[quote=Brovo]
Apparently one form of fire magic that involves summoning gun powder out of thin air and lighting it on fire is more realistic than just summoning fire in the same space. Makes the head spin, doesn't it?
[/quote]

Hmm. Not necessarily. I think I understand where this person is coming from, as in real life, fire doesn't erupt out of nothing. It always has [i]fuel[/i]. So, fire magic that involves physical, actual fuel rather than mystical fuel (the "spell energy" that fuels the flame in most fire magic) can be seen as more realistic, in a somewhat superficial way.

I mean, in real life, there's no such thing as mystical energy that is able to fuel fire, but there [i]are[/i] a wide variety of substances that are flammable. Take a real-life flammenwerfer, for example. It doesn't "throw" fire, not really. It throws gasoline which has been lit on fire, in turn causing whatever is coated in said flaming gasoline to burn. What I can imagine is a conjurer/alchemist who uses various substances to achieve similar effects to fire magic, but is much more versatile. Burning conjured gunpowder or oil is very different from burning phosphorous, for example.

Where it falls apart is when you say "this way is better", because obviously it isn't. It's just different. I would allow both methods, if I was running a magic-based RP, even if one of them would make more sense in the real world.

EDIT: It could still get more complex, though. If you use "more realistic" to mean "makes more sense in-universe", THEN you have to get into arguments about the intricacies of magical energy and magical theory in whatever universe you happen to be in... So it becomes case-by-case, and ultimately up to the GM to decide. What was the result of the discussion, Brovo? Did the GM allow both?