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

[Hussar]

Let me ask it a different way Gizmo.

Does the DM have the power to adjudicate effects in the game? Does he have that power or must he abide by the letter of the rules 100%?

 

[Darkthorne]

Yeah I would have to agree that the passage is written poorly and should have been phrased MUCH better. I think one of the main issues with how a noticeable amont of advice in 4E as a whole is that it is contradictory in who it is supposed to be giving advice to. Most of the experienced DM's don't need every little bit spelled out for them but where 4e is supposed to cater to NEW players there are gaping holes or questionable advice. I've seen time & time again people focus on just a sentence or two and use it as a justification for their shortfalls "SEE!!! It says right here, it says I can stop that fom working!"

Do I believe that was JW's original intent? No. Do I think that can set up a bad precedent? Easily. I don't think people (designers) took the time to stop and say to themselves "Am I explaining this to someone with at least over 5 yrs gaming experience or am I explaining this to someone who can't grab a 4-sider blindfolded?". My opinion is a good amount was done with people knowing how each other thinks and what they see as common sense or the expected end result. It's like getting driving directions from someone who lived their whole life in one city and tells you "It's right across from the flower shop" and what is across from the flower shop is a seafood shack not the cemetary that you need to be at on time (Yes this is true and it was 1.5 miles further down the road). What they mean and what you are told are two different things.

 

[Mallus]

Learning to roll with the punch is vital. Any advice for new DMs which argues against adapting is teaching bad DMing skills.

This is why the next section of the DMG is called "improvisation".

Some posters in this thread seem to be operating under the assumption that every piece of advice in the DMG needs to apply in all circumstances. This is a bad assumption. Advice that says it's okay to nerf a ritual occasionally (or interpret its results in a way that isn't favorable to the players) does not contradict the more general advice to run a transparent campaign that adapts to player choices.

In other news, drinking alcohol on occasion is okay. Drinking alcohol constantly is not. This also isn't a contradiction.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Metagaming is using out of character knowledge within a game (notice you are still using this knowledge within the framework of the game.)...right? Like knowing that your PC's have a scry spell so you decide your BBEG has taken precautions against a scry spell...like wards and or protective rituals, which can be quantifiably measured...and may even have a way the PC's could still circumvent it.

Lying, well is lying... it's making up a fabrication that has no basis in the rules, your plans or anything else...for all intents and purposes it is altering reality at a whim in the context of the game and a DM.

Well, first, I was using "lying" in the sense in what you were reacting to, not the broad-brush stroke that might get used later in the discussion; specifically, fudging or shafting a use or result of a player's ability.

And, in the scheme of things, an ad hoc rules-barrier of Ward Ritual or Magic Tidal Forces have the same result whether you planned for it or not- so yes, the difference between Metagaming and Fudging is timing.

That said, I think the advice, in context, is great because Push-The-Button Scry spells are bad Narrativism in the first place. Pathos, sure, but telling the player he can't use his Instant Shortcut isn't an insult, it is a challenge.

 

[Psion]

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.

Indeed.

This appear to be one piece of advice that one of the most rued books since the advent of 3e (Epic Level Handbook) gets right. To wit: don't skirt around player abilities, but reward/require their use.

 

[Psion]

If you don't wany scrying, just make sure the ritual doesn't exist in your world. Pretty simple. But giving players a tool and then saying "Well, you can't use it when it would really be helpful" is stunningly wrong.

Exactamundo.

I can understand that DMs want to make plots without having to worry about certain sorts of magic. But letting players take spells and abilities expecting to use them and slyly sabotaging them is not cool in my book.

 

[Imaro]

Well, first, I was using "lying" in the sense in what you were reacting to, not the broad-brush stroke that might get used later in the discussion; specifically, fudging or shafting a use or result of a player's ability.

And, in the scheme of things, an ad hoc rules-barrier of Ward Ritual or Magic Tidal Forces have the same result whether you planned for it or not- so yes, the difference between Metagaming and Fudging is timing.

That said, I think the advice, in context, is great because Push-The-Button Scry spells are bad Narrativism in the first place. Pathos, sure, but telling the player he can't use his Instant Shortcut isn't an insult, it is a challenge.

Emphasis mine... IMHO, that is just backwards thinking... and smacks of DM knows best what your fun should be arrogance. How about if as a player I selected abilities because... surprise, surprise... I want to use that ability. And how about if I as a DM take 2 minutes to look over my players character sheets and actually design challenges around the abilities that they have chosen (to have "fun" with). Wait no, because it really is easier to just nerf or lie and counteract what doesn't vibe with the story I want to create.

Now yeah it could be a one time thing, but it has also become a tool (and a bad one at that) which I've added to my DM repertoire, and more than likely will be used again by me if I get into another situation I am unprepared for.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Some posters in this thread seem to be operating under the assumption that every piece of advice in the DMG needs to apply in all circumstances.

I can't speak for others (although some, apparently, have that gift), but I see a great difference between advice that is okay in some circumstances, and advice that is never okay. The advice to nerf a PC power, and then tell the player that it didn't work because the player did it wrong, is IMHO never okay.

Of course, this isn't new to 4th Edition. 1e has advice which is similar (never okay), advice about bolts from the blue (never okay), etc., etc. I don't even want to get started about 2e, because following the advice in that DMG almost made me quit the game. I can't recall any bad advice offhand in the 3e DMG, but I bet I'd find some if I looked. I can certainly find some bad advice in other 3e books! Bad advice is pretty universal.

Again, an argument that X is taken out of context requires some additional material Y that modifies the meaning of X in some way. Context is important......but not everything adds context simply by the virtue of being surrounding text.

The material surrounding the quote the OP made is additional advice, but it is not contextually important to the quote the OP pulled because it does not modify the meaning of that quote.

It would modify the meaning of that quote if it gave you parameters, say, for when you should nerf, or why you should tell the player that he didn't do it right. It would still be bad advice, but the complete thought of the bad advice would require the surrounding text to be fully appreciated.

Thus, Gary Gygax's bad advice about bolts from the blue requires the surrounding text to fully appreciate (because that text tells you the circumstances under which Gary says you should zap PCs), but it is still bad advice.

Bad advice happens. Accept it. Embrace it. Laugh about it.


RC

 

[Mallus]

Exactamundo.

I can understand that DMs want to make plots without having to worry about certain sorts of magic. But letting players take spells and abilities expecting to use them and slyly sabotaging them is not cool in my book.

If a DM does this frequently I agree it would constitute 'sabotage'. But what if the hypothetical scry-proof opponent(s) was an exception?

I'm having trouble seeing why it's better to treat this in a binary manner. Either certain divination spells/rituals (and really, this applies to any class ability) don't exist at all in the campaign, or they exist and always function.

Isn't there a middle ground we're excluding?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm having trouble seeing why it's better to treat this in a binary manner. Either certain divination spells/rituals (and really, this applies to any class ability) don't exist at all in the campaign, or they exist and always function.

Isn't there a middle ground we're excluding?

There is certainly a middle ground where scrying doesn't work due to an NPC ability, say, to block said scrying. Or, say, a % chance that scrying will always fail.

Let's look at a system where the players know that there is a 50% chance that scrying will fail. The PCs pay X resources to scry, and then roll the dice. If their scrying fails, they then have a meaningful choice -- should I pay X again for another attempt?

Let's look at a system where NPC abilities include a spell to block scrying. The PCs attempt scrying and it fails. The PCs now have meaningful information -- the target is concerned about scrying, and the target is powerful enough (or has powerful enough friends) to cast this spell. If the spell is high level, the players also know that at least one spell slot is used (in a Vancian system).

Let's look at a system where the scry fails, but the PCs do not know why. They have the option to try again, but they have no reason to believe that their actions can make another attempt succeed. They are now presented with a mystery that the DM ought to be able to explain, which they ought to be able to uncover when they defeat the villian.

Finally, let's look at a system where the DM simply nerfs the ability, and tells the players that they weren't specific enough. Doesn't that encourage the players to spend X resources again in an attempt to be more specific? Doesn't that take any meaningful benefit from the ritual (meaningful choice, information, mystery) from the ritual, leaving the PCs penalized for using their abilities wisely?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Good game design/advice doesn't include making smart play opposed to satisfying play. Good advice in a DMG is advice that makes smart decisions satisfying to the players. Sometimes that means that an adventure cannot proceed the way the DM envisioned it, and that is absolutely okay.

Actually, in many ways, it is desireable. It is usually when the DM is pushed out of his comfort spot that events occur in the game world, for good or ill, that are remembered long afterwards. IME, on both sides of the screen, anyway. YMMV.


RC