D&D 4E 4e: Death of the Bildungsroman

[Mallus]

Magic is supposed to be supernatural, not everyday and ordinary.

Then casting magic spells can't be PC a class abilities, can they? Either spells are tools of the trade or not.

 

[hong]

Ppl, grind is and always will be part of the D&D tradition.

Unfortunately.


Hong "prefers Guild Wars to WoW" Ooi

 

[Cadfan]

If you want magic to have a sense of mystery about it, give up. You'll never get what you want. By its nature, magic in D&D has rules that define and circumscribe it, and turn it into a science.

If you want magic to have a sense of mystery, play a more narrativist game where you can just declare how your magical powers work, and the DM decides if it does.

If magic can be boiled down to "attack v reflex, XdY damage, range 30" then its not mysterious anymore. And if you think that making that a spell slot instead of an at will ability makes it more mysterious, turn off your computer, take a nap, and think about it again.

 

[psionotic]

I'm not so sure we can equate the literary genre of bildungsroman with a game system. According to the Abrams' "A Glossary of Literary Terms", the bildungsroman is characterized by "the development of the protagonist's mind and character, in the passage from childhood through varied experiences-- and often through a spiritual crisis-- into maturity, which usually involves recognition of one's identity and role in the world" (200-201). For examples, it lists among others, W Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage. Of particular note is how, 'recognition of one's.. role in the world' in these texts usually is characterized by disillusionment, and a realization that one has to conform to the world, and can't simply remake it as one wishes.

While one could argue that the epic destinies of 4e seems to be a major rebuke to that last point, I would also argue that most D&D campaigns I have played in seem to do the same: Ending with the PCs ascension into legend (or, occasionally, Godhood) or death... Neither of which really qualify.

It really seems to me that a game that broke that rule, that ends with the PCs retiring *without* accomplishing the primary campaign goal, and with them content in the realization that some an accomplishment is possible would be interesting and perhaps really cool. But in any case, it has more to do with the DM and the type of narrative they want to run, more than a game system.

Just two cents from a poor graduate student in english literature...

 

[Kishin]

I'm not saying Vancian system was the best (and honestly, did anyone here really use the word Vancian before the 4e arguments started?),

Actually, people around here, and other forums, and other sources of discussion of the game have used it for years.

So, yes.

 

[Wolfspider]

I'm not so sure we can equate the literary genre of bildungsroman with a game system. According to the Abrams' "A Glossary of Literary Terms", the bildungsroman is characterized by "the development of the protagonist's mind and character, in the passage from childhood through varied experiences-- and often through a spiritual crisis-- into maturity, which usually involves recognition of one's identity and role in the world" (200-201). For examples, it lists among others, W Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage. Of particular note is how, 'recognition of one's.. role in the world' in these texts usually is characterized by disillusionment, and a realization that one has to conform to the world, and can't simply remake it as one wishes.

While one could argue that the epic destinies of 4e seems to be a major rebuke to that last point, I would also argue that most D&D campaigns I have played in seem to do the same: Ending with the PCs ascension into legend (or, occasionally, Godhood) or death... Neither of which really qualify.

It really seems to me that a game that broke that rule, that ends with the PCs retiring *without* accomplishing the primary campaign goal, and with them content in the realization that some an accomplishment is possible would be interesting and perhaps really cool. But in any case, it has more to do with the DM and the type of narrative they want to run, more than a game system.

Just two cents from a poor graduate student in english literature...

Interesting.

You should have italicized A Glossary of Literary Terms, though.

 

[Siran Dunmorgan]

Odd thing is, even before this thread came up, I'd already started an "apprentice-level" adventure with my players to introduce them to the Fourth Edition mechanics: they were playing first-level characters built from the guidelines in Verys Arkon's rules compilation, but with the power level "stepped down" to apprentice level.

Stepping the power level down was fairly simple: all of the powers were reduced once step in frequency, except the wizard's cantrips, i.e. no daily powers, all of the encounter powers become daily powers, all of the at-will powers become encounter powers, and the characters are able to take one minor action, and one standard or one move action in the round: extra actions can be invoked with action points, as normal.

This effectively produces a situation where the characters seem hesitant and uncertain in the application of their powers and their approach to combat.

—Siran Dunmorgan

 

[smathis]

I guess I just feel magic should be inherently dangerous or rare. Really, it wasn't until vaugely modern fantasy that the idea of being able to just belt out magic even entered stories or myth; magic was, by and large, either deus ex machina, or something incredibly rare, dangerous, and valuable.

Ah...

Then stick around for the "Martial Power" book. That will widen the spectrum for Martial characters and then you can run an all-Martial campaign with only Rituals and really Black, Dark, Evil Magic available in the setting.

Things like at-will Eldritch Blasts would only be available to NPCs and Monsters -- a dark gift from their sorcerous pacts.

That sounds like more your speed to me.

But I agree with the other posters, magic may have felt rare at first level but it got real cheap, real quick. I once playtested a possible convention module and completely exploited it with a copious use of Spider Climb. I was only 3rd level at the time, IIRC.

Magic in that game felt neither rare nor special. Just an exploit.

In previous editions, things like Cantrips and such made magic pretty ubiquitous as well -- to the point that most wondered why the average farmer wouldn't have a couple on hand.

I guess my 1 Magic Missile at first level did feel valuable (equivalent to my per-day Spell in 4e). But most Wizard abilities pretty well broke down into the at-will, per-encounter, per-day breakdown -- depending on how many slots you had invested in them.

I think the biggest difference is that we're less likely to see the Wizard that creeps along for 2-3 levels only to come out a veritable Fireball cannon and completely negate anything that might have been cool about the Martial types a few levels earlier.

I mean, really, once I got enough mojo I could take a Sorcerer in the mid-single digits and make most encounters a done deal in 3e. I was dishing out Fireballs about like most PCs rolled to hit.

And once a Cleric got up there, I could buff up and regularly dole out 30-40 hp of damage -- easily putting the Fighter in the backseat as far as his schtick went. Plus, I could heal myself and I even had Cleave to boot!

I suppose that had it's own element of fun for some. For me, it was just survival in a group that precipitated my departure from 3e.

I can't say I'm sorry to see it go.

 

[Afrodyte]

Sorry, but I've had enough of useless hobbits, farm boys and plucky orphans. I'm so very, very tired of them, and they're very, very played out, not to mention the lack of believability in such a story.

I'm glad I'm not alone.

 

[Hussar]

Early magic is limited though.

That's what I'm getting at - a mage can literally just stand there and pump out magic missiles for days on end. By making it so easy and prolific, it becomes cheapened.

I'm not saying Vancian system was the best (and honestly, did anyone here really use the word Vancian before the 4e arguments started?), but magic NEEDS to have limits. Otherwise, it's not magic.

Magic is supposed to be supernatural, not everyday and ordinary.

Cheapened for you maybe. But, something to remember, is that the vast majority of fiction out there does not have a protagonist wizard. Magic has long been used in fantasy as a Plot point to allow the protagonist to overcome some obstacle without actually having to do any work. Thus the protagonist has a helmet that makes him invisible to get around enemies.

But, those stories always end. They don't tell you what happens when the protagonist figures out that there are a hundred and one uses for this helmet that makes him invisible. Because that would spoil the story.

Magic in the game though has to be a tool. It's not a plot device. It's no different than a weapon in the hands of a fighter type. It's going to be used and used as often as possible.

Whether it can be used once a day or once a minute, it really doesn't matter.