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

[DandD]

I imagine the person writing this post would not appriciate being told it was thier fault that the ritual didn't work instead of something far less complicated like say the truth for instance...

Oh, don't worry, I can deal with that, if the game master says that we haven't been specific enough, and I don't even feel angry or so.
You can deal with that too, I'm sure.

 

[Imaro]

Funny thread. I almost get the impression that D&D is a competitive game, where the players having player characters must win against the nepharious, lying, cheating, and unfair player who has the role of the game master tonight, and not play together in a make-believe-fantasy story with elves, dwarves, knights and wizards fighting dragons hidden in dungeons...

I almost get the impression that D&D is a pre-scripted story upon which rules and mechanics are disregarded in the name of preserving a type of “fun” for me that I must be protected from destroying at all costs by my DM…and not a game in which DM’s and[/PC’s create a shared make-believe-fantasy story with elves, dwarves, knights and wizards fighting dragons hidden in dungeons all brought about organically through the gameplay at the table… See how that works both ways?

I'm actually pretty sure that most (if not all) of the people arguing that the game master never make some gung-ho changes to something very unexpected a little bit wouldn't mind their own gamemaster (if it's not themselves having the role to moderate the game together with their other friends) doing so once every time in their own playgroup.

Yes I would, it is all dependent upon what the specific changes are. I don’t choose abilities for my PC because I don’t want them to work…that is the fun right there, being clever with an ability and watching it succeed or fail by the roll of a die…not playing in a game where my character is affected by random failure with the reasoning by the DM of… “just because I said so.”.

 

[Shadeydm]

Dealing with it isn't really the issue. If the ritual suddenly works in matter other than it did the other times you used it, yet nothing has changed this creates an unwarranted change in things for no better reason than I'm too lazy to work around this and unwilling to simply tell the truth.

 

[gizmo33]

I agree with what you say, but, I think Maggan was talking about less experienced DMs who are every bit as eager to play the game as you or I, but who do not have the luxury to even KNOW which portions of the rules will be relevant to the adventures they run until it may be too late to properly prepare.

In fact, if my "experience" has any bearing here, it's taught me how to handle the unknown in ways that aren't as lazy as "no, you can't." In fact, plenty of people on both sides of this issue have given much better advice than what's given in the DMG here.

It's such a big part of the game, it's such a shame to me that the DMG misses the opportunity to actually demonstrate prior assertions and good advice. As the game continues to grow, with new classes and powers and magic items, and such, the chances for something happening that the DM doesn't forsee increases. Especially in 4E where the player can seemingly place his finger at a random page in the magic item list and say "I want this" and get it (either through Enchant Item, or the humorously conceived "treasure parcel.")

 

[Jack99]

I honestly do not see a problem with what Mr. Wyatt wrote in the DMG. He isn't telling the DM to lie to his players, he is merely saying that if a ritual (such as Observe Creature) could throw off the whole adventure/campaign, the DM is well within his right to require the players to be very specific.

This still means that if the players are brilliant, the ritual works. Because if they are brilliant, they do not come with an half-arsed description that leaves room for any doubt.

An example. The players are investigating a plot to kill the King. They suspect that one of the King's two pet mages is involved in the plotting. Other gathered intel suggest that the plotters will be meeting the same night at an unknown place. At the time of the meeting, the players cast Observe Creature to scry on the pet mage in order to figure out if he is involved. Problem is, they do not have a lot of information about the pet mages.

Mr. Wyatt doesn't tell us that a DM should make the ritual fail no matter what. He tells us that if the players do not come up with a very specific description which leaves no doubt as to which pet mage (in this case) they mean, then the DM is well within his rights to have the ritual fail (in this case, they would get to scry on the other pet mage).

I see nothing wrong with that. And I am a DM for 20 years, and for more than 14 or 15 years, I have been rolling everything (just about) out in the open. Not only do I roll in the open, but the whole core of my DM style is that I have no qualms about scrapping 50 hours of preparation if players decide to do something else or if they pull the rug on me.

But I still do not see the issue some people seem to have. I agree that a DM shouldn't lie to his players, nor cheat them of the use of their powers. But that is simply not what Mr. Wyatt is saying. At least not as I read it.

Merry Xmas everyone.

 

[Leif]

In fact, if my "experience" has any bearing here, it's taught me how to handle the unknown in ways that aren't as lazy as "no, you can't." In fact, plenty of people on both sides of this issue have given much better advice than what's given in the DMG here.

Yes, indeed, but, again you pre-suppose a DM who has at least some relevant gaming experience. The true neophyte DM may not have the experience nor the confidence necessary to pull off that sort of thing. As applied to DMs with at least a minimum amount of experience, I totally agree with you. But, if our hobby continues to grow as we hope that it will, then there will always be those DMs who do not fall into that category. (At least not at first, anyway.)

 

[DandD]

I almost get the impression that D&D is a pre-scripted story upon which rules and mechanics are disregarded in the name of preserving a type of “fun” for me that I must be protected from destroying at all costs by my DM…and not a game in which DM’s and[/PC’s create a shared make-believe-fantasy story with elves, dwarves, knights and wizards fighting dragons hidden in dungeons all brought about organically through the gameplay at the table…

I know now that you really are of the type of players who need the feeling to "win" against the game master, because eyeballing it once must be the proof that he's just a bastard and incompetent fool who should admit being a loser. I mean, if that's how you see your game master (an enemy player out there to destroy your fun) , than perhaps there's something more wrong than just that , doesn't it?

See how that works both ways?

Nah, because it's true.
Now how do you feel about that?
You're there to have fun together with the game master and the other players, and if the inexperienced player having the role of the game master doesn't have contingencies prepared nor is really that good at improvising, it's okay for once. He'll improve, and will know it in the future (or let another player take up the mantle of the game master).

Yes I would, it is all dependent upon what the specific changes are. I don’t choose abilities for my PC because I don’t want them to work…that is the fun right there, being clever with an ability and watching it succeed or fail by the roll of a die…not playing in a game where my character is affected by random failure with the reasoning by the DM of… “just because I said so.”.

There is nothing random about the game master saying that it doesn't work, because in this specific example, he says that for the specific reason that he hasn't come up with something to counter his prepared adventure being mitigated by that so fast. Especially if the game master is only recently a game master, and they're all playing D&D for the first time, which is why the new player seeks advice in the Dungeon Master's Guide section about game preparations.

Dealing with it isn't really the issue. If the ritual suddenly works in matter other than it did the other times you used it, yet nothing has changed this creates an unwarranted change in things for no better reason than I'm too lazy to work around this and unwilling to simply tell the truth.

But there is a reason. The ritual didn't work because it wasn't "specific" (a very vague word in this context, ha). It's up to the game master to add what specific detail the should-have-been-scryed person or location has in comparison with other persons and locations that could be scryed. Might work for the inexperienced game master seeking advice in that book for game masters.

 

[Imaro]

I know now that you really are of the type of players who need the feeling to "win" against the game master, because eyeballing it once must be the proof that he's just a bastard and incompetent fool who should admit being a loser. I mean, if that's how you see your game master (an enemy player out there to destroy your fun) , than perhaps there's something more wrong than just that , doesn't it?
Nah, because it's true.
Now how do you feel about that?
You're there to have fun together with the game master and the other players, and if the inexperienced player having the role of the game master doesn't have contingencies prepared nor is really that good at improvising, it's okay for once. He'll improve, and will know it in the future (or let another player take up the mantle of the game master).
There is nothing random about the game master saying that it doesn't work, because in this specific example, he says that for the specific reason that he hasn't come up with something to counter his prepared adventure being mitigated by that so fast. Especially if the game master is only recently a game master, and they're all playing D&D for the first time, which is why the new player seeks advice in the Dungeon Master's Guide section about game preparations.
But there is a reason. The ritual didn't work because it wasn't "specific" (a very vague word in this context, ha). It's up to the game master to add what specific detail the should-have-been-scryed person or location has in comparison with other persons and locations that could be scryed. Might work for the inexperienced game master seeking advice in that book for game masters.

Huh?... Uhm, what ... I don't understand most of this so I won't comment on it.

 

[gizmo33]

Here's an excerpt from the PHB page 10 paraphrased:

"Dave (DM): Isidro is pretty stealthy. (Dave compares Isidro's Stealth check result to the Perception check result of the monsters he knows are in the next room. Camp's roll beats the Perception check, so the monsters don't know the halfling is there.)"

What is should say is
"Dave acts like he's interested in Isidro's Stealth result, but ignores it. For you see, if Isidro manages to sneak past the guards, he can very well stand a chance of assassinating the BBEG and thereby ruining the entire adventure! So as you continue to read the PHB, keep in mind that all of these rules only apply to a certain point, and when important plot events that the DM has his heart set on are at stake, expect him to completely over-rule whatever you're trying to have your character do. And don't expect him to be honest about it either."

Dave (DM): You fail. The guards hear you.
Cam: Why?
Dave (DM): Well, because you take a -10 for running.
Cam: But I didn't say I ran! You just told me how stealthy I was!
Dave (DM): But you didn't say you didn't. And I'm the DM. So you are running, and you fail.
All of the Players, including Cam: Bravo Dave! Thank the gods you saved us from a miserable night of gaming. Things are so much more exciting when you stop us from boring ourselves by overcoming challenges in a way that you didn't anticipate.
Toby: Yea, remember that time when I attacked Orcus and you told me I forgot to mention that I used my sword? That's was great too. Then Orcus teleported away and was a reoccuring villain. You could have cut the tension with a knife. "When is Dave going to decide that we're allowed to kill Orcus" was all I kept thinking all week.

 

[gizmo33]

But there is a reason. The ritual didn't work because it wasn't "specific" (a very vague word in this context, ha).

But that's not the reason. In fact, the DMG makes it pretty clear what the reason is. What you're talking about is the *explanation given to the player*, which is not the reason, which I why I describe it as lying.

Because if it was a matter of the player not being specific enough, then the paragraph could have simply described the description the player gave, and why it fell short. But the whole *context* makes it obvious that this is not the case.

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

The motivation is not that the player failed to meet the conditions of the ritual. Heck, if the PC was 3rd level and didn't even have the Observe Creature ritual, wouldn't that fit here? No, it doesn't because that's not the point of the paragraph. The point is "the player is doing something that you didn't anticipate, so make it look like a rules adjucation, even though it's nothing of the kind. In spite of much of the other advice in the book. And I'm not going to explain the reason I'm contradicting myself here."