Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Imaro]

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.

The rules are clear... with the DM's discretion an object can be targeted by a player using fireball... what can't happen according to the rules is that same player accidentally setting things on fire.

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.

Which is great, because that is the playstyle you've chosen for your game. But the rules are pretty clear and if you as DM decide the documents burn without the players consent... you haven't reskinned the power you've houseruled it's effect.

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.

This is a specific thing to your choice to houserule 4e though... it is not in and of itself an inherent property of 4e's rules. Of course I'm curious what happens if both you and the player have conflicting narrative desires in this situation... especially since most narrativist games have a mechanism for deciding who has narrative power at any particular moment... and 4e doesn't.

 

[Mark CMG]

Mark CMG, no, you're right. In 4e, it is not automatic if the papers light on fire or not. It is up to the DM to adjudicate that.

Pre-4e, all DM's were forced by the mechanics into a single interpretation of how fireball works.

It all comes down to whether you feel the DM should be empowered to make determinations or not. In pre-4e, those determinations were solely the realm of the rules. The DM had no real say in the matter. In 4e, it's up to the DM.

I can't believe that I'm arguing in favor of DM empowerment.

The difference between saying it does or doesn't burn the papers isn't DM empowerment (and I suspect you know this), since if the rules say the paper burns the DM can say otherwise anyway and has Rule 0 to cite. The difference is that to arrive at a logical situation (where papers caught in a fire burn), the DM needs to make an adjudication that actually goes against what the rules say.

Some would say that this is player empowerment because it gives the player the rule to cite that the papers wouldn't burn unless the DM says they would. Sometimes players use rules as a cudgel, particularly in tournament play where there is additional pressure on DMs to *not* make any adjudications beyond the letter of the rules. You can have two groups playing in a tournament where a found map can be important to moving forward quickly and if one DM adjudicates that in such circumstances a map burns, because it makes logical sense, but the rules require him to make the additional ruling, and another DM allows the RAW to stand (and so the map doesn't burn despite being engulfed in flame), where it significantly affects the outcome of the tourney.

I can't believe you think anyone believes that you're arguing in favor of DM empowerment.

The rules are clear... with the DM's discretion an object can be targeted by a player using fireball... what can't happen according to the rules is that same player accidentally setting things on fire.

I've used a couple of posts to cut to the chase on this argument because the last few dozen posts looks like a lot of doublespeak from both sides where no one is quite getting to the heart of the issue. It boils down to this -

So, just to be clear, by the rules for all editions (just by the rules as written, without need for a DM adjudication), if a guy is standing in a ten by ten by ten room and he is targetted by a fireball, all of the papers in the room (let's say piled around his feet) catch on fire, no ifs, ands, or buts. The papers (not magical, just normal maps, let's say) are in the blast radius and the guy is the target, but the guy is blasted and the papers burst into flames. Right?

And this -

Mark CMG, no, you're right. In 4e, it is not automatic if the papers light on fire or not. It is up to the DM to adjudicate that.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The rules are clear... with the DM's discretion an object can be targeted by a player using fireball... what can't happen according to the rules is that same player accidentally setting things on fire.

Again, wrong. According to those rules that you've read and understand, the player chooses the origin square of the burst. After that step, all targets in that burst are attacked. Targets include every creature, which may or may not include objects at the DM's discretion.

Which is great, because that is the playstyle you've chosen for your game. But the rules are pretty clear and if you as DM decide the documents burn without the players consent... you haven't reskinned the power you've houseruled it's effect.

Wrong again. For reasons stated many, many times. The rules passage on damaging objects even states that the DM may rule that no attack roll is necessary when attacking objects - just apply damage and/or effects. In any case, the defences of most objects is so low that most hits will be nearly automatic.

This is a specific thing to your choice to houserule 4e though... it is not in and of itself an inherent property of 4e's rules. Of course I'm curious what happens if both you and the player have conflicting narrative desires in this situation... especially since most narrativist games have a mechanism for deciding who has narrative power at any particular moment... and 4e doesn't.

The DM decides, as always. And it's not a houserule. As has been pointed out, shall I call this the 7th time? Maybe it's not fair to count twice in the same post.

 

[D'karr]

most narrativist games have a mechanism for deciding who has narrative power at any particular moment... and 4e doesn't.

It's called a DM.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I've used a couple of posts to cut to the chase on this argument because the last few dozen posts looks like a lot of doublespeak from both sides where no one is quite getting to the heart of the issue. It boils down to this -



And this -

Here's the thing though, the RULE calls on the DM to adjudicate. Specifically. That IS the rules as written. In previous editions, the default was "stuff burns". Now the default is, "decide if stuff burns."

 

[Imaro]

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.

Yep, totally agree...

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.

Never argued the DM couldn't fiat it...

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

Good for those people... I'm not one of them.

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 is one of the things that makes discussing 4e so hard, the multiple rules sources. Let's examine 107...

Targeting Objects...

"At the DM's discretion, a power that targets one or more creatures can target one or more objects, as long as the number of targets does not exceed the number specified by the power.

For example, a player might want her wizard to attack a door with a thunder power that normally targets a single creature. If the DM says yes to her, she can use the spell against the door but can't use it against the door and another creature, because doing so would exceed the number of targets specified in the power. See Attacking Objects page 176, for objects' defenses, hit points and so forth. "

Hmm, I can almost see your interpretation if this was the only paragraph about it in the RC and the one example it provides still didn't support a player pro-actively wanting to affect objects and then asking for DM ruling as opposed to a DM deciding arbitrarily that it will effect an object (is there an example of this anywhere in the actual rulebooks?)... but not quite. The other paragraphs I have provided plus the example here all point to it being a player driven choice... not a DM one.

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.

I sure did and I don't agree with your interpretation. Everything in the rules points to it being a player's choice to try and affect objects not a DM arbitrarily deciding to. If anything I'm more apt to agree with TheFindus that the rules are unclear but infer strongly it is a player who has to proactively want to affect an object with his powers.

 

[Tovec]

How can Hercules re-route rivers? Not because he's a fighter, but because he's a demigod.

How can this warlord heal wounds when he uses inspiring word? Because one of his distant ancestors was a celestial, and he is actually able to channel small amounts of divine healing power.

Yes, Hercules did amazing things, because he was a (demi)god.

How can this bard deal psychic damage to the undead? Because he laces his words with choice selections from the Malleus Mortis, the most vituperative anti-undead tract of the Church of Pelor. Since he is not a cleric, he lacks true divine authority, but he has sufficient arcane power to force an understanding of the deific menace upon even the most dimly-aware undead minds.

How does this fighter pull his enemies close? Because he has a wild magical or psionic talent that momentarily makes him attractive to them.

This way, the laws of the universe don't need to change - the PCs are just the exceptions to the normal laws.

1. We have addressed the bard and his psychic mocking of a dimly-aware undead. And we've discussed their minds.
2. When did the fighter (with his martial power source) pick up said wild magical or psionic talent? Once again, fluff unsupported by the rules and pulled out of nowhere in order to justify a power. Instead, it would be nice if he had the power BECAUSE he has a psionic talent, not he has a random psionic talent because he has the power.
3. If the laws of the universe make no sense, then I think they certainly need to change. When the rules deal primarily with the PCs, they aren't exceptions to the normal laws - they ARE the normal laws. We aren't talking about powers obtained by a random NPC, we're talking about ones used by the party warlord, bard and fighter.

I am sure you understand that 4E moved to a mechanic that does not necessarily simulate reality the way former editions did.
Instead, the designers took a more narrative approach.

By narrative approach you mean 'make up whatever you want when it doesn't make sense'?

In very old editions of DnD there were a lot of situation in which the players and the GM at the table had to come up with rules, because rules did not exist. There were, for example, no rules for uses of skills like stealth, diplomacy, etc. So everybody had to make it work somehow. And we did, we came up with something that fit the story. Something that we thought was plausible.

Right, those rules didn't exist. But for years in between what you are talking about and 4e, the rules DID, and they worked fine. I don't understand why progress like that needed to be thrown out in favour of "maybe or maybe not" the papers get ignited.

I guess you do not know what playing like this was like, because if you did play older edition that lacked a lot of rules, you would be cherry picking here (having to come up with your own rules for the use of skills back then was ok, but being able to refluff a fireball narratively is somehow not), and I assume you are not cherry picking, because it is lame.

Yes, but somehow it is good to get rid of through and effort that people have put into a rules set? The goodness comes from the fact you now have to make it up as you go, hurrah!

There is no confusion. The fireball has to be narrated in some way. If the player narrates it in a way that is cool, plausible and fits the story, it is ok if the important documents that the PCs are interested in reading do not burn completely. Same as the rogue in 3e would evade a fireball in a 10x10' room without cover. Or new swimming or haggling rules that a ruleset does not present and the group has to invent on the fly. You'd have to narrate that, too.

I'd argue you don't HAVE TO narrate that too. In 3e for example, rules on swimming were fairly clear. Now, however you have to narrate what happens and invent a rule, or take something you feel is close and reflavour, to deal with the issue. I guess 4e does excel in making people step away from the familiar and force them to narrate, if only so that the DM can guess at a rule to cover it.

You were never forced to use material in previous editions, when the rules were presented. A rules-lawyer would certainly try and bring up a rule one way or another but rules-lawyers can do that in 4e too by saying the power doesn't state anything but creatures so that isn't anything new.

Don't forget, when you make the argument that it can target non-creatures that this is a ruleset given to us by the same people who produce Magic (MtG) and that when they stated "creatures" I'm sure they meant just that. They are very clear in their other game title of what an effect targets but in DnD they apparently miss out and have to include it in a section for DM fiat if they happen to think about it or want a non-standard result.

 

[Imaro]

It's called a DM.

Actually in FATE... it's called a fate point.

 

[Imaro]

Here's the thing though, the RULE calls on the DM to adjudicate. Specifically. That IS the rules as written. In previous editions, the default was "stuff burns". Now the default is, "decide if stuff burns."

That's not the RAW, it's your interpretation from only one selectively chosen paragraph (when there are numerous ones in the RC which have also been cited) in the RC... How about examining everything as a whole?

EDIT: Also even you admit this wasn't the case in the original 4e corebooks.

 

[Mark CMG]

Here's the thing though, the RULE calls on the DM to adjudicate. Specifically. That IS the rules as written. In previous editions, the default was "stuff burns". Now the default is, "decide if stuff burns."

Seems like a waste of effort. Under what circumstance when stuff would have burned before would stuff not burn now? This is a bit of a trick question because it relies on you not trying to ignore the first part where it says, "Under what circumstance when stuff would have burned before," while answering the part where it asks, "would stuff not burn now?" I stress this because anyone reading the last few pages of posts would note a lot of people saying half-things and only partially addressing questions asked.


You see the point of all this seems to be that if the DM can decide if stuff burns or not in both situations (as one always could), why would anyone write a rule where stuff that should burn doesn't unless the DM says it has to burn while at the same time advocating that what is happening is definitely fire and acts just like fire against the actual target? The default logically would be that stuff would burn (as in the ten by ten by ten room scenario above) so why do I as DM need to be empowered to adjudicate that stuf would burn in those circumstances rather than that being the default? There must be something else in play that caused the default to be for stuff not to burn. This is a case where designers determined that logic and thirty-five years of rules be damned, we need to put the question of paper caught in a fireball but not specifically targetted going up in flame in the hands of the DM.


Can you see how this would be a questionable design choice?