Free Will and Story

[JamesonCourage]

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.

Not trying to be snarky or anything, but I've seen you say this twice in this thread. Just something quick to point out:

But he's only DMing once a month and his sessions tend to only be about 4 hours long. So, the total time played with him as the DM isn't huge.

So, about 18 sessions of 4 hours = 72 hours of running the game. Still enough to learn more basics (in my opinion), but that's still not that much, for my group. It'd be the equivalent of about 2 months of regular play for us, not a year and a half, which a newbie GM would likely be struggling with still.

Anyways, just pointing out that he doesn't have the "several hundred hours" of running the game. I'm not excusing him, but looking at 72 hours total of running the game makes things a lot more understandable. You may have a point on other systems being better (that's just up to his play style as a GM). As always, play what you like

 

[Lindeloef]

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]
you bring up a really good point, especially the "once a month" part. We heard the life story of Jim and how his behavior is excused but what about this DM? Has he a time consuming Job, Family etc?
Just sh*ting on him cause he doesn't know the rules is too easy. But a month without "practice" is not that helpful to learn the rules. (I asume he gets the basic stuff right, what to roll and such).

 

[howandwhy99]

First off, your DM is not acting like a referee, but someone who believes they have complete fiat. Just my opinion, but he appears to be overriding others acceptance of the basics of the game. (Coaches sometimes do this too in sports).

Secondly, any game that gives a single player or judge absolute control over what happens in a game is simply declaring that player the winner or the referee's opinion to be the rules. Neither should be the case and I've never heard of any other game doing this.

Lastly, my answers to your questions:
"Should the DM have the ability to bring people back to life without their permission?"
--You mean Player Characters, right? It's possible this can happen, but the player could simply attempt to kill themselves. Death / game loss is usually the easiest route in games. In D&D it has historically been the case that the PC's player can choose to return from the afterlife, but doesn't know who is calling them until they are raised. And then without any knowledge or experience of the afterlife retained.

"Should the DM be allowed to give infinite power to a player as a plot device for the last hour of a campaign?"
--DMs should avoid thinking about plot in any instance. Again, this is ending the game with one player declared "winner". It doesn't matter when it is done, it will be the last thing done in the campaign.

"Should gods be all powerful or are they limited to a few interesting tricks?"
--What gods are depends upon the setting, but this is basically a case of impotent player roles again. Gods are a game construct. Most games don't have players besting gods as opponents, but rather as distant, limited actors upon the primary field of play. If they have absolute power, than we are back in the position of a referee without a rulebook. No rules, all things happen simultaneously.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

@JamesonCourage
you bring up a really good point, especially the "once a month" part. We heard the life story of Jim and how his behavior is excused but what about this DM? Has he a time consuming Job, Family etc?
Just sh*ting on him cause he doesn't know the rules is too easy. But a month without "practice" is not that helpful to learn the rules. (I asume he gets the basic stuff right, what to roll and such).

Yeah that kinda ties in to a point i was kinda trying to make upthread some, that there's often this opinion that DMs who don't know the rules are really crap. My current DM works 7days a week. Hes played a little bit before, but never
DMed. He doesn't know the rules, and asks whenever. Even for people that dont work that much, it can be quite a commitment. By the standards I've seen presented on messageboards, he'd be crap, and perhaps not given much of a chance. But that, in my opinion might be just nerd-muscling people out of the game with righteous crap.

 

[Starfox]

First off, your DM is not acting like a referee...

"GM as Referee" is one of several GM stances. GM as storyteller is another. Neither is wrong, it is a matter of taste.

"GM as Referee" can be a very confrontational stance, as such a GM may play the game as a boardgame - and is out to "win".

"GM as Storyteller" usually makes the tactical side easier for the players, as he can't tell a story with dead characters.

 

[howandwhy99]

"GM as Referee" is one of several GM stances. GM as storyteller is another. Neither is wrong, it is a matter of taste.

"GM as Referee" can be a very confrontational stance, as such a GM may play the game as a boardgame - and is out to "win".

"GM as Storyteller" usually makes the tactical side easier for the players, as he can't tell a story with dead characters.

Story is the rejection of tactics. It is currently defined by many as an inevitability. "Are you existing?" then you're telling a story / expressing yourself. Refereeing isn't about being in competition with any of the players. In terms of play styles both are legit, but what's it's going to be should be spelled out beforehand. But this is all beside the point. Whatever the case may be, understanding and designing games simply works better when they are perceived from multiple perspectives, not just the "Big Model" theory your quoting here. Forge theory is not equivalent to game theory, perhaps especially for RPGs.

 

[Starfox]

Wasn't quoting Forge, not even current on it - this is more a "conventional wisdom" kind of thing. I generally agree with your comment here howandwhy99, even if I don't understand "Big Model". I was just reacting to your implicit assumption earlier that a GM has to be a referee first and foremost. IMO, you don't even need to have a set of rules to role-play, it can all be in the GM's head. And how can you be a referee if there are no rules?

My examples were there to show that a "referee" stance is not always a more player-friendly stance.

 

[Imaro]

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

Unconscious doesn't equal dead. You do not need divine intervention to ressurect you when you are unconscious and you may in fact get up on your own when you are unconscious by rolling a 20 on a death save, so I don't see how having 0hp's and being dead in the game (especially with 4e's many chances to spring back into the game through luck and/or healing) are in any way the same thing. Being dead in the sense that the OP was speaking about in the game (which required a deus ex machina for the pc's to get back into the game) was not the same as unconscious.

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

So we agree that it is a possibility that 13th level characters can survive an attack that does 150 hit points, that was all I was saying.

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.

Of course it does, but given enough previous damage and no healing even an attack doing 1 point of damage can exceed the negative bloodied threshold and kill a PC... Not sure what the point of this statement was since it's self-evident.

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.

Ok, so 112 hit points...so how does this in any way change the fact that the statement you made below is still false?

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...

,
You already admitted a run-of-the-mill defender can easily exceed this, and I've given an example of a 10th level character who exceeded it... so the above is provably false.

The OP, in post 23 upthread:

The OP also states this is a guess on his part... so there's no way to really know if the DM believed this or not...

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.

I mean stepping out of the math constraints of encounter design vs. level that 4e suggests... something many advocates of 4e say can and should be done by the DM if he wants to since they are just guidelines and not rules. Of course I find it slightly ironic that we have a player (Jim) telling the DM that he is wrong for going outside of those boundaries, especially since I had a conversation with you and I believe Hussar about this very thing and how I've noticed that 4e seems to instill that sense of entitlement (even in traditionally DM controlled areas) in some players... of course I was told that in reality it just didn't happen...

As far as "getting the best out of the game"... I would say that takes place when the group is having fun, period. Since EVERYONE except Jim was having fun in the campaign (and the OP has already given us insight into the type of problems Jim has as a player in every game.) and even in this last encounter there was only one other player who didn't like the way it went... I don't know if the DM wasn't getting the "best out of the game" for his group. I certainly don't think 4e's advice will always create the best D&D game for every group or even the best 4e game for every group or am I missing your point here? YMMV of course.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I mean stepping out of the math constraints of encounter design vs. level that 4e suggests... something many advocates of 4e say can and should be done by the DM if he wants to since they are just guidelines and not rules. Of course I find it slightly ironic that we have a player (Jim) telling the DM that he is wrong for going outside of those boundaries, especially since I had a conversation with you and I believe Hussar about this very thing and how I've noticed that 4e seems to instill that sense of entitlement (even in traditionally DM controlled areas) in some players... of course I was told that in reality it just didn't happen...

I have never had a player complain when I've set monsters behind the scenes without normal math. Which I do from time to time. And I've never complained about that when other DMs have done it. What Jim is complaining about isn't the DM actually having the power to do what they did. Jim's complaining about DM deus ex machina dickery by instakilling PCs with no foreshadowing (so not even a sphere of annhiliation in a statue's mouth or a set of realistic stone statues near a Medusa's lair).

And it's not just Jim who objected to this. It was the Cleric of Misha's player. What they were both objecting to was being instakilled for no reason with no rolls.

In what edition of D&D would a DM saying "Rocks fall out of the sky and your character and yours are both dead" go down well? Because that's the problem here.

 

[Imaro]

I have never had a player complain when I've set monsters behind the scenes without normal math. Which I do from time to time. And I've never complained about that when other DMs have done it. What Jim is complaining about isn't the DM actually having the power to do what they did. Jim's complaining about DM deus ex machina dickery by instakilling PCs with no foreshadowing (so not even a sphere of annhiliation in a statue's mouth or a set of realistic stone statues near a Medusa's lair).

Actually Jim complains about alot more than that, the OP provided many examples of Jim's behavior...but this was the specific one I was speaking too. Jim is complaining as a player about the DM going out of the suggested guidelines...

This has kind of been an ongoing issue. Our DM pretty much telegraphs his intentions but Jim likes to ignore them. One example is when we tried to get some items out of a city that was completely overrun with undead. We ended up being trapped in a building. The enemy was almost completely surrounding us. Hoards and hoards of undead. We were attacked by 4 Elites at once who were a couple levels above us and well as a bunch of minions. Which we didn't know until we started attacking them. Jim grumbled that the guidelines for encounters say you shouldn't use that many powerful enemies at once unless you want to kill the party. The DM says out loud "Well, if it's that dangerous, then maybe you should run and find a better place to hide." Jim refuses and insists on making a stand there. We manage to kill 3 of the elites but we take a lot of damage. We all decide to run. However, Jim still refuses to follow us. The DM points out that there is one side of the building that appears to be free from undead now and therefore we have an escape route. He still refuses to go. He points that there is are hundreds of undead out there and he can't hope to survive if he stays. Jim asks if they are the same minions we've already fought. The DM says yes. He says that he has a power that lasts until the end of the encounter that does 3 points of damage to anything that becomes adjacent to him. They only have melee attacks, so it is impossible for any of them to hurt him. He insists on staying and taking on the whole army by himself.

And it's not just Jim who objected to this. It was the Cleric of Misha's player. What they were both objecting to was being instakilled for no reason with no rolls.In what edition of D&D would a DM saying "Rocks fall out of the sky and your character and yours are both dead" go down well? Because that's the problem here.

I'm well aware of the original example in the thread, but it's not what I was referencing... There was much more context for Jim as a player given in the follow up posts... it's a counterpoint to all the "Players never complain about xp budgets in my game, that's just theory" posts I've seen.