Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Imaro]

So is that really the crux of the argument, who is wrong? Well no one is. Your group can play the game is whatever manner suits your group, and the next guys group can play the game in whatever manner suits them.

Is somebody really supposed to be wrong?

D'karr... it's rhetorical. Please go back and read the posts I was responding too. TheFindus makes some pretty definitive claims about what 4e is, I gave counter examples precisely because I don't think 4e is definitively what he claims (which I make a point of citing as more his playstyle with 4e)... then I pose the above question.

 

[Imaro]

Except that it would only be house-ruling if there were no frameworks in the game for handling attacking objects. Since there are this is just a "rules adjudication".

Yes, the power does fire damage, that is the predetermined effect. Objects in an area can be attacked also, if the DM and players choose to. So why is it a house rule to say that a fire effect can damage flammables in the area?

This is parsing words just for the narrow definition. The game does not restrict anyone to that narrow definition.

No the DM, unless using a power, does not get to decide the targets of said power. You are purposefully ignoring the aspects of the rules that do not support your position... while simultaneously trying to use them to support your argument. If a DM decides a power I am using has targets I didn't designate... he is houseruling in 4e.

 

[D'karr]

No the DM, unless using a power, does not get to decide the targets of said power. You are purposefully ignoring the aspects of the rules that do not support your position... while simultaneously trying to use them to support your argument. If a DM decides a power I am using has targets I didn't designate... he is houseruling in 4e.

That is one weird interpretation. But hey if it works for you, go for it and have fun with it. I simply don't agree.

If a DM and players want to be such sticklers as to play the game in that fashion, and it's fun for them then more power to them.

 

[Imaro]

That is one weird interpretation. But hey if it works for you, go for it and have fun with it. I simply don't agree.

If a DM and players want to be such sticklers as to play the game in that fashion, and it's fun for them then more power to them.

Wait, so your group allows the DM to dictate the targets when a player uses their powers?? Seriously?

 

[TheFindus]

You're missing the point totally. Whether it ignites things and melts metal without a player directly targeting is outside the realm of fluff and very much in the realm of rules... and that's why I'm finding it hard to follow you... you seem to make no distinction between rules and fluff while everyone else is. Refluffing a fireball is making it blue instead of red... houseruling the fireball power is making it burn things other than it's target when cast near them. It's not about narrative... it's about the effect of the fireball power... and the effect in 4e is pre-determined.

Oh, this is completely about the rules. See, there seems to be an argument over what the rules say about what the fireball does. The power itself says it targets "creature" in the blast, not objects. Then again, other rules say that objects can be targeted by powers if the do not attack will or have the psionic or necrotic keyword.
So the rules are not clear.
Now, at the table, we can argue about the state of the rules, just like it happens on this thread. I instead go with the narrative: tell me how you envision the scene and play it out and then we decide if burning the documents or not burning the documents is plausible or not. Because the rules do not give a concrete answer, the narrative is the deciding factor here. This is what I want to say.

What that means, though, is that the narrative influences the rules, here fireball. And I think that is a good thing. You seem to disagree. And that is fine with me. I just think that a game system should leave the option that I like open to me, obviously.

 

[D'karr]

D'karr... it's rhetorical. Please go back and read the posts I was responding too. TheFindus makes some pretty definitive claims about what 4e is, I gave counter examples precisely because I don't think 4e is definitively what he claims (which I make a point of citing as more his playstyle with 4e)... then I pose the above question.

But the question still stands, does it matter if somebody is wrong? Does anyone need to be wrong?

Because it's a game after all. How you play your game at your table is your preference. How is your or his preference wrong?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

This passage is about a player directly attacking an object... Not about whether a fireball used in an attack against creatures in a room full of combustibles while attacking a creature will ignite said combustibles. You're stretching so far now it's not even funny.

Nope. This rule has been clarified/updated - to make its intent more clear. The fireball doesn't specifically target a creature, or even a number of them, it targets creatures in the burst. There is an important distinction there. In this case, creatures may or may not include objects subject to fire damage. Nothing has really changed here.

The thing is any way you slice it, it's still a DM call on whether my fireball can ignite papers or melt metal... so it is not an inherent property of the fireball power itself as it has been for the spells of previous editions.

No it's not an inherent property of the fireball, it's an inherent property of attacks with the Fire keyword, IF the DM decides that it is relevant. There are any number of reasons why a DM may choose not to have things catch fire.

Really? This is the card you're trying to pull now... that I haven't read the 4e books. I'm not even going to respond to this.

There are clearly some people in this thread, arguing on the same points as you who haven't.

And this can happen just as easily in 4e... A player that doesn't want to ignite a room on fire can just as easily cite that the rules state creatures. Now the DM can, just like in every edition, rule whatever he wants... but I don't see how 4e in any way stops the problem you've stated above.

A player can cite that all day long, but it doesn't make it right. For the 6th time... Rules Compendium page 107. The game has specifically put that in the DM's hands. Like before, but with even more room to adjudicate when the rules lawyers try to object.

This isn't what we're discussing though. Mark CMG hit it on the head, if I throw a fireball at a creature (and I'm not targeting an object specifically) into a small study full of books and parchments in 4e does it or does it not ignite things in the room? According to the rules of the powers it doesn't and according to the passage in the DMG it can target an object if the player wants to but whether it does or doesn't ignite combustibles not specifically targeted by the PC is not addressed.

Except that misses the point. You don't target a fireball at a specific creature - ever. It is an Area burst 3 - its target line affects "All Creatures in the burst," which, naturally includes any objects, if the DM decides they want to deal with that (some groups/DMs may choose not to - and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that). But you know that, because you read and understand the rules we're talking about here.

 

[TheFindus]

D'karr... it's rhetorical. Please go back and read the posts I was responding too. TheFindus makes some pretty definitive claims about what 4e is, I gave counter examples precisely because I don't think 4e is definitively what he claims (which I make a point of citing as more his playstyle with 4e)... then I pose the above question.

You are right: I definetely think that 4E offers a more narrative approach to the use of powers than any other edition of DnD I have played. "Come and get it" makes my point.
I do not think my opinion is far fetched at all. And I am not assuming that everybody likes that or even plays this way. Which is totally ok.

 

[ashockney]

Nod to realism thoughts:

I'd also like to add the discussion a thought about "tier of play" and "style of world".

For example, heroic should ABSOLUTELY feel more difficult and gritty than Epic per se. It's difficult to cross-over realism to "god-battling" and "world-ending" epics every time you sit down to roll dice.

The style of play should also define this. When you're going for anime/manga style - smash the guy into the side of a mountain, or superhero style - Xmen/Avengers/JLA, a sense of realism will more often get in the way of the storytelling. If you want an austere retelling of a challenging adventure (think LoTR movies, recent James Bond reboot, and the new Mission Impossible reboot) there is certainly WIN in that type of story and campaign, but it's a different kind of challenge.

As I reflect on these thoughts, I'd prefer to see the "nod to realism" played out in the form of FATE aspects more than in a HUGE subset of rules for every occasion and combination. Can't you create an infrastructure of aspects tied to locations, villains, personalities, and equipment that can be triggered to enhance the game storytelling by the DM? This would EMPOWER the DM to INTERACT with the story, while also not requiring an if/then for EVERY possible scenario. You can scale the aspects to your group's liking based upon the kind of story you're trying to tell. For example, will the challenge (limited resource aspect) in ACT 2 of the scenario be rations or magical flight?

 

[D'karr]

Wait, so your group allows the DM to dictate the targets when a player uses their powers?? Seriously?

Wait, so your group doesn't allow the DM to make rules adjudications?? Seriously?

Hyperbole, I think she's listed as the mother of internet forum.