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

[Raven Crowking]

CAGI just puts this power (in a limited sense) within the player's realm of possibility (once per encounter).

If the player, rather than the player character had this power, then I would agree. But it is one thing for the DM, or the players, to have the power of gods, and another for the player character to do so.

"Each player has the ability to use CAGI once per encounter" is, in the meta sense still a supernatural power (perhaps signifying how the gods watch out for their chosen). "Bob the Fighter has the ability to use CAGI once per encounter" makes Bob the Fighter the supernatural agency.


RC

 

[Fallen Seraph]

If the player, rather than the player character had this power, then I would agree. But it is one thing for the DM, or the players, to have the power of gods, and another for the player character to do so.

"Each player has the ability to use CAGI once per encounter" is, in the meta sense still a supernatural power (perhaps signifying how the gods watch out for their chosen). "Bob the Fighter has the ability to use CAGI once per encounter" makes Bob the Fighter the supernatural agency.

It is the player though that has the power. The player has the narrative power over the enemies, the fighter doesn't. The fighter could have been provoking the enemies throughout the fight, but once the player uses the power the player takes narrative control over the enemies and allows the fighter to succeed in provoking the enemy.

In-game to the Fighter it seems like the enemy was finally provoked into charging at him. Not that he actually mentally took control or anything like that.

I dunno, it makes sense to me and fits into other aspects of how I play my games. Like a player declaring that his PC knows someone, the PC doesn't suddenly make this NPC become created through supernatural means it is just the player took narrative control and introduced a NPC, etc.

 

[Mallus]

That's why I specifically cited taking over the actions of an NPC controlled by the DM with no chance for it to resist...

Once more, with feeling...

The question is, who is taking over the NPC?

In previous editions, use of certain spells allowed a player character to control an NPC being controlled by the DM. This is explicitly described as being magic, the control can be detected by use of magic, often dispelled by use of magic, etc.

In the new edition, use of certain powers --that shall remain nameless!-- allow the player to control an NPC being controlled by the DM. The character exerts no force whatsoever over the NPC. Nothing occurs in the game world. All that happens is the player gets to decide (in a very proscribed way) what the NPC is going to do next.

Unlike the charms spells of the previous edition, this does not detect as magic. It cannot be countered by magic. Within the game world's frame of reference it is merely an NPC making a decision (albeit an unwise one).

Got it?

You may not like this rationale, but it does have the benefit of not contradicting the stated rules.

 

[Ariosto]

I want to clarify that RQ was revolutionary in its day only if one took the "system" as a whole. Parts could be grafted onto an existing campaign without making it any more eccentric than a host of others using elaborations (perhaps very similar) either "home brewed" or cribbed from magazine articles.

 

[Imaro]

It seems to me that your statement is purely subjective.

At least in the games that I've played in, gamist narrative elements have often been used, even in previous editions of D&D.

A classic example is the cavalry that rides over the hill just in the nick of time. Sure, they might have been teleported there via magic, but it could just as easily be the DM creating an exciting scene (and they've been riding for days to get there in time).

CAGI just puts this power (in a limited sense) within the player's realm of possibility (once per encounter).

It's like an example that another poster in another thread used (sorry, my memory is terrible and I can't seem to locate the post atm). It's an ability called Master of Disguise (from a game called Spirit of the Century) that allows a character to disappear from a scene and later reappear in the place of an NPC (turns out that the NPC was the character in disguise all along). It's very gamist/narrativist, but also very cool, IMO.

As I said, this is nothing new to D&D. Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate were able to alter NPC behavior even in 3.x (it's been a while, but I don't think those proficiencies existed in 2nd ed so there's no real basis for comparison AFAIK). A Diplomacy specialist at high levels could convert almost any NPC into a fanatical follower with a few (non-magical) words.

CAGI isn't necessarily the best designed ability out there (similar in that sense, perhaps, to high level Diplomacy in 3.x), but it also isn't necessarily magic either. It's Conan tricking the enemy into closing with him, for example. Conan wasn't exactly a rocket-scientist, but every now and again he managed to "get one over" on people much smarter than he was. If ever a situation arises where I say there's absolutely no way that enemy would do that, I'd inform the player before he used his power and that's that. That's partly the reason the DM exists ("No, I don't care what that supplement says, you're animal companion cannot have his own mount".).

CAGI certainly could have a supernatural explanation, but I honestly think anyone who can't admit that it could have a mundane, gamist, narrativist explanation is wearing blinders. As for which is a better explanation, I certainly admit that it's open to debate.

I see alot of points I want to address in this argument but let me just hit two points...

As far as Spirit of the Century goes, it explicitely presents a meta-game resource that allows one to bend the narrative... mainly aspects. Otherwise, without the meta-game mechanic of "aspects" this becomes magic, plain and simple. Where in 4e are powers stated to be this type of mechanic, and if so then what are spells? The fact of the matter is that unlike Spirit of the Century that specifically states this is a mechanic to affect the narrative of the story... D&D 4e states nothing, and in fact since spells are the same type of mechanic (a power) as martial exploits one would assume they operate on the same principle and that one isn't magic and the other narative control.

Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. skills in 3.5 do not allow one to dictate the actual actions of an NPC... how they respond to your lie, con, friendliness, or whatever is still very much in the DM's hand. Yes their actions are and should be influenced by your skill check, but the NPC never falls under your control.

 

[Imaro]

Once more, with feeling...

The question is, who is taking over the NPC?

In previous editions, use of certain spells allowed a player character to control an NPC being controlled by the DM. This is explicitly described as being magic, the control can be detected by use of magic, often dispelled by use of magic, etc.

In the new edition, use of certain powers --that shall remain nameless!-- allow the player to control an NPC being controlled by the DM. The character exerts no force whatsoever over the NPC. Nothing occurs in the game world. All that happens is the player gets to decide (in a very proscribed way) what the NPC is going to do next.

Unlike the charms spells of the previous edition, this does not detect as magic. It cannot be countered by magic. Within the game world's frame of reference it is merely an NPC making a decision (albeit an unwise one).

Got it?

You may not like this rationale, but it does have the benefit of not contradicting the stated rules.

First Mallus, this has nothing to do with what I do or don't like... nowhere in the 3 4e corebooks is narrative control as it pertains to powers ever discussed, so honestly I see this as a cop out. You see the other rpg's I've played that allowed narrative control were generally explicit in signifying this to the people playing through explanation of the rules.

So wait, after I as the player make the NPC's move adjacent to my fighter...is it me or the character who then attacks the NPC's that I as the player and not player character made move there? I mean it's still part of the same power... right?

Second going by your explanation that means depending on which class you pick then the nature of what a power is changes? Are you seriously arguing that when I play a Warlock my player character uses his actual powers... but if I play a Fighter he doesn't actually use any powers... instead I as the person playing him does...Uhm, ok if you say so. But how about we ascribe to Occam's razor, though I realize you may not like this answer, and go with a simpler answer...magic?

 

[Ariosto]

Ferratus: Your conflation of "role playing" with "story telling" -- or perhaps more accurately making the former subservient to the latter -- is historically parochial and naive. The evolution has led to a species of game I consider most worthy of recognition, and quite enjoyable to play ... but a distinctive species nonetheless.

 

[ferratus]

The fact of the matter is that unlike Spirit of the Century that specifically states this is a mechanic to affect the narrative of the story... D&D 4e states nothing, and in fact since spells are the same type of mechanic (a power) as martial exploits one would assume they operate on the same principle and that one isn't magic and the other narative control.

If you misunderstand the rules and then adamantly refuse to be corrected. The flavour text is quite clear on whether each power is or isn't magical. You were the one that inserted the meta-narrative that the power had to be magical, because in prior editions only spells allowed players to take control of the actions of monsters and NPC's. Though of course, that assumption has problems too (see below).

Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. skills in 3.5 do not allow one to dictate the actual actions of an NPC... how they respond to your lie, con, friendliness, or whatever is still very much in the DM's hand. Yes their actions are and should be influenced by your skill check, but the NPC never falls under your control.

Sure it does. There is a difficulty class for a diplomacy or bluff check to succeed, you roll to beat that DC, and if you succeed the NPC acts accordingly. If you want to provoke an enemy into attacking you, you roll to beat a defense, and if you succeed the enemy attacks you.

 

[Scribble]

Maybe that's your criteria but I never said that... I cited a specific example of a power in 4e. The real question would be have their ever been mundane examples of this type of "narrative" control in other editions of D&D that didn't involve magic?

Your logic is that since A & B share characteristic 1 then A=B without looking at any other characteristics. Not sound at all. By this logic all cats have 4 legs...so any animal with 4 legs must be a cat...

You stated that because it "takes control" of an NPC without that NPC having any chance to avoid that control then it's magic.

This argument implies that if it allowed a miss chance then it would be mundane.

Plenty of spells in previous editions have allowed saving throws. Why are they not viewed as mundane?

If a spell can have a miss chance and still be magic, then why can't a mundane effect NOT have a miss chance and still be mundane?

Ironic.

Assuming that you are reading what I've written, rather than just responding blindly, you will know that the viewpoint I am espousing is one that I accepted as being superior to my own, and that my own viewpoint was largely similar to your current viewpoint prior to my accepting it.

I'm saying that Mallus has explained a viewpoint that works for him, and others as well.

Just because you dissagree with his statement doesn't mean his explaination "failed."

Kask indicated that he couldn't believe how anyone could still be viewing CaGI as non magic.

Malus gave a reason why others might still be doing so.

Stateing that his viewpoint "failed" in this case indicates that you seem to be saying his viewpoint could not possibly be valid for himself, or others that agree with him. So yes, I feel in this case you are deciding without allowing for individual viewpoints on rules interpretation that his answer has failed, without accepting that others play in a different style.

Intentionally misunderstanding an argument is a good sign that the person so doing understands how weak their own position is.

Good thing I wasn't doing that, so I'd appreciate an end to the snide remarks.

 

[Imaro]

You stated that because it "takes control" of an NPC without that NPC having any chance to avoid that control then it's magic.

This argument implies that if it allowed a miss chance then it would be mundane.

No it doesn't you are focusing on one component and runing with it, read my previous response to your post about cats and 4-legged animals.

Plenty of spells in previous editions have allowed saving throws. Why are they not viewed as mundane?

Because they ascribe to all the other defining characteristics of spells that mundane abilities do not... as an example, a mundane ability cannot be put on a scroll and used by another...

If a spell can have a miss chance and still be magic, then why can't a mundane effect NOT have a miss chance and still be mundane?

The problem is that if it has every other (or even just a majority) of the same characteristic of a spell (like taking explicit control of a DM's NPC)...plus the spell characteristic of "not having a miss chance" then it's effectively become magic (or the two have become so muddled there is no differentiation which for all practical purposes is the same thing)... regardless of what you try to label it.