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

[Imaro]

You said it wasn't in the rulebooks. It's in the rulebooks.

If you count that as proof that a naarative based explanation for powers ios supported and explained in the game... ok, let's just say we see things totally differently then, as shown by some of your comments below.

You asked how a player is supposed to come to a narrative control conclusion based on the rules in the rulebooks. My response is that they don't have to, it's not necessary to play the game. The designers didn't set out to design a narrative control game, they set out to design an exceptions based game. If a player wants to use narrative control to explain an exception, go a head. One of the designers even used narrative control in an exploration context.

All I'll say on this is that if you're going to comment on a post... it's best to understand the context in which the thought/idea/etc. was posted in. There was a situation where someone posited that narrative control was the explanation for certain powers (this wasn't me)... I in turn asked for proof of this assertion which I claimed there was none. Since you agree I really don't understand your point in bringing this up. Are you expecting me to argue a viewpoint I never believed in the first place? What I'm saying is that nowhere is narrative control stated as the reason powers work... and again it has nothing to do with exception based design... I thnk you're trying to talk about effect-based design...where the effect is the only thing that mechanics represent but you keep using exception-based and they mean totally different things.

If someone listed all the basic attacks in the game, this would one of them. It has the arcane power source.

Hey look, it's Trickery of Words. I'm going to post exactly what Imaro said (there are powers that can be used as basic attacks... though they are still classified as powers instead of actual basic attacks) but use different words instead of just saying I was wrong... uhm, ok.

 

[Mallus]

I have no difficulty accepting (in the intellectual sense) that 4E is designed instead as a sort of story-telling game. I think it is by that standard a pretty clumsy design, a Rube Goldberg contraption.

Hasn't D&D been a Rube Goldberg contraption all along? An awkward-but-lovely amalgamation of small-unit tactics wargame, puzzle-solving exercises and a third-rate dinner theater troupe putting on a play about elves?

My difficulty, I suspect a common one, is in accepting (in the emotional sense) that this is what has become of Dungeons & Dragons.

Don't let it get you emotional... there's no crying in D&D!

 

[Ariosto]

This does not mean D&D fighters have ever been magical, because they aren't, outside of whatever magical gear they have been equipped.

FALSE! A fundamental problem here is that, more often than not, those arguing that 4E is "the same as D&D has ever been" are not versed in what in fact D&D formerly was.

 

[Mad Mac]

FALSE! A fundamental problem here is that, more often than not, those arguing that 4E is "the same as D&D has ever been" are not versed in what in fact D&D formerly was.

Considering I've played Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition, you may need to compose an alternate theory.

I'm always up for discussing the Complete Ninja's Handbook though. I just can't ever find any takers on that one...

 

[Imaro]

No, I'm trying to word things differently so that you can understand my point of view, but it's obviously not working.

If, at this point, you are unable to even acknowledge the 8,586,242 explanations given for CAGI in this exact thread, I don't know what the point of discussing anything with you is.

Show me one of those 8,586,242 reasons that is more logically consistent for CAGI in a wider array of situations than magic... and I can see your point. Otherwise what you're saying IMHO, is that it's magic but you want to use another name for it...like narrative control, yet in the end this is exactly what I've said from the beginning... no matter what you choose to call it

 

[D'karr]

Show me one of those 8,586,242 reasons that is more logically consistent for CAGI in a wider array of situations than magic... and I can see your point. Otherwise what you're saying IMHO, is that it's magic but you want to use another name for it...like narrative control, yet in the end this is exactly what I've said from the beginning... no matter what you choose to call it

I think that argument is rather flimsy when taken at face value.

The power is martial, the power keyword says it is so. Many of the explanations that have been provided here fit that mold perfectly. So the power is martial, but you want to use another name for it.. like magic, yet in the end this is exactly what the book had said from the beginning... no matter what you choose to call it.

 

[Imaro]

I think that argument is rather flimsy when taken at face value.

The power is martial, the power keyword says it is so. Many of the explanations that have been provided here fit that mold perfectly. So the power is martial, but you want to use another name for it.. like magic, yet in the end this is exactly what the book had said from the beginning... no matter what you choose to call it.

And yet in reading the definition of Martial Power Source in the PHB, we are never told it is not magic... just not traditional magic...

 

[Ariosto]

Considering I've played Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition, you may need to compose an alternate theory.

I'm always up for discussing the Complete Ninja's Handbook though. I just can't ever find any takers on that one...

I don't know about you, Mac. However, I do know that the claim I quoted is definitely false.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Considering I've played Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition, you may need to compose an alternate theory.

Take a look at the Basic & 1E rulebooks again. See what references you can find there about collaborative storytelling. 4E makes such claims about the rules, the older editions did not. The old school DM (per the rules) was not writing a story. He/she was the moderator of the fantasy world and took on the roles of everything that was not a PC. The "story" ended up being whatever happened in that world after the PC's made thier choices.

There was nothing stopping a DM from running these games as storytelling sessions, but that was not the default playstyle presented by the rules. The game could be played in storytelling style if the players preferred that.
In the 4E rules the storytelling style is in fact the default playstyle. With game rules that require "narrative control" to explain how they operate in the world I don't see how the older playstyle works. When the designers decided to make 4E non backwards compatible it was more than just mathematical crunch.

 

[Mad Mac]

I don't know about you, Mac. However, I do know that the claim I quoted is definitely false.

That Fighters in D&D have always been non-magical but unrealistic? I don't see what is false about that.

Take a look at the Basic & 1E rulebooks again. See what references you can find there about collaborative storytelling. 4E makes such claims about the rules, the older editions did not. The old school DM (per the rules) was not writing a story. He/she was the moderator of the fantasy world and took on the roles of everything that was not a PC. The "story" ended up being whatever happened in that world after the PC's made thier choices.

Obviously 4th edition is different from 3rd which is different than 2nd and so forth. All I can attest is my overall playing style hasn't shifted much over the years, no matter which version of the game I'm playing.

I've never been, as I explained earlier in this thread a "RAW is LAW" sort of DM. I was making up my own rules from the first time I ever played and that definately effected how I viewed the game.

I don't especially care, in an abstract sort of way about Storytelling vs Sandbox play vs gamism or whatever. All I know is that 4th edition lets me play the same sort of game I played when I was younger, and that's enough for me.