Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3482353" data-attributes="member: 32164">The initial thread topic was whether I felt the magic system would be shown the door in 4e. Personally, I don't see any reason why it should be retained other than the "sacred cow" argument. And that, to me, is a bad one. There are a LOT of problems with the magic system in play. The fact that some people are happy with it doesn't change the fact that it imposes limitations on the game that may not be conducive to attracting new players to our hobby.I didn't mean to imply that anyone was stupid, or insane for preferring something else. However, I do feel that there is a legitimate argument that can be made that if the magic system could be made:- easier to learn- more fun- more accessible to people not familiar with the "Classic D&D paradigm"Then more people might be willing to play. I hate the elitist notion that's crept into RPGs. It reminds me of the early days of computers when geeks wanted everyone to learn to use DOS shell, because icons were for people who didn't know how to use "REAL" computers.That's a dumb premise for something that you're trying to interest more people in.I feel that a legitimate argument can be made that many potential gamers might be more familiar with the way magic works in Harry Potter books or movies, or even, yes, The Dresden Files, since it's a show on TV, than the arcane system currently in use in the Dungeons & Dragons game. Thus by making magic function similarly to how it does there, and therefore more familiar, you've potentially removed one barrier to entry for a prospective customer.And if the system is good, I'd bet most D&D gamers wouldn't abandon the game over the loss of the classic system. Some would sure, but people left over THAC0 too. The difference is that I don't perceive the existent Vancian magic system as part of the "appeal" of D&D. I never have. I hate it. It's a necessary evil I've tolerated for almost 30 years of gaming. However, I'm stuck with it because D&D is the game most gamers play. Convincing people to play with houserules, or variant rules can be done, but only after you've gotten a regular group together for a while.My old group's DM abandoned 3e in favor of Castles & Crusades because D&D had gotten too complicated for him. I took one look at C&C and realized it had removed most of the things I saw as improvements in 3e but retained the same kludgy magic system Gary Gygax invented in his basement in 1973. No improvement there for me.People are bailing on D&D (or not even starting to play) because it's gotten too complicated. There's a D&D for Dummies, a Complete Idiot's Guide to Dungeons & Dragons, and an upcoming Rules Compendium. There are Prestige classes and feats designed to patch screwball multiclassing rules. There are 73 BASE classes - in official sources! The game is staggering under its own weight. Something needs to be done.That said, I don't think anything except the d20 Mechanic, attributes, classes, and levels should be considered a sacred cow going into a new edition. There are a lot of classic elements (former "sacred cows") and some more recently introduced ones (like feats) that I expect would survive after a long hard look. I'm just not sure the current magic system is one of them.And the resulting game would still, in my humble opinion, be D&D.That said, I don't think it needs to be dumbed down completely. But streamlining the combat and encounter elements to be play friendly is good. Because if you could allow people to have good resolution mechanics for that, and combine them with the appeal of face-to-face roleplaying, which I think there IS a value too, you have a winning combination. Even in the era of computer MMORPGs.But that's just my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification