Free Will and Story

[Imaro]

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.

Where are you getting this from...Those "rules" were conveyed through the fiction... a council of gods gving their edicts to one that was newly created. When is it the player getting these hard and fast rules clarifications from the DM? These are things happening in the fiction.

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.

I guess when I read this...

Well, I think it just followed naturally out of the storyline. There was a machine that turned people into gods. She activated it....so she became a god. Though, she didn't realize she was activating it. Plus another god had sworn us all not to touch it or use it. She forgot about the promise since it was so many months ago in real time.

...my take was a little different. The device was always going to give god-like powers to the PC's... at least that seems to be what the OP believes, now whether those powers included ressurection or not doesn't really matter since it still opened up a plot or narrative device for the PC's to be saved.

Also how can the DM adjust to compensate and still not compromise his story? That doesn't make sense.

 

[sheadunne]

Clearly there is a disconnect between the Player's preference for playing his character as a series of powers and numbers (Mechanics) and the DM's preference for running the game as a story (RP). Neither seemed particularly interested in compromising.

The DM, at least to me, killed the Player's character in the worst possible way for the Player and then attempted to raise him in the same worst possible way. I wonder how it would have turned out if the Player had died from "by the rule" wounds and then was raise by "by the rule" healing. Would he have had such an extreme reaction? I feel as though emotionally he still would have felt the loss of the character, but I'm not as sure that he would have reacted as poorly. I don't know. What I do see is that his fun is tied into character creation and mechanics, if those weren't provided, there's really no chance of him enjoying the game.

 

[Imaro]

Clearly there is a disconnect between the Player's preference for playing his character as a series of powers and numbers (Mechanics) and the DM's preference for running the game as a story (RP). Neither seemed particularly interested in compromising.

The DM, at least to me, killed the Player's character in the worst possible way for the Player and then attempted to raise him in the same worst possible way. I wonder how it would have turned out if the Player had died from "by the rule" wounds and then was raise by "by the rule" healing. Would he have had such an extreme reaction? I feel as though emotionally he still would have felt the loss of the character, but I'm not as sure that he would have reacted as poorly. I don't know. What I do see is that his fun is tied into character creation and mechanics, if those weren't provided, there's really no chance of him enjoying the game.

I just wonder why Jim continued playing in the campaign once he realized this DM's prefered playstyle and his didn't mesh. Instead of the passive aggressive behavior, snark and complaining... why not just leave, especially if everyone else in the group is enjoying the campaign.

It's like continuously going to a restaurant that only serves burgers (which you don't like) night after night and then (while still ordering burgers) choosing to complain about, make fun of and disparage every burger you choose to order (though all the other burger eaters are enjoying them). Why not just go to a different restaurant that serves the food you enjoy.

 

[sheadunne]

I just wonder why Jim continued playing in the campaign once he realized this DM's prefered playstyle and his didn't mesh. Instead of the passive aggressive behavior, snark and complaining... why not just leave, especially if everyone else in the group is enjoying the campaign.

It's like continuously going to a restaurant that only serves burgers (which you don't like) night after night and then (while still ordering burgers) choosing to complain about, make fun of and disparage every burger you choose to order (though all the other burger eaters are enjoying them). Why not just go to a different restaurant that serves the food you enjoy.

I think it was because Jim was there first and they were his friends. The new guy (DM) was the one who should have left. At least that's the way I think Jim was perceiving it. A bad time with friends is still better than a bad time alone? I don't know.

But I do think that similar questions should be asked of the DM. If a player in his game was having such a bad time because he didn't learn the rules, why didn't he make any effort to learn them? Who knows, but it seems that most of Jim's grumbling came from a failure of the DM to learn the rules, which should have been an easy fix and one that really wouldn't have cost the DM anything other than reading a book in his spare time.

 

[Imaro]

I think it was because Jim was there first and they were his friends. The new guy (DM) was the one who should have left. At least that's the way I think Jim was perceiving it. A bad time with friends is still better than a bad time alone? I don't know.

But I do think that similar questions should be asked of the DM. If a player in his game was having such a bad time because he didn't learn the rules, why didn't he make any effort to learn them? Who knows, but it seems that most of Jim's grumbling came from a failure of the DM to learn the rules, which should have been an easy fix and one that really wouldn't have cost the DM anything other than reading a book in his spare time.

See I don't know if that's Jim's real issue, since he also seemed to have problems with the OP when he was DM'ing as well.

*Shrug* I guess I tend to look at it like if everyone else in a group is having fun but one person... it's that one person that needs to adjust or not participate.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

Not quite what I meant. Making up a new ritual? Ok, fair enough. Making up a new ritual that completely ignores all mechanics and the rules? Yeah, that's playing a different game. Now, from later comments, Jim's certainly not coming off looking all that good either here, so, we've got a perfect storm. A DM who doesn't give a toss about the mechanics in a mechanics heavy game vs a player whose strong reason for playing is to manipulate those mechanics to his own advantage.

Yeah, that's never going to end well.

 

[Hussar]

I just wonder why Jim continued playing in the campaign once he realized this DM's prefered playstyle and his didn't mesh. Instead of the passive aggressive behavior, snark and complaining... why not just leave, especially if everyone else in the group is enjoying the campaign.

It's like continuously going to a restaurant that only serves burgers (which you don't like) night after night and then (while still ordering burgers) choosing to complain about, make fun of and disparage every burger you choose to order (though all the other burger eaters are enjoying them). Why not just go to a different restaurant that serves the food you enjoy.

Now, this? This I agree with. Too many players won't quit games even when they don't like them. And it's not a DM's fault (at least, certainly not always). Players sit down at a table and then expect the DM to change to fit what they want. It's very frustrating. Particularly when it's one odd man out. The rest of the group wants X and that one guy wants Y. Yeah, I can totally get that.

Heck, again, I've probably been that Y from time to time. No, scratch that, I KNOW I've been that guy. It took a long time to realize that it's far better to quit a game than pull what's going on here. I guess it's part of the learning curve of being a good player.

 

[MetaVoid]

Sounds like Jim is spiteful and spoiled child. I know two myself who rage-quitted the campaign then the group didn't handle something the way they wanted (4 against 2 in group in-game votes)

My thinking:
1. they knew the device can turn someone into a god.
2. the explanation was given in in-game terms (weak and uncontrolled, no spite)
3. story sounds solid and players knew and understood their world (and presumably DM)

= whatever happened, it happened with previously known background and explanation => Jim is a dick.


If he doens't like he should've quit.

 

[pemerton]

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.

No. That was the GM making further manipulations of the fiction that irritated the players. Whereas the GMing I mentioned in my post was owning up that a mistake had taken place, and correcting it at the metagame level.

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".

It seems fairly clear that Jim et al were not like the players that you know. They wanted the GM to admit that he made a mistake; not to deny that he'd made a mistake and then engage in further fiated manipulation of the fiction to rectify the very mistake that he denied he had made.

 

[pemerton]

People who feel that what the numbers claim is a challenging encounter isn't for their players

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

As far as I can tell you are talking about the encounter budget guidelines. As I said upthread:

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?"

I've never seen anyone advising 4e players to disregard the level-appropriate DC numbers, defences, bonuses, damage numbers etc. In fact, the most common single bit of advice I've seen in relation to 4e is the reply to someone expressing concers about grind, namely, stop using above-level soldier monsters!

If you build a notionally 1st level monster but give it 20 AC, +9 vs AC for 4d10 hp of damage plus grab with an escape DC of 30, in what sense is it a 1st level monster anymore? 1st level, in 4e, doesn't have any meaning except by reference to the mecanical parameters that it establishes. In the case of a 1st lvl monster, that would be AC somewhere in the vicinity of 15 (say 12-18 as a feasible range), attack bonus around +6 vs AC, damage somewhere beteween 2d4+1 (75% standard damage) and 4d6+2 (200% standard damage, but in that case probably no rider effects) and an escape DC of 12 (Medium DC) or thereabouts.

This is quite separate from the issue of encounter budgets.

As [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] have indicated, they depart from these numbers, but neither said they ignore them. For instance, I'm guessing that they think about new damage values in relation to them (eg my PCs are super-optimisers for damage, so I'm going to double the damage output of all my monsters). Another common anti-grind measure is similar (halve monster hit points, double monster damage).

pemerton's argument was framed in objective terms.

Yes, I think there is an objective difference between encounter building budget guidlines, and level-appropriate DC/bonus/damage guidelines. The first basically serve a pacing function. The second are much more important, and set out the fundamental architecture within which the game's action resolution has been built. That's why they have been errata-ed multiple times (DCs in the DMG, DMG2 and Essentials, and damaeg in MM3): because the designers misunderstood their own architecture first time round!

I personally think the numbers are only as important as their ability to produce a good gaming session.

Who disagrees with that? But obviously if most of the time you are ignoring the numbers, then you wasted the money you paid to purchase them! Good RPG design is about coming up with numbers, and systems that use those numbers, which will fairly reliably produce good gaming sessions. Again, maybe you don't think players are entitled to good sessions. I do, though - hence I think that designers (whom the players are paying, after all) are under an obligation to try and come up with decent numbers and decent systems; and GMs who disregard the system that everyone thought they were using an make up their own numbers and their own systems are under some obligation to try and come up with decent ones.

People who want to runa a more simulationist game

What does 150 hp of damage simulate? Or 1000 hp? Or 10 hp? They're just numbers. They don't have any meaning until they're applied to particular PCs. Was the GM trying to simulate an unstoppable blast of light and energy that would kill all in it's path? Apparently not, as he got a surprise when the PCs died!

I don't think the notion of simulation has much utility in analysing this particular episode of play.