This mentality needs to die

[I'm A Banana]

What about using it AGAINST creatures vulnerable to fire.

Does this invalidate the whole Endure elements ritual/power/spell whatever since Faerie Fire means you don't have to worry about cold conditions?

Well, since it doesn't deal damage, it doesn't deal damage. Maybe it makes the ice elemental a little uncomfortable.

The rules of Darkfire don't say anything about helping you out with Endurance checks or anything, either. It might make a cold, rainy day a little more pleasant for you, but you can't warm your body on a candle's flame.

I should point out that still, in the scenario, it wouldn't grant an automatic success -- the door wouldn't be melted under Darkfire (though with Fireball, it might). If the fire's not hot enough to deal damage to people, logic would tell you that it's probably not hot enough to burn through ice very quickly (it makes sense, while the "only creatures" restriction doesn't quite). But even in that situation, saying "Yes, you can use Darkfire on the door, and it will very slightly heat the ice. Give it a few hours, and maybe it would melt," is saying "Yes, but...", and making sure that the effect is mild.

If the party wants to sit around after the combat for a few hours and melt the door open with candles (as opposed to making Strength checks or tricking the ballista or whatever), I don't see much of a problem there. If they want to melt every frozen door in the place with a candle's flame, I don't see why I should stop them.

I mean, clearly, there would still be better options. Chipping away at the ice with your sword would be faster. But saying it might not be the best tactic is not quite as invalidating and frustrating as saying, flat out, "you can't do it." It says "You were clever, so here is your reward, but not clever enough, so keep trying!"

With fireball, yeah, I'd probably let it start campfires (well, blow up piles of wood), and it already deals damage to vulnerable creatures, and it doesn't last long enough for an Endure Elements style enhancement (and come to think of it, Darkfire might not either).

*shrug* Even if some rule element does spiral out of the GM's control into unexpectedly broken territory, it's not the end of the world. Talk with the player, ratchet it down, make it an adventure, or pump up the enemies to compensate. It's not like you can't challenge someone who can make a candle's heat at will. You've got a lot of tricks in the DM's toolbox to use, even in that worst-case scenario of an abusive loophole you create.

 

[Scribble]

*shrug* Even if some rule element does spiral out of the GM's control into unexpectedly broken territory, it's not the end of the world. Talk with the player, ratchet it down, make it an adventure, or pump up the enemies to compensate. It's not like you can't challenge someone who can make a candle's heat at will. You've got a lot of tricks in the DM's toolbox to use, even in that worst-case scenario of an abusive loophole you create.

Then again, had you stuck with the rules none of this would be needed in the first place...


This is also why I disagree with basing rule sets off of the author's "view of the world."

The problem I see is one man's view tends to be completely different then another's, so what makes complete sense to one, might be absolutely inane to another. This ends up causing countless arguments as to what the most "logical" way to handle the situation should be.

Shrug.

 

[Rel]

My answer to the issue about letting creative stuff work or not is two fold.

First, sometimes good ideas are just good ideas and need no further justification than that. In the example in the video I wouldn't let Darkfire melt ice but I would allow a power with the Fire key word do so, commensurate with the severity of the power used.

For other situations I make extensive use of the Action Point, or "The Say Yes Button" as I sometimes call it. This was my first and best house rule for 4e and I'm finding that it fits well with most other systems too. When situations crop up where a player wants to bend the rules then the expenditure of an Action Point pretty much guarantees that I'll say "Yes!".

The reasoning for this is that I don't want the whole of our gaming experience to be one adjudication of a creative solution after another. That get's difficult and tiresome after a while. But requiring the expenditure of a limited resource means that you don't need to worry as much about setting a precedent since the action is only repeatable to the extent that players have action points. It also means that you're spreading the opportunity for such "stunts" evenly around the party, assuming that you hand out Action Points equally.

 

[nedjer]

The player makes an argument, the referee makes a ruling, and and the game moves on. It doesn't take a printer's bale of rules.

Exactly! What's 'wrong' is not the ruling about Darkfire, which is clearly at the GM's discretion, but the overall gameplay.

And it's only 'wrong' if you're trying to present RPGs as exciting. If a bunch of aged beardies want to sit around stroking Gandalf manes for a couple of hours between actual play and they're good with that then why not? Just don't expect loads of kids to rush out and buy RPGs after watching.

Won't matter whether it's 3e, 4e, Pathfinder or Buffy, kids aren't that patient (either in terms of mincing on about rules or Gandalf manes).

However, (in the spirit of being pedantic that has consumed a potentially interesting debate on RPGs and the media) the spellcaster would have a fair idea of what the spell was capable of when learning the spell, so the appropriate step would have been to advise the player that something in the back of his mind reminds him that Darkfire isn't like standard fire.

Thereby giving the player the choice of picking a different option before his turn was wasted unnecesarily, i.e. the new player ends up feeling he's dealing with a Byzantine rule set made for the initiated instead of getting to take a useful action.

But that still doesn't make Chris guy 'wrong', because it's a game and GMs can't be 'judged', if they ever should be, on the basis of a couple of encounters.

 

[MrGrenadine]

But if they are attempting to chop down a shrubbery with a herring, it just won't work.

You could always make the DC really high. Like, 50.

But then what happens if they roll a 20...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You could always make the DC really high. Like, 50.

But then what happens if they roll a 20...

Since DCs relate to Skill Checks...nothing. There is no "critical success" on a Skill Check for that very reason (3E or 4E).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Then again, had you stuck with the rules none of this would be needed in the first place...

Hehe, true, but what you might possibly have to deal with at some hypothetical point down the road should never stop you from doing what is going to be fun for people now, should it?

For other situations I make extensive use of the Action Point, or "The Say Yes Button" as I sometimes call it. This was my first and best house rule for 4e and I'm finding that it fits well with most other systems too. When situations crop up where a player wants to bend the rules then the expenditure of an Action Point pretty much guarantees that I'll say "Yes!".

The reasoning for this is that I don't want the whole of our gaming experience to be one adjudication of a creative solution after another. That get's difficult and tiresome after a while. But requiring the expenditure of a limited resource means that you don't need to worry as much about setting a precedent since the action is only repeatable to the extent that players have action points. It also means that you're spreading the opportunity for such "stunts" evenly around the party, assuming that you hand out Action Points equally.

I super-love this idea. Yoink.

 

[Psion]

Since DCs relate to Skill Checks...nothing. There is no "critical success" on a Skill Check for that very reason (3E or 4E).

One reason why I lean to Fantasy Craft over either these days.

 

[Garmorn]

One reason why I lean to Fantasy Craft over either these days.

This is a very strange thread for me. I have watched the video and think it would be a great game to play in. It is just my style. So where is the problem?

 

[Keefe the Thief]

This is a very strange thread for me. I have watched the video and think it would be a great game to play in. It is just my style. So where is the problem?

Lots of experienced DMs in one place overanalyze an ingame decision. Some of them looking at the clouds, seeing playstyle-differences and edition-problems instead of castles and dragons. Some bragging involved.

It´s an ENworld thing, mostly - on other boards i visit, we talked about a couple of of fun videos and that was it. No "make the game your own, find your own playstyle, be a creative DM - but when you put a video of your session online, i will write a 30.000 word post, detailing what you did wrong, what i would do better, and where your problems are rooted."