Free Will and Story

[Imaro]

Re-read the OP.


So there isn't just one upset player who refused resurrection, but two. The DM justified 150 damage then stuck with it rather than admitting fault. And then the DM and Maeva's player deprotagonised the two dead PCs, returning them to life explicitely against their will.

I'm feeling little sympathy for Jim. But the DM was ignoring the first rule of holes. He made a mistake (150 damage/autokill). He doubled down on the mistake (stuck with the 150 damage when the players protested). And then when he realised he was down in the hole with a JCB he started digging in earnest by telling the person he'd just given divine powers to to override their choices. And it wasn't just Jim; the other dead PC reacted the same way right down to refusing any power she gave.

Uhmm... you do realize the OP already told us Jim was planning to derail and disrupt the entire adventure from the beginning right (not because it's what his character would do, but just because)? IMO, this right here tells me that Jim was never going to play in good faith. I also wonder how player 2 would have reacted without Jim there to exacerbate the situation...

EDIT: If the Dm had taken away the 150 points of damage from the player, doesn't that mean he should also deduct it from the enemy they were fighting as well... and wasn't the fight already taking to long and bogging down? I mean the DM kinda got stuck in anawkward situation and tried (IMO) to make the best out of it while still shortening the fight like he wanted to and actually giving the players who died their characters back at full power... I could see how that would appear a win/win to a DM and even some reasonable players (instead of de-protagonizing as others see it)... just saying.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Uhmm... you do realize the OP already told us Jim was planning to derail and disrupt the entire adventure from the beginning right (not because it's what his character would do, but just because)?

Translation: Because Jim was going to be trouble we can't infer anything about the DM handing a truckload of ammunition to him?

I also wonder how player 2 would have reacted without Jim there to exacerbate the situation...

Very badly. The only question is whether he'd have let himself be talked down from getting quite that pissed off due to some spectacularly bad DMing calls. Probably.

EDIT: If the Dm had taken away the 150 points of damage from the player, doesn't that mean he should also deduct it from the enemy they were fighting as well...

The DM took 300 points of damage off the PCs (two PCs) and 150 from the enemy so far as I can tell. Also the DM ruined the PCs action economy at a tactical level.

That "God" was a liability.

I mean the DM kinda got stuck in anawkward situation and tried (IMO) to make the best out of it while still shortening the fight like he wanted

Fail. Killing two PCs won't shorten a fight unless it kills the bad guy as well or you want the bad guy to win.

actually giving the players who died their characters back at full power...

The DM did not "give" them back their characters at full power. The DM forced their characters back on them when they had said they didn't want this due to the fiction.

I could see how that would appear a win/win to a DM and even some reasonable players (instead of de-protagonizing as others see it)... just saying.

I can see how some players would have accepted after they'd kicked up a fuss that the DM give them back their character while still trying to keep face. And would accept the DM saving face by such a blatant measure. But forcing resurrection on people even after they said no?

 

[sheadunne]

EDIT: If the Dm had taken away the 150 points of damage from the player, doesn't that mean he should also deduct it from the enemy they were fighting as well... and wasn't the fight already taking to long and bogging down?

I wouldn't even have said the DM needed to take back the damage, but rather at least allow an attack roll or save to see if it even hit the players or the monster. I just find it fairly suspect when the DM uses a mechanic rule (a line attack) but then ignores another rule (roll to hit). If he was going to ignore the roll to hit, he could have just as easily ignored the line attack and said it just hit the monster not the players. The entire thing just played out badly.

 

[billd91]

I also wonder how player 2 would have reacted without Jim there to exacerbate the situation...

Given Majoru Oakheart's characterization of him laughing it off in the end, probably not as badly as with Jim's presence.

Man, given all the stuff he's said about Jim, I'd consider getting the hell out of that situation if I were Majoru Oakheart. I wouldn't put up with someone frequently deadpanning he was going to kill me even if I knew he was joking, and I'm certainly not going to put up with it if the person saying it has mental health issues.

 

[Imaro]

Translation: Because Jim was going to be trouble we can't infer anything about the DM handing a truckload of ammunition to him?

Please don't "translate" what I'm posting. If something is unclear ask me.

Very badly. The only question is whether he'd have let himself be talked down from getting quite that pissed off due to some spectacularly bad DMing calls. Probably.

Well as billd91 posted he didn't seem to be all that upset about it at the end of the day... so I'll go with that as opposed to your auto-knowledge of the thinking of a player you've never met.

The DM took 300 points of damage off the PCs (two PCs) and 150 from the enemy so far as I can tell. Also the DM ruined the PCs action economy at a tactical level.

I'm unclear as to your point here (see how that works as opposed to me choosing to "translate" it). Are you saying the two downed PC's with 3 still up was a larger blow to one side than the monster with around 400 hp's taking a 100 point hit and then another hit for 150 (250) total? I think we'd need alot more information to make an assertion like that.

That "God" was a liability.

Yeah, just like in alot of mythology and fantasy literature, go figure that... again I'm unclear on your point.

Fail. Killing two PCs won't shorten a fight unless it kills the bad guy as well or you want the bad guy to win.

You really don't have enough information to make this blanket statement... you don't even know what the hit point totals were... and just in case you missed it... The PC's did win, even with Jim attacking them and trying to stop them from beating the solo.

The DM did not "give" them back their characters at full power. The DM forced their characters back on them when they had said they didn't want this due to the fiction.

Semantics, and I was speaking as to how the DM may have viewed it when making the decision initially... now given his history with Jim he may have also been thinking this was just another "Jim episode" of which there had been many in the camapign... that's one of the problems of always acting out... no one knows when to take your tantrums seriously.

I can see how some players would have accepted after they'd kicked up a fuss that the DM give them back their character while still trying to keep face. And would accept the DM saving face by such a blatant measure. But forcing resurrection on people even after they said no?

Again Jim has a history of acting out... you learn to ignore it after awhile when it's a continuous thing. How was the DM supposed to know this time Jim was REALLY deadly serious as opposed to just messing the game up as usual?

 

[Imaro]

I wouldn't even have said the DM needed to take back the damage, but rather at least allow an attack roll or save to see if it even hit the players or the monster. I just find it fairly suspect when the DM uses a mechanic rule (a line attack) but then ignores another rule (roll to hit). If he was going to ignore the roll to hit, he could have just as easily ignored the line attack and said it just hit the monster not the players. The entire thing just played out badly.

What would the attack roll be based off of, and if the attack missed against the solo... how would Jim's goal of shortening the fight have been accomplished?

See what I think happened is that the DM underestimated how much time combat with a solo (or combat in 4e in general) can take. He wanted to shorten the fight and didn't want to do it behind the scenes because he wanted a rationale for the BBEG not being as uber as the PC's were probably lead to believe. He's also probably going with a narrative feel (and probably isn't too fond of Jim anyway) and (as we've seen in so many movies) decides the unleashed and unbridled power of a god (which in 4e is ultimately just another type of damage as opposed to good, or evil) isn't too discriminatory about who it damages (I mean he basically explains exactly this reasoning to the PC's). Was 150 points of damage over the top, especially seeing as how a mortal PC had just done 100...I think a better question is... was it supposed to be? Campaign finale, Final stand against the BBEG and the power of a god is unleashed (it all sounds over the top to me)... of course it does become kinda comical when the unbridled power of a god does less damage than a PC who just passed paragon level...

 

[Neonchameleon]

Given Majoru Oakheart's characterization of him laughing it off in the end, probably not as badly as with Jim's presence.

But the seeds still fell on fertile ground.

Man, given all the stuff he's said about Jim, I'd consider getting the hell out of that situation if I were Majoru Oakheart. I wouldn't put up with someone frequently deadpanning he was going to kill me even if I knew he was joking, and I'm certainly not going to put up with it if the person saying it has mental health issues.

Likewise.

Well as billd91 posted he didn't seem to be all that upset about it at the end of the day... so I'll go with that as opposed to your auto-knowledge of the thinking of a player you've never met.

What else do we know about the player? He's easygoing (he games with Jim - I'd probably have walked by now). And he was pissed off enough that Jim's ideas fell on fertile ground.

I'm unclear as to your point here (see how that works as opposed to me choosing to "translate" it). Are you saying the two downed PC's with 3 still up was a larger blow to one side than the monster with around 400 hp's taking a 100 point hit and then another hit for 150 (250) total? I think we'd need alot more information to make an assertion like that.

I'm saying yes except under very weird circumstances. Taking out 40% of the PCs hit points and about 40% of their damage/debuff/healing/whatever capacity is huge. With the synergy between PCs, taking two of them out cold probably halved their damage output. Meaning that if the three survivors didn't kill it the very next round it was almost certainly a loss for the PCs. After the blast the PCs are literally half as effective as they were before. And have about half the resilience.

You really don't have enough information to make this blanket statement... you don't even know what the hit point totals were... and just in case you missed it... The PC's did win, even with Jim attacking them and trying to stop them from beating the solo.

And just in case you missed it, the PCs had a God on their side and one who directly divinely empowered one of them.

Again Jim has a history of acting out... you learn to ignore it after awhile when it's a continuous thing. How was the DM supposed to know this time Jim was REALLY deadly serious as opposed to just messing the game up as usual?

Because it wasn't just Jim.

 

[Imaro]

What else do we know about the player? He's easygoing (he games with Jim - I'd probably have walked by now). And he was pissed off enough that Jim's ideas fell on fertile ground.

Again this tells us nothing about the player without Jim egging his "derail the game agenda" on. You're making large leaps with no logical connection. With the right influence plenty of people have done things they never would have thought about if left to their own devices.

I'm saying yes except under very weird circumstances. Taking out 40% of the PCs hit points and about 40% of their damage/debuff/healing/whatever capacity is huge. With the synergy between PCs, taking two of them out cold probably halved their damage output. Meaning that if the three survivors didn't kill it the very next round it was almost certainly a loss for the PCs. After the blast the PCs are literally half as effective as they were before. And have about half the resilience.

How do you know it was 40% of their hit points and 40% of their damage/debuff/healing/whatever capacity... again there is not enough information and making numbers up doesn't change that fact or give legitimacy to your argument.

And just in case you missed it, the PCs had a God on their side and one who directly divinely empowered one of them.

Riiiight... Let's look at what she was allowed to do by the other gods...

The Warlock was completed surprised when they said no. So were the rest of us. She didn't even know what to do. She was made a god and told(as I was told later) "The rest of the gods appear before you and tell you that they don't want you interfering in the world too much. You can't take any direct action to help the PCs fight unless they agree to worship you and even then you can only give them small buffs. However, you can take actions to correct the wrong caused by Misha and bring your friends back to life.

So she got to be a weak warlord for a single character in the party... and couldn't use her own abilities directly. Oh, and let's not forget Jim is also attacking them. not seeing the overpowered divine backup here..

Because it wasn't just Jim.

Jim is the catalyst though, as shown by his behavior throughout the campaign and his stated agenda before this particular session. We don't get a clear picture of how the other player felt because Jim (who has an agenda already) is involved. Now that said, even with all of his unforgiveable faults against the math of 4e, there were more players enjoying the game the DM ran than not... Which as I stated before is the most important thing in my book.

 

[sheadunne]

What would the attack roll be based off of, and if the attack missed against the solo... how would Jim's goal of shortening the fight have been accomplished?

Whatever number is appropriate for the encounter, following the guidelines presented in the rules. If the attacked missed than it missed, life goes on. The DM's goal of shortening the fight would have been better accomplished using the second option of avoiding the players and dealing damage to the monster. The rules are there to keep the players and the DM on the same playing field and to avoid the very issues that happened. If the DM is playing calvin ball and everyone else is playing D&D, it's not difficult to see where the problem is.

See what I think happened is that the DM underestimated how much time combat with a solo (or combat in 4e in general) can take. He wanted to shorten the fight and didn't want to do it behind the scenes because he wanted a rationale for the BBEG not being as uber as the PC's were probably lead to believe. He's also probably going with a narrative feel (and probably isn't too fond of Jim anyway) and (as we've seen in so many movies) decides the unleashed and unbridled power of a god (which in 4e is ultimately just another type of damage as opposed to good, or evil) isn't too discriminatory about who it damages (I mean he basically explains exactly this reasoning to the PC's). Was 150 points of damage over the top, especially seeing as how a mortal PC had just done 100...I think a better question is... was it supposed to be? Campaign finale, Final stand against the BBEG and the power of a god is unleashed (it all sounds over the top to me)... of course it does become kinda comical when the unbridled power of a god does less damage than a PC who just passed paragon level...

I think we all understand what happened, it was still badly done. Again the problem is he didn't choose option one (follow the rules) or option two (don't mess with other people's characters if you're not going to follow the rules). He choose option three (ignore the rules and mess with the characters), which will forever be, in my humble option, horrible DMing.

 

[Imaro]

Whatever number is appropriate for the encounter, following the guidelines presented in the rules. If the attacked missed than it missed, life goes on. The DM's goal of shortening the fight would have been better accomplished using the second option of avoiding the players and dealing damage to the monster. The rules are there to keep the players and the DM on the same playing field and to avoid the very issues that happened. If the DM is playing calvin ball and everyone else is playing D&D, it's not difficult to see where the problem is.

So the unbridled power of a released god in 4e is level 13... unless of course the PC's are a different level, ugh!!. This is exactly one of those sticking points that rubs many DM's the wrong way in 4e.

As to your second point, the DM put the same effect on the monster (150 points of damage) as he did the PC's with no save, attack roll, etc. So I don't really see it as "unfair". Now yes he could have used a lower damage number and that may have been (depending on what he was trying to achieve) a mistake. As far as declaring an auto-hit... well let's not pretend 4e doesn't have auto-hit attacks (the prime culprit being magic missile) so again there is a precedent for it and he applied it equally to players and monsters.

Eh, Dm's playing calvinball... especially if they are improvising is not in and of itself a bad thing... and again, where is there a rule that anything built by the DM must be level appropriate? In every edition prior to 4e (and yes, I include 3.x because the math behind CR's was still more art than math) DM's created stuff however they wanted to and tons of players and DM's had fun and enjoyed their games. Now I understand your preference is for the DM to be mathematically constrained by 4e's guidelines but that doesn't logically lead to... if a DM doesn't follow 4e's guidelines or is exercising his creativity (as opposed to measurement and math skills) in making things up then...
1. He is a horrible DM
2. It is a horrible game
3. There is a problem

Just wanted to clear that up.

I think we all understand what happened, it was still badly done. Again the problem is he didn't choose option one (follow the rules) or option two (don't mess with other people's characters if you're not going to follow the rules). He choose option three (ignore the rules and mess with the characters), which will forever be, in my humble option, horrible DMing.

It was badly done in your oppinion. A DM choosing not to follow the rules (and like I said, though small, there is a precedent for some auto-hit attacks in 4e) is certainly within his perojative even in 4e since these are just guidelines.

Messing with the characters... I need to understand this better... is it because of the ressurection? If so wouldn't the DM ruling they couldn't be brought back be messing with the agency of the warlock? And like was suggested earlier in the thread they could have just killed themselves when they were brought back... but they didn't.