# Free Will and Story



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 10, 2013)

We ended our campaign that's lasted about a year today with mixed reactions to our final session.  This game took place in 4e, but the edition only matters slightly to my question here.  There will be a TL;DR in my second post for those who don't care about the background.

Our DM made up his own campaign world that is fairly intricate.  He is a storytelling DM for sure.  He planned a long campaign out with a fairly grand story.  I assume the story changed as we made decisions, but I can't really say for sure.

The basic idea of the story is that it takes place on "The Green Moon", which is overrun by plants that grow at super speeds.  Except for mesas that have cities on them.  The cities aren't overrun due to "seeds of Misha", artifacts given to the people by the goddess Misha...which is the dominant religion on the planet as a result.  Legend has it that the people of the Green Moon originally came from a planet that the moon circles.  They were brought here by Misha who had a disagreement with the other gods and took a bunch of people to start her own planet.

We also found out that a bunch of creatures that are called "demons" are members of the same race as the gods.  They disagreed with what the gods were doing and were banished from their plane.  One of which was called Illoopion.  In the process of helping the church of Misha, they let us choose a reward from their vaults.  One of the objects we took was a mysterious box.  When we opened it, it sucked us all in to another dimension where we attempted to escape...and in the process found out that Illoopion was trapped in the box and the only way to escape was to free him with us.  So, we did.

He vanished and we forgot about him.  Later, we found on that an Elf known as the Heron King was marching across the continent and conquering cities.  We didn't think much of it, as it didn't really affect us.  Later, we were captured by the Heron King.  We discovered that the general of his armies was actually Illoopion in disguise.  The Heron King wouldn't believe us and we had to stage a huge escape to get out of his grasp.

We eventually discovered that Illoopion had tried to become a god many years ago, but he was stopped and trapped in the box.  He wanted to put the plan into effect again, however the artifact he needed to do so was hidden in a place called the Golden City.  The artifact was apparently capable of trapping a god and transferring its power to someone else.  We happened to find a map that said where the 3 gems required to find the Golden City was.  To make a long story short, we found all the gems and they led the way to the city.  Though, they did so by creating a big magic beam that carved a path through a mountain to where it was hidden.  This allowed Illoopion(and his pawn, the Heron King) to get to the city before us.

So, our last session was today.  We got to the Golden City which was a battleground between 3 sides: The armies that opposed the Heron King, the Heron King's army(as he had finally realized the truth and tried to stop Illoopion), and the portion of the Heron King's army that stayed loyal to Illoopion.  We found Illoopion performing a ritual with a large artifact with Misha trapped in it.  We managed to take down the forcefield protecting the artifact and disrupted one of the many wizards who were performing the ritual.  This, apparently, allowed the ritual to be weakened enough for Misha to escape.


Here's where the controversy comes in.  Our DM isn't really one for rules.  This is the first game he's every ran.  He has only really been playing D&D for about a year and a half now.  He hasn't even read through all the rules.  He often relies on either me or my friend Jim to answer rules questions that he's too lazy to look up himself.  As far as he's concerned, the rules of the game don't matter as much as the story.  A number of the monsters we've fought have been custom made by him....and you can kind of tell if you've been playing 4e for a while.  Powers that would make the most sense to target AC target Reflex in his game.  Monsters have powers that seem kind of overpowered/out of whack for what you'd expect to see in 4e.

So, when Misha escapes this ritual, she apparently turns herself into energy and shoots herself at Illoopion.  But our DM reasoned that she was weak and couldn't really aim it or control it.  So, it did 150 points of radiant damage to everything in a line between her and Illoopion and going out past him for miles.  No attack roll, no saving throw, no protection of any kind.  Now, people who have played 4e know that 150 points of damage in an attack in an absurd amount of damage in that edition.  There are level 36 solo monsters who can't do that much damage.  We're level 13.  My friend Jim, who is a bit of a rules lawyer points out to the DM that 150 damage is a stupid amount.  Our DM points out that my character(an assassin) managed to combine poison, encounter powers, and daily powers to do 100 damage in an attack earlier in the battle and that a GOD should surely do more damage than some assassin.  It is followed by a brief discussion, mostly by Jim, about the fact that in 4e, player damage is on a completely different scale than monster damage and that 150 damage kills everyone in the party immediately from full hitpoints and that even some ACTUAL GODS in the monster manual can't do that much damage(with the implication that our DM would know that if he'd actually bothered to read the rules).  Meanwhile, it barely scratches Illoopion, who is a solo.

Our DM doesn't care, he says it's the last session of his campaign ever and he said 150 damage and he's sticking with it.  It kills 2 party members.  One of which is a cleric of Misha.  He gets a little annoyed that his GOD would kill him like that.  The other one is Jim.  The DM re-explains that she couldn't control it because she was so weak(though, obviously, we didn't really know this in character).

A round later, our Warlock runs over to the device and picks up a glowing gem that is sitting on the same pedestal that Misha was hovering over.  Our DM takes her into the next room.  Then when they come back, he announces that the Warlock has vanished.  Then her voice appears in the heads of the dead people's spirits and offers to bring them back to life now that she has the power to do so.  Everyone at the table figures out pretty quickly what happened: The device was supposed to transfer a god's powers into someone else.  It was almost done and she touched it, so she now had the powers of a god(the Warlock that is).

Apparently, the two dead people who had been sitting there getting a little annoyed out of character that their characters died in one hit with no chance to stop it, both said no.  They didn't want to be brought back to life.  They said that if she had the powers of Misha now, that she basically was Misha.  And Misha just killed them.  They weren't accepting any sort of Raise Dead from a god who would be petty enough to kill them.  She tried to explain that she wasn't Misha, she was still Meva...our Warlock.  They still said no.  The reason wasn't exactly clear why they refused to come back to life.  They just seemed a little bitter about dying.

The DM pointed out to Meva that she WAS a god and didn't have to respect their wishes if she didn't want to.  She had the power to bring them back against their will.  She said "Fine, I do that.  They shouldn't have been killed and I'm going to right that wrong."  So, they come back to life.  They proceed to complain that they were brought back to life and say that they are going to start a cult to denounce her as a god and do everything in their power to make sure no one worships her.  She offers to give us power to help us defeat Illoopion if we worship her.  One of the other party members say yes.  The two formerly dead people refuse.  They said that obviously Illoopion was on the right side.  He didn't callously kill them just to take a pot shot at his enemies like Misha did.  Jim decides to start attacking ME to prevent me from killing Illoopion, who is still attacking us during this debate.  I manage to kill Illoopion before he can stop me.

Meanwhile, Jim continues to complain about how he never wanted to be brought back in the first place.  He says to me "This is a perfect ending to a perfect campaign"(with heavy sarcasm).  He tells me quietly, "You NEVER give a player god like power.  It's stupid.  I didn't even want to come back.  But I was forced to."  The player of Meva finally says, "Fine, you don't want to come back to life, you don't have to.  I revoke the gift of life and you die again."

The rest of us escape the Golden City and the campaign ends.

After the game was over, however, Jim continues to complain to me(even after the DM and everyone else went home) about how that was the stupidest game he had ever played in.  That our DM didn't know any of the rules and it frustrated him so much.  If you bring someone back to life, they have to agree, it says right there in the ritual description for Raise Dead.  I pointed out to him that gods technically don't have to cast the ritual that's listed in the book, they can probably make up their own rituals and likely don't have to follow the precise rules in the book.  He gets angry and says that's stupid.  As a DM, you can't just make up rules as you see fit.  You can't just say gods are all powerful.  They follow rules as well.  There is a monster entry for Bahamut.  He doesn't have the ability to invent whatever ritual he wants at will.  He has a limited set of powers and he forms the basis of how powerful gods should be.  Which our DM would KNOW if he read the book.

I try to reason with him and say that our DM likes to use story over rules...and that I often agree with him.  That many of the people at the table had fun and that I was sorry he didn't enjoy it but that his complaining for the entire last 2 hours of our session started ruining the fun for everyone else.  He got super angry and said that we were ruining the fun for him so he didn't care if we enjoyed it or not.  That having a DM who didn't follow the rules was the absolute worst thing to happen and the entire campaign was no fun for him.  I told him that I wouldn't hesitate to bring people back to life as NPCs after the player refused to allow them to be raised.  That, IMO, I can't force a player to continue playing a character they don't want to...but once they give up on that character that they become and NPC and I can do what I want with them.  He told me that if I ever did that, he'd quit the campaign immediately and didn't want to discuss it anymore and stormed off(he lives with me) and went to his room.

Which finally leads me to my questions: Should the DM have the ability to bring people back to life without their permission?  Should the DM be allowed to give infinite power to a player as a plot device for the last hour of a campaign?  Should gods be all powerful or are they limited to a few interesting tricks?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 10, 2013)

*TL;DR*
Our DM made one of the players a god for the last hour of our campaign and then the player proceeded to bring 2 dead characters back to life against the will of their players.  It made one player VERY angry as he believes the choice of whether his character can come back to life is his and his alone and the DM can never override that.  He also believes no player should ever be given so much power, even if it is the last session of a campaign.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Our DM made one of the players a god for the last hour of our campaign and then the player proceeded to bring 2 dead characters back to life against the will of their players.  It made one player VERY angry as he believes the choice of whether his character can come back to life is his and his alone and the DM can never override that.  He also believes no player should ever be given so much power, even if it is the last session of a campaign.





Majoru Oakheart said:


> Should the DM have the ability to bring people back to life without their permission?



Doesn't this depend heavily on the group's expectations? For instance, you said in your OP that once a player "give up on that character that they become and NPC and I can do what I want with them." I imagine some groups would agree with this, but others would reject it, taking the view that the player has ownership over the PC's existence in the fiction whether or not they want to keep playing that PC.

But in your scenario, in any even, it is another player who has done this, not the GM (unless I misunderstood who did what). There are abilities in 4e that permit this - for instance, the 22nd paladin utility "Gift of Life", as written, doesn't have a "PC consent" clause to it. Again, this strikes me as a "social contract" issue: if the player doesn't want his/her PC resurrected, why is the other player nevertheless doing so?



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Should the DM be allowed to give infinite power to a player as a plot device for the last hour of a campaign?



I'm personally not the biggest fan of this sort of "plot device" - what exactly is it meant to add to the play of the game?

I don't see it as an issue of the the GM being "allowed" or not - who is granting/withholding permission here? - but as what makes for a good play experience.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Should gods be all powerful or are they limited to a few interesting tricks?



Again, this depends on what the overall point of the game is. An all-powerful opponent, for instance, doesn't make for a very well-framed situation - it looks like a railroad (or something similar) to me, if the PCs can't succeed except via GM fiat. But obviously the gods, in the 4e world at least, are strong enough to snuff out the life of paragon heroes, given that - in most god statblocks - you have to be 20th or higher level to hurt them.

For instance, contrary to what your fellow player said, there is no implication in the rules system that Bahamut's abilities are confined to the published statblock plus published rituals. Apart from anything else, the DMG mentions his ability to be in two places at once, which is not mentioned in the statblock nor in the ritual rules.

It sounds to me like your GM mishandled the situation pretty badly, but your fellow players seem to have acted in ways that compounded rather than mitigated the damage.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 10, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> As a DM, you can't just make up rules as you see fit.



Actually, that's a pretty good description of what a DM is.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 10, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Which finally leads me to my questions: Should the DM have the ability to bring people back to life without their permission?  Should the DM be allowed to give infinite power to a player as a plot device for the last hour of a campaign?  Should gods be all powerful or are they limited to a few interesting tricks?




1) Maybe. Particularly when the players who don't want to come back are essentially being whiney dicks because the DM broke the rules and some game event didn't break their way. I mean, for god's sake, the PC given the massive power was trying to *fix* Misha's reckless act. And they take it out on her? That's dick behavior. OK, I admit, doing it because they're being dicks is spiteful behavior, but then, they started it.

2) I'm not sure I'd allow it but then I'm not sure I'd create a campaign around that kind of story. But if it fit in with the story, I'd do it.

3) As far as comparing to a scale of anything on the D&D game table, gods are generally all powerful. If they can power a bunch of priests operating at maximum level across multiple material planes, they can pretty much do whatever they want including exceed that level of power. They're *gods*.


----------



## delericho (Jun 10, 2013)

Honestly, it looks like your group's problem is that the DM just isn't very good. Both because he's never bothered to learn the rules of the game he's running and, probably more importantly, he's failed to communicate his gamestyle preferences to the players. I suspect if you fix that, the other issues your raise here would simply go away.

(Also, I'm not convinced that "Jim" isn't a problem player, too. But that would depend on how he acts when playing under other DMs.)

Regarding your specific questions:



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Which finally leads me to my questions: Should the DM have the ability to bring people back to life without their permission?




Broadly speaking, no. The DM gets to control _everything else_ - an effectively endless cast of NPCs, all the monsters, environmental conditions, and so on. The one thing that he doesn't get to control is the PCs.

So, if a player doesn't want his PC raised from the dead, the DM should respect that.



> Should the DM be allowed to give infinite power to a player as a plot device for the last hour of a campaign?




Sure. It's not something I would do (for various reasons), but given that it's the last hour of the campaign, I don't see any reason it shouldn't be allowed.



> Should gods be all powerful or are they limited to a few interesting tricks?




The normal D&D convention, and certainly in 4e, is that the deities are little more than extremely powerful monsters - they have great power but they're not all-powerful.

But there's no reason that the DM should stick with the standard conventions. Indeed, Eberron doesn't, and it's one of the official, published, settings!


----------



## Lindeloef (Jun 10, 2013)

Good points from [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]
got the same vibe from Jim.

btw how long have you been playing with that DM? Long enough to get his gamestyle preferences from play, so you knew how he rolls?

Regarding your questions, only thing I have to add, that hasn't been already said:
I personally hate it, that Gods have stats in D&D (and other games too, like Call of Cthulhu). Especially if you have players, that think, the DM has to abide to the Monster Manual.
And in this case the Gods were even homebrew Gods, so everything ok in my book on that topic


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> Actually, that's a pretty good description of what a DM is.



I think that's pretty contentious. I wouldn't want to play with a GM who took this view.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 10, 2013)

Lindeloef said:


> Good points from [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]
> got the same vibe from Jim.



Yeah, he's my friend and lives with me...but he likes to rules lawyer a lot.  He argues about strange thing.  I've played with him in nearly every group I've played in for 20 years now.  I remember one game I ran where I ruled that even if you could breathe water, it didn't let you speak underwater.  So, I wouldn't let him use spells with verbal components while underwater.  He argued that given the lack of rules saying you CAN'T cast spells underwater, you should be able to.  He argued that the default should always be that you are allowed to do something unless the rules forbid it.  I told him I understood his point of view, but I was the DM and I was ruling that it didn't work.  He then proceeded to argue about it for the next hour or so.  He then brought it up again for the next year or so every time he'd get angry at any of my rulings.  He'd casually say "Oh, is this another situation like not being able to cast spells underwater where you just change the rules?"


Lindeloef said:


> btw how long have you been playing with that DM? Long enough to get his gamestyle preferences from play, so you knew how he rolls?



About a year and a half.  With him as the DM.  He joined our group around 6 months before that.  He played for 6 months(weekly) then decided that he'd really like to DM, so we gave him the chance.  But he's only DMing once a month and his sessions tend to only be about 4 hours long.  So, the total time played with him as the DM isn't huge.

However, it's been abundantly clear how he DMs since the beginning.  A lot of it we've chalked up to him being a new DM and not understanding the rules well.  Jim has complained about it the WHOLE time, however.  Basically every session he makes fun of our DM for each and every mistake he makes, no matter how small.  If he forgets what bonus you get from flanking then Jim suddenly says "It's +2, which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the rules!"

This has kind of been an ongoing issue.  Our DM pretty much telegraphs his intentions but Jim likes to ignore them.  One example is when we tried to get some items out of a city that was completely overrun with undead.  We ended up being trapped in a building.  The enemy was almost completely surrounding us.  Hoards and hoards of undead.  We were attacked by 4 Elites at once who were a couple levels above us and well as a bunch of minions.  Which we didn't know until we started attacking them.  Jim grumbled that the guidelines for encounters say you shouldn't use that many powerful enemies at once unless you want to kill the party.  The DM says out loud "Well, if it's that dangerous, then maybe you should run and find a better place to hide."  Jim refuses and insists on making a stand there.  We manage to kill 3 of the elites but we take a lot of damage.  We all decide to run.  However, Jim still refuses to follow us.  The DM points out that there is one side of the building that appears to be free from undead now and therefore we have an escape route.  He still refuses to go.  He points that there is are hundreds of undead out there and he can't hope to survive if he stays.  Jim asks if they are the same minions we've already fought.  The DM says yes.  He says that he has a power that lasts until the end of the encounter that does 3 points of damage to anything that becomes adjacent to him.  They only have melee attacks, so it is impossible for any of them to hurt him.  He insists on staying and taking on the whole army by himself.

It's obvious that the DM is looking at it from the story point of view: "Look, there are hundreds of zombies, you should be scared and run".  While Jim looks at everything from a game mechanics point of view: "It's impossible for minions to get melee attacks against me, I can fight infinite of them."  Also, Jim refuses to acknowledge that argument happened.  Even to this day.  He insists he figured running away from the building was suicide and the entire rest of the party was stupid for doing so.  Incidentally, the DM allowed him to survive by climbing onto the roof and waiting until the morning.

The same thing happened with the DM decided to run a combat against illusions created from our own mind.  There was this pollen that made us hallucinate.  But it was so realistic that we took real damage from it.  But he didn't make attack rolls or give us saves to determine if we saw the illusions or not.  He insisted we were in a forest that was filled with the pollen, so it was guaranteed to work.  Jim got really annoyed and insisted he couldn't take damage from things he KNEW weren't real and almost refused to write the damage on his character sheet.  After all, if the DM wasn't going to try to hit his will defense to see if he was affected by this pollen then he could break the rules as well.

Our DM has done things like "A rock falls on you all, make acrobatic saves to get out of the way".  We're all "There's no such thing as an acrobatic save in the 4e rules" and he says "Well, then a Dex save".  We'd say "No, there's no Dex saves either.  We just have Reflex defenses.  Normally traps of this kind roll to hit our reflex defense."  Then he'd say, "Oh, then just make an acrobatics check to get out of the way."  Then you'd see a vein in Jim's neck pulse and he'd give me a look like "Why are we putting up with this?"


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 10, 2013)

billd91 said:


> 1) Maybe. Particularly when the players who don't want to come back are essentially being whiney dicks because the DM broke the rules and some game event didn't break their way. I mean, for god's sake, the PC given the massive power was trying to *fix* Misha's reckless act. And they take it out on her? That's dick behavior. OK, I admit, doing it because they're being dicks is spiteful behavior, but then, they started it.



Yeah, this is kind of where I was coming from.  I couldn't understand why they were making such a big deal about it.  I mean, yeah, it sucks that the DM appeared to have picked an arbitrarily large number off the top of his head and used it as damage without having any idea that it would kill anyone.  He looked seriously surprised when they both said "150 damage?  You know that kills us outright from full hitpoints right?"

My best guess is he had no idea how many hitpoints we had(during the time he actually PLAYED 4e, someone else made his character and he had difficulty keeping track of his powers and what they did).  So, the first thing he did was tell the Warlock, now god, "You are allowed to bring them back to life, you have the power to do that now."

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 tried to do the one thing she was allowed to do...and they said no.  And complained about the offer being an insult to them.  Plus, she's fairly new to D&D as well.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 10, 2013)

pemerton said:


> But in your scenario, in any even, it is another player who has done this, not the GM (unless I misunderstood who did what). There are abilities in 4e that permit this - for instance, the 22nd paladin utility "Gift of Life", as written, doesn't have a "PC consent" clause to it. Again, this strikes me as a "social contract" issue: if the player doesn't want his/her PC resurrected, why is the other player nevertheless doing so?



Yes, it was another player.  Though, she was given godlike power and then told "The only thing you're allowed to do with them is bring your friends back to life"  I gather she couldn't really tell if they were joking or not about not wanting to be brought back to life since they were overdoing the roleplaying on "We hate all gods now, since we were killed by one.  We refuse to accept gifts from gods.  How do we even know you're our former party member and not Misha pretending to be her?  We're going to tell everyone in the afterlife how big of a jerk you are."

I think she was just tired of hearing them complain and realized we were now in the middle of a battle with a powerful demon with over half the group dead(or an incorporeal being of infinite power who wasn't allowed to use it).  So, she didn't want to see the rest of the party die in combat, so she brought them back to help.


pemerton said:


> I'm personally not the biggest fan of this sort of "plot device" - what exactly is it meant to add to the play of the game?



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.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 10, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I think that's pretty contentious. I wouldn't want to play with a GM who took this view.




Agreed.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 10, 2013)

Sorry to say, I feel this is an edition issue more than anything. Editions and rules expectations. Different editions are good for different things, and 4E doesn't seem to be suited to this campaign. This is not a fault with 4E (I am NOT edition-bashing), it is just a bad match what what the DM wanted to do. A motivation-centered game like FATE might have been a better fit.

* Overall, 4E is the most "fair" or "boardgamey" issue of DnD ever. It is about even power between DM and players and about rules that cover every situation and requires little "DM as arbiter" play.  The DM is one player among many, the guy who controls the monsters and sets the scene. It is not really suitable for a storytelling DM who takes the "allmighty" approach. 

* And even gods in 4E fit in the 30 level scale (with maybe a few extra levels on top just for them) - the STANDARD adventure path from Dungeon featured the death of a major deity at the pcs hands. Misha as a god drained of power should be a level 25-somthing solo in 4E. Of course, if you all were level 13, that still means you would be defeated by her - but NEVER in one round in the 4E paradigm. Nobody except a minion ever dies in 1 round.

* The fact that 150 hp PC damage != (does not equal) 150 hp monster damage is not an easy thing to wrap your mind around unless you are deep into rules.

So, Jim is expecting 4E play, while the DM is running a storytelling game where rules are there for standard situations - when the story comes around rules no longer matter. There is a mismatch of expectations. Neither is at fault.

As for resurrecting a PC without consent, no, I'd not do that. I could return him as an undead/demonic mockery of himself, but in this case it really is not the PC at all - it just looks like it is. If the player doesn't want their PC to return, it should not truly return. of course, with the player so miffed, he DID come back as a mockery of his former self, at least in motivation...

The other questions about infinite power - yes. Especially at the end of a campaign a DM can do anything at all to the setting and to the characters' powers (but not to their personalities, see above). I've run campaigns where I blew up the world in the last session, no sweat. But it would have been a lot more interesting to present it to you as an option - a boon only one of you could get. Five heroes, only one get to be a god. Do you fight for it? Intrigue? Backstab? Vote? Reach a consensus? All back away from it? That would be interesting. Now it was essentially random (who touched the gem first) and not a role-playing decision. A story opportunity lost. But then, as the situation was with the miffed dead players, I can see how the DM wanted to gloss that over and get to the "happy ever after" part (even if that subsequently failed).


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 10, 2013)

I ran several sessions where one PC was a full-fledged deity and the others were not. It went fine. There's no rule that says you can't do that.

I've also had times where much smaller issues than that did cause disagreements.

Conclusions: context matters, and the players and the DM need to be on the same page.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 10, 2013)

I think your DM can definitely improve. The desire to DM is clearly there, he either needs to learn the rules a bit better, or, if that's not something he can manage, use a more rules-lite system than 4e. His other problem is that he's too railroady - he seems to often push the players towards a particular course of action, such as running from the zombies, or the warlock-god being directed to raise the other PCs from the dead.

Jim is probably unsaveable by this stage, given that you've been gaming with him for 20 years. He just seems awful!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 10, 2013)

Starfox said:


> * Overall, 4E is the most "fair" or "boardgamey" issue of DnD ever. It is about even power between DM and players and about rules that cover every situation and requires little "DM as arbiter" play.



Don't the rules of 3e cover more aspects of the game-world than those of 4e? In 3e a player like Jim could object if a hamlet has NPCs of levels and classes not in accordance with the settlement generation tables in the DMG. Whereas he couldn't do that in 4e as it lacks such rules.

However you're right that 4e is the most boardgamey. The rules support battlegrid gamism more strongly than any other edition imo, so it seems a bit strange to run 4e, and not to use the combat balance advice and combat rules.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 10, 2013)

I do see your point. IMO, the NPCs of levels and classes of a settlement is a recommended setting, not a rule. But views on that may vary. 

Anyway, I wasn't really talking about the difference between editions, but the mismatch between rules set and the DM's expectations. This could happen in any system.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Jun 10, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Which finally leads me to my questions: Should the DM have the ability to bring people back to life without their permission?




Yes, of course. The DM is all-powerful by definition. Whether it's wise to execute this power is an entirely different question.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Should the DM be allowed to give infinite power to a player as a plot device for the last hour of a campaign?




Again: yes, of course. The keyword here is "last hour of the campaign". Making a player all-powerful in this situation is a cool move, doingt it at any other time would bee stupid.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Should gods be all powerful or are they limited to a few interesting tricks?




If the GM says so...

You describe a very creative campaign with lots of twists and turns. It culminated in a ritual of ascension to godhood. The PCs foiled the ritual which, in itself, is reason enough to have some strange things happen. A toe-to-toe fight against a godlike being at the end of this would have been a big dissapointment in my eyes.

Judging by your story there seems to be a big difference in expectations between the GM and your friend. I don't need to take sides in order to predict that those two guys don't mesh now and won't mesh in the future.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 10, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Sorry to say, I feel this is an edition issue more than anything. Editions and rules expectations. Different editions are good for different things, and 4E doesn't seem to be suited to this campaign. This is not a fault with 4E (I am NOT edition-bashing), it is just a bad match what what the DM wanted to do. A motivation-centered game like FATE might have been a better fit.



Yes, our DM is aware of that now.  He started playing with our group and had never played any edition except 4e.  So, that's what he started using.  However, since the beginning of his campaign the D&D Next rules came out and we've been running playtests on a weekly basis along side his campaign.  He plans on starting another one in a month with D&D Next as a basis, since he's convinced it's far enough along to use it.


Starfox said:


> So, Jim is expecting 4E play, while the DM is running a storytelling game where rules are there for standard situations - when the story comes around rules no longer matter. There is a mismatch of expectations. Neither is at fault.



Yeah, and I'd agree with you entirely except that I was the one who got to listen to him complain for an hour after the game about how he had wasted a year and a half playing that game and that the ending was just as horrible as the rest of it....when, despite the problems with rules, I really enjoyed the campaign and it felt like a fresh change from our standard games.  Jim has been in all of them and the rest of our old friends are similarly rules lawyers.  It normally becomes a rules fest...constantly discussing the minutia of the rules rather than actually playing.

Our 3e games often resembled this:

DM: "He moves over here."
Player 1: "I get an AOO, he moved away from me."
DM: "Oh..right...Go ahe-"
Player 2: (hadn't heard the DM start replying yet) "He might NOT provoke an AOO.  It depends, he might have a feat that allows him to get away without one."
Player 1: "Right, like Spring Attack or Flyby Attack..."
Player 3: "I have a feat that let's ME ignore AOOs after I hit with an axe."
Player 2: "Yeah, but he didn't attack first, so he likely doesn't have that.."
DM: "I forgot to tell you to make the attack, that's all.  Go ahead."


----------



## Quickleaf (Jun 10, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Our DM doesn't care, he says it's the last session of his campaign ever and he said 150 damage and he's sticking with it. It kills 2 party members. One of which is a cleric of Misha. He gets a little annoyed that his GOD would kill him like that. The other one is Jim. The DM re-explains that she couldn't control it because she was so weak(though, obviously, we didn't really know this in character).



150 automatic and unavoidable damage at 13th level (when a fighter has at most 115 HP) qualifies as "no save, just die" also known as "rocks fall, you die." In what edition of D&D has that ever been fun?

While I appreciate the DM portraying a fallible god, this seems like the crux of the problem. *Why* the DM dropped this bomb on the players would be worth bringing to light, however.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 10, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> So, when Misha escapes this ritual, she apparently turns herself into energy and shoots herself at Illoopion.  But our DM reasoned that she was weak and couldn't really aim it or control it.  So, it did 150 points of radiant damage to everything in a line between her and Illoopion and going out past him for miles.  No attack roll, no saving throw, no protection of any kind.  Now, people who have played 4e know that 150 points of damage in an attack in an absurd amount of damage in that edition.  There are level 36 solo monsters who can't do that much damage.  We're level 13.  My friend Jim, who is a bit of a rules lawyer points out to the DM that 150 damage is a stupid amount.  Our DM points out that my character(an assassin) managed to combine poison, encounter powers, and daily powers to do 100 damage in an attack earlier in the battle and that a GOD should surely do more damage than some assassin.  It is followed by a brief discussion, mostly by Jim, about the fact that in 4e, player damage is on a completely different scale than monster damage and that 150 damage kills everyone in the party immediately from full hitpoints and that even some ACTUAL GODS in the monster manual can't do that much damage(with the implication that our DM would know that if he'd actually bothered to read the rules).  Meanwhile, it barely scratches Illoopion, who is a solo.




Yikes....

Okay, first, I need to fess up: I just hit the pcs in my game (who are about 20th level) with a 120 point attack during our last game. 

The villain in question is a possible end of campaign villain who they provoked into meeting them in battle. She has a _robe of the archmage_, which lets her maximize her damage on an arcane attack, and she's from a previous universe (and the days of 1e) so she has a bunch of "archaic" (by which I mean 1e-style) powers. 

So, for instance, she has a 20d6 _fireball._

Which, admittedly, is above recommended damage even at her level (which is... 33? I think), and the combo is ruthless.

Now, there was an attack roll involved, and half damage on a miss; and my group is six levels higher than yours. Nonetheless, there's a certain level of parallel here, so I have to say, I've done something (a little bit) similar to your dm's 150 points of God damage... so bear that in mind when evaluating my perspective. 

(For the record, none of the pcs died, and they pulled out all the stops to make an amazing escape.)



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Our DM doesn't care, he says it's the last session of his campaign ever and he said 150 damage and he's sticking with it.  It kills 2 party members.  One of which is a cleric of Misha.  He gets a little annoyed that his GOD would kill him like that.  The other one is Jim.  The DM re-explains that she couldn't control it because she was so weak(though, obviously, we didn't really know this in character).
> 
> A round later, our Warlock runs over to the device and picks up a glowing gem that is sitting on the same pedestal that Misha was hovering over.  Our DM takes her into the next room.  Then when they come back, he announces that the Warlock has vanished.  Then her voice appears in the heads of the dead people's spirits and offers to bring them back to life now that she has the power to do so.  Everyone at the table figures out pretty quickly what happened: The device was supposed to transfer a god's powers into someone else.  It was almost done and she touched it, so she now had the powers of a god(the Warlock that is).
> 
> Apparently, the two dead people who had been sitting there getting a little annoyed out of character that their characters died in one hit with no chance to stop it, both said no.  They didn't want to be brought back to life.  They said that if she had the powers of Misha now, that she basically was Misha.  And Misha just killed them.  They weren't accepting any sort of Raise Dead from a god who would be petty enough to kill them.  She tried to explain that she wasn't Misha, she was still Meva...our Warlock.  They still said no.




Wow, what poor grace. I don't know what kind of relationships their pcs had with the warlock, but it sounds like the players let their personal butthurt get in the way of playing the game.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> The DM pointed out to Meva that she WAS a god and didn't have to respect their wishes if she didn't want to.  She had the power to bring them back against their will.  She said "Fine, I do that.  They shouldn't have been killed and I'm going to right that wrong."  So, they come back to life.
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> Meanwhile, Jim continues to complain about how he never wanted to be brought back in the first place.  He says to me "This is a perfect ending to a perfect campaign"(with heavy sarcasm).  He tells me quietly, "You NEVER give a player god like power.  It's stupid.  I didn't even want to come back.  But I was forced to."  The player of Meva finally says, "Fine, you don't want to come back to life, you don't have to.  I revoke the gift of life and you die again."




Jim sounds more and more like the type of player who drags the game down and makes it less fun for everyone else. I don't know if he's as bad as you make it sound, but if he was in my group, we'd be discussing whether to drop him.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> After the game was over, however, Jim continues to complain to me(even after the DM and everyone else went home) about how that was the stupidest game he had ever played in.  That our DM didn't know any of the rules and it frustrated him so much.  If you bring someone back to life, they have to agree, it says right there in the ritual description for Raise Dead.  I pointed out to him that gods technically don't have to cast the ritual that's listed in the book, they can probably make up their own rituals and likely don't have to follow the precise rules in the book.  He gets angry and says that's stupid.  As a DM, you can't just make up rules as you see fit.




Jim expects a certain style of dming that he wasn't getting. In many, possibly most, dming styles, you certainly _can_ just make up rules as you see fit, and in some styles, you _must_.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> You can't just say gods are all powerful.  They follow rules as well.  There is a monster entry for Bahamut.  He doesn't have the ability to invent whatever ritual he wants at will.  He has a limited set of powers and he forms the basis of how powerful gods should be.  Which our DM would KNOW if he read the book.




The dm is never constrained to follow what's in the book just because it's in the book.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> He got super angry and said that we were ruining the fun for him so he didn't care if we enjoyed it or not.  That having a DM who didn't follow the rules was the absolute worst thing to happen and the entire campaign was no fun for him.




Okay, this is the crux. If Jim isn't enjoying the game, he needs to stop playing and do something else that's fun for him instead. But this whole "You must cater to my fun requirements!" attitude just screams to drop him from the group before he has another fit and ruins a campaign in the middle of things instead of just throwing a tantrum in the end.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I told him that I wouldn't hesitate to bring people back to life as NPCs after the player refused to allow them to be raised.  That, IMO, I can't force a player to continue playing a character they don't want to...but once they give up on that character that they become and NPC and I can do what I want with them.  He told me that if I ever did that, he'd quit the campaign immediately and didn't want to discuss it anymore and stormed off(he lives with me) and went to his room.




I disagree with your reasoning. Maybe he's decided that he's happy to be in the afterlife. Why return to a hard life if you feel fulfilled?



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Which finally leads me to my questions: Should the DM have the ability to bring people back to life without their permission?




Depends on the campaign. If the "you must be willing" clause is a cosmic absolute, then no, probably not. If it's not absolute enough to apply to the gods, then maybe, depending on the nature of the gods. Or maybe the clause only exists in the raise dead ritual because whoever first invented the ritual was highly ethical, and circumventing the limitation is as simple as researching a new, original, different ritual.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Should the DM be allowed to give infinite power to a player as a plot device for the last hour of a campaign?  Should gods be all powerful or are they limited to a few interesting tricks?




The dm can do what he wants, at least in my playstyle. The question to me is really more like, "Is it a good idea to give a pc infinite power for part of a campaign?"

I've done it- the pcs in my old campaign at the time of the apocalypse assembled an artifact that gave them absolute mastery over (when fully assembled) matter, energy, life, dead, time and space. And they still failed to save the world. 

So, can the dm do this? Clearly, the answer is yes. Should he? YMMV.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yeah, he's my friend and lives with me...but he likes to rules lawyer a lot.  He argues about strange thing.  I've played with him in nearly every group I've played in for 20 years now.  I remember one game I ran where I ruled that even if you could breathe water, it didn't let you speak underwater.  So, I wouldn't let him use spells with verbal components while underwater.  He argued that given the lack of rules saying you CAN'T cast spells underwater, you should be able to.  He argued that the default should always be that you are allowed to do something unless the rules forbid it.  I told him I understood his point of view, but I was the DM and I was ruling that it didn't work.  He then proceeded to argue about it for the next hour or so.  He then brought it up again for the next year or so every time he'd get angry at any of my rulings.  He'd casually say "Oh, is this another situation like not being able to cast spells underwater where you just change the rules?"




First of all, your ruling exactly matches the rule (obscure though it is) as it was in 2e; there was even a higher-level version of water breathing that would allow you to speak and circumvent the problem! (Cf. _Of Ships and the Sea._)

Overall, Jim sounds like a frankly horrible player. It sounds like he needs to let go of his fixation on how he thinks the game 'should' be. He might actually be happier playing a game where he doesn't know the rules.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> it sucks that the DM appeared to have picked an arbitrarily large number off the top of his head and used it as damage without having any idea that it would kill anyone.  He looked seriously surprised when they both said "150 damage?  You know that kills us outright from full hitpoints right?"
> 
> My best guess is he had no idea how many hitpoints we had



All versions of D&D are fairly maths-heavy, and require the GM to make ad hoc judgements about how much damage is appropriate in various situations. I don't think I'd want to play with a GM who had such a weak grasp of the basic numerical framework for the game.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> the first thing he did was tell the Warlock, now god, "You are allowed to bring them back to life, you have the power to do that now."
> 
> 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 tried to do the one thing she was allowed to do...and they said no.



The implication of your paranthetical comment is that the GM took the player of the warlock aside and briefed her, rather than doing this in front of the group. 

It seems to me that it might have gone better if that had been done in front of the group, so that the other players knew what the GM was doing, and what the player of the warlock was doing.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 11, 2013)

Quickleaf said:


> While I appreciate the DM portraying a fallible god, this seems like the crux of the problem. *Why* the DM dropped this bomb on the players would be worth bringing to light, however.



My best guess, since I didn't ask him was that he picked an arbitrarily high number because he was getting annoyed that it was taking so long to kill the Solo monster he made since it had too many hitpoints.  I did 100 damage earlier in the battle by using a combination of feats and powers to put everything into one attack.  He felt that a god should do at least 50% more than the best attack that had been done by any of the PCs in the battle.  So, 150.

He was genuinely surprised that PCs died to 150 damage.  I think because he's never really PLAYED 4e, he's only really DMed.  I'm guessing the Solo had 400 hps or so and figured all of us had that much as well.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jun 11, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> My best guess, since I didn't ask him was that he picked an arbitrarily high number because he was getting annoyed that it was taking so long to kill the Solo monster he made since it had too many hitpoints.  I did 100 damage earlier in the battle by using a combination of feats and powers to put everything into one attack.  He felt that a god should do at least 50% more than the best attack that had been done by any of the PCs in the battle.  So, 150.
> 
> He was genuinely surprised that PCs died to 150 damage.  I think because he's never really PLAYED 4e, he's only really DMed.  I'm guessing the Solo had 400 hps or so and figured all of us had that much as well.




I think you missed my point. It was the DM's call to apply damage from the god's attack to the *player characters* without an attack or save. Regardless of edition this is A Bad Idea.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I think that's pretty contentious. I wouldn't want to play with a GM who took this view.




When most rules of games pretty much tell the GM to ignore the rules from time to time, I don't see a whole lot of room for contention on the point of whether the GM has the power.

Whether/when the GM should use the power, however, is another question.  That, you can go ahead and be contentious about. 

As with mad scientists, the question isn't whether you *can* do the thing, but whether you *should* do the thing.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 11, 2013)

the Jester said:


> Wow, what poor grace. I don't know what kind of relationships their pcs had with the warlock, but it sounds like the players let their personal butthurt get in the way of playing the game.



Yeah, that's what I thought.  It just seemed completely out of character for both of them.  They seemed to be rather annoyed at dying so easily to the god we were trying to help.  They left the table, went to sit on the couch in the other room and had time to resign themselves to the game being over for them and now they just had to wait until the session was done and go home.

I think half the decision to say no to being brought back was because they didn't want to get back up and sit at the table again.


the Jester said:


> Jim sounds more and more like the type of player who drags the game down and makes it less fun for everyone else. I don't know if he's as bad as you make it sound, but if he was in my group, we'd be discussing whether to drop him.



Jim is...an acquired taste.  I live with him.  He's been my friend for 20 years and he doesn't have a job because he's schizophrenic and is on a lot of medication which pretty much prevents him from having a stable job.  This can sometimes garner a level of forgiveness for things he does that we wouldn't forgive other people for.  

Though, I suspect he just likes being a jerk.  I've gotten used to it over the years and since he lives with me, people feel obligated to invite him whenever they invite me to things.


the Jester said:


> Okay, this is the crux. If Jim isn't enjoying the game, he needs to stop playing and do something else that's fun for him instead. But this whole "You must cater to my fun requirements!" attitude just screams to drop him from the group before he has another fit and ruins a campaign in the middle of things instead of just throwing a tantrum in the end.



He isn't normally like that.  Which is to say that he has a kind of miserable personality.  But that kind of grows on you.  He thinks the worst about humanity, hates other people...but does stuff with them anyways.  You can expect him to say things like "I don't care about you.  If you disappeared tomorrow, I'd just find new friends." with a straight face completely unironically and you have to wonder if he's joking or not.

Mostly, he just stays quiet.  We assume he hates everything....because he does hate everything.  He won't go to a movie theater with us because he has to sit too close to other people.  But he likes playing D&D enough that despite hating nearly everything that happens during the game he keeps coming back.

He also REALLY likes playing.  If his character dies, he will spend the next week doing almost nothing but thinking up character ideas for his new character.  By the end of a week, we can expect him to have made up 6-8 characters as possibilities.  Each one, he likely spent over 2 hours working on.  He likes to overanalyze his choices.


the Jester said:


> I disagree with your reasoning. Maybe he's decided that he's happy to be in the afterlife. Why return to a hard life if you feel fulfilled?



Yeah, it's certainly a possibility.  I wouldn't do it unless there was a good reason for it.  However, if a player decided not to bring his character back and later I decided that it would be a perfect plot hook for him to be back alive and a minion of the bad guy or maybe someone brought him back and got information from him that they wouldn't expect anyone to have so that I could keep the PCs guessing as to how the villians knew things that only the PCs knew.

Besides, most of the time when Jim decides not to come back to life, it has absolutely nothing to do with what his character wants.  He gets bored of characters easily and always has 5-10 backup characters with interesting power combinations that he really wants to try out.  When he dies, it just gives him an excuse to play one of them.


the Jester said:


> Depends on the campaign. If the "you must be willing" clause is a cosmic absolute, then no, probably not. If it's not absolute enough to apply to the gods, then maybe, depending on the nature of the gods. Or maybe the clause only exists in the raise dead ritual because whoever first invented the ritual was highly ethical, and circumventing the limitation is as simple as researching a new, original, different ritual.



I agree.  However, I think in this case it was a combination of factors.  Jim has gotten more and more annoyed at the DM not understanding rules.  So, when he said "No, I don't want to come back to life" and the DM said "Well, gods can do it whether you want to or not." his thought process was "This is just another example of the DM not knowing the rules.  The Raise Dead ritual says that you need the person's permission to be brought back to life.  But of course, the DM doesn't know that because he hasn't read the rules.  What kind of stupid DM doesn't know the rules?  Now because of that, he's forcing choices on me I don't want."


the Jester said:


> First of all, your ruling exactly matches the rule (obscure though it is) as it was in 2e; there was even a higher-level version of water breathing that would allow you to speak and circumvent the problem! (Cf. _Of Ships and the Sea._)



Actually, now that I think about it a bit longer.  I believe the ruling I made was that you couldn't cast spells without waterbreathing.  I believe he jumped into a river to save another character who was drowning.  He grabbed the character and went to cast a spell to teleport them both to shore.  I said that he couldn't cast spells with verbal components while he was holding his breath and he said that all he had to do was say a word or two and there was enough air in his lungs to do that, so it should work.  I ruled it didn't and any attempt to do so would result in water in your lungs and dying.

The river was fast moving and he was a typical wizard with 8 strength or something...so he got swept away by the river and got angry at me because I ruined his plan.


the Jester said:


> Overall, Jim sounds like a frankly horrible player. It sounds like he needs to let go of his fixation on how he thinks the game 'should' be. He might actually be happier playing a game where he doesn't know the rules.



I think the problem is that he DMed for so long.  He is used to being the one making the decisions.  He hates when rules are broken.

We both started in the same D&D group 20 years ago.  I look back fondly at some of the silly stuff we used to do when we were young and naive.  Like our DM who gave us Bracers of AC -3 that she made up in 2e.  Which are a full 5 points of AC better than anything in the book.  Then she did away with the rules that prevented your AC from getting better than -10.  We were extremely powerful and it was kind of hilarious.

However, whenever that's brought up, Jim points out that our DM was a complete moron who should have never been allowed to DM and he's glad we don't have to put up with horrible games like that anymore.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 11, 2013)

Quickleaf said:


> I think you missed my point. It was the DM's call to apply damage from the god's attack to the *player characters* without an attack or save. Regardless of edition this is A Bad Idea.



Yeah, I think in that case it was a "Well, the god fires a beam straight towards the demon.  Let's say she's weak and can't control it, that'll be interesting.  Everything takes damage and she causes the city that they are in(which is floating over a huge pit) to be torn apart and start collapsing to make things dramatic.  Oh, look, two of the PCs are between the god and the demon.  Oh well, they'll survive it no problem.  They died?  Uhh...crap...but I already made a big deal about how everything takes damage.  I'll look like an idiot if I take that back.  It's the last session, I'll just let them die."


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 11, 2013)

pemerton said:


> All versions of D&D are fairly maths-heavy, and require the GM to make ad hoc judgements about how much damage is appropriate in various situations. I don't think I'd want to play with a GM who had such a weak grasp of the basic numerical framework for the game.



Yeah, I know.  I'm torn.  Because he's a good story teller and his game was a lot of fun.  Sometimes I'd feel like he was just asking for rolls to be polite.  He'd say "Give me a...I don't know, Acrobatics check to avoid slipping.  You got a 20?  Umm...I guess you don't slip."

Part way through the campaign, I showed him the chart of easy, medium, and hard DCs by level on the 4e DM screen.  He looked relieved, like he was tired of trying to guess what numbers should succeed.


the Jester said:


> The implication of your paranthetical comment is that the GM took the player of the warlock aside and briefed her, rather than doing this in front of the group.



Correct.


the Jester said:


> It seems to me that it might have gone better if that had been done in front of the group, so that the other players knew what the GM was doing, and what the player of the warlock was doing.



I doubt it.  The two players in question were kind of worked up about dying.  The Warlock walked up and touched the gem and then the DM took her into the other room and I was the one who said "I bet I know what happened.  She touched the gem, it had all the power of a god in it.  I bet she's a god now."

Then they(can't remember which one of them) said "What?  She gets to be a GOD?  That's stupid."

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the DM has announced his intention to start a new campaign in a month that takes place 100 years in the future of his old campaign.  It's fairly evident that he wanted to do something which would create a lasting legacy from this campaign to the next.  He figured he'd allow one PC to be a god and likely be able to be worshipped in the next campaign.

I think it was partially sour beans that she is the one who got the power.  Especially considering it happened about 2 minutes after they were wiped out by arbitrary damage from the DM.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jun 11, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yeah, I know.  I'm torn.  Because he's a good story teller and his game was a lot of fun.




Have you considered taking the DM aside and saying "Hey, I enjoyed your campaign, but the rules and rulings seem a bit much for you. Since we all have X years of experience with these rules, would you mind if in the next campaign you focus on the plot and we (as a table) will worry about making sure the rules work?" This is basically what we are doing right now with a relatively new DM in our Pathfinder campaign. It seems to work well enough.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2013)

Umbran said:


> When most rules of games pretty much tell the GM to ignore the rules from time to time, I don't see a whole lot of room for contention on the point of whether the GM has the power.



I tend to prefer the approach of RPGs that _don't _tell the GM this: ones I'm thinking of off the top of my head include 4e (before Essentials), Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Marvel Heroic RP and The Dying Earth.

Roughly speaking, these are games in which the rules aren't written primarily as a simulation engine but as a metagame/story engine (though BW is a bit of a cross-over between these two categories).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Which finally leads me to my questions: Should the DM have the ability to bring people back to life without their permission? Should the DM be allowed to give infinite power to a player as a plot device for the last hour of a campaign? Should gods be all powerful or are they limited to a few interesting tricks?




1.  I'm a big believer in the "Golden Box".  The DM has control over everything else in the game.  Everything.  The only thing in the game that I, as a player, have is my character.  That's it.  It's not totally unreasonable to get  angry when DM's forget that and run roughshod over the player's wishes.  If the player doesn't want his character to come back, that should be the end of the conversation.

2.  Meh.  Not something I'd do, but, it' the last half hour, not a big deal.

3.  The power of the gods should depend on the campaign setting.  I mean, Greek Gods were not seen as all powerful.  Actually, most Gods weren't seen as all powerful.  So, it's not unreasonable to have limitations no the powers of gods.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jun 11, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yeah, I know.  I'm torn.  Because he's a good story teller and his game was a lot of fun.  Sometimes I'd feel like he was just asking for rolls to be polite.  He'd say "Give me a...I don't know, Acrobatics check to avoid slipping.  You got a 20?  Umm...I guess you don't slip."
> 
> Part way through the campaign, I showed him the chart of easy, medium, and hard DCs by level on the 4e DM screen.  He looked relieved, like he was tired of trying to guess what numbers should succeed.




It's a bit late, but if he runs a 4E game again print out my DM Cheat Sheet and give it to him.  http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?307923-4e-DM-Cheat-Sheet

Anyhow, it sounds like a rookie GM mistake to me, and it had very little to do with edition. As you point out, there were other player issues going on throughout the campaign with at least one of the players whose PC ended up getting arbitrarily killed. Still, I put the blame squarely on the DM.

*Mistake #1: *Without forewarning, he invoked "rocks fall, you die" (without realizing it).

*Mistake #2: *Upon realizing mistake #1, he did not adjust the narrative to keep players alive.

*Mistake #3:* He then provided a ham-fisted way for the players to return to life. When the players resisted, rather than handling it by talking it out meta-game, he resolved it strictly in-game by allowing one player to force the resurrection.

Direct your DM to this thread maybe?


----------



## innerdude (Jun 11, 2013)

This personally touches on one my worst pet peeves about D&D generally---that the "endgame" of an "epic" campaign inevitably has to lead to dealings with the "gods," planar travel, time-and-space-altering events, etc. That somehow if by the end of the campaign the PCs haven't created some cosmic shift in reality, it wasn't "cool" enough. 

This is all purely my opinion----but frankly, gods should never have stats. Anytime someone wants to see the stats for a god in a monster manual, I think to myself "Why?" The only reason you need stats for a god is if somehow you expect that characters are going to interact with that god through the game's combat mechanics.

And call me crazy, but the whole point of a "god" is that they exist outside, or beyond the reality of the game world. In my mind, I'd never contrive a situation in which PCs can realistically "fight" a god in battle. What, really? You're going to assess a god a penalty for stepping out of his 1" threatened square? To me, this mindset is one of the worst side effects of the "PC entitlement" thing. _If it exists in the game world, it HAS to have stats, dangit!
_
This is just a massive case of playstyle wires getting crossed, with a healthy mix of bad GM-ing ---- but when it comes down to it, it's ultimately the GM's right to break the rules. It's his or her table. If the players aren't okay with it, it's their right to participate or not, as they choose. That's the thing, NOBODY forces us to play in a group. We're there of our own volition. If the players don't like the GM breaking the rules on a whim, they either have to deal with it, or not play, or convince the GM to change. It's pretty much black and white here. 

Personally, I'd never have played a campaign with "Jim" to begin with, though I do feel a sense of sympathy for his situation. It's a classic "geek fallacy" going on--"We feel bad for the guy ruining our fun, but have to keep letting him ruin our fun, because we're being uncharitable otherwise, and we can't be like those mean people that didn't accept us in high school / junior high / freshman year of college."


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2013)

Funnily enough Innerdude, I'd go the other way.  I'd likely be very, very reticent of playing another campaign with this DM.  I'd likely cut the DM some slack due to inexperience, but, this would be likely the straw before the last straw for me to bow out of the game.

I mean, the DM's had a year and a half, hundreds of hours of game play, to get a handle on the mechanics.  You have to work pretty hard to NOT grasp 4e mechanics in that amount of time.  It's not like the mechanics are clearly spelled out for people.  

The DM here screwed up.  [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] outlines it perfectly.  That's a concise outline of exactly where the DM screwed up here and, other than inexperience, there is no excuse for this.  Can the DM break the rules?  Yup.  Should he?  Not without the table behind him.  That's the whole point of a social contract in the first place.  DM's who forget this quickly (and never soon enough) start seeing players drift away from their tables or outright revolt.

If players would stop putting up with this kind of crap from DM's the game would be a lot better.  But, because the whole, "Well the DM has the right to do all this" sort of sentiment that pervades the hobby, players get sidelined and DM's get put on pedestals.  This DM was wrong.  Jim was wrong too.  He could have handled it better.  But, the only reason Jim is involved at all is because the DM was wrong.

------------

Now, as far as fighting gods go, I have no real problem with this.  It's a pretty well established trope in genre fiction that the heroes can defeat/kill a god.  It happens pretty frequently in genre fiction.  So, having it in D&D isn't a problem AFAIC.  2e's solution of making Gods unkillable was a mistake IMO.  I like my gods to be a bit more ... mortal.    If gods are these all powerful beings, then all the mythical stories of gods coming down and partying with mortals don't really work.  And I like those stories.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Jun 11, 2013)

I prefer mechanical consistency personally, and probably work too hard to make sure all my cinematic game moments (as DM) are mechanically sound. When playing, I like the idea that my character could conceivably do whatever anyone else does. If thats PC entitlement, fine; a derogatory label doesn't make it any less fun for me, or my gaming worse or whatever.

In fact, although its not the way I'd do things, I'd be leaning toward giving the DM a bit of a break. The fact is, that not everyone who is curious about gaming has the same level of commitment as the average ENworlder, and I don't subscribe to the elitist attitude that the DM is automatically crap, but I've read that kind of thing a lot on these boards. I'm not criticising here, just offering something to consider. Paraphrasing a comment above; if the players didnt like it, they dont have to be there. And it does sound like the OPs DM is worth dealing with to some degree because they can spin a good yarn and thats worth something.


----------



## Lindeloef (Jun 11, 2013)

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]
well said. Couldn't have said it better.

 I would give you xp, but have to spread around. Can someone cover for me?


----------



## Quickleaf (Jun 11, 2013)

Lindeloef said:


> [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]
> well said. Couldn't have said it better.
> 
> I would give you xp, but have to spread around. Can someone cover for me?



I covered ya 

   [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] I realize I provided criticism without solutions above, so here are how I probably would respond to those mistakes:

#1/2: Ok, this combat is starting to drag, so the 150 radiant damage is in the spirit of speeding it up, not trying to persecute you guys I swear! Several of you in the line of the blast are blinded (until the start of your next turn); it should have killed you outright but the presence of the goddess' faithful PC shields you. The goddess' faithful PC notices that this was a desperate act of a weakened goddess and if she does it again it might kill her for good. Also the uncontrolled radiance creates shooting stars which began randomly falling across the battlefield. Uh, I'm a new DM, so experienced player what should their attack bonus be and how much damage should they do?

#2/3: Ok, it's obvious I goofed and you guys don't want your characters resurrected by the goddess. I should have told you when I inflicted the auto-death damage that you'd automatically get resurrected at the end of the fight. Maybe that wouldn't make it any better for you? I don't know. How do you think we should resolve this? Let your characters stay dead? Run a scene where the rest of the party contacts you with Speak with Dead and convinces you that you are valued and should come back to the land of the living?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 11, 2013)

Hussar said:


> 1.  I'm a big believer in the "Golden Box".  The DM has control over everything else in the game.  Everything.  The only thing in the game that I, as a player, have is my character.  That's it.  It's not totally unreasonable to get  angry when DM's forget that and run roughshod over the player's wishes.  If the player doesn't want his character to come back, that should be the end of the conversation.



I suppose.  But then again, there are a lot of things that happen to your character that you don't have control over.  You can't tell the DM "Sorry, I don't want to take that 20 points of damage from that club, it's my character and I get to decide what happens to him/her."

I think, in the end, you only have control of your character's REACTION to the things that happen to them.  Being brought to life might be considered a hostile effect if you don't want it, but I certainly think it's within the rights of the DM to inflict it.

Though, I suppose like most effects in a game, there should be a reasonable chance to avoid it.  Maybe a roll to resist it or something.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 11, 2013)

innerdude said:


> This is just a massive case of playstyle wires getting crossed, with a healthy mix of bad GM-ing ---- but when it comes down to it, it's ultimately the GM's right to break the rules. It's his or her table. If the players aren't okay with it, it's their right to participate or not, as they choose. That's the thing, NOBODY forces us to play in a group. We're there of our own volition. If the players don't like the GM breaking the rules on a whim, they either have to deal with it, or not play, or convince the GM to change. It's pretty much black and white here.



Yeah, I agree.  I was pretty good with "Oh well, there was some complaining at the end of the game, but no big deal.  We finished the game and we had fun.  At least some of us did.  Jim didn't like it, but I guess that's his problem."

I was good with it until Jim started going on about how our DM ruined the game and how nobody at all had fun.  I tried to point out that the other 3 of us and the DM seemed to have a great time.  Even the other guy who died was complaining more because he likes to complain that because he was actually angry about the situation.  In the end while he was leaving, he made it sound like he still had a good time despite that.  He was just a little annoyed that his GOD killed him.  But he was kind of joking about it.

Jim said that there was no way anyone else was having any fun.  And it didn't matter if they did.  We shouldn't be having fun in a way that makes him miserable.


innerdude said:


> Personally, I'd never have played a campaign with "Jim" to begin with, though I do feel a sense of sympathy for his situation. It's a classic "geek fallacy" going on--"We feel bad for the guy ruining our fun, but have to keep letting him ruin our fun, because we're being uncharitable otherwise, and we can't be like those mean people that didn't accept us in high school / junior high / freshman year of college."



Yeah.  I know it's a fallacy.  However, I can't bring myself to just drop him.  When I was a lot younger I did something really stupid and my entire D&D group of friends not only dropped my from their D&D group but dropped me as a friend.  Jim forgave me and continued being my friend.  I kind of felt I've owed him one since then.

Plus, it doesn't hurt that I moved to Australia for a year.  Before I left, we had pretty much spent every weekend together doing something.  When I got back I asked Jim what he'd been up to.  Apparently he got an apartment that was super small and lived there.  He played board games with some of our mutual friends once or twice and went to one movie.  Otherwise, the rest of the time was spent in his apartment without going anywhere or doing anything.

I couldn't help but feel responsible.  Without me around to bring him out of his shell and get him to be social, he did absolutely nothing.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2013)

innerdude said:


> should never have stats. Anytime someone wants to see the stats for a god in a monster manual, I think to myself "Why?" The only reason you need stats for a god is if somehow you expect that characters are going to interact with that god through the game's combat mechanics.
> 
> And call me crazy, but the whole point of a "god" is that they exist outside, or beyond the reality of the game world. In my mind, I'd never contrive a situation in which PCs can realistically "fight" a god in battle. What, really? You're going to assess a god a penalty for stepping out of his 1" threatened square? To me, this mindset is one of the worst side effects of the "PC entitlement" thing. _If it exists in the game world, it HAS to have stats, dangit!_



_Whereas I think it is pretty core to D&D's genre that the PCs (who are superheroes and archmages in classic D&D, and demigods and the like in 4e) can confront the gods and potentially kill them.

As far as 4e is concerned, the easiest way to avoid that sort of stuff is simply not to play at Epic tier._


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 11, 2013)

Quickleaf said:


> #2/3: Ok, it's obvious I goofed and you guys don't want your characters resurrected by the goddess. I should have told you when I inflicted the auto-death damage that you'd automatically get resurrected at the end of the fight. Maybe that wouldn't make it any better for you? I don't know. How do you think we should resolve this? Let your characters stay dead? Run a scene where the rest of the party contacts you with Speak with Dead and convinces you that you are valued and should come back to the land of the living?



That's the thing.  I think he wanted the game to be over about 2 or 3 hours before it finished.  He was positive this was going to be our last session.  We normally start at 2 pm or so and end at 6 pm.  At 6 pm, I realized that we probably had another battle or two and some story wrap up if we were going to end on a good note.  Which meant another session.  But he asked everyone if they could stay longer because he wanted it to be done that day.  It was around 9:00 pm when this started happening.

I suspect that a lot of it wasn't planned.  He wasn't sure anyone was going to get godly powers, so had no idea someone was going to be brought back to life.  Heck, we were told NOT to touch it.  So, he had every reason to suspect nobody would get the powers if we listened to the warnings.  I think he just wanted to finish the battle quickly and get it over with.  Since it was the last session, he didn't care if people died during it.

It's likely that if no one touched it, we'd have simply killed Illoopion and ran out of there but mourned the loss of our two companions who died in the battle.  While they continued to complain about how a god killed them like chumps.  But in the end, we'd all shrug and move onward.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 11, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Funnily enough Innerdude, I'd go the other way.  I'd likely be very, very reticent of playing another campaign with this DM.  I'd likely cut the DM some slack due to inexperience, but, this would be likely the straw before the last straw for me to bow out of the game.



I'm looking forward to the next campaign.  Mainly because we'll be playing D&D Next instead of 4e.  The D&D Next rules can be grasped extremely quickly and are very short.  Which means our DM might actually take the time to read them.  Even if he doesn't, I think he has a good handle on them already.  I play D&D for the story.  The mechanics are secondary...unless the mechanics get in the way of the story.  I found the 4e rules got in the way of our campaign too many times.  They shouldn't have.  If our DM knew them well enough, they wouldn't have.  However, they were complicated enough that he had difficulty grasping them.  That difficulty translated into some awkward moments at various times during the campaign where he'd attempt to hammer a square peg into a round hole because he had no idea there was a round peg in the rules just sitting there waiting to be used.

I really enjoyed the story of his campaign.  Even if it was often ham fisted.  I was surprised he was able to set up foreshadowing nearly a year in advance of things happening.  I admire this because I can't do it at all.  I'm just not organized to plan things that far in advance.  I don't know if he actually planned that far in advance or if he made it look like it by foreshadowing vaguely and then filling it in with details later.  But either way, he made it look effortless.

I love these sorts of stories.  That's why I love Babylon 5.  Story arcs make me happy.


Hussar said:


> I mean, the DM's had a year and a half, hundreds of hours of game play, to get a handle on the mechanics.  You have to work pretty hard to NOT grasp 4e mechanics in that amount of time.  It's not like the mechanics are clearly spelled out for people.



I agree.  He clearly didn't want to spend any effort learning the game.  He had a story he wanted to tell, but as far as he was concerned he had better things to do than read through the rules.  It certainly wasn't anything important he had to do either.  He just didn't want to put in the effort.

Which makes me feel a little bit...neglected I suppose.  It's like it's not worth it for him to put the effort into making it a good game for us.


Hussar said:


> If players would stop putting up with this kind of crap from DM's the game would be a lot better.  But, because the whole, "Well the DM has the right to do all this" sort of sentiment that pervades the hobby, players get sidelined and DM's get put on pedestals.  This DM was wrong.  Jim was wrong too.  He could have handled it better.  But, the only reason Jim is involved at all is because the DM was wrong.



I don't know.  If it was me who died instead of them, it wouldn't have been a big deal at all.  I would have said "Crap.  Well, I guess I died.  That sucks.  Hope you guys can finish off the demon without me.  I'm rooting for you."  When I was offered to come back to life, I would have taken it immediately....or maybe I wouldn't have but I would have been more respectful about it.  My character worshiped fate.  He felt that the gods determined fate and if he was killed by one, it meant he was supposed to stay dead.  Though, I doubt it would have taken more than a second to say "I'm a god now, I want you back alive to save the world" and I would have agreed.

There wouldn't have been any arguing and it wouldn't have been a big deal.  I might even have found it amusing that my party member, the GOD brought me back to life and would have changed religions in the game to her immediately.

I can't say that our DM was objectively wrong.  His technique would work just fine with the right players.  He just found out that he didn't have those players.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jun 11, 2013)

So my take on this is that the players knew the DM ran a story-heavy, rules-light, and apparently slightly wacky game.  They chose to play in the game anyway.  At that point they should play the game and try to have fun with it even if there are particular elements they don't like, because that's what they agreed to do.  If they decide they don't like this style of game after all, the right way to deal with it is to have a conversation between games like "This isn't working for me, I'd like to try a different campaign" rather than being disruptive in-game.

There's no special privilege as to what happens to PCs.  They have things happen to them all the time that the player would rather not have happen, like sword blows and disintegrate spells.  There is a special privilege as to the PCs choices.  As a DM, I would never, ever say "Your character decides to do this ..."  But that's not what happened in this case.  The DM said the god could use a variant raise dead spell that works whether or not the subject agrees.  Totally legit.

I don't think I'd enjoy this particular game, but your DM sounds like someone who might become a very good DM once he has some more experience under his belt.  Jim doesn't sound like someone I'd enjoy gaming with.  If I had a friend like that I'd probably try to find something else fun we could do rather than RPGs.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 11, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Funnily enough Innerdude, I'd go the other way.  I'd likely be very, very reticent of playing another campaign with this DM.  I'd likely cut the DM some slack due to inexperience, but, this would be likely the straw before the last straw for me to bow out of the game.
> 
> I mean, the DM's had a year and a half, hundreds of hours of game play, to get a handle on the mechanics.  You have to work pretty hard to NOT grasp 4e mechanics in that amount of time.  It's not like the mechanics are clearly spelled out for people.
> 
> ...




Agreed.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 11, 2013)

pemerton said:


> All versions of D&D are fairly maths-heavy, and require the GM to make ad hoc judgements about how much damage is appropriate in various situations. I don't think I'd want to play with a GM who had such a weak grasp of the basic numerical framework for the game.




The problem here is obviously that in 4E 150 damage TO a pc is not at all the same as 150 damage bone BY a pc on a Monster. Which really is a flaw in 4E.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2013)

Starfox said:


> The problem here is obviously that in 4E 150 damage TO a pc is not at all the same as 150 damage bone BY a pc on a Monster. Which really is a flaw in 4E.




I think I, if not fully at least somewhat agree with this... it's like having to know two different sets of rules to play one game. 

I  would also go so far as to say that the whole attitude surrounding the divide between DM's and players in 4e where a DM doesn't need to know (and probably can't keep up with) the abilities of the player's characters in 4e also complicates a DM going of the rails and doing his own thing (as opposed to sticking to what the books tell you is balanced) even more. All IMO of course.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 11, 2013)

innerdude said:


> This is all purely my opinion----but frankly, gods should never have stats. Anytime someone wants to see the stats for a god in a monster manual, I think to myself "Why?" The only reason you need stats for a god is if somehow you expect that characters are going to interact with that god through the game's combat mechanics.




Here you vocalize the monotheistic "god is above all" tradition. Which is fine, but not the only way to look at these things. The opposite view is of course that gods are not special at all - they are just at the top of the power pyramid. Most fantasy settings and traditional DnD fall somewhere in between. I'll try to describe this in descending order of omnipotence.

The classic polytheistic gods of Earth - Egyptian, Irish, Mesopotamian, Greek, and Norse - were more powerful than any human, but could be fooled by humans and could certainly be opposed by other supernatural beings. And certain human heroes could and did challenge the gods directly. Indian gods seem to occupy a middle ground here; sometimes they are described as mere superbeings, at other times as more transcended "eternal" things and thus beyond conflict. The same development occurs in late Greek belief - the god Plato talks about is more like the Christian god than like Zeus.

Pathfinder seems to have an all-powerful view of their gods - I've never seen any hints about gods having hit points or being defeatable in Pathfinder. They can fade into obscurity, but even then they still exist and can gain followers again. There is an example of a defeated god, who has had his head and body sundered from each other by a mortal, but each part is still immortal and divine and the quest is about rejoining them or not.

In traditional DnD (0E, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E), gods are certainly powerful, but they do have hit points and can thus be defeated. Each of these editions gave stats and hit points to gods. Potentially, a god could have a cleric more powerful than himself. Actually making the gods accessible in play was always optional, but the limit on divine power is made clear in spells like Commune. In the 4E Dungeon adventure path, one god (potentially a sponsor for a PC divine character) is slain by NPCs and the PCs are expected to slay another god in the finale.

In BCMI the flatly stated goal of player characters was to become "gods" themselves - that is what I stands for - Immortal. There were even a few scenarios published for what to do once you did become an immortal.

Buddhism acknowledges gods as superbeings, but with no more karmic insight than mortals. They are not capable of getting to nirvana, and humans who do transcend them in insight. Buddhism accepts the existence of gods, but sees them as largely irrelevant.

The gods of fantasy classics like Elric and the Cthulhu Mythos are more super-monsters than gods, really. The Old Ones fought Cthulhu and his kin to a standstill, banishing them to R'lyeth. Elric personally slays a big part of the chaos pantheon.

In shamanistic and far eastern traditions (Taoism, Mikoism) gods are really just the most powerful spirits. They do have supernatural powers and a connection to natural forces that is eternal, but as individuals they are not and they can often be tricked or even outfought. They also vary vastly in power, from a simple spirit of a single spring to mighty spirits of the sun or war. In this world-view, spirits are what DnD calls monsters, with "gods" being the most powerful of them.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2013)

Starfox said:


> The problem here is obviously that in 4E 150 damage TO a pc is not at all the same as 150 damage bone BY a pc on a Monster. Which really is a flaw in 4E.



They're actually pretty similar - it's an exaggeration to say that they're "not at all" the same. At mid-paragon tier 150 hp will drop any PC (a defender at 13th level probably has around 120-ish hit points) and most monsters (a standard 13th level monster has around 130 hp).

As to whether or not it's a flaw - that's a matter of opinion. The fact that most monsters have all their hp in their pool, whereas PCs have more hp available but have to unlock their healing surges to get them into their pool, is fundamental to the dynamics of 4e combat.



Imaro said:


> it's like having to know two different sets of rules to play one game.
> 
> I  would also go so far as to say that the whole attitude surrounding the divide between DM's and players in 4e where a DM doesn't need to know (and probably can't keep up with) the abilities of the player's characters in 4e also complicates a DM going of the rails and doing his own thing



Is this from experience, or from theory?

Seriously, a 4e GM can look at any standard monster for the level in question, can trivially know that no PC will have more hit points than that, and see that (in this instance) 150 hp will kill all the PCs. A GM who imagines that the PCs at a given level will have as many hit points as a solo of that level understands so little of the game's mechanics that it's a more basic mistake than putting a wight up against 1st level PCs in classic D&D and then being surprised when they don't have enough silver arrows and depth of levels to lose in order not to be killed by it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 11, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Sorry to say, I feel this is an edition issue more than anything. Editions and rules expectations. Different editions are good for different things, and 4E doesn't seem to be suited to this campaign.




I'd go one step further.  He's making the classic "DM should not be called a storyteller" mistake.  The story is about the PCs and how they handle the epic , not the epic  itself.

*Mod Note:* EN World is supposed to be family friendly.  We expect folks to not have to invoke the language filters.  Thank you. ~Umbran

I'd give him a copy of Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, or Fate Core and tell him to work with that.  Far more suited to him than anything resembling D&D.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I doubt it. The two players in question were kind of worked up about dying. The Warlock walked up and touched the gem and then the DM took her into the other room and I was the one who said "I bet I know what happened. She touched the gem, it had all the power of a god in it. I bet she's a god now."
> 
> Then they(can't remember which one of them) said "What? She gets to be a GOD? That's stupid."




When you're already cranky anything that might jar seriously jars.



Starfox said:


> The problem here is obviously that in 4E 150 damage TO a pc is not at all the same as 150 damage bone BY a pc on a Monster. Which really is a flaw in 4E.




Not all that different.  It's just that solo monsters are deliberately on a different scale to a PC.  It takes a pretty high level PC to take a hit that will take down even a young dragon.  And pound to a penny says the BBEG was a solo.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Is this from experience, or from theory?
> 
> Seriously, *a 4e GM can look at any standard monster for the level in question, can trivially know that no PC will have more hit points than that*, and see that (in this instance) 150 hp will kill all the PCs. *A GM who imagines that the PCs at a given level will have as many hit points as a solo of that level *understands so little of the game's mechanics that it's a more basic mistake than putting a wight up against 1st level PCs in classic D&D and then being surprised when they don't have enough silver arrows and depth of levels to lose in order not to be killed by it.




From experience and in theory...

Ok, first there are 2 ways to die in 4e... the first is by failing 3 death saves and the second is by having your hit points reduced to negative your PC's bloodied level. So in order to survive the attack in the OP that was thrown at them a PC needed over 100 hit points at 13th level. Since 101 + would not allow an instant kill on a PC... are you saying that it's impossible for level 13 characters to have 101+ hit points? I know for a fact it's not...

Emphasis 1... This is not true at all. There are PC builds that have more hit points than some standard monsters of their particular level. According to the MM3 on a business card, a level 13 standfard monster can have anywhere from 99hp's (lurker) to 156 hp's(brute)... that's a pretty significant difference, and I have seen level 13 characters with over 99 hp's. The difference in PC hit points depending on the selections made for race/feats/role/etc. can vary quite a bit between individual PC's of the same level. Just as an aside here's a level 10 character that could have survived that attack...

[sblock]====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Wardenforged, level 10
Warforged, Warden
Guardian Might: Earthstrength

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 22, Dex 11, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 14, Con 18, Dex 11, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 10.


AC: 28 Fort: 25 Reflex: 20 Will: 21
HP: *107* Surges: 17 Surge Value: 26

TRAINED SKILLS
Nature +11, Intimidate +12, Athletics +10, Endurance +15

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +2, Arcana +4, Bluff +5, Diplomacy +5, Dungeoneering +6, Heal +6, History +4, Insight +6, Perception +6, Religion +4, Stealth +2, Streetwise +5, Thievery +2

FEATS
Level 1: Toughness
Level 2: Improved Warforged Resolve
Level 4: Component Modification
Level 6: Durable
Level 8: Crushing Earthstrength
Level 10: Improved Initiative

POWERS
Warden at-will 1: Strength of Stone
Warden at-will 1: Earth Shield Strike
Warden encounter 1: Thunder Ram Assault
Warden daily 1: Form of the Fearsome Ram
Warden utility 2: Triumphant Vigor
Warden encounter 3: Earthgrasp Strike
Warden daily 5: Storm Strike
Warden utility 6: Bear's Endurance
Warden encounter 7: Earth Gift
Warden daily 9: Form of the Stone Sentinel
Warden utility 10: Returning Strength

ITEMS
Adventurer's Kit, Heavy Shield, Warsoul Longsword +2, Shoulderbow Hand Crossbow +2, Lifeblood Hide Armor +2, Amulet of Protection +3, Delver's Light (heroic tier)
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
[/sblock]

Emphasis 2: Who said this? A solo at level 13 has anywhere from 396 hit points to 624 hit points... again according to the MM3 on a business card. So either this is hyperbole or a strawman since 150 falls nowhere near this range.

In other words no... it's not as simple or straightforward, with the numerous ways a player can increase and modify his stats in 4e, as you seem to be trying to make it out to be... especially if the DM doesn't want to be constrained to the guidelines presented in the 4e books.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 11, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> I'd go one step further.  He's making the classic "DM should not be called a storyteller" mistake.  The story is about the PCs and how they handle the epic , not the epic  itself.




That's really a question of the way you choose to play. It sounds like 3 out of 5 of the players had fun with the campaign, rules blunders aside. And 1 of the 2 complainers seems to have been largely OK with the campaign as well. They say 10,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong. The same is pretty much true here.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I tend to prefer the approach of RPGs that _don't _tell the GM this: ones I'm thinking of off the top of my head include 4e (before Essentials), Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Marvel Heroic RP and The Dying Earth.




Okay.  You're allowed to like what you want, but there's a logical knot there...



> Roughly speaking, these are games in which the rules aren't written primarily as a simulation engine but as a metagame/story engine (though BW is a bit of a cross-over between these two categories).




If I'm playing, say, Marvel Heroic RP, and the GM does X, it is fine.  If I'm playing D&D, and the GM does the same thing X, such that they are stepping outside the simulation rules, but still within the game's expectations (by way of Rule Zero), it isn't okay?

I find that problematic.  Let me ask you - if the GM of Marvel Heroic likes to impose a certain amount of consistency in the operation of powers, do you have a problem with that?  Even though the game has squat-all in terms of simulation mechanics, so that really he's making it up, and may occasionally be altering the story somewhat to fit his or her idea of consistency?

The GM of D&D has explicit guidance on the simulation, and vague handwaving on story/metagame.  The GM of, say, Marvel Heroic has explicit guidance on story/metagame - but he has only vague handwaving on the simulation aspect!  Generally speaking, the GM is making *something* up as he goes along in either game?  Why do you have a problem with one, but not the other?


----------



## Starfox (Jun 12, 2013)

To (partially) answer Umbran, I don't have a problem with either, but I do feel that some system gives better support for certain game styles.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2013)

Umbran said:


> If I'm playing, say, Marvel Heroic RP, and the GM does X, it is fine.  If I'm playing D&D, and the GM does the same thing X, such that they are stepping outside the simulation rules, but still within the game's expectations (by way of Rule Zero), it isn't okay?



I'm not sure what "X" is, here. In your post (25 upthread) you talked about the GM ignoring the rules; is that what X means here? Because if I'm playing MHRP and the GM ignores the rules, that's probably not fine for me.



Umbran said:


> Let me ask you - if the GM of Marvel Heroic likes to impose a certain amount of consistency in the operation of powers, do you have a problem with that?



Without a bit more detail it's hard to answer definitively, but my first instinct is "yes, I do have a problem." It's a bit like hit points and healing in 4e - if, for instance, you follow the D&Dnext approach and treat all damage above bloodied as morale only, you can't explain how an unbloodied PC takes (for instance) poison damage. The system depends upon flexibility in narration, and adapting narratin to fit the particular context of fiction + mechanics. I think MHRP is the same in this respect. Trying to introduce consistency is likely to cause problems in both mechanical resolution (players won't have the resources the game expects them to have) and fiction (the fiction will break down at certain points, because it will turn out that Hero X can't do some thing which in the comics s/he could do).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Ok, first there are 2 ways to die in 4e



I'm using the fairly generic (and loose) sense of "being dead at 0 hp".



Imaro said:


> are you saying that it's impossible for level 13 characters to have 101+ hit points?



Of course not - in the post you quoted I indicated the typical hit points for a 13th level defender being 120-ish.

But if the PCs have already taken a bit of damage - which I would expect that GM to be aware of, given that he would have rolled those attacks and their damage - then the likelihood of dropping not just below zero but below negative bloodied becomes greater. 



Imaro said:


> There are PC builds that have more hit points than some standard monsters of their particular level. According to the MM3 on a business card, a level 13 standfard monster can have anywhere from 99hp's (lurker) to 156 hp's(brute)



I am using "standard monsters" to refer to the default 8 hp * (level +1), + CON. Brutes have more than standard hit points - that's part of their schtick. Lurkers and artillery (and also many insubstantial and regenerating creatures) have less - that's part of _their_ schtick.



Imaro said:


> Who said this?



The OP, in post 23 upthread:



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'm guessing the Solo had 400 hps or so and figured all of us had that much as well.






Imaro said:


> especially if the DM doesn't want to be constrained to the guidelines presented in the 4e books.



I'm not sure what you mean by this - but yes, a GM who disregards the advice on how to get the best out of the game will have trouble getting the best out of the game.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 12, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I suppose.  But then again, there are a lot of things that happen to your character that you don't have control over.  You can't tell the DM "Sorry, I don't want to take that 20 points of damage from that club, it's my character and I get to decide what happens to him/her."
> 
> I think, in the end, you only have control of your character's REACTION to the things that happen to them.  Being brought to life might be considered a hostile effect if you don't want it, but I certainly think it's within the rights of the DM to inflict it.
> 
> Though, I suppose like most effects in a game, there should be a reasonable chance to avoid it.  Maybe a roll to resist it or something.




I agreed to play the game, so, I agreed to abide by the rules of the game.  I think that this is really missing my point.  

The player had a choice taken away from him.  I don't have a choice about taking damage.  But, I do have the choice, specifically called out in the rules no less, about being raised.  But, that choice was stripped away by the DM to try to spackle over the mistakes that he caused in the first place.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 12, 2013)

To step over to the other side of the fence for a second.  I agree that this DM sounds like he could be a great DM.  And maybe a different system will make all the difference.  I think even DDN will be problematic, because, AFAIC, DDN is just about as complicated as 4e.  At least as rules heavy.

I'd really try to nudge this guy into something far less crunchy and see what he does with it.  Since he's not interested in mechanics to begin with, using a mechanics heavy system is just going to cause more problems down the road.  Again, in a year and a half long campaign, where you're talking about several hundred hours of playtime, still not knowing the basic math of 4e is a pretty impressive feat.  

I would hazard a guess that any future campaigns are likely going to run into the same issues.  4e math is about as simple and transparent as you can get.  Like Imaro says, the monster math fits on a business card.  Every math based mechanical element of all monsters in 4e fits on a business card.  That's how simple it is.  If the DM can't learn this:







in a year and a half, I'm not really sure he's terribly concerned about mechanics.  Which is perfectly fine.  No problems at all with that.  My last game I ran fits on a single A4 piece of paper (Weird West, if you want to know).  I like rules light games.  Why anyone would want to use DND for a rules light game, particularly 4e D&D, is not a very good fit IMO.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2013)

Hussar said:


> My last game I ran fits on a single A4 piece of paper (Weird West, if you want to know).  I like rules light games.  Why anyone would want to use DND for a rules light game, particularly 4e D&D, is not a very good fit IMO.



This is not so much a disagreement as a gloss.

I think there can be more to running a system than simply is it rules light/rules heavy. For instance, Chaosium's Basic RP (with the RQ combat complexities stripped off) is rules light - PCs are a list of stats plus percentages, and success is "roll under". But I think a GM could still muck it up fairly easily - especially in the notorious Call of Cthulhu "dead end because we all failed our Library Use roll" sort of way.

MHRP is also a pretty straightforward game in its mechanics, but there is a lot of nuance required in adjudicating effects (especially assets, resources and complications), in handling scene distinctions, and in managing the doom pool.

I'm not sure I can think of a system which both allows GM freeforming (which is what this GM seems to want, and is certainly one version of rules-light) and allows for a high degree of player authority over the game - but I'm interested to know if you (or anyone else) knows of one.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 12, 2013)

pemerton said:


> This is not so much a disagreement as a gloss.
> 
> I think there can be more to running a system than simply is it rules light/rules heavy. For instance, Chaosium's Basic RP (with the RQ combat complexities stripped off) is rules light - PCs are a list of stats plus percentages, and success is "roll under". But I think a GM could still muck it up fairly easily - especially in the notorious Call of Cthulhu "dead end because we all failed our Library Use roll" sort of way.
> 
> ...




I don't see anything here about the players wanting a high degree of player authority though.  Consistency, sure, but, not player authority.  The primary issue seems to be that the DM screwed up in the first place with the damage and no saving throw (which is a consistency issue) and things just snowballed from there.

And, judging from Majoru's comments about enjoying the DM's story telling capabilities and whatnot, it seems that the players are pretty happy letting the DM be firmly in the drivers seat.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2013)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], thanks for the reply.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 12, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Again, in a year and a half long campaign, where you're talking about several hundred hours of playtime, still not knowing the basic math of 4e is a pretty impressive feat.



Not trying to be snarky or anything, but I've seen you say this twice in this thread. Just something quick to point out:


Majoru Oakheart said:


> But he's only DMing once a month and his sessions tend to only be about 4 hours long. So, the total time played with him as the DM isn't huge.



So, about 18 sessions of 4 hours = 72 hours of running the game. Still enough to learn more basics (in my opinion), but that's still not that much, for my group. It'd be the equivalent of about 2 months of regular play for us, not a year and a half, which a newbie GM would likely be struggling with still.

Anyways, just pointing out that he doesn't have the "several hundred hours" of running the game. I'm not excusing him, but looking at 72 hours total of running the game makes things a lot more understandable. You may have a point on other systems being better (that's just up to his play style as a GM). As always, play what you like


----------



## Lindeloef (Jun 12, 2013)

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]
you bring up a really good point, especially the "once a month" part. We heard the life story of Jim and how his behavior is excused but what about this DM? Has he a time consuming Job, Family etc? 
Just sh*ting on him cause he doesn't know the rules is too easy. But a month without "practice" is not that helpful to learn the rules. (I asume he gets the basic stuff right, what to roll and such).


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 12, 2013)

First off, your DM is not acting like a referee, but someone who believes they have complete fiat. Just my opinion, but he appears to be overriding others acceptance of the basics of the game. (Coaches sometimes do this too in sports). 

Secondly, any game that gives a single player or judge absolute control over what happens in a game is simply declaring that player the winner or the referee's opinion to be the rules.  Neither should be the case and I've never heard of any other game doing this. 

Lastly, my answers to your questions: 
_"Should the DM have the ability to bring people back to life without their permission?"_
--You mean Player Characters, right? It's possible this can happen, but the player could simply attempt to kill themselves. Death / game loss is usually the easiest route in games. In D&D it has historically been the case that the PC's player can choose to return from the afterlife, but doesn't know who is calling them until they are raised. And then without any knowledge or experience of the afterlife retained.

_"Should the DM be allowed to give infinite power to a player as a plot device for the last hour of a campaign?" _
--DMs should avoid thinking about plot in any instance. Again, this is ending the game with one player declared "winner". It doesn't matter when it is done, it will be the last thing done in the campaign. 

_"Should gods be all powerful or are they limited to a few interesting tricks?"_
--What gods are depends upon the setting, but this is basically a case of impotent player roles again. Gods are a game construct. Most games don't have players besting gods as opponents, but rather as distant, limited actors upon the primary field of play. If they have absolute power, than we are back in the position of a referee without a rulebook. No rules, all things happen simultaneously.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Jun 12, 2013)

Lindeloef said:


> @_*JamesonCourage*_
> you bring up a really good point, especially the "once a month" part. We heard the life story of Jim and how his behavior is excused but what about this DM? Has he a time consuming Job, Family etc?
> Just sh*ting on him cause he doesn't know the rules is too easy. But a month without "practice" is not that helpful to learn the rules. (I asume he gets the basic stuff right, what to roll and such).




Yeah that kinda ties in to a point i was kinda trying to make upthread some, that there's often this opinion that DMs who don't know the rules are really crap. My current DM works 7days a week. Hes played a little bit before, but never 
DMed. He doesn't know the rules, and asks whenever. Even for people that dont work that much, it can be quite a commitment. By the standards I've seen presented on messageboards, he'd be crap, and perhaps not given much of a chance. But that, in my opinion might be just nerd-muscling people out of the game with righteous crap.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 12, 2013)

howandwhy99 said:


> First off, your DM is not acting like a referee...




"GM as Referee" is one of several GM stances. GM as storyteller is another. Neither is wrong, it is a matter of taste.

"GM as Referee" can be a very confrontational stance, as such a GM may play the game as a boardgame - and is out to "win". 

"GM as Storyteller" usually makes the tactical side easier for the players, as he can't tell a story with dead characters.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 12, 2013)

Starfox said:


> "GM as Referee" is one of several GM stances. GM as storyteller is another. Neither is wrong, it is a matter of taste.
> 
> "GM as Referee" can be a very confrontational stance, as such a GM may play the game as a boardgame - and is out to "win".
> 
> "GM as Storyteller" usually makes the tactical side easier for the players, as he can't tell a story with dead characters.



Story is the rejection of tactics. It is currently defined by many as an inevitability. "Are you existing?" then you're telling a story / expressing yourself.  Refereeing isn't about being in competition with any of the players. In terms of play styles both are legit, but what's it's going to be should be spelled out beforehand. But this is all beside the point. Whatever the case may be, understanding and designing games simply works better when they are perceived from multiple perspectives, not just the "Big Model" theory your quoting here. Forge theory is not equivalent to game theory, perhaps especially for RPGs.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 12, 2013)

Wasn't quoting Forge, not even current on it - this is more a "conventional wisdom" kind of thing. I generally agree with your comment here howandwhy99, even if I don't understand "Big Model". I was just reacting to your implicit assumption earlier that a GM has to be a referee first and foremost. IMO, you don't even need to have a set of rules to role-play, it can all be in the GM's head. And how can you be a referee if there are no rules?

My examples were there to show that a "referee" stance is not always a more player-friendly stance.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 12, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I'm using the fairly generic (and loose) sense of "being dead at 0 hp".




Unconscious doesn't equal dead. You do not need divine intervention to ressurect you when you are unconscious and you may in fact get up on your own when you are unconscious by rolling a 20 on a death save, so I don't see how having 0hp's and being dead in the game (especially with 4e's many chances to spring back into the game through luck and/or healing) are in any way the same thing. Being dead in the sense that the OP was speaking about in the game (which required a deus ex machina for the pc's to get back into the game) was not the same as unconscious.



pemerton said:


> Of course not - in the post you quoted I indicated the typical hit points for a 13th level defender being 120-ish.




So we agree that it is a possibility that 13th level characters can survive an attack that does 150 hit points, that was all I was saying.



pemerton said:


> But if the PCs have already taken a bit of damage - which I would expect that GM to be aware of, given that he would have rolled those attacks and their damage - then the likelihood of dropping not just below zero but below negative bloodied becomes greater.




Of course it does, but given enough previous damage and no healing even an attack doing 1 point of damage can exceed the negative bloodied threshold and kill a PC... Not sure what the point of this statement was since it's self-evident. 



pemerton said:


> I am using "standard monsters" to refer to the default 8 hp * (level +1), + CON. Brutes have more than standard hit points - that's part of their schtick. Lurkers and artillery (and also many insubstantial and regenerating creatures) have less - that's part of _their_ schtick.




Ok, so 112 hit points...so how does this in any way change the fact that the statement you made below is still false?


pemerton said:


> Seriously, a 4e GM can look at any standard monster for the level in question, can trivially know that no PC will have more hit points than that...



,
You already admitted a run-of-the-mill defender can easily exceed this, and I've given an example of a 10th level character who exceeded it... so the above is provably false.




pemerton said:


> The OP, in post 23 upthread:




The OP also states this is a guess on his part... so there's no way to really know if the DM believed this or not...




pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by this - but yes, a GM who disregards the advice on how to get the best out of the game will have trouble getting the best out of the game.




I mean stepping out of the math constraints of encounter design vs. level that 4e suggests... something many advocates of 4e say can and should be done by the DM if he wants to since they are just guidelines and not rules. Of course I find it slightly ironic that we have a player (Jim) telling the DM that he is wrong for going outside of those boundaries, especially since I had a conversation with you and I believe Hussar about this very thing and how I've noticed that 4e seems to instill that sense of entitlement (even in traditionally DM controlled areas) in some players... of course I was told that in reality it just didn't happen... 

As far as "getting the best out of the game"... I would say that takes place when the group is having fun, period. Since EVERYONE except Jim was having fun in the campaign (and the OP has already given us insight into the type of problems Jim has as a player in every game.) and even in this last encounter there was only one other player who didn't like the way it went... I don't know if the DM wasn't getting the "best out of the game" for his group. I certainly don't think 4e's advice will always create the best D&D game for every group or even the best 4e game for every group or am I missing your point here? YMMV of course.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 12, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I mean stepping out of the math constraints of encounter design vs. level that 4e suggests... something many advocates of 4e say can and should be done by the DM if he wants to since they are just guidelines and not rules. Of course I find it slightly ironic that we have a player (Jim) telling the DM that he is wrong for going outside of those boundaries, especially since I had a conversation with you and I believe Hussar about this very thing and how I've noticed that 4e seems to instill that sense of entitlement (even in traditionally DM controlled areas) in some players... of course I was told that in reality it just didn't happen...




I have never had a player complain when I've set monsters behind the scenes without normal math.  Which I do from time to time.  And I've never complained about that when other DMs have done it.  What Jim is complaining about isn't the DM actually having the power to do what they did.  Jim's complaining about DM deus ex machina dickery by instakilling PCs with no foreshadowing (so not even a sphere of annhiliation in a statue's mouth or a set of realistic stone statues near a Medusa's lair).

And it's not just Jim who objected to this.  It was the Cleric of Misha's player.  What they were both objecting to was being instakilled for no reason with no rolls.

In what edition of D&D would a DM saying "Rocks fall out of the sky and your character and yours are both dead" go down well?  Because that's the problem here.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 12, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> I have never had a player complain when I've set monsters behind the scenes without normal math. Which I do from time to time. And I've never complained about that when other DMs have done it. What Jim is complaining about isn't the DM actually having the power to do what they did. Jim's complaining about DM deus ex machina dickery by instakilling PCs with no foreshadowing (so not even a sphere of annhiliation in a statue's mouth or a set of realistic stone statues near a Medusa's lair).




Actually Jim complains about alot more than that, the OP provided many examples of Jim's behavior...but this was the specific one I was speaking too. Jim is complaining as a player about the DM going out of the suggested guidelines...



Majoru Oakheart said:


> This has kind of been an ongoing issue. Our DM pretty much telegraphs his intentions but Jim likes to ignore them. One example is when we tried to get some items out of a city that was completely overrun with undead. We ended up being trapped in a building. The enemy was almost completely surrounding us. Hoards and hoards of undead. We were attacked by 4 Elites at once who were a couple levels above us and well as a bunch of minions. Which we didn't know until we started attacking them. *Jim grumbled that the guidelines for encounters say you shouldn't use that many powerful enemies at once unless you want to kill the party.* The DM says out loud "Well, if it's that dangerous, then maybe you should run and find a better place to hide." Jim refuses and insists on making a stand there. We manage to kill 3 of the elites but we take a lot of damage. We all decide to run. However, Jim still refuses to follow us. The DM points out that there is one side of the building that appears to be free from undead now and therefore we have an escape route. He still refuses to go. He points that there is are hundreds of undead out there and he can't hope to survive if he stays. Jim asks if they are the same minions we've already fought. The DM says yes. He says that he has a power that lasts until the end of the encounter that does 3 points of damage to anything that becomes adjacent to him. They only have melee attacks, so it is impossible for any of them to hurt him. He insists on staying and taking on the whole army by himself.






Neonchameleon said:


> And it's not just Jim who objected to this. It was the Cleric of Misha's player. What they were both objecting to was being instakilled for no reason with no rolls.In what edition of D&D would a DM saying "Rocks fall out of the sky and your character and yours are both dead" go down well? Because that's the problem here.




I'm well aware of the original example in the thread, but it's not what I was referencing... There was much more context for Jim as a player given in the follow up posts... it's a counterpoint to all the "Players never complain about xp budgets in my game, that's just theory" posts I've seen.


----------



## Luce (Jun 12, 2013)

I wanted to point out that for such self-professed stickler to the rules Jim seems to have conveniently forgotten that "Until the End of the Encounter: The effect ends when you take a rest (short or extended) or after 5 minutes." (PHB1 pp 278). Therefore he could not have taken an army by himself.
RAW is a valid way to play the game, just not the only one. There is the matter of social contract, but at the same time A) this is a new GM and as 20+ year veteran player I feel that the onus is on Jim to be more tolerant or B) since gaming is a voluntary activity we do for pleasure , excuse himself and not participate if fun is not being had. 
In most long running groups IME the DM will eventually start to deviate from the RAW whether it is to make house rules or introducing 3pp in order to make the gaming experience tailored to the people around the table.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Jun 12, 2013)

This seems like it essentially boils down to a massive disparity in play-styles. If that DM runs another game, that player should probably not play in it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 13, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Actually Jim complains about alot more than that, the OP provided many examples of Jim's behavior...but this was the specific one I was speaking too. Jim is complaining as a player about the DM going out of the suggested guidelines...




Fair enough.  If the internet has taught us anything it's that if it exists there is porn of it.  And that there is no position that there isn't someone who will take.  I'm quite happy to accept that when you get players who their own friends suspect like being jerks they will come up with the most perverse possible readings they can.  And that there is no potential reading that won't be made by people who like being jerks because they want to be jerks.  I do not in this case think that that's a meaningful problem with 4e.



> I'm well aware of the original example in the thread, but it's not what I was referencing... There was much more context for Jim as a player given in the follow up posts... it's a counterpoint to all the "Players never complain about xp budgets in my game, that's just theory" posts I've seen.




It's the exception that proves the rule. Literally.  Jim is doing a number of ... problematic things.  And the problem, I'm pretty sure, exists with the player independently of the system.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 13, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Not trying to be snarky or anything, but I've seen you say this twice in this thread. Just something quick to point out:
> 
> So, about 18 sessions of 4 hours = 72 hours of running the game. Still enough to learn more basics (in my opinion), but that's still not that much, for my group. It'd be the equivalent of about 2 months of regular play for us, not a year and a half, which a newbie GM would likely be struggling with still.
> 
> Anyways, just pointing out that he doesn't have the "several hundred hours" of running the game. I'm not excusing him, but looking at 72 hours total of running the game makes things a lot more understandable. You may have a point on other systems being better (that's just up to his play style as a GM). As always, play what you like




Whoops, missed the once a month bit.  Curses for reading too fast.  My bad.  Sorry.  Thanks for the correction.

Still, it is a year and a half to read a couple of books.  It's not like you have to read them cover to cover either.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 13, 2013)

Dwimmerlied said:


> Yeah that kinda ties in to a point i was kinda trying to make upthread some, that there's often this opinion that DMs who don't know the rules are really crap. My current DM works 7days a week. Hes played a little bit before, but never
> DMed. *He doesn't know the rules, and asks whenever.* Even for people that dont work that much, it can be quite a commitment. By the standards I've seen presented on messageboards, he'd be crap, and perhaps not given much of a chance. But that, in my opinion might be just nerd-muscling people out of the game with righteous crap.




Bold and underline mine.

See, to me, right there, that's the mark of a good DM.  I have no problems with DM's that don't know the rules front to back.  Heck, I AM that DM.  My players know the rules much better than I do.  But, I, like your DM, will always default to their judgement because I know they know the rules better than me.

But, in this case, the DM has decided that the rules simply don't apply.  He doesn't know the rules, but, also doesn't even attempt to play by the rules either.  He's not playing the same game that Jim is.  

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.

At what point is that good DMing practices?

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.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 13, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I mean stepping out of the math constraints of encounter design vs. level that 4e suggests... something many advocates of 4e say can and should be done by the DM if he wants to since they are just guidelines and not rules.



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

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.)



Imaro said:


> I certainly don't think 4e's advice will always create the best D&D game for every group or even the best 4e game for every group or am I missing your point here? YMMV of course.



My point (and it's related to one that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 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!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 13, 2013)

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!


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 13, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, in this case, the DM has decided that the rules simply don't apply.  He doesn't know the rules, but, also doesn't even attempt to play by the rules either.  He's not playing the same game that Jim is.



I mostly agree except for maybe this point.  I think that there's a difference between "rules" and general practices.  The damage per level guidelines are just that...guidelines.  There's certainly no rules in 4e that say you CAN'T have an enemy do 500 points of damage in an attack if you want them to.  On the other hand, that damage would be completely out of line with what other monsters do.  There's guidelines in the book that help the DM estimate how much damage monsters should do based on their level.  Within those rules it does say that you can have some variation, however.

I know the rules much better than our DM does.  I DM my own game.  I certainly wouldn't think twice about doubling the damage of a monster if I wanted it to be especially dangerous.  However, I know the rules well enough to know there's a good reason that damage is at the recommended levels.  It helps form a piece of the house of cards that is the math of 4e D&D.  Disturbing that math can cause unexpected side effects.  Like killing 2 people with one attack when you don't mean to.

I think you only get a really good sense of how the pieces of the rules fit together to form a cohesive whole by reading the entirety of the rules and having some experience playing the various classes so you know how all their powers work.  Our DM hasn't done that.  So, he doesn't know what happens when you change one number.

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.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 13, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> Fair enough.  If the internet has taught us anything it's that if it exists there is porn of it.  And that there is no position that there isn't someone who will take.  I'm quite happy to accept that when you get players who their own friends suspect like being jerks they will come up with the most perverse possible readings they can.  And that there is no potential reading that won't be made by people who like being jerks because they want to be jerks.  I do not in this case think that that's a meaningful problem with 4e.



Given I know Jim well, I'll say it's both.  I know that I'm a big stickler for the rules as well.  There's a reason he was whispering his concerns to ME at the table as opposed to anyone else.  I was the most likely to be sympathetic.  I get frustrated when DMs break rules.  Even ones that are fairly inconsequential.  I've complained about battles that went way out of the suggested guidelines before as well.

I remember one game I played in where the DM didn't know how the hiding rules worked.  He kept allowing enemies to attack and hide again during the same turn without us seeing where they were.  So the battle went like this: "You get hit, you don't know from where."  "I use Perception to look where it came from.  I get 18."  "You don't see anything.  And you get hit again.  You don't know where it came from."

It ruined my experience so badly that I decided not to go back to D&D Encounters at that store again.  I've gotten nearly that frustrated when we had a battle go on for close to 3 hours because there were too many monsters for the guidelines and I felt it made the game drag on.

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."


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 13, 2013)

Luce said:


> I wanted to point out that for such self-professed stickler to the rules Jim seems to have conveniently forgotten that "Until the End of the Encounter: The effect ends when you take a rest (short or extended) or after 5 minutes." (PHB1 pp 278). Therefore he could not have taken an army by himself.



I didn't want to get into too much detail about this, however the DM likely caused it himself.  I don't actually believe the power lasts until the end of the encounter.  The DM made up a...I don't know, template is the best word I can come up with for it.  A demon possessed Jim's character.  But it could only manifest when he was under a lot of stress.  Otherwise it was dormant.

When he became bloodied, there was a chance of the demon coming out.  When it did, Jim was supposed to replace his stats with the ones on a sheet given to him by the DM.  The DM based these stats on a Solo monster.  Which meant every time Jim got bloodied, he suddenly gained 300 hitpoints or something like that.  He had a fire aura around him continuously and a bunch of powers that did monster scale damage.  In addition to being able to use all the powers he already had.  However, he could not differentiate between friend and foe while manifested.  So, he had to attack the nearest target.  However, if an ally and enemy were equal distance away from him, he was allowed to choose the enemy.  The DM decided the only way to change back was once there were no enemies around anymore.  Then he could force himself to change back with a roll.

None of his powers HAD durations because they were designed for monsters.  Jim had pointed out to him how stupidly powerful this way.  Our DM said that since he couldn't choose when to release the demon in the first place, he didn't consider it overpowered.  Also, the DM seemed surprised during that conversation as well that a solo's hitpoints were so much higher than PCs.  And that conversation was nearly a year ago.  You'd think he would have remembered.

I believe that Jim was planning on staying against the hundreds of undead partially to prove his point to the DM.  He told the DM that the powers the demon form gave him were way too powerful, the DM said it was fine.  He wanted to show him how wrong he was.  Plus, I think he was annoyed that were were being railroaded to run away in a specific direction.  The only opening in the undead horde was in the direct the DM wanted us to go.  Plus, I believe he was annoyed that the DM wasn't being very clear.  We were running away from the undead horde and he told us the only place we had a chance of escaping to was this building, everything else was too far away and we'd die for sure.  Then, we got into the building and started barricading the doors to stay there the night when one of the elite undead knocked one of the walls down.  We all thought we were dead, since the DM was clear there was NO WHERE ELSE to run.  Then, when we started losing to the 4 elites he used against us, suddenly there was a miraculous hole in the undead horde that we could run through.  Jim kept giving me looks like "This is so stupid.  I'm just going to stay here and fight them."

As a side note, that was NOT the character Jim was playing at the end of the campaign.  Our only healer died, so Jim had his character retire himself to bring in a leader.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 13, 2013)

pemerton said:


> 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...



pemerton said:


> 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?



pemerton said:


> 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.



pemerton said:


> 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.



pemerton said:


> 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.



pemerton said:


> 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?



pemerton said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

Hussar said:


> 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.



Hussar said:


> 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.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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.



Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.



Neonchameleon said:


> 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. 



Neonchameleon said:


> 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.





Neonchameleon said:


> Well, obviously.




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





Neonchameleon said:


> 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.




Neonchameleon said:


> 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.





Neonchameleon said:


> 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. 




Neonchameleon said:


> 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?? 





Neonchameleon said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

billd91 said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 13, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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. 



sheadunne said:


> 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...



Majoru Oakheart said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

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 (Jun 13, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> /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 (Jun 14, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2013)

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 (Jun 14, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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.



N'raac said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2013)

Imaro said:


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





Imaro said:


> 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:



			
				me said:
			
		

> 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).



Imaro said:


> 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!



Imaro said:


> 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.



Imaro said:


> 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.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 14, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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.



I'm fairly certain that he wouldn't have cared.  Knowing Jim, he likely still would have said no to being brought back to life.  He almost never says yes.  As I said before, he always has another character waiting to play.  This being the last session, he MIGHT have said yes if done the right way.  But I think he was just glad the campaign was over when he died.  So, the reason he got so angry is that he felt people were forcing him back into a game he didn't really want to play anymore.

I know before the session even started he was thinking up ways to ruin the last session.  He said "I know our DM spent a lot of time on this adventure.  He's been leading up to this moment for ages.  He's already started planning his next campaign that takes place 100 years in the future.  I bet he already knows how this session will end, with us defeating Illoopion and saving the day.  I say we throw him for a loop and immediately change sides at the beginning of this adventure to Illoopion's side and see what happens.  I bet it'll screw him up."

I laughed and said that was a great idea because it'd be so funny.  He DID use getting killed by a goddess and coming back to life as an excuse to join Illoopion and try to kill my character.  Though, with Jim I can never tell if he's joking or not since he likes to say completely absurd things in deadpan serious face.  He keeps telling me that he knows where I live and plans on murdering me in my sleep on a regular basis.  It's not all the funny, but he seems to find it hilarious.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 14, 2013)

Hussar said:


> 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.



I think Jim just feels that even a bad D&D game is better than no D&D game.  It's not like Jim is social enough to go out and find another group of people to play with.  He barely tolerates us and he's known us for a long time.  Going to a stranger's place and meeting new people isn't something Jim does.  He'd just sit in his room playing computer games or watching tv if he wasn't playing D&D.  He feels that D&D is an interesting diversion from that...since he spends the rest of the week doing that.

Plus, I think it's a matter of degrees.  Does Jim get annoyed at the constant breaches of the rules?  Sure.  But he's played in games with worse DMs who would get the rules so wrong he DID walk away.  At least our current DM knows them well enough to create a game Jim doesn't want to walk away from.  Though, that won't stop him from grumbling about it.

Heck, our weekly game run by me is now a D&D Next Playtest group.  Jim has been fairly vocal about not liking D&D Next when I ask him away from the table.  He doesn't like the lack of options.  However, he shows up every week(which is to say, he walks down the stairs) and plays anyways.  He keeps saying that he's playing mostly to pass the time until the next playtest packet comes out and hopes it'll fix his problems with it.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 14, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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.



It was definitely resolved through fiction.  The stone was always going to give god powers to someone.  When we were told not to touch it a couple of months ago, we joked that no one could stop us from doing so and we thought we'd make great gods.  The guy pointed out that we'd be stealing the powers of Misha and that her power is what causes the plants not to overrun the cities and destroy all the buildings.  We mostly agreed this would be a bad thing so we agreed.  He even used some sort of magic to make us agree under penalty of death not to do it.  He said the magic was binding and once we had agreed, if we tried to use the artifact we'd die.

Which is why, I assumed there'd be some sort of lever or button or something to turn it on and we'd just not activate it.  When our Warlock saw the glowing gem, I don't know what she thought exactly.  Maybe that it contained the god's essence and smashing it would release them.  Instead it gave her god powers.

So, this was all definitely set up in advance.  I'm fairly certain he didn't plan on anyone touching the stone until the battle was over.  He assumed we'd defeat the demon and then we'd likely get a visit from Misha asking us to destroy the gem without touching it or something.  We'd then have the choice of taking the power for ourselves or giving it to Misha.  However, when the Warlock touched it in the middle of combat, he improvised.

Still, that improvisation was within the bounds of the fiction that he had set up.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 14, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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




You mean that 100% of the players he instakilled with no warning, rolls, or reason took issue with it?



> 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...




"Rocks fall and you die" is never a good idea - and especially not in 4e where a lot of work went into making sure that that _never happens_.



> 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.




Um... it wasn't done to further the unfolding narrative.  It was done because the DM didn't know the rules and didn't understand the guidelines at all.



> he then tried to rectify the death of the two PC's through a narrative device... but they chose instead not to accept it.




That wasn't rectifying.  That was doubling down while not admitting the mistake.  It was making the PCs even more pawns in the hands of the DM rather than in control of their own destinies.



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




OK.  We have an example that someone who _deliberately sets out to ruin a gaming session_ will interpret things in the most ass-backwards way possible.  



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




It does a hell of a lot better at Dark Sun than the system Dark Sun was written for.  It's pretty good at Peter Jackson's version of Middle Earth.  It does a pretty good Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser (much better than AD&D).



> A relatively inexperienced DM made a mistake and then created a narrative that fixed it,




Removing free will is not the same as fixing a problem.  The DM doubled down on the problem (the PCs all being pawns in the DM's hand and what they did not actually mattering).  And then had the PCs free will overrriden in order to "fix" it.  The problem with such an instakill isn't death.  It's _deprotagonisation_.  It's making the PCs _not matter._  And in order to "fix" it, the DM further deprotagonised them still further, making their choices about whether to be resurrected not matter even when both (and remember it wasn't just Jim who made that choice) said "no".

That wasn't a fix.  It was a doubling down on the actual problem.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 14, 2013)

pemerton said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.




It seems that Jim wanted the GM to admit he made a mistake.  I don't see that same "et al".  From all the comments made, Jim is the player who is not happy with this game, or this GM, and is rarely if ever happy with any game or GM.  The other players do not seem to have the same unhappiness.  

I also don't see where the GM is denying he made a mistake.  I don't see any indication he is asserting "I knew what 150 hp would do", or "If your characters are so poorly designed they can't take a 150 hp hit at this level, that's your fault".  I suspect, had he said "OK, that's my mistake.  Sorry guys - make it 75 points", that would have attracted as much or more criticism from Jim.  That criticism seems to be Jim's primary, if not only, enjoyment of the game.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'm fairly certain that he wouldn't have cared.  Knowing Jim, he likely still would have said no to being brought back to life.  He almost never says yes.  As I said before, he always has another character waiting to play.  This being the last session, he MIGHT have said yes if done the right way.  But I think he was just glad the campaign was over when he died.  So, the reason he got so angry is that he felt people were forcing him back into a game he didn't really want to play anymore.
> 
> I know before the session even started he was thinking up ways to ruin the last session.  He said "I know our DM spent a lot of time on this adventure.  He's been leading up to this moment for ages.  He's already started planning his next campaign that takes place 100 years in the future.  I bet he already knows how this session will end, with us defeating Illoopion and saving the day.  I say we throw him for a loop and immediately change sides at the beginning of this adventure to Illoopion's side and see what happens.  I bet it'll screw him up."




So basically, Jim's fun comes from screwing up everyone else's fun.  I'm feeling less and less sympathy for the Jim whose picture this discussion paints.  He sounds like a purely disruptive player that the game would be better off without.  I suspect he'd be no more happy in a game where the GM knows the rules perfectly, as he would then have no leverage to justify screwing up the game.  The GM mae an error that he tried to fix (probably not the best fix, but tried to fix).  That impacted one play session.  Keeping Jim around seems like a mistake that will affect every play session.  

I wonder how great a GM Jim would be...


----------



## Starfox (Jun 14, 2013)

N'raac said:


> So basically, Jim's fun comes from screwing up everyone else's fun.  .




The OP admits Jim has issues. He is doing the best he can to be social, but because of psychological limitations he's not getting all the way. Jim does try - as showing up at all indicates. 

Kudos to the OP for remaining his friend and making Jim's life better!


----------



## N'raac (Jun 14, 2013)

Thanks for that comment, Starfox, as I don't disagree.  I also neglected to note that I suspect we're not getting the complete picture of Jim - we're seeing those aspects that are posted.  Given the whole thread comes back to the conflict between Jim and the DM, I suspect we're seeing a lot more of Jim's negatives (which contribute to the problem) and a lot less of the positives (which keep him coming back, and welcome back by the rest of the group).  Similarly, for the mechanical negatives we're presented in the GM's game, something must have kept the game going, and the players coming back, for a year (and ready to play in his next campaign).


----------



## MetaVoid (Jun 14, 2013)

Jim sits around doing nothing (TV and computer) with occasional break with gaming. He may be trying to be social, but I get the feeling the group tolerates him because they know him long and they play at his (shared) place...maybe one would really say he's a friend (this is just a feeling, mark, I don't really know that)

DM may be inexperienced and it would be nice if he worked out the rules over the year (lazy? uncaring? irrelevant), but the story is obviously captivating enough to have loyal group of players...he made a mistake. He's human, mistakes happen.

Yes, mistake was trying to force them back (actually mistake was that it happened at all, but we already know he blundered there), but Jim still seems to be going out of his way to be disruptive...even before the mistake happened.

So, I still stay "grow up, child"


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 14, 2013)

N'raac said:


> It seems that Jim wanted the GM to admit he made a mistake. I don't see that same "et al".
> ...
> I also don't see where the GM is denying he made a mistake. I don't see any indication he is asserting "I knew what 150 hp would do"
> ...
> So basically, Jim's fun comes from screwing up everyone else's fun. I'm feeling less and less sympathy for the Jim whose picture this discussion paints. He sounds like a purely disruptive player that the game would be better off without.




Re-read the OP. 


			
				Excerpts from the post that started this thread said:
			
		

> Our DM points out that my character(an assassin) managed to combine poison, encounter powers, and daily powers to do 100 damage in an attack earlier in the battle and that a GOD should surely do more damage than some assassin.
> ...
> Our DM doesn't care, he says it's the last session of his campaign ever and he said 150 damage and he's sticking with it. It kills 2 party members. One of which is a cleric of Misha. He gets a little annoyed that his GOD would kill him like that. The other one is Jim. The DM re-explains that she couldn't control it because she was so weak
> ...
> ...




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.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 14, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It was definitely resolved through fiction. The stone was always going to give god powers to someone. When we were told not to touch it a couple of months ago, we joked that no one could stop us from doing so and we thought we'd make great gods. The guy pointed out that we'd be stealing the powers of Misha and that her power is what causes the plants not to overrun the cities and destroy all the buildings. We mostly agreed this would be a bad thing so we agreed. He even used some sort of magic to make us agree under penalty of death not to do it. He said the magic was binding and once we had agreed, if we tried to use the artifact we'd die.
> 
> Which is why, I assumed there'd be some sort of lever or button or something to turn it on and we'd just not activate it. When our Warlock saw the glowing gem, I don't know what she thought exactly. Maybe that it contained the god's essence and smashing it would release them. Instead it gave her god powers.
> 
> ...




Thanks for confirming this...


----------



## Imaro (Jun 14, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.
> ...




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 (Jun 14, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.




Neonchameleon said:


> 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.




Neonchameleon said:


> 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.



Neonchameleon said:


> 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.





Neonchameleon said:


> 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.





Neonchameleon said:


> 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.



Neonchameleon said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2013)

billd91 said:


> 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. 



Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.




Neonchameleon said:


> 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. 



Neonchameleon said:


> 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...



Majoru Oakheart said:


> 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..




Neonchameleon said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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. 



Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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.






sheadunne said:


> 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.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 14, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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.




I never said any such thing. I was talking about the guidelines for creating a god (or at the every least a level appropriate for a god), not creating an appropriate "level" creature for the players to fight. I don't care if the encounter is above or below the party level. The entire point is that there is a roll, even if that roll is nearly impossible to make.



Imaro said:


> 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.




The monster is a DM creation, he can do whatever he wants to it, have a rock fall on its head, have it implode, or have a good blast it for 100 points of damage, doesn't matter. That has no effect on the Players. Completely different things. We're talking about the DM effecting players, no one cares about the monster. The fairness relates to DM/Player not DM/DM. That's why we have rules.



Imaro said:


> 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
> ...




See above. Not talking about level appropriate encounters here. The encounter presented wasn't level appropriate to begin with. It was clearly above the players, which is perfectly fine. We're only talking about allowing the players to play their characters. And you must be confusing posts because I could care less about the mathematics. I never mentioned anything about them. The god's attack roll could be +100 for all I care, as long as there is a roll. When I said, "Whatever number is appropriate for the encounter, following the guidelines presented in the rules," I was not saying, "Whatever number is appropriate for the level of the players." Two different things. No problem with encounters being far above the players level, I do it all the time, but there will always be a die roll and everything follows the same rules.



Imaro said:


> It was badly done in your opinion. 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.




The reason rules exist in the game is to arbitrate between conflicts in the game. The DM says: The monster hits you (the intent of the action). The Player says: no it doesn't (the intent of the resistance). The neutral dice decide (the outcome). Taking away the Player's ability to say, "no it doesn't" negates any reason for the Player to even be playing the game.   

When the DM takes control of the character away from the Player, that is the DM messing with the Player. It happened twice in that scenario. Once when he said, "take 150 points of damage" and didn't give the opportunity for the player to disagree and thus being resolved by the neutral dice roll. And again when he gave one of the players the ability to resurrect the Players without their consent. What's the point of playing in a game where you don't have control of your own character?


----------



## Kelimar (Jun 14, 2013)

OK, It has been just short of a week since the end of the campaign and Majoru directed me to this thread earlier today, I am the DM of the campaign in question and felt after reading all twelve pages that I should create an account and weigh in here on my opinions both regarding the situation, and the opinions brought up in this thread.

First off I would like to clarify that while at times playing with Jim (hereafter referred to as Fortune) can be frustrating I largely feel that his frustrations are often at least rooted in understandable complaints, such as my rather loose grasp of the rules. Fortune can be at times a colorful character and can bring even more colorful characters to the table, as such he will always have a welcome chair at my games, though I admit he may not be particularly interested in rejoining us for my up coming campaign. My major frustration with Fortune beyond his at times excessive rules lawyering is his insistence on power gaming, an aspect of tabletop games which I find most deplorable as it forces the rest of the party to do so as well, or risk feeling like the sidekick to the vastly more impressive other player. These things said I don't want to paint Fortune as a villain and feel that many of our disagreements are simply rooted in our drawing enjoyment from vastly different aspects of the game. He likes to bend the rules and feel like a king, I'm there to create flavor in my characters, RP as much as I can, and watch the story unfold, and both are completely legitimate aspects of these types of games.

I fully admit my faults as a DM, in that I don't have a fantastic grasp of the mechanics of the engine we are using to run the game, and at times my on the fly decisions can go beyond the realm of "just outside the rules" straight into the land of "I just made this up". This is because I have had little in the way of motivation to read the library worth of play books which would be required to sufficiently satisfy Fortune in particular. In addition I decided roughly halfway through the campaign that I don't particularly enjoy 4e as an engine and only ran the rest of the campaign in it because I wasn't eager to change systems halfway through and also because I knew I wanted to run a game of Next once it was able to handle a non-boxed campaign and felt it would be better to bide my time. In addition I would like to add that when I came into 4e it was already entering its twilight, Next however is still in its youth which will allow me to learn the rules as they grow and form.

My complaints with 4e are rooted in the dichotomy between my expectations and experiences with the system. My expectations are that I would like to run a campaign where the characters represent exceptionally talented individuals who are in no way super heroes much like how the main characters of the Lord of the Rings are. Whereas the engine itself encourages the "I'm a super hero" point of view. I heavily dislike that the engine encourages high level players to combat gods, and reinforces the concept that they are demigods themselves, which is why I chose a mid level campaign in the first place, though I admit that I ran it more like an endgame campaign, what with the players taking on exceedingly powerful beings and witnessing the death of gods etc.

Now to give a bit of background regarding the campaign, or at least flesh it out somewhat from what my friend Majoru has outlined. Don't worry I will try to keep things brief and use as little campaign centric jargon as I can.

The campaign revolved around the conflict between the Demon Allupion and the party members. The demon, whose race had diverged from the race that also birthed the gods at some point in the distant past largely due to the actions of those who became gods, intended to slay the goddess Maisha and steal her power thus becoming a god himself. The party was in direct opposition to this, but events transpired and they found themselves in a final showdown with Allupion who had already activated an artifact of his design intended to draw out the power of a god and was in the process (with the aid of several wizards) of draining away Maisha's power.

Note: I had intended for this to be the culmination of the campaign since very shortly after my introduction of the Allupion character. Sometime after that I came up with the concept that Maisha would die and one of the party would become a recurring god in the universe. My way of leaving a lasting mark on the world for future campaigns to touch on.

The party combated the Demon and the combat was beginning to drag, the players had already wiped out all of the minions in the fight and were down to just going around the table beating on the demon who, as you may know had an excess of hit points due to his being a solo. I decided to have the goddess use the last of her power available in a last ditched attack against the demon, throwing a haphazard beam of energy out before dying. 

More Notes: As per my dislike of the gods having stat blocks, the gods in my campaign universe exist outside the rules. While they do have limitations their limits are so far beyond what any mortal or even demigod could hope to accomplish that to the eyes of mortals they may as well not have limitations. They also operate outside of the normal laws of magic, as such they can bend said laws in any way they wish. A god could in theory snap his/her fingers and bring back everyone who ever worshiped them, however the gods mutually prevent each other from interacting with the world on a large scale, thus hobbling each other and preventing events from getting out of control. A war between gods would likely leave mortals out in the cold so badly that they wouldn't even know what happened.

The beam did have a roll to hit against reflex (my rational being they could try to jump aside) but in all fairness the roll wasn't a fair one and there may as well have been no roll at all. And yes Majoru did guess right, I pulled the number out of thin air. If I remember correctly my thought process went something along the lines of the following;

DM: (Internal) *Rolls a random number of d12 coming up with 50ish damage, which seems appropriate. I'm going to have to hit some players so I don't want to do anything silly. 
DM: (Internal) but wait, Majoru did 100 damage earlier in the fight, and this is the last gasp of a god. There is no way a mortal would outdo a god. 150 seems more appropriate.
DM: (speaking) 150 damage to everything in the beam, that's Fortune, Bruuf (also a player), Allupion, and several NPCs, some of whom were semi-important. (leaving Allupion at less than 30hp)
Fortune and Bruuf: Well were dead.
DM: (speaking) huh?!
Dm: (Thinking) damn I figured they would have more HP than that, they usually brush off mountains of damage

Around this point the contention started but I'll sideboard that and continue with the play, largely because most of it was ranting that I tried to tune out in order to wrap up the session. The party's nany NPC who had been around from the beginning but not there for the oath made to the Demigod earlier, shouts to the party to grab the artifact before Allupion can. Allianna our Warden goes to grab it but is convinced by the party to stay and deal with the now very badly injured Allupion, instead Meva our resident Warlock runs over and grabs the artifact, becoming a god. I take Meva into the other room and RP a short event where she meets with the other gods who have returned to the moon upon noticing the distress of their sibling/compatriot. They inform Meva that according to their self imposed laws she cannot affect the world in any major way (Ie: blink the events of the campaign away, or disintegrate Allupion etc.) and must instead act through the actions of her followers. However they will make an exception in that Meva can resurrect her fallen compatriots regardless of if they are her followers. 

We return to the room and Meva has a short discource with the party during which one member and an npc convert to her and she resurrects Bruuf and Fortune against their wills. Bruuf, having been a zealous follower of Maisha and completely gobsmacked that she would in his eyes kill him so offhandedly swears against all gods. Fortune turns on the party, siding with Allupion as by this point Fortune is probably more interested in being disruptive. Fortune the player is by this point actively denouncing the campaign as well as Meva's actions claiming they were against the rules etc. Meva revokes the gift of life for Fortune and Bruuf but returns it to Bruuf after learning that in the confusion Bruuf doesn't actually have a problem with being brought back (rules wise), just a problem with the gods and their actions. The party sans the now dead Fortune flee the crumbling city and the campaign ends.

I feel that my failure was also in part due to my not sufficiently communicating the universe of the campaign to the party. I had always intended the gods the be far above and beyond the players and the rules, and had shown this to a lesser extend by introducing the party earlier in the campaign to a demigod (not the one who made them swear about the artifact) who was capable of acts far above and beyond what even the stat block D&D gods could accomplish. Again though I do feel that the failure was as much in my court as Fortune's over the top reaction to it was in his.

I think that's everything I wanted to say but I may have forgotten something.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 14, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I never said any such thing. I was talking about the guidelines for creating a god (or at the every least a level appropriate for a god), not creating an appropriate "level" creature for the players to fight. I don't care if the encounter is above or below the party level. The entire point is that there is a roll, even if that roll is nearly impossible to make.




Guidelines for creating a god, where are those located again?? In all seriousness I don't think there are guidelines for creating a god in 4e. I guess you could look at some examples but even then they aren't all the same level or do the same amount of damage with an attack or are even the same role... so again what criteria does 4e give for making a god?? 

I do apologize for mistakingly assuming you were talking encounter and/or monster level... but I think you would find it understandable since this is how adversaries (for the most part) are created in 4e...



sheadunne said:


> The monster is a DM creation, he can do whatever he wants to it, have a rock fall on its head, have it implode, or have a good blast it for 100 points of damage, doesn't matter. That has no effect on the Players. Completely different things. We're talking about the DM effecting players, no one cares about the monster. The fairness relates to DM/Player not DM/DM. That's why we have rules.




Ok, so if you don't believe in encounter level being appropriate to character level... how is fairness between player and DM maintained? I guess I'm a little confused on what exactly your stance is.




sheadunne said:


> See above. Not talking about level appropriate encounters here. The encounter presented wasn't level appropriate to begin with. It was clearly above the players, which is perfectly fine. We're only talking about allowing the players to play their characters. And you must be confusing posts because I could care less about the mathematics. I never mentioned anything about them. The god's attack roll could be +100 for all I care, as long as there is a roll. When I said, "Whatever number is appropriate for the encounter, following the guidelines presented in the rules," I was not saying, "Whatever number is appropriate for the level of the players." Two different things. No problem with encounters being far above the players level, I do it all the time, but there will always be a die roll and everything follows the same rules.




Well first I don't think the encounter was above the players, I might be mistaken but I thought it was a solo equal to their level that they were facing.

More importantly... So your main issue is that the DM didn't roll the dice? You want the DM to roll the dice just to roll the dice, even if the attack can't miss... I guess that's a valid position though I guess I don't see the point. And again what about things like magic missile that don't require a roll and are within the rules of the game?




sheadunne said:


> The reason rules exist in the game is to arbitrate between conflicts in the game. The DM says: The monster hits you (the intent of the action). The Player says: no it doesn't (the intent of the resistance). The neutral dice decide (the outcome). Taking away the Player's ability to say, "no it doesn't" negates any reason for the Player to even be playing the game.




Again, there are auto-hit powers in 4e so this isn't a very strong argument when also coupled with the fact that you don't ascribe to balanced encounters.



sheadunne said:


> When the DM takes control of the character away from the Player, that is the DM messing with the Player. It happened twice in that scenario. Once when he said, "take 150 points of damage" and didn't give the opportunity for the player to disagree and thus being resolved by the neutral dice roll. And again when he gave one of the players the ability to resurrect the Players without their consent. What's the point of playing in a game where you don't have control of your own character?




An auto-hit power doesn't take away control of a character, and if it does thenit's an accepted part of 4e.  Though admittedly a little shakier... I Also don't feel giving another player the ability to ressurect took away control of the other characters PC's because they had the option to kill themselves after being ressurected.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 14, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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...



I don't think he'd actually have done it.  He even told the DM about his plan to derail the game at the beginning of the session.  It was a joke.  Though, like I said, it's sometimes hard to know if Jim's jokes have a small kernel of truth associated with them.  I'm guessing he started the session frustrated at the direction it was going.  He didn't like the idea that the DM had the ending planned out in advance.  He's really big on DMs having nothing really planned out and adapting.  Though, he understands this isn't one of those games.  So, he shows he frustration by joking about doing what he wishes he could do.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 14, 2013)

*looks upthread*
Oh, look.  I successfully cast a Summon DM spell.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 14, 2013)

This entire tale could have been averted by:

1 - Explicit table agenda calibration.

2 - Knowing the tools in your toolbox, understanding what you are trying to build with respect to those tools' utility and then properly and precisely applying them to facilitate construction of an edifice that doesn't go wobbly.


Except for Jim.  Given Jim's, seemingly belligerent, self-stylings toward utter social dysfunction (which given that he is cognizant of it, its external to any formal diagnosis of schizophrenia), its hard to imagine things not going pear-shaped with him willfully "flexing those social discord muscles" in a group enterprise such as TTRPGing.  I've seen more than my fair share of "Jims".  Most "Jims" will resist a collective effort at operative conditioning toward assimilating to the collective, so you're typically left with intimidating them or just outright excising them...or you endure...and everyone suffers for it...and Jim doesn't care.  

What is amusing is the awesome edition warring logical circus that would use a poster child for willful, social dysfunction as a line of evidence for what is wrong with 4e's ruleset or what it allegedly engenders.  That is the fundamental, irrational attribution that underwrites bigotry and bad science; take a highly anomalous anecdotal part/data point/person and extrapolate a whole/series/culture (race/ethos) from it.  Its that same sort of rubbish that got our hobby maligned in the early 80s and the decade thereafter.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 15, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> I've seen more than my fair share of "Jims".  Most "Jims" will resist a collective effort at operative conditioning toward assimilating to the collective, so you're typically left with intimidating them or just outright excising them...or you endure...and everyone suffers for it...and Jim doesn't care.



Perhaps.  Though what you consider "suffering", I consider mild discomfort and sometimes mild amusement over his constant grumbling about people to the point of absurdity.  He's told me how if he was in charge, he'd hold a lottery to kill off 80-90% of the population to get rid of the majority of people so he didn't have to worry about being around them all the time.

Then again, his schizophrenia manifests itself as paranoia most of the time.  He constantly thinks people are staring at him and out to get him.  Or at least he does when he isn't on medication.  I suspect, however, that the medication doesn't remove these feelings entirely, just lowers their intensity to the point where he feels that people are out to get him in small ways....like a DM ruling against him in a game.

I've gotten used to listening to his grumbling, laughing at it and moving on.


Manbearcat said:


> What is amusing is the awesome edition warring logical circus that would use a poster child for willful, social dysfunction as a line of evidence for what is wrong with 4e's ruleset or what it allegedly engenders.  That is the fundamental, irrational attribution that underwrites bigotry and bad science; take a highly anomalous anecdotal part/data point/person and extrapolate a whole/series/culture (race/ethos) from it.  Its that same sort of rubbish that got our hobby maligned in the early 80s and the decade thereafter.



At the risk of adding to the edition warring, I'd like to say that despite my love of 4e, it does have some issues.  Jim isn't the only one with that mindset towards the game.

The composition of our group has changed a bunch in the last 2 years.  Previously, we had at least 3 more members who were nearly as bad as Jim was.

As soon as someone noticed that an AC was 2 points higher than what they expected, there would be huge complaints about how the monsters were impossible to hit because the DM was changing the rules.

I had one player who literally showed up with a new character every session because he got bored of them that easily.  He didn't so much roleplay as create character builds and revel in how much damage/healing/control/whatever they did.  He'd basically play a session and go "Look, I stunned all the enemies every round for an entire combat.  Isn't that awesome?  Well, now that that's done, I have another character who can heal everyone to full 20 times that I'd like to play."

Jim created a character who teleported 1 square twice as a minor action at will.  Each time he teleported he did about 20 points of damage to all enemies adjacent to him without rolling.  He was doing 120 points of damage in an AOE without rolling.  However, this idea wasn't his to begin with.  Another one of our players in a different game played a variation on the character first to show how much damage he could do.  Jim saw it and thought it was awesome...but not good enough.  So he improved it and created the character for a different DM(at the time, we were playing 2 weekly games).

One of our new players created a character that hits on a 2 against almost every enemy when he charges.  He does enough damage to bloody an enemy of his level in one hit.  When he charges, he goes invisible and becomes nearly impossible to hit.

It's been my experience that when rules oriented players get a hold of 4e's rules, they tend to abuse them.

Though, the damage they can wrought in 4e is completely insignificant compared to what those same players did in my 3.5e game.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 15, 2013)

[MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION]you're right that d20 D&D caters strongly to players who enjoy the character build mini-game. Prior to d20, they'd probably have preferred Champions/HERO System.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 15, 2013)

Kelimar said:


> I am the DM of the campaign in question and felt after reading all twelve pages that I should create an account and weigh in here on my opinions both regarding the situation, and the opinions brought up in this thread.




Welcome to ENworld, and kudos for joining the thread. I feel Majoru did a good job presenting your campaign; your description meshes well with the description he gave. Seems like a lovely game to me!

Don't worry too much about the sometimes snide remarks here; most of us here are using this thread (and many, many others) to push our own agendas and ideas of how an RPG should be, what edition of DnD is good, and so on. There is a constant ongoing argument here, and if one comes in at the middle of one of the skirmishes like you do now, ENworld can look like quite a hostile place. It is not. We can be nice, and even give constructive criticism at times. Pick up the advice and points you like and feel are true, and skip the rest unless you enjoy debate for the sake of debate.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 15, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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.



As I've been reminded by the post above by our DM...he did make an attack roll, though he made up the bonus to hit and now that I was reminded, it hit Reflex 46 or something, so it was guaranteed to hit, given the highest defense in the group is about 29.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 15, 2013)

billd91 said:


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



Yeah, I still want to talk to him about it.  Haven't really had time to speak to him this week.  I'd like to know his actual thoughts on the issue.


billd91 said:


> 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.



Yeah, it's....weird.  I admit it.  If I hadn't been friends with him for so long, it might phase me.  I know some other people have asked me "Wow...it doesn't bother you that he threatens to kill you in your sleep?"  I always answer "Meh, not really, it's Jim."

I actually had a mutual friend of our looking for a place to stay.  I offered a spare room in my house.  He originally agreed as long as I paid to get a lock put onto the door of the room because he was a little worried about living in a house with Jim.  Then he found another offer from a different friend and took that one instead.  I'm really beginning to think Jim made the difference in his decision.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 15, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.



Allow me to enlighten you slightly.  Broof(his character name) complains about everything in real life.  We go to movies with him just to see how MUCH he'll hate a movie, not to see whether he'll like it.  We have a theory that he just likes to be miserable.  Though, he likes going to see movies...he just hates the movies.

The whole campaign he was annoyed at nearly every NPC we met.  He thought the Heron King was an idiot for not listening to us about the fact that his general was a demon.  He made fun of the Heron King for having a stupid name and dressing in bird feathers.  I believe either he or Jim started the joke that since the Heron King was an Elf and rather feminine in appearance that he was actually a woman and was lying to everyone.  So, they both started calling him a woman to his face....while we were under the influence of neck rings that repressed all magic and we were all in chains.  The DM decided it was better NOT to kill 2 out of the 5 party members for insolence.

He complained about the NPC cleric who was the church's representative aboard our airship(the one the church loaned us) because he didn't agree with us once.  Then it became a reoccurring joke to put him down on a regular basis.

Broof(and Vance, the character he played before Broof) liked to point out that he hated nearly every NPC he met(mostly out of character, he'd point out that Broof didn't like him and is barely tolerating having him around...just so we all knew what his character motivation was, even though Broof rarely spoke).

He thought Allupion was a jerk and hated him and didn't care if his character died as long as Allupion got was coming to him since Allupion kept showing up just to taunt us.

Basically, Broof was willing to hate anyone at the drop of a hat if they did absolutely anything bad to us.  So, it wasn't a huge surprise that when his god accidentally killed him that he'd go overboard and pull a "I hate my god now.  In fact, I hate ALL gods now.  I'm going to start an Anti-god cult."


----------



## billd91 (Jun 15, 2013)

Sounds like a shtick to me. Could be entertaining, but also tedious if all of his characters are like that.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 15, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Guidelines for creating a god, where are those located again?? In all seriousness I don't think there are guidelines for creating a god in 4e. I guess you could look at some examples but even then they aren't all the same level or do the same amount of damage with an attack or are even the same role... so again what criteria does 4e give for making a god??




There's an implicit assumption (made by the monster manuals) that you create a god by making it a level 30+ solo.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 15, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Perhaps.  Though what you consider "suffering", I consider mild discomfort and sometimes mild amusement over his constant grumbling about people to the point of absurdity.  He's told me how if he was in charge, he'd hold a lottery to kill off 80-90% of the population to get rid of the majority of people so he didn't have to worry about being around them all the time.
> 
> Then again, his schizophrenia manifests itself as paranoia most of the time.  He constantly thinks people are staring at him and out to get him.  Or at least he does when he isn't on medication.  I suspect, however, that the medication doesn't remove these feelings entirely, just lowers their intensity to the point where he feels that people are out to get him in small ways....like a DM ruling against him in a game.
> 
> I've gotten used to listening to his grumbling, laughing at it and moving on.




I well understand your affinity for your friend, your protection of him, and can appreciate your noble loyalty to him; it is a credit to you.  I've known and cared for multiple people with mood disorders (some drug-addiction induced) and mental disorders (including schizophrenics) and count many of the known in my intimate inner circle and family.  I know better than most what it is like to deal with them daily and have their issues/behaviors/conditions as an albatross around the neck.  I wouldn't debate you on the merits or demerits of having this Jim specifically in your life or at your gaming table.  You get to figure that out.  But generally, "Jims" thrust specific dynamics onto play at the table and as they have been introduced, they are open for discussion.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> At the risk of adding to the edition warring, I'd like to say that despite my love of 4e, it does have some issues.  Jim isn't the only one with that mindset towards the game.
> 
> <snip several examples>
> 
> ...




While I understand your position here, you're talking about something orthogonal to what I was citing; eg the use of someone with willful, belligerently destructive behavior (who self-professes social dysfunction, such as intentional game fun disruption as a goal because they themselves aren't having fun, and wears it as a badge of honor) as Evidence A that a ruleset is causal for a cited, insidious cultural problem.

Looking under the hood of a system with complex PC build rules, it is easy to see that they (any of them) would attract "puzzle-breakers" and "tinkerers/engineers" who like to create power-gaming monstrosities out of the complex synergies of the various (non-discrete) resources to see if they can create something powerful enough to "break the game."  That is in _their nature_.  If you give them a challenge that involves building something or taking something apart and putting it back together (especially if the challenge involves it being better than before), they revel in it.  The only way you avoid this is by (A) making all PC build tools extraordinarily limited and/or shallow, (B) making all PC build tools utterly discrete and non-stackable such that the siloing removes all possibility for 2nd and 3rd order synergies, (C) canvassing it clearly that you are playing a socially cooperative game and thematic archetype is paramount (and utterly power-gamed monstrosities, eg movement rate of 200 and a trail of 5 OG fire at your feet, are forbidden).  Most people don't want A.  4e does as much of B as possible (non-discrete feats and their interactions are the problem).  C is easily enough done with a group of mature people who are actually playing for the sake of the fun of the whole.  Again, if you have people at your table who "just want to watch the world burn" or people who just consider the game an opportunity for playing Calvinball or uber narcissists bent on unleashing their social dysfunction in a contained playground (such that it won't spill over into the real world), then you have much bigger problems than any ruleset.  You better have an assertive, alpha dog leader who can hem them in, or outright castrate them, or you can forget about a fun, rewarding, cooperative gaming experience.

There is exclusive territory carved out between _enable _and _promote_.  What's more, the fact that it enables while not promoting just clearly puts the ball in our court and expects us to put our big boy pants on.  I'm a "buyer beware" guy.  If we fail to put our big boy pants on (eg we don't make clear our collective table expectations and then enforce them or excise problem children), then that is on us.  4e makes it extremely difficult to create an unbalanced monstrosity.  You don't pick a class that says "wizard" or "druid" on the tin and the game goes wobbly merely be the pressing of that button.  You have to work the system, and hard (to create something such as the monstrosities above).  Anyone doing so is willfully working against the system to break it and would be willfully working against an explicit, social compact to not do so (which should be implicit...don't willfully work hard to "break stuff" or "don't ruin everyone's fun" is something that should be learned early on or you're going to have some problems normalizing to societal standards).  If they grumble and work to sow misery at the table thereafter (because they can't play their willful, destructive Calvinball in a cooperative RPG game), the decision to excise them is one that should not come as a surprise to them.

And we move onto the Encounter building "_guidelines_".  There is nowhere in any rulebook that says you must adhere to some specific format.  There is advice on what perturbing the system may create for pacing and expectant difficulty.  That is it.  

- DMG1 pages 56-57 talk about Spending your XP Budget and what standard (n-2), easy (n to n+1), hard (n+2 to n+4), and deadly (n+5 and beyond).  It goes on to talk about monsters below (PC level) n-4 being too easy while n+7 being too difficult and both being problematic for the basic Attack vs Defense math.

- DMG1 pages 104-105 elaborate on the above but not only don't forbid it, they talk about using deadly encounters (n+5 and beyond) or encounters with monsters of level n+8 and beyond and give explicit advice:  "_Use _such overpowering encounters with great care.  Players should enter the encounter with a clear sense of the danger they're facing, and have at least one good option for escaping with their lives, whether that's headlong flight or clever negotiation."  Of note; (A) It doesn't forbid as it explicitly says _use_ and it wouldn't be providing advice for forbidden techniques and (B) this is sound advice as it makes the math clear and basically warns against the use of the commonly understood cultural idiom of "rocks fail, you die".

- The same pages use the same logic (perturbation of the Attack vs Defense math) to warn against using Soldiers that are higher level than the PCs as it creates the well known "slog" as PCs percentage chance to hit them is very reduced (or extremely, depending on what n + is used) and they don't particularly threaten the PCs as they should only be used as melee controllers to protect more dangerous adversaries.

- And finally DMG2, pages 52-55 talk about Encounter and Attrition; primarily focused on Pacing.  It canvasses all of the various models for the adventuring day and then gives guidance on the Prohibition (its own section) of Extended Rests and that this is particularly useful for the invocation of attrition/horror themed gaming (which I have used aplenty).  It talks about how to accomplish this via plot device and rules systems;  Curses/Disease mechanics and Skill Challenge mechanics.


I don't know where these ideas that 4e advocates bounded, Delve (3 encounters or progressive difficulty only) format play only and forbids all other adventuring day formats and/or the introduction of deadly encounters meant to be dealt with outside of the scope of the combat mechanics...but this garbage needs to die.  Its flat out not true and its used only as a weapon in edition warring nonsense.  Allowing it to proliferate only serves those edition war ends.


----------



## Kelimar (Jun 15, 2013)

I think I need to look at the DMG 2 regarding attrition, it's a concept that has avoided my creative skills thus far and a source of frustration for me as well. But then that could have also been the setting I was using, I was trying to keep my campaign combat light as I found it both bogged down the game and ate up large portions of time which could be better used in the limited time I had to get my story across before I would have to wait another month to continue.


My problem with handicaping or shackling Power Gamers is that I don't have an absolutely huge player base to choose from, most of whom are my personal friends, and I'm uneager to possibly offend them by asking them to kindly stop making appearances for the game. I suspect that this wont be an issue with Fortune, as he was so upset by the last game that I don't think he will be returning, but I think it will be an issue with another friend of mine who is on the roster for my next ccampaign and is a notorious min maxer. I also find great difficulty of getting the concept across to said players that what they are doing is actively damaging the fun of the other players. They can't rationalize why someone WOULDN'T min max a character and simply view other characters who aren't power gamed as being poorly built. In my experience a power gamer asked to change characters due to their current one being unfair will either argue that said character isn't, or simply return the next week with another character broken in a different way.

thank you for the warm welcome btw, and I wasn't discouraged by the debating going on, considering they are simply online mirrors of what I've seen in real life.


----------



## Libramarian (Jun 16, 2013)

I think for some (maybe a lot) of players minmaxing and powergaming is just a symptom of a more general frustration with their lack of influence on the course of the game. The encounter "golden box" is the only place they have to demonstrate skillful+creative play so they come across as obsessed over the game math when really they're just bored and could become more engaged with the game in other ways if they were offered. The campaign described here has some interesting flavor elements but I get the sense that the players didn't have many opportunities to really change the narrative or make weighty, challenging decisions.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 16, 2013)

Starfox said:


> The OP admits Jim has issues. He is doing the best he can to be social, but because of psychological limitations he's not getting all the way. Jim does try - as showing up at all indicates.




Just because Jim has issues doesn't mean the rest of the group has to endure them.

That said, I get that Majoru and Jim are friends, and that MO stands by his friend. That's cool, and an admirable trait; that's what friends do.

What friends don't do is actively seek to ruin each others' fun. Which it sounds like Jim is perfectly happy to do. So I dunno; Jim doesn't sound like my kind of guy- I don't need to be around people who have to ruin other peoples' time to feel good- and I probably wouldn't let him in my campaign, but if he's friends with the group and he isn't as bad as he sounds and they don't mind him too much- well, okay, then.

I just have to point out, though, that you can be friends with him without gaming with him.



billd91 said:


> 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.




I agree with this, but again, if MO has been friends with him for a long time and is comfortable with it, he probably knows the risk level.

That said, I'd talk to him about this and say, "Look, man, that's not cool, it makes me uncomfortable, and I don't want to live with you if it continues." But that's me; having that deadpan death threat in my environment would make me unacceptably anxious. I wouldn't put up with it, but again, I'm reacting to all of this without having been Jim's friend for years.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 16, 2013)

Libramarian said:


> I think for some (maybe a lot) of players minmaxing and powergaming is just a symptom of a more general frustration with their lack of influence on the course of the game. The encounter "golden box" is the only place they have to demonstrate skillful+creative play so they come across as obsessed over the game math when really they're just bored and could become more engaged with the game in other ways if they were offered. The campaign described here has some interesting flavor elements but I get the sense that the players didn't have many opportunities to really change the narrative or make weighty, challenging decisions.




This is a key point here.  I was trying to make a distinction between powergaming generally and "disruptive, gross powergaming."  My players are all powergamers.  They all build to thematic archetype but definitively build for effectiveness within that archetype.  Gross powergaming is when folks build utter monstrosities with no consideration for the fiction; toys to destroy challenges played solely from pawn stance.  That doesn't even work well for a strictly Gamist creative agenda as it utterly circumvents the point of play; to step on up, face and defeat challenges.  If you create a powergamed monstrosity that (just an example) moves at 20 times the normal movement rate of the fastest creature and creates a zone of fire behind them that burns their enemies...well, there is no challenge to face and defeat.

Building for effectiveness (eg powergaming) within a thematic archetype is perfectly healthy for play (unless others grossly build in the opposite direction...and then considerable mental overhead is spent on balancing the math of challenges for such disparate power levels within a group).

Jim is not a powergamer.  The examples given above in MO's post (and the one I outlined) are examples of "disruptive, gross powergaming"; bringing silly, observably overpowered characters into play with a mind to "break the game."

To your point though, there is without a doubt a decent number of powergamers who were born from the era of railroaded games, GM suspension of action resolution mechanics in favor of maintaining sanctity of metaplot, "rocks fall, you die" and the like.  If they have no authority in the overarching narrative composition (eg decisions with only the illusion of meaning as metaplot will happen one way or another), then, after repeated exposure to the "All Roads Lead to Rome" technique, the evolved response to this may be to build "game-breaking" characters to forcibly impose their will upon the invincible metaplot in order to back GMs into a corner and expose the railroading machinery at work.


----------



## Kelimar (Jun 16, 2013)

In my experience power gamers almost always take it too far, and will do so regardless of how restrictive the campaign is. I don't really think there is a connection between how driven someone is to power game and how many options they have with directing the campaign. Personally I feel that power gaming is simply a play style, power gamers enjoy creating powerful characters so that's what they do.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2013)

Kelimar said:


> In my experience power gamers almost always take it too far, and will do so regardless of how restrictive the campaign is. I don't really think there is a connection between how driven someone is to power game and how many options they have with directing the campaign. Personally I feel that power gaming is simply a play style, power gamers enjoy creating powerful characters so that's what they do.




That's fair enough, although, I do disagree.  In my experience, many people who get labeled "power gamers" are simply cognizant of the math of the game and act within the rules to get the most bang for their buck.  Frequently, those who have no interest in the math behind the game only see the min/max element and start crying "power gamer BAD!" and presume that just because someone can make a competent character that they don't care anything about the story.

Heck, I've been accused of that a few times.  And it's always by players/DM's who have little or no interest in mechanics.  The last time, I had created a priest in 3e with an entire backstory (that I referenced often in game) goals (again, referenced nearly every session) and a fair bit of research (at least Wikipedia level) into Zoroastrianism to build a coherent faith for this character.

But, because I was a cleric in 3e, I was also prone to CoDzilla.  Not because I was deliberately breaking the game, but, because a cleric in 3e is a very potent character.  It's not difficult at all to make a cleric really shine.  Top tier class and all that.  But, I took cleric because that was what fit with the character (a priest of a fire god who burned the sinners), not because I wanted to break his game.

His game broke down because he did not take any time to actually sit down and learn the game.  "Oh, I only want to tell a good story" is great and all.  But, if that's what you want, then play a system that isn't chock a block with buttons and levers for the players to fiddle with.  Or, if you do, don't bitch when someone who actually takes the time to learn the rules, one shots your big bad guy because you couldn't be bothered.


----------



## Kelimar (Jun 17, 2013)

I have no complaint against players who build competent characters and wouldnt request that a player they handicap themselves or their character. However what I was trying to say was that the power gamers I have interacted with personally take building a character to a whole new level. These characters aren't simply competent their over powered. A good example would be a character that in fourth edition (not my campaign) could hand out so many defense buffs to his compatriots that the monsters literally couldn't roll high enough to hit them, on top of that that player (as well as the others who I consider to be "power gamers") has a strong tendency to when asked to make a new character because their current one is too overpowered, simply return the following session with a new equally overpowered character.

also I find a lot of players who hold this mindset are unable to grasp that what they are doing is not only making running the game frustrating for the DM, but also actively decreasing the amount of fun that their cohorts have in any given session by a) taking away the challenge and b) making everyone else feel very unimpressive. Such players I.M.E only really enjoy the game when they are playing the all star of the party and showing everyone else up.

that is where my complaints with power gamers are rooted.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 17, 2013)

It's worthing that one game group's powergamer is another group's slightly-unoptimized-pc.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 17, 2013)

Kelimar said:


> I fully admit my faults as a DM, in that I don't have a fantastic grasp of the mechanics of the engine we are using to run the game, and at times my on the fly decisions can go beyond the realm of "just outside the rules" straight into the land of "I just made this up".




Seriously, it sounds as if D&D is the wrong game for you. And of the D&Ds, 4e is the best of them for satisfying you. I'd recommend that for your next campaign you look at Fate Core or possibly even Apocalypse World.



> This is because I have had little in the way of motivation to read the library worth of play books which would be required to sufficiently satisfy Fortune in particular.




This makes no sense to me. The DM tools and the player tools are strictly separated - and other than the DMG/DMG2/DM Kit all you ever need to look at are monster manuals.



> My complaints with 4e are rooted in the dichotomy between my expectations and experiences with the system. My expectations are that I would like to run a campaign where the characters represent exceptionally talented individuals who are in no way super heroes much like how the main characters of the Lord of the Rings are. Whereas the engine itself encourages the "I'm a super hero" point of view.




It sounds as if you want heroic tier. Level 1-3 as a starting point and rising to level 10. Paragon tier gets slightly crazy - and each PC is about the equivalent of a platoon of skilled orcs (as opposed to 1 skilled orc at heroic). As a rule of thumb, in 4e character power doubles every 4 levels - in older editions it doubles every 2.



> I heavily dislike that the engine encourages high level players to combat gods,




I hope "Welcome to D&D" doesn't sound too snarky. Queen of the Demonweb Pits, combating Lolth, was an oD&D/1e module for levels 10-14 first released in 1979. Deities and Demigods (aka the monster manual for munchkins) was released in 1980. And lead to a lot of killed deities. D&D at high level does this. Feature rather than bug - but I've never run a game at epic tier in 4e which is where you'd have to get to to take on a god directly by the MM.



> The party combated the Demon and the combat was beginning to drag, the players had already wiped out all of the minions in the fight and were down to just going around the table beating on the demon who, as you may know had an excess of hit points due to his being a solo. I decided to have the goddess use the last of her power available in a last ditched attack against the demon, throwing a haphazard beam of energy out before dying.




Gngk. They errata'd the solo rules to fix this. But yes, it was a mistake in the system.



> Dm: (Thinking) damn I figured they would have more HP than that, they usually brush off mountains of damage




This is one of the design issues with 4e that's intended to encourage tension. Combat is set up with the idea that PCs shrug off damage by spending healing surges, so the damage they take looks a lot worse than it is. But to do this they need to actively spend the surges. Monsters on the other hand are set up to not have to do this to make the damage they've suffered look less than it is - and to prevent the DM having to faff around with healing surges. (3.X and Next are both designed with PC/NPC symmetry in mind). This asymmetry in 4e makes part of the job of the PCs to be able to rescue each other, and when someone goes down it's tense but not utterly overwhelming. A lot of the design goals in 4e revolve round the idea that some of the most exciting moments revolve round trying to prevent a pear shaped situation turning into a catastrophe (hence the three-strikes-and-out skill challenges and the scrabbling round to heal people). One-shotting someone in 4e (and it's slightly easier than it looks) goes against the entire design intent.

But of course they never put designers notes into the game. So it's not easy to spot that this is a problem (largely because no monster ever has the ability to one-shot a PC without multiple failed saves).



> We return to the room and Meva has a short discource with the party during which one member and an npc convert to her and she resurrects Bruuf and Fortune against their wills.




And here things IMO went truly off the rails.



Kelimar said:


> But then that could have also been the setting I was using, I was trying to keep my campaign combat light as I found it both bogged down the game and ate up large portions of time which could be better used in the limited time I had to get my story across before I would have to wait another month to continue.




Again, it sounds as if you want heroic tier. Preferably before 5th level as a starting point.



> I also find great difficulty of getting the concept across to said players that what they are doing is actively damaging the fun of the other players. They can't rationalize why someone WOULDN'T min max a character and simply view other characters who aren't power gamed as being poorly built.




D&D started off life as a hacked tabletop wargame in which the intention was to win. And this has remained true throughout the history of D&D - the object isn't to win against the other PCs, it's to overwhelm the opposition. D&D is set up to enable such play (with one of the main criticisms of 4e being that it's balanced - i.e. that it clamps down on power gaming). I think that you either want to be running low level 4e (where there is little room for power gaming - once you cross the level 11 threshold all bets are off) or to be running a different game entirely. (And Next doesn't qualify here).

A lot of games (4e is actually one of them) either balance the system meaning powergaming isn't such a problem or go gonzo and near-impossible to break. 



Kelimar said:


> also I find a lot of players who hold this mindset are unable to grasp that what they are doing is not only making running the game frustrating for the DM, but also actively decreasing the amount of fun that their cohorts have in any given session by a) taking away the challenge and b) making everyone else feel very unimpressive. Such players I.M.E only really enjoy the game when they are playing the all star of the party and showing everyone else up.
> 
> that is where my complaints with power gamers are rooted.




Again, this is a system problem not a player problem. Building a character is an art - although anyone can netbook a powerful character. And 3e in particular made character building into a game _in its own right_. When you tell someone who enjoys this type of game that their character is too powerful, it means they succeeded at a game that 3e encouraged massively and 4e didn't eliminate. By asking them to retire their character you've just told them _they won_. And they won at a fun game that was _intended by the designers_.

If you're playing a fairly well balanced game where this isn't encouraged (again I'm going to point you at Fate Core or Apocalypse World, but heroic tier 4e fits this mold pretty well) powergaming as a problem almost goes away.



> The whole campaign he was annoyed at nearly every NPC we met.




Sounds as if you have two _charming_ players.



Libramarian said:


> I think for some (maybe a lot) of players minmaxing and powergaming is just a symptom of a more general frustration with their lack of influence on the course of the game. The encounter "golden box" is the only place they have to demonstrate skillful+creative play so they come across as obsessed over the game math when really they're just bored and could become more engaged with the game in other ways if they were offered. The campaign described here has some interesting flavor elements but I get the sense that the players didn't have many opportunities to really change the narrative or make weighty, challenging decisions.




I strongly disagree with the idea that it's the encounter golden box that's the problem - see the 3.X strategic problems with barely restricted spellcasting. But yes, disruptive powergaming is often a response to DM storytelling. The players are there to engage with the world - and if the only way to engage with it is disrupt it rather than follow the DM's rails, that's what many do.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 17, 2013)

the Jester said:


> It's worthing that one game group's powergamer is another group's slightly-unoptimized-pc.



Indeed. That's why trying to forcibly legislate the same definition of balance for everyone is not a good idea. Good DMs find ways to involve and support everyone to the extent that is needed (or control them to the extent needed).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 17, 2013)

the Jester said:


> I just have to point out, though, that you can be friends with him without gaming with him.



That's debatable.  He lives with me and the only time he leaves his room is to eat and play D&D really.  If I didn't play D&D with him, I'd probably never see him.  We met at the D&D group I joined when I was 15.  That's pretty much what we've had in common since the beginning.  We used to also do movies and watch tv.  But since he has more free time than me, he's already watched all the shows before I even get off of work.  And recently he's decided that he refuses to go into public long enough to go to a movie.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 18, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Jim is not a powergamer.  The examples given above in MO's post (and the one I outlined) are examples of "disruptive, gross powergaming"; bringing silly, observably overpowered characters into play with a mind to "break the game."



He definitely doesn't see it as breaking the game.  He sees it as winning it.  If the goal of the game for him is to defeat monsters as quickly as possible while taking the least amount of damage as possible, then being able to lock down enemies so they can't fight back or killing them in one shot before they have a chance to act is the ultimate expression of the game, in his opinion.  If the designers of the game didn't want someone playing that way, then they certainly wouldn't allow those options or they'd errata them once they noticed the problem.  It isn't his fault that designers don't know how to properly balance a game.

He does not care about the fiction of the world beyond a thin veneer of caring.  The game for him starts when we roll for initiative and ends when combat is over.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more that statement seems slightly wrong.  He cares about WINNING the fiction as well.  Like in our last session of this campaign.  He decided to convince another whole army to help us defeat the demon.  But they were on another continent, so they couldn't help us in time.  So he created a teleportation circle on our ship so it would be mobile, then opened a portal to the other army when we got there.  He then used a Consult the Oracle scroll to ask what the rune sequence was for the Teleportation Circle that was located inside the Golden City.  After all(as he pointed out to the DM), the city was the seat of a large empire before it went missing.  Certainly, they had their own teleportation circle somewhere deep inside the city.  Consult the Oracle allows you to get any information ever possessed by anyone, so if someone ever knew it...he'd get the right answer.  Anyone with the rune sequence can open a portal to a Teleportation Circle.

So, we bypassed all of the guards and the opposing army between us and the city by teleporting passed them.

To him, this is considered winning.  The DM certainly had some encounters planned between us and the city.  It would only make the most sense.  If he bypasses those encounters, he's successfully beaten them...and in the process beat the DM by outsmarting him.

However, any time the plot doesn't have a clear path to "win", he stops paying any real attention to what's happening and waits for the next battle so he can use his cool combos again.



Manbearcat said:


> To your point though, there is without a doubt a decent number of powergamers who were born from the era of railroaded games, GM suspension of action resolution mechanics in favor of maintaining sanctity of metaplot, "rocks fall, you die" and the like.  If they have no authority in the overarching narrative composition (eg decisions with only the illusion of meaning as metaplot will happen one way or another), then, after repeated exposure to the "All Roads Lead to Rome" technique, the evolved response to this may be to build "game-breaking" characters to forcibly impose their will upon the invincible metaplot in order to back GMs into a corner and expose the railroading machinery at work.



In Jim's case, I doubt this is the case.  He just likes doing things that are unexpected.  In real life in addition to games.  People expect him to do things...so he says no to them.  People don't expect him to do things so he does them.  He likes being contrary.

He refuses to have a bank account, a drivers license or any other id because he doesn't want the government to have information about him.  While the government sends him monthly cheques for disability since he has a mental illness.  He takes his cheques to a Money Mart(instant cheque cashing place) that takes like 15% of the cheque as a processing free.  When pointed out that if he had a bank account, he'd have more money and they already have all his information in order to be able to send him cheques in the first place he says he doesn't care.  He's set his mind to the rule "I'll never have a bank account" and refuses to give up on the notion.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Indeed. That's why trying to forcibly legislate the same definition of balance for everyone is not a good idea. Good DMs find ways to involve and support everyone to the extent that is needed (or control them to the extent needed).




But, that's not what balance is.  Balance has nothing to do with players and never has.  Balance is between options within the game.  Well balanced games make it more difficult to break the system, but, that's a bonus.  The point of well balanced systems is to allow more viable choices for players.

If option A is measurably better than option B, then most people will take A, not because they are power gamers or out to break the system, but, because A is better than B.

This is fundamental to any game design.  Trying to ignore balance gives us systems like RIFTS.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 18, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, that's not what balance is.  Balance has nothing to do with players and never has.  Balance is between options within the game.  Well balanced games make it more difficult to break the system, but, that's a bonus.  The point of well balanced systems is to allow more viable choices for players.




That's only one possible definition for balance. But balance also may be about balance between players and how they are kept in relatively equal importance for the ongoing story rather than purely mechanical options. In fact, it's probably the single most important definition of balance for an RPG.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 18, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> The only way you avoid this is by (A) making all PC build tools extraordinarily limited and/or shallow, (B) making all PC build tools utterly discrete and non-stackable such that the siloing removes all possibility for 2nd and 3rd order synergies, (C) canvassing it clearly that you are playing a socially cooperative game and thematic archetype is paramount (and utterly power-gamed monstrosities, eg movement rate of 200 and a trail of 5 OG fire at your feet, are forbidden).



I agree and came to the same conclusion myself.  Which is why I liked 4e so much.  It attempted a bit of A and a lot of B to solve the problems I had with 3.5e and create a system where I didn't have to micromanage character creation to have what I considered an interesting game while having Jim around.

However, over time, Jim got frustrated by his character being relatively equal to everyone else in the group and started poking at the edges of the rules.  He'd look for ANY feats or powers that gave untyped bonuses to try to stack them.  As books came out they printed more and more of these.  Add to that Hybrid characters and weird interactions because you are a member of two(or three classes) and therefore qualify for feats that weren't designed for your class and you have the makings of rather broken things.

I remember one of my biggest arguments with Jim was over a feat that let you knock down enemies when you hit them with a polearm.  He decided to be a Wizard who multiclassed into fighter to qualify for the feat.  Then he made a polearm into an arcane implement.  He then wanted to knock everyone in an AOE prone when he "hit them with his polearm".  It should be noted that he had some other feat that let him do extra damage to enemies whenever he knocked them prone.  I suggested that although the letter of the feat said "Whenever to hit someone with a polearm" that it was never meant to be applied to spells that were channeled through a polearm.  Plus, the feat that does extra damage to people you knock prone appeared to be, fiction wise, about you throwing them to the ground roughly and stepping on their face, doing more damage.  It didn't specifically say that it wasn't supposed to be used with spells that knocked people prone...but the flavor of it didn't appear to be compatible.  I agreed to allow the prone feat but that I was officially errataing the polearm feat to only apply to weapon attacks.

He got rather mad at me, telling me that I was trying to change the rules simply because I didn't like them.  That he had found a perfectly legitimate character and I was trying to prevent him from playing it.

Which is why we started resorting to option C instead.  I explained to him that from now on, we were going to only allow characters that I considered balanced for the fun of everyone and that he should try to build within that philosophy.  He agreed that it was for the best.  Then proceeded to create a string of characters that were "perfectly balanced, like you asked me to" but were clearly more powerful than everyone else in the group by far.  I kept disallowing them over and over again.  Each time he insisted they weren't overpowered.  We jointly agreed that while the rules allowed him to create broken characters, he would continue to do so.

That's when I had to rule that no one could take Hybrid as an option and that you ONLY qualified for feats with your primary class.  Being multiclassed into another class didn't make you considered that class for purposes of acquiring feats.  That seemed to allow him to make normal characters(though, still very powerful).  The only problem is another one of our friends(Ryan) managed to work within my new rules and still create a character who hit on a 2 90% of the time and needed 18s to hit by most monsters of his level.

It got me so frustrated that when the D&D Next playtest came out, I suggested we play that instead.  So far it's working pretty well.  The system doesn't have enough options to allow super power gaming.  Which suits me fine.  However, both Jim and Ryan have been complaining about their lack of options an inability to make the characters they want since our playtest started.  They keep playing but they point out that if things don't change by the time the game is released, they don't want to play D&D Next.  Each playtest that comes out they scour it for new options and powergaming potential.  At the moment they've both decided that Druid is overpowered and they are fine playing it.  Ryan was also invited to another group(without the rest of us) who plays Pathfinder and he thinks it's pretty awesome since it gives him so many options.



Manbearcat said:


> Anyone doing so is willfully working against the system to break it and would be willfully working against an explicit, social compact to not do so (which should be implicit...don't willfully work hard to "break stuff" or "don't ruin everyone's fun" is something that should be learned early on or you're going to have some problems normalizing to societal standards).  If they grumble and work to sow misery at the table thereafter (because they can't play their willful, destructive Calvinball in a cooperative RPG game), the decision to excise them is one that should not come as a surprise to them.



The problem is, that it appears to be so ingrained in their mindset that this is the "proper" way to play the game that they are incapable of knowing when it is causing problems.  Jim made a series of characters in my games that we was CONVINCED were not broken or abusive.  Then, they proceeded to be broken and abusive.  A couple of them he actually decided to retire himself after once session because he "had no idea it was going to be that powerful when he created it."

He tries to work with me...but, he doesn't seem to understand what broken means.


Manbearcat said:


> And we move onto the Encounter building "_guidelines_".  There is nowhere in any rulebook that says you must adhere to some specific format.  There is advice on what perturbing the system may create for pacing and expectant difficulty.  That is it.



That's correct.  Jim considers all guidelines to be rules that should only be broken with absolute system mastery and extenuating circumstances.  Basically, if the DM doesn't know the rules as well as he does, then they can't be trusted to go beyond guidelines.  Plus, even if they do know the rules as well as he does, they should know that those guidelines exist for a reason...to make the game the most fun.  Going beyond them means you are purposefully making the game no fun and are being vindictive to your players.



Manbearcat said:


> I don't know where these ideas that 4e advocates bounded, Delve (3 encounters or progressive difficulty only) format play only and forbids all other adventuring day formats and/or the introduction of deadly encounters meant to be dealt with outside of the scope of the combat mechanics...but this garbage needs to die.  Its flat out not true and its used only as a weapon in edition warring nonsense.  Allowing it to proliferate only serves those edition war ends.



I can tell you where my ideas come from.  It's from when I sat in a room with Mike Mearls and...crap, forgetting the name of the manager of R&D at the time.  Since I volunteered to be an admin for Living Forgotten Realms, I got a session for about 10 of us who were available to teach us about 4e(this was before it came out).  We were running the 4e preview at D&D Experience and they wanted us to get a good handle on how to run 4e properly and proper adventure design for when we'd eventually have to write LFR adventures.

Basically, were told that 4e was designed to have 3 or 4 encounters in a day.  It wasn't recommended to write any adventure where the PCs fought less than that during a day(and was actually a rule for LFR adventure writing.  No less than 2 combat encounters, preferably on the same day or there would be no challenge) since there wouldn't be enough damage to cause the attrition necessary to threaten the PCs.  You could use more powerful encounters but since level directly affected the enemies defenses, bonuses to hit, damage, and hitpoints at the same time that adding levels added exponential difficulty.  After about 5-7 levels you will slaughter the PCs.  Though, they were surprised at just how many levels you could add without killing the entire party but were still testing internally to see how high you could go safely.  You also couldn't have too many more encounters in a day because healing surges would limit the PCs survivability.

The idea was that each adventuring day consisted of 3-4 encounters with a number of monsters equal to the number of players whose levels were within 5 of the PCs.  And after each encounter they got a short rest.  This was absolutely vital to playing 4e and making it fun.  They pointed out that the preview adventure that we were running didn't have logical points for short rests and the monsters were in rooms that were 30 feet away from the other monsters but we were absolutely not supposed to have 2 encounters attack the PCs at once, because it would be a TPK for sure.  We were also supposed to give the PCs five minutes of time to rest between encounters even though it made sense that the next encounter might attack them while they were resting because the game was designed assuming encounter powers were available every encounter.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 18, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> D&D started off life as a hacked tabletop wargame in which the intention was to win. And this has remained true throughout the history of D&D - the object isn't to win against the other PCs, it's to overwhelm the opposition. D&D is set up to enable such play (with one of the main criticisms of 4e being that it's balanced - i.e. that it clamps down on power gaming). I think that you either want to be running low level 4e (where there is little room for power gaming - once you cross the level 11 threshold all bets are off) or to be running a different game entirely. (And Next doesn't qualify here).



I'm curious why you think Next doesn't qualify here.

So far, it's fixed my powergaming issues with Jim and Ryan, our 2 resident power gamers.  The system gives them few enough options that they can't find anything TRULY broken.  They may be slightly more powerful.  But I found that with combat taking only 15 minutes instead of 90-120 minutes that the focus of the game has been less on combat and more on the rest of the game.  So, even if they completely overpower an encounter and finish it in 5 minutes instead of 15, that it's not a big deal.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 18, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, that's not what balance is.  Balance has nothing to do with players and never has.  Balance is between options within the game.



That's one, very simplistic definition of balance. I sincerely hope you are the only one using it.



> If option A is measurably better than option B, then most people will take A, not because they are power gamers or out to break the system, but, because A is better than B.



Given that there are no defined outcomes (i.e. no winning and losing), and most of the options cannot be measured in any meaningful way, this is rarely an appropriate way of framing the issue.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 18, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'm curious why you think Next doesn't qualify here.




It doesn't qualify as a different game entirely   It's still a hacked tabletop wargame.  Just at present not too badly broken.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 18, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, that's not what balance is.  Balance has nothing to do with players and never has.  Balance is between options within the game.  Well balanced games make it more difficult to break the system, but, that's a bonus.  The point of well balanced systems is to allow more viable choices for players.



I propose that this is a limit on the number of viable choices.  At a certain point it is impossible to balance options and therefore one will ALWAYS be more powerful.  The only way to guarantee balance is to limit options.  Which causes the problem where people get angry because their options are too limited.  It's a circle that just keeps repeating itself.


Hussar said:


> If option A is measurably better than option B, then most people will take A, not because they are power gamers or out to break the system, but, because A is better than B.



I completely agree, however, the problem I've found is that powergaming has 4 tiers:
1) I took this feat because I like bows and I want to be able to shoot far, that sounds awesome.  It gives me +2 to hit when I have an ally next to them.  I didn't look at the rest of the feats since that sounds exactly like the thing I wanted.
2) I took this feat because it gives me a +2 bonus to hit with bows as opposed to this feat that gives +2 bonus to hit with bows only while I have an ally next to the enemy because it's better to have a bonus constantly than only sometimes.  Next level I'll take something non-bow related since I want my character to be rounded like a real person an not just focused on one thing.
3) I will take both the feats.  If +2 to hit is good, +4 is better.
4) I will take both the feats, then I'll take this paragon path that let's me declare a square as occupied for purposes of my feats to guarantee +4 all the time.  Then I'll muticlass into rogue so I qualify for a feat that allows me to apply my sneak attack on attacks if an ally is adjacent to the enemy.  Also, this feat lets me consider an enemy flanked if one of my allies is beside it, giving me another +2 to hit.  Then I will use this power that makes an AOE bow attack.  The feat doesn't specify how many people I'm allowed to declare have a person adjacent to...it just says "the target".  I'll assume that means all of them in an AOE.

The real problem with balancing based on "is A or B better" is that it almost always fails to address option C that the designer didn't even consider an option.


Hussar said:


> This is fundamental to any game design.  Trying to ignore balance gives us systems like RIFTS.



On one hand, Rifts is precisely that example.  On the other hand, ignoring balance meant that it often didn't matter.  No one went into a battle in Rifts thinking their Street Rat was going to be as effective as the Dragon.  They knew they were playing the non-combat character and would be bad in combat.

Not that I agree with that philosophy, but there were quite a few less balance arguments in our Rifts game than in our 4e D&D game.  Because everything is balanced so well, the options that aren't become a point of contention.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 18, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> That's debatable.  He lives with me and the only time he leaves his room is to eat and play D&D really.  If I didn't play D&D with him, I'd probably never see him.  We met at the D&D group I joined when I was 15.  That's pretty much what we've had in common since the beginning.  We used to also do movies and watch tv.  But since he has more free time than me, he's already watched all the shows before I even get off of work.  And recently he's decided that he refuses to go into public long enough to go to a movie.




You make it sound like you have all the responsibility for maintaining your friendship with Jim. May I suggest that if he isn't willing to put any effort into that friendship, it may be more of a one-sided relationship than you realize? I'm not trying to disrupt your friendship with him, but the more you describe him, the less he sounds like a friend and the more he sounds like a crazy housemate who wants his tastes catered to and screw the rest of you. He really ought to be willing to do SOMETHING to make things better or to maintain your guys' friendship.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2013)

billd91 said:


> That's only one possible definition for balance. But balance also may be about balance between players and how they are kept in relatively equal importance for the ongoing story rather than purely mechanical options. In fact, it's probably the single most important definition of balance for an RPG.




But, game mechanics cannot maintain balance between players.  That's impossible.  If you have played a game for years, and I'm just sitting down for the first time, there is no balance between us and no way for the rules to create that balance.  

Your definition of balance makes no sense.  RPG's cannot possibly balance this way and never could.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> That's one, very simplistic definition of balance. I sincerely hope you are the only one using it.
> 
> Given that there are no defined outcomes (i.e. no winning and losing), and most of the options cannot be measured in any meaningful way, this is rarely an appropriate way of framing the issue.




Umm, no?

Two feats for using swords.  One feat gives you +4 to hit.  The other gives you +2.  Balanced?  I don't think so.  

Two weapon specialization in 2e.  Lose 1 point of AC (no shield) to double your damage output per round.  Balanced?  Not even close.  Which meant that anyone who could, took two weapon fighting in 2e.  Not taking it was deliberately handicapping yourself.

Virtually every mechanic can be measured in a meaningful way.  That's why they're math and not just vague qualifiers.  With math, you can most certainly measure things.


----------



## Kelimar (Jun 18, 2013)

I enjoy 5e (I don't know why they called it Next) because of how limited it is, though I understand that options and unbalancing will come with time as they have with every edition thus far. Another thing I really like about 5th edition is, as Majoru stated its de-emphasis of combat. Thus far I have seen that combat takes a short period of time to run through, allowing for both multiple combats in a session and for extensive RP options to exist simultaneously in one session. Something which in my experience both DMing and playing was difficult to achieve in 4e.

The examples and arguments against power gaming that Majoru stated were what I was trying to get across. For example I had a debate fairly recently with one of those players regarding my use of a Dex based offhand weapon on my strength based warrior. I had chosen the weapon for flavor sacrificing the damage because I wanted m character to have a certain feel, (using a long sword in his main hand and a Katar, which we had house ruled to use dagger stats as katars don't as yet exist in 5th in his offhand) the player in question simply couldn't grasp why I would chose a weapon my character wasn't built to use when other options were available. Often in my experience power gamers don't view their opinions as being disruptive to the other players, they simply view building the absolute best character the rules allow to be the proper way to play, regardless of how much more powerful their character is in comparison to those of others around the table.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 18, 2013)

Hussar said:


> RPG's cannot possibly balance this way and never could.




And that's why mechanical balance will always be secondary to the referee balancing player interests, focus time, and attention at the table.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 18, 2013)

the Jester said:


> He really ought to be willing to do SOMETHING to make things better or to maintain your guys' friendship.



He used to be.  My gf moved in with us and I think he's bitter about the fact that I now go see most movies with her.

Plus, he used to spend all his time downstairs sleeping on my couch so I couldn't do anything in my living room without waking him up.  Or when he wasn't sleeping, he'd be watching tv in there.  I couldn't spend any alone time with my gf because he didn't have a job.  So he was there, 24 hours a day pretty much.

I yelled at him and told him he was only allowed to be in the living room when I was and I had to invite him first, he wasn't allowed to just walk in and sit down.  Ever since he's been kind of stand offish.  He still comes downstairs once every 2 days or so to tell me about some video game that he's enjoying playing....and I mean, telling me every single detail of it.  Then when I change the topic to something else he leaves and goes back upstairs.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 18, 2013)

Kelimar said:


> For example I had a debate fairly recently with one of those players regarding my use of a Dex based offhand weapon on my strength based warrior. I had chosen the weapon for flavor sacrificing the damage because I wanted m character to have a certain feel, (using a long sword in his main hand and a Katar, which we had house ruled to use dagger stats as katars don't as yet exist in 5th in his offhand) the player in question simply couldn't grasp why I would chose a weapon my character wasn't built to use when other options were available.



Don't worry, I can't grasp it either.  There's basically no reason at all for you to use a katar in your offhand except for some strange desire to use one.

There are certain times when role playing choices make sense to me.  I've argued that this whole thread.  There are other times when you are just gimping yourself on purpose.  There are a bunch of weapons with similar flavor to the Katar that would do a lot more damage.

It's times like this that I always ask people "So, imagine you go right before the enemy.  You attack and you bring them down to 2 hp.  They go and kill one of your allies...or you.  Was it worth it to make that roleplaying choice?  Do you think your character would have chosen a weapon they were bad at over one they were good at knowing that there were life or death stakes?"


----------



## Kelimar (Jun 18, 2013)

There aren't really a plethora of other weapons which have a similar flavor to a Katar and aren't dex based.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 18, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, that's not what balance is.  Balance has nothing to do with players and never has.  Balance is between options within the game.






Ahnehnois said:


> That's one, very simplistic definition of balance. I sincerely hope you are the only one using it.
> 
> Given that there are no defined outcomes (i.e. no winning and losing), and most of the options cannot be measured in any meaningful way, this is rarely an appropriate way of framing the issue.






Neonchameleon said:


> It's [DnD] still a hacked tabletop wargame.




Though it was probably not intentional, I feel Neonchameleon answered Ahnehnois's rhetorical question very deftly here - in so many ways DnD is still a tactical wargame hidden inside the framework of a story. Something I quite like, as it lets me combine two aspects of my interest - storytelling and solving tactical situations.

In the tactical wargame aspect of the game, there most certainly exists the kind of balance Hussar is talking about. You can have two similar options, of which one is clearly superior. For an example, compare Enlarge Spell and Reach Spell in Pathfinder - Reach Spell is clearly superior in all cases as it does all Reach Spell does and better, in addition to offering more options. This is the kind of balance Hussar is talking about, game balance.

In the story part of the game, balance is very different, if it can be defined it all. This makes talking about balance in the above meaning rather meaningless in the story part. In the story part, "balance" has to do with camera time, plot relevance, and ability to engage the other players. Which in DnD is entirely up to the acting ability of the DM and each player, with a nod to the character's social skills and Charisma. For an attempt at balancing the story part of the game, check out Robin D. Laws' Hillfolk on kickstarter. Talking about this kind of balance in a DnD thread is to talk latin in greek class - it is not wrong, but beside the point. People will not understand you unless you translate into terms they can accept.

We really need two different words for these kinds of balance. Maybe simply game-balance and story-balance?


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 18, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Though it was probably not intentional, I feel Neonchameleon answered Ahnehnois's rhetorical question very deftly here - in so many ways DnD is still a tactical wargame hidden inside the framework of a story. Something I quite like, as it lets me combine two aspects of my interest - storytelling and solving tactical situations.
> 
> In the tactical wargame aspect of the game, there most certainly exists the kind of balance Hussar is talking about. You can have two similar options, of which one is clearly superior. For an example, compare Enlarge Spell and Reach Spell in Pathfinder - Enlarge Spell is clearly superior in all cases as it does all Reach Spell does and better, in addition to offering more options. This is the kind of balance Hussar is talking about, game balance.
> 
> ...




Let's not forget narrative-balance between Player and DM (which is different than the story-balance between players that is being discussed). That seems to be ignored in D&D (although it's existed to a limited degree with casters in 1e-3e and to a larger degree in 4e with powers and rituals) but is making a push in the indie scene (although I find that the indie scene doesn't have enough focus on game-balance and story-balance).


----------



## innerdude (Jun 18, 2013)

There's a real argument to be made, however, that "game balance" is in some cases a forebear to "narrative balance" and "story balance." Which is, if I'm reading 4e players correctly, the strongest argument to be made about 4e as a whole --- "The 'game' is balanced between classes, particularly in combat, and therefore is able to better support narrative balance and story balance, because the mechanics drive the players into more equitable situations at the table where their involvement matters."

This is certainly a valid outlook, though in my experience, there are lots of ways of creating Narrative/Story balance through social contract in addition to the mechanics. My characters in Savage Worlds have decidedly different capabilities in combat, but none of them have ever felt "useless" in any situation . . . but then again, Savage Worlds isn't class-based, and mechanically doesn't go as "deep" in character ability. Even a character with a d12 skill in Savage Worlds (the highest possible) is probably equivalent to a character with a +12 in D&D. Sure, it's obvious that the character is good at it, but not wildly out of balance with a character with a d4 in the same skill.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 18, 2013)

innerdude said:


> There's a real argument to be made, however, that "game balance" is in some cases a forebear to "narrative balance" and "story balance." Which is, if I'm reading 4e players correctly, the strongest argument to be made about 4e as a whole --- "The 'game' is balanced between classes, particularly in combat, and therefore is able to better support narrative balance and story balance, because the mechanics drive the players into more equitable situations at the table where their involvement matters."
> 
> This is certainly a valid outlook, though in my experience, there are lots of ways of creating Narrative/Story balance through social contract in addition to the mechanics.




While this is true, it's worth noting that creating balance via social contract is a lot less reliable than having a system impose balance from above, as it were; the social contract relies on the entire group not only agreeing on it, but all perceiving it in roughly the same way and acting in good faith. While this is easy-peasy for many groups, others aren't so lucky; many of them have "that one guy" in them, and he can't be relied upon to behave.

(Of course, that's a deeper problem anyway...)


----------



## Starfox (Jun 18, 2013)

Post deleted by author - I was in the wrong thread


----------



## Starfox (Jun 18, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Don't worry, I can't grasp it either.  There's basically no reason at all for you to use a katar in your offhand except for some strange desire to use one.




<Tangent>
Now, a rule saying your off-hand weapon has to be Dex based might help balance two weapon fighting in Next.
</Tangent>


----------



## billd91 (Jun 18, 2013)

Starfox said:


> <Tangent>
> Now, a rule saying your off-hand weapon has to be Dex based might help balance two weapon fighting in Next.
> </Tangent>




Light should be appropriate, in no small part because finesse weapons allow the wielder to choose whether to use Dex or Str as the modifying stat in D&D Next.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 18, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Something I quite like, as it lets me combine two aspects of my interest - storytelling and solving tactical situations.



I agree, and I suspect a diverse bunch of others would as well.



> We really need two different words for these kinds of balance. Maybe simply game-balance and story-balance?



Much as I appreciate the intent, I don't think that covers it. There are lots of different kinds of balance.

First off, even if you're looking in a very reductionistic manner at game balance, mechanical elements are still too diverse to be characterized independent of context. Is it better, for example, to spend your feat on Skill Focus or Weapon Focus? It depends. It depends on whether you are likely to be able to acquire a good version of the specific weapon. It depends on how many attack rolls you are likely to roll, how likely they are to hit, and on a variety of other factors related to the difficulty of combat. It depends on what skill the Skill focus is for, how often it is likely to be rolled, what the DCs are, how useful the skill is likely to be...and a lot more. Most of which is decided by the DM. In one campaign, Weapon Focus (Longsword) might be close to the best feat available. In another, Skill Focus (Spot) might rule the day. You cannot tell which feat is better just by looking at the rules, no matter how knowledgeable you are or how hard you look. There are only very rare cases where one particular option is unambiguously better than the other, usually in different publications that are not cross-referenced very well.

And that only become more true when you start looking at mechanical elements as complex as classes. You can certainly make some subjective judgments, but there is no definitive answer in any rpg that I'm aware of as to which one is the best.

When you start throwing other approaches to balance out there, the picture only gets more complicated.


----------



## innerdude (Jun 18, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Even if you're looking in a very reductionistic manner at game balance, mechanical elements are still too diverse to be characterized independent of context.
> 
> ..SNIP..
> 
> ...




Which is why to my knowledge, all of 4e's "balance" is based purely on COMBAT effectiveness, which is predicated on the ENCOUNTER as being the primary locus of action resolution, which assumes a DEFAULT LEVEL of combat activity per encounter (assuming we're not running a skill challenge). 

When people say 4e is really great at what it does, it's because it's true---it's VERY good at generating relatively stable balance for combat effectiveness within encounter-based resolution. There's very few people, even 4e detractors, that disagree that when it comes to relative combat balance, 4e didn't succeed in its intent (it's the side effects of reaching that goal that they disagree with).


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 18, 2013)

innerdude said:


> Which is why to my knowledge, all of 4e's "balance" is based purely on COMBAT effectiveness, which is predicated on the ENCOUNTER as being the primary locus of action resolution, which assumes a DEFAULT LEVEL of combat activity per encounter (assuming we're not running a skill challenge).



None of which are assumptions that necessarily reflect how the game is played. After all, there is combat, but it certainly isn't the only thing or the only meaningful thing, and the default level of challenge is itself subjective and not necessarily used. And indeed, one of ENW's notable metathreads of the past five years was when some WotC person stated that D&D was "about" combat, and the majority (at ENW) rejected that notion (albeit not without a boatload of debate).

And, if you're looking at balance _problems_ that get traction, they're very often related to noncombat situations, and unbalanced characters are often problematic outside of combat (or through their ability to avoid or countermand battles) rather than for their ability to directly win battles.



> There's very few people, even 4e detractors, that disagree that when it comes to relative combat balance, 4e didn't succeed in its intent (it's the side effects of reaching that goal that they disagree with).



I do. Don't know how many people hold any particular opinion one way or the other, but I'm not convinced that it's better or even as good as the previous versions of D&D, even if you consider only the comparative effectiveness of different player characters in overcoming combat encounters based on the recommended encounter building guidelines. I do, on the other hand, agree that the "side effects" are where most people's objections are, but I've never been convinced that anything was gained.

If I wanted tactically engaging and balanced combat, I wouldn't look to D&D in general, and definitely not there.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2013)

billd91 said:


> And that's why mechanical balance will always be secondary to the referee balancing player interests, focus time, and attention at the table.




But, that's not what's being talked about when we talk about game balance. 

Game balance has nothing whatsoever to do with the players.  It's about mechanics.  The only people who argue otherwise are simply trying to cloud the issue.  And, again, I've never quite understood why.  Mechanical balance is better design.  Mechanical imbalance leads to bad games.  Every single time.  

Balancing player interests, focus time and attention at the table is not, and has never been, any part of game balance.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> /snip
> 
> Is it better, for example, to spend your feat on Skill Focus or Weapon Focus? It depends. It depends on whether you are likely to be able to acquire a good version of the specific weapon. It depends on how many attack rolls you are likely to roll, how likely they are to hit, and on a variety of other factors related to the difficulty of combat. It depends on what skill the Skill focus is for, how often it is likely to be rolled, what the DCs are, how useful the skill is likely to be...and a lot more. Most of which is decided by the DM. In one campaign, Weapon Focus (Longsword) might be close to the best feat available. In another, Skill Focus (Spot) might rule the day. You cannot tell which feat is better just by looking at the rules, no matter how knowledgeable you are or how hard you look. There are only very rare cases where one particular option is unambiguously better than the other, usually in different publications that are not cross-referenced very well.
> 
> /snip




Of course you can.  In a balanced campaign, one which features equal amounts of combat and exploration and interaction (the three pillars if you will) then neither feat will be measurably better than another.  You will get pretty much equal traction out of either feat.  If the game leans more heavily on combat, then weapon focus is likely better, in that specific situation, which is actually outside the baseline presumptions of the game in the first place.

However, your second point that one option is "unambiguously better than the other" betrays a pretty stark lack of knowledge of gaming systems.  Two Weapon fighting in 2e is flat out better than any other fighting style.  Longswords in 1e were flat out better than any other weapon - virtually all magic weapons will be longswords, the damage dice and the weapon vs armor charts make longswords flat out better than any other weapon.  And that's right in the PHB.  

Clerics in 3e are easily better than monks.  In virtually any situation and certainly over the course of a campaign, a cleric will shine far more than a monk.  It attacks better, does more damage, has way more options and is better out of combat as well.  There's nothing a monk can do that a cleric can't do better.  Never minding Druids.  There's a reason people talk about CoDzilla.  And, if you don't believe me, we'll take two groups through any module you care to name - my group is 3 clerics and a druid, your group is 4 monks, and we'll see who gets further.

Trying to whitewash balance issues by pushing it off onto individual DM's is the reason why so many games fail.  Many DM's, particularly starting ones, don't have the experience to know how to fix the broken systems.  So, you get someone like me, who is interested in the nuts and bolts of gaming systems, sitting down at different tables, and the DM throws up their hands crying, "Hussar is a bad powergamer, his character just steamrolled over my encounter" when all I've done is pull stuff straight out of the PHB.  I mean, I mentioned one DM crying powergamer earlier, when my cleric had two levels of half-elemental.  Yeah, I'm a powergamer for taking off class levels in something that granted me fire resistance and the ability to cast burning hands a couple of times a day.  Ooooh...

But, that's my point.  IME, people who claim that game balance doesn't matter, or is less important than "DM balance" have very a very poor grasp on mechanics and are quickly overwhelmed by players who actually take the time to read the rules.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 19, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, that's not what's being talked about when we talk about game balance.
> 
> Game balance has nothing whatsoever to do with the players.  It's about mechanics.  The only people who argue otherwise are simply trying to cloud the issue.  And, again, I've never quite understood why.  Mechanical balance is better design.  Mechanical imbalance leads to bad games.  Every single time.
> 
> Balancing player interests, focus time and attention at the table is not, and has never been, any part of game balance.




Mechanical balance may be what you're talking about, but it's a very narrow-minded and myopic approach to gaming and game design, particularly in role-playing game design in which the overall macro-level experience is more important than micro-level mechanics.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 19, 2013)

Hussar said:


> In a balanced campaign



Wait, there are balanced campaigns, now? What?



> Two Weapon fighting in 2e is flat out better than any other fighting style.



Unless you, you know, take into account the difficult of acquiring two good weapons, or the value of a shield. I mean, it may be good, even too good, but not to the extent you're getting at.



> Longswords in 1e were flat out better than any other weapon - virtually all magic weapons will be longswords, the damage dice and the weapon vs armor charts make longswords flat out better than any other weapon.  And that's right in the PHB.



Weapons, being very explicit in their statistics and function, can occasionally be the exceptions that do meet the criteria for "unambiguously better". However, their impact is usually pretty small. And even in this case, I think it's implicitly clear that this was a conscious decision made for a defensible reason (to encourage the use of a classic weapon, or to simulate the utility of that weapon compared to some more esoteric and less useful ones). After all, all weapon choices are not perfectly balanced in real life, nor in fiction, so why would they be in a roleplaying game?



> Clerics in 3e are easily better than monks.



Unless you, you know, need to make a ref save. Or get stripped of your items. Or need to get somewhere quickly. Or the DM and the player actually play out some roleplaying requirements for maintaining the cleric's faith (and your powers). Or the cleric is hunted by powerful enemies because of his faith. Personally, I do think monks pretty clearly need the boost to full BAB, but even this extreme example isn't true all the time. Clerics are _generally_ a little bit better than monks, but that doesn't mean the rules need to be rewritten to change that.



> Trying to whitewash balance issues by pushing it off onto individual DM's is the reason why so many games fail.  Many DM's, particularly starting ones, don't have the experience to know how to fix the broken systems.



Of course they don't. Where do you think that experience comes from?

Trying to "whitewash" the individualized, creative, open-ended nature of the game is why people don't start games in the first place. And, as with most anything in life, if you aren't willing to risk making mistakes, you won't accomplish much either.

Personally, I've had the experience. I've had (if only rarely) players that made genuinely unbalanced characters. I've made one myself. And in no case would "balancing" the rules have fixed the issue, nor did I try to avoid responsibility for the quality of my game.



> But, that's my point.  IME, people who claim that game balance doesn't matter, or is less important than "DM balance" have very a very poor grasp on mechanics and are quickly overwhelmed by players who actually take the time to read the rules.



Um, I'm not.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Mechanical balance may be what you're talking about, but it's a very narrow-minded and myopic approach to gaming and game design, particularly in role-playing game design in which the overall macro-level experience is more important than micro-level mechanics.




Well, you're free to believe that.  But, pushing off game mechanics design onto the DM is lazy game design AFAIC.  Mechanics, lead to the macro level experience.  Bad mechanics, unbalanced mechanics, result in poor overall macro-level experiences.  So, no, I do not think that macro-level experience is more important.  Get the details right in the first place, and everything else falls into place.

The hobby is littered with poorly designed games based on what you are advocating.  Without robust, balanced mechanics in the first place, these games will continue to litter the hobby.



Ahnehnois said:


> Wait, there are balanced campaigns, now? What?




Please try not to be deliberately obtuse when reading.  By balanced, in this sense, which I actually go on to explain, it means that equal amounts of time are spent on the three pillars of the game.  But, sure, feel free to play silly bugger pedantic games if you think it will help.



> Unless you, you know, take into account the difficult of acquiring two good weapons, or the value of a shield. I mean, it may be good, even too good, but not to the extent you're getting at.




Yes, because it would be so difficult to find a longsword and a short sword.  The value of a shield is +1 AC.  That's it.  That is the complete value of that shield, in 2e.  So, for 1 point of AC, I double my damage output per round.  I'm thinking that's a pretty good exchange.  There's a reason that 3e nerfed the crap out of 2 weapon fighting.



> Weapons, being very explicit in their statistics and function, can occasionally be the exceptions that do meet the criteria for "unambiguously better". However, their impact is usually pretty small. And even in this case, I think it's implicitly clear that this was a conscious decision made for a defensible reason (to encourage the use of a classic weapon, or to simulate the utility of that weapon compared to some more esoteric and less useful ones). After all, all weapon choices are not perfectly balanced in real life, nor in fiction, so why would they be in a roleplaying game?




I would point out that in earlier D&D, all weapons did the same damage.  End of story.  In 3e and later, weapons were all balanced against each other.  A battle axe is not a poor cousin to a longsword in 3e because of the increased crit modifier.  OTOH, in AD&D and 2e D&D, the longsword was flat out better than anything else you could use.  Out damaging, out hitting and out magicking everything else in the book.

That's what happens when you don't pay attention to game balance.



> Unless you, you know, need to make a ref save. Or get stripped of your items. Or need to get somewhere quickly. Or the DM and the player actually play out some roleplaying requirements for maintaining the cleric's faith (and your powers). Or the cleric is hunted by powerful enemies because of his faith. Personally, I do think monks pretty clearly need the boost to full BAB, but even this extreme example isn't true all the time. Clerics are _generally_ a little bit better than monks, but that doesn't mean the rules need to be rewritten to change that.




So, all those analyses showing clerics and druids as tier 1 PC's and monks as Tier 4 or 5 are all mistaken, and you're right.  Because I might have to make a Ref save?  Or I might get stripped of items?  ((Which doesn't actually hurt me that much - only stops me from casting spells that need a divine focus - never minding that there are numerous spells out there that let me CREATE holy symbols)).  



> Of course they don't. Where do you think that experience comes from?
> 
> Trying to "whitewash" the individualized, creative, open-ended nature of the game is why people don't start games in the first place. And, as with most anything in life, if you aren't willing to risk making mistakes, you won't accomplish much either.
> 
> ...




Well, considering from your own admission, you've rarely had players who made unbalanced characters, how do you actually know that you wouldn't be overwhelmed?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 19, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Well, you're free to believe that.  But, pushing off game mechanics design onto the DM is lazy game design AFAIC.



Pushing game balance away from the DM is lazy DMing AFAIC.



> The hobby is littered with poorly designed games based on what you are advocating.  Without robust, balanced mechanics in the first place, these games will continue to litter the hobby.



I'm guessing a lot of good games have come out of that "litter".



> By balanced, in this sense, which I actually go on to explain, it means that equal amounts of time are spent on the three pillars of the game.



In other words, it's an arbitrary definition that you've coined, based on the pillar concept that 4e coined. What actions fall under these pillars? And what kind of time are we talking about? Real time? Game time? I don't see that any campaign could be meaningfully assessed as "balanced" or not based on this vague and hard to operationalize definition.



> End of story.  In 3e and later, weapons were all balanced against each other.



Well, not entirely. Daggers are a bit above slot I think (esp for a simple weapon). There may be a few esoteric exceptions out there. There's also some debate to be had on the value of crit ranges/multiplers (especially compared to straight damage). And it's debatable whether the relative equality/homogeneity of weapons is a good thing.



> So, all those analyses showing clerics and druids as tier 1 PC's and monks as Tier 4 or 5 are all mistaken, and you're right.



I'm not aware of any analyses. Assertions, yes. Analyses, no. The tier system is something that someone made up. It is opinion, and a person might or might not consider it interesting or useful. It is not fact.



> Well, considering from your own admission, you've rarely had players who made unbalanced characters, how do you actually know that you wouldn't be overwhelmed?



Because rarely is not never? Because I'm an experienced DM and know what I'm doing? What do I need, a certificate on my wall for "DMing resiliency"?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Pushing game balance away from the DM is lazy DMing AFAIC.
> 
> I'm guessing a lot of good games have come out of that "litter".
> 
> In other words, it's an arbitrary definition that you've coined, based on the pillar concept that 4e coined. What actions fall under these pillars? And what kind of time are we talking about? Real time? Game time? I don't see that any campaign could be meaningfully assessed as "balanced" or not based on this vague and hard to operationalize definition.




http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120207

That might help to explain where the terms come from.  Sorry, I thought they had been used commonly enough that the meaning would be clear.  My bad for presuming.  



> Well, not entirely. Daggers are a bit above slot I think (esp for a simple weapon). There may be a few esoteric exceptions out there. There's also some debate to be had on the value of crit ranges/multiplers (especially compared to straight damage). And it's debatable whether the relative equality/homogeneity of weapons is a good thing.




But, all of those things are still within the realm of balanced.  Nothing stands out as simply better than anything else.  Is a dagger better than a club?  Not particularly.  Now, your last point about whether its a good thing or not is besides the point of the discussion though.  Good or bad isn't the issue.  The issue is, 3e went to great lengths (with varying degrees of success) to correct the mistakes of AD&D and make sure that your choice of weapon wasn't based solely on the fact that weapon X is measurably better than any other option.



> I'm not aware of any analyses. Assertions, yes. Analyses, no. The tier system is something that someone made up. It is opinion, and a person might or might not consider it interesting or useful. It is not fact.
> 
> Because rarely is not never? Because I'm an experienced DM and know what I'm doing? What do I need, a certificate on my wall for "DMing resiliency"?




Ok, we're back to silly bugger pedantry.  The analysis for Tiers is pretty well documented and examined.  It's also pretty well supported.  That someone "made it up" does not somehow make it not an analysis, since, well, frankly, all analysis are made up by someone.  

I'm far more inclined to look at something like the massive amount of time spent analyzing the math of 3e and coming up with the class tier system as being somewhat more informed than your, "well in my game all classes are balanced."  Call me funny that way.


----------



## Foxwarrior (Jun 19, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Pushing game balance away from the DM is lazy DMing AFAIC.




Is making life easier for the DM a bad thing somehow?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 19, 2013)

Foxwarrior said:


> Is making life easier for the DM a bad thing somehow?




Depends on the trade offs you make to get there. There are multiple ways to make maintaining a balanced game easier on a DM, not all of which require a fixation on mechanical balance.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Jun 19, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I'm not aware of any analyses. Assertions, yes. Analyses, no. The tier system is something that someone made up. It is opinion, and a person might or might not consider it interesting or useful. It is not fact.




Despite the fact that it seems to me a bad idea to step in here, I have to agree with Ahnehnois on this point. I think that the validity of the tier system is largely overstated and does have limited use, and people use it as a trump argument as if it were fact. I think the authors were wise enough to aknowledge the limitations of the assumptions. I believe its more accurate to say that the Tier system reflects what CAN be done, and I'll hazard that its more a symptom of the online gaming community play than anything else.

Just my 2c, not saying anyone is wrong


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2013)

innerdude said:


> There's a real argument to be made, however, that "game balance" is in some cases a forebear to "narrative balance" and "story balance." Which is, if I'm reading 4e players correctly, the strongest argument to be made about 4e as a whole --- "The 'game' is balanced between classes, particularly in combat, and therefore is able to better support narrative balance and story balance, because the mechanics drive the players into more equitable situations at the table where their involvement matters."



I really liked your post.

It seems to me that a lot of these discussions about balance make assumptions about the _point_ of RPG play, the limits on mechanical design, the roles of the participants, etc, that are simply unwarranted, and perhaps suggest a lack of familiarity with the range of games out there.

For instance, a striking feature of D&D in all its iterations - including 4e with some marginal departures from this in relation to skill challenges - is that players always have an incentive to bring everything to bear so that their PCs win. For instance, the only reason you wouldn't try and enter a combat with full hit points is because you might not have the resources to achieve such a goal (or might think that those resources need to be saved for something else). Contrast this with Burning Wheel (as just one example), in which mechanical advancement of your PC requires facing a certain number of (near-)unbeatable challenges - and hence players have a reason not to always try to bring their maximum number of dice to bear, have a reason to sometimes have their PCs engage in conflict even when injured or otherwise depleted of mojo, etc.

This difference between D&D and BW means that balance has a quite different meaning across the two games. For instance, in BW a PC who starts with lower stats will face more (near-)unbeatable challlenges, and hence advance more quickly, than a PC who starts with higher stats. So the game's balance is (somewhat) self-correcting.

Now you might say that this is just like old-fashioned D&D, in which a 1st level PC adventuring with an otherwise 5th level group will gain levels more quickly, and hence also generate a self-balancing outcome. But that 1st level PC is likely to be killed by any opponents or challenge that troubles the 5th level PCs; whereas another feature of BW is its action resolution mechancis, which mean that _failure_ generally does not entail PC death. And it is not just the action resolution mechanics that support this in BW; it is also the world-building mechanics, which give the players more control over the gameworld than is typical in D&D, and therefore helps them play a bigger role in defining failure conditions for their PCs, and hence makes failure less unappetising to the player (even if just as unappetising to the _PC_) than it would be in D&D.

Now the above paragraphs are just a modest comparison of some features of two fantasy adventure RPGs. More contrasts could be drawn between D&D and BW, and it's not as if these two games cover anything like the whole design spectrum for even more-or-less mainstream fantasy RPGs.

But with these comparisons in mind we can already see some ways in which a certain sort of balance in respect of mechanical effectiveness might be more significant in D&D than in BW, and might also be related to narrative balance and to story balance in a different way from how it is in BW.

My view of good RPG design is not that it slavishly does one thing or another, but that it understands the features of the RPG in question - which includes understanding  how they differ from other possible designs, and push in favour of one sort of experience and away from other possible experiences - and designs with this in mind.

I think 4e did pretty well by this standard. Which is not to say that anyone has a reason to play it - the fact that a game is well-designed in this sense is only one consideration in favour of playing it, very easily outweighted by a multitude of contrary considerations including that one may not care for the sort of experience that the designers deliberately set out to achieve (eg in the case of 4e, one may not care for the metagame elements that it deploys to simultaneously mechanical, story and narrative balance).



Ahnehnois said:


> even if you're looking in a very reductionistic manner at game balance, mechanical elements are still too diverse to be characterized independent of context. Is it better, for example, to spend your feat on Skill Focus or Weapon Focus? It depends. It depends on whether you are likely to be able to acquire a good version of the specific weapon. It depends on how many attack rolls you are likely to roll, how likely they are to hit, and on a variety of other factors related to the difficulty of combat. It depends on what skill the Skill focus is for, how often it is likely to be rolled, what the DCs are, how useful the skill is likely to be...and a lot more. Most of which is decided by the DM.



There seem to be a number of assumptions in here about the role of the GM - in deciding the nature of conflicts faced, the mechanical difficulty of them, etc.

But of course all that can be flipped on its head. It is possible to design a game system which gives players control over what sorts of conflicts are faced, and/or over their mechanical difficulty.

In a classic sandbox, for instance, the players choose the sorts of challenges their PCs confront. So the GM does not "mostly decide" which skills are useful, how many combats will be faced, etc.

And in a modern "indie"-style game with non-objective DCs (eg Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, Marvel Heroic RP, and default 4e) the game system itself determines the difficulties confronted in action resolution. As a result, bonuses to skills or to combat in those systems can be meaningly compared for their impact - hence the appeal of uniform resolution systems (The Dying Earth, Maelstrom, MHRP, HW/Q) and the multiple errata to 4e level-approriate DCs and damage, as the designers got a better handle on the mathematical complexities and implications of their comparitively non-uniform PC build and action resolution rules.

And in Burning Wheel, which very much emphasises _player_ authority over the key sites and elements of conflict, whether it is "better" to develop swordplay or rhetoric for your PC depends primarily (not exclusively) on what sort of campaign you want to play.



innerdude said:


> to my knowledge, all of 4e's "balance" is based purely on COMBAT effectiveness, which is predicated on the ENCOUNTER as being the primary locus of action resolution, which assumes a DEFAULT LEVEL of combat activity per encounter (assuming we're not running a skill challenge).



4e's balance is intended to extend beyond combat to non-combat resolution also - via the skill challenge (as you note, at least indirectly).

But the PC build and action resolution mechanics are quite different for the non-combat/combat divide.

When it comes to combat, key  measures of balance are defences (in my 21st level party the gap in AC is 3, and the biggest gap in defences is 8, between the invoker's and the paladin's Fortitude), hit points (107 for the invoker, 175 for the fighter - and 7 surges for the former vs 15 for the latter), and attack bonus (the best in my group  - which doesn't use Expertise feats - is +25 vs NADs for the sorcerer, while the martial PCs are all at +26 vs AC using low-bonus weapons). Damage ouput varies wildly, from as low as 20-ish for the invoker to as high as 100-ish for the sorcerer, but this is a design feature and not as such a mark of imbalance (the invoker has noticeably better control than the sorcerer; and also has many more build resources devoted to non-combat than to combat, whereas the sorcerer is a combat magic machine).

What I'm trying to convey here is that the key defence and attack numbers are very close, and the differences of role manifest most noticeably in surges available and in the effects of hitting in combat, plus in utility features available (eg healing from leaders). This reflects the fairly nitty-gritty nature of D&D combat, which is all about making atacks, taking hits, and moving effectively on a battlefield. 4e's approach to combat balance reflects this.

Turning to non-combat, the numerical disparities are much bigger. Compare the invoker's +37 History check to the +11s and +12s of the other PCs. Or even moving away from the least combat-oriented PC in the group, compare +28 Intimidate (paladin) to +12 (fighter), or +23 Athletics (fighter) to +13 (ranger, and second-best in the party). 4e's non-combat is designed to be balanced within a more abstract approach to action resolution: the GM is expected to frame and adjudicate skill challenges in such a way that all the PCs can contribute, but _not_ by all doing the same thing. Different skills are meant to be able to be brought to bear, so that each PCs distinctive schtick will be displayed in resolving the challenge. So the very noticeable disparities in skill bonuses shouldn't be compared to the comparitively tight balance of defences and attack numbers, but rather to the big differences in damage output and non-damage effects that PCs generaate in combat.

(This way of balancing non-combat does cause problems in certain sorts of situations, like sneaking through a castle where Stealth is the only skill roll that makes sense within the fiction: the designers invented a special Group Check mechanic, found in DMG2 and Essentials, to cope with this, though it's far from perfect.)

The shift in 4e play from hyper-detailed combat resolution to abstract and much more free-flowing non-combat resolution is one of the distincitve features of the system. (For many I can imagine it being not just a feature but a flaw.)


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2013)

Starfox said:


> You can have two similar options, of which one is clearly superior. For an example, compare Enlarge Spell and Reach Spell in Pathfinder - Enlarge Spell is clearly superior in all cases as it does all Reach Spell does and better, in addition to offering more options.



I don't play PF, but I did follow your links.

Reach Spell seems to have several features that Enlarge spell lacks:


When applied to a Close spell it increases its range from 25+2.5/lvl to 100+10/lvl (compared to 50+5/lvl for Enlarge Spell);


When applied to a Medium spell it increases its range from 100+10/lvl to 400+40/lvl (compared to 200+20/lvl for Enlarge Spell);


It can be used to turn a Touch spell into a Close range, ranged touch spell;


It can be applied multiple times (for additional level increases), to a maximum of Long range.

Unless I'm missing something, the only thing that Enlarge spell can do that Reach spell cannot is to double the range of a Long range spell.

Did you mean to say that Reach Spell is clearly superior to Enlarge Spell? (Which strikes me as plausible, depending how useful being able to cast at 1000'+ ranges is - I don't have a good enough sense of typical PF play to judge this.)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 19, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Pushing game balance away from the DM is lazy DMing AFAIC.



What DMing techniques do you use to support game balance?


----------



## Starfox (Jun 19, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Did you mean to say that Reach Spell is clearly superior to Enlarge Spell? (Which strikes me as plausible, depending how useful being able to cast at 1000'+ ranges is - I don't have a good enough sense of typical PF play to judge this.)




Eh, sorry, you're right. My point holds even if I muddled which was better. I'll go back and edit.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 19, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I don't play PF, but I did follow your links.
> 
> Reach Spell seems to have several features that Enlarge spell lacks:
> 
> ...




That's my understanding from my PF experience. Reach Spell is far superior. It also came out in 3.5 after Enlarge Spell, probably as a fix. My guess is PF didn't bother to fix it by either removing Enlarge or removing Reach and rewriting Enlarge. There's a bunch of those types of things in 3x/PF.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 19, 2013)

Doug McCrae said:


> What DMing techniques do you use to support game balance?



To start with, I prepare a very basic campaign structure tailored to the players, designed to challenge and reward each of them individually. That is, I don't define a "balanced campaign" in terms of pillars or in game terms at all, I define it relative to what I know (or guess) to be the players' needs and abilities.

Second, I look at character creation as collaborative and open-ended. A player does not make a character, he or she proposes a character, and we go back and forth on it. The player outlines mechanics, sources, and any modifications they'd like to make, and I respond with notes. Typically we have an ongoing dialogue about whether the character's abilities are balanced, how well they fit into my campaign, and how effective and satisfying the character is likely to be in play. I suggest changes to either increase or decrease the power level of the character. The rules are only a starting point, a common framework for this discussion. The result is usually a character that will work for both me and the player.

All of which means that my job during play is pretty easy. I just have to be observant and make rulings or suggest changes to a character when these things need to be done, but that isn't overly often. I do allow certain character rebuilding during level-ups, giving us a venue to change feats/spells/etc. that aren't working. I also have to create a dynamic world that responds to the players.

All of that, AFAIC it all falls under DMing (and playing) skill. It wasn't what I did from day one, but there's a reason I do it now.



Foxwarrior said:


> Is making life easier for the DM a bad thing somehow?



If it subverts the point of having a DM in the first place, then yes.

I mean, Lebron James' life would be much easier if he could just walk off the court when his team was on defense, and then come back on and dunk whenever it was convenient. But that's not how it works. He has to participate in all phases of the game. Similarly, the DM has the responsibility to both create and control the game. He can't just do the flashy stuff and take the rest of the day off. Yes, DMing is a lot of responsibility. I almost invariably emerge from a session dog tired and with a splitting headache. But that's the gig.

Now, if you don't want the DM to have that much responsibility, it's fine to try another game that shares narrative control and other responsibilities differently. But that paradigm as it is works for plenty of people, and it's inherent to D&D.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 19, 2013)

pemerton said:


> There seem to be a number of assumptions in here about the role of the GM - in deciding the nature of conflicts faced, the mechanical difficulty of them, etc.



Those are assumptions about a DM, not GM. The term DM is pretty specific. GM describes a number of different games that posit different roles.



> But of course all that can be flipped on its head. It is possible to design a game system which gives players control over what sorts of conflicts are faced, and/or over their mechanical difficulty.



Indeed. The more of this sort of power the players have, the more responsible _they_ are for balancing the game.



> And in a modern "indie"-style game with non-objective DCs (eg Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, Marvel Heroic RP, and default 4e) the game system itself determines the difficulties confronted in action resolution.



Indeed. That's a different ballgame.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 19, 2013)

Dwimmerlied said:


> I think that the validity of the tier system is largely overstated and does have limited use, and people use it as a trump argument as if it were fact. I think the authors were wise enough to aknowledge the limitations of the assumptions. I believe its more accurate to say that the Tier system reflects what CAN be done, and I'll hazard that its more a symptom of the online gaming community play than anything else.



Yes indeed. The authors understood what they were doing better than the people who cite them. It's a thought exercise for charop forums, not the be-all end-all of the gaming world.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 19, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> First off, even if you're looking in a very reductionistic manner at game balance, mechanical elements are still too diverse to be characterized independent of context. Is it better, for example, to spend your feat on Skill Focus or Weapon Focus? It depends. It depends on whether you are likely to be able to acquire a good version of the specific weapon. It depends on how many attack rolls you are likely to roll, how likely they are to hit, and on a variety of other factors related to the difficulty of combat. It depends on what skill the Skill focus is for, how often it is likely to be rolled, what the DCs are, how useful the skill is likely to be...and a lot more. Most of which is decided by the DM. In one campaign, Weapon Focus (Longsword) might be close to the best feat available. In another, Skill Focus (Spot) might rule the day. You cannot tell which feat is better just by looking at the rules, no matter how knowledgeable you are or how hard you look. There are only very rare cases where one particular option is unambiguously better than the other, usually in different publications that are not cross-referenced very well.




Even if we restrict ourselves to pure combat feats, would you rather have Power Attack or Weapon Focus?  If we have two GM's, one who favour Giants (low AC and high HP for their CR) an the other likes incorporeal undead (high AC, low HP for their CR) the answer is likely different between the two campaigns.  "Balance" has a lot of variables.  Ranks in Swim?  Are we playing a High Seas pirate game or a desert scenario.  [And Iif I just say "Arabian Nights", do I mean Aladdin or Sinbad?]

Bottom line - I agree there's a lot of variables and "objectively balanced/unbalanced" is pretty tough to spot.



Hussar said:


> Of course you can.  In a balanced campaign, one which features equal amounts of combat and exploration and interaction (the three pillars if you will) then neither feat will be measurably better than another.  You will get pretty much equal traction out of either feat.  If the game leans more heavily on combat, then weapon focus is likely better, in that specific situation, which is actually outside the baseline presumptions of the game in the first place.




So do you want Power Attack or Weapon Focus?  Now we have to assume an equal mix of types of opponents as well.  "Perfect balance" can exist only in a specific hypothetical campaign, and every campaign is different.



Hussar said:


> Clerics in 3e are easily better than monks.  In virtually any situation and certainly over the course of a campaign, a cleric will shine far more than a monk.  It attacks better, does more damage, has way more options and is better out of combat as well.  There's nothing a monk can do that a cleric can't do better.  Never minding Druids.  There's a reason people talk about CoDzilla.  And, if you don't believe me, we'll take two groups through any module you care to name - my group is 3 clerics and a druid, your group is 4 monks, and we'll see who gets further.




This seems like a "PvP" structure - it's every man for himself.  Monks are synergestic characters.  The Monk is a lot better at getting past that line of grunts to get to the spellcaster 50' back while the warriors take care of the grunts.  They're mobile, so they can help the Rogue benefit from his sneak attack.  The Monk also has an advantage if we throw a lot of encounters against him without opportunity for rest and prayer - he doesn't run out of spells that need to be replenished.  That doesn't mean that the Monk can't stand a power-up even in Pathfinder, much less 3e where non-spellcasters in general are quite disadvantaged. Want real power?  A balanced team that focuses on enhancing team, rather than individual, power.



Hussar said:


> Trying to whitewash balance issues by pushing it off onto individual DM's is the reason why so many games fail.  Many DM's, particularly starting ones, don't have the experience to know how to fix the broken systems.  So, you get someone like me, who is interested in the nuts and bolts of gaming systems, sitting down at different tables, and the DM throws up their hands crying, "Hussar is a bad powergamer, his character just steamrolled over my encounter" when *all I've done is pull stuff straight out of the PHB*.  I mean, I mentioned one DM crying powergamer earlier, when my cleric had* two levels of half-elemental*.  Yeah, I'm a powergamer for taking off class levels in something that granted me fire resistance and the ability to cast burning hands a couple of times a day.  Ooooh...




Care to refer me to the PHB references for half-elementals?  I'd say that's a very powerful ability if the GM is using a lot of encounters featuring fire damage, and an extremely weak one if fire damage rarely, if ever, is encountered.  The more aed material, the greater the prospect for overpowered, or underpowered, combinations.  The Cleric got a lot more attention from both WoTC and 3rd party sourcebooks, so he gained options quickly.  Options that could be combined to added power.  If there were as many feats relevant to unarmed combat as there are for spellcasting and undead turning, the Monk would have a lot more options.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 19, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Care to refer me to the PHB references for half-elementals?  I'd say that's a very powerful ability if the GM is using a lot of encounters featuring fire damage, and an extremely weak one if fire damage rarely, if ever, is encountered.  The more aed material, the greater the prospect for overpowered, or underpowered, combinations.  The Cleric got a lot more attention from both WoTC and 3rd party sourcebooks, so he gained options quickly.  Options that could be combined to added power.  If there were as many feats relevant to unarmed combat as there are for spellcasting and undead turning, the Monk would have a lot more options.




I believe he was talking about two different events.

Giving up class levels in a full caster class is usually a negative. Gaining fire resistance at low levels is no match for gaining miracle at higher levels, which is ultimately what the character is giving up. I would have said Hussar was nerfing his character in favor of flavor. 

A straight cleric out of the PHB is a pretty potent character. When they added additional abilities to the class (such as the divine metamagic feat or the channeling feats) the class just got even better. A druid isn't as great if she doesn't take natural spell, but still above most other classes. 

I think the important part to remember is that it's really not combat potency or skills that need balance, those are indeed a matter of character and campaign choices, but rather the narrative control elements that are primarily limited to casters. It's the utility of these classes that make balance an issue. Take for instance one of the most power narrative spells out there, teleport. This simple spell (or that variations that clerics and druids get), allows the character to bypass the narrative the DM has laid out in the game. You must travel the misty road to the tower of blah blah and do this important thing. The fighter shrugs and heads toward the road, it's his only option. The Wizard smirks and says haha to your narrative, I'm going to bypass all that and appear at the tower instead. Even spells like Speak with Dead, Rope Trick, Fly, Scrying, etc have profound effects on the narrative of the game. Now a practiced DM will have taken into account these elements, having played with them for possibly decades, but a inexperienced DM will be a bit flummoxed by them, as we all probably were the first time a group of players said, nah, we're going to bypass everything you created for tonight's game and jump right to the city across the sea.

How do you balance those elements with the other classes that don't get them? In earlier editions they were balanced with negatives. You might teleport into a wall or age 5 years if you cast a spell. However, those penalties often never came up in my experience. In 3x they attempted to give some spells an XP cost, but then created an XP system that rewarded being lower in XP, as it allowed the player to gain even more experience and potentially pass other characters. In 4e they removed the narrative elements into rituals (and gave everyone some in powers). This appealed to many players who were looking for a narrative balance between classes. I'm not sure damage differences and other effects were nearly as important to balance, but they did that as well (to some extent). It worked for some people and not for others. It didn't work for me because that's not what I expect or want from my D&D experience. D&D has always had narrative control issues and without them, it just feels different. 

Now when I look at games outside of D&D, I usually look for ones that provide that narrative balance. If they don't have it, I might as well play D&D. When I consider the Jim/DM issue, I wonder if another game that gives Jim the narrative control while balancing the mechanical elements, wouldn't keep his "mess with" instincts in check. I don't know. I haven't looked over 5e in a while, have they added narrative balance?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Those are assumptions about a DM, not GM. The term DM is pretty specific.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Indeed. That's a different ballgame.



Yet the "different ballgame" includes 4e D&D.

So the term "DM" is not _that_ specific.

And if you look back at a certain form of classic D&D - namely, the exploration of a level-based dungeon - there is also quite a high degree of what are functionally non-objective DCs, because the DCs are shaped by dungeon level and the players can choose which level their PCs will adventure on.

So your remarks about balance aren't particularly apposite to D&D as such. They apply to a certain style of D&D, which I personally would associate with later AD&D (say mid-80s on), and which clearly carried over into some (but not all) 3E play groups.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I haven't looked over 5e in a while, have they added narrative balance?



I don't think so.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 20, 2013)

N'raac said:
			
		

> So do you want Power Attack or Weapon Focus? Now we have to assume an equal mix of types of opponents as well. "Perfect balance" can exist only in a specific hypothetical campaign, and every campaign is different.





That's the point though.  Neither feat is so much better than the other that it makes either choice obvious.  Power attack is more useful sometimes, and Weapon Focus other times.  They're pretty well balanced against each other.

Now, imagine that Weapon Focus gave you a bonus to hit equal to your BAB.  Are these now balanced options?  Of course not.  Weapon Focus is now way too good and everyone would take it given the chance.  Double my attack bonus?  Yes please.

This is the whole point of the "feat tax" arguments.  Whether or not those arguments are valid in the specific is up to the specific issue, but, at the root of them, that's the argument - a given option is so good that it becomes the default option.

And that's why game balance is important.  Lack of game balance restricts choice.  It makes one choice the obvious default.

And, as far as the Tier argument goes, I'd suggest you go back and actually read them.  They are not talking about twinked out characters for the most part.  They're talking about pretty baseline classes.  The idea that one class is considerably stronger than another class isn't really a debate is it?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2013)

Hussar said:


> That's the point though.  Neither feat is so much better than the other that it makes either choice obvious.  Power attack is more useful sometimes, and Weapon Focus other times.  They're pretty well balanced against each other.
> 
> Now, imagine that Weapon Focus gave you a bonus to hit equal to your BAB.  Are these now balanced options?  Of course not.  Weapon Focus is now way too good and everyone would take it given the chance.  Double my attack bonus?  Yes please.
> 
> ...




I would never say that a game should avoid dominating strategies... Unless there's a good reason for them such as genre emulation or verisimilitude. Some armors, for example, simply should be better than others for most purposes. Long swords should be more ubiquitous than two-handers or kopeshes. Wizards should be able to wield some reality warping power and should be one of the classes you turn to if you want that kind of ability.

But I have yet to see considerations of dominating strategies be a major factor in the classes players choose to play. I still see people primarily choose their class's on concept rather than overall power or tier. I think that particular choice is relatively resistant to issues of dominance, in part, because players prefer certain modes of play. Lots of martial character players happen to like whipping out multiple attacks, rolling up crits, counting up lots of damage without having to bother with planning out spells. And so on.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 20, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I would never say that a game should avoid dominating strategies... Unless there's a good reason for them such as genre emulation or verisimilitude. Some armors, for example, simply should be better than others for most purposes. Long swords should be more ubiquitous than two-handers or kopeshes. Wizards should be able to wield some reality warping power and should be one of the classes you turn to if you want that kind of ability.
> 
> But I have yet to see considerations of dominating strategies be a major factor in the classes players choose to play. I still see people primarily choose their class's on concept rather than overall power or tier. I think that particular choice is relatively resistant to issues of dominance, in part, because players prefer certain modes of play. Lots of martial character players happen to like whipping out multiple attacks, rolling up crits, counting up lots of damage without having to bother with planning out spells. And so on.




Couldn't XP you but this has been my experience with the majority of players who aren't hardcore (which I would wager are probably the majority).


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 20, 2013)

billd91 said:


> But I have yet to see considerations of dominating strategies be a major factor in the classes players choose to play. I still see people primarily choose their class's on concept rather than overall power or tier. I think that particular choice is relatively resistant to issues of dominance, in part, because players prefer certain modes of play. Lots of martial character players happen to like whipping out multiple attacks, rolling up crits, counting up lots of damage without having to bother with planning out spells. And so on.




I agree. Players tend to choose based on concept. The issues comes when the fighter doesn't get to fight the creatures the DM laid in front of them because the wizard has altered the narrative. He's either changed the battlefield, nerfed the bad guys, killed the enemies, or summoned a horde. The martial character is now fighting the battle the wizard wants him to fight, and often times it's either not a challenge anymore or not the fight he wants to fight. 

Perhaps you don't experience that, but I know I've been yelled at plenty of times for making the challenges all but pointless to fight when I'm playing a caster. Now the martial player is getting frustrated that his cool concept is pretty much pointless because he has zero narrative control over the encounter. The tons of damage he can dish out aren't necessary because the monster drops easily or is paralyzed or is trapped behind a wall or is slowed or is already dead. His fun is nerfed by my fun. 

Don't get me wrong, I love wizards and clerics (not so much druids but that's for flavor reasons). They're an essential part of my D&D experience. I want them to continue to have the narrative control they've always had. I would just like the martial characters to get some of that goodness in a way that doesn't make them more difficult to play because I've known plenty of players who enjoy the simplicity of the martial class. 

My question is how do you balance the narrative and keep the fighter simple and the wizard interesting? I certainly don't feel 4e achieved that for me in their take on it, but would love 5e to give it a go.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 20, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> My question is how do you balance the narrative and keep the fighter simple and the wizard interesting? I certainly don't feel 4e achieved that for me in their take on it, but would love 5e to give it a go.



One solution is metagame mechanics. Not 4e-style though; that defeats the point. Instead, a separate mechanical system that is the same for everyone. Something in the direction of action points, but farther in that direction, perhaps. A common concept in other rpgs, and something that is modular and easily ignored if you don't like it. Personally, I like the Cortex system games and their plot points. When the DM screws your character (or when you just advace normally), he gives you points. When you want something good to happen, you spend points. Still pretty simple, and works outside of character abilities so there's no plausibility question.

PF's mythic rules might give us some ideas. I don't think the final is released yet.

Another solution is more in-depth health rules. If there are more ways to be hurt and being hurt is more meaningful, there is more design space to differentiate the martial classes from the others based on toughness. And, certainly, resilience is something that people expect of warriors, wussiness is something people expect from wizards, and having the wizard be easily injured takes away his influence when he is.

And of course, one venue that definitely needs to be looked at is costs and drawbacks for magic. Trying to make nonmagical abilities able to do things just as good as magical abilities is not the way to go. But there's no reason that magic has to be reliable and limitless.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> My question is how do you balance the narrative and keep the fighter simple and the wizard interesting? I certainly don't feel 4e achieved that for me in their take on it, but would love 5e to give it a go.




I think where the fighter is concerned, there's definite room for improvement and resources for non-adventuring campaign activities like Paizo's *Ultimate Campaign* can help. I think characters viewed as weak could gain the Leadership feat as a bonus feat, maybe even a slightly improved version if they also establish a base of operations. That can reflect the wider contacts and followers they get while their spellcasting counterparts maintain their magical powers and pursue those activities. It makes sense that relatively mundane classes would attract more hangers-on, they're easier for the hoi polloi to identify with.

The game system could also include more social interaction and narrative orbackground resources feats. Set their pre-reqs to be friendlier to the martial or mundane classes. Fighters, with a lot of feat capacity, would pick them up easier than anyone else.

Also, the fighter should have 4 skill points and a broader skill list to reflect the wide variety of fighting man archetypes.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 20, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I believe he was talking about two different events.




They were in close enough proximity for me to link them, but hopefully he was.



sheadunne said:


> Giving up class levels in a full caster class is usually a negative. Gaining fire resistance at low levels is no match for gaining miracle at higher levels, which is ultimately what the character is giving up. I would have said Hussar was nerfing his character in favor of flavor.




Again, it depends on the game.  Will this game reach L17+? Do frequent opponents have fire attacks? 



sheadunne said:


> I think the important part to remember is that it's really not combat potency or skills that need balance, those are indeed a matter of character and campaign choices, but rather the narrative control elements that are primarily limited to casters. It's the utility of these classes that make balance an issue. Take for instance one of the most power narrative spells out there, teleport. This simple spell (or that variations that clerics and druids get), allows the character to bypass the narrative the DM has laid out in the game. You must travel the misty road to the tower of blah blah and do this important thing. The fighter shrugs and heads toward the road, it's his only option. The Wizard smirks and says haha to your narrative, I'm going to bypass all that and appear at the tower instead. Even spells like Speak with Dead, Rope Trick, Fly, Scrying, etc have profound effects on the narrative of the game. Now a practiced DM will have taken into account these elements, having played with them for possibly decades, but a inexperienced DM will be a bit flummoxed by them, as we all probably were the first time a group of players said, nah, we're going to bypass everything you created for tonight's game and jump right to the city across the sea.




If we read the spells in the manner that most suits the PC's, I suppose.  How far away is that tower? Teleport allows 100 miles per level.  How big is the team? One additional creature per 3 caster levels - horses and other Large creatures count double. Leaving the mounts and animal companions behind?  "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works."  So, how clear is your mental image of that tower (or should I say the courtyard in the tower)? "Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible. " GM prerogative to make Teleport useless.

Greater Teleport? Sure - that's a L7 spell slot.  Still limited in the number of passengers.  And "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination or a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting. If you attempt to teleport with insufficient information (or with misleading information), you disappear and simply reappear in your original location."  Not seeing this as the universal solution it is commonly presented as.

One balancing factor is scenarios that don't allow the spellcasters free reign to blow off their entire repertoire, then plop to the ground and sleep as the mood strikes them. Rope Trick is far from unbeatable. And let's remember those extradimensional space rules - where's that Bag of Holding with your spellbook in it again?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 20, 2013)

To be fair N'raac, what you advocate here is a possible solution to casters having so much power.  The DM deliberately screws them at every opportunity because the options given to them in the rules are too powerful.  Every orc tribe knows the counter to rope trick camping, every single place is warded against teleportation and scrying.  On and on and on in an arms race that the DM will automatically win because the DM doesn't have to follow the rules. 

Fair enough. 

Me, I'd rather resolve these issues in the mechanics.  You agree that there is a problem here.  If there was no problem, then you wouldn't be bringing up solutions.  So, why not just not have the problem in the first place?  Teleport is a major game changing spell?  Take it out of the game or make teleport line of sight only.  There, problem solved.

Which is the point of mechanical game balance in the first place.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 20, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Again, it depends on the game.  Will this game reach L17+? Do frequent opponents have fire attacks?




By then you're immune to fire so it doesn't matter. 




N'raac said:


> If we read the spells in the manner that most suits the PC's, I suppose.  How far away is that tower? Teleport allows 100 miles per level.  How big is the team? One additional creature per 3 caster levels - horses and other Large creatures count double. Leaving the mounts and animal companions behind?  "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works."  So, how clear is your mental image of that tower (or should I say the courtyard in the tower)? "Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible. " GM prerogative to make Teleport useless.
> 
> Greater Teleport? Sure - that's a L7 spell slot.  Still limited in the number of passengers.  And "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination or a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting. If you attempt to teleport with insufficient information (or with misleading information), you disappear and simply reappear in your original location."  Not seeing this as the universal solution it is commonly presented as.




Irrelevant. There are simple ways around any of those issues with other spells or in 3x metamagic feats or other magic items. The point isn't in the details, it's in the capacity to do it. What ability to change the narrative does the fighter have? That's the question. There's the balance issue in D&D. If all you're doing is spending your time finding ways to take away narrative capacity from casters, then we're on the same page, you're just looking at it from a zero narrative capacity, while I'm looking to increase it for martial classes.



N'raac said:


> One balancing factor is scenarios that don't allow the spellcasters free reign to blow off their entire repertoire, then plop to the ground and sleep as the mood strikes them. Rope Trick is far from unbeatable. And let's remember those extradimensional space rules - where's that Bag of Holding with your spellbook in it again?




In all my years of playing casters I have never run out of spells, especially in 3x where you basically have a portable hole filled with scrolls. One spell is usually all that's needed per any combat to tip the odds significantly in your favor or to end it entirely. Who needs spells books? Spell books are only needed pre-3x. Spells per a day do nothing to balance the narrative issues. 

And by focusing on things the DM can do to nerf casters all your doing is saying players shouldn't have any ability to change the narrative. If that's your thing, that's fine. I'd rather find a way to increase the capacity for narrative change to non-casters. I don't know how to do it, but I feel it is important to the game and the one issue D&D has always had.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 20, 2013)

Hussar said:


> To be fair N'raac, what you advocate here is a possible solution to casters having so much power.  The DM deliberately screws them at every opportunity because the options given to them in the rules are too powerful.  Every orc tribe knows the counter to rope trick camping, every single place is warded against teleportation and scrying.  On and on and on in an arms race that the DM will automatically win because the DM doesn't have to follow the rules.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> ...




Yup.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> And by focusing on things the DM can do to nerf casters all your doing is saying players shouldn't have any ability to change the narrative. If that's your thing, that's fine. I'd rather find a way to increase the capacity for narrative change to non-casters. I don't know how to do it, but I feel it is important to the game and the one issue D&D has always had.




I think this is far more a matter of perspective and mindset than anything else. So the wizard (or cleric or other caster) has the power to change some of the narrative. So what? Are they doing it for their own selfish reasons? Are they party mavericks causing trouble for their fellows by going off on wild tangents? If not, if those powers like teleport, passwall, scry, overland flight, knock, rope trick, wind walk, astral spell, plane shift, and all that are being used in the party's interest collectively, who cares who wields that ability? It's being used as a party resource - the whole group exploits the change in the narrative.

And if it is just a single player popping off those abilities without using them to further the group's goals, then what you probably have is a problem player who would cause trouble even if everyone else in the party had the same abilities.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 20, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I think this is far more a matter of perspective and mindset than anything else. So the wizard (or cleric or other caster) has the power to change some of the narrative. So what? Are they doing it for their own selfish reasons? Are they party mavericks causing trouble for their fellows by going off on wild tangents? If not, if those powers like teleport, passwall, scry, overland flight, knock, rope trick, wind walk, astral spell, plane shift, and all that are being used in the party's interest collectively, who cares who wields that ability? It's being used as a party resource - the whole group exploits the change in the narrative.
> 
> And if it is just a single player popping off those abilities without using them to further the group's goals, then what you probably have is a problem player who would cause trouble even if everyone else in the party had the same abilities.




So, a player who is given the ability to radically alter the narrative of the game, uses those abilities in a non-DM sanctioned way and he or she is a problem player?  Why not just not give the abilities in the first place.  I mean, if I am only allowed to use spells in such a way that my DM is happy, then why doesn't the DM just take control of those spells?

Why give options only to then fence those options in?  And the only reason to fence those options in is because the options are too powerful in the first place.  And you see no problems with this?

I mean, my nature bunny ranger gets jumped over because the wizard casts teleport, and that's okay because it's for the group?  My information gathering rogue gets entirely nerfed because the casters can gather information 10 times faster and more accurately than I can, and that's okay because it's for the group?

You guys have a really strange definition of balance.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2013)

Hussar said:


> So, a player who is given the ability to radically alter the narrative of the game, uses those abilities in a non-DM sanctioned way and he or she is a problem player?  Why not just not give the abilities in the first place.  I mean, if I am only allowed to use spells in such a way that my DM is happy, then why doesn't the DM just take control of those spells?
> 
> Why give options only to then fence those options in?  And the only reason to fence those options in is because the options are too powerful in the first place.  And you see no problems with this?
> 
> ...




Yeah, you're totally not understanding what I'm saying. It's nothing to do with using the powers in a non-DM sanctioned way. I'm refereeing the game and will adjudicate the results fairly whether the PCs are getting along or not. If the wizard's always going off on a tangent *away from what the group wants to do*, then he is probably a problem player. He is not playing well with the people he's playing with. And if he is using his narrative adjusting powers in the party's interest, then it's a party resource. *Does it really matter who's doing it?* It's being done on everybody's behalf and everybody is benefiting from it.

And I'd suggest that if your rogue can't get good information that the wizard can't get with his spells, then either you or your GM don't really know the power of well-placed contacts and observers whose tongues are loosened with a little beer. Your GM should also be using info gathering expeditions as a resource to expose more of the game world to you as players. It's a fantastic way to supply hints to stumped players, for instance.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I have yet to see considerations of dominating strategies be a major factor in the classes players choose to play. I still see people primarily choose their class's on concept rather than overall power or tier. I think that particular choice is relatively resistant to issues of dominance, in part, because players prefer certain modes of play. Lots of martial character players happen to like whipping out multiple attacks, rolling up crits, counting up lots of damage without having to bother with planning out spells. And so on.



I'm sure this is true. I think, given this, that the question is whether we want all concepts to be equally viable from the gameplay point of view?

For instance, if players choose mostly on concept, but the game breaks down without a certain mechanical factor being present (in D&D this is generally expressed as needing a healer, and/or a caster of some sort), then the game will break down if no player is attracted to the concept in question.

Also, if player choose mostly on concept, but some concepts don't work out that way at the table - for instance, suppose it turns out that a flying invisible wizard really is a mecahnically better stealth option than a thief or ninja - then some players are going to have a compromised play experience simply in virtue of the concept they preferred.



sheadunne said:


> The issues comes when the fighter doesn't get to fight the creatures the DM laid in front of them because the wizard has altered the narrative. He's either changed the battlefield, nerfed the bad guys, killed the enemies, or summoned a horde. The martial character is now fighting the battle the wizard wants him to fight, and often times it's either not a challenge anymore or not the fight he wants to fight.



I would definitely count this as an instance of "compromised play experience".

I think it also relates to my first point - for instance, if D&D (at least by default) assumes that the players will exercise narrative control to succeed at challenges, but confines that to certain concepts only, then the game will break down if (eg) the players want to play an all-fighter or all-ranger party. Even though this does not seem out-of-line for the genre (eg Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas chasing down the hobbits through the fields of Rohan).



billd91 said:


> If the wizard's <snippage> using his narrative adjusting powers in the party's interest, then it's a party resource. *Does it really matter who's doing it?*



I think it matters hugely. Playing an RPG, for those I play with at least, isn't just about the party achieving its goals. It's about engaging and shaping the fiction via your PC. If someone else is always doing that, it doesn't matter that, _in the fiction_, your PC is getting what s/he wants. At the table you're not getting to play the game.



billd91 said:


> And I'd suggest that if your rogue can't get good information that the wizard can't get with his spells, then either you or your GM don't really know the power of well-placed contacts and observers whose tongues are loosened with a little beer. Your GM should also be using info gathering expeditions as a resource to expose more of the game world to you as players. It's a fantastic way to supply hints to stumped players, for instance.



This is precisely a point of narrative control issues, I think. Burning Wheel tackles this with its Circles rules, which put control over this sort of stuff back into the hands of the players. But BW is not a class-based system; in a D&D adaptation of its Circles idea it would be a class ability for rogues.

The difficulty is that many prospective players would probably reject it because it is clearly a metagame mechanic. Yet I don't know of a game that maintains magic/martial balance without giving the players of martial PCs additional metagame resources to deploy.



Ahnehnois said:


> One solution is metagame mechanics. Not 4e-style though; that defeats the point.



Why do 4e-style metagame mechanics defeat the point? They give players of martial PCs additional metagame resources to balance their lack of in-fiction magical resources.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 20, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I think characters viewed as weak could gain the Leadership feat as a bonus feat, maybe even a slightly improved version if they also establish a base of operations.




This is a good idea for campaigns in which they work. Who are described as the nobility of most fantasy worlds? Fighter! But the DnD fighter doesn't have the tools to be a leader - neither skills or class abilities or an incentive to be charismatic. It also meshes into the dominion rules from 1E - fighters, clerics, and rogues got automatic followers at high levels, mages didn't. 

Still, this will not suit all games. In a pure dungeon crawl, minions are not going to do you much good. Ok, in some old-school versions of dungeoneering it might, but spending followers as trap detectors or lantern bearers might cut into some players idea of heroism. Do we have other ideas for"narrative space" options for the martial classes? This might be worth a thread of it's own, actually.



billd91 said:


> Also, the fighter should have 4 skill points and a broader skill list to reflect the wide variety of fighting man archetypes.




Basically, all classes in 3E are skill starved. Yes, this includes Rogues. The one exception is Wizards, who with their short skill list and massive intelligence can splurge on knowledge skills. This is not good. Pathfinder ameliorated this somewhat by combining rogue skills so that fewer skills do the work of many, but the issue is still there.

Edit: Opened a new thread for this Here.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 20, 2013)

Starfox said:


> This is a good idea for campaigns in which they work. Who are described as the nobility of most fantasy worlds? Fighter! But the DnD fighter doesn't have the tools to be a leader - neither skills or class abilities or an incentive to be charismatic. It also meshes into the dominion rules from 1E - fighters, clerics, and rogues got automatic followers at high levels, mages didn't.




Indeed. When the wizard was learning to teleport as a power in o/AD&D the fighter was getting the "My army, sieze me that man!" power - and from memory a henchman who was also a pretty decent fighter. 3e, however, stripped all such power away from the fighter as a class.



> Basically, all classes in 3E are skill starved. Yes, this includes Rogues.




On a tangent, the rogue in 3e is arguably the single most skill starved class in the game. 3e rogues gain 8+Int skill points - with that 8 matching up to the 8 thief skills in AD&D. However the fighter gains 2+Int skill points and doesn't have any equivalent to thief skills in prior editions.



billd91 said:


> I think this is far more a matter of perspective and mindset than anything else. So the wizard (or cleric or other caster) has the power to change some of the narrative. So what? Are they doing it for their own selfish reasons? Are they party mavericks causing trouble for their fellows by going off on wild tangents? If not, if those powers like teleport, passwall, scry, overland flight, knock, rope trick, wind walk, astral spell, plane shift, and all that are being used in the party's interest collectively, who cares who wields that ability? It's being used as a party resource - the whole group exploits the change in the narrative.
> 
> And if it is just a single player popping off those abilities without using them to further the group's goals, then what you probably have is a problem player who would cause trouble even if everyone else in the party had the same abilities.




In short 3.X D&D should only be played by shiny happy people holding hands. Because if there ever is an in character conflict between the fighter and the wizard the wizard wins. And as for who cares, I do. From both sides. I've so far retired _every wizard I've played_ for being too much for the DM to handle and for solving challenges single handed making everyone else feel like spectators. D&D should be a team game, not a hero-and-sidekicks one.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 20, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> On a tangent, the rogue in 3e is arguably the single most skill starved class in the game.  3e rogues gain 8+Int skill points - with that 8 matching up to the 8 thief skills in AD&D.  However the fighter gains 2+Int skill points and doesn't have any equivalent to thief skills in prior editions.




Astute observation - I agree completely.



Neonchameleon said:


> Because if there ever is an in character conflict between the fighter and the wizard the fighter wins.




Did you get this wrong, did you mean the wizard wins? Because that's how an open-ended conflict would turn out in most cases. In an arena duel, the fighter actually has a good fighting chance - especially if there are any rules at all.

<anecdotal>In a 2E game we ran here, my character (ranger) challenged a party member (wizard) to a duel. Basically the wizard had once chance - win initiative and hope I failed my save against being turned into a newt. I didn't. After that, the wizard was toast.</anecdotal>

I think a fighter could best a wizard in an arena duel  in most any edition of DnD. in 3E trough trips like readying, grapple, and so on, in AD&D simply because casting in melee was so very difficult. But a duel is a very special case.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 20, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Why do 4e-style metagame mechanics defeat the point? They give players of martial PCs additional metagame resources to balance their lack of in-fiction magical resources.



The "conventional" D&D approach is that the character affects the game world, and the player controls the character, and has absolutely no other influence. The point of metagame mechanics is to give players the ability to affect the game world, distinct from the abilities of their character.

Thus, a true metagame mechanic has nothing to do with the character. It is not dependent on what class or level the character is, and the character is not aware of or in control of them. That's why I gave the plot point example.

What you have in 4e is some conventional, some metagame, and no clear distinction between the two. One power might be clearly metagame (i.e. something that the character cannot do), and another might be an ability of the character. Thus, no one really knows what a lot of the rules even mean. Certainly, for diehard fans its easy enough to rationalize these mixed in-game/metagame rules, but that lack of transparency and all the consequences thereof are kind of a problem for the rest of us.

And, of course, the implementation is problematic because it isn't very good. As [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] noted, your fighter is not as simple as it used to be, and your wizard is not as interesting. A very small amount of design space is split into an enormous volume of often redundant powers, there's a needless and complicated resource management scheme, the terminology is confusing, and the actual effects of these powers just aren't very interesting or dramatic. Some of which is subjective to us, of course, and all of which are separate to this whole in-game/metagame issue.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 20, 2013)

Hussar said:


> So, a player who is given the ability to radically alter the narrative of the game, uses those abilities in a non-DM sanctioned way and he or she is a problem player?



Yes. I mean that's a slight oversimplification, because we're assuming that the DM is competent and everyone trusts him as such, but yes. Is there some controversy here?



> I mean, if I am only allowed to use spells in such a way that my DM is happy, then why doesn't the DM just take control of those spells?



So the player can participate. Just because the DM has "final cut" as it were, does not mean that the players' ideas don't contribute. It's very unlikely that a DM could be as creative by himself as the group is as a whole.



> Why give options only to then fence those options in?



Are you suggesting that players should be given options and _not_ fenced in? That the DM should be stripped of his power completely and that if a player says he does something within the rules, the answer is yes? As a DM, I'm kind of insulted by that. It's not "fencing them in" or "DM fiat". It's just "DMing". I have final say on absolutely everything that happens in my game, and it's my job to execute that power in a way that produces the best experience for everyone.



> I mean, my nature bunny ranger gets jumped over because the wizard casts teleport, and that's okay because it's for the group?  My information gathering rogue gets entirely nerfed because the casters can gather information 10 times faster and more accurately than I can, and that's okay because it's for the group?



Yeah, pretty much. Those cases are rare enough.



> You guys have a really strange definition of balance.



In that it focuses on the game as it is actually played at our table rather than a set of theoretical constructs published in a book?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 20, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Did you get this wrong, did you mean the wizard wins?




Correct - and corrected.



> I think a fighter could best a wizard in an arena duel in most any edition of DnD. in 3E trough trips like readying, grapple, and so on, in AD&D simply because casting in melee was so very difficult. But a duel is a very special case.




Depends on what level in 3e.  And who wins initiative.  At first level Sleep is Save or Die to a fighter - and likely to have around a 2/3 chance of success if the wizard gets to cast it.  On the other hand the fighter is likely to have a 2/3 chance or so of cutting the wizard in half on their first swing.  It's about even really.

However Giant In the Playground gamed it out at a higher level.  More to the point they gamed it out at level 13 wizard vs level _20_ fighter.  It ended up about even - but only because the fighter was carrying more equipment than Iron Man and not functionally very different from a level 20 Commoner with the same amount of equipment.  And the rules of the arena (no pre-buffs) favoured the fighter.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Jun 20, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> In short 3.X D&D should only be played by shiny happy people holding hands.




Despite the derogatory description, its a good way to play.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 20, 2013)

Dwimmerlied said:


> Despite the derogatory description, its a good way to play.




Not disagreeing.  It's actually the way I normally play D&D - PvP is very rare.  But it's another constraint on D&D 3.X that was new as of 3.X, isn't (so far as I am aware) implied by the rules or the genre and further limits the game by using local gentlemans' agreements to fix the flaws in the rules.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 20, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Yes. I mean that's a slight oversimplification, because we're assuming that the DM is competent and everyone trusts him as such, but yes. Is there some controversy here?
> 
> So the player can participate. Just because the DM has "final cut" as it were, does not mean that the players' ideas don't contribute. It's very unlikely that a DM could be as creative by himself as the group is as a whole.




Wow, no thanks.  I get permission to participate because I managed to make the DM happy?  No thanks.  



> Are you suggesting that players should be given options and _not_ fenced in? That the DM should be stripped of his power completely and that if a player says he does something within the rules, the answer is yes? As a DM, I'm kind of insulted by that. It's not "fencing them in" or "DM fiat". It's just "DMing". I have final say on absolutely everything that happens in my game, and it's my job to execute that power in a way that produces the best experience for everyone.




And viking hat DMing is certainly one style.  

Not my style certainly, but one style.

If the player is doing something that is perfectly acceptable by the game, I, as DM, should NEVER say no.  That's not my job.  Yeah, I'm not interested in this style of gaming anymore.  I'm a big boy.  I'm perfectly capable of making decisions on my own without having the DM oversee each and everything I want to do, just to double check my actions.  

I have zero interest in playing in this type of game anymore.  To me, you come off as a total powertripping DM who is only interested in railroading your players into dancing to whatever tune you have in mind.  No thanks.  Heck, that's the reason I like to gravitate towards games with shared narrative control.



> Yeah, pretty much. Those cases are rare enough.
> 
> In that it focuses on the game as it is actually played at our table rather than a set of theoretical constructs published in a book?




It may focus on the game that you play, but, it certainly doesn't on mine.  Watching the casters completely take over the game was not fun for me.  And I watched it happen every single time.  Didn't matter if I was a player, DM, playing a caster or a non-caster.  It happened every single campaign.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 20, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Are you suggesting that players should be given options and _not_ fenced in? That the DM should be stripped of his power completely and that if a player says he does something within the rules, the answer is yes? As a DM, I'm kind of insulted by that. It's not "fencing them in" or "DM fiat". It's just "DMing". I have final say on absolutely everything that happens in my game, and it's my job to execute that power in a way that produces the best experience for everyone.




I don't know about the rest but that's not what I'm suggesting.  What I'm suggesting is not only that the player says they do something within the rules the answer should be yes unless there is hidden in-game information (in which case no is still within the rules), but that if the player says that they do something plausible _outside_ (as opposed to against) the rules, the answer _should still be to say yes or roll the dice_.

And as a DM I do not see this as being stripped of my power.  I still have nigh on absolute power over the setting and if I want to create a parade of blue elephants dancing down the street out of thin air I can create a parade of blue elephants dancing down the street out of thin air, and my players will treat them as if they were real or their PCs will get trampled.  I'm honestly shocked by the idea that I need any more power than this.  And to me as player or DM, the best experience comes from all the PCs engaging with the world _on their terms* _(or occasionally on the terms of the NPCs they've annoyed) and although individual sessions might be more fun if the DM overrides things I'm soon going to get bored of the campaign from either side of the screen.

Yes, I do put my money where my mouth is.  For the game two sessions ago I prepared what would (and will) be a short investigation followed by a fight on top of the Lightning Rail (Eberron campaign).  The first session I threw in what was meant to be a mysterious clue to the ongoing arc-plot.  Something appearing, watching, then vanishing.  And dropping these in repeatedly to make them paranoid.  My players proceeded to roll natural 20s every time they were looking at the minor clue (I barely exaggerate.  They managed four natural 20s in the session, all on perception checks).  With the result I was improvising like mad and they gained quite a few clues as to what is going on on a wider scheme before eventually reaching a dead end.  The last session I ran was meant to be the same investigation, and I gave them a few clues - but rather than looking for the supply side (as I pointed them at) they chose to look for the demand.  With the result that rather than the flamboyant fight on top of the lightning rail I'd planned, they ended up in a rather incendiary fight in a match factory (that is now, not unsurprisingly, a pile of rubble) that I invented on the spot.  The match factory having been brought in because it entirely fitted the narrative (what would you want slaves for in a city?  The jobs no one wants to do because they are dangerous and disfiguring. Like making matches.)  And I had the matches before I even knew there would be a fight there - without the PCs heading off in the "wrong" direction I'd never even have thought of the fight in the match factory.

And to me _that_ is DMing.  Taking everything that the players do, building on it, expanding it, and building round it and dancing so I almost always appear one step ahead.  My players are there to play their characters, not my vision of their characters.  And if ever any game told me to strip the players of their control of the limited aspects of the gameworld they actually do control (i.e. their characters) I would put it back as being not fit for purpose.  I control 99% of the game world.  Why would I need to take the last 1% away from the players?

* Influenced by any considerations within the fiction, of course.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 20, 2013)

Hussar said:


> To be fair N'raac, what you advocate here is a possible solution to casters having so much power.  The DM deliberately screws them at every opportunity because the options given to them in the rules are too powerful.  Every orc tribe knows the counter to rope trick camping, every single place is warded against teleportation and scrying.  On and on and on in an arms race that the DM will automatically win because the DM doesn't have to follow the rules.




Why is it that when I say "reading the spell and following the rules laid out", you reply with "screwing over the spellcaster at every turn"? I think the player who refuses to play within the written limits of his character's abilities is the one screwing over the rest of the players, GM included. Those who suggest actually READING and FOLLOWING the spell's rules are not "screwing over the wizard" any more than ruling that a Fighter does not automatically put an arrow through the wizard's eye socket, killing him instantly, because he has Far Shot and he's far away.

Teleport requires you have a good idea of the location you are teleporting into. If you do not have that, you are either at risk, or it is impossible.  It can transport a limited number of people/creatures.  It can travel over a limited distance.  If you ignore those limitations, then you are adding to the wizard's power over and above the game rules, and screwing over the non-spellcasters.



Hussar said:


> Me, I'd rather resolve these issues in the mechanics.




Start by following the mechanics as written, then.



Hussar said:


> You agree that there is a problem here.  If there was no problem, then you wouldn't be bringing up solutions.




The problem is "ignoring what the rules say". The solution is "reading and following the rules".  Does "every Orc tribe know how to deal with a Rope Trick"?  That depends on how you interpret the term. First, the characters are what, 7th level, to access that spell?  Seems likely that orc tribe, if it's a real threat, has some spellcasters of its own.  One good Knowledge Arcana check, or spellcraft check, or just having the spell himself, means someone in the tribe knows how Rope Trick works.  

But maybe they lack all that. What do they do when marauders attack their home, then withdraw, then attack again? Do they take no steps to defend their home, or do they bolsters their defenses, set traps, set alarms so they can engage the marauders in a wave of overwhelming force rather than be picked off a few at a time, or so a group can stealthily follow the marauders back to where they came from and see them climb up that rope?  Or, if they're getting picked off and can't come up with any way to defend themselves, pack up and leave.  8 INT is not suicidally stupid - the orcs should have at least the tactical savvy of that 8 INT fighter - and a large tribe presumably has some smarter and wiser orcs who can speak up.

The problem can easily be just as much that spellcaster who insists on all the strengths, and none of the limitations, of his spells.  Just like those old 1e players who insisted that Create Water can be cast inside an opponent's lungs  Or worse, if he's arguing he need not have any prior insights to the location we're teleporting to despite the specific words in the spell description.

Should every area be teleport-warded? How much effort does the Wizard put into safeguarding his own home base?  It seems reasonable for others to take similar precautions (less if they are comparatively reckless and more if they are comparatively cautious).



billd91 said:


> I think thisc is far more a matter of perspective and mindset than anything else. So the wizard (or cleric or other?  caster) has the power to change some of the narrative. So what? Are they doing it for their own selfish reasons? Are they party mavericks causing trouble for their fellows by going off on wild tangents? If not, if those powers like teleport, passwall, scry, overland flight, knock, rope trick, wind walk, astral spell, plane shift, and all that are being used in the party's interest collectively, who cares who wields that ability? It's being used as a party resource - the whole group exploits the change in the narrative.




That's generally more the way our group tends to play - leverage all resources and make the team as a whole better. The arcane spellcaster is a powerhouse, but he's fragile?  Then it's my job to protect him - act as defense so he can unlimber the hurt.  The rogue can do massive Sneak Attack damage? Then I'll forego my full attack in favour of sucking up an AoO to put him in flanking position.



billd91 said:


> And if it is just a single player popping off those abilities without using them to further the group's goals, then what you probably have is a problem player who would cause trouble even if everyone else in the party had the same abilities.






Hussar said:


> So, a player who is given the ability to radically alter the narrative of the game, uses those abilities in a non-DM sanctioned way and he or she is a problem player?  Why not just not give the abilities in the first place.  I mean, if I am only allowed to use spells in such a way that my DM is happy, then why doesn't the DM just take control of those spells?




Again, you jump from "lone wolf not acting in the party's best interests" to "DM doesn't like it so he smacks the character down".  billd91 can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's referring to a player who's not playing as part of the team, not the GM smacking down the PC's because they use their abilities.  If my character doesn't want to be teleported, he just has to not be in contact (direct or indirect) with the teleporter.  If he REALLY doesn't want to be teleported, perhaps a melee response to that hand reaching out to touch him, or an attack of opportunity when he starts casting that Teleport, is my answer.



Hussar said:


> Why give options only to then fence those options in?  And the only reason to fence those options in is because the options are too powerful in the first place.  And you see no problems with this?




Why ignore the limitations only to complain that the spells, without those limitations, are too powerful?



Hussar said:


> I mean, my nature bunny ranger gets jumped over because the wizard casts teleport, and that's okay because it's for the group?  My information gathering rogue gets entirely nerfed because the casters can gather information 10 times faster and more accurately than I can, and that's okay because it's for the group?




Or the wizard can get us to the edge of the Mysterious Forest, but it's risky to try to teleport into the unknowns inside it, so he gets us to the point where my Ranger can take over with guiding as we search for our elusive goal.  I've never seen a party find the mundane info gathering options useless, but maybe your GM is one of those guys who refuses to give skills the same "as written" power that spells get, or better yet wants to resolve all mundane matters by "role playing", so your +21 Gather Info does not in any way help you find the right guy or ask the right questions.



pemerton said:


> Also, if player choose mostly on concept, but some concepts don't work out that way at the table - for instance, suppose it turns out that a flying invisible wizard really is a mecahnically better stealth option than a thief or ninja - then some players are going to have a compromised play experience simply in virtue of the concept they preferred.
> 
> I would definitely count this as an instance of "compromised play experience".




I'm back to synergies and shared gaming. If the Ninja is super-stealthy, why is the wizard focusing his spell selection on stealth, rather than a resource the party does not already have?  We're starting a new game with a sorcerer specialized in enchantments and charms.  At L1, Sleep is pretty deadly against those Goblins, so my character shouldn't waste spells on goblins - hold them for the creatures immune to sleep (like that Quasit that is not subject to sleep and can't even be hurt by Acid Splash, so the sorcerer gets his sling out).



Neonchameleon said:


> In short 3.X D&D should only be played by shiny happy people holding hands. Because if there ever is an in character conflict between the fighter and the wizard the wizard wins.




Who starts the conflict? Is this "to the death"? Why doesn't the fighter kill the wizard in his sleep, rather than wait for him to wake up and take his Kill Warrior spell suite?  And what prevents PC's from resolving issues by discussion rather than a fight to the death?  If the fighter and the wizard can't get along, maybe they actually behave like real people and stop working together, rather than duel to the death.  Or maybe they recognize that they have more in common than they differ, and they compromise because they can achieve more together than apart.

If we allow a game style where the wizard carries a portable hole full of scrolls, presumably enchanted so the right scroll always pops right into his hand, no one ever tries to challenge him while he's getting that portable hole out and rummaging through it for the specific scroll he needs (or just smacks him while he reads it), never being constrained in either wealth or time to prepare them, it's never pointed out that portable holes mix poorly with rope tricks, and the game is always structured so the party can pull back and rest whenever, for however long, and as often as they choose, with no negative consequences, then the wizard seems a lot more powerful.  That's not my experience.  

And that's before we consider why enemy wizards don't get all the same advantages. Only PC's ever figure this stuff out, for some reason.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 20, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> What I'm suggesting is not only that the player says they do something within the rules the answer should be yes unless there is hidden in-game information (in which case no is still within the rules)



I think the answer *should* usually be yes, but the DM still has the final say. There are occasional exceptions. For example, a player might say something in-character that his character does not know (metagaming), perhaps unintentionally. The DM might say that the character does not and will not speak the problematic information, if this is important to the game.

A more common scenario is if a player declares an action that would be nonsensical for the character, because the DM has decided certain information about the setting, but has not told the players yet. For example, the players walk into a room, the DM describes a demon within the room. The players say they attack and start making dice rolls. The DM might disallow (or at least put on hold) those actions until he describes other threats in the room that might make the players reconsider.

And, the DM might simply disallow actions he doesn't like. For example, you get that one problem player who says "I kill the other PCs in their sleep and take their stuff". That can very likely be done within the rules, but that doesn't mean the DM allows it and you move on. Rules don't really cover those types of scenarios; there's clearly more that needs to be done here.

To bring the magic element into it, if a player says he scry/teleports and assassinates the king, the answer is very likely no. Does the DM bother to consult the rules for methods of teleport blocking, etc.? Maybe. Maybe not. (I don't think I've ever really rationalized my teleport blocking. I just say it's blocked and the players accept it as logical in the context of the world.) If a player uses Glitterdust on a crowd of people, does it blind them all for a round a level? No. Since that is overpowered, the answer is no. The DM changes the spell on the spot, and creates a more reasonable effect, which then becomes the standard. Ideally, that doesn't happen too often, but it is a part of the game.

When there is a reason for the DM to be doing these things, the player will often (but not always) agree, and the result will be consensus.



> but that if the player says that they do something plausible _outside_ (as opposed to against) the rules, the answer _should still be to say yes or roll the dice_.



In general, I think that is a good approach. There is a large distinction between having the power to adjudicate the players' actions and actually exercising it. The DM should be trying to encourage and facilitate the players, and saying no only when necessary for the game as a whole.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 20, 2013)

Hussar said:


> So, a player who is given the ability to radically alter the narrative of the game, uses those abilities in a non-DM sanctioned way and he or she is a problem player?






Ahnehnois said:


> Yes. I mean that's a slight oversimplification, because we're assuming that the DM is competent and everyone trusts him as such, but yes. Is there some controversy here?




This seems like a classic case of sandbox/storytelling conflict. And I believe the general response is that both are valid playstyles.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 20, 2013)

Starfox said:


> This seems like a classic case of sandbox/storytelling conflict. And I believe the general response is that both are valid playstyles.



I don't know. My games are pretty sandbox-y. Even sandboxes need someone watching over them. It is true that both are valid paradigms.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 21, 2013)

N'raac said:
			
		

> I'm back to synergies and shared gaming. If the Ninja is super-stealthy, why is the wizard focusing his spell selection on stealth, rather than a resource the party does not already have? We're starting a new game with a sorcerer specialized in enchantments and charms. At L1, Sleep is pretty deadly against those Goblins, so my character shouldn't waste spells on goblins - hold them for the creatures immune to sleep (like that Quasit that is not subject to sleep and can't even be hurt by Acid Splash, so the sorcerer gets his sling out).




Because it's not specializing for the wizard?  I mean, Fly and Invisibility are both pretty bog standard spells and not exactly eating up a whole lot of resources.  Arcane Eye, AFAIC, is a basic spell that every wizard should be bringing out.  Why?  Because, as a scout, in 3e, it's flat out better than the rogue can ever hope to be.  I mean, true, I need to have Darkvision to go with it, but, then again, so does the Rogue.  At minimum, I get 2100 feet of exploration out of this spell with zero risk.  That's a heck of a lot better than hoping the rogue doesn't botch his stealth check or doesn't meet anything with scent or tremorsense.



			
				Ahn said:
			
		

> To bring the magic element into it, if a player says he scry/teleports and assassinates the king, the answer is very likely no. Does the DM bother to consult the rules for methods of teleport blocking, etc.? Maybe. Maybe not. (I don't think I've ever really rationalized my teleport blocking. I just say it's blocked and the players accept it as logical in the context of the world.) If a player uses Glitterdust on a crowd of people, does it blind them all for a round a level? No. Since that is overpowered, the answer is no. The DM changes the spell on the spot, and creates a more reasonable effect, which then becomes the standard. Ideally, that doesn't happen too often, but it is a part of the game.




See, this?  This right here?  This is what I'm talking about.  The DM is disallowing spells, not because the player did anything wrong or outside the rules, but simply because the DM "changes the spell on the spot" to create a more "reasonable" effect.  

I believe this is exactly what I'm referring to.  See, N'raac, it's not about ignoring the game mechanics at all is it?  The player here is playing exactly by RAW and RAI.  There's no ambiguous language here.  The player used the spell in exactly the way it was intended - to blind large crowds.  And the player gets screwed over because the DM doesn't approve of his carefully constructed encounter being trashed by the caster.  How do you explain this?  The player hasn't done anything wrong, yet, his spell is being changed by DM fiat for no other reason than the DM disapproves.

Yeah, again, no thank you.  Playing Mother May I is not an experience I ever want to repeat.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 21, 2013)

Starfox said:


> This seems like a classic case of sandbox/storytelling conflict. And I believe the general response is that both are valid playstyles.




I disagree.  For one, sandbox is not the opposite of storytelling.  Sandbox is the opposite of linear.  

It's the difference between vesting all of the authorial control in the game in the DM or sharing authorial control between the DM, the rules and the players.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 21, 2013)

Hussar said:


> It's the difference between vesting all of the authorial control in the game in the DM or sharing authorial control between the DM, the rules and the players.




In the latest game I'm running I turned all authorial control to the players and they're self regulating. It's great not to have to concern myself with rules, dice rolls, or control. I just describe the narrative and let them do their thing. Not sure how well that would work in D&D but in my home brew it's fantastic.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 21, 2013)

Hussar said:


> The player used the spell in exactly the way it was intended - to blind large crowds.



It's worth noting that this likely _wasn't_ the intent. The spell is about revealing invisible or concealed things. The blinding is a side effect, one that was probably put in as a nod to "realism" and that whoever wrote the spell clearly underestimated.

Do you really think that overpowered abilities are intended to be so? No one's defending Glitterdust as a well-written spell. Out of several hundred (or thousand, going beyond core) there are going to be some spells that don't work as intended. You seem remarkably forgiving of mistakes in your game of choice (of which there are many, by any measure), is it so strange to you that DMs and players are willing to accept and deal with the rates of error in games with better editing but higher (and riskier) aspirations?



> And the player gets screwed over because the DM doesn't approve of his carefully constructed encounter being trashed by the caster.  How do you explain this?



No, not because his encounter is trashed. Because the spell itself is inappropriate. The encounter may or may not be trashed, and that isn't really the point. Sometimes encounters are trashed for good reasons and you let it play out and move on. Other times it exposes a flaw in the system, and you have to decide how to deal with the flaw.



> The player hasn't done anything wrong



...and isn't being treated as if he has. He's not getting punished (though you seem to be implying that), his actions are being adjudicated by the person whose job description it is to adjudicate them.



> Playing Mother May I is not an experience I ever want to repeat.



Your loss, I suspect, disregarding that ridiculous term. But there are plenty of games out there for you regardless.




> I mean, Fly and Invisibility are both pretty bog standard spells and not exactly eating up a whole lot of resources. Arcane Eye, AFAIC, is a basic spell that every wizard should be bringing out.



But why would he if he has someone else to do similar functions? Assuming the wizard has a regular party of companions, it makes sense for him to learn spells that expand upon or complement the other characters' abilities. Trying to replace them is not a logical goal, regardless of whether it is possible or not. It makes the party as a whole less powerful because the wizard is wasting resources that could be used elsewhere.

BTW Arcane Eye is one of those spells I don't know if I've ever seen anyone choose. I couldn't even remember what level it was, and I'm a 3e encyclopedia.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> It's worth noting that this likely _wasn't_ the intent. The spell is about revealing invisible or concealed things. The blinding is a side effect, one that was probably put in as a nod to "realism" and that whoever wrote the spell clearly underestimated.




Disagreement point. Blinding is the intention of the spell, the invisibility part is the side effect. Read the description, Blinding comes before the invisibility. The spell is intended to blind creatures and since it does that with glitter, it also happens to outline invisible creatures. 



Ahnehnois said:


> Do you really think that overpowered abilities are intended to be so? No one's defending Glitterdust as a well-written spell. Out of several hundred (or thousand, going beyond core) there are going to be some spells that don't work as intended. You seem remarkably forgiving of mistakes in your game of choice (of which there are many, by any measure), is it so strange to you that DMs and players are willing to accept and deal with the rates of error in games with better editing but higher (and riskier) aspirations?




Blinding creatures in a 10' radius certainly isn't overpowered. It would blind, what, 4 people in the crowd? 



Ahnehnois said:


> But why would he if he has someone else to do similar functions? Assuming the wizard has a regular party of companions, it makes sense for him to learn spells that expand upon or complement the other characters' abilities. Trying to replace them is not a logical goal, regardless of whether it is possible or not. It makes the party as a whole less powerful because the wizard is wasting resources that could be used elsewhere.




One could argue that the rogue is wasting skill points taking abilities that clearly the wizard is more suited to accomplish. It goes both ways. I'm not sure what spells your used to having a wizard have, but any wizard worth his weight in gold, doesn't take damage spells. They're a waste of resources. Buffs, debuffs, battlefield control, utility, those are the types that make the wizard great, fireball and scorching ray are a waste of spell slots. 



Ahnehnois said:


> BTW Arcane Eye is one of those spells I don't know if I've ever seen anyone choose. I couldn't even remember what level it was, and I'm a 3e encyclopedia.




Arcane eye is okay (4th by the way), but once you get prying eyes, the game gets really fun. Greater Prying Eyes makes me smile just thinking about it, but it's 8th so doesn't come up as much as I'd like, unless I have the resources to by a scroll of it early on. 

Basically what I'm getting at is that the martial characters fight the narrative the DM places in front of them. The casters fight to change the narrative. 5 Orcs appear and attack. The fighter says I attack them. The Wizard says, they don't attack anyone, they fall asleep instead.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 21, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> Disagreement point. Blinding is the intention of the spell, the invisibility part is the side effect. Read the description, Blinding comes before the invisibility. The spell is intended to blind creatures and since it does that with glitter, it also happens to outline invisible creatures.



I'm going to file that under "agree to disagree".



> Blinding creatures in a 10' radius certainly isn't overpowered. It would blind, what, 4 people in the crowd?



10 ft. radius, not diameter. It could be a lot more than four targets. In any case, the Blindness/Deafness spell at the same level affects only one target and doesn't reveal invisible creatures. To be fair, it is permanent, but that isn't all that relevant in combat situations. I think Glitterdust is just too powerful for its level. It's a tangential point anyway. There are spells that are overpowered, and simply changing them during play is something DMs can/should do.



> One could argue that the rogue is wasting skill points taking abilities that clearly the wizard is more suited to accomplish. It goes both ways.



That it does.



> Arcane eye is okay (4th by the way), but once you get prying eyes, the game gets really fun. Greater Prying Eyes makes me smile just thinking about it, but it's 8th so doesn't come up as much as I'd like, unless I have the resources to by a scroll of it early on.



I see Divination as a pretty popular prohibited school. And those are pretty high level; don't often get up there. I bet they're nice though.



> I'm not sure what spells your used to having a wizard have, but any wizard worth his weight in gold, doesn't take damage spells.



The last PC playing a wizard was an evoker who mostly took damage spells. Magic missile remained his most cast spell up through 6th or 7th level. Him being a PC in my game, his net worth in gold was probably greater than his body weight.

I also see a lot of transmuter/conjurer "support mage" types and a variety of esoteric casters, but certainly, IME the most popular reason to play a wizard/sorcerer is for the damage dealing spells.



> Basically what I'm getting at is that the martial characters fight the narrative the DM places in front of them. The casters fight to change the narrative. 5 Orcs appear and attack. The fighter says I attack them. The Wizard says, they don't attack anyone, they fall asleep instead.



I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Even to the extent that it's true, I don't it as a bad thing. Players play fighters because they want to kill orcs. Players play wizards because they want to play trump cards. Why not give them what they want?


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Jun 21, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I'm not sure what spells your used to having a wizard have, but any wizard worth his weight in gold, doesn't take damage spells.




What spells does my wizard have? Fireball and scorching ray . One of my players has scorching ray, and as soon as she gets the opportunity, I can guarantee fireball will be taken. I have an illusionist character who picks spells that allow her to perform trickery. That's her schtick. These characters might not be worth anything _in your esteem, or that of some internet community folk_, but they still make for great characters


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Even to the extent that it's true, I don't it as a bad thing. Players play fighters because they want to kill orcs. Players play wizards because they want to play trump cards. Why not give them what they want?




I suppose it goes back to the question, how many times do you take back fighter damage because it's overpowered? Do you cap damage and say anything over that is too much? Do you limit crits because they killed the bad guy too soon? 

DMs traditionally take it personally when their narrative is under attack. Since casters are primarily the ones impacting their narrative, they get the brunt of retaliatory meta-game actions, as you yourself described by changing spells in the middle of the game, after the player had spent in game resources on it. We've all done it, some of us have just gotten tired of it from both sides of the table. Why not let player narrative elements run wild? Where's the problem other than it impacts our story which we shouldn't be attached to anyway, because it's the players' story not ours, we're just there to help them reach their goals through challenging and interesting scenarios. If they want to bypass one with a clever spell, more power too them. 

Now we just need to give martials the same opportunity to shine!


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 21, 2013)

Dwimmerlied said:


> What spells does my wizard have? Fireball and scorching ray . One of my players has scorching ray, and as soon as she gets the opportunity, I can guarantee fireball will be taken. I have an illusionist character who picks spells that allow her to perform trickery. That's her schtick. These characters might not be worth anything _in your esteem, or that of some internet community folk_, but they still make for great characters




 oh they're classic spells and fun at that, but they usually require a greater investment in spell slots. 1 haste spell does more damage than a fireball, and after you cast it, you don't have to bother casting anything else that combat. You just sit back and watch your spell at work. It's the long game. I find a lot of people want the excitement of the big flashy spells, but they're like crack and players run out of spells rather quickly using them.

Illusionists can be a lot of fun, but they require the right type of DM, otherwise they get ignored and nerfed. I gave one a go for a PF game a little while ago. Did pretty decently but the spell selection was a bit disappointing. They really need to up the selection for the illusion school.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Jun 21, 2013)

I think what I'm trying to do discuss my feelings on this idea of taking away spells because they are too powerful. The argument made seems to be that they are over-powered because they potentially make a wizard more capable at any given party role or ability than anyone else. A counter was made that there are good reasons that a wizard won't choose these spells anyway if the role is filled by another character, and I agree with this. 

Further, and I think @_*sheadunne*_ your point illustrates this for me; you need to be analysing the game on a certain level to be doing this stuff in the first place. I honestly didn't know that haste was the more economical spell on a damage breakdown. But I'm still a gamer. So that brings into question how much of a problem it really is for all gamers. No gamer I know offline knows anything about optimisation. They make wizards because they are cool. Some of them like to blast things with balls of flame. Surely you've all met the gamer who loves to play the creepy necromancer that can summon the undead. And honestly, its gonna kill that if its a bad choice because you should optimise. Even with my level of knowledge, character concepts I have would rarely get past the drawing board because they would not be at all optimised, and that sux.

To address more of the debate as I understand it, if most people who game were optimisers, I'd suppose that it would be a good idea to limit character options, because then that would make most people happy. We'd have to stretch our suspension of disbelief to do so, but perhaps that would be necessary. Conversely, where most people don't play like this, I'd argue that you can put all the cool stuff in without being in fear of the optimiser population (who, mind you, will find ways to break everything anyway no matter what you do, because its what they do). And to make certain it all runs smoothly, because we KNOW creative rules will always result in unforseen combinations, we use the "dm fiat".

Now, DM Fiat has never been a problem in my games, but I believe that in these debates, a few people are hijaking it and using it as a dirty word. Anyone who suggests its useful, well they say "nah. thats simply the dm being a power tripper." In fact in my time reading these boards (much longer than my membership), ive seen this argument over and over again. These people disregard the fact that most (admittedly not all) people who use dm fiat have clearly (and perhaps exasperatedly) said that they simply use it to make the game run smoother for everyone.

I can understand the currency of narrative control. Its a nice thing to think about, and personally would not stand against it. I don't like unwieldy mechanics or nerfing imagination as its means to do so.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> The "conventional" D&D approach is that the character affects the game world, and the player controls the character, and has absolutely no other influence.



This may be the conventional approach for 3E - I wouldn't really know. It's not the conventional approach for Gygax's AD&D, though - the player by rolling a saving throw can affect the gameworld without controlling his/her PC (for instance, Gygax explains that a successful save against dragon breath by a fighter chained to a rock might mean that the fighter noticed a cleft in the rock and ducked into it).

Also, in classic D&D the player, by having his/her PC collect treasure, can make his/her PC more capable in the gameworld as a direct metagame benefit. That is not an infuence on the gameworld causally resulting from the actions taken by the PC within the fiction (eg no one, including Gygax, supposes that collecting treasure is an ingame cause of increased prowess).



Ahnehnois said:


> The point of metagame mechanics is to give players the ability to affect the game world, distinct from the abilities of their character.



Yes. Classic D&D has them (saving throws, XP and I would argue hit points are some of the key ones). 4e has them. I'm not competent to judge on 3E, but perhaps it has fewer of them (I don't really undertand its XP system, though at first blush it seems an odd mix of ingame and metagame; likewise its hp; its saving throws are obviously very different from classic D&D saving throws).



Ahnehnois said:


> Thus, a true metagame mechanic has nothing to do with the character. It is not dependent on what class or level the character is, and the character is not aware of or in control of them. That's why I gave the plot point example.



The character doesn't spend the resource; the player does. But it is a non-sequitur to argue from this to the conclusion that metagame resources cannot be differing parts of PC build from character to character. In fact, in RPG design t's utterly ubiquitous for metagame resources to be built into particular class choices (for instance) for balance purposes. That's why classic D&D fighters have more hp and robust saving throws. That's why thieves in classic D&D have a more generous XP table.

You've mentioned Cortex a couple of time: Marvel Heroic RP very obviously uses metagame resources to balance across different PC builds (lower dice roll proportinately more 1s and hence generate more Plot Points, to balance for the lower totals and lower effect dice).

Burning Wheel permits players to spend build resources on Traits that earn metagame points (Persona Points, which can be spent for bonus dice or death avoidance). Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed has the same thing, where a player can use build resources (in that case, feat slots) to acquire a feat that will accrue metgame points (Hero Points, I think they're called).



Ahnehnois said:


> What you have in 4e is some conventional, some metagame, and no clear distinction between the two. One power might be clearly metagame (i.e. something that the character cannot do), and another might be an ability of the character. Thus, no one really knows what a lot of the rules even mean. Certainly, for diehard fans its easy enough to rationalize these mixed in-game/metagame rules, but that lack of transparency and all the consequences thereof are kind of a problem for the rest of us.



In my view this is a distinctive and appealing feature of D&D. You have mechanics which can be treated as metagame or ingame from moment to moment of narration. Hit points and (non-3E) saving throws are time-honoured examples. 4e adds skills and some powers to that list.

Marvel Heroic RP does the same things, interestingly. For instance, during a Transition Scene Plot Points can be spent to activate a Specialty (the closest thing that game has to skills) so as to produce a Resource (a bonus die for future dice pools). Is spending the Plot Point a player action only, or a PC action too? That seems to me to depend completely on how it is narrated at the table. Suppose I (a player) spend a Plot Point to activate my Covert Specialty in order to get access to a passkey that will get me into the secret HQ. I narrate this as me scrounging around, digging up my old contacts, and eventually persuading one of them to make me a fake passkey. In that narration, it seems to me that spending the Plot Point is not just something the player did, but also something the character did: expenditure of the Plot Point correlates to effort spent within the fiction by the PC to acquire the Resource. But another narration might be "As I'm walking home in my secret identity, I notice a wallet lying on the ground. I pick it up, and luckily within it I find a passkey belonging to a low-level employee of secret HQ." In that case, spending the Plot Point is clearly happening at the player level only.

Neither narration is obviously preferable. Each makes sense within the fiction, and each gives the GM opportunities to develop future complications (fake passkey vs stolen passkey).

The 4e warlord is versatile in the same way. Consider a power that grants an ally a bonus action. This can be narrated as taking place ingame ("The inspired PC pushes harder, urged on by the valiant commander.") It can be narrated as purely metagame - this is how some lazylords play. And some PCs might flip back and forth - eg the "princess" warlord might sometimes be pure metagame, but when she screams for help or issues a biting rebuke then the bonus action actually has the PC's action as its ingame cause.

I guess I don't see what "all the consequences" are that are "a problem for the rest of us". If you're happy with metagame abilities you're already happy with introducing material into the fiction that did not have, as its fictional cuase, any PC's action. With 4e you just keep doing that when the inclination strikes you.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 21, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I suppose it goes back to the question, how many times do you take back fighter damage because it's overpowered?



I've done it. And there are some nonmagical abilities I've revised for being overpowered.



> DMs traditionally take it personally when their narrative is under attack.



That is a natural tendency for many people. However, I would argue that a large part of good DMing is learning not to do that.



> Since casters are primarily the ones impacting their narrative



Not my experience (NME?)


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 21, 2013)

pemerton said:


> You've mentioned Cortex a couple of time: Marvel Heroic RP very obviously uses metagame resources to balance across different PC builds (lower dice roll proportinately more 1s and hence generate more Plot Points, to balance for the lower totals and lower effect dice).



It does. And this is an important point. There are two big differences (with 4e). The first is that these are different games with different expectations. The term "fighter" in a D&D context carries certain expectations with it, as do a laundry list of other terms. Not that expectations can never be violated, but they are important.

The other is that the Cortex games are simply better. Because there are no pre-existing expectations to the contrary, they are free to create mixed in-game/metagame characters, as long as they do it well. And their implementation is much simpler and more direct. When I read a Cortex game ability, I can tell what it will do mechanically, and I can tell what it represents (whether it be the character's aptitudes, or some less tangible factor). They're not wasting space and spreading out abilities over hundreds and thousands of pages of rulebooks; everything has a purpose. And everything is explicitly costed, without a confusing resource management scheme or restrictive class and level-based structure to obfuscate that.

The problem when these conceptual arguments get conflated with 4e is that it'd effectively a built-in straw man. Metagame mechanics (and even systems that don't make a metagame/in-game distinction) can work. Tactical games can work. A gamist competitive approach and approach to PC balance can work. Thing is, when I think of those things, I don't think of 4e. I haven't read everything that WotC ever wrote about 4e, but to me the idea that 4e is "tactical" or "gamist" or "storygame" or "balanced" etc. etc. is not so much what the designers were thinking, they're more excuses that someone came up with well after the fact for things that were written by people who didn't know what they were doing at the time. So I think it actually makes more sense to talk about MHRP than about 4e, because the former is at least a reasonably well-executed version of what it is.



> I guess I don't see what "all the consequences" are that are "a problem for the rest of us". If you're happy with metagame abilities you're already happy with introducing material into the fiction that did not have, as its fictional cuase, any PC's action. With 4e you just keep doing that when the inclination strikes you.



Thing is, the inclination doesn't strike me. That's not what I'm looking for in a D&D game.

To extend a parallel discussion, why make life so hard for the DM and the players? There's all this talk about balancing character options, which I see occasionally being an issue in play but not that often. As a DM, I can fix balance issues. But what comes up more often is questions about what the rules mean, and what's going on in this shared reality we've created. When a player asks "what does this feat mean? Is it something I trained for? Is it natural talent?" or "what does my character feel when he's using this ability?" or "how am I 'out of rage'?" I need to have an answer! Simply having game mechanics and letting the DM (or players) figure out what they mean in the game world whenever the "inclination strikes" is not an acceptable solution to me. It's what  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] would call "lazy design", in my view.

Perhaps we should coin a new term for "Mother, what am I?" style play?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> these are different games with different expectations. The term "fighter" in a D&D context carries certain expectations with it, as do a laundry list of other terms. Not that expectations can never be violated, but they are important.
> 
> The other is that the Cortex games are simply better. Because there are no pre-existing expectations to the contrary, they are free to create mixed in-game/metagame characters, as long as they do it well. And their implementation is much simpler and more direct. When I read a Cortex game ability, I can tell what it will do mechanically, and I can tell what it represents
> 
> ...



These seem to be mostly biographical facts about you. Which isn't to say that they're unimportant (especially for you!) but I don't feel that they shed much new light on 4e. After all, I am a long-time D&D and Rolemaster GM, and I had no trouble working out what 4e was about, and have no trouble making sense of 4e PCs. When I first read through the PHB I could tell what the PCs could do mechanically, and what it represented.

Concrete example: how is a Warlord's Inspiring Word more opaque than (say) She Hulk's "Break the 4th Wall" ability?

The player of the fighter in my 4e game played a paladin in our earlier RM campaign, and played a druid/monk and (I seem to remember from stories he's told) a wizard in his prior 3E campaign. He hasn't had any trouble working out how to play a 4e fighter, and when he uses Come and Get It with his Black Peak Halberd no one seems to have any trouble imagining what's going on - it's classic fantasy polearm deftness, like Monkey and Sandy back in the TV show when we were kids.

Now my ease with 4e from the first time I read it is mostly just a biographical fact about me (reflecting in part my familiarity with some of the Forge-y design principles that inspired it, I suspect). And fact about my players are just more biography. But for me this tends to reinforce my sense that there is nothing inherently flawed with 4e's game/metagame interface if I can so easily come to grips with it, and my players also (one of whom has played only Rolemaster before 4e, and others of whom have played D&D and a bit of Top Secret back in the day, but not a particularly wide range of RPGs).


----------



## N'raac (Jun 21, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Because it's not specializing for the wizard?  I mean, Fly and Invisibility are both pretty bog standard spells and not exactly eating up a whole lot of resources.




You get two free spells at each character level and limited spell slots.  If you can use one to match what another character can already do, or to do something your teammates can't do, which is the better choice?  Invisibility is not Inaudibility, but if played as such, the wizard gains power.



Hussar said:


> Arcane Eye, AFAIC, is a basic spell that every wizard should be bringing out.  Why?  Because, as a scout, in 3e, it's flat out better than the rogue can ever hope to be.  I mean, true, I need to have Darkvision to go with it, but, then again, so does the Rogue.  At minimum, I get 2100 feet of exploration out of this spell with zero risk.  That's a heck of a lot better than hoping the rogue doesn't botch his stealth check or doesn't meet anything with scent or tremorsense.




Rogues can hear and pick objects up.  And rogues last more than 1 min/level.  In my games, the players tend to augment existing capabilities with spells like this - let's send an Arcane Eye out to determine where the Rogue's attention is best focused (but not at L7 - the wizard generally wants a flashier spell), and turn the much stealthier Rogue invisible to further enhance his own capabilities.



Hussar said:


> See, this?  This right here?  This is what I'm talking about.  The DM is disallowing spells, not because the player did anything wrong or outside the rules, but simply because the DM "changes the spell on the spot" to create a more "reasonable" effect.
> 
> I believe this is exactly what I'm referring to.  See, N'raac, it's not about ignoring the game mechanics at all is it?  The player here is playing exactly by RAW and RAI.  There's no ambiguous language here.  The player used the spell in exactly the way it was intended - to blind large crowds.  And the player gets screwed over because the DM doesn't approve of his carefully constructed encounter being trashed by the caster.  How do you explain this?  The player hasn't done anything wrong, yet, his spell is being changed by DM fiat for no other reason than the DM disapproves.




So making Teleport LoS because you think it's a problem is great, but don't nerf a spell that Hussar likes?  To me, if you're going to change any spell "because it's unbalanced", you also let the player change his spell, as the ground rules have changed.  Beyond that, I'm OK with the glitterdust spell.  You were telling me how powerful Teleport was and I disagreed with your interpretation.  I would, however, suggest that any spell considered a "must have" at its level should be looked at again for signs it is overpowered.  I see very few of these in practice, though.

I've seen enough "I do whatever I damn well please" players that I have no desire to game with those again either.  There's a lot of space between the extremes of "everything I wish to do must be approved by the GM" and "my character goes insane and attacks the party booga booga".  I have no desire to play at either extreme.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 21, 2013)

pemerton said:


> These seem to be mostly biographical facts about you.



That is partially true (and it would be rather hard for any of us to dissociate from our experiences). And, indeed, person experience (or lack thereof is a driver behind) some of the broader discontent with some of these issues. However, the idea that the Cortex approach, while emphasizing metagame elements, is simpler and more coherent is important and independent of my perspective.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 22, 2013)

Dwimmerlied said:


> To address more of the debate as I understand it, if most people who game were optimisers, I'd suppose that it would be a good idea to limit character options, because then that would make most people happy. We'd have to stretch our suspension of disbelief to do so, but perhaps that would be necessary. Conversely, where most people don't play like this, I'd argue that you can put all the cool stuff in without being in fear of the optimiser population (who, mind you, will find ways to break everything anyway no matter what you do, because its what they do). And to make certain it all runs smoothly, because we KNOW creative rules will always result in unforseen combinations, we use the "dm fiat".




In a group of all power-gamers balance is generally not an issue. Everyone will pick a high-power option. But for the non-optimizer crowd, balance is a bigger problem IMO. Either because one of the players is a better optimizer than the rest (perhaps without realizing it) or because one stuck gold in his build without realizing it, the power curve between different characters can vary wildly. So casual players are actually more dependent on a game having a structure that is inherently balanced.

On the other hand, a more casual game group might not care so much about balance, and feel it is ok that the wizard is the director while everyone else is an actor.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 22, 2013)

pemerton said:


> the player by rolling a saving throw can affect the gameworld without controlling his/her PC (for instance, Gygax explains that a successful save against dragon breath by a fighter chained to a rock might mean that the fighter noticed a cleft in the rock and ducked into it).




As meta-powers go, this is very modest, but 



pemerton said:


> Suppose I (a player) spend a Plot Point to activate my Covert Specialty in order to get access to a passkey that will get me into the secret HQ. I narrate this as me scrounging around, digging up my old contacts, and eventually persuading one of them to make me a fake passkey. In that narration, it seems to me that spending the Plot Point is not just something the player did, but also something the character did: expenditure of the Plot Point correlates to effort spent within the fiction by the PC to acquire the Resource. But another narration might be "As I'm walking home in my secret identity, I notice a wallet lying on the ground. I pick it up, and luckily within it I find a passkey belonging to a low-level employee of secret HQ." In that case, spending the Plot Point is clearly happening at the player level only.




Again, this is pretty modest metagame influence. I can easily accept much more metagame-y abilities. In my homebrew, I have a Mastermind schtick like this: 


Mastermind

Limit Break (This means it is an ability that can only be used with some preparation, or as a culmination of an action sequence)

You are a true mastermind, always one step ahead of the opposition. You make secret master plans that insure your success. You are able to bring hidden resources into play at any appropriate time. This is more common amongst villains than among heroes.

At any point during a scenario, you can reveal yet another well-placed resource. This can be followers, equipment, a secret weapons cache, a hidden vehicle; the only limitations are that you must have access to the resource and be able to motivate it as a part of your secret master plan. If this involves some action you secretly took earlier in the scenario, based on information you did not yet have at that point, so much the better. - this is where Masterminds really shine. For example, it is completely reasonable for you to have placed a tracer on the villains car in scene 1, even tough you did not know he was the villain until scene 3, and then use this tracer in scene 5 to find his whereabouts.

A master plan will never solve a plot, but it allows you to have the resources and preparations you need to set up interesting scenes and tackle difficult challenges. The main use is to avoid lengthy pauses when you have to stock up on information, gear, and resources.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 22, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Tthe idea that the Cortex approach, while emphasizing metagame elements, is simpler and more coherent is important



Simpler I would agree on. More coherent I'm less sure, unless you're meaning to point to (and put pressure on) the disconnect in 4e between combat and non-combat (skill challenge) resolution - because I agree that this is one of the weaker parts of 4e.

But 4e also has trad wargame-y elements - like positioning in combat, for instance, as a distinct mechanical dimension rather than just another element of the narrative - which are pretty fun if you're into that sort of thing. It's not incoherent to combine these trad elements with "modern" design, I don't think.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 22, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Mastermind
> 
> <snip>
> 
> At any point during a scenario, you can reveal yet another well-placed resource.



In MHRP this is done by spending a plot point if the GM rolls a 1 in his/her dice pool.

But unlike some of the examples I mentioned upthread, I don't think that this plot point expenditure is flexible between the player doing something and the PC doing something. In this case I think it is obviously the player who is spending the point; whatever the PC may have done, s/he did that much earlier in the fiction than the point at which the plot point is spent.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 22, 2013)

pemerton said:


> In this case I think it is obviously the player who is spending the point; whatever the PC may have done, s/he did that much earlier in the fiction than the point at which the plot point is spent.




Which in my experience goes down much better with my players, who feel that alienated when they are expected to sit in the director's chair - they want to play their character and possibly agents of that character - they do not want to god-mode.

Oddly perhaps, but as a DM I don't have much problem with my players god-moding and suggesting plot developments. It is the players who have a problem with this. This sensitivity varies, but most of them share it - both those who have played in campaigns that are very conservative about god-moding, and new players without such a background.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 22, 2013)

Well, this thread certainly got away from me.  It is no longer about the original topic in the slightest.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 22, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Simpler I would agree on. More coherent I'm less sure, unless you're meaning to point to (and put pressure on) the disconnect in 4e between combat and non-combat (skill challenge) resolution - because I agree that this is one of the weaker parts of 4e.



I think it's also worth noting that fairly soon we'll have 13th Age, which feels like it's also going to be experimenting in this territory.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 22, 2013)

Hussar said:


> I believe this is exactly what I'm referring to.  See, N'raac, it's not about ignoring the game mechanics at all is it?  The player here is playing exactly by RAW and RAI.  There's no ambiguous language here.  The player used the spell in exactly the way it was intended - to blind large crowds.  And the player gets screwed over because the DM doesn't approve of his carefully constructed encounter being trashed by the caster.  How do you explain this?  The player hasn't done anything wrong, yet, his spell is being changed by DM fiat for no other reason than the DM disapproves.
> 
> Yeah, again, no thank you.  Playing Mother May I is not an experience I ever want to repeat.



I'm kind of torn about this.  I hate the Mother May I game.  I've played with too many DMs who change things on the fly.  On the other hand, I like playing games where one character doesn't dominate.  I like knowing that my ability to swing a sword is equal in value to the group to the Wizards entire spell list.

If a spell is completely overpowered as the spell in question is, I'd probably have more fun if the DM changed it.  On the other hand, if I was the player of the Wizard in question I'd be completely pissed off.  I chose to take a spell that was legal in the book and suddenly it's changed to something else.  However, if this was done between sessions and I had a reasonable chance to change my character to compensate for the change, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

I'd also be perfectly ok if an action I wanted to take was declined by the DM if I knew the DM was doing it to make the game better.  I'd rather have a DM tell a player they aren't allowed to kill the rest of the party in their sleep than have to roll up a new character because someone was being a jerk.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 22, 2013)

I think that anyone who thinks that any refereed role playing game isn't, at a fundamental level, "Mother May I" is fooling themselves. There may be lots of structure that sits in top of it, but if you can't get along with and trust your GM and other players, none of that will make the game better.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 22, 2013)

[MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION], [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - as a GM who has had to nerf/rewrite overpowered spells (esp in RM, where not all the books are equal in quality/balance), I've always tried to do it by getting the player on board and discussing how a balanced alteration/alternative can be arrived at. Sometimes the player has suggested nerfs. Sometimes a player has been very wedded to the broken version, and I've backed off.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 22, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I think that anyone who thinks that any refereed role playing game isn't, at a fundamental level, "Mother May I" is fooling themselves. There may be lots of structure that sits in top of it, but if you can't get along with and trust your GM and other players, none of that will make the game better.




You're probably right. I don't game that way anymore though. Players agree to a rule set and we game. No changes. No asking. If you want to do it, go for it. Why do I care what you're character is doing, it's your character. However, it required a great deal of change for the players. We're taught as gamers to game a certain way and its difficult to break that. If the rules are ambiguous, it's up to them to figure it out, I don't need to concern myself with it. I find that the players are much harder on themselves than I would ever be. 

Now that said, D&D doesn't lend itself easily to that experience. That referred part is built heavily into its assumptions. But other systems do lend themselves more readily to it, but usually this is done through creating systems to counter or change the GMs narrative rather than create a joint shared narrative experience. 

Players get anxious when you ask if they hit and they say yes and then you ask them, okay, what happened? 

Or you ask them to describe the tavern they just entered or what the villain looks like. 

It's a very different experience


----------



## Hussar (Jun 23, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I'm going to file that under "agree to disagree".
> 
> 10 ft. radius, not diameter. It could be a lot more than four targets. In any case, the Blindness/Deafness spell at the same level affects only one target and doesn't reveal invisible creatures. To be fair, it is permanent, but that isn't all that relevant in combat situations. I think Glitterdust is just too powerful for its level. It's a tangential point anyway. There are spells that are overpowered, and simply changing them during play is something DMs can/should do.




See, that's the point though.  The spells are overpowered in your opinion.  ((Now, I'll say that I likely agree, but, that's not the issue))  But, since you're wearing the big daddy pants, only your opinion matters.  If the player disagrees, he's out of luck.  You believe that changing the rules when the DM feels its appropriate is something a DM should do.  

I do not.



> That it does.
> 
> I see Divination as a pretty popular prohibited school. And those are pretty high level; don't often get up there. I bet they're nice though.




A 4th level spell is pretty high level?  That's a 7th level wizard.  That's the beginning of mid-range for 3e.  



> The last PC playing a wizard was an evoker who mostly took damage spells. Magic missile remained his most cast spell up through 6th or 7th level. Him being a PC in my game, his net worth in gold was probably greater than his body weight.
> 
> I also see a lot of transmuter/conjurer "support mage" types and a variety of esoteric casters, but certainly, IME the most popular reason to play a wizard/sorcerer is for the damage dealing spells.




And, given this experience, I would say that this is why you don't see a problem with casters.  After all, evokers are the weakest of the 3e casters.   Which brings me back to the point I made earlier that much of your opinion is based on the fact that you have never really had to face players who dig deeply into the system.  



> I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Even to the extent that it's true, I don't it as a bad thing. Players play fighters because they want to kill orcs. Players play wizards because they want to play trump cards. Why not give them what they want?




Because it can get to the point where the wizard is playing trump cards every single encounter.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 23, 2013)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION], [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - as a GM who has had to nerf/rewrite overpowered spells (esp in RM, where not all the books are equal in quality/balance), I've always tried to do it by getting the player on board and discussing how a balanced alteration/alternative can be arrived at. Sometimes the player has suggested nerfs. Sometimes a player has been very wedded to the broken version, and I've backed off.




To be honest, I've done the same.  My beef generally comes when the changes come after the fact.  The character has done something and the DM says, "Hey, wait, I think that's too powerful, you can't do that".  It almost never, IME, works the other way - the DM does something and stops and says, "Hey, wait, I think that's too powerful, I can't do that".  Just like in the OP, the massive damage effect wasn't taken back even though it was problematic.

Now, if I know before I take, say, Glitterdust, that the DM has alternative rules in place?  That's 100% on me.  No problems.  But, again, IME, DM's rarely do that.  It's all after the fact and they want to retcon the player's action to protect their scenario.  

Pulling the rug out from under the players is never a good thing IME.  If something is established in the game, change it for next time after a discussion with the players.  Don't try to change things after the fact.  That always leads to bad feelings and breeds distrust between the player and the DM.  After all, once you've shown that you are willing to retcon an action taken by the player, there's no reason to believe that you won't do it again, and every reason to think that you will.  

Which leads to Mother May I gaming where the player has to view every action both through his personal lens of how the rule of the game are written and through the lens of how he views the DM will interpret the action within the game world.  Any and all actions become suspect.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2013)

Hussar said:


> My beef generally comes when the changes come after the fact.  The character has done something and the DM says, "Hey, wait, I think that's too powerful, you can't do that".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



In the RM experience I was referring to it's sometimes after, sometimes before.

When the effect that's overpowered is core to the spell - say the duration of a buff, or the way of calculating damage for an attack - then I wouldn't normally retcon.

When the effect is something peripheral and broken (one that comes to mind is using scrying defences spells, that create a false vision when scrying is attempted, to try to set up communication systems more powerful than the message/sending spells in the system, by having the scrying attempt hit an image of the character reading a newspaper with the information that the player in question wanted to communicate) then I might intervene when the players are making their plan.

The way things work at my table, it would never come about that a player would simply declare an action and then have me veto or retcon it. Either I would intervene at the preliminary planning stage, or suggest a retake, or suggest a change for the future because what happened was clearly overpowered.

(I should add - this has not really been an issue in 4e, because of its general tendency to approach mechanics from the point of view of satisfactory metagame parameters rather than modelling ingame cause-and-effect. It's the latter approach that I have found tends to produce overpowered combos and/or side effects.)


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 23, 2013)

Hussar said:


> See, that's the point though.  The spells are overpowered in your opinion.  ((Now, I'll say that I likely agree, but, that's not the issue))  But, since you're wearing the big daddy pants, only your opinion matters.  If the player disagrees, he's out of luck.  You believe that changing the rules when the DM feels its appropriate is something a DM should do.
> 
> I do not.



I understand that, but I have a hard time seeing a viable alternative within a D&D context. One common synonym for DM/GM, after all, is "referee". Does your average baseball player agree with an umpires ball/strike calls (or any athlete with any calls) when they go against him? Probably not. Does he get a say in the matter? No. Even when the people in charge of adjudicating the rules are clearly wrong (definitely happens), even more clear is the importance of having someone to do what they do. Someone tries to blind a crowd with a Glitterdust spell, all I do is call a ball, throw them a new baseball, and let them keep trying.

So yes, when a player disagrees, he's out of luck. It can sometimes suck being that player, but that's the game.

I really don't get the attitude that you seem to be suggesting, which is that if a group picks up the 3.0 rules, a fighter goes and buys a bag of rats and whirlwind attacks the rats so he can cleave an opponent to oblivion, the DM is obligated to allow it. That was totally legal. Then they fixed it in 3.5, and addressed the systemic issues with how multiple attacks were gained so it was clear that stuff like that shouldn't work. Until then, it was just player discretion to not do it, or the DM saying no. When I make changes in the rules, or rule for situations not covered, all I'm doing is enforcing my vision of common sense and drafting 3.75 as I go. That is, I'm doing my job.



> A 4th level spell is pretty high level?  That's a 7th level wizard.  That's the beginning of mid-range for 3e.



If you believe in the NPC demographic guidelines in the DMG, there are not a lot of 7th level spellcasters in the world. If you have characters overcome 13 on-level challenges to gain a level, the sheer mortality rate in the world's population would place rather harsh limits on what level creatures can reach. If you play E6, that spell doesn't exist. Yes, we do sometimes call that mid-level, because there are a lot more levels, but in the context of the game world I'd say it's a pretty impressive level to be at. And indeed, there are many abilities at that level that commoners would awe it.



> And, given this experience, I would say that this is why you don't see a problem with casters.  After all, evokers are the weakest of the 3e casters.   Which brings me back to the point I made earlier that much of your opinion is based on the fact that you have never really had to face players who dig deeply into the system.



I've had a variety of players from different backgrounds with absurdly different philosophies on gaming. Believe me, some of them dug pretty deep. Evokers are the most popular, but I've seen plenty of other casters. And the druid has always been pretty popular in my games. What's more powerful than a druid? I'm still not buying this notion that I have apparently missed some huge underlying issue with the game. How many casters would I have to see played before I had a decent sample size? How many games must I run before I can be sure that the system works?



> Because it can get to the point where the wizard is playing trump cards every single encounter.



Can, but shouldn't, and usually doesn't.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 23, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Pulling the rug out from under the players is never a good thing IME.  If something is established in the game, change it for next time after a discussion with the players.  Don't try to change things after the fact.  That always leads to bad feelings and breeds distrust between the player and the DM.  After all, once you've shown that you are willing to retcon an action taken by the player, there's no reason to believe that you won't do it again, and every reason to think that you will.



I'm not sure I see the big issue with retconning. I have no problem with saying something, realizing it didn't work five minutes later, and going back and pretending it didn't happen. The important thing to me is that we agree on what happened, and that it makes sense. The messiness of the process used to get there is less important.

But I totally agree that DM actions that invalidate the player's choices or violate the social contract, it defeats the point of sitting down to play the game in the first place. It's worth noting that any rule adjustment that might hurt the players could just as easily benefit them (or hurt their enemies). It's up to the DM to ensure that the players know what to expect and are treated fairly.



> Which leads to Mother May I gaming where the player has to view every action both through his personal lens of how the rule of the game are written and through the lens of how he views the DM will interpret the action within the game world. Any and all actions become suspect.



Given your stated opinion that my experience is somehow incomplete or inadequate because my players haven't done certain things, I conversely wonder if you would characterize these things differently if you'd simply had a better DM.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 23, 2013)

Ahn said:
			
		

> I understand that, but I have a hard time seeing a viable alternative within a D&D context. One common synonym for DM/GM, after all, is "referee". Does your average baseball player agree with an umpires ball/strike calls (or any athlete with any calls) when they go against him? Probably not. Does he get a say in the matter? No. Even when the people in charge of adjudicating the rules are clearly wrong (definitely happens), even more clear is the importance of having someone to do what they do. Someone tries to blind a crowd with a Glitterdust spell, all I do is call a ball, throw them a new baseball, and let them keep trying.




How often does the referee get to change the rules in the middle of the game?  If I decide that you're too good of a batter, so, now your strike zone starts at the top of your head to the tip of your toes, is that valid?



			
				Ahn said:
			
		

> Given your stated opinion that my experience is somehow incomplete or inadequate because my players haven't done certain things, I conversely wonder if you would characterize these things differently if you'd simply had a better DM.




But, again, this isn't a DM issue.  Not really.  It's only a DM issue when the DM insists on forcing his view of the rules on the group in mid play.  I've played with DM's who do this, just like you.  DM's who change mechanics mid-stream to force the game into a shape that they want.  I've also played with DM's who step back, trust the players and trust the mechanics and any changes made are never done mid-action.  

I know exactly which ones I want to play with.  And, as a DM, I know which way I lean.  I would never change something in the middle, just to fit things into what I think is right.  If Glitterdust is a problem, it gets resolved outside of game, after the problem is identified.  That way, the players know that they can trust the mechanics, and consequently, trust me because they know that they will never have the rug pulled out from under them just because I don't think the rules are right.

Maybe it's because all the people I play with have almost always been DM's themselves.  I've never been in a group with only one DM.  Or at least, very rarely.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 23, 2013)

Hussar said:


> If something is established in the game, change it for next time after a discussion with the players.  Don't try to change things after the fact.  That always leads to bad feelings and breeds distrust between the player and the DM.



Maybe it's because I only play with friends, but I never have to even worry about my players distrusting me. It doesn't happen, even when changing things after the fact had happened when I played 3.5.


Hussar said:


> Which leads to Mother May I gaming where the player has to view every action both through his personal lens of how the rule of the game are written and through the lens of how he views the DM will interpret the action within the game world.  Any and all actions become suspect.



Definitely a big risk, and part of why I made skill uses and such so spelled out in my game. I wanted to empower the players as much as I could, which mean concrete abilities that they could rely on, including spells, skills, martial abilities, and the like. Which, yes, takes mechanical balance, playtesting, etc.

It's definitely a system issue as much as it is a table issue, in my opinion. And I'd prefer to avoid saying "that doesn't work" as GM all the time. As always, play what you like


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 23, 2013)

Hussar said:


> How often does the referee get to change the rules in the middle of the game?  If I decide that you're too good of a batter, so, now your strike zone starts at the top of your head to the tip of your toes, is that valid?



Yes, it's valid. And referees of all sorts absolutely do these things. Wise? No. Umpires (and DMs) who do a lot of that tend to be weeded out over time, but they do have that level of authority.

I think it's important to note that many of those situations are places where the player gets screwed by the rules, and the DM/referee steps in to give them a fair chance.



> I know exactly which ones I want to play with.  And, as a DM, I know which way I lean.  I would never change something in the middle, just to fit things into what I think is right.



A reasonable approach, perfectly within the DM's discretion.

I do think, however, that if you are going to take a passive approach to DMing, you have to accept the consequences, which can include players doing questionable things that may derail the game. I do not think that a game designer's job is to prevent those kinds of situations. I doubt that many of them can be attributed to a presence or lack of "balance" in the rules themselves. And your assertion that one popular rpg falls apart like a house of cards any time a player tries to do anything while another less popular rpg is impermeable to the assaults of players' will and has made the DM's judgment obsolete, is so extreme a statement, and so at odds with my own experiences and the market trends of the game, that I do continue to wonder where that assertion comes from.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 23, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Maybe it's because I only play with friends



That's something I wonder as well. I've certainly had people come in and out of my group, but I've had long-term continuity on the whole with my D&D players. The social contract and the experience we have is likely to be very different than people who play at game stores or through some kind of organized situation with strangers.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 23, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> That's something I wonder as well. I've certainly had people come in and out of my group, but I've had long-term continuity on the whole with my D&D players. The social contract and the experience we have is likely to be very different than people who play at game stores or through some kind of organized situation with strangers.



I don't think this is just it however.  I play with my friends like Jim as I've been discussing.  However, my friends want to win.  They have the most fun when they are winning.  They don't like changes mid game because they built their character around the abilities they chose SO they could win.  If you change something to make it worse, it's likely that they'll get angry that they can't win as easily anymore.  In a worst case scenario, they feel that what you've changed has made their character unplayable because it was part of some unbeatable combo they've discovered.  Take away any key piece of that combo and it might only be good instead of completely overpowering.  They didn't take the combo just to be GOOD.

Which is why Jim has stated multiple times that he doesn't trust ANY DM.  They are all bastards who are out to ruin interesting ideas he comes up with.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 23, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Yes, it's valid. And referees of all sorts absolutely do these things. Wise? No. Umpires (and DMs) who do a lot of that tend to be weeded out over time, but they do have that level of authority.




That's the thing though.  DM's who do this a lot don't get weeded out over time.  They keep on going and going and going.  I've had this sort of experience with DM's who've run games for many years.  They don't see anything wrong, because, like you, they feel that it's incumbent on the DM to change the rules whenever they feel it appropriate.  

However, the problem is, "appropriate" can vary pretty wildly.



> I think it's important to note that many of those situations are places where the player gets screwed by the rules, and the DM/referee steps in to give them a fair chance.
> 
> A reasonable approach, perfectly within the DM's discretion.
> 
> I do think, however, that if you are going to take a passive approach to DMing, you have to accept the consequences, which can include players doing questionable things that may derail the game. I do not think that a game designer's job is to prevent those kinds of situations.




While I absolutely do think that it's the game designer's job to prevent serious mechanical issue from occurring.  That's the whole point of playtesting and whatnot, isn't it?  To make sure that one option isn't so superior to other options that it becomes the default.




> I doubt that many of them can be attributed to a presence or lack of "balance" in the rules themselves. And your assertion that one popular rpg falls apart like a house of cards any time a player tries to do anything while another less popular rpg is impermeable to the assaults of players' will and has made the DM's judgment obsolete, is so extreme a statement, and so at odds with my own experiences and the market trends of the game, that I do continue to wonder where that assertion comes from.




Whoa down there partner.  I've not said anything whatsoever about 4e here.  You really don't have to be coy about it do you?  There's all sorts of issues in 4e.  They tend to be different issues than 3e, but they're still there.  But, since I know you don't know much about 4e, why would I use 4e examples?  3e examples of imbalance work pretty well here.  And 3e is a thousand times better balanced than what came before it.  So, please, do not attribute things to me that I haven't actually stated.  It's much easier that way.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 23, 2013)

Hussar said:


> I would never change something in the middle, just to fit things into what I think is right.  If Glitterdust is a problem, it gets resolved outside of game, after the problem is identified.  That way, the players know that they can trust the mechanics, and consequently, trust me because they know that they will never have the rug pulled out from under them just because I don't think the rules are right.




I tend to agree with this. I've certainly encountered these situations but generally operate by allowing that instance to go ahead with the knowledge that it'll be house ruled in the future.



JamesonCourage said:


> It's definitely a system issue as much as it is a table issue, in my opinion. And I'd prefer to avoid saying "that doesn't work" as GM all the time. As always, play what you like




It's certainly possible to write a borked game system and for players (on both sides of the screen) to abuse a working system to the point where it doesn't work as intended.

I think one of the chief reasons for this in all versions of D&D has been the proliferation of classes. In 3.x onwards the proliferation of feats probably doesn't help either.



Hussar said:


> While I absolutely do think that it's the game designer's job to prevent serious mechanical issue from occurring.  That's the whole point of playtesting and whatnot, isn't it?  To make sure that one option isn't so superior to other options that it becomes the default.




I suspect it's the lack of sufficient play testing that causes such new classes and feats to be problematic.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 24, 2013)

To be fair though, [MENTION=6703609]Mike Eagling[/MENTION], 3e's extra classes were rarely problematic.  I've never heard of balance issues with something like a Martial or a Favoured Soul.  

Feats?  Sure. There was quite a bit there, although, again, I have to give props were it's due.  We've got thousands of official feats from WOTC and only a handful of problematic ones.  That's pretty impressive.

Give WOTC its due, they know how to build a damn solid game.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

It is odd. People keep saying ut it the classes in the PHB that are causing problems - cleric, druid, wizard. Yet in our games here, we've actually added to these classes (generally by making metamagic more attractive) and yet we've never really felt this to be an issue. It surely depends on the group.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> It is odd. People keep saying ut it the classes in the PHB that are causing problems - cleric, druid, wizard. Yet in our games here, we've actually added to these classes (generally by making metamagic more attractive) and yet we've never really felt this to be an issue. It surely depends on the group.



I've done a lot of house rules, but certainly some of the big ones were favorable towards the casters. Because there were places I thought they needed help. Hasn't changed the nature of the game, hasn't been problematic.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> It is odd. People keep saying ut it the classes in the PHB that are causing problems - cleric, druid, wizard. Yet in our games here, we've actually added to these classes (generally by making metamagic more attractive) and yet we've never really felt this to be an issue. It surely depends on the group.



To create a CoDoWzilla, the player requires both the knowledge and desire. If a cleric uses all her spell slots on healing then she won't outshine the fighter. If she uses divine power and righteous might then she will. Also, it only happens at mid to high level. At some point between level 5 and 10, certainly once teleport becomes available, the casters have the capability to become the driving force.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 24, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I've had a variety of players from different backgrounds with absurdly different philosophies on gaming. Believe me, some of them dug pretty deep. Evokers are the most popular, but I've seen plenty of other casters. And the druid has always been pretty popular in my games. What's more powerful than a druid? I'm still not buying this notion that I have apparently missed some huge underlying issue with the game. How many casters would I have to see played before I had a decent sample size? How many games must I run before I can be sure that the system works?
> 
> Can, but shouldn't, and usually doesn't.




My experience is similar - no game breakers, but no one who seems especially inclined to break the game.



Hussar said:


> That's the thing though.  DM's who do this a lot don't get weeded out over time.  They keep on going and going and going.  I've had this sort of experience with DM's who've run games for many years.  They don't see anything wrong, because, like you, they feel that it's incumbent on the DM to change the rules whenever they feel it appropriate.




There must be enough players who approve of this style to enable these GM's to continue running games.  If the GM is "bad", then he gets weeded out by a lack of players,  If he still has players, then his game must be pleasing some players. Either that means he is not a "bad GM" or that this group is having badwrongfun and must be removed from gaming.



Doug McCrae said:


> To create a CoDoWzilla, the player requires both the knowledge and desire. If a cleric uses all her spell slots on healing then she won't outshine the fighter. If she uses divine power and righteous might then she will. Also, it only happens at mid to high level. At some point between level 5 and 10, certainly once teleport becomes available, the casters have the capability to become the driving force.




When the cleric has used up all his spell slots, the fighter can keep going.  As the cleric is not healing the team, I assume they have some other method of magical healing. If the game is sympathetic to letting the party rest and regain spells, such that they need never be judicious about their spell use, then the spellcaster becomes more powerful.  Maybe the game needs some challenges that are more time-sensitive.  I find a variety of challenges tends to result in less ability for a single character to overpower the game.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

I had a druid (played 1-20) in my campaign that started out as a CoDzilla, but ended up as almost a pure summoner and buffer, with a touch of warrior. It was simply more effective to buff summoned creatures and other party members than to buff only herself.

Earlier in a discussion like this, someone said it is more effective to cast a single Haste than several fireballs. Well, that is true if the DM goes easy on you. Here, you generally need Haste AND Fireball to finish a tough fight. But comparing the two, I agree Haste mostly is better.

What I find really affects the balance between casters and non-casters is the amount of magic items - warrior types benefit more from theirs, so many items shift the balance their way. We generally play rather high-magic games with lots of magic items, so this may account for our experiences. If the fighter has Wings of Flying and Necklace of Missiles, the wizard suddenly seems a lot less privileged.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Jun 24, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> I think one of the chief reasons for this in all versions of D&D has been the proliferation of classes. In 3.x onwards the proliferation of feats probably doesn't help either.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it's the lack of sufficient play testing that causes such new classes and feats to be problematic.




This is my impression too, though I think it wasn't the base classes but prestige classes. Especially toward the end. I felt they were pumping out a lot of stuff because a lot of stuff sells, and playtesting was perhaps not practical (given the vast combinations possible). Exponentially more broken possibilities were generated with each new product, and people like to exploit that stuff. With those kind of combinations being unwittingly generated, the system really needed the failsafe of rule 0.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 24, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> It's certainly possible to write a borked game system and for players (on both sides of the screen) to abuse a working system to the point where it doesn't work as intended.
> 
> I think one of the chief reasons for this in all versions of D&D has been the proliferation of classes. In 3.x onwards the proliferation of feats probably doesn't help either.




The problem with this theory is that if we look at the Class Tier System at least half the tier 1 classes are in the PHB (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) and three other PHB classes are Tier 5.  The PHB is the single worst balanced book in the game.  This is a pattern that remains true in 4e where at least one class is overpowered (ranger), one was underpowered but needed an errata nerf bat (wizard).  Before _Heroes of Shadow _it was the worst balanced book in the game.

I think the problem is that the PHB always comes out before the game is fully mature and has been explored properly.


----------



## Tuft (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> I had a druid (played 1-20) in my campaign that started out as a CoDzilla, but ended up as almost a pure summoner and buffer, with a touch of warrior. It was simply more effective to buff summoned creatures and other party members than to buff only herself.
> 
> Earlier in a discussion like this, someone said it is more effective to cast a single Haste than several fireballs. Well, that is true if the DM goes easy on you. Here, you generally need Haste AND Fireball to finish a tough fight. But comparing the two, I agree Haste mostly is better.
> 
> What I find really affects the balance between casters and non-casters is the amount of magic items - warrior types benefit more from theirs, so many items shift the balance their way. We generally play rather high-magic games with lots of magic items, so this may account for our experiences. If the fighter has Wings of Flying and Necklace of Missiles, the wizard suddenly seems a lot less privileged.




Played in the campaign  [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] mentions above, and it still amazes me how smoothly it played up at level 20 (where we stayed for multiple adventures, including a massive AP finishing arc), at least from a players perspective. Before, I had heard a lot of bad things about high-level 3.5 play, so I had expected the worst, but instead it went great. Cannot speak for how it was from the DM's side of things, though, of course.

It was a very item-rich campaign, but people generally picked items fitting their characters, so it did not feel at all as if the items domineered the characters; rather, they were extensions and emphasises on the characters.

And I *do* subscribe to the theory above, that items smooth out the versatility differences between classes in a major way. Much more than they affect the general power curve, in fact. (The tier theory has been mentioned, and as far as I remember, it concerns itself more with versatlity than power.)


----------



## N'raac (Jun 24, 2013)

What also tends to happen is that new classes get introduced, but rarely expanded in later supplements.  Meanwhile, every spellcaster introduced tends to receive a sub-selection of existing spells, and some new spells get added, some for the new classes in that book, but all of these tend to also be available to the base arcane or divine classes as well.  The core classes grow with pretty much every new release, where the added classes are rarely expanded in subsequent releases.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 24, 2013)

N'raac said:


> What also tends to happen is that new classes get introduced, but rarely expanded in later supplements.  Meanwhile, every spellcaster introduced tends to receive a sub-selection of existing spells, and some new spells get added, some for the new classes in that book, but all of these tend to also be available to the base arcane or divine classes as well.  The core classes grow with pretty much every new release, where the added classes are rarely expanded in subsequent releases.




I always find that frustrating!


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> What I find really affects the balance between casters and non-casters is the amount of magic items - warrior types benefit more from theirs, so many items shift the balance their way. We generally play rather high-magic games with lots of magic items, so this may account for our experiences. If the fighter has Wings of Flying and Necklace of Missiles, the wizard suddenly seems a lot less privileged.




This always raises the question, who created the magic items? Is using a magic item different than a wizard who casts a buff on another player (other than the permanency of the effect)? The power and ability of the wizard doesn't come from the amount of damage he does on his own, but his ability to shape the narrative and effectively deal more damage over time. That necklace of missiles he created? counts toward the wizards final tally (if you will), not the fighters, when determining class effectiveness and balance. 

Anyway, it's all about the lens you view the game through. Right now I'm all about the narrative. Who influences it and who has ability to shape it. In D&D it is strongly suggested that the DM has complete narrative control, but then it creates spells and effects that give narrative control to some classes and not to others. It then encourages DMs to prevent the use of those spells and effects if they interfere with their narrative. It's a mess if you ask me. I guess that's just part of the D&D charm. It really only creates problems for players who want more influence over the narrative and haven't found a DM who wants more player narrative control. Is that segment significant? No idea.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 24, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Which is why Jim has stated multiple times that he doesn't trust ANY DM.  They are all bastards who are out to ruin interesting ideas he comes up with.




Wow. 

D&D is a cooperative game, a shared experience for all at the table to have an equal experience, not for an single individual to have "power" through winning. I'm sorry, I don't know your friend, but I do not believe that the game design in any way should pamper to this level of antagonistic behavior.

Again, sorry if this seems judgmental.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 24, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> I do not believe that the game design in any way should pamper to this level of antagonistic behavior.



Nor should any individual table, in my opinion. It may come from experience, but this kind of attitude is toxic and should not be encouraged.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> This always raises the question, who created the magic items? Is using a magic item different than a wizard who casts a buff on another player (other than the permanency of the effect)? The power and ability of the wizard doesn't come from the amount of damage he does on his own, but his ability to shape the narrative and effectively deal more damage over time. That necklace of missiles he created? counts toward the wizards final tally (if you will), not the fighters, when determining class effectiveness and balance.




In the story of the game, magic items may come from spellcasters, but in practice they come from gold pieces - and (in most groups) that is a resource shared equally. And even if the spellcasters do the magic items and buffs, I find it is having the spotlight that players compete about - and the buffee, not the buffer, gets the spotlight. In the same way, the user of amaiig item, not it's creator gets the spotlight. Ans spotlight is a big part of narrative balance.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> In the story of the game, magic items may come from spellcasters, but in practice they come from gold pieces - and (in most groups) that is a resource shared equally. And even if the spellcasters do the magic items and buffs, I find it is having the spotlight that players compete about - and the buffee, not the buffer, gets the spotlight. In the same way, the user of amaiig item, not it's creator gets the spotlight. Ans spotlight is a big part of narrative balance.




In 3x magic items tend to come from wizard XP and spell memorization, at least in my experience. 

In my analysis, spotlight is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how often you're the center of attention, it only matters if you can effect change in an efficient manner. The most efficient manner is to bypass the DM directly which is what narrative control is about. Moving the game in the direction you want it to go. If you want the fighter to hit better or deal more damage, you can make it happen. If you want the trip to be quicker, you can make it happen. What can the fighter actually make happen? He has no means of controlling the narrative, only in participating in one that already exists.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> In my analysis, spotlight is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how often you're the center of attention, it only matters if you can effect change in an efficient manner.




This seems to be quite an odd definition of narrative. To me, the narrative is the story of what happened in the game - bypassing a problem is a nonevent. Creative talent wasted destroying a potentially interesting story. In the olden days I used to play time-limited convention adventures, and then avoiding problems could be a plus. The point then was to solve an adventure in the shortest possible time. Today, the objective is to have as much fun as possible playing the game. Completely avoiding problems completely is just story potential wasted. Cleverly bypassing or solving a problem outside the box and avoiding lengthy and costly combat is a completely different thing, of course.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Jun 25, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> This always raises the question, who created the magic items? Is using a magic item different than a wizard who casts a buff on another player (other than the permanency of the effect)? The power and ability of the wizard doesn't come from the amount of damage he does on his own, but his ability to shape the narrative and effectively deal more damage over time. That necklace of missiles he created? counts toward the wizards final tally (if you will), not the fighters, when determining class effectiveness and balance.
> 
> Anyway, it's all about the lens you view the game through. Right now I'm all about the narrative. Who influences it and who has ability to shape it. In D&D it is strongly suggested that the DM has complete narrative control, but then it creates spells and effects that give narrative control to some classes and not to others. It then encourages DMs to prevent the use of those spells and effects if they interfere with their narrative. It's a mess if you ask me. I guess that's just part of the D&D charm. It really only creates problems for players who want more influence over the narrative and haven't found a DM who wants more player narrative control. Is that segment significant? No idea.




alas my xp powers are feeble... but i wanted to acknowledge this as another very nice analysis


----------



## pemerton (Jun 25, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> it's all about the lens you view the game through. Right now I'm all about the narrative. Who influences it and who has ability to shape it. In D&D it is strongly suggested that the DM has complete narrative control, but then it creates spells and effects that give narrative control to some classes and not to others. It then encourages DMs to prevent the use of those spells and effects if they interfere with their narrative. It's a mess if you ask me.





sheadunne said:


> In my analysis, spotlight is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how often you're the center of attention, it only matters if you can effect change in an efficient manner. The most efficient manner is to bypass the DM directly which is what narrative control is about. Moving the game in the direction you want it to go. If you want the fighter to hit better or deal more damage, you can make it happen. If you want the trip to be quicker, you can make it happen. What can the fighter actually make happen? He has no means of controlling the narrative, only in participating in one that already exists.



I want to split your notion of _narrative_ into two components: _situation_; and _plot_.

Very roughly, by "situation" I mean "the obstacle/challenge/encounter/scene that confronts the PCs"; by  "plot" I mean the sequence of events that occurs over the course of play.

I don't think that D&D as such strongly suggests that the GM has control over plot. Some elements of D&D do this - especially a lot of 2nd ed advice and adventures, which encourage the GM to exercise control over "the story" - but others don't (eg there is a fairly strong sandbox tradition in D&D play, and also strong elements of 4e advice that push against GM control of plot). To the extent that players of casters have more authority over plot than (say) those of fighters - for instance, they can more easily bring about results via action resolution (say, save-or-die; or buffing other PCs) - then that just seems like an issue of imablance of effectiveness. Whether this is good or bad depends, I guess, on how important the balance of effectiveness is. 4e, at least as I see it, tries to deal with this by giving players of fighters more meta-abilities (eg enc and daily powers).

With situation, it's a bit different, in so far as different editions take quite different by seemingly deliberate approaches. 4e tends to assume a high degree of GM situational authority - players can write quests, for instance, but it is the GM who gets to frame the obstacles in the way of the PCs. And 4e drops many of the notorious rules elements (eg reliable long-range teleportation) that tend to undermine GM authority over the framing of situations. Whereas Classic D&D, with the dungeon crawl, tends to be built on the assumption that the GM will author "possible" situations, but the players will choose which ones their PCs confront. (Gygax, in the final section of his PHB, recommends the decision about which "situation" to confront - ie scouting out the dungeon to find a suitable target - as a reasonable goal for a session in of itself.)

Casters certainly have better capabilities at exercising situational authority in classic D&D - movement spells, scrying spells (to help inform choices), etc. And this seems to be deliberate. It's not just a balance issue, but seems to be part of what playing a caster gets you that playing a fighter doesn't. Changing the game to make casters more like fighters in this respect (which 4e does) is a fairly big thing. Changing the game to make fighters more like (traditional) casters in this respect would be an even bigger thing, I think.

On the "it's a mess" point - one of the bigger issues, for me, about 3E-style D&D is that with many abilities the designers seem to equivocate between action resolution abilities, which give control over plot ("OK, now my guy does this thing, and these consequences for the other pariticpants in the situation ensue."); and scene-framing abilities, which give control over situation ("OK, GM, you've framed us into an illusion-filled room, but not my guy casts True Seeing and you have to reframe us as being in a plainly perceptible room.) Divination spells are particularly obvious instances of this, but so is the Diplomacy skill (reframes from social conflict to NPCs as non-obstacles), the Perception skill (use much like True Seeing above), and other abilities too. Teleport is another instance too - it looks like it could be action resolution (say in a game like MHRP, which permits the challenge to be framed as one involving vast galactic distances) but in D&D, which really has no action resolution mechanics for dealing with conflicts beyond skirmish-level ranges, it defaults to scene-reframing.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to have abilities that straddle action resolution and scene-reframing, but it's seem a mistake to include them just by accident.



sheadunne said:


> I guess that's just part of the D&D charm. It really only creates problems for players who want more influence over the narrative and haven't found a DM who wants more player narrative control. Is that segment significant? No idea.



My guess is that it's not that big a segement. [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] has views on this, too.



Starfox said:


> In the story of the game, magic items may come from spellcasters, but in practice they come from gold pieces - and (in most groups) that is a resource shared equally. And even if the spellcasters do the magic items and buffs, I find it is having the spotlight that players compete about - and the buffee, not the buffer, gets the spotlight. In the same way, the user of amaiig item, not it's creator gets the spotlight. Ans spotlight is a big part of narrative balance.





sheadunne said:


> In 3x magic items tend to come from wizard XP and spell memorization, at least in my experience.



I agree with Starfox to the extent that items earned/acquired from NPCs aren't a burden on player authority.

I agree with sheadunne that if they're a gift from another PC that can make a difference - though in a Rolemaster campaign I ran one of the PCs was a (non-magical) crafter (of weapons and armour) but only ever crafted for other PCs (he was at the bottom of the samurai hierarchy within the party) and I don't think the players of those other PCs ever felt overshadowed because their uber weaopns and armour had been built by another PC.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 25, 2013)

About magic items - one way to use the Leadership feat that is sometimes maligned is to get yourself a personal magic item crafter. While this might be questionable in some ways, it is a way to give non-casters control over their own inventory if the spellcasters in the party start crafting for themselves and only themselves - I've used this method myself.

Overall, Leadership is an ability with much narrative control in it, even if it feels fairly blunt.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 25, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> D&D is a cooperative game, a shared experience for all at the table to have an equal experience, not for an single individual to have "power" through winning. I'm sorry, I don't know your friend, but I do not believe that the game design in any way should pamper to this level of antagonistic behavior.



I don't think that's how everyone views the game.  I believe it is semi-cooperative.  The group still has goals to accomplish.  Often those goals are defeating their enemies/challenges.  Whatever those enemies/challenges are and what they do/how they work is decided by the DM.

So, even though the game is cooperative, there are antagonistic aspects of the game.  Jim doesn't believe that he is "winning" against the other players.  He believes he is winning against the enemies.  The other players are on his team and should be helping him in his ultimate goal to utterly devastate their enemies.  Since those enemies are controlled by the DM, beating the DM is sometimes required in order to defeat those enemies.  After all, if the enemies plans are decided by the DM and you can outsmart the DM, you can defeat the enemies plans.  Do something the DM doesn't expect and you'll find the enemies don't expect it either.

He has a low opinion of others and their ability to help him win.  He's stated a couple of times that it isn't his fault for powergaming.  It's the other player's fault for not properly knowing the rules and how to use them to their fullest in order to beat the enemies.  Since so many of the other players won't even fully read the rules they have to have their characters created by other people and then don't even know how to use their abilities properly after their created.  He has to pick up the slack for having so many bad characters in the party.  After all, a "proper" party does the absolute most damage they can in a round.  If players are deciding to use less powerful attacks or not choosing to do simple things like maxing their Strength, then they are deciding to be bad on purpose.  He has to do extra damage to try to make up for that damage they've chosen not to do.



Warbringer said:


> Again, sorry if this seems judgmental.



No need to worry.  I don't have any illusions as to what kind of player Jim is.  He's fairly transparent about it.  Which is why in my current D&D Next playtest game I've reverted to rolling dice instead of point buy for stats and I do not allow custom backgrounds or specialties.  Remove his ability to choose powergaming options and he resigns himself to just powergaming within the framework of the rules we are using.  If those rules don't allow him to powergame much, then he doesn't end up much more powerful than anyone else.  Also, he doesn't complain nearly as much about other people's choices since the difference between a powergamed choice and a non-powergamed choice is so small it isn't worth worrying about.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 25, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The group still has goals to accomplish.  Often those goals are defeating their enemies/challenges.  Whatever those enemies/challenges are and what they do/how they work is decided by the DM.




Anyone remember the Prince valiant comic. There is a scene there with Valiant, Galahad, and Lancelot needing to pass by a guard. One of them has to shoot the guard, and a miss would cause a catastrophic alert. They are intensely competitive. What do they do? They coordinate and shoot three arrows - and all three hit, doing the job three times.

The lesson here is that competition is good, as long as it is a part of the developing story and doesn't become a cover for bullying.


----------

