Free Will and Story

[Imaro]

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

People who feel that what the numbers claim is a challenging encounter isn't for their players... People who want to runa a more simulationist game...

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.

Who said you have to engage them in combat? Now granted the Original situation was one where the DM messed up, but the other situation concerning the army of minions was an example where the PC's (including Jim) had the chance to flee and Jim chose not to... are you saying there should never be encounters that PC's can't beat down?

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.

Yet many people don't get a satisfying experience from using the numbers as you claim, so it's not universal... In other words they are nice as guidelines but I don't think any DM should auto-magically expect a good play experience just because he follows them slavishly.

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.

Did you really just use the subjective "fun" card as a defense? IMO, player entitlement is telling me, as DM I have to design an encounter within the guidelines 4e suggests or I'm having badwrongfun. Do I expect you to design your characters in a particular way, say by following suggested builds? If not, why should you have the right to expect me to build encounters a certain way. I'm starting to think this is just one of those differences in playstyle things. You like the predictability and level of challenge the books guidleines provides not everyone finds that as enjoyable for numerous reasons.

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?"

Hey you're entitled to your oppinion, I personally think the numbers are only as important as their ability to produce a good gaming session. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

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 never said the DM handled the situation well... but even in the above post you seem to be saying a DM should be able to create and use monsters with instakill abilities... so are you saying the DM was wrong because the guidelines should be followed (which seems to be your earlier position)... Or are you saying the DM should be able to use monsters with things like insta-kill abilities if used well?

My point (and it's related to one that @Hussar 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!

Here's just one suggestion...Maybe you want to use 4e in a simulationist manner... ironically enough there is some precedent for this since some of the DC's in the game are presented in an objective manner (as opposed to the level appropriate manner you seem to prefer).

 

[Imaro]

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!

Oh, you mean like the DM fiat/Deus Ex Machina the DM used to bring Jim and the other player's PC's back to life... the one that they flat out refused.

 

[N'raac]

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.

I'd classify "the characters are raised by GM fiat" as one variation of "admitting his mistake and backing up". I know some players who want an in-game justification for changes, not "rewind to the last save point and try again".

Meanwhile, we have a player complaining that the GM got the rules wrong and, as a consequence, unfairly killed his character. When the GM attempts to rectify that unfairness, the same player wants nothing to do with such a correction. It seems like the player is determined to complain about something, and it's pretty tough to get to a point where such a player is happy.

Neither player nor GM are shining examples of the best in gaming, but I don't think either is appropriately classified as the villain of the piece either.

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.

To take the very simple example, maybe spending a campaign making snide comments quietly to another player was not the best approach. Perhaps raising his concerns directly to the GM, in a calm and balanced manner, might have been a better approach. Jim doesn't like the playstyle, as you note, isn't prepared to discuss what he dislikes with the GM, but also won't quit the game. Seems like he perhaps derives his fun from complaining.

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."

When the player whose goal is to find and implement broken combos (ie to enable his character to break the guidelines for his level) complains that the GM is not sticking to the published guidelines for the monsters, there seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Not really what I sense happening here, but certainly something I've seen happen in other games.

 

[Neonchameleon]

People who feel that what the numbers claim is a challenging encounter isn't for their players... People who want to runa a more simulationist game...

There's a difference betwen rules and guidelines. Rules say "You must do things this way." Guidelines say "If you do things this way you will probably get good results. If not on your own head be it." And I've never seen them advocating the numbers be ignored, merely that they can produce better guidelines for what they want to do by doing things another way.

And, to widen the point, if you understand the system well enough to twist the guidelines hard and produce a better experience for what you want to deliver (many do - my PCs are really going to struggle to take a short rest because I'm running a survival horror interlude) no one is going to complain. If people tell you to go back to the guidelines this is normally because you messed up when deviating from them. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Who said you have to engage them in combat? Now granted the Original situation was one where the DM messed up, but the other situation concerning the army of minions was an example where the PC's (including Jim) had the chance to flee and Jim chose not to... are you saying there should never be encounters that PC's can't beat down?

The PCs can Darwin Award. But the DM should not be autokilling them. Or even hit them from nowhere with instakills.

Yet many people don't get a satisfying experience from using the numbers as you claim, so it's not universal... In other words they are nice as guidelines but I don't think any DM should auto-magically expect a good play experience just because he follows them slavishly.

Well, obviously.

Did you really just use the subjective "fun" card as a defense? IMO, player entitlement is telling me, as DM I have to design an encounter within the guidelines 4e suggests or I'm having badwrongfun.

And I've met more real life flat earthers than people who have the specific form of player entitlement you describe for 4e. I have only once seen someone on a message board say they'd ever seen this form of player entitlement in real life - that was on this very thread. Unless you have elsewhere.

If not, why should you have the right to expect me to build encounters a certain way.

I don't. But if your encounters suck then suggesting you go back to the default way because it works decently is just common sense. The problem isn't that you deviated from the guidelines. It's that you deviated from the guidelines and as a consequence your encounters suck. If they don't suck, people don't IME complain.

I never said the DM handled the situation well... but even in the above post you seem to be saying a DM should be able to create and use monsters with instakill abilities... so are you saying the DM was wrong because the guidelines should be followed (which seems to be your earlier position)... Or are you saying the DM should be able to use monsters with things like insta-kill abilities if used well?

The mark of an expert is that they know when to ignore all the guidelines to produce a better result.

Here's just one suggestion...Maybe you want to use 4e in a simulationist manner... ironically enough there is some precedent for this since some of the DC's in the game are presented in an objective manner (as opposed to the level appropriate manner you seem to prefer).

So you want to use 4e in a simulationist manner. What does that even mean? 4e is pretty simulationist IME. And a much better simulation of a fantasy world than most process-sims are.

Oh, you mean like the DM fiat/Deus Ex Machina the DM used to bring Jim and the other player's PC's back to life... the one that they flat out refused.

That depends a lot on how it was presented. The DM made a very bad call. And then tried to wriggle out of it rather than genuinely accept responsibility. Both players and characters were pretty cranky at the result.

 

[Imaro]

There's a difference betwen rules and guidelines. Rules say "You must do things this way." Guidelines say "If you do things this way you will probably get good results. If not on your own head be it." And I've never seen them advocating the numbers be ignored, merely that they can produce better guidelines for what they want to do by doing things another way.

I've seen... "just ignore the encounter guidelines"... advocated by numerous 4e fans on another site whenever the issue of low challenge, versimilitude or numerous other issues comes up, but since I don't want to go cross board I'll just leave it at that.

And, to widen the point, if you understand the system well enough to twist the guidelines hard and produce a better experience for what you want to deliver (many do - my PCs are really going to struggle to take a short rest because I'm running a survival horror interlude) no one is going to complain. If people tell you to go back to the guidelines this is normally because you messed up when deviating from them. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The DM was producing an experience throughout the camapign that everyone, except Jim, was enjoying and even the last encounter it was only two players who took issue with how he handled it (and again this was one encounter out of the entire campaign). So I'm failing to see your point since the proof of the pudding seems to be the players enjoyed the overall game, even thoug it was run in a loose style.

The PCs can Darwin Award. But the DM should not be autokilling them. Or even hit them from nowhere with instakills.

Who are you to say what the DM should do... in a general sense that is so group dependant I don't think you can make a general statement... I know it might come as a surprise but there are DM's and players who are willing to accept a character being momentarily killed (because neither PC was permanently dead in the example) to further the unfolding narrative. More specifically towards this specificexample, we've already shown mathematically it didn't have to be an insta-kill but for the sake of argument let's say the relatively inexperienced DM did make a mistake, he then tried to rectify the death of the two PC's through a narrative device... but they chose instead not to accept it.

Well, obviously.

Apparently not so obvious since pemerton's argument was framed in objective terms.

And I've met more real life flat earthers than people who have the specific form of player entitlement you describe for 4e. I have only once seen someone on a message board say they'd ever seen this form of player entitlement in real life - that was on this very thread. Unless you have elsewhere.

Good for you... but now we have at least one example that it does exist.

I don't. But if your encounters suck then suggesting you go back to the default way because it works decently is just common sense. The problem isn't that you deviated from the guidelines. It's that you deviated from the guidelines and as a consequence your encounters suck. If they don't suck, people don't IME complain.

First, again througout the campaign only one person (Jim) thought the encounters "sucked" the majority were having a good time in the game.... Second, Please go back and read pemerton's argument. He was stating the objectively best play experience was gained by following the guidelines... I'm not sure exactly what your argument is but my reply was to his statement.

The mark of an expert is that they know when to ignore all the guidelines to produce a better result.

An expert DM or an expert at 4e rules? And yes, every expert in a field is infallible when it comes to making a judgement call concerning their field... or maybe not.

So you want to use 4e in a simulationist manner. What does that even mean? 4e is pretty simulationist IME. And a much better simulation of a fantasy world than most process-sims are.

On a simplistic level it means my DC's don't scale by the level of the PC's... again please go back and read the arguments that pemerton made so that you have the necessary context for what you are choosing to respond to.

OAN...I'm curious what fantasy world exactly (outside of it's own) does 4e simulate very well??

That depends a lot on how it was presented. The DM made a very bad call. And then tried to wriggle out of it rather than genuinely accept responsibility. Both players and characters were pretty cranky at the result.

A relatively inexperienced DM made a mistake and then created a narrative that fixed it, the players decided not to meet him halfway and instead flat out wouldn't accept it. I wouldn't call their behavior cranky, I'd call it childish.

 

[sheadunne]

A relatively inexperienced DM made a mistake and then created a narrative that fixed it, the players decided not to meet him halfway and instead flat out wouldn't accept it. I wouldn't call their behavior cranky, I'd call it childish.

A point of contention here, the DM didn't try to fix it through narrative means. The DM made another character a god and told them to fix it. That's not even close to the same thing. The DM didn't even try to do it through divine conversation, but rather through the meta-game. If he was going to do that, he would have been better off just saying, "oops guys, I meant 75 points of damage."

Following this thread, here's how I interpreted the events. From a spectators point of view.

I saw two players feeling betrayed that the DM didn't care about their characters and angry that he wouldn't listen to them when they explained the rules, giving him an opportunity to explain that he didn't mean to kill them, and thus he really is a compassionate DM and not a hateful person who killed them for no reason. After all, the DM couldn't even blame the events on the dice, since he didn't even allow them to be rolled. It was an intentional killing if you will.

Then what does the DM do after he refuses to address the issue, further indicating that he doesn't care about those players, he makes one of the other players a god and forces her to again try to screw with their characters (bullying is never acceptable, even in a game). Not only did the DM punch them in the face, he got another player to kick them when they were down.

Anyway, it's not an unusual story, I've seen it often enough, especially with new DMs playing a later version of D&D (in early versions it was somewhat expected). I think the DM would have great fun running a different type of game, especially one that mechanically supported his DMing style, there are too many fiddly bits in D&D to ignore dice and rules in my opinion, other systems are much more forgiving.

I'd also say that the player in question would find a by-the-rules game more to his taste. Probably less RPing and more dice rolling. He seems to spend a lot of time making all the pieces fit together to not get enjoyment out of playing those pieces. I find that's hard to do when the DM cares more about their story than the players and their goals.

Anyway, fun read.

 

[billd91]

Following this thread, here's how I interpreted the events. From a spectators point of view.
<Snip>

Then what does the DM do after he refuses to address the issue, further indicating that he doesn't care about those players, he makes one of the other players a god and forces her to again try to screw with their characters (no means no, even if it is just a game). Not only did the DM punch them in the face, he got another player to kick them when they were down.

That strikes me as a very uncharitable read. The rape reference strikes me as particularly unnecessary.

 

[sheadunne]

That strikes me as a very uncharitable read. The rape reference strikes me as particularly unnecessary.

The reference was unintentional from that perspective; I had intended it toward bullying, which I've seen used a lot lately (edited for clarity), but I'll give you the uncharitable read part. It was an emotional read from the players perspective. Perhaps I should have included the same read from the DMs perspective, since I certainly don't think that DM intended to produce those emotional reactions in the players. If I had included it, it would read like a series of unfortunate unintentional mistakes. I'm not sure that would add anything, but there ya go.

 

[Imaro]

A point of contention here, the DM didn't try to fix it through narrative means. The DM made another character a god and told them to fix it. That's not even close to the same thing. The DM didn't even try to do it through divine conversation, but rather through the meta-game. If he was going to do that, he would have been better off just saying, "oops guys, I meant 75 points of damage."

I'm confused... how is this not fixing it through narrative means. Instead of just declaring it so... the DM sets up a narrative reason (the power of the god in the stone being transferrable) to fix it, which appears by all accounts to have been the original intention of the stone anyway... How is that not addressing it through the fiction?


As to the rest of your post... hmmm, yeah I didn't really see the situation or the overall campaign as so black and white but hey, everyone has an oppinion.

 

[sheadunne]

I'm confused... how is this not fixing it through narrative means. Instead of just declaring it so... the DM sets up a narrative reason (the power of the god in the stone being transferrable) to fix it, which appears by all accounts to have been the original intention of the stone anyway... How is that not addressing it through the fiction?

The DM described the "fix" through rules. You can do this with your power. You can't do that. Rules=Metagame. If the DM had the original deity appear and heal the players, that might have been more narrative. He passed the responsibility to one of the players through rules clarifications, not through narrative development. In different words, the DM said here's some magic, go raise them, instead of letting the player conceive the idea for herself and take action through the narrative. That's my take. Of course, it would have been difficult to have anything happen narratively after the disruption anyway since there was such a dramatic OOC conflict going on.

On a side note: The DM didn't set it up. By all accounts the players were told not to touch it and that the DM wasn't even aware that the players might die. It appears that the DM adjusted it to compensate for the events transpiring, but still refused to compromise his story in favor of player enjoyment. My take anyway.

Cheers.