Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Nemesis Destiny]

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.

The example listed after the rules text is just that - an example of a situation. The actual rule specifically allows the DM to decide whether or not objects in the burst are targetted. Whether or not you agree with that interpretation is not the issue. That is a valid interpretation, according to RAW.

What I "admit" is that the rule was clarified, to make it clear that the DM was free to decide (just like always).

 

[tomBitonti]

Narrating effects

As an example, 3/3.5E allow a psionicist to decide on the appearance of their powers, within limits.

When put together my character sheet, and the longish (about 20) list of powers, I made up a descriptions for each.

The other players thought it was a bit campy, and it didn't turn out to add much to the game. I had a few moments of fun, but not so much the table as a whole.

I imagine that, with some DM fiat, a psi-craft check might provide a small insight about a psion, based on the effect, but otherwise, the descriptions had no in-game effect.

The detail was eventually dropped. The cost of the extra detail just wasn't worth it.

I think that most players accept the fluff text as given, and the notion that the fluff can be ignored, or changed, really isn't how a lot of folks play. That is definitely an opinion, but, I just can't see too many tables going too far out of the sense of the written fluff.

I imagine that a lot of folks, maybe, try to play within the fluff text, and limit their actions to what makes sense if the fluff text was prescriptive. Those folks probably quickly come to understand that the fluff doesn't mean anything, and give up, or, the table actually make a decision to treat the fluff as more prescriptive than is normal for 4E.

TomB

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

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.

I suspect the reason that it is completely up to the DM to decide is for ease-of-play concerns. If a player pipes up and says, "hey, what about stuff catching on fire?" and the DM doesn't want to deal with that - they can just say, "nope. Not going to deal with that." and it's done.

Or a group doesn't want to concern themselves as much with realism, whch is no less a valid way to play, even if it's not one you personally like.

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.

Ease of play, like I said. And to be adaptable more readily to groups that don't care without having to worry about it being rules-lawyered to death. That and most stat blocks were deliberately shortened, again for ease of play. There is no need to include that line of text if there is already a general rule saying what happens when you put fire to a flammable object.

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

No, not really.

 

[Tovec]

I suspect the reason that it is completely up to the DM to decide is for ease-of-play concerns. If a player pipes up and says, "hey, what about stuff catching on fire?" and the DM doesn't want to deal with that - they can just say, "nope. Not going to deal with that." and it's done.

Because before, when the rules did say that it caught stuff on fire the DM couldn't say "nope. Not going to deal with that." [/sarcasm] They needed an actual lack of ruling on the subject and to add something in later (couple years wasn't it?) to say that the DM could allow it.

 

[Mark CMG]

The example listed after the rules text is just that - an example of a situation. The actual rule specifically allows the DM to decide whether or not objects in the burst are targetted. Whether or not you agree with that interpretation is not the issue. That is a valid interpretation, according to RAW.

What I "admit" is that the rule was clarified, to make it clear that the DM was free to decide (just like always).

I disagree with the design choice. If the player is able to target specific objects and it isn't, per se, a fireball (an uncontrolled fire spell) then it is the player who should determine how the flame manifests and what is affected by that flame. If it is a fireball that manifests in a given area, then it is neither up to the player nor the DM and simply a matter of whether or not something is in the area of the fireball, though the DM might have some say over whether an object near the edge is actually within the area of effect.

I do something different for my G&G game whereby the player is the crafter of the magic and determines how it manifests situationally. A player might use a single factor (one die of damage) and have a small line of fire run across the floor and ignite all of the paper and allow the ensuing fire to harm the person standing in the middle if they weren't smart enough to get out. A player could use six factors (6 dice of damage) to either send a big fireball sweeping down a long passage or target an individual and have that single person immolated by flame. The player decides how his magic manifests though the GM does get to cap just how much can be done (this balance is something individual campaigns get to work out though some guidelines are in place).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Because before, when the rules did say that it caught stuff on fire the DM couldn't say "nope. Not going to deal with that." [/sarcasm] They needed an actual lack of ruling on the subject and to add something in later (couple years wasn't it?) to say that the DM could allow it.

To clarify that the DM could allow it. It was never not the case, it was just not always crystal clear.

And your first point is quite valid indeed. I played with many groups in AD&D that never bothered with the collateral damage of violent spellcasting.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) even if it's not one you personally like.

I play a lot of different games. This doesn't have any bearing on whether it is a good design choice to say that something is fire except in instances where we want to put additional levels of adjudication on the DM. FWIW, your "ease of play" argument is not flying since, again, it adds additional adjudication not less.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I disagree with the design choice.

Feel free. Certainly nobody is stopping you

I do something different for my G&G game whereby the player is the crafter of the magic and determines how it manifests situationally. A player might use a single factor (one die of damage) and have a small line of fire run across the floor and ignite all of the paper and allow the ensuing fire to harm the person standing in the middle if they weren't smart enough to get out. A player could use six factors (6 dice of damage) to either send a big fireball sweeping down a long passage or target an individual and have that single person immolated by flame. The player decides how his magic manifests though the GM does get to cap just how much can be done (this balance is something individual campaigns get to work out though some guidelines are in place).

An interesting mechanic.

I also have a mechanic in my home games that allows players to do things that are outside the descriptions of their powers. I lifted the concept from someone in the 4e section, and basically it is an encounter power that is called "Do Something Cool" which allows for precisely the kind of tricks you mentioned (subject to any DM-imposed limits, naturally).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I play a lot of different games. This doesn't have any bearing on whether it is a good design choice to say that something is fire except in instances where we want to put additional levels of adjudication on the DM. FWIW, your "ease of play" argument is not flying since, again, it adds additional adjudication not less.

It only adds additional adjudication if the DM wants it to. And ease of play also includes things like making it less subject to rules-lawyering, which the DM-call-as-rule certainly does.

I still hold that reinforcing choice is not bad design.

 

[Mark CMG]

"Do Something Cool"

I like that to be the norm rather than the exception.