What is the essence of D&D

[Tony Vargas]

If we are calling primacy of magic where magic is helpful, beneficial, and changes the way the game is played then yes I like primacy of magic. If we want a game without magic there are plenty out there.

Just a little beyond that, in that it's helful/beneficial & changes the way the game is played to a greater degree than non-magical alternatives.
And, no, there's nothing wrong with preferring such Primacy of Magic in a fantasy game where magic is the focus, like D&D or Ars Magica. It'd be shocking if that's not how a Harry Potter RPG shook out, for instance.
An FRPG could feature magic, but not the Primacy thereof, and there'd be nothing wrong with that, either... it just seems like such a game would be missing the Essence of D&D, so better not put that on the cover.

I think you are describing a game that would play the same rather it is 4 wizards or 4 fighters.

Not at all, . For instance, in 4e, a 4-wizard party would be /completely/ different from a 4 fighter party, because 4 defenders would have overlapping mark issues to coordinate, and 4 fighters, particularly, would, unless carefully designed for such a party, likely lack the diversity of skills to handle challenges. While, conversely, 4 wizards would lack melee resilience, in-combat healing (fighters actually had a bit of self-healing over and above second wind), and, likewise, unless intentionally designed to compensate, lack diversity of skills outside the arena of knowledges. In combat, the 4-fighter party would break up enemy formations with some marking to prevent the enemy focusing, while others concentrate on one target, then take up marks when the others get low on hp, the 4 wizards would try to reduce enemies from a distance and prevent engagement as much as possible. Fighters would tend to grind through all their surges by the end of the day, wizards would tend to blow through dailies by the end of the day.

Rather an all-magical party and an all-martial party would both be viable, they'd be different, they'd approach some challenges differently from others, but the game would remain playable, and functional, without modification, either way. For instance, an all-arcanist party of Artificer, Elemental Sorcerer, Swordmage, and Wizard or an all-martial party - if of different classes, perforce, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue & Warlord - could both handle the same level and difficulty of combat encounters and skill challenges. The former party would have more difficulty with very physical skill challenges, the latter with more cerebral ones. The latter could also function fine in a world without magic, at all, the DM just uses the inherent bonuses optional rule.

I don’t think that is possible or desirable. I like different classes having different roles and being good at different things that completely change the way encounters are approached. Now that’s just my opinion.

That doesn't require the primacy of magic, nor even magic.

 

[Garthanos]

. By the same token, pointing out the objective facts is not an accusation of lying, let alone of /being a liar/, with the connotation of lying habitually.

Point out the objective facts and find them citing their unchanged rant/diatribe several threads later well ... ends up being a shoe fits issue.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas[/quote] Sure, using "literally" incorrectly to mean "figuratively - but in high degree" like repeating words for emphasis/authenticity ("I don't like like him" "Oh, you totally, like, LIKE like him!"), is a scourge of pop-culture English.
[/QUOTE]

Eh, I’ve no beef with either usage. Literally has meant several things for quite a while, so that usage isn’t even “incorrect”, it’s just not one of the legitimate uses that you like.

Edit: As to my other post you replied to, my point was precisely that “arguably” and “by default” aren’t good enough. It should have been made explicit, and put in part of the book most players eventually actually read, like the section on ability checks. IME, most players will literally never read the introduction to the book, or to any given chapter, even if they play with the same phb and reference it regularly for over a decade. If it’s important, put it in a section that gets referenced, and make references to it elsewhere.

 

[Garthanos]

I don’t see how casters are more important than fighters under any edition of d&d.

When you have to virtually take Dungeons out of Dungeon and Dragons because no cleric ie this super sized impact on the game... Yeh that means more important.

It wasn't even me saying that but one of those arguing that primacy of magic isn't the thing... because you could adjust the game to deal with lack of X. The adjustment is over the top.

Further from all I have heard a party of clerics and druids in 3e... make the party of fighters or even the Fighter that joins look worse than the Druids bear. So I think there may have been more importance.

Actually I think Zard was saying that 3e might be the only edition where magic was that much more important but the lack of cleric goes all the way back.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Eh, I’ve no beef with either usage. Literally has meant several things for quite a while, so that usage isn’t even “incorrect”, it’s just not one of the legitimate uses that you like.

Then, when someone says "literally the same" you could reasonably take it as "really, really feelz the same, to me."

Edit: As to my other post you replied to, my point was precisely that “arguably” and “by default” aren’t good enough. It should have been made explicit, and put in part of the book most players eventually actually read, like the section on ability checks. IME, most players will literally* never read the introduction to the book, or to any given chapter, even if they play with the same phb and reference it regularly for over a decade. If it’s important, put it in a section that gets referenced, and make references to it elsewhere.

If you're talking p42, yeah, it should have been at least explained as something the DM had recourse to, and that players should feel free to declare such actions. If you're 5e/G&A... it's really not that important the players read the books, at all (beyond their class & spell lists), so long as the DM is on the ball.







* I see what you did, there.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You just described what I was talking about. If reading pages of powers was all someone did, they might have their eyes glaze over and only see the basic formatting.

If they actually played a couple characters and/or payed attention to what other PCs powers did, they couldn’t possibly have the genuine impression that the powers are all the same.

And you just exemplified what I was talking about. You're discounting players' reported experiences when they don't match what you expect. You say it's not possible, but clearly enough players did actually play a couple characters -- or more -- and come away with that genuine impression. If you deny that, you're calling them liars.

And yeah, the seeds of that impression might very well have been sown in the first experience of reading the book and glazing over. Maybe if it had been formatted differently, some of them might have played exactly the same campaign with exactly the same rules but had a more positive experience. First impressions are important. That might seem frustratingly superficial to you, but I'm trying to explain the reception of 4E, not pass judgment on its objective quality.

And hyperbolic or not, the exact phrase “literally all the same” has been uttered in reference to 4e powers as recently as last month in a twitter argument. I curate my twitter experience, so I just muted the person. It was a common refrain back in the day.

Whether or not it's hyperbolic matters for how you respond to it. If it is hyperbolic, and you respond to it literally, you're tilting at a straw man. In general, I find it's helpful to respond to the least ridiculous interpretation of the other guy's words you can possibly conceive, rather than the most.

 

[Guest 6801328]

"Omnipressence" would work against the concept, making magic feel mundane/fungible (like magic items in 4e).
"Magic Dependency" would work fine, it gets the idea across. But, frankly, Primacy sounds cooler than Dependency, and doesn't connote addiction.

Prettymuch, yeah, it's worth recognizing that. Magic is more critical to the accomplishment of goals, even to survival, than non-magical contributions, which are fungible. You could use a shield golem or a series of conjured monsters or, at very low level, a well-trained attack dog, in place of a fighter a lot of the time. Wouldn't be /as/ good, might even get you killed once in a blue moon, but generally, the fighter's contribution is less unique, less critical, more fungible.

"Magic Dependency" would include the same information - success doesn't /Depend/ on the Fighter's contribution - but with the connotation of D&D being 'on magic' like it was a drug.

::

So far I've been assuming your main beef is that you think Wizards > Fighters. But does it bother you that a Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue kind of needs to have a magic weapon? Is that part of your complaint about the role of magic?

Because I don't think that spellcasting ifself is strictly necessary...in fact all too often I've seen the casters pretty much thwarted by magic-resistant/legendary monsters, and reduced to trying to buff their teammates, while the F/B/R crowd beats the BBEG down with their weapons. But, yeah, they are magic weapons.

In your ideal world, is the Fighter supposed to be as effective as the Wizard without any magic items?

 

[Arnwolf666]

When you have to virtually take Dungeons out of Dungeon and Dragons because no cleric ie this super sized impact on the game... Yeh that means more important.

It wasn't even me saying that but one of those arguing that primacy of magic isn't the thing... because you could adjust the game to deal with lack of X. The adjustment is over the top.

Further from all I have heard a party of clerics and druids in 3e... make the party of fighters or even the Fighter that joins look worse than the Druids bear. So I think there may have been more importance.

Actually I think Zard was saying that 3e might be the only edition where magic was that much more important but the lack of cleric goes all the way back.

Oh ok. I don’t want to play a game without them. i want the game to need clerics. Just like all the major classes. Some are after all just variants of the other imho.

Although you can still play the game with minor modifications without a cleric. It’s no big deal and easy to do.

 

[Oofta]

You just described what I was talking about. If reading pages of powers was all someone did, they might have their eyes glaze over and only see the basic formatting.

If they actually played a couple characters and/or payed attention to what other PCs powers did, they couldn’t possibly have the genuine impression that the powers are all the same.

And hyperbolic or not, the exact phrase “literally all the same” has been uttered in reference to 4e powers as recently as last month in a twitter argument. I curate my twitter experience, so I just muted the person. It was a common refrain back in the day.

All I can say is that I disagree.

Some powers were different, but others ... meh. Didn't feel distinct to me.

In other words stop telling everybody what their opinion is.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Bump