What is the essence of D&D

[Nagol]

We played that way on one of our 4e campaigns. It’s fun.

And everyone, even the mundanes, has plenty to contribute to those challenges.

Capers are really fun in 4e.

I also played bloodthirsty games in older editions.

Turns out every edition supports both.

So does The Fantasy Trip, but it's another game I don't bother running.

 

[Nagol]

Excuse me? NWP = 2e... right?
Oh, dungeoneer's survival guide? Really kinda terrible, IMHO. D&D didn't even start to get skills right until 3.0.
I'd say 'not worth it,' except proficiencies were pretty nearly worthless, anyway - they were backup for when the DM got hinky and placed a powerful magical weapon that wasn't a longsword.
Nod, all spells were taken down a number of pegs, in general - and rituals and items were 'nerfed,' out-of-combat, relative to how overwhelming spells used to be, because there was a /greater/ focus on non-combat, via skill challenges, even being weighted the same as encounters. Non-combat got more structure, more participation from all players, more emphasis, than any other edition. Leaving utility spells as problem-solved grenades would have reduced that focus.
It's better than not doin' it at all. Even if there's not much hope it'll continue to improve.

1e.

Wilderness Survival Guide and Dungeon Survival Guide

 

[Garthanos]

We played that way on one of our 4e campaigns. It’s fun.

And everyone, even the mundanes, has plenty to contribute to those challenges.

Capers are really fun in 4e.

I also played bloodthirsty games in older editions.

Turns out every edition supports both.

And everyone including non caster heroes I think referring to martial types as mundane.... is a problem it reinforces the purported awesome of other worldly types at their expense LOL

 

[Arnwolf666]

i really like 2E proficiency better than 5E skills. But the worse thing that happens with skills or proficiencies is when they get used for routine tasks instead of difficult things. Climb a tree, big deal.

 

[Nagol]

Excuse me? NWP = 2e... right?
Oh, dungeoneer's survival guide? Really kinda terrible, IMHO. D&D didn't even start to get skills right until 3.0.
I'd say 'not worth it,' except proficiencies were pretty nearly worthless, anyway - they were backup for when the DM got hinky and placed a powerful magical weapon that wasn't a longsword.
Nod, all spells were taken down a number of pegs, in general - and rituals and items were 'nerfed,' out-of-combat, relative to how overwhelming spells used to be, because there was a /greater/ focus on non-combat, via skill challenges, even being weighted the same as encounters. Non-combat got more structure, more participation from all players, more emphasis, than any other edition. Leaving utility spells as problem-solved grenades would have reduced that focus.
It's better than not doin' it at all. Even if there's not much hope it'll continue to improve.

Nod. Participation in all SC is a nice inclusive terrible idea. 4e also had TERRIBLE math in the skill challenges when I looked at it. It took, what, 4 iterations to become passable? I did the math originally, and couldn't stop giggling over how unlikely a group was to succeed and then there were the examples! Auto-fail! on top of terrible chances, built-in auto fail!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Really? As impactful as dimension door and teleport? As impactful as 1e's wall of stone? As impactful as Clairvoyance and Magic Mirror?

Utilities were toned down specifically to allow more action adventure style stuff to go on.

AH! Your wording made me think that you were saying that 4e's utility abilities lost power as one leveled up. I won't bother to look up those spells in 1e. As I've said before, I don't really care about the particulars of past editions. I don't play a new DnD with a running comparison commentary of past editions, so when we have moved to a new edition, I tend to just let my mind erase past edition details as useless data clutter.

That all said, you can teleport across the world in 4e. It's a ritual. I don't recall what level it becomes available, but it's in there somewhere. Oh, you can also use the Arcana skill to manipulate a teleportation portal or circle to send you to a different location than the one intended, or even sabotage it for the next person who uses it!

I think Clairvoyance in some form exists in 4e, but I never played a divination focused caster in any edition.

But, back to the actual topic, those spells changed in every edition. 4e isn't the standout because it changed how powerful some spells are.

So does The Fantasy Trip, but it's another game I don't bother running.

No clue what that is. Also not sure what this comment has to do with the text it replies to?
You seemed to be suggesting that 4e didn't support play that avoids combat and seeks to "get the treasure and leave the danger". I explained how it does support that style of play, and reiterated the point that all editions of dnd can be played anywhere on the spectrum from no combat ever to nothing but combat.

 

[Garthanos]

i really like 2E proficiency better than 5E skills. But the worse thing that happens with skills or proficiencies is when they get used for routine tasks instead of difficult things. Climb a tree, big deal.

I damn near drowned because my DM had zero guidelines for a routine tasks and didn't know how to swim... I will take skills and movement guidelines any day of the week

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nod. Participation in all SC is a nice inclusive terrible idea. 4e also had TERRIBLE math in the skill challenges when I looked at it. It took, what, 4 iterations to become passable?

It wasn't a terrible idea, just a terrible initial implementation, a prime example of a genuinely-broken rule. SCs got /easier/ the higher the complexity and the greater the supposed challenge! OOPS!
It over-compensated with the first update, and was useable after that. The RC version was comparatively polished, even. It aimed higher and improved more in two years than D&D had in the previous 30. (I mean, you're willing to credit the desultory NWP system to 1e, when that was /9 years/ into it's run, and fairly obscure, but want to judge 4e SCs by their state at release, not even a few months in? If you did that to 1e, you'd judge it based on the MM, alone.)
But it was never developed to anywhere near potential.

Oh, wait, or do you mean getting the whole party engaged in a challenge instead of one specialist character dominating play outside of combat was a terrible idea?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And I just want to reiterate again because it came up again in a post I largely ignored a couple pages back (a couple hours ago).

I do not subscribe to and have not ever argued in favor of the "primacy of magic" hypothesis. My closest guess as to the OP, insofar as it seems to work for a majority of players, is a combination of;

-familiar presentation that feels like something you can read for pleasure

-familiar tropes and player and DM options

-the ability to play anything from big damn heroes to scrungey hobos taking jobs to get by in a world that doesn't give a damn and never will (at least at lowish levels)

-a collection of terms and names that have solidified as necessary over the course of several editions, with some appearing later than others in the history of the game

-(the most variable factor IME) magic and mundane feeling very different in both presentation and actual play results.

-big shrug it's all art not science we will never know for sure.

That's about it.

 

[Garthanos]

Oh, wait, or do you mean getting the whole party engaged in a challenge instead of one specialist character dominating play outside of combat was a terrible idea?

Like the 5e I instant "I escape all of us" and dont have to worry about the slot lost because it doesnt take one till after I decide its what I really need.