What is the essence of D&D

[Garthanos]

That'd be a bad assumption

What would be a bad assumption?.... that they killed (RIP) the only method established to actually worked for determining/creating parity between the utility of casters and that of the non-casters? I was saying that this removal was perhaps the only significant one and it undermined the ability of even a DM who wants that balance to elegantly provide it.

And that's important, because without the mundane, actually in the party with the casters, for contrast, magic doesn't feel as magical.

Oh non-casters will definitely go on...

 

[Tony Vargas]

What would be a bad assumption?....

That you wouldn't still have skill-users - fighters & rogues & c - in the party, try'n to do stuff.

 

[Garthanos]

That you wouldn't still have skill-users - fighters & rogues & c - in the party, try'n to do stuff.

Oh you mean my small minority reference is probably not actually a small minority of characters ... I meant small minority of classes.

 

[Garthanos]

Come to think of it Skill Challenges were another tool which did that. All be it indirectly and mostly behind the DMs screen in some sense. (they too could interact with common resources like action points and healing surges and money)

 

[Hussar]

Will you guys be taking this discussion into a positive direction or not.

How is "Primacy of Magic" is the essence of D&D a negative direction? This is the point that I'm still struggling with. There is no value judgement there. It's the one thing that all versions of D&D have except 4e, and 4e is often considered "not really D&D". Again, there is no value judgement there. People did not consider 4e to be really D&D. That's not a value judgement, that's just fact. It was repeatedly stated and is still repeatedly stated.

So, in what way is "Primacy of Magic" is the essence of D&D a negative? To me, it's simply a recognition of one of the main threads that connects every edition of D&D.

 

[Xenonnonex]

How is "Primacy of Magic" is the essence of D&D a negative direction? This is the point that I'm still struggling with. There is no value judgement there. It's the one thing that all versions of D&D have except 4e, and 4e is often considered "not really D&D". Again, there is no value judgement there. People did not consider 4e to be really D&D. That's not a value judgement, that's just fact. It was repeatedly stated and is still repeatedly stated.

So, in what way is "Primacy of Magic" is the essence of D&D a negative? To me, it's simply a recognition of one of the main threads that connects every edition of D&D.

I am talking about the tone of the substance of the discussion.

In general this is by far and again something I have encountered. Sure say your piece and opinions. By devolving an argument into snide and sniping remarks just means the argument presented is a poor one and relies on the crutch of attacking behavior. It heavily skews an argument into a completely meaningless and irrelevant direction. It makes the argument presented pointless and needless.

 

[Maxperson]

The reasoning started with, as Oofta pointed out in the post I quoted (and one before that), the recognition that 4e was not part of the continuity you posited, but was widely considered NOT-D&D. The stand-out difference (among /many/) I could detect was that martial classes were not only better-balanced than in other eds, but had rough resource parity with casters. The Primacy of Magic as Essence of D&D was a conclusion, inspired in part by 5e's rapt 'Wonders of Magic' section in the basic pdf. I think it has a nice ring, and is consistent with the game's history, tradition, and presentation, including the failure of 4e to achieve accord with that tradition, and 5e's embrace thereof.

In other words, fantasy w/o the primacy of magic is, as Zard put it a few posts (pages?) back in this same thread, a "different genre" from D&D.

4e did have primacy of magic. It explicitly called out martial exploits as "not magic in the tradition sense," which means that it was magic in an untraditional sense. It had to, because it accomplished things that were essentially supernatural in ability. 4e basically had two types of magic. Magic magic and martial magic.

 

[Hussar]

I am talking about the tone of the substance of the discussion.

In general this is by far and again something I have encountered. Sure say your piece and opinions. By devolving an argument into snide and sniping remarks just means the argument presented is a poor one and relies on the crutch of attacking behavior. It heavily skews an argument into a completely meaningless and irrelevant direction. It makes the argument presented pointless and needless.

I get what you're saying, so, let's ignore that. Let's ignore the comparisons between editions and how this or that edition does this or that. IOW, let's cut out the cruft and look at what's actually the point here.

Let's lay it out:

P1 Only one edition of D&D is routinely described by fans as being "not really D&D". Typically it isn't even a knock on the game really. It's often phrased, "It's a good game, it's just not D&D to me." Fair enough. That's the perception.

P2. 4e shares a great deal of mechanics and flavor with other editions. Someone coming out of 3e having been using things like Book of 9 Swords and Tome of Magic probably didn't see a huge shift in mechanics. And, moving from 4e to 5e, there are a number of elements shared. So, if the element is shared, then it's not essential to D&D since 4e is the "not D&D" edition. Lots of games share elements with D&D but are not considered D&D. No one calls Rolemaster D&D, despite Rolemaster and 3e sharing a great number of mechanics.

P3. 4e is the only edition to achieve parity between casters and non-casters. The parity isn't perfect, but, it's far closer than in any other edition.

P4. We have yet to see other elements that appear in 4e that don't appear in other editions to explain why 4e is set aside as "not D&D".

Conclusion: It is the primacy of magic in every edition of D&D that is essential to the D&D experience. Remove the primacy of magic, make magic equal to or weaker than mundane, and it is "boring" and "not D&D".

------

Now, that all being said, none of that is a judgement of any of the games. Nor is it a judgement of those who play the games. Liking magic to be magical is not a bad thing. Liking mundane to remain in the realm of real worldish physics is not a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with that. Obviously. since we have about 40 years of D&D doing exactly that and people liking it. Remove that element - making magic equal to or weaker than the mundane - and you get an experience that people label as "not D&D".

Is that a fair summation?

 

[Garthanos]

4e did have primacy of magic. It explicitly called out martial exploits as "not magic in the tradition sense," which means that it was magic in an untraditional sense. It had to, because it accomplished things that were essentially supernatural in ability.

I would say it left things open for more things walking over that edge than it ever implemented on ... some are very much classic monk martial arts I have entered into a trance where I am able to bring my pulse to a stand still and make it appear near perfectly that I am dead.

There are huge numbers of exploits alongside that which are simply and obviously just battlefield tricks

 

[not-so-newguy]

I liked this thread better when it was about cheesy Conan quotes and Dark Crystal YouTube videos. At least throw in some lolcatz in the middle of your arguments to make it interesting for the rest us mouthbreathers. I mean geez guys.