Things I don't like about the 4E DMG - part 1 of 1000

[gizmo33]

The funny thing about this whole thing is that alot of the people agrueing against the "advice" (It is not really advice, the way I look at it, it is an example. A big difference.)

DMG: "don't let them short circuit your whole adventure by using rituals, either."

That's not an example. That's advice. And then the example proceeds to demonstrate use of the advice. An example to demonstrate advice does not make that big of a difference between the two.

is that if this were 3.5 and it the quote was replaced by something like:

The advice in the DMG that I'm referring to has NOTHING to do with the rules of the game. Scrying spells, and this basic issue in general, have existed in all editions. There is no edition war to be found here..

The issue of "context" has been addressed several times - I direct you to one of my other posts (or Raven Crowking's) on this subject.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"No - that's not the core mechanic apparently. The core mechanic in the game is that stuff happens when it suits the DMs plot. You only roll dice when the outcome doesn't change this fundemental framework established by the DM."

What does the above mean, if you do not have context to this message thread?

With the exception that the first pronoun (that) has no antecedent, the above statement is perfectly comprehensible. Context is needed only to provide the antecedent and, perhaps, to support the conclusion.

However, the fact that Gizmo33's other posts provide that context is not in any way evidencary that any surrounding text provides context. For example, this post provides no context to the above statement at all. It only provides information/discussion about the meaning of "context" itself.

RC

 

[Leif]

Sure, why not? I'll add my voice to the opinions expressed.

First of all, someone must have done some extensive editing of posts here, because I see nothing that qualifies as 'vitriol.' It just looks to me like a legitimate issue with the way some games are run. And I, and probably the vast majority of ENWorlders with significant D&D experience, have seen just this sort of game and even volunteered to play in them and continued to play even when I knew that this was likely to keep happening. Why? Because Iwas desperate to play D&D and there few, or no, alternative games. Having said that, I have also experienced DMs who are at the other extreme of the "control spectrum," and who would let players basically do anything that they could imagine and justify in game terms.

Between the two, I must say that the PERMISSIVE DMs run much more satisfying and fun games, IMHO. And I caution all DMs against a draconic refusal to permit the success of a character's power that you have previously allowed him to gain. And, therein lies the real crux of the matter: Why would you, as DM, EVER let a character gain a power/ability/skill/magic item/etc. that you were not willing to let him fully exploit to the limit of his logic? And why, oh why, should he be punished for using what you have voluntarily allowed him to have? Who is really at fault here???

And that's the real solution here: After you identify a power/ability/skill/magic item/etc. that you have a problem with, DISALLOW it from the game BEFORE a character gains possession of it. In the immortal words of Barney Fife, "Nip it, nip it in the Bud!" Problem solved.

Ok, that's it for me. Thanks for listening/reading, and thanks for not venting at me for expressing my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but please don't vent. It's a fine distinction, but a necessary one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Scrying spells, and this basic issue in general, have existed in all editions. There is no edition war to be found here..

Indeed. I could point out some advice in the 1e DMG that I think is very questionable.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think a good rule of thumb is, "The more important the outcome of a die roll/ruling is, the less permissible it is to fudge the roll/ruling."

YMMV, though.


RC

 

[Cryptos]

There are three ways to absolutely avoid divination spells from ruining your adventure that I can think of off the top of my head.

1. Don't have divinations spells.

2. Don't be so married to your vision of how your adventure is supposed to play out that the players gaining additional information ruins it.

3. Nerf 'em when you think they'll ruin your adventure.

Or the best method:

4) Don't base your plots on what the characters will find out and how, but rather on what happens when they find out.

The example that springs to mind immediately, because that's what I'm reading right now, is basically any Dresden Files novel. While the main character doesn't necessarily get all the details of the whos and whats or whys down until the very end, he gets a general sense of what is going on toward the middle (or sometimes even the beginning) of the story. He almost always knows where they bad guys are, so that's never an issue. But when he picks up the general plot, that's when everything goes crazy. Because knowing that one thing tells the character what they're up against and propels them toward bigger challenges, and creates a dozen more questions, as well.

There's a whole movie that follows "Luke, I am your father." Realistically, it could have been written in a way that this information could have been revealed in the beginning of A New Hope and still had a thrilling story with some pieces of the puzzle left unsolved for the next two movies.

In the linear model of dungeon design, you often have the big fight in the last room, which comes along with a big reveal just to keep it interesting. DMs would do well to learn to put their plot twists toward the beginning or middle of a campaign or adventure, to allow the players the chance to find or figure it out early and think about how that knowledge gets them deeper into trouble. You can keep the big climatic battle in the "back room on the bottom level", but keep the big reveal fluid and let them figure it out or discover it at any point in the game.

If you're concerned about divination, it would probably be wise to chart things out so that if you have to answer one question, you know what new questions arise out of that answer. If they find out where, then they might need to also find out why. If they find out who, then it might be a good idea to discover "what", as well. If they find out that Duke Blackthorne is in Bloodwinter Castle, and that Duke Blackthorne summoned the demons, make it important to know why he did that, to know what else he might have summoned, to know why he is where is he, why it's not a good idea for the PCs to go marching straight for it, who else is involved, and so forth.

In short, for every answer you're worried that the PCs could uncover with divination, create a list of new questions and complications that you can raise by providing them with that information, and make sure you deliver that information in such a way that the new questions and complications are apparent.

Instead of allowing divinations to provide shortcuts through the story, use them as plot hooks that drive them down deeper into the story.

 

[Maggan]

Why would you, as DM, EVER let a character gain a power/ability/skill/magic item/etc. that you were not willing to let him fully exploit to the limit of his logic? And why, oh why, should he be punished for using what you have voluntarily allowed him to have? Who is really at fault here???

Why let a character gain a power that I don't let him/her exploit fully at all times?

Because I don't know every rule in the game and because I don't have a handle on how every single power can/will/might change my plan for the evening.

That's why. And I can't be the only DM on these boards which hasn't got a perfect grasp of the rules, and who is actually surprised at the effects of some powers, once in a while.

Sometimes, for example when I've done some planning in short order to get a game together because the other DM called in sick or something, I get in situations where I'm non-plussed by what the players do, because of how they use the rules.

I think that in some circumstances, saying "no, it didn't work" and adding something about arcane defenses maybe to give a modicum of rationale for the failure, is perfectly ok.

And I think that having the rules say that it is ok, sometimes, to do that, is great for those of us who haven't got such a good grasp of the rules and how they affect our adventures as many of those good DM's who have posted before me have.

And I'm saying this as a guy who's be DMing for 26 years. And my players enjoy me doing it, so I guess saying "no, it doesn't work" once in a while won't end the world as we know it.

/M

 

[gizmo33]

Sorry I was vague. I don't think that people saying "there is other information that provides some context" invalidates your issues with the passage quoted in the OP. But I do think that it provides basis for a larger point that the 4e DMG provides some very good, if not flawless, advice for DM's in general and new DM's in particular.

That point, when I read it strictly, is not really what I'm talking about AFAICT. Of course the "context" of my own post was the joking title of "part 1 of 1000" which would lead one to reasonably believe that I have 1000 things I don't like about the 4E DMG. One could readily, but I would argue not logically, conclude that I don't like anything in the 4E DMG.

There are a number of statements that you can make about the 4E DMG and they are not all equivalent to me, though they seem equivalent to other folks. One statement is: *there exists* bits of good advice within the DMG. This is different than statements like "everything in the DMG is good" and "nothing in the DMG is good."

If I wanted to talk about my overall assessement of the DMG in any kind of meaningful way, I personally would choose to build up my position from a basis of sub-points. But I can't even reach a common understanding of the words "context", "lying", and so on with many folks. If a person cannot even see how I can take exception to this one section of the DMG, then the other places in the DMG where the same things happen aren't going to be explicable either. And a statement like "I don't think the 4E DMG is in the top-half of DMGs ever written" is unsubstantiated.

This in particular struck me as an unfair characterization if your intent is to link the interpretation to the bothersome bit in the OP.

The link was not what was intended by the author, to be sure. But that's actually one of my points.

Seems to me that people's *principles* and *habits* are not always in agreement. It is would not be unfair, IMO, if I were speaking with James Wyatt directly, to bring up this very point: How can you call rolling a d20 to determine success/failure to be a "core mechanic" of the game - when your example regarding a *pivotal moment of an adventure* involves a DM completely trumping the actions of a player through DM fiat (even setting aside the lying part).

What does he really mean by "monkey wrench" anyway? That vagueness could very well consitute all sorts of discomfort on the part of the DM. And given the other parts of the DMG that advocate making sure that most events in the game are of some meaning (don't have players wandering around aimlessly "looking for the adventure"), I think it's reasonable to suspect that the advice given in this section covers a lot of parts of the game.

And thus, I really don't find my statement about the "core mechanic" to be unfair.

You see - if you write a DMG that includes bits of unsubstantiated advice like "don't be unfair to the players" but then your examples and implementations and specifics range from manipulative to down-right dishonest, then I think it's fair for me to take that seriously. Granted, I need to establish those places that I think are dishonest, which I've tried to take a small step in doing.

If folks are generally willing to concede that the passage in question is as I say it is (more or less), then I suspect you'll say "yea, but the rest of the book is great". In which case I can continue with part 2... (I had no intention of continuing along with part 2 when I started this.)

 

[Leif]

Or the best method:

4) Don't base your plots on what the characters will find out and how, but rather on what happens when they find out.

The example that springs to mind immediately, because that's what I'm reading right now, is basically any Dresden Files novel. While the main character doesn't necessarily get all the details of the whos and whats or whys down until the very end, he gets a general sense of what is going on toward the middle (or sometimes even the beginning) of the story. He almost always knows where they bad guys are, so that's never an issue. But when he picks up the general plot, that's when everything goes crazy. Because knowing that one thing tells the character what they're up against and propels them toward bigger challenges, and creates a dozen more questions, as well.

There's a whole movie that follows "Luke, I am your father." Realistically, it could have been written in a way that this information could have been revealed in the beginning of A New Hope and still had a thrilling story with some pieces of the puzzle left unsolved for the next two movies.

In the linear model of dungeon design, you often have the big fight in the last room, which comes along with a big reveal just to keep it interesting. DMs would do well to learn to put their plot twists toward the beginning or middle of a campaign or adventure, to allow the players the chance to find or figure it out early and think about how that knowledge gets them deeper into trouble. You can keep the big climatic battle in the "back room on the bottom level", but keep the big reveal fluid and let them figure it out or discover it at any point in the game.

If you're concerned about divination, it would probably be wise to chart things out so that if you have to answer one question, you know what new questions arise out of that answer. If they find out where, then they might need to also find out why. If they find out who, then it might be a good idea to discover "what", as well. If they find out that Duke Blackthorne is in Bloodwinter Castle, and that Duke Blackthorne summoned the demons, make it important to know why he did that, to know what else he might have summoned, to know why he is where is he, why it's not a good idea for the PCs to go marching straight for it, who else is involved, and so forth.

In short, for every answer you're worried that the PCs could uncover with divination, create a list of new questions and complications that you can raise by providing them with that information, and make sure you deliver that information in such a way that the new questions and complications are apparent.

Instead of allowing divinations to provide shortcuts through the story, use them as plot hooks that drive them down deeper into the story.

Excellent advice, Cryptos!! Have you received an invitation from Wizards yet to co-author DMG II? Watch your mail, man! No, seriously, I have no knowledge or authority regarding such, but your post is most incredibly excellent and informative! Most, if not all, DMs would do well do heed what it says, and strive to live up to the ideals expressed therein. Kudos!

 

[rjdafoe]

With the exception that the first pronoun (that) has no antecedent, the above statement is perfectly comprehensible. Context is needed only to provide the antecedent and, perhaps, to support the conclusion.

However, the fact that Gizmo33's other posts provide that context is not in any way evidencary that any surrounding text provides context. For example, this post provides no context to the above statement at all. It only provides information/discussion about the meaning of "context" itself.

RC

What I am saying is take a step back and look at the whole picture instead of the bits of a few sentences. Too often, in todays world, we don't take the time to take a step back and see what is going on. It does matter what context it is. Just in his posts, he is implying that by reading that, it gives you permission to lie to and cheat your player's every chance you get. That is not what it is saying. , if you take a look at the big picture. It gives a problem, and a solution. Take the problem and solution in context with the surrounding items, and you get a clear picture of the whole thing.

But that is just me, I tend to look at the whole thing, not just a corner of the picture and say, hey, that sucks.

I think there is other stuff to be upset over in the 4th edtion books than this example. I would have left this at number 1000 instead of number 1.