Page 27 of the DMG:
".., but don't let them short-circuit your whole adventure by using rituals, either. For instance, the Observe Creature ritual requires the caster to be extremely specific when describing the ritual's intended target. If allowing the ritual to succeed would throw a monkey wrench in your plans for the adventure, you'd be within your rights to rule that the ritual failed to locate the intended target because the caster's description wasn't specific enough."
NO - You wouldn't! First of all, what rights? What right does a person (DM or not) have to lie to another person about what they've done. He didn't put this in character terms. He said the player didn't something that didn't conform to the rules for Observe Creature. This is not the case at all. It wasn't the players actions that dictated this outcome - and lying to the player and telling him that it was IMO is extremely rude.
How about this:
DM: You need a 20 to hit the monster
Player: Cool - I rolled an 18, with my bonuses, that's 27, I hit!
DM: (Fearing that his precious plot point is now ruined.) No you don't hit. You didn't roll an 18.
Player: Yes I did. I've already scooped up my dice, but you and I both saw it.
DM: No, I think you rolled a 2 and missed.
Granted, the situation with Observe Creature is a little more subjective, but it falls into the same category. The DM and the player have both read the same rules, and it is not the DMs honest assessment that the guidelines regarding the Observe Creature ritual were not followed, so why lie to the player?
Just don't tell the player the reason for failure at all, it's much more in the spirit of the rules to suggest to the player that a myriad of forces can govern the success/failure of Observe Creature (like a Forbiddance spell), and that his spell casting attempt has failed for reasons that the character does not know. (Granted, there's a down-side to this practice also, but it's not as rude.) You don't need to blame the player's use of the ritual to cover for your failure to anticipate the use of it.
I find this insulting. And I have a hard time imagining that James Wyatt has played this game for any significant amount of time *with other adults* and hasn't been called on this. I could imagine it would be frustrating (up to the point that i actually cared about the game, which probably wouldn't be an issue) to be told on one hand that DM rulings would be based on an impartial interpretation of the shared set of rules, and on the other hand witness obvious (and these situations are very obvious when witnessed by intelligent players) examples of the DM completely breaking this agreement. Why are there rules at all? It's dishonest to the players as people to suggest that the game is going to be conducted in a certain way, and then turn around and lie to them about what you're doing.
Monte Cook made a clear statement on his philosophy on this part of the game (not the lying part - but the part about nerfing divination to protect your plot) and I really don't know how someone would write a 4E book for Dungeons and Dragons and not feel some sense of respect for the people that have been playing it. I think Wyatt should have at least been familiar with the other schools of thought on this subject and tried to make the case for what "rights" he thought the DM had here that were relevant. Then again, maybe those of us that have been playing this game for more than two years were supposed to have quit by now.
Coming Up: Part 2 of 1000: Things I really hate about page 42.
(subtitled: why you shouldn't follow a 20th level character up a ladder)
".., but don't let them short-circuit your whole adventure by using rituals, either. For instance, the Observe Creature ritual requires the caster to be extremely specific when describing the ritual's intended target. If allowing the ritual to succeed would throw a monkey wrench in your plans for the adventure, you'd be within your rights to rule that the ritual failed to locate the intended target because the caster's description wasn't specific enough."
NO - You wouldn't! First of all, what rights? What right does a person (DM or not) have to lie to another person about what they've done. He didn't put this in character terms. He said the player didn't something that didn't conform to the rules for Observe Creature. This is not the case at all. It wasn't the players actions that dictated this outcome - and lying to the player and telling him that it was IMO is extremely rude.
How about this:
DM: You need a 20 to hit the monster
Player: Cool - I rolled an 18, with my bonuses, that's 27, I hit!
DM: (Fearing that his precious plot point is now ruined.) No you don't hit. You didn't roll an 18.
Player: Yes I did. I've already scooped up my dice, but you and I both saw it.
DM: No, I think you rolled a 2 and missed.
Granted, the situation with Observe Creature is a little more subjective, but it falls into the same category. The DM and the player have both read the same rules, and it is not the DMs honest assessment that the guidelines regarding the Observe Creature ritual were not followed, so why lie to the player?
Just don't tell the player the reason for failure at all, it's much more in the spirit of the rules to suggest to the player that a myriad of forces can govern the success/failure of Observe Creature (like a Forbiddance spell), and that his spell casting attempt has failed for reasons that the character does not know. (Granted, there's a down-side to this practice also, but it's not as rude.) You don't need to blame the player's use of the ritual to cover for your failure to anticipate the use of it.
I find this insulting. And I have a hard time imagining that James Wyatt has played this game for any significant amount of time *with other adults* and hasn't been called on this. I could imagine it would be frustrating (up to the point that i actually cared about the game, which probably wouldn't be an issue) to be told on one hand that DM rulings would be based on an impartial interpretation of the shared set of rules, and on the other hand witness obvious (and these situations are very obvious when witnessed by intelligent players) examples of the DM completely breaking this agreement. Why are there rules at all? It's dishonest to the players as people to suggest that the game is going to be conducted in a certain way, and then turn around and lie to them about what you're doing.
Monte Cook made a clear statement on his philosophy on this part of the game (not the lying part - but the part about nerfing divination to protect your plot) and I really don't know how someone would write a 4E book for Dungeons and Dragons and not feel some sense of respect for the people that have been playing it. I think Wyatt should have at least been familiar with the other schools of thought on this subject and tried to make the case for what "rights" he thought the DM had here that were relevant. Then again, maybe those of us that have been playing this game for more than two years were supposed to have quit by now.
Coming Up: Part 2 of 1000: Things I really hate about page 42.
(subtitled: why you shouldn't follow a 20th level character up a ladder)
