Free Will and Story

[Majoru Oakheart]

#2/3: Ok, it's obvious I goofed and you guys don't want your characters resurrected by the goddess. I should have told you when I inflicted the auto-death damage that you'd automatically get resurrected at the end of the fight. Maybe that wouldn't make it any better for you? I don't know. How do you think we should resolve this? Let your characters stay dead? Run a scene where the rest of the party contacts you with Speak with Dead and convinces you that you are valued and should come back to the land of the living?

That's the thing. I think he wanted the game to be over about 2 or 3 hours before it finished. He was positive this was going to be our last session. We normally start at 2 pm or so and end at 6 pm. At 6 pm, I realized that we probably had another battle or two and some story wrap up if we were going to end on a good note. Which meant another session. But he asked everyone if they could stay longer because he wanted it to be done that day. It was around 9:00 pm when this started happening.

I suspect that a lot of it wasn't planned. He wasn't sure anyone was going to get godly powers, so had no idea someone was going to be brought back to life. Heck, we were told NOT to touch it. So, he had every reason to suspect nobody would get the powers if we listened to the warnings. I think he just wanted to finish the battle quickly and get it over with. Since it was the last session, he didn't care if people died during it.

It's likely that if no one touched it, we'd have simply killed Illoopion and ran out of there but mourned the loss of our two companions who died in the battle. While they continued to complain about how a god killed them like chumps. But in the end, we'd all shrug and move onward.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Funnily enough Innerdude, I'd go the other way. I'd likely be very, very reticent of playing another campaign with this DM. I'd likely cut the DM some slack due to inexperience, but, this would be likely the straw before the last straw for me to bow out of the game.

I'm looking forward to the next campaign. Mainly because we'll be playing D&D Next instead of 4e. The D&D Next rules can be grasped extremely quickly and are very short. Which means our DM might actually take the time to read them. Even if he doesn't, I think he has a good handle on them already. I play D&D for the story. The mechanics are secondary...unless the mechanics get in the way of the story. I found the 4e rules got in the way of our campaign too many times. They shouldn't have. If our DM knew them well enough, they wouldn't have. However, they were complicated enough that he had difficulty grasping them. That difficulty translated into some awkward moments at various times during the campaign where he'd attempt to hammer a square peg into a round hole because he had no idea there was a round peg in the rules just sitting there waiting to be used.

I really enjoyed the story of his campaign. Even if it was often ham fisted. I was surprised he was able to set up foreshadowing nearly a year in advance of things happening. I admire this because I can't do it at all. I'm just not organized to plan things that far in advance. I don't know if he actually planned that far in advance or if he made it look like it by foreshadowing vaguely and then filling it in with details later. But either way, he made it look effortless.

I love these sorts of stories. That's why I love Babylon 5. Story arcs make me happy.

I mean, the DM's had a year and a half, hundreds of hours of game play, to get a handle on the mechanics. You have to work pretty hard to NOT grasp 4e mechanics in that amount of time. It's not like the mechanics are clearly spelled out for people.

I agree. He clearly didn't want to spend any effort learning the game. He had a story he wanted to tell, but as far as he was concerned he had better things to do than read through the rules. It certainly wasn't anything important he had to do either. He just didn't want to put in the effort.

Which makes me feel a little bit...neglected I suppose. It's like it's not worth it for him to put the effort into making it a good game for us.

If players would stop putting up with this kind of crap from DM's the game would be a lot better. But, because the whole, "Well the DM has the right to do all this" sort of sentiment that pervades the hobby, players get sidelined and DM's get put on pedestals. This DM was wrong. Jim was wrong too. He could have handled it better. But, the only reason Jim is involved at all is because the DM was wrong.

I don't know. If it was me who died instead of them, it wouldn't have been a big deal at all. I would have said "Crap. Well, I guess I died. That sucks. Hope you guys can finish off the demon without me. I'm rooting for you." When I was offered to come back to life, I would have taken it immediately....or maybe I wouldn't have but I would have been more respectful about it. My character worshiped fate. He felt that the gods determined fate and if he was killed by one, it meant he was supposed to stay dead. Though, I doubt it would have taken more than a second to say "I'm a god now, I want you back alive to save the world" and I would have agreed.

There wouldn't have been any arguing and it wouldn't have been a big deal. I might even have found it amusing that my party member, the GOD brought me back to life and would have changed religions in the game to her immediately.

I can't say that our DM was objectively wrong. His technique would work just fine with the right players. He just found out that he didn't have those players.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

So my take on this is that the players knew the DM ran a story-heavy, rules-light, and apparently slightly wacky game. They chose to play in the game anyway. At that point they should play the game and try to have fun with it even if there are particular elements they don't like, because that's what they agreed to do. If they decide they don't like this style of game after all, the right way to deal with it is to have a conversation between games like "This isn't working for me, I'd like to try a different campaign" rather than being disruptive in-game.

There's no special privilege as to what happens to PCs. They have things happen to them all the time that the player would rather not have happen, like sword blows and disintegrate spells. There is a special privilege as to the PCs choices. As a DM, I would never, ever say "Your character decides to do this ..." But that's not what happened in this case. The DM said the god could use a variant raise dead spell that works whether or not the subject agrees. Totally legit.

I don't think I'd enjoy this particular game, but your DM sounds like someone who might become a very good DM once he has some more experience under his belt. Jim doesn't sound like someone I'd enjoy gaming with. If I had a friend like that I'd probably try to find something else fun we could do rather than RPGs.

 

[sheadunne]

Funnily enough Innerdude, I'd go the other way. I'd likely be very, very reticent of playing another campaign with this DM. I'd likely cut the DM some slack due to inexperience, but, this would be likely the straw before the last straw for me to bow out of the game.

I mean, the DM's had a year and a half, hundreds of hours of game play, to get a handle on the mechanics. You have to work pretty hard to NOT grasp 4e mechanics in that amount of time. It's not like the mechanics are clearly spelled out for people.

The DM here screwed up. [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] outlines it perfectly. That's a concise outline of exactly where the DM screwed up here and, other than inexperience, there is no excuse for this. Can the DM break the rules? Yup. Should he? Not without the table behind him. That's the whole point of a social contract in the first place. DM's who forget this quickly (and never soon enough) start seeing players drift away from their tables or outright revolt.

If players would stop putting up with this kind of crap from DM's the game would be a lot better. But, because the whole, "Well the DM has the right to do all this" sort of sentiment that pervades the hobby, players get sidelined and DM's get put on pedestals. This DM was wrong. Jim was wrong too. He could have handled it better. But, the only reason Jim is involved at all is because the DM was wrong.

Agreed.

 

[Starfox]

All versions of D&D are fairly maths-heavy, and require the GM to make ad hoc judgements about how much damage is appropriate in various situations. I don't think I'd want to play with a GM who had such a weak grasp of the basic numerical framework for the game.

The problem here is obviously that in 4E 150 damage TO a pc is not at all the same as 150 damage bone BY a pc on a Monster. Which really is a flaw in 4E.

 

[Imaro]

The problem here is obviously that in 4E 150 damage TO a pc is not at all the same as 150 damage bone BY a pc on a Monster. Which really is a flaw in 4E.

I think I, if not fully at least somewhat agree with this... it's like having to know two different sets of rules to play one game.

I would also go so far as to say that the whole attitude surrounding the divide between DM's and players in 4e where a DM doesn't need to know (and probably can't keep up with) the abilities of the player's characters in 4e also complicates a DM going of the rails and doing his own thing (as opposed to sticking to what the books tell you is balanced) even more. All IMO of course.

 

[Starfox]

This is all purely my opinion----but frankly, gods should never have stats. Anytime someone wants to see the stats for a god in a monster manual, I think to myself "Why?" The only reason you need stats for a god is if somehow you expect that characters are going to interact with that god through the game's combat mechanics.

Here you vocalize the monotheistic "god is above all" tradition. Which is fine, but not the only way to look at these things. The opposite view is of course that gods are not special at all - they are just at the top of the power pyramid. Most fantasy settings and traditional DnD fall somewhere in between. I'll try to describe this in descending order of omnipotence.

The classic polytheistic gods of Earth - Egyptian, Irish, Mesopotamian, Greek, and Norse - were more powerful than any human, but could be fooled by humans and could certainly be opposed by other supernatural beings. And certain human heroes could and did challenge the gods directly. Indian gods seem to occupy a middle ground here; sometimes they are described as mere superbeings, at other times as more transcended "eternal" things and thus beyond conflict. The same development occurs in late Greek belief - the god Plato talks about is more like the Christian god than like Zeus.

Pathfinder seems to have an all-powerful view of their gods - I've never seen any hints about gods having hit points or being defeatable in Pathfinder. They can fade into obscurity, but even then they still exist and can gain followers again. There is an example of a defeated god, who has had his head and body sundered from each other by a mortal, but each part is still immortal and divine and the quest is about rejoining them or not.

In traditional DnD (0E, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E), gods are certainly powerful, but they do have hit points and can thus be defeated. Each of these editions gave stats and hit points to gods. Potentially, a god could have a cleric more powerful than himself. Actually making the gods accessible in play was always optional, but the limit on divine power is made clear in spells like Commune. In the 4E Dungeon adventure path, one god (potentially a sponsor for a PC divine character) is slain by NPCs and the PCs are expected to slay another god in the finale.

In BCMI the flatly stated goal of player characters was to become "gods" themselves - that is what I stands for - Immortal. There were even a few scenarios published for what to do once you did become an immortal.

Buddhism acknowledges gods as superbeings, but with no more karmic insight than mortals. They are not capable of getting to nirvana, and humans who do transcend them in insight. Buddhism accepts the existence of gods, but sees them as largely irrelevant.

The gods of fantasy classics like Elric and the Cthulhu Mythos are more super-monsters than gods, really. The Old Ones fought Cthulhu and his kin to a standstill, banishing them to R'lyeth. Elric personally slays a big part of the chaos pantheon.

In shamanistic and far eastern traditions (Taoism, Mikoism) gods are really just the most powerful spirits. They do have supernatural powers and a connection to natural forces that is eternal, but as individuals they are not and they can often be tricked or even outfought. They also vary vastly in power, from a simple spirit of a single spring to mighty spirits of the sun or war. In this world-view, spirits are what DnD calls monsters, with "gods" being the most powerful of them.

 

[pemerton]

The problem here is obviously that in 4E 150 damage TO a pc is not at all the same as 150 damage bone BY a pc on a Monster. Which really is a flaw in 4E.

They're actually pretty similar - it's an exaggeration to say that they're "not at all" the same. At mid-paragon tier 150 hp will drop any PC (a defender at 13th level probably has around 120-ish hit points) and most monsters (a standard 13th level monster has around 130 hp).

As to whether or not it's a flaw - that's a matter of opinion. The fact that most monsters have all their hp in their pool, whereas PCs have more hp available but have to unlock their healing surges to get them into their pool, is fundamental to the dynamics of 4e combat.

it's like having to know two different sets of rules to play one game.

I would also go so far as to say that the whole attitude surrounding the divide between DM's and players in 4e where a DM doesn't need to know (and probably can't keep up with) the abilities of the player's characters in 4e also complicates a DM going of the rails and doing his own thing

Is this from experience, or from theory?

Seriously, a 4e GM can look at any standard monster for the level in question, can trivially know that no PC will have more hit points than that, and see that (in this instance) 150 hp will kill all the PCs. A GM who imagines that the PCs at a given level will have as many hit points as a solo of that level understands so little of the game's mechanics that it's a more basic mistake than putting a wight up against 1st level PCs in classic D&D and then being surprised when they don't have enough silver arrows and depth of levels to lose in order not to be killed by it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sorry to say, I feel this is an edition issue more than anything. Editions and rules expectations. Different editions are good for different things, and 4E doesn't seem to be suited to this campaign.

I'd go one step further. He's making the classic "DM should not be called a storyteller" mistake. The story is about the PCs and how they handle the epic , not the epic itself.

Mod Note: EN World is supposed to be family friendly. We expect folks to not have to invoke the language filters. Thank you. ~Umbran

I'd give him a copy of Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, or Fate Core and tell him to work with that. Far more suited to him than anything resembling D&D.

I doubt it. The two players in question were kind of worked up about dying. The Warlock walked up and touched the gem and then the DM took her into the other room and I was the one who said "I bet I know what happened. She touched the gem, it had all the power of a god in it. I bet she's a god now."

Then they(can't remember which one of them) said "What? She gets to be a GOD? That's stupid."

When you're already cranky anything that might jar seriously jars.

The problem here is obviously that in 4E 150 damage TO a pc is not at all the same as 150 damage bone BY a pc on a Monster. Which really is a flaw in 4E.

Not all that different. It's just that solo monsters are deliberately on a different scale to a PC. It takes a pretty high level PC to take a hit that will take down even a young dragon. And pound to a penny says the BBEG was a solo.

 

[Imaro]

Is this from experience, or from theory?

Seriously, a 4e GM can look at any standard monster for the level in question, can trivially know that no PC will have more hit points than that, and see that (in this instance) 150 hp will kill all the PCs. A GM who imagines that the PCs at a given level will have as many hit points as a solo of that level understands so little of the game's mechanics that it's a more basic mistake than putting a wight up against 1st level PCs in classic D&D and then being surprised when they don't have enough silver arrows and depth of levels to lose in order not to be killed by it.

From experience and in theory...

Ok, first there are 2 ways to die in 4e... the first is by failing 3 death saves and the second is by having your hit points reduced to negative your PC's bloodied level. So in order to survive the attack in the OP that was thrown at them a PC needed over 100 hit points at 13th level. Since 101 + would not allow an instant kill on a PC... are you saying that it's impossible for level 13 characters to have 101+ hit points? I know for a fact it's not...

Emphasis 1... This is not true at all. There are PC builds that have more hit points than some standard monsters of their particular level. According to the MM3 on a business card, a level 13 standfard monster can have anywhere from 99hp's (lurker) to 156 hp's(brute)... that's a pretty significant difference, and I have seen level 13 characters with over 99 hp's. The difference in PC hit points depending on the selections made for race/feats/role/etc. can vary quite a bit between individual PC's of the same level. Just as an aside here's a level 10 character that could have survived that attack...

[sblock]====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Wardenforged, level 10
Warforged, Warden
Guardian Might: Earthstrength

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 22, Dex 11, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 14, Con 18, Dex 11, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 10.


AC: 28 Fort: 25 Reflex: 20 Will: 21
HP: 107 Surges: 17 Surge Value: 26

TRAINED SKILLS
Nature +11, Intimidate +12, Athletics +10, Endurance +15

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +2, Arcana +4, Bluff +5, Diplomacy +5, Dungeoneering +6, Heal +6, History +4, Insight +6, Perception +6, Religion +4, Stealth +2, Streetwise +5, Thievery +2

FEATS
Level 1: Toughness
Level 2: Improved Warforged Resolve
Level 4: Component Modification
Level 6: Durable
Level 8: Crushing Earthstrength
Level 10: Improved Initiative

POWERS
Warden at-will 1: Strength of Stone
Warden at-will 1: Earth Shield Strike
Warden encounter 1: Thunder Ram Assault
Warden daily 1: Form of the Fearsome Ram
Warden utility 2: Triumphant Vigor
Warden encounter 3: Earthgrasp Strike
Warden daily 5: Storm Strike
Warden utility 6: Bear's Endurance
Warden encounter 7: Earth Gift
Warden daily 9: Form of the Stone Sentinel
Warden utility 10: Returning Strength

ITEMS
Adventurer's Kit, Heavy Shield, Warsoul Longsword +2, Shoulderbow Hand Crossbow +2, Lifeblood Hide Armor +2, Amulet of Protection +3, Delver's Light (heroic tier)
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
[/sblock]

Emphasis 2: Who said this? A solo at level 13 has anywhere from 396 hit points to 624 hit points... again according to the MM3 on a business card. So either this is hyperbole or a strawman since 150 falls nowhere near this range.

In other words no... it's not as simple or straightforward, with the numerous ways a player can increase and modify his stats in 4e, as you seem to be trying to make it out to be... especially if the DM doesn't want to be constrained to the guidelines presented in the 4e books.