How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition

[Sadrik]

In the future though I'm thinking about running a campaign where there are no predefined powers, just page 42. I'l probably keep the slots, but just for purposes of power level of the attack in question.

I look forward to hearing about this game!

 

[Scribble]

I don't know about you, but for me it's the power system. I don't think 4e is "too magic" but I do feel like the power system lends itself to that. I also think the power system is almost too unwieldy.

I think the power system has something to do with it, but not in implementaion... More in presentation.

In the past we had classes that had various special abilities.

Like Barbarians got rage x times per day, and fast walk, and what not.

To me the power system is simply taking that concept, and letting he player choose what exactly the special abilities are. They aren't set in stone before you design your character.

It's just because they're labled "powers" and presented in easy to use spell like boxes that makes them seem like something new in my opinion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Most of us will convert to RCFG by 2011." Maybe, or to other games reflecting the sensibilities we associate with D&D. We can still be in keeping with 35 years of tradition, just not with Wizbro's new products. It's like yuppies taking over a neighborhood and changing its character; the former residents need somewhere to live. Where's the soul food?

RCFG. Soul food that works with WotC-D&D and TSR-D&D.

Why was it not a problem when barbarians did it?

It was. Weren't you a participant in those discussions, too? I thought you were.

Like a Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive check?

Weren't these among the most reviled aspects of 3.x's worldview? I.e., things people didn't like because of what they implied about the world, as opposed to things like grapple that were overly complicated?

I'm torn, because I completely empathize with the "4e is too magic" crowd. I get it. I feel it too.

But some of these supporting arguments are weak-sauce.

Hrrm.

Especially if one forgets that they were the source of the same sorts of problems when introduced.

The barbarian rage came with an explanation why it was usable a limited number of times per day and included a condition to drive that home. Simply put, it was tiring. Makes perfect sense why a night's sleep would recharge the power.

RCFG mechanizes the "tiring" aspect and allows the player to determine how far to push it.

The martial dailies? Not quite so clear. Nor does it really help to put in terms of taking narrative control, if you ask me, particularly when the effects of dailies are so varied, yet you have to have a fixed daily in each slot.

Indeed. Extremely weak sauce.

Let me make sure I under stand this. You are saying that the implied reality of 4e D&D is that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all." You are also saying that people who disagree with you, like me, do so because previous editions did not have that implied setting. It is an interesting statement.

Glad you find it interesting, but I wouldn't phrase it like you did. I'd say, instead:

The implied reality of 4e D&D is that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all."

Because previous editions did not have that implied setting, it is difficult for some people to accept that it is the implied setting of 4e.

Some folks might have additional and/or different reasons for not seeing the change in implied setting.​

RC

 

[LostSoul]

Like a Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive check?

These ones. Can you roll Diplomacy, get a success, and dictate the NPC's actions as if he was your PC?

edit: That's what Come and Get It does, though instead of a roll it substitutes a resource expenditure to resolve whether or not you can control the NPC, and that control is pretty tightly controlled.

 

[Scribble]

Raven- Where are you getting this "Implied reality" idea from?

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's just because they're labled "powers" and presented in easy to use spell like boxes that makes them seem like something new in my opinion.

Not so much for me. The "power" presentation does turn the bulk of the PHB into a mind-numbing wall of text but thats not the most off-putting thing about powers.

The actual content of the powers and tone of the rules that support them convey the message that what happens on the battlemat is more important that what happens in the game world. Its kind of a tactical boardgame first/ rpg second vibe that I don't like.

The "make up whatever explanation you like" theme seems to provide a great freedom to the DM but at the same time, it's just putting a positive spin on the boardgame first concept.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Weren't these among the most reviled aspects of 3.x's worldview? I.e., things people didn't like because of what they implied about the world, as opposed to things like grapple that were overly complicated?

Not that I ever saw. Maybe we patrolled different discussions.

The most common Diplomacy complaint I can recall was that the DC was static (as opposed to an opposed check).

I never heard anyone complain about Bluff or Sense Motive. They're pretty standard fare in multiple RPG systems.

But... The most reviled? AFAIAC that's hyperbole, and you might want to walk that back a little bit.

 

[Scribble]

The "make up whatever explanation you like" theme seems to provide a great freedom to the DM but at the same time, it's just putting a positive spin on the boardgame first concept.

If that's how you feel, that's how you feel, but this is how I've approached D&D and all RPGs since I started playing.

If I liked a concept/power/rule/idea/whatever it's because it inspired soemthing in my imagination, and I couldn't care less how the designer "shows his work" so to speak. I don't need the designer to tell me why soemthing happens. Just give me the results.

Calling it the "boardgame first" concept feels to me like a quick snipe to push your point of view rather then an actual valid argument. You might as well be saying "Oh yeah??? Well you smell like cheese!"

 

[fanboy2000]

I think the power system has something to do with it, but not in implementaion... More in presentation.

In the past we had classes that had various special abilities.

Like Barbarians got rage x times per day, and fast walk, and what not.

To me the power system is simply taking that concept, and letting he player choose what exactly the special abilities are. They aren't set in stone before you design your character.

It's just because they're labled "powers" and presented in easy to use spell like boxes that makes them seem like something new in my opinion.

The presentation defiantly threw me when I first cracked open the 4e PHB. Fortunately, I had played KotS previously and knew something about how the powers actually played out in game. Still, it was something I hadn't seen in a previous RPG (though my experience with other RPGs is limited) and it put me off at first.

 

[fanboy2000]

The implied reality of 4e D&D is that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all."

Because previous editions did not have that implied setting, it is difficult for some people to accept that it is the implied setting of 4e.

Some folks might have additional and/or different reasons for not seeing the change in implied setting.​

So you would say "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is objectively true and anyone who disagrees with that statement is wrong?