This post was inspired by [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s thoughts about "rulings not rules".
<snip>
I'm interested in any thoughts around techniques, agendas, illusionism,"rulings not rules", etc.
Certainly. I'm going to break it up into this post and a post for later today as these are not particularly complex while the last one is much more nuanced (and agenda, principle, technique-driven).
I had already noted that when Lolth discorporated, she would die but the Queen of Chaos would be freed (my Lolth backstory: she became corrupted because, when she used her webs to hold the world together she encountered, and was possessed by, the Queen of Chaos at the bottom of the Abyss). So I rolled Bluff for Lolth and then got the players to roll Insight - two of them beat her (the paladin and the invoker/wizard) and so I told them they could see her smirking, and almost welcoming being bloodied - and then when they asked why I told them that they suddenly recalled (one in his capacity as a Marshall of Letherna, the other as a Sage of Ages with Memories of 1000 Lifetimes) that a deity who is bloodied might discorporate - and the Sage of Ages (bearing the Rod of Law and having made the better check, beating a Hard DC) could sense the Queen of Chaos about to break free.
That was the first need for a "ruling" - on making and getting info from a skill check.
On this one I think I would have done one of a few things depending on (a) how front and center this Lolth/QoC backstory aspect of the campaign was and (b) its impact on coming mechanical resolution. General thoughts:
1) I don't think I would have gone with Bluff vs Insight regardless. I would have automatically told all the PCs that they could see her smirking and sense/feel an ominous thrum of titanic power reverberating through their bones with Lolth as the obvious epicenter...revealing the unwelcome truth that something cataclysmic was about to happen.
2) If the backstory wasn't extremely prominent (but relevant..which I'm generally of the sense that any relevant backstory needs to usually be extremely prominent) to the campaign (but potentially mechanically impactful), the players could have made an action declaration for a Religion check (knowledge immortals) to discern the nature of what was about to happen. With success, they would have learned the fictional positioning (The QoC emerging at Lolth's discorporation and the implications therein) and what that meant mechanically (eg, they're going to be fighting a new solo at 100 % HP with thematic powers x, y, z...and Abyssal Hazard a, b, c were going to erupt).
or
3) If the backstory was extremekly prominent and relevant, then I would have reiterated the prominent fictional positioning of what was happening and the Reilgion check would have been merely to uncover metagame information to help inform subsequent action declarations.
All of that is assuming that I well-understood the nature of the theme on your overall campaign (which I believe I do having read your play-session reports) and how events unfolded at the table for this particular conflict (which I may not be).
The second came up because the trigger for Lolth's discorporation is being bloodied, and it takes place as "no action". The fighter has a power, Sudden Opportunity, that is a free action when an enemy becomes bloodied. I let him take his attack. He rolled a crit, which took another 100-odd points of Lolth, but still left her up.
That was the second need for a "ruling" - on the play sequence of resolution.
On this, I think without question you made the right call (and I'm not sure I would even put this in "ruling" territory). Even though the fictional positioning says "Lolth is now a new entity and no longer bloodied because of discorporation...even though "no action" speed (0 time - it is passive in the fiction and just automatically happens by causal logic but player/GM fiat) is quicker than "free action" speed (inconsequential amount of time - but it does require observation, orientation, decision, and action within the fiction)...the player has purchased a PC build resource that triggers upon the metagame condition of "Bloodied" being met. Where a "no action" NPC effect triggered on bloodied (which changes the entire landscape of the mechanics) and a "free action" PC ability triggered on bloodied intersect, the GM should always allow the PC their ability to deploy that triggered effect (free action - upon Bloodied).
Otherwise, you're getting into dangerous adversarial territory where GMs are contriving no-action effects which subvert the nature of PC build choices because they contrive to deny the manifestation of the conditions (in this case "Bloodied") that trigger them. Accordingly, erring on the side of the player here is a no-brainer.
Because his roll was a 20, he was able to use his paragon path ability to recover a daily power - I ruled that he could recover Sudden Opportunity.
That was the third need for a "ruling" - on whether or not a daily power is expended, hence recoverable, when the roll to hit for it has been made and another ability triggered by that roll.
Again, I think you unquestionably made the right decision here and I'm not certain it qualifies as a "ruling." "Expending a martial daily" and "recovering a martial daily" occur at the metagame level which is what is relevant to resolving the mechanical expression of their intersection. However one wants to quantify that within the fiction they can do so (eg fate, heroic mettle, divine intervention, proficiency). However, at the (relevant) metagame level, the chronological order of events is:
Action declared = expended daily > resolution roll = critical > player declares recovery of expended daily. So not only do I think that you made the correct choice, I think any case for another one is fraught with wrongitudeness.
Sudden Opportunity is triggered on an enemy become bloodied or being critted. So I ruled that the fighter, having recovered it by critting, could use it again.
That was the fourth need for a "ruling".
Again, not a ruling here. This is, unfortunately, a mis-application of the free action rules. While a creature can usually take as many free actions on a turn as they wish (their turn or enemies' turns), the deployment of an attack power is an exception to this. Creatures can only use a free action to take an attack power 1/turn. If I'm reading it correctly (I believe that I am?), this was two free action attack powers on the same turn.
Regarding techniques, the above just follows pretty orthodox play procedures for 4e.
Regarding agendas, you're filling your players (and their characters) lives with mythical fantasy adventure, letting play be an emergent thing that snowballs (based on player action declaration as they advocate for their PCs, based on fair and proper resolution, and using the legitimacy of that process to frame the subsequent fiction, with coherent focus on the PCs' thematic interests, and with the throttle to the floor). I'd say that is pretty much 100 % the proper agenda for running 4e.
Regarding illusionism, while it can be a very subtle thing, I don't detect any signs of it in the above. I would have treated the first part differently (as I outlined above) but I think that is likely just slight differences in how we run our respective tables and where the focus lies. Or again, it may be that I'm not seeing the bigger picture based off my parsing of your post.
Regarding "rulings not rules", I don't see it much of it in the above post. The only place I really see it is in the intersection of an NPC no-action ability at Bloodied (which outright changes the fiction upon "Bloodied" therefore, at the metagame level, upturning the resolution-relevance of that condition) and a PC free-action ability at bloodied. For the sake of a healthy table, I don't see how you can rule any other way beyond what you did. 4e, being an exception-based design system with robust mechanics for orthodox resolution and unorthodox stunting, requires an extremely remote number of rulings and those are only at the very periphery of the resolution mechanics.
I'll comment on the last one when I'm able to read it over again to make sure that I understand the nuance.
