded is too open to interpretation, I will also remind you that you are reading a rough draft. As with some other things that have been pointed out to me, I will endevour to make the intent clearer in the final version.

I am in an extremely good position, though, to tell you that Living Shadow was intended as a character, not a player, ability.

Perhaps if the designer(s) of 4e would be so good as to make their own intentions clearer, we would be in a better position to speak intelligently about whether character abilities in 4e are actually character abilities or are, in fact player abilities (as some contend).


RC

 

[BryonD]

No, no... people should stop pretending that D&D settings/campaigns make more sense than they do. That way lies the twin devils pretentiousness and preposterous-ness.

People who don't know better should stop pretending they have a clue what level of sense other people's settings/campaigns do or don't make.

Sorry, but you are flat wrong.

edit: not to mention cities overrun with billions of chickens...

Case in point.

 

[fanboy2000]

It's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks.

Sure it does. DMG, page 28, in the "Tips from the Pros" sidebar at the bottom left of the page.

I mentioned this a few pages ago. In the sidebar James Wyatt talks about playing D&D with his 9-year-old son. Apparently, his kid decided he was going to explore a statue, and then decided it was trapped, what the trap was, and that there was treasure there. Wyatt, a little peeved at first, decided to go along with it. (Though Wyatt still chose what treasure was going to be there.)

Wyatt stated the moral like this: "I learned that the players have the right to participate in telling [the] story--after all, they're playing the protagonists!"

So player control over the narrative is mentioned and endorsed in the rulebooks.

I've played rpg's based around narrative control... and the fact of the matter is they go through great lengths to explain this as the basis of the game because without such explanations the game can be approached from and interpreted in a way that makes it seem absurd or non-sensical. Answer me this how does someone who has never been exposed to a "narrative control" rpg suppose to even know what that is, much less come to the conclusion that certain powers in 4e are supposed to be interpreted by switching one's perspective into a narrativist mode? I would classify that as bad design. Good design should be based around a totally uninformed person playing the game for the first time.

Well, the designers consider 4e an exception based rules system. This is stated in the first chapter of the 4e PHB as the first of three general rules: "Simple rules, many exceptions." Exception based rules design was also explicitly mentioned in one of the pre-4e preview books released the winter prior to the PHB's release.

From an exception based rules design perspective, Come and Get It and all other powers is just another exception to the rules. How any given exception works, in world, is left to the DM/players. I would think that the designers don't care what explanation anyone uses, magic, narrative control, or (my personal favorite) the fighter runs around in a circle and literally pulls all the bad guys toward him.

So the answer to your question is that the player doesn't have to come to a narrative control conclusion, they can come to any conclusion about how the power works that they want.

EDIT: This also seems to vibe with the reasoning behind why melee and ranged basic attacks do not fall under any power source as opposed to martial.

Some basic attacks do have a power source.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you're playing a comicbook character who knows she's a comicbook character, then her powers might include demanding re-writes, breaking through panel borders, manipulating speech balloons, and so on.

Exactly. And why not? These are not unreasonable things to ask of a game that is supposed to be about collaborative storytelling. The rules make sense when that is the case. The disagreement arises out of the notion that the D&D rules have always been written from the approach of such storytelling which is certainly not the case.

I see simulationist rules as being written for a world where the characters believe,that events are real and act accordingly. I see this as being similar to pro wrestling in the olden days when feuds were "real" and the characters of that world had to behave accordingly to "protect the business" and sell the realism to the audience.

I see gamist rules as being written for a world where the characters are aware that they are involved in an entertainment action soap opera. The storylines are unchanged but the characters can "come out of the closet" and realize that thier lives are scripted and proceed to entertain the audience.

 

[Ariosto]

"Not magic in the traditional sense" is an interesting phrase. What is the "tradition" that is implied?

My best guess is that this reflects an intellectual recursion within WotC-D&D. "Magic" is a game-jargon term for what "arcane and divine spell casters" and "magic items" do. Similar technical usage was in old D&D context sensitive, but the wider context has increasingly been disdained. Even the "traditional" referents of D&D "fluff" terminology are disposable.

“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”


If in 5E it is stated that Magic Users "don't use magic", then so it officially shall be.

Nonetheless, there remains a tradition older than WotC, older even than D&D, as to what "magical" means. In some quarters, it might be distinguished from the "miraculous" associated with a divinity, but both are distinctly "supernatural".

Likewise, there is a technical distinction in the comicbooks between "magic" and the "super powers" of Superman and his ilk -- but it is trivial next to the distinction of superheroes/villains from the truly "natural" even within the confines of the four-color world. Were any of them to appear in our world, application to them of the term "magical" would hardly be obscure!

Moreover, to say that something is "not magic in the traditional sense" is not necessarily to say that it is "not magic in any sense".

 

[Mallus]

People who don't know better should stop pretending they have a clue what level of sense other people's settings/campaigns do or don't make.

Wait... let me explain my reasoning.

The settings found in the majority of fantasy literature don't hold up to much scrutiny. Which is understandable, they are meant to do things like act as a backdrop for adventure stories, invoke mythology, and serve as metaphors. Blueprints for working counter-factual worlds, they are not. They are best seen as incubators for unlikely protagonists. They are fictions, not think tank-class simulations.

The majority of D&D settings are patterned after the kinds of worlds found in fantasy literature. Ergo, they don't hold up to much scrutiny, either.

Which doesn't make most folks fantasy settings any less enjoyable, but let's call a spade a spade, or, in this case, a cheap knock-off of Middle Earth.

 

[Mad Mac]

Uhm... this would be great evidence... if arcane spells, divine prayers, etc. didn't all work the same way. You can only pull off an encounter divine prayer... once per encounter. So how does this in anyway support the fact that they are not magical and based around narrative control...Nowhere in the descriptions do I see a reason why you can only pull off an exploit once per encounter or day. Again not seeing how this supports narrative control as opposed to non-traditional magic... what it is, is blatantly vague about reasons and thus we refer back to the definition of martial power...

unless you're arguing every spell, prayer, etc. is not magic (though the book states they are in the traditional sense) and instead are bits of narrative control since they all work, mechanically, on the same structure.

I thought what I wrote was quite clear, but let me try to elaborate. The PHB gives a different description for Martial Encounter and Daily Powers vs all other power sources.

For Arcane and Divine Encounter Powers, it says this:

These are spells or prayers of such power that they take time to re-form in your mind after you unleash their magical energy.

For Martial Encounter Powers is says this:

They are exploits you've practiced extensively but can only pull off once in a while.

The implication is that is normally impossible for Arcane characters to cast an encounter spell for than once every few minutes or so.

By contrast, the martial encounter power is something the character can attempt as often as he wants (He's practiced it extensively, after all) but can only pull off or use successfully every "once in a while" which in game terms amounts to once per fight. This is a very narrative explanation any way you look at it.

I guess more importantly for you to push this argument, what I'm asking is what is the basis for the tropes of D&D and what criteria are you using to determine them... since as far as I know there is no official tropes of D&D list? Again why this is, IMO, a weak argument to try and prove or disprove.

I linked to T.V. tropes because this is a very common archtype across genres. I'm very suprised you are not conciously aware of it. To give some examples...

Batman is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural.

Conan is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural.

Odysseus is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural.

Tarzan is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural.

D&D Fighters have never been realistic. You cannot realistically and consistantly kill enormous Dragons and Giants with a 3' length of steel. This does not mean D&D fighters have ever been magical, because they aren't, outside of whatever magical gear they have been equipped. They are assumed to overcome unrealistic and impossible odds through strength, cunning, and skill at arms.

 

[Imaro]

Sure it does. DMG, page 28, in the "Tips from the Pros" sidebar at the bottom left of the page.

I mentioned this a few pages ago. In the sidebar James Wyatt talks about playing D&D with his 9-year-old son. Apparently, his kid decided he was going to explore a statue, and then decided it was trapped, what the trap was, and that there was treasure there. Wyatt, a little peeved at first, decided to go along with it. (Though Wyatt still chose what treasure was going to be there.)

Wyatt stated the moral like this: "I learned that the players have the right to participate in telling [the] story--after all, they're playing the protagonists!"

So player control over the narrative is mentioned and endorsed in the rulebooks. .

First this is stretching so far I'm tempted to not even comment... a sidebar in one core rulebook (not books) that is only read by the DM... that's a story about an impromptu decision a designer made while playing with his son... is control over the narrative being mentioned and endorsed in the rulebooks. Uhm, ok...whatever man.

Well, the designers consider 4e an exception based rules system. This is stated in the first chapter of the 4e PHB as the first of three general rules: "Simple rules, many exceptions." Exception based rules design was also explicitly mentioned in one of the pre-4e preview books released the winter prior to the PHB's release.

From an exception based rules design perspective, Come and Get It and all other powers is just another exception to the rules. How any given exception works, in world, is left to the DM/players. I would think that the designers don't care what explanation anyone uses, magic, narrative control, or (my personal favorite) the fighter runs around in a circle and literally pulls all the bad guys toward him.

So the answer to your question is that the player doesn't have to come to a narrative control conclusion, they can come to any conclusion about how the power works that they want.

I never argued that a lplayer has to come up with a narrative control conclusion... oh yeah and exception based design in no way precludes a game from establishing reasons for those exceptions... you know like arcane magic, divine prayers, etc. I'm a little lost on what exactly your point is. You're using exception based rule design to argue against narrative control... I think. But exception based design has nothing to do with it.

Some basic attacks do have a power source.

No they don't. Some powers can be used as a basic attack... it's not the same thing as basic attacks being under a power source.

 

[Mallus]

They are assumed to overcome unrealistic and impossible odds through strength, cunning, and skill at arms.

Right.

Which is to say they overcome unrealistic and impossible odds/situations because those are the genre conventions they're following. Those canny fighters beat dragons with (relatively) short lengths of steel because that's what their fictional antecedents do. One might even go so far as to say the thing being simulated in these games is, ultimately, fiction (and not the worlds presented in fictions).

 

[Mad Mac]

"Not magic in the traditional sense" is an interesting phrase. What is the "tradition" that is implied?

They're just stating up front that they aren't trying to make martial characters "realistic" so that people set their expectations accordingly. Thus, it's no use reading "Catapult Crush" (I don't think it's called that exactly) and complaining that it's not "realistic" for a Fighter to hit an Orc with his hammer so hard that it goes flying into another group of Orcs and knocks them all down.

That doesn't mean the Fighter is using telekinesis to send the Orc flying, just that he is so awesome at swordmanship that real life limitations don't apply. And as noted above, that's perfectly in tune with the genre of fiction Wizards is trying to emulate with martial characters.