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

[Mallus]

Yes, the mental contortions used to call something "not magic" are simply amazing.

1) That isn't a argument.

2) They're only exceeded by one's being used to prove something is (despite the fact the rules of the game explicitly say they're not)!

Really now, who is being more stubborn??

 

[Mallus]

My question is when do wizards and warlocks get to take over narrative control, all they get is stupid regular magic.

Easy! When the description of the power doesn't describe an in-game mechanism for how the power operates.

(Honestly, there's no reason you couldn't give wizards and warlocks powers like CaGI. It's just fluff. Arcane classes do great things through magical means, martial classes do them through grit, skill and outrageous coincidence. Six of one, half a dozen of the other).

 

[Mad Mac]

Yes, the mental contortions used to call something "not magic" are simply amazing.

I could fluff martial powers as "magical" if I felt like it, or vice versa. I could in fact do this in any version of D&D. As it happens, I once ran an adventure with my brother in 2nd edition where each "encounter" was created by an evil master illusionist and replicated some sort of video game. There was one involving godzilla esque giant monster battles, a run and gun zombie battle, ect. I ran each of them with just a few minutes of prep ruling some basic spell equivilents, a few attacks I made up on the spot, ect.

This is actually my point. While I enjoy fluff and crunch that suports said fluff, I don't ultimately see the rules as anything but convenient bits of math that I can use as I see fit. All the groaning about "mind control" of fictional characters that only exist for the purpose of the game/story I created is completely alien to my way of thinking about a game.

 

[Ariosto]

It comes, at least from where I stand, not down to the criterion of "liking" or "not liking" the approach that 4E enthusiasts so often hold up. Rather, it boils down to whether the game remains a faithful representation of what "D&D" has most consistently meant during my decades-long engagement with it. I see no basis for a standard of "improvement" that would make such a radical shift "the same, only better". I don't want D&D, RuneQuest and Dogs in the Vineyard to get homogenized into some theoretically perfect stew.

 

[Imaro]

Easy! When the description of the power doesn't describe an in-game mechanism for how the power operates.

(Honestly, there's no reason you couldn't give wizards and warlocks powers like CaGI. It's just fluff. Arcane classes do great things through magical means, martial classes do them through grit, skill and outrageous coincidence. Six of one, half a dozen of the other).

I see, so... if there is no fundamental difference within the game (besides fluff which we've already determined has no in-game effect)... then aren't they the same thing just with different names being used? And since the previous edition allowed this type of narrative control (where you're controlling other NPC's actions without them having a chance to resist) in the form of magic... well doesn't that ultimately make these new martial abilities magic?

 

[LostSoul]

Without a quantifiable difference in what is viewed as mundane vs magical in a given world there can be no meaningful difference. Without a frame of reference the is no difference between mundane and magical.

I'm still not 100% sure I get it. Does this mean that each group has to figure out what is magic and what's not for themselves? If that step is taken, then we should be able to supply that frame of reference.

eg. In my game I say that Come and Get It isn't magical. That means that, in this world, it's possible to... I don't know, learn a Dune-style "Voice" skill as a martial talent that nothing can resist. (Oh, I had a cool idea for my campaign world... I'll sblock it.) Does that give us a frame of reference to draw a line between mundane and magical in this game world?

[sblock=cool idea]My thinking is that the world is formed from "primordial" chaos, given form and order by the Gods. Everything, even dirt, has a bit of that primordial spirit. Magic manipulates the form (and uses Supernal as its language), but with a force of will you can manipulate the primordial spirit in anything.

Come and Get It might be exerting that will. Which makes it "magic", but since everything's magic anyways, there's no real difference. Huh. Well, I thought it was a neat idea.

I also like the idea of a fighter Intimidating a rock wall into opening up for him.[/sblock]

Does this make it more difficult for meaningful choices to arise? (Given the "player challenge" critera for meaning.) Maybe, maybe not. Especially not if the players are interested in exploring the DM's world and learning about what works and what doesn't.

A set of simple rules along with a good dose of guidelines to produce sensible rulings is pure heaven. There are terrible DMs out there that have led to outcry of "mother may I" games being no fun. I say that if you don't trust the DM to make sensible rulings then perhaps gaming with this person isn't worth the effort. Complex rules won't stop jerks from being jerks. If large tight ruleset is required to keep anyone at the table "in line" on either side of the screen then fun has already been assassinated and it isn't going to help.

Agreed.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You are telling a story,

Nope. Starting your stated position with this assumption is a bad idea.

only the players now have some input on how their enemies act during the combat scene. D&D has shifted from a storyteller game that had conceits of simulation (and it never did it at all well) to a purer storytelling game.

Once again, an assumption not shared by all. D&D started as a roleplaying game. Some people play it as a storyteller game but this isn't a universal truth and certainly not how the game began.

Now maybe you miss the conceit that D&D had rules for living a mundane existence with an overlay of rules for fantastic elements. I can understand why someone might think was the case, given that the D&D books of prior editions generally had that as one of their design goals. It was a poorly executed dismal failure, but it was a design goal.

Without the mundane as a base there can be no fantastic elements. Everything at that point is simply a standard element.

 

[Mallus]

Rather, it boils down to whether the game remains a faithful representation of what "D&D" has most consistently meant during my decades-long engagement with it.

And that's perfectly understandable.

For me though, the game still is a faithful representation of the D&D I've played for decades. My D&D is a fast-paced gonzo fantasy adventure story made from a mish-mash of genre elements. That hasn't changed.

I don't want D&D, RuneQuest and Dogs in the Vineyard to get homogenized into some theoretically perfect stew.

We're almost there now...

 

[Mallus]

And since the previous edition allowed this type of narrative control (where you're controlling other NPC's actions without them having a chance to resist) in the form of magic... well doesn't that ultimately make these new martial abilities magic?

No.

(In any edition of D&D you can cause a foe to lose HP through a sword blow or a spell. Does that make a sword blow magic?)

 

[Kask]

If telekinesis is common enough for the beings of the world to barely notice it then its mundane to them.

Wrong definition. I am talking about what the cause of an effect is. NOT the frequency of encountering said cause. Totally different.