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

[Fanaelialae]

In other words, while it is true that "gamist narrative elements have often been used", the statement is (based on my experience, and on the texts that became more explicit as it was realized that the game appealed to far more than the initially assumed audience) not a very accurate stereotype or archetype of seminal D&D play.

While I can't say how an "archetypal" D&D group might play, my personal experiences run directly counter to your research. Gamist and narrativist tropes have always had a strong presence in our D&D games.

I'm not saying every group plays this way, or even that it's the "right way" to play (frankly, I don't believe that there is a right way beyond having fun). It is the way my group and some seemingly significant number of others play, and have always played D&D (though some editions support this play style better than others).

4E is pretty close to my ideal of the "perfect edition of D&D" because it supports my play style better than previous editions did. You might argue that it is because earlier editions of D&D were never meant for my play style, but it certainly seemed to work even back then (I just had to bodge the rules harder than I do with 4E; let's face it, a great many groups have house ruled D&D over the years for various reasons related to play style).

IMO, 2nd and earlier editions weren't strongly biased towards any one part of the G/S/N "division". They were what they were (early RPGs). 3.x was designed to be very simulationist, whereas 4E is much more gamist and narrativist. I honestly believe that D&D has room for all three elements, and that all three have shaped it through its birth and evolution. I'm not saying that 4E is the epitome of D&D. Just one incarnation in the evolution thereof.

 

[Kask]

While I can't say how an "archetypal" D&D group might play, my personal experiences run directly counter to your research. Gamist and narrativist tropes have always had a strong presence in our D&D games.

Must be some new direction. In 30+ years I've never seen it. Whether it was playing with the creator of RPGs, tournament play, etc., etc. Safe to say it wasn't a design consideration of the 1st 4 editions...

 

[Ariosto]

I regard it as notably less versatile, due to its rules-heaviness (which both influences practical concerns and serves as an attitudinal selective filter).

 

[Imaro]

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).

I'm sorry, but what? What "rules" am I misunderstanding? Since you follow this up with talk about flavor text I really need some clarification here. In fact most of the flavor text doesn't explicitly state that a power is magical or mundane... it's descriptive in nature, gives a visual, but doesn't go into how something was accomplished... but nice try. As far as the meta-narrative... I don't think you understand what you're talking about. The meta-narrative "control" explanation is the opposite of it being magic...not the same, but whatever.

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.

Uhm, you roll to beat the DC and the NPC acts accordingly does not equal... you dictate what the NPC does. As an, admittedly contrived, example... if you don't know enough about the NPC you can predict wrong how they will respond to a lie...

Player A: " old man there's a monster in the cellar of your inn, a beast with slavering jaws and eyes the color of blood." I rolled a 20 plus 10 is total 30.

DM: A gleam apppears in the old man's usually dull eyes, he reaches behind the bar and pulss an old blade from beneath it. "Come on lad, enough chater it's time to deal with that bugger."

Player A: What! That's not fair... I wanted to scare him so he'd leave the inn and I could rob the place.

DM: Well, old Grondar here used to be an adventurer and has been missing the old days... he's ready for a little action...of course he's gonna be a little p'd there really is no monster.

Now how is Player A controlling the NPC by making a Bluff check again? Whether the NPC believes the lie is decided by the roll... how he reacts to it is determined by the DM.

 

[Scribble]

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.

Sure, I understand your comment, but I was responding to your comment about the sword swipe.

He said a sword swipe takes control of the enemy by saying that enemy HAS to take damage.

I was commenting on your response.

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...

Maybe this would be easier if you listed what you thought the characteristics of spells vrs mundane must be? (Or did you do this and I missed it? I was out yesterday so I admittedly hurredly cought up on the thread.)

What are the characteristics of something mundane in the game?

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.

So then conversely, if we had a spell that has many of the characteristics of a mundane effect then it would be mundane?

I don't really agree with this viewpoint, as for instance, a "car" has many of the characteristics of a living creature, but it's still not a living creature.

Even from the viewpoint of rules describe the game world, I think it's possible for two effects to have many of the same characteristics and still not be the same.

Please understand, Imaro, I'm not looking to make your argument prove 'wrong." If this is how you view things, I'm cool with it. It's just alien to how I view game rules, so I don't instinctively jive to your way of seeing the rules.

As I've said before, my view of the rules is that they do not describe the game world so for me it doesn't matter if two different effects utilize the same rule set.

So in effect it doesn't matter to me that the in game "rules" effectively allow the player to "take control" of the NPC because that's not how I'm seeing it or describing it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Must be some new direction. In 30+ years I've never seen it. Whether it was playing with the creator of RPGs, tournament play, etc., etc. Safe to say it wasn't a design consideration of the 1st 4 editions...

As scintillating as this conversation's been, you'll have to excuse me. I have some badwrongfun to prep for this weekend.

 

[Bumbles]

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...

That explains my VCR instructions.

Thanks!

 

[Imaro]

That explains my VCR instructions.

Thanks!

Hey no problem... though I'd be curious to see VCR instructions on a D&D 3.5 scroll...or were you just being witty and I missed it.

 

[Ariosto]

It is easier to "break the old rules" by telling Lydia that her character can attack 8 foes in 6 seconds with 1 thrown dagger than to "break the new rules" by saying that she cannot.

In the latter case, it is an entitlement she has purchased via the resource-allocation sub-game. To deny that is to start down a slippery slope that quickly ends in wondering to what end one has invested so much money in purchasing, and so much time and energy in digesting, so many pages of rules.

 

[Scribble]

Uhm, you roll to beat the DC and the NPC acts accordingly does not equal... you dictate what the NPC does. As an, admittedly contrived, example... if you don't know enough about the NPC you can predict wrong how they will respond to a lie...

Going by the rules as written for intimidate for example:

If you beat the check you can force the NPC to act on your behalf, or be friendly towards you. The "effect" lasts while you're in their pressence.

You can also cause them to gain the "shaken" effect while in combat.

Why are these not the same as spells? You are effecting the nature of the NPC (it can no longer act hostily) or casuing it to gain some type of effect, for a durration of time.