Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Nemesis Destiny]

1e
Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected. Items with a creature which makes its saving throw are considered unaffected.

2e
Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball melts soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Exposed items require saving throws vs. magical fire to determine if they are affected, but items in possession of a creature that rolls a successful saving throw are unaffected by the fireball.
​

"must" vs. "require" looks the same to me

It was an idle thought and splitting hairs. Fact remains, fireballs light things on fire. Nothing has changed. Unless the DM says so, just like it always was. I don't see the problem.

 

[D'karr]

I know full well that effects were spelled out in detail in AD&D, and 3.x, but I guess rather than give guidelines, 4e expects groups/DMs to apply common sense, or whatever level of "realism" they're comfortable with. It's not a stretch to know that fire burns, ice freezes, wind can blow out torches, and the like.

This goes back to the idea that everything that can happen MUST be spelled out explicitly, or it can't happen.

If a spell that does fire damage does NOT say that it catches flammable objects on fire it cannot do so, ever. I wonder if the description of a torch in any of the editions ever mentioned setting things aflame by its use when lit. Because if it doesn't, it obviously can never set anything ablaze. Again, because it's not spelled out. That is a ridiculously absurd way of using the game rules.

I'm kind of glad that I don't play with players that have that type of mentality.

 

[Hussar]

Pretty simple: The objection comes up when non-magical classes get access to magical abilities. The monk is and always has been a magical class. Monks aren't spellcasters, but they are explicitly granted mystical abilities. They can heal themselves and speak with any living thing and touch you in a bad, bad way so you die a week later. That right there is magic.

The fighter is not and has never been a magical class. So people expect their abilities to be... well, not necessarily mundane, but close enough to it that all they require is improbable strength, speed, toughness, and combat skill. The ability to heal yourself is going beyond those limits.

(Also, I challenge the assumption that everyone who objects to these issues in 4E is just totally fine with everything in 3E. I've heard plenty of griping about silly and unrealistic 3E mechanics; "Order of the Stick" has been making comedic hay out of them for years. 4E just took them to a new level.)

But, the problem is, the game tells me that the things you list as magical are in fact not magical. They are Ex. Which is specifically not magical.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

This goes back to the idea that everything that can happen MUST be spelled out explicitly, or it can't happen.

If a spell that does fire damage does NOT say that it catches flammable objects on fire it cannot do so, ever. I wonder if the description of a torch in any of the editions ever mentioned setting things aflame by its use when lit. Because if it doesn't, it obviously can never set anything ablaze. Again, because it's not spelled out. That is a ridiculously absurd way of using the game rules.

I'm kind of glad that I don't play with players that have that type of mentality.

I think (and I may be wrong), that this "gamist" attitude began to grow during the 3.x era. Before that, I know I didn't buy that mentality, and few if any of the folks I gamed with did either.

Back in my AD&D days, DM's word was God, so if she said your spell did x, then it bloody well did, unless you want to argue pointlessly about it for hours. Likewise, I remember one of my characters using Acid Arrow to bypass a lock, and Flame Arrow - on numerous occasions - to light things on fire (even though I was using the second version), and neither of those spells specifically say they can be used for those things.

 

[Hussar]

Here's an example... in PF, outside of the above, Fireball also sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area... it can even melt metals. Thus if a player wants to set an object on fire or melt metal with it he can and using it can also have unforseen consequences (this, IMO, is what flavor that actually ties into the gameworld does).

Taking Fireball in 4e... it only affects creatures in the burst... that's it by the rules and flavor.

No, it really, really isn't. The fact that you and others would continuously state this doesn't make it true. For one, this is SPECIFICALLY spelled out that you can, at the DM's discretion have your effects affect objects. Additionally, the 4e DMG (pre-errata, page 66) states:

Usually, it doesn't matter what kind of attack you make against an object: Damage is damage. However there are a few exceptions.

All objects are immune to poison, psychic, and necrotic damage.

Objects don't have a Will defense and are immune to attacks that target Will defense.

If you want to argue the specifics of an edition, actually READ the book.

 

[Hussar]

Again, if you can change something at will it is not important.
If the player can decide once what the power looks like and never change it, then it is important again, but you can still run in the skeletton issue here in the case that the player decided the power works how implied by the default flavor text.

So, it's only important is I march lockstep with whatever flavour the game designer has deigned to grant me?

Yeah, no thanks.

Why does being able to reflavour an ability at will suddenly make it unimportant? Granting creative control is unimportant? Yes, the mechanical effect will remain the same - game balance is important too. But, allowing the players to have a great deal of say in how that effect manifests engages the player far more than simply dictating, "You will on do X in Y method. No variations!"

Now, every single wizard casts exactly the same spells over and over and over and over again. Every campaign, every world, every time. Yawn.

 

[Hussar]

What happens when the Fireball doesn't ignite the orc's wooden stockade (benefits players) but does the dungeon they are in (harms players) because the DM made an ad hoc adjudication on the nature of magical fire?

How did the players react? Are the players groovy with it? Then no problems.

Why should the game designer get to dictate what my table finds acceptable or not? Why is it better for the game designer to dictate the tastes of my table rather than the me as the DM modifying my game to the tastes of my table?

 

[howandwhy99]

Short answer? Wherever (s)he wants it to be. See your sig. Fudging dice, "forgetting" to roll. In AD&D terms all rules were just guidelines and this is spelled out over and over in all the material that I read on it.

You know, I'm 100% on your side on this point. The rules weren't rules, they were guidelines. But I see them as guidelines for the referee to create their own code. Once created it cannot be broken by him or her (Not that this makes the game moral, rather that it make player - ref interaction a puzzle).

AD&D tried to have it both ways for awhile, I think in respects of having a thriving convention and tournament community, but it doesn't really work in the end. A code requires secrecy and once it's figured out or shared more and more people know it. It becomes pointless to hide it behind a screen and so the magic's gone. Now we get rules lawyers and setting canon and endless look-ups and recitations from books 100's of pages long. Please! Not in my game, thank you. I'll live with needing to know enough about game design to create some a good code and go from there. It's similar enough anyways, but I never saw the content in the published works as "the rules", nor do I now think this means the game was unplayable, unworkable, or dysfunctional. It simply was very poorly explained.

 

[Griego]

Something that can be changed on a whim can't be important.

I can change my underwear on a whim, and I think that's pretty important. More notably, my friends and co-workers insist that it is vital that I do so.

 

[ashockney]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Nod To Realism)





It's an interesting question. What's your take on it?

I would love for the base game to be very, very simple. I would love for there to be "web enabled" content that is compartmentalized that can ADD ON to the game.

For example, in most instances, it's A-ok for me to run a big "adventure" and to roll through the battles with basic and simple uses of powers. BUT there may be the occasion that calls for a dedicated sword duel, a magi duel, a gladiator battle, etc. I think it would be tremendously beneficial to be able to "add on" these pieces for the people who want them in their games, when it would be appropriate. But for the rest of us, if we want to do the "giant gladiator brawl" with one big initiative, everyone taking a turn, and just beating the heck out of each other, that may be just fine too.