What is the essence of D&D

[Guest 6801328]

As long as it's some /magical/ ability, sure.
Classic D&D had many examples of arbitrary abilities granted by interacting with the environment ("I drink from the glowing pool!") or getting a whammy put on you by some uber-being (god or devil or high-level wizard or whatever) for good, ill, or some combination.

Mmm...I don't think I agree with this. If a quest reward was that I was taught how to do something cool (basically a free feat? are feats magical?) I'd find it equally satisfying.

 

[Garthanos]

Indeed, unfair & imbalanced /is/ arguably a necessary part of the essence of D&D, of Magic being Really Magical, because fair & balanced-with-the-mundane just ain't magical.

You cynic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You cynic.

We have a few Cap'n's on the board, already, but not a Cpt Obvious.
Are you auditioning?

Mmm...I don't think I agree with this. If a quest reward was that I was taught how to do something cool (basically a free feat? are feats magical?) I'd find it equally satisfying.

Most feats, at least in the ed that introduced them, were not magical... though some, like metamagic feats, obviously were, and Stunning Blow was, IIRC, (SU)pernatural. I can't say I recall free feats being given out, though, in any WotC edition.

But, would a free (but mundane) feat really cut it? You're just doing something anyone else with a feat available and the right BaB (or whatever perquisites) could choose. Maybe if it was feat-like, but unique?

But, really, what could be an example of that? Magical or at least, supernatural, powers can be arbitrarily unique. Learned mundane skills/feats/whatever could presumably be learned by anyone. At least, that seems to be the D&D paradigm: mundane can't be special or unique, it must be, well, mundane.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Mmm... don't mind people expressing preference. Just don't want to see another "This edition sucks," "No it doesn't, yo momma" thread.

It's not about sucking, it's about being Really D&D or not. And it certainly needn't be about preference.

 

[Guest 6801328]

We have a few Cap'n's on the board, already, but not a Cpt Obvious.
Are you auditioning?

Most feats, at least in the ed that introduced them, were not magical... though some, like metamagic feats, obviously were, and Stunning Blow was, IIRC, (SU)pernatural. I can't say I recall free feats being given out, though, in any WotC edition.

But, would a free (but mundane) feat really cut it? You're just doing something anyone else with a feat available and the right BaB (or whatever perquisites) could choose. Maybe if it was feat-like, but unique?

But, really, what could be an example of that? Magical or at least, supernatural, powers can be arbitrarily unique. Learned mundane skills/feats/whatever could presumably be learned by anyone. At least, that seems to be the D&D paradigm: mundane can't be special or unique, it must be, well, mundane.

I'm trying to get my head around what you're saying here. Most magic isn't special or unique, either, right? A +1 sword could "presumbably be (found) by anyone." Right?

Then again, you've got some theory about magic vs. supernatural vs....something else that I've never quite understood, so we might just be coming at this from totally different angles.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm trying to get my head around what you're saying here. Most magic isn't special or unique, either, right? A +1 sword could "presumably be (found) by anyone." Right?

Magic seems to get to be arbitrarily unique, but that's not the same thing as /always/ being unique.

But even a 'mere' +1 sword can't readily be made by the smith in the next town. Depending on the ed, it might not even be readily made by the next full Wizard, since he might be loath to part with another point of CON for the Permanency spell. Even when it's not unique, D&D makes magic special - I mean, that +1 sword can 'hit' monsters against which you'd otherwise be helpless, or at least, at a severe disadvantage (except in 4e, of course).

Then again, you've got some theory about magic vs. supernatural vs....something else that I've never quite understood, so we might just be coming at this from totally different angles.

Magic vs mundane, really.
The Essence of D&D is the Primacy of Magic.
In D&D, 'Magic' the way I'm using it, really is anything supernatural, though, "Magic" just sound pithier, and more rooted in fantasy.
Psionics for instance, whether 'magic' or 'not magic' technically, could still fill the bill. So could 'sufficiently advanced' technology, I suppose (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks). But, generally, "Magic" says enough.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The Essence of D&D is the Primacy of Magic.

Ah, I see. Since I don't agree with you about that assumption, I guess we won't agree on some of the conclusions you reach.

 

[Garthanos]

"So I had a comment a while back discussing how the greatest strength of D&D, the very reason why D&D is the "Big Tent" RPG, is because it is a continuing dialogue between the past and the future; that "D&D" (construed as the various editions of D&D, the various OSR clones of D&D, and even PF) share a commonality and a continuity, as well as a scale, that other RPGs lack. ...

So what was interesting to me is that, for example, this is why we get such interesting conversations on enworld. You can have people discussing 5e, but bringing in perspectives from the 70s, and from just having picked up the game. You can have people trying to bend it to a "old school OD&D feel" or to a more "3e" or "4e" feel ..."


You can't say I didn't try. It's 2019; do we have to keep having this discussion?

Oh I admire the effort

Here is the football stand (I am not really that cynical but my humor is now engaged)