What is the essence of D&D

[TheCosmicKid]

I already answered your extremely hypothetical, loaded questions as best I could without your actually committing to any sort is substantive position.

Could you point me to where specifically you did this? In post #251, you quote and respond to the sentences before the questions, and then you quote and respond to a sentence after them. In post #348, you say nothing about them. In post #366, you say nothing about them. And in this most recent post, you say nothing about them except that you have already responded to them, which is a claim that, as far as I can discern, is simply untrue.

As to the point I made about the Essence of D&D likely being the Primacy of Magic, I've supported extensively with reference to the actual content if the various incarnations of the game itself.

I do rest the supposition, in part on the acknowledgement of 4e as being Not-D&D, and of clones like PF1 as being D&D.

The problem is that the references you have made, however extensive, do not support the conclusions you want to draw. That's the substance of my position that you have, despite being told repeatedly, been unable to grasp. In formal terms: I am arguing the negative. When I ask "But then what? What have you actually 'refuted'?", I'm not just being contrary. I'm trying to point out to you that you need to do more logical work to connect the dots from "Reason R is nonsense because of X, Y, and Z" to Primacy of Magic being the Essence of D&D. After all, even false beliefs say a lot about what people perceive to be the essence of D&D. If people are saying that 4E is not D&D because, say, they think it doesn't use ability scores, then they're absolutely wrong for thinking that, but it's still strong evidence that ability scores are a part of the Essence of D&D in their eyes -- evidence which weighs against the Primacy of Magic hypothesis. So if you don't connect the dots here, you haven't proven your case.

Now, so much for the substance. The less said about the second half of your post, the better. Neither I nor anybody else here requires your invitation to speak our mind.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Could you point me to where specifically you did this? In post #251, you quote and respond to the sentences before the questions, and then you quote and respond to a sentence after them

I think that covered it, yes.

Obviously, I'm not going to respond, directly, to the loaded phrasing, even quoting it is pointless. An insinuation with a "?" at the end is not a question, it's a personal attack.

The problem is that the references you have made, however extensive, do not support the conclusions you want to draw.

I think I've more than adequately illustrated that the system qualities I summed up as "The Primacy of Magic" were notable in all editions but the one perceived - by both detractors and even defenders - as somehow not really D&D.

Of course, that just showed a correlation supporting the the idea that Primacy of Magic is the "Essence of D&D."

I think it's a strong contender, but, it's just a correlation.

Now if you want to dispute the validity of that Primacy, you can try.

If you want to offer additional candidates, I think it'd be interesting.

But if you want to re-fight the edition war with appeals to popularity, commercial success, anecdotes, misperceptions, factual errors, and subjective opinions, well, I'd had more than enough of that by 2014.

. After all, even false beliefs say a lot about what people perceive to be the essence of D&D.

I see even less value in hypothetical delusions than in specific subjective rants.

That's why I'm not even trying to "prove" some sort of direct, sole, causation - it's too fraught a subject. I'll stick to facts, about the game, itself. They're easily verified.

So, I suppose I'm relatively "vulnerable" to the assertion that 4e Really Was D&D, since it's contrary status is by general acclaim, and gets into all that fraught edition war subjectivity and emotion.

 

[Zardnaar]

Problem is you are trying to shut down all discussion, it's a tactic that used to work on the old WotC boards due to over zealous mods creating a self reinforcing bubble.

Vancian I would rate fairly high up there in terms of essence if D&D.

Same with level 1-9 spell slots (1-7 for priests pre 3E).

There's a reason they brought them back for 5E removing them is a bad idea. If AEDU was the essence of D&D they would be using that.

Doesn't mean AEDU type stuff can't exist, 5E uses variations on it on some classes but you can't dump vancian spell slots for it.

How one regains spell slots etc and how powerful the spells need to be is another discussion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Vancian magic. Not neceesarily fantasy roleplaying. But for me the essence of D&D is the Vancian magic system.

Vancian I would rate fairly high up there in terms of essence if D&D.

I agree, if you don't mean it in the conceptual sense seen in Vance's Dying Earth - "memorization" which has been gone for sometime - but expand it to include the spontaneous casting of 3.x & 5e.
It's a significant part of what gives D&D magic it's Primacy.

Same with level 1-9 spell slots (1-7 for priests pre 3E).

And 1-6 for Bards, at times, and other ranges for half-casters?
Not so much, specifically 1-9, perhaps spell levels not corresponding to the level they're gained? But that seems almost cosmetic, like inverted AC.

There's a reason they brought them back for 5E removing them is a bad idea.

4e actually had Vancian, in the sense of spell preparation like in 3.5, that is.

Doesn't mean AEDU type stuff can't exist, 5E uses variations on it on some classes

Yep. 5e Primary casters have at-wills (and kept rituals), short rest recharges apply to several classes, some even have all 3 (and there have always been utility spells) AEDU wasn't NOT D&D, in itself - applying the same structure, qty & power of resources to martial as to magical classes was the difference.

How one regains spell slots etc and how powerful the spells need to be is another discussion.

There seems to have been some variation in the former: whether and how long to sleep or merely rest, regaining at a specific time of day, prep or memorize, time per spell level or flat.

But that spell list be very versatile, and include some particularly powerful spells seems important.

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree, if you don't mean it in the conceptual sense seen in Vance's Dying Earth - "memorization" which has been gone for sometime - but expand it to include the spontaneous casting of 3.x & 5e.
It's a significant part of what gives D&D magic it's Primacy.
And 1-6 for Bards, at times, and other ranges for half-casters?
Not so much, specifically 1-9, perhaps spell levels not corresponding to the level they're gained? But that seems almost cosmetic, like inverted AC.
4e actually had Vancian, in the sense of spell preparation like in 3.5, that is.
Yep. AEDU wasn't NOT D&D, in otself - applying the same structure, qty & power of resources to martial as to magical classes was.

There seems to have been some variation in the former: whether and how long to sleep or merely rest, regaining at a specific time of day, prep or memorize, time per spell level or flat.

But that spell list be very versatile, and include some particularly powerful spells seems important.

I don't think level 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, or 1-6 on the classes is that important more spell slots.

Most of the flak fired at 4E boils down to class structure/powers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Most of the flak fired at 4E boils down to class structure/powers.

Which is how 4e balanced martial & magical - and thus undermined the Primacy of Magic, yes.

Now, if 5e martial classes got as many and powerful maneuvers as casters did spells, and was accepted as really D&D, then we could surely say it was just the structure, not how it was used.

 

[Garthanos]

Vancian I would rate fairly high up there in terms of essence if D&D.

Level gated daily resource single use casting is not 5e or 4e... 4e made some magics single use 5e made none so unless you lack additional slots of that level or higher. ... that makes in that sense 4e wizards have closer to the original vancian its dailies were select and use then next day select and use only once for one slot. Both editions have at-will spells. Ie neither is identical both have at will casting for low level usually - which is so neither maintain that.

specific level numbering on spells being "essential" to D&D? wow incredibly cosmetic lets but looking at more functional things

A basic difference 4e split out utility from otherwise you werent deciding whether to feather fall vs sleep spell in 4e and that is a real difference but 5e isnt always making you choose either with at-wills. 4e and 5e both make you chose the specific attack spell kind but 5e lets you spam it if you have the slots 4e is closer to the origin but you can actually reuse encounter spells but limited to distinct encounters 5e doesn't restrict that... want to cast that feather fall 5 times today have at it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Level gated daily resource single use casting is not 5e or 4e... 4e made some magics single use 5e made none so unless you lack additional slots of that level or higher. ... that makes in that sense 4e wizards have closer to the original vancian its dailies were select and use then next day select and use only once for one slot. Both editions have at-will spells. Ie neither is identical both have at will casting for low level which is so neither maintain that.

specific level numbering on spells being "essential" to D&D? wow incredibly cosmetic lets but looking at more functional things

A basic difference 4e split out utility from otherwise you werent deciding whether to feather fall vs sleep spell in 4e and that is a real difference but 5e isnt always making you choose either with at-wills. 4e and 5e both make you chose the specific attack spell kind but 5e lets you spam it if you have the slots 4e is closer to the origin but you can actually reuse encounter spells but limited to distinct encounters 5e doesnt restrict that... want to cast that feather falll 5 times today have at it.

I specifically said spell slots, level 1 to 9 generally for wizards varies for the other classes by editions.

A spellpattern, not AEDU. What they bolt onto that isn't to important IMHO or if they can regain a few spots on short rests etc.

 

[Garthanos]

I specifically said spell slots

4e has spell slots and picking what you put in them.... this is basic not bolt on ...levels 1 to 9 instead of 0 to 18 is what I meant is cosmetic.

 

[Zardnaar]

4e has spell slots and picking what you put in them.... this is basic not bolt on ...levels 1 to 9 instead of 0 to 18 is what I meant is cosmetic.

Key spells need to be in certain levels. Fireball level 3, along with fly and lightning bolt, wish level 9 magic missile level 1 etc.