A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

(1) How do you know the fireball is not under the control of the character?

Once the spell has been cast, the fireball goes and explodes. Nothing in the fireball daily says or even implies that the caster can make non-lethal fire. What is non-lethal fire anyway? It's absurd to even think that non-lethal fire exists. The DM can add non-lethal fire into the game, but I would never do so. I like a more realistic game than you do.

(2) Suppose that the fireball is not under the control of the character - why is that a reason that the player can't determine some of the consequences of an effect that was brought into the fiction as a result of his/her decision (ie to have his/her PC cast a fireball)?

Because fire is lethal and impartial. There is no control over what it does. If it's non-lethal, then it's not fire. If it's fire, then it's lethal.

 

[Maxperson]

But [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] appears to be arguing (2). Just as he argues (for instance) that it is common sense that a 1st level dwarf PC should know all about forest trails, but it would be metagaming for the player of a 1st level desert nomad to impute to his/her PC knowledge of trolls.

I never said "know all about forest trails." I said know about the existence of forest trails. I'd be okay with a desert nomad knowing of the existence of trolls.

 

[Maxperson]

hehe, Max has been, IMHO, obstinate for a LONG time. IIRC he was posting back on the WotC forums back in the 4e days too, am I right [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]? I seem to remember a lot of similar discussions. He's very consistent though, and I certainly think its good that he knows how he wants to play. I do suspect, often, he might be a LITTLE stuck in his ways, but I'd be the last person to call that a fault, or else I'd be in deep trouble myself!

I'm fairly consistent, yes.

I do tinker with new things due to discussions here, though. A few campaigns ago I had the PCs all be children of various gods of the Forgotten Realms. Part of that campaign was that each child had innate power to "do things" related to the portfolios of the parent god. I let the players know that they could try anything they could think of that relates, and to be creative. The power grew with them as they gained levels and could do things of their level or lower fairly easily, but could be pushed to things more powerful than would normally be possible due to level alone, and I even didn't give them hard rules on what the limits were so they wouldn't feel constrained. I was basically setting it up so that they could create for the game within those limits, to see how the players would react to being able to do things like that. They tried surprisingly few things. I figured they would use it more and more as they got used to the idea, which they did, but still tended to go with their class related abilities far more often.

So, yeah, I kind of feel like we've beat the 'Max doesn't see it that way' horse to death here. I've kind of poked people about taking it in other directions, but it can be hard. I'd also say that sometimes you build your strength by pounding on brick walls!

I enjoy the debate, and more than once after beating my head against the brick wall for a while, someone says something new and different, or in a different way which gets me thinking about the subject in a way I hadn't yet. Occasionally, I will even change my mind about something, like I did in the Shield Master discussion.

And don't worry Max, I don't take myself too seriously...

Same here!! And I do enjoy our discussions. I wish some others here would engage in good faith discussions the way you do.

 

[pemerton]

fire is lethal and impartial. There is no control over what it does.

In the real world, some people who are exposed to fires survive. In adventure fiction this is relatively common - eg I just saw Quantum of Solace on TV and James Bond and friend escape a burning building surrounded by flames. And many a D&D character has been caught in a fireball, red dragon's breath, etc and yet survived.

And there can certainly be authorial control over fiction involving fire - as that movie illustrates!

Which is what my question asked: suppose that the fireball is not under the control of the character - why is that a reason that the player can't determine some of the consequences of an effect that was brought into the fiction as a result of his/her decision (ie to have his/her PC cast a fireball)?

Or, to put it another way, what is wrong with director stance in relation to the consequences of fireballs?

Once the spell has been cast, the fireball goes and explodes. Nothing in the fireball daily says or even implies that the caster can make non-lethal fire. What is non-lethal fire anyway? It's absurd to even think that non-lethal fire exists. The DM can add non-lethal fire into the game, but I would never do so. I like a more realistic game than you do.

How do you know the fireball is not under the control of the character?

Once the spell has been cast, the fireball goes and explodes. Nothing in the fireball daily says or even implies that the caster can make non-lethal fire.

But what in the spell says or implies that the caster can't control its effect on those who are caught in the flames, like Pyro in the X-Men?

What is non-lethal fire anyway? It's absurd to even think that non-lethal fire exists.

<snip>

I like a more realistic game than you do.

So does that mean that, in your D&D game, fireball and red dragon breath
kill everyone in the AoE?

If not, then that means your game has non-lethal fire too! Let's call the thing that happens in your game's fiction when a fireball fails to kill someone caught in its AoE X. Now, let's suppose that, in 4e, when a fireball doesn't kill someone, X is what happens to them.

Why can't it be the character controlling the fire so that X occurs? Or, if it's not, what's objecitonable about the player specifying that the consequence of this fireball, for such-and-such a target creature, is X?

 

[Maxperson]

In the real world, some people who are exposed to fires survive.

You can survive lethal damage. Many people who get shot or stabbed survive, too. That doesn't make those lethal types of attacks. Fireball is no different. You could die or survive, but it's up to providence to decide that.

And there can certainly be authorial control over fiction involving fire - as that movie illustrates!

You could get lucky and survive a fireball, sure. That's what hit points and saving throws are for. If you have enough hit points to survive, you live like that character. If you don't, you hit 0 and could die as fireball is a lethal attack type as was the fire in that building.

suppose that the fireball is not under the control of the character - why is that a reason that the player can't determine some of the consequences of an effect that was brought into the fiction as a result of his/her decision (ie to have his/her PC cast a fireball)?

Fire is impartial and uncontrolled in the fiction. A player making that decision is asserting control over an uncontrolled event in the fiction.

Or, to put it another way, what is wrong with director stance in relation to the consequences of fireballs?

Nothing if you want to play that way.

But what in the spell says or implies that the caster can't control its effect on those who are caught in the flames, like Pyro in the X-Men?

The same thing that says or implies that the caster can't have a secondary nuclear explosion happen.

We've been over this before. Not specifically precluding something does not include it. Unless the DM includes such caster control, it doesn't exist.

So does that mean that, in your D&D game, fireball and red dragon breath
kill everyone in the AoE?

If their hit points dropped to -10 or lower, yes.

If not, then that means your game has non-lethal fire too! Let's call the thing that happens in your game's fiction when a fireball fails to kill someone caught in its AoE X. Now, let's suppose that, in 4e, when a fireball doesn't kill someone, X is what happens to them.

My game does not include fire as a non-lethal attack type. Stop the sophistry dude. You know that in D&D there are two types of attacks, depending on the edition. Lethal and non-lethal/subdual. The former can kill, but doesn't always. The latter cannot possibly kill.

 

[pemerton]

My game does not include fire as a non-lethal attack type. Stop the sophistry dude. You know that in D&D there are two types of attacks, depending on the edition. Lethal and non-lethal/subdual. The former can kill, but doesn't always. The latter cannot possibly kill.

I don't understand this. 4e doensn't have any such things as non-lethal/subdual attacks - that's an ad hoc feature of AD&D, and a systematic feature of 3E.

4e has a rule about what happens if an attack reduces a target to zero hp. 5e has the same rule, but confines it to melee attacks.

You can survive lethal damage. Many people who get shot or stabbed survive, too. That doesn't make those lethal types of attacks. Fireball is no different. You could die or survive, but it's up to providence to decide that.

It may be up to providence in the fiction. But at the table, what's the objection to the player making the call? How is "providence" unrealistic when it's chosen by a player rather than dictated by a die roll?

Fire is impartial and uncontrolled in the fiction.

How do you know? Where do the 4e rules say this? If anything, the fact that a player can declare the result of a fireball attack to be unconsciousness rather than death tends to suggest the opposite!

 

[Maxperson]

I don't understand this. 4e doensn't have any such things as non-lethal/subdual attacks - that's an ad hoc feature of AD&D, and a systematic feature of 3E.

And as I said, this is one of the things that kept me from playing it. Fire is a lethal attack form. A game that doesn't have it as a lethal attack form is highly unrealistic. You like games that are less realistic than I do, so you played 4e.

It's no big deal that it was part of the deal breakers for me with that edition.

4e has a rule about what happens if an attack reduces a target to zero hp. 5e has the same rule, but confines it to melee attacks.

Yes. 5e is a bit more realistic, though still unrealistic with that rule. The first thing my players did when they read that rule was unanimously decide that it was dumb(their term, though I agreed with it) to be able go back in time after your lethal attack drops the creature to 0 and decide that you were really knocking the creature out. It took all of 30 seconds to figure out that we didn't like that rule and ditch it.

It may be up to providence in the fiction. But at the table, what's the objection to the player making the call? How is "providence" unrealistic when it's chosen by a player rather than dictated by a die roll?

One is providence(the die roll), and the other is not(the player choosing). Choice is not providence.

How do you know? Where do the 4e rules say this? If anything, the fact that a player can declare the result of a fireball attack to be unconsciousness rather than death tends to suggest the opposite!

The fireball spell does not say that they do, so they don't unless the DM puts it into the game. It's really simple. In D&D, outside of what is explicitly allowed or forbidden, nothing is allowed unless the DM allows it.

 

[pemerton]

One is providence(the die roll), and the other is not(the player choosing). Choice is not providence.

Huh? In most RPGs, including D&D, the GM can choose for an event to occur which is, in the fiction, sheer chance or providence - eg that members of the sect are in this teahouse rather than that teahouse.

Gygax in his DMG canvasses the same option for a fatal monster attack against a PC, where the player has played with skill and hence PC death would be particularly unfair.

What is the objection to a player making an analogous choice in relation to the effect that a fireball spell has on a target?

 

[Maxperson]

Huh? In most RPGs, including D&D, the GM can choose for an event to occur which is, in the fiction, sheer chance or providence - eg that members of the sect are in this teahouse rather than that teahouse.

Gygax in his DMG canvasses the same option for a fatal monster attack against a PC, where the player has played with skill and hence PC death would be particularly unfair.

DM decisions on whether something does or does not happen are not providence. The results on a roll he has you make will be. This is also a Red Herring as we are discussing players, not the DM who uses different rules.

What is the objection to a player making an analogous choice in relation to the effect that a fireball spell has on a target?

The player is not the DM. In D&D, the DM is the only one who can make decisions about the world in that way, unless the player's PC has a special ability or spell that allows him to do so.

 

[pemerton]

we are discussing players, not the DM who uses different rules.

The player is not the DM. In D&D, the DM is the only one who can make decisions about the world in that way, unless the player's PC has a special ability or spell that allows him to do so.

But the rule in 4e is clear: it is the player whose characer made the attack who can make these decisions.

Perhaps you prefer not to use such a rule, but it doesn't make the game unrealistic that authority for making this decision is allocated to the player rather than the GM.