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

[Mark Chance]

The advice should have been: do your homework. If you blow it, suck it up and treat it as a learning experience.

As a teacher, I couldn't possibly agree more with Kraydak's advice.

A very good point, but one that is often lost on new DMs. I think the advice (repeating the mantra: while poorly written) helps the newbie DM with that one time where his preparation time isn't wasted.

Folks say often that the DMG's advice is aimed primarily at new DMs. That being the case, shouldn't the DMG be giving new DMs good advice?

 

[Hussar]

I think some people's -- at least my -- objection is that the advice encourages arbitrary fiat instead of in-world constructs. "You didn't describe him well enough" is basically a DM decree, and the player is welcome to reply, "But we described him down to the mole on his left chin, and we spent a week watching him come and go from the palace with +20 on our perception checks!" Much better is to use the existing in-game constructs such as anti-spying rituals, even more so because these are plot points:"Why would he have that up unless... he knew we were looking for him! He's on to us, we've got to move fast!"

"You described him wrong" is right back to the 1e "Tell me HOW you're disabling the trap... I don't care if your character has a 99% chance, I want to know what you're doing... oh, you touched the red lever? Kaboom! Hah ha!".

But, this is pretty much what the paragraph in the DMG is saying. If the party has spent a week watching him, and they have that +20 on perception checks, then the DM is obviously not going to be caught unawares when they use Observe Creature. He's going to be well aware and have planned accordingly. The line in the DMG only applies when the players come out of left field and you're not prepared for it, AND their idea will completely invalidate your entire adventure.

Basically, the advice of the DMG is that if it's too useful to the player, don't let them use it. As a player, I'd want to know explicitly from the DM that my power/feat/skill/ritual/spell will never be all that important and will never allow me to save the day. Then I would not take it. And probably cease to play anything but "guy who chops stuff up" or "Evoker" in that campaign. Nothing annoys me more than DMs who are so rigid as to force illusionists, diviners, enchanters, bards, and rogues to the back seat of the RPG bus.

No, it really, really isn't. Read the DMG again. It's saying that if, after spending a significant amount of time making your adventure, the players come out of nowhere with something that you are totally unprepared for, AND if that effect would invalidate your entire adventure, then you have the authority, as the DM, to enforce a ruling THAT IS RIGHT IN THE RULES.

 

[Jack99]

Huh??....

Oh, ok I see what you did... you created your own modifications and stipulations to the quote to make your viewpoint more valid... but is that really what was said?

Yes, that's what he said. And I didn't modify any less than you guys.

Don’t give the characters less than they’re entitled to, 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 into 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.

It's obviously a text that means two different things, depending on how you view certain things. You read one thing, I read another. /shrug

 

[Remathilis]

Jack99 hit the nail on the head.

James is trying to say "In a conflict between the rules and making the game fun, go with the latter" Put another way "Don't let spells or rituals run amok in your game and ruin the fun".

What he ended up saying is "DMs, feel free to cheat if it's in your best interest to do so."

11 pages later, I'm sure James would want to take that paragraph back for another shot, but its too late now.

I brought up an example earlier in the thread of ruining a murder-mystery story with Speak with Dead. Now, a good DM knows to rig a corpse so that it knows little. But every once in a while, a PC asks a question so out of left field, the story would be given away by its answer.

Do you answer truthfully? Not the corpse, YOU!

If you lie to preserve your story, are you now screwing your players out of an easy (but well-thought) victory?

If you tell the truth, your adventure goes form a long detailed mystery to basically two encounters (talk to corpse, go get the killer). Big adventure ruined.

Replace speak-with-dead for nearly any divination, it doesn't matter. It goes back to my question, is gentle rail-roading (even if it means deceiving your players to keep them from ruining the ending) acceptable if the greater good is a more enjoyable play experience, or should the PCs succeed if they outthink the DM?

I guess I'm blessed to have a group that tends to be more forgiving. If the latter situation happened (a truthful answer leads to an instant resolve) my players would be upset, so they'd rather me change a few details to keep the story going than have a cheap unsatisfactory resolution based over an 8th level ritual/3rd level spell.

YMMV, of course. Poorly worded paragraph, but the advice isn't a terrible as some people say it is.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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?

I actually went to read the ritual last night and found:

If your description is insufficient to determine a specific creature, the ritual fails and no components are expended.

So, if you decide to follow this advice under the dire adventure-ruining circumstances, you can at least allow the players to have lost nothing but 1 hour of in-game time.

 

[Psion]

Read the ritual again.

I never read the ritual in the first place. Beings that WotC has failed to create a game that interests me in the first place, I certainly don't feel the need to reward them with my money.

So please, spare me the snark of implying some failure of reading comprehension on my part, kthanks? I was making allowances for the fact the ritual might be fine as written, and you turn it into a chance to slam someone. Nice.

Basically it comes down to this. JW is saying: Say yes to players, but if at some point you have the possibility to avoid ruining your adventure by saying no (within the rules), then do so.

I sort of think your missing the point. It's not that it's not within the rules. It's that the GM is being encouraged to weasel the definitions in the rules if it doesn't fit their pre-conceived evolution of the plot rather than building flexibility into the adventure so that it doesn't require you to weasel the definition in favor of preserving the almighty plot.

 

[Jack99]

I never read the ritual in the first place. Beings that WotC has failed to create a game that interests me in the first place, I certainly don't feel the need to reward them with my money.

So please, spare me the snark of implying some failure of reading comprehension on my part, kthanks? I was making allowances for the fact the ritual might be fine as written, and you turn it into a chance to slam someone. Nice.

Wow. My post was in no way snarky nor insulting. And I was certainly not trying to slam you or anyone else.

I sort of think your missing the point. It's not that it's not within the rules. It's that the GM is being encouraged to weasel the definitions in the rules if it doesn't fit their pre-conceived evolution of the plot rather than building flexibility into the adventure so that it doesn't require you to weasel the definition in favor of preserving the almighty plot.

[/QUOTE]And I think you are sort of missing the point. The DM is told that once in a while, it's okay to do certain things to avoid ruining an adventure. I mean, let's face it, not everyone comes equally prepared to every game. Not everyone has equal talent for DM'ing and thinking on his feet. So sometimes, a DM that is less prepared or less able to "wing it" might need to take other measures in order to preserve his adventure/campaign.

And I suspect that no amount of repeating ourselves endlessly will change that.

Cheers

 

[Imaro]

Jack99 hit the nail on the head.

James is trying to say "In a conflict between the rules and making the game fun, go with the latter" Put another way "Don't let spells or rituals run amok in your game and ruin the fun".

What he ended up saying is "DMs, feel free to cheat if it's in your best interest to do so."

11 pages later, I'm sure James would want to take that paragraph back for another shot, but its too late now.

I brought up an example earlier in the thread of ruining a murder-mystery story with Speak with Dead. Now, a good DM knows to rig a corpse so that it knows little. But every once in a while, a PC asks a question so out of left field, the story would be given away by its answer.

Do you answer truthfully? Not the corpse, YOU!

If you lie to preserve your story, are you now screwing your players out of an easy (but well-thought) victory?

If you tell the truth, your adventure goes form a long detailed mystery to basically two encounters (talk to corpse, go get the killer). Big adventure ruined.

Replace speak-with-dead for nearly any divination, it doesn't matter. It goes back to my question, is gentle rail-roading (even if it means deceiving your players to keep them from ruining the ending) acceptable if the greater good is a more enjoyable play experience, or should the PCs succeed if they outthink the DM?

I guess I'm blessed to have a group that tends to be more forgiving. If the latter situation happened (a truthful answer leads to an instant resolve) my players would be upset, so they'd rather me change a few details to keep the story going than have a cheap unsatisfactory resolution based over an 8th level ritual/3rd level spell.

YMMV, of course. Poorly worded paragraph, but the advice isn't a terrible as some people say it is.

I think that what makes the advice borderline terrible... is placing the blame on the PC, regardless of if he did or did not specify enough, because you as the DM were caught off guard. It's a trust issue, and honestly if you're going to lie about why the ritual didn't work... make it ambiguous at first...it just doesn't work, and the PC's don't know how or why. This perserves your precious plot, gives you time to think of something plausible, invent a new ritual, magic item, etc. and it stops the blame being placed on the player.

 

[Psion]

Wow. My post was in no way snarky nor insulting. And I was certainly not trying to slam you or anyone else.

Fair enough, and accepted. But consider in the future that "read it again" is, well, not the most peaceful sounding phrase as carries the implication that the reader's understanding is deficient. Your paragraph would have carried the actual meaning you wished to convey without the unintentional negative tone had you just excluded that sentence.

And I think you are sort of missing the point. The DM is told that once in a while, it's okay to do certain things to avoid ruining an adventure. I mean, let's face it, not everyone comes equally prepared to every game. Not everyone has equal talent for DM'ing and thinking on his feet.

Sure, there are many tools in the DM toolbelt and times when such techniques are the most expedient and reasonable solution. But suggesting that the DM should shirk impartiality to protect weak plotbuilding and improving skills is not the sort of advice that makes for good GMing in the long run (and as such, pretty poor advice for a book that professes to advise one on running an RPG).

It sort of like what we call kludges in the discipline of programming. Sometimes a kludgy solution is all you have, but you are best to program it correctly.

 

[Remathilis]

I think that what makes the advice borderline terrible... is placing the blame on the PC, regardless of if he did or did not specify enough, because you as the DM were caught off guard. It's a trust issue, and honestly if you're going to lie about why the ritual didn't work... make it ambiguous at first...it just doesn't work, and the PC's don't know how or why. This preserves your precious plot, gives you time to think of something plausible, invent a new ritual, magic item, etc. and it stops the blame being placed on the player.

Which I must agree is generally better advice all around. If you cast Observe Creature on Duke Dunderhead, the ritual better work unless you have a lot of dukes with that surname. If you cast it on the "head of the cult of Orcus" the DM should be able to slam you with non-specifics.