Nonsense. The rules say the DM can intercede with common sense at any time.
Just like in every other edition of D&D...
How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition
- Thread starter Hexmage-EN
- Start date
Just like in every other edition of D&D...
AD&D Gygax tooted a different tune than OD&D Gygax in many ways, so does not represent "the way it always has been" even from atop Gary's Soap Box. Some of the spiel represents a desire to pin down AD&D to a precisely codified set of tournament rules, but by the time it was published that was not quite accurate. (By all accounts, it never reflected how he actually DMed.) Then we got Late TSR Gygax tooting instead about the joys of endless supplements and a Second Edition, and delivering toys such as player-character Deep Gnomes to all the good little munchkins.
Greater simplicity, at any rate, is not a quality widely associated with AD&D over OD&D.
I will note again that where mechanical complications raise their heads, they tend to be inspired by some desire for simulation.
Greater simplicity, at any rate, is not a quality widely associated with AD&D over OD&D.
I will note again that where mechanical complications raise their heads, they tend to be inspired by some desire for simulation.
Last edited:
LostSoul
Adventurer
This may have no relevance to anyone else but me!
anyway: Magical Magic
If the minute details of your game's fiction don't contribute meaningfully to your play, then even if you're a stickler, over time you're going to let those minute details fall away. Where your character's standing, what he's doing with his hands, how his eyes move when she comes around the stone fence, whether clouds pass in front of the sun or it glares down unmitigated - these things come to be like the character sheet that you leave in a binder in the drawer.
anyway: Magical Magic
Lost Soul, that is lovely -- and expresses where I find "realism" in the game. The term is irrelevant to reality, being confined to our second-hand depictions.
Magic is a matter of contrast with the normal world. If the latter is not realized vividly, the former tends to be tawdry.
A focus on arbitrary numbers, grids and game jargon is a distraction from the observation that makes particular things present in the mind's eye. Providing the material for that envisioning is a key part of a Game Master's work. A key part of a role-player's work is to pay attention, and to inquire more deeply.
As that is devalued in game relevance, moved ever further from its original central position as the actual medium of play, I see a thinning of the game's magic.
Magic is a matter of contrast with the normal world. If the latter is not realized vividly, the former tends to be tawdry.
A focus on arbitrary numbers, grids and game jargon is a distraction from the observation that makes particular things present in the mind's eye. Providing the material for that envisioning is a key part of a Game Master's work. A key part of a role-player's work is to pay attention, and to inquire more deeply.
As that is devalued in game relevance, moved ever further from its original central position as the actual medium of play, I see a thinning of the game's magic.
LostSoul
Adventurer
Yes, I agree. I don't think numbers, grids, jargon, etc. are too bad, but they need to feed back into the fiction - else why would you even care?
Have to say - thanks for the criticisms of skill challenges over in the other thread a week or so back. That has made me take a look at how I should DM skill challenges.
There's significant overlap among enthusiasts of Traveller, RuneQuest, and 1st ed. AD&D. However, there is also a faction of the latter with a knee-jerk reaction of "Boo! Hiss!" to any sort of "skills system." I think that has to do with the coincidence of its introduction to AD&D with more truly "revoltin' developments".
The key question is whether we master the tools or are mastered by them. Properly (in my view, anyhow) there is a loop of "fiction" input > determination of reasonable probabilities > (sometimes) dice-rolls > "fiction" output > "fiction" input again.
The key question is whether we master the tools or are mastered by them. Properly (in my view, anyhow) there is a loop of "fiction" input > determination of reasonable probabilities > (sometimes) dice-rolls > "fiction" output > "fiction" input again.
darjr
I crit!
I see a parade of posts showing that, Houston, there isn't a problem. Post after post showing, that a little imagination, and a willful suspension of disbelief, are the simple tools required for the game. It's as true for 4e as it has ever been for any version of D&D.
This thread goes on and on, in large part, because you have failed to make your case. Your rock rolls down that hill and you, stubbornly, have at it again. You'll twist and tack but your essential argument remains unconvincing.
darjr
I crit!
Another thing that bugs me is the whole 'fighters use magic' meme.
AD&D characters got percentage STR if they had an 18 upon becoming a fighter.
A human getting a second class of fighter with an 18 STR earned a roll of the percentage dice. I don't think I missed somthing, I think that's how it works. The fighter gets an almost magical boost to STR. The only other way to get such a boost is via magic. So is it magic?
The rules say it isn't magic, and I've been willing to play along. It's a sound rule. One I've even had the joy to use. Rounser, is it a bad rule?
AD&D characters got percentage STR if they had an 18 upon becoming a fighter.
A human getting a second class of fighter with an 18 STR earned a roll of the percentage dice. I don't think I missed somthing, I think that's how it works. The fighter gets an almost magical boost to STR. The only other way to get such a boost is via magic. So is it magic?
The rules say it isn't magic, and I've been willing to play along. It's a sound rule. One I've even had the joy to use. Rounser, is it a bad rule?
Similar Threads
