D&D 4E 4e Magic: The De-Science-ing?

[Simplicity]

It seems as though 3.5e magic is practically a science. Eight schools of magic, divided into scientific names. Get your elementals and your gears, we're taking a ride on the lightning railroad. At your local Wizmart, +1 will cost you 1500 gp, and your bag of holding comes in three sizes (wee, not-so-wee, and better than a donkey).

4e, on the other hand seems to be introducing favormatic names for magical traditions. Serpent's Eye, Emerald Frost. There seems to be an elemental component and co-mingled school component (orb/enchantment-abjuration/air), (staff/fire & light), (wand/cold-acid).
Very odd... non-normative. Does not compute.

And maybe that's a good thing? To make magic a mystery again? Sure, everyone is going to play by the same rules. But it seems that every wizard you meet these days is in fact a mad scientist by another name. I think I could live with a little less of a magic system, and more of a "traditions" type approach...

 

[Doug McCrae]

4e is mostly unknown right now. This has the effect of making the magic system seem more 'magical', in the sense of mysterious. Once the game's published it won't be.

 

[Simplicity]

Not really what I meant. Of course, we'll understand the Hidden Flame talent tree. We'll know the spells in the spellbook. From a crunch point of view, the spells will be just as known. From a fluff point of view, it seems like we're going to have something more like monastic orders of magic than a magic system. I'm just saying that I think that mystification may be a goal (and a good one at that).

 

[frankthedm]

4e is mostly unknown right now. This has the effect of making the magic system seem more 'magical', in the sense of mysterious. Once the game's published it won't be.

Actualy, since mearls embraces the concept of the players not operating by the same rules as their foes, 4E will have more potential for mystery in it's magic.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Actualy, since mearls embraces the concept of the players not operating by the same rules as their foes, 4E will have more potential for mystery in it's magic.

Thank the gods.

Magic has been distinctly unmagical for some time.

What I like about what I read was that these magical icons can be switched around for different campaign worlds without difficulty. Staff, wand, book, and orb can just as easily be Staff, athame (dagger), pentacle, and cup or any four things that most represent magic in a given setting. Good stuff.



Sundragon

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

From a fluff point of view, it seems like we're going to have something more like monastic orders of magic than a magic system. I'm just saying that I think that mystification may be a goal (and a good one at that).

I don't see why an injection of fluffy mystic labels to organizations can't go along with a system. The 3.x and older "system" was no more scientific than the Medieval era alchemists working off of Aristotlean scientific concepts.

It feels very much like a layering of Ars Magica into D&D.

 

[howandwhy99]

Mystification's a good term. I agree. Whatever is magic (or whatever you want to be mysterious) can be added to the game without the players' and their characters' knowledge. BUT, I seriously believe they should be able to learn these magics and mysteries through play as well. That's both players and characters. Let the Aha moment hit both at the same time. I find this the most enjoyable method (not to mention it's easier to stay in character that way too).

Evocative names can help a little, but when someone knows every in and out beforehand I don't think they add much to the game.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I don't see why an injection of fluffy mystic labels to organizations can't go along with a system. The 3.x and older "system" was no more scientific than the Medieval era alchemists working off of Aristotlean scientific concepts.

It feels very much like a layering of Ars Magica into D&D.

That and some elements that are more distinct, more copyrightable, dare I say it, more Dragonball Z?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Magic should be mystical; rules should not be.

I personally found having enemies who operated by different rules to be very trying in 1E (though perhaps that was just some of the DMs I was saddled with) and I preferred a well-structured system that applied to PCs and bad guys equally. Which isn't to say that it can't be mysterious, but the mystery needs to come from the fluff, not the crunch.

 

[Andor]

Not to threadjack, but while I'm perfectly happy to see Outsiders, or Dragons, or Beholders use weird and alien magics that my PC will never understand, I HATED it when some NPC wizard could do something my PC could not simply because he was an NPC. The old school RPGs were rife with this kind of crap (usually Alchemists, Demonologists and Artificers) because they wanted to keep crafting or whatever out of the hands of the PCs and couldn't come up with a better excuse. It always drove me absolutely mad.

Now back on topic: I agree (tentatively) with the original poster. Magic should be weird, and mysterious and arbitrary. Weird schools and strange corelations between powers, as well as funky names all seem more mystical to me.