Free Will and Story

[billd91]

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.

That's really a question of the way you choose to play. It sounds like 3 out of 5 of the players had fun with the campaign, rules blunders aside. And 1 of the 2 complainers seems to have been largely OK with the campaign as well. They say 10,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong. The same is pretty much true here.

 

[Umbran]

I tend to prefer the approach of RPGs that don't tell the GM this: ones I'm thinking of off the top of my head include 4e (before Essentials), Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Marvel Heroic RP and The Dying Earth.

Okay. You're allowed to like what you want, but there's a logical knot there...

Roughly speaking, these are games in which the rules aren't written primarily as a simulation engine but as a metagame/story engine (though BW is a bit of a cross-over between these two categories).

If I'm playing, say, Marvel Heroic RP, and the GM does X, it is fine. If I'm playing D&D, and the GM does the same thing X, such that they are stepping outside the simulation rules, but still within the game's expectations (by way of Rule Zero), it isn't okay?

I find that problematic. Let me ask you - if the GM of Marvel Heroic likes to impose a certain amount of consistency in the operation of powers, do you have a problem with that? Even though the game has squat-all in terms of simulation mechanics, so that really he's making it up, and may occasionally be altering the story somewhat to fit his or her idea of consistency?

The GM of D&D has explicit guidance on the simulation, and vague handwaving on story/metagame. The GM of, say, Marvel Heroic has explicit guidance on story/metagame - but he has only vague handwaving on the simulation aspect! Generally speaking, the GM is making *something* up as he goes along in either game? Why do you have a problem with one, but not the other?

 

[Starfox]

To (partially) answer Umbran, I don't have a problem with either, but I do feel that some system gives better support for certain game styles.

 

[pemerton]

If I'm playing, say, Marvel Heroic RP, and the GM does X, it is fine. If I'm playing D&D, and the GM does the same thing X, such that they are stepping outside the simulation rules, but still within the game's expectations (by way of Rule Zero), it isn't okay?

I'm not sure what "X" is, here. In your post (25 upthread) you talked about the GM ignoring the rules; is that what X means here? Because if I'm playing MHRP and the GM ignores the rules, that's probably not fine for me.

Let me ask you - if the GM of Marvel Heroic likes to impose a certain amount of consistency in the operation of powers, do you have a problem with that?

Without a bit more detail it's hard to answer definitively, but my first instinct is "yes, I do have a problem." It's a bit like hit points and healing in 4e - if, for instance, you follow the D&Dnext approach and treat all damage above bloodied as morale only, you can't explain how an unbloodied PC takes (for instance) poison damage. The system depends upon flexibility in narration, and adapting narratin to fit the particular context of fiction + mechanics. I think MHRP is the same in this respect. Trying to introduce consistency is likely to cause problems in both mechanical resolution (players won't have the resources the game expects them to have) and fiction (the fiction will break down at certain points, because it will turn out that Hero X can't do some thing which in the comics s/he could do).

 

[pemerton]

Ok, first there are 2 ways to die in 4e

I'm using the fairly generic (and loose) sense of "being dead at 0 hp".

are you saying that it's impossible for level 13 characters to have 101+ hit points?

Of course not - in the post you quoted I indicated the typical hit points for a 13th level defender being 120-ish.

But if the PCs have already taken a bit of damage - which I would expect that GM to be aware of, given that he would have rolled those attacks and their damage - then the likelihood of dropping not just below zero but below negative bloodied becomes greater.

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)

I am using "standard monsters" to refer to the default 8 hp * (level +1), + CON. Brutes have more than standard hit points - that's part of their schtick. Lurkers and artillery (and also many insubstantial and regenerating creatures) have less - that's part of their schtick.

Who said this?

The OP, in post 23 upthread:

I'm guessing the Solo had 400 hps or so and figured all of us had that much as well.

especially if the DM doesn't want to be constrained to the guidelines presented in the 4e books.

I'm not sure what you mean by this - but yes, a GM who disregards the advice on how to get the best out of the game will have trouble getting the best out of the game.

 

[Hussar]

I suppose. But then again, there are a lot of things that happen to your character that you don't have control over. You can't tell the DM "Sorry, I don't want to take that 20 points of damage from that club, it's my character and I get to decide what happens to him/her."

I think, in the end, you only have control of your character's REACTION to the things that happen to them. Being brought to life might be considered a hostile effect if you don't want it, but I certainly think it's within the rights of the DM to inflict it.

Though, I suppose like most effects in a game, there should be a reasonable chance to avoid it. Maybe a roll to resist it or something.

I agreed to play the game, so, I agreed to abide by the rules of the game. I think that this is really missing my point.

The player had a choice taken away from him. I don't have a choice about taking damage. But, I do have the choice, specifically called out in the rules no less, about being raised. But, that choice was stripped away by the DM to try to spackle over the mistakes that he caused in the first place.

 

[Hussar]

To step over to the other side of the fence for a second. I agree that this DM sounds like he could be a great DM. And maybe a different system will make all the difference. I think even DDN will be problematic, because, AFAIC, DDN is just about as complicated as 4e. At least as rules heavy.

I'd really try to nudge this guy into something far less crunchy and see what he does with it. Since he's not interested in mechanics to begin with, using a mechanics heavy system is just going to cause more problems down the road. Again, in a year and a half long campaign, where you're talking about several hundred hours of playtime, still not knowing the basic math of 4e is a pretty impressive feat.

I would hazard a guess that any future campaigns are likely going to run into the same issues. 4e math is about as simple and transparent as you can get. Like Imaro says, the monster math fits on a business card. Every math based mechanical element of all monsters in 4e fits on a business card. That's how simple it is. If the DM can't learn this:

in a year and a half, I'm not really sure he's terribly concerned about mechanics. Which is perfectly fine. No problems at all with that. My last game I ran fits on a single A4 piece of paper (Weird West, if you want to know). I like rules light games. Why anyone would want to use DND for a rules light game, particularly 4e D&D, is not a very good fit IMO.

 

[pemerton]

My last game I ran fits on a single A4 piece of paper (Weird West, if you want to know). I like rules light games. Why anyone would want to use DND for a rules light game, particularly 4e D&D, is not a very good fit IMO.

This is not so much a disagreement as a gloss.

I think there can be more to running a system than simply is it rules light/rules heavy. For instance, Chaosium's Basic RP (with the RQ combat complexities stripped off) is rules light - PCs are a list of stats plus percentages, and success is "roll under". But I think a GM could still muck it up fairly easily - especially in the notorious Call of Cthulhu "dead end because we all failed our Library Use roll" sort of way.

MHRP is also a pretty straightforward game in its mechanics, but there is a lot of nuance required in adjudicating effects (especially assets, resources and complications), in handling scene distinctions, and in managing the doom pool.

I'm not sure I can think of a system which both allows GM freeforming (which is what this GM seems to want, and is certainly one version of rules-light) and allows for a high degree of player authority over the game - but I'm interested to know if you (or anyone else) knows of one.

 

[Hussar]

This is not so much a disagreement as a gloss.

I think there can be more to running a system than simply is it rules light/rules heavy. For instance, Chaosium's Basic RP (with the RQ combat complexities stripped off) is rules light - PCs are a list of stats plus percentages, and success is "roll under". But I think a GM could still muck it up fairly easily - especially in the notorious Call of Cthulhu "dead end because we all failed our Library Use roll" sort of way.

MHRP is also a pretty straightforward game in its mechanics, but there is a lot of nuance required in adjudicating effects (especially assets, resources and complications), in handling scene distinctions, and in managing the doom pool.

I'm not sure I can think of a system which both allows GM freeforming (which is what this GM seems to want, and is certainly one version of rules-light) and allows for a high degree of player authority over the game - but I'm interested to know if you (or anyone else) knows of one.

I don't see anything here about the players wanting a high degree of player authority though. Consistency, sure, but, not player authority. The primary issue seems to be that the DM screwed up in the first place with the damage and no saving throw (which is a consistency issue) and things just snowballed from there.

And, judging from Majoru's comments about enjoying the DM's story telling capabilities and whatnot, it seems that the players are pretty happy letting the DM be firmly in the drivers seat.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], thanks for the reply.