This mentality needs to die

[Umbran]

Now I for one am not calling Chris a "bad DM". I think I'm a good DM, but I'm sure if all my past sessions were taped like this, it would be replete with moments of bad DMing like this.

Quite. One single rules call does not a "bad DM" or a "mentality" make.

Few indeed are so perfect as to not be vulnerable to carefully picked nits.

 

[Scribble]

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?.

Depends... Some things aren't really hypothetical, but instead are clearly evident repercussions.

That said, in truth I'm a fan of letting people think up cool ways around issues that might bend/break the rules- but I have to ask... Would just pulling out a random fire power to melt ice really be the "more fun" route?

I'm never really a fan of big issues being solved by a stupid rules loop hole. The old "Oh hey did I mention this feat makes me invincible?" shtick.

That to me, almost seems like the player version of "no no matter what you do you can't open this door."

 

[Rel]

I've decided that in my future games this power will be called, "Kind Of A Purplish Image Of Flames That Outlines A Target Creature But Doesn't Generate Any Actual Heat And You Could Cast It On An Object, Like A Door, If You Really Wanted To But It Certainly Won't Melt Ice". I think that will both make it clear as to what this power does as well as insure that nobody ever uses it.

KOAPIOFTOATCBDGAAHAYCCIOAOLADIYRWTBICWMI for short.

 

[wedgeski]

Lets face it, a DM who isn't having a good time will eventually spoil the fun for the rest of the group. Running games takes more energy and effort than simply playing and if the game isn't fun for the DM too then why should they be expected to keep running?

I'm aware of the (well-trodden-into-the-ground) debates surrounding DM vs. player entitlement. I was just saying that as I get older and the game changes to reflect my supposedly-wisening mind, I'm coming to the conclusion that putting player enjoyment at the top of the list of priorities is the best way to ensure that everyone -- including me, the DM -- has maximum achievable fun. Suggest you fork if you want to discuss it any more.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I've decided that in my future games this power will be called, "Kind Of A Purplish Image Of Flames That Outlines A Target Creature But Doesn't Generate Any Actual Heat And You Could Cast It On An Object, Like A Door, If You Really Wanted To But It Certainly Won't Melt Ice". I think that will both make it clear as to what this power does as well as insure that nobody ever uses it.

KOAPIOFTOATCBDGAAHAYCCIOAOLADIYRWTBICWMI for short.

This is the kind of definitive, unambiguous power name we need more of!!!

Of course perhaps all game rules should be translated into Entish.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

In a game that uses Hero Points, or Action Points, or whatever you want to call them, you can take a page from M&M and allow "creative breaking of the rules" by use of a Hero Point. This allows the player to be creative, while limiting the long-term fallout of a ruling.

"You manage to use your skill in Arcana to subtly craft the Darkfire so that it actually sheds heat. It was tricky, and you may or may not be able to duplicate that trick. (Spend a Hero Point.)"

 

[Mark]

I've decided that in my future games this power will be called, "Kind Of A Purplish Image Of Flames That Outlines A Target Creature But Doesn't Generate Any Actual Heat And You Could Cast It On An Object, Like A Door, If You Really Wanted To But It Certainly Won't Melt Ice". I think that will both make it clear as to what this power does as well as insure that nobody ever uses it.

KOAPIOFTOATCBDGAAHAYCCIOAOLADIYRWTBICWMI for short.

Won't fit on a card.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

This issue is as overblown as the Alabama shooting/D&D link.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

In a game that uses Hero Points, or Action Points, or whatever you want to call them, you can take a page from M&M and allow "creative breaking of the rules" by use of a Hero Point. This allows the player to be creative, while limiting the long-term fallout of a ruling.

Yup, agreed. This is exactly why I use Action points, and am especially generous with them in gritty or low-magic campaigns. I think it puts a little more flex in the players' willingness to bend rules as well as take no for an answer. IMHO, it's a good compromise between...

DM: You see before you a door frozen over with ice.
Player: I want to melt the ice with my Darkfire! Bubbling water and steam everywhere!
DM: You cannot do that: power 'Darkfire' lacks required [Fire] type specification. Try again.
Player: I'll strike the door with my Shocking Dagger and send shards of ice flying!
DM: You cannot do that: Incompatible weapon/target values. Try again.
Player: I'll jiggle the handle.
DM: I do not understand the word "jiggle". Try again.
Player:

... and ...

DM: You see before you a door frozen over with ice.
Player: I want to melt the ice with my Darkfire! Bubbling water and steam everywhere!
DM: Hmmm, well you can't really do that, because it's not really fire, it's just an illusion....
Player: ZOMG!!11! U R teh unfunz0rzest DM evar!!111!!
DM:

 

[tomBitonti]

Off Track

Hi,

This discussion seems to be somewhat off-track.

In the presentation of the 4E rule set, the flavor text is almost entirely irrelevant. A power description has a ruled effect, and the flavor text is merely one suggestion as to how the power can be described.

Many many postings have suggested that players are free to make their description of a power or ability. That will leave the power effect unchanged.

That is, if a player wants to describe the power as producing a "shimmering field of entropic energy leached from the target", or as "an echo of the fundamental imprint of the target from the one true reality, a sharpening of their shadow, so to speak", they are free to do so. None of it has any impact on what the power does.

I think if one has a problem with how the power effect was handled, then you have to look to the fundamentals of the 4E design and how that separates power description from power effect.

That does work against the idea of enhancing a power effect using an action point, but if the descriptions are merely suggestions, that doesn't seem to work very well, since the descriptions are too fluid to be reliably amplified.

Edit: I think that if amplified effects are allowed, the end result must be couched in terms of the original effect. If an effect provides a +2 bonus to attackers, then the amplified effect might be a +4 bonus. The player is free to fluff this as they prefer, according to the selected description, but the amplified effect is applied to the original effect, not to the power description.

Thx!

Tom Bitonti