Free Will and Story

[Luce]

I wanted to point out that for such self-professed stickler to the rules Jim seems to have conveniently forgotten that "Until the End of the Encounter: The effect ends when you take a rest (short or extended) or after 5 minutes." (PHB1 pp 278). Therefore he could not have taken an army by himself.
RAW is a valid way to play the game, just not the only one. There is the matter of social contract, but at the same time A) this is a new GM and as 20+ year veteran player I feel that the onus is on Jim to be more tolerant or B) since gaming is a voluntary activity we do for pleasure , excuse himself and not participate if fun is not being had.
In most long running groups IME the DM will eventually start to deviate from the RAW whether it is to make house rules or introducing 3pp in order to make the gaming experience tailored to the people around the table.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

This seems like it essentially boils down to a massive disparity in play-styles. If that DM runs another game, that player should probably not play in it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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...

Fair enough. If the internet has taught us anything it's that if it exists there is porn of it. And that there is no position that there isn't someone who will take. I'm quite happy to accept that when you get players who their own friends suspect like being jerks they will come up with the most perverse possible readings they can. And that there is no potential reading that won't be made by people who like being jerks because they want to be jerks. I do not in this case think that that's a meaningful problem with 4e.

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.

It's the exception that proves the rule. Literally. Jim is doing a number of ... problematic things. And the problem, I'm pretty sure, exists with the player independently of the system.

 

[Hussar]

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

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

Whoops, missed the once a month bit. Curses for reading too fast. My bad. Sorry. Thanks for the correction.

Still, it is a year and a half to read a couple of books. It's not like you have to read them cover to cover either.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Bold and underline mine.

See, to me, right there, that's the mark of a good DM. I have no problems with DM's that don't know the rules front to back. Heck, I AM that DM. My players know the rules much better than I do. But, I, like your DM, will always default to their judgement because I know they know the rules better than me.

But, in this case, the DM has decided that the rules simply don't apply. He doesn't know the rules, but, also doesn't even attempt to play by the rules either. He's not playing the same game that Jim is.

He pretty much declared, "rocks fall you die" and instead of admitting his mistake and backing up, he compounds his mistake by running roughshod over Jim's objections, and brings him back into the game when he has flat out stated that he doesn't want to.

At what point is that good DMing practices?

Now, Jim is at fault here too. He knew that the DM was playing fast and loose with the rules and he chose to keep playing. He should have bowed out long before this. I have a sneaking suspicion that this was brewing for a long time and this incident was simply the final straw for Jim. We have a very strong incompatibility in playstyles and Jim has to wear some of the responsibility for that.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't quite get this. Who advocates that the level-relative numbers for 4e - damage, defences, DCs, etc - should be ignored?

A monster that can do 150 damage as spike damage vs all targets is attacking (let's say) with 6d12+80, or an average of 119, which even allowing for double normal damage for some sort of uber encounter power is still appropriate to a monster of level 50 or so (on the MM3 level +8 as base damage model). I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest that level 50 monsters (or hazards, in this case) will work well as combatants for level 13 PCs.

I don't really know what you think 4e's encounter-building guidelines are for, but I have a pretty solid view myself: they are basically saying "Use these numbers - these defences, these damage numbers, these skill DCs - and you will get a nicely paced, satisfying play experience". That's why the general advice is - if you have a bigger or smaller party, or want to make a fighter more challenging, you're better off changing the number of opponents (or turning some into elites or solos, or decomposing elites or solos downwards for small groups) than levelling up and down, as too big a level disparity will produce unsatisfying play results even if the odds remain somewhat comparable.

You may call this "player entitlement" (to what? a fun game? doesn't sound so bad to me!); I think that it creates a sort of confidence in the players that they can narrate their PCs' wacky plans without worrying that the GM will set a hosing DC or impose hosing damage as a consequence.

I hope this also makes it clear that I think the level-appropriate DC numbers, defences, attack bonuses, damage numbers etc are more important - a lot more important - than the encounter-XP numbers. Once into mid-heroic, and certainly into paragon, a party should be able to handle an encounter several levels above its own without too much trouble, at least once or twice a day; but that flexibility around encounter XP budgets is pretty orthogonal to the question of "How much damage should my monsters be doing, with what bonus to hit?"

It is in this second domain that the OP describes a pretty bad GMing error. (@Neonchameleon refers to foreshadowing - monsters with instakill abilities, like medusae, bodaks, etc, all have foreshadowing via both reputation with players and the monster knowledge mechanic. The GM, as described in the OP, does not seem to have done anything like that.)

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.

My point (and it's related to one that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] made upthread) is that, if you're not going to use the mechanical chassis of 4e, what are you doing ostensibly running that system? There's a large variety of systems out there, many of which are less maths heavy and have much more overt room for GM fiat. One of them would probably suit this GM better.

I mean, once you take away the framework of level-relative DCs, bonuses and damage what is left of 4e? The d20 array of stats and the basic idea of rolling a d20 and hoping to get a high number? You could get that with Swords and Wizardry!

 

[pemerton]

On the whole "rocks fall" thing, I stumbled over this post from Old Geezer (who played back in the day with Gygax and Arneson) on RPG.net:

There were a couple of times where a wandering monster got surprise and achieved a TPK before the players could even react, and every time the referee said "Well that's not fun so it didn't happen."​

Now that's forthright GMing!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But, in this case, the DM has decided that the rules simply don't apply. He doesn't know the rules, but, also doesn't even attempt to play by the rules either. He's not playing the same game that Jim is.

I mostly agree except for maybe this point. I think that there's a difference between "rules" and general practices. The damage per level guidelines are just that...guidelines. There's certainly no rules in 4e that say you CAN'T have an enemy do 500 points of damage in an attack if you want them to. On the other hand, that damage would be completely out of line with what other monsters do. There's guidelines in the book that help the DM estimate how much damage monsters should do based on their level. Within those rules it does say that you can have some variation, however.

I know the rules much better than our DM does. I DM my own game. I certainly wouldn't think twice about doubling the damage of a monster if I wanted it to be especially dangerous. However, I know the rules well enough to know there's a good reason that damage is at the recommended levels. It helps form a piece of the house of cards that is the math of 4e D&D. Disturbing that math can cause unexpected side effects. Like killing 2 people with one attack when you don't mean to.

I think you only get a really good sense of how the pieces of the rules fit together to form a cohesive whole by reading the entirety of the rules and having some experience playing the various classes so you know how all their powers work. Our DM hasn't done that. So, he doesn't know what happens when you change one number.

My point is, I don't think the gap is as wide as you say it is. It isn't a different game. It's Jim expecting things based on what is done elsewhere in the rules. He expects that he gets a choice to be brought back to life because Raise Dead says you do. He believe this creates a precedence that means ALL effects that bring people back to life MUST ask the person's permission. Jim says that every trap in the book makes an attack roll against a defense to hit. That's the way traps work. Our DM isn't aware of this precedent so whenever he makes up new rituals or traps, he just makes things up off the top of his head without the existing rules as a guideline.

Though, I don't think anyone would say that any DM who made up a new ritual, power, monster or trap was playing an entirely different game than they were.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Fair enough. If the internet has taught us anything it's that if it exists there is porn of it. And that there is no position that there isn't someone who will take. I'm quite happy to accept that when you get players who their own friends suspect like being jerks they will come up with the most perverse possible readings they can. And that there is no potential reading that won't be made by people who like being jerks because they want to be jerks. I do not in this case think that that's a meaningful problem with 4e.

Given I know Jim well, I'll say it's both. I know that I'm a big stickler for the rules as well. There's a reason he was whispering his concerns to ME at the table as opposed to anyone else. I was the most likely to be sympathetic. I get frustrated when DMs break rules. Even ones that are fairly inconsequential. I've complained about battles that went way out of the suggested guidelines before as well.

I remember one game I played in where the DM didn't know how the hiding rules worked. He kept allowing enemies to attack and hide again during the same turn without us seeing where they were. So the battle went like this: "You get hit, you don't know from where." "I use Perception to look where it came from. I get 18." "You don't see anything. And you get hit again. You don't know where it came from."

It ruined my experience so badly that I decided not to go back to D&D Encounters at that store again. I've gotten nearly that frustrated when we had a battle go on for close to 3 hours because there were too many monsters for the guidelines and I felt it made the game drag on.

On the other hand, Jim likes being a jerk and I've seen him go out of his way to interpret rules in the best possible way for him whether he's the DM or a player. He keeps showing up with characters in my games who use a combination of powers and feats that cause an enemy not to be able to move for the rest of the battle while when read one way or last one round if read a different way. He insists on interpreting it the way that is completely broken. Mostly because someone in the Char Op boards said that's the way it worked. When I rule that it doesn't work that way in my game...he gets angry at me for breaking the rules and not letting him play what he wants. I've denied him things enough times though that he's started to get over it. That doesn't stop him from saying "Oh, you mean I can only daze him for ONE round? Oh....well, my character wants to leave the group. I've got this other idea for a character that I read on the Char Op boards, I'll be playing that character instead."

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I wanted to point out that for such self-professed stickler to the rules Jim seems to have conveniently forgotten that "Until the End of the Encounter: The effect ends when you take a rest (short or extended) or after 5 minutes." (PHB1 pp 278). Therefore he could not have taken an army by himself.

I didn't want to get into too much detail about this, however the DM likely caused it himself. I don't actually believe the power lasts until the end of the encounter. The DM made up a...I don't know, template is the best word I can come up with for it. A demon possessed Jim's character. But it could only manifest when he was under a lot of stress. Otherwise it was dormant.

When he became bloodied, there was a chance of the demon coming out. When it did, Jim was supposed to replace his stats with the ones on a sheet given to him by the DM. The DM based these stats on a Solo monster. Which meant every time Jim got bloodied, he suddenly gained 300 hitpoints or something like that. He had a fire aura around him continuously and a bunch of powers that did monster scale damage. In addition to being able to use all the powers he already had. However, he could not differentiate between friend and foe while manifested. So, he had to attack the nearest target. However, if an ally and enemy were equal distance away from him, he was allowed to choose the enemy. The DM decided the only way to change back was once there were no enemies around anymore. Then he could force himself to change back with a roll.

None of his powers HAD durations because they were designed for monsters. Jim had pointed out to him how stupidly powerful this way. Our DM said that since he couldn't choose when to release the demon in the first place, he didn't consider it overpowered. Also, the DM seemed surprised during that conversation as well that a solo's hitpoints were so much higher than PCs. And that conversation was nearly a year ago. You'd think he would have remembered.

I believe that Jim was planning on staying against the hundreds of undead partially to prove his point to the DM. He told the DM that the powers the demon form gave him were way too powerful, the DM said it was fine. He wanted to show him how wrong he was. Plus, I think he was annoyed that were were being railroaded to run away in a specific direction. The only opening in the undead horde was in the direct the DM wanted us to go. Plus, I believe he was annoyed that the DM wasn't being very clear. We were running away from the undead horde and he told us the only place we had a chance of escaping to was this building, everything else was too far away and we'd die for sure. Then, we got into the building and started barricading the doors to stay there the night when one of the elite undead knocked one of the walls down. We all thought we were dead, since the DM was clear there was NO WHERE ELSE to run. Then, when we started losing to the 4 elites he used against us, suddenly there was a miraculous hole in the undead horde that we could run through. Jim kept giving me looks like "This is so stupid. I'm just going to stay here and fight them."

As a side note, that was NOT the character Jim was playing at the end of the campaign. Our only healer died, so Jim had his character retire himself to bring in a leader.