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

[Imaro]

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.

You're adding your own interpretation to it... what if the non-traditional magical energy used in the martial exploit is so strenuous on his body... he literally cannot attempt it again... how is this any less implied than what you are claiming? I think you're reading what you want into it but without any explicit evidence to support your assumptions. Again no reason is given, it's just vaguely stated that one can only pull of an exploit once an encounter/daily... And for the record I'm sure Wizards and warlocks practice with their spells as much as a fighter does with his exploits.

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.

Yet there is still scale, and that is what this argument boils down to. According to those tropes there are things Superman can do that Batman never will be able to... no matter how awesome he is. the question is where is that line for D&D? What is the point where the fighter has overstepped his D&D "tropes" and gained those of a wizard, or cleric. The problem is... without actually defining the tropes... this becomes an utterly pointless argument.

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.

Again with "realism"... I'm not arguing about realism. What I'm arguing about is logical consistency. If the realm of controlling things outside of oneself in an indirect manner is considered "magic" (whether traditional or non-traditional... then when someone does this they are performing magic, plain and simple. It's never been about "realism".

 

[BryonD]

Wait... let me explain my reasoning.

...

Here is my claim:

I can, have, and will continue to use the 3E ruleset to maintain settings and campaigns that provide a highly satisfactory high level of simulation.

Do you accept that or do you deny it as "the twin devils pretentiousness and preposterous-ness"?

You said:

The game worlds I've ever seem operate, at best, in a quasi-logical fashion, sometimes, on occasion. Mostly they operate in the nutty and contrived way necessary to fulfill there function as backdrops to fantasy adventure stories.

I stated that I was sorry you have not experienced better.
You accused me of self-deception. Do you retract that accusation?

 

[Imaro]

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.

Dude, they're using magic... regeneration, invisibility, unerringly controlling the movements of opponents, etc. It may not be a spell or a prayer (the traditional magic) but it's still magic. In fact it seems like you're agreeing but trying to word it so it sounds different.

 

[Ariosto]

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.

I would regard my example of a comicbook character "breaking the third wall" as a direct application of simulation and roleplaying.

I have no difficulty accepting (in the intellectual sense) that 4E is designed instead as a sort of story-telling game. I think it is by that standard a pretty clumsy design, a Rube Goldberg contraption.

My difficulty, I suspect a common one, is in accepting (in the emotional sense) that this is what has become of Dungeons & Dragons. That is not necessarily (for I at least am an exception to the hypothetical rule) synonymous with disliking 4E as a game, or story-telling games as a genre.

My impression is that this is not quite symmetric. Common sense suggests that it should be unbalanced. If one happens to like both apples and oranges, then where is the incentive to change one into the other?

 

[fanboy2000]

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.

You said it wasn't in the rulebooks. It's in the rulebooks.

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.

You asked how a player is supposed to come to a narrative control conclusion based on the rules in the rulebooks. My response is that they don't have to, it's not necessary to play the game. The designers didn't set out to design a narrative control game, they set out to design an exceptions based game. If a player wants to use narrative control to explain an exception, go a head. One of the designers even used narrative control in an exploration context.

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.

This power counts as a ranged basic attack.

If someone listed all the basic attacks in the game, this would one of them. It has the arcane power source.

 

[Mad Mac]

Dude, they're using magic... regeneration, invisibility, unerringly controlling the movements of opponents, etc. It may not be a spell or a prayer (the traditional magic) but it's still magic. In fact it seems like you're agreeing but trying to word it so it sounds different.

No, I'm trying to word things differently so that you can understand my point of view, but it's obviously not working.

If, at this point, you are unable to even acknowledge the 8,586,242 explanations given for CAGI in this exact thread, I don't know what the point of discussing anything with you is.

 

[Mournblade94]

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.


.

I have to agree. I never designed a world, or played in a published world (greyhawk, faerun, golarion, etc) just to have a metaspace to play a game. Quite the opposite. I have always played the game to tell the story in that world.

All my players would agree, my worlds are logical even in a high magic setting.

 

[Mallus]

I can, have, and will continue to use the 3E ruleset to maintain settings and campaigns that provide a highly satisfactory high level of simulation.

What are your settings simulating?

Do you accept that or do you deny it as "the twin devils pretentiousness and preposterous-ness"?

It's my experience that those particular devils are hard to avoid when dealing with fantasy (though as writers like Pratchett demonstrate, humor is a wonderful antidote to pretentiousness. Also to the ponderousness that accompanies deliberately trying for grandeur).

I stated that I was sorry you have not experienced better.

It's not a question of what I've experienced, it's a question of the criteria I've used to evaluate what I experienced.

You accused me of self-deception. Do you retract that accusation?

Sure. It was a jokey quip, but still... I take it back. Do you retract your insinuation that I don't recognize, or haven't experienced, quality? I don't mind if you don't, but so long as we're retracting things...

 

[Ariosto]

Some children are girls, and some are boys, some tall or slender while others are short or stout. One may be an artist, another a scientist, a third an athlete. There are introverts and extroverts, conformists and nonconformists ... a myriad of temperaments and talents and vocations.

There is a significant difference between appreciating each as a unique individual and trying to reshape one into the supposedly "better" nature of another.

 

[Mallus]

I have always played the game to tell the story in that world.

Me too. I'm an inveterate world-builder. But I'm also up front about the function of those worlds. They aren't simulations of anything remotely real, they're meant to facilitate the telling of certain kinds of --highly contrived, though vastly entertaining-- adventure stories.

All my players would agree, my worlds are logical even in a high magic setting.

I think it's easy to overestimate how logical our imagined worlds are. I'm sure your players agree with you, as mine do with me, but if we were to switch...

My worlds are 'logical enough' (a description that fits most others that I've seen in successful campaigns). Who could ask for more?