|
3 years ago ::
Sep 30, 2010 - 9:48AM
#411
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
Actually, the reason no one is saying yes or no is because you have set forth a question for which both yes and no are incorrect answers.
Correct, both are equally wrong. But, the formal game rules have the default answer of "no." He's changing the default answer to "yes," because the default of "yes" makes more sense to him. There are exceptions in both (for instance, water doesn't put out conjured fire in his, and in RAW water puts out... hmm...). So, arguing that there are some fires that aren't affected by water, or that are even made worse by water, is a red herring, as it's already been incorporated into his rule.
It is odd, though, to beat up his position for being absolutist, when RAW is, if anything, more absolutist, and it was that absolutist stance that caused him to think it didn't make sense in the first place.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 30, 2010 - 9:52AM
#412
|
|
|
My final post as well.
The real world, on average, sucks. Making a fantasy game more realistic or have it make sense in some ways is analogous to making it suck.
Why do fire spells work underwater? Cause it's awesome.
If you had a perfect halodeck simulator of D&D it could still be the most boring piece of filth thing if it also wasn't full of awesome.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 30, 2010 - 9:55AM
#413
|
Date Joined:
Dec 18, 2007
|
This won't probably help, but another thing about water as a bad fire-extinguishing source; theres almost always small amounts of of Oxygen dissolved in water. And as ordinary fire requires oxygen to burn it will only be "fuel to the fire"
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 30, 2010 - 9:56AM
#414
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
My final post as well.
The real world, on average, sucks. Making a fantasy game more realistic or have it make sense in some ways is analogous to making it suck.
Why do fire spells work underwater? Cause it's awesome.
If you had a perfect halodeck simulator of D&D it could still be the most boring piece of filth thing if it also wasn't full of awesome.
I have to disagree with you somewhat. Awesome is only awesome if you have non-awesome to compare it to. If everything is awesome, then nothing is awesome and the game can be very boring. What I do to the game doesn't make it "suck", since I'm not looking to make the game mirror the real world. I only want it to make a bit more sense.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 30, 2010 - 9:58AM
#415
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
This won't probably help, but another thing about water as a bad fire-extinguishing source; theres almost always small amounts of of Oxygen dissolved in water. And as ordinary fire requires oxygen to burn it will only be "fuel to the fire"
Read the link I provided.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 30, 2010 - 10:04AM
#416
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
And it's even less of a stretch(as in not a stretch at all) to assume that it does need oxygen.
Personally I see it the other way. If a fire does not require fuel, I don't see any reason to assume that it should also require oxygen. But that's mostly a matter of opinion.
See, I haven't said this. I have been man enough to admit that it makes sense to rule that way as well as my way.
My apologies, I must have missed that. My internet hasn't been working very well lately so I went from when this argument first started and you guys were arguing over how hot the fire needs to burn till now (I wasn't interested enough to go back and read everything in between).
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 30, 2010 - 10:06AM
#417
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2008
|
My final post as well.
The real world, on average, sucks. Making a fantasy game more realistic or have it make sense in some ways is analogous to making it suck.
Why do fire spells work underwater? Cause it's awesome.
If you had a perfect halodeck simulator of D&D it could still be the most boring piece of filth thing if it also wasn't full of awesome.
+1
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 30, 2010 - 10:08AM
#418
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Personally I see it the other way. If a fire does not require fuel, I don't see any reason to assume that it should also require oxygen. But that's mostly a matter of opinion.
I agree.
My apologies, I must have missed that. My internet hasn't been working very well lately so I went from when this argument first started and you guys were arguing over how hot the fire needs to burn till now (I wasn't interested enough to go back and read everything in between).
Heh. No worries. I think we all do that when we come into a conversation that has been going on for a while. Things change so much that often there is no point in reading the middle. I hope your internet improves soon.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 30, 2010 - 10:11AM
#419
|
Date Joined:
Dec 18, 2007
|
This won't probably help, but another thing about water as a bad fire-extinguishing source; theres almost always small amounts of of Oxygen dissolved in water. And as ordinary fire requires oxygen to burn it will only be "fuel to the fire"
Read the link I provided.
That link doesn't talk about anything that I just mentioned above. If you throw water on a fire, there's a risk that the flames might spread because of dissolved oxygen in the water. Of course water puts out normal fires, but it can also make things worse.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 30, 2010 - 10:13AM
#420
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2008
|
This won't probably help, but another thing about water as a bad fire-extinguishing source; theres almost always small amounts of of Oxygen dissolved in water. And as ordinary fire requires oxygen to burn it will only be "fuel to the fire"
Read the link I provided.
That link doesn't talk about anything that I just mentioned above. If you throw water on a fire, there's a risk that the flames might spread because of dissolved oxygen in the water. Of course water puts out normal fires, but it can also make things worse.
Never throw water on a grease fire.
|
|
|
