Old School : Tucker's Kobolds and Trained Jellies

[Hussar]

This is a silly, sad myth.

It's true that 4E doesn't describe the specific temperature of its attacks, but that's as far as it goes. DM and Player HABITS may have changed, but the rules explicitly point out that damage can happen to objects, while not forcing it.

Yeah, I've been pointing this out in other threads, but 4e's biggest fault is in presentation, not in content.

 

[Incenjucar]

Yeah, I've been pointing this out in other threads, but 4e's biggest fault is in presentation, not in content.

Agreed. It works great for me, but I have a very analytical personality, and it works more or less how I think.

 

[Endur]

What do you guys think, is it a good idea to bring back that sense of freedom/verisimilitude? The up-side is player and GM creativity, and the 'remember that time' stories. The down-side is having to listen to "But how was I supposed to know using burning hands in the middle of an ancient and dry rope bridge over a thousand foot chasm was a bad idea? You're a mean GM!"

I think we should bring back the reality, but ... the GM who had the party TPK from the burning hands was being unfair.

When the player suggests he is going to use burning hands in the situation, the GM should point out that the character's wisdom score is high enough (or spellcraft score or int or other attribute) that the character believes that the bridge would catch fire, and the result would be a disaster.

Even if the player does not know that the bridge is that flammable, the character knows that the bridge is that flammable. The GM is responsible in this situation.

 

[vagabundo]

Now the pendulum drifted away from this idea over the years, to the point where in 4e it was pretty explicit that you could not "power stunt" your abilities in unexpected ways, nor need you fear a fireball destroying the 1,000 origami cranes that was the McGuffin.

I'd like you to show me where it is explicitly written that paper is immune to magical fire?

The 4e DMG gives a decent amount of advice for doing exactly what you are suggesting, it just doesn't specify the melting point of gold.

While 4e has many failings this is not one of them.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

One of the qualities I enjoy most about D&D, and tabletop RPGs in general, is the ability to go off script and do things that the rules and the adventure didn't anticipate. To me, that's the main reason to play a TTRPG instead of a game on a computer, because the ability to do anything I want outweighs the hassle of keeping track of rules, points, and rolls manually.

I understand this comes close to playing "Mother May I" but it works well with a set of reasonable people in a group. If you are playing with a bunch of unreasonable people, a more strict set of rules will be more valuable. But then, why not just play a computer game if you're stuck playing with unreasonable people?

Exactly. As long as the DM proves himself or herself worthy of trust -- not being a total asshat, in other words -- the old school way is infinitely preferable.

Edit: And yes, this is more about player expectations and demands than rules. See any number of threads on ENWorld where players being surprised by something is equated with DM unfairness.

 

[Mattachine]

Now the pendulum drifted away from this idea over the years, to the point where in 4e it was pretty explicit that you could not "power stunt" your abilities in unexpected ways, nor need you fear a fireball destroying the 1,000 origami cranes that was the McGuffin.

The 4e DMG2 has even more material on adjudicating these situations, including power stunts, such as using terrain features for attacks, movement, or defenses.

Sheesh!

 

[Hassassin]

The rules haven't actually changed to oppose this in 3e or 4e. However, the increased rules coverage has clearly given rise to the sentiment that what the rules don't cover doesn't work, no matter how absurd that is when you actually look at what the DMG says.

It should probably be made clearer in the PHB, which is what players read, that they should feel free to attempt things the rules don't cover and that the DM is there precisely to adjudicate those attempts. Moving some of the rules coverage to the DMG as guidelines would also help.

Regarding 4e, the complaint I have about page 42 is that it suggests the effect of an action should depend on its difficulty instead of what seems plausible. Otherwise, having guidelines like that can only help.

 

[Someone]

I'd like you to show me where it is explicitly written that paper is immune to magical fire?

The 4e DMG gives a decent amount of advice for doing exactly what you are suggesting, it just doesn't specify the melting point of gold.

While 4e has many failings this is not one of them.

Well, it's a bit wanting in how and why things work for many mechanics and powers. This makes a lot of effects and plans dificult to adjudicate.

 

[Tallifer]

Now the old school way could and did lead to problems. If you've ever watched a group of engineering students try to explain their plan for dealing with the orcs using a mobile seige tower to a Poly-sci major GM, you know what I mean.

Not to mention that most of their characters probably had no knowledge of engineering. Although perhaps the Fighting Man had participated in a siege before. Or perhaps the Magic User had read classical texts on siege engines. Still, I would at least make each character roll against Intelligence to draught those plans and carry them out.

 

[Andor]

The 4e DMG2 has even more material on adjudicating these situations, including power stunts, such as using terrain features for attacks, movement, or defenses.

Sheesh!

I didn't even know there was a DMG 2 for 4e. At any rate I was not trying to start an edition war thread, merely communicate my feeling that over the years there has been a drift away from looking outside the character sheet for solutions to problems. It didn't start in 4e, and it won't end in 5e.

My question is: Should looking outside the character sheet for solutions be encouraged in 5e?