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

[RefinedBean]

Yeah, I don't even know why I bought a PHB... I didn't need those powers spelled out for me and my group... I shoulda created my own based on what powers my group would find most fun... in fact I should just create my own rules too, because I could just create....

Really this argument is pointless since you don't need anything to make up stuff... however I'm also not going to pay money to create everything myself.

Also... why then did the designers try to create a distinction integrated into the basic design of the game... you know power sources. The Arcana skill, etc.

C'mon Imaro. Reductio ad absurdum arguments almost never work when fantasy games are being discussed.

I need mechanics to work with. Powers. Dice rolls. A system to add random chance to a game that (I believe Mustrum pointed this out way earlier upthread) would otherwise devolve into people shouting "Uh uh!" and "Uh huh!" at each other.

There's a distinction between Arcane and Martial because their given different names, different features to their classes, etc. But the benefit of having a good group and a good imagination, as most gamers have, is that all this fluff and mechanics is just a loose guideline that people use as a springboard to maximize their fun.

What was the difference between a Barbarian's rage and a buff spell in earlier editions? It was all just math. If I created a spell that mimicked a Barbarian's rage, would it still be magic? Yes, because I say it is. "Here's a spell I created." Done.

This isn't new to 4E, this is something that you can do with pretty much every RPG in existence. People have been doing it forever. Why complain about it now?

 

[Fanaelialae]

I mean, specifically, that martial exploits are not firmly divided from magical exploits; that saying they are "not supernatural per se" indicates that they are not supernatural in one sense but that they are in another sense. Moreover, the implementation of the design shows this to be the case.

Thanks for the clarification!

Taken in this sense, you are quite correct! In fact, the martial power source (PHB pg 54) states, "Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals".

Nonetheless, I would suggest using some term other than magic when referring to 4E martial powers. Using the term magic as you have been is somewhat misleading, as many people (including myself) tend to reserve it for magic in the traditional sense (as opposed to superhuman exploits). Perhaps "superhuman" or "supernatural" would suit your purposes just as well?

Mind you, I'm not trying to tell you what to do. Just offering some advice based on the assumption that you might want to avoid future misunderstandings...

 

[Imaro]

C'mon Imaro. Reductio ad absurdum arguments almost never work when fantasy games are being discussed.

Exactly...

I need mechanics to work with. Powers. Dice rolls. A system to add random chance to a game that (I believe Mustrum pointed this out way earlier upthread) would otherwise devolve into people shouting "Uh uh!" and "Uh huh!" at each other.

No, you don't. There are diceless games like Everway, Nobilis and Amber where chance, in the traditional sense, isn't a part of gameplay...though I do agree at the least a minimum of mechanics is necessary.

There's a distinction between Arcane and Martial because their given different names, different features to their classes, etc. But the benefit of having a good group and a good imagination, as most gamers have, is that all this fluff and mechanics is just a loose guideline that people use as a springboard to maximize their fun.

So different names... different features, etc. The problem is that those should mean something in the context of the game. If they are interchangeable then they don't. I also notice you have a continuing theme in your posts where you try to subtly (or not so subtly as the case may be) insinuate that those with a deficient group, imagination, etc. are the ones who don't like the way 4e was designed... I disagree with this of course because gameplay (as in the actual mechanics of a game) can be enjoyable or not to a particular person and or group... no matter how great my imagination or group is I am not going to enjoy a game of Monopoly...period.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying dude, quit trying to insinuate not liking the design of 4e is really because people don't have a "good" group or a "good" imagination. It's likely to turn people off of discussing anything with you.

What was the difference between a Barbarian's rage and a buff spell in earlier editions? It was all just math. If I created a spell that mimicked a Barbarian's rage, would it still be magic? Yes, because I say it is. "Here's a spell I created." Done.

The Barbarian's Rage was based upon something a mundane man (notably a berserker) was capable of doing, as well as being based upon the power of the character's physical body (Con) and limited only to affecting him since he is trained to rage.

Creating a spell of this effect is magical because it is no longer based on the training (as a Barbarian) or physical attributes of the man but on the strength of the spell... and also because it allows you to instill this essence in another thus carrying this affect beyond oneself and onto others (and if it doesn't why would a wizard ever cast this spell on himself??).

This isn't new to 4E, this is something that you can do with pretty much every RPG in existence. People have been doing it forever. Why complain about it now?

The thing is there has always been a baseline that was pretty well defined from BECMI (didn't play anything ealier than this) up to 3.5 between magic and martial abilities. I never mistook a Fighter's abilities in BECMI for anything remotely magical as defined by the assumptions of the game. Core 1e, 2e and 3e were the same for me ... 4e is a different story. All IMO of course.

NOTE: which is not to say I never diverged from the baseline once I was comfortable with the game, but it's good to have a baseline before you start diverging or else you can end up with an incomprehensible mish mash. Sort of how you start with addition and subtraction as opposed to algebra.

 

[fanboy2000]

First, let's quote the whole paragraph.

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.

I want it to be clear that I was saying people who disagreed with me on the issue of whether or not fighters use magic in 4e have no imagination. (I'll leave it up to you, the reader, to decide how serious I was.)

Like Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, whose imaginations created this hobby, eh? The fact is simply that they did not design Dungeons & Dragons to reflect the particular influences of which you are a fanboy. We're not discussing Toon, say, or Macho Women With Guns.

Second, Arneson and Gygax haven't expressed an opinion the matter.

Third, I don't play a game designed by either of them. Now I own Supplement II, but I don't play any games designed by them.

Fourth, 4e wasn't designed by either of them. Near as I can tell, it was designed by people who grew-up playing prior editions and watching/reading the kind of influences of which I am a fanboy of. You're right, we aren't discussing Toon, we're discussing the fourth edition of D&D, a very different game from the one that used the Chainmail rules for combat. I never got to play the original game, so I can't comment on it.

So if you thought I was insulting Arneson and Gygax, then I'm sorry for poorly wording my post.

Aside: Have you read the 4e DMG? I like it, it's a good read. In there is a sidebar about Wyatt running a game with his son. I don't have any children, so I find these little stories interesting as a window into the future. Now think about it, Wyatt's a huge influence on the design of 4e. I wonder how running a game with a child influences the way you design that game?

 

[RefinedBean]

No, you don't. There are diceless games like Everway, Nobilis and Amber where chance, in the traditional sense, isn't a part of gameplay...though I do agree at the least a minimum of mechanics is necessary.

Fine, fine. I was looking more for the mechanics aspect, just throwing out dice rolls/random chance as an example. Amber rocks!

So different names... different features, etc. The problem is that those should mean something in the context of the game. If they are interchangeable then they don't.

The context is given by the players of the game. That's the whole point of the powers system of 4E, I believe. The players provide the context.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying dude, quit trying to insinuate not liking the design of 4e is really because people don't have a "good" group or a "good" imagination. It's likely to turn people off of discussing anything with you.

??? I certainly didn't mean to insinuate this. Groups should play their favorite games. If 4E just doesn't do it for 'em, so be it.

I'm simply trying to explain that in 4E, it seems that the connection between the mechanics and the fluff/flavor of the game are provided by the players themselves. The fluff is there...I'll be the first to admit that it's not particularly good fluff, but it's there, and it's mutable.

If some players or groups can't/don't want to do this, it's not a reflection on the system OR the group in question! I dislike WFRP, but I don't see it as WFRP's fault.

But when these same arguments against 4E are trotted out time and again, it just gets...tiring. In my games, there certainly is a difference between arcane and martial, divine and primal, what have you. When ENworld posters come through and say "Well, no there's not," it's very hard to provide whatever evidence they're looking for other than "Hey, it's working for us!"

The Barbarian's Rage was based upon something a mundane man (notably a berserker) was capable of doing, as well as being based upon the power of the character's physical body (Con) and limited only to affecting him since he is trained to rage.

Creating a spell of this effect is magical because it is no longer based on the training (as a Barbarian) or physical attributes of the man but on the strength of the spell... and also because it allows you to instill this essence in another thus carrying this affect beyond oneself and onto others (and if it doesn't why would a wizard ever cast this spell on himself??).

See, that's exactly how I see it working in 4E as well. Mechanically similar, but different when used in play. The mechanics are secondary, it's the spin the character puts on it that makes all the difference.

 

[Mournblade94]

Like Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, whose imaginations created this hobby, eh? The fact is simply that they did not design Dungeons & Dragons to reflect the particular influences of which you are a fanboy. We're not discussing Toon, say, or Macho Women With Guns.

Tried to give you experience there and epically failed...

 

[Mournblade94]

real world[/I]. 4E is not a primarily simulationist game. It sometimes sacrifices a degree of realism for ease of play. That still doesn't make these effects magical (though they are rather cinematic).

Agreeing to disagree is fine.

I concurr in regards to both the paragraph and the statement. 4e does not simulate anything really, except I suppose sci fi and fantasy films. WHich is the direction the designers wished to go.

There is not a game that exists that simulates anything Really well. 3rd edition was a good shot at simulation though.

 

[Mournblade94]

4e wasn't designed by either of them. Near as I can tell, it was designed by people who grew-up playing prior editions and watching/reading the kind of influences of which I am a fanboy of. You're right, we aren't discussing Toon, we're discussing the fourth edition of D&D, a very different game from the one that used the Chainmail rules for combat. I never got to play the original game, so I can't comment on it.

I agree with you on this evaluation. Some people think it a strength of the system, while others do not.

Aside: Have you read the 4e DMG? I like it, it's a good read. In there is a sidebar about Wyatt running a game with his son. I don't have any children, so I find these little stories interesting as a window into the future. Now think about it, Wyatt's a huge influence on the design of 4e. I wonder how running a game with a child influences the way you design that game?

I did not like the first 35 pages or so of the DMG. It seemed like I spent money on pages I did not need. The rest of it is pretty good for a 4e DM.

The first 35 pages seemed like commentary of gaming culture and self help advice on how to deal with people.

On the side bar, and your comment to it, (I had to re-read it to remember why I didn't like it) D&D was not really the game to have the collaborative story told. There are other systems for that. Granted I did not give the sidebar much thought until you brought it up; previously I just thought it was an interesting note not necessarily indicative of how people play.

I do not set up an adventure and have the players dictate to me what is in an encounter. This at least was never a part of my D&D games. There are other systems for that. One in fact that RYan Dancey keeps starting to try. I played plenty of storyteller games in boyscouts and needed nothing more than a campfire. I don't think D&D is the game where the players dictate the story. THey may tell the story, but not dictate it.

 

[Imaro]

The context is given by the players of the game. That's the whole point of the powers system of 4E, I believe. The players provide the context.

And what if said players don't have a context to differentiate Arcane Powers vs. Martial Powers vs. Divine Powers vs. Primal Powers vs. Shadow Powers vs....

Or better yet why is it that WotC can define what power sources exist... but then it is up to me to define them, IMO that seems like a halfway type thing, I'd rather powers be generic and you decide what type of powers exist in your world and how they work...or they be named and defined... but not some halfway point where you're using "Arcane" power... but you will define what that means, even though we've already defined specific powers that fall under it as a category... so really you don't have the freedom to define what it is, only how you describe it.

??? I certainly didn't mean to insinuate this. Groups should play their favorite games. If 4E just doesn't do it for 'em, so be it.

I'm simply trying to explain that in 4E, it seems that the connection between the mechanics and the fluff/flavor of the game are provided by the players themselves. The fluff is there...I'll be the first to admit that it's not particularly good fluff, but it's there, and it's mutable.

If some players or groups can't/don't want to do this, it's not a reflection on the system OR the group in question! I dislike WFRP, but I don't see it as WFRP's fault.

But when these same arguments against 4E are trotted out time and again, it just gets...tiring. In my games, there certainly is a difference between arcane and martial, divine and primal, what have you. When ENworld posters come through and say "Well, no there's not," it's very hard to provide whatever evidence they're looking for other than "Hey, it's working for us!"

Maybe they're trotted out again and again because they are serious problems for some... What I don't get is if you don't have the same problem and aren't offering a solution, as opposed to trying to argue down an oppinion with your own... why even post in a thread with a topic you are tired of hearing about?

And honestly, I'd like to se a concise summary of what differentiates the power sources, mechanically and fluff-wise, in 4e... because I'm not seeing it.

See, that's exactly how I see it working in 4E as well. Mechanically similar, but different when used in play. The mechanics are secondary, it's the spin the character puts on it that makes all the difference.

Uhm, you realized you just ignoreed the mechanical differences and only took into consideration the similarities, right... basically exactly what I think RC said many are doing whenever one of the wierder martial powers is brought up and an explanation for how it works is asked for. Just as a quick specific... how is only being able to rage myself vs. allowing anyone to rage not a huge mechanical and flavor difference?

 

[RefinedBean]

Imaro:

I post in these threads (and I hardly ever do so, but for some reason this one tripped my trigger) because I dearly love 4E, and I like to discuss it.

The core rule books define the differences between the power sources, as far as fluff goes. Elaborations or consolidations are made based on a group's preferences. As for mechanics, I don't really have the energy to make a list of all the differences. Maybe someone else can help.

If said players don't have any context to work with, that sounds like a fundamental flaw of the campaign and not of 4E as a system. The differences are there, in the book.

Are you saying there's too much of a disconnect between the power sources and how they're implemented in class design? I might be able to see where you're coming from there. It's an issue that's been part of D&D ever since I've started playing it (around 3.0).

As for your specific question: Well, first of all, I never said that it wasn't a Personal spell. Second of all, even if it could be thrown onto anyone, the mechanics of how the character is changed (by raging) is the same. The fluff...well, once again, that's up to the players.