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

[Doug McCrae]

I was thinking more along the line of your speed increasing if you move at a 45' angle relative to the game board. Like in 4.0

4e's diagonal movement rules prioritise playability over realism to a greater extent than 3e's do. Game designers always have to juggle these two factors. Playability is always an issue. I don't think there's a rule in an rpg anywhere that's 100% realistic. 3e's diagonal movement certainly isn't.

Likewise D&D's classes, levels and hit points are further along the playability axis than the rules of the majority of rpgs. Most lack classes and have abilities increase independently rather than all at once.

 

[Kask]

Better yet it allows me as a player to take over narrative control, as when I move only in a diagonal way,

So, can I take a 10' rope of gold, stretch it out parallel with the grid and then move it 45' off center and end up with more gold? According to the rules I can.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Just to clarify, I think Martial characters definitely needed more options than what they had pre-4E. I just think the designers were encouraged to go overboard with it when they decided to give every class the same progression.

 

[Kask]

4e's diagonal movement rules prioritise playability over realism to a greater extent than 3e's do.

Playability? I never met anyone in my 35 years of gaming that found any playability issues with that type of movement. So, I haven't a clue why they did it.

 

[LostSoul]

If the game's fiction (the gameworld/setting, whatever you want to call it) is important, yet a player can use Come and Get It at any time - even it if makes no sense in the game's fiction - yep, I see it, the game rule trumps the fiction. That is a similar occurance to what happens in board games.

More importantly (to me), it reduces player choice to tactical manipulation of the rules on the battlemat, and not how it relates to the gameworld's fiction. Smart play is "chess play" and there is little sense in manipulating - or even caring about - the fiction. Even more so if all challenges are level-appropriate!

If one grants the DM the authority to overrule Come and Get It in order to maintain consistency in the fiction: "No, those archers are not going to jump off the wall to face you" (a possible result of Come and Get It), then what is the point to having a suite of powers pre-defined in the books?

But yet something about 4E intrigues me, especially since I consider the DM to have the authority to overrule powers (of PCs, NPCs, and monsters) so that he can maintain the consistency of the fiction - which is a primary responsibility for him. (In my case, that responsibility is there so that players can make smart choices.)

This discussion (and the short one I had with Ariosto on skill challenges) has been interesting. I need to think about it some more.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think that the power system itself could be the cause of 4E's verisimilitude problems, especially in regard to Martial powers. It's not that the system itself is flawed, but that there are too many powers. Martial characters went from having a few options to having the exact same amount of options as every other class. The only way they could accomplish this was by increasing the level of abstraction, which resulted in several powers that make little sense in certain situations.

It's hard to balance magic guys with non-magic guys cause magic can do anything and non-magic can't.

 

[jmucchiello]

Playability? I never met anyone in my 35 years of gaming that found any playability issues with that type of movement. So, I haven't a clue why they did it.

Actually my group played 3e with the 4e rules 3 years before 4e came out. I hated it but was the only hold out against the non-euclidean aspects. Three other players just couldn't get a knack for the 2 then 1 aspect of diagonal moves especially as it applied to going around stuff.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Playability? I never met anyone in my 35 years of gaming that found any playability issues with that type of movement. So, I haven't a clue why they did it.

It's easier to count every square as 1 than it is to remember the 1-2-1 rule. The 4e rule is simpler, thus more playable, but at the expense of being less realistic.

 

[Mad Mac]

So, can I take a 10' rope of gold, stretch it out parallel with the grid and then move it 45' off center and end up with more gold? According to the rules I can.

Don't try that in SWSE, or else you could end up with less gold then you started with.

Alternately, you can do the same thing in 3.5 by breaking the gold rope into 5' sections.

 

[Kask]

It's easier to count every square as 1 than it is to remember the 1-2-1 rule. The 4e rule is simpler, thus more playable, but at the expense of being less realistic.

Okay... I've taught 8 year olds to play and there wasn't a problem with figuring movement. So, I guess it could be a playability issue with someone who has less math skills than that... I've just never encountered it before.