I dunno...I remember back when 4E was announced. There was a distinct "roleplaying has sucked for too long/we are going to change roleplaying forever!" vibe resonating out of WotC at that time.
There was a distinct "the previous edition's mechanics had some (severe) problems/we are going to do a fresh (aka "cool") take on the mechanics". I never got a sense they were out to change
roleplaying, which the example of White Wolf clearly did have a strong opinion presented in their books. Two completely different things.
The problem isn't the subject, nor the OP, it's the people posting antagonistic crap in response.
The OP did have some pretty harsh personal comments leveled at the designer, so I don't see anyone casting the first stone.
While I agree that by RAW, the statement in the DMG was poorly worded, I am guessing that the spirit of the advice was to simply tell a DM that if their plot path with 15 hours of work will be hijacked by a ritual, it's OK to have it not work as expected.
A new DM could become very flustered by this and may well see the long, hard work on their campaign dashed, not by the ritual, but by DM inexperience with planning these things. It's OK to keep your train on the tracks, but learn from it and try to better foresee something like this in the future.
This. PCs change the storyline and screw with the villains via "brilliant ideas" as Rel says, fine. Reward them for their ingenuity. Perhaps the DM might engineer an escape for the villain, though his plan is in ruins, to allow the campaign story to continue, though altered by the PC's victory.
However, simply using the
Observe Creature ritual as written isn't in the ballpark of "brilliant idea". If the DM discovers that he's been caught with his pants down for not taking into account something the party has access to among the dozens (and dozens) of other resources the PCs have at that level, it's OK if he does a little side-stepping to prevent the campaign from becoming completely derailed. A little. When absolutely necessary. This much I agree with the spirit of the DMG advice.
Also, it should be pointed out that the OP left out the next sentence in the section he quoted, which contained some more useful advice:
"Also, remember that high-level villains have access to the same rituals that the characters do, including wards they can use to protect themselves from scrying attempts."
However, I also think that the example is pretty flawed. One, the wording of the suggestion to prevent the ritual from throwing a monkeywrench into the plot is a bit ambiguous. My reading is not that is says "tell the player he did it wrong", though one might interpret it that way. Rather, it says the DM can make the decision that the description wasn't specific enough. He doesn't have to tell the player this, just make a mental note of it.
With
Observe Creature, there are so many ways the DM could legitimately cause the ritual to fail, that if he keeps mum about those reasons, he can not only save his plot, but gets to gleefully watch the players self destruct into fits of paranoia. "What? Did we not get the description right? Maybe Zorg shape-changed or took over someone else's body. Is he dead? Nah. Is he? Maybe he's on another plane. That massive golem he was working on, did he place his consciousness into it? Maybe he got someone to cast Forbiddance for him. We have to find the ritualist and kill them so they don't maintain the ritual! Let's go!"
However, if the DM does block this ritual, he should ask himself
why this is true in-game. This can be a springboard for ideas. Was the target actually on another plane when the PCs tried to scry him? Why was he there? Was Forbiddance the cause? Who did the villain ally himself with to get that cast? Perhaps the description
was off. Why? Ah! The villain got an old 1st Edition Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity and put it on! What a reveal that will be when the PCs meet him/her again!
The main problem I have with the DMG example is... how plot wrecking can
Observe Creature be? It's is already a bit of magic with DM control completely built in. And it only lasts 30 seconds, max. Not necessarily alot going to be learned in that amount of time.
In movies and books, scrying magic always seems to catch the target at the exact moment they're doing something incredibly important to the plot. How likely is that? They might just as easily be seen sitting on the crapper reading the newspaper. Okay, that might be a bit cruel to the PCs after they just dropped 20 grand to cast the ritual. But what the PCs see is completely in the DM's control. He can dole out any scene he wants, preferably giving the PCs something for their effort, but maybe something easily misinterpreted, important but not immediately clear why it is, or some information which the PCs can act on, but not spoil the whole plot. And really, most other rituals have the same sort of narrative controls built in where needed.
So, unless merely seeing the target to confirm their existence is the goal,
and that confirmation will wreck the DM's plans,
Observe Creature was just a bad example for the point the DMG was trying to get across, though it could have served as a nice one for discussing any of the things I mentioned above.
Define "disruptful" as a way which differs from "useful".
Useful may not always be disruptive, but disruptive usually means something that's so useful it's unbalanced, renders encounters unchallenging or could possibly circumvent large portions of an adventure the DM has spent a lot of time creating. 1st level PCs might find the magical equivalent of a neutron bomb "useful".
Lizard said:
On the 4e rules forum, there is a thread about a level 5 Rogue Daily which some DMs don't like because -- surprise! -- it's very effective at stopping a particular type of monster. Precisely the type of monster it was DESIGNED to be effective against.
In a thread on the preview of the Adventurer's Vault II, a particularly cool-sounding item was deemed "pre-banned" by some DMs because it would "ruin" their encounters.
Pre-banning is a bit silly, especially for a playtest article. Wait until the final published version is seen, at least. But if some DMs have judged something to be potentially
I simply don't get that attitude or where it came from; I now know -- it was apparently explicitly encouraged in the DMG.
There's nothing that says just because something is published in a D&D book, especially a supplement which comes out after I've started a campaign, that I have to alter my encounters and possibly storyline to have it in the game. I see nothing that says I, as a DM, have to not only memorize every power, feat, magic item and ritual all my players' characters have, but also be familiar with all the potential uses and abuses of these things beyond their obvious intent, and if I'm not, it's all my fault and I have to suck it up, challenging encounters, campaign and story be damned. And if a DM is aware of the potential for abuse, I don't see where he has to allow the mechanic in question if he doesn't want it.
I, for one, don't get
that attitude or where it comes from. If I don't want something in my game, I don't have to have it in my game. (This is not to say banning should be done without some discussion with the players as to why you're doing it, especially if it affects existing characters.)
Plus, the OP citation of the DMG has nothing to do with banning. It's about existing rituals in play. The crux of the paragraph is this: "Don't give the characters less than they are entitled to, but don't let them short-circuit your whole adventure by using a ritual."
Yah, umm, those DMs = not me. I haven't banned anything yet and good times have been had by all - 6 players and DM. Combat in 4e seems to take longer and we don't get to play as often as some would like though. 
