What is the essence of D&D

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

It's not an assumption. It's a possible answer to the question posed by the thread. One that lines up with the rejection of 4e as NOT-D&D - and the acceptance of PF, OSR & the like as D&D.

I mean, the Primacy of Magic /is/ a common thread throughout non-4e D&D, retroclones, and most D&D-imitators that might pretend to the 'being essentially D&D.'

It's also to be found in Ars Magica, but I'm not sure something has to be exclusive to D&D to be it's Essence? Just that lacking it disqualifies you from being D&D, out of hand.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's not an assumption. It's a possible answer to the question posed by the thread. One that lines up with the rejection of 4e as NOT-D&D - and the acceptance of PF, OSR & the like as D&D.

I mean, the Primacy of Magic /is/ a common thread throughout non-4e D&D, retroclones, and most D&D-imitators that might pretend to the 'being essentially D&D.'

It's also to be found in Ars Magica, but I'm not sure something has to be exclusive to D&D to be it's Essence? Just that lacking it disqualifies you from being D&D, out of hand.

Ok. I don't think it's a good or correct answer to the question of the thread, though.

At least, when I think about what I love about D&D (specifically, as opposed to other RPGs) it's not "because magic is primary!". In fact, the more overt and omnipresent it is in a setting, the less it feels like the D&D I loved playing the 80's. Forgotten Realms? Too..."magical". Eberron? WAY too magical.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ok. I don't think it's a good or correct answer to the question of the thread, though.

It wouldn't be the internet if everyone just agreed.

At least, when I think about what I love about D&D (specifically, as opposed to other RPGs) it's not "because magic is primary!". In fact, the more overt and omnipresent it is in a setting, the less it feels like the D&D I loved playing the 80's. Forgotten Realms? Too..."magical". Eberron? WAY too magical.

The thing about magic becoming pervasive and common is it can stop feeling magical.... Make/buy threatens to do that, spells being even somewhat balanced with mundane maneuvers really does it - magic items becoming comparatively minor build resources, nail in the coffin, really.

Now, I don't think FR or Eberron (in 3e or 5e) cross that line to the point of being not-D&D - there's still actual, strictly-inferior, mundanity to be had there, for contrast - but I can certainly empathize (moreso with FR. Eberron feels almost cyber-punk, to me, with magic taking the place of tech, which is, well, not the steampunk or film noir it was going for, but still kinda cool... and still pretty D&D, AFAICT).

 

[TheCosmicKid]

@Tony Vargas When your argument amounts to "The essence of D&D is that people secretly want a broken game, even though people expressly deny that they want a broken game, and this fact lets me pin the blame on the market failure of my preferred edition on this character flaw of others", I can't help but detect an ulterior motive that casts a shadow of doubt on your conclusions.

 

[Zardnaar]

@Tony Vargas When your argument amounts to "The essence of D&D is that people secretly want a broken game, even though people expressly deny that they want a broken game, and this fact lets me pin the blame on the market failure of my preferred edition on this character flaw of others", I can't help but detect an ulterior motive that casts a shadow of doubt on your conclusions.

Hey you have to push that narrative.

Mines a lot simpler. The casuals don't really care one way or another, most people don't play level 10 plus so God wizards don't functionally exist.

Give then something simple that's good enough and they will come. B/X, 5E etc. Lose the casuals though and you're screwed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When your argument amounts to "The essence of D&D is that people secretly want a broken game,

It's never that simple, though, it has to be broken in /just the right way/… (for instance, when we detected a 0.5-average-damage difference between the 3.x Great Axe & Greatsword, that was a broken that drew complaints)

...and the case can be made* that the Primacy of Magic needn't be radically imbalanced (just give everyone access to magic in some form**), or at least needn't be unfair (just give every player the option to access magic - no one forces you to play the Tier 5 mundane class)...

...and it's no secret.







*of course the contrary case can also be made: that fair & balanced-with-the-mundane just ain't magical.
**1e AD&D, for instance, which, for me, is the defining edition, went to some lengths to salt treasure tables such that fighter-useable magic items would pop up quite a bit, in the name of balance.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Hey you have to push that narrative.

Mines a lot simpler. The casuals don't really care one way or another, most people don't play level 10 plus so God wizards don't functionally exist.

Give then something simple that's good enough and they will come. B/X, 5E etc. Lose the casuals though and you're screwed.

God that's condescending/elitist/dismissive.

 

[Garthanos]

Mines a lot simpler. The casuals don't really care one way or another, most people don't play level 10 plus so God wizards don't functionally exist.

Sure but I have also been noticing if your DM does insane things like giving every party member limited use magic item creation for down time activity by way of WoW crafting for instance and those items are all over the field over powered, everybody is ridiculous and you cannot even notice the limits that martial character might have had in the default rules. DMs willing to go zongo whether its by magic items or whatever will have players not even blinking at the disparity that makes me cringe or Tony pull out his hair.

 

[Garthanos]

The essence of D&D is that people secretly want a broken game, even though people expressly deny that they want a broken game

"Secret" - since when? Do we need to hunt for the numerous quotes either explicitly or amounting to "Of course magic should be more powerful it's magic after all" or the various incarnations of "you cannot do that with skill it would step on the toes of the spell caster." Note they arent exactly saying they want the game broken we are the ones saying what they want really means something we consider a broken game which is two different things. Note even if my fighter has a strong guarantee of having some ancient relic class artifact weapon by taking a uniquely fighter background "Fated Wielder" I can be very powerful the relic might make me skilled in a super wide variety of things and provide other spell like non-combat elements too. Magic remains supreme but I get to use it with my non-caster archetype.