This mentality needs to die

[I'm A Banana]

Here's why I don't think it was a bad reason to give: The logical reason starts arguments.

Well, arguments come from unsatisfied players, IMXP. Very few people enter a game going "You know what would be a lot of fun? Debate about rules minutae in a make-believe game about elves and magic." If they're arguing, it's generally (though not always) because their fun is being shut down.

Looking beyond the argument in your examples, you can see that the player was frustrated because they had what they thought was a cool idea, and the DM basically said, "No." So the player defended their idea. Not the right thing to do (DM's say always goes), but understandable because they would have more fun having their idea work than having it shut down. The only difference in the second example is that the game itself is shutting their idea down based on a technicality, rather than the DM shutting their idea down based on the DM's judgement. A player that respected or understood the DM's reasoning would react the same way in the second example, and a player frustrated with the game's reasoning will decide that the game itself sucks and argue against the game's rules rather than the DM's rules.

And that boils it down to the essential problem: it is fun to use elements of your character in new and innovative ways. It's the basic "fun of using tools" that people have. The same rush that the caveman who came up with the idea of sharpening a stick had when he stuck it into an animal. "My imagination and cleverness have expanded my abilities!"

It is fun to use fireballs to melt door ice, even if they are mostly made for damage or combat.

Which explains something of the resentment in some folks the game's tendency to say "rules are results, insert whatever flavor you want." It shuts down creative uses. This is good for game balance and DM control, but can certainly hurt the imagination side of the equation in some people.

I prefer to give up DM control in a situation like this. Let them get away with blasting the door with fire or attacking it with weapons or whatever. It's clearly fun to use these elements in new ways, so encourage the fun. Just ramp up the difficulty of the next part, if you thought they got through it too easily. You're the DM, after all, nothing you haven't already said is set in stone.

 

[Ourph]

If the PC moved more than three spaces he was charging to attack. Basically Chris Perkins was not announcing that they were charging.

That's a good point.

 

[Mark Chance]

I prefer to give up DM control in a situation like this. Let them get away with blasting the door with fire or attacking it with weapons or whatever. It's clearly fun to use these elements in new ways, so encourage the fun.

Hear, hear.

Is the point of the encounter "Get through the door"? If so, then solutions which facilitate that point ought to be encouraged. Situations that have only one solution (or a very narrow set of solutions) are almost always the result of bad scenario design. Sticking to the script when running into a bad scenario is an example of bad DMing.

No matter the game or edition.

 

[The Shaman]

Me: "There's a frozen door covered in ice."
Wizard: "I fireball it, that should melt all the ice off."
Me: "Fireball is extremely hot, but it only lasts for a fraction of a second, it isn't going to melt all the ice off."
Wizard: "What? It does enough damage to kill someone outright and you're saying it doesn't last long enough to melt a door?"
Me: "Yes, that's my ruling."
Wizard: "Well it's stupid . . .

This is an example of a player with a jar of fromunda cheese for brains.

The player makes an argument, the referee makes a ruling, and and the game moves on. It doesn't take a printer's bale of rules.

With respect to to the original post, I don't see anything to get in a wad over; the referee answered a rules question with the rule, and while it might've been more helpful to describe to the player how the effect is not fire but flickering light, it got the job done.

 

[SkidAce]

It is fun to use fireballs to melt door ice, even if they are mostly made for damage or combat.

Which explains something of the resentment in some folks the game's tendency to say "rules are results, insert whatever flavor you want." It shuts down creative uses. This is good for game balance and DM control, but can certainly hurt the imagination side of the equation in some people.

I prefer to give up DM control in a situation like this. Let them get away with blasting the door with fire or attacking it with weapons or whatever. It's clearly fun to use these elements in new ways, so encourage the fun. Just ramp up the difficulty of the next part, if you thought they got through it too easily. You're the DM, after all, nothing you haven't already said is set in stone.

I agree 100%. However let's not lose sight of the fact that some things just won't work, no matter how creative the player is.

My players come up with stuff I never thought of all the time and I shrug my shoulder, say cool, and we press on.

But if they are attempting to chop down a shrubbery with a herring, it just won't work. Not limiting them to one solution, letting them know if one won't work.

I might have let Darkfire melt "some" of the ice, if it had a damage component.

 

[AllisterH]

As an aside to this...

When does a "cool idea" become an annoyance?

How do you tell your players "this idea no longer works" yet you allowed it to work in the first place?

For example, if we let Darkfire/Faerie Fire actually be fire, does this mean that the DM now has to consider every situation with faerie fire as it working like it is actual fire?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree 100%. However let's not lose sight of the fact that some things just won't work, no matter how creative the player is.

I agree. Which is why I pitched the idea that the name was kind of flawed, since, by name alone, you'd get the idea that darkfire was a kind of fire. An explanation/namechange probably works better here.

For example, if we let Darkfire/Faerie Fire actually be fire, does this mean that the DM now has to consider every situation with faerie fire as it working like it is actual fire?

For "rules purposes," they only need to follow the rules.

For "flavor purposes," why not? Let it keep folks warm and start tinder alight and melt stuff as if it were a candle's flame. Have fun.

 

[Hussar]

As an aside to this...

When does a "cool idea" become an annoyance?

How do you tell your players "this idea no longer works" yet you allowed it to work in the first place?

For example, if we let Darkfire/Faerie Fire actually be fire, does this mean that the DM now has to consider every situation with faerie fire as it working like it is actual fire?

And this, right here, is the big old can of worms that gets opened when you let people get "creative" with interpretations of abilities and the like. If you allow me to use darkfire to melt ice, can I not set someone on fire with it? Would it not protect me in cold situations? On and on.

And, IMO, it's perfectly reasonable for the player to assume some or all of these things. And it can lead to all sorts of problems at the table.

Not that it always will or anything like that. But, I think AllisterH brings up a very valid point.

 

[pemerton]

Which explains something of the resentment in some folks the game's tendency to say "rules are results, insert whatever flavor you want." It shuts down creative uses. This is good for game balance and DM control, but can certainly hurt the imagination side of the equation in some people.

I prefer to give up DM control in a situation like this. Let them get away with blasting the door with fire or attacking it with weapons or whatever. It's clearly fun to use these elements in new ways, so encourage the fun.

As an aside to this...

When does a "cool idea" become an annoyance?

How do you tell your players "this idea no longer works" yet you allowed it to work in the first place?

And this, right here, is the big old can of worms that gets opened when you let people get "creative" with interpretations of abilities and the like.

HeroQuest 2e has a solution to this problem. Augments - uses of one ability to boost another ability which is the primary ability being used - are permissible only if novel, thematically fitting and/or manifestly entertaining to the table.

The rulebook (written by Robin Laws) goes on to say "it may seem that this rule puts the Narrator in the uncomfortable position of critiquing player performance. In practice, players can be counted on to step up to the creative challenge".

In my opinion 4e would benefit from having more rules, and more GMing advice, along these lines. The DMG2 is better than the DMG, but there's still room for improvement.

 

[AllisterH]

For "flavor purposes," why not? Let it keep folks warm and start tinder alight and melt stuff as if it were a candle's flame. Have fun.

What about using it AGAINST creatures vulnerable to fire.

Does this invalidate the whole Endure elements ritual/power/spell whatever since Faerie Fire means you don't have to worry about cold conditions?