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

[Hexmage-EN]

That's certainly a lot of words to say that fantasy game mechanics are interpreted differently by different people.

What criteria do we have to provide to "prove" to you a Fighter, swinging a sword, is not magical?

He's not so much saying that the abilities are magical as much as he's saying that the game mechanics are artificial and do not simulate reality.

Previous editions limited martial characters to what made sense in real life (that is, having super strength is okay, but explaining that someone is too tired to use the same encounter power twice when they can still use a more powerful daily power doesn't cut it). Basically, martial characters were limited to how things work in reality while spellcasters could do whatever they want with magic. Fourth Edition relaxed this: it's not that Fighters are now spellcasters, rather it's that Fighters are now able to perform unlikely moves in battle with the condition that they follow an artificial limit on their power that does not exist in real life and did not exist in D&D before Fourth Edition.

Basically, pre-4E martial characters were largely restricted to what a strong person in real life could do. Spellcasters had no such limitation; game mechanics related to supernatural ability were just explained away as how magic works.

I'd argue that previous editions had similar yet less prominent examples of this same sort of thing. Third Edition had characters whose development of talents, be they painting, singing, or metalworking, were reliant on how many monsters they had killed. A round of combat took place during a span of six seconds, yet characters take turns moving and can't act at the same time. Characters can only attack once during a span of six seconds even with a full-attack option at 1st level. Giants whose ankles lie at a PC's eye level can be killed by that PC's melee weapon (Is the giant hunched over to give the Fighter a better chance at hitting him?).

Every edition has relied on game mechanics and has had some level of abstraction and handwaving. I'm not saying that this excuses Fourth Edition as there are a few powers that I wish the designers had not made (such as "Come and Get It"). I just wanted to point out that previous editions abstracted reality as well and that 4E is doing the same thing in new ways.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Assuming that is true, using the word "magic" is somewhat misleading (though I don't mean to imply that it was done intentionally). Perhaps "non-simulationist" would be a more appropriate term?

("Some abilities are non-simulationist, and non-simulationist game elements are available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e.)

I wouldn't say that ALL 4E abilities are non-simulationist in any significant fashion (How does Eldritch Blast lack for simulationism?), though I'd certainly agree that some or perhaps even many are. Plus, it's pretty openly agreed that 4E is less simulationist than 3.x (for better of worse, which of course is rather subjective). If that is all RC intended , I think much of the debate can be chalked up to a disconnect over terminology.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Is it me or is this whole topic nothing but people using "Come and Get it" on each other?

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Is it me or is this whole topic nothing but people using "Come and Get it" on each other?

If you're right then it should probably be an at-will power.

 

[nightwyrm]

Is it me or is this whole topic nothing but people using "Come and Get it" on each other?

And they come every time. Thus proving that you don't need magic to use CAGI.

 

[nightwyrm]

If you're right then it should probably be an at-will power.

An encounter power refreshes every 5 mins, which sounds about right for this thread.

 

[Mournblade94]

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.

I agree completely. There are about 8 posts you ahve made for which I would have given XP. Alas I am unable to give you any. I have not been able to do so for the last couple of days. Quite a lame system.

 

[RefinedBean]

He's not so much saying that the abilities are magical as much as he's saying that the game mechanics are artificial and do not simulate reality.

Fair enough, I can get behind that.

It's my personal opinion that all game mechanics are artificial; it's how you use them that determines whether or not you can overlook this fact in play.

Some people don't like 4E due to whatever reason, that's fine. But once again, it's not because "Everyone's magic!" or "The rules don't make sense!" These are just red herrings for saying "My opinion should be regarded as fact!"

Also, let's stop using terms like boardgame, tactical miniatures, and what-not like they're inherently bad things. They're not!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Fair enough, I can get behind that.

It's my personal opinion that all game mechanics are artificial; it's how you use them that determines whether or not you can overlook this fact in play.

Some people don't like 4E due to whatever reason, that's fine. But once again, it's not because "Everyone's magic!" or "The rules don't make sense!" These are just red herrings for saying "My opinion should be regarded as fact!"

Also, let's stop using terms like boardgame, tactical miniatures, and what-not like they're inherently bad things. They're not!

THis I agree with, the fact that the same arguments are being rehashed over the last year is evidence of that.

 

[fanboy2000]

There are statements which are wholly subjective, statements that may be objectively true (but cannot known to be objectively true), and a great many statements which are neither wholly subjective nor objectively true.

"All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e. This statement cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true, but neither is it wholly subjective.

Anyone who disagrees with that statement may not be wholly wrong (depending upon his criteria for disagreement), but neither is he wholly right. Thus far, within this discussion at least, no criteria for disagreement have been raised that offer more than wishful thinking and/or intentional disregard of the factors that arise from this implied portion of the 4e setting.

O.k.

Fighters in 4e can preform the amazing stunts that they do because of hard work, training, and innate talent., not magic. As they fight creatures of increasing power they learn, from experience, how perform amazing stunts of Epic proportions. The majority of people in the Known World simply couldn't even try most of the stunts pulled by fighters. This is a major part of the implied setting of 4e.

Some people who can't see this because they haven't read or watched enough fiction where martial characters do impossible things and get hung up on a simple and abstract mechanic because some of those people have no imagination whatsoever.

A person who disagrees with this may not be wholly wrong, but they are not be wholly right either. So far, the arguments in this discussion have all ignored imagination.

Because, you know, it can't be a matter of personal taste.