[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] – I’m writing ot and I find its length daunting, so to some extent I feel your pain…
Allow me to reiterate - there is no usage of the phrase "deny access to one or more class features" that encompasses dealing 1 hp of damage to a target. Which is what we are talking about in this particular case.
Without digging through many pages of back posts, my recollection is that you expressed a dislike for a system where the character’s ability to impact the fiction could be reduced as a consequence of an assessment of his play being inconsistent with his alignment (two key examples being loss of a level for alignment change and loss of Paladin abilities). Am I incorrect that you felt that reducing influence on the shared fiction was problematic?
If so, then the issue is moot. If not, then I fail to see how arbitrarily denying the player access to his familiar (whether by saying “it took a hp of damage” or some other mechanism not arising directly from action resolution mechanics) is philosophically different, rather than a question of degree of powers lost in magnitude and/or duration. This was not limited to alignment – when it was noted a character could lose a level from the Undead, you were equally opposed to that. Given “he could lose a level from being hit by a Wight” was not sufficient to suggest losing a level from alignment change was reasonable, I fail to see how “1 hp damage would eliminate the familiar” equates to “it is OK for me to arbitrarily remove the familiar without an action resolution which would do 1 hp to the familiar”.
I quoted the relevant skill challenge rules upthread. They expressly encompass the taking of damage in various ways as a possible consequence or stake in a skill challenge. In order to further satisfy your interrogatories, I post here the notes I had made for the particular skill challenge in question prior to the session:
First off, I sure wish someone versed in 4e would also look this over – it would not be hard for me to be way off base.
This is a L25 comp 5 skill challenge (21/29/38, 8M+4H before 3F, 6 Adv).
In the first stage the PCs must sweep through the Soul Abattoir, freeing souls while destroying shrivers and torture machinery. Each failure costs either 6d10+8 to the failing PC, or 3d10+9 to all the PCs, depending on fictional positioning.
- To charge among the shrivers and fall upon them, Athletics or Acrobatics (+2 to check if use close burst power), or Stealth if enhanced in some way, or Intimidate if prepared to take damage as per a failure (max 4 successes);
- To free souls (requires first that someone deal with the shrivers), Religion (+2 to check if use Turn Undead-type power) (max 2 successes);
- To destroy machinery (requires first that someone deal with the shrivers), Arcana or Dungeoneering (max 2 successes).
After 7 successes, the PCs have a final confrontation with the shrivers (see over).[/quote]
OK, first question: any failure inflicts damage. Did any failure in this part of the SC inflict damage on “all the PC’s”? If so, or if it had, would this also incapacitate the familiar, given it had only one hp, or was it generally exempt from the above consequences, not itself being a PC?
If the shrivers are defeated, the Soul Abattoir will start to collapse. This is the second stage, and requires:
- Escape (Group Athletics and/or Acro vs M difficulties, max 2 successes
- Holding back the energies (Arcana, max 1 success);
- Prayers to the Raven Queen (Religion, max 2 successes);
- Withstanding the energies and dust (Endurance, if done as solo H then can grant others +2 to escape; otherwise group; max 1 success each);
- Insight can reveal the presence of Vecna (no success, no failure) via Malstaph’s imp.
If the Challenge is failed, Vecna takes control of the Soul Abattoir as the imp, under the control of the Eye, breaks free from Malstaph. (If this happens before reaching 7 successes, the shrivers converge on the PCs as they are driven back.)
I don’t get how the PC’s wee to get 8 medium + 4 hard successes overall. I count three options in the first list (with combined internal maxima of 8) and 4 in the second (combined internal maxima of 7, I think, assuming two possibilities for the last one). I assume that means they need 7 successes in the first list (so all internal max’s hit but one), then 5 from the second list (so they have a bit more choice there).
In fact it didn't end up playing quite like that. For instance, as best I recall the Insight check was counted as a success.
So you set the rules, but then you don’t follow your own rules.
Also, at the climax I decided it would be more dramatic if Vecna was going to get the souls unless the invoker, who was controlling the soul energies (via a Religion check - another departure from how I had anticipated it might play out), deliberately chose to divert them to the Raven Queen.
So, again, just changing the rules on the fly.
That choice had a cost - namely, the suffering of 1 hp of damage by the imp familiar. (Though at the time I didn't describe it that way - what the player cares about is not that his imp has taken 1 or 10 or 100 hp of damage, but that it is shut down.)
So, to summarize, it was not the game mechanics or action resolution system that shut the familiar down. It was not even your previously defined consequences for failed rolls or potential to access bonuses for one or more rolls. It was not a consequence of a failed roll. It was an off the cuff decision that, if the player decided to make a certain decision in-game, he would lose access to a class feature.
You seem to have in mind some rather narrow version of action resolution mechanics, in which damage can only be inflicted as a result of an attack roll in combat. (Perhaps a failed save as well? I would imagine that's an element of the version of D&D you play.)
I am seeing, from the above, the familiar taking damage by GM fiat, not by the action resolution mechanics. [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] seems to see the same thing. If a player tells me “I fight on the defensive this round”, taking an AC bonus, for which reason his attacker misses instead of hitting, I would not then decide “Well, as you were fighting on the defensive, your familiar scurried into the path of the blow and was hit instead of you.” And if he made his Religion roll to address the second stage (which I don’t think he did in a prayer to the Raven Queen – could he not pray to one of his other deity contacts?), that seems like a success in the skill challenge, not a failure to preserve his familiar, which is not mentioned at all in the stakes, other than “sensing Vecna’s presence” (which seems to have no mechanical impact on the skill challenge) or, if the challenge fails, losing the familiar to Vecna.
I am not arguing that the player was not warned his familiar was in danger. I am not arguing that the play was, or was not, good. I am asserting that you placed the player’s access to a class feature at stake based on the behavioural choice his character made. To compare two possible in-game occurences:
- Invoker says “I will channel the souls to the Raven Queen. I know this choice puts ongoing access to my familiar at risk.” The familiar is, in fact, removed from his control for some period, without him having any ability to prevent this result – it occurs if he makes the behavioural choice in question.
- Fighter says “I will strike down the man in my path. I know this choice reflects a lack of respect for life, and could jeopardize my Good alignment, potentially costing me a level.” The level is, in fact, lost, without him having any ability to prevent this result – it occurs if he makes the behavioural choice in question.
You seem to perceive a fundamental difference between the game philosophy of the two. I perceive only a question of degree, in the significance of the loss and its duration. That is, I think, a key area where we differ.
Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps its because, as a GM, I'm not a big fan of making unilateral changes to my players' PC builds.
Then why is it incapacitated at all? Is a temporary loss acceptable, but a longer term or permanent loss unacceptable? Where is the line drawn? Atonement can recover those Paladin powers, and experience regains a lost level, so neither of these is strictly “permanent”. Most versions xp rules had lower level characters gain more xp from the same encounter, and higher levels cost more xp, so the character should eventually catch up to the other PC’s in level.
Yes, they are not perfect exemplars of values. I hadn't realised that that was contentious! What do you think "evil" means? I think it means - drawing on Imaro's posted definitions upthread - of bad character, or perhaps prone to wrongdoing. If so-called "evil" gods pursued values without error or corruption, then they wouldn't be evil, would they?
So Orcus is not a perfect exemplar of the Undead, nor Demogorgon an exemplar of mindless destruction? Often, alignment debates have included the phrase “’Good’ does not mean ‘Stupid’”. Here, it seems Evil and Stupid become synonymous.
I don't know why you say that. I've already given an example upthread in which a player might regard Vecna as exemplifying the truth about secrecy (and, as I said, presumably therefore doesn't regard Vecna as evil). In those cases, I would not - as GM - second-guess the player's conception of what true secrecy requires.
Why can’t a given value itself be evil? Gods of war, destruction, tyranny, pain, suffering and murder come to mind. Do those deities become evil because they don’t fully understand pain, suffering or murder? Would a purer understanding result in a LG (or at least Unaligned) God of Torture and Murder?
You pay a lot of service to “PC Conception” in the lengthy passages I have not quoted. What if his conception is “great warrior”? Does he get to override to hit and damage rolls? Perhaps his conception is “as a shadow in the night” – do his Stealth checks succeed automatically? Why is only consistency with their deity or philosophy placed entirely under the player’s control? I’ve certainly played in games where my conceptual vision of the character failed to manifest due to the dice not co-operating, or due to errors in my own realization of the vision, through design or play. Why is my “moral vision” the only aspect of concept mandating exclusive player control?
Aragorn - "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer". Arthur I don't know off the top of my head - but other examples of the trope include King Edward the Confessor, who was reputed to heal with a touch.
As for being warded from evil magic by the divine? The whole of Arthur's reign, and the blissful period of Camelot - until it was riven by sin, of course. Aragorn's survival throughout his adventures, up to his realisation of his destiny to become king.
So the PC is only protected by magic in retrospect when he survives to achieve his goals? Ultimately, Camelot fell, and it was not Arthur’s sin which caused it to fall. As for the “healer”, reviewing that passage, he used herbalism, satisfying a prophecy that he was the Rightful King. At no other point in the entire trilogy does he demonstrate any healing skills, and even these may or may not be magical, rather than herbalism.
OK, so just to be clear you're now actually denying that Tolkien's Aragorn is modelled on the classic trope of divinely bestowed kingship?
OK, so just to be clear you're now actually denying that Tolkien's Aragorn is the inspiration for the Ranger class, and that instead he inspired the Paladin class?
'm not sure I understand. I'm now a bad GM, or an inconsistent GM, or something, because I have framed scenes in which dead PCs meet their makers, and I didn't have the express permission of the rulebooks to do so? (Which may not even be true - looking at p 161 of the DMG I see that "When mortal creatures die, their spirits travel first to the Shadowfell before moving on to their final fate", while p 160 tells me that "the Raven Queen’s palace of Letherna stands in the Shadowfell".)
If you're saying that, when a player whose PC is dead wants to play out a conversation with his immortal mistress - in circumstances where that mistress is also the god of the dead, and the PC is one of her marshals (a Marshal of Letherna) - it's bad GMing to frame and resolve that scene, then our conceptions of what makes for good RPGing are even more different than I thought.
The player, playing his PC, expressed doubts about his resolution and sought advice. I, playing the Raven Queen, offered some advice. How is that thwarting or denying the player's conception of his/her PC. It is affirming it, and building on it.
I am not judging whether it was good gaming or bad in theory, nor whether it was well or poorly implemented in practice, nor whether you are a good or bad GM.
I am saying two things:
- your claim that this scene was framed under the action resolution rules of the game is categorically erroneous.
- this scene evaluates the PC’s actions in the eyes of his deity, as played by you, contrary to your previously stated unwillingness to engage in precisely such an evaluation.
The discussion isn't about whether 4e is flexible or not and totally disregarding rules and making up whatever you want to happen because you feel like it doesn't speak to any inherent flexibility on the part of 4e so pleas let's not deflect this part of the conversation with irrelevant commentary. As I said earlier you did not in fact use mechanical resolution to determine what happened to the familiar or the Eye of Vecna. You made an evaluative ( To examine and judge carefully; appraise.) judgement on the characters behavior and how Vecna regarded it and then stripped him of character build resources because of it.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], you go on to dismiss the plain English meaning as inconsistent with your use of the term. How does that align with your previous, extended, insistence that Good and Evil in the game rules must be interpreted in accordance with their ordinary English usage?
OK, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I wrote it and I don’t know that it’s worth reading, so I’ll give you that one! Are you familiar with 4e mechanics? Can you offer a comment on the Skill Challenge from that perspective?
